OK,,,,that was funny....awesome....
A new HERO for APPLE.....
- Thread starter NOVA
- Start date
apple0154
MEOW
Throughout history the prime reason for bearing children was not so mommy could knit booties or daddy had someone to accompany him to the ball game. The reasons were strictly selfish. People expected their offspring to help support the family and, eventually, to look after them. The concern for their child's well-being was motivated by survival.
Such is not the case today. While a certain number of offspring are necessary for a country or "group" it is not necessary for every couple to bear offspring. This results in people neglecting/abusing children. It's that age-old maxim, "What's in it for me?"
So, when it comes to abortion some people see it as a case of not taking responsibility. The trouble is the necessity of taking responsibility, survival, is no longer a factor and that's a mighty big factor that has been removed.
With abortions hitting over one million per year there is no way over one million children would be adopted into loving homes should those pregnancies come to term. The reality would be children's institutions. We know that because that's exactly what happened when abortion was illegal.
Furthermore, society has changed. Abstinence, the influence of the church, the general disdain towards unwanted pregnancy.....those factors which played a part, many years ago, in reducing risky behavior that could result in unwanted pregnancy are no longer prevalent. There would be an abundance of unwanted children. The point being, like too much of anything, children would be looked at as a "nuisance", a burden on individuals and/or the State.
And then there's the old "who's going to pay" question. People bitch about seniors getting medication, unemployed getting benefits to keep them off the street, school lunches/programs for kids....are we to expect society is going to ensure adequate support, in all it's definitions, for those millions of children?
Lastly, when taking about society, what type of society will we have when, year after year, millions of adults enter society having known only institutional living? Will what we know as "family" take on a completely different meaning? Will tucking ones child in bed at night be some bizarre action? Will having a child sitting on your knee while reading a book be considered weird? What "family values" will the adults have learned from having spent their entire childhood in an institution?
There's a few old saying you might want to consider, Bravo, such as, "You can't go home again." and "You can't turn back the clock."
apple0154
MEOW
It has nothing to do with assailing poor people. It has to do with the welfare of a child which it's obvious you and certain others care little about.
You want to see your so-called responsibility in action? Just take a look at the thousands of children the world over dying of starvation and disease. And religion forbids birth control and abortion. It's nothing short of vile and disgusting to insist children be brought into such conditions.
Vile, disgusting and sick.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Remember to bitch God out about this on Judgement Day. Someone's gotta do it...
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
apple0154
MEOW
God has nothing to do with this. It seems the Christian God usually let's people do dumb things without interfering. However, going on the assumption there is a God should He find it preferable to have children suffer and die rather than not be born He's no friend of mine.
Just to clarify, assuming there is a God, there are a number of possibilities. He might not interfere for reasons we do not know. Maybe He can't interfere. (More on this later) Or, maybe He likes to see children suffer. If the latter you can be sure I will bitch Him out on Judgment Day.
Regarding "Maybe He can't interfere" it has always puzzled me why He had to sacrifice His son for our sins. Usually a sacrifice is given to someone. For example, when people made sacrifices to Gods in the old days they were trying to appease God.
What was the purpose of sacrificing His son? Who was God trying to appease? Himself? That isn't logical. He could just as easily forgiven our sins without any sacrifice. Why would He suffer, sacrifice something, in order to appease Himself?
Too many unanswered questions for me to blindly follow along with organized religion. Sorry.
As to USFREEDOM911's post, msg 26, I like my popcorn buttered. I'm sure you'll agree that on Judgment Day cholesterol will be the least of my worries.
christiefan915
Catalyst
The state knew what this guy was doing and they ignored him for years. The "clinic" hadn't even been inspected since 1993. The majority of the patients were poor minorities, and horrible treatment of them just didn't get the same kind of scrutiny facilities get when they cater to higher-income types. Guess what, the PA Dept. of Health was not staffed solely by pro-choice liberals.
