I'm curious to see of what party everyone in this forum is; so go ahead and
answer these questions,
FOR ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS
2. Pro-iraq war/ anti-iraq war
3. Christian/ Other
4. Pro-abortion/ Anti-abortion
5. Pro-gun control/ Anti-gun control
FOR ALL OF YOU OVERSEAS
1. Opinion of american citizens
2. Opinion of iraq war
3. Opinion of George W Bush
On war: Necessary ****ing evil. I cannot wrap my mind around the details needed to make up my mind one way or another; although, I am leaning more towards anti-war. I guess that's why they do not pay me the big bucks to be President of the United States. :laughing:
Anti-gun control (you'd still need a licence to legally own one, right?!?)
Isn't it ironic? If your mother was pro-abortion, you wouldn't be here to share your thoughts. You might want to re-think your stance... or at least your description thereof. :doh:
2. Until I know everything there is to know about what is truely going on, I or anyone else can't say.
4. Anti-abortion and anti-people-who-believe-in-abortion.
5. Anti Gun control and anti f*ck around with my constitutional rights.
2. Who in ther right mind is pro-war? I agree with and support 100% our reasons for being in Iraq.
4. Anti-abortion except in very limited circumstances (rape, incest).
5. Come on my property uninvited and see.
Here we go again :laughing:
You ARE the one who said pro-abortion. I disagree with people who are pro-choice, but the thought of being pro-abortion is beyond comprehension. Negative population growth and the eventual extinction of our species. I agree in as much as I wish some of the mothers of the children who post here were pro-abortion, but overall I think it's a bad idea.
Anti-war, but like VWhobo, support us being in Iraq 100%
Anti-abortion unless rape and incest occurs. In that case, pro.
2. semi-anti-iraq. i don't agree for how we are doing things, and why we are there.
3. unsure, not christian tho. other
4. abortion should be used as a last resort for more serious caseness, not for irresponsibility
5. some gun control, just anybody shouldnt be allowed to own a gun, especially certain kinds recently legalized.
ooohh, careful vwhobo, if he was really feeling mean, he could take snipe
at your kids. it'd be crossing the line, but you did start it.
1. Little of both (Down with welfare rewarding bad behavior!)
2. Anti-iraq war NOW, but was for it at the start
4. Anti-abortion (Keep your dick in your pants)
5. Pro gun control (Taka japan as an example)
never mind, I'm sure you could hold your own if he started off on something about abortion and your kid.
Man, you know, I'm reading your posts tonight and all I can figure is you
got a triple serving of stupid salad at supper tonight.
If JaneiR36's mother was pro-abortion, JaneiR36 would have never been born. She would have been aborted. This has nothing to do with her personally, my kid, her kid(s) or anyone for that matter. It's all about a poor choice of words. Try reading my post and notice the distinction between pro-abortion and pro-choice. It's really very simple. Then you can go back for more salad. Have a nice day. :banghead:
*sigh* let's get back to topic, shall we?
Is using a pill (morning after pill) considered abortion to you? Most die hard republicans I've talked to say that life starts at conception, but what about a pill that stops conception? naturally, since it denies conception, I would think that it would be considered blashemy (sp?), but I'm not completely sure, as you aren't really killing a baby. Opinions?
Abstinence also denies conception. A morning after pill doesn't deny
conception, it kills the fertilized egg which is after conception. Birth
control pills deny conception and I know of no pro-lifers except extremists
who are against those.
The main thing that is always conveniently forgotten in this conversation is this. If two people create a baby, then they should both be responsible for it. And if two people create a baby, it is NOT the womans right to have it aborted. The two people involved must come to an agreement and it must always err on the side of protecting the child.
BTW, you're the one who took it off topic, so why are you sighing at me?
"Here we go again," because
(a) We already know a good bit of my view on the subject, and the discussion can be quite exhaustive.
(b) You're splitting hairs:
The question was posed in a two-part format and most people know what each part was referring to. So I didn't correct him and say, "no, I'm pro-choice." Big deal. I think those kind of responses are a big, fat cop-out, anyway. Everyone knows what abortion is, you either believe people should have the right to it (under certain circumstances, maybe) or you don't. There's no need to sugar-coat it.
It's kind of like when people ask, "are you pro-choice?" and the person replies, "I'm pro-choice. I choose the life of an innocent child," or some shit like that. Or "are you pro-life?" "Yes, I'm pro the lives of already-born children who go neglected everyday." I think such responses totally dance around the issue.
We all know what abortion today is. If a question is asking are you for it or against it, we should be able to give a clear, concise answer and the reader or listener should know what we're referring to. And this has nothing to do with said listener or reader having a crystal ball, either :laughing: Just plain ol' familiarity with the subject, as it is defined today.
Uh... abortion will lead to the end of the species? Isn't that a tad dramatic? :laughing:
Although, I don't think abortions should be considered, except for rape,incest, and extreme medical reasons,I wish Godlaus's mom had taken a morning after pill back in 88. :laughing: Jesus loves you, but, your'e going to hell anyway. :laughing:Could this be considered (blashemy)? Nope, not even blasphemy, and why would you ask or even care?
Thereis a right way wong to diss someone by saying "I wish your mom had
taken the pil". The right way was the way vwhobo said it. Yours was just
redundant because it repeats what he already said, and you said it in a
pretty shtty way. Jesus loves me (I never said that). But I'm going to hell
anyway. true, but that's my choice. and by your logic, if hitler took jesus
as his lord and savior, he'd be going to heaven. Same thing with Ghandi.
according to you, he's going to hell, even though he never committed a
I asked this question because I wanted to see both sides. If you can't answer the question sensibly, then don't answer at all.
I made a mistake in using the morning after pill for an example. ti should be one of those monthly pill things. That's denying conception before sex, as opposed to after.
I suppose the problem with making abortions legal for rape, is figuring out if a girl was raped. Couldn't she just say she was in an abusive relationship and her boyfriend raped her? She could be lying, or she could be telling the truth. It'll be a unique court case, but some cases take longer than 9 month. You run into multiple problems. Thoughts?
You are just about as funny as TWHAT. Where is the redundance? You want to grab the hobo to you side as a crutch. Hobo is not an atheist, you are. He believes in a supreme being,you don't. As far as the Mo#@%r Hitler, IF and I say if, he had accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as his personel savior before he died, I think the piece of crap would go to heaven. BUT, if he took his own life, which I hope he did, he won't get past the gates. I said "Jesus loves you, but your'e going to hell anyway". I will say what I want,when I want and there is not one FREAKING thing you can do about it, YOU LITTLE STUPID PUNK!!!!!! Please write a rule for all of us. Tell us how to talk and be polite to you. Dipstick :laughing: I'll guess mine is the "wong" :doh: way.
Lets get back to topic, shall we. :banghead:
I like the abortion laws how they are. where after a certain point they can't abort the child. or they'd keep drawing the line farther back until masturbating was illegal, because it kills hundreds of millions of potential babies.
LOL! You are so "wong," lectroid :laughing:
Godlaus, take a chill pill :hi:
I think (know) Godlaus is simply trying to stir the pot. He doesn't seem to realize that while we have differing viewpoints, especially on this issue, we can agree to disagree like big girls and boys.
SILLY GIRL :laughing:
FOR ALL OF YOU OVERSEAS
1. Opinion of american citizens
The ones I've met have been very friendly and polite (sometimes insincerely polite in business dealings). The palate deflected accent is very distinctive and loud/harsh and can take some time getting used to (I know that there are regional accents, but they tend to sound the same to outsiders). As a general culture I perceive they are insular and have little comprehension of the world around them and treat other nations as a threat to the "American Way". I think most secretly subscribe to the Andy Warhol "In the future, everybody will be world famous for 15 minutes" and scout opportunities to fulfill that promise. I think there is a certain duplicity in individuals behaviour because of competition to outshine the other. I think there is a certain wanting for acceptance and accreditation that results in cavalier behaviour on the world stage. I also think none of us are perfect and very grateful for the americans entering the side of right during the major wars so our generations can enjoy satisfactory degrees of freedom, however I think the US captains of industry tarnished this by profiteering from the misery.
2. Opinion of iraq war
An aggressive way to stop the spread of nationalistic Islam and open Asian to European trade routes. Seen as a cynical exercise by many Australians.
3. Opinion of George W Bush
Must be clever to get where he has. Wants to be seen as a knockabout apple pie type bloke, but firm and disciplined. Couldn't lay straight in bed, B grade actor, sneeky, conniving, insincere, loud, self opinionated, misogynist, wealthy, etc = usual leadership credentials.
Damn, you truly are in OZ,aren't you.
The original post asked for opinions. It didn't say they need to be based on facts or have any thought behind them. :wink2:
Hmmmm it's not that bush is so clever, it's that everyone else is so
dumb(apparently). as for being a misogynist, i dont think he dislikes
women. if thats what you meant. but I heard some really funny derogatory
quotes about women from his cabinets. as for being disciplined, i don't
think he is.too undisciplined, especially in his upbringing. a general rich
kid. only wealthy because of his "daddy".
Correct on both counts. Unless I lived in the US, I can only make
observations based on the media and history. I could have made comments
based on juvenile tv shows casted by 28 year old immature actors :mrgreen:
Yes and we are a bunch of wankers, but Kiwis are worse. :laughing:
Say HI to the tin man and the cowardly lion. Gotta go Auntie Em is calling. I'm off to see the wizard. :doh: :laughing:
You know I don't agree with you on this issue, but I can respect your point of view, it's very personal. And how boring would this poor ol world be, without different viewpoints? As far as stirring the pot, he can stir my s#@t all he wants.------- I DON"T LIKE PEOPLE THAT WRITE WITH THEIR LEFT HAND, that's just not right. :laughing:
Course I'm tryin to stir the pot. I want a mess of democrats and
republicans debating. it brings out un-biased information for everyone. We
get views from both sides, and there's almost never a right answer.
We can always agree to disagree, and there is always a middle ground, but sometimes it's on what we disagree that's interesting.
Good, i went through the forum for a few pages and couldnt find any debates on the issues. just one about how john kerry sucks and didnt go to war or something? something stupid all i remember. probably because this forum is mainly redneck right wing republican.
Okay, and the point of your post was......
Just because they're rednecks (and they're probably not) doesn't mean that they're wrong. The entire issue of abortion is about when a baby's life starts and that's purely opinion, something nobody can be wrong on. please, don't start talking trash. most issues are purely opinion and which side is better supported (for lack of a better word). So don't talk sht.
And you are? :stupid:
Oh, my post was pointless. that was the point, to be pointless. and how is that talking shit? i called people rednecks. i live in montana.
I guess you don't like me....damn. :laughing:
Shit. I thought we were friends. Lol. :thumbs:
Question makes little sense, however i agree for the reason for being there and that we shouldn't leave the job unfinished
Anti-abortion or Pro-life, except given cases
Anti-gun control(leave me my guns and freedoms given to me be the bill of rights)
Cant we all get along?? Not all of us are "right wing rednecks", however i am right wing, shev.
1. Republican baby!
2. Pro-Iraq War. George Bush had bad info at the start about WMDs but Hussien was destructive to even his own people, and for the sake of humanity I believe we did the right thing.
3. Christian- Presbyterian
4. I have no standing
5. Anti-gun control. Its our God-given right! :thumbs:
just to play devil's advocate...
is it really our god-given right? or is it from the founding fathers....... :2cents:
Hmm... good question. "What is our founding fathers, Alex?"
"Stones don't kill people, people kill people."
Come on. Family guy says that Jesus and Moses used guns to kill the Romans.
I think that if God is omniscient and all powerful that he has a nudge or two into what happens. IE he made the founding fathers think up the Declaration etc.
South Park shows that Jesus went into Iraqi to rescue Santa, guns blazing
hahaha i just saw that episode. Family Guy = amazingness. :thumbs:
Jesus rises from the dead each christmas to feed on childrens brains.-family guy
I fail to comprehend is to how politics has anything to do with automotive stats, specs, performance, etc. Perhaps another topic would be more appropriate for the forums other then the war in Iraq. You think? :wink2:
*sigh* you really are a n00b.
What sub section forum are we in?
oh yeah, off topic.
Yo, lol What's a "n00b"....? You're right, we are in an "Off Topic" zone,
but aren't we still on www.car-forums.com? haHA YEAH!
::sighs and shakes head:: I thought I've seen it all............
What? because the forum is www.car-forums.com, we can only talk about cars and cars only? We have the off-topic forum so that we can talk about off-topic stuff. Whats the problem with it?
I've seen your name in two threads now and all you do is piss and moan. This IS the "Off Topic" section. It's real simple. If you don't like the thread, don't read it. That's your right as an American citizen unless someone is holding a gun to your head. If that's the case, PLEASE PULL THE TRIGGER.
Quite an illaborate imagination. Watch me shoot myself. Watch me do it again, and again, and..........again........and finally, dude, you're pretty f**ked up.
Do you really not know what a noob or a n00b is?
No man, I really don't. It must be a new slang term on the internet. I haven't been on the internet for almost a 8 months, and it's a new word for me. What is it?
First it isnt new, but it means Newbie and everything that entails. Being stupid, ignorant, etc. :thumbs:
newbie, noob,n00b, all mean the same thing. A new person who doesn't know the way things happen.
This is true.. but you can also look at it another way. Without abortion,
there are numerous cases where the mother, instead of the child, might not
be alive today to share her own thoughts
This is a very complex issue, and I don't think it is up to any of man to decide for another women what she can do with her own body (of course, depending on which stage of pregnancy the mother is in..)
Democrat/Independant. I don't want to label myself under any political party, but I am definitely more liberal than conservative, so if I had to choose, it would be democrat.
Anti Iraq war. As far as i'm concerned, we've been lied to about why we're in Iraq, and the fatalities of our own people as well as innocent Iraqi people are far too high to justify staying there much longer.
(In my opinion, not many anti abortion people are actually supporting their belifs. They are anti abortion, but not pro life. What happens to the child after he or she is born? They can be put up for adoption, yes.. But what happens to them if they are not adopted? )
Pro gun control
Certain people should definitely not be permitted to own a deadly weapon such as a gun
You don't get it do you. She said PRO-ABORTION. That means she believes
that pregnant women should have abortions. If all pregnant women had
abortions the human race would become extinct. Words mean things and she
never said anything about choice.
Really? Then you haven't given it much thought. The last time I checked not many women get pregnant by themselves, there is also a man involved. Being as that is a fairly accurate and truthful statement the man should also be involved in the decision concerning the termination of the pregnancy. The other side of the coin is that if women are the only ones who can legally make that decision, that means that the man is relieved of all responsibility for said pregnancy. As such, if the woman decides to have the baby then the man cannot be held liable for child support, etc. Liberals want to have it both ways. Be realistic and at least pick one or the other.
Sorry to hear that, but that's your choice.
Lied too? By who? The United Nations and the European Union had the same information as we did. The only difference is that we acted on it. Was the information faulty, most assuredly, but it's what we had to work with. And saying anti-war is a bit ignorant. How many people are actually pro-war. Probably the same number who are pro-abortion.
You see, we do have a common ground.
There's that word again, choice. How can you say being anti-abortion is not being pro-life? Please explain, in detail, exactly how that works. As you're typing keep in mind I'm pro-life.
Another ignorant statement. There are plenty of people who aren't legally allowed to own a firearm. Maybe if we simply enforced the laws already on the books this discussion wouldn't be taking place. While we're at it, what other deadly weapons should we "control" or make illegal? Butcher knives? Nail guns? Automobiles? Aircraft? Care for me to go on?
Bottom line is this. I support your right to have your opinion... but I certainly don't have to agree with it, especially when facts don't back it up. My guess is that your still young and haven't reaaly seen the world for what it is yet. When you do you'll change your mind.
"You don't get it do you. She said PRO-ABORTION. That means she believes
that pregnant women should have abortions. If all pregnant women had
abortions the human race would become extinct. Words mean things and she
never said anything about choice."
If you take it for the literal meaning of the phrase "pro abortion
" then yes, it is sadistic and wrong. However, the way we as a society view the phrase is not in the literal sense. Pro abortion simply means that, if a woman wishes to undergo the operation, then she should be allowed to. It doesn't imply that every pregnant woman must have one.
My point was, without abortion, in many cases the mother may not live after giving life to her child. This is why abortion is definitely beneficial in many cases. Of course, many times the mothers life is not at risk. But, like I said, I believe it is her choice on what to do with her own body. It is a very complex issue, I don't believe we should just illegalize it and forget it.
"Really? Then you haven't given it much thought. The last time I checked not many women get pregnant by themselves, there is also a man involved. Being as that is a fairly accurate and truthful statement the man should also be involved in the decision concerning the termination of the pregnancy. The other side of the coin is that if women are the only ones who can legally make that decision, that means that the man is relieved of all responsibility for said pregnancy. As such, if the woman decides to have the baby then the man cannot be held liable for child support, etc. Liberals want to have it both ways. Be realistic and at least pick one or the other. "
I have given it much thought, and believe me, I do not view this issue as black and white. I can see why you are anti abortion, and I respect your opinion. However, my own morals and beliefs do not permit me to tell another person what to do with his or her own body.
And yes, of course you need two people for pregnancy. But who really suffers the consequences? In many cases, the man can go off and live his life, when the woman has to suffer. No, this is not always the case, but frequently is.
On a side note, I do agree with you that if abortion were made legal in the supreme court, it would appear that man should not always be responsible for the child. One instance: IF the man wants an abortion, and the woman declines, decides to have the baby, but does not have the money.. it should be her problem. The man offered his solution to the problem, and she did not listen to the advice.
Like I said, I am not affiliated with one party and i am not narrow minded. I try my best to view issues from all sides.
Trust me, I am not simply a liberal who wants it both ways
"Sorry to hear that, but that's your choice."
"Lied too? By who? The United Nations and the European Union had the same information as we did. The only difference is that we acted on it. Was the information faulty, most assuredly, but it's what we had to work with. And saying anti-war is a bit ignorant. How many people are actually pro-war. Probably the same number who are pro-abortion."
It may have been misinformation. It may not have been. You are no higher authority on the matter than any other on this forum, we are all entitled to our opinions. The way I see it is this: Bush and his team have their own agenda, and they are willing to do whatever it takes to succeed in their goals. They are willing to lie to the americans. Most large scale politicians will do the same, and that is why I do not like many of them.
