NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aibKW_1HV-c


tee-hee :D

I love his accent!

/And he's easy on the eyes, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aibKW_1HV-c


tee-hee :D

Nice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aibKW_1HV-c


tee-hee :D

Do they make a "More people have died in the name of God than for any other reason" pill? Because that'll piss some catholics off. :)

all those pills that i did not know of

As a Christian, I must say...


:D


That was F*#king Hilarious!!!

that was great. thanks for sharing.

Hmmm...so that's why the morning after pill didn't relieve my hangover.

Hahaha! Well played!

Off topic, but after I watched Mr. Scotish man it recommended I should watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y51nYr7O3nA&NR

It's kind of wierd and I think the woman is mentally ill.

hahaha! that made me giggle :D (the scottish man)

Hmmm...so that's why the morning after pill didn't relieve my hangover.

*sprouts boobs*

AHAHAHAHAHA!

Almost as good as the cats one.

Hahaha! Well played!

Off topic, but after I watched Mr. Scotish man it recommended I should watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y51nYr7O3nA&NR

It's kind of wierd and I think the woman is mentally ill.



I was gunna post that!

First video: HIGH larious.

Both are very hilarious.
Way off topic comes my contribuition,The Angry Nintendo Nerd!



http://www.screwattack.com/Flash%20HTML/ANN/TMNT/TMNT.html (http://www.screwattack.com/Flash%20HTML/ANN/TMNT/TMNT.html)


EDIT:He doesnt need a reason to be in this post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aibKW_1HV-c


tee-hee :D
This is great! I loved it! :D

Both are very hilarious.
Way off topic comes my contribuition,The Angry Nintendo Nerd!



http://www.screwattack.com/Flash%20HTML/ANN/TMNT/TMNT.html


EDIT:He doesnt need a reason to be in this post.

Hahaha! That was pretty funny!

I don't think that guys' ever gonna have a girlfiend.

bump...

Hahaha! That was pretty funny!

I don't think that guys' ever gonna have a girlfiend.

If youwant all his videoas go to screw attck.com and look for angry nintendo nerd on the sidebar.Ill just give the link:



http://www.screwattack.com/AngryNerdMain.html

I'm going to have to see if I can find any more of this guy's comedy. He's like Jimeoin with a harder edge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aibKW_1HV-c


tee-hee :D



I would love to slap him silly. Obviously anybody religious lacks common sense....Way to be open minded. :rolleyes:

That shit's gold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aibKW_1HV-c


tee-hee :D

because respect for human life is just based on a too-literal interpretation of the bible, and everyone who thinks abortion is twisted and wrong is a crazy republican fundamentalist, right? "plan A was dropping out of law school to go live in a trailer park" - and we enlightened liberal humanists are way above living in a trailer park. how can those self-important bigots expect me to live with white trash?

I regularly deal with both lawyers and trailer park folk both, and lawyers aren't worthy to scrape the dirt off the trailer park people's boots, half the time. the "religious right" (it amazes me people call them conservative, as though they're "conserving" anything or even remotely grounded in tradition) is to be held responsible - both for its bigotries, and for producing a generation that can spout this kind of self-absorbed bullshit and think it's justified. destroying human life in the name of hedonism is revolting.

I would love to slap him silly. Obviously anybody religious lacks common sense....Way to be open minded. :rolleyes:

It's called hyperbole. Comics use it all the time, often to great effect. Like this time. Jeez.

It's called hyperbole. Comics use it all the time, often to great effect. Like this time. Jeez.



Or sometimes they use it as an excuse to be an asshole. Like this time.



FYI,Yes I am an asshole, and rather proud one at that.:upyours: My use of that smilely is not directed at you or anybody else here, I am just using it to give a visual reference to me being an asshole. :D

because respect for human life is just based on a too-literal interpretation of the bible, and everyone who thinks abortion is twisted and wrong is a crazy republican fundamentalist, right? "plan A was dropping out of law school to go live in a trailer park" - and we enlightened liberal humanists are way above living in a trailer park. how can those self-important bigots expect me to live with white trash?

