Krispy Kreme To Hand Out Pro-Abortion Donuts on Tuesday

You’ll love this one.

In honor of Inauguration Day, Krispy Kreme is giving away a free doughnut on Tuesday.

Here’s what they say in their press release:

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc… is honoring American’s sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies — just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet “free” can be.

Cutesy, opportunistic, whatever. If there’s a Krispy Kreme nearby, you know you’ll want to take them up on the offer.

A Catholic pro-life group sees things differently.

They think Krispy Kreme is telling you to abort babies.

No, really.

The headline of the American Life League’s press release is “KRISPY KREME CELEBRATES OBAMA WITH PRO-ABORTION DOUGHNUTS.”

It seems they don’t like the use of the word “choice”…:

Just an unfortunate choice of words? For the sake of our Wednesday morning doughnut runs, we hope so. The unfortunate reality of a post Roe v. Wade America is that “choice” is synonymous with abortion access and celebration of ‘freedom of choice’ is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights on demand.

President-elect Barack Obama promises to be the most virulently pro-abortion president in history. Millions more children will be endangered by his radical abortion agenda.

Celebrating his inauguration with “Freedom of Choice” doughnuts — only two days before the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to decriminalize abortion — is not only extremely tacky, it’s disrespectful and insensitive and makes a mockery of a national tragedy.

Yes. Krispy Kreme was just trying to be subtle about their baby-killing agenda.

At least we now know why their doughnuts taste so delicious…

doughnut_lomo_acid

Maybe I should be worried. I gave my students a multiple-choice exam last week. Clearly, I was telling them to go have several abortions… Now, I’ll have to respond to angry parent phone calls…

(Thanks to Caitlin for the link!)

  • Jeff Satterley

    “Just a poor choice of words?”

    Oh no, they used the word choice too! OH NO, I SAID IT! I SAID CHOICE… AHHH! STOP SAYING THE WORD!!!!!!!

    Sorry, had a knights who say ni moment there…

    My family disagreed with me when I told them I thought that Catholicism is detrimental to critical thinking and common sense. I have more ammunition now.

  • http://virtualityforreal.blogspot.com Allytude

    “multiple choice”.. and not only one abortion, but several. Such atheist depravity.

  • http://gretachristina.typepad.com/ Greta Christina

    I think my brain just tried to chew its own leg off.

    Please, please, please… tell me that this is a Poe.

    Please.

    I’d be laughing hysterically, if I weren’t so busy banging my head against a wall. I mean, you couldn’t make this up if you tried. If the Landover Baptist Church sent out this press release, we’d be accusing them of being too heavy-handed.

    This is just…

    (trails off into gibberish)

  • weaves

    …Damn, for once I wish I was in America. I want a free donut of choice

  • http://surrethang.blogspot.com Mike z

    I love how the phrase “pro-abortion” is used to replace pro-choice.

  • http://perkyskeptic.blogspot.com/ The Perky Skeptic

    Great post title, Hemant, only now I’ve spent precious minutes of my life delineating various donut-types in my imagination!

    Regular donuts are FLAGRANTLY pro-choice, as evinced by their empty middles…

    A regular donut with a donut-hole stuffed into its, er, donut hole would clearly be a pro-life donut…

    So when you eat donut-holes, obviously you’re eating aborted foetal donuts…

    Now I want a box of donut-holes so I can DEVOUR THEM like the atheist cannibal I am, RRRRRRAR!!!!

  • http://aclevererversion.blogspot.com/ Rose

    My dreams of a delicious, warm, glazed morning after pill are coming ever closer to reality!

  • Miko

    Acually, almost all Americans are against the word “choice.” More than half accept it in regards to abortion, but support drops off quickly when it comes to letting others make choices about how they want to save for retirement (e.g., social security privatization), whether they want to serve in the military, which drugs they want to take, which doctor they want (e.g., non-state run health care), whether they want to join a union, which school they want to send their kids to, whether they want to support a myriad of government programs through taxes, etc.

    You say “choice” when you want to get the government off your back. You use a different word when you want to put it on someone else’s.

  • http://www.thoughtcounts.net/ thoughtcounts Z

    WHAT.

  • i am a dodt

    @ Mike z, that’s actually really common with people/organizations that are very active either way. Pro-lifers say “pro-life” and “pro-abortion.” Pro-choicers say “pro-choice” and “anti-choice.” It’s all about semantic presentation.

  • http://purplekappa.typepad.com/ Donna

    And yet, still I can only think of a warm, delicious sugary donut.

  • Richard Wade

    The exam will be multiple uh, response.
    Chocolate, vanilla or strawberry? Make your uh, selection.
    I’ll have a few uh, well considered words with him.
    The meat is rated USDA uh, preferred.
    You may uh, indicate your predilection for any or all of the following:
    Crazies, loonies, fruitcakes, fruitloops, loops, goofballs, screwballs, nuts, nut cases, nutters, nut jobs, wing nuts, batshits, helicopter heads, la-las, whackos, whackjobs, gonzos, crackpots, weirdos, fringies, kooks, locos, psychos, rubber roomers, whimsy wits, wig-flippers, or simply those people over at American Life League.

  • Epistaxis

    Come on. They couldn’t even make it sound un-silly in their release.

  • Hoffy

    umm, that’s a joke, isn’t it???????, good one centurion, a joke, yeah a joke…………

  • http://www.CoreyMondello.com Corey Mondello

    People on the “Right” are clearly mentally ill.

  • Pingback: Krispy Kreme To Hand Out Pro-Abortion Donuts on Tuesday | Pelican Project Pro-Life

  • mikespeir

    Apparently, only God, in giving us free will, thinks choice is a good thing.

  • http://www.otmatheist.com hoverFrog

    Clearly Catholics believe that the jam filled doughnut is the only definition of a doughnut that counts. Ring doughnuts, chocolate doughnuts, apple sauce fillings, cream fillings, pink icing, all these things are not True Doughnuts (TM). There should be no choice in the free Krispy Kreme doughnut give away.

    I just hope that the jam fillers and the ringers don’t cause a schism.

  • http://cranialhyperossification.blogspot.com GDad

    “donut of choice”

    [snort]

    Is that like the Blue Bird of Happiness? Or the +4 Sword of Goblin Slaying?

    I will be handing out crackers in honor of the inauguration.

  • The Unbrainwashed

    Am I the only who is not pro-choice but rather pro-abortion? The vast majority of people having abortions are usually the people whom society shouldn’t want procreating. This includes drug abusers, mothers with 5 children from four different men, dumb people, impoverished people, religious people, teens, people in generally unstable living conditions, etc. I say we encourage vast amounts of birth control, especially in impoverished areas or areas where statistically more dumb people reside (i.e. low income areas). But when birth control doesn’t work, abortion should be strongly encouraged.

    Who I don’t understand are pro-choicers who state that they want to minimize abortions. If it’s not a life, then it has no meaning, no value. Then an abortion is akin to dumping a goldfish down the drain. Why should this process be taken so seriously from the aofrementioned pro-choicers?

  • Ubi Dubium

    Who I don’t understand are pro-choicers who state that they want to minimize abortions. If it’s not a life, then it has no meaning, no value. Then an abortion is akin to dumping a goldfish down the drain. Why should this process be taken so seriously from the aofrementioned pro-choicers?

    Um… because it’s physically very painful and emotionally wrenching for the woman involved? Preventing unwanted pregnancies is far preferable to putting a woman in the awful position of having to choose to terminate one. The pro-choice point is that this is about women, not zygotes.

  • http://www.bernerbits.com Derek

    Random thoughts:

    There is a subtle, eerie similarity here to the “Tyson Homosexual” episode. Except their brains did a global search and replace, instead of their site’s content filter.

