The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[Fuzzy Bear]

See that conservatives and Libertarians suddenly become fearful of the overreach of police Authority when it's used to actually PROTECT minorities. However when it's used to keep them in their place instead of protesting, of course the sky's the limit.

The highlighted part is the part that belongs in this thread.

What's so absurd and ignorant about that? It actually seems to be an accurate statement and we have a thread for simple truths, I'd recommend you repost this there.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don’t think it will be a Trump that steals the election directly, but Republican officials across the country. The postmaster general will continue to slow the mail down to where it will take 3 1/2 weeks for an absentee ballot to get to your home from the clerk’s office. Due to “printing issues,” the ballots will be mailed out two days before the election, ensuring barely anyone gets them. 

Trump will then send troops to the polling places to scare voters and arrest Biden voters to stop them from voting. By November, the Coronavirus will have spiraled out of control and most people will be too scared to go to the polls even without federal goons there to intimidate them. Trump wins a “landslide” with 14% turnout and Republicans now have huge majorities in both houses of Congress.

There isn't much absurd or ignorant about this, the concerns about Republican voter suppression as well deploying federal troops are well justified. In just the past 2 years, we've seen voter suppression in the Georgia gubernatorial election in 2018 and now we have DHS officers being sent as federal police to Democratic-run cities across the nation to control peaceful protestors. While I don't think Trump will actually rig the election, these concerns aren't unfounded, especially since we are talking about a man who has sought the help of multiple foreign nations in interfering in our elections.

The highlighted part is the ignorant part. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Black Lives Matter IS a Marxist organization.  It's founders have stated that they are trained Marxists.  Patrisse Cullors said this herself.  I also note that you don't respond to the rest of the post, which points out accurately that these people in the streets are, in fact, committing criminal acts.

Can we rename this thread after him?

It's either him or me, and I'd rather not have this thread named after myself, if no one minds.

If I'm going to be quoted here, quote the entire post and the context it's posted in.  You did neither.

They are using unmarked cars because the Mobs in the streets are attacking and vandalizing police cars.  It's an appropriate tactic in the face of a lawless, Marxist mob.

People have committed crimes during the violence in major cities.  Those who have need to face the criminal penalties for these acts.  The hysteria is deception, and is a means the left is using to assist the Marxist Rioters guilty of crimes to avoid prosecution.  I'm very definitely not OK with that.  These people are not peaceful protesters; they are persons committing crimes.  And the municipalities where they are committing these crimes are simply not enforcing the law.  Why taxpayers and ordinary citizens should be OK with that is beyond me.

This shouldn't be here. If Black Lives Matter is Marxist, than logically, every black person is a communist.

Since that isn't true, that post by Fuzzy Bear should not be here.

Black Lives Matter IS a Marxist organization.  It's founders have stated that they are trained Marxists. Patrisse Cullors said this herself.  I also note that you don't respond to the rest of the post, which points out accurately that these people in the streets are, in fact, committing criminal acts.

My question is this:  I would receive flak if I complained about a post being included here.  Why do you get to do it?  Why does Badger get to do it?

If it's OK, then I'll respond with criticism to every post in this thread until it's shut down.  I will not allow people to have this both ways.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me vehemently.  I do have a problem with people trying to have it both ways, or telling half a story.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's certainly likely, but only if Biden wins.

Democrats aren't violent in large numbers the way it seems Republicans are.

Hard to believe anyone would post something this stupid considering the amount of looting and rioting the left has done in the last few months.

Tell me one violent rioter/looter who is voting for Biden.

They're part of his BASE.  They're Joe Biden voters (if they show up).  They're the part of Biden's base that Biden doesn't want to claim.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Who is Jim Trex, and why is this thread named after him? In fact, why is this thread named after anybody? That's not nice.

This is a thread where the Atlas Left (for the most part) gets to post ad hominem attacks against people they disagree with without being sanctioned.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There is always a Tweet:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/395683702757662721

Americans long have said they wanted a President who said out loud exactly what they thought.  Now, they have one.

You mean a president with incoherent verbal diarrhoea?

Spoken like a man with a gargantuan 123 posts who probably has Carpal Tunnel Syndrome from the challenge of typing "effort posts" on his way to being a Forum Institution.

Because of course.

This one I deserve.

I can't begin to number those posters who show up 3-4 months before the election, never to be seen again.  Keeping up effective s---posting over time takes guts and stamina, lol.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Wait, is it anti-Semitic to want people to convert to your religion?

Yes.

Interesting definition of anti-Semitism here.

Wanting anyone to convert to your religion is sociopathic.

The last part.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Wait, is it anti-Semitic to want people to convert to your religion?

Yes.

Interesting definition of anti-Semitism here.

Wanting anyone to convert to your religion is sociopathic.

Directly in the thread and all that.

Conversion efforts are abusive to congregants. By sending their followers out to "spread the good word," religions do not expect to win any new adherents. They assume (correctly) that the outside world will be hostile to their attempts, and that normal people will balk at them and be rude to their members. Then, when the congregants return to the security of the cult, they feel welcomed and at home again. The familiarity of the group calms their anxiety, and they are gradually taught to hate and fear those outside of the cult through conditional exposure. The goal is not to convince anyone to join the faith; that's just icing on the cake. On the contrary, their intention is to solidify their flock's dependence upon the cult by making them feel isolated, persecuted, and victimized. It's an insidiously genius method.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I personally believe that Lockdown Advocates have zeroed their strategy to where these programs disproportionately affect churchgoers, small business people, and working class moms that cannot work from home.  All three of these groups trend Republican; two (2) of them always have.

Lockdowns aren't sincere attempts to contain COVID, they're a vast conspiracy to target specific Republican groups for #reasons.

Whoever introduced Fuzzy to Facebook did this forum a huge disservice. He wasn't always this unhinged.

You can't deny that what I said is true.  The way lockdowns are applied is an example of not letting a crisis go to waste.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I personally believe that Lockdown Advocates have zeroed their strategy to where these programs disproportionately affect churchgoers, small business people, and working class moms that cannot work from home.  All three of these groups trend Republican; two (2) of them always have.

Lockdowns aren't sincere attempts to contain COVID, they're a vast conspiracy to target specific Republican groups for #reasons.

Whoever introduced Fuzzy to Facebook did this forum a huge disservice. He wasn't always this unhinged.

You can't deny that what I said is true.  The way lockdowns are applied is an example of not letting a crisis go to waste.

I can deny it, and I do. You've got to pull yourself off of Facebook or you'll be posting QAnon stuff soon.

You don't care one iota for people who have lost everything during COVID-19 because they cannot open their businesses due to lockdowns that are unnecessary.  You really don't.  These people are not tycoons, but they are people who invested what they had saved in a business, never dreaming that their state governments would work overtime to put them under.

And Democrats don't care about those people because they're not part of their base, simple as that.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The most out of touch post of 2021 so far.

Donald Trump also did not put 11,000 workers on unemployment in his first week in office.  Joe Biden did, and most of those folks were from a union that endorsed Biden.

With one stroke of a pen, 11,000 Keystone Pipeline Workers found themselves unemployed.

Care to modify a bit?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Should the GOP retake the House, Scalise is my choice for Speaker!  

You can think of this as you will, but show me where it's required to admit that Trump lost.

I was actually joking here somewhat.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Sucks that T-Mac is going to run away with this nomination because JCF seems like one of the best gubernatorial candidates anywhere. She could've been a real model for black women to win statewide in 2022 (Abrams, Beasley, etc.) but old white men just can't give up their power.

Imagine opposing BIG F[INKS]ING TMAC because WHITE MEN BAD.

On this Forum, I not only can imagine it; I can expect it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Most Americans should be banned from possessing or carrying firearms.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Pandemic has been over. But covid will not be let go as a political weapon, the campaign to make Americans let go and eventually forget about the basic liberties that were intact in 2019 is not going to let up between now and 2022 or 2024 for that matter.

That S019 would find this absurd speaks to his views on basic freedoms.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Pandemic has been over. But covid will not be let go as a political weapon, the campaign to make Americans let go and eventually forget about the basic liberties that were intact in 2019 is not going to let up between now and 2022 or 2024 for that matter.

That S019 would find this absurd speaks to his views on basic freedoms.

What does that have to do with "basic freedoms"? The pandemic clearly isn't over, or my dad wouldn't have been turned away from a hospital in his city because it's full of unvaccinated MAGAtards. That was three months ago and it's still full.

Your response definitely belongs here.

[Fuzzy Bear]

(White) Boomers are the most selfish generation in American history.

Notice that in Asian immigrant families, the grandparents help their adult children with raising their grandchildren and cooking and cleaning, and are very frugal with their money. And many Black women have raised their children, their grandchildren and are raising their great-grandchildren as we speak.

White grandparents are less than useless. They never come to visit, never offer to help with anything, and are set to blow all their money on golf course memberships and Harley-Davidsons and leave no legacy to speak of.

This thread basically sums it up:

https://twitter.com/UpperLowerClass/status/1498888427814600704?s=20&t=BCULN9...


These people claim they care so much about "traditional family values" and yet instead of spending time with their grandchildren or giving back to the communities that sustained them as children and working-age adults, they run off to Florida and spend the rest of their lives sitting on the couch watching Fox News and being mad online.

This post is pure bigotry.  That others aren't objecting is a statement about them.  Why this poster hasn't received a mute for this is beyond me.

[Fuzzy Bear]

(White) Boomers are the most selfish generation in American history.

Notice that in Asian immigrant families, the grandparents help their adult children with raising their grandchildren and cooking and cleaning, and are very frugal with their money. And many Black women have raised their children, their grandchildren and are raising their great-grandchildren as we speak.

White grandparents are less than useless. They never come to visit, never offer to help with anything, and are set to blow all their money on golf course memberships and Harley-Davidsons and leave no legacy to speak of.

This thread basically sums it up:

https://twitter.com/UpperLowerClass/status/1498888427814600704?s=20&t=BCULN9...


These people claim they care so much about "traditional family values" and yet instead of spending time with their grandchildren or giving back to the communities that sustained them as children and working-age adults, they run off to Florida and spend the rest of their lives sitting on the couch watching Fox News and being mad online.