"You see, we do have a common ground."
"There's that word again, choice. How can you say being anti-abortion is not being pro-life? Please explain, in detail, exactly how that works. As you're typing keep in mind I'm pro-life."
I did explain it.
Being born is one thing. Living is another. Orphans often feel as if they are worthless, and live their lives suffering from depression; many times depression causes suicide. This is obviously not life.
Often, the mother does not put the child up for adoption. She keeps him. For many young mothers, this is not a wise financial decision (obviously) and can lead the mother and the child into a very unhealthy life.
"Another ignorant statement. There are plenty of people who aren't legally allowed to own a firearm. Maybe if we simply enforced the laws already on the books this discussion wouldn't be taking place. While we're at it, what other deadly weapons should we "control" or make illegal? Butcher knives? Nail guns? Automobiles? Aircraft? Care for me to go on?"
Of course there are plenty of people who aren;t legally allowed to own a fire arm. When did I say there weren't? Without a form of gun control in place, this wouldn't be so..
Pointing out that there are other weapons, and that it is impossible to remove the threat that humans place on one another, really doesn't shift the gun control argument one way or another.
Bottom line is this. I support your right to have your opinion... but I certainly don't have to agree with it, especially when facts don't back it up. My guess is that your still young and haven't reaaly seen the world for what it is yet. When you do you'll change your mind.
You don't have to agree with it. And I don't have to agree with yours. Of course, there are facts to look up my argument. If you really are interested in what i'm saying, you can find the time to investigate in the matter. If not, it isn't worth my time arguing, is it?
Okay, I've got a handle on it now. You shoot from the hip with how you
feel and I have facts. People like you have no intention of honestly
looking at someone elses viewpoint, you just think you have it figured out,
dodge facts when presented and go on your merry way. So, as there is no
real conversation with you I'll leave you with this and be done.
You claim to be pro-choice, which is your right. Well a woman who get's pregnant (except in the case of rape) made her choice. She chose to have unprotected sex, she chose not to use birth control, she chose to have sex in whatever fashion it took her to get pregnant. She had her choice. Now isn't it time for her to stand up and take some responsibility for her choice. Or would that be against your liberal, no-fault, dependent, nanny state view of life you have? Think about it with an open mind for a little while... If you're still able to.
Please, point out to me where in your post did you show me facts that were
more valid than anything I wrote back to you
You are aware that birth control isn't gauranteed to work, right?
Even if it was, why should she have to take responsibility? Yes, it would teach her a lesson. But what about her child? Should we bring somebody into this world to lead a possibly miserable life, only to teach somebody a morality based lesson?
and an FYI: Calling me a liberal does not insult me. I know repugs like to think that, but sorry. we are proud of our beliefs.
pro-war, anti iraq war- bastard is attacking all islamic countries, did you all hear about iran? not to mention he supports israel over palestine openly.....
anti abortion, even rape and incest
anti gun control- my name is snipervirus for nothing.........
You're right there. Just like a typical liberal you never state anything
as a fact that you can be tied down to. It's always "I think", "I
believe", "in my opinion". We all know what that really means but it's
politically incorrect to point it out.
Yep. You're aware that abstinence works every time, right? That is also a choice, a word that you seem to be very enthralled by. If the woman made the choice not to abstain then she is fully responsible for her actions. It's a fact whether you like it or not. And what is wrong with morality based lessons. While this has nothing to do with morality, any halfway intelligent individual will agree that most good lessons in our lives are based on morality. Unless you're telling me it's better to be an immoral person. Can we go for unethical too?
Really? Are you sure? If you're so proud of being a liberal why can't you even call yourself one until called on it. After all, it was you who described yourself as "definitely more liberal than conservative". That doesn't sound to me like someone who is proud of what they are.
And finally, why is it that when liberals can't prevail on the merit of their beliefs, they start name calling? I'm proud to be a Republican and a conservative but won't stoop to calling you names because that's all I have left, unlike you.
VWhobo, you and I are fellow republicans. why the hate?
OK.. Are you going to answer the actual question I asked, or are you just
going to point out that I let people know what my opinion is?
"Yep. You're aware that abstinence works every time, right? That is also a choice, a word that you seem to be very enthralled by. If the woman made the choice not to abstain then she is fully responsible for her actions. It's a fact whether you like it or not. And what is wrong with morality based lessons. While this has nothing to do with morality, any halfway intelligent individual will agree that most good lessons in our lives are based on morality. Unless you're telling me it's better to be an immoral person. Can we go for unethical too?"
I'm not saying its ok to be "immoral" or "unethical" What i'm saying is you don't have the right to tell other people what "immoral" or "unethical" is. The fact that you don't find abortion acceptable doesn't mean it should be the same for everyone else
Regardless, like I inquired in my previous post, what about the child who is born? What becomes of their life? They are just left to fend for themselves in an unforgiving world. At the stage of pregnancy where an abortion would occur, there is yet to be actual human life, and this fetus could be spared a desperate future. Why say no?
"Really? Are you sure? If you're so proud of being a liberal why can't you even call yourself one until called on it. After all, it was you who described yourself as "definitely more liberal than conservative". That doesn't sound to me like someone who is proud of what they are."
Why did I say i'm more liberal than conservative? Maybe because its true. No, forget I said that. Its definitely because its true. I don't concider myself an all out democrat, because there are some issues that democrats support that I don't. I am still leaning more towards a liberal mindset than a conservative one. This doesn't mean I am not proud to be that way
"And finally, why is it that when liberals can't prevail on the merit of their beliefs, they start name calling? I'm proud to be a Republican and a conservative but won't stoop to calling you names because that's all I have left, unlike you."
Namecalling? Interesting. I have brought up valid points, and asked you to show me how I was wrong. You failed to do so. Doesn't look like i'm the one who has nothing left in this argument
Damn democrats and their "thinking".
Hobo, has there been one topic you havent acted like a petulant child? can't you have one civil conversation? I hope you don't act like this in real life, how dont you get the crap kicked out of you every day? you are so naracisstic, if someone doesn't agree with you, you jump all over them calling them names. I once said it was funny when someone compared you to jesus, and you jumped all over me. maybe you have to put up with a lot of crap in life and take it all out on people far away on the internet. maybe see a psychiatrist or just smoke some weed, bud. :smoke:
What are the abortion laws in the US right now? Abortion only in the first trimester?
Or something similiar to that affect, i;m not positive on the exact regulations..
I agree with hobo on this subject. Women have a choice before sex, to obstain from it. abortion is just looking for a way to clean up your mistakes. I remember an old saying 'don't do the crime if you can't pay the time'. same thing here. Don't have sex if you don't want a kid/STD. Then the argument that sex is a form of expressing love. If the only way you can express is love, then your testosterone/estrogen levels are too high.
Great. Yet another lap on the moralistic high horse.
It's easy to stand from a distance and dictate, but why aren't you all answering the questions being asked by Spitsign, who I pretty much agree with 100%.
So you want to 'punish' women for having sex, how about the children?
Hobo, you conveniently mention the men who want to keep a child but the woman wants to abort. Yeah, right. As if that's anything more than a blip on the scale of most abortions that get carried out. I don't have any numbers, but I'm willing to bet that astronomically more men are the ones that tell the woman "here's $150, go solve our problem."
There cannot be equal rights in this situationi simply because of the way things are.
In 100% of the cases, if a child is going to be carried to term, it'll spend a portion of that time in its mother's body. 0% will be spent in the father's.
Where the father can, in fact, legally make his impact, in most cases, a child born of unmarried parents will wind up living with the Mother. Why don't the men seek to even out that right first, before trying to control a woman's body (and I'm not talking of the child thieves, I mean, fathers who come back after years and years to get their child now that they've married a new baby-sitter). Oops. Could it possibly be because as we have it now, disproportionately less men will stay and take care of their children than their female counterparts.
Even the child support you mention, you're trying to make it seem as if it's that significant. In the average case, the woman will still have to go out and get a job in order to support their child, anyway. The child will be more likely to be financially disadvantaged, as the father typically also tries to pay as little child support as possible to "that woman," probably while trying to raise another family after "settling down." Unless your solution is the next rule in your moral handbook: "Thou shalt marry a chick when thou knocketh her up," I can't really say I see what your point is.
Finally, saying the man should have a say in whether or not the child gets aborted is parallel to another unfortunate case: where the parents of a teenage child are NOT to be notified if a girl wants to get an abortion. There's a plathera of reasons for this, the chief of them, of course, being the "woman"'s rights, but let's talk about this "rape" and "incest" you so conveniently accept as reasons to terminate a pregnancy:
What if a guy rapes his girlfriend / ex-girlfriend (1, or is it 2 out of every 3 sexual assaults on a woman are committed by someone she knows!), she gets pregnant and decides to terminate it. He could come back around and say they are together and this is a love child. How would you figure that out, and eventually, would you force this woman to carry the child to term? If so, what stops every woman who wants an abortion to cry rape in this way, and would you be ready for the fall-out from that?
Similarly, another reason the parental notification cannot be put on the books is because of incest. If the "woman's" Daddy or another relative (or step relative) was the parent, they could make her bring the child to term and no one would be the wiser.
See, it's ugly loose ends like this that make this decision rest with the supreme court. People will just sit around and blurt whatever they want, so long as it makes them feel good, without any real regard for the true freedoms involved.
Oh, come ON, Hobo!
If I were pro Drag Racing it means I think it should exist, not that I think everyone HAS TO HAVE a drag race car. If I'm pro-sushi it doesn't mean that I want every meal to BE sushi, or that everyone has to EAT sushi. There's a huge leap of illogic in claiming that pro-abortion means everyone HAS to have an abortion.
That's simply retarded. Especially considering your ranting about words and their meanings.
And as to your original question, if her mother had had an abortion, I doubt JaneiR36 would care about it at this point, now would she?
Registered Republican but don't vote the party line.
Don't like war, but understand and support why we're there.
Definitely not anti-abortion. And after reading these forums, starting to beilieve in retroactive abortion.
Gun control means being able to hit your target. And I don't own guns (nor will I).
Abortion should be banned with no exceptions. If the girl was raped, then she should have it and give it for adoption. Same with incest. Plain and simple. Easy as that. If someone kills a pregnant women, he is charged with two counts of murder. So abortion is considered murder too. You cant have one and not the other.
And who do you think put that two murder count law in place? Oh, right,
the same Republican pool that is against abortion.
It seems pretty obvious why they put that one through, doesnt it :wink2:
Like I said before (where i've been completely ignored; is that the norm when people bring up good points here?) adoption doesn't always work. What happens to the child? No, they don't always get adopted and have a nice happy normal life. That is simply not the case. Adoption ISNT always the answer! Thinking it is is admitting to ignorance :ohcrap:
I'm kinda curious to hear how you turned out to be a deist. Were you just raised under one religion and rejected part of it, or what? I kinda half agree with the deist act, but atheism seems to suit me better. What led you to be deist?
The issue here isn't punishing the woman.
Thats great, you're for abstinance. That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If you want to punish the woman, thats your own social issue, but what you're ignoring is the child who is thrown somewhere to the side. Forget about the adults, what your decision in the voting booth really is affecting are the lives of american children and children around the world.
Now, you might say "How can you think you're supporting children? You want to murder them!" This is not true. In the period where an abortion would take place, all you have is the potential for life. There is yet to be an ACTUAL living organism. Of course, you could respond to THAT with something like "You don't have the right to halt even a potential existance!"
Which, basically, is as senseless as saying "Birth control should be illegal!"
it should. stop letting women get away with their bad choices.
and at least they will live good in an adoption home, instead of with some crazy old bitch who didnt care enough for them to want to keep them.
Math, and the purity of a circle. the universe does operate with rules, and
tehre is a bit of the touch of an architect. But that's about as far as I
The founding fathers were diests...
This basically shows you have no idea what you're talking about
Don't include yourself in a discussion until you have educated yourself on the matter at hand
y dont you prove what your saying first. instead of talking about the "what ifs" liberals are so retarded.
Where are you coming up with this punishment thing? I was statingthat you
need to be responisble for your actions. If you're going to have sex, you
have to be prepared for the consiquences (sp), which might be a kid.
For me, life starts at conception, and there is no 'potential for life' after that, the baby is alive, and you're physically halting a baby that would be born, hence stopping a life. There is no 'potential baby' here. A baby will be born (unless some force of god stops it otherwise), unless a doctor aborts it. Where are you getting this 'potential life' thing from?
As I stated before, a lot of you holy rollin' folk will not handle the
issues in your face. You'll just keep stating your original religious
The dude just asked you what about the kids who will not get adopted. Who will be bounced around from foster home to foster home. The ones who will be physically, emotionally, sexually abused. All BECAUSE they are not living with a biological parent (not that that's a guarantee for a good life, but it sure as hell holds much better chances).
KOOL, let's just kill them to save them from "possible" misery. :screwy:
I'm not going to bite my tongue: YES.
It's the decision of the woman, to look at her situation, and does she have the resources, physical, emotional, financial, etc to brace a child. If her answer is NO, then yes, she may have to make the hard decision of terminating its "life." We're not on planet sunshine and roses. Not everything we do will feel good, but sometimes its necessary. Some of you who support the war in Iraq oughta know that. (Cheap shot, I know, but it makes my point. :roll: )
Well, if that is your point of view, which I'll have to assume(hate that word), We could have just dropped a big ol A-BOMB on Iraq and saved them from all the misery.I'm sure they would have appreciated it. What in the hell were we thinking?
obviously if she cant even make the decision of when to not have sex, she
cant make the choice for a child whos life depends on her.
and at least the kids will have a home instead of die because of some irresonsible bitch, or bastard in case of rape.
I don't have that much of a problem with assumptions, just tell me, what
exactly is the comparative logical path to arrive at that conclusion?
A fetus grows in a woman's body as Iraqis live in... ???
The fetus is the potential to be someone's child, as all the people in Iraq are...???
I'm drawing blanks here.
I mean, are the Iraqi's our babies and I just didn't know it? Oh, my bad, I guess they are. Which would be why we decided to tell them how to rule their country after we figured out we were not going to find WMD's in it. I thought this was a decision country's arrived at by themselves, not something they got bullied into. Honestly, upon all the deaths in that country, I think that is what disgusts me the most. But whatever.
i am against that particular war. its just a war on muslims by bush and israel.
You'd probably be better off living somewhere in the Middle east. After
all, in some of those countries, if a woman gets raped the brother takes
her out back and shoots her. A direct quote I heard on TV basically said
she [his sister] was worth about as much as a glass, and how much have you
lost if one breaks. I know a lot of stuff on media is hype, but this does
happen and you'd probably be more comfortable smack dab in the middle of
No guarantee of that, Mr. Planet Sunshine. READ.
I understand your position, but your problem is you're having trouble moving forward in the discussion and keep going round and round a moot point.
You know what disgusts me the most? The fact that we went to Europe and took poor little HITLER out of power. That was a shame and disgrace. :doh: We will never ever live that down. I am so ashamed of my country. The fetus is a life, until it is terminated.
You're exhibiting classic cognitive dissonance. Seeking out situations that make you feel good even when they have absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion at hand.
no im not. thats what you do by talking about things that "could" happen, and the "what ifs" Such a typical liberal. Im done with you, i debate enough of you in my school. its becoming quite boring really
Alright then, Snipervirus, F*ck you.
And Oh, by the way, my previous response was directed at lectroid.
And this is quite ridiculous that you see these as hypotheticals and nothing else. DUH. Where do you think those situations came from? Try REAL LIFE, genius.
Is that right. I believe Saddam had the right to kill every single citizen in Iraq,except his mother. That was his Ali given right.He had the right to develop any kind of arms to kill those silly people(and us too) he wanted. Don't you agree? NO WMD's? BIG FREAKIN DEAL! So I guess YOU have the right to kill anything you want, when you want, if it suits your situation? Right? right. What is my problem. I'M not cognitive ? And I can assure you that I don't need a dime store psychological anal-ist. No it's not misspelled. :laughing:
WHO is another member on this forum. He is in no way to be confused with WHAT. :laughing:
There seems to be a bunch of males who are not prepared to accept that they
are also responsible for their choices, but are too gutless to live up to
their part of the responsibility. They want the 30 seconds of pleasure (I'm
being generous in some cases) but do not want a part of the next 18 years 9
months of responsibility. Is it a
Maybe the answer is to keep the child and force the male to bring the child up. Or maybe abort the child and the father...especially in the case of rape.
Maybe all males should also abstain from sex until they are prepared to raise the child too. No sex outside of marriage etc. (Was that a pig that just flew past the window...)
None of these debates are ever black and white, just varying shades of grey.
Buddy, we got your number. Quick on the trigger,are we? :wink2: And NO Porking on this forum. I don't care if your'e black,green, blue or pink. All of us bleed red. :smoke:B/W I know that wasn't what you meant,thought I would just throw it in.
In order to respond, I actually require a point. Ease off on the sugar and
let me know what it is :laughing: I can't sit here and discuss the
Holocaust, Saddam, Hitler, Iraq AND abortion with someone who will probably
introduce evolution next.
Strangely enough, my original point to introducing the Iraq war IN CONTEXT was that just because an action results in the termination of life does not necessarily mean it should not be carried out. Or do you only tally deaths when they make your point :screwy: Perhaps we should ask the innocent fatalities from the war what they think on the subject. Oops, my bad, they are dead just the same.
Of course you don't. It cost me only a penny to see through what you were doing :laughing: And contrary to what you think, Mr. Center-of-the-Universe (in your head, anyway), the reference was in regards to the directionlessness of the conversation, NOT you.
Took you a HELL of a long time to reply and not say a damn thing :doh: OH,and the POINT you need,you won't find here. You need to get out more. :laughing:
hey man, that's what I was doing all this time I did not reply and I got criticized just the same :orglaugh:
Why force the male? He doesnt have to give birth to the kid. Unless they are married of course. Look, we males have balls. Girls think its really funny to kick us in the balls because it hurts and we cant do a damn thing about it. Well wouldnt they rather have balls now that they are pregnant and have to lug around a child everywhere. Or now that they have to get an abortion and kill a kid. BAlls seem really great now dont they?
Im retarded. My post is not even relevant, but I had to say it to get it
me been kicked 4 time already :mrgreen:
You ever wonder why?
