GEORGE BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT TARUTARU

[Rinoah]

Don't bother arguing with Dante, he is an idiot.

For the record a living thing is characterized by these factors;

Growth, Metabolism, Motility, Reproduction, and response to stimuli.

Additional signs of life include presence of molecules like carbs lipids nucleic acids and proteins, energy requirements, and homeotatic maintenance.

By all of these definitions both Sperm and Egg cells are alive. Way to sensationalize it to the point of pure idiocy double D. It's clear all you do is degrade any discussion at hand.

Trippyhippy wants to argue semantics about labeling each area of thought that go absolutely nowhere... and, well... we end up nowhere but at the start.

Like I said, this argument is very unclear and thats why there is debate over it. Constant, never ending debate.

So here it is. Sperm and Egg cells are alive. The zygote is 'alive'. They have human DNA, the zygote then forms stem cells which are alive, and contain the full chromosomatic set that the resultant child will have if natural processes continue. When does it become human?

Is it human because it has DNA? Are we just 46 base pairs?

Is it human because it has arms, legs, distinguishable sex? Are we just our appendages?

Is it not human till it breathes? Is it not human till it thinks its first intelligent thought? Till it gains a sense of self?

Can the organism which has no way to protect itself simply be written off and never given a chance because we can not yet identify with it?

From the 'pro-choice' side of things it seems as if you could argue your way into being able to off your child as long as it didn't know the alphabet. So what - life teaches you a hard lesson in responsibility and you decided that its best to not be responsible at all? Where is the accountability?

In my opinion, is it the person's right to choose? Yes, I certainly suppose so. But this to me encourages action without consequence. So do we regulate? CAN we regulate?

Possibly the only reason this is allowed in our society is due to the fact that babies grow inside someone else. You can live life as a parent from a very early age and still provide an excellent living for your child. It just takes hard work.

If the best argument for pro-choice that anyone can come up with is "People shouldn't have to work hard to support a child they accidently had, they should be allowed to slack off and support only themselves if they want" then you're going to have to come up with something better, that just doesn't cut it. Those people are already lazy self-serving hacks.

Ah but then again - would those people make good parents? Probably not...

see, this argument never fucking ends.

There are too many god damn variables at the moment for one side to be right and the other side to be wrong.

I think there are levels of life. Roughly grouped i would say they are:

Stage 1 = Plants, bacteria etc. Lifeforms that act by reflex rather decisions or instinct.
Stage 2 = Majority of animals. Lifeforms that are capable of instinct and some level of decision
Stage 3 = Humans and maybe a few animals. Capable of sentient thought and decision making. Does not rely on instinct.

When the Zygote is first created it is the same as a plant or bacteria (only multi-cellular...can't remember the term...eukaotic? or is it prokaotic?) it is just 2 cells undergoing mitosis. At this stage it would probably be as acceptable to kill this as it would be a plant in my opinion as it is not going to feel pain and it has not developed at all.

When it first attains self conciousness then is where the debate comes in i believe...because it is kind of like getting rid of a pet you are allergic to. If you keep it you (and possibly it) will suffer and if it goes then you will be sad and people might call you a bad person or something. Of course on a lot higher level.

This isn't really perfect though since i doubt it has its first intelligent thought until its 2 or 3 (i'm not sure if speaking counts as intelligent thought or just desire to communicate...).

Also to answer a few of your questions (in my opinion of course)

DNA does not make a human...lots of other living and non-living entities contain DNA, animals and viruses to name 2.

It will not have arms or legs as a zygote so i think thats probably a moot point, as by the time it has them formed you probably should have had it already (or not as the case may be).

I would personally say when it gains a sense of self it is probably when you should no longer be allowed to have the child. Until then i do not think it should really be classified as human life, just a clump of cells reproducing.

 

[Strid]

There is no question when a life begins. Life begins when the fetus is no longer a fetus and born into a human/citizen. No sooner or later. So states the courts and that is also when the constitution starts to take effect for you.

Are you kidding me? The state says it, therefore it must be so? Nevermind the abortion issue, you've got to be kidding me if this is how you few things. I mean, by this logic, EVERY house that have more than 3 non-related women living in it is a bothel. Hey, the state say it so it must be true.... Time for me to take my paycheck down to the sorority house.....

