Another interesting pro-lifer conundrum.

twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
Canndo...I'm not a righty stereotype.

The pretense of the op assumes rightys in general just don't care about the environment...correct?
Correct me if I am wrong but germans have very few dui's.

So I suppose if, a very BIG IF, responsibility is still disregarded...then either of the two scenarios would still be much cheaper options.
and of course this assumes if a child is in trouble, the state MUST step in or even is the most suitable arbitrator.

I have seen the best care to troubled children come from other responsible moms, no state required.
 
S

spandy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
nice sig. that's something a white separatist would say.

the bible and racism: they go together like dr. pepper and trout!
Click to expand...
And if I was a white separatist, then what Buck? You gonna trash talk more? Oh nose, please say it aint so.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
Canndo...I'm not a righty stereotype.

The pretense of the op assumes rightys in general just don't care about the environment...correct?
Correct me if I am wrong but germans have very few dui's.

So I suppose if, a very BIG IF, responsibility is still disregarded...then either of the two scenarios would still be much cheaper options.
and of course this assumes if a child is in trouble, the state MUST step in or even is the most suitable arbitrator.

I have seen the best care to troubled children come from other responsible moms, no state required.
Click to expand...
EVERYONE says they care about the environment, and of course everyone does, except when preserving it costs money, or time, then the only people who care are those who are affected. Conservatives care, but they aren't about to outlaw the burning of coal, after all, that costs money.

I assume that the child is in trouble because the child is either not desired (oh maybe because mom already has 5?), or not affordable. Hence it is predictable that the state will need to "step in". I never said it was even close to the most suitable arbitrator. Of course a caring mom is best, a caring couple better still but the premise begins with a mom who for one reason or another doesn't care - even before the child is born.

State required - or - child goes hungry, unsheltered or unhealthy.
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
Single cylinder motorcycle.....induction grow lights....led house lights.....drought tolerant yard.....

I literally "care" about the environment than most on the left.....or Iam just frugal...what's the difference?

I actually am pro choice too....an unwanted child in your scenario should be aborted by mom....and paid for by mom......and felt bad later about by mom....no state required.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
spandy said:
Um, nothing to say? AH damn, maybe make something up then. Fuck, post a meme or something, quick!
Click to expand...
i had a conversion and now i agree with you.

the bible's message of love dictates that we take all the black people and ship them across the ocean to africa, and then take all the asians and ship them across the other ocean to asia. we can send the mexicans to the phillipines and reclaim mexico as a hub of superior european aryan culture.

nothing racist about it, it's clearly the best idea and comes with overwhelming biblical support and approval from jesus himself.
 
S

spandy

Well-Known Member
If its racist to you, whatever it is, then that sounds like a personal problem. Deal with it, bucky. You could shout it from the rooftops, hell I'm even helping hold a fucking banner for you (sig), and it still wont make a bit of differnce or change my opinion one bit.

Wheres that meme?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
spandy said:
If its racist to you, whatever it is, then that sounds like a personal problem. Deal with it, bucky. You could shout it from the rooftops, hell I'm even helping hold a fucking banner for you (sig), and it still wont make a bit of differnce or change my opinion one bit.

Wheres that meme?
Click to expand...
no, i agree with you. jesus agrees with you. god agrees with you. why the fuck would god be wrong? he said separating cultures works best right in the bible. jesus even said something about loving thy neighbor, unless thy neighbor happens to be of a different culture.

nothing racist about it. the bible says so, and the bible is the ultimate thing we should look to when making decisions about things like this.
 
S

spandy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
no, i agree with you. jesus agrees with you. god agrees with you. why the fuck would god be wrong? he said separating cultures works best right in the bible. jesus even said something about loving thy neighbor, unless thy neighbor happens to be of a different culture.

nothing racist about it. the bible says so, and the bible is the ultimate thing we should look to when making decisions about things like this.
Click to expand...
Two people who never meet could never have a disagreement, but two people in a room will always find a reason to fight. In any circumstance, the best recourse to avoid furhter disagreement would be to seperate these people, derp.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
spandy said:
Two people who never meet could never have a disagreement, but two people in a room will always find a reason to fight. In any circumstance, the best recourse to avoid furhter disagreement would be to seperate these people, derp.
Click to expand...
i believe that's what jesus taught and thus you are right because jesus said white separtism is not racist so you're not racist and you're right.

let's send the blacks back to africa, spandy. how do you propose we do this so that things work best?
 