So, can we all agree that life begins at conception, but it's what that life entails that creates the argument? Because then, the Dr.Kevorkian agrument comes out, then it's a moot point, because it's bad life vs. no life, which I believe is what we're mostly arguing over.
So, let me take the other side for those of you who argue bad life over no life. Have you ever been in that situation? Have you ever been in a situation where you have no way out, you're spiraling down and you'll do anything to end the misery? if you haven't, then why are you judging for others who have? The main thing I see wrong with radical republicans is that they're telling others how to live without a thought from the other's shoes.
PS. I am mostly republican, and I'm taking the other side to throw in a different thought.
No I havent been in their shoes, nor do I ever want to. However, people who cant take a grip on their own life can be used for our army in the draft that we need. So there. All worthless people have at least one use.
funny vid. http://www.kwinkies.com/index.php?mode=blog&id=1703 hope the
are these the rupublican facts you are taling about??
also, most steps forward were liberal, conservatives have held this country back. and as for liberals and their "what ifs" at least they can think ahead, and see what may happen.
Sept. 11 + X = Shut the $#@* up!
Where 'X' equals anything we say...
That is very funny. Hey,we can't be polishly correct all the time. Or is that politically correct all the time? :laughing:
For you? God stops it? Great. You have your religion, wonderful. You can live by it. Telling others how to behave based on your religious beliefs, however, is unAmerican.
2. Not really sure about the war, haven't paid much attention to it, but let's pray for our soldiers.
5. Pro-gun control
And if they aren't prepared for the consiquences? The kid and the mother should just suffer because some dude on the other side of the country said so? :screwy:
This is one of the most sadistic statements I have read in a long time
What kind of a person wishes for their country men and women to waste their lives in a rich mans war? Being a soldier is one thing. If they volunteer to fight this war, fine. I don't support it in any way, but whatever.
Forcing people to fight, though, because they are at a point in their life where nothing is going well for them? Thats complete BS
If anything, you should be in Iraq right now :screwy:
Snipervirus is 13 :oops:
If the dissident Iraqis keep this (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12065110-2,00.html) up they won't know what hit 'em. These troops are not known for clemency. If you have any war buddies ask them about the SAS, they make Steven Segal look like a rooky.
Actually, I'm atheist. By force of god, I mean something that wasn't
supposed to happen. You've completly dodge my question entirely. You are
stopping a life when you have an abortion, hence you are killing someone.
That is not acceptable. Telling others how to behave on your religious
beliefs is unamerican? I AM ATHEIST. Where is this unamerican thing coming
from? You're pulling random crap out of your ass and putting it on these
Last I checked, a government tells others what not do do, how to live (not kill, steal, etc..), unless you want to be punished. Same thing here. You have to be responsible for your actions. If you have sex (choice from abstinence) you have to be responsible for your actions. Why are you arguing against that?
And I suppose killing the kid is the better option. Not because I say so, but because they are killng alife, which is unacceptable. You're IQ and comprehension is way too low to be involved in this argument, so please, keep your mouth shut unless you have something intelligent to say.
The "kid" isn't a seperate person. it cant feel, it's a wadd of skin. somewhere it says it's not alive until it take a first breath. there arent brain waves until 8 weeks of developing the womb. without brainwaves you are legally dead, although "it" was never alive. althought he nervous syestem starts quickly, within the first 3 weeksish, the brain doesnt start to develop until week 5. it can feel pain at week 12, way past it being legal to abort it.
Why would you assume everyone agrees with this? A lot of people believe
that for all intents and purposes, the fetus is NOT a life.
A little something we like to call the seperation of church and state. DUH.
Terminating the life before it becomes someone's... everyone's aka society's responsibility is the better option. If you're unable to support a new life, you may have to consider not bringing the pregnancy to term. And do you remember who decides whether or not to bring a pregnancy to term? That's right, the woman.
Again, everyone can dictate responsibility all the want, but when it comes down to it, the man can get away scott free, while the woman has to deal with what some bureaucrat decided. Purely moralistically, "taking responsibility" may seem like the right thing to do. But it's just way too convenient when one party will clearly be taking more responsibility than the other [for nine months] each and every time.
Maybe when technology advances to the point that you can take the zygote out of the woman and bring it to term without her help at all, rather than abort, the pro-lifers can take the child and adopt it right away! Who knows!
And the government point you raised, don't mean didly squat. In some countries, the "Government" says adultery is a crime, a punishable crime. Just 'cos it's immoral or against certain beliefs, doesn't mean it should make it into our Legal system. AT ALL.
I can't tell who's ass this kid (Godlaus) is dug out of. :laughing: Madeline Ohara or Oral Roberts ? :screwy:
No, but it leads directly to a life.
Fetus ---------> Life
You seem to believe that the only choice is after sex. You have a choice before, to abstain. You have to think out your situation before you have sex. If you can't afford the consequences, then don't have sex. You have a choice to not bring a child into this world to suffer, and that choice is to abstain. Look into the future of your actions, then make a choice.
THEN DON'T HAVE SEX!!!!!!!!!
You have this view that you have to have sex, and then are using abortion as a form of birth control. You have a choice beforehand. I don't know how many times I can say this, if you can't afford a kid, then don't take the risk and don't have sex.
Those are other governments, not ours.
Side note = My school is undergoing a renovation, and we're getting condom dispensors in the bathrooms. Good or Bad?
An additional choice is shooting yourself so you'll never procreate. Just
as stupid as prescribing "abstinence" to everyone, knowing fully well it'll
never fly. Your wonderful prescrition is still one that'll have to be more
actively practiced by women than by men. If you still can't see how this
is a slap in the face of equal rights, then you're a lot denser than I
Sperm also leads to life. So what? Shall we all become like the extreme religious folk who don't believe in "wasting" it? :screwy:
You're trying desperately to force your beliefs on other people and don't even know it. The fetus is a person. Abstinence is the only way. Women should bare infinitely more of the burden than men (what's 100/0?). If you so feel the need to live in a moral nation, please see my recommendation to Snipervirus a few posts above.
Condoms in teenage bathrooms -- weird I guess. Sex is in everyone's face these days. Might as well handle it in a matter of fact, almost scientific way. :wink2:
NOPE, nothing scientific, just swallow. :wink2:
A verse from Everlast comes to mind...
"Mary got pregnant from a kid named Tom that said he was in love
He said, "Don't worry about a thing, baby doll
I'm the man you've been dreaming of."
But 3 months later he say he won't date her or return her call
And she swear, "God damn, if I find that man I'm cuttin' off his
And then she heads for the clinic and
she gets some static walking through the door
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner
and they call her a whore
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose "
As a guy, apparently you've never thought about rape, either, have you?
And every egg is a potential life. You gonna stop women from having menstruation?
I remember a line from stephen kings book "desperation". "Nobody gets
pregnate if one of you keeps your pants on, Pete." Even if the burden is
more on the female, so what? Both sexes have their ups and downs. There is
and probably never will be perfectly "equal rights".
Abstinence will fly if people see that they have to take responsibility for what they do, and that they can't bail themselves out afterwards with a pill, because that's preventing a life that will be born, be born. I'm not against pills before sex, or condoms, but if you take the risk, you must accept the consequences.
Why do you think I bolded that a fetus leads directly to a life? It's developing into a child. masturbating or wet dreams doesn't directly lead to an egg turning into a zygote. It may indirectly, but not directly.
if my belief is that people should have the right to live, then yes, I'm forcing my belief on others.
Where did I say that woman need to bare the entire burden? Does every mother out there raise the child alone? I know mine didn't, and I frown upon those fathers that run from their responsibility. Raising a child should be a 50/50 thing, never did I say that women should bear the enitre burden, and if that's what one of my comments came off as, then I'm truly sorry, but never has that thought ever crossed my mind.
That's for the courts to figure out, because a couple could take a case to court that a woman was raped by her boyfriend, and she wants the end the baby. That's up for a jury to decide, (whether or not she was raped) not me. If she truly was raped, then the baby can be aborted. (because the woman had no choice beforehand)
I'll promote stopping whatever leads to directly to halting a baby.
To chrisV = Good song, but not a really good representative, because the woman in the song didn't say whether or not the woman wanted the baby, and she didn't have a choice on that matter. The father did run though, and to that, I'm almost ashamed to be a man, but there is always a way to make life better for her, WITH the child.
Yeah, the democratic part of me says that it's happening, so you might as well be safer about it, but I haven't really decided about it.
BTW, there's going to be so many condoms on the water fountains.
Of course. Godlaus thinks children "should" be raised 50/50. Why didn't
anyone tell me? All our problems are solved.
We do not force women to be barefoot and pregnant in this country, even if they DO decide to have sex. Off to the middle east for you. I'm sure you'll be glad to live with other women's rights haters such as yourself.
Of course we don't force people to be pregnate. They have choice of whether
or not to have sex, or to use birth control BEFORE sex. You have tons of
So what you're saying, is that a child is too much for one mother to handle? And that the woman had sex with the man because she thought she could afford the consequences with the man at her side?
1. There's always adoption
2. If you can't handle the consequences by yourself, then don't have sex. You have to be able to forsee theses things. You have to weigh in the risks and make a decision.