Listen man, you obviously have no idea about how rules/laws/boundries and agreements between the U.S. Surpeme Court and the States are made, quoted, etc. Please for the sake of your ignorance go take some Govt. classes (non high school) or just don't post on things of the nature. Also, to answer your question. Yes, if the state rules on it agrees and something is set in stone (a.k.a a law set forth or something similar) it is true...dumbass. You can play the "Pff, state can't tell me shit" card all day long but you're only lying to yourself and looking stupid to others.

 

[Strid]

There is no question when a life begins. Life begins when the fetus is no longer a fetus and born into a human/citizen. No sooner or later. So states the courts and that is also when the constitution starts to take effect for you. Pro-Life folks are trying to change that. That's the issue.

You need to look up the definition of a fact.
When human life begins is an opinion. Some people say at conception, when the individual's DNA forms. Some say when the Fetus can sustain itself outside the womb. Some say at birth.

It all depends on how you define human life.

See in the governmental system/documents I am stating fact. Constitutionaly and by the decisions of the Roe V. Wade case those are facts. Life begins and the constituion is applied at birth. A human is not a fetus and a fetus is not a human. That is fact right now and the thing people against abortion want to change. You can't get into feelings and what some biology book/dictionary says when it comes to facts involving laws and things set forth by the government in all areas. It may be opinion but by current law my definition of life is fact.

 

[Strid]

A few other things...

Bush is an individual, he's a Christian only because he says so, and does not mean every Christian is like him. He's a hypocrite. Christian entails following the teachings of Jesus, and, frankly, Bush is not doing a good job at being a Christian, nor President. :lol:

Just for record in the U.S., religion and government is suppose to be held seperate. Though sadly, it plays a major role in a lot of things... The decidions are not suppose to be based on religion nor or the actions. Also, I don't think I've ever met, read about, saw, etc. one Christian who wasn't a hypocrite. I don't know your religion but if you call yourself Christian you just basically, by judgement(the most common broken "rule" of Christianity), made a very hypocritical statement.

Lets make Christianity law of the law, yay.... :roll:

 

[Raivyn]

I think there are levels of life. Roughly grouped i would say they are:

Stage 1 = Plants, bacteria etc. Lifeforms that act by reflex rather decisions or instinct.
Stage 2 = Majority of animals. Lifeforms that are capable of instinct and some level of decision
Stage 3 = Humans and maybe a few animals. Capable of sentient thought and decision making. Does not rely on instinct.

When the Zygote is first created it is the same as a plant or bacteria (only multi-cellular...can't remember the term...eukaotic? or is it prokaotic?) it is just 2 cells undergoing mitosis. At this stage it would probably be as acceptable to kill this as it would be a plant in my opinion as it is not going to feel pain and it has not developed at all.

When it first attains self conciousness then is where the debate comes in i believe...because it is kind of like getting rid of a pet you are allergic to. If you keep it you (and possibly it) will suffer and if it goes then you will be sad and people might call you a bad person or something. Of course on a lot higher level.

This isn't really perfect though since i doubt it has its first intelligent thought until its 2 or 3 (i'm not sure if speaking counts as intelligent thought or just desire to communicate...).

Also to answer a few of your questions (in my opinion of course)

DNA does not make a human...lots of other living and non-living entities contain DNA, animals and viruses to name 2.

It will not have arms or legs as a zygote so i think thats probably a moot point, as by the time it has them formed you probably should have had it already (or not as the case may be).

I would personally say when it gains a sense of self it is probably when you should no longer be allowed to have the child. Until then i do not think it should really be classified as human life, just a clump of cells reproducing.

I don't think you thought everything through all the way.

A quick highlight - your stages of life are extremely far off in terms of classification etc.

The thing is the debate does not start when a baby first gains self-consciousness - that, like you said, doesn't happen till a baby until long after it is born. Usually about 6 months is when a baby starts showing early signs of this, looking at its hands, patting itself down etc;

The debate starts at stage 1, because it has DNA. HUMAN DNA. That's why there are all these questions. It has Human DNA, it has the same DNA arrangement that it will have as an adult. It will grow into a baby.

