all 45 comments

[–]EndlessSunflowers 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

I'm not supporting "child sacrifice" but there are definitely waaay too many people popping out waaay to many babies - too too many mindless people exploding the human population. and it's exponential, in the Billions! We could and should be "planning" better. lol

[–]useless_aether[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

if you honestly believe that, start with yourself and kill yourself. you would die with the knowledge that you are doing the rest of us a favor.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Easy there, bud. That's a bottom of the Pyramid of Sacrifice (see above) argument Satan shit..

Suicide is not the answer. Let's stick to constructive and thought provoking methods of sacrifice..

In any case, planned Parenthood is an abomination that has arisen from the ashes of the eugenics movement. The correlation of PP and large populations of African Americans far exceeds the correlation with low income.

PP was founded for black genocide.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

(Warning: I'm pulling you into a massive, in-depth ethical debate. Just a heads-up.)

Would you consider abstinence from sex between any given man and woman to be murder? If they'd had sex, then a child would've been born.

[–]useless_aether[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

no. my view, at least at this point is, that abortion is (for the lack of a better word) 'fine' until week 4-5, that is, until the heart develops. this means there is no monetary incentive. there are no developed organs or plasma, nothing to sell really afaik. when it comes to sex, use condoms unless you want to bring a new life into this world. use condoms anyway for the obvious reasons. but imho, ideally, only have sex with long term partners if at all possible.

[–]poestal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

and IYO what about medical 'necessity'? what about fetal growth abnormalities that surpasses the 4-5 week deadline? I mean first trimester screening is completed between weeks 11 and 13 of pregnancy, and blood work and ultra sound can only show so much during the fetus developing stages. are you advocating a child be born with a severe birth defect?

and since we are on this topic, If you don't mind commenting as well with this question; do you or will your first choice be to adopt rather than having a child of your own? would you take on a child with a mental disability? if not why?

[–]useless_aether[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

are you advocating a child be born with a severe birth defect?

what do you mean by severe birth defects? i think a lot of people like the ones with down syndrome can lead happy lives, have friends etc

do you or will your first choice be to adopt rather than having a child of your own?

i would be open to both.

would you take on a child with a mental disability?

well, if left without a choice... it would be a challenge. and i would not try to kill him or her thats for sure.

[–]poestal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

birth defects like cyclopia 1/16,000 probability. trisomy18 1/5,000, anencephaly 1/3,350 , CHD 1/4, and thousands of others that are potentialy fatal, or there's others like fibrodysplasia or Epidermolysis bullosa that aren't potentially lethal but leads to a very short lifespan of nothing but misery to the diagnosed (there's a lot more than just downs).

I bring up my last comment meaning would you take in an orphan with a disability because they are a huge percentage of neglected and unwanted.

and i'm saying that because I always hear people virtue signaling that they would care for unwanted children rather than abortion but thats rarely true. not only is it very rare that they adopt but if/when they do they very much choose a child within 5 year age range thats perfectly healthy rather than an older child.

[–]useless_aether[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

and i'm saying that because I always hear people virtue signaling that they would care for unwanted children rather than abortion but thats rarely true. not only is it very rare that they adopt but if/when they do they very much choose a child within 5 year age range thats perfectly healthy rather than an older child.

i know, people want perfect and easy lives, thats why i said if left wo a choice.. soon i will visit a friend with an autistic child, maybe it will be educative

birth defects like cyclopia 1/16,000 probability. trisomy18 1/5,000, anencephaly 1/3,350 , CHD 1/4, and thousands of others that are potentialy fatal, or there's others like fibrodysplasia or Epidermolysis bullosa that aren't potentially lethal but leads to a very short lifespan of nothing but misery to the diagnosed (there's a lot more than just downs).

i would leave it to the family to make a decision and leave the state out of the picture.

[–]poestal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

i would leave it to the family to make a decision and leave the state out of the picture.

yeah thats something that I agree with; let the families choose due to their personal context of the situation rather than states legislators making laws forbidding to do so due to religious or morality sake.

thank you for your time and answering my questions.

[–]wizzwizz4 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Applause.jpg

Please, both of you, stay on this site and see if you can't spread this attitude. (cc /u/useless_aether)

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Would you consider abstinence from sex between any given man and woman

Some people aren't into the 3-way; even though it's not gay.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

?

[–]happysmash27 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

This comparison seems a bit… dramatic :P .

Planned Parenthood doesn't necessarily focus on abortions as many people seem to think; from what I remember, they focus more on early preventative measures, like condoms. Regardless, to me they seem to support depopulation by definition, given that their primary focus (from what I am reading) is birth control.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about anything here; I don't know a great about Planned Parenthood, so this is based on a few articles I have read in the past and quick reading of their Wikipedia article.

[–]useless_aether[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

i think they make money off of fetal body parts, plasma, organs, stem cells, so with this profit incentive they can be viewed as a chop shop

[–]anescient 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

For accusations that serious you had better do more than "think" it's true.

[–]useless_aether[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-footage/

Watch the summary videos of specific undercover meetings from CMP’s Human Capital project documenting Planned Parenthood’s sale of baby body parts. Full footage for each encounter is also available.

https://illinoisfamily.org/life/no-more-tax-dollars-for-the-planned-parenthood-chop-shop/

Yes, federal lawmakers continue to fund what Daniel John Sobieski described in an op/ed as the Planned Parenthood “Chop Shop”–a business that is currently under investigation by the Department of Justice for “engaging in the illegal sale of aborted baby remains for profit.” According to Planned Parenthood, “the more fully-formed the baby body parts, the more valuable those parts are.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/03/funding_the_planned_parenthood_chop_shop.html

An analysis of the 2016-2017 report along with Planned Parenthood's previous reports shows that Planned Parenthood is responsible for the deaths of over 7.6 million human babies. We know the Planned Parenthood number is likely low, in fact, pro life journalists with the Media Research Center estimated in 2016 that Planned Parenthood had killed upwards of 7.5 million babies.

https://aclj.org/pro-life/how-planned-parenthoods-chop-shop-selling-murdered-babies-for-parts-pads-their-bottom-line

In addition to murdering thousands of babies, we now know Planned Parenthood is operating a chop-shop, selling murdered babies for parts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9EU_02c5bM

i still think they do. how about you?

[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Nah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy

Officials in twelve states initiated investigations into claims made by the videos, but none found Planned Parenthood clinics to have sold tissue for profit as alleged by CMP and other anti-abortion groups. An investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee found no evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood.

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

[–]useless_aether[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

A Project of The Annenberg Public Policy Center

the annenbergs are part of the problem. pedofile enablers. this is a whitewash

[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Who gives a shit. The point is the facts: the selling dead babies thing has been checked out, it's already been through the courts.

[–]useless_aether[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

i do. and i am telling you again, look into the annenbergs.

[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The point is the facts: the selling dead babies thing has been checked out, it's already been through the courts.

[–]useless_aether[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

no, its still not over

In December 2016, Senator Chuck Grassley referred Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for investigation. In the fall of 2017, the FBI made a request to the Senate Judiciary Committee for access to un-redacted comments obtained from abortion providers.[131]

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed.

[–]useless_aether[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They even make vaccines using the parts.

Being injected with other people's DNA material is far from safe.

[–]d3rr 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

[–]useless_aether[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

blackpilled globalists are the most dangerous

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here's a great documentary to learn some interesting history about PP...

Black Genocide in 21st Century America - full documentary

There are plenty of sources to verify any of the claims. It's almost too crazy to believe, except that I was able to independently find reference material to verify each detail that I looked into.

My mind was blown...

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

I don't disagree with their claimed reason-for-being, but the organisation itself is pretty shady. (It's the evolution of a rather different organisation.) I'm glad that my country has much less shady, biased and interest-conflicted analogous organisations.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

The difference in your country has greater ethnic homogeneity. Eugenics is a race war that is rebranded, so it can't easily be discussed or criticised..

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

No, it doesn't, actually. It's got greater ethnic diversity; at least double, by a back-of-the-envelope census calculation.

We have decent sex education; maybe it's that?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Let's confirm.

I'm in the US. What country are you claiming to be in/from?

Edit: wizzwizz4 loves the forum slide. Here's the TLDR: She's from GB.
87.1% white in the 2011 census..

It's a functionally homogenous society.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The UK.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Are you going to stick to your claim that the UK has twice the ethnic diversity as the US?

Are you also claiming that Scottish, Irish, and English should be considered distinct ethnic groups?

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I know it's not the most reliable source, but it has a pie chart. Using religion as a rough indicator of culture (because more can agree on the metric than on ethnicity):

US religion (scroll down) (note that "Christian" is separated into three groups, and is massive. UK religion, however, provides a still-large "Christian" but about twice the number of other religions. Note that there are enough that it can actually name several and still have them visible on the pie chart.

But, to answer your facetious question, "Irish" is usually considered a different ethnic group to "English". And, more relevantly, the distribution of these groups is (anecdotally) a lot[vague] less polarised than in the US.

But, anyway, I think we've ruled out ethnic diversity as the reason for the discrepancy. Any other possible factors?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Nothing has been ruled out.

Your attempt to defend your argument is an absurdity.

Ethnicity has absolutely nothing at all to do with religion.

People can change their religion.

Ethnicity cannot be changed.

For example:

Jesus was Jewish.

Modern Israelis are typically Jewish from eastern european origins.

Jesus was not eastern european.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Sorry, Tom, I can't deal with this today. I could pick any statistic and you'd argue against it in this manner.

How am I supposed to show ethnic and cultural diversity – something that you can't really quantify – using the data from sources that we'd both consider unbiased (e.g. the census)?