I regularly deal with both lawyers and trailer park folk both, and lawyers aren't worthy to scrape the dirt off the trailer park people's boots, half the time. the "religious right" (it amazes me people call them conservative, as though they're "conserving" anything or even remotely grounded in tradition) is to be held responsible - both for its bigotries, and for producing a generation that can spout this kind of self-absorbed bullshit and think it's justified. destroying human life in the name of hedonism is revolting.

And destroying TWO human lives in the name of "morality" is better? Why do people like you think that a mere pregnancy will somehow make people act in what you would call a "responsible" manner? Why does it never cross your mind that giving up the pregnancy might actually be, in a large number of cases, be the real responsible thing to do?

And destroying TWO human lives in the name of "morality" is better? Why do people like you think that a mere pregnancy will somehow make people act in what you would call a "responsible" manner? Why does it never cross your mind that giving up the pregnancy might actually be, in a large number of cases, be the real responsible thing to do?

You mean kind of like two people survive a sinking ship, the responsible thing to do now is for one to decide to eat the other to ensure someone survives?...

And destroying TWO human lives in the name of "morality" is better? Why do people like you think that a mere pregnancy will somehow make people act in what you would call a "responsible" manner? Why does it never cross your mind that giving up the pregnancy might actually be, in a large number of cases, be the real responsible thing to do?

If she was "responsible" she would never have gotten pregnant in the first place. :)


But hey, sometimes getting pregnant does make women act better...Sometimes...

If she was "responsible" she would never have gotten pregnant in the first place. :)


But hey, sometimes getting pregnant does make women act better...Sometimes...Yeah, because accidents never happen. :rolleyes:

Yeah, because accidents never happen. :rolleyes:


You mean a woman can "accidently" have unprotected sex with a man?



The only valid excuse is the condom breaking or your pill or whatever you took failed.

You mean a woman can "accidently" have unprotected sex with a man?



The only valid excuse is the condom breaking or your pill or whatever you took failed.
Um, I think that was sort of his point.

You mean a woman can "accidently" have unprotected sex with a man?



The only valid excuse is the condom breaking or your pill or whatever you took failed.

Valid for you, perhaps, but last I checked, slavery was illegal in the US, and so forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will is as well.

Valid for you, perhaps, but last I checked, slavery was illegal in the US, and so forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will is as well.

And, actually I was wrong in my previous post. It wouldn't just ruin two lives. It would actually ruin all three.

Valid for you, perhaps, but last I checked, slavery was illegal in the US, and so forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will is as well.


I don't give a fuck what she does with it, I have better things to worry about.....Like foot odor.

Valid for you, perhaps, but last I checked, slavery was illegal in the US, and so forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will is as well.

How does that follow?

How does that follow?

Think it through--slavery is at essence a legally enforced lack of self-determination. Well, what else would you call legally forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will?

Well, what else would you call legally forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will?

A legally-enforced lack of self-determination with regard to one particular choice for a temporary period of time. Indeed, all laws constitute a "legally-enforced lack of self-determination" to one degree or another.

You mean kind of like two people survive a sinking ship, the responsible thing to do now is for one to decide to eat the other to ensure someone survives?...

Sometimes ... though in this case one of the people can not even think

And you really are not consuming them

Hell in the case of the pill you don't even know if the person exist

And its not actually designed to kill anything just prevent ovulation

So you know the same but completely different.

everyone who thinks abortion is twisted and wrong is a crazy republican fundamentalist, right?

No, they're idiots, but the two are easily confused, I'll grant you that.