Animals have thoughts and feelings, and make decisions. They are very limited but they still occur in many, if not all 'terrestrial' animals. Ie: you can tell when a rabbit or dog is happy to see you, or afraid it will be harmed. Thats why there are animal cruelty laws.

Here's a quick and rudimentary growth chart

http://www.uoflhealthcare.org/hs_wh_re_pregnancy2.html

You will note that within 12 weeks it exhibits human form. Head torso arms legs, all distinguishable.

If you read some of the information on the site just below the chart you will learn that within 8 weeks the embryo has fully developed and functional CNS, circulatory and digestive systems.

So by the logic of "till it gains a sense of self it is not human," you can excuse the killing of a 3 month old baby. Pardon me for being sensationalistic.

Fuzzy, fuzzy issue.

That fence is lookin mighty good about now Von

 

[Answa~]

A few other things...

Bush is an individual, he's a Christian only because he says so, and does not mean every Christian is like him. He's a hypocrite. Christian entails following the teachings of Jesus, and, frankly, Bush is not doing a good job at being a Christian, nor President. :lol:

Just for record in the U.S., religion and government is suppose to be held seperate. Though sadly, it plays a major role in a lot of things... The decidions are not suppose to be based on religion nor or the actions. Also, I don't think I've ever met, read about, saw, etc. one Christian who wasn't a hypocrite. I don't know your religion but if you call yourself Christian you just basically, by judgement(the most common broken "rule" of Christianity), made a very hypocritical statement.

Lets make Christianity law of the law, yay.... :roll:

I never said that. Sure, it'd be pretty cool, but how was I being a hypocrite?

I didn't say a single sentence that was religiously based except this one, which isn't really on the subject, in response to Darkdante.

I'm a Catholic, we believe in making errors and learning from them. I'm no saint, yet I have to give it my best to try. I'm still human, though, and to err is purely human, as someone (whom I don't remember) said.

 

[Strid]

A few other things...

Bush is an individual, he's a Christian only because he says so, and does not mean every Christian is like him. He's a hypocrite. Christian entails following the teachings of Jesus, and, frankly, Bush is not doing a good job at being a Christian, nor President. :lol:

Just for record in the U.S., religion and government is suppose to be held seperate. Though sadly, it plays a major role in a lot of things... The decidions are not suppose to be based on religion nor or the actions. Also, I don't think I've ever met, read about, saw, etc. one Christian who wasn't a hypocrite. I don't know your religion but if you call yourself Christian you just basically, by judgement(the most common broken "rule" of Christianity), made a very hypocritical statement.

Lets make Christianity law of the law, yay.... :roll:

I never said that. Sure, it'd be pretty cool, but how was I being a hypocrite?

I didn't say a single sentence that was religiously based except this one, which isn't really on the subject, in response to Darkdante.

I'm a Catholic, we believe in making errors and learning from them. I'm no saint, yet I have to give it my best to try. I'm still human, though, and to err is purely human, as someone (whom I don't remember) said.

You called him a bad Christian which isn't your job, by the book, it's God's and only his. When I think of Christianity being made law of the land I see Hitler taking it in the rear from Billy Graham. :shock:

 

[Answa~]

Well, indeed, that was wrong of me to say... I apologize. The only reason I said it was to point out that he's an induvidual, I took it too far. But the President part still stands.

 

[Darkdante]

For the record a living thing is characterized by these factors;

Growth, Metabolism, Motility, Reproduction, and response to stimuli.

Additional signs of life include presence of molecules like carbs lipids nucleic acids and proteins, energy requirements, and homeotatic maintenance.

By all of these definitions both Sperm and Egg cells are alive. Way to sensationalize it to the point of pure idiocy double D. It's clear all you do is degrade any discussion at hand.

You really are a dumbfuck Raivyn. Your just repeating an argument that me and Answa are having. Whats your fucking point? Your here to state that you know consider yourself a murderer when you Jack-off?

OOo my sperm is a life, I"m a killer. Shut the fuck up idiot.

Like I said, this argument is very unclear and thats why there is debate over it. Constant, never ending debate.

Ya cuz dumbfucks like you can't get a clue thats why. Let Answa continue to defend his answer and his beliefs without you coming on here with no fucking opinion other than that you have no opinion. If you don't have an answer then shut the fuck up for once.

I don't want to have to read a whole fucking post just to learn that you have no fucking clue whats going on. I already know that. :lol:

 

[Darkdante]

I was stating when life begins to the zygote (thank you for the correction). "Most biological things are "alive" by your definition." Not most, all, that's what makes them biological.

So your saying its wrong to take a "life" right? This means you personally take life everyday. What makes one "life" more important than another?

And no, sperm has its own half of the genetical code, the egg has the other half, they are not yet defined, their only instinct is to find the egg, it is their whole purpose, they are meant to die, ond only one survive.

Do you think it should be the same for human beings? Just one stays alive, and the other not given the chance to ever live a happy moment?

Not really understanding where you going here. Are you saying now sperm is not alive simply because it has "half" of the genetic code to make a human being? I thought you said cell divsion is what defines "life"?

If I were raped (if I were a woman), and I got pregnant, I have no idea what I would do, if I had any sense in myself, I'd have it. Ooh, yes, I'm saying what was expected, but it's the truth.

Seriously Answa, you don't know yourself, or your lying, or you truely are a human being to look up to. Which one is it? If the madman told you that having the baby would bring hell on earth, you'd have it?

Or are you going to be like most religious people and dodge the question?

Also, with other life that is not human, I believe in killing for necessity. A bug bites you, you kill it. You're hungry, there's a cow, you kill it, cook it, and eat it. I try to abide to these terms, only harm other life when there is the need for it.

What is "life" that is human then? Bugs have enzymes, so do monkeys, they actually have alot of the same enzymes and things that we have in us in them also. They eat the same things that we do, and it becomes a part of them just like us.

Have you ever seen a tadpole? Would you call it a frog? How about a catapillar? Do you call that a butterfly? One is not the same as the other unfortunately, just because it will turn into a butterfly does not make it one. If you argue that then you can argue that the hamburger you ate for lunch is a potential human being too. :lol:

 

[Raivyn]

For the record a living thing is characterized by these factors;

Growth, Metabolism, Motility, Reproduction, and response to stimuli.

Additional signs of life include presence of molecules like carbs lipids nucleic acids and proteins, energy requirements, and homeotatic maintenance.

By all of these definitions both Sperm and Egg cells are alive. Way to sensationalize it to the point of pure idiocy double D. It's clear all you do is degrade any discussion at hand.

You really are a dumbfuck Raivyn.

If I had a dollar for everytime you proved my points for me I could buy a brand new computer - but do go on.

Your just repeating an argument that me and Answa are having. Whats your fucking point? Your here to state that you know consider yourself a murderer when you Jack-off?

OOo my sperm is a life, I"m a killer. Shut the fuck up idiot.

$1

Like I said, this argument is very unclear and thats why there is debate over it. Constant, never ending debate.

Ya cuz dumbfucks like you can't get a clue thats why. Let Answa continue to defend his answer and his beliefs without you coming on here with no fucking opinion other than that you have no opinion. If you don't have an answer then shut the fuck up for once.

I don't want to have to read a whole fucking post just to learn that you have no fucking clue whats going on. I already know that. :lol:

$.$

In all seriousness though,

Dante, I know it's hard for you, but grow the fuck up. I'm saying a hell of a lot more than you are in this thread. Hey, I even included a nice colorful chart. What's your contribution? Mis-spelled words, horrible grammar, one single continous stream of Idiocy also known as your voice? "LOL Yer dumb lolz hamburgerzes can then be peeple too wtflol". You have no arguments, and you aren't worth respecting. You show no respect, and you cant even conduct yourself civily if you try. Congratulations on being the scum of the board. Go sit in the corner with Peregrine.

I don't want to have to read a whole fucking post just to learn that you have no fucking clue whats going on.

OH SWEET IRONY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

$.$

 

[Raivyn]

on a side note - this is just one of the images that comes to mind when double D gets to ranting.

Itz cool not to belive in god when ur 15!1

 

[Answa~]

So your saying its wrong to take a "life" right? This means you personally take life everyday. What makes one "life" more important than another?