    So, they are saying when America “chose” Obama, we collectively traveled back in time to January 1961 or so, found a pregnant Ann Dunham (in Kenya or wherever he’s really from), and convinced her to terminate. Then we ate the fetus.

    It occurs to me that, when Clinton was inaugurated, this type of angry, reactionary, neoconservative bullshit didn’t really exist. Or was it because I was 11 years old at the time?

    Either way, there’s a Krispy Kreme on my way to work. I know what I’m having for breakfast! It’s been a couple months since my last baby…

  • The Unbrainwashed

    because it’s physically very painful and emotionally wrenching for the woman involved?

    The inclusion of “emotionally wrenching” implies a value being imbued upon the zygote. Is it emotionally wrenching because the woman fears the PHYSICAL pain associated with the termination? If so, that’s consistent. If the “emotionally wrenching” nature of the procedure has ANYTHING to do with the child/zygote, then the pro-choice have ascribed value to the unborn and thus the procedure can no longer be morally supported.

    I think your point makes sense, but using the term “emotionally wrenching” strikes me as odd. Without that phrase, Id fully agree with your statement. I do however believe your argument doesn’t encompass the entire pro-choice community. It seems to me that the difficult decision is not simply a matter of pain, but rather an emotional attachment to the unborn.

  • stogoe

    support drops off quickly when it comes to letting others make choices about how they want to save for retirement (e.g., social security privatization),

    We all see how well giving our retirement funds to Bernie Madoff would have worked, Miko. Thank goodness we realized how fucking horrible that idea was before the robber barons could steal our money. The only reason that Rethugs and liberturds hate Social Security is because it fucking works.

    whether they want to serve in the military,

    We don’t have a draft. Everyone who serves in the US Military chose to do so.

    which drugs they want to take,

    I agree with you that the War on Drugs is actually a War on Poor Minorites.

    which doctor they want (e.g., non-state run health care),

    Red herring. The real question is “Who pays for me to see my doctor?” Is it a for-profit beauracracy whose sole purpose is to steal all my money and deny me health care, or is it the non-profit government plan whose sole purpose is to keep me healthy and be efficient?

    whether they want to join a union,

    EFCA does not force you to join a union. It just makes it harder for management to stop unionization by threatening and firing people for wanting to join a union.

    which school they want to send their kids to

    Private school vouchers are just a way for churches to steal money from the government, and private schools do a worse job of teaching students than public schools.

    whether they want to support a myriad of government programs through taxes, etc.

    Were you born that stupid or did you have to work at it? Either way, stop getting your talking points from Rush – they’re incredibly stupid, and it’s really obvious where you picked them up.

  • http://frodology.blogspot.com FrodoSaves

    Millions more children will be endangered by his radical abortion agenda.

    Really? And here I thought they were just killing fetuses…

  • genennene

    Is it possible that Krispy Kreme meant something less nefarious than to be pro-abortion? Yes. That being said:

    Jeff Satterley–Catholicism is not “detrimental to critical thinking and common sense.” Catholicism was responsible for saving Western civilization and bringing modern science into existence.

    Greta Christia–If this claim is true, it is truly problematic.

    weaves–You are in America. And like it or not, Christianity was involved from the beginning in the American way of life.

    Mike z–”Pro-choice” has become the same as “pro-abortion.” The choice we have is not to have sex outside of marriage, and to recognize that pregnancy is a gift. We do not have the “choice” to destroy others to make us feel better about our lives.

    Perky Skeptic–fairly good sarcasm, but it fails to change the facts.

    Rose–sarcastic, and disturbing. The morning after pill is still abortion.

    Miko–interesting libertarian approach here, but I do appreciate that you acknowledge that more than half view choice in the abortion context.

    Donna–Go to Dunkin donuts.

    Richard Wade–I prefer patriot, moral, believers in the first amendment to speak their beliefs, as some of the nutcases here have done.

    Epistaxis and Hoffy–No joke, even if they MAY be wrong on Krispy Kreme’s intentions.

    Corey Mondello–People on the “right” and usually “right,” and not mentally ill.

    mikespeir–clearly, God gives man the right to be wrong. It does not change the fact that it is wrong.

    hoverfrog–Once again, mildly sarcastic, but fails to change the truth.

    GDad–Depends on Krispy’s intention.

    Unbrainwashed–I HOPE you are being sarcastic in your first paragraph. Otherwise, you describe eugenics, incredibly popular with Adolph Hitler. Have you ever noticed that those in favor of elitism always see themselves as elites. I can’t think of anyone saying, “I’m a dolt and believe others should make all decisions for me.”

    As to your other paragraph, I agree.

    Ubi Dubium–a “painful choice?” I believe that would be abortion. If the process, as pointed out, needs to be minimized, then the fetus (which we all were) has value beyond being a “zygote”

    Derek–nutty response (and I don’t mean on the doughnut). Obama is the most pro-abortion president in this country’s history. He far exceeded Clinton, who contended that abortions should be rare (even though, once again, this argument is crazy from someone who believes this is only a blob of cells).

    stogoe–Republicans and liberals do not hate Social Security because it works, but because it is destined to fail. Oh, and I disagree that the War on Drugs was intended to be anti Poor Minorities. Given the large numbers of rich and poor people drug (no pun intended) into an addictive lifestyle, it affects everyone. Proposed new labor laws, the card check provision, is opposed by “conservatives” such as George McGovern. It would allow unions to collect cards, which would be used to automatically establish a union. When Guido comes out to collect cards, this is hardly “choice.” Sorry, private schools do a better job of teaching children. You MUST be kidding.

    FrodoSaves–fetuses ARE children. Even YOU were a fetus. Thank goodness your mother didn’t think abortion was a worthwhile choice.

  • John

    KKD-Kill, Kill, Die?
    FOCD – Freedom Of Choice Donut.
    I went inside and got a donut. I gave it to my girlfriend and told her it’s hers and that I didn’t want it. “It’s yours, do what you want with it, but if you have it, you may get fat.” Others told her to give it to some poor people who’d really like a donut, don’t just throw it in the garbage.
    If you get a donut, please choose what you do with it responsibly.

  • John

    If you get a jelly donut and suck the jelly out of it, is it not longer a donut? Is it no longer a jelly donut? Is a fetus a human or not? In a partial-birth abortion, is the “subject/object” a fetus, or a baby or is it half/half? check out http://www.jillstanek.org for some info regarding partial birth abortion.

  • pb

    weaves:

    Damn, for once I wish I was in America. I want a free donut of choice

    genennene:

    weaves-You are in America. And like it or not, Christianity was involved from the beginning in the American way of life.

    International fail.

  • mikespeir

    Well, looks like genennene pretty much refuted all of us. Might as well close up the site, Hemant.

  • stogoe

    Republicans and liberals do not hate Social Security because it works, but because it is destined to fail. Oh, and I disagree that the War on Drugs was intended to be anti Poor Minorities. Given the large numbers of rich and poor people drug (no pun intended) into an addictive lifestyle, it affects everyone. Proposed new labor laws, the card check provision, is opposed by “conservatives” such as George McGovern. It would allow unions to collect cards, which would be used to automatically establish a union. When Guido comes out to collect cards, this is hardly “choice.” Sorry, private schools do a better job of teaching children. You MUST be kidding.

    It is hard to imagine that a denser, more pure concentration of Stupid than this could possibly exist.

  • genennene

    mikespeir–Thank you for your observation. If it weren’t for the site, we wouldn’t be discussing this.

  • genennene

    stogoe–really brilliant position. Try attempts at fact instead of name-calling next time. Stupid? Dense? They say it takes one to know one, but given your response, I can’t tell what you are.

