User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:24:28 PM EDT
[#1]
Ha...no. I ain't the overweight couch commando here boyo. I'm 6', 155 lbs, I go to the gym everyday, etc. Hurl all the insults you like, I am pretty damn happy with my life. I'm just tired of hearing all the "oh you can't expect people to not have sex" O rly? I don't. I don't want to nail some chick I don't much care for, and wind up taking care of her and my kid, just cause I listened to my dick. I don't want to lose my life at age 21, and i don't want to kill a baby so - I don't have sex. Some people just hold themselves to a higher standard I guess. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:25:25 PM EDT
[#2]
Note: I never indicated at what point in the pregancy I advocated abortion... Keep her legs closed...sorry just not realistic...women are unpredictable and emotionally unstable, you should know that as a man.... People do take responsibility, they know they are incabably of raising a child do to financial reasons or other, and take birth control, but sometimes that doesn't work. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:26:24 PM EDT
[#3]
Amazing what can happen when a person gets a job,you can buy diapers and formula,and you can FEED a child. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:27:09 PM EDT
[#4]
Are you really so withdrawn from reality?
Financially insecure women get impregnated all the time by men on one night stands. IT HAPPENS! It's going to continue to happen. Forever. How the hell do you suppose we outlaw promiscuity? It's too bad that it doesn't conform to your naive little world. No abortion means I gotta pay for it, and I don't want to. The abortion alternative is a lot less of a drain on society.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:27:37 PM EDT
[#5]
*gazes deeply into crystal ball*
I see a lock by page 7. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:27:55 PM EDT
[#6]
So,you really cant get any? |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:29:23 PM EDT
[#7]
Your idea that an abortion is perfectly acceptable is fine because it is your right to think that. Just remember those words highlighted in red up there and remember that it is that "unpredictable and emotionally unstable" female you mention who will decide whether or not they keep the baby you may have had a hand in creating. It won't be your decision if it should ever happen. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:30:51 PM EDT
[#8]
You need to spend some time reading up on classical liberalism, according to Locke the natural rights are life, liberty, and property, I think that when he said life it didnt matter if you were still inside your mothers womb or not. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:31:02 PM EDT
[#9]
I don't disagree, and I have no desire to pass laws on what people do in the bedroom. All i expect is that people are held responsible for their actions. Monetarily, perhaps you are correct. Morally -  Society starts going down the shitter once you toss standards out the window.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:34:06 PM EDT
[#10]
Wow! So the man is accountable for his actions and takes personal responsability and all you can do is insult him? Nice ETA +1 to everything TheDoctors308 said, good to see there are other young men out there who still have values. |
|||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:34:22 PM EDT
[#11]
 If that is what helps you sleep at night. Anybody these days can get laid - fat people, attractive people, you name it, everyone fucks. In highschool, it seemed to me like the ugly people were fucking like rabbits. If guys like you can get some, surely handsome devils like myself could get laid.  I have no problem attracting women, I do better than most. But I choose not to have intercourse, because I refuse to accept the responsibilties that go along with it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:39:05 PM EDT
[#12]
Fair enough. But that's why I don't allow myself to get drawn into the stages of the pregnancy. I oppose uncessary abortions in all stages, that way all the bases are covered.
That is pretty weak. And that's HER problem. Because someone is emotionally unstable doesn't make it ok to end a life. There are plenty of "emotionally unstable" people sitting in prison right now for murder. Every action has consequences, good and bad. Most everyone would gladly accept the consequences of having sex if only an orgasm was involved. But in doing that, pregnancy could result, as well as the transmission of HIV or Hepatitis and a host of other things. So you take your chances and are responsible for the outcome, good or bad. You take the good so you have to take the bad too. That's life.
