Pro-Choice Activist Killed by Christo-Fascist Radicals!

POSTED BY: PirateCat
UPDATED: Saturday, June 13, 2009 18:11
VIEWED: 18440
PAGE 2 of 3

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

RUE

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 3:56 PM

"... attempting ..." is the operative word. Even in your logic, it is not a person yet, merely a potential which is attempting to reach a result - a person. It is a potential which may not be reached, and often (if you go by the numbers of pregnancies that end in miscarriage), is not.

You are saying that a potential should have the same rights as an actual person.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RIPWASH

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 4:08 PM

Read my above post and you'll see that my answer is yes. Until the time that it goes wrong. When nature mucks it up, then it's not viable anymore. Until such time - and I know I'm going out on a limb, and again understand this is probably more emotion and religious belief than fact talking - it should be regarded as a human life.

I'll use this logic:

A person is also like a train station. We have every intention of living a full and happy life and arriving at a destination of our choosing. Sometimes NATURE has a hand in making that trip a little shorter than we'd like. Other times it's the interferance of another human being that ends it. More often than not that interferance is called murder when it's done intentionally.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

RUE

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 4:15 PM

"You are saying that a potential should have the same rights as an actual person."

"Read my above post and you'll see that my answer is yes."

I'll use your logic - every time I drive a car I have the potential to cause significant damage, injury, and even loss of life. By your logic, it is the same thing as actually doing so, since the conditions are such that it COULD happen. By your logic, just going to work should get me thrown in jail.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 4:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
What I'm trying to say is that despite the "gone awry" pictures, they're still recognizably human and can logically result in a positive pregnancy test. At least to me. Just because they are mal-formed doesn't or shouldn't designate them a "tumor". The cells were attempting to form a human fetus, not a tumor. Does that make sense?

You're perhaps confusing tumor with cancer. Tumor just means an abnormal growth of cells. Tumor encompasses cancer, but it also encompasses benign growths. A failed pregnancy is arguably under the purview of tumor.

RIPWASH

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 4:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"You are saying that a potential should have the same rights as an actual person."

"Read my above post and you'll see that my answer is yes."

I'll use your logic - every time I drive a car I have the potential to cause significant damage, injury, and even loss of life. By your logic, it is the same thing as actually doing so, since the conditions such that it COULD happen. By your logic, just going to work should get me thrown in jail.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Well, you could say the potential is there, but what is your intent? As I stated above (or at least I thought I implied), I believe the INTENT of those cells formed by a sperm and an egg is to form a human being. Let's face it. The main reason for sex is pro-creation - to create a new life. Or else there wouldn't be sperm involved that could reach an unfertalized egg. The pleasure is an added bonus.

So, yes, the potential to cause harm or injury is there when you drive a car or wield a knife or a gun. But unless your INTENT is to purposefully kill someone, then your point is moot. Your intent is to get to a specific destination (much like those cells attempting to reach personhood), NOT to kill someone.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 4:31 PM

Cells do not have "intent". The only intent that you can assume is the intent of a Creator.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 4:33 PM

I'm not so sure I'm prepared to say that a human in it's early stages can be considered a tumor, although all I've ever heard someone call it is a "blob of cells" here. Maybe I missed that post. Anyway.

I will say that there are types of tumors that are extremely strange. Some of them grow mouths with teeth that open and close, or eyes that would be functional if there were a brain attached, or hair, or bones, even fingers.

Many doctors believe that the person with the strange tumor absorbed a foetal twin in the early stages of development. So an embryo can, technically, become a tumor, and not a human being.

Are non-functioning, non-living embryos therefore tumors?

RIPWASH

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 4:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Cells do not have "intent". The only intent that you can assume is the intent of a Creator.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

And as I freely admited, religious belief plays a major part in my opinion.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 4:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
A person shouldn't have to submit to the violation of their bodies because of a mistake, but if it impacts someone else to the point of their lives being in danger, and a choice is made to not help them, is that ethical?

Really that's irrelevant. The question is should the Government legislate the decision.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 4:45 PM

The government legislates ethics all the time. And ethics are a large part of this decision, but the people writing the laws, and the public, tend to see only one side of the debate: either that it's unethical to force the women to full term, or that it's unethical to kill the embryo.

But I agree that the decision is the mother's, so perhaps it is an irrelevant point of discussion.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 4:56 PM

Quote:
And as I freely admited, religious belief plays a major part in my opinion.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. But as a matter of LAW you should leave me to my ethics as I leave you to yours, since you cannot show human-ness of a fetus, only potential and/or intent.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

RIPWASH

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 4:57 PM

I agree to agree to disagree

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 5:02 PM

I just disagree.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're willing to throw out any and all provisions of privacy and the right to self-determination in your effort to control whether and when women are forced to become incubators.

I'm not throwing out the right to privacy. It still exists. The Court has always recognized that rights, even fundamental express rights like speech, can be limited by the Govt if there is a compelling govt interest and the intrusion is as limited as possible to protect that interest.

The State has an interest in preserving order, in safety, and in preventing panic. Thus while you cannot yell "fire" in a theater, you can yell fire outside a theater.

My argument acknowledges the right to privacy. I agree that while the Bill of Rights enumerates specific rights, it also creates a "penumbra" in which we find a variety of implied rights.

Including, according to the United States Supreme Court, a right to abortion. Thus, we have a medical doctor performing a LEGAL medical procedure and being murdered by a terrorist for his troubles.

Quote:

However, I feel that there are two competing interests with the mother's privacy rights. One is the child's right to life. If life begins at conception then the child has certain civil rights we must define and protect. That is the Christian argument and this argument was ultimately rejected by the Court in Roe.

Because we're not a "christian" nation, but rather a nation predominated by christians.

Quote:

Second, is the State's interest in life. If life begins at viability, then the child has civil rights which the State must protect (including the most basic right of being born). The State's interest trumps the privacy interest at the point of viability. This is the legal argument and the one adopted by the Court by Roe.

The two positions are not incompatable. If conception and viability occured at the same time, then both arguments would be valid.

I'm smellin' an awful lotta "IF" comin' off this plan...

Quote:

Roe says the State can interfere at conception.

Does it? Does Roe give THE STATE the right to abort your fetus if it wants to, or does it give WOMEN the right to "interfere" at conception?

