User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 2:34:08 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have you ever considered what you claiming you would physically assault someone who ideologically disagrees with you makes you sound like? At this point, I'm just going to assume you're being a blowhard on the Internet, because if the former is true I would be forced to consider you a emotionally unstable violent threat. ETA: I just realized something, you were semi-serious about amateur boxing, you gained 3 inches and 60lbs of muscle mass after your post-pubescent growth cycle. The emotional instability and anger now totally makes sense, because I now estimate there is a 92% probability that you were juicing like a motherfucker on anabolic steroids and HGH. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The point was I do not believe you talk so arrogantly to people in real life, not that I wish you harm, only that if you speak to people like you do here , then do that in real life I don't know how you wouldn't get smacked. So you call people names and insult them and no one ever wants to take a swing at you? Good for you, my friends and I talk civil to each other and debate issues with that same respect, if one of us was to take the tone you do here someone would get a little ticked, maybe leading to a smack. I'm 6'2" 225, when I was in the Navy I was 5'11" 165 lbs, I knocked out much bigger guys all the time mr giant combat infantryman , but there is always someone tougher out there. Maybe the written word is not conveying how you sound in real life and it comes off really arrogant in type? Thank you for your service too. Have you ever considered what you claiming you would physically assault someone who ideologically disagrees with you makes you sound like? At this point, I'm just going to assume you're being a blowhard on the Internet, because if the former is true I would be forced to consider you a emotionally unstable violent threat. ETA: I just realized something, you were semi-serious about amateur boxing, you gained 3 inches and 60lbs of muscle mass after your post-pubescent growth cycle. The emotional instability and anger now totally makes sense, because I now estimate there is a 92% probability that you were juicing like a motherfucker on anabolic steroids and HGH. First of all I never threatened anyone. Next who cares what you think or consider me a violent threat? No steroids , just a late growth cycle. Here's clue for you , for a threat to have merit on the net, you have to have real life knowledge of the person you so called threatened, in other words you have to know who the guy is and where he is, you have to have the ability to carry out a threat. But I digress, what are you going to do if you did this "I would be forced to consider you a emotionally unstable violent threat." Hahahahahahahaha What exactly does that mean What was stated by me is that I don't know how someone could belittle and insult others in real life and not get a smack by someone? People in real life do take offense at being insulted in real life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 2:46:31 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: well assuming it's not bullshitting... even if he's gone full raging meathead status, that's still an impressive record prob worth it  Quote HistoryQuoted: No I only had 5 fights in HS and I have never started a fight in my life, I fought in the ring, ring 34 gym when I was a kid in jersey and an intramural league in the Navy , then when I got home I had 45 more amateur bouts finishing my amateur career at 59-1 The point was I do not believe you talk so arrogantly to people in real life, not that I wish you harm, only that if you speak to people like you do here , then do that in real life I don't know how you wouldn't get smacked. So you call people names and insult them and no one ever wants to take a swing at you? Good for you, my friends and I talk civil to each other and debate issues with that same respect, if one of us was to take the tone you do here someone would get a little ticked, maybe leading to a smack. I'm 6'2" 225, when I was in the Navy I was 5'11" 165 lbs, I knocked out much bigger guys all the time mr giant combat infantryman , but there is always someone tougher out there. Maybe the written word is not conveying how you sound in real life and it comes off really arrogant in type? Thank you for your service too. Have you ever considered what you claiming you would physically assault someone who ideologically disagrees with you makes you sound like? At this point, I'm just going to assume you're being a blowhard on the Internet, because if the former is true I would be forced to consider you a emotionally unstable violent threat. ETA: I just realized something, you were semi-serious about amateur boxing, you gained 3 inches and 60lbs of muscle mass after your post-pubescent growth cycle. The emotional instability and anger now totally makes sense, because I now estimate there is a 92% probability that you were juicing like a motherfucker on anabolic steroids and HGH. well assuming it's not bullshitting... even if he's gone full raging meathead status, that's still an impressive record prob worth it I posted my record in the ring once a year or 2 after I got here (until I realized ospec is real important) I'm not a tough guy, I have never started a fight in my life I just like people to talk like they do in real life instead they talk shit all day when you know damned right well they don't talk shit like that in person. I think my sig says it best. You know I just picked up 2 mil spec M16 gun lockers from a member here in Pa, we were talking about people saying shit on the net. You think I'd lie about being 6' 2" 225 lbs? There's a more than a few guys here who have met me or know me, hell my youngest Son posts here. For what, that doesn't make anyone a bad ass. These racks are cool, they each hold 10 AR15/M16 and 10 Hand guns  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 3:00:45 AM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 12:17:38 PM EDT
[#4]
