What's new
By:

Longest Thread Ever

One Brow said:
than for a lump of flesh smaller than a pinhead.
Click to expand...

If you're willing to look at the sites chosen by Panned Parenthood in relation to the racial profile of those areas, you might wanna ask "Why here?". From its outset, Planned Parenthood has been guided by racists who purposefully put the emphasis and opportunity on black populations, just like the way China was targeted and subsized by American corporate charities to adopt the "one child" policy and that under state law, or force of guns.

A fertized embryo at day two has all the potential of any human. Apparently you are a hater of small people. . . . . even small black people.
 
VINYLONE said:
Somewhat related but this is now available on Amazon at an incredibly decent price:

https://www.amazon.com/Emergency-Contraceptive-purchase-without-prescription/dp/B003FBI8WS
Click to expand...

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss the philosophy of post-conception human terminations.

I used to work with a lot of very liberal sorts in a university environment. I listened to NPR every day, all day, because that's what everybody wanted to listen to. . . . .

It's not that I hate them now, or anyone else for that matter.

It's all about rubber-meets-the-road truth.

A lot of pretty smart people live entirely in the here-and-now. There's a lot of thinking going on to the point of how there's too many humans of all kinds, how having a kid can mess up a person's life or impact existing priorities. I used to be sorta sophisticated in saying people oughtta be free to make their own decisions, that nobody should have unwanted kids, that we all oughta . . . . yadda yadda yadda. . . . .

Then I sorta realized that wasn't gonna make any difference to anybody. . . . .


Some years ago I saw an ultrasound picture of two little particles the size of a grain of rice. . . . with an obvious hearbeat in each one. . . . .

Sorta knocked the BS right outta me.

The fact is, in nature all populations are gonna overpopulate their niche if nothing checks it. . . . but nature always has some checks. Sometimes it's the resources available, sometimes it's depredation, disease, or even genetic weaknesses. . . ..

In humans, around one in four successful fertilizations of human ova will fail naturally. We can do a lot with medical science to up our survival rate to any age. Our technological progress has enabled the production of more food, fiber, and shelter necessary to human life. Our human population has generally approached the capacity of our production based on our technology. We can moderate our impact on our "niche" with good ecological habits. . . . .

In general, it requires more humans to sustain a higher level of technology, especially as we contemplate space travel, biosphere changes, better methods, and better education for everyone.

I think the Malthusian nightmarists are just not appreciating a lot of facts about how we can do better with more people and better living conditions. . . .

But for me, the fundamental issue of Life is and will always be. . . . .

Are you fer, or agin, it?

So I will phrase my remarks to make it clear. Human beings are a positive asset to all life. About the only caveat to that which I see is just this. . . . we need to reject fascism as proposed under the UN regime.
 
Last edited:
babe said:
But for me, the fundamental issue of Life is and will always be. . . . .

Are you fer, or agin, it?

So I will phrase my remarks to make it clear. Human beings are a positive asset to all life. About the only caveat to that which I see is just this. . . . we need to reject fascism as proposed under the UN regime.
Click to expand...

If only it was that easy. I support life. Sure. I support and believe in my inalienable right to life. You had an epipheny. I'm happy for you. We have them sometimes. That said, human beings are NOT always a positive asset to life. Some people shouldn't be on this planet.

The killers of Dr. Petit's family comes to mind.
 
VINYLONE said:
If only it was that easy. I support life. Sure. I support and believe in my inalienable right to life. You had an epipheny. I'm happy for you. We have them sometimes. That said, human beings are NOT always a positive asset to life. Some people shouldn't be on this planet.

The killers of Dr. Petit's family comes to mind.
Click to expand...

The word is "epiphany" I believe.

Not sure that really fits. Yah it seemed clear that "a lump of flesh the size of a pinhead" is already a human being.

So let's discuss population genetics. . . ..