  • genennene

    stoegoe, if you really didn’t have a position on my statement, you could have just said so.

  • i am a dodt

    Wow, Unbrainwashed. I am astounded. Evidently, the poor (read: MINORITIES) don’t deserve to have children. Also, those slutty, immoral women who have children by more than one father don’t deserve to have any more children. Not that those fathers should be held accountable, of course. And the intellectually inferior, well, we wouldn’t want to taint the gene pool with them, would we? We should just put the undesirables into labor camps separated by sex so that they cannot reproduce, totally eliminating the need for abortion, and then dispose of them when they have outlived their usefulness.

    And who exactly gets to decide who is worthy and unworthy of reproduction? You’re talking eugenics, not population control.

  • http://gretachristina.typepad.com/ Greta Christina

    Unbrainwashed:

    The inclusion of “emotionally wrenching” implies a value being imbued upon the zygote. Is it emotionally wrenching because the woman fears the PHYSICAL pain associated with the termination? If so, that’s consistent. If the “emotionally wrenching” nature of the procedure has ANYTHING to do with the child/zygote, then the pro-choice have ascribed value to the unborn and thus the procedure can no longer be morally supported.

    Speaking as somebody who used to work in an abortion clinic, and whose spouse used to work in a different abortion clinic:

    This is simply not true.

    For one thing: Our emotions can be greatly impacted by our hormones. And hormones can change dramatically during pregnancy… and again when a pregnancy is terminated.

    For another: Even if you are completely morally okay with abortion, even if you are entirely comfortable with the line between a zygote and a human being, it can still be a sad experience. (Especially if you’re planning to have children later on in your life. Many women find it hard not to think about the child that the zygote might have become.) Even if you think it’s the right choice, it’s still a loss.

    To make an analogy: When I had to have my elderly and very sick cat euthanized, it was extremely emotionally wrenching. It was one of the hardest, saddest things I’ve had to do. And I have absolutely no doubt that it was the right thing to do.

    Many hard choices are sad. That’s no indication that they’re not the right choice.

  • http://gretachristina.typepad.com/ Greta Christina

    Oh, and I disagree that the War on Drugs was intended to be anti Poor Minorities. Given the large numbers of rich and poor people drug (no pun intended) into an addictive lifestyle, it affects everyone.

    I have no hope whatsoever of getting through to genennene. But for anyone else who’s reading this: We all know that US drug policy is both racist and classist, right? That illegal drugs commonly used by poor black people (such as crack cocaine) result in much harsher sentences than illegal drugs commonly used by middle- class and wealthy white people (such as powder cocaine)? That although people of all colors, including white people, use illegal drugs in roughly the same proportions, the people who are actually arrested and imprisoned for drugs are overwhelmingly people of color?

    Just checking.

    Oh, and I’m trying to figure out which “claim” of mine was “truly problematic.” The one where I said I was banging my head against a wall, or the one where I said that my brain was trying to chew its own leg off?

  • genennene

    The statement about crack, while once true in the federal court system, is no longer true. This was because those making the law viewed crack as a different drug than cocaine, and more dangerous. While it is the same drug, it is still more dangerous. But lawmakers realized that this law weighed heavily on the poor, in that in took a much smaller quantity of coke in weight, that of crack, to get high. The fact that people of color are disproportionately arrested only proves that they disproportionally commit crimes. But I would agree that police frequently have looked to minorities for criminal activities. This does NOT make the War on Drugs racist.

    As to which of those claims were problematic, I would say both.

  • Spurs Fan

    While it is the same drug, it is still more dangerous.

    Like heroin? Legal painkillers?

    Which would you say is more dangerous and/or addictive, Painkillers or Marijuana? Now, which one do black people get arrested for?

    The fact that people of color are disproportionately arrested only proves that they disproportionally commit crimes

    Is this mere concidence? Or might poverty be a huge factor? And does racism play any role or Mr. Madoff under house arrest because his theft was only petty.

    Geez….

  • Pingback: Yum « BackStage

  • stogoe

    genennene, my reply was brief for three reasons;

    1) I had but a short time to craft a reply,
    2) The intense, painful stupidity of your Gish Gallop was so dense as to take far more of my time than it was worth to refute your brand of crazy.
    3) Your demeanor suggested that you would be resistant to any sort of fact-based inoculation against further Stupidity.

  • The Unbrainwashed

    Evidently, the poor (read: MINORITIES) don’t deserve to have children.

    There are more white people in this country living in poverty or the lower economic classes than black people combined. It’s just that the rate of poverty amongst blacks is much higher.

    But poor people having children is generally a bad idea for a number of reasons: A) they’re less intelligent and thus their value as a worker is less (i.e. an expert engineer has more value than a common trash collector) B) Poor areas tend to have higher levels of crime. Thus eliminate poverty and crime decreases as well C) Many poor people can not support themselves or their families, especially those having multiple children without a properly stable home. Thus, the burden of support falls onto law abiding, hard working tax payers.

    Also, those slutty, immoral women who have children by more than one father don’t deserve to have any more children.

    Illgetimate children have a much lower rate of educational attainment and wages, and a much higher rate of criminal activity. These women should seriously consider how that unstable environment will affect their child and society as a whole. Further, intelligence negativvely correlates with the number of offspring (basically smart people are generally more responsible and use birth control or don’t engage in promisicuty as often.) Thus, it’s safe to assume that on average those born in this situation will be less intelligent and thus of less vlaue to the mechanisms that move society.

    And the intellectually inferior, well, we wouldn’t want to taint the gene pool with them, would we? We should just put the undesirables into labor camps separated by sex so that they cannot reproduce, totally eliminating the need for abortion, and then dispose of them when they have outlived their usefulness.

    I’d prefer to not taint the gene pool with less intelligent persons. We do essentially put them in segragated work camps. Lower class neighborhoods are homogenously populated by working class or unemployed persons. I say we eliminate the need for abortion by encouraging birth control in lower class segments of the population.

    And who exactly gets to decide who is worthy and unworthy of reproduction? You’re talking eugenics, not population control.

    No one gets to decide. However, I do advocate those on welfare being given mandatory birth cointrol procedures (if you can’t support yourself the government shouldn’t be supporting your future children) until they’re off government assistance. I also advocate offering VOLUNTARY birth control procedures where people are paid for getting them.

    The issue of undesriability is a nebolous concept. It’s not exclusive to race, ethnicity, religion, or physicality. I think in general, undesireability correlates negatively with icnreased intelligence, but other factors (such as physiciality for laborers, work ethic for average persons, etc..) come into play. But nothing I’ve said involves instuting some Big Brother eugenics program. I’m simply saying society would be better off if these types of individuals described above stopped reproducing. Read Freakonomics, there’s a chapter on abortion and crime.

  • Thiaf

    Um. This has fulfilled my daily quota of laughter in full. Bloody-freakin’-hell, can’t believe they’re that stupid. And… Scheisse… The Republican thinks foreigners don’t exist. xD Naaice.

  • http://cynthialovespictures.blogspot.com/ Cynthiaa @ Confessions of a Yummy Mummy.

    This is what happens when religion wants to rule the world.

    This is insane.

  • Siamang

    However, I do advocate those on welfare being given mandatory birth cointrol procedures

    Did you have a method in mind?

    How does that work, exactly? Government man comes round to the house and signs you up for surgery? Or does he force a pill down your throat? Does he watch that you take that pill every day?

    What the fuck, dude? You’re describing fucking China or something out of orwell. I’d love it if people didn’t have more kids than they could support as well, it’s just that I don’t want to fucking turn America into the Handmaiden’s Tale to do it.

    Read Freakonomics, there’s a chapter on abortion and crime.

    You might want to read up on that claim before you start accepting that as reason to start signing people up for mandatory sterilization. The data does not support a claim of causality.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

  • Rat Bastard

    genennene, go look for the comment “And yet, it is so”, by Galileo. Once you have hopefully digested the true meaning of his comment, and place a coherent response here, come beg the local’s pardon. The RCC was, and is, one of the most anti-human-progress agencies on the planet. Oh, and while you’re looking around the internet, maybe you can send that new pope a note that condoms don’t help all those problems in Africa.

  • The Unbrainwashed

    I know it sounds like Orwell, but I think low intelligence people pose a threat to the stability and progress of society (intelligence correlates strongly with all life outcomes).

    I’m not sure exactly how we should enact such a system. The best option, as it doesn’t involve anything mandatory, is the implementation of a VOLUNTARY system. The government pays anyone willing to have a birth control procedure. That way the same goal as mandatory procedures for welfare moms is attained. The only individuals willing to pursue the voluntary procedure will be the same exact individuals who the mandatory procedure would target.

    Let me also qualify my comments above. I wholly respect low intelligence people who have a strong work ethic, provide for their families through honest work, and are law abiding citizens. I applaud the expert plumber as much as I applaud the expert engineer. However, I’m not naive to think they have the same value for society. One’s value for society is how difficult he is to replace. Many more people are capable of being plumbers than are capable of being neurosurgeons. Further, it’s significantly more plausible that the offspring of the plumber will not follow in his father’s footsteps.

    I’m honestly not in the mood to look at that wikipedia article, Siamang. It’s ironic that you link to it as almost every criticism comes from far-right sources (I’m sure they have no vested interest in the matter). For me, the correlation makes perfect logical sense.

    Though, and I’m not sure if this is in the article, but a paradox might exist with regards to the situation. The woman getting abortions simply aren’t the individuals society wants getting abortions. Many of them are actually upwardly mobile individuals who can’t be burdened by an unwanted pregancy. Low intelligence, promiscous, unstable woman aren’t getting the procedure as freqeuntly as one might assume and thus the crime statistics don’t reflect that. We all have seen low income individuals on food stamps with too many children. (So that’s a criticism for the criticism.)

  • Autumnal Harvest

    Great plans, Unbrainwashed, it’s too bad your side lost World War II, so your plans couldn’t really be implemented on a global scale. Still, there’s always hope for the future.

    However, I do advocate those on welfare being given mandatory birth cointrol procedures (if you can’t support yourself the government shouldn’t be supporting your future children) until they’re off government assistance.

    Yep, we should sterilize everyone who relies on government asssistance: students going to university on federal loans, old people on social security, anyone involved in the banking and auto bailouts, etc. . . Oh, and the Jews! How could I forget the Jews?

    Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? If you’re not being satirical, you need to have your goddamn head examined.

  • The Unbrainwashed

    Honestly what does this have to do with Jews? Jews (ethnically speaking) tend to be the most intelligent, educated (other than I believe immigrant Nigerians), economically stable, least violent, and socially stable group in the country. Very few of them would be relevant for the program. Is that simply a tacit ad hominem attack on your part?

    I actually take back the mandatory comment, that was taking it too far. I’m in favor of limited government. I took back the mandatory aspect in the last post and explained why:

    I’m not sure exactly how we should enact such a system. The best option, as it doesn’t involve anything mandatory, is the implementation of a VOLUNTARY system. The government pays anyone willing to have a birth control procedure. That way the same goal as mandatory procedures for welfare moms is attained. The only individuals willing to pursue the voluntary procedure will be the same exact individuals who the mandatory procedure would target.

    The groups you list as getting government assistance aren’t in the same category as welfare moms. Welfare moms are generally in that despondent situation on their own accord (drugs, having too many children with too many absentee fathers, dropping out of school, not pursuing employment). I’m not in favor of the bailout either, but at least their kids don’t have a better chance of going to jail.

    The implementation of reducing low intelligence births (which is a general term for individuals who have a better tendency towards practicing self and community destructive behaviors such as violence, illegitimate pregnancies, drug abuse, religious indoctrination, etc…) is the question, not whether we should at least encourage this population to temper their reproduction rate. The latter is undeniable.

    Also let me add that discouraging reproduction should not target any ethnic or racial group (funny I never even implied this but the liberals somehow got there anyway). Dumb, irresponsible persons are present in every racial and ethnic group.

    Watch the movie Idiocracy. See what will happen if the religious and dumb (usually mutually INCLUSIVE) continue their rapid rates of procreation.

  • genennene

    spursfan–it is a non sequitur to say that those with wealth can use it for their benefit anywhere and say that the War on Drugs is racist.

    stogoe–let’s see. Now you have taken more time to call me stupid, and still have not defended your position. I love how someone who disagrees with you is stupid. Liberals claim to be tolerant of anyone except those who disagree with them.

    Unbrainwashed–again, Hitler eugenics. Given your desire to see these people not breed, I must assume you are from a different group. Oh, and try to see how those engineers do with everything while their trash piles up. While I agree with your position on single parents, educational status, and more likely criminality, I disagree with your position. Birth control and limiting the number of children in a society only succeeds in destroying the society. Many western countries are in population decline, while other Eastern countries show population increase. This, particularly in times of conflict, leaves countries inequipped to defend themselves.

    In the context of what you are saying, both birth contol as you propose and abortion constitute two similar tools to decrease the population. They claim that some people have “value” and others do not, establishing that life truly has no value. This thought process justifies killing even you at a certain age because you are no longer as productive.

    I would contend that groups such as Planned Parenthood already are carrying out your plan on birth control. Remember, Planned Parenthood’s founder was a big proponent of sterilization and birth control for undesirables. And given the federal government’s massive support of their programs, I would say we have already reached Big Brother status.

    Cynthiaa–this has nothing to do with your religion or bias against it. If you are talking Krispy, this involves being opposed to abortion. Many atheists agree. If you are talking about stogoe, nothing he says comes close to any type of religion.

    Rat Bastard–ignorance is bliss on your part. As to Galileo, there are two problems with your contention. First it is false. But even if you assumed it was true, it is truly enlightening that this is the only example given by almost anyone to promote your position. Galileo Galilei was viewed by the Church as a brilliant man. He was financially supported by the Church throughout his career. Many Church scientists agreed with his conclusions. Galileo held a number of positions, some of which were false. For example, he contended that movement of the tides proved the movement of the earth. Current scientists know this is wrong. Church astromers agreed with many of his positions involving Coperican claims, and had nothing against his publishing them. They were opposed, however, to him referring to them as other than a theory until they could be proven. They contradicted all thought going all the way back to Aristotle. He refused. Much of the fault lied with Galileo. He chose to debate the issues before a theological council as to the proofs of this matter, without the corresponding proofs. Those who supported him as to his theories initally were Fr. Grienberger, who personally verified Galileo’s discovery of Jupiter’s moons, Fr. Clavius, one of the greatest mathematicians of his time, who had headed the commission that had yielded the Gregorian calendar (named for Pope Gregory and still used today).

    While Galileo was certain of the truth, he objectively lacked any proof to win the support of open-minded person. Many influential Churchmen believed that Galileo might be right, but awaited proof of this.

    The Church was concerned at the time about Protestant claims that they did not adequately follow the Bible, and Protestants complained that Galileo’s claims were contrary to the Bible. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Cardinal at the time, stated that the Church needed to be “cirumspect” as to claims in the Bible as to the founding of the world being literal, if Galileo was, in fact, correct in his theories. But he said the proof was still lacking.

    In 1616, Galileo was instructed by the Church he could teach his beliefs as a hypothesis, but not as an absolute truth until it could be proven. In 1624, the Pope looked forward to a meeting with Galileo to see his proofs he claimed to have. The Pope then stated that the Church had never declared Copernicanism to be heresy, and never would. In 1632, at the urging of the Pope, Galileo published his findings, not as a theory, but as proof. He still lacked the necessary proof. Grienberger later commented that has Galileo contended that this was theory, he could have written anything he wanted. In 1633, he was accused of heresy and ordered to desist claiming his theories as truth. He refused. In fact, Catholic scientists were free to carry on unhindered research as long as they treated the motion of the earth as a hypothesis. By the end of the seventeenth century, the Church found sufficient proof of the earth’s movement to promote the basic position. The Church’s positions on Euclidian geometry helped make the scientific revolution possible, and would be copied by the rest of the world in the future.

    As to birth control, the Church is unchanging in its position on birth control, and contends that abstinence is a more effective system for limiting AIDS than condoms. Actions in African countries agreeing with the Church’s position bear this out.

    Unbrainwashed–I am offended that you contend your beliefs come from far-right sources. They sound clearly far-left to me.
    I would suggest stopping government assistance, lowering taxes, and letting religious and non-profit groups provide aid makes more sense than eugenics.

  • http://www.noonespecial.ca/cacophony Tao Jones

    Umm… what decade is this?

    It’s 10 a.m. and I’m already deeply disturbed.

    What we’ve seen here from unbrainwashed and genennene should be evidence enough of the danger of mythologies that promote one right way to live. Religion isn’t the only myth we need exposed.

  • Eliza

    Greta Christina – thanks for your comments on women’s experiences in early pregnancy & with the choice to have an abortion.

    Back to the blog topic: glazed sour cream for me. My son will pick chocolate iced with sprinkles (which may be red, white, and blue for Inauguration Day – they vary the colors based on the occasion).

    The Krispy Kreme page at Wikipedia doesn’t yet mention this “free donut of choice” campaign. Perhaps someone here would like to change that?

  • http://www.otmatheist.com hoverFrog

    genennene, what? I only get “mildly sarcastic”.

    Yet, seriously, most Catholics allow for abortion in certain circumstances, incest and rape for example. You say that the Church’s position on birth control is unchanged but how can this be true when most forms of contraceptives appeared in the last century? Besides which isn’t it the Church’s position that the rights and the responsibilities of each Catholic to follow his or her own conscience on moral matters are their own, even when it conflicts with Church teaching?

    The church in Rome itself has no absolute “infallible” definition for when life begins. Distinguished theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas said this didn’t happen until between 40 and 80 days after conception.

    Non-Catholics may well agree with these crude definitions or may use more scientific ideas for defining a point where life can be said to truly start. All this is moot though because nature offers some very real limitations on the sustainability of life. Medicine is challenging these limitations but in the mean time the state places a limit on abortions that reflects the ability of a fetus to survive alone. Is this killing or the removal of the means to sustain life? I’d say the latter.

    Some interesting facts from research and publications from the Alan Guttmacher Institute in America:

    Catholic women in the United States are as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion, and 29% more likely than Protestant women.

    Catholic countries, even where abortion is illegal, have high levels of abortions: in Brazil, the estimated number of abortions ranges from 1 million to 2 million per year and in Peru, 5% of women of childbearing age have abortions each year, compared to 3% in the United States.

    64% of US Catholics disapprove of the statement that abortion is morally wrong in every case (Survey of 493 Catholics, designed by Lake Research and Tarrance Group, for US News & World Report, Sept. 1995, margin of error ± 4.5%.)

    72% of Catholics in Australia say decisions about abortion should be left to individual women and their doctors. (Survey for Family Planning Australia and Children by Choice, Melbourne, AGB McNair, Aug. 1996.)

    How’s that for choice?

  • GullWatcher

    @genennene

    Birth control and limiting the number of children in a society only succeeds in destroying the society. Many western countries are in population decline, while other Eastern countries show population increase. This, particularly in times of conflict, leaves countries inequipped to defend themselves.

    So you are advocating a population race rather than an arms race? How incredibly effing STUPID is that? Yes, by all means, let’s all procreate until the planet is a seething mass of starving humanity, just to make sure some other country doesn’t outbreed us. I sure want to live in THAT world…

    Declining birth rate is a good thing. This planet can only support so many people in reasonable comfort and plenty, especially if we intend to leave any room for the rest of the planet’s inhabitants, and we need to work toward that, not away from it. You misrepresented Planned Parenthood (as anti-choice fanatics so often do) but the work they do is good and should be supported and made available everywhere.

  • The Unbrainwashed

    @ GullWatcher:

    Wait are you actually somewhat agreeing with me?!??!

  • GullWatcher

    Well, Unbrainwashed, you tell me… I think that every child should be wanted and well cared for. I think the woman concerned is the best judge of whether she can carry and raise a child and if she thinks not, it’s her decison and no barriers should be put in her way. I also think that parents should be financially responsible for their children.

    So, not that far off, but phrased so as to make it more difficult for people to twist it and start talking about racism and Hitler and eugenics. As for that Wikipedia aricle on the abortion and crime connection, it does not debunk it as Siamang implied, but is instead a fairly balanced look at the arguments and rebuttals from both sides.

    Although if I am ever forced to watch another episode of Jerry Springer, eugenics may start to look like a lesser evil.

  • genennene

    Yeah, great move Tao Jones. Resort to name calling when you have nothing to say.

    Eliza, happy to talk donut flavors when Krispy’s intentions are made clear.

    hoverfrog, I respectfully disagree with your position. If abortion is wrong, then it should not be allowed in case of rape and incest. One might objectively choose to support a rape and incest exception only if it resulted in restrictions in other areas. However, it would still be wrong.

    As to the age of modern contraception, I would agree. And no Christian church accepted contraception of any kind until the Lambeth Convention in the Episcopal Church in 1930. And in that case, it should be limited to husbands and wives who had serious health issues that warranted its use. Once the camel’s nose was under the tent, religious groups quickly changed their position–except the Catholic Church. They contended that forms of birth control have existed for literally thousands of years. They are inherently wrong.

    As to the following their conscience issue, it requires a well formed conscience. Those who espouse this position do not have a well formed conscience. You attempt to use your position as a justification for anything. Is theft from someone acceptable if I decide I have a right to it and my conscience says its OK? How about murdering someone? It is easy to say that these examples are hyperbole. But there are people inclined to rape walking our streets every day, whose conscience says it is acceptable to rape and their right to do so. Their “conscience” does not make it right, or true.

    The Augustine and Acquinas argument is false, and cherry picking. Nancy Pelosi used this argument on television, and was called to task by Bishops throughout the country for speaking out on an issue she knew nothing about. Augustine and Acquinas lived during a time in which how birth occurs physically was called into question. They followed the Arisotlian understanding of this, that it took some number of days until a quickening occured, where the soul of the person appeared in the physical body of the baby. But at no time in their writings did they claim that abortion was acceptable. To the contrary, they spoke out against the practices of abortion as evil. Your position about the Church is wrong.

    “in the mean time the state places a limit on abortions that reflects the ability of a fetus to survive alone.” Where? Until the Partial Birth Abortion law, a fetus could be destoyed up until the child was removed by delivery, and this be perfectly legal. Currently, under the cloak of physician patient privilege, physicians will provide abortions up until the last moment. What happened to “First do no harm”?

    “Is this killing or the removal of the means to sustain life? I’d say the latter.” This is truly a red herring. How many abortions involve this either or scenerio. None that I know of. Birth is a natural process, not an infection.

    The Alan Guttmacher Institute is a pro-abortion research group affiliated with Planned Parenthood. That being said, many of their statistics are accurate.

    I have no doubt about the statistic about Catholic women. This is not an issue of the righteousness of CINOs–Catholics in Name Only. The Church provides moral teaching intended for everyone, not just those who choose to identify themselves as Catholic. To argue that people do it, so it is OK promotes rape, incest, pediphilia, beastiality and murder.

    Morality is not up for a vote. Raise your hands if you think murder is ok. If the majority think so (or a minority where the courts choose to “create” a right), does this make something right? No, it creates only moral relativism.

    “How’s that for choice?” Pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood have done a wonderful job of using semantics to make their case. Pro-choice. For what? Choice to kill another? Choice to steal another’s car? Choice to assault another? Do what others think make an issue acceptable? No.

    Gullwatcher–how stupid is it to suggest a population decline? Every society that goes through a population decline results in a lower standard of living for everyone.

    I respectfully disagree. You could take the entire population of the world at the population consistency of Hong Kong and place them in Texas. Malthus was wrong, and so was Paul Erlich. Despite claims of a population bomb, just the opposite has occurred, and none of the dire consequences predicted in the 1960s and 70s came true.

    Declining birth rate is a bad thing. Particularly in the industrialized countries such as West Europe who are not even making population replacement. Soon there will be no one to care for their elders, and they will be unable to defend themselves. The US has not faced this problem solely becuase we have a virtually open border that has allowed immigrants to keep our population on a mild upward slope.

    And my position on Planned Parenthood is correct. They look to bringing in funds profitably. They hide behind their women’s health claim. And they receive close to $1 billion in US government financial support. What a bailout! But they are losing 25% of their staff due to their primary private investor being involved in the Madoff scandal.

    I think every child should be wanted and cared for. But I cannot advocate killing them to solve this problem. I believe that the woman can best determine whether she can adequately raise the child. If she thinks not, it is her decision–to place the child up for adoption. No barriers should be in her way. I think that parents should be financially responsible for their children, but I am uncertain who should make that decision for them. My children might be more comfortable living in a better house, but should the Government decide that for me?

    It is not twisting to note that a misproportionate percentage of minorities receive abortions (why do the same people who espouse your position often have no problem in arguing our criminal justice system is wrong for the same reason), or that Planned Parenthood’s founded established the organization to promote eugenics, or that those are the very programs that Hitler supported.

  • Richard

    It doesn’t make sense to compare aborting a very young zygote with, say, stealing. Some people here seem to equate the morning after pill with stealing a car.

    Many fertilised eggs fail to implant. Of those that do implant a pretty large number fail to survive to a viable birth. Many naturally abort quite early. If you believe that each fertilised egg is a child what are you doing about this naturally occurring high mortality rate? In some parts of the world there is a high child mortality rate with many children not reaching 5 years of age – something much more serious!

    Abortion is a hard thing. I’d consider it only for early stage which is the legal situation in the UK. The rape situations would be early stage. Late stage is a hard one. What of a child that will be so badly handicapped it’s life would be miserable? I don’t know the answer to these questions. A blanket ban is a big knee-jerk. There may be situations where it is needed. Ideally each situation would be examined. When does an embryo gain consciousness anyway?

    Probably a rare situation – Would even the most conservative Christian refuse medical treatment that was needed to save the mother’s life if it meant that the embryo would not survive? If the mother dies before birth then neither will survive. Even if the child could be delivered but the mother dies shortly after? Not a situation I’d want to have to deal with. I think some have sacrificed themselves for their unborn babies.

    I was an embryo once – admitted. Before that I was separate sperm and egg. So many of these die naturally. I was also the many interconnecting patterns of processes and actions in the world that have come to form my life – but that’s a different set of beliefs.

  • GullWatcher

    @genennene

    Every society that goes through a population decline results in a lower standard of living for everyone.

    Even if that is true (which I doubt, and what is your evidence? When did it happen and where?), it depends on how you define a lower standard of living. If it includes a few fewer possessions but more of other things (like elbow room or nature or personal freedom), then to me that isn’t a lower standard at all.

    You could take the entire population of the world at the population consistency of Hong Kong and place them in Texas. Malthus was wrong, and so was Paul Erlich.

    Possibly, but what kind of a hell hole would that be? Are you really holding up Hong Kong as a positive model for how the world could be? If so, again, that is an ugly vision of the future.

    Declining birth rate is a bad thing. Particularly in the industrialized countries such as West Europe who are not even making population replacement. Soon there will be no one to care for their elders, and they will be unable to defend themselves.

    So, we should create more babies so they can take care of more old folks, which will in 70 years create an even larger burden of elderly who can’t care for themselves? Again, that’s just stupid. There needs to be balance, not an upward spiral of population density.

    I think every child should be wanted and cared for. But I cannot advocate killing them to solve this problem.

    Neither do I. Fortunately, abortion isn’t killing babies, so that makes it an acceptable alternative.

    I believe that the woman can best determine whether she can adequately raise the child. If she thinks not, it is her decision–to place the child up for adoption. No barriers should be in her way.

    I said that a woman can best determine whether she can CARRY and raise a child. It is her choice; her right to decide whether to carry a child, and the government has no right to force her to do so against her will.

    I think that parents should be financially responsible for their children, but I am uncertain who should make that decision for them. My children might be more comfortable living in a better house, but should the Government decide that for me?

    No it shouldn’t, but neither should the government be providing people with financial incentives to produce more children.

    It is not twisting to note that a misproportionate percentage of minorities receive abortions (why do the same people who espouse your position often have no problem in arguing our criminal justice system is wrong for the same reason), or that Planned Parenthood’s founded established the organization to promote eugenics, or that those are the very programs that Hitler supported.

    Yes, it absolutely IS twisting, and don’t pretend it isn’t. Too bad if Margaret Sanger doesn’t pass your test of ideological purity, but that’s how it is – one person can espouse a variety of ideas, good and bad. The fact that she supported eugenics does NOT mean that we should dismiss the valuable work she did in promoting widely available birth control to improve women’s lives. Yes, Hitler supported eugenics, but he was also in favor of women staying at home and raising babies, so to extend your logic would be like saying that stay-at-home moms are evil for following Hitler’s ideal. Condemning an idea by whether Hitler did or did not support it is simply moronic – ideas should be judged on their own merits, not by who did or did not support them. Bringing up Hitler at all is sure sign that someone (you, in this case) can’t defend or refute the ideas in question on any basis but ad hominem.

  • genennene

    Richard–zygote? I believe that would be a human being. Have you noted that the term zygote has begun to be used in place of fetus. Sounds less human.

    True, many fertilised eggs fail to implant. That is natural miscarriage. Many people die. But it doesn’t justify our killing them as well.

    Abortion is a hard thing, because women recognize the child inside them to be a human being. There is an excellent reason that groups like Planned Parenthood refuse to use sonograms–women wouldn’t be as likely to get an abortion. This is hardly pro-choice. It is the providing of less information so that women can’t make a choice.

    It is a tough decision about handicapped because they are human beings with a right to live. Why not kill them during their out-of-womb life, if their life is so miserable. Or rather, why don’t we just let them live?

    A blanket ban is not a knee-jerk. It is what the law in every state in the United States was until Doe v. Bolton 35 years ago.

    Your hypothetical is not only a rare instance. I can’t think of it actually happening. Childbirth, as I have said before, is a natural process, not an illness. As happened this week, when a mother died from cancer, and for which an abortion would not help, they were able to keep the fetus alive inside the mother for days after her death.

    You were a fetus. And I thank your mother for letting you reach adulthood.

  • genennene

    Gullwatcher,

    I respectfully disagree with your position on lower standard of living. But more importantly, where is your evidence of the hazards of population control? Both Malthus and Erlich have already been proven wrong. Hunger in countries is provided by corrupt governments and poor agriculture. Why aren’t Americans starving? Because we do not have these problems. Oh, and a lack of freedom? That would be Nazism of Communism. No thanks.

    Sorry, but Hong Kong is not a hell hole. It made the number one spot this year as the best place economically to live in the world. I could live with that. I do hold Hong Kong as a good standard. You say that we should make it with less space, then complain that I give you a scenerio with less space. We make enough food now, even though some countries do not allow food to get through. The US has a surplus of food.

    As to population increase to support the elderly, it would appear you support euthanasia. Perhaps we shouldn’t work on healthcare for the elderly because “again, that’s just stupid.” Then we could have fewer people, especially non-productive ones.

    Sorry, but abortion is killing babies. I would guess you were a fetus once. So killing them is not a feasible option. In fact, it is never a feasible option to make your life better by killing another. If it were, why not allow individuals to take the organs of non-productive people such as the elderly and criminals so that productive people and the wealthy can have organs? Very utilitarian.

    Is it a woman’s right to decide whether the CARRY a one day old? How about a five day old? After all, they can’t take care of themselves without her help.

    She is taking a life. And natural law does not allow you by court decree to declare a wrong a right. If it did, the courts could simply decide I could steal your car or kill your dog.

    You receive financial incentives when you file your taxes. Do you have children? If you do, then the Government pays you an exemption to encourage children.

    Liberals have chosen to provide our welfare state to help those without. They include the elderly, the poor, and investment bankers.

    Certainly people with twisted philosophies such as Hitler or Margaret Sanger should be able to espouse ideas–good or bad. However, your philosophy that calls for mandated population control and removing “personal freedom” would create the very standards in which those who disagree with the power elite cannot express their ideas.

    It is particularly not twisting to point out that Sanger established Planned Parenthood to limit and eliminate undesirable populations such as minorities and the handicapped. With 50 million abortions in the country since Rowe, primarily in poor and minority areas, it would appear she has gotten her wish.

    Hitler only wanted Aryans to stay home and have babies, not Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, or Catholics. Would you support a candidate who said, “I want to kill the Jews,” and you didn’t support that position, but say, I like his other policies? I doubt it. Because to do so would be simply moronic.

    The idea of eugenics is a bad idea, whether it comes from Hitler, Sanger, or you. Who makes the decisions? The elite. I have never known someone to support such things that did not see themselves as an elite.

    I can defend or refute the ideas in question on any basis but ad hominem. And that, unfortunately is your problem. Why not allow me to decide who can have children, and who can’t? I feel qualified to make that decision as well as you.

  • GullWatcher

    @genennene

    I respectfully disagree with your position on lower standard of living.

    The only way to show respect in a discussion such as this is to carefully listen to what is being put forward, and not twist it into what it is not. The way you disagree is the opposite of ‘respectfully’.

    You have made it clear that you cannot debate with any honesty. You twist and distort what people have said, claim that they hold positions they do not hold, and that they espouse ideas they do not even mention. You have made it clear that you are only here to put forward your agenda and listen to no one else’s. For those reasons, this will my last post on this topic.

    But more importantly, where is your evidence of the hazards of population control? Both Malthus and Erlich have already been proven wrong.

    You ask where is my evidence of the ‘hazards of population control’. Sorry, that’s your position, not mine. If you meant where is my evidence of the hazards of over-population, it’s all around me. Farmland disappearing, forest disappearing, wetlands disappearing, turned into subdivisions of cheap cookie cutter housing. In the city, decent houses disappearing, turning into tiny crap condos not fit to live in. THERE is my evidence.

    Sorry, but Hong Kong is not a hell hole. It made the number one spot this year as the best place economically to live in the world. I could live with that. I do hold Hong Kong as a good standard.

    There are other bases to judge places to live in other than economically. On many other levels, Hong Kong is a hell hole. Just because you can live with that, why do you presume to dictate that everyone else should?

    You say that we should make it with less space, then complain that I give you a scenerio with less space. We make enough food now, even though some countries do not allow food to get through. The US has a surplus of food.

    I absolutely did not say we should make it with less space, I said the opposite. People need more space, not less, and the planet is finite. Every increase in population reduces the amount of space available for everyone and everything else, and therefore the quality of life for the ones here. You keep bringing up food, as though having a full belly is enough to make a good life. That’s only a start, it’s not even close to enough.

    As to population increase to support the elderly, it would appear you support euthanasia.

    Again you completely twist my words. I never said I support euthanasia, and I don’t. I said we need balance (rather than infinite population increase), a concept that you are apparently not familiar with. Balance, that’s how it’s spelled, look it up.

    Sorry, but abortion is killing babies. I would guess you were a fetus once. So killing them is not a feasible option.

    No, abortion is not murder. Yes, the person that I am started out as a one a one-celled organism. So what? That is not any kind of argument. Before that it was an egg and a sperm. Is failing to have that egg fertilized murder? Only one sperm makes it into an egg – is having millions of sperm die for the one to get there murder? When a baby is born and can live outside the uterus, then it human – before that it is only potential, like the egg or the sperm, and no more entitled to rights than those are.

    Is it a woman’s right to decide whether the CARRY a one day old? How about a five day old? After all, they can’t take care of themselves without her help.

    One day old what? Five day old what? If you mean fetus, that is not yet a person and it IS her right to chose. If you mean an existing infant, that is once again twisting what I said, and doing so in a very obvious and unsubtle manner. It’s almost amusing… You won’t convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you by using such clumsy tactics. People who don’t agree with you aren’t that stupid.

    The idea of eugenics is a bad idea, whether it comes from Hitler, Sanger, or you.

    Except that it didn’t come from me, yes. That was exactly MY point, that ideas need to be judged on their own merit, regardless of who holds them. I’m sorry you have such trouble with reading comprehension, perhaps you should try a little harder to read what is there before assuming it must be wrong.

    You receive financial incentives when you file your taxes. Do you have children? If you do, then the Government pays you an exemption to encourage children.

    Exactly, and I think that’s wrong and the government shouldn’t do it.

    However, your philosophy that calls for mandated population control and removing “personal freedom” would create the very standards in which those who disagree with the power elite cannot express their ideas.

    Show me where, even once, I called for mandated population control or removing personal freedom. You can’t, because I didn’t. It’s just you trying to twist what I said into something you can label as wrong, and dismiss. Seriously, two words – reading comprehension. Work on it.

    Would you support a candidate who said, “I want to kill the Jews,” and you didn’t support that position, but say, I like his other policies? I doubt it.

    There has never been and never will be a candidate I agreed with 100%. I ALWAYS have to pick a candidate that only supports maybe 60-80% of what I support (and consider myself lucky to find even one that holds no indefensible positions), and I’ve never met anyone else who wasn’t in the same predicament. Only someone devoid of independent thought could ever agree 100% with someone else. Is that what you do?

    I can defend or refute the ideas in question on any basis but ad hominem.

    Then why didn’t you?

  • genennene

    Gullwatcher,

    My first problem with your position is how do you support population control. To reach what you want cannot be done without mandating it. Beyond that, there is a reason that the black community makes up only 13% of the population in this country, and why Muslim countries are rapidly increasing. Abortions are illegal in these countries, disproportionately promting in the black community population by an organization (Planned Parenthood) by placing their facilies in black and Hispanic communities.

    Wow, I have found something in which you and I can agree: You have made it clear that you cannot debate with any honesty. You twist and distort what people have said, claim that they hold positions they do not hold, and that they espouse ideas they do not even mention. You have made it clear that you are only here to put forward your agenda and listen to no one else’s.

    You are right. I mistyped when I said ‘hazards of population control’. I did maean that there is NOT evidence of hazards of over-population. To claim that it’s all around you is disingenuous. Farmland disappearing occurs in this country. Why? Good reason. Technology makes it possible to produce food requiring much less land. If it was not cost effective to keep it as farmland, because food has become cheaper, and because it is more cost effective to change this land use. Your concern about “subdivisions of cheap cookie cutter housing” establishes your bias against development. When you talk about increasing quality of living, that is precisely what it does. You note that “in the city, decent houses disappearing, turning into tiny crap condos not fit to live in. Why? It is because those needing low income housing are moving into homes that belong to them rather than government housing for with they have no incentive to take care of. Forests are disappearing. Not in this country. There is MORE forestland in the US that there was 100 years ago. Why? We have huge tracts of national land, and the paper companies look at trees as a renewable resource. This is because it increases the quality of living for thes people in the world, as does our production of food.

    Wetlands disappearing is something else I agree with you on. Wetlands have been removed for development, primarily in the past because we did not understand their significance. As we now do, federal laws do not allow destruction of wetlands, and wetlands are being recreated by environmental organizations.

    Another example not mentioned by you is pollution. It is another example of where we have cleaner air and water than we had 100 years ago. This is despite the fact we have many more people now.

    So, when you say “THERE is my evidence,” it is hardly either true or convincing.

    “Hong Kong is a hell hole?” Well, we see how judgemental you are. I am certain that the people there would disagree, and contend that you are an insensitive arrogant American. The point of my position is that there is plenty of land for which the world’s population to live on. That statement has not been denied.

    “People need more space, not less, and the planet is finite. Every increase in population reduces the amount of space available for everyone and everything else, and therefore the quality of life for the ones here.” By that standard, as the world moved from 2 people to 3, our quality of living has been going down. Absolutely ridiculous.

    “You keep bringing up food, as though having a full belly is enough to make a good life. That’s only a start, it’s not even close to enough.” True, but is does involve sustainability. There is NO evidence that quality of living has decreased in the world. The truth is that we have improved quality of living. To claim that means that I am talking to someone who has no travel experience around the world. In the US, or elsewhere, it is hard to find anyplace that quality of living has gone down because of population increase. The only decreases of quality of care come from political issues and decisions that has reduced the quality of living.

    Wow. There is another issue we agree on. Euthanasia is wrong. But how exactly do you plan to decrease the world’s population? By the US decreasing it’s population. Great. We can decimate US culture and make everything better for the world. Come now!

    We disagree, abortion is murder. The “fetus” is a person, and was considered an aborion until 1973. While a fetus is a unique new person, a sperm and egg is not.

    “When a baby is born and can live outside the uterus, then it human – before that it is only potential, like the egg or the sperm, and no more entitled to rights than those are.” Would that be the case 5 minutes before the fetus leaves the uterus? How about 10 minutes? And where would youd raw the line? Sorry, it is still human life.

    It is not twisting to question whether a woman’s right to choose should apply to infanticide. Prior to 1972, there was no “right” to abortion. Prior to 5 years ago, there was no “right” to sodomy in much of this country. More than 2 years ago, there wad no “right” to homosexual marriage. And now polygamy and pediphiles claim that should be given this “right.”
    “It’s almost amusing… You won’t convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you by using such clumsy tactics.” See, another thing we agree on.

    “People who don’t agree with you aren’t that stupid.” I agree again. They are either ignorant, incompetent, or disingenouous.

    “That was exactly MY point, that ideas need to be judged on their own merit, regardless of who holds them.” We agree again.

    While I do not agree with your position that we should not provide deductions for children, I appreciate that you are honest about your position.

    You contend that you do not support mandated population control or removing personal rights. If not, your discussion is largely academic. There has not been any restriction on abortion for 35 years (except for the Partial Birth Abortion Act), yet the population is continuing to grow.

    While you contend that you would support a candidate that you agreed with 60-80% of the time, you fail to answer my question as whether you would support a candidate who favored terrorism, but agreed with you on ALL other issues. You probably would not, because you would strongly object to that single item. Few would accuse you of being a single issue candidate, but abortion is a similar issue for me.

    All I see as ad hominem attacks are from you. How about “a concept that you are apparently not familiar with. Balance, that’s how it’s spelled, look it up.” ” You won’t convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you by using such clumsy tactics. People who don’t agree with you aren’t that stupid.” “I’m sorry you have such trouble with reading comprehension” “Seriously, two words – reading comprehension. Work on it.” “Only someone devoid of independent thought could ever agree 100% with someone else. Is that what you do?” THESE are ad hominem attacks.

  • Whoozywhatzit

    Wow, genennene, you’re just batting a big old zero, aren’t you? You accuse Gullwatcher of making ad hominem attacks, then list a bunch of stuff that isn’t even close to ad hominem attacks. FYI – An ad hominem attack is when you attack an idea because of its source (eugenics is bad because Hitler supported it or birth control is bad because Margaret Sanger who supported eugenics also supports birth control are classic examples) rather than because of how good the idea is by itself. Those things you quoted are insults, but not even close to ad hominem attacks. You should look up words you don’t know, but it’s easy to see your pattern of trying to mirror back what other people say at them, so maybe that mistake is just part of you being an imitator rather than an original thinker. You try to twist people’s words against them, but you aren’t very good at it. Borrowing other people’s words and misusing them just makes you look stupider.

    There was another big mistake in what you wrote, too. You said population control couldn’t be achieved without mandating it, but you also talked about population dropping in Europe without anyone forcing it to, so it can be done without mandates. A major logic fail on your part, one of many.

    Spellchecker wouldn’t hurt you, either, but nothing can help your ideas. You are one seriously stupid troll, which is why no one else is responding to you anymore. I only did because I wanted to point out the ad hominem idiocy.

    One and done.

  • genennene

    Whoozywhatzit,

    ad hominem-”attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.” As to the example you gave, “eugenics is bad because Hitler supported it or birth control is bad because Margaret Sanger who supported eugenics” are problematic for you, because they are an attack on an opponent, but do not address the truth. Sorry, I know what the word means–Latin for “to the man.”

    An example of an ad hominem attack would be “Borrowing other people’s words and misusing them just makes you look stupider,” or “You are one seriously stupid trol” contextual definitions of an ad hominem attack.

    Your next position is not ad hominem. And you make a valid point. The replacement level in Europe is less than 2.0 children. A country has to have a 2.1 level to have replacement. So, you are right in this regard. And that is for those who believe I cannot acknowledge an argument of another.

    That being said, population increases are not a problem. World population has continued to increase. Partial Birth abortion limitations have only occurred in the last two years, and protect a small number of abortions. Since 1973, over 50 million abortions have occurred in the US alone, which would make a substanial difference to US population. The only thing that allows for US population to increase are the illegal aliens entering the US, increasing the population here.

    There is choice in Europe to decrease populaton, but it has been a horrific situation in countries such as Italy. Countries are looking at proposing incentives for population increases, because we are potentially looking at the end of Western civilization, which does matter. We would be talking about the loss of the very freedom that Gullwatcher spoke of. No one can truly contend that Middle Eastern countries maintain a sense of freedom, including women’s rights, found in the West.

    But beyond this, there still is no proof that population increases have resulted in the dire consequences referred to by Gullwatcher.

    No one is responding to my any longer because they have shown not to have the ability to satifactorily defend their positions or to defend against mine.

  • Rossy

    I’ve never, ever used the term “anti-choice” in place of “pro-life.” But I think I may start, because that is really funny.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X