Abortions and the bible.

#1,677
#1,677
This seems to be the best place to carry out this conversation:

37L1 said:
How are you going about "improving the gene pool" and who gets to decide what improvements that are to be made?
Click to expand...

Here's a thought: free people can practice eugenics and improve the gene pool by factoring in gene pool implications when deciding how many kids they have.

A government solution: instead of giving tax breaks for all 6 kids in a family, cap the tax breaks at 3 or 4.

Libs won't like this solution: get rid of/cut welfare.

Once again, there are a million ways we can try to improve the gene pool.
 
Last edited:
#1,678
#1,678
K-town Vol Fan said:
In the bible, God murdered Bathsheba's newborn baby, killed all the first born sons in Egypt, sent bears to murder children, commanded Joshua to murder the children in Jericho, and all babies were wiped out during the flood. It also talks about dismembering children and cutting them out of the mother's womb.

So please help me understand, why do some crazy Republican Christians think their God doesnt approve aborting a fetus of an unwanted pregnancy?
Click to expand...

Ktown queen you'll not accept any explanation
 
#1,680
#1,680
n_huffhines said:
This seems to be the best place to carry out this conversation:



Here's a thought: free people can practice eugenics and improve the gene pool by factoring in gene pool implications when deciding how many kids they have.

A government solution: instead of giving tax breaks for all 6 kids in a family, cap the tax breaks at 3 or 4.

Libs won't like this solution: get rid of/cut welfare.

Once again, there are a million ways we can try to improve the gene pool.
Click to expand...
That's not eugenics.

This is eugenics:

: the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the population's genetic composition In 1883 Francis Galton, in England, coined the term "eugenics" to encompass the idea of modification of natural selection through selective breeding for the improvement of humankind … Definition of EUGENICS

Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/ yoo-JEH-niks; from Greek εὐ- 'good' and γενής 'come into being, growing')[1][2] is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population,[3][4] historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior.[5] Eugenics - Wikipedia
 
#1,681
#1,681
37L1 said:
That's not eugenics.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. The intent of this hypothetical policy is to promote the improvement of the gene pool, so it is eugenics. A definition might be helpful:

"the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. "

Excuse my gross over-simplification and harsh language that helps to explain the idea concisely:

If we want poor, dumb, and dependent people to have fewer kids and a large % of families with big kids are dumb, poor, and dependent then removing the tax benefits to having a 4th, 5th, and 6th kid and welfare benefits will have a disproportionate effect on poor, dumb, dependent people. Rich, smart, capable people that wanted to have 6 kids are still going to have 6 kids because the money isn't affecting their decision. If all goes according to plan, a generation later, we'll have relatively more smart, capable, and rich people. Eugenics!
 
Last edited:
#1,682
#1,682
n_huffhines said:
Yes, it is. The intent of this hypothetical policy is to promote the improvement of the gene pool, so it is eugenics. A definition might be helpful:

"the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. "
Click to expand...
Give me some real examples other than "we choose to only have three kids." That choice usually has more to do with time, physical conditions and economics rather than your, (and I use this with as much restraint as possible), rather nebulous and loose definition of eugenics. It is not what almost anybody (except somebody "out there", there is always at least one) defines as the scientific term of "eugenics."

responded to before your "edit."
 
#1,683
#1,683
n_huffhines said:
Yes, it is. The intent of this hypothetical policy is to promote the improvement of the gene pool, so it is eugenics. A definition might be helpful:

"the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. "

Excuse my gross over-simplification and harsh language that helps to explain the idea concisely:

If we want poor, dumb, and dependent people to have fewer kids and a large % of families with big kids are dumb, poor, and dependent then removing the tax benefits to having a 4th, 5th, and 6th kid and welfare benefits will have a disproportionate effect on poor, dumb, dependent people. Rich, smart, capable people that wanted to have 6 kids are still going to have 6 kids because the money isn't affecting their decision. If all goes according to plan, a generation later, we'll have relatively more smart, capable, and rich people. Eugenics!
Click to expand...
Now I'll respond to your edit:

"racist."
 
#1,685
#1,685
n_huffhines said:
I'm pretty disappointed in myself that I thought you actually wanted to have an honest conversation about this. You're just a troll.
Click to expand...
And you have no sense of humor.

I win.

ayemnr8_460s-png.318066
 
#1,691
#1,691
Y9 Vol said:
The ole "medical needs" argument holds water in about 1% of abortions, but you are correct in your statement.
Click to expand...
It's not just mother's medical either, it's still a choice some parents need to make.

Don't like it, don't get one
 
#1,694
#1,694
utvolpj said:
Because it may be in the best interest of the child. Not a stretch when you've actually been there.
Click to expand...

There again...VERY small percentage and still falls under "unwanted" even if it is "quality of life" that they are choosing not to "want" for the child.
 
#1,695
#1,695
n_huffhines said:
This seems to be the best place to carry out this conversation:



Here's a thought: free people can practice eugenics and improve the gene pool by factoring in gene pool implications when deciding how many kids they have.

A government solution: instead of giving tax breaks for all 6 kids in a family, cap the tax breaks at 3 or 4.

Libs won't like this solution: get rid of/cut welfare.

Once again, there are a million ways we can try to improve the gene pool.
Click to expand...
Why does anyone get a tax break for having children? They are stressing the infrastructure more than those of us without. Why should I be subsidizing YOUR children?

10% flat tax on ALL streams of income, no deductions, constitutional amendment. Done.
 
#1,696
#1,696
Y9 Vol said:
There again...VERY small percentage and still falls under "unwanted" even if it is "quality of life" that they are choosing not to "want" for the child.
Click to expand...
No it absolutely doesn't and you're talking out your ass. The parents could want a child but also realize that bringing him into the world where his short life, if born alive at all, would be spent in pain because of genetics. No book can make that choice
 
#1,697
#1,697
Y9 Vol said:
The ole "medical needs" argument holds water in about 1% of abortions, but you are correct in your statement.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. The incest and 'life of the mother' arguments are the right's hypocrisy. Neither case is the child's fault.
 
#1,698
#1,698
utvolpj said:
Because it may be in the best interest of the child. Not a stretch when you've actually been there.
Click to expand...
It's a very personal thing. I just remember feeling sick when the lady said you could have an abortion. Uh no. The option was available. I never had to face the option d/t my health or the baby's health. That would be a hard place to be in.
 
#1,699
#1,699
SpaceCoastVol said:
Why does anyone get a tax break for having children? They are stressing the infrastructure more than those of us without. Why should I be subsidizing YOUR children?

10% flat tax on ALL streams of income, no deductions, constitutional amendment. Done.
Click to expand...
I agree, I got back more than I paid in some years. It helps but there's no equality in it. Trust me I have since paid it back.
 
#1,700
#1,700
utvolpj said:
No it absolutely doesn't and you're talking out your ass. The parents could want a child but also realize that bringing him into the world where his short life, if born alive at all, would be spent in pain because of genetics. No book can make that choice
Click to expand...

My point...and you know it...is that what you are describing is the case in VERY VERY few abortions and also goes back to the medical issue of the choice.
Sorry if I struck a nerve, but IT IS ALWAYS A CHOICE!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top