Genocide could hit record

  • Follow Letters

As Americans, it is in our nature to not only achieve great things worldwide but to surpass those who already have reached certain goals.

America is a very competitive country. We cheer our Olympic athletes as they bring home medal after medal; take pride in our citizens who are awarded world renown recognition for their efforts in a myriad of endeavors; and express our bravado when an American company dominates its foreign competition. That is who we are and what we strive for – to be No. 1. We are exactly that in many endeavors across the globe, but not all.

There is one huge statistic that we are still No. 2 but are closing the gap. I, among many, never thought in a million years we would be able to achieve front-runner status in this category, but we have a good chance of achieving this. We are finally going to overcome the numbers put up by good old Joseph Stalin, FDR’s buddy, in the number of Soviet citizens he murdered – 60 million, the largest slaughter of humans in history.

Right now, our total is approximately 56 million, which means that we have a good chance of passing “Uncle Joe.” Wherever he is, I’m certain he will be thrilled. How should we recognize this event when it happens? Will we have parades and celebrations, and will the abortion clinic that reaches the surpassing number be recognized by the president for its outstanding accomplishment?

When “Uncle Joe” died, everyone thought that his evil would never be surpassed. How very, very wrong we were.

William Kemple

Martinez

Comments (24) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
specsta
6355
Points
specsta 01/26/13 - 04:34 am
3
7
Actual Genocide

There are some scholars who suggest that 100 million Native Americans suffered genocide at the hands of white Europeans, who brought diseases such as smallpox and measles to the Americas. An entire culture of people was decimated.

Let's weigh the two events - 100 million Native Americans (actual human beings) killed due to disease and war - versus 50 million (clumps of cells and zygotes). See the difference?

As a matter of fact, 75% of all women trying to conceive experience early pregnancy loss, according to experts in the field of OB/GYN. Most of these losses go unnoticed with the next menses. That's a lot of "babies" if you believe what the pro-life folks keep complaining about. There could potentially be billions of "babies" that have been aborted as a natural process of gestation.

jkline
527
Points
jkline 01/26/13 - 04:40 am
3
7
Apples and oranges? No....

Comparing the killing of the Kulaks and others by Stalin to abortion is not comparing apples and oranges. It is comparing apples and the moon. Both are round, but that is about it. Mr. Kemple's letter points out that numbers can be applied to Stalin and abortion, but, again, that is about it. This is the sort of polemic that destroys intelligent discussion, but I suppose that is the point of it.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 01/26/13 - 07:58 am
2
9
If only the uterus police

If only the uterus police cared after someone was forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term.

InChristLove
22459
Points
InChristLove 01/26/13 - 08:46 am
7
2
Specsta, there is a huge

Specsta, there is a huge difference in the body's natural process of discharging an unsustainable conception and the purposely ripping a sustainable conception from the mother's womb.

You use this example to support your opinion but then in the same comment you use the opposite (they are just "clumps of cells and zygotes") to shore up your opinion to support the "decimation" of the Native Americans.

Make up your mind....are they clumps of cells or are they billions of births loss naturally?

InChristLove
22459
Points
InChristLove 01/26/13 - 08:58 am
6
2
"If only the uterus police

"If only the uterus police cared after someone was forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term."

We do Techfan, every time (and it's more and more each year) they deduct funds from our paychecks to support millions of single moms and their children, not to mention foster care and adoptions.

I don't have estimates for 2000-current but in the 1990s, there were approximately 120,000 adoptions of children each year. This number remained fairly constant in the 1990s, and is still relatively proportionate to population size in the U.S.

Also, there seems to be a misconception that someone is FORCED to allow a child life. Every woman (excluding rape) makes that choice when she decides to have sex.....whether with or without protection. The ONLY sure way not to conceive is to not have intercourse.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/26/13 - 09:08 am
10
2
I wonder why Techfan and
Unpublished

I wonder why Techfan and other's ability to care for a child is based so much on its location? Outside the uterus......defend it even if it is a serial killer.....inside the uterus....KILL IT!

Jon Lester
2285
Points
Jon Lester 01/26/13 - 09:35 am
3
5
How do you propose

to make people any better at choosing their partners, or to reduce and eliminate unequal relationships? Don't take God's name in vain by suggesting religion, because that's been tried already.

