Abortion... Consider

[Obs]

The vast majority of abortions are performed on left leaning inner city and suburban democrats. Particularly African American and hispanic ones.

Republicans carry a moral code and pass it on to their children and leftists pass on their "forward thinking" tendancies to their children.

So what is the beef about abortion?
Let them.
The moral won't and the immoral will.
Seems to me... Immorality finds many ways to snuff itself out by its own hand.

We are talking about 60,000,000 abortions.
Thats 60 million votes in a country of 300,000,000.

I am not against abortion as of tonight.
We dont need the dead weight on society.
We dont need the extra dems.

Let the immoral defeat themselves and mind your own fucking business.
Spend your extra time teaching your kids how to be accountable for their actions!

0 . 0
\___/

Don't get me wrong btw...
By vast majority I mean all.
Anyone who would obviously doesn't deserve their seed scattered on the earth. So why stop it?

I want 100% government funded abortions and schools to push it! Pay for a taxi to take them there! Hell give incentives. $1000 abortion tax credit.

Much better than paying the entitlements.

Don't really see how this can logically be argued with but feel free.

[Obs]

Abortion has literally saved the United States.
Only reason we aren't 100% socialist.

[Couchlockd]

This shall be interesting...

[EDCG19]

The vast majority of abortions are performed on left leaning inner city and suburban democrats. Particularly African American and hispanic ones.

I see you've been doing some thinking... this is a common thing with the democrats specifically, abortion is a ritual in my opinion it is also "thinning" out the herd legally
I dont support it and im not against it either, I see it as a multiple sided issue and not one thing like morals or let people do what they want..

Abortion is population control imo (let me guess, I'm the lone nut in here who thinks population control is real, get over it)
They've been fucking up society for generations and changing the structure to destroy what has already been established, abortion is a tool the leftist seem to use to spread their actual racist agenda.. They're supporting killing millions of kids each year, its a population control system

[Obs]

I see you've been doing some thinking... this is a common thing with the democrats specifically, abortion is a ritual in my opinion it is also "thinning" out the herd legally
I dont support it and im not against it either, I see it as a multiple sided issue and not one thing like morals or let people do what they want..

Abortion is population control imo (let me guess, I'm the lone nut in here who thinks population control is real, get over it)
They've been fucking up society for generations and changing the structure to destroy what has already been established, abortion is a tool the leftist seem to use to spread their actual racist agenda.. They're supporting killing millions of kids each year, its a population control system

Very good point actually.
Literally everything they do promotes a racist agenda. Never really looked at it that way but if you want to keep someone down make it so that they have just enough money to get by not taking care of themselves or having any sense of personal responsibility. Make them believe they are a victim and legally kill their offspring.

Then promote that they are hated when they aren't so that they walk around with a chip on their shoulder. Allow uneducated to flood in illegally and take what few low paying jobs there are to give a stiff competition that keeps them addicted to the system.

Good point EDC

[tarmyg]

New thread same thing.

Let's pack up to non homogeneous groups of people, in this case Republicans and Democrats and assume one or the other side are complete dumb. Black and White, not a single thing has ever been solved with that approach yet that is all I ever see here with one exception, anything AAS related. Is it really that difficult to extend that philosophy to other parts of ones life?

[Obs]

New thread same thing.

Let's pack up to non homogeneous groups of people, in this case Republicans and Democrats and assume one or the other side are complete dumb. Black and White, not a single thing has ever been solved with that approach yet that is all I ever see here with one exception, anything AAS related. Is it really that difficult to extend that philosophy to other parts of ones life?

Attachment 175702

[Obs]

This fucker wont let me load photos

[Obs]

New thread same thing.

Let's pack up to non homogeneous groups of people, in this case Republicans and Democrats and assume one or the other side are complete dumb. Black and White, not a single thing has ever been solved with that approach yet that is all I ever see here with one exception, anything AAS related. Is it really that difficult to extend that philosophy to other parts of ones life?

