Video: AOC supporter suggests canibilism to fight climate change
- Thread starter Button Pusher
- Start date
- Replies 108
- Views 2,209
so rape victims should be forced to birth a lifelong memoir?
women who find they could likely die from carrying (let alone birthing) should just accept their fate?
good thing you don't make laws.
First of all, congratulations on lapsing once again into the idiotic (and false) canards which invariably spring forth from the pro death crowd, as sure as mosquitoes swarm from stagnant water. These have only been answered about 8 gazillion times, but hey, 0s and 1s are free, so here we go on 8 gazillion and one:
In reverse order:
NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, ANYTIME EVER ANYWHERE advocates forcing someone to carry a baby to term if it will cost their lives. One would think this happens every day, it gets brought up so often, but it is an infinitesimally tiny percentage of pregnancies, so to make a policy of legalized abortion of this is so mostrously boneheaded that even one as verbose as me has a problem finding words to classify it. However, to calm the trembling hearts of all those pro aborts whose deep concern for moms who may die if they bring the baby to term (all 4 of the 398 million!), no one who is pro life is in favor of mandatory delivery in such an exigency. Sheesh.
2) Rape pregnancies are also EXTREMELY rare, but they do happen. I would personally counsel a woman to bring good out of evil, deliver the child and create a positive memory to overwhelm the horror of rape, and know that she gave life to a child, and happiness to parents who would LOVE to raise a baby, no matter how this happened. That would be my COUNSEL, not my dictate. Life is messy, and there are sometimes when there are no perfect options. Would I "allow" it???? ... sigh... probably. Not because I think it is the best option. I really do believe that the one to be punished for the rape should not be the innocent party (the child, who did NOTHING wrong). Rather, the very giving up of your own life (the instinct of motherhood) which OVERWHELMS the selfish act of rape is the best way to reject and "beat" the self centered act of predatory sex. We once had a girl come live in our home for a time whose story was similar.
This is, again, though, typical pro death propaganda, spinning a yarn about some dolorous "product of conception" hung about the poor woman's neck so that it is an eternal flashback to a horror and a violation of her being. It is as mindless as any emotional cant I have seen, and frankly a lie. She will never forget the rape, but she can know that she did choose life over the death which produced the rape. It is a LIE to claim that killing the child will somehow expunge it from her memory. It will either prey more on her memory (knowing that she killed the kid), or it will sear her conscience and wind up making her a feminized version of the monster who raped her.
So, on both counts, the most ardent pro lifers acknowledge that sometimes there are no good choices, and we would always argue that you should TRY to save the child's life, but that sometimes that just is not possible.
Say, did you ever hear the story about the woman who married seven brothers and how things worked out in the afterlife? Your question reminds me of that one.......
did you hear the one about my sister who was raped and impregnated at age 15, and left to die?
i didn't think so. i won't be participating in your brainwashed nonsense any further, simply because you are getting under my skin by talking from a hole between the wrong set of cheeks. if you ever remove your head from that crevice and can see how close minded you are, then perhaps a civil conversation can take place.
If you have to invent your opponent's rhetoric in order to beat their argument, you've already lost.
Did not hear that one, but I know one about a girl serially raped by a variety of men, became pregnant, had a congenital genetic defect, and was told that the child would have a variety of severe defects, and had no support from the guy they determined to be the father. I know lots about that story. Wanna hear about it?
Unless we can start off by declaring that human life has intrinsic value and should be protected instead of extraploating national policy of "my body my choice" from extreme situations, then no civil conversations CAN take place. You are aligning yourself with monsters, whatever situations led you there.
This story is practically identical to that of my wife's Grandmother, who did the right thing and is why my own wife and family are in this world. You don't know the implications of what you're trying to argue. Rape is a despicable crime, but so is murder, and two wrongs don't make a right.
"just" a troll....????? that woman was a MASTER. I would be like the set of Wayne's World, kneeling and bowing saying "we're not worthy" if I ever met her. lol
It is probably my fault.... not that I believe that...., it is just a habit of saying it I have developed over 41 years of marriage
It would appear that the AOC thing was a stunt: https://www.foxnews.com/media/larouche-eat-babies-aoc-town-hall
Of course, coming to us from Sweden, that land of the good-idea-fairy: https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/swedish-scientist-eating-humans-climate-change
Of course, coming to us from Sweden, that land of the good-idea-fairy: https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/swedish-scientist-eating-humans-climate-change
again, i am not going to argue with someone over their views. i do know the implications, and i honestly don't care how you feel. my sister has no regrets.
i suppose you're against the death penalty as well.
Who would have thought we would end up here.
Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk
Not surprised.
random
Well-Known Member
I heard the same.
The thing is, AOC had a chance to shut this line of thinking down, and she didn't.
And it's not all that out there anymore - a couple months ago there was some Swedish (or was it Swiss, don't remember) scientist seriously suggesting cannibalism to combat climate change.
HAHAHAHA!
That actually could have come from work!
Use it...I double-dog-dare you!
Just so I can put it up on my Quote of the Week!
ACKCHYUALLY...
You are correct. Do a little google-fu on the subject. You'll find that NAZI Germany modeled their eugenics program on ours.
Yes...ours.
Google "American eugenics program", "eugenics in the United State", or anything similar and start reading.
If there's ever a shameful history, that's it.
Substance wise, conjecture is right on par with everything else you've argued. Best of luck to you and your sister.
To the topic ....
Professional troll job, really inspiring stuff there.
The Lindbergh you say.
I do know that the idea of "ethnic cleansing" (phrase not used then) was modeled on Andrew Jackson and the Cherokees, and took rhetorical cover under Martin Luther's diatribes against the Jews.
But the point is that you started out mocking the behavior of pro life people based on their views. I understand if you suddenly realize you are over your head and retreat to "I won't discuss this further." Not the first time I have ridden that bull at the rodeo.
Actually, most pro life people are DEFINITELY for the death penalty, and for the same reason...., that is, we believe life is made in the image of God, and the only payment one can make for taking a life, is forfeiting your own. (that is, btw, the biblical rationale in Genesis 6 for the death penalty).
This issue of pro life (abortion) and mocking AOC (which was again, a work of art!!!!) are actually joined at the hip. The only real reason one can be (logically) against eating babies is because human beings have intrinsic value, independent of whether they are "wanted" or how they came to be. I have done quite a bit of thinking and reading on the topic and have never run across a coherent alternative to why humans have value other than they are, as the DOI states "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" that is, we have rights because God gave them to us. If not, then our whole culture is based on bullshit, and our laws are arbitrary and we may as well sweep them away...., enter AOC and her ilk, preceded by the whole abortion culture.... who are also joined at the hip. If we have these rights, then to violate them by abortion is not "my opinion" but rather an assault on the nation, the values which it rests on, and humanity itself.
Just for grins, here is the child that came from a mom who was raped and who had genetic dysfunction. Meet Micah. He came from the womb with a variety of problems (which have admittedly become MORE profound with the introduction of certain vaccines, but the problems were there before).
If I may...
This is a stupid argument. (Please note, I'm not saying YOU'RE stupid, only that the argument is.)
While your earlier comment paid hommage to "the fact that there are times when it's not about convenience", the above statement is a logical fallacy. It's an arguement which essentially states "because of this (insert specific instance), there should be no prohibitions at all against (particular activity)".
This is patently untrue.
Let me put it in other terms:
All killings of human beings by other human beings falls under the term "homicide". However, not all homicides are murder.
Some are in self-defense (a form of "justifiable homicide"). Some are due to accidents. Some are due to negligence (a form of "manslaughter"). And some are due to murder. Killing another person out of "vengence" still falls under "murder", however you choose to view it.
A logical fallacy using these terms would be to say that "because some homicides may be murder, all homicides should be outlawed". This uses a specific circumstantial homicide as an argument to invalidate the legality of all other homicides.
An abortion performed because a pregnancy legitimately threatens the life of the woman IS a form of self-defense.
This is not any different, in my opinion, than a homicide committed in an act of self-defense.
We can shade the arguments any way we wish on this matter...much like we can shade the arguments about homicide any way we wish.
Oh, what about THIS? Or what about THAT?
"Oh, what about a rape victim who must go though life with a constant reminder of the rape?"
OK, what about it? Life is FULL of tragedies...and yet the human race, and individuals which make up the human race, continue. We should sanction the killing of another human being out of convenience under these circumstances?
Because that's what this is. AND FURTHER it's sanctioning the killing of another human being WHO WAS IN NO WAY AT FAULT FOR THE ACTUAL CRIMINAL ACT.
REGARDLESS of what we may think about this specific circumstance...or any other specific circumstances...the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of abortions are for convenience.
Only a tiny amount are due to a legitimate medical health threat to the mother.
Only a tiny amount are due to rape.
Oh, "it's not FAIR..."
Well, news flash. It's not FAIR, either, that a woman can CHOOSE to get pregnant against her lover's desires and then FORCE him to pay restitution for the next 20 years. Why, then, in this day and age of "equality" and all, should the man be forced to bear the lifelong memoir of a child he did not want in the first place? A child who represents, perhaps, a relationship to a woman who lied and cheated and robbed from him?
It's not FAIR, either, that a child fathered by a man may be put to death at the whim of the mother with no legal say by the father.
Cry me a river.
We make a distinction between types of homicide and adjudicate each instance on its own merits. Saying we cannot for abortion is asinine.
Abortion for convenience is an abomination.
(Sorry for contributing to a dumpster fire. And again...I'm not calling YOU stupid. You and I can talk about this all day and I'll walk away from this "agreeing to disagree".)
It would be odd if we didn't. The issues are the same at the core.
this is a mindset i can appreciate. i am not saying "let all the loose women abort all the babies" (that's exaggerated as well) but i am saying that there should not be any blanket-law regarding abortions. you can't cover every situation with a single rule.
It is not considered a cogent argument to sneer at pro lifers, cite the canard of "it is my body" and then claim you are only referring to the difficult cases of rape and incest.
If that is all you had said at the beginning almost no pro lifer would have any argument with that. We might disagree on how the exceptions should be handled, but NO ONE would argue that the mother should have to take a pregnancy to term that would cost the life of the mother, and almost all pro lifers would admit an abortion for rape.... and incest, by the way.
Again. the issue is simply this. Do people have inherent rights, and if so, on what are those rights based? Once you answer that question, all the other stuff sort of lines up.
It’s not their body that dies.
Last edited:
But does mustard, vinegar, or ketchup make the best base for BaByQ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My kids are more mine than yours or anyone else's, that doesn't somehow make it OK for me to kill them with the assistance of a medical professional and the government's blessing.
All mine made their own base. It looked like mustard, vinegar & ketchup, but sure didn't smell like it.
Then...what is it? A lizard?
He has a heartbeat, brain waves, and reacts to stimulus. Abortion is the American holocaust.
And don't tell me it's nobody's business except the mother's. Even the most committed Libertarian would concede that protecting those that cannot protect themselves is a legitimate role of government.
You need a refresher in embryology