A legally-enforced lack of self-determination with regard to one particular choice for a temporary period of time. Indeed, all laws constitute a "legally-enforced lack of self-determination" to one degree or another.Agreed--but this is a particularly high degree of imposition, perhaps the most intimate imposition a government could impose upon a woman. After all, we're talking about a medical condition that is dangerous at the best of times, deadly in many cases. And we won't even get into the question of what to do after the fetus is delivered.

No, they're idiots, but the two are easily confused, I'll grant you that.

So everybody who doesn't agree with you is an idiot?

Sometimes ... though in this case one of the people can not even think

And you really are not consuming them

Hell in the case of the pill you don't even know if the person exist

And its not actually designed to kill anything just prevent ovulation

So you know the same but completely different.

Incorrect, here I’ll fix it.

One is sleeping. Although it is true, the one is not eating them, they just don't want to share their limited resources with them sop they are doing away with them before they can make any demands for their fair share. If they don't exist though, then the first one doesn't need to kill them do they? The pill this time does not prevent ovulation, it prevents implantation in the uterus lining.

Not exactly completely different.

So everybody who doesn't agree with you is an idiot?

Though, they do catch on quicker than one would expect, ja?

Agreed--but this is a particularly high degree of imposition, perhaps the most intimate imposition a government could impose upon a woman.

Indeed. It is a profound violation. But for a moment, consider if the "pro-lifers" were right (as I think they are not), and the fetus were an adult human being fully possessed of the rights of personhood. Wouldn't that be a pretty compelling basis for such a violation?

After all, what's more fundamental - life itself, or bodily autonomy?

And we won't even get into the question of what to do after the fetus is delivered.

That is a real problem, I agree.

But for a moment, consider if the "pro-lifers" were right

That's sort of like considering flat-earthers to be right; sure, one might manage it, but that wouldn't make Columbus sail off the edge of the world and never (re-)discover the Americas...

... which for some reason is starting to seem more and more appealing the more one ponders it.

That's sort of like considering flat-earthers to be right; sure, one might manage it, but that wouldn't make Columbus sail off the edge of the world and never (re-)discover the Americas...

Perhaps, but it remains the heart of the issue.

Bodily autonomy is only a good basis for opposing the prohibition of abortion when the fetus has already been (rightfully) relegated to a lower moral status than that of a human being with full rights of personhood.

Perhaps, but it remains the heart of the issue.

Yes, them being wrong and having lost, thus being relegated to the sphere of other zaniness we ignore. I know.

Bodily autonomy is only a good basis for opposing the prohibition of abortion when the fetus has already been (rightfully) relegated to a lower moral status than that of a human being with full rights of personhood.

Yeah, and that was settled over half a century ago. Get with the programme people!

If she was "responsible" she would never have gotten pregnant in the first place. :)


But hey, sometimes getting pregnant does make women act better...Sometimes...

Note, the video was pretty much about the "Morning After Pill", which isn't an "abortion pill", in any way, shape, or form, as it prevents fertilization, and doesn't cause a fertilize egg to be destroyed(Almost all the time anyways).

Really... I think Health class needs to be a bit more indepth.

Note, the video was pretty much about the "Morning After Pill", which isn't an "abortion pill", in any way, shape, or form, as it prevents fertilization, and doesn't cause a fertilize egg to be destroyed(Almost all the time anyways).

Really... I think Health class needs to be a bit more indepth.



I know what it is. :rolleyes: Jeez.

I know what it is. :rolleyes: Jeez.

Eh, they way you worded that... it was questionable, is all.

However, there are quite a few people who don't know what it is, how it works, or what it does. Which is really quite depressing, as it is rather simply explained, and the information on it is easily obtained, with little to no effort involved.

Eh, they way you worded that... it was questionable, is all.

However, there are quite a few people who don't know what it is, how it works, or what it does. Which is really quite depressing, as it is rather simply explained, and the information on it is easily obtained, with little to no effort involved.