S

spandy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i believe that's what jesus taught and thus you are right because jesus said white separtism is not racist so you're not racist and you're right.

let's send the blacks back to africa, spandy. how do you propose we do this so that things work best?
Click to expand...
Probably a really big boat, sometime from August to October.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
last count, there are over 283 various chemicals found in the umbilical blood of newborns. some are teratogentic, some are carcentogenic, some are neurotoxins, some are endocrine disruptors, or substitte hormones. they were found in every example, not just the poor, not just the stupid. Rich and poor alike have a vast assortment of biologicaly active and likely deleterious chemicals in their children's bloodstreams. They have been there since the onset of pregnancy. now here is my issue. the anti-aboriton crowd is completely self righteous and near insurection over the killing of the innocent by moms and clnix and doctors but not one peep, not one utterance, nexot one indication of outrage over our gross poisoning of the unborn. where are the anti-abortion folks over this massive harm done to the unborn/ they claim to be so compassionate, so caring, so justified - to the point of changing constitutions, changing established court decisions in favor of the million or so dead fetuses - shame on us! we are killers! we are violating the little one's rights to life, they say. yet, they have no problem with our litteraly pumping poisons into their bloodstreams from the moment of inception and there is no outrage over the millions of fetuses that are being systematicaly killed or maimed by these compounds. i beleive that this is more than ample evidence that pro lifers have an entirely different agenda than protecting the "rights' of the unborn. If they were truely concenred they would be taking up arms against the source of these poisons and the speading of them to each and every unborn, who according to them have a right to life just as we born do. they show pictures of mutilated babies, preying on emotion but show nothing of deformations and eventual horrors as a result of these chemicals. there are only two explainations for this situation. The pro lifers have no idea and are unwilling to examine, or they are actually more interested in contol over mothers and women than they are ver the health and safety of children. this revelation shows quite clearly that pro life folk haen't a care for the preborn they profess to want to protect, as of course they have no say, no power, no in herent protection afforded other 'citizens'. Pro lifers are disingenuous at the least, evil at the most.
Click to expand...
"they have no problem with our litteraly pumping poisons into their bloodstreams from the moment of inception" Not literally at all. Show me where "pro-lifers" support polluting the environment ......"deformations and eventual horrors as a result of these chemicals." I notice you don't produce any of these photos..............." there are only two explainations for this situation" The only explanations? I think not..............."this revelation shows quite clearly that pro life folk haen't a care for the preborn" Mmmm, no, it doesn't. Still trying to tell us what other people think? Your pretense at knowing the motives of others demonstrates a great arrogance in you. Should I state that "pro-choicers" hate babies and want the human race to die out?
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Antidisestablishmentarian said:
Yes. For shame someone wants someone else to be in charge of their own body. You must be for pot prohibition too.
Click to expand...
It's not about "someone wants someone else to be in charge of their own body" and you know it. It's about sluts CHOOSING to use their bodies for recreation or profit, then murdering the unborn because they're inconvenient and can not defend themselves. We dehumanized the Jews, the Blacks, the Aborigines, and anyone else who gets in the way and slaughter them off.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
My point is simple. (my errors are from my phone primarily, and as you know I do not spell well). If the "pro-life" faction were actually pro life, they would be concerned over the poisons in the environment that tend highly to endanger the life and health of that very "child" they seek to "save". If they were truely pro life they would at least show some outrage over the poisons that the mother is forced to ingest and thus pass on to her fetus - that thing they profess to be so concerned over. I said nothing about other "innocent things". You think that a total of 238 foreign chemicals in a human fetus is just enviro-wacko nonsense do you? They have found benzene in fetal blood of over 1 part per million, DDD, DDT (in children in the upper and lower latitudes), and hundreds of other chemicals. What would a pro-lifer say to a mother who drinks excessively? Smokes tobacco? smokes crack? but not a word about all these other things. If they were as concerned as they claim, they would be fighting to preserve the life and future of the unborn, yet they are not. Why?
Click to expand...
Your claim that pro-lifers are also in favor of polluting the environment is not only unsupported, but a lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top