NationStates Jolt Archive

very well put; by Terminalia's "logic," the only thing men should do is sit around making sperm all day, since that's what their bodies are designed to do. they shouldn't engage in any activity that puts their testicles at risk, since Nature put the testicles outside in such a vulnerable place with the obvious INTENTION of making men do nothing but sit very still and let the testicle work.

here that, guys? you don't have to work any more! Terminalia has proven that your only function is to make sperm and father offspring, so take the day off to get it on!

As good as that might sound, it stops me from mastrubating, since wasting even a single sperm will make God irrate.

OK, League player weighing in at 102 kg of muscle, runs fast at another

footballer and with superior strength and technique runs over him, therefore

he has more power than the other guy.

Thus mass x speed = power

That's called momentum darling - not power.

So what shes probably plugged up to the eyeballs on roidjuice too.

not necessarily. plenty of women could benchpress you who have spent time to build up the muscles. as bottle pointed out women don't build muscles as efficiently as men, doesn't mean we can't do it eventually.

How can they, its not possible biologically so its not even relevant.

men do contribute to the production of children you know.

Yes, women are biologically and emotionally suited better to raise children.

If another guy wants to do that, then thats his decision, its not something I

would do, I suppose Im now an evil sexist achronism.

we aren't any more biologically suited to raise kids, parenting skills are learned they aren't inborn. chances are if a man and a woman had kids and the man had excellent parents while the woman had poor parents, the man might be a better parent having had better role models. either that or the woman could work very hard and make sure she does a better job than her parents, however the man in this instance has the advantage of seeing good parents in action.

Do you find that admirable?

no, i forgot to delete part of your post that i wasn't going to respond to.

OK, League player weighing in at 102 kg of muscle, runs fast at another

footballer and with superior strength and technique runs over him, therefore

he has more power than the other guy.

Thus mass x speed = power

mass*velocity isn't power. mass*velocity=momentum. please stop abusing terms so.

And this isnt sexist to you of course, what if it was the men expressing

dominance, that would be sexist then probably.

what? how do i care who does the choosing?
my bf asked me out, i asked my ex-bf out, who gives a damn? i'm not going to refuse someone's request for a date simply because i want to be the one initiating.

Maybe, but although good balance is important its not the main part of the

job, could you carry heavy loads at the same time, all day if necessary, thats

where mens greater physical strength and higher centre of

gravity masters this kind of work much more naturally than a woman can.

now that just doesnt' make any sense. how would a man's higher centre of gravity affect carrying heavy loads at all?

Its not about asking whether you wanted to, its about whether you think

your capable of it anyway.

i'm quite capable.

Yes but strength is what counts the most.

says who? intelligence is much more important. do you know how many animals are stronger than us? do you know how many we can outwit?

Harshly worded, women are suposed to 'push out babies', as you derogatorly

put it, thats why you have a womb, it wasnt put there as an option.

You call me a chauvist if you want, I cant see anything sexist about simply

stating the prime reason for women in life.

To do deny something as natural and beautiful as this is PC.

so if i said that men were here for nothing more than contributing sperm, for fertilizing female ovum. and for providing us pleasure. that's it. that is the prime reason for men in life, giving us the materials to make babies with.
nobody's primary function is reproduction, by saying that is the most important thing women do, you are insulting us all.

Nice dodge, when men out perform women at something in sport, which is a

lot, its automatically discarded as unimportant lol

no, i'm saying that i don't give a damn about tennis, i don't watch tennis and no one else seems to give a damn except you.

[QUOTE]

How many for vagina? :)
Too many...and most aren't at all endearing.

precisely. i don't understand why Terminalia is finding it so difficult to make that distinction; could somebody perhaps give me suggestions as to how i might phrase things more clearly? i cannot believe Terminalia is really so stupid that he can't grasp the difference between biology and social convention, and therefore i must simply be doing a bad job of communicating my points...did anybody else understand the things i was trying to say to Terminalia, or was it really a total bust?
You made yourself clear to those with a bend to listen.

If I may, and this may be a bit of a stretch: I believe Terminalia is confusing archetypes of the feminine and the masculine with (and substituting the words) "women" and "men", as well as the idea that every "woman" and "man" embodies archetypal traits of the respective gender.
Jung separated personalities not so much into male and female, but into unique blends of masculine and feminine qualities, which he believed were found in all human psyches in varying degrees of potency. The masculine principle, or archetype, as Jung called it, celebrates rational thinking, heroic power, goal-oriented achievement, and independence. It is transcendent, visionary, mindful. The feminine principle loves to feel; it compels us to nurture; it links sexuality with relationship; and it reveres life and death as natural cycles of nature. It is embodied, intuitive, heartful.

The feminine is that part of the self that is vulnerable, receptive, open; the part that values connection and communication. It likes to put all the cards on the table and doesn't want to hold back or keep secrets. It the part that is comfortable right here on earth with all of its pain and messiness; the part that does not want to run away from life or try to change nature's rules. This is the feminine archetype. The masculine archetype sees beyond this life, looks outside of itself, identifies with the eternal, and wants to move ever forward. It plans and negotiates, is reasonable and rational. It is on a mission to achieve, invent, build, make a mark. It is the part of the self that is determined, loyal, judicious, and steady.
(http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/insp/genderandself.html)

Yeah their known as metrosexuals, sensitive new age geeks, nerds,
nancyboys, wimps, doormats, pussys etc you cant count them, there not
men.
There an embarressment. :)


Just because some guys have mastered the art of breathing with their mouths closed.

See, most guys think that anachronistic throw-back types, with their "women are for babies" caveman mentality, are embarrasing.


I never said men were superior to women either, maybe you should go back
and read some of my facts better.


If you EVER post a fact, I'll personally try to read it.
Post a fact, post a link that supports it.
All you have posted so far has been badly spelled rhetoric, and a lot of mind-numbing opinions.


So there better at using emotional blackmail, Id agree on that.


For a second there, I thought you had resorted to stereotyping again... oh, wait...


Sorry but how stupid are you, tennis is a much bigger sport world wide, and
attracts much bigger dollars than sprinting and long distance, do the names
Agassi, Sampras or Hingis mean anything to you, try telling them, or the
millions of people of both sexes who play it around the world, that using
tennis, is a stupid example.


Why did you chose Tennis? Started out as a girls-only sport, didn't it? Interesting, then - that you chose that as your 'manly' sport...


We were talking endurance here, and strength plays a big part in that
anyway, try and read the thread a bit better.


No, strength and endurance are totally different. You REALLY need a dictionary, Terminalia... you're on pretty shaky ground when it comes to words.


Oh really, mass(muscle) x speed = power, if you cant understand the logic in
that simple and accepted equation, then theres no hope for you.
Your other number of things human biology uses naturally to generate power,
can you post them please?


That isn't an accepted equation. You just made it up.
"Force = mass x acceleration" is an accepted equation... where did your 'equation' come from? Links please.

Come and do my job then, if you can do roof tiling for four years I'll accept
what you say.


Ha ha ha ha ha.....

Roof tiling... I did that when I was fourteen!!!

If a fourteen year old boy, weighing, I don't know, a hundred and thirty pounds, can do it....

oh that's going to keep me amused for days....

Im now an evil sexist achronism.

OK, League player weighing in at 102 kg of muscle, runs fast at another
footballer and with superior strength and technique runs over him, therefore
he has more power than the other guy.
Thus mass x speed = power

I think you mean 'anachronism'.

See, you're misplacing your science here. The 'impact' is the transfer of a force from an (effectively) moving body to an (effectively) static body.

The force is calculated by multiplying the mass of the body by the acceleration which the body is enduring: F=ma or Force=Mass x Acceleration.

That only tells you the force being transferred, it doesn't tell how much 'power' was involved. Indeed, what do you mean by power?

Do you mean the amount of 'work done'?

Yes but strength is what counts the most.


Strength is only MOST important when you don't have technique.

Look at professional weight-lifting. Sure, strength is important, but technique is far more important. It was technique that allowed Paul Anderson to redefine what was considered a 'possible' weight for a human body to lift.

Technique is far more important than raw strength in almost every feat-of-strength situation.


Harshly worded, women are suposed to 'push out babies', as you derogatorly
put it, thats why you have a womb, it wasnt put there as an option.
You call me a chauvist if you want, I cant see anything sexist about simply
stating the prime reason for women in life.


First, I think you mean "Chauvinist".

Second: The popping out babies think is your opinion. Show some evidence that shows categorically that that is what women are 'for'.

Third: Even though women have a uterus, that doesn't mean they HAVE TO have children... biological urges or not, it is still a matter of choice.

Or can you not resist your 'natural urges'?


Nice dodge, when men out perform women at something in sport, which is a
lot, its automatically discarded as unimportant lol


Or maybe, she was just referring to the fact that tennis is the sports equivalent of a B-grade horror movie. In that, most people only ever watch it if the 'real thing' isn't on.

Can you handle heights?

Walking up and down steep roofs carring heay tools and bundles of tiles over

your shoulder that weigh 40 kgs?

Every working day for ten hours?

For years and years?

No matter how hot or cold it gets?

Do you really think you can handle that?

My best friend is a 5'2" 110 lb carpenter (framer) who can work circles around the men. She walks on the top plate like a cat and throws plywood with the best of them. ten hour days, in the florida heat and the damp winters. And she's a good looking, straight female.

I do very physical work, and if i hire men to work with me, they will work harder and faster, carrying twice as much, but then after a couple hours their sorry asses are whipped, and i just keep going, carrying one at a time, but without slowing down. Its a style difference. In the end, the work gets done the same. Women are less likely to break something while they are working, i have found. They pay more attention to aesthetic detail, which is critical in my line of work (landscaping).

Now as far as bigger/stronger being better--i am reminded of an Ultimate Fight that matched up a Sumo wrestler with a 150lb boxer. The boxer came out swinging, and with superior technique, landed one quick punch--a fight ending punch, cramming the sumo wrestler's nose into his skull.

And anyone who has studied martial arts knows that technique beats strength every time. You just use their momentum against them.

So if you think about it, Natural Selection or God made it so that the species evolved into two biological roles (kinda like the decanted babies in Brave New World) The natural testosterone in utero makes males good for taking out the garbage, fixing things, and fighting it out for resources, while the lack of testosterone in females allows the frontal lobe of the brain to develop more. (ask for a link to that information, if you dare. but i warn you males that you will be sadly disappointed with the results)

As soon as women realize they hold all the power, idiots like Terminalia will be castrated to make sure they don't pollute the gene pool.

It is only the bullying and use of physical force that has put men in power over women.

Yeah, it's basically become "Termy, you're a stupid pig!" "Shut up, your a woman and that makes me better then you!"

Thats right, just make a ridiculous comment when you have nothing left to offer. :rolleyes:

=Menoparchia]My best friend is a 5'2" 110 lb carpenter (framer) who can work circles around the men.

I doupt it, why do you have to go that far to make a case for women working

on building sites, just saying she can do the work would have been good

enough.

Drifting off in feminist fantasyland again.

She walks on the top plate like a cat and throws plywood with the best of them.

110 lb.. and she throws ply with the best of them, your really dribbling now.

ten hour days, in the florida heat and the damp winters. And she's a good looking, straight female.

Course she is..


I do very physical work, and if i hire men to work with me,

sounds like you have a fear of men.


they will work harder and faster, carrying twice as much, but then after a couple hours their sorry asses are whipped,


spoken like a true sexist pig.



Now as far as bigger/stronger being better--i am reminded of an Ultimate Fight that matched up a Sumo wrestler with a 150lb boxer. The boxer came out swinging, and with superior technique, landed one quick punch--a fight ending punch, cramming the sumo wrestler's nose into his skull.

Lucky for him, if the sumo had grabbed him the boxer would have had his ribs

crushed, lucky punch.


And anyone who has studied martial arts knows that technique beats strength every time. You just use their momentum against them.

True, what about a stronger martial artist with superior technique as well, do

you think the weaker person with just as good technigue would win then?


So if you think about it, Natural Selection or God made it so that the species evolved into two biological roles (kinda like the decanted babies in Brave New World) The natural testosterone in utero makes males good for taking out the garbage, fixing things, and fighting it out for resources, while the lack of testosterone in females allows the frontal lobe of the brain to develop more. (ask for a link to that information, if you dare. but i warn you males that you will be sadly disappointed with the results)

Gossiping?



As soon as women realize they hold all the power,

lol you only have one real power and its between your legs. :)

idiots like Terminalia will be castrated to make sure they don't pollute the gene pool.

Sure, Id back my genes over yours anyday of the week.


It is only the bullying and use of physical force that has put men in power over women.

Is that all, not the same strength women like you constantly play down as

unimportant and irrelevant?

As for the bullying, women are just as capable of men of doing that back to

men and to other women, dont try and play the 'were all just innocent angels

garbage'. :)

=Grave_n_idle]Strength is only MOST important when you don't have technique.

Technique doesnt always win but.

Technique is far more important than raw strength in almost every feat-of-strength situation.


I'll have to tell that one to Robbie O'Davis when he tried to stop a rampaging

prop on the try line with a tackle and was knocked flying, strength won that

time.

First, I think you mean "Chauvinist".

Typo

Second: The popping out babies think is your opinion. Show some evidence that shows categorically that that is what women are 'for'.

evidence =womb

and its the most important and necessary thing a woman can do for herself

and the human race.


Third: Even though women have a uterus, that doesn't mean they HAVE TO have children... biological urges or not, it is still a matter of choice.

Or can you not resist your 'natural urges'?

oh please dont stoop to more guiless insinuations, even you should be better

than that.

Or maybe, she was just referring to the fact that tennis is the sports equivalent of a B-grade horror movie. In that, most people only ever watch it if the 'real thing' isn't on.

How is it??

Its watched by millions of people all over the planet, attracts huge

sponsorship dollars and advertising, gets huge coverage in the media and its

top players are idols to many, hardly the equivelent to a B grade horror flick,

maybe you just cant handle the fact how it exposes women to be vastly

inferior at all aspects of a particular game to men, not to mention other

games like soccer, golf, union, league, basketball, motor racing, skiing water

polo etc etc etc

Also Grave can you tell me how technique beats strength in Gridiron?

Lucky for him, if the sumo had grabbed him the boxer would have had his ribs crushed, lucky punch.


Surely it wasn't luck, though... you don't think the boxer meant to hit him?


True, what about a stronger martial artist with superior technique as well, do
you think the weaker person with just as good technigue would win then?


Quit flailing, Terminalia... you argued the over-riding importance of strength, and I (among others) made your argument look as ridiculous as it really is. Now you are beckpedalling wildly.

Technique is more important than raw strength. The same degree of technique in the hands of disparately proportioned people (in terms of strength) should then bring the challenge down to suitability of technique versus body mass, strength and flexibility.

Judo is a classic example of the 'strong man will beat the weak man' theory being thoroughly disproved.


lol you only have one real power and its between your legs. :)


You really are some kind of sexist throwback, aren't you.

Smiley face doesn't make it funny. Grow up.


Sure, Id back my genes over yours anyday of the week.


Perhaps... You'd have to back them... as, with your attitude, nobody else is going to want them...

=Grave_n_idle]I think you mean 'anachronism'.

typo

See, you're misplacing your science here. The 'impact' is the transfer of a force from an (effectively) moving body to an (effectively) static body.

Well that can vary, the static body you referred to could be moving instead,

in these situations of the example I gave.

The force is calculated by multiplying the mass of the body by the acceleration which the body is enduring: F=ma or Force=Mass x Acceleration.

which = power.

That only tells you the force being transferred, it doesn't tell how much 'power' was involved. Indeed, what do you mean by power?

Do you mean the amount of 'work done'?


No Im referring to the impact, and if the player is powerful enough to break

through the tackle.

Technique doesnt always win but.


No. And the best equipped army doesn't always win the war. Technique does account for far more victories in the field of sports than sheer strength.

That much is obvious.


I'll have to tell that one to Robbie O'Davis when he tried to stop a rampaging
prop on the try line with a tackle and was knocked flying, strength won that
time.


First: pretty dumb way to tackle... where is the technique?

Second: strength didn't win, a combination of poor defense technique and MOMENTUM won. MOMENTUM isn't the same as strength, Terminalia.


evidence =womb
and its the most important and necessary thing a woman can do for herself
and the human race.


That's not evidence of anything. By your token, we should all eat grass (since we have molars), eat our meat raw (since we have 'canines'), digest cellulose (since we have the remains of an appendix), wag our tails (since we have retained muscles for that purpose, even though humans no longer have tails), walk around naked (since we have body-hair), defecate wherever we happen to be (since that is an automatic process, and we have to be 'conditioned' to overcome it), not drink alcohol (since our digestive system cannot metabolise it effectively).... the list is endless.

The mere presence of the uterus is no reason to assume it MUST be used, far less, that it DEFINES the purpose of the life-form that bears it.


oh please dont stoop to more guiless insinuations, even you should be better
than that.


It's not stooping. Your argument centres on the 'natural' function of the uterus, being to reproduce. Males have reproductive urges fairly constantly (I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that you are not an Eunuch), and so you must experience those urges. One assumes that you control them, thereby, making a liar of your own argument. Nature intends, but you choose not to.


How is it??
Its watched by millions of people all over the planet, attracts huge
sponsorship dollars and advertising, gets huge coverage in the media and its
top players are idols to many, hardly the equivelent to a B grade horror flick,
maybe you just cant handle the fact how it exposes women to be vastly
inferior at all aspects of a particular game to men, not to mention other
games like soccer, golf, union, league, basketball, motor racing, skiing water
polo etc etc etc
Also Grave can you tell me how technique beats strength in Gridiron?

Tennis is a third-ranked sport, at best. As many people watch it as watch golf, maybe.

Also, I think you must be confusing two sports... I find womens tennis much more graceful, skillful, and more entertaining to watch, than mens tennis with it's repeated 'aces' and short volleys.

If you had bothered doing your research, you'd probably have found out that the 'aces' are the main reason men play more sets.

I can't really respond to your last question without doing some research... I'm afraid 'Gridiron' has always been something of a boredom factor for me. If you really are incapable of working it out for yourself, I will research the game (though I dislike it so) and explain it to you, in terms you can understand.

=Grave_n_idle]Surely it wasn't luck, though... you don't think the boxer meant to hit him?

Lucky as in it had the desired effect, if the punch had missed slightly or the

sumo had seen it coming and ducked then I dont think the sumo would have

given the boxer time to throw another one, boxer gets picked up and thrown

out of the ring or crushed in bearhug, its open rules remember.


Quit flailing, Terminalia... you argued the over-riding importance of strength, and I (among others) made your argument look as ridiculous as it really is. Now you are beckpedalling wildly.

Rubbish.


Technique is more important than raw strength.

Do you even know what your really talking about?


The same degree of technique in the hands of disparately proportioned people (in terms of strength) should then bring the challenge down to suitability of technique versus body mass, strength and flexibility.

Judo is a classic example of the 'strong man will beat the weak man' theory being thoroughly disproved.

Right, so what if their equally matched in technique, whos going to win then,

think about it.


You really are some kind of sexist throwback, aren't you.

Smiley face doesn't make it funny. Grow up.

No its a fairly true comment, and always has been

heres another :) for you diddums.


Perhaps... You'd have to back them... as, with your attitude, nobody else is going to want them...

How little you know about me.

Have you ever seen dumb and dumber Grave, you could get a staring role in

that movie lol

Well that can vary, the static body you referred to could be moving instead,
in these situations of the example I gave.

which = power.

No Im referring to the impact, and if the player is powerful enough to break
through the tackle.

The 'static body' in the example is only neccesarily static in relation to the other body, the same principles apply with non-static bodies, you just have to calculate to amount of accelaration and mass due to each body.

Force does not equal power. Your definition is invalid, based on speculation, and mathematically wrong.

Impact is about momentum. The player 'breaking through' is about momentum, and forces exerted by the defending players, versus the forces exerted by the attacking player. There are other factors (including risks of injury, and endurance) but we are basically talking momentum.

Give it up, Terminalia... you don't have the science for this kind of debate.

Untill every human currently on earth has the neccesary means to support themselves, I see no reason why the unborn deserve special attention. When I stop seeing famine, war, starvation, poverty and other avoidable miseries in the world, then i will consider changing my stance. Even then, I will remain humble in the knowledge that I am imperfect and that the person who best knows the mind and body of the pregnant woman is that woman herself and that my opinion is less valid than hers.is basically the gist of my argument - you have to have priorities. In a world that was almost perfect, apart from abortion, you could campaign against it. But right now we have more important things to worry about.

That may sound callous, but to make anything happen in the real world requires practical thinking. Belief won't end world hunger. Faith won't destroy nuclear weapons and protests sure as hell aren't going to do jack shit against rape.

I know many fetuses would be destroyed that would have been people in the time until we have fixed everything else and have room on the list for abortion, but as practical people say: "Tough." Many children will die before then too, mostly of preventable causes.

The only real reason any person matters is because of what they do, and the less they have done and will do the lower they tend to be on the Practical Priority list. fetuses aren't as important as children because they haven't yet had a chance to see what they would miss out on, they don't care if they die.

Of course it could be bad for the mother psychologically, but hell, if she's going to be that upset she can just choose to have the baby.

That's another thing - choice. It's not as if anyone wants to make abortion compulsory for any reason - that would screw up human rights just as much as making it illegal would.

Lucky as in it had the desired effect, if the punch had missed slightly or the
sumo had seen it coming and ducked then I dont think the sumo would have
given the boxer time to throw another one, boxer gets picked up and thrown
out of the ring or crushed in bearhug, its open rules remember.

No more lucky than a brick-layer is 'lucky' if his brick goes where he intended it. The boxer was doing his 'job', which is to punch people. If he wasn't good at it, he wouldn't have been there. Sure, the Sumo may well have taken him to pieces if it came to it, which is why the boxer didn't let it go to that result.

Technique, beating raw strength.

Rubbish.

Can't argue the point. So you type rubbish.

The sad thing is, that's one of your better arguments.

Do you even know what your really talking about?


I do, fortunately. Which means that one of us does.
Show me ONE credible example where raw strength is MORE important than technique.


Right, so what if their equally matched in technique, whos going to win then,
think about it.


I have thought about it... you think for a moment, Terminalia.
What about the fact that the stronger (and so probably, heavier) fighter gives away advantage to the lighter man?


No its a fairly true comment, and always has been
heres another :) for you diddums.


It's not a 'true' comment, except in your retrogressive mind.
It was a rude, uneducated and insensitive comment to make.

If I classed you as a man, I would have expected better behaviour from you.


How little you know about me.


All I know about you, is the side of your personality you show online. That person is not someone I would want to know any better. Unfortuantely for you, I seem to be far from alone in that decision.

Have you ever seen dumb and dumber Grave, you could get a staring role in
that movie lol

I've not seen it. I saw a trailer for it, and it really didn't appeal.
For some reason, it doesn't surprise me that you HAVE seen it.

I think you mean 'starring'.

And, putting "lol" at the end, or a smiley-face, doesn't make your peurile comments into jokes.

=Grave_n_idle]No. And the best equipped army doesn't always win the war. Technique does account for far more victories in the field of sports than sheer strength.

That much is obvious.

Strength of numbers Grave.. if you want to talk about wars


First: pretty dumb way to tackle... where is the technique?

Did I even explain the attempted tackle for you to call it dumb?

Got you there.

Second: strength didn't win, a combination of poor defense technique and MOMENTUM won. MOMENTUM isn't the same as strength, Terminalia.

If it was just momentum Grave, that generated all that power then according

to you a ten year old girl could run up and have the same effect on poor

Robbie, no its a bit more than just momentum Grave, try size, strength,

toughness and technigue as well, not to mention power.

That's not evidence of anything. By your token, we should all eat grass (since we have molars), eat our meat raw (since we have 'canines'), digest cellulose (since we have the remains of an appendix), wag our tails (since we have retained muscles for that purpose, even though humans no longer have tails), walk around naked (since we have body-hair), defecate wherever we happen to be (since that is an automatic process, and we have to be 'conditioned' to overcome it), not drink alcohol (since our digestive system cannot metabolise it effectively).... the list is endless.

Your oversimplyfing the arguement here deliberately.



The mere presence of the uterus is no reason to assume it MUST be used, far less, that it DEFINES the purpose of the life-form that bears it.

Well I think it does, and this doesnt mean I look down on women , thats just

how you and others on here want to interpret it, quite wrongly too.

It's not stooping. Your argument centres on the 'natural' function of the uterus, being to reproduce. Males have reproductive urges fairly constantly (I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that you are not an Eunuch), and so you must experience those urges.


Yes but that doesnt mean I go and rape women.

One assumes that you control them, thereby, making a liar of your own argument. Nature intends, but you choose not to.

Nature intends me to go out and rape does it.

Tennis is a third-ranked sport, at best. As many people watch it as watch golf, maybe.

If it was third rate it wouldnt attract all the attention it does, media etc do you even read what I said before?

Your putting forth a personal opinion Grave not a fact.


Maybe, see you dont even know.


Also, I think you must be confusing two sports... I find womens tennis much more graceful, skillful, and more entertaining to watch, than mens tennis with it's repeated 'aces' and short volleys.

I find it with some exceptions quite dull and mindless, still each to their own.

If you had bothered doing your research, you'd probably have found out that the 'aces' are the main reason men play more sets.

Ah power, still doesnt allow for the fact that womens matches still go for alot

less time on average than mens do.


I can't really respond to your last question without doing some research... I'm afraid 'Gridiron' has always been something of a boredom factor for me.

Agreed on that, there are too many stoppages.

