P.O., don't misrepresent what I say. I never said children of poor people should be 'disposed of', those are YOUR words, nor have I suggested *only* their lives will be nothing but suffering, Abused children suffer no matter who their parents are, no matter how much money their parents make. *You* are the one with sterilizing poor people on the brain. If you can't have a civil conversation without trying to twist my words into whatever weird ideology about poor people you have, then I am not interested in talking to you anymore. You are unable to read plain English without reading your own narratives into it. Now get over your obsession with sterilizing poor people and stop projecting your own neuroses onto others.
>I never said children of poor people should be 'disposed of', those are YOUR words, nor have I suggested *only* their lives will be nothing but suffering<
What else would you call it when surgical instruments are used to crush a child's skull and their body is then cut apart and vacuumed out of the womb before being literally disposed of as medical waste? Well, an abortion, yes, but that's my point: This consists of literally disposing of the person, cutting them apart and throwing them into a wastebin.
>If you can't have a civil conversation without trying to twist my words into whatever weird ideology about poor people you have, then I am not interested in talking to you anymore.<
I have a hard time worrying about the feelings of the other party when their viewpoint is the endorsement of tens or even hundreds of millions of child murders (60 million abortions in the US alone since 1973, IIRC). Sorry. From my viewpoint, I am being very civil by doing anything other than hurling epithets at you.
>Now get over your obsession with sterilizing poor people and stop projecting your own neuroses onto others.<
I mean, if your goal was to spare children from being born into poor families, you do have to admit that sterilization is more practical than using abortion as a substitute for birth control.
P.O., don't misrepresent what I say. I never said children of poor people should be 'disposed of', those are YOUR words, nor have I suggested *only* their lives will be nothing but suffering, Abused children suffer no matter who their parents are, no matter how much money their parents make. *You* are the one with sterilizing poor people on the brain. If you can't have a civil conversation without trying to twist my words into whatever weird ideology about poor people you have, then I am not interested in talking to you anymore. You are unable to read plain English without reading your own narratives into it. Now get over your obsession with sterilizing poor people and stop projecting your own neuroses onto others.
>I never said children of poor people should be 'disposed of', those are YOUR words, nor have I suggested *only* their lives will be nothing but suffering<
What else would you call it when surgical instruments are used to crush a child's skull and their body is then cut apart and vacuumed out of the womb before being literally disposed of as medical waste? Well, an abortion, yes, but that's my point: This consists of literally disposing of the person, cutting them apart and throwing them into a wastebin.
>If you can't have a civil conversation without trying to twist my words into whatever weird ideology about poor people you have, then I am not interested in talking to you anymore.<
I have a hard time worrying about the feelings of the other party when their viewpoint is the endorsement of tens or even hundreds of millions of child murders (60 million abortions in the US alone since 1973, IIRC). Sorry. From my viewpoint, I am being very civil by doing anything other than hurling epithets at you.
>Now get over your obsession with sterilizing poor people and stop projecting your own neuroses onto others.<
I mean, if your goal was to spare children from being born into poor families, you do have to admit that sterilization is more practical than using abortion as a substitute for birth control.