I am neither democrat nor republican.
Dont like trump or republicans I am proving a point with this and both of their hypocrisy.

I dont agree with abortion though and I think anyone who kills a child is sick.

My point is rep bitch about democrats killing themselves and its the only reason democrats havent taken over the vote.

Also when I say I am neither rep or dem... I hate democrats and their socialist way of thinking does not belong in this country. If they want that kind of system most of europe or canada is ehere they can go.
And yes these sheep HAVE LUMPED THEMSELVES INTO TWO GENERALIZED GROUPS!

Been on facebook lately!?

Been over all this many times.

[Obs]

tell me tarmyg... What was the liberitarian vote% last election?

Oh yeah it was non factor as always...
Also abortion is a yes no issue. One side claims it is murder and the other claims it is a womans choice.



Excuse me while I generalize.

IF YOU VOTE DEMOCRAT YOU HAVE NO CONCEPT OF FREEDOM.

I will do it further...

IF YOU VOTE REPUBLICAN YOU ARE GETTING THE SAME GODDAMN THING AT A SLOWER RATE

It would seem as you only have two choices and they both lean more liberal daily.

I will generalize further and say the populous is 90% idiots and thats why everything must be generalized to keep them easily manipulable and satiate the idea that they are free.

[kelkel]

I see you've been doing some thinking... this is a common thing

No, not really.

[Beetlegeuse]

It's morally hypocritical to make it a crime to commit murder but not to consider abortion to be murder at some point in the unborn's development. The sticky bit is deciding where to draw the line between a lump of unspecialized cells and an underdeveloped human being.

I don't believe that life begins at the moment of fertilization. To me that's as nonsensical as saying that a baby is not a life one minute before it's born. Where it gets really complicated is trying to decide which of the landmark developmental stages is the appropriate dividing line. Is it when cellular differentiation begins? When the heart begins to beat? When the fetus is viable?

It's a complex and troubling decision and my only consolation is that the two factions in control of the argument will never budge from their polar opposite positions so absolutely nothing rests on my personal opinion.

What I do know is that giving a woman the right to kill an unborn child without legal consequence based on her "right to medical privacy" is patently absurd, as twisted and tortured a legal rationalization I have ever heard tell of, and it has led to consequences that are absolutely barbaric.


I happen to agree with most of the Libertarian platform, except for the isolationist foreign policy. It's suicidally stupid and would lead to the certain collapse of the nation.

First of all, the international economy is real and inescapable. There are strategic minerals that are essential to remaining economically and technologically viable in the 21st Century and most of them are only available in significant quantities from Africa and Asia. Everything from turbine engines for jet airplanes to smart phones to atomic reactors to MRI machines depend heavily on minerals that America has far too little of to meet its own needs. Which means maintaining international trade is part and parcel to remaining a "great nation."

Secondly, great nations always will be targets of the international hyenas, even if they have absolutely no foreign involvements because there always be someone who is jealous of what they have or resentful of what they are.

And thanks to the technological offspring of Wernher von Braun, Billy Mitchell and Kenneth Whiting, there is no such thing as a secure border. Strategic bombers and long range ballistic missiles make a mockery of claims of "borders" and the only way to force other countries to respect what you wish to call "a border" is by means of a credible threat of a retaliation.

You can't have an effective defense policy unless you know your enemy's capabilities and tendencies. You need spies (HUMINT) to keep track of what your foe is up to. And you need subterfuge and small scale clandestine foreign operations to try to affect minor "steering corrections" in your foe's courses of action.

Thirdly, you can't be isolationist and also have allies. To have allies necessarily means you have foreign entanglements, which works at crossed purposes to isolationism. But having allies improves your opportunities for international trade and reduces the risk of a foreign attack.

The only benefit to isolationism is there's likely to be less worldwide collateral damage because you won't have any allies to be destroyed along with you. In other words, when you go down, there won't be as many pulled down with you.