If you really are incapable of working it out for yourself, I will research the game (though I dislike it so) and explain it to you, in terms you can understand.

Thats OK Grave, I know enough about it.

=Grave_n_idle]No more lucky than a brick-layer is 'lucky' if his brick goes where he intended it. The boxer was doing his 'job', which is to punch people. If he wasn't good at it, he wouldn't have been there. Sure, the Sumo may well have taken him to pieces if it came to it, which is why the boxer didn't let it go to that result.

Technique, beating raw strength.

Grave grave grave, you dont just flatten somones nose all over their face with just technique alone, anyway have a think.


Can't argue the point. So you type rubbish.

Well it was.


I do, fortunately. Which means that one of us does.
Show me ONE credible example where raw strength is MORE important than technique.

Arm wrestling, you might have abetter technique than the other guy, but if hes a lot stronger, your technigue wont help you much.

I have thought about it... you think for a moment, Terminalia.
What about the fact that the stronger (and so probably, heavier) fighter gives away advantage to the lighter man?

Just because your heavy doesnt mean you cant move quick, is this another

one of your stereotypes Grave, only small light people can move fast?

Id like to see you try and outbox my cousin, hes 108 kg and fast as
hell.




It's not a 'true' comment, except in your retrogressive mind.
It was a rude, uneducated and insensitive comment to make.

Grave the snag, just tell them what they want to hear, right sneaky? :)

If I classed you as a man, I would have expected better behaviour from you.

Oh now its Grave the gentleman, talk about throwbacks lol


All I know about you, is the side of your personality you show online. That person is not someone I would want to know any better. Unfortuantely for you, I seem to be far from alone in that decision.

yawn, why do you bother then man, face it, you and the others on here that

are so insensed and 'repulsed' by my opinions just keep coming back for

more, just dont reply if I bother you that much.

Believe me, I wont miss you or your little cronies at all. :)

I've not seen it. I saw a trailer for it, and it really didn't appeal.
For some reason, it doesn't surprise me that you HAVE seen it.

Good movie, bit dated now, have you seen Zoolander with Ben Stiller, thats

hilarious.

I think you mean 'starring'.

typo

And, putting "lol" at the end, or a smiley-face, doesn't make your peurile comments into jokes.

diddums

Strength of numbers Grave.. if you want to talk about wars


Strength of numbers? So, by your reckoning, the army with the MOST soldiers always wins? Doesn't work in the arena of Weapons of Mass Destruction, though, does it.

Similarly... America in Vietnam was better equipped AND had the troop number advantage, and they got their butts kicked.

See, technique will win out.


Did I even explain the attempted tackle for you to call it dumb?
Got you there.


If the guy could be 'knocked over' he was obviously making something of a foolish tackle... otherwise he (surely) would have already BEEN off balance?


If it was just momentum Grave, that generated all that power then according
to you a ten year old girl could run up and have the same effect on poor
Robbie, no its a bit more than just momentum Grave, try size, strength,
toughness and technigue as well, not to mention power.


You don't understand momentum, do you?

Momentum is about weight, Terminalia. The reason it's hard for this guy to stop that guy running, is because of a force, generated from acceleration on a mass. You use a lot of scientific terms in your argument, there. And you are using them wrong. It's not helping your case.


Your oversimplyfing the arguement here deliberately.


Actually, no... you brought it down to "having a uterus = must reproduce"... so it was you that oversimplified the argument.


Well I think it does, and this doesnt mean I look down on women , thats just
how you and others on here want to interpret it, quite wrongly too.


If you treat women the way you say you do, then you must look down on women. Nobody has respect for someone that they talk about in the terms you use.


Yes but that doesnt mean I go and rape women.
Nature intends me to go out and rape does it.


That's my point, you OVERRIDE your natural urge to reproduce. Your instincts say 'reproduce', but you choose not to. This means you are not the servant of your reproductive organs... try to treat women with that same courtesy.

And, by the way, Nature doesn't need consent... so yes, 'Nature' intends humans to be generated from rape.


If it was third rate it wouldnt attract all the attention it does, media etc do you even read what I said before?
Your putting forth a personal opinion Grave not a fact.


It doesn't attract that much attention... Football, for example (the real one, not that American thing) attracts far more attention.

Grave grave grave, you dont just flatten somones nose all over their face with just technique alone, anyway have a think.


Back-pedalling.... so, now you're admitting that IT was technique... but that technique needed 'help' from strength.

Clearly you are all talk, and have never actually trained in a martial art. Otherwise you would know that technique alone is more than enough to 'smash someone's nose'.


Well it was.


Another quick throwaway comment, to cover up the fact that you still can't argue my point.


Arm wrestling, you might have abetter technique than the other guy, but if hes a lot stronger, your technigue wont help you much.


And, if you don't have the superior technique (or at least as good a technique) then being strong won't help, either.

Even in arm-wrestling, strength is only as good as the technique applying it. Try again.


Just because your heavy doesnt mean you cant move quick, is this another
one of your stereotypes Grave, only small light people can move fast?
Id like to see you try and outbox my cousin, hes 108 kg and fast as
hell.


I didn't say anything about 'quick'. I made no stereotype. Give it up, Terminalia, you can't tar me with your own brush.

I said that, in judo the heavy man gives away advantage to the lighter man, but I guess you can't comprehend that.

Why do you want me to box your cousin? You get more and more bizarre.


Grave the snag, just tell them what they want to hear, right sneaky? :)


I don't even understand what you are saying here... it's got english words in it, but that's about all I'm getting.


Oh now its Grave the gentleman, talk about throwbacks lol


I am a gentleman, actually. And you ARE acting like some kind of Neanderthal, so the comment seems appropriate.


yawn, why do you bother then man, face it, you and the others on here that
are so insensed and 'repulsed' by my opinions just keep coming back for
more, just dont reply if I bother you that much.
Believe me, I wont miss you or your little cronies at all. :)


I came into this thread to debate abortion. That was why I was here. You are trolling... you argue nonsensically over irrelevancies, because you think that you can 'win' the debate, by attacking spelling, etc.

If you wouldn't mind sitting back, and withholding your flamem and incessant niggling, maybe the thread WOULDN'T be full of people looking for diplomatic ways to tell you how wrong you are...


Good movie, bit dated now, have you seen Zoolander with Ben Stiller, thats
hilarious.


Zoolander actually was funny. Dumb and Dumber just looked, well, Dumb. (From the trailer).


diddums

You should think about leaving the baby-talk at the door, it's most unbecoming.

You are a curious person, Terminalia. You deliberately set out to antagonise, just because you are protected by thousands of miles... what is in this for you?

If your against abortian it doesn't mean that everyone should have to conform with your beliefs and practices.

If a women is raped then she should obviously have the right to abortian but others should too.

Say a contraceptive doesn't work properly shouldn't the woman be able to have an abortian instead of having a child she may not want or be able to support proberly. That is unless you want to ban pre-martital sex which would make about as much sense as forcing people to follow a religion.

Also note the hereditory disease issues which has been brought forward several times before this.

Why don't you support abortian anyway is it because of your religious beliefs? or what? whatever it is its screwing with your mind.

i have this friend named Cole, a very tall and massive chap, who is about the most mellow person you will ever meet in your life. there was a kid at our middle school who couldn't stand Cole, for some reason, a little runt of a bully named Matt. we never did figure out why Matt had it in for Cole (maybe because Cole was big and the runt was, well, a runt) but he was always trying to get Cole to fight with him, always threatening and talking about how he was going to kick Cole's ass and so forth. one day Matt just rushes up at Cole as we are waiting for the bus, and takes a swing. Cole put his hand on Matt's head and held him at arm's length, and Matt flailed about uselessly as he tried to land a punch. what surprised all of us is how long Matt kept at it; it was clear he wasn't going to even manage a single hit, let alone winning any fight, but he just kept on whiffing and cursing and sweating and getting all red in the face.

i don't know why, but reading this thread made me flash back to that incident...

Isn't David and Goliath a parable about technique winning over strength?

i have this friend named Cole, a very tall and massive chap, who is about the most mellow person you will ever meet in your life. there was a kid at our middle school who couldn't stand Cole, for some reason, a little runt of a bully named Matt. we never did figure out why Matt had it in for Cole (maybe because Cole was big and the runt was, well, a runt) but he was always trying to get Cole to fight with him, always threatening and talking about how he was going to kick Cole's ass and so forth. one day Matt just rushes up at Cole as we are waiting for the bus, and takes a swing. Cole put his hand on Matt's head and held him at arm's length, and Matt flailed about uselessly as he tried to land a punch. what surprised all of us is how long Matt kept at it; it was clear he wasn't going to even manage a single hit, let alone winning any fight, but he just kept on whiffing and cursing and sweating and getting all red in the face.

i don't know why, but reading this thread made me flash back to that incident...
How does that make you feel for Matt?

Abortion has nothing to do with fights between boys.

Abortion has nothing to do with fights between boys.
i don't believe anybody has claimed that it does.

i don't believe anybody has claimed that it does.
I understand, but it just surprised me, on dropping in to my old thread, of which I do once in a while, to see how radically different the topic of discussion has gotten. No hard feelings, I do not blame you, It just surprised me.

I understand, but it just surprised me, on dropping in to my old thread, of which I do once in a while, to see how radically different the topic of discussion has gotten. No hard feelings, I do not blame you, It just surprised me.
i know the feeling; i once started a thread on the possibility of a religion nucleus in the human brain, and it some how became a discussion on White Supremacy groups. General Forum will do that to ya. :P

Isn't David and Goliath a parable about technique winning over strength?

It's not a parable. Parables are strictly metaphorical. They aren't passed off as real. According to the Bible, that story's true. So, it's a legend, not a parable.

Just pointing that out.

Right now, I just felt like saying something about the "why doesn't the guy get punished" argument.

I really have to say, that is the most childish argument anyone could ever use. Haven't you learned all your life that saying "This person did it too and they didn't get in trouble!" is not an acceptable reason not to get punished?

It's not a parable. Parables are strictly metaphorical. They aren't passed off as real. According to the Bible, that story's true. So, it's a legend, not a parable.

Just pointing that out.
Strictily speaking, a parable is a story that contains a lesson. Whether the story is historically true or fiction does not matter, as long as there is a moral lesson to the story. Most all narrative stories in the Bible are parables.

Right now, I just felt like saying something about the "why doesn't the guy get punished" argument.

I really have to say, that is the most childish argument anyone could ever use. Haven't you learned all your life that saying "This person did it too and they didn't get in trouble!" is not an acceptable reason not to get punished?
Hmm? How far back did he say this?
Anyway, for all those religious people who use bible:
In the old testament: the Strict and hard days.
Abortion was a lesser crime. Worth fine at best.
Or at least the Laci Peterson Law was a fine. But if Fetuses weren't worth much when others killed them why shouldn't it be a fine when the mother does it?
And more so shouldn't it be less than a fine because its her body and she has a right to control it.
I can go on but only if prompted.

I will give Terminalia a point for the arm wrestling thing. Just for the sake of argument.

OK, so men are better at arm wrestling than women (in general).

Now, connect that to how it makes men superior beings?

I think men like Terminalia push the superiority thing because they have a deep-seated feeling of inferiority, which requires them to scramble to make themselves feel more important. Men can't gestate babies, making them nothing more than pollen donors in the big picture. Until modern science, men had no specific proof that they contributed to creation of life at all.

Historically, and in the Christian church in particular, this anti-woman stance was taken in response to the many Goddess religions that worship the creation of life and honor the female as superior. As with any knee-jerk extreme ideological response, the tactic is to cast the "other" as the polar enemy and oppress them. In the days of the Council of Nicea, the enemy was the powerful women. In the Crusades, the Infidel, in the Spanish Inquisition it was everyone not Christian. In WWII it was the Jews. In present day it is the Muslims.

EVIL EVIL!! Let's deny them their human rights, they aren't human! They are animals who cannot overcome their bestial nature without us. We are the best, we are important! And we will kill you if you say otherwise, spawn of the devil!

LOL go do some arm wrestling, Terminalia. You have proven that just because you have an organ doesnt mean you have to use it. A woman not using her uterus is no worse than your letting your brain go to waste.

CONNECTING BACK TO THE TOPIC OF ABORTION: If a woman is given control over the creation/non-creation of life, the man loses control and superiority.

Only while a woman is held slave to her reproductive capacity, and kept economically dependent once she has children, men can call all the shots. The dang women are just easier to control barefoot and pregnant.

Strictily speaking, a parable is a story that contains a lesson. Whether the story is historically true or fiction does not matter, as long as there is a moral lesson to the story. Most all narrative stories in the Bible are parables.

A story only need be allegorical, comparative or analogous, to qualify as a parable.

The parable usually is a story of a fairly familiar scene, used to reinforce a moral or religious lesson.

As you say, by the definition of a parable, most of the bible is parables.

I will give Terminalia a point for the arm wrestling thing. Just for the sake of argument.

OK, so men are better at arm wrestling than women (in general).

Now, connect that to how it makes men superior beings?

I think men like Terminalia push the superiority thing because they have a deep-seated feeling of inferiority, which requires them to scramble to make themselves feel more important. Men can't gestate babies, making them nothing more than pollen donors in the big picture. Until modern science, men had no specific proof that they contributed to creation of life at all.

Historically, and in the Christian church in particular, this anti-woman stance was taken in response to the many Goddess religions that worship the creation of life and honor the female as superior. As with any knee-jerk extreme ideological response, the tactic is to cast the "other" as the polar enemy and oppress them. In the days of the Council of Nicea, the enemy was the powerful women. In the Crusades, the Infidel, in the Spanish Inquisition it was everyone not Christian. In WWII it was the Jews. In present day it is the Muslims.

EVIL EVIL!! Let's deny them their human rights, they aren't human! They are animals who cannot overcome their bestial nature without us. We are the best, we are important! And we will kill you if you say otherwise, spawn of the devil!

LOL go do some arm wrestling, Terminalia. You have proven that just because you have an organ doesnt mean you have to use it. A woman not using her uterus is no worse than your letting your brain go to waste.

CONNECTING BACK TO THE TOPIC OF ABORTION: If a woman is given control over the creation/non-creation of life, the man loses control and superiority.

Only while a woman is held slave to her reproductive capacity, and kept economically dependent once she has children, men can call all the shots. The dang women are just easier to control barefoot and pregnant.

I totally agree with you about the 'need' for some men to 'reinforce' feminine role models as a weaker gender.

When you compare such behaviour to the masculinity 'over-compensation' that usually accompanies it (the 'macho man' talk, the over inflated violent tendencies, the aggression bordering on a persecution complex), you usually end up looking at the profile of a very insecure person, trying to establish some form of control, since he lacks any real control capacity.

=TropicalMontana] OK, so men are better at arm wrestling than women (in general).

Pretty much always :)



Now, connect that to how it makes men superior beings?

This superior beings thing is a point your trying to say Im making, when I

never actually did, I guess when you dont have any facts you just make

them up right?


I think men like Terminalia push the superiority thing because they have a deep-seated feeling of inferiority, which requires them to scramble to make themselves feel more important.

lol you people are pushing the inferiority/superiority complex alot more than

I am, being physically stronger than women is just natural and nothing to crow

about, and being stronger than a large percentage of the male population

as well doesnt give me a feeling of importance really, just a sense of well

being.

Men can't gestate babies, making them nothing more than pollen donors in the big picture.

Right so you can say men are nothing but pollen doners and thats OK with

everyone, but if I say women are nothing but baby carriers-( which I didnt, I

said it was the most important thing they can do, and nothing to sneeze at

either)- Im a sexist but you arent, talk about double standards, still nothing

new with the womens libbers

Until modern science, men had no specific proof that they contributed to creation of life at all.

So according to you before 'scientific proof' came along people throughout

history thought men played no part in the creation of children, how dumb are

you? :eek:

The average person before thought women were just impregnated by thin air

right?

Historically, and in the Christian church in particular, this anti-woman stance was taken in response to the many Goddess religions that worship the creation of life and honor the female as superior.

Your view as well I bet.



As with any knee-jerk extreme ideological response, the tactic is to cast the "other" as the polar enemy and oppress them. In the days of the Council of Nicea, the enemy was the powerful women.

A contradiction in terms if I ever heard one.

In the Crusades, the Infidel,

funny they had the exact same view of the Christians, but thats OK with you I suppose.

in the Spanish Inquisition it was everyone not Christian.

Not Catholic.


In WWII it was the Jews.

What do the Nazis have to do with this?

In present day it is the Muslims.

Dont you mean Islamic terrorists?

EVIL EVIL!! Let's deny them their human rights, they aren't human! They are animals who cannot overcome their bestial nature without us. We are the best, we are important! And we will kill you if you say otherwise, spawn of the devil!

Are you a member of the Taliban or Al Queda or some other fundementalist

muslim group?

Thats pretty much how they view non muslims as well.


LOL go do some arm wrestling, Terminalia. You have proven that just because you have an organ doesnt mean you have to use it. A woman not using her uterus is no worse than your letting your brain go to waste.

lol I m probably letting my brain go to waste talking to you and Grave if

anything.


CONNECTING BACK TO THE TOPIC OF ABORTION: If a woman is given control over the creation/non-creation of life, the man loses control and superiority.

Given control.... whos giving it to her?



Only while a woman is held slave to her reproductive capacity,

Thats a typical feminist statement if I ever heard one, I suppose when you

meet women with a large number of kids your apalled and disqusted by them,

and call them brain washed or oppressed, have you ever wondered that

maybe they just like having kids, dont pity them, wonder instead about the

pity they might have for you.


and kept economically dependent once she has children, men can call all the shots. The dang women are just easier to control barefoot and pregnant.

If anything women with a large amount of kids call the shots, they certainly

do with their husbands pay packets, your views reflect most

feminists ones, childish.


Its like the average feminist is still stuck with a pre pubescent view of males.

Right now, I just felt like saying something about the "why doesn't the guy get punished" argument.

I really have to say, that is the most childish argument anyone could ever use. Haven't you learned all your life that saying "This person did it too and they didn't get in trouble!" is not an acceptable reason not to get punished?

Well, the issue is more a) abortions are as much of a 'punishment' as being forced to have the child (and better, since a human should not be forced on another as a 'punishment').

and b) the guy should get 'punished' also. If you punish the women (as we do currently by forcing them to either have a child they do not want, or else face being stigmatised by bigots), then the men should be punished also. If we want to leave men as being unpunished, women shouldn't be punished. They both have as much to do with the original act, why should one be punished if the other isn't. It should be either both or neither.

Abortion is something I personally abhor. My reasons are irrelevant.

Choice is something I value above all else. Liberty above all else.

It's a basic American Principle: My Freedom is more valuable to me than your life. I'll kill you to remain free.

So who am I to tell a woman that she MUST sacrifice her freedom to decide the course of her life for even a DAY, nevermind months or years for the sake of another?

I won't do it. As much as I might personally like to.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Strength of numbers? So, by your reckoning, the army with the MOST soldiers always wins?

If used properly, every time, tactics Grave.


Doesn't work in the arena of Weapons of Mass Destruction, though, does it.

Course not, but do you really call that convential war?

Thats called unconvential war Grave, theres not much technique or skill to it

either.

Similarly... America in Vietnam was better equipped AND had the troop number advantage, and they got their butts kicked.

America was actually winning the war, public pressure at home was the

reason for the withdrawal of troops, not your fantasy of the American army

getting its butt kicked.


See, technique will win out.

As I said it was more public pressure on the government winning out, not

technique.



If the guy could be 'knocked over' he was obviously making something of a foolish tackle... otherwise he (surely) would have already BEEN off balance?

maybe he wasnt strong enough to hold the guy up until his team mates could

get there to help him, of course in your mind strength plays little part in

anything.


You don't understand momentum, do you?

Yes I do actually

Momentum is about weight, Terminalia. The reason it's hard for this guy to stop that guy running, is because of a force, generated from acceleration on a mass. You use a lot of scientific terms in your argument, there. And you are using them wrong. It's not helping your case.

This is more about the tackler not the guy making the hitup, and I have seen

plenty of big guys steaming off a ball get stopped dead in their tracks from a strong tackle,

so much for your momentum, it doesnt always win.

Actually, no... you brought it down to "having a uterus = must reproduce"... so it was you that oversimplified the argument.

I said it was the main and most important reason for women to exist, just as

it is the mans main and most important reason to impregnate that womb.

The must produce thing from you, suggests I am advocating rape which I am

not, still as usual you twist my words around into something to suit your

arguement as usual.

Your consistant, I'll give you that much.




If you treat women the way you say you do, then you must look down on women. Nobody has respect for someone that they talk about in the terms you use.

Right so I believe women should have kids and that means in your black and

white PC world that therefore I look down on them, great logic.

I respect women and anyone for that matter, who arent self centred.


That's my point, you OVERRIDE your natural urge to reproduce. Your instincts say 'reproduce', but you choose not to. This means you are not the servant of your reproductive organs... try to treat women with that same courtesy.

Well twisted Grave, I'll give you a ten for that one.

I dont think women are the servants of my organs at all, if thats what your

trying to say.

And, by the way, Nature doesn't need consent... so yes, 'Nature' intends humans to be generated from rape.

So your saying nature advocates rape? :) I wish there was a laughing

emoticon to put up for once, the smiley just doesnt do it here.


It doesn't attract that much attention... Football, for example (the real one, not that American thing) attracts far more attention.


Of course soccer attracts more attention than tennis, it attracts more

attention than probably any sporting event except the Olympics, but to say

tennis isnt that much in the media or peoples minds as an important world

wide sport, just shows your ignorance of it.

It's not a parable. Parables are strictly metaphorical. They aren't passed off as real. According to the Bible, that story's true. So, it's a legend, not a parable.

Just pointing that out.

Also although David did use a slingshot as his 'technique' to kill Goliath, he

still needed strength to sucessfully employ it.

being physically stronger than women is just natural and nothing to crow
about, and being stronger than a large percentage of the male population
as well doesnt give me a feeling of importance really, just a sense of well
being.


And there's the 'masculine overcompensation' thing I was talking about, I guess.


So according to you before 'scientific proof' came along people throughout
history thought men played no part in the creation of children, how dumb are
you? the average person before thought women were just impregnated by thin air...


Read your history books. You are just mking yourself look silly.


funny they had the exact same view of the Christians, but thats OK with you I suppose.


Read your history books. Islam as a religion started off very tolerant of Judaism and Christianity. While the Islamic faith was carving out it's territory, and driving all foreign religions out, Christians and Jews were allowed to stay in Moslem cities (although they had to pay a 'sin' tax). This is because the early Islam church perceived Jews and Christians as brothers (since they shared the same Holy Books, and worshipped the same God).

This view didn't really change until the crusades.


lol I m probably letting my brain go to waste talking to you and Grave if
anything.


Yes, probably. But if you used it, rather than just trying to blanket argue against everything, you'd possibly actually learn something.

Mind you, seeing how shaky your grasp of religious history and physics are... maybe not.


If anything women with a large amount of kids call the shots, they certainly
do with their husbands pay packets, your views reflect most
feminists ones, childish.


Your sexual stereotyping is boring, Terminalia.

If you can't make a point without sexual stereotyping, then your point probably isn't worth making.

If used properly, every time, tactics Grave.


Tactics IS technique, Terminalia... you just killed your own argument.


Course not, but do you really call that convential war?
Thats called unconvential war Grave, theres not much technique or skill to it
either.


Actually, the choice of strikes, versus the chioce of occupation, is ENTIRELY about 'technique'.

Once again, you agree that technique is far more important than strength.


America was actually winning the war, public pressure at home was the
reason for the withdrawal of troops, not your fantasy of the American army
getting its butt kicked.


Sorry, I was talking about the war in Vietnam... V-I-E-T-N-A-M.... You've heard of it, surely?

The one where soldiers carrying 80kg packs were consistently wiped out by a partisan defence force much better suited to jungle warfare, much better acquainted with the territory, and able to hide in an instant in the surroundings or in the populace.

Unless your idea of winning a war is carpet bombing napalm, dropping Agent Orange, or killing peasants, you have no real justification for your claim that the US was winning the war in Vietnam.

I have friends that were there, and they are under NO illusions that the US was winning.


Yes I do actually


I was going to argue, but your next point made my case for me...


This is more about the tackler not the guy making the hitup, and I have seen
plenty of big guys steaming off a ball get stopped dead in their tracks from a strong tackle,
so much for your momentum, it doesnt always win.


And explain how that ISN'T about momentum?

And, while we're at it, of course, the tackle that stops the player is all about technique, rather than strength.


I said it was the main and most important reason for women to exist, just as
it is the mans main and most important reason to impregnate that womb.
The must produce thing from you, suggests I am advocating rape which I am
not, still as usual you twist my words around into something to suit your
arguement as usual.


You're a fairly sad person to talk to, Terminalia... you change your mind on every issue, just to try to argue your way to a 'win'.

The ONLY things you've been really consistent on are that women are there to have babies, stereotyping 'doesn't exist' (yet you do it all the time), and a consistent lack of information on science or historic issues.


So your saying nature advocates rape? :) I wish there was a laughing
emoticon to put up for once, the smiley just doesnt do it here.


Nature doesn't 'advocate' anything. It isn't a person, it has no 'opinion'.

The natural set-up of the male body doesn't require a compliant female. The natural urges of the male body do not require a compliant female. By that token, the natural male body is designed for reproduction, not necessarily with a compliant female. This means that the male body IS 'designed' for rape. You can try to argue against that, but biology argues against you.

Fortunately, civilisation has tempered these 'urges', and expanded most peoples view of the rest of the world as being 'important' beings - hence, males raised in civilised societies tend away from rape.