Title should say 60 million people have been exterminated by Democrats and "libertarians" since 1973 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 5:57:34 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yet, it is not the beginning of pregnancy, and that life has a good change of getting aborted by the mothers body. http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jun99/wilcox2.htm So what if life starts at conception? You talk about scientific fact, it's a scientific fact women's bodies are abortion factories. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I stand corrected. I thought that life beginning at conception was my opinion. Now I know it's a scientific fact. Thank you. http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jun99/wilcox2.htm So what if life starts at conception? You talk about scientific fact, it's a scientific fact women's bodies are abortion factories. One is an accident, it happens. The other is a deliberate action. Much like your deliberate miscategorization of calling a woman's body an "abortion factor". "Miscarriage factory", to use your idiotic phrase, would be more accurate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 6:02:51 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One is an accident, it happens. The other is a deliberate action. Much like your deliberate miscategorization of calling a woman's body an "abortion factor". "Miscarriage factory", to use your idiotic phrase, would be more accurate. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: One is an accident, it happens. The other is a deliberate action. Much like your deliberate miscategorization of calling a woman's body an "abortion factor". "Miscarriage factory", to use your idiotic phrase, would be more accurate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 6:11:32 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No one seems to want to answer that question honestly. Sucks, I'd like to hear the answer from someone. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll ask this question here as this seems like a better crowd then last time. Just a simple philosophical question Currently, abortions can be had by simply taking a pill. It is taken in in the early weeks of pregnancy(1-8) and essentially mocks the natural function of a spontaneous abortion. So, let's say that there is a pill that doesn't mock a spontaneous abortion, but gives the taker the ability to abort the fetus on command. Just like the body naturally does, only now it can be called upon rather then being a body response mechanism. Would that be murder? It is, for all intents and purposes the same body mechanism only now there is control by the mother on if it happens or not. Would it be murder to harness a process the body is already capable of naturally? If I had super power ...lets assume I could shoot bolts of lightning from my arse...if I decided to super...naturally kill someone it would still be killing (assuming they died. No one seems to want to answer that question honestly. Sucks, I'd like to hear the answer from someone. I can close my fist quite tightly. This is a natural function. If I tightly close my fist around your trachea it's murder. Is that simple enough? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 6:18:45 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have statistics to support that assertion? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This thread makes me want to take that job with planned parenthood, where they were offering a 15k signing bonus, just to piss off the pro-lifers here. 
The emotion in these types of threads is crazy. It's amazing how social conservatives want to save these fetuses at all costs, but then don't give two shits about them once they leave the womb. They are happy to let them starve once they are born. [Conservative Arfcommer] "Screw welfare... They aren't living off my tax dollars. Let the animals feed and take care of themselves. They shouldn't be having these kids if they can't care for them." [/Conservative Arfcommer]  The religious folks who are most anti abortion are also statistically far more likely to donate and volunteer for charity. I bet the overlap you're looking at is between the folks who are glad to see babies killed because they think they would go on welfare and the folks you are parodying. Do you have statistics to support that assertion? There was a study done a while back (in the past decade or 15 years) that showed that people in more liberal areas were, statistically, less likely to donate to charity. They considered that action to be the government's role. Sorry, I can't cite anything for you, I heard this on talk radio (I think) some time back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 6:57:26 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can close my fist quite tightly. This is a natural function. If I tightly close my fist around your trachea it's murder. Is that simple enough? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'll ask this question here as this seems like a better crowd then last time. Just a simple philosophical question Currently, abortions can be had by simply taking a pill. It is taken in in the early weeks of pregnancy(1-8) and essentially mocks the natural function of a spontaneous abortion. So, let's say that there is a pill that doesn't mock a spontaneous abortion, but gives the taker the ability to abort the fetus on command. Just like the body naturally does, only now it can be called upon rather then being a body response mechanism. Would that be murder? It is, for all intents and purposes the same body mechanism only now there is control by the mother on if it happens or not. Would it be murder to harness a process the body is already capable of naturally? If I had super power ...lets assume I could shoot bolts of lightning from my arse...if I decided to super...naturally kill someone it would still be killing (assuming they died. No one seems to want to answer that question honestly. Sucks, I'd like to hear the answer from someone. I can close my fist quite tightly. This is a natural function. If I tightly close my fist around your trachea it's murder. Is that simple enough? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 10:41:23 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It sounds super tough, too bad it's not analogous to the topic. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll ask this question here as this seems like a better crowd then last time. Just a simple philosophical question Currently, abortions can be had by simply taking a pill. It is taken in in the early weeks of pregnancy(1-8) and essentially mocks the natural function of a spontaneous abortion. So, let's say that there is a pill that doesn't mock a spontaneous abortion, but gives the taker the ability to abort the fetus on command. Just like the body naturally does, only now it can be called upon rather then being a body response mechanism. Would that be murder? It is, for all intents and purposes the same body mechanism only now there is control by the mother on if it happens or not. Would it be murder to harness a process the body is already capable of naturally? If I had super power ...lets assume I could shoot bolts of lightning from my arse...if I decided to super...naturally kill someone it would still be killing (assuming they died. No one seems to want to answer that question honestly. Sucks, I'd like to hear the answer from someone. I can close my fist quite tightly. This is a natural function. If I tightly close my fist around your trachea it's murder. Is that simple enough? Maybe he's juicing too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 10:55:55 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It sounds super tough, too bad it's not analogous to the topic. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'll ask this question here as this seems like a better crowd then last time. Just a simple philosophical question Currently, abortions can be had by simply taking a pill. It is taken in in the early weeks of pregnancy(1-8) and essentially mocks the natural function of a spontaneous abortion. So, let's say that there is a pill that doesn't mock a spontaneous abortion, but gives the taker the ability to abort the fetus on command. Just like the body naturally does, only now it can be called upon rather then being a body response mechanism. Would that be murder? It is, for all intents and purposes the same body mechanism only now there is control by the mother on if it happens or not. Would it be murder to harness a process the body is already capable of naturally? If I had super power ...lets assume I could shoot bolts of lightning from my arse...if I decided to super...naturally kill someone it would still be killing (assuming they died. No one seems to want to answer that question honestly. Sucks, I'd like to hear the answer from someone. I can close my fist quite tightly. This is a natural function. If I tightly close my fist around your trachea it's murder. Is that simple enough?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 8:02:55 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not really, miscarriages are just spontaneous abortions. Also, it's not an "accident" it's a common thing that happens for specific reasons. If life starts at conception, and many conceived lives are spontaneously aborted, biology is mean. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: One is an accident, it happens. The other is a deliberate action. Much like your deliberate miscategorization of calling a woman's body an "abortion factor". "Miscarriage factory", to use your idiotic phrase, would be more accurate. If life starts at conception, and many conceived lives are spontaneously aborted, biology is mean. Biology and life in general can be mean, unfair, and short. Human beings have free will. They decide to be mean and unfair - or not. Law, and in particular murder and various categories of homicide, all depend on intention. A body that spontaneously miscarries a pregnancy, often due to infection or some physical problem in the development process, is not done by intent of the mother. Taking a pill to intentionally kill a healthy baby is just that - intentionally killing a baby and in many laws as well as many countries, that act is murder. The method is (fill in the blank). Does not matter what method is used. You are intentionally ending the life of another person. You are robing that person from the ability to determine his or her own life and destiny. It is the very essence of murder. Nevertheless, law and human reason both draw a clear distinction between nature and intentional human action. When a hurricane kills hundreds of people, we don't say that the hurricane murdered those people. The hurricane was just being a hurricane. It has no intention of killing anyone. When you take a pill to intentionally kill a baby, your are doing exactly what you intend to do, kill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 9:45:25 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nah, it's only a slight misrepresentation and substituting the word miscarriage for abortion. It's actually a semantic argument, since abortion doesn't necessarily have to mean it in what is a more accurate description "induced abortion". But you're kind of out of turn, since my reply to him wasn't passing moral judgments or making arguments. It was utilizing hyperbole to showcase that there is a lot of biology that happens that people have no control over. Also, your analogy is terrible. Murdering unborn children through abortion is Federally recognized as legal. It is actually is legal for you to kill me if I was a terminally ill cancer patient, as long as you were a physician here in Wa. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
snip That is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts and you know it. Abortion is by definition not accidental or unavoidable. The fact that the survival rate for very young unborn children is low has no bearing on the moral implications of choosing to end that life. It's like saying that if you have terminal cancer it's not murder to kill you. Also, your analogy is terrible. Murdering unborn children through abortion is Federally recognized as legal. It is actually is legal for you to kill me if I was a terminally ill cancer patient, as long as you were a physician here in Wa. No, it's not. That's why Jack the Dripper made his little suicide machine, so the victim can push the button themselves. That's why it's called "physician-assisted suicide". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 10:12:47 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It sounds super tough, too bad it's not analogous to the topic. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll ask this question here as this seems like a better crowd then last time. Just a simple philosophical question Currently, abortions can be had by simply taking a pill. It is taken in in the early weeks of pregnancy(1-8) and essentially mocks the natural function of a spontaneous abortion. So, let's say that there is a pill that doesn't mock a spontaneous abortion, but gives the taker the ability to abort the fetus on command. Just like the body naturally does, only now it can be called upon rather then being a body response mechanism. Would that be murder? It is, for all intents and purposes the same body mechanism only now there is control by the mother on if it happens or not. Would it be murder to harness a process the body is already capable of naturally? If I had super power ...lets assume I could shoot bolts of lightning from my arse...if I decided to super...naturally kill someone it would still be killing (assuming they died. No one seems to want to answer that question honestly. Sucks, I'd like to hear the answer from someone. I can close my fist quite tightly. This is a natural function. If I tightly close my fist around your trachea it's murder. Is that simple enough? You're not well versed in analogy, are you? Feel free to substitute any person for the "I" above. And it answers Mr. Smiley's question, although the person with cancer analogy did it better, so I'll repeat that here. If you get cancer and die from it that's a natural function. If one person induces a fatal cancer in another person, that's murder. Simple enough? As for your constant harping on every miscarriage being an abortion, let me quote you the legal definition. "Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by various methods, including medical surgery, before the fetus is able to sustain independent life." Note in particular the bolded part. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "method" as follows: "Definition of method in English: noun 1A particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one" In short, the legal definition of "abortion" requires a deliberate action. So to review, we have the following points
I have yet to see a valid refutation of any of the above bullet points, just a whole lot of people stamping their foot and denying all of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 11:44:01 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Considering (unscientifically) the typical reproductive rate, those 60 million would amount to maybe 120 million at minimum had they lived, more or less. Our current population is a bit less than 320 million. Ponder that. Yeah, but you have to deduct all of the people that some of those 60 million would have murdered, and than extrapolate from there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 12:10:01 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Baby Moma Kant be at the club if she pregnant Gotta abort that baby so they can't be inconvenienced Seriously, many other races are just as guilty. Baby Moma isn't having abortions. She's having babies. She's just leaving them with the crack-head neighbor or meth-lab operator who won't leave the house to go clubbing with her. She has the babies and still does her thing. I've seen mamma's have their babies removed in court and turn right around and get knocked up and have a baby before their other kids are returned to them. It's madness. The irony is that the ones who really really need to stop having babies won't. The ones who can make the semi-rational decision to abort are capable of enough baseline rationality to actually parent and provide for the child if carried to term. You have wealthy and educated people breeding less. You have a misguided but sorta responsible middle who abort out of self interest. And you have the stupid who keep breeding like rabbits. The future's so bright... When the consumers severely outnumber the producers... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 12:12:58 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If a woman is smart enough to know she shouldn't bring a child into this world - I'm smart enough to agree with her If a woman is smart enough to know she shouldn't bring a child into this world, she's smart enough to avoid pregnancy in the first place. Taking responsibility... Apparently it only applies on the morning after. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 4:44:44 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're not well versed in analogy, are you? Feel free to substitute any person for the "I" above. And it answers Mr. Smiley's question, although the person with cancer analogy did it better, so I'll repeat that here. If you get cancer and die from it that's a natural function. If one person induces a fatal cancer in another person, that's murder. Simple enough? As for your constant harping on every miscarriage being an abortion, let me quote you the legal definition. "Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by various methods, including medical surgery, before the fetus is able to sustain independent life." Note in particular the bolded part. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "method" as follows: "Definition of method in English: noun 1A particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one" In short, the legal definition of "abortion" requires a deliberate action. So to review, we have the following points
I have yet to see a valid refutation of any of the above bullet points, just a whole lot of people stamping their foot and denying all of it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It sounds super tough, too bad it's not analogous to the topic. You're not well versed in analogy, are you? Feel free to substitute any person for the "I" above. And it answers Mr. Smiley's question, although the person with cancer analogy did it better, so I'll repeat that here. If you get cancer and die from it that's a natural function. If one person induces a fatal cancer in another person, that's murder. Simple enough? As for your constant harping on every miscarriage being an abortion, let me quote you the legal definition. "Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by various methods, including medical surgery, before the fetus is able to sustain independent life." Note in particular the bolded part. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "method" as follows: "Definition of method in English: noun 1A particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one" In short, the legal definition of "abortion" requires a deliberate action. So to review, we have the following points
I have yet to see a valid refutation of any of the above bullet points, just a whole lot of people stamping their foot and denying all of it. "the topic of abortion gives me bad feels, or it doesn't" is the only thing this all boils down to. No one is going to change there stance on anything, it's just going to be like every other abortion thread where people bash there head against the wall and try to make thier opinion sound like it carries weight. Some to the point of as has been seen, calling others monsters for not believing the same opinion they have. Then there's the "because god says" crowd, which is always a hoot. So why should anyone care if babies are murdered? What is there to deny, babies get murdered all the time. So what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 5:06:41 PM EDT
[#19]
When conservatives stop fighting sex education and birth control (which is one fuck of a lot cheaper on society than millions of unwanted children), I'll take their moral outrage seriously. You're going to pay one way or another, wouldn't it be dandy to tackle the problem before it's a problem?