[Obs]

It's morally hypocritical to make it a crime to commit murder but not to consider abortion to be murder at some point in the unborn's development. The sticky bit is deciding where to draw the line between a lump of unspecialized cells and an underdeveloped human being.

I don't believe that life begins at the moment of fertilization. To me that's as nonsensical as saying that a baby is not a life one minute before it's born. Where it gets really complicated is trying to decide which of the landmark developmental stages is the appropriate dividing line. Is it when cellular differentiation begins? When the heart begins to beat? When the fetus is viable?

It's a complex and troubling decision and my only consolation is that the two factions in control of the argument will never budge from their polar opposite positions so absolutely nothing rests on my personal opinion.

What I do know is that giving a woman the right to kill an unborn child without legal consequence based on her "right to medical privacy" is patently absurd, as twisted and tortured a legal rationalization I have ever heard tell of, and it has led to consequences that are absolutely barbaric.


I happen to agree with most of the Libertarian platform, except for the isolationist foreign policy. It's suicidally stupid and would lead to the certain collapse of the nation.

First of all, the international economy is real and inescapable. There are strategic minerals that are essential to remaining economically and technologically viable in the 21st Century and most of them are only available in significant quantities from Africa and Asia. Everything from turbine engines for jet airplanes to smart phones to atomic reactors to MRI machines depend heavily on minerals that America has far too little of to meet its own needs. Which means maintaining international trade is part and parcel to remaining a "great nation."

Secondly, great nations always will be targets of the international hyenas, even if they have absolutely no foreign involvements because there always be someone who is jealous of what they have or resentful of what they are.

And thanks to the technological offspring of Wernher von Braun, Billy Mitchell and Kenneth Whiting, there is no such thing as a secure border. Strategic bombers and long range ballistic missiles make a mockery of claims of "borders" and the only way to force other countries to respect what you wish to call "a border" is by means of a credible threat of a retaliation.

You can't have an effective defense policy unless you know your enemy's capabilities and tendencies. You need spies (HUMINT) to keep track of what your foe is up to. And you need subterfuge and small scale clandestine foreign operations to try to affect minor "steering corrections" in your foe's courses of action.

Thirdly, you can't be isolationist and also have allies. To have allies necessarily means you have foreign entanglements, which works at crossed purposes to isolationism. But having allies improves your opportunities for international trade and reduces the risk of a foreign attack.

The only benefit to isolationism is there's likely to be less worldwide collateral damage because you won't have any allies to be destroyed along with you. In other words, when you go down, there won't be as many pulled down with you.

I suppose I am a dumbass cowboy but my idea on abortion is you are right...

We dont know when life begins and it can't be socially accepted or pointed out when life begins. Therefore don't do it.

If I accidentally shoot a hen turkey in the spring thinking its a tom, I get a huge ass fine.
If I think someone is breaking into my house and it turns out its my kid getting home late I will probably get a manslater charge.

When in doubt don't pull the trigger.
Without proof or cause don't pull the trigger.

That being said we would be the most socialistic, communistic, or a collapsed anarchy if not for abortion.

[HoldMyBeer]

A lot of people ignore the fact that after abortion was legalized, the following generation crime rates dropped. Plus we have overpopulation as it is. Bunch of free loving hippies if you ask me! Waaahhh life is prescious waaaahhhhh

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

[Beetlegeuse]

A lot of people ignore the fact that after abortion was legalized, the following generation crime rates dropped....

This is the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Just because I had frosted flakes for breakfast, then wrecked my car on the way to work, it does not follow that having frosted flakes for breakfast caused me to crash my car.

...Plus we have overpopulation as it is....

We can argue about the definition of "overpopulation" but if every man, woman and child on earth today lived in the state of Texas, Texas' population density would not break into the 2019 list of the 50 most populous cities on earth.

EDIT:
Sorry, that should have read "the 50 most densely populated cities on earth."

And that would leave the entire rest of the planet free for agricultural use. And I would note that there is nowhere on the planet today where starvation is widespread that it isn't the result of bad politics rather than scarcity of food. It's mostly the result of bad people using food as a weapon. With current technologies, and with the planet's current arable acreage, we can feed the planet several times over.

If we'd get sensible about energy production (more nukes, less kooks!), it probably would be feasible for the planet to support at least ten times its present population without everyone's quality of life going to shit.

The chief impediment to the overpopulation argument is that Thomas Malthus famously argued in 1798 that the planet's population in a mere 30 years would outstrip its ability to feed itself, so world-wide famine was inevitable. But Malthus (obviously) was severely overly-pessimistic and any claim of overpopulation today probably is going to bring charges of being "Malthusian" against you.. There obviously is some finite limit to how many people the planet can support, and at some point we will have to address overpopulation else the problem will resolve itself. But we're nowhere near it yet.

Mankind has never conserved its way to prosperity. Mankind only attains prosperity through innovation. And warfare, which tends to promote both innovation and creative destruction.

[Obs]

This is the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Just because I had frosted flakes for breakfast, then wrecked my car on the way to work, it does not follow that having frosted flakes for breakfast caused me to crash my car.


We can argue about the definition of "overpopulation" but if every man, woman and child on earth today lived in the state of Texas, Texas' population density would not break into the 2019 list of the 50 most populous cities on earth.

And that would leave the entire rest of the planet free for agricultural use. And I would note that there is nowhere on the planet today where starvation is widespread that it isn't the result of bad politics rather than scarcity of food. It's mostly the result of bad people using food as a weapon. With current technologies, and with the planet's current arable acreage, we can feed the planet several times over.

If we'd get sensible about energy production (more nukes, less kooks!), it probably would be feasible for the planet to support at least ten times its present population without everyone's quality of life going to shit.

The chief impediment to the overpopulation argument is that Thomas Malthus famously argued in 1798 that the planet's population in a mere 30 years would outstrip its ability to feed itself, so world-wide famine was inevitable. But Malthus (obviously) was severely overly-pessimistic and any claim of overpopulation today probably is going to bring charges of being "Malthusian" against you.. There obviously is some finite limit to how many people the planet can support, and at some point we will have to address overpopulation else the problem will resolve itself. But we're nowhere near it yet.

Mankind has never conserved its way to prosperity. Mankind only attains prosperity through innovation. And warfare, which tends to promote both innovation and creative destruction.

I like that last paragraph

[HoldMyBeer]

This is the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Just because I had frosted flakes for breakfast, then wrecked my car on the way to work, it does not follow that having frosted flakes for breakfast caused me to crash my car.


We can argue about the definition of "overpopulation" but if every man, woman and child on earth today lived in the state of Texas, Texas' population density would not break into the 2019 list of the 50 most populous cities on earth.

And that would leave the entire rest of the planet free for agricultural use. And I would note that there is nowhere on the planet today where starvation is widespread that it isn't the result of bad politics rather than scarcity of food. It's mostly the result of bad people using food as a weapon. With current technologies, and with the planet's current arable acreage, we can feed the planet several times over.

If we'd get sensible about energy production (more nukes, less kooks!), it probably would be feasible for the planet to support at least ten times its present population without everyone's quality of life going to shit.

The chief impediment to the overpopulation argument is that Thomas Malthus famously argued in 1798 that the planet's population in a mere 30 years would outstrip its ability to feed itself, so world-wide famine was inevitable. But Malthus (obviously) was severely overly-pessimistic and any claim of overpopulation today probably is going to bring charges of being "Malthusian" against you.. There obviously is some finite limit to how many people the planet can support, and at some point we will have to address overpopulation else the problem will resolve itself. But we're nowhere near it yet.

Mankind has never conserved its way to prosperity. Mankind only attains prosperity through innovation. And warfare, which tends to promote both innovation and creative destruction.

NVM. Delete

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

[Mooseman33]

abortion to me is not a problem, late term abortion is.

There are more then enough good people who are willing to take these children.

only referring to late term.