NationStates Jolt Archive

Can you stop your heart?

Yes, by ramming a screwdriver through my chest and piercing it.. it would spasm and lock up.. eventually i would die.. and that would stop my heart. :P


PS, Please tell me how that other guy could have worded his phrase better... :confused:

My solution to the problem would be not to remove choice, since that is a fundamental right even by religious standards, God himself does not remove freedom of choice. My solution would be to offer better alternatives. It might allow women who weren't happy with the idea of abortion something better, like help with the pregnancy, adoption, assistance. That's the crux of the problem, isn't it? It seems to be women who are trying to cope with a pregnancy alone, and with few resources. Sometimes, despite our best efforts, pregnancy happens. Let's just ignore the issue of extramarital sex, so as not to muddy the waters. It happens too.

Maybe if the option of help throughout the pregnancy, and adoption to a good family, and even help if she decides to keep the child would make the rate of abortion drop drastically. It seems like a socio-economic problem to me, and not a moral one.

I wouldn't take away the right to choose, though. People have the right to choose, whether their choices are good or bad. Making abortion illegal would only create a new market for illegal abortions. It wouldn't actually stop them. It would only make women who are determined to get one forced to go to unsafe and unprofessional practitioners, or worse yet, the old knitting needle, or a pint of gin and a scalding bath. The result is the same, just a lot worse overall.

How would you have preferred him to word it? :confused:

Things other than reproducing?
As well as reproducing?

Please.. I don't actually understand a way of wording it better :confused:

Well... he could have started from a premise that reproduction wasn't perhaps the most important factor.

How about - if he really NEEDED to get reproduction in there... "I know you are capable of many things... of which reproduction is just one"

It still favours reproduction, becuase it's the only thing specified again... so it's not ideal... but I don't really know how to express his views an better - because I think his view is flawed.

How about he just said. "Women are capable of many things."

Then he could have stopped... and we'd all have been happy.

Ah, :) Good points

You know people had these same arguments when birth control was introduced on a large scale in this country. Today, most seem to take this for granted, but back then....

And, even if you are against Birth Control, would you consider enacting legislation to limit or stop it???

I know the two do not completely equate, but the fact that people argued the same things during their "introduction" to legality is interesting.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.... open yours!!! There are valid points on both sides of this "debate."

if the pregnant woman was raped or was the victim of incest,
rather than executing the unborn INNOCENT HUMAN who had nothing to do with the afore mentioned dastardly deeds,
it is the perpetrators of those crimes who SHOULD BE EXECUTED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE!

ya'll would see just how quickly these crimes would disappear from society and, consequently, those would no longer be reasons to terminate UNBORN HUMANS.

but becasue the perpetrators of these hiennous crimes are released after serving 6-12 months,
they return to terrorize women and commit more of these crimes even more attrociously.

from the moment of conception, there is NO DOUBT that the resulting collection of cells known as zygote, embryo, et al, is of the HUMAN kind and, if it can be determined that this so called embryo is ALIVE, then what we have is a LIVE HUMAN BEING NOT YET BORN.

the dastardly deed known as abortion is simply an euphemism for the KILLING OF A LIVE HUMAN BEING.

finally, just how can now days a woman's life be in danger when a procedure known as "cesarean section" is available?

So - we should protect LIVE HUMAN BEINGS, but kill rapists... who are, somehow not LIVE HUMAN BEINGS?

I agree that rapists get off light. Perhaps they should be executed - but you need to have a unified set of rules. If you can take life, you can take life.

Furthermore... from the moment of conception there are no guarantees that there will be a baby. A miscarriage would remove the possibility of THE HUMAN LIFE. And, you are wrong... it can be determined that a baby is alive... it can be determined that, by some definitions, a foetus with an intact nervous system is 'alive' - but there is no evidence to suggest that a week-old foetus is alive - any more that a blood cell is alive.

Abortion is REMOVING AN UNWANTED FOETUS... which may, or may not, be alive - depending on your viewpoint, and whether or not you accept scientific rationale.

If abortion is a dastardly deed, how is executing rapists not?

A woman's life can be in danger because a Caesarian Section is a surgical procedure. And that always entails some risk. People die having dental surgery...

Oh, and one more thing.... WHY ARE WE SHOUTING????

Oh, and one more thing.... WHY ARE WE SHOUTING????

BECAUSE THE END IS NEAR!!!!11!!!1!11111one!!

:P

The end of what, this discussion?

I think we should keep abortion legal.

I would never consider it as a viable option myself, and kind of look down upon those who use it as fall back BC.

But the fact is, in my opinion, there will always be people out there that for whatever reason think it is a good idea. There are just too many people out there with different views and backgrounds. That's fine everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and like so many have already stated, abortion will always be around, so why not make it as safe as possible. Mind your own business if you are pro-life and don't make it any harder on the women who choose to go down that road. I am sure it is tough for anyone to make that choice, otherwise they are probably pretty heartless.

I think it has a lot to do with your upbringing. Not everyone was brought up in a perfect situation with a perfect loving family who supported them, so in turn not everyone thinks that having a family is a good idea.

I think we should keep abortion legal.

I would never consider it as a viable option myself, and kind of look down upon those who use it as fall back BC.

But the fact is, in my opinion, there will always be people out there that for whatever reason think it is a good idea. There are just too many people out there with different views and backgrounds. That's fine everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and like so many have already stated, abortion will always be around, so why not make it as safe as possible. Mind your own business if you are pro-life and don't make it any harder on the women who choose to go down that road. I am sure it is tough for anyone to make that choice, otherwise they are probably pretty heartless.

I think it has a lot to do with your upbringing. Not everyone was brought up in a perfect situation with a perfect loving family who supported them, so in turn not everyone thinks that having a family is a good idea.

And some had wonderful upbringings, but, for some reason, are not having that great a time of it... and may not need the extra stresses of parenthood... or may live on very meager income, and not really be able to afford the time off work or the medical costs, etc that may come from a child.

Some might just really not be READY for a family. Wishing childbirth on such a person, when their is a fairly safe alternative, is wishing suffering on one person immediately, and another person eventually.

Wrong, it would already be put into place, that any woman who has an abortion just for the hell of it would loose the right to bear kids permanently afterwards, there must be a valid reason for the abortion, not just one of convienience.

so the men get off scott-free?

It would also encourage women to be alot more responsible and moral.

and what about the men? they have no punishment for impregnating someone who does not want to be pregnant.

from the moment of conception, there is NO DOUBT that the resulting collection of cells known as zygote, embryo, et al, is of the HUMAN kind and, if it can be determined that this so called embryo is ALIVE, then what we have is a LIVE HUMAN BEING NOT YET BORN.

so a set of identical twins are one person?
and 50% of all persons are "killed" before they implant themselves in the uterine wall?

life doesn't begin at conception. pregnancy doesn't even begin at conception.

finally, just how can now days a woman's life be in danger when a procedure known as "cesarean section" is available?

how the hell is a cesarian section not endangering a woman's life? let alone the whole pregnancy up until that point... because stress on the heart is always good for everybody...

I've seen through the fact that religion, the big "Life" supporter has ruined my life on several occasions and found the true root of my opinions: Most of the people I see trying to ban abortions are men. Sure, they are free to express their opinions, but let's be honest: This is a woman's debate. After all, it's the woman's body, not mine. I am of the opinion that only the parties concerned in a matter should try to have laws passed one way or the other.

So here's my opinion: Ask a large number of women and tell me. Not just from one demographic area either; I want to here from the slums to the high rises, from the farm to downtown, from Alaska to Florida, and from high-school dropouts to women with Ph.D.s. Then you'll have my opinion.

so the men get off scott-free?



and what about the men? they have no punishment for impregnating someone who does not want to be pregnant.

Good luck.. I have been debating with Terminalia in another thread, and he seems to have a marked intolerance for women. The old classic biblical 'woman as vessel' image... I assume.

And some had wonderful upbringings, but, for some reason, are not having that great a time of it... and may not need the extra stresses of parenthood... or may live on very meager income, and not really be able to afford the time off work or the medical costs, etc that may come from a child.

Some might just really not be READY for a family. Wishing childbirth on such a person, when their is a fairly safe alternative, is wishing suffering on one person immediately, and another person eventually.



I don't believe that to be a very good reason, but I do not wish to impose my views as law on other people. I believe sometimes you must sacrafice things because of decisions you make. Again this is just my opinion

I don't believe that to be a very good reason, but I do not wish to impose my views as law on other people. I believe sometimes you must sacrafice things because of decisions you make. Again this is just my opinion

And sometimes, people don't make those decisions... sometimes, things have a way of making their own decisions.

Also - some people actually earn very little money. They earn so little that they would be financially better of if they were unemployed (certainly in some of the western cultures). Those people might fall pregnant and really not be ABLE to sacrifice to have a child. Or would you wish a mother-to-be to lose the foetus due to malnutrition, and possibly die from complications?

And sometimes, people don't make those decisions... sometimes, things have a way of making their own decisions.

Also - some people actually earn very little money. They earn so little that they would be financially better of if they were unemployed (certainly in some of the western cultures). Those people might fall pregnant and really not be ABLE to sacrifice to have a child. Or would you wish a mother-to-be to lose the foetus due to malnutrition, and possibly die from complications?


If a mother is to die of malnutrition because lack of finances she certainly doesn't have the money for an abortion, or medical care after the coat hanger operation, and would most likely die either way I guess.

If the mother is going to die of complications during birth then abortion could be a viable option, I suppose. (Pretty Rare except for third world countries I think.)

Mostly I agree with you in these extreme circumstances

Babys not alive till its out of the mother, so theres nothing wrong with it.

Abortion debate is always fuelled by the same factors (forgive me if this has already been said, i can't be bothered to read 18 pages)
1.Religon
2.Sexism

I am a bloke, but there is nothing wrong with abortion. A foetus is not human as it takes experience to become human. A two year old child is not human, it is becoming human. the idea that something may become human is a invalid argument as 1.Everything could become human if evolution had time
2.it means you have to treat everything as potential life and murder becomes an issue.
Abortion is unpleasant as all life is a shame to waste, but it is a choice that women must have.

If a mother is to die of malnutrition because lack of finances she certainly doesn't have the money for an abortion, or medical care after the coat hanger operation, and would most likely die either way I guess.

If the mother is going to die of complications during birth then abortion could be a viable option, I suppose. (Pretty Rare except for third world countries I think.)

Mostly I agree with you in these extreme circumstances

Not all that uncommon. Sure, it's not the big percentage - but women do die in childbirth, even in the west, and ESPECIALLY if they have poor general health, are malnourished, cannot afford good medical help. etc.

Also - not everywhere do you have to pay for an abortion.

Finally... you have, perhaps unwittingly, just voted for the abortion of poor people. You don't really support it for the rich, but if they can't afford any better, let them die.

Classy.

Not all that uncommon. Sure, it's not the big percentage - but women do die in childbirth, even in the west, and ESPECIALLY if they have poor general health, are malnourished, cannot afford good medical help. etc.

Also - not everywhere do you have to pay for an abortion.

Finally... you have, perhaps unwittingly, just voted for the abortion of poor people. You don't really support it for the rich, but if they can't afford any better, let them die.

Classy.

Not what I said, but your twisted words certainly did make me sound classy.

Thanks...

Why? I said I was in agreement with you for the most part. I don't F***ing get it? Who did I say should die? WTF
NOBODY is the answer.

Let's re-read what I wrote.
"If a mother is to die of malnutrition because lack of finances she certainly doesn't have the money for an abortion, or medical care after the coat hanger operation, and would most likely die either way I guess."
----Nowhere in this statement did I say "I vote for the abortion of poor people"


Abortions are not in any way routine or safe.. They are hard on a woman and if the mother was already in the kind of shape that she would be unable to carry the baby to full term it would be a very hard operation on her, the abortion that is.

My opinion is as important as yours .... Pls don't be an ass for the sake of looking witty.

Not what I said, but your twisted words certainly did make me sound classy.

Thanks...

Why? I said I was in agreement with you for the most part. I don't F***ing get it? Who did I say should die? WTF
NOBODY is the answer.

Let's re-read what I wrote.
"If a mother is to die of malnutrition because lack of finances she certainly doesn't have the money for an abortion, or medical care after the coat hanger operation, and would most likely die either way I guess."
----Nowhere in this statement did I say "I vote for the abortion of poor people"

Abortions are not in any way routine or safe.. They are hard on a woman and if the mother was already in the kind of shape that she would be unable to carry the baby to full term it would be a very hard operation on her, the abortion that is.

My opinion is as important as yours .... Pls don't be an ass for the sake of looking witty.


If a mother is to die of malnutrition BECAUSE OF LACK OF FINANCES she certainly doesn't have the money for an abortion, or medical care after the coat hanger operation, and would most likely die either way I guess.

If the mother is going to die of COMPLICATIONS DURING BIRTH then abortion could be a viable option, I suppose. (Pretty Rare except for third world countries I think.)

Mostly I AGREE with you IN THESE EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES.


Sorry - I added the UPPER CASE myself...

I'm not trying to be witty. Society is not an even playing field. Not everyone has the money (or whatever) to make the same moral jusgements. In the case of the poor - a very real possibility exists of complications and increased suffering... and, in those circumstances, you lean toward agreeing with abortion.

You only favour abortion for those in those circumstances - i.e. the poor.

I think anti-abortionists should concentrate on the social inequality that already exists, before trying to force that social inequality on another generation.

Sorry - I added the UPPER CASE myself...

I'm not trying to be witty. Society is not an even playing field. Not everyone has the money (or whatever) to make the same moral jusgements. In the case of the poor - a very real possibility exists of complications and increased suffering... and, in those circumstances, you lean toward agreeing with abortion.

You only favour abortion for those in those circumstances - i.e. the poor.

I think anti-abortionists should concentrate on the social inequality that already exists, before trying to force that social inequality on another generation.


I am not anti-abotion as my first post presented. I also have stated several times this is my opinion and do not wish it be enforced as law on anybody anywhere in the world. I am not trying to change your stance on the issue either.

You have made some very good arguments for abortion. And true maybe not everyone thinks about this debate being global law..When most people post it has to do with the norm as they see it. But yes there are ALWAYS exceptions to rules.. Thanks for pointing it out. :D

I am not anti-abotion as my first post presented. I also have stated several times this is my opinion and do not wish it be enforced as law on anybody anywhere in the world. I am not trying to change your stance on the issue either.

You have made some very good arguments for abortion. And true maybe not everyone thinks about this debate being global law..When most people post it has to do with the norm as they see it. But yes there are ALWAYS exceptions to rules.. Thanks for pointing it out. :D

I would LOVE to change people's stance on abortion. Not yours, not any individual, but collectively. Just not in the 'your side, my side' sense.

I would love to be able to remove the religious blinkers from many (since most people oppose abortion because of the 'sanctity of god-given life'), and place the focus where I believe it belongs - on the very real situation of a girl becoming a mother - and how she feels about that.

I would love to be able to lend the world compassion.

I would love to get people to question what they already know. They may still come to the same decision... or they may not... people are too much influenced by their cultures, and not enough by a little thought.

It's not that I am Pro-Abortion. I don't 'approve' of it. But, I do see it as a very necessary alternative. I am very much Pro-Choices.

If I offend, I apologise.

I would LOVE to change people's stance on abortion. Not yours, not any individual, but collectively. Just not in the 'your side, my side' sense.



I would love to get people to question what they already know. They may still come to the same decision... or they may not... people are too much influenced by their cultures, and not enough by a little thought.

It's not that I am Pro-Abortion. I don't 'approve' of it. But, I do see it as a very necessary alternative. I am very much Pro-Choices.

If I offend, I apologise.


Agreed
Agreed
Agreed after chating with you...Didn't think of the entire world. Sorry.
Not offened.. We just had a problem communicating.

Agreed
Agreed
Agreed after chating with you...Didn't think of the entire world. Sorry.
Not offened.. We just had a problem communicating.

I'm just going to sit and enjoy people agreeing for a moment in a forum thread....

It doesn't happen all that often..

:)

so the men get off scott-free?

What are you sugesting we castrate them as well?


and what about the men? they have no punishment for impregnating someone who does not want to be pregnant.

If you rape a woman you go to jail.

Good luck.. I have been debating with Terminalia in another thread, and he seems to have a marked intolerance for women. The old classic biblical 'woman as vessel' image... I assume.

lol more classics from Grave

Well Id rather see her as a vessel of life than some kind of garbage chute you do, and I have a marked intolerance and disgust for women who treat their bodys like this I admit, but not women as a whole.
And like Ive already said as distateful as I find it, I have no problem of course with women who abort because of rape, deformed kid, or serious danger to the mother.

You know what they say. If men could get pregnant, abortion would not just be legal, it would be a sacrament.

Finally... you have, perhaps unwittingly, just voted for the abortion of poor people. You don't really support it for the rich, but if they can't afford any better, let them die.

Who needs abotion for rich people? They're breeding themselves into extinction anyway.

Who needs abotion for rich people? They're breeding themselves into extinction anyway.

I think caucasian people are breeding themselves out this way as well, well except for the Catholics maybe.

You know what they say. If men could get pregnant, abortion would not just be legal, it would be a sacrament.

Its not physically possible due to a number of obvious reasons, so the arguement on how men would feel about getting pregnant or how they would handle it, is a stupid and pointless one, and always has been.

I think caucasian people are breeding themselves out this way as well, well except for the Catholics maybe.

Hey! That's hardly fair! Catholics have a HUGE birthrate! That's how we're still in business. Catholics convert or become athiest all the time. Solution: MORE CATHOLIC BABIES!

Reference The Meaning of Life - Monty Python.

Hey! That's hardly fair! Catholics have a HUGE birthrate! That's how we're still in business. Catholics convert or become athiest all the time. Solution: MORE CATHOLIC BABIES!

Reference The Meaning of Life - Monty Python.
I agree with the Catholics, Im one myself, read my post again.
Who told you that about the Catholics converting or going godless?

I agree with the Catholics, Im one myself, read my post again.
Who told you that about the Catholics converting or going godless?

Huh. I thought your post said that Catholics weren't breeding themselves to death. Sorry.

No one told me. Very few people convert to Catholicism, while people raised Catholic often convert. The whole high-reproduction rate thing is really just a gag, one better told by the Pythons than me.

[QUOTE=Arcadian Mists]Huh. I thought your post said that Catholics weren't breeding themselves to death. Sorry.

Thats allright, dont worry there will always be plenty of RC's around.

All the Catholics I meet usually have 2 to three kids, way over the national average, I myself have five siblings, and one of my Aunts had seven.
Looks great when a womans clucking over a huge brood. :)

Its not physically possible due to a number of obvious reasons, so the arguement on how men would feel about getting pregnant or how they would handle it, is a stupid and pointless one, and always has been.

There are days when I wish men could find themselves in those circumstances. Especially when they refuse to take responsibility for a child they helped to conceive. Maybe science will solve that, and soon men will have to worry too. ;)

I'd be only too happy to put men in a position that would give them a say in the matter.

Interesting. The bible prohibits philosophy, you know.

So, nothing deadens the mind like religion.

So - by your rules, it is not only JUST, but practically REQUIRED, that we should abort all the children of christians.

Nice.

Keep spreading the love, brother.

You don't know anything about the Bible at all. It's funny that you give me that comment to someone who studies it in the greek texts.

It's so easy to be picked apart when I am not here. Somebody should shoot me? That would be kind of hard, considering I am extremely good at paintball as a frontman. 7 guys in 30 seconds with me on the weak team. I love action. I was one of the last surfers that evacuated off the beach. I am sure I could of surfed longer, but people are too paranoid nowadays. Something gets a little turbulent in life and people freak out. Ah the blessedness of life that people take for granted.

As for controling nature. You gals really like to argue out of context. I said I control my body. Of course there is alot of involuntary actions, praise God, but I am typing this message to you right now and you are comprehending it right now. Don't downgrade yourself to an animal. If you do, the I rightly say that you are thinking like an animal, because obviously, you want to be one. Man that would be crazy controling all of your bodily functions. But for some reason I am able to do what I want to do with it. This body was given to me, and I'll ride it out until it shutsdown. Then it's time to move on. Go ahead, take me out of context again. It's easy to debate a fragment. The sum of all creation doesn't mean reproducing. It means that I think you are the best of all creation. I am not saying you create babies, I am saying you are the best and last thing created on earth.

