I guess we can assume he is pro-choice rather than pro-life.
Or, maybe we could make that pro-no-choice - kill them all.
Gunman holding Dicovery Channel hostage
by B-Rock 67 Replies latest social current
-
-
BurnTheShips
I guess we can assume he is pro-choice rather than pro-life.
Pro-choice? Old and busted.
Kill your filthy babies or the Discovery Channel gets it? The new hotness.
Send in Bear Grylls!
BTS
-
Darth plaugeis
what do kids do for us????
why couldn't the lord tell him......
HEY BUDDY YOUR NUTS!!!!!!!
-
serenitynow!
After reading his manifesto I'm thinking this may not end well. I hope he doesn't hurt anyone.
-
beksbks
Oh Burn Burn Burn.
I know you're not particularly interested in honesty, nor are the sites you link. But not only was that book written in 1977 when population control was almost a given, but the end of the chapter where those measures are discussed, was condemnation of them.
-
-
Darth plaugeis
I hope I'm right on this one....
this should end with nothing happening except........... he is arrested.
Then again....... these days WHO KNOWS????
-
BurnTheShips
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems . No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable , such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements : it must be uniformly effective , despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects ; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock . If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children , and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility —just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns— providing they are not denied equal protection . In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
Cut from the same cloth.
BTS
-
Darth plaugeis
He's against Kate plus 8 and 19 and counting
ok but DUDE !!!!!!!!!! Hostages???????
-
BizzyBee
I just heard Sean Hannity blathering about this. He says liberals will find a way to blame this on FOX 'News' and the right.
