HOME | DD

Nerudan18 In reply to ??? [2014-05-28 02:31:05 +0000 UTC]

Because the mother may die, but the baby rescued from the womb and live. Vice versa, the baby may die by miscarriage, but the mother live. I believe that proves that they are two separate individuals: if the baby was truly just another part of the body, surely both mother and child would die if either one were to get in trouble?

So you are only ones allowed a free pass when it comes to willful ignorance? 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to ??? [2013-11-23 19:47:38 +0000 UTC]

As of 2012, when this was written the foster care load was about 400K kids that were already in the system with no chance of returning home. Which was already stated in the piece, and 122,000 kids which are already adopted out each year on top of the around 150,000 kids that go into the system each year.

I would disagree with your premise that the problem is a “bloated bureaucracy” and would say the problem is not enough case agents. The recommended case load for a foster care case worker is 12-15 cases per case worker, yet the average case load for each case worker is over 30 cases .. which of course means that home inspections are not done as often as they should be - - which of course means for the kids in foster care homes they may fall into the cracks.

With respect to new parents, with such large case loads, that of course means home checks to make sure the home is suitable for kids, as well as the necessary economic, and background checks done on the parents tend to take longer as the ever revolving doors of more and more cases enter the system thus  burdening an already overburdened staff with more and more cases.

Bureaucracy is not general the issue, if you look at the adoption rates and services in Canada, Britain, and other Western countries you will find the turn-around is rather fast and they do all of the same checks as the US –as far as background checks, monetary checks, home inspections etc but the average case worker in these countries have much smaller case-loads when compared to the United States.

Your ending premise, must be addressed, unless you are looking at clinics that only do abortions and no other services, which that is a very small percentage compared to clinics and hospitals as a whole, you will find that abortion services never move over 5% of a clinic services and as such, it could be stated that the “grow richer” off the other 95% of services that they can perform.

So, do they make money from abortion, I am sure they do, but on a whole system of 1:1 comparison, it being a small percentage is not where the bulk of the revenue from most clinics come from.

[the piece spoke nothing of a lack of compassion so unsure where that premise came from]


Thank  you for your comment, while everyone is entitled to their view on the matter of course .

If there is something in your comment that you feel was not addressed, do tell me and I will be sure to address it in any future replies - if there are any replies.
If not, I shall merely wish you a good day.

Good day to you, sir.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nerudan18 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-12-30 13:08:18 +0000 UTC]

I distinctly remember saying NO ESSAYS.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Nerudan18 [2013-12-30 14:54:39 +0000 UTC]

When one asks such a broad question, they cannot then be in charge of how long the response shall be.

Now, if you choose not to reply to the comment, then that of course is your prerogative to do so.. if you have any further questions then you may of course ask them and they shall be answered as well.

Though the whole "TLR/WR" is a rather useless thing on such a serious topic as abortion.

So, if that will be all? Good day to you, sir.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DaDude101 In reply to ??? [2013-10-30 18:33:14 +0000 UTC]

Actually the reason I'm a pro-lifer is because abortion is killing another human being.  It has nothing to do with women's rights.  They already have them!  They can give the kid up for adoption or have their parents take care of their children while still in school.

Of course, if these chicks would just keep their damn legs closed & stop fucking, this wouldn't be a problem.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to DaDude101 [2013-10-30 20:43:38 +0000 UTC]

One can be against abortion all day long, that is not the point of the piece.

The point of the piece is if someone just yells, BAN ABORTION - ADOPT and that is their only view on the subject vs them giving alternatives to how to decrease pregnancy rates, decrease abortion rates especially vs the previous view mentioned.

We often hear this, it is not about the economy, it is about life. in life we deal with the economy, can the economy truly support 250-500K new kids in foster care each and every year [assuming abortion was banned, and only 25-50% of kids were adopted out] in a system that only adopts out 122K kids a year... can the system support the tens of billions additional costs that will increase by billions every year due to such a banning?

If they say I am against abortion that is why I want easy access to contraception and in depth sex ed which has been shown to decrease abortion and pregnancy rates, I could understand that. Yet, if their only view is... ban abortion and have nothing more to say on the topic then it is a wasted effort for the most part.