No, no, sex is icky and women are whores and they should just keep their legs shut. Realistic solutions to problems they help perpetuate. Anyway, masterful troll bait from RA...as per usual. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 8:29:41 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When conservatives stop fighting sex education and birth control (which is one fuck of a lot cheaper on society than millions of unwanted children), I'll take their moral outrage seriously. You're going to pay one way or another, wouldn't it be dandy to tackle the problem before it's a problem? No, no, sex is icky and women are whores and they should just keep their legs shut. Realistic solutions to problems they help perpetuate. Anyway, masterful troll bait from RA...as per usual. And there are some here that seem to make the assumption that all pregnancies are avoidable. But are non-specific about it, with the implication that no one should be having sex if you don't want babies. It's clear to me it's just another rehash of abstinence advocacy but no one is willing to actually admit that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 7:39:18 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This thread makes me want to take that job with planned parenthood, where they were offering a 15k signing bonus, just to piss off the pro-lifers here.
The emotion in these types of threads is crazy. It's amazing how social conservatives want to save these fetuses at all costs, but then don't give two shits about them once they leave the womb. They are happy to let them starve once they are born. [Conservative Arfcommer] "Screw welfare... They aren't living off my tax dollars. Let the animals feed and take care of themselves. They shouldn't be having these kids if they can't care for them." [/Conservative Arfcommer] I really don't understand how people like you can't understand. Conservatives don't want to murder anyone, because we believe that human life is precious. We do not believe that we should be forced by the government to support those too lazy to support themselves, but everyone is free to give to charities to help those truly in need. The point is - all humans should have the chance to make something of themselves. We should not judge before they have taken their first breath. In fact, to turn your argument on its head, those who have not had a chance are the LAST ones we should judge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 7:43:51 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If what were the law? If Roe v. Wade is overturned I will feel sorry for the women who have had their contraceptive choice made for them by a bunch of zealots, but I'd lose just as much sleep over the issue as I do now, zero. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So you would be anti abortion if it were the law, right? If what were the law? If Roe v. Wade is overturned I will feel sorry for the women who have had their contraceptive choice made for them by a bunch of zealots, but I'd lose just as much sleep over the issue as I do now, zero. You have just admitted that your whole reason for supporting abortion is false. You have claimed consistently that you think abortion is fine because according to the law, it's not murder and not illegal. But you just gave it away - you don't just think that abortion is OK because according to the law it's not murder, You support abortion, beyond what the law may be. Hardly the law-is-all person you purport to be. So which is it? We now know that you do not support abortion simply because it's legal and not recognized as murder. So how do you explain your support of abortion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 7:46:21 PM EDT
[#23]
This thread is just the comedic gift that keeps on giving.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 7:46:33 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Proof the American eugenics program is a success. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 7:48:47 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I really don't understand how people like you can't understand. Conservatives don't want to murder anyone, because we believe that human life is precious. We do not believe that we should be forced by the government to support those too lazy to support themselves, but everyone is free to give to charities to help those truly in need. The point is - all humans should have the chance to make something of themselves. We should not judge before they have taken their first breath. In fact, to turn your argument on its head, those who have not had a chance are the LAST ones we should judge. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This thread makes me want to take that job with planned parenthood, where they were offering a 15k signing bonus, just to piss off the pro-lifers here. The emotion in these types of threads is crazy. It's amazing how social conservatives want to save these fetuses at all costs, but then don't give two shits about them once they leave the womb. They are happy to let them starve once they are born. [Conservative Arfcommer] "Screw welfare... They aren't living off my tax dollars. Let the animals feed and take care of themselves. They shouldn't be having these kids if they can't care for them." [/Conservative Arfcommer] I really don't understand how people like you can't understand. Conservatives don't want to murder anyone, because we believe that human life is precious. We do not believe that we should be forced by the government to support those too lazy to support themselves, but everyone is free to give to charities to help those truly in need. The point is - all humans should have the chance to make something of themselves. We should not judge before they have taken their first breath. In fact, to turn your argument on its head, those who have not had a chance are the LAST ones we should judge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 7:53:41 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
one might hypothesize that the current state of crime in this country argues to it's failure. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Proof the American eugenics program is a success. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 8:01:40 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Proof the American eugenics program is a success. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Violent_crime_rates_by_gender_1973-2003.jpg  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 8:12:51 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Proof the American eugenics program is a success. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Violent_crime_rates_by_gender_1973-2003.jpg wtf happened in 1994? all I remember from that year was the AWB but no way did that actually cut crime
