The "I *Heart* Eugenics" Thread - Page 2 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

alexamenos · 05-14-2009, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

If I remove a booger from my nose, should it matter whether I do it because I hate boogers or because I hate women?

i think it depends upon whether you normally eat your boogers and whether you normally eat....

....well.....

nevermind.

alexamenos · 05-14-2009, 04:36 PM

another way of framing this....

...is it wrong to abort a girl? No, at least not as long as the mom is non-discriminating and willing to abort the baby if it is going to be a boy as well.

Hence, the 'unethical' element of killing the girl is not so much in killing the girl but in willingness to let the boy live.

this is absurd, of course, and why I say that logic of abortion inexorably leads to eugenics.

Mavdog · 05-14-2009, 05:18 PM

Dalmations, I'm not the one promoting an answer. you are.

chumdawg · 05-14-2009, 05:38 PM

I think it's pretty easy to draw the logical line of distinction you guys are talking around here.

In the case of aborting a healthy fetus, with no consideration given to gender, the mother makes the decision that she herself is unfit or unwilling to be a mother--to that child, or to ANY child.

In the case where the fetus is aborted for its gender, the mother is fit and willing to be a mother of a child, just not THAT child.

DirkFTW · 05-14-2009, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think it's pretty easy to draw the logical line of distinction you guys are talking around here.

In the case of aborting a healthy fetus, with no consideration given to gender, the mother makes the decision that she herself is unfit or unwilling to be a mother--to that child, or to ANY child.

In the case where the fetus is aborted for its gender, the mother is fit and willing to be a mother of a child, just not THAT child.

In the case of rape, I'm inclined to believe the woman is thinking not THAT child.

Underdog · 05-14-2009, 06:12 PM

Why abort a fetus?

Babies taste a lot better after they put more meat on...

alexamenos · 05-14-2009, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underdog

Why abort a fetus?

Babies taste a lot better after they put more meat on...

i don't know....have you ever tried a roasted first trimie with a little tobasco? kinda like veil.

alexamenos · 07-19-2009, 12:17 PM

I think that Ginsberg woman is getting taken to task a bit too much for her statement:

Quote:

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of...

She isn't necessarily saying that she supported using abortion to restrict the growth of populations that 'we don't want to have too many of', but instead she's saying that this was her perception at the time.

I think there was something to her perception -- she's a smart woman who was certainly tuned in to a lot of progressive arguments of the time, and if she perceived that part of the momentum behind abortion-love was a desire to control populations of people that 'we don't want to have too many of' then there was almost certainly quite a bit of reality behind that perception.

chumdawg · 07-19-2009, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I think that Ginsberg woman is getting taken to task a bit too much for her statement:

She isn't necessarily saying that she supported using abortion to restrict the growth of populations that 'we don't want to have too many of', but instead she's saying that this was her perception at the time.

I think there was something to her perception -- she's a smart woman who was certainly tuned in to a lot of progressive arguments of the time, and if she perceived that part of the momentum behind abortion-love was a desire to control populations of people that 'we don't want to have too many of' then there was almost certainly quite a bit of reality behind that perception.

She's also saying that she was wrong.

alexamenos · 02-08-2010, 12:43 PM

Somebody explain to me how this ad is so horribly hateful and offensive.

Quote:

Terry O'Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women, said she had respect for the private choices made by women such as Pam Tebow but condemned the planned ad as "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning."

"Extraordinarily offensive and demeaning"???? Huh?

When I watch this ad I see a mother saying that although bearing and raising her child was difficult, she's extremely glad she did it....and then I see her son jump on top of her in a scene which suggests some sexual tension, but I doubt it's the oedipal overtones that sent the lunatic, unhinged abortion-loving camp into a tizzy.

It's the obvious subtext that momma Tebow's choice was a good choice (and that futures givers-of-life might think about before having their fetus ripped from their womb) that infuriates the abortion lovers.

I suspect, and I think it's a fair suspicion, that there are more than a few women who regret the choice they made so they could fit into a prom-dress or continue to climb mid-way up some meaningless corporate ladder. These women are plausibly living with their cats and eating their Ben & Jerry's and trying very, very hard not to wonder what life might be like had they not paid someone to kill that little thing inside of them that today would be their very grown child.

I think the abortion loving nuts such as those at NOW live in fear of women being confronted with the question of 'what might have been?' and especially with expressing regret over their choices. It's not choice the lovers of abortion are interested in preserving for women so much as it is abortion....they want women choosing abortion and anything that threatens this is bad, in their very demented view.

kg_veteran · 02-08-2010, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Somebody explain to me how this ad is so horribly hateful and offensive.

"Extraordinarily offensive and demeaning"???? Huh?

When I watch this ad I see a mother saying that although bearing and raising her child was difficult, she's extremely glad she did it....and then I see her son jump on top of her in a scene which suggests some sexual tension, but I doubt it's the oedipal overtones that sent the lunatic, unhinged abortion-loving camp into a tizzy.

It's the obvious subtext that momma Tebow's choice was a good choice (and that futures givers-of-life might think about before having their fetus ripped from their womb) that infuriates the abortion lovers.

I suspect, and I think it's a fair suspicion, that there are more than a few women who regret the choice they made so they could fit into a prom-dress or continue to climb mid-way up some meaningless corporate ladder. These women are plausibly living with their cats and eating their Ben & Jerry's and trying very, very hard not to wonder what life might be like had they not paid someone to kill that little thing inside of them that today would be their very grown child.

I think the abortion loving nuts such as those at NOW live in fear of women being confronted with the question of 'what might have been?' and especially with expressing regret over their choices. It's not choice the lovers of abortion are interested in preserving for women so much as it is abortion....they want women choosing abortion and anything that threatens this is bad, in their very demented view.

There wasn't anything offensive or demeaning about the ad, and you hit the nail on the head. "What might have been?" is the question that they don't ever want asked.

alexamenos · 02-08-2010, 02:34 PM

yeah....

Most (not most, make that all) of the stats I've seen on the "why's" suggest that an overwhelming majority of women who choose to kill their babies do so as a matter of expediency...not because of rape or incest or health but instead because their lives in the short run will be more convenient without than with a baby.

I don't doubt that alot of those women are hitting their 40's and 50's and thinking maybe they would be better off had they endured the hardship then.

92bDad · 02-09-2010, 08:35 AM

Abortion...looks like "_____ Guilt" only works when it gets "Progressives" votes...otherwise it's offensive.

FreshJive · 02-09-2010, 11:29 AM

This one's even worse from Terry O'Neill:
"I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it," she said. "That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself."

fake tackling = celebration of violence against women

kg_veteran · 02-09-2010, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreshJive

This one's even worse from Terry O'Neill:
"I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it," she said. "That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself."

fake tackling = celebration of violence against women

Domestic violence? Some people just take themselves way too seriously.

alexamenos · 02-09-2010, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Domestic violence? Some people just take themselves way too seriously.

This was actually the direction I was initially headed with my first post on the subject yesterday....the extent to which the Terry o'Neill's & NOW's of the world are just completely unhinged. They're disconnected from reality...they're pathologically incapable of viewing women as anything other than victims in need of abortions and men as rapists and they interpret everything they see through this filter.

She says it herself:

Quote:

I myself am a survivor of domestic violence...

It's like she projects her own experiences onto healthy relationships and healthy sentiments.

kg_veteran · 02-09-2010, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

It's like she projects her own experiences onto healthy relationships and healthy sentiments.

Bingo.

alexamenos · 02-09-2010, 12:35 PM

and of course...

Quote:

That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message

They're not pro-choice, they're abortion lovers.

FINtastic · 02-09-2010, 08:32 PM

I wonder if that commercial got scaled back due to the controversy. I don't know one way or another, but I am curious about that.

If that was the commercial they were planning on running all along, then I think the biggest irony of the whole deal was the fact that no one would have known what the commercial was really advertising if the pro-choice activists hadn't made a big fuss. Because the commercial itself was completely innocuous. By trying to keep the Tebows from getting a platform, they failed to do so and ultimately gave them a megaphone to go along with that platform.

alexamenos · 02-10-2010, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FINtastic

If that was the commercial they were planning on running all along, then I think the biggest irony of the whole deal was the fact that no one would have known what the commercial was really advertising if the pro-choice activists hadn't made a big fuss.

I very seriously doubt that the NOWs ever saw the commercial -- the second they heard "Focus on the Family" and "Tebow" they went into their fit of hysteria.

ribosoma · 02-10-2010, 02:42 PM

The Wit and Wisdom of Sir Francis Galton

alexamenos · 02-10-2010, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ribosoma

The Wit and Wisdom of Sir Francis Galton

Planned Parenthood's Mission Statement:

Quote:

This is precisely the aim of Eugenics. Its first object is to check the birth-rate of the Unfit, instead of allowing them to come into being...Sir Francis Galton

bobatundi · 02-27-2010, 02:14 AM

so here's the thing.

i don't agree with you "conservatives" on whether abortion should be legal or not. never will. no amount of rhetoric on your side will ever convince me that the government should be allowed to decide what a woman does to her own body.

but that aside: the problem I have with you so-called "conservatives" is this notion that you're all about small government, letting the states decide...unless, of course, that isn't aligned with your own personal belief system.

True "conservatism" is all about a small federal government, about letting the states decide everything that's not in the constitution. (Don't get me started on all the reasons why something written 200+ years ago might not be relevant today.) If so, then fine--let the states make their own laws. Then let everyone with a brain move to places that value personal liberties and take care of their neighbors; and everyone with half a brain (or less) can move to Texas.

Other than the Mavs, there ain't a god damn thing I miss about that god forsaken state.

Usually Lurkin · 02-27-2010, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobatundi

so here's the thing.

i don't agree with you "conservatives" on whether abortion should be legal or not. never will. no amount of rhetoric on your side will ever convince me that the government should be allowed to decide what a woman does to her own body.

It's not her own body she's killing.
And the federal government is there to protect the rights to life, liberty, etc. However stale the paper might be that that's written on, and however little the federal government should be doing, it should be doing that.

dude1394 · 02-27-2010, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobatundi

so here's the thing.

i don't agree with you "conservatives" on whether abortion should be legal or not. never will. no amount of rhetoric on your side will ever convince me that the government should be allowed to decide what a woman does to her own body.

but that aside: the problem I have with you so-called "conservatives" is this notion that you're all about small government, letting the states decide...unless, of course, that isn't aligned with your own personal belief system.

True "conservatism" is all about a small federal government, about letting the states decide everything that's not in the constitution. (Don't get me started on all the reasons why something written 200+ years ago might not be relevant today.) If so, then fine--let the states make their own laws. Then let everyone with a brain move to places that value personal liberties and take care of their neighbors; and everyone with half a brain (or less) can move to Texas.

Other than the Mavs, there ain't a god damn thing I miss about that god forsaken state.

Whatever. I'm not adamantly opposed to abortion but if you are not able to see some shades of gray in allowing a woman to terminate an 9 month old baby then you are much,much more closed minded than anyone in texas is. I know you'll say "huff,huff, the government doesn't allow women to do this" which completely goes against your assertion that the guvment shouldn't be allowed to enact any laws with respect to a womans body. But I expect you'll casually blow that off because it's not on your political side of the fence.

What is sad is that you somehow don't realize that an onorous guvment (say CA or NY) trods all over peoples personal liberties everyday and will continue and continue to do so, while the folks in smaller government states will continue to have more freedom. Especially freedom from folks like yourself trying to force their political views down their throats.

bobatundi · 02-27-2010, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Whatever. I'm not adamantly opposed to abortion but if you are not able to see some shades of gray in allowing a woman to terminate an 9 month old baby then you are much,much more closed minded than anyone in texas is. I know you'll say "huff,huff, the government doesn't allow women to do this" which completely goes against your assertion that the guvment shouldn't be allowed to enact any laws with respect to a womans body. But I expect you'll casually blow that off because it's not on your political side of the fence.

What is sad is that you somehow don't realize that an onorous guvment (say CA or NY) trods all over peoples personal liberties everyday and will continue and continue to do so, while the folks in smaller government states will continue to have more freedom. Especially freedom from folks like yourself trying to force their political views down their throats.

I lived in Texas for ten years, and chose to move to New York. You say "onorous," I say "education."

mcsluggo · 03-01-2010, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Whatever. I'm not adamantly opposed to abortion but if you are not able to see some shades of gray in allowing a woman to terminate an 9 month old baby then you are much,much more closed minded than anyone in texas is. I know you'll say "huff,huff, the government doesn't allow women to do this" which completely goes against your assertion that the guvment shouldn't be allowed to enact any laws with respect to a womans body. But I expect you'll casually blow that off because it's not on your political side of the fence.

What is sad is that you somehow don't realize that an onorous guvment (say CA or NY) trods all over peoples personal liberties everyday and will continue and continue to do so, while the folks in smaller government states will continue to have more freedom. Especially freedom from folks like yourself trying to force their political views down their throats.

wow!! Dude (of all people) pulling out the shades of gray analysis. I like it!

dude1394 · 02-27-2010, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobatundi

Other than the Mavs, there ain't a god damn thing I miss about that god forsaken state.

Strange turn of phrase here actually, since I'm quite sure that the states you are holding up as models are much,much more god-forsaken than texas.

bobatundi · 02-27-2010, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Strange turn of phrase here actually, since I'm quite sure that the states you are holding up as models are much,much more god-forsaken than texas.

it's called sarcasm. there's no such thing as god.

dude1394 · 02-27-2010, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobatundi

it's called sarcasm. there's no such thing as god.

Ah gotcha.

alexamenos · 02-27-2010, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobatundi

the problem I have with you so-called "conservatives" is this notion that you're all about small government, letting the states decide...unless, of course, that isn't aligned with your own personal belief system.

True "conservatism" is all about a small federal government, about letting the states decide everything that's not in the constitution. (Don't get me started on all the reasons why something written 200+ years ago might not be relevant today.) If so, then fine--let the states make their own laws.

FWIW...the idea that abortion isn't the Federal Government's business and that states should make the laws in this regard is a very, very common position in conservative and anti-abortion circles. I submit your "problem" here is as much a matter of ignorance on your part as it is alleged hypocrisy on the part of conservatives.

Dirkadirkastan · 02-27-2010, 04:45 AM

Conservatives equate abortion with murder; liberals equate abortion with tattoos and piercings.

More or less.

alexamenos · 03-09-2010, 04:43 PM

Killing baby girls all over the world....

The worldwide war on baby girls

Quote:

Until the 1980s people in poor countries could do little about this preference: before birth, nature took its course. But in that decade, ultrasound scanning and other methods of detecting the sex of a child before birth began to make their appearance. These technologies changed everything. Doctors in India started advertising ultrasound scans with the slogan “Pay 5,000 rupees ($110) today and save 50,000 rupees tomorrow” (the saving was on the cost of a daughter’s dowry). Parents who wanted a son, but balked at killing baby daughters, chose abortion in their millions.

So billions of baby soon-to-be-girls are being killed because their parents prefer fetuses with penises....

....but that's momma's choice, ain't it?