26 Nov 07
Originally posted by RagnorakMorons. Stop trying to turn me into a pro-lifer. I don't give adamn about her dead baby or anyone elses.
A) This article is from the Daily Mail
B) There are wackos in all walks of life.
C) She didn't want to have an abortion. She tried to take proactive steps to prevent the need for an abortion, but the medical fraternity wouldn't help her out.
D) It really does seem as though your biggest problem with the women is the act of abortion.
E) Which of the w ...[text shortened]... o have 500 guns because you wouldn't be safe without them, etc, etc. Nothing new here.
D
What I want to know know is, does anyone have the balls to call a spade a spade when it comes to this women?
I say she went too far, when she used global warming as a reason to abort her baby. Not killing herself because would have been a two-for in terms of it's impact on global warming.
What say you?
You don't even have to defend your position. Just take one.
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by MerkSee B above. I referred to her as a wacko, equating her to wackos in other walks of life, like the guy who justifies owning an arsenal of weapons because being surrounded by thousands of mini explosive devices makes him feel safer. You equating this woman to all green advocates, is like me equating Adolf Hitler to yourself and all your right winged friends, just because you share some beliefs doesn't mean you share all his beliefs.
Morons. Stop trying to turn me into a pro-lifer. I don't give adamn about her dead baby or anyone elses.
What I want to know know is, does anyone have the balls to call a spade a spade when it comes to this women?
I say she went too far, when she used global warming as a reason to abort her baby. Not killing herself because would have been a two-for in ...[text shortened]... global warming.
What say you?
You don't even have to defend your position. Just take one.
It seems ludicrous to me that she won't have children because of their carbon footprint. If she herself practices what she preaches, then her carbon footprint should be negligible. She talks about being too busy "changing society" to have family, but if you want to change society, the best place to start is at home. If she could educate her child/children to live with no carbon footprint, then she has made a good start in her life's aims.
D
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI'll give it to you that they're messed up neo-hippies, but they made a personal decision, one of them even left relationships because she didn't want to impress her views upon her boyfriend. They say several times throughout the article that they do not expect or even wish anyone else to follow their example, they just felt on a personal level that this was necessary. As for governments... there's no mention of them... which is unusual even for the daily mail, which tends to be even more paranoid about such things then you seem to be by that post!
This is where all this "global warming" hoo-hah is heading: The government controlling all aspects of your life, even decisions about reproduction. So any time these big phonies or neo-hippies point their self-righteous fingers of indignation at me, I just tell them all to shut the hell up because I ain't giving up my lifestyle because I'm the one who's right and they're wrong.
Watch your back der schwarze, all those hippies are out to get you with their wheatgrass smoothies! 🙄
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by MerkGave you my position, this is not too far, because she is making a personal choice. If she was encouraging or suggesting or campaigning for others to do the same, then it would be too far, but she's not doing that. As it stands, she is maintaining this as a personal choice, not forcing it on anyone.
Morons. Stop trying to turn me into a pro-lifer. I don't give adamn about her dead baby or anyone elses.
What I want to know know is, does anyone have the balls to call a spade a spade when it comes to this women?
I say she went too far, when she used global warming as a reason to abort her baby. Not killing herself because would have been a two-for in ...[text shortened]... global warming.
What say you?
You don't even have to defend your position. Just take one.
As for killing herself, that's what I mean by you seeming to be a pro-lifer, you equate the two events as similar, there is a big difference between a foetus and a fully grown human. Besides, you'd get even more hot and bothered if people were committing suicide for their causes, so don't try to suggest that that would be a viable alternative.
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyThat gives me an idea, could we interpret children as carbon sinks for the carbon we'd release when we decompose? Is there any way that I can claim tax credits for any future kids I have?!
But she'll release lots of CO2 when she decomposes/burns... There's no way of winning😲
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by agrysonI'm glad these couples are sterile and will not have any children to impress their wacky views upon.
I'll give it to you that they're messed up neo-hippies, but they made a personal decision, one of them even left relationships because she didn't want to impress her views upon her boyfriend. They say several times throughout the article that they do not expect or even wish anyone else to follow their example, they just felt on a personal level that this was ...[text shortened]... back der schwarze, all those hippies are out to get you with their wheatgrass smoothies! 🙄
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by agrysonYes. I did see that you gave your position and I appreciate it.
Gave you my position, this is not too far, because she is making a personal choice. If she was encouraging or suggesting or campaigning for others to do the same, then it would be too far, but she's not doing that. As it stands, she is maintaining this as a personal choice, not forcing it on anyone.
As for killing herself, that's what I mean by you seeming ...[text shortened]... g suicide for their causes, so don't try to suggest that that would be a viable alternative.
Nonsense about me getting even more hot and bothered if she killed herself. If she had, it would have been consistant with her view.
As for the difference between a foetus and a grown human. The effect of that feotus being allowed to be a human is enhanced greenhouse gas output. The exact same greenhouse gases that she allows herself to put out by not killing herself.
Now, i'm not trying to sway your position, just clarifying a misunderstanding.
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by RagnorakExcellent viewpoint. You've thought it out in a rational way.
See B above. I referred to her as a wacko, equating her to wackos in other walks of life, like the guy who justifies owning an arsenal of weapons because being surrounded by thousands of mini explosive devices makes him feel safer. You equating this woman to all green advocates, is like me equating Adolf Hitler to yourself and all your right winged friend ...[text shortened]... n to live with no carbon footprint, then she has made a good start in her life's aims.
D
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by MerkYeah, but even if it were in line with her viewpoint, you can see how it might be a little bit more worrying that people are ending their lives for a cause, whatever the cause may be, as opposed to making decisions about their fertility?
Yes. I did see that you gave your position and I appreciate it.
Nonsense about me getting even more hot and bothered if she killed herself. If she had, it would have been consistant with her view.
As for the difference between a foetus and a grown human. The effect of that feotus being allowed to be a human is enhanced greenhouse gas output. The exact sam ...[text shortened]... ling herself.
Now, i'm not trying to sway your position, just clarifying a misunderstanding.
27 Nov 07
Originally posted by agrysonWould you feel that way if people were killing themselves to protest the Global Warming theory?
Yeah, but even if it were in line with her viewpoint, you can see how it might be a little bit more worrying that people are ending their lives for a cause, whatever the cause may be, as opposed to making decisions about their fertility?
27 Nov 07
Originally posted by agrysonNo. You have to pay a death tax so the government can buy carbon offset credits to offset the carbon you'll release upon death.
That gives me an idea, could we interpret children as carbon sinks for the carbon we'd release when we decompose? Is there any way that I can claim tax credits for any future kids I have?!