Quote:
If medical science pushes viability back to conception then the whole abortion debate will simple die a natural death (no pun intended).

Again with the "IF". If wishes were horses, we'd all be eatin' steak. If my aunt had a penis, she'd never need an abortion...

Quote:

As a Christian Lawyer I can understand and accept the legal reasoning of Roe AND the moral reasoning of the Pro Life position.

Is that your way of saying that while you know it's illegal to kill your neighbor (to use your earlier example), it's fine to kill your neighbor if he believe in the right to abortion? The "moral reasoning" of the anti-choice position has been that it's fine to "abort" doctors who perform abortions.

Quote:
Should a woman who is pregnant be allowed to abort the baby because of its race (she does not want a baby that's half black, so I'm talking about a purely race based reason)?

Yes. It's abhorrent to do so, but it's legal, so yes, she IS allowed to do just that. She can abort the fetus just because she had a fight with the "baby-daddy" if she wants to.

Quote:
Should she be allowed to abort the baby because of its gender?

Yes.

Quote:
Genetic predisposition?

Yes.

Quote:
Are there any reasonable limits?

Probably. Being in labor might be a limit...

Quote:
What about mental capacity (of the mother), can an insane person make this decision,

Probably a good question for her doctors. CAN she make a decision in her own self-interest? If so, then YES, she can decide whether or not to have a child.

Quote:
can the decision be forced on her (Octamom's next baby for example)?

No.

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 5:38 PM

Quote:

It's a unique, individual, human life; however frail and inviable. Even parasites are living creatures, and human beings remain parasitic in nature long after birth. I don't think this line of argument/terminology really diminishes human beings at any stage - it's just the way things are.

I take it you're against anti-bacterials, anti-virals, treating cancers and tumors, and eating anything that is at some point a "living creature", then? After all, ALL of those are "living creatures" - don't they ALL deserve to have their right to life protected? Cows? Anthrax? E Coli? Carrots? Poison Ivy? Hornets?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 6:03 PM

I'm actually of the same mind regarding the pictures, that's some nightmare fuel right there, and I gotta full tank already.

I still think we're arguing from the wrong end though, as I favor doing our very best on every possible level to ensure an unwanted pregnancy doesn't happen.

Even then it likely will, sometimes - and yes, it's a horrible concept to terminate one, but everyone seems to act like it's an all or nothing thing, which just ain't true when we have a lot of untapped ability to REDUCE the number of times when that decision might become necessary.

And I firmly believe we should do exactly that.

Hell, on THAT particular front, RIPWASH might even reach agreement with some of us.

Oddly enough, although not so much religious in nature, I share the horror at the concept, you see - but having seen some things in my time, what happens to unwanted children, especially those put up for adoption and never adopted...

Let's just say there's times where quick and clean (such as is possible) is far more merciful, if not quite as moral.

But far and away better to prevent the situation from coming about in the first place, isn't it ?

-F

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 6:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I just disagree.

I agree.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 6:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I just disagree.

I agree.

What's that supposed to mean? Must you always resort to personal attacks?!

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 6:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
What's that supposed to mean? Must you always resort to personal attacks?!

Yes. Wanna make something of it Yank.

HERO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 6:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'll use your logic - every time I drive a car I have the potential to cause significant damage, injury, and even loss of life.

I note for the record that every state has laws that require you to carry insurance because of your potential harmfull behaivor.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

RUE

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 7:38 PM

"I note for the record that every state has laws that require you to carry insurance because of your potential harmfull behaivor."

But you don't get charged with causing an accident until you've actually, in real life, as a fact --- caused one. That's the difference between potential and actual - a difference, I might add, you seem to want to obscure.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

PIRATECAT

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 7:44 PM

FF, just not a hypocrite. My good buddy's wife is a nurse who quit after the queer doctor she worked for constantly got the aids patients and not to mention the one chic who had 7 abortions. Yeh I do have issues with lazy women who can't get on the pill. Women who get abortions are wacked for the rest of their lives. Now these dudes who were lifers in the military get out become a big liberal kinda gets on my nerves cause these were the dick heads when I was in. So I just needed to rant about that. I like straight up people. Now I have to get back to my civilization game where I set the rules.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

PIRATECAT

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 7:59 PM

Oh Yeh, I forgot I was on the east coast at Atlanic Beach this marine wildlife lib was all upset about fishermen taking hammers to the sea turtles that got in their nets. Don't worry about human babies that's ok. But man don't kill a pitt bull breeded for fighing that's just wrong. Vick is innocent. PETA is all crap.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 7:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
Women who get abortions are wacked for the rest of their lives.

This is exactly how NOT to have a discussion. A question, properly phrased, or a theory to be posed would do it.
This is a biased, rock-hard ignorant statement that shows the intent of blurting out whatever bs happens to be floating nearest the top at the moment.

And BTW, I know a couple of females that had abortions in their youth that are fully functional peeps 20+ years later, and in no way "wacked", but since this doesn't fit your self-serving view of things, I don't expect this to have much effect on your thoughts.

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 8:13 PM

Bit o' history here.

In my youth, I got pregnant a couple of times. I was married and I was using effective birth control, so I honestly never could figure the conception date. Fortunately I spontaneously aborted. From what I could see, the reason both times was anencephaly. As I got older I changed my mind about having children. I was a careful mom-to-be. But my kiddo had a bad brain bleed at birth, for no apparent reason. At a later date, I got pregnant again- by accident. (That's four pregancies in a 30-year marriage BTW.) I thought long and hard... VERY long and hard... about whether or not I COULD raise another child given the problems I was dealing with. With much regret, I had an elective abortion.

Years later, medical science discovered the likely cause of my kiddo's brain bleed: a platelet incompatibility. Apparently, I had destroyed my baby's platelets, and she (being a big baby) bled out into her brain with the stress of birth. It turns out that if I had had a second child there would have been a very good chance that it would have happened again. I always look back at the elective abortion with some regret, but it was the best decision I ever made.

I look at some women (women on disability) who have child after child with neurofibromatosis or mito disease or similar conditions and I wonder What the hell are they thinking? And yanno what? I'll bet a lot of right-wingers would think the same, seeing as these kids are a serious drain on everyone around them,

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

KPO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

It's a unique, individual, human life; however frail and inviable. Even parasites are living creatures, and human beings remain parasitic in nature long after birth. I don't think this line of argument/terminology really diminishes human beings at any stage - it's just the way things are.

