all 22 comments

[–]WoodyWoodPeckerHah he he he hah! 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Liberals worship Baal who wanted child sacrifices. Abortion is a child sacrifice to Baal.

[–]EliLeFey 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

One def of unborn is never born. So if a fetus is an unborn child, you must be an undead corpse. Would you prefer the stake through the heart or exposure to sunlight?

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

Even though they are unborn we know they are human and they are alive. This is just a matter of critical thinking and biology.

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

When did people become such cowards that they allow the left wing extremists to bully them into silence?

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

Overpopulation is the main concern of governments worldwide. Thus, the emphasis on sex crimes in law. All sex is bad, because sex produces children, and we don't want more children. Thus, the horror of pedophilia -- this isn't about protecting children, it's about discouraging people from having children, or having anything to do with children. Abortion is an effective population control mechanism. So, attacking abortion is tantamount to attacking fundamental government population control policy.

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

Hypothetically, if the drive is to reduce population growth via means of family planning, etc, then why the push to accept massive waves of migrants?

[–]jerryk 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

It's a separate issue. Overpopulation is bad, but cheap labor is very good. Generally, migrants provide cheap labor, to some extent because they are deprived of the conventional rights of citizens. So, the desire for cheap labor outweighs the fear of overpopulation, from the standpoint of government leaders and power brokers. Up to a point, anyway.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It seems counter productive, considering that not only are the 1st generation migrants contributing to population growth but also breeding at a rate higher than the native citizens. Labour costs are driven down through accepting low skilled migrants or those with a language barrier, traditionally jobs given to young people and retards, but this means the native population wages are also driven down and tax value goes down, again, counter productive.

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

It's definitely counter-productive for most of the native population, but, governments and the power brokers controlling them don't really give a damn about the majority of the population. They want cheap labor, and they can tax the rich and even undocumented migrants as much as they want, one way, or another, if they really want to, for whatever revenues they wish.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So how does this fit with the idea of overpopulation being the main concern of governments when the migrants are not typically susceptable to tran propaganda, they commit higher rates of sexual crimes including rape and child sex crimes, they tend to have larger families, and are not keen users of family planning services such as clinics? The Muslim population of Europe contradicts the idea that government cares in any way about population size or the consequences thereof.

[–]jerryk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Well, you know, with non-citizens, the government actually always has the option of mass deportations, or even just making things so uncomfortable for the migrants that they simply leave, and go back to their native countries. Not so, with citizens. So, on the one hand, the government gets the cheap labor from the non-citizen migrants, and, on the other hand, they can actually get rid of the migrants any time they really want to, from a population control point of view. So, from either point of view, the migrants are a pretty good deal, from the point of view of government power brokers. Better than citizens, anyway, who have "rights".

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

Interestingly, I am of the opinion that governments are pushing propaganda and narratives that influence citizens to take up social trends which lend to reduced population, but, I am not convinced this is the whole story. I'm growing convinced that there is a push to reduce white population.

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

I doubt the governments really care much about the racial composition of their populations, as long as the population is useful to them. However, since white people worldwide tend to expect human rights and high wages more than other racial groups currently, there might be a natural tendency for governments to somewhat favor more amenable groups, who they can control more easily. Members of non-white races, more accustomed to poverty and slavery.

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

Perhaps, I would agree in an economic sense, although there are challenges in keeping control of illegal immigrants behaviour within legal and societal expectations. Sweden has suffered greatly in term of violent and sexual crimes since accepting widespread Islamic migration. France and others have suffered from gun crime, violent murders of religious figures, burning of buildings and segregation of communities. The UK has primarily taken a financial hit due to having to house, medicate and feed these migrants with no return of contribution other than a reduced quality of life.

The native population works hard to fund and to provide the countries services at the added expense of the migrants who add to a population already exceeding natural growth. They are then encouraged to reduce their own population to enable to growth of a less productive, more criminal class. The actions of government to reduce the negative impact of these rapid changes to the demographics over the past 10 years has been nearly zero deportations, to house migrants in 4 star hotels at the tax payers expense, and to maintain reduced police numbers. When combined with ongoing media influence to encourage promiscuity, extended adolescence, delaying women starting families, we have a disaster for the native population. London is now 40% 1st generation immigrants.

I'm not convinced that the non-white races are more accustomed to slavery in modern times, war perhaps and poverty, but modern slavery affects all races. I'd also argue that many of those migrants contribute to modern slavery, as seen in the Rotherham cases where thousands of young white girls were groomed and raped systematically by the Pakistani population.

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

Just ask yourself "Will Burger King make more money when a given law is passed?". If yes, then the law will pass. If not, it won't.

Your ideas regarding "the native population" only apply in a democracy, which the US is not despite them "exporting it".

I don't think democracy vs autocracy is the issue either. One can have an autocrat that isn't a plutocrat and is of great benefit in theory. In practice, those people were probably all murdered while they were singing "kumbaya".

Iceland seems to be a functioning democracy from a distance, but Australia for example is not (their leadership can't even organize cheap energy for their tiny population).

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

BUt tHeY wAnT a LaMbOrgHeNis!

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

2016 where you been?

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

We didn't. Don't be and we still aren't.

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

You are probably the type who think babies must be born no matter the living conditions and their mothers got pregnant because they couldn't close their legs. If you were a woman im sure your opinion would be quite different. You can't get pregnant, its easy to talk when it doesn't affect you

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

Correct, I am not a utilitarian.

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

A lot of women are against abortion also. I think people's opinions are based more on whether they consider the fetus to be a true human being from conception rather than a lack of empathy towards women who are pregnant. I think everyone can agree that murdering babies is wrong, and if that's how you see it it's very natural to be anti abortion regardless of your gender.

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

I don't know but we are all paying the consequences now...