VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

I'm not attacking you, I'm making fun of tree huggers and right wing loons who put propaganda on thier cars.
The people with the big W are just as bad as the people who still have the Kerry stickers on thier cars, they need to get over it .
BTW I love trees!

constellation

iTrader: (1)

ahhh i see, haha.


Hey, BTW - i heart doberman pincers.

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

Exactly. With the current law, you should be able to punch a pregnant woman in the stomach, and simply be charged for practicing medicine without a license.

Somehow that reminds me of "The Wookie Defense." Look at the monkey! =)

mmboost

iTrader: (2)

Thanx for answering thoughfully

Now you raise a very, very interesting point! You are pro-choice, but then you question abortion as birth control. Why do you define this as "scary"?

If there is absolutely nothing wrong with abortion, then is responsibility an issue at all in regards to the procreative results of sex? If we could find a way to instantly cure every sexually transmitted disease, should we then become bunnies, aborting monthly if need be? Why would this be "a problem?" It is actually after all possible that we are not helpless slaves to our hormones?

jason

constellation

iTrader: (1)

Well, quite honestly its one of those slippery slopes that i try to avoid - I remember debating and debating this in college and it always just boiled down to personal belief. I don't think abortion "rocks". I think it's a sad terrible thing, and if used at all should be used sparingly - that said, i think the option should be available. (right now your logicbot should crash and jitter). Now, im not the one to say under what circumstances, and i don't really think that I'm of maturity to say so.

I don't think that if you don't absolutley despise it, that you are 100% for it. I refuse to believe that. Thats ****ing george bush's america, not mine.

No, if all std's were somehow cured, sex should still be treated like a loaded gun - but we are slaves to the hormones, we are slaves to fear, we are slaves to happiness, we are slaves to breakdancing. There is no getting around that, however i know not to breakdance on my grandma, even if i want to sooooo bad. This is where social morals come into play. They keep us from breakdancing on our grandmas whenever we please, or at least make us aware of the possible problems that could arise from such an action.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

No offense, but I think your argument is rediculous. You HAVE to disconect sex and abortions in order to reason about it in terms of laws and regulations. A similar argument to yours would be this: We should make drug rehab clinics illegal, because if everyone just did the right thing and never did drugs, they would be useless and we wouldn't need them. Another example: prisons should be torn down, because if people did the right thing and never broke laws, we wouldn't need them. Another: we should disband the military, because if everyone in the world acted right we would never need to go to war. Get my point? Keeping sex and abortions connected in the context of making laws is assinine...because the truth is that there will ALWAYS be unplanned pregnancies. No matter how hard you wish everyone did the right thing, some people won't. So any discussion of the abortion issue has to begin with the assumption that there will be unplanned pregnancies.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I don't see how there can be any argument on the definition of child. It sounds so shallow and irresponsible to even consider such a comparison.

The only difference between an infant and unborn, healthy, capable fetus is a the very textbook definition and a difference of 1 week to 9months.

Just think for a minute without going off the handle... it’s not entirely uncommon for an ICU to successfully nurture a premature baby that was born during the 2nd trimester or earlier. Technology allows women to abort as late as the 2nd and 3rd trimester so what’s the difference if we smash the premature babies head in with a mallet?

The argument for this is that the baby is still inside the mother and it’s the woman’s choice because of that fact. Doesn’t this sound a little sickening and monstrous to some of you?
Although I am pro-choice for the most part I hate it at the same time.

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

The main difference between us and chimps is our linguistic abilities, so by this reasoning a child isn't a person until it can speak.
Yeah, we won't have conclusion until people start taking responsibility for thier own actions.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Speechless.... I am without speech.

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

https://www.i-club.com/forums/teh-politics-forum-114/so-when-fetus-human-being-84344/

mmboost

iTrader: (2)

That's my point! To make the argument you have to disconnect... BUT IN REALITY there are about as two connected events as any two events can be connected. This should tell you there is a grave error in the way people try to talk about abortion, let alone justify it. You basically have to suspend reality to have a viable argument.

jason

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

I'm just saying how ****ing stupid it is to say an abortion is ok at a certain time but not at another. Although I am EXTREMELY pro life, I do believe thier are certain circumstances that should be allowed. Too bad 99.999999 % of them are out of convenience, or a form of birth control.
But I will agree that the women who usually do have abortions, aren't the ones who should be procreating.

mmboost

iTrader: (2)

I understand what you are saying,and I appreciate your honesty. While I agree with you regarding having a black and white view, like perhaps N.O.W. and Mr. Bush and his Mouth Breathers have, being incredibly short sighted and simple minded, this does leave one very salient fact about abortion that we cannot ignore: While the argument about abortion may not be cut and dry, abortion is black and white in its finality. When you abort a fetus, there's no ifs ands or buts about what it will never, ever be.

See that's the great lie. I am not a slave to my hormones, nor am I slave to fear, and not even happiness (although back in the day when I lived in NYC in the 80s, I was a slave to breakdancing). I was celibate until I was married at the age of 34! Believe me, I wanted it as bad as the next guy, but my treasure wasn't in my loins, it was in what ultimate monogamy would mean for me as a reflection of the life of the Founder of my faith and in my relationship with my wife. I don't live in fear, either. I take risks all the time to care for others - I can be generous because I do not have to be afriad to give things up. I don't have to have the best education , and the best job to make the most retirement money. Those are just more lies. And happiness? Happiness is pretty shallow and its certainly fleeting if you are a slave to fear. Joy comes from fundamental understanding that you are not a slave, but free. The problem for the vast majority of the world is they have no alternative to being a slave. Even people that think they are free of these things, watch their lives, see what they cower to, see where their treasure is and what they long and hope for. If you find in your life that there is something greater than money, sex and small sense of happiness, then you are no longer a slave to those things. You're a slave to something greater and worth serving.

jason

constellation

iTrader: (1)

Yes, im sorry i worded it wrong. You are correct in the sense you mean it - however, i meant fear as in biological fear. The fear you get when the caveman inside you starts beating on his cage when he thinks a bear is about to jump out of the cupboard. The type of fear that squeezes your adrenal gland, irrational or not. The happiness of bacon when your caveman goes "oh yeah, eat more of that - you need that chub for winter, here's some seritonin, dig on that stuff."
I think that sex is much like this too, but much more manageable. But regardless of whether or not you can control it, its still there dry humping the mic stand and winking at you. (yes, your sex drive IS steven tyler).
So, if you didnt have your faith keeping your heat sunk, you probably would have knocked some boots, right? A'rent those social and religious morals? I think that they were really important to early man - as to keep the tribe together instead of knocking the nearest woman over the head with a club and having your way with her. There is no order. And of course you need a diety, a boss that you never feel or see or hear but you KNOW is there and will strike down upon thee if you club susan over the head and have your way with her. So, is it totally false to say that you didnt do the hanky panky because you feared retribution from your big boss? I'm not accusing, but do you think that is at all possible? Thats in a sense being controlled by fear, right?

FW Motorsports