I take it you're against anti-bacterials, anti-virals, treating cancers and tumors, and eating anything that is at some point a "living creature", then? After all, ALL of those are "living creatures" - don't they ALL deserve to have their right to life protected? Cows? Anthrax? E Coli? Carrots? Poison Ivy? Hornets?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

Citizen was arguing that a human foetus is not a living creature. I argued back that it was - i've never suggested that all plant/animal/human life is equivalent...(??)

Heads should roll

KPO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
A person shouldn't have to submit to the violation of their bodies because of a mistake, but if it impacts someone else to the point of their lives being in danger, and a choice is made to not help them, is that ethical?

Really that's irrelevant...

Maybe not irrelevant to the mother.

Heads should roll

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But you don't get charged with causing an accident until you've actually, in real life, as a fact --- caused one. That's the difference between potential and actual - a difference, I might add, you seem to want to obscure.

It's interesting, though, how you actually get punished more for not having insurance (even if you don't cause an accident) than you do for causing an accident. I'm not saying that's right, but Hero's right to compare the reasoning for outlawing abortion with the reasoning behind mandatory insurance. It's equally wrong in both cases. But it's consistent.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Maybe not irrelevant to the mother.

But still irrelevant to the discussion of the legality of the issue, as implied.

KPO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:24 PM

Quote:
People get switched off of life support all the time, with nothing like the moral hand wringing.

These people don't have potential for future human life and personhood, otherwise there would be hand wringing.

Heads should roll

KPO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Maybe not irrelevant to the mother.

But still irrelevant to the discussion of the legality of the issue, as implied.

Who put those boundaries on the discussion? I don't see why we can't discuss whether abortion is ethical in this thread!

Heads should roll

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:34 PM

Quote:
...and again understand this is probably more emotion and religious belief than fact talking - it should be regarded as a human life.

But Ripper, what you don't want to understand is that I don't share your emotion and religious belief - so why should I be subjected to your subjective views of what is and is not a fully-formed "human" with full human rights?

Hell, just to put an extra little spin of snark on it all, try this one on:

Many are arguing from a perspective that every fetus is a potential Mozart or Einstein. I could as well argue that every fetus is a potential Hitler or Bin Laden. How's about we just refer to aborted fetuses as "terrorists", celebrate that we killed them all before they could kill us, and call it all good. We're fightin' 'em in the womb so they don't put us in a tomb!

In fact, I have seen classified memos that prove categorically that every fetus aborted was going to grow up to be a terrorist bent of destroying the United States. I'm asking the President to declassify those memoes, but I don't think he's got the guts to do it.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Who put those boundaries on the discussion? I don't see why we can't discuss whether abortion is ethical in this thread!

And yet it's still completely irrelevant to whether it should be illegal or not.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
In fact, I have seen classified memos that prove categorically that every fetus aborted was going to grow up to be a terrorist bent of destroying the United States. I'm asking the President to declassify those memoes, but I don't think he's got the guts to do it.

Not with that gutless commie in the white house.

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:42 PM

Quote:
The main reason for sex is pro-creation - to create a new life.

Again, you are trying to force your own morality onto others who don't share it. I've never once in my life had sex with the intention of procreation. I've taken great pains to STOP myself from procreating, in fact.

That's something the anti-choice crown never has figured out. They're trying to make us follow THEIR "new puritanism", yet they insist it's the other way 'round, and it's US wanting THEM to follow OUR sinful ways. I don't want anyone else to follow my lead. I'm not going to FORCE anyone to get an abortion. I'm also not going to deny anyone such a procedure. So I'm in no way forcing my beliefs on you.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
These people don't have potential for future human life and personhood, otherwise there would be hand wringing.

That's a rather blanket statement.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:50 PM

Quote:
These people don't have potential for future human life and personhood, otherwise there would be hand wringing.

How do you know that? Maybe it's a 16-year old car accident victim who would've woken up in another three days, if they had only given her a little more time? Someone who talked with God, and would have changed the world with her inspiration?

I mean, heck, I read a news story about a woman who was on life support, had been tesetd as brain dead and was actually going into rigor. The family was talking to the doctor about maybe harvesting her organs, and the next thing they knew, this "dead" woman was telling the nurse "That's Ok dearie".
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

KPO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Also bear in mind you are weighing the death of one, against only stress and inconvenience to the other.

But you say that like the stress and inconvenience of the other person doesn't count.

Why shouldn't it count?

No, of course it counts. Just pointing out that in terms of rights, the foetus's rights are transgressed more.

Heads should roll

Which is what I disagree with. No person has a right to live based on using another person as a biological host. Be that through organ harvestation, forced blood/bone marrow donation... or pregnancy. The fetus is not an independently viable individual, whose right to being left in peace is being transgressed. The fetus's very existence transgresses the woman's right to be left in peace. Only her voluntary agreement makes this a beautiful and non-damaging (mentally, morally) process.

Taking away termination options unfairly favors the biologically dependent over the "host" they need to survive, by wrongfully equating needs with rights.

Okay forget about 'rights' - unfortunate choice of wording. I merely meant to point out that harshness of punishment should be factored into the moral calculation - the question is more complex than 'which is worth more, the life of the mother or the foetus?' since the life of the mother is not typically at risk.

Heads should roll

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:58 PM

Ah... here's the story...

Dead woman wakes up

http://www.enews20.com/news_Woman_Wakes_Up_after_Heart_Stopped_Rigor_M
ortis_Had_Set_In_08157.html

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

KPO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 10:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
These people don't have potential for future human life and personhood, otherwise there would be hand wringing.
How do you know that? Maybe it's a 16-year old car accident victim who would've woken up in another three days, if they had only given her a little more time? Someone who talked with God, and would have changed the world with her inspiration?

I mean, heck, I read a news story about a woman who was on life support, had been tesetd as brain dead and was actually going into rigor. The family was talking to the doctor about maybe harvesting her organs, and the next thing they knew, this "dead" woman was telling the nurse "That's Ok dearie".
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

I get the impression you don't know what point I'm making. Maybe you've been through this debate so many times before that you're a little over-eager with your counterpoints.

Heads should roll

RUE

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 10:47 PM

"It's equally wrong in both cases. But it's consistent."