This post is pure bigotry.  That others aren't objecting is a statement about them.  Why this poster hasn't received a mute for this is beyond me.

It's only bigotry if it is against people of colour or the latest popular minority Fuzzy.

As we are a little older, we don't suffer ultra-sensativity to these issues.

"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

I'm not an Alinskyite, but I do agree with this principle. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

I believe the Biblical account of Creation, the Global Flood, and the age of the Earth.  I also believe that scientific evidence supports a ~6000 year old Earth if only they would consider the impacts of the Flood.

To disagree with such a post is fine and good.  Lots of people don't agree with this post.  I'm an Evangelical Christian and I don't particularly believe in Young Earth theology.  But to post this here just puts this poster's unbridled hatred for Evangelical Christians on display.  If someone placed a comparable post about an Islamic belief here, S019 would likely petition the post be removed, citing religious bigotry, etc.

There are many mainstream religious beliefs of faiths other than mine that I consider false.  I am sure that many people believe that my religious beliefs are false.  That's fine and good, and someday Faith will be Sight.  I would not, however, post such a theoloical quote from another poster here.  That S019 sees fit to do so is a view into his particular soul.  I'll leave it to the reader to decide what that view is like.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I believe the Biblical account of Creation, the Global Flood, and the age of the Earth.  I also believe that scientific evidence supports a ~6000 year old Earth if only they would consider the impacts of the Flood.

To disagree with such a post is fine and good.  Lots of people don't agree with this post.  I'm an Evangelical Christian and I don't particularly believe in Young Earth theology.  But to post this here just puts this poster's unbridled hatred for Evangelical Christians on display.  If someone placed a comparable post about an Islamic belief here, S019 would likely petition the post be removed, citing religious bigotry, etc.

There are many mainstream religious beliefs of faiths other than mine that I consider false.  I am sure that many people believe that my religious beliefs are false.  That's fine and good, and someday Faith will be Sight.  I would not, however, post such a theoloical quote from another poster here.  That S019 sees fit to do so is a view into his particular soul.  I'll leave it to the reader to decide what that view is like.

Young Earth creationism crosses the line from religious dogma into conspiracy theory. YEC and its adherents don't deserve to be treated any differently from flat-Earthers.

That's what you think of religion in general.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Republicans do know how to win votes and turn out their base so you can't necessarily blame them. If anything I think Democrats should concede these issues to them and simply maintain a economically liberal message. If Democrats can get socially conservative, but economically liberal candidates elected then they could get things like a minimum increase passed. After all I think there are more socially conservative voters than LGBTQ voters in this country, so majority rules.

It speaks volumes that BRTD thinks this is awful but I think this is great.

It speaks volumes as to who is the elitist and who is not.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Republicans do know how to win votes and turn out their base so you can't necessarily blame them. If anything I think Democrats should concede these issues to them and simply maintain a economically liberal message. If Democrats can get socially conservative, but economically liberal candidates elected then they could get things like a minimum increase passed. After all I think there are more socially conservative voters than LGBTQ voters in this country, so majority rules.

It speaks volumes that BRTD thinks this is awful but I think this is great.

It speaks volumes as to who is the elitist and who is not.

Not wanting to throw queer people, etc under the bus is not elitism.

Unfortunately, historically there has been a linking of supporting marginalized groups with elitism in this country by reactionaries. Back in the day pro-slavery arguments constantly went back to attacking the abolitionist crowd as rich and elitist Northerns looking down on the Southern way or life and this line of argument carried over into Jim Crow. Hell, anytime the issue of racial profiling by cops comes up at some point the anti-profiling crowd will get attack for living in gated communities. So as much supporting the rights of marginalized people isn’t elitist it definitely has been linked historically

[/b][/i]

The ignorant part is highlighted.

The idea that being socially conservative is throwing people under the bus is ignorant, especially in light of the behavior of the Woke amongst us over the last 2-3 years.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own.  In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

This fresh new post also deserves an entry all it's own here.

This thread is about absurd/ignorant posts.  Much of this is in the eye of the beholder.  Look, however, at the highlighted sentence above.  The root word for "ignorant" is "ignore".  In making that statement, CentristRepublican is ignoring the entire issue; namely the issue of whether or not the "fetus" is indeed an unborn baby and a human life at a stage of human development you and I were once at.  If you want to not be considered "ignorant", stop IGNORING the whole reason for this controversy and honestly address it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

This fresh new post also deserves an entry all it's own here.

This thread is about absurd/ignorant posts.  Much of this is in the eye of the beholder.  Look, however, at the highlighted sentence above.  The root word for "ignorant" is "ignore".  In making that statement, CentristRepublican is ignoring the entire issue; namely the issue of whether or not the "fetus" is indeed an unborn baby and a human life at a stage of human development you and I were once at.  If you want to not be considered "ignorant", stop IGNORING the whole reason for this controversy and honestly address it.

He says while ignoring the entire substance of the quoted post and refusing to engage with any of the points that CentristRepublican made.

This issue all boils down to the highlighted part.