Where we impose high health care standards on a population throughout the formative years, we are putting our thumbs, so to speak, on the scales. The result is the survival and propagation of more marginal individuals. Over time this will negatively impact the "quality of life" in any species, from a purely genetic point of view.

Dog breeders, for example, who do this and breed individuals who have survived perhaps only because of vet care, can negatively impact the breed pretty quickly. . . . in a few years of this practice some problems become entrenched in the breed. . . .. hip dysplasia, ectopia, heart murmurs. . . . as well as other problems arising from our practices such as obesity from too much food and too little free time to just be a dog. . . . Maybe our processed food supplies have chemicals in them, or too much fat, or too much protein, or grain mash that is irritating to the gut. . . .

So dogs that were hunters become stupid tail-wagging little endorphin generators that just make us "feel good" for having them around. . . . . Too fat to chase a rabbit with any effect. We have altered the survival and propagation equation. . . . .there will be consequences. . . .

humans need to work. humans need to use their brains to solve problems. A health care program that attempts to care for "the weak", and practices like birth control that impose artificial values on "Life", killing some of the very most healthy individuals, and throwing billions of dollars into making sure some ailing individuals will survive and propagate. . . . . well, that's turning the whole equation for Life upside down, and will make our species unfit or incapable of survival "in the wild" in a few generations.

nature has it's own formula for deciding who should live and who should die. nature has done a better job at making those decisions than any fascist State will ever do. . . .
 
Last edited:
VINYLONE said:
If only it was that easy. I support life. Sure. I support and believe in my inalienable right to life. You had an epipheny. I'm happy for you. We have them sometimes. That said, human beings are NOT always a positive asset to life. Some people shouldn't be on this planet.

The killers of Dr. Petit's family comes to mind.
Click to expand...

We don't know which ones until they get a chance to live, unless you know of a way to determine which of the unborn are future murderers.
 
babe said:
If you're willing to look at the sites chosen by Panned Parenthood in relation to the racial profile of those areas, you might wanna ask "Why here?". From its outset, Planned Parenthood has been guided by racists who purposefully put the emphasis and opportunity on black populations, just like the way China was targeted and subsized by American corporate charities to adopt the "one child" policy and that under state law, or force of guns.

A fertized embryo at day two has all the potential of any human. Apparently you are a hater of small people. . . . . even small black people.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's a complete failure of an argument. Seriously, it's embarrassing.

The reason Planned Parenthood has clinics in poor neighborhoods is because rich people can find doctors to perform any service they need, and the middle class can also do this when determined to do so, but poor people have fewer options available for medical care. No one is forcing poor women into abortions, these women choose abortions to better focus their more limited resources on the children they have, or plan to have later. That will lead to a more successful, integrated black population.

As for "small people", I hold more regard for an embryo than I do for a sperm, but both are small human beings. At least the Catholics are consistent in their "every sperm and egg are sacred" doctrine.
 
babe said:
nature has it's own formula for deciding who should live and who should die. nature has done a better job at making those decisions than any fascist State will ever do. . . .
Click to expand...

Yet, PearlWatson claims it's me that supports eugenics.

Diversity is the key to a species longevity. A human population that can support the autistic, the overly heavy, the overly thin, etc. will be a stronger population, better able to survive.
 
One Brow said:
Yet, PearlWatson claims it's me that supports eugenics.

Diversity is the key to a species longevity. A human population that can support the autistic, the overly heavy, the overly thin, etc. will be a stronger population, better able to survive.
Click to expand...

He's describing natural selection.

You are supporting unnatural selection (eugenics).
 
One Brow said:
Wow, that's a complete failure of an argument. Seriously, it's embarrassing.

The reason Planned Parenthood has clinics in poor neighborhoods is because rich people can find doctors to perform any service they need, and the middle class can also do this when determined to do so, but poor people have fewer options available for medical care. No one is forcing poor women into abortions, these women choose abortions to better focus their more limited resources on the children they have, or plan to have later. That will lead to a more successful, integrated black population.

As for "small people", I hold more regard for an embryo than I do for a sperm, but both are small human beings. At least the Catholics are consistent in their "every sperm and egg are sacred" doctrine.
Click to expand...

Well, of course I don't expect you to just roll over and say "Yah got me." And I do realize that a lot of people aren't going to find this particular line of thinking persuasive, especially at first glance.

Locating what I euphemistically call "Panned Parenthood" clinics in poor, often black, neighborhoods could be the result of the simple math you describe. . . . put them where the poor people are to "help" them. A lot of folks will be outraged at my continuation of the last sentence. . . . . . "Put them where the poor people are, to help them kill themselves off." But I think there are people who do think just the way I'm telling it. I'll compile a list, with quotes, if you like. . . . .

David Rockefeller will be on that list, for sure. You know, the old white man who sits near the top of the list of politically-important and influential elites. . . . .He is proud of his work with the Council of Foreign Relations and the United Nations. Cecil Rhodes will be on that list, perhaps a founder of the "Progressive" movement that has prevailed in the twentieth Century, until today.

But for my point here, at this particular moment, I would just postulate the ideal that "equality of opportunity" is something we as a species would benefit from for ages to come, if we don't kill our embryonic young even if it creates a sort of survival gradient that tests the basic genetic hardiness of our species. In that scenario, our efforts to enhance the survival of individuals with specific problems might be considered "unwise" in the long term.

You mention a concept which I do not absolutely deny. . . . that poor women with limited resources might be able to focus their effort on the children they have if given "help" in limiting the number. Poverty is in itself a "selector" factor in survival that is genetically "neutral". A lot of kids don't survive because of severe inequities in access to resources for their care. . . . . whether or not their inherent genetics is sound. . . . .

You might argue me into a corner on this one, and turn me into a socialist, if I'm not a kind of socialist already. If we wish to improve our "genetic stock", I'd probably go for a line of action that might include helping the poor people survive, and I'd likely go for a line of action that doesn't place emphasis on "looks", including "color". My criticism of "Panned Parenthood" is exactly that. . .. Fail squared.
 
Last edited:
One Brow said:
Wow, that's a complete failure of an argument. Seriously, it's embarrassing.

The reason Planned Parenthood has clinics in poor neighborhoods is because rich people can find doctors to perform any service they need, and the middle class can also do this when determined to do so, but poor people have fewer options available for medical care. No one is forcing poor women into abortions, these women choose abortions to better focus their more limited resources on the children they have, or plan to have later. That will lead to a more successful, integrated black population.

As for "small people", I hold more regard for an embryo than I do for a sperm, but both are small human beings. At least the Catholics are consistent in their "every sperm and egg are sacred" doctrine.
Click to expand...

On this point, about how to achieve a "more successful, integrated black population", I have a few thoughts.

The negative effects of "welfare" the way we have done that. . . . .

Somehow, a few sociological/cultural trends have emerged among the black folks under the care of the fascist State administration of "welfare":

My wife sees a lot of young black women coming to Utah to have their babies because white folks. . . . Mormons quite often. . . . are willing to adopt the black babies. These girls seem to have a sort of "culture" back home that has the idea that a girl at the early teen phase has something to prove by having a baby. The guys they consort with are marginalized somehow. . . .A poor black teen can get herself and her baby on welfare quite readily. . . . meaning if she doesn't really like her single parent mother all that much, or if she is just a normal teen testing the limits of her parent. . . . there is a huge open door for an irresponsible decision that will affect her life negatively for years to come. . . .

The "fascist State" in this equation is in direct competition with black men for responsibility in the lives of black women, and I find that it is an enormous evil that the black men are marginalized by the fascist State.
 
PearlWatson said:
He's describing natural selection.

You are supporting unnatural selection (eugenics).
Click to expand...