It's not consistent. Consistent would be the state forcing all people having sex to use mandatory birth control - because the potential to need an abortion is there.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 10:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

Okay forget about 'rights' - unfortunate choice of wording. I merely meant to point out that harshness of punishment should be factored into the moral calculation - the question is more complex than 'which is worth more, the life of the mother or the foetus?' since the life of the mother is not typically at risk.

But that's my point exactly.

It doesn't matter whether there is physical risk for the woman. And it's not a question of worth. Both are of equal worth.

But you can take two worthy individuals and very fairly sentence one to death if the only way it can survive is to harvest another person's body against their will.

It's a conflict of interest that the fetus cannot win unless you artificially increase its status and worth over that of the mother, by eliminating her right to say no to being a host and thus strip her of her right to physical self-determination. Hardly fair and hardly consistent with human rights.

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 10:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
People get switched off of life support all the time, with nothing like the moral hand wringing.

These people don't have potential for future human life and personhood, otherwise there would be hand wringing.

Heads should roll

Says who? People have awakened from profound and deep comas, long after the time when most thought their life support should be terminated. OF COURSE they have the "potential" for future human life and personhood. It's just not particularly LIKELY. As with a great many pregnancies...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

KPO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
These people don't have potential for future human life and personhood, otherwise there would be hand wringing.

That's a rather blanket statement.

But do you understand what point I'm making?

I sometimes make the effort to grasp what you're getting at in your posts even when they're not perfectly phrased, cit.

Heads should roll

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

It's a unique, individual, human life; however frail and inviable. Even parasites are living creatures, and human beings remain parasitic in nature long after birth. I don't think this line of argument/terminology really diminishes human beings at any stage - it's just the way things are.

I take it you're against anti-bacterials, anti-virals, treating cancers and tumors, and eating anything that is at some point a "living creature", then? After all, ALL of those are "living creatures" - don't they ALL deserve to have their right to life protected? Cows? Anthrax? E Coli? Carrots? Poison Ivy? Hornets?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

Citizen was arguing that a human foetus is not a living creature. I argued back that it was - i've never suggested that all plant/animal/human life is equivalent...(??)

Heads should roll

Perhaps I misunderstood. You seemed to be arguing that fetuses, no matter how frail and inviable, are still living creatures, even if they are parasites.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
But do you understand what point I'm making?

Your statement, as written indicates there's never a moral question in turning off a life support machine. Yet there is, hence my statement regarding your blanket, and I might add incorrect, statement. There's still no widespread call to ban pulling the plug though.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I sometimes make the effort to grasp what you're getting at in your posts even when they're not perfectly phrased, cit.

Well, that rather sounds like an insult, do I grasp that or is it not perfectly phrased?

KPO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:30 PM

Quote:
You seemed to be arguing that fetuses, no matter how frail and inviable, are still living creatures, even if they are parasites.

Not parasites but "parasitic in nature"

Fetuses, infants, children, teenagers... we shouldn't abort teenagers, and so forth.

Heads should roll

KPO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:36 PM

Quote:
Your statement, as written...

Not what I asked.

Quote:
Well, that rather sounds like an insult...

How?? Aimed at the grammar in your posts?

One of the poorest attempts to play the victim card ever...

Heads should roll

RIPWASH

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
The main reason for sex is pro-creation - to create a new life.

Again, you are trying to force your own morality onto others who don't share it. I've never once in my life had sex with the intention of procreation. I've taken great pains to STOP myself from procreating, in fact.

That's something the anti-choice crown never has figured out. They're trying to make us follow THEIR "new puritanism", yet they insist it's the other way 'round, and it's US wanting THEM to follow OUR sinful ways. I don't want anyone else to follow my lead. I'm not going to FORCE anyone to get an abortion. I'm also not going to deny anyone such a procedure. So I'm in no way forcing my beliefs on you.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

I don't ever recall saying you all MUST agree with me "or else." I am in NO way whatsoever trying to force my beliefs upon you. I'm merely stating my opinions based on my beliefs. You're jumping to a conclusion that was never implied. At least not implied on purpose. It's not my "job" to force my beliefs on you and not my "job" to judge. and if you took it that way, I sincerely apologize.

The intent of that particular statement was to say that (not to get too graphic) it would appear the way we were made (or evolved, however you desire to see it) makes it fairly clear that sex is used for procreation. Before the miracles of science, the only way to procreate was to have sex. To my knowledge, the only time other species have sex is to procreate (the female goes into heat, the act occurs and then babies are born - to keep it extremely simple). Humans are the only species that do it for pleasure. Am I right? It may not be the intent of those taking part in the act to procreate, but all of the ingredients are there TO procreate. Am I right?

Now I'll go a step further and clarify my position a little more, if we're talking about education and whatnot. Yes, I think that people should have sex ed. I think abstinence should be promoted more strongly than the other aspects, but I also understand the need for the other types of education as well. I have questions and issues as to at what age that should actually take place, but that's beside the point. I agree with all of you on that particular front, as Frem said earlier.

*********************************************
"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Not what I asked.

I think you don't even know what you asked. How you expect me to know what you're talking about when I'd have to be a mind reader to grasp the ambiguousness of your statements, is completely beyond reason. You asked if I knew what you were talking about, quoting a response of mine to a very particular statement you made. Of course I'm going to assume you're asking me about what you quoted.

No matter how bad my grammar may be, it's never at this level of wilful obfuscation.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
How?? Aimed at the grammar in your posts?

One of the poorest attempts to play the victim card ever...

Second only to your attempts to play the victim card over everyone misunderstanding you, because you can't put together a clear legible post I'm sure.

Really you're the last to cast aspersion toward anyone's ability to communicate effectively.

KPO

Thursday, June 4, 2009 1:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

Okay forget about 'rights' - unfortunate choice of wording. I merely meant to point out that harshness of punishment should be factored into the moral calculation - the question is more complex than 'which is worth more, the life of the mother or the foetus?' since the life of the mother is not typically at risk.

But that's my point exactly.

It doesn't matter whether there is physical risk for the woman. And it's not a question of worth. Both are of equal worth.

But you can take two worthy individuals and very fairly sentence one to death if the only way it can survive is to harvest another person's body against their will.

It's a conflict of interest that the fetus cannot win unless you artificially increase its status and worth over that of the mother, by eliminating her right to say no to being a host and thus strip her of her right to physical self-determination. Hardly fair and hardly consistent with human rights.