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 8:50:14 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: wtf happened in 1994? all I remember from that year was the AWB but no way did that actually cut crime Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Proof the American eugenics program is a success. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Violent_crime_rates_by_gender_1973-2003.jpg wtf happened in 1994? all I remember from that year was the AWB but no way did that actually cut crime |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 9:25:13 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, but you have to deduct all of the people that some of those 60 million would have murdered, and than extrapolate from there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Considering (unscientifically) the typical reproductive rate, those 60 million would amount to maybe 120 million at minimum had they lived, more or less. Our current population is a bit less than 320 million. Ponder that. Yeah, but you have to deduct all of the people that some of those 60 million would have murdered, and than extrapolate from there. Including each other. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 9:28:59 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Including each other. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Considering (unscientifically) the typical reproductive rate, those 60 million would amount to maybe 120 million at minimum had they lived, more or less. Our current population is a bit less than 320 million. Ponder that. Yeah, but you have to deduct all of the people that some of those 60 million would have murdered, and than extrapolate from there. Including each other. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 9:30:49 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's an argument that's been made for decades at the highest levels of philosophy, medical ethics, and politics, and you thing pulling a few dictionary definitions is going to change what? "the topic of abortion gives me bad feels, or it doesn't" is the only thing this all boils down to. No one is going to change there stance on anything, it's just going to be like every other abortion thread where people bash there head against the wall and try to make thier opinion sound like it carries weight. Some to the point of as has been seen, calling others monsters for not believing the same opinion they have. Then there's the "because god says" crowd, which is always a hoot. So why should anyone care if babies are murdered? What is there to deny, babies get murdered all the time. So what? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It sounds super tough, too bad it's not analogous to the topic. You're not well versed in analogy, are you? Feel free to substitute any person for the "I" above. And it answers Mr. Smiley's question, although the person with cancer analogy did it better, so I'll repeat that here. If you get cancer and die from it that's a natural function. If one person induces a fatal cancer in another person, that's murder. Simple enough? As for your constant harping on every miscarriage being an abortion, let me quote you the legal definition. "Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by various methods, including medical surgery, before the fetus is able to sustain independent life." Note in particular the bolded part. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "method" as follows: "Definition of method in English: noun 1A particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one" In short, the legal definition of "abortion" requires a deliberate action. So to review, we have the following points
I have yet to see a valid refutation of any of the above bullet points, just a whole lot of people stamping their foot and denying all of it. "the topic of abortion gives me bad feels, or it doesn't" is the only thing this all boils down to. No one is going to change there stance on anything, it's just going to be like every other abortion thread where people bash there head against the wall and try to make thier opinion sound like it carries weight. Some to the point of as has been seen, calling others monsters for not believing the same opinion they have. Then there's the "because god says" crowd, which is always a hoot. So why should anyone care if babies are murdered? What is there to deny, babies get murdered all the time. So what? "Why should anyone care if babies are murdered?" What part of "right to life" in the documents that founded this nation do you fail to understand? You might as well ask why should murder be illegal at all? You want to commit murder for your own convenience and don't see anything wrong with that?
ETA apparently your self admitted love of arguing doesn't necessarily mean having a good argument. Since you have been deliberately obtuse regarding elementary analogies that would have been obvious to a 10 year old and mindlessly keep repeating the same non-answers to the scientific facts presented to you, then fire back with what boils down to "oh you have the feels, I'm sooo sorry for you". If you want a good argument, give a good argument. Otherwise put a sock in you pie hole and admit you got nothing. The only people bringing up religion here are the "pro choice" side. So get a grip and put up a decent argument or just shut up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 9:36:20 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Baby Moma Kant be at the club if she pregnant I see you've never been "up in da club". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 9:38:08 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Margret Sanger didn't want to have people forced to take care of those who could not care for themselves either. Sound like you find a common ideology with her. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This thread makes me want to take that job with planned parenthood, where they were offering a 15k signing bonus, just to piss off the pro-lifers here.
The emotion in these types of threads is crazy. It's amazing how social conservatives want to save these fetuses at all costs, but then don't give two shits about them once they leave the womb. They are happy to let them starve once they are born. [Conservative Arfcommer] "Screw welfare... They aren't living off my tax dollars. Let the animals feed and take care of themselves. They shouldn't be having these kids if they can't care for them." [/Conservative Arfcommer] I really don't understand how people like you can't understand. Conservatives don't want to murder anyone, because we believe that human life is precious. We do not believe that we should be forced by the government to support those too lazy to support themselves, but everyone is free to give to charities to help those truly in need. The point is - all humans should have the chance to make something of themselves. We should not judge before they have taken their first breath. In fact, to turn your argument on its head, those who have not had a chance are the LAST ones we should judge. Available documentation disproves your altruistic theory. Sanger was as racist as anyone who's ever lived and wanted to use eugenics and abortion to eliminate black people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 9:39:27 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A lot of fertilized eggs didn't turn 21... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Proof the American eugenics program is a success. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Violent_crime_rates_by_gender_1973-2003.jpg wtf happened in 1994? all I remember from that year was the AWB but no way did that actually cut crime What happens when there's a gun ban? People buy more guns. What happens when potential victims are better armed? Criminals try for a less dangerous line of work. That's been proven over, and over, and over, and over again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 9:40:32 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Remember, we can't judge the innocent unborn. Right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Considering (unscientifically) the typical reproductive rate, those 60 million would amount to maybe 120 million at minimum had they lived, more or less. Our current population is a bit less than 320 million. Ponder that. Yeah, but you have to deduct all of the people that some of those 60 million would have murdered, and than extrapolate from there. Including each other. Not judging the individuals, but not stupidly blind to the statistics either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 9:57:31 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What happens when there's a gun ban? People buy more guns. What happens when potential victims are better armed? Criminals try for a less dangerous line of work. That's been proven over, and over, and over, and over again. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A lot of fertilized eggs didn't turn 21... What happens when there's a gun ban? People buy more guns. What happens when potential victims are better armed? Criminals try for a less dangerous line of work. That's been proven over, and over, and over, and over again. Millions of criminals never being born, and not producing the next generation of criminals? Way more plausible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 9:58:46 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Available documentation disproves your altruistic theory. Sanger was as racist as anyone who's ever lived and wanted to use eugenics and abortion to eliminate black people. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Available documentation disproves your altruistic theory. Sanger was as racist as anyone who's ever lived and wanted to use eugenics and abortion to eliminate black people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 11:08:50 PM EDT
[#39]
Huh, I didn't realize the Supreme Court found abortion was legal ~20 years before ~1936, because national abortion laws are the only thing that explains crime rates....
It's not like we jailed a higher percentage of the population, came up with better crime fighting techniques, had an improving economy or anything like that. New York had legalized abortion before the Roe v. Wade decision. Their crime rates plummeted at the same time. Obviously its a vast right-wing conspiracy. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 11:34:39 PM EDT
[#40]
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf
It's funny, because any arguments anyone can put forward in this thread, have already been discussed and researched. Nothing is new, and hasn't been in a decade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2015 12:01:38 AM EDT
[#41]
I suppose one could take the "kill it before it grows" stance or "the cost to society would be too great," or "where would we put them and and at whose expense?" stance. I've thought about that myself.
Someone might even go as far as "Good. We don't need anymore ghetto goblins." Problem is, dysfunctional people aren't the problem per say. It's society's support of them. Black "culture" wouldn't be what it is if they weren't just barely propped up by progressive politics. The only reason people like Hillary Clinton aren't for putting them in ovens is because of votes and support from the likes of the biggest detriments to their own race. People like "Reverend" Sharpton and Jackson. Useful idiots on a whole nother level. The democrats started Idiocracy with blacks because they've always devalued them and thought they are/where unintelligent. Needing guidance. Needing a leash. They've succeeded mostly, and it's a tragedy. But it is what it is (I know so many of you cringe with that statement, but it is merely a statement of facts of current events.) Nothing is going to change that until the welfare state dies. And good luck with that. Thankfully, we can take solace in the fact that some blacks raise to great heights and are smarter than most people on Earth. The downside is that they are the true victims of racism, and by their own. Clarence Thomas. Uncle Tom. Yeah, right.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2015 12:05:05 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I suppose one could take the "kill it before it grows" stance or "the cost to society would be too great," or "where would we put them and and at whose expense?" stance. I've thought about that myself. Someone might even go as far as "Good. We don't need anymore ghetto goblins." Problem is, dysfunctional people aren't the problem per say. It's society's support of them. Black "culture" wouldn't be what it is if they weren't just barely propped up by progressive politics. The only reason people like Hillary Clinton aren't for putting them in ovens is because of votes and support from the likes of the biggest detriments to their own race. People like "Reverend" Sharpton and Jackson. Useful idiots on a whole nother level. The democrats started Idiocracy with blacks because they've always devalued them and thought they are/where unintelligent. Needing guidance. Needing a leash. They've succeeded mostly, and it's a tragedy. But it is what it is (I know so many of you cringe with that statement, but it is merely a statement of facts of current events.) Nothing is going to change that until the welfare state dies. And good luck with that. Thankfully, we can take solace in the fact that some blacks raise to great heights and are smarter than most people on Earth. The downside is that they are the true victims of racism, and by their own. Clarence Thomas. Uncle Tom. Yeah, right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2015 12:10:09 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which, really was the entire point of eugenics and planned parenthood. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I suppose one could take the "kill it before it grows" stance or "the cost to society would be too great," or "where would we put them and and at whose expense?" stance. I've thought about that myself. Someone might even go as far as "Good. We don't need anymore ghetto goblins." Problem is, dysfunctional people aren't the problem per say. It's society's support of them. Black "culture" wouldn't be what it is if they weren't just barely propped up by progressive politics. The only reason people like Hillary Clinton aren't for putting them in ovens is because of votes and support from the likes of the biggest detriments to their own race. People like "Reverend" Sharpton and Jackson. Useful idiots on a whole nother level. The democrats started Idiocracy with blacks because they've always devalued them and thought they are/where unintelligent. Needing guidance. Needing a leash. They've succeeded mostly, and it's a tragedy. But it is what it is (I know so many of you cringe with that statement, but it is merely a statement of facts of current events.) Nothing is going to change that until the welfare state dies. And good luck with that. Thankfully, we can take solace in the fact that some blacks raise to great heights and are smarter than most people on Earth. The downside is that they are the true victims of racism, and by their own. Clarence Thomas. Uncle Tom. Yeah, right. To end the welfare state? My understanding and reading of Margaret Sanger and the Roosevelts was to control the blacks and keep their numbers down through eugenics, yet keep them as useful idiots. To expand the welfare state. Am I off here? Because everything they ever did encouraged State dependence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2015 12:14:20 AM EDT
[#44]
Liberals.
They want to kill the unborn but stop the killing of murderers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2015 12:27:05 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Carry this watermelon shaped thing around for 9 months, completely fuck up your body, your ability to work, your hormones, then squeeze it out your vag and wreck that too. Oh, then give it away to somebody else. Sounds like a great deal, what woman wouldn't want to do it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If a woman is smart enough to know she shouldn't bring a child into this world - I'm smart enough to agree with her Adoption??? Carry this watermelon shaped thing around for 9 months, completely fuck up your body, your ability to work, your hormones, then squeeze it out your vag and wreck that too. Oh, then give it away to somebody else. Sounds like a great deal, what woman wouldn't want to do it? And get paid 20k for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2015 12:46:26 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a born and raised Roman Catholic, I endorse this Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That Pope guy needs to worry less about global weather more about the killing of babies As a born and raised Roman Catholic, I endorse this +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2015 12:58:15 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a born and raised Roman Catholic, I endorse this Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That Pope guy needs to worry less about global weather more about the killing of babies As a born and raised Roman Catholic, I endorse this +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2015 1:06:11 AM EDT
[#48]
Truth or troll bait?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2015 1:07:47 AM EDT
[#49]
Aside from politics, abortion is murder. That's not my stance or my belief. It's fact. Rationalize away and discount or disparage me as you will.
Abortion=Murder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2015 3:45:38 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To end the welfare state? My understanding and reading of Margaret Sanger and the Roosevelts was to control the blacks and keep their numbers down through eugenics, yet keep them as useful idiots. To expand the welfare state. Am I off here? Because everything they ever did encouraged State dependence. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Which, really was the entire point of eugenics and planned parenthood. To end the welfare state? My understanding and reading of Margaret Sanger and the Roosevelts was to control the blacks and keep their numbers down through eugenics, yet keep them as useful idiots. To expand the welfare state. Am I off here? Because everything they ever did encouraged State dependence. There's always going to be a welfare state to some extent I suppose. But as bad as it is now, could you imagine our welfare system with up to 60 million more people right now? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
