Abortion?

[kastein]

Its not that hard on gun control, I just say I agree, and that gun control is working great for chicago and washington dc, then argue that while we are at it we should ban killing people with guns, and make murder illegal. Maybe put people in jail for it, that will stop people from murdering each other.

Then I laugh in their face if they agree with me. Easy.

 

[JohnX]

Abortion isn't the only option to reduce our birthrate...not when we have the massive amount of contraceptives and the ability to safely and reliably sterilize yourself and even to reverse the procedure, at least for men. Why wait and kill the fetus when you can prevent it from happening in the first place. We have condoms, diaphragms, spermicidal lube, the pill, morning after pill, IUD, Depo shots, vasectomies, tube tying, and more that I'm forgetting. You want to go out and have sex, take precautions or deal with the consequences.

As far as privacy, I concur with SC Rednek. We have no privacy. The gov't can and will seek out any info they want.

I was joking really, but I agree with your post 100%. I wish more people would make the decision before having to make a tougher one. I also thinnk there should be a cap on the number of children allowed to a family. China has that almost right, but I think the number should be 2.

 

[Bent]

Back at you Tom; gonna have to have a word with Word.

 

[Bent]

The problem lies with who is to make that call on who fits into that category and how much the premium should go up.

My guess is that you will have to scan your government issued ID to by a Coke and a bag of chips.

 

[Bent]

Ron paul

yup

 

[tbburg]

I was joking really, but I agree with your post 100%. I wish more people would make the decision before having to make a tougher one. I also think there should be a cap on the number of children allowed to a family. China has that almost right, but I think the number should be 2.

Are you aware that without immigration, the population of the United States would be declining right now? The US, all of Europe, and Japan all have declining birth rates, now below replacement levels. We don't really need a cap. I'm pretty sure I don't want the a bunch of govt. bureaucrats sticking their noses in that area of life either. I might have an unfair bias on that argument though,.. I'm #3 in my family.

 

[DrMoab]

The population of the US and the world needs to decline. By about 75%

 

[Darky]

I say we start killing all the old people. Say, 65+. They'll soon be unable to work and will be a drain on the economy. That's at least part of the problem in Europe: too many retired folk, not enough young folk to work and pay for the taxes to care for the old folk. We're quickly heading that way thanks to Baby Boomers. We live too long as it is. Stinkin medical science has cured most of the diseases that used to kill us and formerly fatal injuries. Let's just go back to the 1900's with our medical care. That'll lower our population quick!

 

[tbburg]

Not to mention it will solve the problem of too-expensive medical treatment. I read somewhere that the biggest expense for hospitals in 1960 was linen service.(keeping the bedding clean.)


Edit: Darky and I might be biased though,.. we're nowhere close to 65.

 

[rockclimber]

did someone say death panels?

 

[XJEEPER]

did someone say death panels?

Obama's health advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel:

“The death of a 20-year-old young woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month old girl,” he wrote, “even though the baby has had less life.

The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects.”

And Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein:

Sunstein criticized the government for protecting human life as though all lives were equal. Specifically, Sunstein said the government’s method for determining who received medical treatment should be changed; he suggested replacing the “value of a statistical life” (VSL) – which viewed all lives as equal – with the “value of a statistical life year” (VSLY).

That means the government should allow young people to receive medical care, if necessary while allowing older people to die, because they will live longer after the procedure is completed.

“No program simply ‘saves lives’; life-extension is always what is at issue,” Sunstein lectured.

“If the goal is to promote people’s welfare by lengthening their lives, a regulation that saves 500 life-years (and, let us say, twenty five people) is, other things equal, better than a regulation that saves 50 life-years (and, let us say, twenty five people).”

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on statistical life-years rather than statistical lives,” he wrote. “A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

What would that mean in the context of ObamaCare?

"Immunizing 100 newborn babies would save 820 life-years, while giving heart transplants to the same number of 60-year-olds would “only” save 220 life-years."

"Using that logic, wouldn’t the most life-saving regulation be to outlaw abortion?"

http://www.westernjournalism.com/cass-sunstein-pay-no-attention-to-my-pro-death-past/

 

[SC Rednek]

sounds like those two counteract each other, for a net result of no change.

 

[xcm]

Obama shouldve aborted you teabaggers.

 

[souske]

Obama shouldve aborted you teabaggers.

How clever of you...

Is 420blackxj your inbred cousin?

 

[Beezil]

the correct response to the OP is:

why the F&%K are we talking about abortion in 2012?

 

[xcm]

How clever of you...

Is 420blackxj your inbred cousin?

XJEEPER must be yours then?

 

[XJEEPER]

I see the relationship.....xcm is actually member 420. They are both etough guys too.

 

[JohnX]

Are you aware that without immigration, the population of the United States would be declining right now? The US, all of Europe, and Japan all have declining birth rates, now below replacement levels. We don't really need a cap. I'm pretty sure I don't want the a bunch of govt. bureaucrats sticking their noses in that area of life either. I might have an unfair bias on that argument though,.. I'm #3 in my family.

Funny, same here. But the fact remains that so many current and future problems could be avoided if the population wasn't growing so fast. You can talk about declining birth rates all you want, but the world population goes up every year. And it is literally becoming more than the planet can support. :twak:

The population of the US and the world needs to decline. By about 75%

^^^THIS^^^

 

[supertubesocks]

Abortion isn't the only option to reduce our birthrate...not when we have the massive amount of contraceptives and the ability to safely and reliably sterilize yourself and even to reverse the procedure, at least for men. Why wait and kill the fetus when you can prevent it from happening in the first place. We have condoms, diaphragms, spermicidal lube, the pill, morning after pill, IUD, Depo shots, vasectomies, tube tying, and more that I'm forgetting. You want to go out and have sex, take precautions or deal with the consequences.

As far as privacy, I concur with SC Rednek. We have no privacy. The gov't can and will seek out any info they want.

The thing you are forgetting is that some people are too stupid or ignorant about these types of things.
Ie abstinence only sexual education proponents and morons. Not there is a difference between the 2.

 

[XJEEPER]

So by your logic, there are people who are too stupid to know that the act of sexual intercouse between a male and female can result in the creation of a child?

Smart enough to figure out how to perform the act, too stupid to understand the potential outcome?

No sale.

I submit that it is more an issue of personal responsibility and accountability for ones actions.

The "I'll have unprotected sex now and deal with the consequences later" metality is what keeps Planned Parenthood in business.......in fact, Planned Parenthood actually promotes this.