This is why so many people don't believe in pre-marital sex, because the woman can be left with the child and the man can get away scott-free. Whereas in a marriage, you can have things such as child support.
Plain and simple fact, you're halting a growing (into a life) fetus, which is killing.
Where are you getting this woman hater thing? Do I simply disrespect all women because I'm against abortion? Some women out there are for abortion also. I am not a woman hater, so quit trying to pin that label on me. If you keep labeling me as a woman-hater, then I have the exact same right to call you a feminist dike, but you don't see me dissing on you like that.
In the middle east, they don't have a choice, here, women do. (before contraception, anyway)
1. Since I am not yet 18, it is impossible for me to be either Republican
or Democrat. I am conservative.
2. Pro-iraq war.
5. Anti-gun control
Godlaus, call me a feminist dyke if you want. Other than the dyke part
(which I'm NOT homophobic, anyway), you'll probably be right on the money,
so what. I still think your attitudes tends towards being a woman-hater
(thanks for taking the words out of my mouth).
Birth Control doesn't always work.
Who the F told you that women in marriages do not sometimes have abortions? I seen a show where a woman on TV gave up her fourth child for adoption because her family could not brace an additional child. I could tell you right now I could NEVER do that. To know I had an offsprng floating around in another family even when I had one of my own going, just not my personal choice.
Women in this country have a choice, too. One to abort. One that you cannot deal with.
Other than a "disgusting" habit that you find to be extremely vile, what does an abortion hurt you, anyway? So it's a potential life. If the women and her ob-gyn catches it early enough, the tissue is sucked out and the child never does come to life. Where does this hurt anyone? Other than your need to legislate what other people should do with their bodies, where exactly does this affect, or concern you? Honestly, you gotta tell me. Becuase for me, even smoking, which is legal would affect me more. At least, there's the possiblility of catching something due to exposure to second-hand smoke. Other illegal activities can usually pin-point exactly where someone else could get hurt. What's this all about for you, really, other than a personal belief which only describe your values and do not affect anyone else? Hmm?
Hey bitch, when you see someone smoking, you can get the **** away. No is asking you to breathe it in. However, if you decide to kill an unborn child because you were too careless, that is your problem. If you dont want a child floating around, then keep it. If not, then give it to adoption. Stop being stupid and accept the fact that you want to be a murderer. This is just feminists trying to get even more power. Its sad we let them get this far, we should stop them now, while we can.
hey, how about you do us ALL a favor and shoot yourself in the head? My best guess is the Middle east won't even want you, you stupid little wanker. Keep your mouth shut when people with functional brains are talking.
Bingo. Please stay out of this argument, sniper, as you can't really add anything to this debate. As much as we have in correlation, you can't really help me here.
I never said I wanted to call you a feminist dike, I simply said that we
should give each other the respect of not calling each others names. You're
taking a woman's rights position, and I'm taking a pro-life postition.
We're both considered ignorant a$$holes to someone. I'm hoping we can both
be mature about this. I am NOT a woman hater though.
If you don't want to rish that .1% of condoms not working, then abstain. Last I checked, it works 100% of the time.
Wherever did I say that women in marriages don't have abortions? You were arguing that fetus' should be aborted because the woman would have to raise the child on her own. I stated that that's why so many people don't believe in pre-marital sex, because the man can get away scott free, whereas in marriage, they have some lawful responsibility to live up to.
Okay......Like I said before, if you can't handle the consequences of your risks, then don't take the risk. It's not your personal choice? You had a choice, and that was to keep your pants on, but you didn't, and now you have to bear the result of your actions.
Women in this country have a choice, also. One to keep their pants on. One that you cannot deal with.
When did I lay down on your couch? :laughing:
The problem you say is that a child never comes to life. It's leading directly to a life, which is stopping a life. Killing, murdering, and right now, people are getting away with it. The greenridge killer only attacked young female prostitues. That doesn't affect me. But, I would like to see that sick fck behind bars or 6 ft under. Just because it doesn't affect me, doesn't mean I don't care about it. Or how about the tsunami disaster? I didn't feel it, and wasn't affected by it, but I still gave money and helped out packing food to help those in need. You seem to think that I'm just a selfish bastard, but I'm not.
BTW, I'm completely against smoking cigarettes. (my grandfather was actually killed by them).
If it's a personal belief that others have a right to live, then how does that not affect anyone else?
Sniper, shut up. She did nothing to offend you, so just stay out of thier intellectual (sp?) conversation.
I get that a lot. Ok I will leave. But I will also come back when ever I feel like it. :thumbs:
So you can directly or indirectly call proponents of my position a
murderer, but whine at the term "woman-hater." Grow up, sweetie. If you
can't take the heat...
When the birth control doesn't work, you can abort within the legal time constraints. By the way, can you see how you're gradually moving from legislating a woman's body to being the pre-marital sex police? IMO, the legislation of morality will lead to ridiculousness each and every single time.
Don't come again with this "pro-abortion" crap. Keep your head on straight. The woman could decide for herself that if she doesn't want to have the baby, she won't. Period. The reason could be financial, or heck, she may not want stretch marks. Either way, my point is it's her "choice." You were indicating that just because she's in a marriage everything would be okay. She could still make the decision that their finances cannot support a new child and abort.
ANYBODY has a lawful responsibility to raise a child they've given birth to. If you don't want that responsibility, you may have to make the difficult or not so difficult choice of aborting. By the way, Mr. Morality police, are you saying people shouldn't get their rocks off unless for the sole purpose of producing a little one? LMAO. :laughing:
Did you keep your head straight when I asked you to? Now try again. We were talking about a married couple, for a moment here. You just won't admit that some aspects of your position are naive if not downright stupid.
So did your Mama, but you here, ain't you?
No, NOT killing or murdering. If it ain't a life yet, there's nothing murdered. So now we come full circle. You're STILL thinking everyone gives a crap that just because you think the fetus is a life with all the rights therein, that everyone else does. See why it's important to define your values and walk away when you realize that other people don't share them? In case you did not catch it the first time: I do NOT believe a new fetus is a legal life. If the Mama wants to snuff it out, that's her choice.
Selfish? What is this, freakin' fifth grade? Share, Godlaus, share!!! :laughing: Now when did we go from talking about supposed "crimes" to natural disasters and then to your personal generousity or lack thereof? Sheesh. Stay on topic.
The prostitute was brought to the world by a mother and father. She may have had friends. As a person, she had constitutional rights. If someone is going around killing prostitutes, they are probably selling drugs in their neighborhood which could soon become your neighborhood, not to mention they would have a high likelihood of killing again. THAT's why any murderer should be off the streets. So what's the deal with the fetus tissue again? You're still lacking on a decent comparison.
Because you need only start talking when they actually become a person, NOT when they're simply [legally] just a part of somebody's body. At that point, you need to back the fuk off and find yourself another way of keeping that naive "everything is okay with the world" smile on your face. Good luck.
yeah, there is. YOU going to pay for it? What if her parents decided to
disown her over it?
Sorry, but your attitude is one of someone who really hasn't got a clue as to what hardships really are. Or the realities of life.
Am I going to pay for it? Via welfare, I guess. I'd help her out if I knew
her directly. The position I see you taking is that nobody should judge
somebody else on something that they can't relate to. Right? Then why do
juries put people behind jails for a guy who killed his wife who was
screwing another guy, if the jury was never in that position? I think we
have to make decisions for other people at times. (But not all the time)
The second part I guess I have to agree with. I don't know what real hardships are. I still live with my parents, I have my bills paid (except for those pertaining to my car), a roof to live under and a bed to sleep on. By realities of life, I suppose you mean that life is way more 'stingent' (for lack of a better word), punishing, then what I live now. Although it look like you're viewing life as half-empty, I can't really argue with you on that because I don't have as many years under my belt.
It's not about taking the heat, it's about showing a certain level of respect for each other. even warring countries have the geneva convention. I didn't call you a murderer, because I believe murder to be a too 'harsh' of a word. People get abortions because they view life as better without the kid than with it. The intentions are good but the actions are bad. That's not really murder, (the democrat in me is coming out).
We're not arguing the law now, we're arguing what it should be. Never did I say that people shouldn't have pre-marital sex, I'm just saying that's why so many people don't believe in pre-marital sex. You were coming from the position that the women can have the child, and the man can run away. Whereas in marriage, the guy is tied to the child legally, which is where the pre-marital sex thing comes from. And for the last part....Well, that's your opinion.
What pro-abortion crap? I was asking you a valid question. You're telling me to keep my head on straight? I'm keeping my position while you're attacking me from all angles. If her finances can't support a child, then don't have sex. it;s that simple. I want money, so I'll go rob a bank. I get caught and am sent to court. My excuse is that 'I don't want to go to jail'. What's the judge going to say? "Well, then you shoudn't have robbed the bank". DON'T TAKE THE RISK IF YOU DON"T WANT THE CONSEQUENCES. it's very simple. Sex is not a need in life, (other than pro-creation), and if you can't support a child, then don't have sex.
No, I'm just saying that if you don't want the consequences, then don't do the action. VERY SIMPLE. It's not the choice that I'm arguing about, it's that you're directly ending a future life.
Okay... Married couple, they have sex, she gets pregnate. They have the kid, if they can support it, they do, if they can't then they have to go to an adoption. Now you're probably going to argue that life in an adoption home is worse than no life at all, but remember that it was the married couple's choice to have sex. The marriage thing was dragged into this arguemnt in the first place for the point that you brought up, remember? That a man can get away scott free?
There are two explanations as to why I'm alive
1. She recognized the risks, and knew that she could afford a child, and had sex.
2. She wanted a child.
This part is completely off topic to what we're arguing, and it was written by you just to take a snipe at me. Please refrain from doing so again. Like I said, can't we be mature about this?
1. it is directly leading to a life. DIRECTLY. Masturbating is indirectly leading to a life, and abortion is stopping a growing fetus. It's becoming a life, and you're stopping it, which is ending a life.
2. Last I checked, Bush won in 04 on moral values. That pertains to things as such, which means more americans agree with me on this than americans with you.
3. If mama wants to kill her children at age 3, then why stop her then, either?
You're telling me to stay on topic? You attacked me on a point that since the issue at hand did not pertain to me, I should not worry/argue about it. I agve you a real-life example. Am I going too fast? Do I need to slow down so that you can keep up? I gave a perfectly legit example, and you thought it was off-topic.
The fetus that you aborted could have grown up to cure cancer than will infiltrate my lungs in 20 years, and I would have been saved. That's how it pertains to me. (sarcasm). You're using an indirect example. Of no help here, because I can do that^^^^.
Not legally part of someone's body. Another life at conception. Wherever did I come off as an "everything is okay" smile on my face? Where the fuk is that coming from? Never did I ever mention that, and the world is far from okay.
We're never going to end this thread are we? well, here's another thing to throw in the mix. A mother is giving birth to a child. She's at the hospital after 9 months. She's married and is in a stable financial position, enough so that she can support a kid. But, the issue is that someone is going to die. The situation is so that only the mother can live by aborting the child now, or she can die by letting the child.
^^^^^what do you do? as mother? as father?
If I had no doubt it were you? I would :laughing:
I believe that a fetus is not a human life. I do think that it does grow into one, but at the time where most abortions occur it is not a human. I am pro-choice.
And there's a reason that there's different sentences and categories.
Murder1, Murder2, manslaughter, self defence, etc. there's also "do not
resuscitate" paperwork for people goin into the hospital, and "pulling the
plug" on a life that is being held on by mechanical means, that doesn't
land you in jail. How do you reconcile THAT? It's the same decision,
The point is, there are different levels to reality. Your absolute righteousness has no place in it.
And I would want to shoot myself because...? Although, adding onto what
ChrisV mentioned, some women could possibly do that to themselves if they
feel their situation is dire enough.
UGH. You have used the word murder in this discussion with reference to abortion. And before you explicitly stated women-hating, I did mention that you didn't seem to understand that you were supporting taking away women's rights. If anything, yours was to a worse degree, so I have absolutely NO idea what you're complaining of. I'm simply extending the same level of courtesy I feel you've extended to me. If that's a problem, you should consider what you're doing to deserve it. :2cents:
OF COURSE we're arguing the law. This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Now that you know that lawfully, your position makes absolutely no sense, you're trying to detach it legally!
When you say do not abort, and you say let's make that law.
You're saying: "use birth control, it'll work 99.XX% of the time."
"If it doesn't work, have the baby."
"If you don't want the baby, aka if your birth control doesn't work because technology is not that advanced, do not have pre-marital sex."
Now how in the world is that not law? How in the world is that not legislating what a woman should do with her body? How in the world is that not legally accepting only sex between married couples?
a. That's extremely stupid. An excuse is the reason why you did something, not just you stating that you want to escape the consequences. Now try again and this time put some sense into the analogy. What was the person's reason for robbing the bank again? Why are we talking about this stupid-ass analogy, again? :screwy:
b. So now having sex outside of marriage can be likened to a crime. And you're not a woman-hater. And you're all for women's rights. :screwy:
Again, your personal level of comfort. So when you have kids, or if you have influence over people, convince them that abortion is not what you do and provide them with other options. STAY THE FUK OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES AND DO NOT TRY TO LEGISLATE THEIR MORALITY.
Absolutely. You're still not handling the part where the woman is the one whose body is to carry the child. You had no answer for the fact that there's no technology to substitute for this yet. Only women just have to accept that we have less rights than men because things can never be truly equal. But you're no woman hater :screwy:
There are two explanations as to why I'm alive
Of course. You can stop whining. Something that really irritated me to the point of that personal attack was your repeated use of the phrase "keep your pants on." You could use something more neutral like "abstain," not to mention like I've said before you've called abortion murder, talking about people are "getting away with it." The latter I'll excuse in context, but your multiple uses of the former got you what you deserved. Besides, I also wanted to put a face to sexuality. You just don't seem respectful enough of it.
And it's hurting who?
Along with other things like the war, and the fact that they felt he could do better than Kerry. I could also ask them the same thing I'm asking you. Just 'cos he's pro-life like you, what exactly will that do for your quality of life? Idiots that voted on moral values definitely piss me off. IMO, The President should be more about improving the quality of MY life, not legislating other people's. Last I checked, we DO have a criminal justice system, do we not? Additionally, you're proving another point. I doubt people who are struggling to make ends meet would be voting based on who got knocked up and has to be punished by having the child, but that's just my opinion.
If your Mama wanted to kill you at 16, I sure as hell wouldn't stop her (a stupid question deserves a stupid answer.)
OF COURSE it's off-topic. No, your logic is retarded, you do not have to slow it down some more, if anything you need to speed up some. Comparable situation would be you giving your money to support pro-lifers, like people who want to spread the message, help women have children by substancially contributing to their lives, etc etc. As a red-blooded American and even just a human being, that is your perogative. What has your financial contribution or generousity then got to do with your proposed LAW? Gosh.
Quit going around claiming to be smart when you're anything BUT. Even then, you're still entitled to your own opinion. Until you THINK you can insinuate that I'm stupid when you're the one who probably has everyone reading doubting your common sense.
Indirect example? I wasn't giving an example AT ALL. You said if we abort fetuses because it's not hurting anyone, why not kill prostitutes because it was the same. I showed you why it wasn't (IMO). Your current reason doesn't fly with me. It's selfish. You're talking about "chance" here. "What if's." What if someone were to give me a million dollars on his way home but then took another route? Makes no damn sense at all. I don't see how that plays SQUAT in a legal discussion.
Besides, I've heard that argument before. It cancels out because the other party comes back with what if Hitler and Stalin's mothers had aborted them. You ever heard about that? Hmm?
In your opinion.
That's MY interpretation. Either that or your life is so crappy that you think that taking away women's rights will make it better. Or that you think the world is so good and perfect that taking away women's rights will really work out. THAT's where my statement came from.
UGH. It's called partial birth abortion. They tried to outlaw it recently saying it was such a heinous form of abortion, but the outlaw...uh...ment? was ruled unconstitutional. A senate candidate who was pro-choice said she would have voted to outlaw it, too, but no one could come up with an alternative to save the life of the mother in a health situation, as of yet.
Some women do choose to die and let the child live. Their Choice. Their very noble choice. NOT one that is forced on them in this country.
In this country, women have rights OVER an unborn child. I can only hope we are able to keep it that way.
DAMN THATS LONG!!!!!!!!! Did you inject some NOS into your hands when you type all this?
don't mean to sound like an a-hole but all i ever hear outa you is nos, could you tell me what that stands for? :ohcrap:
NOS is NOS it doesnt stand for nuttin
:clap: thank you for proving my assumptions. :clap:
1. Conservative Republican (We just get stuff done right)
2. Pro-iraq war (I hope they annihilate those extremists so thoroughly that we forget they ever existed)
3. Christian (Using Pascal's Wager)
4. Pro-abortion (It should be the decision of the woman who is carrying the baby, not society)
5. Anti gun-control (Try to take my guns away, you'll just get shot)
just curious.... but the ones that say anti-gun control, what have u used guns for?
Hunting, and entertainment. What else would you use it for?
And, may I add, self defense falls under the entertainment category.
NOS is a brand. nitrous oxide is an oxidizer used to pack more oxygen in
the combustion chamber. NOS won't help anyone type faster, unless you think
cold hands type fast.
Janei, I've had enough. I actually didn't respond to chrisV's thread because I wanted this closed, and ended with the thought that no absolute rightessnous (sp?) belonged anywhere. That's something for the reader to decide. We've both argued incredibly well, and we're basically repeating our previous statements now. I call peacefire, not because I think you won, but because we've both laid out our opinions on the table, and we're not going to convince each other to convert to the other side. So, I call peacefire.
And that's why we shouldn't give guns to people like you.
Hmmmm.... Do you need a semi automatic 30 bullet clip assault rifle for hunting? Are you really that bad of a shot that you need 30 shots to take down a deer? Sorry, but most people get guns for personal security, a way to feel safe, and knowing that you might have an upper or equal hand against a thief, burglar, break-in, etc. Also, some farmers need guns to protect their livestock.
I guess the argument is, do guns kill people or do people kill people?
People kill people. I can kill someone with an olive fork, or even my hands... doesn't mean you should put a ban on those things. They don't allow knives at school--what does that matter? I can do more damage with a pencil, and they'll never see that comming. As for me, I have a Desert Eagle .45 that my grandfather bought for me to keep in my room just in case of break-ins. That, and he wanted me to have a pistol to shoot for when we go to the firing range.
You and people like you sicken me.
Ceasefire. But NOW you finally get it.
I do think I "won", though (whatever the hell that is :roll: ), but that's just my opinion. Your points were really quite weak and not well thought through. You might be able to give a more sophisticated argument on your position in a few years. You are young, yet.
But enough with this "wanting the thread closed" crap. It's like Lectroid says. You're done with the thread, get the F out and leave it alone.
The feeling's probably mutual (on abortion), but due to the complexity of your very detailed argument, I am unable to understand what you feel. :screwy: Now fuk off. Idiot.
Can't we all just get along ?--------- Hell No! :laughing: How much fun would that be ? I would really love to see someone settle this one. :clap:
Yes you are right, people are responsible for their misdemeanors and if it
takes a few victims to sacrifice their life in order to catch them out then
the end justifies the means. Children should also be allowed to play with
matches and fuel. Travellers should be able to to carry guns, knives, ice
picks, garrots, knuckledusters, high explosives, napalm, etc on planes
because they are benign artifacts that do not have a will of their own.
We should all feel safe in the knowledge that the world is made up of responsible, secular and egalitarian people and that weapons are merely a figment of our imaginations. We have a right to paranoia goddammit and stop looking at me like that!
You mean that as sarcasm--I agree with it as if it's not.
How about we use japan as an example, they have zero guns, the cops don't even carry them. Way less deaths.
If people kill people, then you don't need a gun to kill someone.
If guns kill people, then we don't need them here in america.
kinda strange but canadians have more guns per household yet we don't even have 1% of the deaths by guns than americans do.... something wrong here?
Canada sucks, duh :screwy:
uh huh... sucks cuz we don;t kill each other with guns. right on buddy your point was very good and educated. :screwy:
haha, you taking me seriously proves my point actually :screwy:
Oh and youre right canada is good, too good, in fact theyre all goody too shoo's right on the edge of utterly boring. hockey is the only thing keeping them from crossing the thin line.
Oh and california/californians suck too. just thought i'd add that, and it needed to be known.
I'd guess both the high rate in the USA and the low rate in Canada is because the Canadians are damned good shooters? :mrgreen:
um- i think there are more gun related deaths beacause of people shooting people purposely than people accidentally shooting people, so you got it backwards.
he was joking, shev. Come on, stop wasting our oxygen.
I would like to see some statistics on this statement. I probably
have more weapons in my home than some police departments. Just because,,,, I LOVE GUNS. I haven't shot anyone, yet. Really wouldn't want to.
unless you or your family were in danger. That's why people don't want
their guns taken away, because of the sense of security.
I personally love guns also, and That's why I have air soft, because they're not real, but have all the characteristics of a real one.
If you don't want to shoot anyone, then why not just take off the firing pin? If the only reason is that you love guns, and not for shooting reasons. Am I missing something?
YOU ARE A FU#K#N# MORON!!!!! I can throw peaches and green beans for a defense. I enjoy shooting, not much of a weapon(or toy) without a firing pin. How stupid can you get? I like squirt guns too. :laughing: Damn your'e stupid. :doh:
i live in montana, which has the most guns per house hold in the us and probably any province in canada. and add hunting to your list of reasons to have guns. although i dont hunt. hunting is gay.
A-ND We have a new carNOVICE!
new carnovice? ive been here longer than carexpert actually, and you!
so as long as im on your ignore list then i can do this.
alrighty whatever, you are just mad because i called you a racist bastard 10 times.
Anti gun control- f*** the people who think guns kill, people kill people, and sometimes the gun just happens to be lying there :laughing: If guns kill people than I can blame my pencil for mistakes on paper
But that is my opinion
Then, if you got rid of pencil all together, then you won't make any
mistakes. Sorry, but that's a horrible example. Now, if people kill people,
why don't we allow children, criminals, and insane people to have automatic
weapons? Why aren't I allowed to bring a M4 to school today?
Maybe...because guns aid people in killing people.
this is your opinion, but, are you going to follow it up?
I'll follow it up for him.
Why not let children have them? Children do not have the judgement it takes to use them properly. USE being the operative word here. Same reason we don't let children drive. But children have been taught gun safety effectively. My 12 year old stepson just got his rifle merit badge for scouting, and has helped out on the scout rifle range. Tools are tools and how you use them is what matters.
Children are also not legal adults with legal rights as adult citizens, so the "right to bear arms" doesn't apply.
Which brings us to criminals. Criminals have proven to be unlikely to obey a law, and many have been proven to endanger people. Many have killed people with non-guns (knives, etc). So for their inability to use proper judgement, they are not allowed these weapons. AND, as criminals, they have given up some of their rights as citizens. Some arent' allowed to drive cars anymore, either. Hmmm.
Insane people? Again, inability to use proper judgement. Notice a pattern? Human judgement is the main thing tying the three groups together. Human judgement is what makes one person with a gun use it on a gun range and another use it in a school. The GUN didn't make that choice, nor did it make the choice of what it was pointed at or how often the trigger was pulled.
Why can't YOU bring a gun to school? Because you are considered a minor, and neither you nor those around you at school are trusted to use proper judgement due to lack of maturity. You can't bring a hammer to school in many cases, either, or a Swiss Army knife. For the same reasons. Both are tools, but in the hands of someone with a lack of judgement, can be dangerous or deadly. Has nothing to do with what the tool was designed for, only with judgement and intent.
Sorry, didn't think these concepts of liberty and human judgement were so hard to figure out. Your immaturity and lack of experience are part of why you can't figure it out.
Let's remove legal reasons why you, yourself, can't take an automatic weapon to school. If YOU, yourself, took one to school, would you automatically have to shoot everyone there simply because you had it? Or are you capable of using restraint and mature judgement in using that tool (or not using it)? Would the gun itself make you use it? Or would YOU be the one making the choice?
But you assume criminals are this well defined group of people. Whereas in
any given instant, a full gun-bearing citizen could become one. We don't
have the luxury of a "minority report" type prediction. We don't know
who's going to be interested in using the gun to kill someone in the
future. Distinguishing between criminals and non-criminals as far as gun
ownership is concerned might protect us in the immediate future, but how
about in a few decades? I wonder if studies have been done, to see how
much those two groups overlap as time goes on. That is, how non-criminals
who own guns migrate over to the sector of criminals who were aided by
And why can't YOU bring a gun to work, ChrisV? :umh: (Assuming, of course, that you can't. I just don't think that a minor, specifically, not being able to bring a gun to school means anything in this context.)
So you think taht jsut because Bush wants to impress his daddy makes it ok for us to be in a country that nobody gives a flyin shit about :cussing: . I guess that answers democrat or republican. I am a Christian. I am anit-abortion and i do agree with vwhobodouche on the gun thing. Come in my house uninvited and test ur luck.
Here we go with a flame war. :doh:
I may be wrong but i doubt there will be a flame war. I havent seen any recent posts done by vwhobo so i dont think he's really been here (if at all) and so he wont end up seeing that (atleast not for a while) and so it SHOULD be okay, dont quote me on that though.
Don't worry i won't :smoke: , (unless it comes to that) :laughing:
Are you serious? You think he's trying to impress his daddy? Well, come to
think of it, he advised against invading Iraq again. So, if he was trying
to show off, why woul dhe do something his father wrote a book about not
doing? The only people who don't care about this country are peope like
you. People like everyone else is trying to make it better.
You know what? You're right. We should allow citizens to havce any kind of 'tool' they want. You want an Abrams tank? Sure, 120 grand. An automatic M4 with a gernade launcher? Sure, 4 grand. You want a nuclear warhead? Sure, I'll sell it to you.
Even normal citizens fail to use proper judgement at times. Hell, I'm willing to be you've done your share of illegal activities.
But, if you take the tool away, the bad part of them can not happen.
The main theme I see arising is; "If the will is so great, why fight it?". Which is possibly one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.
That could happen with anyone and a car or a rock, too. Not a valid
response, as we allow non criminals to have cars and rocks until they prove
they can't use them responsibly in commiting a criminal offense or killing
Innocent until proven guilty is a basic tenet of freedom for a Citizen of majority age. Period. if you want to take away guns because someone MIGHT go off and be a criminal with one, then you might as well take away cars because someone MIGHT go off and ram someoe or drive drunk and kill someone else.
Once you start down that path, where do you quit? the OJ case didn't have a gun involved at all. Did the Laci Peterson case use a gun? What will we take away next, when all those knifings and muggings are still killing people?
And think about it this way:
There are already laws against killing people. Has that stopped it from happening? the guns that are being used illegally are already being aquired illegally for the most part, including guns that aren't even supposed to be in this country. ALL that anti gun laws do is remove guns from the hands of people who wouldn't use them illegally ANYHOW. Proven time and again.
I work in a government office, and can't even bring a camera in. We work under Homeland Security rules.
Want to know the interesting thig? I've NEVER owned a gun. My mom did. My brother does. I've shot both rifles and handguns at shooting ranges before. I'm simply not interested in them. What I AM intersted in is knee jerk reactions designed to eradicate the rights of Citizens in the name of a false sense of safety.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin