MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 26, 2009 15:17:16 GMT -5
There was no intent to kill innocent people in the middle east. In fact, the US, and Israel for that matter, take painstaking steps to avoid that as much as possible. Of course, given that terrorists like Hamas use human shields and TARGET innocents, such casualties are inevitable. If they want those casualties to stop, they can always, renounce terrorism.
You're just purposefully being thick. But hey, I'll speak in your language. FAGGOTFAGGOT LOL FAGGOT.
|
|
|
Post by mac0822 on Jan 26, 2009 15:35:42 GMT -5
Jesus. Now I remember why everyone ran from this board.
Why the fuck does MSB insist on taking a radical example of an issue & then run with it until he's blue in the face?
Libs & Cons don't like killing fetus'. Who the fuck does - only a savage would. The hypocracy I see is that Reps don't want any abortions, but they don't want to "support" these unwanted, illegit kids when they are alive.
I agree with whoever posted "there are enough bad parents". To me, that's why this country has it's issues - bad fucking parenting. Kids should be the priority - not just a hobby.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 26, 2009 15:41:25 GMT -5
WOW, now Ballsian logic includes correcting Merriam Webster?
"the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"
In fact, neither abortion or capital punishment meet this definition.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 26, 2009 16:10:19 GMT -5
Who needs to think with their brains when they can think with their political party and claim that anyone who doesn't think like me supports criminals and terrorists!
|
|
|
Post by mac0822 on Jan 26, 2009 16:12:54 GMT -5
Does this fuckstick actually think that Libs support Terrorists? This is the same guy that's calling others ignorant?
Could he stereotype anymore? Holy shit.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 26, 2009 16:29:01 GMT -5
Uh, no, most assaults are waged knowing full well that there will be civilian casualties. Trying not to kill them doesn't make it not murder.
You you and your faggot NEOCONS have bigger things to worry about like picking up the pieces of your shit party and not letting disgusting pigs like Michelle Malkin clog your airways with claims that Rachel Ray was secretly reaching out to terrorists because she had a fucking scarf that looked like a kaffiyeh in a Dunkin Donuts ad, when it wasn't even a fucking kaffiyeh!!!
YEAH BECAUSE TERRORISTS WHO ARE IN REGIONS WHERE THERE ISN'T ANY FUCKING RUNNING WATER ARE GETTING GIDDY BECAUSE THEY SAW A D&D AD WITH FAT ASSHOLE RACHEL RAY WEARING SOMETHING THAT LOOKS SOMEWHAT LIKE A KAFFIYEH, WHICH IS NOTHING MORE THAN A FUCKING HAT ANYHOW!!
REPUBLICANS SUCK ALLAH'S ALMIGHTY PENIS!!!! I WISH YOU ALL WOULD FLY TO SPACE AND NEVER COME BACK!! GO TAKE OVER PLANET BORING!!
|
|
|
Post by whalerfan on Jan 26, 2009 17:17:49 GMT -5
Tyrus Thomas would've blocked the shit of that Obama shot.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 26, 2009 18:21:06 GMT -5
Gee, and what is the first thing President Liberal did? Commit to closing Gitmo, a place where people who openly took pride in blowing up the Twin Towers reside. Sure--that's not supporting terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 26, 2009 18:39:27 GMT -5
Well, dope, in case you missed it, John McCain was on Larry King and supported this decision as being the right decision, and only disagreed with Obama in not stating a plan outlining where prisoners would be tried.
But then again, why you would you know what's in the news....you don't watch/read it.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 26, 2009 18:41:24 GMT -5
Dumbass, I saw McCain agreed with Obama's decision. I disagree with McCain on that one. Just because John McCain says something doesn't make it gospel.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 26, 2009 18:45:14 GMT -5
If John McCain, a P.O.W. who you'd gladly interrupt the blow job you're giving Chuck Norris in his Missing In Action costume for, agrees with it.....I'd think you would too.
By the transitive property, you're saying that John McCain backs the support of terrorists.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 26, 2009 19:35:13 GMT -5
We'll never know, since he lost. But as a former POW, he may not be objective on this issue. You don't have to agree with everything. Of course, McCain has shown resolve on the war on terror. Obama hasn't.
|
|
|
Post by elliejay21 on Jan 26, 2009 19:50:37 GMT -5
Murderers should be killed. Terrorists should be killed. Rapists should be killed.
Unwanted or potentially defective babies should be PREVENTED.
Methods of prevention available should include education, hormone-based contraceptives, prophalactic devices, spermacides, surgical sterilization, emergency contraception/plan B, medical abortions, and surgical abortions. No medical procedure should be legislated against or criminalized, nor is it the place of government to ever choose between the life of a woman and that of her unborn child.
Unlimited access to safe, affordable reproductive healthcare (including abortion) does NOT increase the incidence or prevalence of abortions, it actually DECREASES the incidence and prevalence of abortion. The more legal restrictions placed on abortion, the greater the incidence and prevalence of UNSAFE abortions.
If all of you who are endowned with a penis would care to check your ignorance, and have a discussion with a person who has a uterus, you might learn that abortion is NEVER a cavalier decision made lightly. I could probably guarantee you that at least 3 women close to you have made the decision to terminate a pregnancy. If you don't know about it, they probably do not trust you to drop the judgemental attitude and try to understand what they went through.
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Jan 26, 2009 19:56:34 GMT -5
LOL @ Allah's Mighty Penis. That's an image I didn't want to have. Then again neither was Chuck Norris in any costume let alone that one.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 26, 2009 20:06:13 GMT -5
Ah. The old, "no man can understand" gag. Weak. A man is perfectly capable of respecting life. Abortion, in most cases, is one of the most selfish acts someone can do--snuffing out a life before it even is born.
Murderers should be killed. I agree. Terrorists should be killed. I agree. Rapists? Case by case, but in the stereotypical version, yes.
But babies? I don't think they should be killed, and while there are many who disagree, and while I understand that, the idea of lauding the decision is just wrong.
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Jan 26, 2009 21:08:53 GMT -5
The last part I agree with, because no matter the situation it has to be a difficult decision to terminate a life. But if that quality of life is in question, if there's any doubt of the child having a good life then it shouldn't be brought into the world. An unborn fetus doesn't have any rights to anything because it has zero understanding. The baby can't talk in the womb, it can't decide what it wants to eat or what kind of music it wants to listen to, so the only choices that can and should be made, can and should be made by the mother. Just cause on sperm reaches the egg doesn't mean that kid HAS to be born. This is such a dumb argument.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 27, 2009 6:54:23 GMT -5
How is that a dumb argument? If you believe that life begins at conception, then once the sperm reaches the egg, you are dealing with a human being. How can you say it's dumb to want to protect an innocent human being's life? You may not agree with it, but it's hardly dumb.
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Jan 27, 2009 12:17:58 GMT -5
Life doesn't start then, to me at least. It's not like the fetus even knows where it is, has no reasoning ability and can't do simple math. At that stage the only person who can make decisions involving a woman's body or her baby is the woman. The thing is not entitled to be born just because the one in a million chance the sperm got to the egg. If that baby is going to be born into a world where it doesn't have a chance to have normal way of life, it's selfish to just go through with the birth for the sake of having a baby.I don't see why it's manditory to have a kid 9 months after sex. Just because there's sex the woman has to have a kid just because she got pregnant? So two 16 year olds bang, rubber breaks, chick gets pregnant. For the most part those kids aren't ready to parents. Why should they have a kid just to raise the kid in a bad situation? What gain is there for anyone?
Maybe you're right, but I do think it's dumb because there isn't anything that says you're forced to have a kid just because you knock someone up.You can't bring a kid into the world when that kid will have a slim chance at a good quality of life, that's what is selfish, it's not selfish making a tough adult decision about the rest of your life. Cause I've known people who had to get an abortion and it's not a easy decision so I can't see how it's selfish making a responsible decision.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 27, 2009 12:25:54 GMT -5
A stray dog in the pound that no one wants is an INFINITELY more viable life form than a fertilized egg in a womb.
The dog has a fully developed brain and central nervous system, the capability of compassion, fear, pain, love, anger, and the ability to cognitively reason on some minor level.
The fertilized egg has NONE of these and won't have any of these for quite some time.....long after the typically accepted abortion window of opportunity has passed.
No one is screaming bloody murder and cherry picking Supreme Court Justices in the name of preventing dog pound euthanasia.
The idea that a viable human being begins at conception, IS stupid....biologically speaking, it's asinine.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 27, 2009 12:35:08 GMT -5
"I could probably guarantee you that at least 3 women close to you have made the decision to terminate a pregnancy. If you don't know about it, they probably do not trust you to drop the judgemental attitude and try to understand what they went through."
True-dat
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 27, 2009 12:58:23 GMT -5
James, that's your opinion. While I don't agree with it, I accept that a lot of people share it. But the ability to add and subtract is hardly a test for life--at least not to me. A newborn is also completely helpless, yet clearly, you can't kill one without being considered a murderer.
In my opinion, yes, that sperm smacking into that egg does entitle a kid to be born. Obviously, nothing is absolute. But I've been over that before in previous discussions on this topic.
In my opinion, it is never in the best interest of a child, to kill it, no matter how bad the parents are. It's not up to judges to play God and legislate from the bench what is or isn't life.
The bottom line though is that to actually celebrate a supreme court decision like this is just plain sick no matter what end of the spectrum you are on. The right to kill a baby is not something that you pop champagne for.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 27, 2009 14:21:59 GMT -5
"In my opinion, yes, that sperm smacking into that egg does entitle a kid to be born. Obviously, nothing is absolute. But I've been over that before in previous discussions on this topic."
So then why not take it a step further....why not call masturbators murderers? Hell, if that's the case, I've killed more "babies" than any 1000 Vietnam Vets combined!
Why not call it murder when you get a virus and take meds to kill it?
Why not call it murder when you throw out some moldy food?
I'm sure your answer to this (as I've heard it before) is that viruses and mold, although living, don't have the potential to become human beings. The ole' potential gag. That goes back to the ridiculousness of masturbation being murder, or what about when a woman ovulates and sheds that unfertilized egg? Why not call that murder? All those sperm and those eggs had the potential to culminate into a baby.
It's not a biologically sound argument; it is a right-wing fabricated religious-based argument and the points of hypocrisy attached to it are endless.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 27, 2009 14:24:33 GMT -5
You may think the morality of this planet is compromised by the legality of abortion, and I'd probably agree when it comes to people who abuse the right to an abortion frivolously.
But that alleged compromised morality only presents issues that would pale in comparison to the over-population, criminal, societal, and economical problems that we would have if abortion were banned outright.
Abortion is the lesser of two evils....the MUCH lesser.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 27, 2009 14:55:02 GMT -5
Jerking off wouldn't be murder because I think life begins at conception. By that logic, it would be murder when a chick has a period.
Like you said, viruses and mold aren't human beings.
If you believe life begins at conception, then it's not a potential baby. It's a baby. I don't think anyone believes life begins BEFORE conception. If you shoot a million sperm inside a chick, and only one gets there, the other 999999 die. That's not 999999 murders.
Biologically, barring a miscarriage, once that egg is fertilized, you will have a kid 9 months later. Same can't be said by dumping your load or having a period.
What's not sound is the idea of a court deciding when the point of viability is. That's a random made up day decided by a loony left wing court.
Abortion as a population control is not any kind of answer.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 27, 2009 15:39:47 GMT -5
"What's not sound is the idea of a court deciding when the point of viability is" - good, thing the court is NOT deciding that, innit.
They're letting mothers, whose lives will become severely impacted by their choices, decide.
You don't see that you're being hypocritical here? You're complaining about the court allegedly deciding that a viable human life begins much later than conception, but at the same time you're asking the court to determine that it DOES begin at conception. You're ok with a court's mandate as long as it jives with your morality, but your trying to sugar-coat your hardline stance here by saying that this is not for a court to decide. Well, yes it is, you just want them to decide in your favor.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 27, 2009 15:41:03 GMT -5
"Abortion as a population control is not any kind of answer."
And what would you prefer? Let the population grow exponentially until we don't have enough natural resources to sustain human life?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 27, 2009 15:47:09 GMT -5
Speaking without any figures, I don't think there are enough abortions going on to really affect the population growth.
And courts are not just letting mothers decide. They completely made up a constitutional right and legislated from the bench on MEDICAL matters, based on arbitrary time periods.
In my opinion, given that it is not possible with 100 percent certainty to say either way that life begins at conception, the benefit of the doubt should be in favor of the life.
How can a court say, well, at 5 months and 29 days, you can have an abortion, but at 6 months, you can't? And what medical expertise does a SC Justice have to make that call? And what gives him the right to usurp the power of Congress and legislate from the bench?
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 27, 2009 15:50:13 GMT -5
"Speaking without any figures, I don't think there are enough abortions going on to really affect the population growth."
Also speaking without numbers, I would strongly disagree with this...if you take into account ALL abortion (legal, non-legal, professionally sanctioned or not)
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 27, 2009 15:58:44 GMT -5
How many abortions could there be a year, especially when compared to the number of babies that ARE born?
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 27, 2009 16:22:04 GMT -5
The answer is:
# births - # abortions
|
|