Sarah Palin Knocks it Out of the Park

[qaddisin]

This is what makes liberals, assholes.

Oh, I fully admit that I'm an asshole, bastard, and most other epithets you might try to level at me. And I really don't give a fuck. But if you think I'm a liberal because I don't agree with your hatred of immigrants, you really are fucking myopic. Limiting yourself to a conservative/liberal ideology does you and the country a great disservice. I vote for the people that I think will do the most amount of good for the place that I live, and nowadays that is no easy task.

But from what I've seen of your posts, you hate and fear anyone or anything that doesn't fall into lockstep with your philosophy. I wouldn't be surprised to see in the news about a man in southwest Texas going on a killing spree to rid the world of "those fucking elitist, science-based liberals that are ruining the country for us real, hard-working Americans".

[Yorkshire pud]

Oh, I fully admit that I'm an asshole, bastard, and most other epithets you might try to level at me. And I really don't give a fuck. But if you think I'm a liberal because I don't agree with your hatred of immigrants, you really are fucking myopic. Limiting yourself to a conservative/liberal ideology does you and the country a great disservice. I vote for the people that I think will do the most amount of good for the place that I live, and nowadays that is no easy task.

But from what I've seen of your posts, you hate and fear anyone or anything that doesn't fall into lockstep with your philosophy. I wouldn't be surprised to see in the news about a man in southwest Texas going on a killing spree to rid the world of "those fucking elitist, science-based liberals that are ruining the country for us real, hard-working Americans".

Your post will confuse him. He won 't know if he should go in a killing spree to rid the world of fucking liberals or help pregnant women to come to terms with an unwanted pregnancy. My guess is the former.

[albrecht]

Because people like you are so good at whining about their money going to support poor people and other "undesirables", but don't bother to take an honest look at where their tax money really goes. Do I like everything the government does? Not by a long shot. But I'd rather my tax money go to feeding and sheltering people than corporate welfare and a bloated defense budget (it's easy to find what your tax dollars are really funding). But I can't embrace your cognitive dissonance of "save the fetuses because it's murder" but then once they're born, you have absolutely no interest in helping to take care of them, because their birthing units should have known better. And don't sit here and cry about the sanctity of life, when you would just as soon see every immigrant burned at the stake because they might be in the country illegally. It's disingenuous.

And I support abortion not because it's about "eugenics" or whatever conspiracy theory you're trying to sell me this week. I support a woman's right to determine what she does with her body. I believe in bodily autonomy. No one can force me to give blood or organs to someone that may need it to survive, even after my death. I believe women have that same right to their bodies in the event of a pregnancy they don't want. Once again, your cognitive dissonance of "the government can't tell me what do to" but "we want to be able to tell people what to do with their bodies" is absolutely fascinating.

Women have the "right to their body" but it is ok, even good, to kill a baby because it is a female  ? Or to presume that women don't have the ability, rationality, or sensibility to use contraception, abstain from sex, be responsible for their actions, or raise a child? 
I would suggest reading up on Sanger and her (and other eugenic theories) don't too long ago, speaking of the "rights of women," certain women would forcibly sterilized etc due to their theories.

[Quick Karl]

...don't have the ability, rationality, or sensibility to use contraception, abstain from sex, be responsible for their actions, or raise a child? 

You just described the characteristics of the people that support the wanton mass murder of humans in the womb.

Therefore, reason, is pointless, because rocks are better equipped, cognitively and intellectually, to comprehend the argument.

Better that society condone murder on a mass scale, call it something else, diminish the value of human life to that of livestock (especially in the black communities wherein Planned Murderhood earns its greatest profits), to the point wherein doin' a drive-by or killin' a Niggah for his sneakers, it just another part of life in the human jungle.

And we're not supposed to belittle these people either, or they might get hormonal and cry...

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

You just described the characteristics of the people that support the wanton mass murder of humans in the womb.

Therefore, reason, is pointless, because rocks are better equipped, cognitively and intellectually, to comprehend the argument.

Better that society condone murder on a mass scale, call it something else, diminish the value of human life to that of livestock (especially in the black communities wherein Planned Murderhood earns its greatest profits), to the point wherein doin' a drive-by or killin' a Niggah for his sneakers, it just another part of life in the human jungle.

And we're not supposed to belittle these people either, or they might get hormonal and cry...

[Quick Karl]

The irrationality of demanding that a baker bake a cake for someone they "do not want to" bake a cake for juxtaposed against the argument condoning the murder of an unborn child because the mother "does not want it" is astounding.

[Dr.Pepper]

The irrationality of demanding that a baker bake a cake for someone they "do not want to" bake a cake for juxtaposed against the argument condoning the murder of an unborn child because the mother "does not want it" is astounding.

Am I missing something? 

I re-read this thread a couple times trying to find someone talking about cakes and bakers, I didn't find anything. 

What are you talking about?

[Dr.Pepper]

My anti-abortion stance is that it is the murder of unborn children.

And is that a faith based opinion then?

[Claudius]

Women have the "right to their body" but it is ok, even good, to kill a baby because it is a female  ? Or to presume that women don't have the ability, rationality, or sensibility to use contraception, abstain from sex, be responsible for their actions, or raise a child? 
I would suggest reading up on Sanger and her (and other eugenic theories) don't too long ago, speaking of the "rights of women," certain women would forcibly sterilized etc due to their theories.

I'm honestly a bit confused with your stance. You claim that those who wish to allow women to have the option of having an abortion assume that women are too stupid to do anything else but have an abortion. But aren't those who say abortion is immoral or murder actually claiming that. You claim that women shouldn't have the right to do what they want with their body (really before then second trimester) but why is that? Let's leave aside the debate over if it's murder or whatnot, are women too irrational or downright inferior intellectually to be able to make the tough choice of having an abortion? Also you act as though this has no effect on the woman who has the abortion, it's actually quite upsetting for some time, but is it better that the child be raised in terrible conditions, or be thrown in a dumpster or plopped at an adoption centre? I'm not attacking you, I'm simply curious how you rationalize restricting a women's choice if we set aside the "it's murder" part.

[Quick Karl]

And is that a faith based opinion then?

It is a logic based fact.

[Yorkshire pud]

It is a logic based fact.

Hmmm, but clouded by you being a misogynist; something you left out.

[qaddisin]

Women have the "right to their body" but it is ok, even good, to kill a baby because it is a female  ? Or to presume that women don't have the ability, rationality, or sensibility to use contraception, abstain from sex, be responsible for their actions, or raise a child? 
I would suggest reading up on Sanger and her (and other eugenic theories) don't too long ago, speaking of the "rights of women," certain women would forcibly sterilized etc due to their theories.

I'm familiar with Sanger and her "theories" as you call them, what I said is that I'm not buying what you're selling. And by the way you sound, can I infer that you're a casual misogynist as well as a casual racist?

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

It is a logic based fact.

Facts are not logic based.  They are evidence based.  Perhaps this is the basic source of the misconceptions in many of your posts.  From your simple statement it is possible you are equating your (highly) subjective boolean arguments to logic, and then equating that subjective logic to objective truth, which would be a contradiction in terms.

[Yorkshire pud]

Facts are not logic based.  They are evidence based.  Perhaps this is the basic source of the misconceptions in many of your posts.  From your simple statement it is possible you are equating your (highly) subjective boolean arguments to logic, and then equating that subjective logic to objective truth, which would be a contradiction in terms.

You know he'll need to borrow a thesaurus for 60% of that don't you?

[onan]

Life is sacred. wanna duel?

[albrecht]

I'm honestly a bit confused with your stance. You claim that those who wish to allow women to have the option of having an abortion assume that women are too stupid to do anything else but have an abortion. But aren't those who say abortion is immoral or murder actually claiming that. You claim that women shouldn't have the right to do what they want with their body (really before then second trimester) but why is that? Let's leave aside the debate over if it's murder or whatnot, are women too irrational or downright inferior intellectually to be able to make the tough choice of having an abortion? Also you act as though this has no effect on the woman who has the abortion, it's actually quite upsetting for some time, but is it better that the child be raised in terrible conditions, or be thrown in a dumpster or plopped at an adoption centre? I'm not attacking you, I'm simply curious how you rationalize restricting a women's choice if we set aside the "it's murder" part.

I'm saying that the eugenicists seem to think that women, especially if black or poor, cannot act logically or in their self-interest. Leaving rape aside a logical person would not get pregnant without planning and will to have a child or would use contraception, morning after pills, or even get their tubes tied (or change their sexual behavior) to avoid pregnancy.

I also wonder why if a baby is inside a women it is ok to kill but as soon as it leaves it is not? The eugenicists should take their argument to the logical conclusion (as was done in some societies): just kill the undesirables in society (call it post-birth abortion) or sterilize all (female but also the males, who are the real problem in unwanted pregnancies, rape, etc,) minorities, retards, and poor people. Sure there would be no organs or tissues to sell for profit in the latter case but it would "save" society much money otherwise.

Knowing some adopted people I know they would've rather that their head crushed and organs for profit. (I'm sure some might, as people, sadly, adopted or not commit suicide or wish they were dead everyday but I would venture that "most" people who were a product of an unwanted, accidental pregnancy don't regret being born and might have even contributed to society.) People can do what they wish with their body but when it impacts others is when society desires to have some control/law.

[Jackstar]

are women too irrational or downright inferior intellectually to be able to make the tough choice

[Quick Karl]

Facts are not logic based.

Logic is what one uses to evaluate evidence that supports facts, moron. Without logic, people arrive at conclusions that are projections of their irrational illusions; i.e. forcing a baker to bake a cake for someone that he or she "does not want to" while insisting that murdering unborn children because someone "does not want it", is just peachy!

[Yorkshire pud]

Logic is what one uses to evaluate evidence that supports facts, moron. Without logic, people arrive at conclusions that are projections of their irrational illusions; i.e. forcing a baker to bake a cake for someone that he or she "does not want to" while insisting that murdering unborn children because someone "does not want it", is just peachy!

Shhhhh, go and play...You're disturbing the grown ups.

[Claudius]

I'm saying that the eugenicists seem to think that women, especially if black or poor, cannot act logically or in their self-interest. Leaving rape aside a logical person would not get pregnant without planning and will to have a child or would use contraception, morning after pills, or even get their tubes tied (or change their sexual behavior) to avoid pregnancy.

I also wonder why if a baby is inside a women it is ok to kill but as soon as it leaves it is not? The eugenicists should take their argument to the logical conclusion (as was done in some societies): just kill the undesirables in society (call it post-birth abortion) or sterilize all (female but also the males, who are the real problem in unwanted pregnancies, rape, etc,) minorities, retards, and poor people. Sure there would be no organs or tissues to sell for profit in the latter case but it would "save" society much money otherwise.

Knowing some adopted people I know they would've rather that their head crushed and organs for profit. (I'm sure some might, as people, sadly, adopted or not commit suicide or wish they were dead everyday but I would venture that "most" people who were a product of an unwanted, accidental pregnancy don't regret being born and might have even contributed to society.) People can do what they wish with their body but when it impacts others is when society desires to have some control/law.

There is one point you have made that I don't understand. You claim that, "the eugenicists seem to think that women, especially if black or poor, cannot act logically or in their self-interest..." but it is the black or poor person in your choice which will say yea or nay on whether to have an abortion or not. It's not as though Dr. Mengele just down the street is forcing them to have an abortion, they are simply offering them the choice. And how does abortion not apply to those who are better off? Logically if we followed your analysis to its fair conclusion then wouldn't there be significantly fewer numbers of "undesirables in society" then there have been in the past?

And on your point that "a logical person would not get pregnant without planning and will to have a child or would use contraception, morning after pills, or even get their tubes tied (or change their sexual behavior) to avoid pregnancy..." I disagree. A condom could break or be defective, the women could be drunk and not fully understand what is happening, the couple could simply practice unsafe sex (which is quite prevalent amongst teenagers) or they could live in an area in which condoms are difficult to acquire, and logically the morning after pill would be unavailable.

Also using the term  "eugenicists" is misleading and essentially begging the question. It would be like if I refered to all Germans today as Nazi. My reasoning would be as sound as yours would be for people who are pro-choice.
1) At the beginning of the 20th century with the rapid expansion of science people believed that we could control our evolution and shape our future generations.
2) These groups coalesced into what today is referred to as the eugenics movement.
3) One concept which this movement had was controlling births (abortions) in order to create "better" humans.
4) This movement died out by the 1940s
5) Today there are people who want to allow others to perform abortions
6) Because 1-3 was true then 5 must be the same group

1) Near the beginning of the 20th the people of Germany were discontent over their treatment after WW1
2) This radicalized many elements of the German people in far-right parties, which eventually came together as the NSDAP
3) One concept of this political movement was controlling births (abortions) in order to create "better" humans.
4) This movement died out by the 1940s
5) Today there are still Germans who are discontent, and want to perform abortions
6) Because 1-3 was true then 5 must be the same group

[albrecht]

There is one point you have made that I don't understand. You claim that, "the eugenicists seem to think that women, especially if black or poor, cannot act logically or in their self-interest..." but it is the black or poor person in your choice which will say yea or nay on whether to have an abortion or not. It's not as though Dr. Mengele just down the street is forcing them to have an abortion, they are simply offering them the choice. And how does abortion not apply to those who are better off? Logically if we followed your analysis to its fair conclusion then wouldn't there be significantly fewer numbers of "undesirables in society" then there have been in the past?

And on your point that "a logical person would not get pregnant without planning and will to have a child or would use contraception, morning after pills, or even get their tubes tied (or change their sexual behavior) to avoid pregnancy..." I disagree. A condom could break or be defective, the women could be drunk and not fully understand what is happening, the couple could simply practice unsafe sex (which is quite prevalent amongst teenagers) or they could live in an area in which condoms are difficult to acquire, and logically the morning after pill would be unavailable.

Also using the term  "eugenicists" is misleading and essentially begging the question. It would be like if I refered to all Germans today as Nazi. My reasoning would be as sound as yours would be for people who are pro-choice.
1) At the beginning of the 20th century with the rapid expansion of science people believed that we could control our evolution and shape our future generations.
2) These groups coalesced into what today is referred to as the eugenics movement.
3) One concept which this movement had was controlling births (abortions) in order to create "better" humans.
4) This movement died out by the 1940s
5) Today there are people who want to allow others to perform abortions
6) Because 1-3 was true then 5 must be the same group

1) Near the beginning of the 20th the people of Germany were discontent over their treatment after WW1
2) This radicalized many elements of the German people in far-right parties, which eventually came together as the NSDAP
3) One concept of this political movement was controlling births (abortions) in order to create "better" humans.
4) This movement died out by the 1940s
5) Today there are still Germans who are discontent, and want to perform abortions
6) Because 1-3 was true then 5 must be the same group

When they claim fealty to an organization founded by one of those eugenicists, like Sanger, I would argue there is still a link to the past-days of eugenic, and/or racist, theory. One will note that there are zero PP clinics in my neighborhood but if I drive over the black/hispanic, poorer side of town? Wonder why? Why is the money given to various forms of abortion or "family planning" go to 3rd World Countries (I have yet to see a budget where we are giving that type of aide to Norway or Switzerland.)

I guess, one could be a Bushman or Inuit somewhere in the middle of nowhere, but condoms etc are pretty cheap (they give them away know even in many places, like some schools.) And, again, women (and men) should be able to act logically- which would include not "getting drunk and having sex," using various types of protections, having other kinds of sex, etc.

[Claudius]

One will note that there are zero PP clinics in my neighborhood but if I drive over the black/hispanic, poorer side of town? Wonder why? Why is the money given to various forms of abortion or "family planning" go to 3rd World Countries (I have yet to see a budget where we are giving that type of aide to Norway or Switzerland.)

For starters that is just anecdotal evidence for your claim which is not worth much. And even if that was true throughout the country that would make perfect sense. Planned Parenthood is commonly for the poor or others who cannot get the help they need. Why would a wealthy suburbanite go to planned parenthood? They could go to their GP and they would point them toward a physician who specializes in abortions. And I'm not sure you understand how our foreign aid works. We do not give foreign aid (in any real quantity) to wealthier countries as that would be meaningless. Also many of these countries internal ministries request the aid from us so yeah again I'm not seeing how this is all a plot against non-whites and poor people. 

[Quick Karl]

For starters that is just anecdotal evidence for your claim which is not worth much. And even if that was true throughout the country that would make perfect sense. Planned Parenthood is commonly for the poor or others who cannot get the help they need. Why would a wealthy suburbanite go to planned parenthood? They could go to their GP and they would point them toward a physician who specializes in abortions. And I'm not sure you understand how our foreign aid works. We do not give foreign aid (in any real quantity) to wealthier countries as that would be meaningless. Also many of these countries internal ministries request the aid from us so yeah again I'm not seeing how this is all a plot against non-whites and poor people.

So, being poor and not white makes you irresponsible, and that is ok, but being white makes you a racist?

[Jackstar]

So, being poor and not white makes you irresponsible, and that is ok, but being white makes you a racist?

I am pretty sure that categorizing individuals based on their skin color is what makes one a racist. Further flags fly.

[Claudius]

So, being poor and not white makes you irresponsible, and that is ok, but being white makes you a racist?

Not sure if troll or serious?
I wish that statement made sense. If one has access to contraceptives, the morning after pill etc. and they fully choose to engage in unprotected sex and get pregnant then yes they are being irresponsible whether they be black, Asian, white or whatever that makes no difference, and their irresponsibility shouldn't bar them from having an abortion performed. That has nothing to do with the argument at hand. And no, racism is not a culture/genetic specific trait everyone can be and is susceptible to it.

[paladin1991]

There is one point you have made that I don't understand. You claim that, "the eugenicists seem to think that women, especially if black or poor, cannot act logically or in their self-interest..." but it is the black or poor person in your choice which will say yea or nay on whether to have an abortion or not. It's not as though Dr. Mengele just down the street is forcing them to have an abortion, they are simply offering them the choice. And how does abortion not apply to those who are better off? Logically if we followed your analysis to its fair conclusion then wouldn't there be significantly fewer numbers of "undesirables in society" then there have been in the past?

And on your point that "a logical person would not get pregnant without planning and will to have a child or would use contraception, morning after pills, or even get their tubes tied (or change their sexual behavior) to avoid pregnancy..." I disagree. A condom could break or be defective, the women could be drunk and not fully understand what is happening, the couple could simply practice unsafe sex (which is quite prevalent amongst teenagers) or they could live in an area in which condoms are difficult to acquire, and logically the morning after pill would be unavailable.

Also using the term  "eugenicists" is misleading and essentially begging the question. It would be like if I refered to all Germans today as Nazi. My reasoning would be as sound as yours would be for people who are pro-choice.
1) At the beginning of the 20th century with the rapid expansion of science people believed that we could control our evolution and shape our future generations.
2) These groups coalesced into what today is referred to as the eugenics movement.
3) One concept which this movement had was controlling births (abortions) in order to create "better" humans.
4) This movement died out by the 1940s
5) Today there are people who want to allow others to perform abortions
6) Because 1-3 was true then 5 must be the same group

1) Near the beginning of the 20th the people of Germany were discontent over their treatment after WW1
2) This radicalized many elements of the German people in far-right parties, which eventually came together as the NSDAP
3) One concept of this political movement was controlling births (abortions) in order to create "better" humans.
4) This movement died out by the 1940s
5) Today there are still Germans who are discontent, and want to perform abortions
6) Because 1-3 was true then 5 must be the same group

Okay, let me try to figure this out,  One and three, five.  They're all odd numbers?  Do I get a cookie?

[Claudius]

Okay, let me try to figure this out,  One and three, five.  They're all odd numbers?  Do I get a cookie?

No, but it confirms the NWO

[paladin1991]

No, but it confirms the NWO

Bastards!