I came up with a leftist proposal, if life is truly more important to you than for-profit health care. In addition to subsidized contraception for lower-income people, how about if we expand Medicaid to guarantee that a mother's co-pays throughout her pregnancy won't total more than the cost of an abortion? That gives incentive to choosing life, and I think it would be a better investment towards a future tax base than building new prisons.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/26/13 - 09:39 am
8
2
I have a proposal....how
Unpublished

I have a proposal....how about you how about just hold people responsible for their own actions?

soapy_725
43672
Points
soapy_725 01/26/13 - 11:01 am
0
0
Tell them HA. Where are all of the stand up guys?
Unpublished

It is a myth. Who cares for the baby saved from murder? The parents of the baby. The two sexually adult humans who were not inconvenienced by orgasms. But would have us believe they are inconvenienced by the result of their fornication. And even to the point that society is to blame for their inconvenience. Women have always had abortions and took care of their own business. First in the back alley to now the pulpit. We must make is legitimate by having the government condone, promote and fund same with taxpayer dollars. Just a with homosexuality. We have always had homosexuals. But we have moved same from the closet to the pulpit. Could there be a pattern developing of the government condoning and funding sin thereby setting the standard for the church?

The term Political Incorrectness was first used in a speech by Joseph Stalin. Anti social, anti state behavior or conversation. Political Correctness is the same thing only with a "positive spin".

We do not remember being consulted about whether or not we would like to financial and morally support unwanted babies before these infidels had sexual intercourse. We do not live in Haiti where a young mother of fifteen smiling said, "the Lowd just sends 'em".

soapy_725
43672
Points
soapy_725 01/26/13 - 11:07 am
0
0
By the current Christian American Standard
Unpublished

Jesus Christ would have been aborted. Beethoven would have been aborted. Possibly Martin Luther. We do not know what each of these 56 million lives could have accomplished. A cure for cancer. A cure of ignorance and stupidity.

Would to God that all of these baby murderers would have been the recipients of abortion advocate parents. Obama's parents and grandparents. Maybe the gene pool would have been cleansed.

Bizkit
30549
Points
Bizkit 01/26/13 - 12:09 pm
6
1
Specsta what are you saying?

Specsta what are you saying? The miscarriage rate for pregnancy (which now how to define miscarriage is an issue in the literature) is 10-25%. Now if you are saying it is difficult to get pregnant-well yes that is true because of both male and female issues but 75% of women do not suffer early pregnacy loss.

InChristLove
22459
Points
InChristLove 01/26/13 - 12:17 pm
5
2
Jon Lester....I will have to

Jon Lester....I will have to say in response to your comment , religion may not have worked but I can guarantee a personal relationship with Christ would be more effective than what we are doing now.

As for the copay on medicaid prenatal visit, from all the research I've done it appears that an office visit amounts to about $4 a visit. If a pregnant woman makes a total of 20 visits (which is a high estimate) the told cost for visits is around $80. Add to it prenatal vitamins, which are usually supplied by the doctor but lets just say she has to purchase them, that's 30 pills per month, 9 months at $4, that's another $36 (unless the doctor writes the prescrip. for 90 pills, then it would only be 3 times $4, $12). So all in all, using the excuse that it's cheaper to get an abortion that paying for medicaid doesn't hold water. An average abortion, depending on length of pregnancy, could cost from around several hundred to several thousands. On second thought, yeah I guess it is cheaper when you have other's paying for it.

Bizkit
30549
Points
Bizkit 01/26/13 - 12:26 pm
6
0
Men produce sperm from

Men produce sperm from puberty till death-one stem cell will give rise to four mature sperm by meiosis. In women all their eggs enter meiosis before birth and then freeze till puberty and they enter the ovulation cycle. Once a month they ovulate which once again stimulates the meiosis process in one oocyte but once again it freezes in a specific stage. That ovulated oocyte is yet to be a mature egg-in fact it won't be till a sperm fertilizes it. So sperm isn't a human-just a haploid gamete, and the egg doesn't form till fertilization. So the ovulated egg isn't a human either. But once fertilized then you have a human conceptus by definition-a developing human-which develops till parturition, through adolescence, through maturity, to senescence and aging till death. All developmental stages of the human. Embryology is just step one. The continuum of life which all evolution is based and the novelty of our offspring because of recombination during meiosis of our gametes (sperm and egg)and during sexual reproduction. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution and evolution doesn't make sense without understanding genetics , population genetic, epigenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. Each conceptus is a novel creature with new combinations of gene alleles different from either parent because of sexual recombination-that is what "nature" selects on. That and mutations which randomly occur over long time periods, but sex is the main factor during microevolutionary time scales. That Zygote isn't a chicken, lizard, or chimp, but a human being. What happens to that human between conception till death ranges in time frames from days, to months to years. Why intentionally interfer when there no guarantees anyways. Just think if abortion had been legal when Obama's unwed mother conceived she likely would have had an abortion and Barry would have never been born. Ironic isn't it.

dichotomy
31960
Points
dichotomy 01/26/13 - 12:24 pm
7
1
It's a terrible statistic.

It's a terrible statistic. But it's been decided. It's the law. The SCOTUS looked at the dichotomy of the "right to life" vs. "right to privacy" and came down firmly under the right of privacy for a woman to have control of her body.....partly because there was no scientific concensus of when a fetus became a citizen.

So all of you can keep arguing this if you wish. You can continue to scare the hell out of independent voters and guarantee liberals will continue to be elected and make all of the policies. But it's the law. You can't change it. It's not political, it's the law. Meanwhile, Obama and the Democrats are ordering your Mao jackets and funny little hats. That is political. You can actually do something about it.

I would suggest to the hard core anti-abortion folks that it might be time to quit being so vocal on this issue because it only guarantees the election of people who will give you even more government funded abortions. You are not going to change the law and you are causing the election of people who are killing this country in so many other ways. Sometimes you make more headway by using your brains instead of your mouths. Think like a Democrat. The Democrats did not pass Obamacare by telling you that the cost of your health insurance would double and it would cost us a $trillion more than stated. They told you it would save you money and you costs would go down. Think like a Democrat and keep your mouth shut about the unpopular stuff.

Bizkit
30549
Points
Bizkit 01/26/13 - 12:28 pm
6
1
Dichot your on a roll.

Dichot your on a roll.

Jane18
12332
Points
Jane18 01/26/13 - 01:18 pm
5
1
"There Are Some Scholars.................................."

....that call themselves scholars, and "some" people believe them! Sorry specsta, I do not believe those numbers. I know Native Americans were treated mercilessly, but that abomination is on the people that committed it! We are now responsible for the "abominations" we commit and allow to be committed!!

Willow Bailey
20580
Points
Willow Bailey 01/26/13 - 03:19 pm
4
0
@techfan..."If only the

@techfan..."If only the uterus police cared after someone was forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term."

IF ONLY the funsters cared before they engaged in unprotected sex, again and again and again.

Willow Bailey
20580
Points
Willow Bailey 01/26/13 - 03:24 pm
5
0
@bizkit..."Just think if

@bizkit..."Just think if abortion had been legal when Obama's unwed mother conceived she likely would have had an abortion and Barry would have never been born."

Now, there's a tempting thought.

bill cass
133
Points
bill cass 01/26/13 - 07:13 pm
5
1
Science

Liberals are great at arguing that conservatives ignore science when it comes to issues such as evolution and climate change. But when it comes to abortion, they ignore science altogether. Modern science gives us the ability to see the development of an unborn child better than ever before. Ultrasound technology has developed to the point of where it is clear that the "clumps of cells" that people talk about are human beings. They feel pain, play and develop. If we found living cells on the moon we would talk about "life on the moon." But when it comes to the unborn liberals turn their back on science and advocate their murder in the euphemistic name of choice.

myfather15
53861
Points
myfather15 01/26/13 - 09:32 pm
5
2
@specsta

Who specifically are those "some scholars"? Why don't you name them? Could it be scholars which are similar to the scientists that believe in global warming? Maybe it's the similar to the "scholars" who believe we evolved from monkeys, or whatever. But you are ignoring the fact there are just as many if not more that DO NOT believe ANY of these things. But my guess is, people like you would call them fakes, or idiot scientists because they don't believe like you.

I will say it like this; it's no different than putting two "Scientists" on stand to testify during a murder trial. They can look at the EXACT same evidence and one will say the evidence shows the defendent committed the offense and ones says it shows the exact opposite. How is the possible? It's quite simple; one is being paid by the defense and the other is being paid by the prosecution. Yes, there are some honest "scientists" out there, who will tell the truth, but they are few and far between.

Those that have a predisposed belief in global warming, will skew their results to show such. Those that have a predisposed belief against it, will skew it to their side. Yes, there are some that are honest and will only report the truth, but which do you believe? It all about what YOU believe and who you WANTto believe.

The same goes for those "scholars" who report on what happened long, long ago. If they have an obvious hatred for America and her founding, they're going to slant their "research" to demean America. So, I'm not trusting someone who has such an obvious hatred for the most wonderful Country in the entire World. The Country, just as with ALL COUNTRIES, has a few black eyes in it's past. Human being as a whole had a completely different mindset then. I don't see how anyone thought it was Ok to enslave an entire race of people, but they did. We are past it and have EVOLVED in our thoughts. MOVE ON!! Hey, isn't your parties slogan "Forward"? Then why do you keep looking back?

myfather15
53861
Points
myfather15 01/26/13 - 09:56 pm
4
1
@the secular leftists

Also, unless you believe in the soul, placed in the body by the creator. Then the human body is exactly how you described it, throughout it's entire existence, not just in the womb, is it not? Even at a mature age, the human body is still nothing but atoms, cells and different elements, is it not?

"Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of the six elements oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus."

So, why is it perfectly fine to DESTROY that body in a particular stage of development but not fine in another? This is the scary ideology of the secular left/communists throughout history. They DO believe the human body is just a "clump of cells" and they DO believe it's Ok to kill it in ANY stage of existence; hence the genocide committed by almost entirely communists/athiest leaders in history.

Unless you believe that SOMEONE far more important than YOU created these human beings, and placed their SOUL within them, then how can you not think it's ok to kill them? Thats been the problem with almost ALL communist dictators in history. They believed themselves to be superior human beings, even gods. They knew better than ALL the other simpletons around them. And since those simpletons are nothing but clumps of atoms and cells, they should do away with them. Plus, those simpleton's atoms and cells, aren't near the level of the brilliant leaders.

specsta
6355
Points
specsta 01/26/13 - 10:00 pm
2
2
@myfather15

Try doing an online search for "how many women miscarry".

You will see that 75% of all women trying to conceive miscarry, and that 50% of all pregnancies (deliberate or accidental) result in miscarriages. The body's rejection of the fertilized egg goes unnoticed by most women, as it typically occurs very early in the gestation cycle, and it usually attributed to a heavy period.

Facts are facts. If someone wants to believe that every egg-sperm meet-up creates a human being, the fact is that science proves otherwise.

Willow Bailey
20580
Points
Willow Bailey 01/26/13 - 11:54 pm
2
0
So what's your point?

If what you are saying is true, that makes the baby all the more miraculous.

myfather15
53861
Points
myfather15 01/26/13 - 11:56 pm
3
2
@specsta

You address your last comment towards me, but didn't address a single statement I made? Did you see ANYWHERE that I mentioned miscarriages? Nothing in your last comment addresses a single point that I hit on, so why address it towards me?

Can you comment about the FACT that the human body is just a "Clump of cells" in EVERY stage? Because, as you say "Facts are facts", right? The human body in a mature stage is absolutely no different than in the womb. It's still just a "clump" of atoms, cells and different elements. So, if we can destroy a human being in one stage of existence, why is it not ok to destory this "clump" at any stage?

Also, I'm not understanding your point "75% of all women TRYING to conceive, miscarry." If they are TRYING to conceive; which means "become pregnant with" then they HAVEN'T conceived yet. So how do they MISCARRY if they are still TRYING to conceive? If the egg has been fertilized and has "taken", then they are no longer TRYING, they have actually conceived.

Then, it would be possible for their body to reject the fertilized egg. But that would be NATURE taking it's course. It's not NATURAL for a human being to DECIDE to destroy the pregnancy. But hey, we all know the secular leftists of this world are smarter than nature, so what's the big deal, right? I'll just stand in the corner and keep my mouth shut and let the truly intelligent people run the world. I mean, we are on the right track, aren't we?

Oh, and I'll still be waiting to read your comments actually addressing my previous points.

myfather15
53861
Points
myfather15 01/27/13 - 12:19 am
2
1
Ok, I have no idea why I did,

Ok, I have no idea why I did, but I did the research specsta suggested. I actually googled exactly what they told me to, which is "how many women miscarry". I've yet to see a single website suggesting anywhere close to the 75% number they posted. The highest number I could find, including the scenario where the miscarriage occurs before the woman knows she is pregnant, put the rate at about 40-50 %, Nowhere near 75%.

On the first website, it says "Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Chemical pregnancies may account for 50-75% of all miscarriages. This occurs when a pregnancy is lost shortly after implantation, resulting in bleeding that occurs around the time of her expected period. The woman may not realize that she conceived when she experiences a chemical pregnancy." Pay attention to the second paragraph.

So, chemical pregnancies MAY account for 50-75% of ALL miscarriages; but that DOES NOT say that 50-75% percent of ALL PREGNANCIES are miscarried. Actually, only 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. The EXACT scenario Specsta was talking about when they stated; "The body's rejection of the fertilized egg goes unnoticed by most women, as it typically occurs very early in the gestation cycle, and it usually attributed to a heavy period." Actually accounts for 50-75% of all miscarriages, NOT 75% of women HAVING a miscarriage.

Darn Specsta, got to hate when your own suggestion to me backfires; but I will provide the links so YOU may do your own "research".

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/miscarriage.html

myfather15
53861
Points
myfather15 01/27/13 - 12:27 am
3
2
I also visited these and

I also visited these and still couldn't find anywhere close to 75% of all pregnancies being miscarried;

http://www.womens-health.co.uk/miscarr.asp

http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/miscarriage-statistics.htm

http://www.epigee.org/pregnancy/miscarriage.html

Got to hate when people get caught skewering the facts to fit their agenda/opinion. But.....Facts are facts, right?

myfather15
53861
Points
myfather15 01/27/13 - 10:05 am
1
0
Of course, come on here and

Of course, come on here and give a quick thumbs down without commenting, BECAUSE THERES NOTHING YOU CAN SAY!!

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs