TOTALLY GEEKED!

ed11563 wrote:

---

Why do people support Off Track Betting and State Lotteries, when these clearly siphon money from the poor, and others who can't really afford it?

 

It's a "voluntary tax", people are choosing to pay.

 

If abortion in the United States is genocide, since a lot of the babies would have been members of racial minorities,

 

it's voluntary. Still voluntary.

 

---

 Bull fvcking sh!t.  The babies who get killed aren't volunteering.  

ed11563 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

ed11563 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Well, how would not killing those 6 million jews make the world a better place? I mean, we still live in a pretty great world right. They really werent needed to carry on humanity...

---

 Oh, sure, you're clearly serious here ...

 

By the way, in 1930 the world population included about 10 million Jews.

In 1945 it was 4 million.

In 2000, it was back up to about 10 million.

 

 

---

 So it really didn't make a difference in the long run, right? That's what you are saying...

---

Considering the percentage of Nobel prized awarded to Jews, the number of medical break-throughs achieved by Jewish doctors, the possibility that the Nazis killed the next 6 geniuses who might have cured cancer or diabetes or heart disease, 

There's no way to calculate the damage wreaked on Humanity by the Holocaust.

 

You may now stop putting words in my mouth. Thank you.

 

 

---

There is a higher probability that dozens of possible Nobel Prize winners were aborted, you know.

So, by your same logic, there is no way to calculate the damage wreaked on humanity by the New Holocaust. 

Again, "these ghetto girls" are a small percentage of the ones getting abortions.

www.abortionfacts.com/facts/6

A small snippet...

"What if the mother can't afford a child?
Abortion advocates often argue that it is acceptable for a woman to abort her pregnancy if she cannot afford to raise a child. While they are careful to use noble and compassionate language, they are essentially arguing that if a baby is going to be too expensive, the mother has a right to kill it. Such rationale falls apart on many levels, but we'll start with the most fundamental. Like so many abortion arguments, this one assumes something about the unborn embryo or fetus that it hasn't proved. It assumes, in fact, the very thing that it must prove before the argument can hold any water.

Isn't it true, that there are born-children, today, who are growing up in poverty? Has anyone ever heard someone argue that the mothers of these born-children should have the right to kill them, since they can't afford to raise them? No one makes such an absurd and heartless argument because we all know that no amount of financial hardship is sufficient rationale for killing another human being, particularly an innocent child.

On a practical level, there are more crisis pregnancy care centers in America today than there are abortion providers. They all function to help bring women through their pregnancies by providing them the emotional and financial assistance they need to carry to term and, if need be, place for adoption (which would relieve all future financial obligation). When help is needed, help can be found.

The only reason anyone uses the financial hardship argument to try and justify abortion is because they are assuming that human beings in the womb are qualitatively different from human beings out of the womb. But until abortion advocates can prove this to be so, financial distress can never justify abortion. Poverty is not the issue. The humanity of the unborn child is."


We will never end poverty in our world simply by killing poor children. The baby is not the real problem, the circumstances are. Killing this child will never help address those issues. It often makes it worse. A poor mother is still poor the day after her child is aborted. Only now she’s the mother of a dead baby.