HYPOCRITES!

I agree. You also can't be against ICE while saying this, because ICE is one of the organizations responsible for capturing a large portion of traffickers.

You can't keep saying, "save the children" and be pro birth control.

What? Of course you can!

Save the children: protecting the lives of children that exist.

Birth control: preventing eggs from being fertilized, even in the event an egg is fertilized it isn't guaranteed to become a fetus and then develop healthily, be born alive and become a child.

You sound like you are saying that hypothetical children need the same protection as actual children, is that what you are saying?

Thank God you aren't that far gone.

"Conception", isn't a magical word. It's not a word anyone can hide behind and rule as the line in the sand. The Church has fooled too many people into this fallacy. Precious life, is precious life. Even once an egg is fertilized, it is not guaranteed to produce a healthy child. Half end up mis-carried naturally.

Birth control is at best, only slightly better than abortion and in some ways, much worse. A woman with known genetic issues at age 42 having an abortion, is less of an issue than a healthy 20yr old, using birth control and preventing the birth of multiple healthy children. But, in the eyes of the church this is perfectly okay.

"Birth control is at best, only slightly better than abortion and in some ways, much worse. A woman with known genetic issues at age 42 having an abortion, is less of an issue than a healthy 20yr old, using birth control and preventing the birth of multiple healthy children. But, in the eyes of the church this is perfectly okay."

How do you know that the children would be healthy? What's the problem with preventing the birth of multiple children?

Do we have a shortage? Surely if we had a shortage, the care system wouldn't be full?

There is NOTHING wrong with preventing the birth of children. I'm only highlighting the righteous hypocrisy.

Ah, I misunderstood.

Conception is only magical if it involves a carpenter and a virgin...apparently.

That would be true, yes. All mammals on the planet conceive the same way humans do. It's not magic.

Do you need an explanation of why immaculate conception is different and is magical?

You're offering to explain immaculate conception?

Yes, absolutely, go ahead.

I mean, we are mammals so...

(I'm sitting comfortably.)

No, I'm not offering to explain immaculate conception.

I'm illustrating how ignorant your line of thinking is, while you continue further down the same path of ignorance.

Sooooo, you can't explain it because it's horseshit. Got it.

I'm sorry you've lost here.

Billions of lives have been lost to, "family planning" indoctrinated by the Catholic church. That is just fact.

"I'm talking about people using birth control all over the globe, not just America."

Are you concerned that not enough people are being born into poverty?

How many times do I have to tell you?

I'm highlighting the hypocrisy of being against abortion while instituting the same effectual elimination of a much greater in size population.

To be against abortion but for family planning and having the standard 2.1 children per family, is hypocritical bullshit. Anyone who believes that needs to see reality for what it is and let people live their own lives.

How do I feel about children born into poverty?
We have way too many people all over the globe.

"I've told you twice now, I'm not against people using birth control. What can you not comprehend?

What's wrong with you?"

What on earth are you arguing about then? What's wrong with you?

Why don't you go above and read my earlier responses to you.

"I'm highlighting the hypocrisy of being against abortion while instituting the same effectual elimination of a much greater in size population.

To be against abortion but for family planning and having the standard 2.1 children per family, is hypocritical bullshit. Anyone who believes that needs to see reality for what it is and let people live their own lives.

How do I feel about children born into poverty?
We have way too many people all over the globe."

I absolutely agree with that.

I'm not sure I've had many conversations with people who are both against abortion but in favor of using contraception. Most of them seem to think people just shouldn't have sex unless they want a baby every time.
I've spoken to someone who said he thinks it's immoral for infertile couples to have sex.

I get the distinct impression that quite a lot of people on here have never had sex.

Surveys on birth control use in the U.S. have found that 77% of married women use a form of contraceptive, versus 42% of never-married women. In addition, 89% of Catholic women use a contraceptive, while 90% of Protestant women use one.

Billions of lives? Are you talking about fetuses that didn't have brains yet?

I'm talking about people using birth control all over the globe, not just America.

"What's wrong with you?"

I am possibly spending too much time arguing with likely Neo-Nazis...

"I'm talking about people using birth control all over the globe, not just America."

And what? You are annoyed that all those billions of people weren't born because you could've made friends with them? You could've criticized their sexuality and choice of income. Do you think people should take your feelings into account when deciding whether or not to have a child?

I've told you twice now, I'm not against people using birth control. What can you not comprehend?

What's wrong with you?

Are you retarded? An unfertilized egg isn't a human life. That's the dumbest pro death take I keep hearing from you guys.

A fertilized egg isn't human life either.

I'm sorry. You are retarded or have suffered a head injury. Good luck with that.

I understand I'm rocking your world.

Just because the church's hypocrisy has indoctrinated you, doesn't mean you can't think for yourself and realize the fact that having protected sex is killing a potential life just as much as abortion.

There really is little difference. Again, conception isn't a magic word and a line in the sand. Condoms break or are ineffective 11% of the time. Do you think that is God's will? God's will when the partners just wanted to have sex, without a child?
Do you think it is morally superior to draw an imaginary line in the sand and support unfettered protected sex with the sky as the limit but abortion.... oh, that's so wrong.

There is no difference.

The only reason the church is fine with what they call, "family planning" is because morally, Christian's demanded it. Otherwise they risked losing all income and support from real human beings.

There are few Christian family's today with 12 kids. Most have 2 or so. Think of all those babies that have been lost. Nearly all of them, to birth control. Not to abortion.

You couldn't rock a baby's cradle.

I could care less what the 'church' thinks or your excuses. When sperm meets an egg, life begins. When I was in school, they taught a debunked theory from a colleague of Darwin's who claimed the embryos of every mammal grew exactly the same up to a certain point in an effort to dehumanize it.

You obviously know little about Christian families altho child mortality is low compared to the past where you'd usually lose a few to death. Not having babies doesn't equate to killing them, like in abortion. In two fertile humans, sex always has a risk.

Children lost due to mortality cannot in any way, make up for the loss in the numbers of children per family today and you know it!

It's due to the Christian indoctrinated, "family planning" that virtually every normal human being embraces as perfectly normal.

Birth control has limited the number of births far more than abortion ever could. You can keep arguing the point but you know it's true. Nobody has 12 children today.

So what? Who said families should have 20 kids.

But I know your hypocrisy. Push abortion, get the birth rate below replacement level and open the borders to make up for it. So play all the tricks you want. You want abortion to be birth control. Your argument that using birth control is worse than abortion is pathetically hilarious, so save your attempts to point out religious 'hypocrisy'.

What the hell planet are you from anyway?

Nobody wants the borders open. NOBODY! Dems have fought as much or even more than Repubs at limiting illegals. Obama was called the Deporter in chief and deported more than Trump ever could dream of!

I'm simply highlighting the hypocrisy of those who think abortion is so horrible while they sleep soundly each night doing their own part at limiting the number of children they have. We are ALL, limiting the number of children we have in one form or another and it makes no difference how it is done. The outcome is fewer, "precious" lives in this world.

You ever heard the term 'useful idiot'? What agenda do you think you fight for? You forget EVERY raised hand in the dem debates? lol

Turning people back at the border isn't deportation. Even if you count it as so.

Which one is killing life? The abortionists. Deal with it.

You're dealing with expressions, not reality. Call me all the names you want. That makes no difference.

Raised hands? Do you mean to the question, "who would provide healthcare to undocumented aliens?"

Trying to keep people in this country healthy, is not the same thing as open borders. It in fact helps keep American's healthy, as today we're seeing huge spikes in covid in undocumented work camps and communities that then infect the rest of us.

Obama's best deportation year = 409,849
Trump's best deportation year = 282,242

Not even close.

"Violence by far-right groups and individuals has emerged as one of the most dangerous terrorist threats faced by US law enforcement and triggered a wave of warnings and arrests of people associated with those extremist movements.

The most recent in-depth analysis of far-right terrorism comes from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

In a report released last week, the Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States, CSIS analyzes 25 years of domestic terrorism incidents and finds that the majority of attacks and plots have come from the far right.

The report says “the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994, and the total number of rightwing attacks and plots has grown significantly during the past six years”, with the far right launching two-thirds of attacks and plots in 2019, and 90% of those in 2020.

The report adds: “Far-right terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators.” The second most significant source of attacks and plots in the US has been “religious extremists”, almost all “Salafi jihadists inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaida”.

The report shows the far left has been an increasingly negligible source of attacks since the mid 2000s. At that time the FBI defined arsons and other forms of property damage as domestic terrorism during a period some have called the “Green Scare”.

The CSIS study came during a new wave of terror attacks and plots from white supremacist and anti-government extremists.

Last Monday, the Department of Justice announced that it had brought an array of charges, including terrorism related offenses, against a US army soldier who subscribed to a mix of white supremacist and satanist beliefs which are characteristic of so-called “accelerationist” neo-nazis like Atomwaffen Division.

Last week, federal charges were brought on Steven Carillo for the murder of a federal security officer and a sheriff’s deputy. Like the three men arrested for an alleged terror plot in Nevada earlier this month, the FBI says Carillo identified with the extreme anti-government “boogaloo” movement, which is principally concerned with removing government regulation of firearms."

You can't keep yelling "save the children" and then beating them!

"Larry and Carri Williams were given the maximum time in prison after they were found guilty of starving and beating Hana, their adoptive daughter, to death. Larry Williams received 28 years and his wife, Carri, 37.

The scheme and tactics they utilized in “disciplining” their daughter were promoted in a dubious “Christian” book, “To Train Up A Child,” penned by Richard Pearl and his wife.

In May 2013, Hana was found nude, lying face down and emaciated in the backyard. Her death was induced by hypothermia and malnutrition according to law enforcement authorities.

The sheriff’s report said the parents had denied Hana food and ordered her to sleep in a cold outbuilding and shower outdoors with a hose. They frequently lashed her and left marks on the child’s legs. The mother praised the Pearls’ book and given copies to friends. Hana had been beaten the day she died with a 15-inch plastic tube recommended by Mr. Pearl.

The discipline techniques taught by the Pearls include:

Beat children with plastic plumbing
Force the child to wear plastic tubing around their neck as a reminder to obey
“Swat” children, as young as six months, with a wood spoon
“Blanket train” babies by hitting them if they try to crawl off a blanket placed on the floor
Beat older children with rulers, paddles, and belts
Hose off children who have toilet training accidents
The Williams are the third set of parents found guilty of killing their children as followers of the Pearls. The books, given free to military families, is also routinely handed out in some churches."

Next go back to an abortion clinic bombing in 1983 or the Inquisition

That's a bombing? :)

Going back to muh anecdotal evidence 7 years ago to try to deflect. Deal with it pro-death advocate

Thats horrific! Definitely not what Jesus would do. You can't even believe that's how all Christians act or treat their kids.

All of these people took their ideas from Christianity and used Christianity to justify their behavior. When you create a middle-man (Christianity) for structure and guidance, this is pretty much inevitable.
The priest pedophilia scandal was able to continue for so long partially because priests hide behind their religion, people viewed them as representative of their religion, not as individuals.

Atheists, on the other hand, take responsibility for their own behavior.

Did this guy take responsibility? How about that guy that just put a gun to a 5yo's head and executed him?

Modern day Christianity is full of things that are not God honoring and actually draw people away from faith in God. All religious denominations are man made. God doesnt see Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheran or Catholic. He sees righteousness and unrighteousness. He sees men's hearts.

"Modern day Christianity is full of things that are not God honoring and actually draw people away"

That's the problem with having a middle man.

The problem with the priest pedophiles scenario is not Christianity, as the Bible specifically condemns this behavior, the actual problem is pedophilia and homosexuality (which tends to go hand in hand). See "boyscouts allow gay troup leaders" for affirmation. So it would be a fools errand to blame Christianity when they are fundamentally doing something that is repeatedly mentioned as perverse in the Bible.

These people like all your anecdotal stories, do what their own inventive sick minds can come up with and then pretend they got it from the Bible. Only someone unfamiliar with what the Bible actually says and teaches would fall for that. So moral of the story, just because they say they are Christian, doesn't make them Christian. They have to actually try to do and say Christian things to be considered Christian.

But hey, if you want to play the anecdotal extremes card, I can do the same. Since you want to pretend Atheists have it figured out, then can you explain how Hitler and Stalin took responsibility? I mean, they are on record saying all religion is an issue, and that there is no god/gods, and they went as far as exterminating those who were considered religious as well as outlawing all religion. In other words, classic atheists. So tell me, is that what you mean by taking responsibility? Go ahead, defend your atheistic friends.

"the actual problem is pedophilia and homosexuality (which tends to go hand in hand)."

Where's your evidence for this?

Re homosexuality and the Bible:

The word homosexual was not in any Bible before 1946, it's a mistranslation.

A seminary student challenged the usage of the word “homosexual” in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and provided a detailed outline of his reasoning. Luther Allan Weigle, head of the RSV translation team, admitted that the translation team had indeed made a mistake and would seek to correct it in their next update.

However, Weigle had just signed a contract stating that he would not make any changes in the RSV for 10 years. During those 10 years, translation teams were working on the translations of the first New American Standard Bible, The Living Bible and New International Version Bible.

The RSV committee decided the word “homosexual” was an inaccurate translation of malakoi and arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and replaced it with “sexual perverts.” An example of “sexual perverts” would be a dirty old man exposing himself to children on a playground. The RSV team admitted that the Greek word arsenokoitai was not condemning homosexuals, but instead those who were abusive in their pursuit of sexual encounters.

The historical context shows that pederasty, sex with slaves, temple prostitution and other abusive forms of sex were prevalent in the first century when the Apostle Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. Even though the Bible contains six verses that appear to condemn homosexual activity, it contains more than 200 verses that condemn heterosexual activity. So as researchers it is important for us to determine the type of homosexual or heterosexual activity being condemned.

Becoming impatient with replies I see?

“It also condemns heterosexual activity.”

Outside of marriage, yes. Any form of premarital sex is what goes against God.

“Temple prostitution.”

Maybe in India. Not Jerusalem.

“The historical context shows that pederasty, sex with slaves, temple prostitution and other abusive forms of sex were prevalent in the first century when the Apostle Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.”

It was prevalent in Corinth. That’s all we’re given. This is why Paul is writing to them about this stuff.

“The effeminate?
Seriously? Do people think that's a life choice rather than innate too?”

Bro, you always have a choice. Transgenderism isn’t innate. It’s a societal movement that’s driving people to make those decisions. That’s not to say it only existed in our time. But even so, with these movements, you still have a choice.

“Fornicators?
What a scathing belief system. It almost sounds like it was created by macho guys who wanted to control the behavior of women.”

It sounds like you just want to have sex with anyone who isn’t married to you. It’s not just women in that word “fornicators”. Men are in that lot, too. There are men in my church who have been dealing with this problem. And they even turn to the church for help. Instead of being condemned, they’re helped by the church leaders, and they receive Biblical council to put them back on the right path.

And you can bet that if there were “effeminate” people and “fornicators” back then, there were definitely homosexuals, and just like them they were not in God’s law.

"Bro, you always have a choice. Transgenderism isn’t innate. It’s a societal movement that’s driving people to make those decisions. That’s not to say it only existed in our time. But even so, with these movements, you still have a choice."

There is no indication at all that 'effeminate' refers to transgender people or to homosexuals, if it referred to homosexuals it wouldn't also list homosexuals.

It simply means men having feminine features and/ or characteristics which is a ridiculous thing to have an issue with. What kind of god 'creates people' and then decides that all the ones that aren't macho enough can go to hell?

What are you talking about men having feminine features? Man boobs?

It is an issue. Because men aren’t born with feminine characteristics.

"Where's your evidence for this?"

Well, you asked, so I hope you actually consider reading it:
"http://lanternproject.org.uk/library/general/articles-and-information-about-sexual-abuse-and-its-impact/homosexuality-and-child-sexual-abuse/"

This was written by a doctor collaborating with an organization that specifically deals with abused children. This is no bias trash article by the Southern Poverty Law Center (who even Jeff Bezos admitted was bias, haha. When your own turns on you because they are under oath all of a sudden). So warning, these people will not agree with the progressive left of today, and they come with those darn facts.

But here is a tl:dr if it helps. They found that Homosexual men commit more than a third of the crimes against younger boys. So take those numbers in: 3% of the population is commiting more than a third of the acts against young boys. In other words, they are over-represented in the crimes against adolescent boys. So we can talk about how we would use that information but it really would be a waste of our time to try to argue the facts. So use that how you want.

As for your homesexual not in the bible, I read your take, and it doesn't hold water.

First starting with your source. The RSV and its translators were roundly mocked as heretical and "progressives" who allowed their own views to dilute their translations. So that already should have concerned you if you were really interested in an accurate translation.

So then, what is the best source for countering this poor narrative, the Bible itself. Jesus himself said that marriage was between man and woman, period. He does not cover anything else and he makes it clear that any sex outside of marriage is adultery in the eyes of God. So let's put two and two together. If only a man and woman can be married, and everything out of that circle is sexual perversion, then where do you think that leaves homosexuals according to the Bible? So if Mark 10 is too much, go back to Genesis and see how he defines marriage. To be frank, even if homosexual as a word didn't show up in the Bible, God made it clear how he feels about the act (check out what happened to Sodom - who got it's name from a certain fun act people were doing a lot of of).

So here is my question for you, why do non-Christians and atheists always feel the need to try to retranslate the Bible they don't understand instead of having a real productive conversation like how to treat them despite their sin?

You have misunderstood, Atheists *are* responsible for their own actions, they don't necessarily take responsibility. Religious people try to shirk responsibility by claiming that their behavior is on behalf of their religion and they avoid taking responsibility by being protected by religious institutions. See: The church covering up decades of pedophilia.

I see. Let's paint with a wide brush till the end of time. Okay. I can keep playing this game with you.

So, I see you agree with the man that said that his poverty and the poverty of his country was not his fault, but rather those people who are religious and follow make believe things. He took responsibility personally for pointing to their religion for how they stole Germany's wealth. He took even greater responsibility when he decided that they had to take this wealth back. He also took great responsibility when he labeled them as threats. Especially the 1 million of the 6 million Jews that are historically numbered as being children. Oh man, what a great atheist he was. And you know he was on the right side of history because he didn't have some stupid government, I mean, religious organization protecting him. So different... I am so glad we have atheists like him in history to really set a shining example.

"So different... I am so glad we have atheists like him in history to really set a shining example."

You're still missing the point. It doesn't make sense to use the fact that someone is an Atheist to make a sweeping generalization because they are all individuals, not a group of people following a doctrine.

You quite intentionally chose the worst person in history and decided that he was representative.

"You're still missing the point. It doesn't make sense to use the fact that someone is an Atheist to make a sweeping generalization because they are all individuals, not a group of people following a doctrine."

My point exactly.

"You quite intentionally chose the worst person in history and decided that he was representative."

My point exactly.

So yes, you don't get it still. YOU are still missing the point. It doesn't make sense to use the fact that someone is a Christian to make sweeping generalizations, because they are individuals, who are not even following the doctrine of the Bible. I challenge you to find a verse that says, "yeah, go f**k some boys and we cover for it." glhf

If you are gonna disagree with facts, then there's no room for conversation. You don't even provide reasoning for your disagreements. What in the hell am I actually suppose to do with that?

Take the Hitler and Stalin example. It was a thought experiment which you and your friend failed at miserably. But because you have shown yourself to be reasonable in the past, let me point you to my contention that I thought someone like you might arrive at.

The point you should have arrived at is that just because people claim to be something, doesn't mean they are. People should approach history and current events with scrutiny, not their own bias.

So what does that mean practically? People have murdered saying it was in Jesus' name even though Jesus himself said that even looking at your brother with mall intent is as bad as murder. So if Jesus was against it, why would you believe anyone telling you that they are Christian killing his brother in cold blood in the name of Jesus? In the same way, Hitler was fiercely anti-religious, yes, mostly focused on the Jews, but the Christian death toll is no laughing matter either. Hell, I have read a historical take on "mein kampf" where he literally makes a case for his anti-religion views and describes how he became an atheist. Does that mean he speaks for all anti-religious people and atheists? No? Because if you believe that, how can you just make a pass at a shit organization that literally had a whole nation of Christians rebel on it for not following the Bible that is now in hot water for running cover for homosexual pedophiles? To disregard this matter would be exposing your desire to ignore truth.

In fact, you said "how convenient" to this point and yet your reasoning falls apart when the script is flipped on you. I mean, you literally said that Hitler didn't outlaw religion? Are you serious? Did six million Jews and 5 million other people (including Christian leaders, homsexuals, gypsies, and other political opponents) just all get on a train and go, "oh shit, this isn't going to Holland, it is headed for Auschwitz"?

Argue with reasoning and facts, not baseless opinions are empty air. Hitler was by his own definition and words, an atheist. That does not mean he speaks for all atheists. If you say he does, then I will hear you out on how those catholic pedophiles speak for all Christians.

"That's true"

As always, I will start by celebrating the common ground.

"There have been Christians throughout history who have killed people and used verses and commandments in the Bible to justify their actions. Just because Jesus said to love your neighbor and not hate people, that doesn't mean there aren't other verses people can point to which say it's OK to kill certain people. There are numerous places where the Bible says conflicting things, so how are people really supposed to know what's relevant and what isn't?"

What you are saying is true. Even in our abolitionist period, both the Democrats and newly formed Republican party argued using the Bible. That doesn't mean that the Bible supports slavery nor does that mean that Jesus called for slavery. So what does that mean practically for me. Like many things, the definition of what it means to be a Christian can take on many meanings. Many people say they are Christian because their parents were Christian or because they show up in a building with others once a week. This is a far cry from what Jesus described it takes to "follow him." When talking about Christians or what they believe, I think the starting point should at the very least be what Jesus believed and thought since Christians was a movement based on his teachings and following him.

As for the rest, for the most part, you have to understand, I do agree with you on it. The Hitler, Stalin anecdote was to expose the other guys idiotic take on what he defines as Christian with a wide brush. Hitler was favorable towards Christianity at one point, but then distanced himself from it and arrived at the NAZI ideology that religion is actually bad. Stalin is on record calling himself an atheist. I like you, do not think they represent what atheist are and what they believe. They are poor individuals, who used an ideology/platform to do poor things. Just like the Bible, Stalin used aesthetic rhetoric to pull a following and called himself an atheist. That does not mean he was one. You have to ask yourself, what is an atheist and how do you define it? So, in a nutdhell:

"Hitler doesn't represent all of whatever belief system he may have had, and Catholic priests who molest children don't represent all Christians, and I never implied they did."

So you agree with you on that primary point, and my sincerest apologies then for misrepresenting you. I sincerely thought you did believe that so know I am happy to say I was wrong on this one.

You make a great point for adoption. Killing the unborn doesn't save a child any more than abuse saves one.

Foster Care Statistics 2019 1/2

"1. There are approximately 440,000 foster youth nationwide. Despite child welfare’s efforts to prevent the removal of children from their parents, the number of children in foster care has been increasing. Currently, we are at an all time high as the demand for foster parents is far higher than the supply, and factors like parental opioid addiction are forcing more children to be removed from their homes.

2. 30,000 youth age out of the foster care system between the ages of 18 – 21 annually. The exact time a foster youth ages out of the system depends on where they live. Regardless, roughly 30,000 youth are forced to exit the system annually without having found a forever family, leaving them to fend for themselves.

It is not surprising then that within four years of aging out, 70% will be on government assistance, 25% will not have completed high school, and less than 12% will ever earn their college degree.

3. Within four years of aging out, 50% have no earnings, and those who do make an average annual income of $7,500. After a foster youth ages out, homelessness and unemployment become a huge issue. Despite there being more than 34 million entry level jobs nationwide, many foster youth aren’t prepared to be independent and don’t have the skills or resources needed to access the opportunities that could launch them into employment.

4. Only 5% of rural foster youth and 21% of urban foster youth report access to a computer at home. Having access to technology is crucial for a foster child to be on a level playing field with their peers. But the child welfare system underinvests in foster children, providing less than half of the funds an average parent invests in their child.

This results in foster children not receiving the same resources and opportunities as their peers. Without a laptop or smartphone (that has voice, text, data and a hotspot), they are restricted in many arenas, including studying, job applications, extracurricular opportunities, and networking. Technology is the gateway to normalcy and opportunity for foster youth." ifoster.org

then fix foster care. it's that simple.

Fix foster care? Look, I know I'm the figurehead of The Church of The Subgenius but you need to lower your expectations.

Slack, Dude.

Slack.

Now talk about how lesbian couples have the highest rate of child abuse of any group

I said nothing about the foster care industry, I said adoption. And as having been an adopted child, let me say I find your blatant attempt to turn my compliment into rabid punditry quite suspicious.

I merely pointed out that it isn't quite as simple as you made it sound. There are already more children in the care system than it can cope with, as I'm sure you know.

Babies are unsurprisingly much more likely to be adopted, the more babies going into the system from people that chose not to abort but also couldn't care for the child decreases the chances of older children finding families.

Lots of children spend their whole childhood waiting to be adopted and eventually age out of the system, often into crime and drug abuse because they haven't had the guidance and care they have needed. Children in care are also much more likely to be victims of abuse which causes lifelong problems.

These 'children being saved from abortion' are incredibly likely to face loveless lives in care, be victims of abuse and end up as criminals who will then be blamed by society.

Ah, I see why you write like a pundit. I am truly sorry, I thought you cared about pre-born lives. My big, big bad. You are on a crusade.

Since you are making the case that aborting children and killing them is ok since we have a foster care problem, care to help me understand where you draw the line?

According to your statistic, 440k kids are in foster care. At what number do you draw the line? Where would the number have to come down to that you would no longer agree with killing unborn children? If we get it down to 100k? Would you then change your position to stop killing unborn children? Let me hear your number.

You think I would ever argue that women should be forced to endure the physical and psychological trauma of pregnancy and childbirth and accept all the associated risks and the irreversible damage?

"Since you are making the case that aborting children and killing them is ok since we have a foster care problem, care to help me understand where you draw the line?"

I didn't, I said that if children aren't aborted but are unable to be cared for it further burdens the care system, has a detrimental effect on the children going in and has a detrimental effect on the children already there.

"You think I would ever argue that women should be forced to endure the physical and psychological trauma of pregnancy and childbirth and accept all the associated risks and the irreversible damage?"

I know, what a terrible thing that is forced on women. I mean, I wish there was something specific you can do to not have women get pregnant... Oh. Wait.... So, to be clear, murdering an unborn child is okay because it would be hard on the woman and the child? That is your point.

"I didn't, I said that if children aren't aborted but are unable to be cared for it further burdens the care system, has a detrimental effect on the children going in and has a detrimental effect on the children already there."

Really, so we should abort them because it would be detrimental and hard? You know what else is detrimental to a child's growth? Not having a father. Both Obama and Trump agreed on this by speaking on this topic in the past. Statistically, 76% of boys without fathers will commit violent crimes and spend a majority of their life in poverty and incarceration. For girls, it is a little lower. 72% of girls without fathers will spend their entire life in poverty and will constantly make poor financial decisions. Yikes... So by your logic, we should also execute kids when their dads leave, right? Wouldn't want them to have a detrimental and hard life.

So yeah, that is why your reasoning and your little graph below is sub par. You don't make the case for murder because people's lives will be hard. Whether you like it or not, at conception, the baby has a DNA makeup completely distinct from his dad and mother, in other words, he/she is a completely different person. Doctors have also proven that babies can feel as early as 8 weeks. So spare me this chart that pretends that it is harmless because at the end of the day, it is still ending a life. Plain and simple. Pro-choice is about ending the lives of children. Maybe that's not why you joined but you gotta wake up to what is actually happening and what you are actually arguing.

"I know, what a terrible thing that is forced on women. I mean, I wish there was something specific you can do to not have women get pregnant... Oh. Wait.... So, to be clear, murdering an unborn child is okay because it would be hard on the woman and the child? That is your point."

A) No, it isn't my point because it isn't murder.

B) The physical and mental trauma and the unethical practice of forcing anyone to endure pregnancy and childbirth are only a few of many good reasons for both contraception and access to abortion.

"So by your logic, we should also execute kids when their dads leave, right? Wouldn't want them to have a detrimental and hard life."

No, by my logic, we should make sure women who are not in relationships/in relationships with abusive men etc have access to abortion.

"Doctors have also proven that babies can feel as early as 8 weeks. So spare me this chart that pretends that it is harmless because at the end of the day, it is still ending a life."

Source? Even so, the Bible says in several places that it's fine to beat your children so even your god doesn't care about them being hurt. Your religion says it's ok to hurt kids.

"Maybe that's not why you joined but you gotta wake up to what is actually happening and what you are actually arguing."

Joined what?

A) Again, saying it three times makes it true right. Challenge you to make a case that it isn't a life your ending. Why don't we start there. Why isn't it a life?

B) I have no problem with contraception... so why use generalizations? Yes, if a woman isn't ready to have a baby, use contraception. But if a woman and her partner is irresponsible, and they get pregnant, no, that is not the fault of the unborn child. My wife's sister was on welfare and they not only gave her free contraception, but also would cover any operation "like a vasectomy." So why argue, let's kill the babies when we should be arguing why are women and their partners being irresponsible?

But I think this is a rabbit trail. Why don't we start at the core of the issue. I think the baby is a life and you don't. Can you make a reasoned argument for why that is not a life? I mean, if it is not, then why even argue responsibility, right?

a) I didn't say it wasn't a life, obviously it is.

b) Lots of people get pregnant while using contraception, lots of people have abortions for medical reasons.

"Why do you think it represents less than 1% of the cases? Have you any idea how vastly underreported rape is? It's a gruelling, humiliating process that often doesn't result in a conviction. A woman going to get an abortion because she's been raped it's likely to feel humiliated and upset about it and not share the real reason she wants it, many more women have been raped than you'd think. Women are raped by their husbands but often feel like they are unable to say anything about it."

Because that is what is reported, 1%. You say it is more but provide alarmists theories and again pretend it is a majority. I mean the bit about husbands raping their wives? Your grasping for air to defend your point.

"How many toddlers do you see attached to umbilical cords?"
"Of course thay are established people and not literally physically dependent on someone's womb and nutrition."

I guess since you have not been around toddlers and infants... yes, they are physically dependent on someone else. Unless you can show me a case of a self sufficient infant/toddler... glhf

"You are right that terminal patients are not able to sustain their own lives, they are dying, obviously. Because they are already established people capable of experiencing life and they have established relationships, they are helped to end their lives peacefully and with dignity."

Ooooohhh, another chance for you to play God. So when does that happen? When is a person's life considered established? 50? 60? Again by your logic then, can we off them after that line?

"I mean the bit about husbands raping their wives? Your grasping for air to defend your point."

Grasping at air? I have read countless accounts, are you suggesting that this doesn't happen?

"I guess since you have not been around toddlers and infants... yes, they are physically dependent on someone else. Unless you can show me a case of a self sufficient infant/toddler... glhf"

I have more experience than you, kid.
You are obviously unaware that toddlers do not depend on nutrition from one person's body. They eat food, which can be given to them by anyone, unlike a fetus.

"Ooooohhh, another chance for you to play God. So when does that happen? When is a person's life considered established? 50? 60? Again by your logic then, can we off them after that line?"

Are you accusing me of switching off life-support machines? Is that what you do?

A) If you agree it is a life, then how do you make the leap that it isn't murder when the net result is the end of said life.

B) Lots of people have abortion for medical reasons is a stretch of the truth. Yes, there are medical reasons to have an abortion. Yes, there are women who get raped who are put in weird positions. Anecdotally, I actually know a couple who had to make the choice to risk the mother's life because of complications, and she almost died. So yes, that happens. But one, it is the minority. If you really think the 300k babies aborted last year were a majority of medical issues, you might want to check the record again. But again... Point A makes this point obsolete. If it is a life, than the majority of this becomes irrelevant because killing is still wrong.

"A) If you agree it is a life, then how do you make the leap that it isn't murder when the net result is the end of said life."

Murder is a legal term. abortion is not illegal.
A fetus is not an established person, it's extremely undeveloped and incapable of sustaining itself.
Either the fetus or the person with the womb must take precedence.

"If you really think the 300k babies aborted last year were a majority of medical issues, you might want to check the record again. But again... Point A makes this point obsolete. If it is a life, than the majority of this becomes irrelevant because killing is still wrong."

I said nothing about them being the majority.

"Have you not heard of formula milk? Look it up. An 8 month old baby is not dependent on it's Mother's body for survival."

At great detriment to the child. Formula < Mother's milk. Otherwise why would women not just switch to formula across the board? So again, I suggest you take your own advice and look some things up first. Your point still stands undefended. If an infant, who was reliant on his mother for sustenance, because they had reactions to formulas and could not take them, is it murder since the baby needed his mother for sustenance?

"People do switch off life support machines though, are you unaware of that? Do you think they should be accused of murder?"

Again, you need to look things up. The only known legal case where you can take someone of life support prematurely is when that specific person is in a vegetative state and has a HIPAA authorization on file allowing such premature exodus. In the event people switch it off prematurely, yes, they get accused of murder. In the event that someone is not in a vegetative state and the doctor takes them off life-support, that doctor would get convicted of murder. This isn't the netherlands. That is actually how things work... Got any more brain busters?

I didn't say formula was better or even equal, I said that a baby is not dependent on it's Mother for nutrition.

Before a fetus develops a functional brain, it is in a vegetative state.

A) Murder is a legal term. abortion is not illegal.

So because it is legal, that makes it okay? So why do people still fight against slavery in the middle east or complain about slavery in the past? It is what is defined as legal.

"A fetus is not an established person, it's extremely undeveloped and incapable of sustaining itself."

Neither is an infant and toddler an established person nor do some terminal patients have the ability to stay alive without the support of machines... I guess by that definition, we can still execute infants, toddlers, and the terminal patients who are not able to sustain their own life.

"Either the fetus or the person with the womb must take precedence."

Or, you can believe in protecting all life and choose both. Just letting you know there is a 3rd option.

"Neither is an infant and toddler an established person nor do some terminal patients have the ability to stay alive without the support of machines... I guess by that definition, we can still execute infants, toddlers, and the terminal patients who are not able to sustain their own life."

How many toddlers do you see attached to umbilical cords?

Of course thay are established people and not literally physically dependent on someone's womb and nutrition.

You are right that terminal patients are not able to sustain their own lives, they are dying, obviously. Because they are already established people capable of experiencing life and they have established relationships, they are helped to end their lives peacefully and with dignity.

And yes, life support machines get switched off when someone has no quality of life.

"Or, you can believe in protecting all life and choose both. Just letting you know there is a 3rd option."

So what's the third option that doesn't involve forcing someone to be pregnant and give birth?

"I said nothing about them being the majority."

Then why use anecdotal stories like you do to try to represent the issue at large when it is less than 1% of the cases?

Why do you think it represents less than 1% of the cases? Have you any idea how vastly underreported rape is? It's a gruelling, humiliating process that often doesn't result in a conviction. A woman going to get an abortion because she's been raped it's likely to feel humiliated and upset about it and not share the real reason she wants it, many more women have been raped than you'd think. Women are raped by their husbands but often feel like they are unable to say anything about it.

"Before a fetus develops a functional brain, it is in a vegetative state."

Back to square one. People have gone into vegetative states from accidents and recovered. Again, according to your logic, if you become at all comatose, I guess according to your definition, they cease to be a life for that period.

"Grasping at air? I have read countless accounts, are you suggesting that this doesn't happen?"

More than 2%? yes, I am suggesting you are grasping air trying to make your weak point. I would challenge you again to prove me wrong by providing a statistic that proves your counterpoint but seeing how you have been unable to prove certain key points like this in previous conversations... I can assume this can just be added to the weak points you continue to argue. Feel free to educate yourself with an actual in-depth survey/analysis:

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

"I have more experience than you, kid.
You are obviously unaware that toddlers do not depend on nutrition from one person's body. They eat food, which can be given to them by anyone, unlike a fetus."

I guess your experience is worth as much as monopoly money. Some toddlers are not weaned off their mother. To add insult to injury, you still haven't actually defended the case that the ability to sustain yourself is not a determiner for defining life since infants do need their mother. Or are you suggesting that if a home invader shoots an infant of 8 months old, he cannot be convicted of murder since the infant is still dependant on the mother's body? So yes... keep arguing for infanticide and embarrass yourself more by saying you have more experience.

"Are you accusing me of switching off life-support machines? Is that what you do?"

Ahhh, when you realize your argument is weak and double-back and pretend that the other person is making the case for genocide. So no, I am the one who was making the point that you don't switch off life-support machines just because someone can't live without outside assistance. The only one making a case for genocide here so far is you. You keep drawing the lines where life begins and starts, pretending to be God, without thinking it through. Have some self-respect and at the very least proof read your responses and past comments.

"I guess your experience is worth as much as monopoly money. Some toddlers are not weaned off their mother. To add insult to injury, you still haven't actually defended the case that the ability to sustain yourself is not a determiner for defining life since infants do need their mother. Or are you suggesting that if a home invader shoots an infant of 8 months old, he cannot be convicted of murder since the infant is still dependant on the mother's body? So yes... keep arguing for infanticide and embarrass yourself more by saying you have more experience."

Have you not heard of formula milk? Look it up. An 8 month old baby is not dependent on it's Mother's body for survival.

"Ahhh, when you realize your argument is weak and double-back and pretend that the other person is making the case for genocide. So no, I am the one who was making the point that you don't switch off life-support machines just because someone can't live without outside assistance."

People do switch off life support machines though, are you unaware of that? Do you think they should be accused of murder?

2/2

"5. The median age of children in foster care is 6 ½ years old. While many people stereotype foster children as troubled teens, the truth of the matter is that most foster children are just that — children. Their biological parents are taken from them at a very young age, which can have a huge impact on their cognitive and emotional development growing up if they are not cared for properly in their youth.

6. The price of underinvesting in our foster youth results in $1 million in societal costs. What many people don’t consider is that it’s not just innocent foster youth that take a hit from society’s lack of attention and investment in them. Our economy as a whole suffers because of the lost services and production that could be contributing to and growing our marketplace, but isn’t.

Some of the biggest issues in the foster care system revolve around the wasted potential of capable and smart youth, simply because they don’t have access to the right resources."-ifoster.org

Really?

"The foster care system is tasked with protecting the welfare of children suffering from abuse and neglect. However, many children taken from their families are subjected to sexual abuse and left in a more vulnerable and traumatized state. Several localized studies demonstrate the startling implications of the pervasiveness of sexual abuse in the foster care system:

A John Hopkins University study of a group of foster children in Maryland found that children in foster care are four times more likely to be sexually abused than their peers not in this setting, and children in group homes are 28 times more likely to be abused.
An Oregon and Washington state study determined that almost one-third of foster children reported abuse by a foster parent or another adult in the home.
Researchers of a study of investigations of abuse in New Jersey foster homes, concluded that “no assurances can be given” that any foster child in the state is safe.
More than half of child sex trafficking victims recovered through FBI raids across the U.S. in 2013 were from foster care or group homes. This statistic brings to light the failure of the system to address the recurring sexual exploitation of minors while in their protection. Predators immediately recognize that children in foster care are especially accessible to them, because the adults charged with protecting them are not doing so.

The foster care system plays a significant role in the growing epidemic of reported institutional sexual abuse of minors. A report completed by the New Jersey Office of Child Advocacy included a study that demonstrated the relationship of the perpetrator of abuse to the victim. Of the child cases studied, 37.4% of perpetrators were institution staff, 36.5% were foster parents, and 20% where relatives of the victim. The results beg the question: is there a higher risk of sexual abuse in an institutional setting then in an abusive home environment provided by a relative?"

"“Swat” children, as young as six months, with a wood spoon
“Blanket train” babies by hitting them if they try to crawl off a blanket placed on the floor
Beat older children with rulers, paddles, and belts
Hose off children who have toilet training accidents"

you mean... discipline?

It's a news article, so no, I don't mean discipline.

Discipline? You mean abuse?