..sounds like a nice ideal for some, but not ultra realistic..

But, as the piece states, everyone is entitled to their own view on the matter.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DaDude101 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-10-30 22:29:15 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, i don't think it's right.  Women have choices---they can adopt, have thier parents take care of their child, and even send the child to a foster family.  So I'm calling bullshit on that.  I'm just astouded how no one takes into consideration that unborn child is another human being.  It has the same genetic makeup as a human.  What about that child?  If it could talk, I doubt it would want to be killed. 

Second, I think war has done good enough job at controlling our population, however I don't think our world is "overpopulated".  If it were, food & water would be scarce, but seeing how everyone is able to get food at the supermarket without worrying about lack of avaiblity tells me that there is no "overpopulation".

Seems to me, some hoes should keep their closed. 

Of course, like I said earlier, if people would stop fucking, this wouldn't be a problem

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to DaDude101 [2013-10-31 01:14:29 +0000 UTC]

The premise is not merely if one thinks it is right, wrong.. if one is for the continuation of the legalization of abortion and abortifacients or if one is for making abortion and abortifacients illegal. It is about offering realistic alternatives and ideas on how to decrease abortion rates and unwanted pregnancies.

I assume you mean by they can adopt you mean give the child up for abortion, which has already been addressed that if that is the  only idea of they can give the kid up for adoption then it is not addressing the key issue of that alone not being what will decrease abortion rates and unwanted pregnancies. Thus the issue that if only 25% of them give the kids up for abortion every year, in a country that has around 1 million abortions per year… that is still 250,000 kids going into a system that only adopts out 122,000 and that is greatly underfunded as ill.

“So I’m calling bullshit on that”
On what? Did anywhere in the piece or in my comment to you did it say they had no choices at all?

I have heard that argument before of if it could talk.. if it were to cure cancer, if it were to be the one to take us further into genetic research… speaking in hypotheticals we could what if anything.

Thus the fact is, admitting that merely adoption will not solve the entire issue and finding ways to decrease unwanted pregnancies and abortions.


Food and water are scarce for most of the world in third world countries, not to mention the 25% of American children that do not have food security, which is they are unsure where their next meal is coming from. I am sure if given the time we could, if we were to build more farms, around the world could find a way to feed local populations, but as the population grows.. I would tell you to look up the population between 1950-2010… the earth’s population took just 60 years to grow by more than 2.5x in those 60 years.. than it took the entire earth’s human population to grow in thousands of years. ..and by 2050 we are projected to be between the 9-10 billion mark

As you have larger and larger populations, you have more and more forest areas being torn down, natural wild life destroyed, and less and less land for growing [ of course, and I assume this is not the ultimate goal is to have everyone living in apartment buildings to conserve space … which I do not, realistically seeing that be the goal for most]

… well I am sure you know not “everyone” can just walk into a supermarket and get food with ease… addressing then the economic and jobs situation in just this country but also on an international level since the premise is unwanted abortions.

We are back at the “if” I am sure you do not expect the US or the world to just stop having sex for enjoyment… and to only have it when they want kids.. so we are back at the premise of ways to decrease abortion rates and unwanted pregnancies.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

UTERI In reply to ??? [2013-10-23 19:43:19 +0000 UTC]

Do pro-lifers realize how many freaking children will be in the adoption center if we stopped giving abortions? Like seriously there's a lot now we don't need a few thousand more. Along with the fact that people would probably just do it to themselves and hurt themselves, do it illegally and probably get hurt or get it not done properly, etc. So making abortions illegal will cause more harm then good. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

DaDude101 In reply to UTERI [2013-11-06 07:59:08 +0000 UTC]

LOL Sounds like some bitches should keep their legs closed

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

HarmonyThroughAnime In reply to DaDude101 [2013-12-18 23:24:04 +0000 UTC]

Sex, consensual, isn’t a crime. Don’t try to make it one. Humans are not the only creatures that have sex for pleasure purposes – dolphins and bonobos do as well, for example – and sex has many health benefits…someone should not be deprived from sex simply because they don’t want to have children.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nark0tica In reply to DaDude101 [2013-11-08 03:12:04 +0000 UTC]

Sounds like some kiddo needs to have mommy and daddy take their internet away. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

UTERI In reply to DaDude101 [2013-11-06 11:15:30 +0000 UTC]

No, they just need better sex ed to teach them better. Maybe the guys should learn to  keep their dicks in their pants instead of blaming girls all the time?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to UTERI [2013-10-23 20:52:02 +0000 UTC]

I agree, that is why I did the numbers.. America has on average 1M abortions and we adopt out 122K kids a year.. even if 25% of those who were not allowed to have abortions decide to give them up.. that is an additional 250K kids in a system which will not adopt out even half the number leaving a greater net positive 200K + kids in the system every year..

I am all for decreasing abortion rates with the use of contraceptives easily available, and sex ed for HS

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

UTERI In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-10-23 22:24:49 +0000 UTC]

Yes, they should have better sex ed available anyways, regardless of the abortion stuff. Though that is a good idea.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to UTERI [2013-10-24 00:33:26 +0000 UTC]

I do find it oddly fascinating that Texas, the state which has pretty much destroyed the sex ed classes.. has the fastest growing teen pregnancy rates and accounts for nearly 10% of all abortions

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

watermeloncrunch In reply to ??? [2013-09-22 06:35:08 +0000 UTC]

This is how a usual argument goes.

Pro-lifer: Nooooooo the woman is a sluuuut nonono she needs to give birth because i think its a human

Pro-choicer: Actually... *facts facts facts facts facts* And that's why abortion isn't mur---

Pro-lifer: OMGGG u deserve to die u stupeed idiot so what all those fax are dumb because its LIFE

Pro-choicer: But I just explained --

Pro-lifer: ADOPTION!!!!!!!!1111

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

eightieshair In reply to watermeloncrunch [2014-01-01 21:27:41 +0000 UTC]

Oh you forgot "ur mom shoulda aborted u!!!"

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

xghfthfgxn In reply to watermeloncrunch [2013-09-27 05:53:26 +0000 UTC]

You forgot a few:

"Abortion is bad because the 2000-year-old scribblings of misogynistic slave-owners who didn't even know that the southern hemisphere said so."

"Thou shalt not kill unless it's a woman, gay or muslim."

"Honour thy father and they mother even if daddy got you pregnant and mummy turned a blind eye."

"Over population is a myth even though we're living longer, building bigger houses and cities are getting bigger."

"Steve Jobs wasn't planned and look how he turned out, despite the fact that Apple is running every other computer business into the ground"

"Rape is simply God's plan, which we'll happily ignore when it comes to extending someone's life beyond the point of dignity"

"Abortion turns women into sex objects, despite the fact that women can't have sex immediately afterwards"

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to watermeloncrunch [2013-09-22 16:41:53 +0000 UTC]

Lmao, that is exactly how many of the debates I have had gone! lmao, I try to explain, as I did here [I may have to repost this with 2012 numbers vs 2011 numbers which is what this used] Even if 25% of the women who were having abortions give their babies up for adoption.. that will not solve the issue when we are still adopting out far less than what would be coming into the system

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

peacefulinvasion In reply to ??? [2013-04-11 14:19:41 +0000 UTC]

Actually I'm against putting the child up for adoption.

First of all its irresponsible. With abortion at least your dealing with the problem. Not the way everybody wants you to deal with the problem but your dealing with it. With adoption its different. Your dumping the problem onto somebody else. I'm sorry but people can whine that abortion is "making the problem dissapear" its not its actually solving the problem in a way that doesn't hurt anybody.

Second of all i'm sorry but I hate the idea of a child being forced to suffer a miserable life for pro-lifer's entertainment. Its wrong. There are currently children in the adoption system that are already suffering and would LOVE to gain a good home. The older a child gets the less likely they are to get adopted and the less time they have to get adopted. By the time they turn 18 they are kicked out of this system and are on their own. I'm sorry but i'm more concerned about the children already existing in the adoption system.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to peacefulinvasion [2013-04-11 17:27:18 +0000 UTC]

I am not against putting a child in the adoption system; I just wish people would stop acting like merely putting kids up for adoption will solve the number of abortions that are had in America every year – it will not.

I do not think it is irresponsible per se, if that is the person’s choice, then that is their choice. I do not like to cast great shadow without just cause. Every situation is different, some parents fall on hard times and have no place to go so figure putting their kids in the system for temporary until they are back on their feet may help them, some have their kids taken away from them, some just cannot afford them and make the choice to… then you have those cases where the child is removed from a parent for mistreating them etc.

So for me, I am not anti-adoption.. I volunteer at several foster care and abused women shelters so I do not blame the kids or their parents because some of them have stories to tell which one would prefer they are there than what their parents.

I agree with you on the miserable life part. I also agree that it is harder to adopt out older kids which I discussed in this piece and the linked pieces also discussed it. I also agree that we should be concerned with the children already in the system but I do not see much in Washington for increasing their budget which can allow for adopting them out to responsible people, .. yet quicker than two years.

Thanks for your comment, have a great day

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

peacefulinvasion In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-04-12 00:40:11 +0000 UTC]

No problem :3

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nerudan18 In reply to ??? [2013-02-10 16:36:09 +0000 UTC]

What if the reason adoption is not chosen frequently is because of Planned Parenthood? Think about it; they have the most to gain financially from legalized abortion, and they are the ones who have sold us on the idea that abortion is the only viable solution in most unwanted pregnancies. Granted, the foster care system sucks, but its still better than bringing unborn children to an early grave.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Nerudan18 [2013-02-10 17:50:51 +0000 UTC]

Not really, your premise is faulty, abortion is only 3% of what they do - -it could be argued that cancer screenings, treatment, therapy, etc do bring in more money than abortions thus if it was simply a financial standpoint, they would and are making more money from the other 97% of what they do that has nothing to do with abortion.

The majority of abortions in America, are not done by Planned Parenthood, though they are the single largest provider of abortion as in the largest group that does them but overall I believe they only account for about 35-38% of abortions in this country.

Who is this "they"? Did this piece or have any place on the planned Parenthood website said that abortion is the only viable solution? .. I have never heard anyone from their leadership say such. To say it is the only viable answer forgets about adoption - - but we must stop talking as if adoption solves the abortion problem.

I did the math in this piece, if we outlawed abortion, on average there are 1 Million abortions in this country, on average we adopt out 122K kids from foster care each year... even if 1/4 people give their child up for adoption that is still 250K .. entering a system that will only put out less than half that amount, on top of every 4 years that would be an additional million kids in a system that is already overburdened as is.

As I said in the piece, if you/anyone is against abortion, that is fine. If you have an actual alternative that will decrease abortion rates as spoken of in the piece, I am more than willing to hear them... but the signs saying ADOPT NOT ABORT as if they will solve the issue of abortion, or even our overburdened foster care facilities is an argument that, while worth discussing the anti choice side must also tell us an actual plan other than slogans...

With due respect, saying it sucks... without offering an actual alternative only shows the reason this piece was made.

As stated, or rather to reiterate, if someone is against abortion, fine, I do not think anyone is "PRO ABORTION" as in the sense of KILL EVERY SINGLE unborn lump of cells - - but as my piece outlines ways to dramatically decrease abortion rates, I would like those who are against abortion in all or most cases - - to offer up some actual things to decrease abortion rates, sex education - an in depth sex ed class, readily available contraception, etc etc.

I apologize for rambling, but I do wish for some ideas on how you would decrease abortion rates - - saying just send them to foster care - -which in turn means the hundreds of thousands of kids in foster care funds then have to be stretched even more meaning each child will get even less on average .. in a system where the agents are not paid enough, and are already made to take on more cases than what is an ideal situation of 10-15 cases max.. some are juggling 20-40 cases... which of course means no way to do the weekly/biweekly home visits for each child and the idea of JUST ADOPT adding 250K kids to the system each year.... is not a real idea to fix the abortion problem...

Better is subjective, so that is your opinion and you are entitled to that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nerudan18 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-02-14 04:39:48 +0000 UTC]

I hope you too will excuse me if this seems too long.

Regarding your first paragraph, let's pretend for a moment that I donate money to a neo-nazi group. If they use only 3% of the money on killing Jews, does that make me any less responsible for their dirty deeds? For that matter, even if they promise not to use the money on killing, period, by giving them money, I give them the means to do their dirty work.

And that's the problem. They grow rich off of murder; but besides that is their responsibility. They were the ones who advocated abortion as a solution around the time Roe V Wade went to the court (I know they didn't always do so)And even so, 38% is a pretty significant chunk.

You know, that is the one and only piece of pro-choice logic I can accept. It's not really fair to advocate for babies in the womb and then say "you're on your own" once they are born. But as for where the logistics of outlawing abortion square with adoption, I have this to offer.

If you will excuse me for repeating myself, I think the answer as to why we have more abortions than adoptions is the bloody money trail. Thanks to Planned Parenthood, radical feminists, and other abortion providers, too many people buy into the idea that abortion is a necessary evil (or a human right) Because of that, people begin to see abortion as another thing for the capitalist market to provide. In turn, it is not profitable to fix up the foster care system, because killing has been made the more acceptable path.

As for why I think CPS sucks...mostly for the same reason I hate Planned Parenthood. They make destroying families their mission in life; in many cases, they have been known to ignore obvious cases of abuse, and then be very quick to steal children from nonabusive parents. No organization that threatens family structure can be morally acceptable.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Nerudan18 [2013-02-14 06:03:07 +0000 UTC]

Really sir? Though your argument, sir, is a rather absurd one to even jump from planned parenthood to a neo-nazi group but utilizing your argument I will attempt to address it.

Your premise is also faulty in that none of the money that they receive from public funds are used for abortion, thus the money they get from government, NONE of that goes towards abortions, it does go towards the cancer screenings, birth controls, cancer treatment, meds, therapy etc… they get private donations for the abortions. I do hope you are not attempting to even equate the planned parenthood with neo-nazi groups. But tackling your premise on its merits, even if they do not kill Jews at all, giving your money to a racist organizations, which preaches racial superiority, which preaches that this group is better than this group solely based on the color of their skin in the modern period, knowing full well what they stood for would not make you “responsible” for any actions that an individual has committed, but it may make you suspect to public discussions about your donations - - since other than terrorist organizations, [which in many countries neo-nazi groups are considered] there is no law, in this country, which says you cannot donate your money to these groups - - nor, with the exception of call to harm the law has said they have a right to say whatever they want…

I find it a bit comparing apples to oranges, a neo-nazi group and planned parenthood… A better comparison may have been planned parenthood and an anti-choice/abortion groups that may bomb clinics, at least then the subject would be the same yet the side and the extremity can be compared.

Not really, in order for your argument to remain true you must show that they used your money in the crime or to help with the crime of killing Jews, thus your claim of “the means” .. since your money cannot legally be used for such and records are kept and checked for such it is not the same.

Sir, you have not proven that they “grow rich on murder” sorry, sir, but the mere fact that you claim it does not make it true. As stated, the bulk of their donations and money are actually made from cancer screenings and treatment, STD checks and treatment, counseling etc… not abortion. Treatment for cancer can easily cost 10x more than abortion… and more people get diagnosed and/or treatment for cancer in America than get abortions.. we have on average 1M abortions, yet 1.4M new cases of cancer, plus 10-12M people getting treatment for some type of cancer at any given time… While of course planned parenthood does not handle every cancer case in America- it does account for 1/6th of what their clinic does..

So, your argument, with due respect, is a facile one because you are not comparing likened organizations, you are comparing one organization which provides legal services, a small part of their practice, 3% being abortion with a group that preaches hate, intolerance and the like.. whose economic practices are very different, Planned Parenthood budget is subject to governmental oversight, a neo-nazi group does not have to show their budget unless a warrant is gotten nor, as far as the law states, is there any law that says they cannot use any donations in whatever way they see possible [outside] of breaking the law.

Which “they” are you speaking of, sir? The president was only 16 when Roe V Wade passed and has said that at the time she has not paid much attention to it, many of those who volunteer at their clinics are young adults to around 30 or 40s… so either was not born or very young, so more than likely were not there advocating for it to be legal at that time.

38%...which is only 3% of their practice, so you can say, oh noes, 250-300K abortions they do per year, but of course private doctors do 2-3x that much, and like a private physician they cannot use government insurance or grants to go towards abortion.

Your premise is lacking a key component, evidence.

The reason we have more abortions than adoptions, besides the fact of course that there is about 400-500K kids in foster care vs 300+ million citizens.. so you would forgive me if we looked at the numbers game to see why more people get pregnant and do not want it vs amount being adopted out. Has very little to do with the “money trail”.

Even if we upped our adoption rate to double, you still will have to convince a woman, or young lady who does not want the child to then carry it for 9 months… only to go through that and then sign the child over.

If you would like to increase adoption rates then it will take money, we need more case agents, we need more foster care workers to allow for a manageable case load so that they can. 1- check in every home as often they are supposed to, 2- be able to check out the finances, home visit, etc of potential parents who want to adopt. As it is now, with so many kids waiting to be adopted, so many kids entering the foster care system every year, and so many temporary placements each and every year - - very few permanent placements shows why the number of adoptions are lower than abortions…

Well how do we judge “rights” sir? While you may disagree with it, according to the constitution that which judges what is a right and constitutional is the supreme court, they have said it is a right. While not saying every supreme court verdict is right - - with respect to rights they have said that it is one. If you do not agree with that then .. the only way I can see it changing is if you keep voting for conservative Republican presidents and as more members of SCOTUS die or retire and they replace them with more conservative Supreme court Justices then that is the only way I see it overturning.

Has very little to do with the capitalistic market, you have socialistic and state run societies that allow abortions or in the cases of China force some people to have abortions… While I find the idea of forcing someone to have an abortion horrible, the reason behind it is understandable even if the method is something I disagree with.. China has a 1.3 billion population.. if they did not have some limit on kids you could easily see that doubled within a generation, especially if parents wish for 2…3 …4 kids.. I think they need to get their markets in order, to allow for sustainable populace and economy - - though their population is expected to peak by 2030-2040 and start to go down given current trends…

Your premise is also a bit faulty, fixing up the foster care system would indeed be profitable. Kids who are in a stable home generally get better grades, generally go on to higher education, generally get better jobs - -thus from an economic standpoint a strong foster care would be economic viable as well as the saving of funds from getting kids adopted within 4-5 months vs it taking years.

I would disagree with your premise that the point of CPS is to destroy families, but you are entitled to your opinion on that matter, since I am assuming you are not asserting it as an emphatic fact and thus would require some form of evidence for such.

Your reason for “hating” them only shows why we need more money in them - - with fewer and fewer case workers each year that means each case worker has to take on more and more cases. The ideal load for a case worker is 12 - - yet the average number per case worker is 22… thus that means they cannot make the weekly home visits, type up all of the reports, on top of going to court for the cases etc… we need to invest more money to allow for more case workers - - spread the cases out to the ideal 10-12 range which would allow for more home visits, taking kids if they are truly being abused and/or neglected, etc

I believe I have addressed each paragraph, if there is something you feel was not addressed just say so and I shall address it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LolitheLeopard In reply to ??? [2013-02-03 00:23:24 +0000 UTC]

What if Osama Bin Laden was aborted?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to LolitheLeopard [2013-02-03 01:29:38 +0000 UTC]

I try not to deal in What ifs, if I can help it.. not saying you would, but then it often leads to .. what if Hitler was aborted, what if that baby would cure aids, cancer... etc etc

Thank you for the fave

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LolitheLeopard In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-02-03 01:30:34 +0000 UTC]

You deserved it!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to LolitheLeopard [2013-02-03 01:34:22 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

yellowshinygoldfish In reply to ??? [2013-01-18 03:07:45 +0000 UTC]

I could agree as long as they change the abortion terminology, it's not like any mission is being aborted at the NASA, that's just a funny joke invented by a bored doctor.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to yellowshinygoldfish [2013-01-18 12:16:17 +0000 UTC]

Lmao, the funny thing is... if we made birth control readily available - the very thing the anti choice people are against - - that would nearly cut the abortions in half

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

yellowshinygoldfish In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-01-18 14:20:19 +0000 UTC]

Let's hope so.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to yellowshinygoldfish [2013-01-18 15:20:14 +0000 UTC]

Luckily hope is not necessary, we can look at when sex ed was brought to schools and where birth control and condoms were readily available teen pregnancies dropped greatly, as did the abortion rates.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

yellowshinygoldfish In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-01-18 16:03:00 +0000 UTC]

Where I live there is no sexed class, they talk some basic information like how the reproductive organs function with each other but that's all so I can't give my opinion on sexed class.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to yellowshinygoldfish [2013-01-18 23:19:24 +0000 UTC]

Do you live in a "red state" many have gotten rid of sex ed.

Do you not find it a bit funny that Texas has gotten rid of sex ed.. has one of the fastest growing teen pregnancies rate and though it is 1/50 states, it accounts for nearly 10% of abortions in America

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

crazyforchocobos In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-10-16 01:18:22 +0000 UTC]

And wasn't there an instance where the Texas GOP wanted to get rid of critical thinking class too?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to crazyforchocobos [2013-10-16 01:28:15 +0000 UTC]

I know they wanted to include creationism in their science classes ... but that did not even make it pass the conservative school board

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

crazyforchocobos In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-10-16 04:08:41 +0000 UTC]

When even conservatives think someone's bonkers they are bonkers.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to crazyforchocobos [2013-10-16 13:03:52 +0000 UTC]

lmao, you are speaking of the state, Texas, that wanted to remove Thomas Jefferson from their history books because of his lack of moral value aka he was not that religious

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

crazyforchocobos In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-10-16 17:44:11 +0000 UTC]

What..?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to crazyforchocobos [2013-10-16 22:49:22 +0000 UTC]

One of the  Public School Board of Texas just a few years ago, I believe 2010 wanted to remove Thomas Jefferson from their social studies school books and replace him with some British priests... it actually passed that school board but after public outcry the school board did not follow through with it

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

crazyforchocobos In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-10-16 23:16:55 +0000 UTC]

Yeeeshh...can someone please get some sane people in Texas' gov.?

Those people seriously need to get in their heads that just because someone isn't religious or is of a different religion that does not mean they have no morals.

sometimes the whacko Christians make me want to become Buddhist or a Druid...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to crazyforchocobos [2013-10-17 00:04:38 +0000 UTC]

lmao, there is good news.. Rick Perry says he will not run again for Governor bwhaha

To the tea party, or many in the tea party to not be Christian is to be evil... .. but they entertain me...

lmao, I am an atheist so I will just keep letting the fundies entertain me

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

crazyforchocobos In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-10-17 00:55:51 +0000 UTC]

They do realize there even jerks who identify as Christian right?  They may be doing a sucky job at being Christian (This coming from an Agonist) but you get my point.  And the fact of how many skeletons the religion has in the closet?

It' especially amusing when they say "close minded".

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to crazyforchocobos [2013-10-17 00:57:37 +0000 UTC]

I just let them entertain me..WE WANT A CHRISTIAN NATION..SO WE DO NOT WANT TO FEED THE POOR AND PROVIDE CARE FOR THE SICK... CHRISTIAN NATION!!!

... you are so close minded if you do not accept my hypocrisy bwhahhahaaha

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

crazyforchocobos In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-10-17 01:02:26 +0000 UTC]

That's their logic.

Heheh Or you're so close minded if you accept another hypocrisy!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to crazyforchocobos [2013-10-17 03:02:04 +0000 UTC]

Lmao, some Democrat said, I forgot who it was.. that if you start quoting Christ they would call you a socialist and anti American bwhaha

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

crazyforchocobos In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-10-17 04:25:56 +0000 UTC]

O__o

👍: 0 ⏩: 0