I don't call such actions "taking responsibility". I call that taking the easy way out. An example of taking responsibility for one's actions would be accepting the ticket the cop issues you for reckless driving and paying your fine. Abortion would be the equivalent of shooting the ticket issuing cop in hopes of avoiding court and a fine. And even if the mother to be doesn't want the child, they still have the option of adoption. There are millions of couples out there who'd love to have a child that can't conceive one on their own. So there is alternatives. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:39:39 PM EDT
[#13]
This is the first time in my entire life i heave ever heard of a 21 year old that does not want to have sex. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:41:18 PM EDT
[#14]
Didn't say that boyo, far from it. Never said I don't want to have sex - all I said was that I don't, because I'm not going to accept the consequences. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:44:39 PM EDT
[#15]
dont insult others over your personal shame and lack of resposibility |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:50:53 PM EDT
[#16]
You seriously think the only personal liberties you have are those expressly mentioned in the Bill of Rights? The Framers enacted the Ninth Amendment in recognition of the obvious fact that all individual rights could not be reasonably enumerated. As far as "the 2nd Amendment is clearly spelled out in the constitution," good luck explaining that to G.W. Bush, NRA officials (who endorse GCA-68, NFA-34, etc.), most members of Congress, the judiciary, and LEOs. Try citing the Second Amendment during a criminal trial for violation of an anti-gun law, especially in front of a jury, and watch what the judge does. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:54:11 PM EDT
[#17]
So you call watching my son being born and taking care of him every day since irresponsible? |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 12:00:11 AM EDT
[#18]
If you seriously think that the "right to an abortion" was one of the "rights" the Founders intended us to have, you're on crack. There is no "right to murder your baby, if it happens to be inconvenient". Period. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 12:02:20 AM EDT
[#19]
+ 10 million. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 12:24:17 AM EDT
[#20]
Mine tells me page 8. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 12:30:13 AM EDT
[#21]
Did you ever notice the people that are so againist abortion are people you would not want to fuck anyways.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 12:34:05 AM EDT
[#22]
I wonder how long it will take this thread to get locked.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 12:37:50 AM EDT
[#23]
So do you have anything worhty to add? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 12:40:58 AM EDT
[#24]
To be honest I dont care about the abortion debate. It's a woman's choice, and since I am not a woman I dont worry about it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 12:53:19 AM EDT
[#25]
Just stoking the fire dude. It does not matter how many time this arguement goes around nobody is going to change anyone else mind. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 12:54:11 AM EDT
[#26]
Insurgents = Foreign Terrorists Extremely conservative-pushing our beliefs onto others-right wingers = Domestic Terrorists And people's belief in abortion stems from their "definition" of when life starts. Or, they listen to their "religious preachers" and follow them blindly. I dont think abortion is wrong unless it's in the 3rd trimester. But I dont think it should be used as a form of "birth control" for stupid people who go out and have sex unprotected. If the 2 people did what they could (like say, a condom and the pill) for BC, then they tried and both methods failed. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 1:01:46 AM EDT
[#27]
so then what's everyone's personal opinion as to when life starts?
personally, i think it's when there is higher brain activity present, which IIRC starts at about 10 weeks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 1:07:34 AM EDT
[#28]
When a fetus is able to support itself. Technically for me, that's when it's born. Until then, it needs the mother to survive. But I give a little leeway so like I said above, about when the 3rd Trimester starts IMO, is too late. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 1:10:32 AM EDT
[#29]
but the fetus is usually able to support itself outside of the womb far before birth. hell, there have even been cases of chemically-induced abortions where the baby came out alive and survived. ETA: i also disagree with using whether the baby can survive on it's own as a litmus test. if i get injured and have to be put on life support in the hostpial, i'm still living even if i can't survive on my own at that point in time. however, i would be considered dead if my higher brain activity ceased. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 1:14:10 AM EDT
[#30]
Life started about 30 million years ago if you ask me. by Technically the spermatozoal is alive when its formed in your testes and the ovum is alive in a womens ovaries just after she is born. To tell you the truth life is an ongoing process. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 1:15:43 AM EDT
[#31]
i mean when human life starts.... i don't think that it coudl be argued that a sperm is a human. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 1:19:02 AM EDT
[#32]
I love it when people bring out the ole "but what about when I'm a vegetable in the hospital on a breathing machine" argument. It holds no merit, because they arent the same thing or even in the same category. When a baby is in its mother, it depends on HER BODY for its oxygen, nutrients, food and survivability. Whatever toxins are in the mother, consequently go into the baby. The same cannot be said about being in a coma. And since when is a fetus able to eat on its own, outside of the mother? Before the 3rd trimester? The fetus' body hasnt developed enough yet for it to be able to sustain it's own life. Meanwhile, a person who was living and was in an accident WAS able to sustain their own life before their accident or whatever may have happened......which is why the arguments hold no merit being compared to one another. There have also been a few cases of mechanically aborted babies escaping the "coat hanger" and living, so what? There are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule. 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 1:20:26 AM EDT
[#33]
You're right, it can't. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 1:29:03 AM EDT
[#34]
i still fail to see how being able to sustain your own life is a condition for being considered a living human. many babies are born with severe heart conditions/underdeveloped organs and require immediate surgery and/or life support to stay alive. i fail to see how this would make them any less of a human than a normally developed baby. in fact, i fail to see how body development can really be used at all for this purpose, and strongly believe that the discussion as to when life begins should be based on at what point do different levels of brain activity begin to occur. your mileage may vary. thank you for your service, and goodnight. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 1:33:32 AM EDT
[#35]
So if old gramps cant go on without your help he should just be shot? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 1:39:12 AM EDT
[#36]
Uhh.....almost the exact definition of a living human is being able to sustain life. :unsure: Why should the "different levels of brain activity" define life? Someone can be alive and not have very strong brain signals (IE a person in a coma) and they can be on the verge of death or a vegetable (IE Terri Schiavo). Why should your definition be any better than mine? In fact, I see MORE holes in your's than mine.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 6:11:22 AM EDT
[#37]
1. I never mentioned the subject of abortion in my original post. I simply disputed your ludicrous assertion that the only personal liberties are those which are specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Even Americans in the eighteenth century knew better than that which is precisely why the Ninth Amendment was enacted. 2. This may be too subtle a distinction for you to grasp, but the words "baby" and "fetus" are not synonymous. 3. I'm pretty sure the Framers didn't have the Internet, telephones, electronic printing presses, and automatic weapons in mind when they wrote the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, but I still think these modern implements are covered under the Bill of Rights. Good luck persuading G.W. Bush, Wayne LaPierre, and Charles Schumer of that, however. Many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves and precious few "intended" women to be able to vote. You must really be upset over enactment of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments. 4. Using any form of contraception was once against various state and federal laws in the USA. Until SCOTUS ruled the statute violated the Ninth Amendment, it was a crime to purchase condoms in Connecticut (see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)). I doubt the use of condoms was among the Framers' conscious intentions when the Constitution was being ratified, but I'm still glad that absurd law was struck down. 5. In using the word "murder," you conveniently neglected to cite the applicable state or federal statute. 6. As far as your suggestion I use "crack," unlike G.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and many other politicians, judges, attorneys, and LEOs, I've never used any type of illicit drug, nor do I drink alcohol. Given my pathological inability to suffer fools gladly, I suppose you and your ilk may eventually drive me to the irrational act of ingesting drugs or alcohol, but it hasn't happened yet. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 6:13:57 AM EDT
[#38]
then put it on a the ballot for the PEOPLE to vote on..
that is just retarded.. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 6:21:29 AM EDT
[#39]
 If SCOTUS decides that a state can ban something that federal law protects, then any hopes of having SCOTUS overturn a state gun ban are out the window. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 6:23:45 AM EDT
[#40]
Typical response from idiots. You know what? I'm 23 and I choose not to have sex. Before you say "Can't get any?", I'll tell YOU that I'VE NEVER SEEKED IT! |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 6:26:33 AM EDT
[#41]
Being an abortion opponent, I could possibly envision compromising on the issue if the .gov would allow the other person involved in the equation some say in whether or not his offspring is allowed to live.
It's time we let the men have some say in what happens with a part of their "bodies." |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 6:27:55 AM EDT
[#42]
Yeah! 'Cause we all know that them rape victims are just whores who were askin' for it! Same thing for the ones that get pregnant by incest! They shoulda known not to be prancing around being a female in front of those male family members! Dirty little sluts! And don't even get me started on those dirty whores who don't want to die because they're pregnant. They should have known they were gonna develop leukemia and kept that quarter squeezed between their knees! *the above was satire. I don't have ovaries, so I have little or no stake in the legality of abortion. I do however find repugnant the idea that a woman can be forced to have her rapist's child. The kind of person who finds glee in that is the kind of person that I would happily set the dogs loose on. Hopefully none of you EVER have to see a friend go through a pregnancy and abortion due to rape.
|
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 6:30:37 AM EDT
[#43]
Wrong. This is another shot in the battle over federalism. When Roe is, correctly, struck down, this issue will go back to the states where it belongs. I doubt that the "right-wing religious zealots," as you call them, are looking at it like I am, however. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 6:30:59 AM EDT
[#44]
A baby right out of the womb cant sustain it's own life. The only thing it can do is breathe, it depends on someone else for EVERYTHING. So should we be able to kill them too? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 6:37:00 AM EDT
[#45]
There's a fetus running around this house that's 17 years old, and it still can't feed itself. Maybe I could abort it now? And get her out of my hair.....at least what's left of it.
Anyone want this fetus? Please???? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 6:40:15 AM EDT
[#46]
The smartest thing the Supreme Court could do about the abortion issue is refuse to take any case involving it.
Right now, half the people want abortion rights and half don't. Right now, those who want an abortion can get one , and those who don't, can NOT get one. Freedom of choice works. Ban all abortions and they won't stop. They'll just go underground and women will die at the hands of butchers armed with coat hangers. It's stupid to take further action on an issue which is so evenly divided. I will NEVER tell a woman what to do and what not to do with HER body. And it IS hers. I would take the position that the fetus is part of her until it's born. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 6:42:44 AM EDT
[#47]
I must admit that my views on abortion have changed to the point where I lean more pro-life than pro-choice. With that said, I still thin abortion should remain legal when the life of the mother is at stake, rape, incest or a sever birth defect is known. Furthermore, I believe that the morning after pill should be made readily available.
Lets face it, if you are scared of having sex because you might knock up a woman you should just go ahead and castrate yourself. Thinking about all of the times I have done it and yet no kid has materialized. If women would regularly use the pill- as it is prescribed, use an IUD or nor-plant, use the morning after pill if necessary and men wear a condom there would be no need for abortion. Most of the people who end up pregnant do so for not being smart. The things that bother me about this is the slippery slope of government intrusion into the bed room and private matters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 6:47:43 AM EDT
[#48]
What about the part of the man's body that's inside of her? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 6:54:46 AM EDT
[#49]
finders keepers? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 7:05:09 AM EDT
[#50]
That's why they are going to test this court. |
||
|
|
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.