Eugenics is choosing who should be given resources to live and breed based on your notion of what is ideal. I'm saying there is no ideal; everyone is valuable. That's the opposite of eugenics.
 
babe said:
But I think there are people who do think just the way I'm telling it. I'll compile a list, with quotes, if you like. . . . .
Click to expand...

You mean Margaret Sanger, et. al.? Can you find quotes that say abortion should be illegal for the wealthy/desirable? IIRC, Sanger supported abortion being available to all women, even while being a eugenicist. so, you'll have a job trying to show those two ideas are related.

babe said:
David Rockefeller will be on that list, for sure. You know, the old white man who sits near the top of the list of politically-important and influential elites. . . . .He is proud of his work with the Council of Foreign Relations and the United Nations. Cecil Rhodes will be on that last, perhaps a founder of the "Progressive" movement that has prevailed in the twentieth Century, until today.
Click to expand...

Again, can you find where they supported abortions for one group and opposed them for another?

babe said:
You might argue me into a corner on this one, and turn me into a socialist, ...
Click to expand...

I would never try to label you.

Personally, I'm a pragmatist; I try to think about what's the best way to accomplish the goal. Sometimes its by governmental action, sometimes not.
 
babe said:
My wife sees a lot of young black women coming to Utah to have their babies because white folks. . . . Mormons quite often. . . . are willing to adopt the black babies. These girls seem to have a sort of "culture" back home that has the idea that a girl at the early teen phase has something to prove by having a baby. The guys they consort with are marginalized somehow. . .
Click to expand...

No one is going to choose living on welfare over being married to a spouse that has the promise of employment. Even minimum wage is better than welfare, particularly if you don't need to pay child care.

The black men are marginalized by being unemployable. A couple of years ago we discussed a study that show white men with criminal records found it easier to secure a job than black men with no criminal records. Would you encourage your child to marry a criminal?
 
One Brow said:
Eugenics is choosing who should be given resources to live and breed based on your notion of what is ideal. I'm saying there is no ideal; everyone is valuable. That's the opposite of eugenics.
Click to expand...

Eugenics is "the self direction of human evolution," or "unnatural selection."

You are saying all females are more valuable than all unborn babies because they are small and unfit for survival outside the womb.

When sterilizing the "less fit" went out of style for liberals, the next best thing was supporting "self directed" abortion in the same populations.

You are eugenicist to the core.
 
babe said:
On this point, about how to achieve a "more successful, integrated black population", I have a few thoughts.

The negative effects of "welfare" the way we have done that. . . . .

Somehow, a few sociological/cultural trends have emerged among the black folks under the care of the fascist State administration of "welfare":

My wife sees a lot of young black women coming to Utah to have their babies because white folks. . . . Mormons quite often. . . . are willing to adopt the black babies. These girls seem to have a sort of "culture" back home that has the idea that a girl at the early teen phase has something to prove by having a baby. The guys they consort with are marginalized somehow. . . .A poor black teen can get herself and her baby on welfare quite readily. . . . meaning if she doesn't really like her single parent mother all that much, or if she is just a normal teen testing the limits of her parent. . . . there is a huge open door for an irresponsible decision that will affect her life negatively for years to come. . . .

The "fascist State" in this equation is in direct competition with black men for responsibility in the lives of black women, and I find that it is an enormous evil that the black men are marginalized by the fascist State.
Click to expand...

The feminist movement/sexual revolution has been detrimental too...

Why should a guy marry a female if they can have access to her genitals without marriage.
 
PearlWatson said:
Eugenics is "the self direction of human evolution," or "unnatural selection."

You are saying all females are more valuable than all unborn babies because they are small and unfit for survival outside the womb.
Click to expand...

Actually, equally valuable is more than sufficient to be pro-choice.

Also, abortion exhibits no selection pressure on any inheritable trait, so it does not affect evolution. By your own choice of definition, you're still wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top