Just to be sure,@HobbyLobbyStore: Your god is cool with you buying stuff from China and helping fund

[warrior1]

Just to be sure, @HobbyLobbyStore: Your god is cool with you buying stuff from China and helping fund forced abortions?

https://twitter.com/rudepundit

[yeoman6987]

1. Well I don't know

But again, I have never heard of the place until this court case. I have not seen a store ever. Could not even tell you where one was located.

[3catwoman3]

3. It's a typical big box...

...gigantic chain store, with thousands of items, and most of the crap they carry is from China, even the Christmas ornaments.

How's that for hypocrisy? I certainly would like to hear what the owners have to say about that.

[yeoman6987]

4. lol. Of course not

Conservatives tend to be hypocrites to the highest degree. We have Walmart which may be why we don't have Holly Lobby in Maryland.

[3catwoman3]

5. I am in the equivalent of a retail Bermuda Triangle.

Hobby Lobby, Walmart, and BP all less than a mile from our house.

[leftyladyfrommo]

16. Everything in those stores is from China. nt

[redqueen]

2. I hope that gets retweeted a whole bunch of times. nt

[sinkingfeeling]

6. But, but, that's just business.

[Mariana]

7. Oh come on. That's totally different.

When have fundies ever been consistent?

[Duppers]

8. forced abortions?

Has that been concretely proven?

HL is backing child labor for sure and is obviously okay with that.

[Ilsa]

9. For the sake of argument, lets say there isn't a single forced or

Coerced or encouraged abortion in China. Let's say that all abortions there are voluntary.

Hobby Lobby says their conscience about abortifacients tells them not to contribute to their purchase for use by employees. Yet, a huge part of their store inventory is cheap crap made in China, a place where abortion is common. HL certainly doesn't mind making money selling their cheap crap and supporting their capitalist, abortion-encouraging markets. They've traded their integrity on this for money.

[Duppers]

13. indeed they have and are ...

huge hypocrites.

I've never shopped HL nor will I. Ever.

[baldguy]

11. It's been going on for over 30 yrs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/china-forced-abortion_n_4044446.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-one-child-policy-leaves-couple-distraught-after-alleged-forced-abortion/

http://news.yahoo.com/forced-abortion-highlights-abuses-china-policy-075221550.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/11/15/why-chinas-one-child-policy-still-leads-to-forced-abortions-and-always-will/

[Duppers]

12. I spent 2 months in China in 2010 and talked to several mothers

about this issue who all told me the same thing: they can have more than one child but they'd lose their jobs if they did and they could not afford to lose their jobs.

They said that they have a choice but a horrible choice it is and they did not like it.
I told them that was not what I've read and had been told in the U.S. These women, who lived in Shanghai and in Beijing, said that my information was incorrect and that in these two cities abortions were not forced.

There are been roughly 50 million legal abortions and untold illegal abortions in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
How do you explain these non-forced abortions? These are usually economically driven decisions.

I don't deny that life is cheaper in China simply because of the number of people and the fact that resources per person are more scarce. Such facts change society and life.

Also, consider: There is an indisputable scientific consensus that humans are THE cause of increased global warming and we cannot continue to increase our populations.

Climate Change is the Most Dangerous Calamity Mankind Has Ever Faced.

The most distinguished scientists from the world's pre-eminent educational institutions were trying to shake humanity out of its complacency. Why aren't their warnings leading the news?

In one sense, the association's appeal was not new. The Royal Society, the Royal Institution, NASA, the US National Academy of Sciences, the US Geological Survey, the IPCC and the national science bodies of 30 or so other countries have said that man-made climate change is on the march. A survey of 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published in the last 20 years found that 97% said that humans were causing it.

More: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/22/climate-change-deniers-have-won-global-warming

As DUer Auggie said: "The Deniers should be called 'Mass Murder Proponents'"

Unfortunately, even if we managed to eliminate adding more human caused additions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in ten years, which will not happen, earths temperature will continue to rise for hundreds of years from what we have already added.

Simply put, we do not need more people. We are facing a crisis like none before.

Re: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024710744

[AnotherMother4Peace]

15. Wow - this sounds like a Pat Robertson excuse for those forced Chinese abortions

This is from an article in Capitalism Magazine:

"Pat Robertson Supports Forced Abortions in China, But Opposes Voluntary Abortions in America"

“I don’t agree with it,” Robertson said. “But … they’ve got 1.2 billion people, and they don’t know what to do. If every family over there was allowed to have three or four children, the population would be completely unsustainable…. They’re doing what they have to do.”

LINK - http://capitalismmagazine.com/2001/04/pat-robertson-supports-forced-abortions-in-china-but-opposes-voluntary-abortions-in-america/

[Duppers]

19. that's certainly an insulting comment to make to this old liberal atheist!

I agree that forced abortions are evil ! However, old dumbass Robertson was right on this point: such a population would be unsustainable. I think mandated tubal ligations and vasectomies should replace any forced abortions. But you'd be aghast at that suggestion too, wouldn't you.

My point was more about the worst of the evils - destroying most lifeforms on the planet. And that's exactly what overpopulation will do. Eventually.

I'll guess you're a mother of a few children and such posts touch a button with you. Sorry.
(I have one child, btw, and practice what I preach.)

Also, I would guess that you've not done much reading in the "environment and energy" forum and that math is not your forte.

[chrisa]

24. It's impossible to do such a thing without eugenics and Social Darwinism

The two go hand-in-hand. The rich get to keep their "superior" (mostly white) babies while the poor get sterilized.

It's not a matter of whether or not it would happen. It's a matter of how much they would try to hide it.

[Duppers]

25. we were talking about policy in China. nt

[Duppers]

26. DUer post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112767283#post4

[chrisa]

22. Well, since it's another way for the government to control womens' bodies,

the RWNJ's love it. It's about 'bringing women down a notch,' not protecting embryos in a womb.

[Duppers]

27. vasectomies is about controling women?

[chrisa]

28. Forced abortions

[TBF]

17. "Simply put, we do not need more people."

Interesting perspective.

Do you really think the problem is the number of people on this planet? I would argue that is a red herring. It is not that we have people, it is that the people with the most resources (those 85 billionaires with most of the wealth to begin with) are subjugating others and polluting our environment to such a large degree that we may not survive.

Economic inequality site: http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/

It's the inequality, stupid: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

[Duppers]

18. there's much to what you state, but ....

We still have limited resources. And in doing the longterm math and studying human psychology and greed, it becomes clear that having too many people on the planet is exacerbating the problem. Every Chinese person wants a U.S. standard of living, however the earth cannot support 1.35 billion people living like average Americans.

[TBF]

20. That is the argument -

"wants a US standard of living".

We'd need to define what people really need. Hint: I don't think it's yacht and golf course on every corner. Do we have "limited resources"? Which resources do you feel are limited? Do you mean that everyone can't be a billionaire?

I have no problem with putting limits on how many people are born into each family, but before we do that I think we need to assess whether that is really the problem, or is it really that we have a DISTRIBUTION problem.

Distribution of wealth that is.

[Duppers]

21. I said "Average" American.

You missed that.

[TBF]

23. What would you

Consider average?

[baldguy]

10. C'mon! They're Chinamen. It ain't like they're real people.

for the sarcasm-impaired.

[Lancero]

14. Posed that question on FB...

Last year.

Got a RWer to bite.

"That's not the store's problem... China is China. Hobby Lobby is a pro-life kind of store."