"Nearly a decade ago, according to legal documents, a former Gosnell employee gave the state's Board of Medicine a complaint that "laid out the whole scope of his operation: the unclean, unsterile conditions; the unlicensed workers; the unsupervised sedation; the underage abortion patients; even the over-prescribing of pain pills with high resale value on the street."
Nothing was done.
In its report, the grand jury said failures of the Pennsylvania Department of Health and other agencies — including the Department of State, under which the Board of Medicine falls — allowed the clinic to operate nearly unimpeded since the late '70s. It hadn't been inspected since 1993 and wasn't closed until it was finally raided as part of a drug bust early last year."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110121/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_clinic_investigation
christiefan915
Catalyst
Accept the fact that your reputation as a lying, sh*t-stirring troll remains intact. It's the first step to your redemption.
We know all this stuff....its been on the news and in the papers....
The only part I didn't see in the news was ,"Guess what, the PA Dept. of Health was not staffed solely by pro-choice liberals."
Do you get a special pinhead edition, or what....?
Do you honestly think, for a fuckin' second, that given the reports and the complaint given to the PA Dept. of Health, that any, ANY....Conservative even slightly against abortion, would not pursue this pinhead abortionist until he was prosecuted and closed down ?
I just ain't buyin' that......there are only 2 things that could have allowed this bum to operate, that is....the Dept. of Health workers were VERY LAZY, or VERY LIBERAL and considered his wonderful work for minorities indispensable....take your pick....
Do you think that because the majority of the patients were poor minorities that that equates to the majority of the patients were extremely stupid ? That these folks didn't have a clue as to what was going on ? The filth, etc.....????
Granted, some people are not rocket scientists, but this is the United States, 2011...not the fuckin' Congo, 1811
Last edited:
christiefan915
Catalyst
That's exactly what I'm saying. There is nothing in the article to show that some conservatives tried their hardest to close this clinic but they were ignored. There's nothing to show that some conservatives blew the whistle on this whole sordid mess, but were ignored.
If you have proof to the contrary, show it.
ROTFL... and you call me dumb. They could be VERY LAZY CONSERVATIVES for all we know, but unlike you I'm not going to suggest a party affiliation without facts.
If you can explain this mangled mess of words more clearly, I'll try to respond. But my whole point is that the authorities had more than a clue, they had specifics about what was going on, and they let it continue.
christiefan915
Catalyst
That's exactly what I'm saying. There is nothing in the article to show that some conservatives tried their hardest to close this clinic but they were ignored. There's nothing to show that some conservatives blew the whistle on this whole sordid mess, but were ignored.
If you have proof to the contrary, show it.
Actually there is no proof of political affiliation for anybody involved in this, except in your own mind.
ROTFL... and you call me dumb. They could be VERY LAZY CONSERVATIVES for all we know, but unlike you I'm not going to suggest a party affiliation without facts.
If you want to parse words to say that liberals are generally Republicans and conservatives are generally Democrats, go for it. I think any sentient person knows what I was saying.
If you can explain this mangled mess of words more clearly, I'll try to respond. But my whole point is that the authorities had more than a clue, they had specifics about what was going on, and they let it continue.
What folks? The minorities, the officials? My whole point is that the authorities had more than a clue, they had specifics about what was going on, and they let it continue.
And going back to the other thread, what makes you think I'm fat? *curious look*
If you have proof to the contrary, show it.
Actually there is no proof of political affiliation for anybody involved in this, except in your own mind.
ROTFL... and you call me dumb. They could be VERY LAZY CONSERVATIVES for all we know, but unlike you I'm not going to suggest a party affiliation without facts.
If you want to parse words to say that liberals are generally Republicans and conservatives are generally Democrats, go for it. I think any sentient person knows what I was saying.
If you can explain this mangled mess of words more clearly, I'll try to respond. But my whole point is that the authorities had more than a clue, they had specifics about what was going on, and they let it continue.
What folks? The minorities, the officials? My whole point is that the authorities had more than a clue, they had specifics about what was going on, and they let it continue.
And going back to the other thread, what makes you think I'm fat? *curious look*
Last edited: