Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dr. Egon Spengler
I agree. It's a good thing that I never said that to begin with.
Ah, so you were being intentionally stupid when you tried to make the argument that abortion is good because a baby might grow up to be a serial killer. Just checking.
Quote:
I'm not saying that I fully understand the subject. In fact, I'm admitting that I don't understand the subject, considering that I can't get pregnant, and therefore, can never consider having an abortion.
But yet, you're still here discussing the subject, with full knowledge that you, apparently, don't understand the subject.
You do know, by the way, that the majority of abortion supporters are men, do you not? Including every Supreme Court Justice that ruled on Roe v. Wade. Which means that, if left solely up to women, abortion would be illegal.
Quote:
But you, on the other hand, are a man, saying what a woman should or shouldn't do with her unwanted pregnancy.
I'm saying that a woman shouldn't murder her child. I don't care if she raises it or gives it up for adoption.
Quote:
That's what makes you sexist, because you're only thinking about what you care about, and not about what other people care about.
Yes, I'm only thinking about human life, and not the inconvenience of carrying a child to term. Sexist, sexist me. (By the way, only thinking about what I care about wouldn't make me sexist. Try again with the insults, maybe you'll throw out a logical one eventually.)
Quote:
It's an embryo, actually. I think you have an issue with declaring age. I'm guessing you think that 35 is elderly.
And you'd guess wrong. Any other accusations?
Are you trying to say that a human embryo is not a human?
Quote:
Fast food doesn't make people fat, it's overeating and lack of exercise that does that.
And babies don't make people fat, it's the weight gained with the pregnancy. You will never find a woman who gets pregnant and gains no more weight than how much her baby weighs. Next?
Quote:
Why aren't I here?
Your claim was that males have no right arguing about abortion. And here you are, arguing about abortion.
Quote:
It's not you being aborted, and it's not your children, so stop complaining. So a few million people have aborted an embryo without a heartbeat. Again I ask, what's the big ****ing deal?
Embryonic heartbeat starts at about 22 days after conception. Keep it up, kid.
And no, it's not be being aborted, nor is it my child -- that doesn't mean that the child's life isn't a life. By your "logic", Hitler killed a few million Jews, but he didn't kill you or anybody you know, so why do you care?
Again. The big ****ing deal is the life of a human being.
Quote:
Yeah, that's called nature. Most humans don't believe it exists, but I assure you, it does. Are you getting my point yet, or at least beginning to?
That animals change their habitats into places that are more fitting for them and less fitting for other animals, just like humans do? No, wait, that wasn't your point ... your point was that humans are evil and pollute the world.
Quote:
Really? Tell me more about my surroundings? Is the chair that I'm sitting on really not the chair that my grandfather made with his own two hands out of scrap wood from the backyard during the early 1970s? Is the house that I'm in really not the house made out of clay brick dug directly from the ground on which it's built? The house, by the way, was built by hand, brick by brick, in order to make it more sturdy. No machinery involved. So you're right about one thing. The computer is made out of petroleum products.
Seeing as you have claimed before that you don't have a computer and that you go to the library down the street ... but wait, you've edited that post to no longer include the library comment. I guess only those of us who initially noticed it truly know how full of shit you are.
Quote:
So if the automobile industry went out of business, and an electromagnetic pulse took out all mechanics, I'd die right?
You? Probably. Unless you had the tools and the knowledge to live off the land. No more fast food, no more fatty-cakes. I'd love to see that.
Quote:
No, if something is tried twice, it's double jeopardy.
If a person is tried twice, it's double jeopardy. If an issue is tried twice, it's Judicial Review.
The Fifth Amendment states, "... nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ..."
Person. Not issue.
Quote:
Yes it would. The fifth amendment of the U.S. constitution includes double jeopardy.
For people. Not issues -- that's called Judicial Review, and is covered in Article III, and expanded in the Marbury v. Madison case.
Quote:
No, that's an example of double jeopardy.
What this was in direct response to -- something being legal when it happened, and later made illegal -- is not double jeopardy. It's ex post facto.
Quote:
If the court has already made it's verdict, the matter can't be tried again in that court.
Of a person.
Quote:
However, if it's state court, the subject could be tried again in federal court. The state wouldn't be able to do anything, though.
Unless it was appealed.
Quote:
It depends on which court you're tried in. If it's federal, then no, you won't be tried again.
Wrong.
Not only could I be tried again on appeal, or on the discovery of new evidence, I could be tried not only in civilian court, but in a military court martial under the UCMJ.
That was a baited question. I was just waiting for you to get that one wrong. Thank you for not disappointing ... and yet, still disappointing.
Quote:
Yes, there is credible evidence for this. There is about 3 billion people in china. Considering the number of children put into adoption centers due to the one child per family rule, it would be virtually impossible for even the majority of children to get adopted.
Three billion people in China? Damn, they've grown! By more than double ... in less than a year!
"Credible evidence" does not mean "you trying to explain it". It means something credible.
For example ... Credible evidence of China's population.
So I ask again. Is there any credible evidence for this?
Quote:
Well, yeah. There would be 40 million+ unwanted children.
Maybe I should have been more clear. Anything credible to back this up?
Quote:
If the child isn't wanted, that's where abortion comes in. The child doesn't even need to be born.
Or adoption, of we choose not to murder our children.
Quote:
The number of children would far outweigh the number of couples that aren't able to have children.
You'd also have to include couples who want to adopt more than one child. And again I ask, is there any credible evidence for this, or just your "logic"?
Quote:
Well, drugs, mostly, but yes, it happens a lot.
So you've gone from asserting that everybody without a "proper upbringing" becomes a drug addict or a prostitute, to claiming that it "happens a lot". I ask again, with the same low expectations, do you have anything credible to back up your asinine claims?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SOLDIER #819
Sasquatch. Out of curiosity, do you believe in no abortion after a certain period of time or that under normal circumstances there should be no abortion at all?
Not trying to be rude, but one doesn't have to hold a belief in a subject to argue for it. What I'm arguing is that abortion, except in cases where the child and/or mother's life would be endangered if carried to full term, should retain its right to life.
Quote:
I believe that abortion is fine if it takes place within the first three months of pregnancy. I am under the assumption that during these three months an EEG is unable to detect any signs of brain activity within the embryo/fetus.
As I said before, heartbeats develop around 22 days after conception. Brain activity develops at about six weeks.
Quote:
If I have my (scientific?) facts somewhat straight, is there something innately wrong with this logic when applied to the discussion of abortion?
That depends on how much you value human life. If somebody is "braindead", are they still alive? What if they're just comatose?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Govinda
If I took three months off school, Sasquatch, I'd have to repeat the year. I do not have time to do that. And then there's missing social events, and being a balloon in class.
So you think it's alright to murder your child because it would inconvenience your education for a short time, hamper your social life, and make you look bad?
Quote:
I'm just highlighting what a sacrifice it would be for a child that would be, ultimately and in name only, a mistake.
It's a mistake, so that makes it alright to kill it?
Quote:
I am glad that abortion exists, because most teenage mothers are rubbish. Age 18 and up, with a decent support network, you're probably ok. Below that and you're in trouble in parenting terms.
That's why there's adoption. Quit pretending that the only two options are murdering your child or raising it yourself.
Quote:
Did you read recently about the 9 year old father from London? If there's a case for termination, it's what kind of children children raise. The baby's mother was 13.
Unfortunately, a 13-year-old is usually not cabable of carrying a child to term and coming out healthy, with a healthy child. In that circumstance -- and for that reason only -- abortion is a viable option. Otherwise, there's no reason to murder the child, only to give it to parents who will care for it.
Quote:
This is interesting: 'Life is a fundamental right. It's not anybody's place to tell you that you have the choice to take a life for the sake of convenience or not.'
Says who?
Most every governing organization and governing charter.
You're annoying me. If you died, I wouldn't be inconvenienced with seeing your posts here. I'm going to come kill you, because it'd be more convenient for me if you were dead.
(Not that you're annoying me or anything, I was just illustrating the point.
Quote:
Would I be right in saying that your views on this find a base in religion?
Would it matter where my views come from? Whether they are based in religion, or simply in the value of human life?
Quote:
As for the rest of your post, it is clear that we are never going to agree. ... We are going around in circles.
Understood. But I'd still like your opinion on my comment concerning executing everybody below the poverty line, if you don't mind.