And the other thing about killing Christians. So abortion is legalized and you want to make it mandatory on the people who don't support it. Ah, that's what I was always afraid of. I hope you never become President. If you want to support it and kill of your offspring, fine by me. But go killing off my offspring or one of my bros and you might end up shortening your own life as well as mine. I will give my life for the sake of my family's children so that they, can live one as well as mine.

the reason nobody explained it is because your "problem" is ridiculous and irrelevant.

how do we know those 40 million "future people" weren't going to grow up and destroy the world? or be totally mediocre?

my friend, call him Dan, was born to a woman who is open about the fact that she had an abortion when she was 16. if she had given birth instead of having an abortion, she never would have gone to college when she did, would never have met Dan's father, and Dan and his sisters would never have been born. Dan has just recently begun working as a pediatric oncologist (working on children who have cancer), and has already helped save at least one life.

Dan is just one example of why your "problem" is idiotic, because we can never know if the world would have been better or not had those "future people" come into the world. maybe instead of Dan we would have gotten somebody who cured cancer, or maybe (and more likely, according to all studies to date) we would have gotten a drug-abusing high school drop out who would end up doing more harm than good.

Thank you for proving that the point is relevant. THINK! Why would one permit a discretionary act that can alter history for the sake of convenience. Because one can't know one can't mess with it.

Your buddy's Mom need not have selfishly taken a life to go to college. We had the same situation across the street, the child was adopted. Now the sixteen year old girl is at college. Fix the adoption process not kill babies because its easier.

Talk about irrelevant, idiotic and ridiculous arguments. I have yet to read an argument willing to murder a defenseless human where the logic, when taken to its conclusion, is not really talking about personal convenience over responsibility for decisions made - they focus on the exceptions as if that should drive the overall principle.

Human life must be sacred in all forms starting with innocent life and going from there. IF not then we can justify killing people because they will have a "bad" life as we have seen repeatedly in this thread.

When it all comes down to it, there is only one time that Abortion should EVER come into play and thats when the Mother would be caused injury or death upon birth. People have not been giving the life of the unborn child the respect it diserves, when you come down to it, regardless to how you look at it, it is murder, just behind a large piece of skin fat, ect. People have though gotten around havening it become murder, giving it a nice name like abortion makes us feel not as bad, then we say "the baby isent aliev in the first few days, it doesent look like us, look! its hardly the size of a pea!" well...do dead things grow into what we are today? And I do understand and have sympathy for those who have been raped...or..."victoms" of incest. I could see why they would want to go about with "aborting" the childs life, but fact of the matter is, just because you dont want to life with the gift of a child, dosent mean someone else dosent. All around the world, Millions of married men and women whom can not concive kids would do so much to have a chance at having a child weather it comes from themselves or an adoption agency, I would Strongly recamend giving it a child up for adoption before slaying it at the hands of a doctor. "And when a doctor finishes his education, they take a vow to save peoples lives, but in the same hand, there ending 30-40 million a year with abortion". So i hope you see why i believe its time that we steped up the notch to respect the human life of the unborn, because for years, we have just lied to ourselves making things seem less brutal then they really are, So, lets call murder abortion, that way were not seen as killers, Lets call the baby a fetus, that way we dident kill a baby, when its a fetus in them its less then human, well, its obviously a baby, iv never heard a bunch of giddy women run up to there pregnaut friend saying "OHH! your going to have a fetus! your going to be so happy!" and if it isent a baby, what is it? because it is growing in there so it a fetus, because fetus's arnt alive right? so we can murder...im sorry, abort, them because we wouldent Dare murder a baby. So when what is it? its not just a glob of fleash, its not a shoe, or a door knob, its a living human being. its a baby, just like we all were once.

"Abortion is the one and only procedure prefored by docters were they do not need to let there patience know how it is preformed, Few know, but the 2 primary ways are to Burn them to death with the Solution type of an abortion, and the Vacume style of abortion were the baby is decapitatated piece by piece, this has also know to not work out and leave parts of the baby in the mother which yes have been known to come out after they finally do give birth, if they can, seeing how abortion does lower the chances of being able to concive again."

Five minutes before birth and five minutes after birth makes a huge difference, apparently, as to the status of a living being.

I'm reminded of a story from 10 years or so ago where a high school girl gave birth and put her baby in the trash can and she was arrested for murder. If she had had an abortion even an hour prior (though illegal I think now) she wouldn't have been convicted of murder.

Can someone explain the difference to me? How the only difference between an aborted fetus and a woman with child is whether or not the bay is wanted? If a pregnant woman is killed, the murderer is charged with a double homicide. It doesn't matter if she was on her way to, or on the steps of an abortion clinic!! Does no one else see the irony in this?

American Society needs to sort out these inconsistencies, and maybe then this debate won't be quite as heated...

Five minutes before birth and five minutes after birth makes a huge difference, apparently, as to the status of a living being.

I'm reminded of a story from 10 years or so ago where a high school girl gave birth and put her baby in the trash can and she was arrested for murder. If she had had an abortion even an hour prior (though illegal I think now) she wouldn't have been convicted of murder.

Gonna have to correct you there, Planetary Plunderers. Abortion is only legal until the second trimester, so strictly speaking killing the foetus "five minutes before birth" is still murder. At any time in the third trimester killing the foetus is illegal, and approximately comparable to murder.

Thank you for proving that the point is relevant. THINK! Why would one permit a discretionary act that can alter history for the sake of convenience. Because one can't know one can't mess with it.

um, actually i was showing how irrelevant it is to claim we can or can't "change the future." the future is not set, and what ever choice we make will determine it. according to your theory, and to the mistaken argument the previous poster tried to make, my decision to not be pregnant at this very minute is preventing the birth of the person who will cure cancer, and therefore i should go get pregnant RIGHT NOW or else i will be changing the future.

also, please read my post more carefully: "Dan"'s mother could not have gone to college WHEN SHE DID if she had kept the baby, because it would have physically been unsafe for her to move away to school while 9 months pregnant. she also would likely have chosen a different school, one closer to her family so she could have help raising the child, because she believes (as i do) that carrying a child to term with full intent of giving it away is the least responsible thing a person could possibly do. thus she would never have met Dan's father, Dan would never have been born, and THE FUTURE WOULD HAVE BEEN CHANGED!!!!

please, stop using these crap arguments...at least take a basic logic course or something to make you intelligible, for the love of pete.

Gonna have to correct you there, Planetary Plunderers. Abortion is only legal until the second trimester, so strictly speaking killing the foetus "five minutes before birth" is still murder. At any time in the third trimester killing the foetus is illegal, and approximately comparable to murder.
Now, I know this webpage here is biased (to the pro-abortion side), but :
Don’t women seek elective third-trimester abortions?
No. Long-standing, unchallenged statutes in 40 states and the District of Columbia prohibit third-trimester abortions except when the life or health of the woman is at stake.
http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=4998&c=148 40 States and the DoC, what about the other 10?

Five minutes before birth and five minutes after birth makes a huge difference, apparently, as to the status of a living being.

I'm reminded of a story from 10 years or so ago where a high school girl gave birth and put her baby in the trash can and she was arrested for murder. If she had had an abortion even an hour prior (though illegal I think now) she wouldn't have been convicted of murder.

Gonna have to correct you there, Planetary Plunderers. Abortion is only legal until the second trimester, so strictly speaking killing the foetus "five minutes before birth" is still murder. At any time in the third trimester killing the foetus is illegal, and approximately comparable to murder.
yup. let me say it again, folks:

ELECTIVE "LATE-TERM ABORTION" IS A MYTH. "partial birth" abortions and other third trimester procedures are ONLY performed in cases where it is either medically necessary to protect the woman or in cases where the fetus is already dead. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ELECTIVE LATE-TERM ABORTION IN THE UNITED STATES.

Thanks for the clairification all, so it's safe to say that a fetus becomes a constituionally protected human being at the 6 month mark, except when the mother's health is in danger?

During the period that abortions were illegal, over 50,000 women died during procedures to rid themselves of their burden. The sad truth is that no MATTER what we think is right, women are always going to want to get abortions. Maybe it's too much of an embarassment, maybe they're not fit to be mothers... whatever. If we make them illegal... then women will die.

To me an unborn Faetus up to a certain point of developement is no more a human being than a cheeseburger is, sorry if that sounds crude but it does sum up quite well.
Also in my book all anti-abortionists should be vegatarians, if they consider abortion to be murder then a cow or sheep has far more self awareness and feelings than any unborn baby.

If they object on religious grounds that the Faetus/baby has a soul and is 'human' then what exactly do they think will happen to that soul? No God worth following is going to damn it to hell/limbo when it has never reached the point where committing a sin or even an errant thought is possible.

The world is already overpopulated and the prospects for an unwanted baby are hardly optimistic. Either it goes up for adoption or is brought up by parents who never wanted it and may well be resentful of having to give up their lifestyle to raise a kid.

Of course contraception should have been used in the first place, but thats a whole other argument.

um, actually i was showing how irrelevant it is to claim we can or can't "change the future." the future is not set, and what ever choice we make will determine it. according to your theory, and to the mistaken argument the previous poster tried to make, my decision to not be pregnant at this very minute is preventing the birth of the person who will cure cancer, and therefore i should go get pregnant RIGHT NOW or else i will be changing the future.

You might give birth to the child that cures cancer, you never know.

Not that you CAN give birth anyway..

To me an unborn Faetus up to a certain point of developement is no more a human being than a cheeseburger is, sorry if that sounds crude but it does sum up quite well.
Also in my book all anti-abortionists should be vegatarians, if they consider abortion to be murder then a cow or sheep has far more self awareness and feelings than any unborn baby.



what is that stage of development? Is it arbitrarily decided on a case by case basis?

During the period that abortions were illegal, over 50,000 women died during procedures to rid themselves of their burden. The sad truth is that no MATTER what we think is right, women are always going to want to get abortions. Maybe it's too much of an embarassment, maybe they're not fit to be mothers... whatever. If we make them illegal... then women will die.
Have anything to back that up? IIRC some of the people who originally pushed the "back alley" myth admitted later that they fabricated numbers to advance their cause.

what is that stage of development? Is it arbitrarily decided on a case by case basis?

I think that is where the battle-lines are most seriously being drawn up. The arbitrary figure of "2/3rds through the nine-month cycle" sounds too neat to me, and not all people will have an identical opinion of the point where 'life' or 'humanity' appears in the unborn.

Is it when you first see a certain type of 'shape', when the heart starts beating, when the nervous system appears to be complete (or at least has the brain basically connected to the vital organs/limbs) or when? The point between it being a 'thing' and a 'child' might even be defined as the point at which it can survive outside of its mother, but does that include assistance from modern day medical equipment (incubators and oxygen tanks and things) or would that be too reliant on movable standards, due to the increased expertise and support that can be brought to bare on the young patient (plus the circumstances of the individual case). I would actually think it is earlier than that point, at the point where conciousness is first possible, but we know so little about the nature of consciousness and I'm sure are lacking even further when it comes to the negative-aged such as we are talking about.

In a way, it's like trying to place a definite age limit on alcohol consumption, marriage, etc. Different countries will have different standards, and in all places there will be some precocious brat who is well ahead of his peers in the maturity stakes (physically/mentally/whatever) and others who lag behind. It may not be as varying in the unborn, but then again maybe it is, depending on their environment (the womb, the mother, the mother's activities during pregancy).

Way beyond my level of knowledge, but as far as concepts go I'm swimming in them...

Thanks for the clairification all, so it's safe to say that a fetus becomes a constituionally protected human being at the 6 month mark, except when the mother's health is in danger?

Generally, yes. I am hedging my answer only because I do not have the exact statutes of each of the 50 states in front of me. :)

Is it when you first see a certain type of 'shape', when the heart starts beating, when the nervous system appears to be complete (or at least has the brain basically connected to the vital organs/limbs) or when? The point between it being a 'thing' and a 'child' might even be defined as the point at which it can survive outside of its mother, but does that include assistance from modern day medical equipment (incubators and oxygen tanks and things) or would that be too reliant on movable standards, due to the increased expertise and support that can be brought to bare on the young patient (plus the circumstances of the individual case). I would actually think it is earlier than that point, at the point where conciousness is first possible, but we know so little about the nature of consciousness and I'm sure are lacking even further when it comes to the negative-aged such as we are talking about.


I believe the current rule of thumb of "6 months" was indeed selected because it was an on-average age for a certain point of fetal development. Yes, you will find examples where a fetus is more or less developed at that point; yes, further medical advances that can sustain premature deliveries sooner than this date COULD soon lead to re-thinking that milestone. But at present, it's a "generally speaking, this is about a good time" milestone.

also, please read my post more carefully:

Ditto!

However this issue is a little too close to you for me to comment without appearing to insult the people you care for.

Same for me, I have a friend who broke off with a girl because of her views on this issue. He wouldn't risk it. 6 months later she aborted a child fathered by someone else.

You are right it can be an argument with infinite regressions. Particularly if you place no value on innocent human life.

It think it comes down to absolutes but this thread is about explaining the abortionist position and most have spent time bashing those who believe in the sanctity of human life and making excuses that boil down to justifying their own selfishness and irresponibility.


please, stop using these crap arguments...at least take a basic logic course or something to make you intelligible, for the love of pete.

Or just being rude.

[QUOTE=Syndra]You might give birth to the child that cures cancer, you never know.

Yes that is true.. but then you might also give birth to someone who becomes a serial killer, creates biological weapons or becomes a world leader who plunges the globe into a terrible war.

A warped logic would also suggest that if everyone had loads of kids to increase the chance that theres might cure cancer then all problems would get solved simply by spawning hordes of potential scientists.. though I know thats not what you mean to suggest.

As a woman, I feel it is my decision what I do with my body. In some circumstances, such as rape, incest rape, disease or physical harm to the fetus, abortion is an option. In my personal opinion, if I was raped and became pregnant, I would want an abortion. Why? Because I would want the child to be taken care of financially and emotionally. You see young girls having babies and most of the time they can't properly take care of the child due to lack of finances and they are not emotionally ready for it. It also has a high chance of destroying any successful future the mother has because it is harder for them to keep up with their studies. All in all, I fully support abortion.

Its not physically possible due to a number of obvious reasons, so the arguement on how men would feel about getting pregnant or how they would handle it, is a stupid and pointless one, and always has been.

If men COULD get pregnant, there would be less than Zero Population Growth. Women have amuch higher tolerance to pain than men... and if men had to have the children, there is NO WAY they would ever have more than one.

But well done, Terminalia, for not resorting to insults.

Oh, you did.

You don't know anything about the Bible at all. It's funny that you give me that comment to someone who studies it in the greek texts.

It's so easy to be picked apart when I am not here. Somebody should shoot me? That would be kind of hard, considering I am extremely good at paintball as a frontman. 7 guys in 30 seconds with me on the weak team. I love action. I was one of the last surfers that evacuated off the beach. I am sure I could of surfed longer, but people are too paranoid nowadays. Something gets a little turbulent in life and people freak out. Ah the blessedness of life that people take for granted.

As for controling nature. You gals really like to argue out of context. I said I control my body. Of course there is alot of involuntary actions, praise God, but I am typing this message to you right now and you are comprehending it right now. Don't downgrade yourself to an animal. If you do, the I rightly say that you are thinking like an animal, because obviously, you want to be one. Man that would be crazy controling all of your bodily functions. But for some reason I am able to do what I want to do with it. This body was given to me, and I'll ride it out until it shutsdown. Then it's time to move on. Go ahead, take me out of context again. It's easy to debate a fragment. The sum of all creation doesn't mean reproducing. It means that I think you are the best of all creation. I am not saying you create babies, I am saying you are the best and last thing created on earth.

And the other thing about killing Christians. So abortion is legalized and you want to make it mandatory on the people who don't support it. Ah, that's what I was always afraid of. I hope you never become President. If you want to support it and kill of your offspring, fine by me. But go killing off my offspring or one of my bros and you might end up shortening your own life as well as mine. I will give my life for the sake of my family's children so that they, can live one as well as mine.

A little scatter there... were any of these components addressed to me, or did you just like my quote?

If you WERE addressing me, don't worry I have no intention of becoming president... not being an american, and all.

And humans are animals. We are (in majority, certainly) not vegetables, and we are certainly not minerals - although we have some in us... why does this upset you so?

I also study the New Testament in Greek. Not the bible, of course - because the Old Testament was in Hebrew. I also study the Old Testament in Hebrew.
Oh, I have bibles in about 30 different modern language versions, also. And in Latin. What was your point?

The bible DOES prohibit philosophy... if you didn't know that, you haven't studied the bible very much.

And, I'm afraid it was you that started the whole 'aborting narrow minds" theme (or something like that... can't be bothered to go back and see quite which venom it was you spat) - I just pointed out that it applied to christians.

Not sure why you are such and angry, angry person.

Do you really think I am the best in all creation! Thank you. That's sweet!

Ke aloha nô me ka mahalo kâua!

When it all comes down to it, there is only one time that Abortion should EVER come into play and thats when the Mother would be caused injury or death upon birth. People have not been giving the life of the unborn child the respect it diserves, when you come down to it, regardless to how you look at it, it is murder, just behind a large piece of skin fat, ect. People have though gotten around havening it become murder, giving it a nice name like abortion makes us feel not as bad, then we say "the baby isent aliev in the first few days, it doesent look like us, look! its hardly the size of a pea!" well...do dead things grow into what we are today? And I do understand and have sympathy for those who have been raped...or..."victoms" of incest. I could see why they would want to go about with "aborting" the childs life, but fact of the matter is, just because you dont want to life with the gift of a child, dosent mean someone else dosent. All around the world, Millions of married men and women whom can not concive kids would do so much to have a chance at having a child weather it comes from themselves or an adoption agency, I would Strongly recamend giving it a child up for adoption before slaying it at the hands of a doctor. "And when a doctor finishes his education, they take a vow to save peoples lives, but in the same hand, there ending 30-40 million a year with abortion". So i hope you see why i believe its time that we steped up the notch to respect the human life of the unborn, because for years, we have just lied to ourselves making things seem less brutal then they really are, So, lets call murder abortion, that way were not seen as killers, Lets call the baby a fetus, that way we dident kill a baby, when its a fetus in them its less then human, well, its obviously a baby, iv never heard a bunch of giddy women run up to there pregnaut friend saying "OHH! your going to have a fetus! your going to be so happy!" and if it isent a baby, what is it? because it is growing in there so it a fetus, because fetus's arnt alive right? so we can murder...im sorry, abort, them because we wouldent Dare murder a baby. So when what is it? its not just a glob of fleash, its not a shoe, or a door knob, its a living human being. its a baby, just like we all were once.

"Abortion is the one and only procedure prefored by docters were they do not need to let there patience know how it is preformed, Few know, but the 2 primary ways are to Burn them to death with the Solution type of an abortion, and the Vacume style of abortion were the baby is decapitatated piece by piece, this has also know to not work out and leave parts of the baby in the mother which yes have been known to come out after they finally do give birth, if they can, seeing how abortion does lower the chances of being able to concive again."

Those are your opinions. You are welcome to them.

And, so long as you don't allow those prejudices to affect other people's lives, we can all get along.

So - abortion hides behind a mask? Surely, anti-abortion is commiting that very crime with it's pretence to be 'Pro-Life', when, in fact, they are specifically targetting abortion?

Oh - and they don't 'burn' the foetus to death... because a foetus at that stage isn't 'alive' yet.

Or, do you lament the loss of a tree when you step on an acorn?

If men COULD get pregnant, there would be less than Zero Population Growth. Women have amuch higher tolerance to pain than men... and if men had to have the children, there is NO WAY they would ever have more than one.

But well done, Terminalia, for not resorting to insults.

Oh, you did.

Oh I didnt.

But thanks for resorting to lies again Grave, and you sort of really stepped on your own foot there, as I did'nt in any way resort to what you made out and its plain for every one to see that.
As Homer likes to say
DOH!

Also prove that women have a higher ability to handle pain than men, and dont go to Childbirth as an example because besides the obvious, alot of women opt for caesarion birth to avoid the pain and also are given drugs to cope.
Hardly indicative if a superior ability to handle pain is it.

Ive noticed alot of women who go on about childbirth being the ultimate pain a human being can suffer ususally have no kids or one.
Where as the ones with 3 or more dont seem to be carrying this badge of honnour around whenever pain is discussed.
How many kids do you have again Grave?

It probably feels worse than appendicitus but with a reward at the end of it.

Oh I didnt.
But thanks for resorting to lies again Grave, and you sort of really stepped on your own foot there, as I did'nt in any way resort to what you made out and its plain for every one to see that.


Actually: "The arguement on how men would feel about getting pregnant... is a stupid and pointless one". You don't think that insulting? You said it, remember... but how would you feel if I told you that all YOUR arguments were "stupid and pointless"?

Mouth open... insert foot.


Also prove that women have a higher ability to handle pain than men, and dont go to Childbirth as an example because besides the obvious, alot of women opt for caesarion birth to avoid the pain and also are given drugs to cope.
Hardly indicative if a superior ability to handle pain is it.


Now THAT is a ridiculous statement? Have you ever ACTUALLY met anyone who had a caesarian to AVOID PAIN? I haven't. As far as I know, doctors aren't allowed to give caesarians unless medically necessary. (i.e. potential risk of life to baby or mother).

Ive noticed alot of women who go on about childbirth being the ultimate pain a human being can suffer ususally have no kids or one.
Where as the ones with 3 or more dont seem to be carrying this badge of honnour around whenever pain is discussed.
How many kids do you have again Grave?

My mother had five. She described it as "like trying to s**t a football" and "like pushing a melon through a cut the size of a lemon".

She didn't whine about it... but when it was discussed, those were her poetic ways to describe it.

I'm really not sure how my number of children would matter?

So then, as previously mentioned, you believe that (male) masturbation murders millions of 'LIVE HUMAN BEING NOT YET BORN'.

You obviously don't know much in the way of medical science.

i said "from the moment of conception", not masturbation...

and you obviously don't know the difference...and that is pathetic on the part of one who implies to know much about medical science in the way of default by accusing another of not "know(ing) much in the way of medical science"...

so let me explain: conception is when one or two out of millions of male sperm enter and fertilize(s) the female egg at which point a new, unique individual, 'LIVE HUMAN BEING NOT YET BORN' is created...its DNA will attest to this fact...

masturbation is when male sperm by the millions are shot into the air, or a napkin, or...

apples and oranges...no comaparison...

Now, for those people that support abortion in other circumstances than those mentioned above, explain your position.
It's because I hate fetuses Donna. They're just so... fetal.

It's because I hate fetuses Donna. They're just so... fetal.

Heh heh. I like the version from Oh My Gods!.

"Yeah, I love children. I just can't eat a whole one."

First all – an abortionist is a doctor who actually performs an abortion, not someone who supports abortion rights. But no matter, I know what you mean…

Now, for those people that support abortion in other circumstances than those mentioned above, explain your position.

Well, I am going to be honest with you. It is probably because I am too compassionate, too caring, and too sympathetic – that is why I would support an abortion in circumstances other than the ones listed.

I honestly believe it ludicrous to say that an embryo has the right to life. Plainly, and simply, I have no problem with any abortions (whatever the reasons for these are) up to the second month of pregnancy. After that, things get very completed and I, myself, am divided and still hearing both sides of the argument.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Actually: "The arguement on how men would feel about getting pregnant... is a stupid and pointless one". You don't think that insulting? You said it, remember... but how would you feel if I told you that all YOUR arguments were "stupid and pointless"?

Mouth open... insert foot.


=Terminalia]Its not physically possible due to a number of obvious reasons, so the arguement on how men would feel about getting pregnant or how they would handle it, is a stupid and pointless one, and always has been.


Now anyone can see from the original statement I made here to to the person in question, that I was not calling the person in question stupid and pointless for using that arguement, just the actual arguement used itself, of course immediately Grave has to shriek insult!

Even though I said it has always been a stupid and pointless arguement straight after, in no way was I having a go at the person in question.

Grave then goes on to fall flat, by asserting that in how would I like to be told that all my arguements were pointless and stupid (I admit this one is, but this is usually the case unforunately with my discourse with Grave) that I have somehow said the same to the person in question, this is just laughable as its the only time I have conversed with her so how have I called all her arguements pointless and worthless like Grave ridiculously asserts?

Would you like some pepper with that foot now Grave?


Now THAT is a ridiculous statement? Have you ever ACTUALLY met anyone who had a caesarian to AVOID PAIN? I haven't. As far as I know, doctors aren't allowed to give caesarians unless medically necessary. (i.e. potential risk of life to baby or mother).


Yes, but this was necessary as the baby had turned.

Sorry but women are allowed to have caesarion birth on request, as its their choice, up to 60% of women going to the RNS Hospital in Nth Sydney have lately requested this method.

My mother had five. She described it as "like trying to s**t a football" and "like pushing a melon through a cut the size of a lemon".

That old chestnut lol.

She didn't whine about it... but when it was discussed, those were her poetic ways to describe it.

Course not, most women with large familys dont, its the ones who have one or none that go on a crusade about it.

And alot of women also have very easy births, sometimes over in less than a few minutes.

Also women should be encouraged to find easier ways to deliver babys, some tribes in Africa use a painless method where they give birth in water, and use better breathing techniques, also why are women in western societys made to lie down to give birth, surely an easier way would be to squat, then you would be able to use your legs better as well to help.

i'm for exceedingly late-term abortions.. to the age of, say, 5.

i'm for exceedingly late-term abortions.. to the age of, say, 5.

Gee they would love you in Chechyna, maybe you could move there and sign up to be in one of their terror brigades?

Being male and having been there and done that with a past gf, and, being very young at the time...I can honestly say we are both glad we did it, but both think about it from time time some 15 years later.

[QUOTE]

Now anyone can see from the original statement I made here to to the person in question, that I was not calling the person in question stupid and pointless for using that arguement, just the actual arguement used itself, of course immediately Grave has to shriek insult!

Even though I said it has always been a stupid and pointless arguement straight after, in no way was I having a go at the person in question.

Grave then goes on to fall flat, by asserting that in how would I like to be told that all my arguements were pointless and stupid (I admit this one is, but this is usually the case unforunately with my discourse with Grave) that I have somehow said the same to the person in question, this is just laughable as its the only time I have conversed with her so how have I called all her arguements pointless and worthless like Grave ridiculously asserts?

Would you like some pepper with that foot now Grave?

Yes, but this was necessary as the baby had turned.

Sorry but women are allowed to have caesarion birth on request, as its their choice, up to 60% of women going to the RNS Hospital in Nth Sydney have lately requested this method.

That old chestnut lol.

Course not, most women with large familys dont, its the ones who have one or none that go on a crusade about it.

And alot of women also have very easy births, sometimes over in less than a few minutes.

Also women should be encouraged to find easier ways to deliver babys, some tribes in Africa use a painless method where they give birth in water, and use better breathing techniques, also why are women in western societys made to lie down to give birth, surely an easier way would be to squat, then you would be able to use your legs better as well to help.

Ok, let's get this straight. We're talking about a lot of hypothetical situations here. I wouldn't say that questioning how men would react if they could become pregnant is so much more ridiculous than any of the others which have been brought up.

Secondly, Terminalia, you have too been on my every post like flies on shit, at least in this thread. I suppose if I wanted to check whether you still had a pulse from the other side of the world, all I'd have to do is post again, just to see if you'd answer.

Thirdly, you don't seem to understand the process of giving birth or the methods or the feelings of women the world over in reaction to it much at all. Yes, there are women who have near painless births. Hell, there have been babies born while the mother was sitting on the toilet, because she didn't know it was labor, she just though she had to take a dump. ON the other hand, there are women who spend days in agony, every time. Maybe the ones who only have one kid are the ones who don't think they could live through it again. Maybe the first one was so bad that the doctor told them it would be a bad idea to have another one.

Western countries have water birthing too. They have all kinds of options for those who want to have their babies in whatever way. You might think that they're all giving birth on their backs because you watch too much tv. That's not really how it is anymore. The gurney/stirrups thing is kind of fifties. A lot of women now give birth at home, with a licensed midwife. Or, if they want to, they can do it in a plastic wading pool. That method, by the way, isn't painless. It can be, if that's the kind of birth it's going to be, an easy one in the first place, but that is no guarantee. Don't try to say that a water birth is always painless. If it was, you can be sure it would be the standard all over the world. Cesarean sections are not elective procedures. You can request one, but that's no promise that you'll get one. Usually that happens when it's taking too long, and when the baby is in a breach position.

Another thing. Because we sometimes need an epidural, we're not that good at taking pain? So basically, anyone who needs pain medication has a low pain threshold? That's bull. If someone needs to be put under to have their leg amputated, I'm sure you won't be telling him he's a wuss for not wanting to bear into that pain. Sure, maybe he could have made it through the trauma of the amputation without it. Maybe it's not the time or place to see just how much pain he can take, though.

The day you celebrate 20 years of practicing obstetric medicine, or go into labor, Terminalia, is the day when you can speak as an authority on pregnancy and childbirth. Otherwise, stop talking out of your ass about it.

Ok, let's get this straight. We're talking about a lot of hypothetical situations here. I wouldn't say that questioning how men would react if they could become pregnant is so much more ridiculous than any of the others which have been brought up.

Secondly, Terminalia, you have too been on my every post like flies on shit, at least in this thread. I suppose if I wanted to check whether you still had a pulse from the other side of the world, all I'd have to do is post again, just to see if you'd answer.

Thirdly, you don't seem to understand the process of giving birth or the methods or the feelings of women the world over in reaction to it much at all. Yes, there are women who have near painless births. Hell, there have been babies born while the mother was sitting on the toilet, because she didn't know it was labor, she just though she had to take a dump. ON the other hand, there are women who spend days in agony, every time. Maybe the ones who only have one kid are the ones who don't think they could live through it again. Maybe the first one was so bad that the doctor told them it would be a bad idea to have another one.

Western countries have water birthing too. They have all kinds of options for those who want to have their babies in whatever way. You might think that they're all giving birth on their backs because you watch too much tv. That's not really how it is anymore. The gurney/stirrups thing is kind of fifties. A lot of women now give birth at home, with a licensed midwife. Or, if they want to, they can do it in a plastic wading pool. That method, by the way, isn't painless. It can be, if that's the kind of birth it's going to be, an easy one in the first place, but that is no guarantee. Don't try to say that a water birth is always painless. If it was, you can be sure it would be the standard all over the world. Cesarean sections are not elective procedures. You can request one, but that's no promise that you'll get one. Usually that happens when it's taking too long, and when the baby is in a breach position.

Another thing. Because we sometimes need an epidural, we're not that good at taking pain? So basically, anyone who needs pain medication has a low pain threshold? That's bull. If someone needs to be put under to have their leg amputated, I'm sure you won't be telling him he's a wuss for not wanting to bear into that pain. Sure, maybe he could have made it through the trauma of the amputation without it. Maybe it's not the time or place to see just how much pain he can take, though.

The day you celebrate 20 years of practicing obstetric medicine, or go into labor, Terminalia, is the day when you can speak as an authority on pregnancy and childbirth. Otherwise, stop talking out of your ass about it.

Well, thank you for saving me having to respond to another one of Terminalia's rants.

Unfortunately, you are using "logic" and "facts" - and one of Terminalia's 'super-powers' is that he is immune to both.

[QUOTE]

Now anyone can see from the original statement I made here to to the person in question, that I was not calling the person in question stupid and pointless for using that arguement, just the actual arguement used itself, of course immediately Grave has to shriek insult!

Even though I said it has always been a stupid and pointless arguement straight after, in no way was I having a go at the person in question.



Take a breath, Terminalia. Calm down, and reread it.

I pasted your post exactly as you typed it, except that I excised some of the text - but not the important part.

If you tell someone that their opinion is stupid and pointless - that IS an insult.

Imagine we were discussing Christianity - and, for the sake of this example, imagine YOU are a Christian.

Now - I tell you that Christianity is 'stupid' and 'pointless'... would you feel that I was being insulting?

I'm not sure if it is sensitivity you lack, or social graces.

If you tell someone that their opinion is stupid and pointless - that IS an insult.


No, that is expressing an opinion about an opinion. We certainly have some thin skinned people around here.... :rolleyes:

No, that is expressing an opinion about an opinion. We certainly have some thin skinned people around here.... :rolleyes:

Dont worry about Grave, thin skin is non existant in this ones case, more like no skin at all lol.

aslong as a feotus has gills, i don't consider it a person.. do you call tadpoles frogs?

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov99/944001164.Dv.r.html

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
If you tell someone that their opinion is stupid and pointless - that IS an insult.


Wrong again, I tried to make it very simple for even you to grasp, that I was condemning her arguement, which is and again for you always has been a pointless one, not her for having it, but once again you have to see this as an issue of playing the man or woman in this case not the ball.

Just let it go, your not amusing anyone


Imagine we were discussing Christianity - and, for the sake of this example, imagine YOU are a Christian.

Well thats not to hard too imagine, Ive expressed on here to you and others that I am a Christian, but you still feel the need to say Im not.
Now Im going to ask you nicely if your mature enough, to cease your own insults.



Now - I tell you that Christianity is 'stupid' and 'pointless'... would you feel that I was being insulting?

No, I would just wonder why you even bothered.


I'm not sure if it is sensitivity you lack, or social graces.

Try and get some of those qualitys yourself before you accuse others on here of lacking them.

aslong as a feotus has gills, i don't consider it a person.. do you call tadpoles frogs?


Yes, they are juvenile frogs.

[QUOTE=Sheilanagig]Ok, let's get this straight. We're talking about a lot of hypothetical situations here. I wouldn't say that questioning how men would react if they could become pregnant is so much more ridiculous than any of the others which have been brought up.

Like?

Secondly, Terminalia, you have too been on my every post like flies on shit, at least in this thread. I suppose if I wanted to check whether you still had a pulse from the other side of the world, all I'd have to do is post again, just to see if you'd answer.


I was just debating your arguement or chatting, despite Grave going on like a pork chop about me insulting you, I can assure you it was not so intended, if your not interested in conversing anymore at all just say so, and I promise not to bother you further.


Thirdly, you don't seem to understand the process of giving birth or the methods or the feelings of women the world over in reaction to it much at all. Yes, there are women who have near painless births. Hell, there have been babies born while the mother was sitting on the toilet, because she didn't know it was labor, she just though she had to take a dump. ON the other hand, there are women who spend days in agony, every time. Maybe the ones who only have one kid are the ones who don't think they could live through it again. Maybe the first one was so bad that the doctor told them it would be a bad idea to have another one.

Well your original arguement suggesting men (joke) wouldnt have kids because its too painfilled, is nullified by what I've highlighted in above quote.
What I'm getting at is whenever birth is mentioned its always described as an agonising experience that men couldnt handle if they had the same equipment as women( when for all you know we could see it as some trial of manhood(joke) and grit our teeth and show as little pain as possible, then brag about it to all the boys afterwards- or shock horror we might even be better at handling the experience..... if we had the necessary plumbing of course.

Western countries have water birthing too. They have all kinds of options for those who want to have their babies in whatever way. You might think that they're all giving birth on their backs because you watch too much tv.

Well for a start I dont have a TV or want one.

That's not really how it is anymore. The gurney/stirrups thing is kind of fifties.

Its still standard proceedure for most births in Western Hospitals.

A lot of women now give birth at home, with a licensed midwife.

Millions each year right?


Or, if they want to, they can do it in a plastic wading pool. That method, by the way, isn't painless. It can be, if that's the kind of birth it's going to be, an easy one in the first place, but that is no guarantee. Don't try to say that a water birth is always painless. If it was, you can be sure it would be the standard all over the world. Cesarean sections are not elective procedures. You can request one, but that's no promise that you'll get one. Usually that happens when it's taking too long, and when the baby is in a breach position.

Well I saw a doco on this that described the water method as less painful for the mother and more natural for the baby.

A huge amount of women are requesting caesarion deliverys in Australia, so much for the superior ability or rather the belief in, at handling pain.

Another thing. Because we sometimes need an epidural, we're not that good at taking pain? So basically, anyone who needs pain medication has a low pain threshold?

Depends on the pain there going through, some people can handle more than others before they ask for help, this has nothing to do with their sex, remember I'm not putting forward a case here of of one sex handling pain better than the other, just refuting women in general handling pain better than men purely because of their sex .

That's bull. If someone needs to be put under to have their leg amputated, I'm sure you won't be telling him he's a wuss for not wanting to bear into that pain.


Course not, I wouldnt dream of hassling anyone in pain.
And you dont hear people bragging about being able to handle the pain of getting their leg amputated better because of their sex.
And if they do then their fools.

The day you celebrate 20 years of practicing obstetric medicine,

Have you?

or go into labor, Terminalia,

Yeah like thats going to happen.

Look we know you suffer pain, just stop going on about it all the time whenever childbirth is discussed, as some kind of measuring stick to handle pain, I ve been through some painful stuff in my life, but I dont feel the need to bash the other sex over the head with it all the time, sorry but it got dull years ago.

Terminalia, you take the prize for most contentious. I think you argue with me not because you disagree per se, but because you're bored, and want to see how long we'll keep it up.

Terminalia, you take the prize for most contentious. I think you argue with me not because you disagree per se, but because you're bored, and want to see how long we'll keep it up.

Not at all Im just expressing how I feel on certain issues, if Im wrong about things then this is a good way to find out.

Why do people post on a forum such as this and then complain when people of differing views engage them in debate?

I think it's wrong. It's the girl's fault for having sex with someone she's not ready to make a commitment with. With rape, well, put it up for adoption. You'll get more respect for being a hero and being strong, and having the responsibility to bear the child.

Let's say two mothers get pregnant on the same day. One mother's baby is born a week premature. They both decide they don't want the babies anymore. Why would the premature baby's death be a horrible, heinous crime, while the one that's still in its mother's womb just be an exercising of her rights?

Oh, and would it make any difference if it was you who got the abortion? Would any of you here now mind if your parents got you an abortion and cut your life short?

But, no matter what, if it isn't rape, then it will always be her fault she's pregnant. If people would exercise some self control, then this wouldn't be a problem. No sex before marriage, no need for abortion! What is so frickin' hard to see?

1) An unwanted pregnancy can cause a helluva lot more than physical damage.

Well... it was your fault.

2) An abortion is way cheaper than having a kid..

Well... it was your fault.

3) I'm childfree, I don't want children now or ever.

Well, if you get one, it was, well, your fault.

4) A child deserves to be planned.

It's your fault the child is unplanned.

5) A fetus is not a human being, legally, or according to my opinion. It is a parasite.

Well, it's, umm... your fault it's there.

6) Just live IVF, it is a private matter decided only by the individual it concerns. I mean, I'm not too fond of IVF because there are children in third world countries that need adoption, and the world is vastly overpopulated, but I'm not going to tell an otherwise infertile couple that they cannot biologically reproduce.

What does this have to do with the subject...?

) My body. My choice.

It's not your body. It's the child's body. And you don't have a choice to end something you brought upon yourself by ending a life.

I think we've all learned a lesson here today.

IT'S YOUR FRICKING FAULT! DEAL WITH IT!

I'd respect any woman who'd go through the pregnancy and take it, then put it up for adoption. If any woman got an abortion, that's it for me, I have no respect for her.

Pro-Life always. Because anything else is just favoring a selfish idiot.

(P.S., condoms aren't 100%, kiddies. About 4% slip or break during intercourse)

I wish someone would reply and give a decent reply for my post to justify abortion.

An abortion can be avoided... BY USING PROTECTION. I fully support abortion, unless it is being used as a method of birth control, especially if the mother is young, a child herself, in a position where she cannot financially support her child, perhaps the father (if known) refuses to help, a victim of rape, ostracised by her family, a deformity of the unborn child, or all/some of these factors. Abortion can never be just plain WRONG, the individual's circumstances, and those of the unborn child, need to be taken into consideration. Can one offer this kid a life? Two parents are better than one, and often enough it is the mother who is the single parent. It is most likely a good idea to use a couple of forms of birth control, and leave the baby making till later. Ofcourse there is the occasion when the condom rips, but a sexually active woman must keep an accurate check of her period so if she is late, can do something about it before giving a bunch of cells a life.

C'mon everyone! :fluffle: Let us practise safe sex!

aslong as a feotus has gills, i don't consider it a person.. do you call tadpoles frogs?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
YOU MUST BE JOKING!

obviously you are refferring to the LOOOOOOOOOONG discredited so-called "theory of recapitulation" formulated in 1866 by also discredited evolutionist Dr. Ernst Haeckel, a theory in which this fraudulent so-called doctor promoted the fraudulent notion that the embryo of a human or a complex animal goes through stages resembling the embryos of its ancestors...

The idea that human fetuses have gill slits is a part of what was known as the "Biogenetic Law"...hahahahahahahaha!

In 1874 another German professor, Wilhelm His, showed that Haeckel had deliberately altered earlier sketches of human and dog embryos to support this fraudulent "theory".

This dishonesty was admitted in the Introduction to the Centennial Edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species (1956): "When the 'convergence' of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The 'biogenetic law' as proof of evolution is valueless."

at NO stage in its develeopment does a human EVER have gills...

a MORONIC concept only an idiot would believe...

do us all a favor and crawl back into whichever cave it was that you crawled out of, you knuckledragger!

(P.S., condoms aren't 100%, kiddies. About 4% slip or break during intercourse)

I have to quote myself.

Safe sex isn't the solution. There is no such thing as safe sex. Unless you're doing it with your commited partner and you are planning to have a baby.

The plain and simple solution is to be responsible about sex and only share it with the true love of your life, after marriage!

I don't have a problem with abortion. One of you posted on this forum that its all the girls fault - well - it takes two to have sex. Whether a pregnancy comes about through irresponsibility or just unfortunate cirumstances (through no fault of the couple e.g. condom breakage), then support should be given to whomever needs it.

In the first instance, its the girls choice. I has to be - its her body. Its her life too. If the girl is in the middle/start of a career or has no career - why bring the child into a world where she cannot support it? Not that I have any expereince of this but giving up a child for foster care must be heart-wrenching, if that is the only other choice.

The key issue to abortion has always been concerned with when human life begins. Medically, I support the fact that the legal termination date is up to 24 weeks gone in pregnancy.

But for the sake of the girl and the 'possible' child - let abortion continue.

The above may not be the the best argument here for abortion, but I'd rather support someone than ridicule them for going through a termination.

I have to quote myself.

Safe sex isn't the solution. There is no such thing as safe sex. Unless you're doing it with your commited partner and you are planning to have a baby.

The plain and simple solution is to be responsible about sex and only share it with the true love of your life, after marriage!

this is why multiple methods of birth control are a good idea. if a person is on the pill, the risk of pregnancy is 1%. add condom usage to that, and the risk is decreased again to 0.03% (condoms are 97% effective) if you get on depo prova (aka the shot), then that's pretty much a guarantee of 100% effective birth control unless your hormones are really bizarre.

I think it's wrong. It's the girl's fault for having sex with someone she's not ready to make a commitment with.

it's also the boy's fault, ass. i say we force him to undergo hormone therapy for 9 months and put on 40 lbs, then shit out a watermelon. and hey, if you're willing to subject women to this kind of punishment for a mistake, why the hell do guys get off scott-free.

With rape, well, put it up for adoption. You'll get more respect for being a hero and being strong, and having the responsibility to bear the child.

personally, if i was raped and impregnated, i wouldn't carry the child for one simple reason: i don't want that bastard to have his genes live on to the next generation. hell, rapists should probably be castrated as it is.

Let's say two mothers get pregnant on the same day. One mother's baby is born a week premature. They both decide they don't want the babies anymore. Why would the premature baby's death be a horrible, heinous crime, while the one that's still in its mother's womb just be an exercising of her rights?

abortions that late in pregnancy aren't done unless they're medically necessary. are you saying that a woman must die giving birth because the fetus is more important than she is?

Oh, and would it make any difference if it was you who got the abortion? Would any of you here now mind if your parents got you an abortion and cut your life short?

my parents were married for 9 years before i was even conceived and i was a planned pregancy. had i been aborted, i wouldn't have had a life to begin with and i wouldn't have reached this stage of development where i could really give a damn, now would i have?

But, no matter what, if it isn't rape, then it will always be her fault she's pregnant.

what if she was pressured? some guys don't let up on girls until they submit to sex. what if she was unaware that antibiotics nullified the effects of the pill (which is why you have to leave two hours between anti-anything pills and taking the birth control pill... for refrence for you all) what if it takes mroe than one person to impregnate? what if you know, there is a partner in all this? ass. it takes two to tango, if i could impregnate myself, then it would be my fault entirely if i were to find myself in such a situation, however, i can't do that, now can i?

If people would exercise some self control, then this wouldn't be a problem. No sex before marriage, no need for abortion! What is so frickin' hard to see?

i've probably had premarital sex a hundred times thus far with my boyfriend. i've never been pregnant. i'm on the birth control pill and we make sure we have condoms as well. the probability of a pregnancy is pretty damn low and we've already discussed what we would do should such a situation arise. and believe me, you wouldn't like it.



Well... it was your fault.



Well... it was your fault.



Well, if you get one, it was, well, your fault.



It's your fault the child is unplanned.



Well, it's, umm... your fault it's there.

there you go again, blaming the woman.

It's not your body. It's the child's body. And you don't have a choice to end something you brought upon yourself by ending a life.

it's not a life yet. life is defined as from birth to death. you don't say that by killing one bacteria, you've killed millions, do you? even though one bacteria could potentially preproduce and result in a million bacteria.
a fetus is a potential life, just as one bacteria cell is potentially a million bacteria cells. there are a million possible things that could happen from conception to birth to prevent it from becoming an infant. i.e. 50% of all fertilized ovum don't even attach themselves to the uterine wall, resulting in the expulsion of the fertilized egg.
and by the way, whose body is it growing in? not yours, that's for damn sure. how's this, if you don't want a woman to "kill a baby" then you can remove it from her womb and implant it in yourself. ok?

I think we've all learned a lesson here today.

that you're an insensitive bastard?

I'd respect any woman who'd go through the pregnancy and take it, then put it up for adoption. If any woman got an abortion, that's it for me, I have no respect for her.

and i'm sure every woman out there wants to earn the respect of such a mysoginist as yourself.

Because anything else is just favoring a selfish idiot.

again, you're an idiot.

OK, I do not know what some of you people have been smoking, but abortion is murder. I will give you some common reasons for abortion and effective rebuttals.
1)"It's my body; I have the right to choose"
- It is NOT her body; no one has a right to do something wrong
2)The fetus is just a clump of cells, a glob of tissue much like, say, skin.
-Nevertheless, it is alive and skin cells cannot suddenly become a human life.
3)An unborn baby cannot think or communicate; therefore, it is not a person
-In late-term, it can communicate. People do the funky headset thi9ng in third trimester, if that works, its brain functions.
4)A fetus becomes human when it can live on its own
-Does that mean that any person that is not a hermit can be killed at a whim?
5)Abortion is legal
-Abortion is murder and murder is illegal; therefore, abortion is an unjust law.
6)If abortion becomes illegal, it will go into the back alleys.
-True, but # of abortions will decrease and it will not be supported
7)You can't legislate morality
-Morality is legislated around the clock
8)I'm personnaly opposed to abortion, but I'm not going to tell other people what to do.
-They may not be properly informed and they do not have to listen.
9) I'm against late-term abortions, but we should allow it in the first trimester.
-It is no less human in the first trimester than in the third as a child is no less human when it is one year old than when it is an adult.
10)We must make exceptions for cases of rape and incest.
-For rape the child can be adopted and for incest, well the royal families of the world inbred for millenia and they weren't too seriously effected, except for hemophilia.
11)I could never give my child to someone else to raise.
-If a mother cared that much about her child she would not abort it.
12)having a child is too expensive.
-Abortion ain't free, and there are programs to help with the burden+ adoption.
13)Health of the mother.
-Use other methods. Take for instance a tubal pregnancy: Be in the mindset of removing the defective organ, not the child. You do not want to remove the child, but it is a sideffect.
14)Social pressure
-there is socil pressure to do drugs; just say no

Get this stuck in your mind. Oh, all contraceptives contain progestin, which is an abortifacient because it prevents the child from attaching to the uteran wall, thus killing it,i.e., an ABORTifacient.

OK, I do not know what some of you people have been smoking, but abortion is murder. I will give you some common reasons for abortion and effective rebuttals.
1)"It's my body; I have the right to choose"
- It is NOT her body; no one has a right to do something wrong
It's pretty much her body. It is her oxygen, her nutrients, and the hormone mix is most definitely something of her concern.


2)The fetus is just a clump of cells, a glob of tissue much like, say, skin.
-Nevertheless, it is alive and skin cells cannot suddenly become a human life.
They can if they are nurtured correctly, much the same as the fetus must be nurtured correctly. (Ok, so there's more science involved in the former, but the principle stands.)


3)An unborn baby cannot think or communicate; therefore, it is not a person
-In late-term, it can communicate. People do the funky headset thi9ng in third trimester, if that works, its brain functions.
Which is part of the reason why abortion is (except under exceptional circumstances) banned after a cut-off-date.


4)A fetus becomes human when it can live on its own
-Does that mean that any person that is not a hermit can be killed at a whim?
"Live on its own" does not equal "Scavange for roots and berries". A born child is just as incapable of scavenging but is undoubtedly human. A slightly premature baby can at least exist in the 'outside world' but needs help and would be considered human on birth. The ages of fetus we're talking about are basically ones whereby separation from the mother and exposure to the outside world is inevitably fatal. Even with modern technology, which is getting better at helping increasingly premature babies (ones who could not stay in the womb for whatever reason) to survive in the outside world. We are nowhere near being able to do the same to fetuses of the age we're talking about.


5)Abortion is legal
-Abortion is murder and murder is illegal; therefore, abortion is an unjust law.
Abortion isn't a 'law'. Abortion is a legal option. Plus that looks suspiciously like a circular argument when you're still trying to prove that abortion is murder in the first place but use that fact as the basis of your proof.


6)If abortion becomes illegal, it will go into the back alleys.
-True, but # of abortions will decrease and it will not be supported
The adverse consequences for the mothers (both in illegal abortions and in attempting to bring a child to term) will increase though. And when you say "it will not be supported", you mean that emergency rooms won't help treat women who have come from backstreat clinics with complications?


7)You can't legislate morality
-Morality is legislated around the clock
Legality is legislated and is a totality of a written legal system. Morality is a subjective view by each and everyone one of us which may or may not be identical.


8)I'm personnaly opposed to abortion, but I'm not going to tell other people what to do.
-They may not be properly informed and they do not have to listen.
How does this prove abortion as murder? This is free speech/education. (And by "properly informed" you mean "indoctrinate", right?


9) I'm against late-term abortions, but we should allow it in the first trimester.
-It is no less human in the first trimester than in the third as a child is no less human when it is one year old than when it is an adult.
There are significant developmental differences between unborn fetuses prior to a certain point and a the newborn child that greatly exceeds that of the differences between even the new-born child and an adult of 60 or more.
It is only the placement of this point that most people argue about.


10)We must make exceptions for cases of rape and incest.
-For rape the child can be adopted and for incest, well the royal families of the world inbred for millenia and they weren't too seriously effected, except for hemophilia.
Way to go for natural selection. No, I'm not seriously suggesting that there's a 'rape' gene, but aren't we supposed to be above animals? What rights does a man have to spread his genes around by violating the rights of women?


11)I could never give my child to someone else to raise.
-If a mother cared that much about her child she would not abort it.
That's a spurious argument. Someone who cares that much about a child that will be is already attached to the fetus that is, in my opinion (perhaps wrong: I've never been, and never will be, in that situation), not about to go for abortion. (And if I've read the original argument wrong then it looks like you have too.)


12)having a child is too expensive.
-Abortion ain't free, and there are programs to help with the burden+ adoption.
Nobody said it was free (what has this to do with "abortion is murde", anyway?) but it beats the hell out of bringing an unplanned, initially unwanted and possibly unhappy child up in situation far below the poverty line.


13)Health of the mother.
-Use other methods. Take for instance a tubal pregnancy: Be in the mindset of removing the defective organ, not the child. You do not want to remove the child, but it is a sideffect.
Ah, so you can kill fetuses/babies/children/potential Nobel Prize winners in certain circumstances... Good.


14)Social pressure
-there is socil pressure to do drugs; just say no
You're obviously strong-willed, and/or haven't lived in a situation where it is easier to go along with unwise decisions. You ought to write a self-help book about how to get out of tricky situations!


Get this stuck in your mind. Oh, all contraceptives contain progestin, which is an abortifacient because it prevents the child from attaching to the uteran wall, thus killing it,i.e., an ABORTifacient.
(All contraceptives? Including condoms?) An unattached egg isn't even a fetus. And unattached (even fertilised) eggs are at the extreme low end of the "potential human" scale. And isn't it surprising that a chemical that is useful in abortions is also useful in a contraceptive situation?

Nova Hohenzollerndom, a fertilized egg doesn't even constitute a pregnancy. 50% of all fertilized ovum are naturally expelled from the body without implanting in the uterine wall.
a woman isn't even pregnant until an zygote(?) has attached itself to her uterine wall... or sometimes fallopian tube wall, which is a bit of a problem.

Nova Hohenzollerndom, a fertilized egg doesn't even constitute a pregnancy. 50% of all fertilized ovum are naturally expelled from the body without implanting in the uterine wall.
a woman isn't even pregnant until an zygote(?) has attached itself to her uterine wall... or sometimes fallopian tube wall, which is a bit of a problem.

the above implied alleged analogy has to be the most ridiculous one i’ve ever had the waste of time of reading!

a- abortions are NEVER provided/obtained until the woman actually KNOWS that she’s pregnant, which happens to be AFTER the uterine wall attachment of the fertilized egg has actually taken place…duh!

b- just what does a natural body function, i.e.: rejection/expulsion of 50% of ovum, have to do with abortion which is an outside initiated artificial termination of pregnancy, pregnancy being a natural process to begin with???

NOTHING!

And so what if even as much as 99% of all fertilized ovum were NATURALLY expelled from the body without implanting in the uterine wall?

Would that justify abortion? Of course not!

Pretty simple way to look at abortion...

1. From the first cell split, the dna is that of a human. Not to be compared with bacteria or fungus...get real!
2. The fetus is growing and developing...that signifies life. Lifeless things do not grow and develop through their own regeneration.
3. The person who's body is most affected is the baby's. If you want to use the "my body, my decision" argument then you must let the child reach an age of reason to decide if they want you to kill it.
4. Again, on the "my body, my decision" argument, if you're pregnant then, except in the case of rape, you've already done what you want to with your body...that's why you're pregnant. An abortion is the destruction of someone else's body.
5. A baby is probably the only positive thing that can arise from rape. Nurture the child and, if you don't want to keep the child, let someone adopt it.

1)The Earth has too many people anyway. Do we REALLY want more?

2)IMO, males should stay out of this issue entirely, because THEY'RE not the ones carrying the kid around for 8-9 months.

3)It's the MOTHER'S right to choose what to do with HER body, NOT that of several who-knows-how many people she will never know. How would *you* like it if somebody told you that you couldn't get a flu treated because they though that treatement of diseases was wrong for whatever reason? (and no, I'm not likening pregnacy to a disease)

4)If you're so against killing non-consious clumps of cells(fetuses) that the person doesn't want in their body, then I suppose we should stop fighting cancer too, since those are also non-consious clumps of cells that the person doesn't want in their body. Oh wait, you said that cancer can kill people? Well, pregnacy can kill people too, y'know.(this part was semi-sarcastic, BTW. But still...it's the principle of the thing)

5)"Blah blah blah they can put the child up for adoption blah blah blah" You mean AFTER going through 8-9 months of lugging around a kid in their body, then going through the pain of shoving them out, just to throw the kid into an adoption home and forget about them? (sarcasm)Real kind(/sarcasm)

6)How is it murder if the life hasn't begun yet? Following that logic, soilders should all be in jail/executed since the people they kill, er, I mean MURDER, in battle are far greater in numbers, AND their lives have actually begun.

7)How does abortion hurt YOU in particular? IT DOESN'T. It doesn't hurt ANYTHING, aside from the fetuses that wasn't wanted anyway and haven't begun their lives yet.

=Chansu]The Earth has too many people anyway. Do we REALLY want more?

Populations among caucasians are declining rapidly around the world, due to abortion and the womans right to choose, populations that are soaring are in societys where women have 3 to 5 kids and not as career minded.
I would say certain populations are declining due to their own self inflicted genocide, while others are rising, to say blandly the worlds population is rising(which is true as a whole) instead of looking at which demographics are rising and which ones are falling, is to not address certain important issues.

IMO, males should stay out of this issue entirely, because THEY'RE not the ones carrying the kid around for 8-9 months.

Well dont marry then if thats your attitude, get artificially inseminated instead, and I assume by 8 or 9 months you mean your are not going to slaughter the human being growing inside you, so when IS your other half part of the issue, let me guess um.. when you need money right?


It's the MOTHER'S right to choose what to do with HER body, NOT that of several who-knows-how many people she will never know.


But its not HER body is it shes killing, its SOMEONE ELSES!

If you're so against killing non-consious clumps of cells(fetuses) that the person doesn't want in their body, then I suppose we should stop fighting cancer too, since those are also non-consious clumps of cells that the person doesn't want in their body. Oh wait, you said that cancer can kill people? Well, pregnacy can kill people too, y'know.(this part was semi-sarcastic, BTW. But still...it's the principle of the thing)

Great so now were comparing Cancer to a developing human being.


Blah blah blah they can put the child up for adoption blah blah blah" You mean AFTER going through 8-9 months of lugging around a kid in their body, then going through the pain of shoving them out, just to throw the kid into an adoption home and forget about them? (sarcasm)Real kind(/sarcasm)


Better than murdering them.

How does abortion hurt YOU in particular? IT DOESN'T. It doesn't hurt ANYTHING, aside from the fetuses that wasn't wanted anyway and haven't begun their lives yet.

I dont believe its great for society and how it views itself, that it condones hundreds of thousands of needless abortions each year.

Pretty simple way to look at abortion...

5. A baby is probably the only positive thing that can arise from rape. Nurture the child and, if you don't want to keep the child, let someone adopt it.

I can't believe that you could say such a thing. It's like rape after the rape. She gets brutalized, and then has to live with this thing inside her, a part of the man who did it, something she didn't want or ask for, for 9 months? THAT'S positive? Granted, it's not the baby's fault, but don't you dare say that it's a positive thing. It could end up very badly if the mother kept the memento of her rape to raise, or had to carry to term a baby that could kill her in childbirth.

Rape has no positive side. Don't try to say that it does. It shows that you have very little understanding of the subject, and no empathy at all for people who suffer being raped.

2)IMO, males should stay out of this issue entirely, because THEY'RE not the ones carrying the kid around for 8-9 months.

So, because I'm white, I shouldn't be able to discuss affirmative action? Or civil rights? I mean, I'm not the one being mis-treated by the government.

I live in America, so I shouldn't debate world politics? It doesn't affect me directly.

I'm an astronomer, not a biologist, so I don't have a right to say I'm against cloning? After all, there's no possibility whatsoever that I could bring information to other's attention.

I'm male. Some of us happen to care about abortion. The fact that we're not the one giving birth is a very shallow reason to keep us out of the debate.

I would like to add a real life situation to this debate for something that you can all think about, no matter what argument you are proposing here.

1. My gf got pregnant when she was on the pill and I used a condom - the condom broke and the pill didnt work.

2. We were both very young and not in a position to raise a baby - both being at University and very poor.

3. We BOTH made the decision to go ahead with an abortion.

4. We are both glad we made that decision some 15 years ago now.

Now, I would hope people would not edit bits of this to push their own cause but realise that while you can very ideological about a point of view, real life poses real problems that need to be handled in a mature way, no matter what you decide.

I would like to add a real life situation to this debate for something that you can all think about, no matter what argument you are proposing here.

1. My gf got pregnant when she was on the pill and I used a condom - the condom broke and the pill didnt work.

2. We were both very young and not in a position to raise a baby - both being at University and very poor.

3. We BOTH made the decision to go ahead with an abortion.

4. We are both glad we made that decision some 15 years ago now.

Now, I would hope people would not edit bits of this to push their own cause but realise that while you can very ideological about a point of view, real life poses real problems that need to be handled in a mature way, no matter what you decide.

For what it's worth, man, I'm sorry you were forced to make that decision.

I haven't been flamed by anyone in a while, so I think I'll jump in with an idea. :)

For all of you people who are so adamantly against having children, why not just get sterilized? Just think of it as aborting all your possible 'spawn' in one shot. Lets you have sex like a rabbit without having to deal with any consequences. :D Sure it might be uncomfortable, but so are abortions. And it gives us pro-life crowd less to complain about.

And one interesting fact -- A few people said that humans have 'evolved' beyond using sex only as a means of reproduction. Interestingly enough, we aren't the only species on this planet that has sex for pleasure. Dolphins and porpoises do too, and they don't abort their children for the inconvenience they cause.

If a woman wants an abortion then it is no-ones business but her's and the Church should get stuffed and put it's own house in order.

For all of you people who are so adamantly against having children, why not just get sterilized?

Yeah that's what my mom did, and then she got pregnant.

Yeah that's what my mom did, and then she got pregnant.

Very fertile woman.

Very fertile woman.

No, the sterilisation was botched, which just goes to show that that is not a fool-proof solution either.

Great so now were comparing Cancer to a developing human being.
Whether or not you like the comparison, it happens to be a fairly valid one. I don't consider small cell clusters without anything resembling consciousness to be human life, be they zygotes or cancerous cells.

These days, women want carreers and lifes outside of the kitchen and stuff like that, until they hit 30 and then they want childeren, before it's too late. On one hand, I can understand this urge to plan your life, study until 24, work until 30, get kids until 35, work until 65. It's a very nice plan. I can even understand that if you mess up the plan, by getting kids at 20, you can mess up the rest of your life, because you won't be able to finish university and you won't get a decent job anymore. Also, some people are just not fit to get childeren, like prostitutes, or drugaddicts, but they do get pregnant.

Though on the other hand, I sometimes think, sh#t just happens, get over it. If you have sex and something goes wrong, you can get pregnant, that's the basic risk you take.

But now that we have the possibility to plan our lives, should we let it slip away, because we fear the consequenses of playing God? But if we do allow people to plan their lives like this, were does it end? Does this mean we will allow genetic engeneering, because it's also in a sense, playing God, and therefore not too different from abortion. It all brings risk, with the obvious advantages and are we willing to take them and bear the consequenses, whatever they are? (Though you could say the same about sex :) )

What I don’t get about anti-abortionists is that they're hardly ever vegetarian. Surely if its wrong to kill a two week old foetus which is essentially a bunch of cells; then it would be wrong to kill an animal such as a pig which clearly has emotions and some degree of intelligence? I'm not saying a pig is the same as a human, obviously it is not sentient, but then neither is a foetus. :confused:

What I don’t get about anti-abortionists is that they're hardly ever vegetarian. Surely if its wrong to kill a two week old foetus which is essentially a bunch of cells; then it would be wrong to kill an animal such as a pig which clearly has emotions and some degree of intelligence? I'm not saying a pig is the same as a human, obviously it is not sentient, but then neither is a foetus. :confused:

I think the main complaint is that a foetus eventually becomes a human (matter of months) and a pig will not within its or our lifetime (or ever, depending on your beliefs there, but that's another topic)

Sure make abortion illeagal if you want but realise that many real living breathing air women will and do die everyday due to not having acess to Abortions. Backyard Abortionists and Do it yourself methods are dangerious.
Can you live with that?
When a woman so doesn't want or can't handle that she is DEAD.
Are you going to raise the unwanted babies in the world?

I don't support abortion, but I do believe in freedom of choice. There is a difference. Let me explain. I, personally, am against abortion. I don't like it. I think it's unethical. But, it's not up to the government to tell us whether or not we can have an abortion. If a woman wants to get an abortion, she should be able to get one with no troubles.

the above implied alleged analogy has to be the most ridiculous one i’ve ever had the waste of time of reading!

a- abortions are NEVER provided/obtained until the woman actually KNOWS that she’s pregnant, which happens to be AFTER the uterine wall attachment of the fertilized egg has actually taken place…duh!

b- just what does a natural body function, i.e.: rejection/expulsion of 50% of ovum, have to do with abortion which is an outside initiated artificial termination of pregnancy, pregnancy being a natural process to begin with???

NOTHING!

And so what if even as much as 99% of all fertilized ovum were NATURALLY expelled from the body without implanting in the uterine wall?

Would that justify abortion? Of course not!


the guy i was talking to was insisting that the birth control pill was an abortioficient because it prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall should an egg happen to have been released that month for whatever reason. i was explaining that it's not even a pregnancy until after the egg has attached itself to the wall.

i was saying that taking the birth control pill, morning after pill et c is not causing an abortion. please, learn to read the whole conversation before being such an idiot.


oh, and the anti-choicers haven't answered my question a while back about in vitro fertilization, which creates many embryos, but few offspring as most are left sitting in cold storage. are you opposed to that? or is it alright just because someone intends to reproduce?

Populations among caucasians are declining rapidly around the world, due to abortion and the womans right to choose, populations that are soaring are in societys where women have 3 to 5 kids and not as career minded.
I would say certain populations are declining due to their own self inflicted genocide, while others are rising, to say blandly the worlds population is rising(which is true as a whole) instead of looking at which demographics are rising and which ones are falling, is to not address certain important issues.

woah. the population is declining in the western world more due to women in the workplace than abortion. we're putting off childbirth because we want carreers. nothing wrong with this, it's still at replacement level in most countries. i'm sure improved birth control helps too.

however, in countries where female literacy is high, the birth rate is also low. in other words, educated women are more aware that we can do more than just pumpu out babies than uneduacted women. if you really wanted a high birth rate, you'd ban women from school, you sexist pig.

Well dont marry then if thats your attitude, get artificially inseminated instead, and I assume by 8 or 9 months you mean your are not going to slaughter the human being growing inside you, so when IS your other half part of the issue, let me guess um.. when you need money right?

and you just reinforced the feeling that you are indeed a sexist pig.

For all of you people who are so adamantly against having children, why not just get sterilized? Just think of it as aborting all your possible 'spawn' in one shot. Lets you have sex like a rabbit without having to deal with any consequences. :D Sure it might be uncomfortable, but so are abortions. And it gives us pro-life crowd less to complain about.

i plan on reproducing later in my life.

And one interesting fact -- A few people said that humans have 'evolved' beyond using sex only as a means of reproduction. Interestingly enough, we aren't the only species on this planet that has sex for pleasure. Dolphins and porpoises do too, and they don't abort their children for the inconvenience they cause.

they also don't have the technology to do so. nor do they have to work for a living...

i love how people act like abortion is a new thing. the church in the middle ages was allowing women to consume potions that were mildly poisonus to destroy fetuses. it was allowed until 60 days in...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
YOU MUST BE JOKING!

obviously you are refferring to the LOOOOOOOOOONG discredited so-called "theory of recapitulation" formulated in 1866 by also discredited evolutionist Dr. Ernst Haeckel, a theory in which this fraudulent so-called doctor promoted the fraudulent notion that the embryo of a human or a complex animal goes through stages resembling the embryos of its ancestors...

The idea that human fetuses have gill slits is a part of what was known as the "Biogenetic Law"...hahahahahahahaha!

In 1874 another German professor, Wilhelm His, showed that Haeckel had deliberately altered earlier sketches of human and dog embryos to support this fraudulent "theory".

This dishonesty was admitted in the Introduction to the Centennial Edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species (1956): "When the 'convergence' of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The 'biogenetic law' as proof of evolution is valueless."

at NO stage in its develeopment does a human EVER have gills...

a MORONIC concept only an idiot would believe...

do us all a favor and crawl back into whichever cave it was that you crawled out of, you knuckledragger!

For all of your insults, and talk of the original post being 'moronic', etc.

It happens to be true.

Sure - the human foetus never fully evolves into a water-breather in the uterus... there would be no point, with an umbilical cord... they don't even become air-breathers until much later in the pregnancy, and can't breathe air anyway until birth, obviously.

The appertures are usually referred to as 'gill-slits'. although they do not connect directly to any full gill mechanism. In some people, these slits remain after birth, leaving openings in the neck, in some, all that is left are small holes that ooze white mucus. In most foetal humans, the gill-slits are temporary... and serve useful purposes - since the bulk of the outer ear, and some inner ear components are 'manufactured' from these structures later.

All human foetuses have them. (In fact, all mammals seem to have them at some point in foetal development.)

http://www.emedicine.com/radio/topic107.htm

http://www.babyzone.com/features/content/display.asp?TopicID=9133&ContentID=330

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=fetus+AND+gills/v=2/SID=e/TID=BVT_6/l=WS1/R=12/H=0/IPC=us/SHE=0/*-http://education.uncc.edu/aewickli/History%20of%20Embryological%20and%20Fetal%20Development.doc

And next time, if I were you, I wouldn't be so 'rude' if I were not ABSOLUTELY certain I was right. It's just making you look foolish.

I don't support abortion, but I do believe in freedom of choice. There is a difference. Let me explain. I, personally, am against abortion. I don't like it. I think it's unethical. But, it's not up to the government to tell us whether or not we can have an abortion. If a woman wants to get an abortion, she should be able to get one with no troubles.

i don't support murder, but i do believe in freedom of choice...
there is a difference... let me explain...
i, personally, am against murder...
i don't like it...i think it's unethical...
but, it's not up to the government to tell us whether or not we can murder...
if anyone wants to commit murder, they should be able to do so with no troubles.

i don't support murder, but i do believe in freedom of choice...
there is a difference... let me explain...
i, personally, am against murder...
i don't like it...i think it's unethical...
but, it's not up to the government to tell us whether or not we can murder...
if anyone wants to commit murder, they should be able to do so with no troubles.

oh...i wondered when this would show up.

if you believe in the people's right ot murder, tell me where you live, i'll take care of it for you...

oh...i wondered when this would show up.

if you believe in the people's right ot murder, tell me where you live, i'll take care of it for you...

don't you get it?
it's called SARCASM!

For all of your insults, and talk of the original post being 'moronic', etc.

It happens to be true.

Sure - the human foetus never fully evolves into a water-breather in the uterus... there would be no point, with an umbilical cord... they don't even become air-breathers until much later in the pregnancy, and can't breathe air anyway until birth, obviously.

The appertures are usually referred to as 'gill-slits'. although they do not connect directly to any full gill mechanism. In some people, these slits remain after birth, leaving openings in the neck, in some, all that is left are small holes that ooze white mucus. In most foetal humans, the gill-slits are temporary... and serve useful purposes - since the bulk of the outer ear, and some inner ear components are 'manufactured' from these structures later.

All human foetuses have them. (In fact, all mammals seem to have them at some point in foetal development.)

http://www.emedicine.com/radio/topic107.htm

http://www.babyzone.com/features/content/display.asp?TopicID=9133&ContentID=330

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=fetus+AND+gills/v=2/SID=e/TID=BVT_6/l=WS1/R=12/H=0/IPC=us/SHE=0/*-http://education.uncc.edu/aewickli/History%20of%20Embryological%20and%20Fetal%20Development.doc

And next time, if I were you, I wouldn't be so 'rude' if I were not ABSOLUTELY certain I was right. It's just making you look foolish.

from {url]http://www.babyzone.com/features/content/display.asp?TopicID=9133&ContentID=330[/url]

"The DNA of each species calls the shots that will allow development along different paths. One of the major separations in fetal development is whether a fetus is destined to be an aquatic animal with gills or a lung-breather like us."

where does it even IMPLY that the human has gills???
it clearly states "...lung-breather like us.", which is exactly how the human DNA calls the shots...

whether the"fetus" develops lungs or gills is a MAJOR SEPARATION in fetal development...don't you get it??????????

like i said humans NEVER had gills and NEVER will or anything even remotely comparable to gills!

btw, my 80-yo mother has skin folds on her neck...gills?

stop reading into articles that which is NOT there...

oh, you're right...i shouldn't have said knuckledragger...
i should've said LOWBROW!

don't you get it?
it's called SARCASM!

yes, i noticed

i also noticed that you're equating murder with abortion....

murder is defined as "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice"

human is defined as "A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. "

killing is defined as: "To put to death."

Therefore, we have murder defined as: The unlawful putting to death of one member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Abortion cannot be murder, as it is not unlawful.

**definitions provided by dictionary.com

I believe Joseph Smallwood (no jokes about the last name, please) said something to the effect of: Every man has the God given right to be wrong.

Aahhh, ain't Newfoundlanders brilliant?

On the abortion aspect of the thread, I believe in ProChoice. Who am I (a 19 year old male) to tell a pregnant woman what to do with her body. Yes, I can vote, maybe someday I would be able to create a law. But I wouldn't on the basis that it would have no impact on me and I couldn't therefore accurately judge the results of said law.
So, unless women make the law, and men have no say in it, I believe that prochoice is the only way to be. That way it is up to each potential mother to weigh each side of the argument and decide for herself.

from {url]http://www.babyzone.com/features/content/display.asp?TopicID=9133&ContentID=330[/url]

"The DNA of each species calls the shots that will allow development along different paths. One of the major separations in fetal development is whether a fetus is destined to be an aquatic animal with gills or a lung-breather like us."

where does it even IMPLY that the human has gills???
it clearly states "...lung-breather like us.", which is exactly how the human DNA calls the shots...

whether the"fetus" develops lungs or gills is a MAJOR SEPARATION in fetal development...don't you get it??????????

like i said humans NEVER had gills and NEVER will or anything even remotely comparable to gills!

btw, my 80-yo mother has skin folds on her neck...gills?

stop reading into articles that which is NOT there...

oh, you're right...i shouldn't have said knuckledragger...
i should've said LOWBROW!

Once again with the being rude...

Yes, I get it. It is the branch-point in foetal development. That is ACTUALLY implied in what I said... they are temporary, since we are air-breathers.

They are called gill-slits, among other things... I, personally didn't say they were "gills", in fact, I carefully pointed out that they didn't connect to a full gill assembly.

And, on the subject of reading what isn't there.. if you had bothered reading what was originally posted (by MajorArcana, I think it was) - the link clearly stated that they were primitive gills... here's a quick snip of that link:

Posted By: Brian Turner, Grad student, Neuroscience/Cell Biology, Cornell University Medical College

Yes, we do form gills during foetal development. A 6 week old human foetus
will have these "primitive gills" but by seven weeks they have disappeared,
so it all happens very early in development (since human development can be
as long as 36 weeks).

The gills are called primitive gills because they do not actually develop to
become real gills - they are always covered with skin.

I guess this disproves your speculations made earlier about 19th century science... and I am assuming that you are trying to make an argument over semantics now just because you are annoyed that your little argument didn't hold water.

On the abortion aspect of the thread, I believe in ProChoice. Who am I (a 19 year old male) to tell a pregnant woman what to do with her body.

but it's not her body that she's damaging, is it?

but it's not her body that she's damaging, is it?

By that token, should we require a governmental mandate/legal decision to ascertain if it is legal to have a bowel movement?

If it is IN your body, and you don't want it there, you remove it.

The foetus that gets aborted is IN the woman's body, and she doesn't want it there. That should be where the argument rests.

Otherwise you are putting the rights of two sex cells ABOVE the rights of human beings. If you think sperm and ova should be allowed to make decisions, fine - but stop trying to enforce that belief on others.

i don't support murder, but i do believe in freedom of choice...
there is a difference... let me explain...
i, personally, am against murder...
i don't like it...i think it's unethical...
but, it's not up to the government to tell us whether or not we can murder...
if anyone wants to commit murder, they should be able to do so with no troubles.

Hello my freeper friend. Abortion is not murder. There is a difference. If abortion were murder, then it wouldn't be legal, would it? ;)

but it's not her body that she's damaging, is it?

If it's feeding off her body and living in it, it's her body.

Hello my freeper friend. Abortion is not murder. There is a difference. If abortion were murder, then it wouldn't be legal, would it? ;)

in the 1930's it was quite legal to perform experiments and even to exterminate certain ethnic groups in a certain european country...

there was a time in this country when abortion was murder because it was illegal...until roe-v-wade, that is...

so, then, it is all a matter of legality and what is legal or not is determined by who with what philosophy hijacks the government...

in the 1930's it was quite legal to perform experiments and even to exterminate certain ethnic groups in a certain european country...

there was a time in this country when abortion was murder because it was illegal...until roe-v-wade, that is...

so, then, it is all a matter of legality and what is legal or not is determined by who with what philosophy hijacks the government...

actually...yes.

because abortion is deemed as legal and murder as illegal, abortion cannot be murder.

and if you don't like it, you have a congressman you can write. you choose where you live though...

Leafing through this thread, I've decided I want to have Bottle's babies.

Only, you know, not just yet.

=Dakini]woah. the population is declining in the western world more due to women in the workplace than abortion.

Yes alot of women are getting abortions to focus on jobs instead

we're putting off childbirth because we want carreers.

You are aware I guess then that your fertility declines as you get older

nothing wrong with this, it's still at replacement level in most countries.

Wrong in most caucasian countrys particularly Europe its fallen below.



however, in countries where female literacy is high, the birth rate is also low. in other words, educated women are more aware that we can do more than just pumpu out babies than uneduacted women.

Right just reduce the most important thing to humanity to 'just pump out'
are you sure your smarter than these 'uneducated' women?
You spelt uneducated wrong too.


if you really wanted a high birth rate, you'd ban women from school, you sexist pig.

Snork!Snork! :) No I wouldnt, I'd just reintroduce childbirth as the important issue it should be for women, not some terrible option that people like you try to portray as some kind of slavery men have forced onto women.

If you cant handle being what nature intended you to be then go have your womb cut out.

Yes alot of women are getting abortions to focus on jobs instead


A lot of women are getting abortions for other reasons, too. But that doesn't fit your argument. And why not? Why shouldn't women work?


You are aware I guess then that your fertility declines as you get older


Shame on you, Terminalia... and you supposed to be a christian, too.
According to the bible, women can have children well into their 90's... and that's even if they've been sterile all their life!


Wrong in most caucasian countrys particularly Europe its fallen below.


There is no such thing as a caucasian country. And, if a nation lacks ethnic diversity to the point that, were one 'people' to stop breeding, the NATION would 'die'... then that nation has commited ethnic suicide.


Right just reduce the most important thing to humanity to 'just pump out'
are you sure your smarter than these 'uneducated' women?
You spelt uneducated wrong too.


How is 'popping out' babies the "most important thing to humanity"? Are we, then, animals of the lowest order, that we can serve no better purpose than mindless propogation?

People like you scare me, Terminalia.


Snork!Snork! :) No I wouldnt, I'd just reintroduce childbirth as the important issue it should be for women, not some terrible option that people like you try to portray as some kind of slavery men have forced onto women.

If you cant handle being what nature intended you to be then go have your womb cut out.

You are confusing childbirth and parenting. Obviously, women have to give birth, but modern societies have (thanks to the bible and it's equivalents) placed ALL the care of the children on the female, while the male just has to go to work - so HE gets an 8 hour day, and SHE does the work for the next 18 years.

And there you go again! I thought you were a christian? "What NATURE intended", Terminalia? And, surely, if you mean god... maybe god INTENDED 20th Century women to work, rather than stay home living some kind of anachronistic half-life.

A lot of women are getting abortions for other reasons, too. But that doesn't fit your argument. And why not? Why shouldn't women work?
Shame on you, Terminalia... and you supposed to be a christian, too.
According to the bible, women can have children well into their 90's... and that's even if they've been sterile all their life!
There is no such thing as a caucasian country. And, if a nation lacks ethnic diversity to the point that, were one 'people' to stop breeding, the NATION would 'die'... then that nation has commited ethnic suicide.
How is 'popping out' babies the "most important thing to humanity"? Are we, then, animals of the lowest order, that we can serve no better purpose than mindless propogation?
People like you scare me, Terminalia.
You are confusing childbirth and parenting. Obviously, women have to give birth, but modern societies have (thanks to the bible and it's equivalents) placed ALL the care of the children on the female, while the male just has to go to work - so HE gets an 8 hour day, and SHE does the work for the next 18 years.
And there you go again! I thought you were a christian? "What NATURE intended", Terminalia? And, surely, if you mean god... maybe god INTENDED 20th Century women to work, rather than stay home living some kind of anachronistic half-life.

Just mindless antagonism, and once again you felt it necessary to take yet another cheap shot at my faith, by the way Grave as a parting and hopefully last reply there arent too many women these days having kids in their ninetys.

Just mindless antagonism, and once again you felt it necessary to take yet another cheap shot at my faith, by the way Grave as a parting and hopefully last reply there arent too many women these days having kids in their ninetys.

You call it a cheap shot, I call it you flip-flopping on what you 'claim' are the important issues. One minute you are christian, the next you are arguing in favour of imperial oppression (Russia), and threatening physical violence (Druthulu). You have no consistency. That means you are JUST arguing to antagonise, which makes you a troll.

I would, therefore, suspect that the reason you REALLY don't want to debate with me anymore is because you lose every time.

I am all with abortions. Though i am against killing the baby after it is born. Women should be given the right to decide to abort or not. The baby will get in way of your career? go for it! It is YOUR LIFE not other peoples. You don't need to give up most of your freedom and youth from an accidental pregnancy. Making it illegal is only going to fuck the mother and child up

You know, after seeing Grave kick ass and chew bubblegum (though hopefully not yet out of bubblegum), there's not much to add. Wait, there is.

Having a kid inside of you is a parasite. Yes. It's true. <SHOCK!> Prove me wrong.

Weeeeell, tics are parasites. You can tell me that you want to make abortion illegal when you tell me that you want to make killing tics illegal :p

(for the record, I'm pro-choice anti-abortion :p)

You know, after seeing Grave kick ass and chew bubblegum (though hopefully not yet out of bubblegum), there's not much to add. Wait, there is.

Having a kid inside of you is a parasite. Yes. It's true. <SHOCK!> Prove me wrong.

Weeeeell, tics are parasites. You can tell me that you want to make abortion illegal when you tell me that you want to make killing tics illegal :p

(for the record, I'm pro-choice anti-abortion :p)

*bows to Goed*

Nope, not "all out of gum", yet..

Ah, Duke Nukem quotes... that takes me back a few years...

the one about "bottom-feeding, scum-sucking algae eater" seems strangely appropriate, right about now too..

On Topic: You can bet that if guys could carry children, they would be getting unwanted foetuses legally described as 'parasites' in record time.

I would, therefore, suspect that the reason you REALLY don't want to debate with me anymore is because you lose every time.

Actually I just really cant be bothered anymore.

Maybe if I just insult him, people won't realize he's right!

<cough>

Actually I really couldnt be bothered anymore, your just a dick.

I think you mean "You're"...

AGAIN with the insults Terminalia... you know what they say about insults being the last resort of a feeble mind, don't you?

Like I say, you lost fair, and square. And now you want to act like it's your choice not to 'bother' anymore.

If you wanted anyone to think you were the 'intellectual' heavyweight here, you'd bring evidence to the debate table, and leave the insults at home.

You'd also probably not stoop to your weak attempts at physical intimidation - which obviously can't work anyway, because this is a digital environment.

Thank you for your time.

<cough>

Goed, Graves little companion.

<cough>

;)

Goed, Graves little companion.

Cheap shot, anyone?

Why does it offend you so much that some people can agree, Terminalia?

Is it because they are NOT agreeing with you?

Goed, Graves little companion.

Terminalia, I have a shirt you might be interested in:

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a182

=Grave_n_idle]
Like I say, you lost fair, and square.

Do you have any friends?
Its only the internet for you isnt it?


And now you want to act like it's your choice not to 'bother' anymore.

No, once again you have twisted someones response around, for your arguement.
I honestly find you to be a complete bore and waste of internet time, this could be why you are following me around on this website not the reverse.


you wanted anyone to think you were the 'intellectual' heavyweight here, you'd bring evidence to the debate table, and leave the insults at home.

Right so why do you the need to try and tear someones faith down through personal insults yourself, Id have to say I feel sorry for anyone having to suffer through the experience of being near you in person, your odius to say the least.

You'd also probably not stoop to your weak attempts at physical intimidation - which obviously can't work anyway, because this is a digital environment.


Right says the guy who needs to tell everyone hes 6'4 and used to beat people up for bragging.


Thank you for your time.

I hope this means what I think it does.
If so then dont let the door hit you on the way out.

I just wanna point out one thing.

Right says the guy who needs to tell everyone hes 6'4 and used to beat people up for bragging.

Now, I've reread the last few pages of this thread several times. Many, many times.

And-BELIEVE IT OR NOT!-you started the whole "I'm big, and can beat you up! Hurhur!" thing.

Terminalia, I have a shirt you might be interested in:

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a182

Nah you keep it, its perfect for you.

Terminalia, I have a shirt you might be interested in:

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a182

Tell you what, I'll buy it FOR him.... :)

I just wanna point out one thing.



Now, I've reread the last few pages of this thread several times. Many, many times.

And-BELIEVE IT OR NOT!-you started the whole "I'm big, and can beat you up! Hurhur!" thing.

OMG how old are you?

Nah you keep it, its perfect for you.

Oh man. I've heard sime fast comebacks in my time, but that one just blew me away!

OMG how old are you?

I believe I mentioned that earlier in this thread xD

Edit: Whoops, it was in another thread. But for the record, I'm 18

Tell you what, I'll buy it FOR him.... :)

You could bye one for yourself Grave, worlds biggest bitch :)

You could bye one for yourself Grave, worlds biggest bitch :)

Holy crap man, you're going too far now! That's some SERIOUSLY sharp wit you've got there.

=Goed]Oh man. I've heard sime fast comebacks in my time, but that one just blew me away!

If only.

I believe I mentioned that earlier in this thread xD

Edit: Whoops, it was in another thread. But for the record, I'm 18[/QUOTE]

Are you sure about that, because that would mean your an adult, and sorry but you crap on like a 14 year old would.

If only.

Are you sure about that, because that would mean your an adult, and sorry but you crap on like a 14 year old would.

http://www.frombearcreek.com/14633.gif

Holy crap man, you're going too far now! That's some SERIOUSLY sharp wit you've got there.

You mean you actually got it?

Eh, trading insults is fun and all, but I've got class tomarrow, so I'm bed bound.

Have fun you two ;)

http://www.frombearcreek.com/14633.gif

Thank you for proving my point Goed.

Do you still swap cards?

Eh, trading insults is fun and all, but I've got class tomarrow, so I'm bed bound.

Have fun you two ;)

Night, I think the bitch insult must have hit a raw nerve with Grave. :)

Do you have any friends?
Its only the internet for you isnt it?


First: Irrelevent. Second: Wrong. Third: Just a weak attempt at being insulting.


No, once again you have twisted someones response around, for your arguement.
I honestly find you to be a complete bore and waste of internet time, this could be why you are following me around on this website not the reverse.


I don't follow you around the website, silly. I have certain subscribed threads here, and you are certainly not in all of them. If you are in a thread that I want to comment in, or you happen to make one of your statements in one of my subscribed threads, then I will discuss your issue, if it is worth my time.

If I were going to follow someone, it would be people I WANT to debate with, like Goed, Willamena, Druthulu, Daroth, Keruvalia, Hakartopia, Suicidal Librarians.. etc. Note: These are people that CAN debate.

Right so why do you the need to try and tear someones faith down through personal insults yourself, Id have to say I feel sorry for anyone having to suffer through the experience of being near you in person, your odius to say the least.


I can be quite a handful in person, I have been told... but you haven't ever been close enough to me to make that judgement.

I have never tried to tear through ANYBODY's faith. I may debate it, or argue over the fine points... but, ultimately, their faith is their choice... what I will object to is hypocrisy.


Right says the guy who needs to tell everyone hes 6'4 and used to beat people up for bragging.


Sorry, but wasn't that MY response to you telling Druthulu you could kick his ass, because you are 6 feet tall, and play rugby?

"Im 6'0 I weigh in at 104 kgs and play Rugby league in the second row, you would never call me a pissant to my face and if you were stupid enough too.."

That's a direct threat.... the way I read it.

Also, you might want to look up the difference between the word "bragging" and the word "braggart".

While you're at it, you might want to read my post - because I said I grew up in the East End, where we eat braggarts for breakfast... I didn't say I used to beat people up for bragging - but you could read that into it if you wanted to.


I hope this means what I think it does.
If so then dont let the door hit you on the way out.

I guess you can count it as a win if I leave, then?

Night, I think the bitch insult must have hit a raw nerve with Grave. :)

Good night, Terminalia... it's been swell.

But now the swelling's gone down.

............
And one interesting fact -- A few people said that humans have 'evolved' beyond using sex only as a means of reproduction. Interestingly enough, we aren't the only species on this planet that has sex for pleasure. Dolphins and porpoises do too, and they don't abort their children for the inconvenience they cause.

Actually, dolphins kill the young in their pods if there isn't enough food to go around. What's that? I can't understand you for all that foot in your mouth.

=Grave_n_idle]First: Irrelevent. Second: Wrong. Third: Just a weak attempt at being insulting.

Sure it isnt.



I don't follow you around the website, silly. I have certain subscribed threads here, and you are certainly not in all of them. If you are in a thread that I want to comment in, or you happen to make one of your statements in one of my subscribed threads, then I will discuss your issue, if it is worth my time.

Well lets hope it isnt then.


If I were going to follow someone, it would be people I WANT to debate with, like Goed, Willamena, Druthulu, Daroth, Keruvalia, Hakartopia, Suicidal Librarians.. etc. Note: These are people that CAN debate.

Rubbish you follow me around here like an annoying little brother.


I can be quite a handful in person, I have been told... but you haven't ever been close enough to me to make that judgement.

Im sure you would scatch my eyes out.

I have never tried to tear through ANYBODY's faith. I may debate it, or argue over the fine points... but, ultimately, their faith is their choice... what I will object to is hypocrisy.

Oh right so you never said all that stuff about the Bible just being my silly little book, eat your hypocrisy and choke on it mate!

Sorry, but wasn't that MY response to you telling Druthulu you could kick his ass, because you are 6 feet tall, and play rugby?

I didnt say I would kick his arse, he called me a pissant so I gave him a true and apt description of myself, and said he wouldnt have the balls to say it to my face, and if he did say then hes big enough to bloody wear it.

That's a direct threat.... the way I read it.

No its called a hidden threat or unspoken hence me not saying it and the string of .... instead.
The way you read things is usually so you can twist it around for your benefit.


While you're at it, you might want to read my post - because I said I grew up in the East End, where we eat braggarts for breakfast... I didn't say I used to beat people up for bragging - but you could read that into it if you wanted to.

Oh right so your a cannibal then OK..


I guess you can count it as a win if I leave, then?

Definitely.

Good night, Terminalia... it's been swell.
But now the swelling's gone down.

That'l teach you to bash your head against the computer wont it?

Good night and dont forget to put a plastic sheet over the mattress. :)

That'l teach you to bash your head against the computer wont it?

Good night and dont forget to put a plastic sheet over the mattress. :)

Hee.

Because that's totally not a cheap shot right there... my goodness no...

Actually, dolphins kill the young in their pods if there isn't enough food to go around.

Oh really? All evidence I've found suggests the mother dolphins rarely, if ever, are the ones responsible for killing their offspring. It's almost always done by older males that are looking for a mate. A trait that occurs in most land based animals, but curiously has only very recently been seen occuring in cetaceans, and even then in only one species of dolphin.

But don't let me stop you from acting like an asshole. Feel free to say whatever you want without researching it thoroughly.

If I were going to follow someone, it would be people I WANT to debate with, like Goed, Willamena, Druthulu, Daroth, Keruvalia, Hakartopia, Suicidal Librarians.. etc. Note: These are people that CAN debate.

I'm famous! ^_^

Oh really? All evidence I've found suggests the mother dolphins rarely, if ever, are the ones responsible for killing their offspring. It's almost always done by older males that are looking for a mate. A trait that occurs in most land based animals, but curiously has only very recently been seen occuring in cetaceans, and even then in only one species of dolphin.

But don't let me stop you from acting like an asshole. Feel free to say whatever you want without researching it thoroughly.

An arsehole eh? Funny, since I *did* research it. Pretty Thoroughly. I spent over three years fascinated by cetaceans, and have a whole bunch of books and videos on them.

The behaviour of killing young in response to a lack of resources (mainly food, since space is only an issue in unnatural environments) has been observed in Long and Short beaked Common dolphin, Risso dolphins and Spinner dolphins in the wild (that I can recall off the top of my head), and Bottlenose Dolphins in captivity (not really something to cite as support, because it was back in the days when dolphins were kept in tiny cement tanks with almost no natural light - a stressful environment at best).

And since pods containing young consist only of adult females and the young of either sex, it's not at all connected with the "males wanting the females back in heat" pattern. And it is either the mother, or another adult female (usually related to the mother, since that is how the pods work) that kills the young.

Something closer to the pattern than the issue of breeding would be Hector's dolphins getting killed by larger Bottlenose Dolphins in areas where food is scarce.

I haven't got any of this information off websites, so I can't provide a source right now, but I'll look for some online sources tomorrow night, when I'm not so busy. And if that fails, I'll post the bibliography of books I got it from.

Now, who wasn't researching thoroughly?


(disclaimer - spelling mistakes are due to me being an idiot - feel free to call me on them :p)

An arsehole eh? Funny, since I *did* research it. Pretty Thoroughly. I spent over three years fascinated by cetaceans, and have a whole bunch of books and videos on them.

The behaviour of killing young in response to a lack of resources (mainly food, since space is only an issue in unnatural environments) has been observed in Long and Short beaked Common dolphin, Risso dolphins and Spinner dolphins in the wild (that I can recall off the top of my head), and Bottlenose Dolphins in captivity (not really something to cite as support, because it was back in the days when dolphins were kept in tiny cement tanks with almost no natural light - a stressful environment at best).

And since pods containing young consist only of adult females and the young of either sex, it's not at all connected with the "males wanting the females back in heat" pattern. And it is either the mother, or another adult female (usually related to the mother, since that is how the pods work) that kills the young.

Something closer to the pattern than the issue of breeding would be Hector's dolphins getting killed by larger Bottlenose Dolphins in areas where food is scarce.

I haven't got any of this information off websites, so I can't provide a source right now, but I'll look for some online sources tomorrow night, when I'm not so busy. And if that fails, I'll post the bibliography of books I got it from.

Now, who wasn't researching thoroughly?


(disclaimer - spelling mistakes are due to me being an idiot - feel free to call me on them :p)

i really love it when one of the rude folk around here gets thoroughly owned. well done.

Hee.

Because that's totally not a cheap shot right there... my goodness no...

I was just pissing in his pocket ;)

I was just pissing in his pocket ;)

then it sounds like you're the one who needs the plastic on the mattress....

then it sounds like you're the one who needs the plastic on the mattress....

Now THAT was funny....! :)

Sure it isnt.


Which one? You neglected to mention which of the three statements you were answering... but, with a carefully reasoned argument like you put forward, I'm not sure it matters....


Well lets hope it isnt then.


It's often not, as it happens.


Rubbish you follow me around here like an annoying little brother.


You really want that to be true, don't you?


Im sure you would scatch my eyes out.


Erm.... okay.... not sure what you mean... is it worth my asking?


Oh right so you never said all that stuff about the Bible just being my silly little book, eat your hypocrisy and choke on it mate!


I don't consider the bible to BE your FAITH, I consider it to be a book. If you really are a christian, THAT is your faith. And, sorry to have to tell you this... it IS a book, and, well, I do think it's kind of silly - since it is inconsistent and full of errors.

That's not hypocrisy.

I didnt say I would kick his arse, he called me a pissant so I gave him a true and apt description of myself, and said he wouldnt have the balls to say it to my face, and if he did say then hes big enough to bloody wear it.


You attempted to intimidate him... and, I'm sorry, but just how weak IS that? Threatening people with physical harm, over the internet?

No its called a hidden threat or unspoken hence me not saying it and the string of .... instead.
The way you read things is usually so you can twist it around for your benefit.


I don't need to twist your statements around to make you look silly....


Oh right so your a cannibal then OK..


Obtuse much?

Didn't look up "braggart" either, did you?


Definitely.

Let's face it... it's the only way you'd beat me.

I feel like crossing swords with you more, but there is no point engaging in a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed.

............
And one interesting fact -- A few people said that humans have 'evolved' beyond using sex only as a means of reproduction. Interestingly enough, we aren't the only species on this planet that has sex for pleasure. Dolphins and porpoises do too, and they don't abort their children for the inconvenience they cause.

Huh. I guess the lack of abortion in dolphins might be due to the lack of opposable thumbs?

then it sounds like you're the one who needs the plastic on the mattress....

:) that just means I was taking the mickey out of him

=Grave_n_idle]Which one? You neglected to mention which of the three statements you were answering... but, with a carefully reasoned argument like you put forward, I'm not sure it matters....

All three

You really want that to be true, don't you?

No, defineitely not.


I don't consider the bible to BE your FAITH, I consider it to be a book. If you really are a christian, THAT is your faith. And, sorry to have to tell you this... it IS a book, and, well, I do think it's kind of silly - since it is inconsistent and full of errors.

That's not hypocrisy.

Whatever, your Christophobia bored me weeks ago.


You attempted to intimidate him... and, I'm sorry, but just how weak IS that? Threatening people with physical harm, over the internet?

Didnt threaten him at all, just made him aware that I dont take crap like that face to face, hes being insulting over the net, isnt that weak as well, you should know.

Anyway if its so trivial why get worked up about it?



Didn't look up "braggart" either, did you?

Couldnt be bothered to be honest.



I feel like crossing swords with you more, but there is no point engaging in a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed.

Dont then, I couldnt care less.

Whatever, your Christophobia bored me weeks ago.


I do not hate Christ. I do not fear Christ. I do not hate Christians. I do not fear Christians.

In fact, by the biblical definition of what Messiah would be, I do not even believe there has been 'the Christ'...

So, how can I be Christophobic?



Didnt threaten him at all, just made him aware that I dont take crap like that face to face, hes being insulting over the net, isnt that weak as well, you should know.

Anyway if its so trivial why get worked up about it?


It's plain to see, to anyone that cares to read back over your rabid posting, that you quite clearly acted in an intimidating and threatening manner.

He said something trivial to you, and you got worked up about it... despite how that is totally pointless behaviour in a digital domain...

I, personally, have yet to get 'worked-up' over any of your little barbs... I have found some tedious, I will grant, but 'worth getting worked-up over'? Not close.

As you say, "If it's so trivial, why get worked up about it?"



Dont then, I couldnt care less.

This is me deliberately restraining myself from the comment you must just KNOW I was about to make, because I can't bring myself to do it.... maybe it's something to do with the way a bunny looks after it's been run over...

Yes alot of women are getting abortions to focus on jobs instead

a lot more women are on the pill and have their mate wear a condom so they can focus on a carreer instead, so what? there aren't many people who use abortion as a consistent method of birth control, it tends to be a last resort kind of thing unless you're dealing with idiots who probably shouldn't reproduce anyways.

You are aware I guess then that your fertility declines as you get older

no shit. i can still have kids into my 30's though, which is enough time for me to get my phd and secure a job so that i can have kids. hell, i'm the oldest of four children and my mom didn't have me until she was 29.

Wrong in most caucasian countrys particularly Europe its fallen below.

have you ever heard why it is so? well, you had the baby boom, and the children of the baby boomers still haven't got to the point in thier lives where they're ready to have kids, i.e. their 30's or so. give it a couple more years and the birth rate will be up as the boom echo generation starts to procreate.

Right just reduce the most important thing to humanity to 'just pump out'
are you sure your smarter than these 'uneducated' women?
You spelt uneducated wrong too.

so? you don't pluralize countries right, a mistake you made a number of times. i type fast, therefore i miss sometimes and don't notice. what's your excuse? i and y aren't next to each other.
and i'll say i'm a little more educated than illiterate women for the simple fact that i would like to see an illiterate person of any gender get into a damn good university and into the honours physics program.

and at any rate, i would say that getting some of the earth's population off this rock is more important "thing" (perhaps you meant objective) for the human species.

and no, i have better things to do with my late teens to 20's than push out babies, you jackass.

Snork!Snork! :) No I wouldnt, I'd just reintroduce childbirth as the important issue it should be for women, not some terrible option that people like you try to portray as some kind of slavery men have forced onto women.

women aren't just here to carry your damn children. if you want something to do that, invent some artificial wombs whose only purpose then would be to produce children, otherwise, fuck off.
i don't view childbirth as a form of slavery, i plan on having kids later in life... two, no more (unless the second one is a set of twins) however, at this point in my life, i am financially and emotionally unprepared for such a responsability, hence the contraceptives.

If you cant handle being what nature intended you to be then go have your womb cut out.

i say i cut your balls off right now, how about that?

You are confusing childbirth and parenting. Obviously, women have to give birth, but modern societies have (thanks to the bible and it's equivalents) placed ALL the care of the children on the female, while the male just has to go to work - so HE gets an 8 hour day, and SHE does the work for the next 18 years.

And there you go again! I thought you were a christian? "What NATURE intended", Terminalia? And, surely, if you mean god... maybe god INTENDED 20th Century women to work, rather than stay home living some kind of anachronistic half-life.

exactly. you know, they've done studies and found that when the man of the household did a chunk of the chores and child rearing, a woman is more likely to have more than one child. if men got off their asses and helped their wives with some cleaning, then she would feel she would have enough support at home to have more children to look after.

thus, it is not that women want carreers that is really killing the birth rate, it is men being lazy asses who don't think they need to help out.

You could bye one for yourself Grave, worlds biggest bitch :)

ok, isn't there something in the bible (which you as a christian must have read) about taking the log out of your eye before trying to take a sliver out of your brother's eye?

yeah, well this is the umteenth time i've seen you use the wrong homonym so stop trying to insult my spelling when you can't spell yourself.

if you're going to purchase a shirt for someone, the word you're looking for is buy, not bye. also, you are = you're, not your.

no shit. i can still have kids into my 30's though, which is enough time for me to get my phd and secure a job so that i can have kids. hell, i'm the oldest of four children and my mom didn't have me until she was 29.

i'm the oldest in my family, and my mom had me at 30. my little brother was born when she was 39. here's to a late start...if only women were encouraged to wait until 30 for kids, we would have so many fewer maladjusted morons running around.

Couldnt be bothered to be honest.

that does seem to be a large part of your problem. you can't be bothered to be honest, reasonable, or polite, apparently. i can't believe how rude and irrational your posts have been on this thread, and i have to ask: is this all just some twisted joke on your part? this has to be an act, right? i mean, nobody with the level of consciousness required for operation of a computer could actually be as infantile as you appear on this thread, so you probably just messing with everyone, right?

ok, isn't there something in the bible (which you as a christian must have read) about taking the log out of your eye before trying to take a sliver out of your brother's eye?

yeah, well this is the umteenth time i've seen you use the wrong homonym so stop trying to insult my spelling when you can't spell yourself.

if you're going to purchase a shirt for someone, the word you're looking for is buy, not bye. also, you are = you're, not your.

It comes up several times actually, but just one of them:

In the KJV Bible, Matthew 7:5 "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye".

That'l teach you to bash your head against the computer wont it?

Good night and dont forget to put a plastic sheet over the mattress. :)

and you're how old? honestly, i'm astounded that you would ask someone else their age and then say that they insult like a 14 year old.

so unless you're 7, you don't have any excuses.

I don't really support abortion, but its a necessary evil to ensure women's freedom. As a result, though I may not agree with it, I don't have the right to stop them.

that does seem to be a large part of your problem. you can't be bothered to be honest, reasonable, or polite, apparently. i can't believe how rude and irrational your posts have been on this thread, and i have to ask: is this all just some twisted joke on your part? this has to be an act, right? i mean, nobody with the level of consciousness required for operation of a computer could actually be as infantile as you appear on this thread, so you probably just messing with everyone, right?

*cough*Snubis*cough*

*cough*Snubis*cough*
*shudder* don't even joke about that...Snubis is one chap i certainly don't miss, and the thought of a new incarnation of his would send me over the freaking falls.

*shudder* don't even joke about that...Snubis is one chap i certainly don't miss, and the thought of a new incarnation of his would send me over the freaking falls.

No I'm serious, the similarities are stunning.
Either Terminalia is a puppet, or there's some twisted factory of some sorts churning these people out.

No I'm serious, the similarities are stunning.
Either Terminalia is a puppet, or there's some twisted factory of some sorts churning these people out.
i've been to that factory. they call it "Mississippi."

i've been to that factory. they call it "Mississippi."

Why didn't you blow it up?

Why didn't you blow it up?
stupid airport security and their "you can't bring plastic explosives and nuclear warheads on your flight." i would have packed them in my checked luggage if i knew.

stupid airport security and their "you can't bring plastic explosives and nuclear warheads on your flight." i would have packed them in my checked luggage if i knew.

Bah, fascists. :(

Now I know this sounds stupid and extravegant, but if you REALLY think that 'everything deserves the right to live' then you better go out and either use up every single sperm you ever make or get every egg in your body fertilised at some point, because then THAT would support 'giving everybody a chance'.

I support abortion totally because if you don't want/can't support a baby at a certain time then letting them be born is virtually condemning them to a half life - unwanted and possibly living in poverty, starving.

In the UK, if you are on the doll, then I honestly believe you shouldn't have children. Everyody knows that child benefits are NOWHERE near enough to cover child expenses so the parents aren't/parent isn't going to be able to support the new child. This also applies to children taken away by social services. Why are drug addicts and alcoholics allowed to have children when they will obviously be taken away? There are thousands upon thousands of kids up for adoption in the world so don't say that taking them away is good because it gives unfertile people the chance to have children! It also means that the baby may be deformed and have many more diseases.

Why should the fetus being alive make any difference? Sometimes it's better not to be born at all...

You have the right to disagree with everything here, but it's all just facts...

[QUOTE]have you ever heard why it is so? well, you had the baby boom, and the children of the baby boomers still haven't got to the point in thier lives where they're ready to have kids, i.e. their 30's or so. give it a couple more years and the birth rate will be up as the boom echo generation starts to procreate.

as if your all suddenly going to start having more than two kids again, yeah right.

so? you don't pluralize countries right, a mistake you made a number of times. i type fast, therefore i miss sometimes and don't notice. what's your excuse? i and y aren't next to each other.

Just a difference in spelling, you spell colour differently from us too.


and i'll say i'm a little more educated than illiterate women for the simple fact that i would like to see an illiterate person of any gender get into a damn good university and into the honours physics program.

Very limited view on what you think people would want, not everyone wants to waste half their adult lives hiding from the world in a University.


and at any rate, i would say that getting some of the earth's population off this rock is more important "thing" (perhaps you meant objective) for the human species.

As if, we cant even bring back rocks from Mars yet, and the worlds about to blow itself to hell, there is no space thing honey.

and no, i have better things to do with my late teens to 20's than push out babies, you jackass.

How sad, if I was a woman Id have ten kids.

women aren't just here to carry your damn children. if you want something to do that, invent some artificial wombs whose only purpose then would be to produce children, otherwise, fuck off.

Yes you are, thats why you have womb.
Grow up, accept it and move on.

i don't view childbirth as a form of slavery, i plan on having kids later in life...

Dont you will just be a dried up old woman, your kids will be looking at you like your an old crone before their ten.


i say i cut your balls off right now, how about that?

lol down girl, it would be the end of both of us

Dakini]
exactly. you know, they've done studies and found that when the man of the household did a chunk of the chores and child rearing, a woman is more likely to have more than one child. if men got off their asses and helped their wives with some cleaning, then she would feel she would have enough support at home to have more children to look after.

What aload of shit, you modern day women dont know what work is, you have all the machines to help you look after the house and you still whine.

If robots were invented to do all the housework you would still find a reason to whine.

If you want to know what hard physical work is like, then get into the construction industry and become a bricklayer for ten years, trust me if you want to cry about how hard housework is, then what ever you think hard work is, isnt.



thus, it is not that women want carreers that is really killing the birth rate, it is men being lazy asses who don't think they need to help out.

Um thats 'careers' not carreers.

Its your job to keep the inside of the house clean and in order, not his.

Ask for help, if something gets too much for you, but dont order him around unless you want an unhappy and failed marriage.

Terminalia, remind me to send a prayer of love out to your future wife, if, Heaven forfend, you ever HAVE one. I don't think that all abortion is due to male laziness, but sexist attitudes in our society (like yours) definitely contribute to the female desire to keep federal laws off of our bodies. So your crassness is promoting liberal prochoiceism and shooting you in the foot. That said, I'm glad that people like you exist. It makes our cause look good. ;)

My theory of life: If you cant enjoy your life, youd be better off without one. So why not end your life before it starts ( significant brain activity). besides, were too many people already, were a horrible, parasitic plague that needs to be reduced, so its either that or lets go around with a minigun, see who's ugly. Of course, those of you who's moral agenda is dictated by the Christian Coalition probably dont see the difference.

I don't think abortion should have any age limit. I see people I want aborted all the time, most tend to be liberals. Then of course we have Pat Buchanan, he can be aborted as well.

as if your all suddenly going to start having more than two kids again, yeah right.

why do we need to have more than two kids? 2.1 is replacement level. so if 9/10 couples had 2 kids and 1/10 had 3, we'd be set.

Just a difference in spelling, you spell colour differently from us too.

but you still pluralize the same. it's countries, not countrys no matter where you're from.

Very limited view on what you think people would want, not everyone wants to waste half their adult lives hiding from the world in a University.

how is the pursuit of further knowledge a waste?

As if, we cant even bring back rocks from Mars yet, and the worlds about to blow itself to hell, there is no space thing honey.

umm... *looks up at sky* *looks at you oddly* *looks back at sky* well, you see it's funny because i see stars out there... in this thing we call space... which has been observed empirically for thousands of years and does indeed exist.

and also, just because we can't acheieve space travel now doesn't mean that it's impossible. they used to think it was impossible to fly in something heavier than air, and look... is that a plane up there?

How sad, if I was a woman Id have ten kids.

yeah right.

Yes you are, thats why you have womb.
Grow up, accept it and move on.

fuck yourself. i'm not here to have kids. i do have my own interests that do not consist of pushing out babies my entire life. i have as much right to do what interests me as any man.

Dont you will just be a dried up old woman, your kids will be looking at you like your an old crone before their ten.

again, my mom was 29 when i was born and i'm the oldest of four children. she's not even a dried up old crone now and i'm now 20.

lol down girl, it would be the end of both of us

not really, if you cut out my womb it would just be harder for me to reproduce, if i cut off your balls, you'd have to wait until the technology for cloning gets up to speed. i'd just have to hire a surrogate.

Loving Balance
Terminalia, remind me to send a prayer of love out to your future wife, if, Heaven forfend, you ever HAVE one. I don't think that all abortion is due to male laziness,

Please dont bother shes probably ten times the woman you could ever be.
Unlike yourself, she does not blame all of her problems or mistakes on men.


but sexist attitudes in our society (like yours) definitely contribute to the female desire to keep federal laws off of our bodies. So your crassness is promoting liberal prochoiceism and shooting you in the foot. That said, I'm glad that people like you exist. It makes our cause look good. ;)

You dont really have a cause, because beyond your own self centered lives, theres not much else you care about.

Nothing could make your cause look good, sorry.

terminalia, thou hath opened my eyes, I thought the biggest jackass around was Bill O'reily, but thou hath enlightened me. Alas, thy incredible Jackassiness will forever surpass the jackass limits of mankind, thou art immortal now.

terminalia, thou hath opened my eyes, I thought the biggest jackass around was Bill O'reily, but thou hath enlightened me. Alas, thy incredible Jackassiness will forever surpass the jackass limits of mankind, thou art immortal now.

No crackpie, as far as Jackasses go, compared to you I am nothing.

What aload of shit, you modern day women dont know what work is, you have all the machines to help you look after the house and you still whine.

If robots were invented to do all the housework you would still find a reason to whine.

If you want to know what hard physical work is like, then get into the construction industry and become a bricklayer for ten years, trust me if you want to cry about how hard housework is, then what ever you think hard work is, isnt.

actually, it's not a load of shit.
http://www.szexinfo.hu/upload/novedelem/document/birth_rate_in_Italy.htm

(from the site)
Letizia Mencarini, a professor of statistics at the University of Florence, questioned more than 3 000 mothers from five different cities across Italy in an effort to find out what would persuade them to have more children.

She found that the more the father was involved in the chores of looking after the child and household, the more likely his wife was to want and have a second baby. The survey indicated that Italian men do little around the house - fewer than six per cent of mothers responded that their husbands "always" or "often" did household chores . Consequently many women cannot face the dual burden of going out to work and looking after an extra child. They have to give up one of those two options: they usually decide to sacrifice the extra child.

There is evidence from other countries that men's participation in household chores affects the chances that a wife will have a second baby. Sweden’s birth rate is nearly 50 per cent higher than Italy's. Swedish men are rather more willing to share the burden of domestic chores and surveys of Swedish women reveal that 90 per cent say that they could not imagine having children if the father was not prepared to share the responsibilities of the household.

so yeah, if you want women to have more kids, you have to encourage men to get off their asses and help at home. this isn't a time when the average family can afford to have only a single income coming in...

Its your job to keep the inside of the house clean and in order, not his.

excuse me? does he make half the mess? yes, i believe he would... therefore, he gets to do half the cleaning. when i get home from my job and he gets home from his, my hypothetical husband and i are going to have cleaning parties in which we will both clean. or hire a maid if we can afford it, hopefully we will be able to...

Ask for help, if something gets too much for you, but dont order him around unless you want an unhappy and failed marriage.

you really are a jackass who knows fuck-all about anything, aren't you?

my current bf has agreed that if i do the cooking, he'll do the cleaning should we get married eventually. of course he's under the impression that i'm going to let him pay for the whole house... but yeah, that's not happening... i'm going to be paying half as is fair.

but you seriously need to get yourself out of the "i live in the 1950's, women are weak, fragile creatures good for only procreation and making men feel all macho by doing things like killing spiders. they're obviously weaker and stupider and can't handle the work we do." becuase i'll tell you what, women have a higher tolerance for pain over long periods, women work better in collaborative efforts, women deal with sleep deprivation much better than men, if me like you would stop holding us back and putting us down, we'd be running the world by now... and i think that thought scares you, so you just want to make sure that women are kept busy with the children and thus unable to become the dominant sex that you know we already are.

No crackpie, as far as Jackasses go, compared to you I am nothing.


ok...dude...sorry if I missed something but...Ive made two posts, one of which im sure you didnt even read... how exactly did you come to the conclusion that Im a bigger jackass than you. Cuz that a hell of an accusation, I hope you can back it up.

BTw: I am honored that you considered me an entity so great, that I could fit such a great amount of jackasiness within myself, a quantity so vast it would exceed your own. But I am afraid I am a simple mortal, and thus cannot accept such an honor.

Please dont bother shes probably ten times the woman you could ever be.
Unlike yourself, she does not blame all of her problems or mistakes on men.

no, she'll have to be the submissive type who has been beaten down so much that she believes she is worth less than a man.

sad but true: the risk of a woman dying in an abortion is less than the risk of a woman dying in childbirth, even in western countries.

You dont really have a cause, because beyond your own self centered lives, theres not much else you care about.

and all you care about is passing on your worthless, idiotic genes.

Nothing could make your cause look good, sorry.

nothing could make you look good, sorry.

fyi: our cause already looks good to the people we tried to make it look good in the begining. Now its time to beat it into the rednecks *grabs cattle prod* I love this part.

fyi: our cause already looks good to the people we tried to make it look good in the begining. Now its time to beat it into the rednecks *grabs cattle prod* I love this part.

oOo... excitement.

*watches*

* starts sapping assholes in alabama* you know, this has been the busiest season for asshole sapping since the 60's. the good ole Civil rights movemnt.

=Dakini]why do we need to have more than two kids? 2.1 is replacement level. so if 9/10 couples had 2 kids and 1/10 had 3, we'd be set.

Right, problem is there isnt as much coupling as there used to be producing stable familys of even one, the highest amount of people as a group, rising in western society at present are single people.
But according to you the next generations going to fix that, sorry but your tripping.

but you still pluralize the same. it's countries, not countrys no matter where you're from.

OK


how is the pursuit of further knowledge a waste?

Depends on what the Knowlege is I guess.
How long do you plan on hiding in a University anyway?



umm... *looks up at sky* *looks at you oddly* *looks back at sky* well, you see it's funny because i see stars out there... in this thing we call space... which has been observed empirically for thousands of years and does indeed exist.

It doesnt mean were going to reach them does it, thats what I meant by space race, never mind, it will sink in.



and also, just because we can't acheieve space travel now doesn't mean that it's impossible. they used to think it was impossible to fly in something heavier than air, and look... is that a plane up there?

I believe we could achieve that, but we are moving way too slow, and other stuff coming up soon will end that dream anyway.

fuck yourself.

Does your head spin around and projectile green vomiting come from your mouth as well?


i'm not here to have kids. i do have my own interests that do not consist of pushing out babies my entire life. i have as much right to do what interests me as any man.


No you dont, try and think outside your selfish little head once in your life, if you can.



not really, if you cut out my womb it would just be harder for me to reproduce, if i cut off your balls, you'd have to wait until the technology for cloning gets up to speed. i'd just have to hire a surrogate.

I never said Id cut out your womb, just recomended you go do it yourself.

Hire a surrogate, lovely way of talking about people you have isnt it, almost as if you view people like this as 'some form of slave' to do what your too lazy to do or incapable of.

And trust me if you even tried to cut off one of my balls you would be waiting on cloning technology to bring you back to life as well. ;)

Right, problem is there isnt as much coupling as there used to be producing stable familys of even one, the highest amount of people as a group, rising in western society at present are single people.
But according to you the next generations going to fix that, sorry but your tripping.



OK




Depends on what the Knowlege is I guess.
How long do you plan on hiding in a University anyway?





It doesnt mean were going to reach them does it, thats what I meant by space race, never mind, it will sink in.





I believe we could achieve that, but we are moving way too slow, and other stuff coming up soon will end that dream anyway.



Does your head spin around and projectile green vomiting come from your mouth as well?




No you dont, try and think outside your selfish little head once in your life, if you can.





I never said Id cut out your womb, just recomended you go do it yourself.

Hire a surrogate, lovely way of talking about people you have isnt it, almost as if you view people like this as some form of 'slave' to do what your incapable of.

And trust me if you even tried to cut off one of my balls you would be waiting on cloning technology to bring you back to life as well. ;)




and you considered me a bigger jackass than yourself? Truly, I am honored.

I have a question for pro-lifers out there.

Many families have kids. Many of these families with kids don't have the kind of money to take care of the children. Are you prepared to pay additional taxes in order to support those families?

A common response to this question is, "They should've thought of that before they had sex." I'll grant you that. They should have thought of that. But fact remains the same, they have no money to take care of that child. Is that the fault of the child? No, it really isn't.

and you considered me a bigger jackass than yourself? Truly, I am honored.

I bow to you, Crackpie, Lord of the Jackasses.
Now turn around so I can kick you. :)

fyi: our cause already looks good to the people we tried to make it look good in the begining. Now its time to beat it into the rednecks *grabs cattle prod* I love this part.

Yes only in your little dreams but.
Why dont you go cattleprod your mums bum :)

Yes only in your little dreams but.
Why dont you go cattleprod your mums bum :)


my mums bum bum has a restraining order against mine, thank you. She tried to stab me to death, almost succeeded, if my sister hadnt been there... Anywho, yes, I guess only in my little dreams, since I have various conditions which would prevent me from accomplishing what I have expressed.

Right, problem is there isnt as much coupling as there used to be producing stable familys of even one, the highest amount of people as a group, rising in western society at present are single people.
But according to you the next generations going to fix that, sorry but your tripping.

*sigh* you obviously misunderstood.

the deal with the boom echo not having had their kids yet isn't waiting for the next generation to fix things. it's a matter of waiting for a generation of already existing people to reach an age where they feel ready to reproduce in a responsable manner.

Depends on what the Knowlege is I guess.
How long do you plan on hiding in a University anyway?

1. the secrets of the universe.
2. i don't consider it hiding in a university. but let's see, i'm in my third year of undergraduate studies, so assuming i don't stick around an extra year in undergrad, i've got two more years here, then about what is it 6 for a masters and phd? so i'll be out around the time i'm 28 or so... plenty of time to have kids still. it would be nce if i could get some kind of research positiojn i could do remotely though, so i wouldn't have to take time out of a career for kids and i could stick around during the formative years to make sure they get the best possible start. oh, unless i deceide to be a highschool teacher, in which case, i'll have one year of teacher's college after my undergraduate degree and i'll be 25 when i start a career.

It doesnt mean were going to reach them does it, thats what I meant by space race, never mind, it will sink in.

again, never say never when it comes to things like this. if you consider it possible at worst you're overly optimistic, if it happens, then you were right... if you say never and it happens then you're in the wrong... if it never happens, then no one will give a damn.

I believe we could achieve that, but we are moving way too slow, and other stuff coming up soon will end that dream anyway.

so if you think the human species is going to be wiped out shortly, then why even bother trying to pass on our genes?

Does your head spin around and projectile green vomiting come from your mouth as well?

no, unfortunately, that could be a cool party trick though.

No you dont, try and think outside your selfish little head once in your life, if you can.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
so you honestly think that i'm being selfish for thinking that i have more to contribute to the world than my genetic material? where do you think we'd be if marie curie had given up on her experiments in favour of popping out children?
you're the one who's being selfish for wanting to raise as many kids as possible at the expense of the actual living part of life of another just so you can put your genes onto the planet in a country that uses the most resources per capita...

how is it that i'm being selfish for thinking i have something other than offspring to contribute to this species? me producing kids will add a minimal amount of population, me discovering new, facinating possibilities could advance the technological and scientific progress of our species...

I never said Id cut out your womb, just recomended you go do it yourself.

why the hell would i do that? i plan on having kids eventually, but i'm well aware that that's not all i can do. just because you're stuck in the mode of "i must reproduce, that's all that's important in life" doesn't make it true of everyone. who knows, perhaps the only thing you'll ever do right in your life will be to plant a seed in someone's belly. i just hope your kids react against your idiocy and become intelligent, open-minded, equality-preferring mature adults.

Hire a surrogate, lovely way of talking about people you have isnt it, almost as if you view people like this as some form of 'slave' to do what your incapable of.

what? i have a womb, as my monthly friend reminds me. if i didn't, then i could pay someone to do that for me though... it's not slavery, it's completely voluntary and she'd get paid. you obviously don't know how these things work.

And trust me if you even tried to cut off one of my balls you would be waiting on cloning technology to bring you back to life as well. ;)

yeah, have you ever been kicked in your balls before? i'd get them both in one shot, perhaps nick the shaft while i'm at it and you'd be on the ground wailing in pain in no time flat. good luck with the killing me thing then. hahaha.

oh, and you also ignored the study that i looked up and linked that showed a correlation between men helping in the household and a higher birthrate.

my mums bum bum has a restraining order against mine, thank you. She tried to stab me to death, almost succeeded, if my sister hadnt been there... Anywho, yes, I guess only in my little dreams, since I have various conditions which would prevent me from accomplishing what I have expressed.

Happy little family arent you.

[QUOTE]excuse me? does he make half the mess? yes, i believe he would... therefore, he gets to do half the cleaning. when i get home from my job and he gets home from his, my hypothetical husband and i are going to have cleaning parties in which we will both clean. or hire a maid if we can afford it, hopefully we will be able to...

I see your hypothetical marriage lasting 6 months or less, guess you wont be taking the garbage out or mowing the lawn much.

If I could have a dollar for each woman Ive seen mowing a lawn, Id have two.



you really are a jackass who knows fuck-all about anything, aren't you?


Ive seen stuff that would scare the hell out of you.
Sorry but your the jackass for making assumptions.


my current bf has agreed that if i do the cooking, he'll do the cleaning should we get married eventually. of course he's under the impression that i'm going to let him pay for the whole house... but yeah, that's not happening... i'm going to be paying half as is fair.

Course you will, tell him the truth now, he will pay for it all, then your going to take the whole lot after the er marriage disolves into a screaming match.
Take-50: modern day marriage.


but you seriously need to get yourself out of the "i live in the 1950's, women are weak, fragile creatures good for only procreation and making men feel all macho by doing things like killing spiders.

Oh right so when you women go screaming and running from mice and spiders and stuff, your not really scared, its just so we can get all macho and stuff, right gotcha.


they're obviously weaker and stupider and can't handle the work we do." becuase i'll tell you what, women have a higher tolerance for pain over long periods,

Thats sexist crap sorry.



women work better in collaborative efforts, women deal with sleep deprivation much better than men,


more sexist crap.


if me like you would stop holding us back and putting us down, we'd be running the world by now... and i think that thought scares you, so you just want to make sure that women are kept busy with the children and thus unable to become the dominant sex that you know we already are.

Oh so now your dominant, funny for years you have been jumping up and down screaming that you are the equals of men, now you have suddenly decided your really the dominant sex. :) :)

Thats abit of a paradox dont you think?
Meaning why would millions of women demand to be recognised as equals, if they were already superior, they wouldnt have to would they.

Sorry, but your living in a fantasyland.

If I listed all the ways men are superior to women, whether their true or not, and said because of this men are dominant to women, as you just did with women in regards to men, Id be called a sexist pig, so this then makes you a sexist pig doesnt it.

Oink oink.

Terminalia, out of curiousity, how extensive is your own personal experience with relationships and women in general?

Terminalia, out of curiousity, how extensive is your own personal experience with relationships and women in general?

I have a girlfriend, shes great looking and great to be with.

I treat her with respect and get the same in return.

ok...dude...sorry if I missed something but...Ive made two posts, one of which im sure you didnt even read... how exactly did you come to the conclusion that Im a bigger jackass than you. Cuz that a hell of an accusation, I hope you can back it up.

BTw: I am honored that you considered me an entity so great, that I could fit such a great amount of jackasiness within myself, a quantity so vast it would exceed your own. But I am afraid I am a simple mortal, and thus cannot accept such an honor.

Its yours whether you like it or not, sorry. ;)

I have a girlfriend, shes great looking and great to be with.

I treat her with respect and get the same in return.

Is she aware of the views you've expressed in this thread? For example the whole "You have a womb, so your purpose in life is to carry children" thing?

If she's really ok with that, I think you should get her into therapy. Because while it's pretty normal for guys to think that about girls, girls who *accept* this view tend to have very very serious self-esteem issues.

:sniper: does it really matter......think about it.......its just a human....yeah...wothless...

Dakini:
no, she'll have to be the submissive type who has been beaten down so much that she believes she is worth less than a man.

Well that can work both ways, there are plenty of henpecked men around who think their worthless from years of living with an acid tounged woman.
Anyway she isnt submisive at all, and if she was I wouldnt like her the way I do.


and all you care about is passing on your worthless, idiotic genes.

God I hope not, that means Id have kids like you.



nothing could make you look good, sorry.

I have some nice shirts.

nothing could make you look good, sorry.



I have some nice shirts.



Hee! While I disagree with most of your political/moral opinions, I must admit this amuses me greatly :D

=Shaed]
Is she aware of the views you've expressed in this thread? For example the whole "You have a womb, so your purpose in life is to carry children" thing?

Yeah, but shes not that worried by it like you are.

If she's really ok with that, I think you should get her into therapy.

Oh look, sorry but go and get some therapy yourself, you probably have alot more self esteem issues to deal with than she ever will.
Shes one of the bravest and nicest persons Ive ever met.

Hee! While I disagree with most of your political/moral opinions, I must admit this amuses me greatly :D

Good, hope you laughed. :)

Dakini]


What aload of shit, you modern day women dont know what work is, you have all the machines to help you look after the house and you still whine.

If robots were invented to do all the housework you would still find a reason to whine.

If you want to know what hard physical work is like, then get into the construction industry and become a bricklayer for ten years, trust me if you want to cry about how hard housework is, then what ever you think hard work is, isnt.





Um thats 'careers' not carreers.

Its your job to keep the inside of the house clean and in order, not his.

Ask for help, if something gets too much for you, but dont order him around unless you want an unhappy and failed marriage.

You still live with your parents, don't you?

How sad, if I was a woman Id have ten kids.


With your attitude, if you were a woman - the only way you'd have ANY kids is if you can get someone to mail-order 'donations'.


Yes you are, thats why you have womb.
Grow up, accept it and move on.


Good argument. And, since you are (I assume) male... you have a prostate gland, which can be stimulated by 'massage'.

You MUST have this to make you enjoy anal-intercourse - otherwise it wouldn't be there. (I'm basing this on YOUR logic).

Please dont bother shes probably ten times the woman you could ever be.
Unlike yourself, she does not blame all of her problems or mistakes on men.


Of course she's ten times the woman. And she has a figure like Pamela Anderson. And her dad owns a brewery.



You dont really have a cause, because beyond your own self centered lives, theres not much else you care about.

Nothing could make your cause look good, sorry.

You don't see the irony there, do you?

You are making men, in general, look bad.

Right, problem is there isnt as much coupling as there used to be producing stable familys of even one, the highest amount of people as a group, rising in western society at present are single people.
But according to you the next generations going to fix that, sorry but your tripping.


The amount of 'coupling' (which I think you are misusing, but hey!) has no relation to the amount of offspring. You may not have noticed, but the whole dynamic of 'family' is changing - which I guess scares anachronisms like you. More people are having less-nuclear families, and more 'open' families... communities of family. These people are not necessarily 'married' in the legal sense (partly because some of those relationships include male-male or female-female elements, partly because some of those relationships are polyamorous, and partly because not all relationships are about marriage.)


Depends on what the Knowlege is I guess.
How long do you plan on hiding in a University anyway?


Why do you hate education so? The only thing you think can be acheived by University is a few years 'hiding' from 'real life'? "You are a sad, strange little man".


I believe we could achieve that, but we are moving way too slow, and other stuff coming up soon will end that dream anyway.


The other stuff? The fact that the US seems intent on causing wars? The fact that the other big competitor for space, Russia, has a depressed economy? Or is this more 'religions' stuff, again?

I never said Id cut out your womb, just recomended you go do it yourself.


And trust me if you even tried to cut off one of my balls you would be waiting on cloning technology to bring you back to life as well. ;)

First - you say anyone who doesn't want children (yet) should have their womb cut out.

And now you are threatening to kill someone? And all this over the internet?

How INSECURE are you?

No. It's not human. Yet. It has the possibility to become human, but it is not human. There is no way you could value its will over the will of the mother. It would not be fair. It would also be fairly sexist.

Why is it not human? What is the scientific definition of a human being? Technically the child still belongs to Homo Sapiens. I sure hope that when the child hits that third trimester its genetic makeup doesn't just change to become human.

I see your hypothetical marriage lasting 6 months or less, guess you wont be taking the garbage out or mowing the lawn much.

If I could have a dollar for each woman Ive seen mowing a lawn, Id have two.

my mom mowes the lawn at my house. and if she doesn't do it, then she pays one of my sisters to do it. she also takes out the garbage most of the time or at least moves it up to the front of the garage so it's easy for my dad to grab before heading off to work.
i've built flowerbeds at my house, my mom's carried whellbarrows full of dirt out of our backyard while my dad's been digging away. my sisters and i all bring both parents glasses of ice water when they've been out working in the garden.

and let's see, well, when my bf comes over here, i've gone to take a shower and found my room clean when i get back. the only problem is that neither of us can stand the way the other makes the bed... but yeah, i cook food for him and we'll both do the dishes together and have delightful conversations about it. things do work better when men and women work together rather than say "ok, i'll watch some t.v. now, you enjoy cleaning up this mountail of dishes." so no, i think a hyopthetical marriage of mine would last much longer than 6 months, seeing as my relationship is going on 13 months right now.

oh, and also, if it was up to me, i'd spread wildflower seeds on the lawn and have a meadow. he's the one who wants a beautifully manicured lawn. (yes, we have actually discussed things like this)

Ive seen stuff that would scare the hell out of you.
Sorry but your the jackass for making assumptions.

umm... right... that's it...

Course you will, tell him the truth now, he will pay for it all, then your going to take the whole lot after the er marriage disolves into a screaming match.
Take-50: modern day marriage.

umm... no... i prefer to earn things for myself rather than havign them handed to me. you really have a poor opinion of women in general, don't you?
and i tell you what, you'd better be honest with any girl you come accross about being serious when you say you want 10 kids otherwise i predict that your amount of cash will half itself many times over.

Oh right so when you women go screaming and running from mice and spiders and stuff, your not really scared, its just so we can get all macho and stuff, right gotcha.

i don't run from mice and spiders. i like spiders. they eat mosquitos and other annoying bugs. i just let the little things scamper off. i'm not scared of mice either, i get live traps and release them into fields... i'm a big girl, i can take care of myself.

Thats sexist crap sorry.

no, they've actually done studies, men can tolerate more pain at once, but women can tolerate more pain over a longer period of time.

more sexist crap.

actually, there have been studies on sleep deprivation and women deal with it much better. sleep deprivation being 4 or fewer hours of sleep a night. women end up less stressed and emotionally stable and men have a higher risk of heart problems when deprived of sleep for longer periods.

Oh so now your dominant, funny for years you have been jumping up and down screaming that you are the equals of men, now you have suddenly decided your really the dominant sex. :) :)

Thats abit of a paradox dont you think?
Meaning why would millions of women demand to be recognised as equals, if they were already superior, they wouldnt have to would they.

no, we are equals, it's just that many men are chauvists, such as yourselves out of fear that we could become dominant. considering all the time we've spent working twice as hard for half the recognition and reward, you're afraid that with a level playing field we may surpass you so you fight to keep us down.
also, i wouldn't call that a paradox at all... i'm not sure you know what a paradox is.

If I listed all the ways men are superior to women, whether their true or not, and said because of this men are dominant to women, as you just did with women in regards to men, Id be called a sexist pig, so this then makes you a sexist pig doesnt it.

Oink oink.

not really. i mentioned three things which have been verified by studies and i also added the bit about men withstanding higher amounts of pain at once, which admittedly i should have started off with.
however, it does make evolutionary sense that women can withstand pain for longer. those who could would produce more offspring. similarly with women being able to withstand sleep deprivation, those who could could tend to their offspring better and thus ensure that their genetic material lives on.

and men do tend to go for individual achievement more than women, who tend to prefer to see their entire group succeed. though whether that's social conditioning or a naturally evolved characteristic, i don't know.

Why is it not human? What is the scientific definition of a human being? Technically the child still belongs to Homo Sapiens. I sure hope that when the child hits that third trimester its genetic makeup doesn't just change to become human.

it's not a child when it's in the womb. that classification comes after it has made its exit.

Its your job to keep the inside of the house clean and in order, not his.

just out of curiosity, why is that? is a man somehow incapable of cleaning up his own messes? or is he simply so much weaker and stupider than a woman, that while she can have a career and also keep house he is unable to function after straining himself to work during the day?

alternatively, if men are biologically better designed for manual labor, then why shouldn't men be the ones to bear the burden of chores around the house? after all, women are physiologically designed to bear young, and that is your reasoning for why that is what they should do, so doesn't your own logic instruct us to have men perform all non-childbearing tasks around the house?

You don't see the irony there, do you?

You are making men, in general, look bad.

i sincerely doubt he does see the irony. i'm not even sure he knows what irony is... with his poor use of the word paradox, i'm not sure how accustomed he is to literary devices.

and if it makes you feel any better, most people know that it's stupid to look down upon an entire gender, race, religion et c for the complete idiocy of one person who belongs to said group. he's just making himself look bad.

just out of curiosity, why is that? is a man somehow incapable of cleaning up his own messes? or is he simply so much weaker and stupider than a woman, that while she can have a career and also keep house he is unable to function after straining himself to work during the day?

alternatively, if men are biologically better designed for manual labor, then why shouldn't men be the ones to bear the burden of chores around the house? after all, women are physiologically designed to bear young, and that is your reasoning for why that is what they should do, so doesn't your own logic instruct us to have men perform all non-childbearing tasks around the house?

excellent point.
he also continues to ignore the link i provided earlier to a study that demonstrates that when men help out around the house, their wives are more likely to have more kids.

Why do people automatically assume that abortion or raising the child yourself are the only possibilities? Yes, not all people believe that but that seems to be the first two things that come to a womans mind. We need to encourage adoption. My aunt adopted two beautiful kids. A girl from Indiana and a boy from Korea.

The cause of 99% of miscarriages is the fact that the child would not survive outside of the womb. Nature takes care of itself. If the child is not healthy(or can't survive), it will die. My friend's mom had a Down's Syndrome boy. He expresses the same emotions as all of us. He can walk and eat on his own. The only problem he has is in verbal communication, he can understand others and express himself through other ways, but if you think that you should kill a child because they won't be able to communicate verbally, then lets kill deaf or mute people. Yes, most Down's syndrome kids have the same abilities, or more, as my friend's brother.

Developement of a baby:

3 weeks - the heart starts beating

6 weeks - child's brain is sending out impulses and controls body functions.

7 weeks - the child responds to touch

8 weeks - all the organs are formed and the external features are established

Why do people automatically assume that abortion or raising the child yourself are the only possibilities? Yes, not all people believe that but that seems to be the first two things that come to a womans mind. We need to encourage adoption. My aunt adopted two beautiful kids. A girl from Indiana and a boy from Korea.

i personally believe that raising a child yourself or having an abortion are the only responsible choices. i believe the most irresponsible and shameful act a person could take is to bring a child into the world with every intention of putting it up for adoption. as a result, i would never consider taking what i believe is a disgusting and dishonorable action. it's not that i deny that is a possibility, just that it is totally unacceptable in my value system.

according to webmd, the heartbeat isn't until 6 weeks.

the organs are present at 12 weeks, but aren't formed yet.

the nervous system doesn't start to function until 20 weeks.

i want to know where you got your timeline of fetal development.

here's mine, by the way... http://my.webmd.com/content/pages/18/102573.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348}

in case you want to check it out... i trust webmd to be bias-free when it comes to medical information and this seems directed at those who want to become mothers as they refer to it as a baby even though it has not reached that stage.

hehe, funny how a chauvinist asshole can turn an issue of abortion into a battle of the sexes. Alas, men would lose, for while we still hold many important and valuable qualities, the importance of these qualities is decreasing as we speak.

See, long time ago, men where valued more because they were more directly ( though probably not more importantly) linkd to survival as the hunter/gatherer/protector. Men's superior physical strenght made them very valuable when these things were so important ( in fact, the word virile comes from a roman word wich means "good", implying that the qualities of men were seen with such importance)

But as technology progresses, physical strength is needed less and less, men become less and less necesary. las, we are a dying species, and most evolution theories will agree that men's numbers will dwindle in the future

hehe, funny how a chauvinist asshole can turn an issue of abortion into a battle of the sexes. Alas, men would lose, for while we still hold many important and valuable qualities, the importance of these qualities is decreasing as we speak.

See, long time ago, men where valued more because they were more directly ( though probably not more importantly) linkd to survival as the hunter/gatherer/protector. Men's superior physical strenght made them very valuable when these things were so important ( in fact, the word virile comes from a roman word wich means "good", implying that the qualities of men were seen with such importance)

But as technology progresses, physical strength is needed less and less, men become less and less necesary. las, we are a dying species, and most evolution theories will agree that men's numbers will dwindle in the future
just to clarify, the real reason that evolutionary theorists speculate about "the death of men" is rooted not in literal numbers but in the characteristics of maleness:

testosterone is a toxic chemical which men have in abundance. testosterone reduces a male's survivability in terms of immune response, tissue regeneration, and extended cell life; the reason testosterone used to be an advantageous trait was because of the muscle mass it helps to build, and to the increased aggressive tendencies that were once more adaptive.

now that those benefits of testosterone have been significantly reduced in humans, the costs of offspring having high testosterone outweigh the potential benefits. it is no longer worth the negative impacts to get more muscle and more aggressiveness, since muscle is not the key to survival and high emotional aggressiveness actually reduces fitness in most modern societies.

what's cool is that studies show women today unknowingly select for men with lower testosterone when they chose a mate; women still are sexually attracted to males with features that indicate high testosterone, but when they are asked to look at pictures of a range of males and select which they would be most interested in having children with the females tend to choose males with "softer" or more feminine traits, traits which indicate lower testosterone. the evolutionary impulse to pick a high-testosterone male is still there, and women select for high-testosterone males when asked who they would most like to have sex with, but modern contraception allows them to chose not to reproduce with those males...which, according to studies, is what they tend to do in developed nations.

women are selecting against machismo, and the more educated a woman is the more strongly pronounced this tendency will be. it is not so much that men will go extinct, as that the sexes will become much more similar and males will more closely resemble females in both physical characteristics and psychological profile. there will still be a balance in numbers of the genders, but the "man's man" will dwindle and fail.

just out of curiosity, why is that? is a man somehow incapable of cleaning up his own messes?

Speaking from experience... yes, yes we are. ;)



You sexist

Cute.

Speaking from experience... yes, yes we are. ;)

i suppose i have the same experience; my male friends are at least as capable as i am of picking up messes...which is to say, totally incapable. :)

Speaking from experience... yes, yes we are. ;)


my bf is a neat freak... he cleans up other people's messes as well as his own. voluntarily.

my bf is a neat freak... he cleans up other people's messes as well as his own. voluntarily.

Oh I am too on occation, it's just the day-to-day cleaning I... fail to do.

Oh I am too on occation, it's just the day-to-day cleaning I... fail to do.

nah, he lines up pens on his dresser on a daily basis and rids himself of clutter. he's folded my dirty laundry before putting it in the hamper for me when i've been in the shower...

nah, he lines up pens on his dresser on a daily basis and rids himself of clutter. he's folded my dirty laundry before putting it in the hamper for me when i've been in the shower...

probably gay lol

probably gay lol

oh, i'm so sorry that no real man actually does anything around the house but burp, fart and scratch himself.

you do realise that you're disgusting and any woman in her right mind would tell you to go to hell, right?

oh, i'm so sorry that no real man actually does anything around the house but burp, fart and scratch himself.

you do realise that you're disgusting and any woman in her right mind would tell you to go to hell, right?


I bet your boyfriend asks you for permission before he farts :) ;)

=Bottle]just out of curiosity, why is that? is a man somehow incapable of cleaning up his own messes? or is he simply so much weaker and stupider than a woman, that while she can have a career and also keep house he is unable to function after straining himself to work during the day?

No Im capable of cleaning up after myself, women if anything seem to be just as messy as us.


You seem to have a very low opinion of men too.
your answer to that of course: no just ones like you
my reply: I couldnt care less.

alternatively, if men are biologically better designed for manual labor, then why shouldn't men be the ones to bear the burden of chores around the house?

Ah when it comes to the heavy stuff, not that theres as much now, we usually do.

after all, women are physiologically designed to bear young, and that is your reasoning for why that is what they should do,

That natures reasoning as well, but dont let that get in the way of a good story.

so doesn't your own logic instruct us to have men perform all non-childbearing tasks around the house?

No, help out but let her run the house, just dont become part of what shes running.
Unless thats what you like.