I am not one of them, I actually support them. Think about it, the more women can use pills like that, the less likely they are to get pregnant and therefore need an abortion, so less dead babies. See how that works? Everybody is happy.:)

No, they're idiots, but the two are easily confused, I'll grant you that.

ah, ok. I'd say something about how you're every bit as much letting a demagogue define your thinking as anyone else is, but it seems rather futile. these sorts of beliefs are exactly like religion - as soon as you have more emotionally invested on one side of the issue than the other, you will convert, and claim your reason led you to that position all along. *sigh*

ah, ok. I'd say something about how you're every bit as much letting a demagogue define your thinking as anyone else is, but it seems rather futile.

Quoi?

these sorts of beliefs are exactly like religion - as soon as you have more emotionally invested on one side of the issue than the other, you will convert, and claim your reason led you to that position all along. *sigh*

Ah, quoi?

You're rambling and making even less sense than you usually do. Care to try again?

A legally-enforced lack of self-determination with regard to one particular choice for a temporary period of time. Indeed, all laws constitute a "legally-enforced lack of self-determination" to one degree or another.

Perhaps she isn't a slave. But she is just a baby incubator.

Perhaps she isn't a slave. But she is just a baby incubator.

But didn't you know? That's the purpose of women. Pumping out babies that are ignored until they're old enough to serve in the military or whatever the hell that's being advocated these days.

But didn't you know? That's the purpose of women. Pumping out babies that are ignored until they're old enough to serve in the military or whatever the hell that's being advocated these days.She's the all-in-one baby incubator and personal chef!

That's right gents...she slices, dices, frenches, juliannes, and pops out an unwanted child once every nine months!

Care to try again?

in a sociological study of the growth of cults, researchers found that people convert due to social influences. (duh) - if somebody were to have a circle of 5 friends, each of whom he relied on equally, in every circumstance, if 2 of them adopted a new belief he thought was insane, he'd ridicule it. as soon as 3 of them converted, however, he would too. they have tapes of people in california talking about the moonies. initially they say it's total bullshit, then as soon as they have more of an emotional dependancy on people within the group than without it, they convert, and a week or two after conversion they say that the religion made sense all along, and they fealt drawn to it from the beginning. it's a psychological defense mechanism - we gladly brainwash ourselves if it provides a stable environment.


my point is that you exhibit as much of a band-wagon ideology as religious fundamentalists do, and I strongly suspect that the majority of your emotional investements are with people who believe in the same bundle of ideals and political positions that you do. I've observed the strictest secular liberals reaching the same sorts of illogical conclusions as fundies, and for the same reason the fundies do it. secular humanism has as many baseless presuppositions as any religion does, but for reasons of emotional security, secularists are just as willing to overlook those problems as fundies are.

the fact is that if it was harmful to my emotional state to admit the sky was blue, I would see it vividly pink - and you do exactly the same thing. that's what makes this sort of argument futile. abortion is one of those things that's become so integrel to the identity of many people that it is held as a religious tennent, and no ammount of debate will ever convince a demagogue from one side to the other. if, however, you fell quite madly in love with a pro-lifer, and there was no viable emotional support system in place outside of the context of that relationship, you would most likely convert, and believe that logic led you to do it.

most people on *both* sides of the abortion debate fence hold their position for exactly this reason.

I, personally, am against abortion for the same reason I don't eat meat and am a pacifist - I see no valid point of distinction between myself and others, and as such the "it's my body, it's my right" argument holds no weight with me. I do not believe in human rights - they are a social construct based in convienience.

O Fortuna
Velut Luna
Status Variabilis
...
Egestatem
Potestatem
disolvit ut glaciem

status malus
vana salus
semper disollubilis

oh fate, like the moon, you are changable. poverty and power you melt like ice. well being is vanity, and always comes to nothing.

it's far more productive to learn to live with circumstances than to attempt to change them - with the right frame of mind hellfire ceases to burn, but you can never extinguish suffering, no matter how hard you try. I object to abortion because, first of all, the individual is an illusion, and second of all, attempting to do anything for convienience sake in this world is idiotic.

that was not the best explanation I could have given and both of us have much of our emotional state wrapped up in our opinions, (the language you've used proves you're buying into the bandwagon mentality), so I don't expect that to have been convincing for you. *shrug*

The only valid excuse is the condom breaking or your pill or whatever you took failed.

You forgot rape.

You forgot rape.


Yes I did.:headbang:

She's the all-in-one baby incubator and personal chef!

That's right gents...she slices, dices, frenches, juliannes, and pops out an unwanted child once every nine months!

yes, pro-lifers are sexists. that's why so many of them are women. as a gay male who engages in many traditional female activities, I certainly have to admit that I constantly objectify women and expect them to behave as domestic servants.

I, personally, am against abortion for the same reason I don't eat meat and am a pacifist - I see no valid point of distinction between myself and others, and as such the "it's my body, it's my right" argument holds no weight with me.

Is killing an ant morally equivalent to killing a human being?

yes, pro-lifers are sexists. that's why so many of them are women.
Words alone cannot express the sheer incorrectness of this statement.

You forgot rape.

Yes I did.:headbang:

the only person I know who has been raped told me she desperately hoped to get pregnant, so as to redeem the experience. obviously not everybody feels this way, but she told me plenty of the women she talked to in support groups had similar feelings, even some who were pro-choice.

the only person I know who has been raped told me she desperately hoped to get pregnant, so as to redeem the experience.

Which means that everyone who gets raped feels like that.

the only person I know who has been raped told me she desperately hoped to get pregnant, so as to redeem the experience.


:rolleyes:

yes, pro-lifers are sexists. that's why so many of them are women. as a gay male who engages in many traditional female activities, I certainly have to admit that I constantly objectify women and expect them to behave as domestic servants.

say it with me now. Joke.

it was building off the sexist comment before it. But, in all reality, if we're going to force women to be baby incubators, might as well send them back to the kitchen.

Words alone cannot express the sheer incorrectness of this statement.

well try words, and if they don't work, we can mail eachother finger paintings.

say it with me now. Joke.

it was building off the sexist comment before it. But, in all reality, if we're going to force women to be baby incubators, might as well send them back to the kitchen.

the last time I checked most abortions were not for women who had been impregnated by force. without knowing the statistics, I'll be generous and say 10% of abortions are because of rape. I doubt in reality it's even 1%.

and just because some bigoted assholes think women are all to be domestic servants doesn't mean the idea of life being sacred is automatically wrong. hitler liked to watercolor. that doesn't mean watercolors are related to genocide - and that some idiots happen to suggest that women should be constantly breeding doesn't mean that *when* a woman gets pregnant it's automatically wrong to assume she's carrying something too special to destroy.

See how that works? Everybody is happy.:)

Except the super fundies of course, but nobody cares about them anyway.

the last time I checked most abortions were not for women who had been impregnated by force. without knowing the statistics, I'll be generous and say 10% of abortions are because of rape. I doubt in reality it's even 1%.

yes, but 100% were by women who did not want the child. I didn't say a word about rape, nor was it implied.

I, nor you, nor any one else has the right to tell a woman she does not have the right to determine what to do with her body.
If you do, then you relegate her to a baby incubator.

the only person I know who has been raped told me she desperately hoped to get pregnant, so as to redeem the experience.

Huh? So she wasn't made pregnant via rape? Then picking up my statement was kind of pointless.


obviously not everybody feels this way, but she told me plenty of the women she talked to in support groups had similar feelings, even some who were pro-choice.

I'm told that anecdotal evidence doesn't count on NS.

yes, but 100% were by women who did not want the child. I didn't say a word about rape, nor was it implied.

I, nor you, nor any one else has the right to tell a woman she does not have the right to determine what to do with her body.
If you do, then you relegate her to a baby incubator.