Oh that's all you're arguing then? Yeah sure, you had me with your first post and the torture analogy. You swayed me there, and I said something at the time. SargeX also had a good way of describing things.

I've mainly been debating the personal ethics of the issue, thinking how a mother might weigh the decision.

Heads should roll

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, June 4, 2009 6:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

Oh that's all you're arguing then? Yeah sure, you had me with your first post and the torture analogy. You swayed me there, and I said something at the time. SargeX also had a good way of describing things.

Ah! Well, good!

Quote:

I've mainly been debating the personal ethics of the issue, thinking how a mother might weigh the decision.

You mean a woman who is already a mother of living children?

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, June 4, 2009 8:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I've taken great pains to STOP myself from procreating, in fact.

Mike

Thank God for small favors.

YINYANG

Thursday, June 4, 2009 12:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:

I'm yinyang, and I support abortion. Nice to meet you.

Isuspect you don't understand what I said

Or maybe I understand it perfectly well. Although it might help if you elaborated on what you meant. Because I find few abortions to be tragic, and in fact think that they can often be good things; and rather than just wanting them to remain legal, I would like there to be even greater access to abortion for those that would like them. Which is what I mean by "supporting abortion."

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 4, 2009 12:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Or maybe I understand it perfectly well.

If you do it will be the first time you've replied to anything I've said rather than a knee jerk distortion.

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Although it might help if you elaborated on what you meant.

It might have helped if you bothered to ask what exactly I meant, but since you made the response you did, that's the sort of response you got back.

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Because I find few abortions to be tragic, and in fact think that they can often be good things; and rather than just wanting them to remain legal, I would like there to be even greater access to abortion for those that would like them.

Good for you.

KWICKO

Thursday, June 4, 2009 1:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I've taken great pains to STOP myself from procreating, in fact.

Mike

Thank God for small favors.

You "god" had nothing to do with it. You may as well thank Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, June 4, 2009 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I've taken great pains to STOP myself from procreating, in fact.

Mike

Thank God for small favors.

You "god" had nothing to do with it. You may as well thank Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

My God is the same God as George Washington's, John Adams', Jefferson's, and Lincoln's God. Pity you're a godless, souless, secular humanist who thinks his own ego is the center of the universe.

But besides that, my little 5-word post above was just meant as as a harmless rib at ya, considering as you say we shared some common ground recently. What happenned to your sense of humor?

BYTEMITE

Thursday, June 4, 2009 1:51 PM

As I recall, Jefferson was unusually secular for his time. He only included the references to God in the Declaration of Independence because he was asked to. Then again, I know he wasn't an atheist, because he sent Lewis and Clark out with specific directions to look for living Mammoths, believing that God would not allow species to go extinct.

In any case, are the personal attacks and attacks on religion really necessary? I thought this was surprisingly civil for an abortion debate, and I'd kind of like to see that keep up. It was refreshing.

YINYANG

Thursday, June 4, 2009 2:08 PM

Citizen: I will admit that my initial remark was quite flip, and so I very well could have misunderstood you, especially as the way you constructed your sentence seemed similar to the way moderates are likely to argue that no one likes abortions, but people should have the right to get them anyway. I'm sorry if I read more into your statement than what was already there.

Also, for everyone in general: I read this post and thought of y'all. Perhaps you'll find it interesting or relevant to the discussion.

http://viv.id.au/blog/20090604.5207/on-late-term-abortions-and-sex-edc
ontraception

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 4, 2009 3:18 PM

30% of all women in the USA have had an abortion. It's the elephant in the room that nobody talks about. Everyone hates it, until you need one. Among other reasons - birth control fails. Even "the pill".... which carries significant health risks for women... has a failure rate of 1-10% when used correctly.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

RUE

Thursday, June 4, 2009 3:25 PM

"Humans are the only species that do it for pleasure. Am I right?"

No. Bonobo chimps infamously have sex with both sexes at any time for pleasure and social bonding. Male dogs sometimes hump anything that moves - or even lifeless objects. Etc. Suffice to say there are plenty of examples of species that have sex for fun. And, it is the 'fun' of sex that induces the procreation act, not the other way around. (Do you think that an animal is saying - I must procreate ! Time to have sex !) Also, there are many, many animals that have sex with the same sex (gay and lesbian, if you will) who are obviously not having sex to procreate.

I could go on, but I have to work.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 4, 2009 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Citizen: I will admit that my initial remark was quite flip, and so I very well could have misunderstood you, especially as the way you constructed your sentence seemed similar to the way moderates are likely to argue that no one likes abortions, but people should have the right to get them anyway.

Does anyone like abortions? When I like something, I enjoy it and aim to get it as often as is within reason. I aim to set up situations where I can partake in said activity. I like Ice Cream, so I occasionally make sure I go to the shops, and buy it. Sometimes I even go just to get ice cream. Eating Ice Cream isn't the best of a number of options for me, it's something I do when I don't have to, or even when it's not just the best choice of options, because I like it.

Liking abortion to me sounds rather like a woman who says to herself "you know, I really like abortions, I'm going to get pregnant so I can have one". Like the laughable caricature paraded by the Far Right, or Philip K Dick in his short story "The Pre-persons" for that matter:

Quote:
"Let's have an abortion!" Cynthia declared excitedly as she entered the house with an armload of synthogroceries. "Wouldn't that be neat? Doesn't that turn you on?"
...
"it's the in thing now, to have an abortion."

I don't believe there is such a person outside the fevered imagination of the extremists. If you're such a person, then I stand corrected, but until stated otherwise I refuse to accept it.

KWICKO

Thursday, June 4, 2009 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I've taken great pains to STOP myself from procreating, in fact.

Mike

Thank God for small favors.

You "god" had nothing to do with it. You may as well thank Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

My God is the same God as George Washington's, John Adams', Jefferson's, and Lincoln's God. Pity you're a godless, souless, secular humanist who thinks his own ego is the center of the universe.

But besides that, my little 5-word post above was just meant as as a harmless rib at ya, considering as you say we shared some common ground recently. What happenned to your sense of humor?

Yeah, that's really funny. Oh, hey - I hope your wife and kids all die, ha-ha.

Your "god" resides in your ass, inside your own head which is firmly planted there.