What life do I take everyday? And, for the millionth time, it's to establish when life begins for the future human being. The mere fact that it will be a human being is enough to make it important, like a kid, you know it's gonna be an adult.

Not really understanding where you're going here. Are you now saying sperm is not alive simply because it has "half" of the genetic code to make a human being? I thought you said cell division is what defines "life"?

I'm saying it's not a human being and it's carrying forth its duty by looking for the egg, so if it dies, there's no harm done, because a single sperm is what's needed, as soon as it goes into an egg, it's human. Cell division begins when the sperm enters the egg.

Seriously Answa, you don't know yourself, or you're lying, or you truly are a human being to look up to. Which one is it? If the madman told you that having the baby would bring hell on earth, you'd have it?

Or are you going to be like most religious people and dodge the question?

I know a baby won't bring hell on earth, and if someone tells me so, then I'll try my best to make it grow up good, hope, man, is all I'm saying. I'm not sure if I have to be looked up to, but I'm not lying, and I do know myself. I said that I had no idea what I would do, but if I had the same sense I have now, and don't act capriciously, I'll be damned (the expression, I'm not talking religiously atm) if I don't have the baby.

What is "life" that is human then? Bugs have enzymes, so do monkeys, they actually have alot of the same enzymes and things that we have in us in them also. They eat the same things that we do, and it becomes a part of them just like us.

So what? Human beings are human beings, if you can't tell a human from a mosquito or a chimp, I'm sorry for you.

Have you ever seen a tadpole? Would you call it a frog? How about a caterpillar? Do you call that a butterfly? One is not the same as the other unfortunately, just because it will turn into a butterfly does not make it one. If you argue that then you can argue that the hamburger you ate for lunch is a potential human being too.

Tadpoles will be frogs, zygotes will be human. Difference? Species and importance. Again, if you don't know the difference between a frog and a human, visit your local psychologist.

The hamburger bit was a little too stupid for me to answer it... It doesn't even make any sense.

 

[Konartist]

Juicy topic. Some details in the following that are probabally a bit on the "TMI" side, but fuck it, I don't really care.

Few years back I worked with this girl at a Record Store. She was cute, and apparently stupid too (since she slept with me) so we screwed in the backseat of my Mustang. Low and behold, she got preggers :shock: Having known each other for a whopping two weeks, we opted for the abortion. So, in this sense, I suppose you could call me Pro-Abortion, since this would have seriously fucked my life up.

3 quick things:

1. You said you would call me the next day
2. Vacuum out your mustang
3. I want those 7 minutes of my life back

oh and thanks for calling me cute :wink:

 

[Trippyhippy]

"Pro Choice". Accurate.

If you want to be accurate, say Pro-Abortion. Pro-Choice: I choose to buy a pizza. Pro-Abortion: I choose to kill an unborn child.

Pro-Life isn't against choice, it's against abortion, thus for life. I'm very sure they used Pro-Life so as to not use a negative word, like Vs-Abortion, or Against Abortion, or some other way to express negativity.

It's against having the choice to abort a fetus. Pro- Choice isn't for abortion. Noone is for abortion. People don't walk around the country looking for babies to kill. They are for the right to choose wether or not to have a child. Prolife people are against the right to choose to have an abortion.

Pro Choice and Anti Choice would more apropriatly describe the 2 sides.

AntiChoice sounds bad. That side decided to use a euphamism(sp?) to make the pro choice people look like murderers, and to make them not look like such big assholes.

Unfortuantly, in politics today, the primary use of the english language is to conceal the truth. This is just another example of such concealment.

Trippyhippy wants to argue semantics about labeling each area of thought that go absolutely nowhere... and, well... we end up nowhere but at the start.

No counterpoint? Just saying that i basiclly want to define the things I aruge about. At least I agree with you on that.

No wonder dante is always callin you a doody head.

Just because you don't see my point doesen't mean I'm going nowhere with my arugement. It just means you can't comprehend the things I'm saying. Too bad, you might learn something if you understood me.



Doody head.

 

[Raivyn]

No, my counterpoint is that most people don't look at 'Pro-Choice' and 'Pro-Life' and say "Well duher... if one is pro life then the other must be the literal opposite since they disagree, which makes them pro-death, omg i don't want to support pro-death".

My counterpoint is that people read and comprehend the english language and you are arguing semantics to make it seem as if the choice to term themselves the "Pro-Life" argument was a backwards attempt at slander of the opposing viewpoint. Jesus christ, like people have to sugar everything up for you. How does "Pro-human-fetus-right-to-being-able-to-be-born" sound to you? Is that better?

Honestly man. Most intelligent people don't look at pro-choice and pro-life and inversely assume that pro-choicers are the devil. They are what they are. Pro-life = being for the support of human life in any form. Pro-choice = being for the option to abort a fetus if you so choose. Call a spade a spade.

Pro-Choice... They are for the right to choose whether or not to have a child. Prolife people are against the right to choose to have an abortion

What??? Ok, think of it anyway you want to think of it, but realize that you at least portray yourself to be quite far gone to the left. Blind ideology leads to things like this...

Prolife people are against the right to choose to have an abortion

That sure looks like bias to me. Are they against the choice to abort? Well yeah, but what is the root of the issue? Is it the (what they consider to be) inalienable rights of the human growing inside of the mother? Yes. Does this lead to them being 'against the right to choose whether or not to have a child'? Yes. Does this mean that the country is being hijacked by right winged bible bangers who wish to use big-brother government to control you, brainwash you, slap you with the patriot act and omg TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT to choose whether or not to have an abortion? NO. As of now you have the 'right' to have an abortion - but the debate now is, do you have the right to take a human life? No - so at what point is the baby considered human? Science can't answer it and religion is biased.

Pro-Choice... They are for the right to choose whether or not to have a child

Actually one could just say that they are pro-choosing to be irresponsible at this point. Choosing whether or not to have a baby is done by either putting the penis into the vagina as a means to reproduce or not.

Just because you don't see my point doesen't mean I'm going nowhere with my arugement. It just means you can't comprehend the things I'm saying. Too bad, you might learn something if you understood me.

Oh of course! What the fuck was I even thinking? I am too STUPID to understand ENGLISH. Everything you have said is so far beyond any level of comprehension I could ever hope to attain! This must be the answer! This is so much more complex than any philosophical or scientific text ever written!

What am I going to learn from you? That if I ever feel cornered a sure way out of any front end assault is to insult the intelligence of my opponent? No thanks, I don't wnt to learn how to tuck tail and hide behind fallacy.

 

[Trippyhippy]

No, my counterpoint is that most people don't look at 'Pro-Choice' and 'Pro-Life' and say "Well duher... if one is pro life then the other must be the literal opposite since they disagree, which makes them pro-death, omg i don't want to support pro-death".

Well that's not a valid arguement because I've seen people make that connection. Just because you have an ounce of common sense doesen't mean the rest of america does.

My counterpoint is that people read and comprehend the english language and you are arguing semantics to make it seem as if the choice to term themselves the "Pro-Life" argument was a backwards attempt at slander of the opposing viewpoint. Jesus christ, like people have to sugar everything up for you. How does "Pro-human-fetus-right-to-being-able-to-be-born" sound to you? Is that better?

It is an attempt at slander and it works very well. And for the record, it's prolifers that sugar coat the term describing their stance.

Honestly man. Most intelligent people don't look at pro-choice and pro-life and inversely assume that pro-choicers are the devil. They are what they are. Pro-life = being for the support of human life in any form. Pro-choice = being for the option to abort a fetus if you so choose. Call a spade a spade.

It's too bad there are so many americans that aren't intelligent that do exactly what you said most of them don't do. Do you go out much? Ever been to the bible belt? Pro life = Against the right to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy. The REASON may be because life is sacred, but that is what their stance actually is.

Pro-Choice... They are for the right to choose whether or not to have a child. Prolife people are against the right to choose to have an abortion

What??? Ok, think of it anyway you want to think of it, but realize that you at least portray yourself to be quite far gone to the left. Blind ideology leads to things like this...

Conservatives aren't allowed to speak to me concerning blind ideaology. That is what being consrvative is all about. Traditional views and values. "It worked this long, it must be right!" Ignorance in its purest form.

Prolife people are against the right to choose to have an abortion

That sure looks like bias to me. Are they against the choice to abort? Well yeah, but what is the root of the issue? Is it the (what they consider to be) inalienable rights of the human growing inside of the mother? Yes. Does this lead to them being 'against the right to choose whether or not to have a child'? Yes. Does this mean that the country is being hijacked by right winged bible bangers who wish to use big-brother government to control you, brainwash you, slap you with the patriot act and omg TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT to choose whether or not to have an abortion? NO. As of now you have the 'right' to have an abortion - but the debate now is, do you have the right to take a human life? No - so at what point is the baby considered human? Science can't answer it and religion is biased.

How come everyone claiming life is sacred and abortion is wrong is usually pro death penalty? Those are all views of the right side. I never metioned brainwashing or the patriot act as neither one of those things remotely has anything to do with the topic at hand.

I personally consider a baby human from the first cell division, but it isn't alive until it can live outside the womb. And yes that does put me in the category against partial birth abortions. Ya know, that rare procedure that almost never happens, especilly to a baby that is still alive when they do it.

Pro-Choice... They are for the right to choose whether or not to have a child

Actually one could just say that they are pro-choosing to be irresponsible at this point. Choosing whether or not to have a baby is done by either putting the penis into the vagina as a means to reproduce or not.

Ever had a condom bust? Does that mean Trojan man should take care of the baby since it was his fault she got pregnant?

Just because you don't see my point doesen't mean I'm going nowhere with my arugement. It just means you can't comprehend the things I'm saying. Too bad, you might learn something if you understood me.

Oh of course! What the fuck was I even thinking? I am too STUPID to understand ENGLISH. Everything you have said is so far beyond any level of comprehension I could ever hope to attain! This must be the answer! This is so much more complex than any philosophical or scientific text ever written!

What am I going to learn from you? That if I ever feel cornered a sure way out of any front end assault is to insult the intelligence of my opponent? No thanks, I don't wnt to learn how to tuck tail and hide behind fallacy.

I wasn't insulting your intelligence, I was simply stating that you can't follow my logic. And you can't. If you would examine my words more closely instead of instantly disagreeing with what i say, you may see that I have a valid point here and there.

I would like to know though, what fallacy am I hiding behind? The idea that you might want to have a discussion instead of choosing up sides and smelling armpits? It seems to me you are used to dealing with Darkdante and don't know what to think about someone that can argue calmly without paersonal insults.


Doody head.

 

[Trippyhippy]

sorry, I had to throw that whole doody head thing in, if it made noone else but me life, it was almost worth debasing my whole arugement :lol:

 

[Trippyhippy]

To change the topic from abortion because I'm tired of talking about it (unless someone has something else to say...

Have any of you ever read any books by Gore Vidal? He is a libratarian to the extreme. Here are some quotes out of random books and interviews.

"Andy Warhol is the only genius I've ever known with an I.Q. of 60."

"Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so."

"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests."

"By the time a man gets to be presidential material, he's been bought ten times over."

"Fifty percent of people won't vote, and fifty percent don't read newspapers. I hope it's the same fifty percent."

"I never miss a chance to have sex or appear on television."

"Rome... at its most decadent, had never thought of hiring an actor to go through the motions of being an emperor while the Praetorian Guard ruled."

"The four most beautiful words in our common language: I told you so."

"The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along, paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return."

"Trust a nitwit society like this one to think that there are only two categories - fag and straight."

"What is in question is a kind of book reviewing which seems to be more and more popular: the loose putting down of opinions as though they were facts, and the treating of facts as though they were opinions."

and my personal favorite...

"What other culture could have produced someone like Hemmingway and not seen the joke?"

 

[Darkdante]

You show no respect, and you cant even conduct yourself civily if you try. Congratulations on being the scum of the board. Go sit in the corner with Peregrine.

Only one dumbfuck here i'm disrespecting. Its YOU Raivyn.

Almost everybody else on this board shows some degree of intellegence. Especially to the point that they don't open up thier mouth when they don't understand something, or at least don't have an opinion of something.

Your like one of those dumbfucks that like to run off at the mouth that nobody really listens to except for a good laugh.

:lol: