Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm talking about his economic policy.Moron.
These are not the only two options.
Moron.
1. Reported.
2. You clearly didn't understand how my statement is still quite valid to what you just said. Go back and read it again.
I actually typed up a long reply as to why you didn't understand at all, economically, how my reply was quite fitting. I deleted because you're just trolling and definitely do not deserve any type of legitimate intellectual discussion.
1. You're reporting me calling you a moron. **** me.
2. I meant to say mormon. ermmhappy
3. If he lets it up for the state to decide, then it's obvious Massachusetts, Rhode Island, California etc. would legalise it, and of course, a lot of poor people there would have abortions because they have no money.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Considering the whole world is in debt and a lot of people are dying and increasingly getting poorer whilst the rich are getting richer, I don't know how you can claim this system works.
It does though, it has for ages, and, at least in the US, on average people live so, so much better than 150 years ago. You like to only claim that on scientific progress, but the fact is that so much of the scientific progress we had in the last 200 years was completely fueled by people's desire to make money.
Originally posted by lord xyz
You already admitted that being poor is the main cause of abortion...so again, I don't know how you can claim it works.
I am not saying it's an utopia, but it obviously works, so what if there's abortions, where does it say that a system that works is defined by there not being abortions. Would there be no abortions in your system? Would they be illegal or would you magically get everyone to want to have babies?
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, my system is using the scientific method to satisfy human needs, not giving them a dollar when they do what you tell them, so they can buy what you advertise for them.
Then state it, outline it, show how you can solve the problems we can find with it, show how it can work right now. Lets level the playing field, it's easy to poke holes into systems (even ones that, on the whole, work, like the one we have for example), so lets give us a chance to destroy your system.
From the overconfidence in Robotics as they are right now, to the naivety towards the wants and urges of humans, it is obvious that the little glimpses of the system you supported have huge, gaping flaws that make it completely removed from reality, so either put up or shut up.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Considering the whole world is in debt and a lot of people are dying and increasingly getting poorer whilst the rich are getting richer, I don't know how you can claim this system works.You already admitted that being poor is the main cause of abortion...so again, I don't know how you can claim it works.
Yeah, my system is using the scientific method to satisfy human needs, not giving them a dollar when they do what you tell them, so they can buy what you advertise for them.
Moron babble.
Simplistic moron babble.
Epic idealist moron babble.
This thread is just stupid.
So a woman used IVF to get pregnant and it caused two fetuses. Twins are considered a high-risk pregnancy. Becoming pregnant at all past the age of 40 is considered very high-risk. A woman that age giving birth to twins could very well kill all three of them.
She wanted to get pregnant, and wound up pregnant with more than wanted. Who cares? Maybe they don't have the financial means to support two children. Maybe she doesn't feel that she'd be able to keep up with two infants. Maybe she simply just wants one kid. Who the hell cares? Why is it anyone else's business but her own?
This thread is disgusting and the title is very misleading.
Oh, and no, being poor isn't the main cause of abortion, lord xyz. Not wanting to have a child is the main cause of it.
Originally posted by Peach
She wanted to get pregnant, and wound up pregnant with more than wanted. Who cares? Maybe they don't have the financial means to support two children. Maybe she doesn't feel that she'd be able to keep up with two infants. Maybe she simply just wants one kid. Who the hell cares? Why is it anyone else's business but her own?
I totally agree with this.
Originally posted by Peach
She wanted to get pregnant, and wound up pregnant with more than wanted. Who cares? Maybe they don't have the financial means to support two children. Maybe she doesn't feel that she'd be able to keep up with two infants. Maybe she simply just wants one kid. Who the hell cares? Why is it anyone else's business but her own?This thread is disgusting and the title is very misleading.
Article shows the possibility of abortions being used as a form of birth control. Most women who have an abortion do so because they became pregnant due to BC failure, laziness, idiocy, rape etc.; ie they did not wish to become pregnant. This woman did.
IMO, this thread is disgusting; using abortion as a form of birth control is; especially after purposely seeking a pregnancy. Though I doubt this is a common practice.
Originally posted by Bardock42Completely fuelled? Sure, you can believe that, if you want, but you're wrong.
It does though, it has for ages, and, at least in the US, on average people live so, so much better than 150 years ago.You like to only claim that on scientific progress, but the fact is that so much of the scientific progress we had in the last 200 years was completely fueled by people's desire to make money.
Edwin Armstrong, the man who patented FM had a huge impact on people's lives, yet he couldn't compete with AM, due to a lack of money and ended up killing himself. Only after his death did everyone use FM. Nikola Tesler invented wireless technology, but of course couldn't compete with Edison and of course Edison liked making money. In fact, here's a video Edison made to show how dangerous AC was by electrocuting an elephant:
I could go on and on about how money creates greed, rather than incentive, but this is an abortion thread, so I'm just gonna reply to this post as short as possible.
Originally posted by Bardock42You and your sense of humour.
I am not saying it's an utopia, but it obviously works, so what if there's abortions, where does it say that a system that works is defined by there not being abortions. Would there be no abortions in your system? Would they be illegal or would you magically get everyone to want to have babies?
Originally posted by Bardock421/3 of the world is dying of hunger, and you claim that to be a working system.
Then state it, outline it, show how you can solve the problems we can find with it, show how it can work right now. Lets level the playing field, it's easy to poke holes into systems (even ones that, on the whole, work, like the one we have for example), so lets give us a chance to destroy your system.
Originally posted by Bardock42So you're saying we don't have the technology to help all humans on the planet, and human beings don't like to help other human beings.......
From the overconfidence in Robotics as they are right now, to the naivety towards the wants and urges of humans, it is obvious that the little glimpses of the system you supported have huge, gaping flaws that make it completely removed from reality, so either put up or shut up.
Yeah, you got that wrong. Armstrong was ****ed, but FM radio did not get pushed aside, the greedy bastards who ****ed him went on to patent their own FM devices along with securing their hold on AM. FM (TV and Radio) was used heavily while Armstrong was alive, he just didn't get the money for it as his lawsuits on patent rights kept failing in court.
All in all, it was about money/greed and the furthering of technology.
Your elephant ramble didn't make sense considering your premise. Topsy was also killed after the 'War of Currents' was over.
Meh. This thread seems redundant. The title conjures images of women conceiving children for the sole purpose of aborting them. It's a strange and unlikely scenario, but it piqued my interest.
After reading through the article, I doubt we'll see more than standard pro-life/pro-choice arguments. Of course, that is for good reason. The article raises issues that are already covered or available for discussion in our main abortion thread.
As for my stance, Peach and Bardock42 hit the nail on the head.
Originally posted by Bardock42
To me, definitely moral if circumstances changes or unexpected issues arise.Should be legal always.
And I feel like it is nobody's business.
That sums up my feelings.
Her reasoning was basically: "I don't want to spend the time raising two". Which imo, is a weak excuse to perform an abortion, especially after trying hard to get pregnant.
Doubt any laws specific to cases like this would pass.
Agreed, but she made it other people's business when she did the interview. Should have just kept her mouth shut and went about killing one of her twins.
Originally posted by Robtard
Her reasoning was basically: "I don't want to spend the time raising two". Which imo, is a weak excuse to perform an abortion, especially after trying hard to get pregnant.Doubt any laws specific to cases like this would pass.
Agreed, but she made it other people's business when she did the interview. Should have just kept her mouth shut and went about killing one of her twins.
Her reasoning, as stated, was that she did not have the financial means to raise two.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Her reasoning, as stated, was that she did not have the financial means to raise two.
I must have skipped that part, I read the part where she said she didn't want to short-change her other kids or the would-be twins out of "love." Cos it's limited apparently.
But again, she can pay for these costly procedures, but can't pay for diapers? Odd, but okay.
Re: Abortion dystopia #5823: Women deliberately conceiving and then aborting.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex NihiloAlmost as bad as when they try to trap men by lying about the kid or using the kid to extort them.
It's a sad day in hell when even the pro-choicers admit there is something morally wrong with what these women are doing.The woman can pay for thousands of dollars of IVF but not take care of two children. A consumerist lifestyle taking precedence over moral behavior; artificiality of the pregnancy justifying grotesque behavior.
Re: Re: Abortion dystopia #5823: Women deliberately conceiving and then aborting.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Almost as bad as when they try to trap men by lying about the kid or using the kid to extort them.
lol
You don't know how many times I've seen that same story unfold.
It kind of pisses me off when a lady tells me she's stopped taking BC because she wants to get pregnant...and doesn't tell her man. I've seen this only from Mexican females, though. (Yes, Mexicans. Not Puerto Ricans, Columbians, Peruvians, etc. Mexicans.)
Re: Re: Re: Abortion dystopia #5823: Women deliberately conceiving and then aborting.
Originally posted by dadudemonIt's bad when girls who are 16 or 17 do this. I tell men to watch about this because women are sneaky, but some are just too caught up by the genitals to pay attention. It's all a matter of scale. Women will lie about birth control, *will* poke holes in condoms, etc. I always tell guys to use them 100% of the time. I couldn't let a woman take away what I have worked so hard for. No freakin' way. I think guys may be better off in many cases getting fixed and storing the sperm for later, so no ***** decides your future for you. Especially considering how the system screws over men.
lolYou don't know how many times I've seen that same story unfold.
It kind of pisses me off when a lady tells me she's stopped taking BC because she wants to get pregnant...and doesn't tell her man. I've seen this only from Mexican females, though. (Yes, Mexicans. Not Puerto Ricans, Columbians, Peruvians, etc. Mexicans.)
There are the Hispanics or ghetto chicks who brag about getting $200 a month, and then you have the hot gold-diggers who get huge $50 million dollars from men.
It's all legalized prostitution, and don't get me started on alimony. This whole topic gets on my nerves. Women like to act like they don't want to abort because it is "against their morals" when they're out fornicating nonetheless. Then they have no problem aborting when it benefits them, but they won't if they can get a man to pay. I think men should have the same rights as women and be able to opt out. (The abortion should be the woman's choice, but no man should be forced into parenthood). The number of these pregnancies would go down if men weren't forced into it, or if women didn't get money in other ways.
It also proves what I say, we all do what we want for our own benefit, and having kids is a selfish act. People do it to keep men around, to fulfill themselves to fill a void, etc. That doesn't mean they're "evil" for it, because we all act in our own self interest. But it is a selfish act. Especially since we aren't lacking in population.
End rant.