Of course soccer attracts more attention than tennis, it attracts more
attention than probably any sporting event except the Olympics, but to say
tennis isnt that much in the media or peoples minds as an important world
wide sport, just shows your ignorance of it.

How can I be ignorant of it, if it is as important as you say? Surely, if tennis is the big sport you claim, it would be impossible not to know more about it.

Drop the tennis thing, Terminalia. It was a ridiculous example to start with, and it's a silly game, anyway.

Also although David did use a slingshot as his 'technique' to kill Goliath, he

still needed strength to sucessfully employ it.

You've never used a sling-shot, have you?

Technique is what makes the slingshot work... the slingshot itself provides any necessary momentum to the projectile.

A slingshot is one of the few archaic weapons that almost completely ignores the lack-of-strength of the user.

Also although David did use a slingshot as his 'technique' to kill Goliath, he
still needed strength to sucessfully employ it.
The whole point of a sling-shot is that it only requires as much strength as it takes to lift your arm into the air. The sling does all the work.

I doupt it, why do you have to go that far to make a case for women working

on building sites, just saying she can do the work would have been good

enough.

Drifting off in feminist fantasyland again.

*shrugs* i know men who clean up after themselves and cook their own food, i even know men who read poetry, appreciate shakespeare and know how to dress themselves... who are interested in women. just because people don't fit your set out gender roles doesn't mean that they don't exist.

110 lb.. and she throws ply with the best of them, your really dribbling now.

i saw a show on tlc where they went to a weightlifting training kind of place, for olympians and the like. there was one girl who weighed 105 lbs who was lifting 220 lbs right over her head. she was tiny, but she was toned, women don't have to be huge to be strong.

Gossiping?
lol you only have one real power and its between your legs. :)

and earlier i thought you said you weren't a disgusting sexist pig.

it's comments like these that have earned you the disdain and disgust of everyone who has read what you've posted. now tell me, do you walk upright and have a smooth forehead or do you hunch over and have a thick browbone? if the latter, i think you may want to head to a museum, i'm sure there are some anthrolpologists who would love to get a look at a living neanderthal.

*shrugs* i know men who clean up after themselves and cook their own food, i even know men who read poetry, appreciate shakespeare and know how to dress themselves... who are interested in women. just because people don't fit your set out gender roles doesn't mean that they don't exist.

i saw a show on tlc where they went to a weightlifting training kind of place, for olympians and the like. there was one girl who weighed 105 lbs who was lifting 220 lbs right over her head. she was tiny, but she was toned, women don't have to be huge to be strong.

and earlier i thought you said you weren't a disgusting sexist pig.

it's comments like these that have earned you the disdain and disgust of everyone who has read what you've posted. now tell me, do you walk upright and have a smooth forehead or do you hunch over and have a thick browbone? if the latter, i think you may want to head to a museum, i'm sure there are some anthrolpologists who would love to get a look at a living neanderthal.

*Applause*... take a bow, Dakini.

It's always nice to see the red-neck lowbrows getting whipped.

Pretty much always :)

i've seen many guys go down in arm wrestling to girls. and i'd call the guys and girls on both sides of the table about average strength...

Right so you can say men are nothing but pollen doners and thats OK with

everyone, but if I say women are nothing but baby carriers-( which I didnt, I

said it was the most important thing they can do, and nothing to sneeze at

either)- Im a sexist but you arent, talk about double standards, still nothing

new with the womens libbers

if you actually read what was written, you would know that s/he didn't say that all men do is donate pollen, nor did s/he say that that was the most important function of a man, meerly that if incubating a fetus is the most important thing for a woman to do, then the most important thing for a man to do must be to donate the genetic material. therefore, men should be forced to produce sperm for women who want kids, whether they want offspring or not, if one follows your logic.

A contradiction in terms if I ever heard one.

yes, and you don't think men are better than women... that's it...
so you know, there were many important women around the time christianity started to become popular, and many of them were persecuted, philosophers, scientists, popular figures in general, especially if they were pagan. hypathia for instance was persecuted because she held more sway than the local leader of the church in alexandria.

Thats a typical feminist statement if I ever heard one, I suppose when you meet women with a large number of kids your apalled and disqusted by them, and call them brain washed or oppressed, have you ever wondered that maybe they just like having kids, dont pity them, wonder instead about the pity they might have for you.

a woman can have as many kids as she wants... what do i (or anyone else) care? again, you make some assumptions about the behaviour of others based on stereotypes, well done.

If anything women with a large amount of kids call the shots, they certainly do with their husbands pay packets, your views reflect most feminists ones, childish.

umm... read your statement again and then tell me who is childish.

terminalia still seems to be having troubles with the scientific terminology, so here's a handy dandy refrence for some equations that he's butchered thus far.

P=W/t

P=power, W=work, t=time, measured in watts (W)

W=Fd

W=work, F=force, d=displacement(vector)/distance(scalar), measured in joules (J)

F=ma

F=force, m=mass, a=acceleration measured in newtons (N)

p=mv

p=momentum, m=mass, v=velocity, measured in kg*m/s

and obviously, acceleration is just the change in velocity(vector) or speed(scalar)/time and velocity is the change in displacement(vector) or distance(scalar)/time

now, of those, only momentum is conserved. (i could bring kinetic and potential energy into it, which are important as well when it comes to bodies colliding, but those terms haven't been brought into the equation (:)) as of yet.

oh, and of course the units are metric, just because they make more sense than the impirical system...

*Applause*... take a bow, Dakini.

It's always nice to see the red-neck lowbrows getting whipped.

*blushes* thanks. :)

terminalia still seems to be having troubles with the scientific terminology, so here's a handy dandy refrence for some equations that he's butchered thus far.

P=W/t

P=power, W=work, t=time, measured in watts (W)

W=Fd

W=work, F=force, d=displacement(vector)/distance(scalar), measured in joules (J)

F=ma

F=force, m=mass, a=acceleration measured in newtons (N)

p=mv

p=momentum, m=mass, v=velocity, measured in kg*m/s

and obviously, acceleration is just the change in velocity(vector) or speed(scalar)/time and velocity is the change in displacement(vector) or distance(scalar)/time

now, of those, only momentum is conserved. (i could bring kinetic and potential energy into it, which are important as well when it comes to bodies colliding, but those terms haven't been brought into the equation (:)) as of yet.

oh, and of course the units are metric, just because they make more sense than the impirical system...

Oh no!!! You have placed science in the hands of the Anti-Scientist!!!!

And I was having so much fun, watching him not be able to differentiate between momentum, force and power... *sigh*

Oh no!!! You have placed science in the hands of the Anti-Scientist!!!!

And I was having so much fun, watching him not be able to differentiate between momentum, force and power... *sigh*

don't worry, i'm a woman and thus by terminalia's standards, unfit for anything but acting as an incubator. i'm sure he'll disregard what i said and claim that i'm just using my fancy education to hide away from the world and be selfish by not starting to have kids just after i hit puberty.

don't worry, i'm a woman and thus by terminalia's standards, unfit for anything but acting as an incubator. i'm sure he'll disregard what i said and claim that i'm just using my fancy education to hide away from the world and be selfish by not starting to have kids just after i hit puberty.

*hats off to Dakini - Hail Messiah*

don't worry, i'm a woman and thus by terminalia's standards, unfit for anything but acting as an incubator. i'm sure he'll disregard what i said and claim that i'm just using my fancy education to hide away from the world and be selfish by not starting to have kids just after i hit puberty.
dammit, Dakini, get back in the kitchen! you're wasting valuable breeding time with all your edumakashun, and women aren't supposed to get theyselves teached up like that! make a baby, woman!

I'm gone for a few days, and the subject's entirely changed. Oh, well.

(me)
>>I find it difficult to justify to myself giving "human rights" to a thing that
>>has less personality, less perceptions, less self-awareness than my dog
>>(who I could have euthanised anytime I wanted, on demand)...

(kandino)
>furthermore, dogs do NOT have "human rights" status,
>nor does any other animal for that matter.

That's exactly my point; why should something with less perception, less development, and less self-awareness get MORE rights?

(me)
>>...or the pig I had part of for breakfast.

(kandino)
>apparently you'd have no issues with cannibalism...
1. I was pointing out that what I consider to be a higher life form has in this society less rights than a fetus -- namely, that we raise and slaughter what's definitely one of the top five intelligent animals on this world for food
2. Nothing but practical issues, actually. Assuming the eat-ees were fine with it, and assuming the meat was well tested for various diseases and perfectly safe, I don't see a problem.

If, for some reason, fetus became a delicacy and its production were lucrative enough people'd be willing to do it, then no, I wouldn't have a problem with that, either, although I'm not sure if that would exactly be cannibalism.

>so why is cannibalism outlawd by so-called civilized society?
Same reason sleeping around is frowned on; done irresponsibly or without the benefit of modern technology, it's dangerous to individuals and destructive to society as a whole. Cannibalism's particular problem is that by eating meat which is very similar to you, you're exposing yourself to bunches of diseases you're susceptible. I remember reading in one of my mom's anthro texts about a certain people who used to ritually cannibalise their dead, but who eventually stopped due to its spreading disease.

(kandino)
>making analogies between humans and animals is simply ludicrous and
>leads to that proverbial slippery slope.
Humans ARE animals. What slippery slope does comparing one species to another lead to?

(Dempublicents)
>There is an interesting problem here though - if the man wants the woman
>to abort, and she decides not to, should he really have to help take care of
>the child for life?
Well, yes. Child support isn't something the father owes the mother, it is something both parents owe children.

>However, in order to keep thihngs on an even kiel, I also believe that men
>should have a legal form of "paper abortion."
How about "paper adoption?" As far as I know, the decision as to whether to put a baby up for adoption doesn't necessarily have to be made before birth, so why not allow either parent to opt out after birth?

I suppose I could say all sorts of things about the later "men are better," "no, women are just as good," discussion, but that's even less useful a conversation than the abortion one; I saw the movie Hero earlier, and I find it easier to just say, "Hey, women are better because they're more beautiful, and bringing beauty into the world is as good a way of judging value as any other." Seriously, the variance within sexes is so much more significant than that between the sexes that it's silly to be proud of what your sex as a whole may or may not be good at.

dammit, Dakini, get back in the kitchen! you're wasting valuable breeding time with all your edumakashun, and women aren't supposed to get theyselves teached up like that! make a baby, woman!

lol grow up.

don't worry, i'm a woman and thus by terminalia's standards, unfit for anything but acting as an incubator. i'm sure he'll disregard what i said and claim that i'm just using my fancy education to hide away from the world and be selfish by not starting to have kids just after i hit puberty.

I said having babies was the most important thing a woman could do, not

the only thing, Ive said this numerous times now in the thread, but you go

on ahead and ignore it again to suit your arguement, when you cant find

what you want, just make it up, right Dakini?

[QUOTE=Dakini]i've seen many guys go down in arm wrestling to girls. and i'd call the guys and girls on both sides of the table about average strength...

here we go feminist fantasyland again, and where did you see this happen, or

should I say when did you have this little daydream? :)


if you actually read what was written, you would know that s/he didn't say that all men do is donate pollen, nor did s/he say that that was the most important function of a man, meerly that if incubating a fetus is the most important thing for a woman to do, then the most important thing for a man to do must be to donate the genetic material. therefore, men should be forced to produce sperm for women who want kids, whether they want offspring or not, if one follows your logic.

I dont think they have to be forced Dakini.



yes, and you don't think men are better than women... that's it...

No overall I dont, I just wont swallow the jargon that you preach about

women being capable of doing anything a man can, just to keep the peace

and be politically correct.

I also dont believe a man is capable of doing everthing a woman can, make of

that what you will.


so you know, there were many important women around the time christianity started to become popular, and many of them were persecuted, philosophers, scientists, popular figures in general, especially if they were pagan. hypathia for instance was persecuted because she held more sway than the local leader of the church in alexandria.

Ah the great feminist lie begins already, soon it will be a whole female run

world was unsurped by males in the dark ages, if you dont like history turn it

around into 'herstory' instead right?


News flash Dakini... it never happenned.

a woman can have as many kids as she wants... what do i (or anyone else) care? again, you make some assumptions about the behaviour of others based on stereotypes, well done.

Oh yeah sure, so if a woman comes up to you and says she wants to have

ten kids and look after the home her whole life. Im expected to believe you

would have no problem with that at all.

Right...


umm... read your statement again and then tell me who is childish.

Still you by a mile.

[QUOTE=Dakini]terminalia still seems to be having troubles with the scientific terminology, so here's a handy dandy refrence for some equations that he's butchered thus far.

lol its obvious your new at this, otherwise you wouldnt get such a big head

over learning about something the average person doesnt.


P=W/t

P=power, W=work, t=time, measured in watts (W)

W=Fd

W=work, F=force, d=displacement(vector)/distance(scalar), measured in joules (J)

F=ma

F=force, m=mass, a=acceleration measured in newtons (N)

p=mv

p=momentum, m=mass, v=velocity, measured in kg*m/s

and obviously, acceleration is just the change in velocity(vector) or speed(scalar)/time and velocity is the change in displacement(vector) or distance(scalar)/time

now, of those, only momentum is conserved. (i could bring kinetic and potential energy into it, which are important as well when it comes to bodies colliding, but those terms haven't been brought into the equation (:)) as of yet. oh, and of course the units are metric, just because they make more sense than the impirical system...

Good girl, I give you an A, maybe I could come on here

with some roofing angles and equations and knock you for six as well.

Oh no!!! You have placed science in the hands of the Anti-Scientist!!!!

And I was having so much fun, watching him not be able to differentiate between momentum, force and power... *sigh*

But you still havent shown where strength plays no part in this.

=Dakini]*shrugs* i know men who clean up after themselves and cook their own food, i even know men who read poetry, appreciate shakespeare and know how to dress themselves...


know how to dress themselves... and you have the hide to say my

statements are sexist, have a good look at some of your own material, your

as sexist as they come :) showing your true colours now hypocrite.

Cook their own food, did you know most of the great Chefs or Chefs in

general are male Dakini, that must bother you.

We can even cook better than you can lol

Men appreciating poetry, OMG what earth shattering revelations you

come up with, by the way Shakespeare was a man Dakini, funny that.



just because people don't fit your set out gender roles doesn't mean that they don't exist.

So they have to fit your gender roles instead, the sensitive new age doormat

and the girl power idiot who thinks she can do anything?

saw a show on tlc where they went to a weightlifting training kind of place, for olympians and the like. there was one girl who weighed 105 lbs who was lifting 220 lbs right over her head. she was tiny, but she was toned, women don't have to be huge to be strong.

Neither do men Dakini..


and earlier i thought you said you weren't a disgusting sexist pig.

Im not, you on the other hand with your comment on men being unable to

dress themselves..

it's comments like these that have earned you the disdain and disgust of everyone who has read what you've posted.

Your guessing sorry.

now tell me, do you walk upright and have a smooth forehead or do you hunch over and have a thick browbone? if the latter, i think you may want to head to a museum, i'm sure there are some anthrolpologists who would love to get a look at a living neanderthal.

yawn is that the best you have, come on dig deeper, Im sure you have some

more irrelevant feminist bile to spew forth lol

Damn my brain. I've resisted replying to Trollinalia for a couple of days, but there are some recent comments I really can't let lie, so I'm bunching some of them up:

I said having babies was the most important thing a woman could do, not the only thing, Ive said this numerous times now in the thread, but you go on ahead and ignore it again to suit your arguement, when you cant find what you want, just make it up, right Dakini?

Say there's someone working on a cure for cancer or AIDS or just plain death. That's a pretty important thing someone can do, right? I haven't said if they are male or female, and why do you think that this fact would change their importance?

And as for making up arguments, we appreciate you are blind to your own faults (as are most people, including myself) but believe us when we say that we have a Code Black 'Pot and Kettle' incident here...


i've seen many guys go down in arm wrestling to girls. and i'd call the guys and girls on both sides of the table about average strength...
here we go feminist fantasyland again, and where did you see this happen, or should I say when did you have this little daydream? :)

I may not know Dakini's recollection to be true, but I have no reason to doubt it. Would you please enlighten me as to your source of information?

But you still havent shown where strength plays no part in this.
You haven't shown how technique does not.

Essentially, power is nothing without control. The strongest boxer's punch does nothing if it does not land and (as I seem to be straying into a past example) the strongest sumo grip does nothing if no-one is being grappled.

A superior technique can make up for inferior strength. Or, to put it another way, while a not sufficiently superior technique does not make up for inferior strength, an insufficiently controlled superior strength on the part of the other party is useless against the one who has a sufficient grasp of technique to overcome their physical disadvantage.

it's comments like these that have earned you the disdain and disgust of everyone who has read what you've posted.
Your guessing sorry.

There is so much more I want to reply to but I think it's fairly obvious that the contemporary theme of this forum is dominated by an essentially two-sided discussion. One side is Terminalia and the other side is everyone else. Maybe the 'lurkers support you in email', might does not necessarily make right and the people with the loudest voices aren't necessarily the ones with the correct point of view (indeed, they tend to get thrown out of libraries) but I'm fairly sure that you are in a minority of one on this issue. You might have noticed that you're lacking support in this discussion, and are arousing severe negative feelings towards you from all others. While 'everyone who has read what you've posted' is speculative, I'd say it's a fairly good estimation. Certainly everyone who has posted themselves, unless I've missed my mark.

[QUOTE=E B Guvegrra]Damn my brain. I've resisted replying to Trollinalia for a couple of days, but there are some recent comments I really can't let lie, so I'm bunching some of them up:

Trollinalia... cute, you must have chuckled your little head off when you came

up with that scorcher EBG.

I take my hat off to your comic genius.


I may not know Dakini's recollection to be true, but I have no reason to doubt it. Would you please enlighten me as to your source of information?

Why do you have no reason to doupt it, do you know Dakini that well, she

could be lying for all you know.

You haven't shown how technique does not.

I dont have to, I never said technique doesnt work.

Essentially, power is nothing without control. The strongest boxer's punch does nothing if it does not land and (as I seem to be straying into a past example) the strongest sumo grip does nothing if no-one is being grappled.

Agreed.


A superior technique can make up for inferior strength. Or, to put it another way, while a not sufficiently superior technique does not make up for inferior strength, an insufficiently controlled superior strength on the part of the other party is useless against the one who has a sufficient grasp of technique to overcome their physical disadvantage.

Well that depends, your last statement I highlighted is a bit black and white.

Useless.. I wouldnt be so sure of that.



There is so much more I want to reply to but I think it's fairly obvious that the contemporary theme of this forum is dominated by an essentially two-sided discussion. One side is Terminalia and the other side is everyone else.


Yay Termy.


Maybe the 'lurkers support you in email',

The lurkers, who are the lurkers EBG?

might does not necessarily make right and the people with the
loudest voices aren't necessarily the ones with the correct point of view

Yes...

but I'm fairly sure that you are in a minority of one on this issue.

I dont think so.

You might have noticed that you're lacking support in this
discussion, and are arousing severe negative feelings towards you from all others.

Thats allright, I'm quite capable of handling a few internet brats who disagree

with everything I say, purely for the sake of

disagreeing.

Its only the internet EBG, dont take it so seriously, lighten up a

bit mate. :)

Why is this still going on?
We will have to generalise but: Men pound for pound are stronger than women (the up side of all those hormones).
Women have faster reaction times than men.
Women have better communication skills.
Men have better special awareness (and left handers are better again)
Etc etc.
These are all generalisations but are based in years and years of studies.
A badger and a bear are similar, one is not better than the other, but you can never say the average badger is stronger than the average bear!
Men and Women are different !! Let’s just celebrate that!
Some gender roles are defined by our physical characteristics and predetermined strengths and weaknesses, live with it!
As to men appreciating poetry, who do you think wrote the bloody stuff in the first place!

[QUOTE=NianNorth]Why is this still going on?

Speaking for myself, amusement.

We will have to generalise but: Men pound for pound are stronger than women (the up side of all those hormones).


Exactly.

Women have faster reaction times than men.

Have you seen much rugby league, Id be surprised if women were faster than

these guys, their reaction times are unbelievable.


Women have better communication skills.

Um they can talk a lot, thats for sure.


Men have better special awareness (and left handers are better again)
Etc etc.

Whats this, Im curious about what you mean here.


Men and Women are different !! Let’s just celebrate that!

So true, and the more different the better.


Some gender roles are defined by our physical characteristics and predetermined strengths and weaknesses, live with it!

Exactly again.


As to men appreciating poetry, who do you think wrote the bloody stuff in the first place!

And a large portion of it throughout history devoted soley to women, and

hardly anything back in return, it seems they are content to be just our

muses.

lol

Actual synaptic reaction times in women are faster (don't ask me why).

Spatial awareness: well being able to judge distances, relative speeds, make 'instinctive' decisions about interception points. The ability to judge 3D shapes, hand eye coordination etc.
No I don’t want to get into any discussions about this person I know who happens to be female is better at tennis than me! We are talking in general, e.g. in General African elephants and bigger than Indian, yes and I know all about Bush Elephants and the like. I’m talking about what biologists generally call African elephants.
So we all agree (A nil response in the next ten minutes is taken as agreement) that men and women are different and each is better or worse than the other at some things.

Can someone remind me of the link between this and abortion? I just can't remember how this tangent came about.

Was it the claim that child-birth is the most important thing women can do?

Can someone remind me of the link between this and abortion? I just can't remember how this tangent came about.

Was it the claim that child-birth is the most important thing women can do?
I've no idea.
:headbang:

if protecting the health of the mother is more important than the life of the fetus then a woman should be allowed to abort whenever she wants. the process of pregnancy will cause physiological changes in a woman that will NEVER be reversed, and if a woman decides she doesn't want those changes then forcing them upon her is an injury to both her person and her dignity.

and why should it make a difference how the woman became pregnant, if you believe the life of the fetus is valuable enough to deny the right to choose? if a woman chooses to use contraception and yet becomes pregnant AGAINST HER WILL, then why should she have her rights denied while a rape victim is protected by the laws? do you really believe that sex should be a crime punishable by baby?

or do you, perhaps, also make a distinction between mother and "child" in cases of abortion? if you advocate killing a fetus to save the mother, but not killing the mother to save the fetus, but you still claim that a fetus is a person, then you clearly have hypocritical views that you should work out before questioning the views of other people.

Thank you thank you thank you! Every time I see this issue debated, these are exactly the questions that come into my mind! Why the heck would a child conceived in rape be any different in terms of its status as a living being? The same goes for any of the other "special cases" thrown about.

I'm pro-choice because I feel this is one of those things that will never have a clear cut solution. Unless or until they find a way to seperate a mother and fetus at any time after conception, without harm to either, we (as a society) are forced to decide which is "more valuable" than the other.

That choice is best left to the person who most understands the circumstances of the conception as well as the impact of giving birth. I would no more take a way a woman's right not to have a baby than take away her right to HAVE a baby that could endanger her life.

The idea of abortion does not sit well with me on a personal level. I have personal moral issues with it, based on my own personal values and spirituality. As a woman blessed to have had both an amazing father and a husband who is an amazing father, I also have a personal issue with shutting fathers out of the equation. However, laws should not be based on any one person's morality. And, as of now there is no practical way to handle the father issue.

In an attempt to amuse myself (putting off exam-study), I thought I'd highlight some errors that annoy me greatly:

know how to dress themselves... and you have the hide (you probably mean 'gall', unless you are using a idiomatic expression from another language that can't cross the translation barrier un-garbled) to say my

statements are sexist, have a good look at some of your own material, your (your = possesive; you mean 'you're', the contraction of 'you are')

as sexist as they come :) showing your true colours now hypocrite.

Cook their own food, did you know most of the great Chefs or Chefs (unnecessary repitition) in

general (pointless stereotype - and no, it matters not whether you 'believe' in them) are male Dakini, that must bother you.

We can even cook better than you can lol (period)

Men appreciating poetry, OMG what earth shattering revelations you

come up with, (should be a colon, semi-colon, or a fullstop) by the way Shakespeare was a man Dakini, funny that.

So they have to fit your gender roles instead, the sensitive new age doormat

and the girl power idiot who thinks she can do anything?

Neither do men Dakini..

Im (you mean 'I'm', contraction of 'I am'. 'Im' is meaningless in English) not, (should be a period or a semi-colon) you on the other hand with your comment on men being unable to

dress themselves..


Your (again, you mean 'you're', contraction of 'you are'. Maybe you should just use the full version and avoid looking like you don't understand English) guessing (there should be a comma here) sorry.

yawn (needs a capital letter) (and there should be another comma here) is that the best you have, come on dig deeper, Im (you mean 'I'm', contraction of 'I am'. Again with the contraction difficulties) sure you have some (fullstop here)

more (capital letter) irrelevant feminist bile to spew forth (bad grammar, a better phrase would be 'bile you spew forth', or something along those lines.) lol

I'll get back on topic as soon as you do - or as soon as you post a point worthy of debate. Also, what's up with the super random spacing? It looks really strange (I didn't highlight it, because it's hard to bold empty space)

I'll try to make this as brief as possible. I really should not be pollluting the group with this. If you wish to have the last word, just say so and I will allow it to you without argument.
Trollinalia... cute, you must have chuckled your little head off when you came up with that scorcher EBG.
Sorry, that was actually a Freudian slip. (I admit I originally called you a troll, in hot blood, but thought better of it and thought I'd edited it out. I had not intended to incorporate it into that particular version of text, but the mind works in wierd ways. It was bad grace of me to even think of you in those terms and I regret that this opinion of mine is now open to the world. I admit that it's a rather strange mistake to make, though.

Why do you have no reason to doupt it, do you know Dakini that well, she could be lying for all you know.
Honestly? Among other reasons, Occam. There is no reason for it to be a lie. If it were a lie it is strange that it is such a logical and ordinary account. It could have been a lie and 'dulled down' (i.e. not so outrageous) but I choose the simpler option of it being a true representation with no need for imagination to create it.

I dont have to, I never said technique doesnt work.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think you were denying that some woman could do something (throwing wood?) better than some men and somehow this led to technique.

Essentially, power is nothing without control.<snip>
Agreed.
an insufficiently controlled superior strength on the part of the other party is useless against the one who has a sufficient grasp of technique to overcome their physical disadvantage.

Well that depends, your last statement I highlighted is a bit black and white.

Useless.. I wouldnt be so sure of that.
In any given circumstance, if the one with the greater power cannot direct their power to disadvantage their weaker opponent and the one with the lesser power can use what power they have to good effect then it is black and white. What is grey is how you quantify an arbitrary contest. What actually happens (technique of the lesser allowing defeat of the greater or the power of the greater being used effectively against the lesser's insufficient technique) is a function of a complex function but comes out one way or another, even if only on points, a 'who does not die first' basis or on the 'outside world' effects of the contest in question.

Maybe the 'lurkers support you in email',The lurkers, who are the lurkers EBG?

Those who watch the conversation but do not take part. It is a tradition in certain electronic forums (e.g. Usenet) that some protagonists in an argument attest that while no-one wishes to publicly post their support of the appropriate viewpoint, they have privately contacted their champion to say "Good on you!" or whatever. As an essentially unprovable claim of support (at least until the lurkers break cover and do actually make themselves known) this leads to the phrase "The lurkers support me in e-mail", a phrase that I was attempting (though apparently failing) to use for humorous (though definirely not malicious) effect. I had incorrectly imagined this to be a common meme that you would understand in context, but maybe it's not known among the 'relative' youngsters of the internet without experience of the internet of a decade or more ago...

BTW, c.f. "the lurkers support me in email" with:

but I'm fairly sure that you are in a minority of one on this issue.I dont think so.
We know you're in a (visible) minority and can fairly safely assume the trend (you against all other posters with an opinion) is extended into the full population of posters and readers. My assumption is based upon posted opinions, yours may be heartfelt (or possibly even true) but is a bit more etheral in nature.

I hope you will forgive similarly unfounded opinions on my part, or at least point them out so that I may provide appropriate supporting details.

Thats allright, I'm quite capable of handling a few internet brats who disagree with everything I say, purely for the sake of disagreeing.
For the record, it appears that arguing for the sake of it is your modus operandii. This is perhaps due to the emotionless nature of the medium and could be wrong, but it seems to be a common concensus.

My concious motive in replying is to try to disabuse you of notions that I consider wrong. No. Actually you are welcome to merely 'incorrect' notions, otherwise we'd all be clones and there'd be no innovation of thought. My actual motivation is to suggest that you do not openly espouse opinions that are bordering on socipathic in their sexism. You may indeed believe these things, and appear to be unswayable by counter-argument, but you're conveying viewpoints that stir up animosity among others and this does not make good discussion. A better debating technique may be useful.

Its only the internet EBG, dont take it so seriously, lighten up a bit mate. :)
In a light-hearted discussion area I wouldn't. This particular thread, however, is about a serious issue. I try to treat it with the dignity it deservers. This is by way of a Meta-message which really should not be placed in the discussion but has arrived by way of thread-drift.

Remind me again what your views are on abortion, lest we stray further beyond the boundaries of this thread?

I said having babies was the most important thing a woman could do, not

the only thing, Ive said this numerous times now in the thread, but you go

on ahead and ignore it again to suit your arguement, when you cant find

what you want, just make it up, right Dakini?

So if a woman comes up with the cure for some horrible disease, but never pops out any babies - she didn't do anything important enough in her life? And if she does have kids, that's more important than finding the cure?

here we go feminist fantasyland again, and where did you see this happen, or
should I say when did you have this little daydream? :)


To be honest, my wife could beat most of the guys I know in an armwrestling match...


I dont think they have to be forced Dakini.


And this speaks a volume about you, Terminalia. It doesn't matter to you who, how, when or where - you believe that a man will always be ready to donate his sperm...


No overall I dont, I just wont swallow the jargon that you preach about
women being capable of doing anything a man can, just to keep the peace
and be politically correct.


First... I don't think it's counted as jargon when there is evidence.
Second... You really ARE a troll, aren't you? By your own admission, no less! If you weren't actively seeking conflict ALL THE TIME, why NOT agree 'just to keep the peace'?

lol its obvious your new at this, otherwise you wouldnt get such a big head
over learning about something the average person doesnt.

Good girl, I give you an A, maybe I could come on here
with some roofing angles and equations and knock you for six as well.

The average person with a moderate amount of education, SHOULD know basic physics principles.

Roofing equations? So, now roofing uses a branch of mathematics that is all it's own? You need to try harder, Terminalia.

Cook their own food, did you know most of the great Chefs or Chefs in
general are male Dakini, that must bother you.
We can even cook better than you can lol
Men appreciating poetry, OMG what earth shattering revelations you
come up with, by the way Shakespeare was a man Dakini, funny that.


Wouldn't the reason that most of the top chefs are male, be the same artificial ceiling that keeps so many women out of som many top jobs, though?

Oh look, another unfunny vitriolic attack, but it has "lol" on the end, so I guess it's ACTUALLY funny instead.... oooh ohhh, my sides are splitting...


So they have to fit your gender roles instead, the sensitive new age doormat
and the girl power idiot who thinks she can do anything?


It is possible to be sensitive and STILL be a man, Terminalia. You might try it sometime.

Originally Posted by Dakini
it's comments like these that have earned you the disdain and disgust of everyone who has read what you've posted.Maybe the 'lurkers support you in email', might does not necessarily make right and the people with the loudest voices aren't necessarily the ones with the correct point of view (indeed, they tend to get thrown out of libraries) but I'm fairly sure that you are in a minority of one on this issue. You might have noticed that you're lacking support in this discussion, and are arousing severe negative feelings towards you from all others. While 'everyone who has read what you've posted' is speculative, I'd say it's a fairly good estimation. Certainly everyone who has posted themselves, unless I've missed my mark.
I, for one, do not share these views. Please, both of you, don't presume to speak for everyone here.

Trollinalia... cute, you must have chuckled your little head off when you came
up with that scorcher EBG.
I take my hat off to your comic genius.


Orange. Conestoga Wagon. The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain?


Why do you have no reason to doupt it, do you know Dakini that well, she
could be lying for all you know.


But, as everyone knows, "who saw Esau, sitting on a seesaw"?


I dont have to, I never said technique doesnt work.


Underpants. mumble mumble. Tea kettle!


Agreed.


Leprachaun in my telephone.


Well that depends, your last statement I highlighted is a bit black and white.
Useless.. I wouldnt be so sure of that.


It's all good fun until someone looses an eye.


Yay Termy.


Square of the hypoteneees, hypertomues, hypoton... the longest side.


The lurkers, who are the lurkers EBG?


But the capital of Outer Mongolia IS Ulan Bator... so there!


Yes...


rhubarb crumble. waiting for the stars to come tumbling down...


I dont think so.


But you still haven't replied to MY argument... Three blind mice? Yes? See, how they run?


Thats allright, I'm quite capable of handling a few internet brats who disagree
with everything I say, purely for the sake of
disagreeing.
Its only the internet EBG, dont take it so seriously, lighten up a
bit mate. :)

Napalm. Cauliflower. I'd like to teach the world to sing.

I have been following this thread, and adding some posts of my own. This is my understanding of the discussion:

TERMINALIA: "men are better than women and can do everything better, and are smarter and more valuable to society, at least that is what i have always read in the history books written by men, so it must be true. Women's only worthwhile function in life is to provide men with pleasure and make and raise our babies. They must be reduced to objects placed on earth for the benefit of man, so he doesn't have to launder his own dirty underwear or take time away from banging chicks to raise his own children. I would probably agree to abortion if only girl babies were aborted."

EVERYONE ELSE: " To value a fetus or a man above a woman denies that woman's humanity and her worth to society outside of her reproductive abilities. To deny that women have a value outside of reproduction and providing men pleasure shows that Terminalia is so afraid of having to prove his own worth to the world that he must tear down everyone else's worth to make him feel better. He argues for the sake of argument, because conceding a point would make him feel worthless and negate his whole justification for existing."

Lets take a vote, who agrees with my take on things? (betcha everyone but Terminalia, who disagrees for the reasons mentioned)

Actually I disagree, since you are exaggerating Terminalia's point.

Originally Posted by Terminalia
I said having babies was the most important thing a woman could do, not
the only thing, Ive said this numerous times now in the thread, but you go
on ahead and ignore it again to suit your arguement...So if a woman comes up with the cure for some horrible disease, but never pops out any babies - she didn't do anything important enough in her life? And if she does have kids, that's more important than finding the cure?
You are inverting his argument to no effect. Asserting a statement as true does not make its inverse also true. If I said the "1978 World's Fair was fun", that does not mean that all other World's Fairs were not fun.

EDIT: You are doing exactly what Terminalia accuses you of doing.

I, for one, do not share these views. Please, both of you, don't presume to speak for everyone here.

In that case, my sincerest apologies to you, and everyone else (including Term) for any offence I've caused. I've tried to counter with justified opinions (or at least ones with the reasoning explained) but it's obvious that things have gone a little hot and bothered.

Actually I disagree, since you are exaggerating Terminalia's point.
Well, DUH,

it's called hyperbole. or polemics.

Geez, does NO ONE have a sense of humor here?

You are inverting his argument to no effect. Asserting a statement as true does not make its inverse also true. If I said the "1978 World's Fair was fun", that does not mean that all other World's Fairs were not fun.

EDIT: You are doing exactly what Terminalia accuses you of doing.

If Terminalia indeed thinks that making babies is the most important think a woman can do for mankind, that also means that it is more important than finding a cure for a terrible disease.

You are inverting his argument to no effect. Asserting a statement as true does not make its inverse also true. If I said the "1978 World's Fair was fun", that does not mean that all other World's Fairs were not fun.

No, but according to Terminalia, if a woman saved the entire world, that would be important - but not as important as popping out babies, since popping out babies is the *most* important thing she could do. His statement is like you saying "The World's Fair is always the most important thing you could ever go to," leaving out things that might actually be more important.

EDIT: You are doing exactly what Terminalia accuses you of doing.

Actually, that was the first post I recall answering Term - so he hasn't accused me of anything.

You are inverting his argument to no effect. Asserting a statement as true does not make its inverse also true. If I said the "1978 World's Fair was fun", that does not mean that all other World's Fairs were not fun.

Could you please explain your thinking? I don't see the comparison between your example and Terminalia's suggestion that only women unable to pursue or already in the process of bearing children may pursue any other activity than childbirth.

Edit: Apologies, I hadn't realised others would reply even quicker (and even an Edit to the original added during my attempt to post). I only leave this visible because a deleted message would arouse interest out of all proprortion.

If Terminalia indeed thinks that making babies is the most important think a woman can do for mankind, that also means that it is more important than finding a cure for a terrible disease.
Obviously to him it is... What does that have to do with you? or me? or the price of tea in China? It is an opinion. He is entitled to his opinions.

Personally, I agree with him on this point. To say that having children is the most important thing a woman can do is not to say that it is the only important thing she can accomplish, or Brad-forbid that she is not good for anything else. And his opinion, no matter how forcefully stated, does not suddenly become some Objective Truth that everyone must abide.

We all have different priorities --that's part of what makes mankind, and discussion boards like these, so interesting. Why must there be this effort to bend Terminalia's opinion to fit with the others (using attempts at mockery, humiliation and cutting him down, no less)?

Could you please explain your thinking? I don't see the comparison between your example and Terminalia's suggestion that only women unable to pursue or already in the process of bearing children may pursue any other activity than childbirth.
That's just it --you have altered his words to make YOUR argument, not his.

Obviously to him it is... What does that have to do with you? or me? or the price of tea in China? It is an opinion. He is entitled to his opinions.

Anyone who thinks bearing one child is more important than saving hundreds or thousands of lives has some seriously screwed up priorities.

Personally, I agree with him on this point. To say that having children is the most important thing a woman can do is not to say that it is the only important thing she can accomplish, or Brad-forbid that she is not good for anything else. And his opinion, no matter how forcefully stated, does not suddenly become some Objective Truth that everyone must abide.

Oops. You agree that having one child is more important than finding a cure that may save thousands of people?

Of course, Term has stated more than once that she is not good for anything else. Every time someone brings up a woman doing anything other than being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, he states that she is going outside her natural role that she was built for and needs to realize that she should only do what he thinks she was made for.

And nobody has stated that anything Term said is objective or truthful. The problem is that some of us actually feel a need to educate the ignorant.

We all have different priorities --that's part of what makes mankind, and discussion boards like these, so interesting. Why must there be this effort to bend Terminalia's opinion to fit with the others (using attempts at mockery, humiliation and cutting him down, no less)?

You're right. We shouldn't try and convince bigots to stop being bigotted. We should allow bigotry to go on forever and ever. Why the hell did anyone ever try and convince each other that those of African descent were still people? After all, their opinions were part of what makes life interesting - we should have just let them keep burning their crosses in people's yards. And when someone like Term beats his wife up for not staying in the kitchen "where she belongs" and having his babies we should just let it go, since his priorities are different - and that makes humankind interesting.

And the most "mockery, humiliation, and cutting him down" I have done is to state that he is ignorant. Of course, this is simply a truth. Anyone who can't admit that there are women out there who can do anything he can do *is* ignorant of the truth.

No, but according to Terminalia, if a woman saved the entire world, that would be important - but not as important as popping out babies, since popping out babies is the *most* important thing she could do. His statement is like you saying "The World's Fair is always the most important thing you could ever go to," leaving out things that might actually be more important.
Using myself as a justification for my opinion, I do not have children. I won't have any children in my lifetime. I will never know what it is to feel a new life growing inside of me, apart from the occasional influenza. I have nothing but admiration for those who do have children. This has set a priority for me. Terminalia is of the opinion that motherhood is the most important thing a woman can accomplish in a lifetime, and I have to admit I agree. This doesn't mean all women must hold this priority, nor subscribe to it, nor be beholden to Terminalia's will, nor any of the silly things people have been proposing in an effort to argue the point.

I am pro-choice, and I would never attempt to thwart anyone in their choice to rid themselves of a new life. But I support whole-heartedly having no abortions except in cases of extreme emergency, where the mother's life is in jeopardy. Sharing Terminalia's view of womanhood does not make me also a bad guy, I hope?

Obviously to him it is... What does that have to do with you? or me? or the price of tea in China? It is an opinion. He is entitled to his opinions.

Personally, I agree with him on this point. To say that having children is the most important thing a woman can do is not to say that it is the only important thing she can accomplish, or Brad-forbid that she is not good for anything else. And his opinion, no matter how forcefully stated, does not suddenly become some Objective Truth that everyone must abide.

We all have different priorities --that's part of what makes mankind, and discussion boards like these, so interesting. Why must there be this effort to bend Terminalia's opinion to fit with the others (using attempts at mockery, humiliation and cutting him down, no less)?

I think the reason Terminalia has come under such heavy fire, is because he is unnecessarily abrasive. He states opinion as if it were fact, seems allergic to providing evidence, and is happy to use threats of implied violence, and direct insults, to attempt to prove his point.

On a less civilised forum, he would probably have been reported to moderators a long time ago, but most here seem to have a live-and-let-live policy for debate.

If you look at some of the posters here... they don't respond to EVERYONE, the way they respond to Terminalia. He is catalysing the worst in some people by his obnoxious and brutish rhetoric.

He has repeatedly said that the "most" important thing a woman can do is produce a child. While that is his opinion, he states it as fact, and is willing to argue AGAINST logical responses, based solely on his opinion. For some of the women on the forum, I expect that being portrayed as little more than incubators offends their perspective of a world in which a woman can be treated as an equal - where they can do great things, and be respected for them.

Unfortunately, while people espouse (loudly and with great aggression) polemic such as that Terminalia favours, women are going to hit an 'artificial ceiling' of respect - since there is no way that they can acheive the same heights from the same actions, while voices are loudly crying that they SHOULD be doing something important... like 'breeding'.

Brad watch over us all.

Using myself as a justification for my opinion, I do not have children. I won't have any children in my lifetime. I will never know what it is to feel a new life growing inside of me, apart from the occasional influenza. I have nothing but admiration for those who do have children. This has set a priority for me. Terminalia is of the opinion that motherhood is the most important thing a woman can accomplish in a lifetime, and I have to admit I agree. This doesn't mean all women must hold this priority, nor subscribe to it, nor be beholden to Terminalia's will, nor any of the silly things people have been proposing in an effort to argue the point.

I just can't understand the idea that a woman who saves thousands of lives has done something less important than a woman who has a single child. It's not that I don't think that children are important, and I do hope to have at least one someday - it is that, no matter what else a woman may do, you believe that having a child is the most important. It is also quite annoying that I don't hear anyone claiming that the man who gives the sperm for such child has thus done "the most important thing he can ever do."

The problem is not that we believe anyone must be beholden to Terminalia's will - it is that Terminalia believes this.

I am pro-choice, and I would never attempt to thwart anyone in their choice to rid themselves of a new life. But I support whole-heartedly having no abortions except in cases of extreme emergency, where the mother's life is in jeopardy. Sharing Terminalia's view of womanhood does not make me also a bad guy, I hope?

You don't seem to share his view, at least not entirely. If you shared it entirely, then I would have to say that, in my opinion, you would be a "bad guy." However, you at least have the curtesy to admit that your opinion is not necessarily the TRUTH and that it is simply your opinion. I may disagree with your opinion, and be completely unable to understand how you could have reached it, but I don't see you as a bad person unless you are trying to force said belief on others.

Of course, Term has stated more than once that she is not good for anything else. Every time someone brings up a woman doing anything other than being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, he states that she is going outside her natural role that she was built for and needs to realize that she should only do what he thinks she was made for.
Yes, he has. And those things also go towards showing his opinion and his priorities. It reveals his attitude, which give us a parameter with which to debate with him. That's all.

And nobody has stated that anything Term said is objective or truthful. The problem is that some of us actually feel a need to educate the ignorant.
No, but there have been many posts with this attitude, as if Terminalia saying it somehow makes it true, that hurts them, or has anything to do with shaping their reality. Else why would they leap on it so fiercely? If they look at his opinion as a parameter within which they can develop a debate with Terminalia, rather than needing to bend him to their way of thinking, they'll be doing everyone a favour.

You're right. We shouldn't try and convince bigots to stop being bigotted. We should allow bigotry to go on forever and ever. Why the hell did anyone ever try and convince each other that those of African descent were still people? After all, their opinions were part of what makes life interesting - we should have just let them keep burning their crosses in people's yards. And when someone like Term beats his wife up for not staying in the kitchen "where she belongs" and having his babies we should just let it go, since his priorities are different - and that makes humankind interesting.

And the most "mockery, humiliation, and cutting him down" I have done is to state that he is ignorant. Of course, this is simply a truth. Anyone who can't admit that there are women out there who can do anything he can do *is* ignorant of the truth.
So? And there your debate ends. Congratulations. You won before you even started.

Understandably, this subject is always floating around in a forum. Being such a contreversial argument, it's bound to recieve plenty of attention. Anyway, cutting to the chase; 'Abortionists Explain Yourselves'? Hmm, Let me think This Guys Abviosly experianced an abortion situation before. Yes, and during that he was trying to explain to himself why he was doing it. A personal decision is a personal decision. This Subject isn't for jackasses for gods sake. Why is it that you [Deny it though you may] poke fun, yes asshole, poke fun at this subject. Are you one of those guys who sit at home wearing tintet glasses, striped T-Shirts going on and on about how awful life is for you? Because you choose to evoke a personal subject, show it to literally thousands of people over the internet. That is why. Why do you post this? How about a new layout 'Posters Explain Yourselves'. Take a look at this thread and try to count exactly how many guys here have a clue what their talking about. Why :headbang: Is it :headbang: EveryTime :headbang: I :headbang: Post :headbang: Here :headbang: I'm Bombarded with this crap :headbang: . Let's try to post on subjects we know about for a change? Ok. Not Complicated Shit.

Yes, he has. And those things also go towards showing his opinion and his priorities. It reveals his attitude, which give us a parameter with which to debate with him. That's all.

You can't really debate with someone who takes any evidence against his view and dismisses it immediately as a lie or claims that any woman who could do that is not a woman at all. People tried, and eventually just kept getting drawn into the trap of thinking he was actually debating and not trolling.

No, but there have been many posts with this attitude, as if Terminalia saying it somehow makes it true, that hurts them, or has anything to do with shaping their reality. Else why would they leap on it so fiercely? If they look at his opinion as a parameter within which they can develop a debate with Terminalia, rather than needing to bend him to their way of thinking, they'll be doing everyone a favour.

Again, people tried that. Term has proven himself unable to actually participate in a debate, so (for whatever reason) people have continued to argue with him. Even you must understand the aggravation that comes along with someone who refuses to actually debate. I mean, is the following really a debate:

"Cells can't move."
"Yes they can - watch in this microscope while this cell moves."
"No, I won't watch."
"Really, it is moving."
"Well, if it moves - it isn't a cell. Cells weren't naturally designed to move."
"Actually, studies have shown that some were designed for exactly that."
"NO THEY WEREN'T AND YOU ARE JUST STUPID!"
"You are obviously ignorant of the facts."
New person - "Hey, why are you being so mean - he's just stating his opinion."

So? And there your debate ends. Congratulations. You won before you even started.

You think that someone who completely ignores the fact is not acting in an ignorant manner?

Or you think that we should not try to get convince bigots to renounce their bigotry?

A woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy should not be a matter for debate or legislation.

Why should a woman be forced by law to carry a child for nine months when the sperm donor isn't forced by law even to look at the child for nine seconds?

Now, before we begin, let me clear some things up. I do not support abortion, excepting some circumstances. If the pregnant woman was raped, in my opinion, she should be able to have an abortion. If the pregnant women was the victim of incest, she should be able to have an abortion. If the birth of the child would cause the mother serious injury, she should be able to have an abortion. Those are the only occasions when an abortion should be legal.

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


biologically speaking. there is absolutely no explanation why any mother ever survives childbirth. it is an absolutely deadly risk. even normal (non ectopic pregnancies) risks include the following...
diabetes
depression
liver failure
kidney failure
anemia
breast abscesses
fallen bladder
deep vein thrombosis
peritonitis (abdominal cavity inflamation)
pulmonary embolism (blood clot in lungs)
stroke
superficial thrombophlebitis (vein inflamation)

and that's just one list...
the "life of the mother" argument is garbage. frankly. before modern medicine, something like 3 in 10 babies would survive to adulthood if that and probably 1/3 of mothers died bearing a child. there are all kinds of studies about how dangerous bearing children is after 35 (google it.) and how dangerous childbearing during adolescence is (google it.) so basically you have ten years (from 25-35) in which you are somewhat less likely to croak if you try to pop out a puppy. how's this. if i don't have good medical care, i don't want to risk it. i use preventative methods. i overlap preventative methods... but there's always that .01 chance... i'd just really rather have the option, even though i probably won't use it.

biologically speaking. there is absolutely no explanation why any mother ever survives childbirth. it is an absolutely deadly risk. even normal (non ectopic pregnancies) risks include the following...
diabetes
depression
liver failure
kidney failure
anemia
breast abscesses
fallen bladder
deep vein thrombosis
peritonitis (abdominal cavity inflamation)
pulmonary embolism (blood clot in lungs)
stroke
superficial thrombophlebitis (vein inflamation)

and that's just one list...
the "life of the mother" argument is garbage. frankly. before modern medicine, something like 3 in 10 babies would survive to adulthood if that and probably 1/3 of mothers died bearing a child. there are all kinds of studies about how dangerous bearing children is after 35 (google it.) and how dangerous childbearing during adolescence is (google it.) so basically you have ten years (from 25-35) in which you are somewhat less likely to croak if you try to pop out a puppy. how's this. if i don't have good medical care, i don't want to risk it. i use preventative methods. i overlap preventative methods... but there's always that .01 chance... i'd just really rather have the option, even though i probably won't use it.

Good point. Well Made.

No, but according to Terminalia, if a woman saved the entire world, that would be important - but not as important as popping out babies, since popping out babies is the *most* important thing she could do. His statement is like you saying "The World's Fair is always the most important thing you could ever go to," leaving out things that might actually be more important.
Opinions change. So do priorities. If I said "this World's Fair is the most important thing mankind has ever done" it could be supplanted by the next "most important thing mankind has ever done" as soon as my priorities change. Or my priorities may never change.

Tell me again, why have people wasted half a thread butting heads on this?

And please don't trivialize motherhood to make your point.

If the parameter that Terminalia uses to define the *most* important thing a person can do is live up to their best physical capability, then let's apply that thinking to men.

In an earlier post, when we were discussing what men are better at, we came up with strength, i.e. arm wrestling. I will add to this that which Testosterone predisposes the male for: aggression.

So, according to Terminalia's logic, the *most* important thing a man can do is sports or war. So every man that doesn't participate in sports or join the military is refusing to comply with the role that nature dictates by their biology.

Geez, can you imagine a world where all the women spend all their time making babies, and all the men spent their time killing other people's babies?

I like to think that what makes humans different from animals is that we are given abilities that take us BEYOND our physical capabilities. The frontal lobe is present in both men and women (i won't even argue the point that women have more active frontal lobes, though they do)

So i would say that the *most* important thing a human can do is USE THEIR BRAIN. Any animal can live out its biology and that can be the most important thing they can do for the species. As humans we are uniquely suited to get past these biological restrictions and go on to do more for all of humanity than just add to its numbers.

Homo sapiens: why do you Neanderthals drag a woman by her hair?
Neanderthal: because if you dragged her by her feet, she would fill up with dirt.

(all humorless extremists please disregard that last part. you don't understand, and a joke isn't funny if i have to defend it)

Homo sapiens: why do you Neanderthals drag a woman by her hair?
Neanderthal: because if you dragged her by her feet, she would fill up with dirt.



you just made me disturb a whole computer lab with that.

thanks. you made my week. :)

I think the reason Terminalia has come under such heavy fire, is because he is unnecessarily abrasive. He states opinion as if it were fact, seems allergic to providing evidence, and is happy to use threats of implied violence, and direct insults, to attempt to prove his point.

On a less civilised forum, he would probably have been reported to moderators a long time ago, but most here seem to have a live-and-let-live policy for debate.

If you look at some of the posters here... they don't respond to EVERYONE, the way they respond to Terminalia. He is catalysing the worst in some people by his obnoxious and brutish rhetoric.

He has repeatedly said that the "most" important thing a woman can do is produce a child. While that is his opinion, he states it as fact, and is willing to argue AGAINST logical responses, based solely on his opinion. For some of the women on the forum, I expect that being portrayed as little more than incubators offends their perspective of a world in which a woman can be treated as an equal - where they can do great things, and be respected for them.

Unfortunately, while people espouse (loudly and with great aggression) polemic such as that Terminalia favours, women are going to hit an 'artificial ceiling' of respect - since there is no way that they can acheive the same heights from the same actions, while voices are loudly crying that they SHOULD be doing something important... like 'breeding'.

Brad watch over us all.
Everyone states opinion as fact, it's an unfortunate part of the English language. Oops! there, I just did it. It just irritates me when people fail to realise they do the same things and make allowance for it in others.

I have found that most of the insults thrown in this thread are directly in response to insults, most of the abrasion in response to abrasion. He is reacting, not arguing/discussing, as are you on occasion. Maybe it's just me, how I view things, but it seems Paul's words in the Capital Punishment thread are good advice in any situation.

It may be a contribution, too, that those who oppose Terminalia catalyze each other into frenzy. ;-)

the term Homo sapiens implies that the new division of species is one that has the ability to reason beyond it's natural instincts.

Would Terminalia argue that women are not part of Homo sapiens, and only MEN are?

Opinions change. So do priorities. If I said "this World's Fair is the most important thing mankind has ever done" it could be supplanted by the next "most important thing mankind has ever done" as soon as my priorities change. Or my priorities may never change.

Of course the statement isn't "the World's Fair is the most important thing humankind has ever done" for Terminalia - it is "the World's Fair is the most important thing humankind could ever do." Changing your opinion on something like that is much harder.

Tell me again, why have people wasted half a thread butting heads on this?

Beats me, I just now came and answered one post and ended up getting answered by you.

And please don't trivialize motherhood to make your point.

I am not trivializing motherhood. I just don't think that someone who cannot or will not ever do something can state that the particular something is the most important thing an entirely different person will ever do. A woman may have a child - and think that bearing said child is the most important thing they have ever, or ever could do. It is her life and if she feels that way, great.

However, a man who doesn't even know that woman has no business stating that the most important thing she could ever do is have a child. And that woman would have no business looking at another woman and saying that the most important thing that other woman could do would be to have a child.

This is especially true when you link in the fact that a woman could (although I'm sure Term would disagree) do something that would have a positive impact all over the world. Most (although not all - and maybe not even the woman herself) would think that an act that saves thousands of lives would be more important than the carrying of just one.

Jovial

I just can't understand the idea that a woman who saves thousands of lives has done something less important than a woman who has a single child.
It is less important to me. /opinion

It is not a universal truth.

It's not that I don't think that children are important, and I do hope to have at least one someday - it is that, no matter what else a woman may do, you believe that having a child is the most important.
I am willing to bet that when that happens your priorities will change. And change. And continue to change.

You don't seem to share his view, at least not entirely. If you shared it entirely, then I would have to say that, in my opinion, you would be a "bad guy." However, you at least have the curtesy to admit that your opinion is not necessarily the TRUTH and that it is simply your opinion. I may disagree with your opinion, and be completely unable to understand how you could have reached it, but I don't see you as a bad person unless you are trying to force said belief on others.
It is opinion. Anyone who asserts their opinion as truth is simply asserting a truth as opinion --subjective truth.

It is less important to me. /opinion

It is not a universal truth.

Exactly my point. And the fact that you state it as such, rather than as a biological fact or universal truth is what makes you a better person that Terminalia.

sry to crash the convo but I have an oppinioun here.

A woman should have the right to choose wheather or not to have an abortion. It is not up to her parents, her family, her friends, her teachers, a priest or even Tony Blair. The discission should be left to her. However, if she was not raped in anyway and was in a relationship with the father she should discuss the matter with him first. However the final say should be left to her.

I am willing to bet that when that happens your priorities will change. And change. And continue to change.

And I never said they wouldn't. But nobody else can tell me what my priorities are - they are for me to decide. I have made it a priority to have children at some point in my life. However, that is *my* decision, not anyone else's (well, ok, it's partially my future husband's too - but only because I have chosen to let him influence my decisions).

It is opinion. Anyone who asserts their opinion as truth is simply asserting a truth as opinion --subjective truth.

Anyone who tries to force their opinion on others is trying to assert their opinion as objective truth, which it is not.

Term...

Although I haven't read every page of this debate I still wish for you to explain to me how you would support the ten children you said you would have if you were a woman...I would love to have children now, but I won't because being a responsable adult I would rather wait till I can provide them with food, shelter ect... If you truely wish for me to have those children now start sending me money.(I estimate 1 million per child will give my child a good quailty of life and education ect...)

Am I wrong then for forsaking my most (sic) important role?
What are men's most important role? Is it Fatherhood? Are you then not fullfilling your potential by not having hundeds of offspring as a male is supposedly able to do?
What about religious people who do not have children? Are they of less value since they don't do what you consider the most important role a woman can fullfill? They dedicate their life to their God.

I don't disagree that Motherhood is an important role in our society, but I also feel that their are many ways womn and men can change the world without having children. They can adopt, teach, become doctors or nurses and many millions of other things I am too tired to think of just now.

Maybe if people like yourself focused on creating a more loving world instead of trying to crreate trouble by upsetting people more women would want to bring babies into the world. Although I support a womans right to choose I still believe that if we worked more towards a compassionate society less women would want this option which is an Ecofeminist viewpoint, because the more patriarchal a society is the more abortions that society has (although at present there are no non patriarchal societies).

When Abortion is banned more women DIE.

I can't state better reasons for the Right to Abortion then many people have already stated here.

We must remember that fundermentalists will never change their mind.

I like the old saying against abortion...don't have one
(but mind your own bussiness)

Geez, can you imagine a world where all the women spend all their time making babies, and all the men spent their time killing other people's babies?

Sheri S Tepper wrote a book about it: "The Gate to Women's Country".

It is a truly excellent read.

Honestly. In all seriousness. I think Terminalia should read it - it was what I consider one of the formative moments in my life.

Now, for those people that support abortion in other circumstances than those mentioned above, explain your position.
"I'm for abortion because you're a former fetus."

More seriously, who am I to say to a woman, "This child, which is currently parasitizing your body, must be allowed to stay inside you for a good part of a year"? I can't become pregnant, I haven't got the bits for it. I'm opposed to abortion, but when a human life is completely encapsulated within another human being, the owner of the greater supporting body has complete control.

I don't like abortion. But what I dislike even more is government telling people what choices to make. I believe that people can choose for themselves, unlike the Republican Party and social conservatives all over.

I just don't think that someone who cannot or will not ever do something can state that the particular something is the most important thing an entirely different person will ever do. A woman may have a child - and think that bearing said child is the most important thing they have ever, or ever could do. It is her life and if she feels that way, great.

However, a man who doesn't even know that woman has no business stating that the most important thing she could ever do is have a child. And that woman would have no business looking at another woman and saying that the most important thing that other woman could do would be to have a child.



Very well put, Dempublicents! You have hit the crux of the argument, i think.

If a person thinks that having a baby is the most important thing FOR THEMSELVES, then that is what they should aspire to. And if a person thinks that abortion is wrong FOR THEMSELVES, then they shouldn't have an abortion or have sex with a woman who would have an abortion.

Advocating abortion as a CHOICE does not mean advocating abortion as a REQUIREMENT. I won't make you live your life against what you believe, and you shouldn't make me live mine against my beliefs.

Pursuit of Happiness.!!! If i know that having a baby will not make me happy, then having a baby is NOT the most important thing i can do. I would probably just raise a social reject or psychopath with my disinterest in motherhood. Instead, with no children, i am free to volunteer my time at the local high school, coaching kids and helping OTHER mothers raise well-rounded children.

Now, if Terminalia were to argue that the most important thing a HUMAN can do is to teach a child, I might agree. Now that's what i call using your frontal lobe!

Our republic has faced this debate on many occasions. :mp5:

Early in our national developement this unresolved arguement brought us to our first civil war, called the "Yes/No war of 1999". Confrontations eventually came to a standstill as our two segregated regions ran out of insults to throw back and forth. :headbang:

Eventually both sides elected two "Great Minds" as representatives for their parties.

The delegate of the "Yes", Ms. MeMe Itsme, demanded an allowance of abortions for women who have been impregnated through rape and incest. As the actual percentage of pregnancies from rape & incest were a low 3%, the opposing "No Party" agreed with the following condition;

_ 'In the unusual area were (wed & unwed) fatherhood concerns came to interest - a 'guardian ad litem' must be allowed for the unborn fetus in all civil court cases'._

As the actual percentage of fathers wanting to acknowledge a child of their own was even lower than the above-mentioned perentage, it was easily agreed upon.

The original counter-notation of; "It's my body and this thing is a parasite" was brought to great discussion.

As on an average for our republic, most fetuses stop being a parasite at the age of 18. Hence the "ShouldaCouldaWoulda Law" allowing the prevention to the continuing growth of the fetus, was created for concern when the conception is relevant. New law states that abortionary methods must be handled before, during, or the-week-after accidental conception. :fluffle:

Mrs. Wilma Kidliv, delegate of the No Party, concluded with the obvious point that while abortions were created as a method to prevent birth (accidental or otherwise), it was also a method of preventing the existance of life... which our courts defined as illegal.

It became mandatory that the courts conclude exactly who what where when how why life exists.... and since world reknowned scientists can conclude that a bacteria found frozen in the ice on Mars is considered life, then so is a 2 week old fetus.

The finality of this long battled agreement brought forth the admitance of what was titled by the courts as the "Maybe Party", the third party voice in the situation which was incapable of speaking for his/herself.

Incidentally, this matter was used in a similar ruling governing our rainforests.

Everyone states opinion as fact, it's an unfortunate part of the English language. Oops! there, I just did it. It just irritates me when people fail to realise they do the same things and make allowance for it in others.

I have found that most of the insults thrown in this thread are directly in response to insults, most of the abrasion in response to abrasion. He is reacting, not arguing/discussing, as are you on occasion. Maybe it's just me, how I view things, but it seems Paul's words in the Capital Punishment thread are good advice in any situation.

It may be a contribution, too, that those who oppose Terminalia catalyze each other into frenzy. ;-)

If you look back over most of my comments, I am one of those people that believes subjective and objective are two very different beasts, and I treat them as such.

So, most of my posts will contain "I think", "My view", "The way I see it"... or some similar phrasing, to show that I may not actually have evidentiary support for what I am saying, and it is, therefore, purely opinion.

Most of my passages that are longer posts, and that express subjective points will actually be concluded with a "My Opinion" comment at the bottom.

Often, if I post something that is fact, I post links to it, or I quote the material... see my posts in the "Iran Nuclear Weapons" (or whatever it is called) thread.

I think it is laziness or ignorance on Terminalia's part that he expresses everything as fact. At first I thought he was just young, but, when asked about it he spent the next few dozen posts telling me to 'grow up' - so, I guess not.

Note: It isn't just Terminalia - a lot of people come in and express opinions that have no factual backing, and express them as truth. Terminalia just gets more of the focus, because he just keeps coming back and doing it over again.

Perhaps if he didn't argue with every single point of a post (even if arguing a point actually contradicts an earlier point), and perhaps if he didn't turn every comment into a conflict point, or an excuse to be rude or abusive, he would garner better responses.

Regarding [Paul in Capital Punishment], my favoured verses would be Matthew 5:44 and 5:46:

"But I say unto you, LOVE your ENEMIES, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you... For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?"

This is a very long thread and I'm am sorry if I am retreading some ground, but rape should not be the only excuse for abortion. If you oppose abortion as murder then saying that you approve of abortion in rape situations only shows that you don't truly trust your position. If abortion is truly the murder of an innocent child, then how is one woman's horrible misfortune justify it. I do not wish to make light of rape, and I fully support a woman's choice, but I would like people to see the illogical way this argument is being discussed.

Yes. Rape should not be the only reason for an abortion. A very good one, bu any other reasons must be excepted too. As it's the woman's choice. Anyone else who begs to differ does not want a woman, no the men who say that women do not deserve this choice want a slave.

and since world reknowned scientists can conclude that a bacteria found frozen in the ice on Mars is considered life, then so is a 2 week old fetus.


Um,...does that mean you have outlawed antibiotics in your republic? If life is life, then the cellular life that causes disease in humans has the same right to live.

the term Homo sapiens implies that the new division of species is one that has the ability to reason beyond it's natural instincts.

Would Terminalia argue that women are not part of Homo sapiens, and only MEN are?
Ask him. And then listen to the answer.

Exactly my point. And the fact that you state it as such, rather than as a biological fact or universal truth is what makes you a better person that Terminalia.
The fact that he leaves off the "...to me" both in his speech and in his mind shouldn't make a difference to how it is heard. After all, "importance" it isn't a biological fact, is it? It's an opinion.

And I never said they wouldn't. But nobody else can tell me what my priorities are - they are for me to decide. I have made it a priority to have children at some point in my life. However, that is *my* decision, not anyone else's (well, ok, it's partially my future husband's too - but only because I have chosen to let him influence my decisions).

Anyone who tries to force their opinion on others is trying to assert their opinion as objective truth, which it is not.
I rather think that you have extrapolated the opinion stated as a "universal truth". To say that "the most important thing that women, a woman, or womankind can do, has ever done, or ever will do is to have a baby" is to state an opinion.

Ask him. And then listen to the answer.
I just did. And i will. still waiting, though.

while i'm waiting, i will say that the post with the list of pregnancy complications made an excellent post as to the invalidity of women being "made" to have babies.

As a gardener, flowers and seeds come to mind. Is a plant's sole purpose in life to bear seeds?

Does the unpollenated flower have no value? Is there no value in beauty or aroma? Roses whose petals that are picked to become perfume don't reproduce. Luckily, enough other roses are produced that some can be used for more aesthetic reasons. Also, in the plant kingdom there are species whose flowers are insignificant and which can add to the reproduction of the species by casting shade on others' seedlings.

And another great example... who wants their cannabis buds to have seeds? As long as there are enough cannabis plants out there with seeds to ensure the continuing existence of cannabis, then the ones without are considered more valuable.

Just some thoughts.

Originally Posted by Tropical Montana
Geez, can you imagine a world where all the women spend all their time making babies, and all the men spent their time killing other people's babies?Sheri S Tepper wrote a book about it: "The Gate to Women's Country".

It is a truly excellent read.

Honestly. In all seriousness. I think Terminalia should read it - it was what I consider one of the formative moments in my life.
"The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood is another such story.

Is it for man to decide arbitrarily when an unborn baby becomes alive? Do we have the right to terminate a life because we think it doesn't count? Does not a disabled person have any value? - - - - - Food for thought.

Is it for man to decide arbitrarily when an unborn baby becomes alive? Do we have the right to terminate a life because we think it doesn't count? Does not a disabled person have any value? - - - - - Food for thought.

Great argument there. A nice contrary to "morals are opinions, nothing more, and you can't know what's right."

Why, thank you. You sound like a good upstanding bloke like me [looks pompous].

I just did. And i will. still waiting, though.
Well, technically you asked us, but I will wait with you. ;-)

while i'm waiting, i will say that the post with the list of pregnancy complications made an excellent post as to the invalidity of women being "made" to have babies.

As a gardener, flowers and seeds come to mind. Is a plant's sole purpose in life to bear seeds?

Does the unpollenated flower have no value? Is there no value in beauty or aroma? Roses whose petals that are picked to become perfume don't reproduce. Luckily, enough other roses are produced that some can be used for more aesthetic reasons. Also, in the plant kingdom there are species whose flowers are insignificant and which can add to the reproduction of the species by casting shade on others' seedlings.

And another great example... who wants their cannabis buds to have seeds? As long as there are enough cannabis plants out there with seeds to ensure the continuing existence of cannabis, then the ones without are considered more valuable.

Just some thoughts.
I don't think a plant has a "purpose" in life --that is going back to the 'Mother Nature as an intelligent force in the universe that "intends" things' argument. Unless you equate 'God's purpose' as the plant's purpose.

Is it for man to decide arbitrarily when an unborn baby becomes alive? Do we have the right to terminate a life because we think it doesn't count? Does not a disabled person have any value? - - - - - Food for thought.
"Alive" is a different thing than "a life". The cells are alive even before they merge in conception by virtue of being part of a life-form. In my opinion, the child becomes a separate life literally when it separates, or is born. Not so arbitrary.

"Alive" is a different thing than "a life". The cells are alive even before they merge in conception by virtue of being part of a life-form. In my opinion, the child becomes a separate life literally when it separates, or is born. Not so arbitrary.

Tell me, what is the difference between a baby one week premature and a baby one week before birth? They both have fully developed brains (well, almost anyway), there's no biological difference, except one is breathing and eating with its mouth and nose. And if that's the difference to you, then the way you're saying it, a person who is being fed through a tube to their stomach or an IV and is on life support is as worthless as that so-called "unliving" fetus. Right?

Now, before we begin, let me clear some things up. I do not support abortion, excepting some circumstances. If the pregnant woman was raped, in my opinion, she should be able to have an abortion. If the pregnant women was the victim of incest, she should be able to have an abortion. If the birth of the child would cause the mother serious injury, she should be able to have an abortion. Those are the only occasions when an abortion should be legal.

Now, for those people that support abortion in other circumstances than those mentioned above, explain your position.While i agree with you 100%, you are using the same old argument that has been brought up since abortion first started. You forget that not every woman feels the same way. There are some cases where there will be real mental damage to the woman after giving up this life that she has carried for the last eight to nine months. If that is the case, then she should have the right to choose. I know, you are saying to yourself "self, why can't the woman just keep the baby?" Well I can tell all of you out there, that I know plenty of mothers that did keep the baby, but should never be called a mother. Also, what if the unborn baby has some complication like being born with HIV. That baby will die in time anyway, so why put the mother and family through the oain of knowing that anyday they will lose that child. Any thoughts?

"I'm for abortion because you're a former fetus."


Oh gods, thank you for that. I can't stop laughing.

if abortion is banned desperate woman will try and perform self abortions with bent coathangers, or go to shady illegal surgeons with no training and who dont wash thier hands and try to have them done, which will have a high risk of killing them or severly mutilating them. and trust me, some people get very desperate if they are going to be stuck with an unwanted child.

if abortion is banned desperate woman will try and perform self abortions with bent coathangers, or go to shady illegal surgeons with no training and who dont wash thier hands and try to have them done, which will have a high risk of killing them or severly mutilating them. and trust me, some people get very desperate if they are going to be stuck with an unwanted child.

Okay, here's a scenario for you.

A parent doesn't want her kid going to a party at night, because the parent knows that there will be bad things going on at the party because of the people there. She says the kid can't go. HOWEVER, there is a possibility that she'll take the car even though she doesn't have her license, or she'll get hurt trying to go out of her window, but does her mom say she can go because of that possibility? No. Why should this be any different.

Tell me, what is the difference between a baby one week premature and a baby one week before birth? They both have fully developed brains (well, almost anyway), there's no biological difference, except one is breathing and eating with its mouth and nose. And if that's the difference to you, then the way you're saying it, a person who is being fed through a tube to their stomach or an IV and is on life support is as worthless as that so-called "unliving" fetus. Right?
Diffences, many: size, weight, and those you mentioned. No life-form is worthless, when the purpose of life is to be alive. You misunderstood me --I claimed the child was alive since conception. It's just not "a life" until it separates from the mother.

Well, technically you asked us, but I will wait with you. ;-)


I don't think a plant has a "purpose" in life --that is going back to the 'Mother Nature as an intelligent force in the universe that "intends" things' argument. Unless you equate 'God's purpose' as the plant's purpose.
"God" and "Nature" are wholly compatible to me.
I cannot see anything that is in god's will that would not be reflected in nature, or vise versa.

Tell me, what is the difference between a baby one week premature and a baby one week before birth?

No difference. The term is 'viability'. If the fetus is capable of living on its own, then it has a right to its own life, IMO, and in the opinion of the current US law. Before that point of viability, there is little difference between a fetus and a tapeworm or a bacteria or a virus. The "host" body should have the choice to treat the condition.

Anyone who wants to argue that life is life, no matter in what stage, i challenge you to stop using antibacterial cleansers, including soap, and of course no antibiotics, either. No eating of meat or eggs, or really anything except dirt and rocks. No fur coats, no leather shoes, no house made out of wood nor clearing a wooded lot to build any kind of human structure, no spaying your cat, no spraying herbicide on weeds. And you would also have to force-feed and medicate old people even though they may be so sick they WANT to die. Life is life.

My point here is that every day of our lives we choose which life may exist in it and which must die for our benefit. If i were an extremist about life and thought it immoral to use soap, would it be justifiable if i sought a law to outlaw soap? Or should i let you use soap if you want to because you aren't an extremist like me?

if abortion is banned desperate woman will try and perform self abortions with bent coathangers, or go to shady illegal surgeons with no training and who dont wash thier hands and try to have them done, which will have a high risk of killing them or severly mutilating them. and trust me, some people get very desperate if they are going to be stuck with an unwanted child.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't begin to know *how* to do a self-abortion with a bent coat hanger! I'm sorry, but that sounds like an urban myth.

Your overall point is well-made, though.

No difference. The term is 'viability'. If the fetus is capable of living on its own, then it has a right to its own life, IMO, and in the opinion of the current US law. Before that point of viability, there is little difference between a fetus and a tapeworm or a bacteria or a virus. The "host" body should have the choice to treat the condition.

Okay, then why don't we just kill everyone who's recovering, but for now, they're on life support and being fed through tubes? After all, they can't live on their own for now, right? Shoot them right then and there! :sniper:

Anyone who wants to argue that life is life, no matter in what stage, i challenge you to stop using antibacterial cleansers, including soap, and of course no antibiotics, either. No eating of meat or eggs, or really anything except dirt and rocks. No fur coats, no leather shoes, no house made out of wood nor clearing a wooded lot to build any kind of human structure, no spaying your cat, no spraying herbicide on weeds. And you would also have to force-feed and medicate old people even though they may be so sick they WANT to die. Life is life.

The difference is that single celled creatures are pretty much robots. They live to eat and wiggle around. That's pretty much it. They have no mind of their own, no conciousness. No emotions, no feelings, nothing. And they never will.

My point here is that every day of our lives we choose which life may exist in it and which must die for our benefit. If i were an extremist about life and thought it immoral to use soap, would it be justifiable if i sought a law to outlaw soap? Or should i let you use soap if you want to because you aren't an extremist like me?

We've outlawed killing people. The KKK thinks it's okay to kill black people. Why should we outlaw it just because we believe it's wrong?

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't begin to know *how* to do a self-abortion with a bent coat hanger! I'm sorry, but that sounds like an urban myth.

Ask your grandmother, if she is still alive, or your mother if she is over 50. They lived through it and know of real life cases. My own grandmother had an abortion in the 40's (as recommended and performed by her doctor to save her life). My own mother told me one horrific story about a friend of hers i don't care to repeat. But it is true, desperate women will do whatever they think will work. And i think it is pretty self-explanatory how to kill one's unborn child with a coat hanger. It wouldn't exactly be an abortion as we know it, but the pregnancy would certainly end in miscarriage.

Okay, then why don't we just kill everyone who's recovering, but for now, they're on life support and being fed through tubes? After all, they can't live on their own for now, right? Shoot them right then and there! :sniper:

if their life support consisted of being hooked to ME, then i think i should have the choice not to do it. Since life support these days is mechanical, and machines do not have free will, you don't have to ask the machine what its choice is.



The difference is that single celled creatures are pretty much robots. They live to eat and wiggle around. That's pretty much it. They have no mind of their own, no conciousness. No emotions, no feelings, nothing. And they never will.

The problem is, you can't be sure of ANYONES consciousness except your own. Just like you can't tell if that unviable fetus has consciousness, emotions or feelings, either. You only ASSUME they do, and on that assumption you base your logic. Well, i assume that plants have consciousness too, as proven through their reaction to different types of music, and their electrochemical response to a wound could be interpreted as the feeling of "pain".



We've outlawed killing people. The KKK thinks it's okay to kill black people. Why should we outlaw it just because we believe it's wrong?

Because black people have proven their consciousness, feelings and emotions and their desire to be left alive, and they are capable of sustaining their own life.

Abortion at any stage is murder. A fetus has the potential for life, it is growing, it is developing, these aspects shows signs of life, you dont see a rock growing, or developing. A fetus is alive because scientificially speaking, it shows characteristics of a living being, it reacts, it grows, it adapts, it does every basic human trait. No child is a accident, every child born is born with a purpose and only God has the right to decide who lives and who dies.

I bet the majority of pro-choice people dont know the process of partial birth abortion, here's a overview

Partial Birth abortion: The child becomes full-term, it thinks, it feels, it reacts, it feels pain, joy, it has a heart-beat, functional brain. Woman goes into labor and as the baby is going through the birth canal, the abortionists stabs a thick needle into the babies brain. The needle is attached to a pump which slowly and painfully sucks the brain out of the babies head, a woman's testimony claims that she felt the baby struggle in her birth canal as the baby slowly got its brain sucked out. Once the brain is struck human reaction makes you go into a seizure and then a coma. After the brain is sucked out, the skull collapses in on itself making it easier for the babies body to come out.

Negligence abortion: abortionist induces labor prematurely, the baby comes out months early and they leave the child on the operating table without life support or a incubator to slowly die as its bodily functions slowly fail, starting with the liver, lungs, heart, then brain.

No innocent child deserves such brutal and painful deaths regardless of what happened to the woman. The only time i will condone an abortion is if the odds are that neither the woman or the child will survive labor but even then i will NEVER condone partial birth abortion. Abortion at any stage is murder, think of it this way, imagine your mother saying this to you "When i first found out i was pregnant with you, i considered aborting you", what would you say? I would take this scenario "you thought of killing me!?" Then what about this question "i would of done it early stage abortion" what would you say, still sounds like it would be terminating my life if my mother told me that.

I read a post earlier that said abortion is ok if a woman cant support a child, thats bullshit. My mother had me, she couldnt support me, we had no medical insurance, i was a severe asthmatic, 90% of the time we couldnt afford my asthma medicine which is very dangerous and lethal, now im a college student and the head speaker of the College Republicans Committee at my University. Ive come a long way to gain something when i started with nothing, no one can predict the life of another, especially a life that wasnt even given a chance.

if their life support consisted of being hooked to ME, then i think i should have the choice not to do it. Since life support these days is mechanical, and machines do not have free will, you don't have to ask the machine what its choice is.

But, that wasn't what I was saying. I was asking what is the difference between a baby that's born one week premature and one that's a week away from birth.

And if it's your fault that you have that person attached to you for a bit, well, it's your fault.

The problem is, you can't be sure of ANYONES consciousness except your own. Just like you can't tell if that unviable fetus has consciousness, emotions or feelings, either. You only ASSUME they do, and on that assumption you base your logic. Well, i assume that plants have consciousness too, as proven through their reaction to different types of music, and their electrochemical response to a wound could be interpreted as the feeling of "pain".

Exactly. Then who are we to assume a fetus has no conciousness?

Because black people have proven their consciousness, feelings and emotions and their desire to be left alive, and they are capable of sustaining their own life.

Again, I refer back to the "test tube" argument. And we shouldn't kill fetuses just because they can't say whether they want to live. It's called "benefit of the doubt."

It's worse to execute an innocent person than to let a guilty person walk free, I think.

What is this about desperate women seeking abortions? I do admit that they will, in the case of a ban, but some people here are saying that the ban would therefore be a failure. This is completely false - there are murders every day, burglaries etc., but we still ban them. Do we get rid of the law punishing murder if there are still murders?

Um,...does that mean you have outlawed antibiotics in your republic? If life is life, then the cellular life that causes disease in humans has the same right to live.

You're comparing antibotics to abortion? The idea was to remind abortionist that the fetus inside them is alive, when the arguement states it isn't. The underside to the debate focuses to much on the idea of property & possession of the woman, rather than making an acceptance that there is life growing within them.

The citizens of my country are hyper-educated on the facts & philosophies of the abortion topic. At grade school level, they can inform you that women seeking abortion through rape or incest is about 3% of the women who simply do not want the child.

Abortions are taken before court officials to decide whether or not it can be allowed, because we believe the unborn child has that right. The Gaurdian Ad Litem speaks on behalf the fetus which cannot communicate for him/herself.

On count the majority of abortions made in my country, pronounced legal, were made in favor that the child and/or mother would not survive the birth.

Some argue that abortion should be considered if the fetus will be born with a birth-defect such as "retardation". Court hearings investigate these defects by an disallowing a parent's idea of "perfection". Simply because the baby will not be "perfect" does not make a good consideration for abortion.

I want to ask pro-choice people this. Pro-choice support negligence abortion, which is, the abortionist leaves a premature baby on the operating table with no life support so its bodly functions struggle then fail and the baby dies from neglect and lack of medical attention.

"Would a pro-choice person in there right mind stand at the edge of a operating table, would they stand there from the moment the baby was placed there and watch that baby, squirm, attempt to cry, desperate squeels, would they sit there and watch such a small innocent child die? Would a pro-choice person be sick enough to do that? I truely hope that no one is that sick and that the pro-choice people just dont know or dont want to know what millions of innocent babies go through"

So thats my question "Would you stand at the edge of the operating table and watch a premature baby slowly struggle for life and die or would you spare the baby, show it mercy, and do whatever you can to save its life?" I want a answer from you pro-choice people. If you say no but you still support abortion, you are HYPOCRITS and the WORST kind yet.

(sarcasm) We shouldn't try and convince bigots to stop being bigotted. We should allow bigotry to go on forever and ever. Why the hell did anyone ever try and convince each other that those of African descent were still people? After all, their opinions were part of what makes life interesting - we should have just let them keep burning their crosses in people's yards. And when someone like Term beats his wife up for not staying in the kitchen "where she belongs" and having his babies we should just let it go, since his priorities are different - and that makes humankind interesting.
There is nothing wrong with addessing bigotry, and I didn't mean to suggest that there was. However, it is a more effective technique to address the topic within the parameters laid out by the personality you are addressing, rather than trying to bend that person to fit your personality before you even begin to address him. It is more easy to bend to fit others than to try to force them to bend to fit you. At least, this has been my experience.

i reckon HITLER was that sick or MAO but he raped 13 year olds and the other killed millions of Jews.


The ANTI abortionnists are either fanatically religious or so wierd and don't value human life properly.

:( :mp5:

Yeah, that's truly revolting. But that's not really the issue here - I think that this topic was set up to try and persuade people that just because something's living off it's mother and is not visible doesn't mean it's not a real, albeit younger, baby.

The "disability abortion" argument is the one that really galls me - probably because I have a very unobtrusive medical condition which has no effect on me really - but could let my parents abort me (not that they ever would). Anyone here about the baby that was killed because of a lip defect? Down's Syndrome sufferers generally on happy lives. Basically, it's arrogance that's at the heart of this debate.arrogance

But, that wasn't what I was saying. I was asking what is the difference between a baby that's born one week premature and one that's a week away from birth.
I W A S A G R E E I N G W I T H Y O U. I S A I D "no difference".

And if it's your fault that you have that person attached to you for a bit, well, it's your fault.
fault? what if i was using two methods of birth control? Are you saying there is no such thing as accidental conception?



Then who are we to assume a fetus has no conciousness?
It shouldn't be assumed either way (I A M A G R E E I N G W I T H Y O U A G A I N--assumptions have no place in debate unless they are agreed upon as premises.)



I refer back to the "test tube" argument. And we shouldn't kill fetuses just because they can't say whether they want to live. It's called "benefit of the doubt."
so i refer back to my leather and meat argument. :D

Well UnionJack, would you stand at the edge of a operating table and watch a premature baby slowly die of neglect?

Abortion at any stage is murder. A fetus has the potential for life, it is growing, it is developing, these aspects shows signs of life, you dont see a rock growing, or developing. A fetus is alive because scientificially speaking, it shows characteristics of a living being, it reacts, it grows, it adapts, it does every basic human trait. No child is a accident, every child born is born with a purpose and only God has the right to decide who lives and who dies.

Actually, a fetus does not show all of the signs of life until it has a developed nervous system (roughly the end of the first trimester). Until this point, it cannot react - all it does is grow really. Strangely enough, this is also when elective abortions are generally banned.

I bet the majority of pro-choice people dont know the process of partial birth abortion, here's a overview

Partial Birth abortion: The child becomes full-term, it thinks, it feels, it reacts, it feels pain, joy, it has a heart-beat, functional brain. Woman goes into labor and as the baby is going through the birth canal, the abortionists stabs a thick needle into the babies brain. The needle is attached to a pump which slowly and painfully sucks the brain out of the babies head, a woman's testimony claims that she felt the baby struggle in her birth canal as the baby slowly got its brain sucked out. Once the brain is struck human reaction makes you go into a seizure and then a coma. After the brain is sucked out, the skull collapses in on itself making it easier for the babies body to come out.

Actually, you don't know the process either, obviously. The fetus is not full-term (and, just to be thourough, there is no way to know about a fetus feeling joy). If it were full-term, it would be viable and abortion would only be something that could be done if the mother was about to die or if the fetus was dead/dying. In order to perform this (which almost always occurs before viability), birth is induced.

Negligence abortion: abortionist induces labor prematurely, the baby comes out months early and they leave the child on the operating table without life support or a incubator to slowly die as its bodily functions slowly fail, starting with the liver, lungs, heart, then brain.

I'm pretty sure that this is not even allowed.

No innocent child deserves such brutal and painful deaths regardless of what happened to the woman. The only time i will condone an abortion is if the odds are that neither the woman or the child will survive labor but even then i will NEVER condone partial birth abortion.

Funny, since one of the main instances in which D&X has to be performed is when the baby has hydrocephalus. In this case, D&X is pretty much all they can do short of cutting the woman open and pulling the fetus out (since the head is likely swollen to the point she couldn't possibly push it through her vagina). Either way, the fetus will die.

Abortion at any stage is murder, think of it this way, imagine your mother saying this to you "When i first found out i was pregnant with you, i considered aborting you", what would you say? I would take this scenario "you thought of killing me!?" Then what about this question "i would of done it early stage abortion" what would you say, still sounds like it would be terminating my life if my mother told me that.

That's because you already have your opinion made up and you are interpreting that in light of your ready-set opinion.


In all honesty, religion is the only reason to oppose abortion before the nervous system is fully formed. Potentiality is not the same thing as actuality. These are two words that anti-choicers need to learn.

Personally, I do oppose abortion and would most likely never have one - but I'm not about to force that view on others. As for how the law should handle it - I think we're pretty close. There is no scientific reason to ban abortion before the development of a nervous system. After that, the fetus may be viewed as a separate organism, although still parasitic - thus I think there should be a reason (ie. health of the mother) to put it through any pain (since it can now feel pain). Finally, once viability is established, the fetus should only be removed early in cases of a dire threat to the mother's life - and even then any possible means to keep it alive should be taken.

Anyone who writes off pro-lifers as "fanatically religious" (nothin' wrong with that!) will defend their argument by saying that it's only the "unliving bundle of cells" that they would destroy.

So, magically, the spirit of life swoops down into the baby >just< as it is coming out? Not before? Not after?

There is nothing wrong with addessing bigotry, and I didn't mean to suggest that there was. However, it is a more effective technique to address the topic within the parameters laid out by the personality you are addressing, rather than trying to bend that person to fit your personality before you even begin to address him. It is more easy to bend to fit others than to try to force them to bend to fit you. At least, this has been my experience.

I'm really confused as to what you mean here. If someone says "All women should do is have babies and trying to do anything that I have decided a man should do is beyond her." How do you bend to fit them? To address the bigotry, you have to say "That is not true and this is why ..." It's not like you'll accomplish anything by saying "You're right, but women can still do all that stuff." In fact, that statement doesn't even make sense.

So, magically, the spirit of life swoops down into the baby >just< as it is coming out? Not before? Not after?

Define "spirit of life." It sounds like you are still using a religious argument here.

And don't make the mistake of thinking that all pro-choicers think that abortion should be allowed right up until birth. Not all of us do.

I want to ask pro-choice people this. Pro-choice support negligence abortion, which is, the abortionist leaves a premature baby on the operating table with no life support so its bodly functions struggle then fail and the baby dies from neglect and lack of medical attention.

"Would a pro-choice person in there right mind stand at the edge of a operating table, would they stand there from the moment the baby was placed there and watch that baby, squirm, attempt to cry, desperate squeels, would they sit there and watch such a small innocent child die? Would a pro-choice person be sick enough to do that? I truely hope that no one is that sick and that the pro-choice people just dont know or dont want to know what millions of innocent babies go through"

So thats my question "Would you stand at the edge of the operating table and watch a premature baby slowly struggle for life and die or would you spare the baby, show it mercy, and do whatever you can to save its life?" I want a answer from you pro-choice people. If you say no but you still support abortion, you are HYPOCRITS and the WORST kind yet.

Not ALL pro-choice people support negligence abortion. I am pro-choice and i find this horrific. I also must tell you that your information about partial birth abortion has been sensationalized. The doctor doesnt wait till the baby is ready to be born naturally, they induce labor to open the cervix so they may remove the fetus. I also don't think this should be a readily-available service, but only used in extreme cases as judged by a court (to save the woman's life, or insupportable birth defects).

I think most pro-choice people would agree that there can be limits on HOW an unborn child may be aborted, and a limit on how late in the pregnancy it may be aborted. As long as you don't take away the choice, i would be okay with restrictions that keep abortion from being inhumane.

You misunderstand my argument. I'm sorry if I didn't put it too clearly. What I was trying to say was that the pro-choice argument seems to rely on the assumption (yes, assumption) that a baby is not conscious, sentient, call it what you will - until very late in its development, despite evidence of brainwaves and suchlike at a few weeks.

Exactly. Then who are we to assume a fetus has no conciousness?

Considering that it is the brain that controls conciousness in humans, we can be pretty sure that the fetus doesn't have it until at least the nervous system is functional.

Of course, this is different if you believe in a soul, but not everyone does - and its existence has not been scientifically proven (and probably never will, as the soul is most likely something outside of science, as is God). Therefore, "I think there is a soul" is not a good enough reason for you to force anything on someone else.

Again, I refer back to the "test tube" argument. And we shouldn't kill fetuses just because they can't say whether they want to live. It's called "benefit of the doubt."

Considering that they aren't even really separate lives at least until the nervous system is formed, there really is no need for "benefit of the doubt", again, unless you believe in a soul - which wouldn't be adequate for a legal discussion anyways.

I'm not sure I put this clearly enough.

Brainwaves have been detected at six weeks.

Well no, im not wrong, ive read up on partial birth abortions, first time i ever heard about it was in my science book, then i began studying it to figure it out, negligence abortion happens, it happens a lot. As for the fetus not being alive, wrong again, its growing physicially, but how do you think it develops a nervous system in the first place? It requires nutrients from the mother to develop and grow, these are signs of life. A baby does react, it does feel joy and pain, why do you think mothers talk to their stomach? Put headphones on their stomach so the child could listen to music? Babies tend to kick as a reaction to the headphone music, ive seen it, im oldest of four, ive seen my share of a child moving and reacting to my mothers voice or when listening to music. The fetus shows less reaction because it doesnt have a developed brain if little development at all, but it doesnt mean its not alive, because in a couple months it'll be squirming, kicking, moving, then in a couple more months it'll be screaming, crapping in its diaper and annoying its siblings and parents, then it'll be running for the senate and making a life for itself, all babies have potential for great opportunities and abortionists are destroying that before the life even has a chance to prove its worth. What justice or honor is in that?

You misunderstand my argument. I'm sorry if I didn't put it too clearly. What I was trying to say was that the pro-choice argument seems to rely on the assumption (yes, assumption) that a baby is not conscious, sentient, call it what you will - until very late in its development, despite evidence of brainwaves and suchlike at a few weeks.

Actually, the nervous system is not functional until around the end of the first trimester - which would be 12 weeks. Electrical signals from the heart may be picked up before then, but I doubt there are "brain waves" until the brain is actually formed.

To address the bigotry, you have to say "That is not true and this is why ..."
That's a fine way, indeed. I'm probably going to dig myself in deeper, here, but ...the bending is the approach, as in trying to accommodate the other by gaining an understanding of the other. Yes, the person's position might be so unpalatable as to be incomprehensible, but if it is then they shouldn't be arguing against it. What I have seen more often than not on this thread is people assuming the other's position and telling them what it is, and then some even go a step further to cut down that assumed position as if they've scored a point. They haven't, because the position they've cut down is one they fabricated. Yes, it might be based on observed information from other threads or on known inferences, but those are more often a larger context that is necessary to deal with the current point in the current topic.

I'm butting my nose in where it doesn't really belong. Feel free to ignore what I've just said.

I'm not sure I put this clearly enough.

Brainwaves have been detected at six weeks.

Having actually studied up on this, I actually know when the nervous system is generally developed.

Would you like to post a non-anti-choice site with a reference to your six weeks number?

The fetus shows less reaction because it doesnt have a developed brain if little development at all, but it doesnt mean its not alive, because in a couple months it'll be squirming, kicking, moving, then in a couple more months it'll be screaming, crapping in its diaper and annoying its siblings and parents,

Potentiality and actuality are not the same.

Besides, no one here is saying it is not alive. As we have pointed out, individual skin cells are alive. It is not a separate life (scientifically) until it has a nervous system and can react. And we cannot give it legal human being status until it is viable without having problems that you guys don't even want to go into.

Actually, a fetus does not show all of the signs of life until it has a developed nervous system (roughly the end of the first trimester). Until this point, it cannot react - all it does is grow really. Strangely enough, this is also when elective abortions are generally banned.



Actually, you don't know the process either, obviously. The fetus is not full-term (and, just to be thourough, there is no way to know about a fetus feeling joy). If it were full-term, it would be viable and abortion would only be something that could be done if the mother was about to die or if the fetus was dead/dying. In order to perform this (which almost always occurs before viability), birth is induced.



I'm pretty sure that this is not even allowed.



Funny, since one of the main instances in which D&X has to be performed is when the baby has hydrocephalus. In this case, D&X is pretty much all they can do short of cutting the woman open and pulling the fetus out (since the head is likely swollen to the point she couldn't possibly push it through her vagina). Either way, the fetus will die.



That's because you already have your opinion made up and you are interpreting that in light of your ready-set opinion.


In all honesty, religion is the only reason to oppose abortion before the nervous system is fully formed. Potentiality is not the same thing as actuality. These are two words that anti-choicers need to learn.

Personally, I do oppose abortion and would most likely never have one - but I'm not about to force that view on others. As for how the law should handle it - I think we're pretty close. There is no scientific reason to ban abortion before the development of a nervous system. After that, the fetus may be viewed as a separate organism, although still parasitic - thus I think there should be a reason (ie. health of the mother) to put it through any pain (since it can now feel pain). Finally, once viability is established, the fetus should only be removed early in cases of a dire threat to the mother's life - and even then any possible means to keep it alive should be taken.
Well, how about that? I am pro-choice, and Dempublicents is a pro-lifer, and yet we manage to agree entirely on all but one thing. Whether or not we personally would have an abortion.

Now why can't we ALL get along like that?

those who say life begins at conception are just as extreme as someone who would agree with negligence abortions.

Common ground, people, that's the key to good policy.

Well, if you want an honest, contrite answer, I think I saw "six weeks" in a newspaper, the Universe. 'Course, I might have misread it… but I know that it mentioned the brainwaves being detected quite early on.

Simply put, the reacting, sentient, kicking foetus does not have legal status as a human being! I don't know about wherever you live, but in the UK abortions are legal up 'till 24 weeks - because it can survive outside the womb. Recently it was 28 weeks, because technology was slightly less advanced. In the future, it will probably be feasible to build artificial wombs to grow embryos in. It seems ridiculous to judge whether a being is alive or not by its ability to survive outside its womb with current technology.

protentially and actuality? Your kidding me right? Can you not figure out that in a couple months it "will be human"? It has a potential to do great things in its life, and regardless of what happens unless there is a miscarrage, its gonna become human, it wont randomly turn into a mutant, in given time it will be human. It will "actually" be human if you give it the opportunity to do so.

Isn't it odd that the majority of people who are for abortion are against capital punishment?

Read my previous post Dempublicents - you are being too complacent, the law is NOT right.

HAH yea i never figured that out, they wont kill a convicted murderer, but they can kill a child before he is even developed enough to shoplift candy from a 7-eleven

Simply put, the reacting, sentient, kicking foetus does not have legal status as a human being!

From a legal standpoint, giving it such status would reduce the status of the mother to incubator lying on her back, liable for neglect or child murder if she gets up and walks.

I don't know about wherever you live, but in the UK abortions are legal up 'till 24 weeks - because it can survive outside the womb. Recently it was 28 weeks, because technology was slightly less advanced. In the future, it will probably be feasible to build artificial wombs to grow embryos in. It seems ridiculous to judge whether a being is alive or not by its ability to survive outside its womb with current technology.

In the US, there is a more progressive idea of rights. The woman can abort for any reason up until 3 months. After that, there must be a health risk involved. After 6 months, the woman's life must be in danger or the fetus must be dead/dying already.

protentially and actuality? Your kidding me right?

No, because it is the crux of the entire argument.

Can you not figure out that in a couple months it "will be human"? It has a potential to do great things in its life, and regardless of what happens unless there is a miscarrage, its gonna become human, it wont randomly turn into a mutant, in given time it will be human. It will "actually" be human if you give it the opportunity to do so.

And you have just defeated any argument you may have against abortion right there. The fact that it might be human in a little while doesn't hold legal water. You can only worry about what it is. Since you obviously agree that a fetus is not yet human, you cannot state that it should have the full rights that come along with being human.

From a legal standpoint, giving it such status would reduce the status of the mother to incubator lying on her back, liable for neglect or child murder if she gets up and walks - - Dempublicents

Are you kidding me? I don't think that your argument about "walking when pregnant is murder" is going to cut any ice. If you're going to say something, make a sensible point, not a sudden call of dismay.

What I was trying to say was that a legally viable foetus could not be destroyed legally. Abortion is illegal here from 24 weeks onwards, and you can't get charged with murder for walking around 8 months pregnant! What were you thinking?

Abortion is the only 100% effective form of birth control.

Don't tell me about that abstinence nonsense, it doesn't work.

I feel teens should be able to enjoy their sexual prime without worrying about an unwanted pregnancy. If that means killing a few babies, so be it.

Are you kidding me? I don't think that your argument about "walking when pregnant is murder" is going to cut any ice. If you're going to say something, make a sensible point, not a sudden call of dismay.

What I was trying to say was that a legally viable foetus could not be destroyed legally. Abortion is illegal here from 24 weeks onwards, and you can't get charged with murder for walking around 8 months pregnant! What were you thinking?

I was thinking, correctly, that the fetus is not given the full rights of a human being. As a fetus develops, it is progressively given more consideration under the law. However, if it was legally a "full human being," a mother doing *anything* that she knew might endanger the life of that "human being" would be liable for its death. Since the woman might trip and fall and kill the fetus, she would be liable for walking.

Fortunately, a fetus is not given full legal rights as a human being until it is born.

It requires nutrients (so do plants) from the mother to develop and grow, these are signs of life. A baby does react, it does feel joy and pain (assumption, unfounded), why do you think mothers talk to their stomach?(because the MOTHER feels the joy and pain, also, why do people talk to plants?) Put headphones on their stomach so the child could listen to music? Babies tend to kick as a reaction to the headphone music (plants react to music as well), ive seen it, im oldest of four, ive seen my share of a child moving and reacting to my mothers voice (someone who is brain dead in a coma also reacts to voices) or when listening to music. The fetus shows less reaction because it doesnt have a developed brain if little development at all, but it doesnt mean its not alive, because in a couple months it'll be squirming, kicking, moving, then in a couple more months it'll be screaming, crapping in its diaper and annoying its siblings and parents, then it'll be running for the senate and making a life for itself(or doing drugs and stealing), all babies have potential for great opportunities(and potential for great destruction) and abortionists are destroying that before the life even has a chance to prove its worth. What justice or honor is in that?

what justice or honor is there in forcing a woman to bear and raise a child she desperately does not want? Do you think that a child that grows up in a household that resents him, maybe neglects or abuses him has a better chance of growing up to be a Senator or a criminal?

Just a note:

Abortions are mandatory in China after a couple has reached their family size limit.

Here's a thought:

Sterilization instead of abortion.

A woman who becomes pregnant and seeks yet ANOTHER abortion because of the disinterest with having the child, should not be allowed to bare children. The method of sterilization for such women has greater proficiencies than aborting the unwanted child.

People in my country are not capable of understanding how a judicial system allows one person to take the life of their fetus as a form of birth control. A single abortion might be able to be ignored by society, but when it occurs more than once.. it may as well be serial-killing.

Just a note:

Abortions are mandatory in China after a couple has reached their family size limit.

Here's a thought:

Sterilization instead of abortion.

A woman who becomes pregnant and seeks yet ANOTHER abortion because of the disinterest with having the child, should not be allowed to bare children. The method of sterilization for such women has greater proficiencies than aborting the unwanted child.

People in my country are not capable of understanding how a judicial system allows one person to take the life of their fetus as a form of birth control. A single abortion might be able to be ignored by society, but when it occurs more than once.. it may as well be serial-killing.
so, by your logic, committing only one murder is okay, but we should put people in jail if they kill again. interesting "logic" you have on your planet.

if abortion is murder then it is murder. you can't say it's not murder the first time a woman has an abortion, but it is the second time she has an abortion. either you think it's murder or not, and you are going to have to make up your mind.

Just a note:

Abortions are mandatory in China after a couple has reached their family size limit.

Here's a thought:

Sterilization instead of abortion.

A woman who becomes pregnant and seeks yet ANOTHER abortion because of the disinterest with having the child, should not be allowed to bare children. The method of sterilization for such women has greater proficiencies than aborting the unwanted child.

People in my country are not capable of understanding how a judicial system allows one person to take the life of their fetus as a form of birth control. A single abortion might be able to be ignored by society, but when it occurs more than once.. it may as well be serial-killing.

so, by your logic, committing only one murder is okay, but we should put people in jail if they kill again. interesting "logic" you have on your planet.

if abortion is murder then it is murder. you can't say it's not murder the first time a woman has an abortion, but it is the second time she has an abortion. either you think it's murder or not, and you are going to have to make up your mind.

And to add to this point. Vaginal Sunshine, before making your "murder or not murder" decision, you may want to make sure you fully comprehend *all* of the consequences of granting such legal standing to all fetuses.

My country doesn't believe in abortion. I'm admitting that Americans see abortion as a necessary evil, but how can a US citizen not see it as murder when a person has more than one abortion. There are women in the United States that have had 3 to 4 abortions in their lifetime. Why are they still allowed to have children?

Exactly what would be the terrible consequence to allowing a guardian ad litem to speak for the fetus?

ok, so lets say you outlaw abortion.

You would have to eliminate the doctor/patient privilege first of all. (Do you really want the government deciding what procedures you may or may not have? It's bad enough that insurance companies get a say.)

And would you be able to put the fetus in protective custody if the mother was pro-choice? Lock up the woman, take away all sharp objects and force feed her?

Or would you wait until after the abortion is performed, then arrest her? Pretty soon you would have a LOT of women in jail.
For refusing to bear your children.

Nice world....

Can you say Brave New World???

Abortion is a demon of humanity. Its the same as killing a baby that was born. I agree that incest, rape, and potential life-threatening causes are good reason, but the rest is irresponsible. Here's an example:

Warning! This following example is not suitable for anyone 12 or under!


Julie and Mike have been dating for about 2 weeks. Recently they have begun making out at the lookout and such. One night however, things went out of control.

<Mike> Come on Julie! Everyone's doing it.

<Julie> Okay.

Sounds of Julie getting *censored* resound in the air. The car goes up and down, up and down.

The next day, Julie found out she was pregnant.

<Julie> Oh well I can just get an abortion. Then no one will know except me, Mike, and the abortionist.


-End-

That is so irresponsible and stupid. It says to other people, "Hi! I went out, did something terrible, and took no responsiblit for it and made it worse."

Also think about it. All of the children aborted in history may have done something great if they were allowed to live by their mother. Right now a girl getting an abortion might be killing the person that would have discovered the cure to AIDS or cancer!

Abortion is a stain on society and must be stopped!

Exactly what would be the terrible consequence to allowing a guardian ad litem to speak for the fetus?

Because if you do so, you have granted personhood status to the fetus - and that is the problem. If you have done this, a sexually active woman no longer has any rights other than to lay down and carry fetuses. Anything she does that might cause any type of stress on her body could be seen as neglect to a fetus she didn't even know about.

Exactly what would be the terrible consequence to allowing a guardian ad litem to speak for the fetus?
why would a fetus need a guardian ad litem? are you going to appoint guardian ad litems for people's appedixes when they need to have them out? if i get an infection, will you insure that the bacteria are given legal representation?

My country doesn't believe in abortion. I'm admitting that Americans see abortion as a necessary evil, but how can a US citizen not see it as murder when a person has more than one abortion. There are women in the United States that have had 3 to 4 abortions in their lifetime. Why are they still allowed to have children?
Well, i am assuming if she has had that many abortions, she has NO INTENTION of having children.

so do you mean why is she still allowed to get pregnant? are you asking "Why can't you force someone to be sterilized"? Do you believe that deadbeat dads should be castrated???? hellO!

Well, i am assuming if she has had that many abortions, she has NO INTENTION of having children.

so do you mean why is she still allowed to get pregnant? are you asking "Why can't you force someone to be sterilized"? Do you believe that deadbeat dads should be castrated???? hellO!
of course men shouldn't be castrated. it's the woman's fault if she is pregnant, because women get pregnant all by themselves. we should punish women if they get themselves pregnant, particularly if they got themselves pregnant while enjoying sex. men, on the other hand, shouldn't be blamed if some slutty woman gets herself knocked up with his baby...it's not like he had anything to do with it, after all, and SHE should have been more responsible!

Julie and Mike have been dating for about 2 weeks. Recently they have begun making out at the lookout and such. One night however, things went out of control.

<Mike> Come on Julie! Everyone's doing it.

<Julie> Do you love me?

<Mike> Yeah, sure I do.

<Julie> I love you too. Okay.

Sounds of Julie getting *censored* resound in the air. The car goes up and down, up and down.

Two weeks later, Julie misses her period. She agonizes about it for a little while, and finally goes to the free clinic to find out for sure. Julie finds out she is pregnant. She goes to Mike to ask what they should do. Mike pretends that he never had sex with her at all.

<Julie> But you said you loved me!

<Mike> I don't remember that.

<Julie> But my parents will disown me if we don't get married or something.

<Mike> Whatever, it's your problem.

Julie agonizes for another week or so and decides that her only option is abortion. When she reaches the clinic, they explain all of her options including state-supported prenatal care, adoption, and abortion. They tell her to go home and think about it for another night. Julie goes home and agonizes some more. She knows that she cannot support a child, especially on her own. She also is quite certain that her parents will kick her out if she tells them. Adoption is not an option - she knows that she would never be able to give up a child she had seen even for just one second. Finally, she comes to the decision that an abortion is the right choice for her.

Julie knows that, due to doctor-patient confidentiality, the doctor will not tell anyone and Julie will be safe from being thrown out on the street (or worse, if her parents happen to be abusive).

Julie spends the rest of her life hoping and praying that she made the right decision.
-End-

Corrections in bold to make it a plausible story.

That is so irresponsible and stupid. It says to other people, "Hi! I went out, did something terrible, and took no responsiblit for it and made it worse."

Having an abortion is taking responsibility. This is like saying, "You can choose the red or the black ball, but you're only taking responsibility for your actions if you choose the red one!" You may disagree with the decision someone makes, but it is not an easy one.

Having an abortion is taking responsibility. This is like saying, "You can choose the red or the black ball, but you're only taking responsibility for your actions if you choose the red one!" You may disagree with the decision someone makes, but it is not an easy one.
Oh yeah, killing an unborn living human is really responsible :rolleyes: .

Oh yeah, killing an unborn living human is really responsible :rolleyes: .

You believe it to be a "living human being." Others believe it is not. Biology dictates that it isn't even really a separate organism until it has a functioning nervous system. Get off your high horse and realize that your moral judgements are not the same as everyone else's.

Oh yeah, killing an unborn living human is really responsible :rolleyes: .
yes. that's how they see it. Not a GOOD choice, but the best one they can think of that does the least amount of damage to the world around her.

Maybe in the long run she will regret the decision, and in her wisdom will be able to counsel other girls into making another choice.

Maybe she will cherish the next child that much more.

Isn't that why god in his infinite wisdom gave us free will? allowing us to make mistakes and then regret them and return to the Light? The prodigal son parable?

In all honesty, babies are just clumps of cells for most of pregnancy. And even in that gray area where they may be human beings, there isn't enough proof as to their sentience, which is the barrier that makes killing one living thing murder and killing a different living thing hunting. Besides, the anti-choicers very often do not provide scientific proof of their beliefs, relying instead on their precious God to bail them out. All govt. decisions should be based on reason, not hate-mongering religion, so abortion should remain legal.

yes. that's how they see it.

Actually, that's not how most women who get abortions see it at all. They don't view the fetus as a human life yet. It has the potential to eventually be a separate human life, but it is not yet. It is the potential that these women generally agonize over.

Not a GOOD choice, but the best one they can think of that does the least amount of damage to the world around her.

Matter of opinion. I know a woman who cries her eyes out every mother's day, but still feels that she made the right decision. You or I can argue that maybe that decision wasn't the right one (or a good one), but we cannot prove this to be so.

Maybe in the long run she will regret the decision, and in her wisdom will be able to counsel other girls into making another choice.

Or maybe she will realize that sometimes, it just might be the right decision in a bad situation and in her wisdom will be able to counsel other girls to do whatever they can to avoid said situation.

Oh yeah, killing an unborn living human is really responsible :rolleyes: .
if there was such a thing as killing an unborn human being then we could debate it, but unfortunately there isn't; non-existent things, actions, and ideas cannot be ruled "resposible" or "irresponsible."

Actually, that's not how most women who get abortions see it at all. They don't view the fetus as a human life yet. It has the potential to eventually be a separate human life, but it is not yet. It is the potential that these women generally agonize over.
Yes, some start out thinking it isn't life, and the other ones who base the decision on social reasons come to view it as not life, just to make the choice more bearable. In any case of killing, whether shooting the enemy in a war, or aborting an embryo, one must adopt (pardon the pun) a view of the other as not human. That may be true conviction and they will always feel that way, or self delusion and they might come to regret it. Agonizing over the potential, yes thats a good way to put it.



Matter of opinion. I know a woman who cries her eyes out every mother's day, but still feels that she made the right decision. You or I can argue that maybe that decision wasn't the right one (or a good one), but we cannot prove this to be so
Or maybe she will realize that sometimes, it just might be the right decision in a bad situation and in her wisdom will be able to counsel other girls to do whatever they can to avoid said situation.
agreed. please understand that the 'god' views i use are strictly to make a point in language the christian extreme can relate to.

I like using their own sources to point out things; that way they can't discredit the source ;)

I believe in the concept of god, sort of. Lets call it O.
god is to O
as bird is to flying

so to those who cannot fly, i can only speak of birds.

I said having babies was the most important thing a woman could do, not

the only thing, Ive said this numerous times now in the thread, but you go

on ahead and ignore it again to suit your arguement, when you cant find

what you want, just make it up, right Dakini?

how the hell is it the most important thing?

say i wanted to cure cancer or aids, something that would save millions of lives, you would still say that it's more important for me to pop out babies, would you?

and again, that's the same as someone saying that the most important thing men do is produce sperm.

here we go feminist fantasyland again, and where did you see this happen, or

should I say when did you have this little daydream? :)

actually, in highschool we had arm wrestling matches at lunch (yes, we had absoulutely nothing to do with our lunch periods) and two of the girls at my table smoked all the guys.
we also did pretty well against the guys at handball too. i'd never played before and i massacred them.

No overall I dont, I just wont swallow the jargon that you preach about

women being capable of doing anything a man can, just to keep the peace

and be politically correct.

I also dont believe a man is capable of doing everthing a woman can, make of

that what you will.

men can do anything that women can with the exception of bear children and breastfeed.
women can do anything that men can do with the exception of being sperm donors and autographing the snow with urine (without the aid of a magic cup)

Ah the great feminist lie begins already, soon it will be a whole female run

world was unsurped by males in the dark ages, if you dont like history turn it

around into 'herstory' instead right?


News flash Dakini... it never happenned.

umm... when did i say that it was a female run world?
in the pagan world, women were more free than in the christian world, thus alongside men, could become philosophers, scientists, politicians (to a lesser extent) teachers et c.

and yes, hypatia did exist, and she was persecuted by christians for being a female pagan with power and knowledge. http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Hypatia.html

Oh yeah sure, so if a woman comes up to you and says she wants to have

ten kids and look after the home her whole life. Im expected to believe you

would have no problem with that at all.

Right...

why not? my mom had four and she stays at home. the only thing i ever have issue with is how when she buys my dad's birthday presents, he's really the one paying for them...

lol its obvious your new at this, otherwise you wouldnt get such a big head

over learning about something the average person doesnt.

umm... this is basic highschool physics. plug and play equations. i didn't even touch on the math or theory behind them. the average person should have learned this. of course i'm assuming that the average person passed highschool...

with some roofing angles and equations and knock you for six as well.

umm... yeah... i somehow doubt that angles and equations you would provide would affect me in any way. if you saw the math i usually deal with, you'd know why.

and yeah, in highschool we calculated how something held up by two angled pieces distributes forces (the calculations are the same for more than two)... i'm sure roofing calculations would be no problem. :)

To Terminalia:

I dont know if you have gone back over the last few pages of the thread, but i directed a couple of questions directly at you.

Let's see if i can remember some of them...

1. if i were to agree that a female's most important role in society was to bear children, because that is what her biology has made her for, then does it also follow that a man's most important role is to participate in sports and in the military? that's what HIS biology has made him for, by your own assertions.

2. would you advocate the sterilization of repeat abortion offenders? and if so, do you also advocate the castration of deadbeat dads?

3. where do you live, so if i get pregnant i can drop the baby off to you instead of aborting it. In fact, i am willing to stand outside an abortion clinic and give ALL THOSE WOMEN your address to drop their babies off at. :D

know how to dress themselves... and you have the hide to say my

statements are sexist, have a good look at some of your own material, your

as sexist as they come :) showing your true colours now hypocrite.

Cook their own food, did you know most of the great Chefs or Chefs in

general are male Dakini, that must bother you.

We can even cook better than you can lol

Men appreciating poetry, OMG what earth shattering revelations you

come up with, by the way Shakespeare was a man Dakini, funny that.

you're the one who claimed that all men are stronger than all women, it's a woman's job to cook for and clean up after a man et c et c. and there are female chefs... but really who cares? i know men who aren't world famous chefs who can cook better than me, it's a matter of practise more than anything, who cares?

also, there's some debate as to whether shakespeare was a man, a collection of men and women, a pothead et c.

So they have to fit your gender roles instead, the sensitive new age doormat

and the girl power idiot who thinks she can do anything?

umm... well, women can do anything... anyone can do anything. i mean, unless you don't have any arms and want to be the next jimi hendrix or something...
and i don't like it when men are doormats. my ex was one, he came prewhipped and it sucked ass.

[QUOTE]

Speaking for myself, amusement.




Exactly.



Have you seen much rugby league, Id be surprised if women were faster than

these guys, their reaction times are unbelievable.




Um they can talk a lot, thats for sure.




Whats this, Im curious about what you mean here.


ok, now notice how for the responses to the positive things about men, you agreed (except for spatial thinking, for which you were confused) but when it came to the positive things about women, to the first you said that men were still better at that particular thing, to the second you insulted women.

and yet you still claim to respect women.

Tell me, what is the difference between a baby one week premature and a baby one week before birth? They both have fully developed brains (well, almost anyway), there's no biological difference, except one is breathing and eating with its mouth and nose. And if that's the difference to you, then the way you're saying it, a person who is being fed through a tube to their stomach or an IV and is on life support is as worthless as that so-called "unliving" fetus. Right?

elective abortions aren't generally allowed past 20 weeks. this is before the brain is developped. not to mention that the grand majority (90%) of abortions are preformed in the first trimester. a fetus in the first trimester has barely differentiated cells, this is much different from a week old premature infant for more reasons than "the infant is breathing air and the fetus isn't"

I want to ask pro-choice people this. Pro-choice support negligence abortion, which is, the abortionist leaves a premature baby on the operating table with no life support so its bodly functions struggle then fail and the baby dies from neglect and lack of medical attention.

again, 90% of abortions occur before the fetus even has organs. and i have never, ever heard of this method of abortion until you mentioned it. do you have a credible link to back up the assertion that this actually happens?

and also, your descrption of partial birth abortions: those only happen to save a woman's life. in 50% of the cases, the fetus is already dead. and the fetus doesn't go through a normal, expected delivery, it is induced. and also, painkillers are given to the fetus.

If you say no but you still support abortion, you are HYPOCRITS and the WORST kind yet.

you're comparing a permature infant to a collection of undifferentiated cells.

You misunderstand my argument. I'm sorry if I didn't put it too clearly. What I was trying to say was that the pro-choice argument seems to rely on the assumption (yes, assumption) that a baby is not conscious, sentient, call it what you will - until very late in its development, despite evidence of brainwaves and suchlike at a few weeks.

brainwaves dont' start until something like 20 weeks... it coudl be 18... i can't remember just now. however, it's much later than when the majority of abortions are preformed.

ok, now notice how for the responses to the positive things about men, you agreed (except for spatial thinking, for which you were confused) but when it came to the positive things about women, to the first you said that men were still better at that particular thing, to the second you insulted women.

and yet you still claim to respect women.

Well that depends on the woman doesent it Dakini, do you respect men

merely because their men?

[QUOTE=Dakini]you're the one who claimed that all men are stronger than all women,


Generally yeah, like the other guy said get over it, its not the end of the

world.


it's a woman's job to cook for and clean up after a man et c et c.

Thats your interpretation of what I said, Im quite capable of cleaning my own

mess, and cooking my own food when I want to.


and there are female chefs...

I never said there wasnt...



also, there's some debate as to whether shakespeare was a man, a collection of men and women, a pothead et c.

He was a man Dakini.. whats the next famous man in history to be discounted

for, Julius Caesar -found to be a woman? Henry VIII really a transvestite?

Hannibal was actually one of the elephants?


umm... well, women can do anything...

Your truly brainwashed or incredibly naive.

anyone can do anything.

Wrong again.

i mean, unless you don't have any arms and want to be the next jimi hendrix or something...

Now your being ridiculous.

and i don't like it when men are doormats. my ex was one, he came prewhipped and it sucked ass.


Prewhipped.. more evidence of terms you use that your nothing but a sexist

yourself.

Tell me something Dakini, in your quest to run men down at any chance in

your life for being sexist pigs, do you ever possibly think that women can be

just as bad at it themselves, or is this something only men can aspire too?

The next day, Julie found out she was pregnant.

<Julie> Oh well I can just get an abortion. Then no one will know except me, Mike, and the abortionist.


-End-

That is so irresponsible and stupid. It says to other people, "Hi! I went out, did something terrible, and took no responsiblit for it and made it worse."
Yes, it's silly. And that should be your first clue that real-life isn't like that. People don't behave so silly.

Also think about it. All of the children aborted in history may have done something great if they were allowed to live by their mother. Right now a girl getting an abortion might be killing the person that would have discovered the cure to AIDS or cancer!
"Could'a, should'a, would'a" isn't an argument. They also might have stepped out of the hospital and been run over by a car.

[QUOTE=Dakini]actually, in highschool we had arm wrestling matches at lunch (yes, we had absoulutely nothing to do with our lunch periods) and two of the girls at my table smoked all the guys.


Has it ever occurred to you Dakini... :rolleyes: that they might have let you win? :)


we also did pretty well against the guys at handball too. i'd never played before and i massacred them.

See above, most guys play nowhere near as hard against girls as they do

against each other anyway.

men can do anything that women can with the exception of bear children and breastfeed.

Like.. talk on a phone for ten straight hours? :)


women can do anything that men can do with the exception of being sperm donors and autographing the snow with urine (without the aid of a magic cup)

Right I'll have to remember that next time I see a police woman use cap

spray or worse a gun, because she isnt physically powerful enough to merely

subdue an offender.

And also, going by your reasoning, shouldnt all your olympic records be

matching the mens ones?






umm... when did i say that it was a female run world?
in the pagan world, women were more free than in the christian world, thus alongside men, could become philosophers, scientists, politicians (to a lesser extent) teachers et c.

I think your getting confused with druids and priestesses.


and yes, hypatia did exist, and she was persecuted by christians for being a female pagan with power and knowledge. http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Hypatia.html

Maybe she was really a man Dakini? :eek:


why not? my mom had four and she stays at home. the only thing i ever have issue with is how when she buys my dad's birthday presents, he's really the one paying for them...

So you have no problem with women choosing to be housewives instead of

getting a career?

[QUOTE=Dakini]how the hell is it the most important thing?

It keeps the human race going.


say i wanted to cure cancer or aids, something that would save millions of lives, you would still say that it's more important for me to pop out babies, would you?

Cant you do both?


and again, that's the same as someone saying that the most important thing men do is produce sperm.

Which it is.

Just a note:

Abortions are mandatory in China after a couple has reached their family size limit.

Here's a thought:

Sterilization instead of abortion.

A woman who becomes pregnant and seeks yet ANOTHER abortion because of the disinterest with having the child, should not be allowed to bare children. The method of sterilization for such women has greater proficiencies than aborting the unwanted child.

People in my country are not capable of understanding how a judicial system allows one person to take the life of their fetus as a form of birth control. A single abortion might be able to be ignored by society, but when it occurs more than once.. it may as well be serial-killing.

I have an even BETTER idea.

How about the Pro-Choice lobby gets together with the Anti-Abortion lobby, and they pool their financial resources... to fund research on sterilisation.

Then, the government institute a policy of enforced sterilisation for every single person - using a reversible chemical agent, or electronic Inter-Uterine Device (hence the need for the pooled resources and research).

When a couple feel that they are ready for a child, they go to a government appointed medical facility, which reverses the sterilisation (or removes the IUD). At this point, if the medical facility decides that the 'mother-to-be' is a crack-whore, or that the 'father-to-be' is a violent drunk, they can refuse the reversal until they are satisfied that the couple would be suitable parents.

There. No need for a non-medical-based abortion ever again, and everyone is happy.

No?

Well that depends on the woman doesent it Dakini, do you respect men

merely because their men?

i don't care about gender unless it comes to wanting to date someone.


He was a man Dakini.. whats the next famous man in history to be discounted

for, Julius Caesar -found to be a woman? Henry VIII really a transvestite?

Hannibal was actually one of the elephants?

no, there is actually a debate as to whether shakespeare actually existed. it's also a debate that goes beyond conspiracy theories. there's one suggestion that shakespeare's works were actually written by other writers both men and women and attributed to him. there are people who think shakespeare was a woman, at that time, women couldn't get anywhere near a stage, they even had male actors dress as women for the female parts...

Your truly brainwashed or incredibly naive.

you're* and not really, if you put your mind to it, you can do most anything. if you sit there and say "i'll never be able to do this." then you never will, if you think positively and actively set out on your path, you can do it. it's all a matter of believing and motivating yourself. well, and having a goal is good too.

Prewhipped.. more evidence of terms you use that your nothing but a sexist

yourself.

Tell me something Dakini, in your quest to run men down at any chance in

your life for being sexist pigs, do you ever possibly think that women can be

just as bad at it themselves, or is this something only men can aspire too?

i'm sure you've seen the phenomena where a woman gets her boyfriend/husband to do whatever she wants him to. that is called being whipped. there are some women who are whipped as well, though women are generally able to do this without physical and verbal abuse, well that i've seen.

at any rate, when i started to date my ex, he was already willign to do anything i wanted him to, he wouldn't argue with me, he would just agree, i could have said that catholicism was the most retarded religion out there and he would have gone along with it (he's catholic) and really it's no fun to have someone who doesn't think for themselves.

at any rate, i don't see how that was sexist. i never said that all men were whipped, and i even said that being whipped is a bad thing.

Has it ever occurred to you Dakini... that they might have let you win?

i never won. i'm well aware that i'm not very strong, not strong at all. my sisters consistently beat me in arm wrestling.

See above, most guys play nowhere near as hard against girls as they do

against each other anyway.

so having a guy collapse sweating and red after a match is him not trying hard? i see.

Like talk on a phone for ten straight hours?

funny you say that, because the only people i've spoken to on the phone for hours at a time (excluding my grandparents) are men. if i call a female friend it's usually a matter of "hey, so we're meeting here at this time, right?" and such. when i speak to a boyfriend (or even close male friends) on the phone, we talk for hours. but then i get along better with men than women.

Maybe she was really a man Dakini?

no, it's well documented, if you want to research it more, you can find letters cyril wrote going on about how she was satan's mistress and the like. (crazy early christians) not to mention her letters to and from synesius...

So you have no problem with women choosing to be housewives instead of

getting a career?

no. similarly i have no problem with men choosing to rear children instead of getting a career. though i think they should each earn their own cash to buy each other gifts, simply because that defeats the purpose of gifts.

and also, i think you missed the point of my post where i pointed out how you belittled feminine traits and then said that the male traits were right on and superb.

[QUOTE=Tropical Montana]To Terminalia:

I dont know if you have gone back over the last few pages of the thread, but i directed a couple of questions directly at you.

Sorry, I am fielding alot of replys on here, and I dont have the time now that I had a few weeks ago.


1. if i were to agree that a female's most important role in society was to bear children, because that is what her biology has made her for, then does it also follow that a man's most important role is to participate in sports and in the military? that's what HIS biology has made him for, by your own assertions.

No i think a mans most important biological role is to father kids.



2. would you advocate the sterilization of repeat abortion offenders? and if so, do you also advocate the castration of deadbeat dads?

Deadbeat dads..how do you define that, alot of men get little say now in how

their kids should be bought up, and probably just give up out of sheer

frustration.

This is of course not excusing guys who have sex with a women and deny

that their the father, this is of course a huge grey area, and tests must be

made first, if the guy is proven to be the father, then he should be made to

help look after the kid or jailed. I think castration is going a bit far here, for

rapists and child molesters definitely, but if I had it my way there would be

no need for castration here as they would be publically executed, that sort of

puts the steralisalisation of unfit mothers into a safer light compared, doesnt

it?


3. where do you live, so if i get pregnant i can drop the baby off to you instead of aborting it. In fact, i am willing to stand outside an abortion clinic and give ALL THOSE WOMEN your address to drop their babies off at. :D

No chance, learn some responsibilty first :)

Well that depends on the woman doesent it Dakini, do you respect men

merely because their men?

so why are you disrespectful to women simply because they are women? I haven't seen Dakini be disrespectful to anyone. I actually think Dakini scored a great point with this post:

ok, now notice how for the responses to the positive things about men, you agreed (except for spatial thinking, for which you were confused) but when it came to the positive things about women, to the first you said that men were still better at that particular thing, to the second you insulted women.

Dakini is a good debater, and Terminalia is a good BAITER.

Until i get an answer to at least one of my direct questions, to wit:

1. if i were to agree that a female's most important role in society was to bear children, because that is what her biology has made her for, then does it also follow that a man's most important role is to participate in sports and in the military? that's what HIS biology has made him for, by your own assertions.

2. would you advocate the sterilization of repeat abortion offenders? and if so, do you also advocate the castration of deadbeat dads?

then i can only assume you are not here to have a two sided discussion, but only to roll barrels to see how high you can make people jump with your statements. I no longer believe that YOU believe what you say, you just like the attention you get. Bad attention is better than no attention at all.

I am relatively new here in the pond, but i recognize hooks when i see them. I am actually thinking about starting a thread for Abortion: Policy not Polemics. for those of us who would like to separate church from state and talk about the middle ground. Reducing abortion rates by reducing the unwanted pregnancy rates. Reducing unwanted pregnancy rates by addressing birth control options (i.e. Viagra is covered by insurance, birth control pills are not). Addressing birth control options by a cooperative effort to educate and provide access to birth control to those who want it. THAT's how you "fight" abortion, which is simply the symptom of a larger problem. The problem is unwanted pregnancies. Does Terminalia think that women can be MADE to want those pregnancies?

Not even the staunchest feminist would say "i think i want to have an abortion this year" or schedule a regular visit with their abortionist every six months like they do with their dentist. No one here is even advocating the abortion of fetuses. So far i have only seen those who advocate the abortion of embryos. We are not arguing extreme points of view, yet you accuse us of it.

Barrels. Just barrels. you havent answered my questions.

It keeps the human race going.

so does research and disease control.

Cant you do both?

remember earlier in this thread, like way back when you said that men shouldn't have to lift a finger around the house and then you ignored my study explaining how women who received help at home from their husbands had more children?
yeah, women can have careers and families, though having a busy career and a whole house to clean doesn't often work, so wome opt for the career and few kids.

and also, not all women want kids, let alone 10 (not that any population could support itself if everyone had 10 kids, especially in this age with low infant mortality and the like)

a point conceded by TM to terminalia, men are stronger than women

a point to Grave n Idle for post #1211

point to Dakini for post previously mentioned

2 points to Dakini for post #1216


I got a late start, but what the heck, better late than never.

Im gonna just witness this one and keep my own debate score. No one else has to agree with it.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't begin to know *how* to do a self-abortion with a bent coat hanger! I'm sorry, but that sounds like an urban myth.

Your overall point is well-made, though.

I'm finding it hard to find sites that SPECIFICALLY detail 'coathanger' abortion statistics, but these (predominantly Anti-Abortion) sites reference the phenomenon.

http://www.abortionno.com/Resources/abortion13.html
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa022600b.htm
http://www.abortiontv.com/Archive/Archive61.htm

Note: in the abortiontv article, they talk about how 'coathanger abortions' were a statistical lie... as 90% of pre-legalisation abortions were carried out by licensed professionals. What they are conveniently ignoring, of course, is that 10% of the WERE NOT (therefore) carried out by licensed professionals.

He was a man Dakini.. whats the next famous man in history to be discounted
for, Julius Caesar -found to be a woman? Henry VIII really a transvestite?
Hannibal was actually one of the elephants?


You're tilting at windmills... what was being referred to was the longstanding debate over whether the 'Works of Shakespeare' were, in fact, written by Shakespeare.

It is commonly accepted that the works were constructed by William AND his party of players, rather than just by one individual.

It wasn't being debated whether or not William Shakespeare was a man.


Your truly brainwashed or incredibly naive.


Flame.

Originally Posted by Terminalia
It keeps the human race going.so does research and disease control.
You asked him for his reason why it's so important. He gave you his reason why it's so important. And then you counter his reason with another reason that's not his. So what do you want from him?

I'm finding it hard to find sites that SPECIFICALLY detail 'coathanger' abortion statistics, but these (predominantly Anti-Abortion) sites reference the phenomenon.

http://www.abortionno.com/Resources/abortion13.html
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa022600b.htm
http://www.abortiontv.com/Archive/Archive61.htm

Note: in the abortiontv article, they talk about how 'coathanger abortions' were a statistical lie... as 90% of pre-legalisation abortions were carried out by licensed professionals. What they are conveniently ignoring, of course, is that 10% of the WERE NOT (therefore) carried out by licensed professionals.
Ewwwww!!! You actually looked it up... Should I look? or run away?

(PS thanks for going to the effort)

I'm finding it hard to find sites that SPECIFICALLY detail 'coathanger' abortion statistics, but these (predominantly Anti-Abortion) sites reference the phenomenon.

http://www.abortionno.com/Resources/abortion13.html
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa022600b.htm
http://www.abortiontv.com/Archive/Archive61.htm

Note: in the abortiontv article, they talk about how 'coathanger abortions' were a statistical lie... as 90% of pre-legalisation abortions were carried out by licensed professionals. What they are conveniently ignoring, of course, is that 10% of the WERE NOT (therefore) carried out by licensed professionals.

The first article also specifically states that 8% of those left were self-induced (which are even more dangerous than someone with at least *some* clue as to medical procedure.

Ewwwww!!! You actually looked it up... Should I look? or run away?

(PS thanks for going to the effort)

Don't worry, it's no-gore.

Just doctors and religious persons discussing the evils of abortion, and occasionally mentioning the 'bad-old-days'.

All text, no pasta-sauce-putting-off imagery.

Welcome. :)

The first article also specifically states that 8% of those left were self-induced (which are even more dangerous than someone with at least *some* clue as to medical procedure.

And I found an abundance of sites talking about the horrible jobs that some of the licensed professionals used to do (and some, apparently, still do)... but I was looking for the 'coathanger' legacy.

It seems like women have been aborting for quite some time using herbal 'treatments'... (I think Pennyroyal was one of them)... which means that - since Herbalism dates back millenia - women have been practising some form of abortion for several thousand years.

Which means, the argument is strong that 'illegalising' abortion will not eradicate it, just send it back underground.

one thing id like to point out is that everyone is saying that a fetus is not a human being than what is it? and even if it is not a human being it still has the potentiality to become a human and if there are laws that protect turtle eggs that have the potential to become turtles than should there not be laws that protect fetuses that have the potential to become something infinitely better than a turtle, that is a human being.

and also, i think you missed the point of my post where i pointed out how you belittled feminine traits and then said that the male traits were right on and superb.

No I belittle genderswapping roles mostly, because its not something I agree

with.

I think feminine traits are just as marvellous in all ways as masuline traits.

[QUOTE=Tropical Montana]so why are you disrespectful to women simply because they are women?

Can you show me how I am?

I actually appreciate women, the world would be a dull place without them.



Dakini is a good debater, and Terminalia is a good BAITER.

I think she is too, and I dont think Im baiting anyone with my arguements,

not everyone is going to agree with you, and to call their side of the debate

merely baiting is wrong.




then i can only assume you are not here to have a two sided discussion, but only to roll barrels to see how high you can make people jump with your statements.


You mean my opinions.

I no longer believe that YOU believe what you say, you just like the attention you get. Bad attention is better than no attention at all.

I stand by everything I say, I am not merely looking for attention.

If you think so then just ignore me, and therefore deny it to me.



Not even the staunchest feminist would say "i think i want to have an abortion this year" or schedule a regular visit with their abortionist every six months like they do with their dentist.

Dont count on that.

No one here is even advocating the abortion of fetuses. So far i have only seen those who advocate the abortion of embryos. We are not arguing extreme points of view, yet you accuse us of it.

So you admit aborting 'fetuses' is extreme then.

And how am I accusing anyone?


Barrels. Just barrels. you havent answered my questions.

Like?

one thing id like to point out is that everyone is saying that a fetus is not a human being than what is it? and even if it is not a human being it still has the potentiality to become a human and if there are laws that protect turtle eggs that have the potential to become turtles than should there not be laws that protect fetuses that have the potential to become something infinitely better than a turtle, that is a human being.
Go humans!

A fetus is human, in as much as the mother is human and so are all her parts. She has a human brain, a human hand, a human heart and a human child.

But it's not a "human being" until it's born; it is not "being" human until it becomes a life-form separate from the mother. Until then, it is one of her human parts.

one thing id like to point out is that everyone is saying that a fetus is not a human being than what is it? and even if it is not a human being it still has the potentiality to become a human and if there are laws that protect turtle eggs that have the potential to become turtles than should there not be laws that protect fetuses that have the potential to become something infinitely better than a turtle, that is a human being.

EXACTLY!!!!

Also, ive heard alot of words like " potential humans" being thrown around. So what you are saying is that it is alright to abort them because they are not human. But the funny thing is this debate somewhat occured 150 years ago... the debate on slavery. The slave owners thought blacks were not human so it is alright for them to be slaves the same way pro abortionists say the babies are not humans so they could be killed without it being a crime. Same excuses for wrong doings.



Also about this women/men stuff... WHO GIVES A RAT'S ASS???? MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT!! are brains are even different. This one part of the brain that conects the two sides is a little bigger on a woman's brain allowing her to do more things at once, while it is harder for men to do. The same for men, who are naturally stronger, and can do things that require strength better than women. This is generally speaking. There are women and men who can do some things the other can do descently well, but they will probably have to work alot harder.

I think abortions should be legal until age 4. The fact that I didn't have memories before then suggests that there is a fundamental shift in ones brain that must be related to the advent of conciesness. I know, most of you had memories we you were as young as a few months, but the world is defined by my experiences. You all know that.

(jk, jk) well let me first say phyco!!!!! I think abortion is completley up to the person it should NOT be illeagal.. freedom of choice is what america is sapposed to be about. but when you start talking about killing a child after birth your just a sick dumb ass human who doesnt deserve to make choices i have children and im truely affended GET SOME COUNCILING YOU FREAK!!!!!!!! :mad:

But it's not a "human being" until it's born; it is not "being" human until it becomes a life-form separate from the mother. Until then, it is one of her human parts.

Sorry Willamenia, but I find that extremely hard to agree with, by your

reasoning until the umbilical cord is cut that baby is not a human being.

And I certainly could never agree with a baby being ever just one of the

womans body parts, the baby feeds off her, not

her off the baby.

Hm, someone mentioned earlier how he felt when his mother told him she'd considered abortion. He was horrified.

My mother also considered abortion; she had a very difficult pregnancy after practically giving up becoming pregnant at all, and between her health problems and the fact that she smoked (habitually) and drank (occasionally) and got thrown off horses, her doctors told her that it was fairly unlikely I'd be born alive, and very unlikely I'd be healthy, and nearly impossible I wouldn't be retarded. She actually cancelled her appointment literally days before it was scheduled.

How I feel about being a child of a pregnancy that was almost terminated? I know I'm loved, I know I'm wanted. My mother had a choice.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]You're tilting at windmills... what was being referred to was the longstanding debate over whether the 'Works of Shakespeare' were, in fact, written by Shakespeare.

It is commonly accepted that the works were constructed by William AND his party of players, rather than just by one individual.

It wasn't being debated whether or not William Shakespeare was a man.


Yes but in the current context of the arguement from Dakini, it seemed to be

about discrediting great men in history, so as a joke I said maybe you think

he was a woman instead?

I agree with the rumours that he didnt write all his own work entirely, but got

assistance with parts of them, but I do believe he was the sole author of all


his plays, meaning they were originally his ideas.


Flame.

It wasnt intended to be that, anyway whats it got to do with you, if Dakini

wants an apology for it anyway, I'll give her one.

Sorry Willamenia, but I find that extremely hard to agree with, by your
reasoning until the umbilical cord is cut that baby is not a human being.
And I certainly could never agree with a baby being ever just one of the
womans body parts, the baby feeds off her, not
her off the baby.
I'm quite a minority of one in a lot of my opinions. ;-)

The baby "feeds" off the mother, and I think it was bottle who outlined a number of benefits the mother also gets from having a child. Give and take. The kidney "feeds" off the mother in the same way, taking wastes from her blood and passing them out through the bladder. It is not a conscious act for either body part.

i would like to adress the opinion that a fetus is part of a woman's body. it seems to me that neither a woman's hand nor her leg has its own heart, its own brain, or its own lungs. even before the zygote develops into a fetus, it still cannot be considered a part of a woman's body for a woman's hand cannot develop into something as amazing or beuatiful as a human being.

No I belittle genderswapping roles mostly, because its not something I agree

with.

I think feminine traits are just as marvellous in all ways as masuline traits.

no, someone said that men are stronger than women, you agreed.
then they added that women have faster reflexes, you said that wasn't true based on your experience as a rugby player.
then they mentioned that women are better communicators, you said that sure, women can talk someone's ear off.
then came the spatial thinking part, where you were confused.

that is how it went. you belittled advantages women have and denied that we have them all the while asserting the greatness of men.

so what feminie traits do you admire? a shapley figure and pretty hair? is that it?

[QUOTE=Dakini]no, someone said that men are stronger than women, you agreed.


Yes, in general men are physically alot stronger than women, its not a

stereotype, thats just how it is.

Sorry if the truth hurts.


then they added that women have faster reflexes, you said that wasn't true based on your experience as a rugby player.


No, read it again, I said Id be surprised if women had faster reflexes than

these guys.

Believe me they are very quick off the mark and to react in situations.

then they mentioned that women are better communicators, you said that sure, women can talk someone's ear off.

Do you deny this?

then came the spatial thinking part, where you were confused.

Well he said special abilitys, what the hells that?

It could have meant anything.



that is how it went. you belittled advantages women have and denied that we have them all the while asserting the greatness of men.

Gee talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

so what feminie traits do you admire? a shapley figure and pretty hair? is that it?

Do you see that as having no importance?

Believe me, female beauty is nothing to disparage either, read the poets, you

dont hear them mooning over what a lovely brain she had, not that thats in

any way unimportant, just compared to the impact of a womans beauty, it

rates pretty low.

What masculine traits do you admire Dakini, nice torso, shapely buns?

i would like to adress the opinion that a fetus is part of a woman's body. it seems to me that neither a woman's hand nor her leg has its own heart, its own brain, or its own lungs. even before the zygote develops into a fetus, it still cannot be considered a part of a woman's body for a woman's hand cannot develop into something as amazing or beuatiful as a human being.
No, but a woman's hand has developed into something as amazing and beautiful as a human hand. :-) It's a marvel of engineering! with its flexible joints, boney knuckles and strong, long fingers. I mean, have you ever really looked at your hand? "....whoa!" ;-)

And the human's child develops into a human child.

I'm quite a minority of one in a lot of my opinions. ;-)

The baby "feeds" off the mother, and I think it was bottle who outlined a number of benefits the mother also gets from having a child. Give and take. The kidney "feeds" off the mother in the same way, taking wastes from her blood and passing them out through the bladder. It is not a conscious act for either body part.

Yeah but women are born with these organs to help them live, as men are.

No way are babies mere body parts.

Yes, in general men are physically alot stronger than women, its not a stereotype, thats just how it is.
Sorry if the truth hurts.

No, read it again, I said Id be surprised if women had faster reflexes than these guys.
Believe me they are very quick off the mark and to react in situations.

Do you deny this?

Well he said special abilitys, what the hells that?

It could have meant anything.

1. who gives a damn? and the word generally does imply a stereotype.
2. you said that rugby players have faster reflexes.
3. the way you put it was pretty much "women are good at unimportant, petty gossip" and that's it. not that that's really good communication skills...
4. spatial abilities.. and they come in very handy for math. though they can be aquired through instrumental training as well, especially the piano.

Gee talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

i'm sorry, but i don't recall saying that women are better than men, did i not say that both genders have strengths and weaknesses but that overall, they counterbalance and that members of either gender could develop the traits in question?
you're the one on about strangth being the most important thing, about how women do nothing but gab about nothing et c.

Do you see that as having no importance?
Believe me, female beauty is nothing to disparage either, read the poets, you
dont hear them mooning over what a lovely brain she had, not that thats in
any way unimportant, just compared to the impact of a womans beauty, it
rates pretty low.

What masculine traits do you admire Dakini, nice torso, shapely buns?

beauty is of secondary importance if any importance. in either gender. someone can be the hottest thing on two legs and still turn me off by being an idiot. and excessive muscles can be really gross.

and personally, my favorite physical thing about men are hugs.

aside from that, you ignored my question. what feminie traits do you admire?
i've picked up on your disdain for communication skills, physical weakness, et c. is there anything non-physical you like?

beauty is of secondary importance if any importance. in either gender. someone can be the hottest thing on two legs and still turn me off by being an idiot. and excessive muscles can be really gross.

Ah, but think about who you're arguing against. He obviously sees women as nothing more then sex machines :p

and personally, my favorite physical thing about men are hugs.

Where the hell are the other girls like you, and why arn't they over here?! :p

aside from that, you ignored my question. what feminie traits do you admire?
i've picked up on your disdain for communication skills, physical weakness, et c. is there anything non-physical you like?

Doubtful. The ability to dumbly nod and agree with everything he days is the only one I can think of ;)

Ah, but think about who you're arguing against. He obviously sees women as nothing more then sex machines :p

never know, it's possible he's not as shallow as he's come across thus far.

Where the hell are the other girls like you, and why arn't they over here?! :p

according to one of my friends, there aren't many girls like me... but then he's a friend so he's supposed to say nice things like that.
but yeah, i dunno, there's nothing like a nice, warm, comfortable hug.

Tell me, what is the difference between a baby one week premature and a baby one week before birth? They both have fully developed brains (well, almost anyway), there's no biological difference, except one is breathing and eating with its mouth and nose. And if that's the difference to you, then the way you're saying it, a person who is being fed through a tube to their stomach or an IV and is on life support is as worthless as that so-called "unliving" fetus. Right?

Tell me, what is the difference between a child one week before their 18th (or 21st, depending where you live) birthday, and one week after? The both have fully developed brains, there's no biological difference, except one has passed an arbitary point in their growth.

Why does one deserve a whole host of rights when the other does not? Are you saying all humans should be accorded equal rights? Regardless of their intellectual capability? If you can draw an arbitary line to designate the point where a 'child' becomes an 'adult', why can a similar line not be drawn to seperate a 'fetus' from a 'baby'? Both are based on scientific evidence... neither are TOTALLY arbitary. Both serve a valid purpose.

I want to ask pro-choice people this. Pro-choice support negligence abortion, which is, the abortionist leaves a premature baby on the operating table with no life support so its bodly functions struggle then fail and the baby dies from neglect and lack of medical attention.

"Would a pro-choice person in there right mind stand at the edge of a operating table, would they stand there from the moment the baby was placed there and watch that baby, squirm, attempt to cry, desperate squeels, would they sit there and watch such a small innocent child die? Would a pro-choice person be sick enough to do that? I truely hope that no one is that sick and that the pro-choice people just dont know or dont want to know what millions of innocent babies go through"

So thats my question "Would you stand at the edge of the operating table and watch a premature baby slowly struggle for life and die or would you spare the baby, show it mercy, and do whatever you can to save its life?" I want a answer from you pro-choice people. If you say no but you still support abortion, you are HYPOCRITS and the WORST kind yet.

I am pro-choice and I can say honestly that yes, I could stand and watch an unwanted child die. I would not support the actions leading to it dying (negligence), but I could easily watch without stepping in to interfere.

However, I don't believe this is legal. Since you referred to partial-birth abortions as if they were legal in all cases, I shall assume you are either unaware of the facts about what cases abortions are allowed in, or are purposely leaving out facts.

I, apparently unlike you, am able to form by opinions based not on the 'ickiness' factor, but on facts. Biologically, before a child has a nervous system, I support abortion. If these premature babies have a nervous system, I don't support the abortion. If they don't, I do support the abortion.

ok, this is my argument:: if a 'fetus' as some like to call an unborn child is not alive, which it is scientifically at that, sells in its body no matter how tiny or unrecognizable are splitting, and it is groing, it is consuming food, and it can move, therefore it is alive, think what you will, I can't change that, I do agree on the terms of rape and incest rape, and possibly desise but on other things certianly not, because, 1) my parents were young 2) they did not stay todether 3) yeah my child hood was not what you would call normal, because of depression about not having a 'normal' family (i was raised by my grand parents) but you know what I have a good life besides my drug abusing mother, and a father that lives about 8 hrs. away from me, and I am greatful for that, after all no matter how bad life is it can always get worse...

and for the person above me, it is not about the 'ickieness' of it, it is the fact that you are sitting there and watching a BABY that has no means to help it's self lay there and die, you are truely a twisted person, and that is not ment as a good thing.. why not just give the unwanted child up for adoption insted of becoming a heartless killer?! I mean MY God come on here people!! Give that child a chance at a better life!!! If you do not want it then give it to someone that dose!! there are tones of coupples out there that are unable to have children and would love to have the chance to love that child and be called 'mum' and 'dad'! Have a heart I mean God!!

Just a note:

Abortions are mandatory in China after a couple has reached their family size limit.

Here's a thought:

Sterilization instead of abortion.

A woman who becomes pregnant and seeks yet ANOTHER abortion because of the disinterest with having the child, should not be allowed to bare children. The method of sterilization for such women has greater proficiencies than aborting the unwanted child.

People in my country are not capable of understanding how a judicial system allows one person to take the life of their fetus as a form of birth control. A single abortion might be able to be ignored by society, but when it occurs more than once.. it may as well be serial-killing.

Woah. JUST the women? How about we steralise the men out there having sex with women who don't want babies as well then? Both have equal responsibility. Neither want children. Both should be steralised (if you follow this line of thought).

God, anyone notice how sexism creeps into everything? It's always 'the woman should abstain/be steralised/be punished for sex'. No one ever says "Hey, everyone should abstain/be steralised/be punished for sex'. :rolleyes:

Abortion is a demon of humanity. Its the same as killing a baby that was born. I agree that incest, rape, and potential life-threatening causes are good reason, but the rest is irresponsible. Here's an example:

Warning! This following example is not suitable for anyone 12 or under!


Julie and Mike have been dating for about 2 weeks. Recently they have begun making out at the lookout and such. One night however, things went out of control.

<Mike> Come on Julie! Everyone's doing it.

<Julie> Okay.

Sounds of Julie getting *censored* resound in the air. The car goes up and down, up and down.

The next day, Julie found out she was pregnant.

<Julie> Oh well I can just get an abortion. Then no one will know except me, Mike, and the abortionist.


-End-

That is so irresponsible and stupid. It says to other people, "Hi! I went out, did something terrible, and took no responsiblit for it and made it worse."

Also think about it. All of the children aborted in history may have done something great if they were allowed to live by their mother. Right now a girl getting an abortion might be killing the person that would have discovered the cure to AIDS or cancer!

Abortion is a stain on society and must be stopped!

Or how about THIS example (bigots annoy me):

Julie and Mike have been married for about 17 years. They agree they don't want children, so they use multiple forms of birth control. Despite their efforts, one day Julie finds out she's pregnant.

Julie: Oh god, we can't support a child - and I don't know if I can bear to go through with giving birth

Mike: Well, we really CAN'T afford it, and I'm not going to force you. Let's talk about it some more. If we decide a child is unfeasable, we may have to consider abortion.

-End-

Pro-lifers: not all abortions are performed on teenagers. Get it through your sculls that sometimes ADULTS, who took EVERY precaution, decide to have an abortion. I don't care if you're against it, but stop with the bollocksy stereotypes, because they are annoying and stupid and serve no purpose

sexism creeps into everything? It's always 'the woman should abstain/be steralised/be punished for sex'. No one ever says "Hey, everyone should abstain/be steralised/be punished for sex'. :rolleyes:

Well, you have to admit, if all women abstained from sex, there's be a lot less abortions! Unless the men somehow evolved like the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park, that is. :eek:

But using your logic then isn't killing any women a thousand murders? Her eggs aren't people but they will be!


A fetus will, without intervention or a miscarriage, be born. An egg can do nothing by itself.

The absence of one notion always comes to my attention on the topic of abortion. The soul. In general, most people still believe in the soul or spirit, yet you never here this brought into argument. B/c if people believed a fetus has a soul and doesn't have to live outside of the womb to have one, maybe some people would see it differently. For the scientifically-minded, I would say 46 chromosomes defines a human. But that would raise the question to whether or not to consider people with down syndrome 'people' and therefore included under the constitution.

[QUOTE=] Gaposis:: i would like to adress the opinion that a fetus is part of a woman's body. it seems to me that neither a woman's hand nor her leg has its own heart, its own brain, or its own lungs. even before the zygote develops into a fetus, it still cannot be considered a part of a woman's body for a woman's hand cannot develop into something as amazing or beuatiful as a human being.<br><br> I am so agreing with you right now!! DUDE!! A WOMAN'S HAND CANNOT DEVELOP INTO A BABY!!!! WE ARE NOT ASEXUALLY REPRODUCING ORGANSIMS PEOPLE!!! A hand is only part of us it is not it's own organism, a child no matter if it is inside of it's mother is it's own organism!!! yes for a short period of nine months it is inside of the mother's body developing and growing, but it spends it's life out side of the mother doing the SAME thing you are developing and growing right now, so dose that mean that you are not alive?! :headbang: This makes me angry, that people would kill a definceless child!! that depends souly on its mother, that child needs a place that it can deveolpe just like a 5 year old needs its parents to supply food to it, because it cannot get it on its own!!