But hey, it's all harmless ribbing, so you can't get mad about it!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 4, 2009 4:25 PM

[sarcasm]
Kwicko, please stop bullying poor poor defenceless Jongsstraw for no reason!
[/sarcasm]

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, June 4, 2009 4:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Thank God for small favors.

----------------------------------------

Quote:
Yeah, that's really funny. Oh, hey - I hope your wife and kids all die, ha-ha.

Are you totally fucked Kwikkie? I wrote "Thank God for small favors"...and you fucking go off on me? Go fuck yourself you pathetic asshole.

And Citizen...is it your mission here to fuck with everyone? I have avoided all your nasty shit here for the last several days, but you just can't control yourself now, can you. Take your crooked yellow Limey teeth and bite yourself hard.

KPO

Thursday, June 4, 2009 4:35 PM

Quote:
Male dogs sometimes hump anything that moves - or even lifeless objects. Etc. Suffice to say there are plenty of examples of species that have sex for fun.

I'm not sure this is a good way to interpret things - are you sure that the dog is acting this way for 'the fun of it'? Urges =/= pleasure. I would say that animals are taken over by their urges and don't know what they're doing - but that's ok because they're not rational creatures who have to rationalise their behaviour afterwards. I think pleasure in sex for humans is something special, supplementary to the basic urge, that helps us justify/rationalise performing the act - we can think of sex (casual, especially) as an appealing choice that we make, rather than us just getting taken over by animal urges.

Heads should roll

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, June 4, 2009 4:40 PM

Yep, Rue beat me to the punch on that one...

I had a male cat named Mooch that was a damn horny little bastard, hell, he practically had a harem as there were usually a couple femme cats sitting around near the doorstep when I came home from work to let him out for a while.

The funniest of that was when he tried to get busy with the neighbors male german shepard about three times his size, and proceeded to get body-checked into a fence with the mutt giving him this "WTF is the MATTER with you?!" look on his little doggy face.

I'm generally of the opinion that the male of ANY species is prettymuch willing to hump anything that moves, and yanno, there's plenty of empirical evidence for that opinion.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 4, 2009 4:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Are you totally fucked Kwikkie? I wrote "Thank God for small favors"...and you fucking go off on me? Go fuck yourself you pathetic asshole.

And Citizen...is it your mission here to fuck with everyone? I have avoided all your nasty shit here for the last several days, but you just can't control yourself now, can you. Take your crooked yellow Limey teeth and bite yourself hard.

QED.

KPO

Thursday, June 4, 2009 4:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Citizen: I will admit that my initial remark was quite flip, and so I very well could have misunderstood you, especially as the way you constructed your sentence seemed similar to the way moderates are likely to argue that no one likes abortions, but people should have the right to get them anyway.

Does anyone like abortions? When I like something, I enjoy it and aim to get it as often as is within reason. I aim to set up situations where I can partake in said activity. I like Ice Cream, so I occasionally make sure I go to the shops, and buy it. Sometimes I even go just to get ice cream. Eating Ice Cream isn't the best of a number of options for me, it's something I do when I don't have to, or even when it's not just the best choice of options, because I like it.

Liking abortion to me sounds rather like a woman who says to herself "you know, I really like abortions, I'm going to get pregnant so I can have one". Like the laughable caricature paraded by the Far Right, or Philip K Dick in his short story "The Pre-persons" for that matter:
Quote:
"Let's have an abortion!" Cynthia declared excitedly as she entered the house with an armload of synthogroceries. "Wouldn't that be neat? Doesn't that turn you on?"
...
"it's the in thing now, to have an abortion."

I don't believe there is such a person outside the fevered imagination of the extremists. If you're such a person, then I stand corrected, but until stated otherwise I refuse to accept it.

You can support abortion as the best of two bad options, and you don't have to like it. I don't think yinyang or anyone here is talking about supporting abortions for the perverse pleasure of it.

Do you accept it as a preferred choice of birth control though citizen?

Heads should roll

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 4, 2009 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You can support abortion as the best of two bad options, and you don't have to like it. I don't think yinyang or anyone here is talking about supporting abortions for the perverse pleasure of it.

That was my point.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Do you accept it as a preferred choice of birth control though citizen?

No.

KPO

Thursday, June 4, 2009 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

You mean a woman who is already a mother of living children?

Let's say 'pregnant woman' then.

Heads should roll

KPO

Thursday, June 4, 2009 5:02 PM

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kpo:
Do you accept it as a preferred choice of birth control though citizen?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No.

So would you make moral judgments on a woman who does so?

Heads should roll

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 4, 2009 5:35 PM

Quote:
are you sure that the dog is acting this way for 'the fun of it'

yes. Same as people. People don't have sex because they want children. They have sex because it's intrinsically rewarding. It's like eating. People don't eat to be well - nourished, they eat because it's instrinsically rewarding. Whether you want to call that "fun" or relieving urges ... same difference.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

KWICKO

Thursday, June 4, 2009 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Thank God for small favors.

----------------------------------------
Quote:
Yeah, that's really funny. Oh, hey - I hope your wife and kids all die, ha-ha.

Are you totally fucked Kwikkie? I wrote "Thank God for small favors"...and you fucking go off on me? Go fuck yourself you pathetic asshole.

And Citizen...is it your mission here to fuck with everyone? I have avoided all your nasty shit here for the last several days, but you just can't control yourself now, can you. Take your crooked yellow Limey teeth and bite yourself hard.

I "go off" on you in the same fashion as you "go off" on me. I state that I have no children, to which you reply "Thank god for small favors." In other words, you strongly imply that you're glad that I wasn't able to father children, or that my children died in utero. You claim to be a "christian" and believe in god, but you're only too happy to celebrate another human's inability to reproduce without significant probabilities of profoundly damaged and deformed offspring.

You never bothered to ask, you just decided to be a dick about it. I responded in kind. Sorry, but it touched a nerve.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

KPO

Thursday, June 4, 2009 5:54 PM

All right, eating is a good example - you have the urge, and then it's rewarding when you satisfy it.

It's the same thing with relieving yourself in the bathroom, or scratching an itch, but, human orgasms are a little bit more than this...

Can you say the same for other animals?

Heads should roll

KWICKO

Thursday, June 4, 2009 5:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
All right, eating is a good example - you have the urge, and then it's rewarding when you satisfy it.

It's the same thing with relieving yourself in the bathroom, or scratching an itch, but, human orgasms are a little bit more than this...

Can you say the same for other animals?

Heads should roll

Can you say with any kind of proof that they AREN'T this way for other animals?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

KPO

Thursday, June 4, 2009 6:07 PM

I was asking a question, and inviting people to think. You guys can be pretty rigid sometimes.

I can go away and do some research and present my case, and then we can contest the whole issue from entrenched positions - or we could share info and opinions, and learn from each other.

Heads should roll

KPO

Thursday, June 4, 2009 6:17 PM

Quote:
Are you totally fucked Kwikkie? I wrote "Thank God for small favors"

It was a good line Jong, but not appropriate to somebody you don't already have that kind of rapport with, I would say.

Heads should roll

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 4, 2009 6:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
So would you make moral judgments on a woman who does so?

Nope. But really my own thoughts and feelings are rather less important, they say you should never judge a man, and presumably a woman also, until you've walked in their shoes, and there really is bugger all chance of me ever needing an abortion. Being you know male and all.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, June 4, 2009 6:54 PM

Kpo: Pigs have been scientifically observed to have particularly intense orgasms, as I recall.

You might want to be careful if you google that to confirm, though. Me, I'm going to avoid THAT minefield, and I hope no one holds it against me.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, June 4, 2009 7:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You never bothered to ask, you just decided to be a dick about it. I responded in kind. Sorry, but it touched a nerve.

Oh bullshit.

YOU SAID :
Originally posted by Kwicko:
"I've taken great pains to STOP myself from procreating, in fact."

And from that you infer I made fun of your ability to have children?????????

If you had said you cannot have children, I would not have jokingly responded the way I did....

Plz re-read the whole thing again. I'll accept your apology without malice if you can.

KWICKO

Thursday, June 4, 2009 9:10 PM

"I've taken great pains to STOP myself from procreating, in fact.

That doesn't mean I *can't* have children; it means I in all likelihood *shouldn't*. Earlier in life, I took pains to stop from procreating simply because I wasn't ready to be a father. Later, after I found out the horrors that prolonged dioxyn exposure (2, 4, 5T, the active ingredient in Agent Orange - you didn't think we only used it in 'Nam, did you?) would likely visit upon any children I might father, it seemed a prudent choice to nip that in the bud, as it were.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

KWICKO

Thursday, June 4, 2009 9:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I was asking a question, and inviting people to think. You guys can be pretty rigid sometimes.

I can go away and do some research and present my case, and then we can contest the whole issue from entrenched positions - or we could share info and opinions, and learn from each other.

Heads should roll

Well, granted, and it DID make me think - hence the question I asked you, in an effort to make YOU think about it.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

KWICKO

Thursday, June 4, 2009 9:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Are you totally fucked Kwikkie? I wrote "Thank God for small favors"

It was a good line Jong, but not appropriate to somebody you don't already have that kind of rapport with, I would say.

Heads should roll

Yeah, and he and I *DEFINITELY* don't have that kind of rapport, to put it mildly.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

RUE

Thursday, June 4, 2009 10:57 PM

"It's the same thing with relieving yourself in the bathroom, or scratching an itch, but, human orgasms are a little bit more than this...

Can you say the same for other animals?"

Human orgasms more than eating ? How so ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Thursday, June 4, 2009 10:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"It's the same thing with relieving yourself in the bathroom, or scratching an itch, but, human orgasms are a little bit more than this...

Can you say the same for other animals?"

Human orgasms more than eating ? How so ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Well, if I really HAD to, I could probably go a few days without eating!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 4, 2009 11:05 PM

BWHAHAHAHA!

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

RUE

Thursday, June 4, 2009 11:05 PM

OH !

I, uhhh ... ... have no comment at the moment.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Thursday, June 4, 2009 11:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
OH !

I, uhhh ... ... have no comment at the moment.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Blushing AND speechless! A first!

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, June 5, 2009 11:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Are you totally fucked Kwikkie? I wrote "Thank God for small favors"

It was a good line Jong, but not appropriate to somebody you don't already have that kind of rapport with, I would say.

Heads should roll

Yeah, and he and I *DEFINITELY* don't have that kind of rapport, to put it mildly.

Right, that's what made it totally appropriate. I excersized great restaint with just a 5-word jab. Whatevers haoli.

KWICKO

Friday, June 5, 2009 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Are you totally fucked Kwikkie? I wrote "Thank God for small favors"

It was a good line Jong, but not appropriate to somebody you don't already have that kind of rapport with, I would say.

Heads should roll

Yeah, and he and I *DEFINITELY* don't have that kind of rapport, to put it mildly.

Right, that's what made it totally appropriate. I excersized great restaint with just a 5-word jab. Whatevers haoli.

As did I, haoli.

KPO

Friday, June 5, 2009 2:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I was asking a question, and inviting people to think. You guys can be pretty rigid sometimes.

I can go away and do some research and present my case, and then we can contest the whole issue from entrenched positions - or we could share info and opinions, and learn from each other.

Heads should roll

Well, granted, and it DID make me think - hence the question I asked you, in an effort to make YOU think about it.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

Well I had already thought about it, so I started doing some research instead.

These Bonobo chimps are interesting - I didn't know there were 2 species of chimpanzee. Thought to have been separated from other chimps by the formation of the Congo river 1.5–2 million years ago, and evolved separately. And as well as some different features, they've evolved a very different societal structure to regular chimps, very free-loving and matriarchal. Makes me wonder if human society could've (or still might) evolve similarly under some slightly different evolutionary pressures. And if we were to meet humanoid aliens in the future what kind of society they might have...

Heads should roll

RUE

Friday, June 12, 2009 4:55 PM

Why is Tiller's alleged killer doing press conferences?
Listen instead to the people giving testimonials to the doctor: His family, his patients, his colleagues.

By Gene Lyons

Protesters from the Rev. Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church demonstrate during funeral services for Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kan., June 6.

June 11, 2009 | Since when do imprisoned terrorists get to hold press conferences? I speak of Scott Roeder, the accused assassin of Dr. George Tiller. Roeder's alleged crime was also a sacrilege: He gunned down the physician during Sunday worship services at Reformation Lutheran Church, where Tiller served as an usher.

A classic Midwestern lone demento, Roeder appears to envision himself as a soldier in an avenging army. They always do, don't they? Broke and alone, according to one of his ex-wives, Roeder ranted constantly against God's enemies, as defined by him. Police arresting him found explosives in his car, a 1993 Ford Taurus listed as his only asset.

Roeder phoned the AP from a Wichita jail cell to complain of poor treatment and to warn, "I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal."

Sheriff's deputies will surely keep a closer eye on him. As for the warning, all it probably means is that Roeder is familiar with fellow extremists venting in Internet chat rooms. The prospect of a federal investigation into possible accomplices may have damped their enthusiasm, although some get off on feeling persecuted.

Meanwhile, hundreds of mourners attended Tiller's funeral, where they heard him "eulogized as a loving father and friend, a regular guy, a lover of Elvis and old movies, of ice cream and axioms," according to Fred Mann in the Wichita Eagle. Tiller's son described his murder this way: "I believe that God decided, 'You have done everything I asked a person to do here on earth. Now I will show the world what a loving, compassionate, courageous, selfless man you are.' And so it happened."

To antiabortion absolutists who dubbed him "Tiller the killer," this must be incomprehensible. Fox News viewers regularly heard him described as a "mass murderer" by bully-boy commentator Bill O'Reilly. He depicted Tiller as a conscienceless profiteer who "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000."

Comparing Tiller to Hitler, Stalin and Osama bin Laden, O'Reilly argued that his unwillingness to turn over patient records to a crusading Kansas prosecutor made him an accomplice of pedophiles who impregnated children.

After a Wichita jury acquitted Tiller of violating Kansas law restricting late-term abortions, deliberating for only 45 minutes after days of testimony, O'Reilly all but pronounced the whole state guilty. "If I could get my hands on Tiller," O'Reilly thundered, "Well, you know. Can't be vigilantes. Can't do that. It's just a figure of speech. But despicable? Oh, my God. Oh, it doesn't get worse."

Like Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry, who'd moved his organization to Wichita largely for the purpose of harassing Tiller and his patients, O'Reilly spent last week denying responsibility. Not his fault, oh no.

Terry blamed the victim. "George Tiller was a mass murderer and horrifically, he reaped what he sowed," he said.

Then why did that Kansas jury acquit him? Essentially because while propagandists obscured it, Tiller's medical practice had almost nothing to do with abstract moral and theological arguments about when life begins.

Quite like the Terri Schiavo case, it had to do with irreparable tragedies at life's end: catastrophically deformed fetuses; pregnant children too young to carry a baby to term; suicidal, retarded or mentally ill victims of statutory rape; and women stricken by cancer or other deadly complications.

Who should make such heart-rending decisions? You? Me? Bill O'Reilly? Even the Vatican recently advised compassion in the case of a 9-year-old Brazilian child raped by her stepfather. But because such conditions often fail to become manif

SIGNYM

Friday, June 12, 2009 5:03 PM

"Quite like the Terri Schiavo case, it had to do with irreparable tragedies at life's end: catastrophically deformed fetuses; pregnant children too young to carry a baby to term; suicidal, retarded or mentally ill victims of statutory rape; and women stricken by cancer or other deadly complications".

NOT lazy, neurotic, or morally deficient/ callous women. THAT description belongs to others.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, June 12, 2009 5:28 PM

Olbermann/ Madow: Said Bush & Cheney are war criminals hundreds of times

Olbermann/Madow: Said America is a torture nation hundreds of times

Olbermann/Madow: Said US soldiers kill innocent Muslims hundreds of times
--------------------------------------------

Now a US Muslim goes out and kills a US Army recruiter purely for revenge for Islam last week. AP interviews killer who admits doing the murder, but thinks it's justified. Any responsiblity there for MSNBC and NBC for the American soldier's senseless murder like you're trying to hang on O'Reilly's neck? Why so much empathy for Tiller, and little or none for a decorated US soldier murdered for wearing a soldier's uniform?

The dozen or so times Oreilly has done stories on Tiller over many years he has never advocated violence against Tiller. The hundreds of times Olbermann/MSNBC has labled America as torturers and war criminals they've never advocated violence either. There are menatlly ill nut jobs of all persuasions, and murder incidents should not be fodder for politics. The KKK guy who killed a security guard in DC this week had O'Reilly on his list of "bad" people. How does that fit in with right-wing nut job? The answer is there is no rationality in any of these cases.

RUE

Friday, June 12, 2009 6:40 PM

"he has never advocated violence against Tiller"

Go look up the thread - 'the demonization of the opposition'. Simply portraying people in sub-human terms makes it easy to not see them as people. It IS the first step to political violence against others - as anyone who has followed the Serbs and the Hutus will tell you.

***************************************************************

Or, you can go put on your blinkers, plug your ears, and hum loudly.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 12, 2009 6:53 PM

Bill O'Reilly encourages and incites violence.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, June 12, 2009 6:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"he has never advocated violence against Tiller"

Go look up the thread - 'the demonization of the opposition'. Simply portraying people in sub-human terms makes it easy to not see them as people. It IS the first step to political violence against others - as anyone who has followed the Serbs and the Hutus will tell you.

***************************************************************

Or, you can go put on your blinkers, plug your ears, and hum loudly.

I guess your "ears are plugged" also, as you simply ignored and gave no response to the MSNBC liability question for the murder of a US soldier. There's no difference, and you just can't admit it because you hate O'Reilly and Fox News. All clear-thinking people see this for what it is, but obtuse, dis-honest, ideocentric twits like you don't even try. Very sad!

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, June 12, 2009 6:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Bill O'Reilly encourages and incites violence.

Just as much as you do.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 12, 2009 7:18 PM

Where? Have I ever said that the Pentagon should be bombed, like Bill said that al Qaida should bomb San Fran? Have I ever insinuated that it would be a nice thing if someone would take out George Bush? Or that it was too bad that Flight 93 didn't reach its destination? Or that we "should have strapped him (them, they) into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his {their) ass into a large, empty field."?

It would help, Jongssy, if you had any facts on your side but you don't. That big bulky doublethink that you and so many like you are disabled by... the one that causes you to see some things one way and the exact same thing differently... the chasm that separates one thought from another... It's staring you right in the face, at the end of every one of my posts, but you can't see it. You're just a fool. And a tool.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE