Think that abortion is good in weeding out children with physical deformaties, shouldn't we also put people with low IQ's out of their misery as well. I mean we wouldn't want them living a sad life. How about the poor too, they could possibly get their feelings hurt at some point in ther life? Right?
2006-12-02 07:03:51 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Now don't go giving them ideas. They might surprise you.
Liberals celebrate the killing of the unborn. The more abortions; the better in their opinion.
2006-12-02 07:08:42 · answer #1 · answered by John16 5 · 6⤊ 5⤋
It's a moral issue. The ******* catholics have a thing about abortion and they have so much political power that no president is likely to be elected unless he/she supports this antiabortion idea.
What you say makes sense to me but people love to pretend that how much they care for the human race and how much against they are against any form of killing but the fact is that they themselves are contributing to the misery of this world by letting deform children taking birth.
It's an act of kindness if we look at the issue from a spiritual point of view rather than any religious view point that whatever is not capable enough to face the life should be root out with kindness.
2006-12-02 15:28:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
NO
The Reds State mentor of all NeoCon ideology. Wanted dumb people breed for industrial applications.
Hitler wanted the German people categorized into utilitarian groups. America could do the same with Reds Staters that claim they do all the work. Put them in chain gangs and clean up Ohio and New Jersey.
Go big Red Go
2006-12-02 15:22:08 · answer #3 · answered by 43 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Are you suggesting that people turn over a new leaf and start taking responsibility for their own action? How naive.
A repeat offender child molester has more rights than the unborn.
I'm afraid "post pregnancy birth control" is here to stay. The door was left ajar with the Roe vs. Wade decision - how far it will swing open is anyones guess. It's already prompted serious debate on the partial birth issue - sad, isn't it?
2006-12-02 15:20:08 · answer #4 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
interesting question, very few people realize that the founder of planned parenthood was margeret sanger, and she was HUGE in the eugenics movements of the 1920's. she believed that the creation of a master race was the best place for modern science. she believed that undesirables such as blacks, jews, christians and mental defectives didnt have the right to breed. so they set about making purity laws, sterilizing whole groups of the population, starting with the mental asylums, saying that the state shouldnt have to pay to keep retards alive, and if the retards breeded then thats just more retards to pay for. she was influential in early nazi germany, helping to establish their own purity laws. she did create the first planned parenthood in harlem of all places, using an all black staff, so the patrons wouldnt think whitey was trying to kill all the black babies, which they were. eugenics is sick, and should never have made it to our laws, planned parenthood has a sick history, and still does not cease to amaze those who know and understand its history.
2006-12-02 15:15:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
I'll just remain pro-life, thanks.
Currently Congress is having trouble getting a bill passed which would require either anesthesia or a signed waiver thereof, for partial birth aborted babies.
We cannot even stop their pain.
2006-12-02 15:11:50 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
You are just a little misinformed about the pro-choicers if you think that abortions are done mainly to avoid births of children with physical deformities. Don't get me wrong I am also against abortion for the convenience of the pregnant woman.
2006-12-02 15:09:29 · answer #7 · answered by me_worry? 4 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Wrong. You're such a moron. Maybe someone was raped. They don't want a baby, especially with some twisted sexual abuser. What if someone would die if their baby was born, (such a condition) it's just a rational choice. Go shoot yourself.
2006-12-02 20:31:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Good question, but consider this, aren't people with low IQ's easier for the Liberals to control?
2006-12-02 15:16:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
sure! we'll start with you, since you lack education to the point, that you don't realize there isn't any real way to quantify IQ, nor is IQ a measure of intelligence!
http://www.audiblox2000.com/dyslexia_dyslexic/dyslexia014.htm
2006-12-02 15:10:05 · answer #10 · answered by qncyguy21 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