I don't believe in individuality or human rights. both are social constructs. I do not relegate her to a baby incubator - I acknowledge her for what she is, a teresa of infinity whose seperateness is illusory. for the record, I don't believe in law - I'm not arguing that abortion be made illegal, I'm just arguing that it is morally wrong. by the same token that I believe it is wrong to kill the unborn child, I believe it is wrong to use force (even in its polite guise as law) to compell anyone to do anything. as far as "her body", it's just matter in the same constant flux as anything else. all of it deserves the respect to live and grow and flux as it does naturally - that includes the life inside of her. unless you want to argue she is an individual with a unique personal soul...which won't be very good for your abortion argument, I'm afraid. other than that, I don't see the basis for your making a valid ethical distinction between her and a qumquat.

I, nor you, nor any one else has the right to tell a woman she does not have the right to determine what to do with her body.

I would agree that in the vast majority of circumstances, no person has the right to tell any other person what to do with his or her body, but can you really say that this is justified under no circumstances?

snip

Uhm, when I said you were rambling I didn't exactly ask for more rambling from you, so snipped.

my point is that you exhibit as much of a band-wagon ideology as religious fundamentalists do, and I strongly suspect that the majority of your emotional investements are with people who believe in the same bundle of ideals and political positions that you do. I've observed the strictest secular liberals reaching the same sorts of illogical conclusions as fundies, and for the same reason the fundies do it. secular humanism has as many baseless presuppositions as any religion does, but for reasons of emotional security, secularists are just as willing to overlook those problems as fundies are.

Ah, so that's the reasoning you use to dull yourself to common sense? Right...

the fact is that if it was harmful to my emotional state to admit the sky was blue, I would see it vividly pink - and you do exactly the same thing.

Nope, as I don't have any sort of emotional connection to any of this. Wanna know why? Because in this country, abortion is not an issue. There is no contention, no "debate." Abortion just is. Being emotionally attached to it is for loonies and morons.

that's what makes this sort of argument futile. abortion is one of those things that's become so integrel to the identity of many people that it is held as a religious tennent, and no ammount of debate will ever convince a demagogue from one side to the other. if, however, you fell quite madly in love with a pro-lifer, and there was no viable emotional support system in place outside of the context of that relationship, you would most likely convert, and believe that logic led you to do it.

So much poppycock in so much verbiage..

most people on *both* sides of the abortion debate fence hold their position for exactly this reason.

And, again, there is no "abortion debate" where I live.

I, personally, am against abortion for the same reason I don't eat meat and am a pacifist - I see no valid point of distinction between myself and others, and as such the "it's my body, it's my right" argument holds no weight with me. I do not believe in human rights - they are a social construct based in convienience.

Uhuh. That's loony, I'm afraid.

O Fortuna
Velut Luna
Status Variabilis
...
Egestatem
Potestatem
disolvit ut glaciem

status malus
vana salus
semper disollubilis

oh fate, like the moon, you are changable. poverty and power you melt like ice. well being is vanity, and always comes to nothing.

Carmina Burana is so cliché. Next time I suggest something less tainted by mass appeal.

it's far more productive to learn to live with circumstances than to attempt to change them - with the right frame of mind hellfire ceases to burn, but you can never extinguish suffering, no matter how hard you try. I object to abortion because, first of all, the individual is an illusion, and second of all, attempting to do anything for convienience sake in this world is idiotic.

This is semi-incoherent, but I get the jist from it that we shouldn't alter "cicumstances." Uhuh... so, I guess you'd like to return to a cave somewhere and not wear any clothes any more, because that certainly changed your circumstances.... :rolleyes:

"Not change circumstances." I'm sorry, but that's just sooo daft.

that was not the best explanation I could have given and both of us have much of our emotional state wrapped up in our opinions, (the language you've used proves you're buying into the bandwagon mentality), so I don't expect that to have been convincing for you. *shrug*

Ah, I see. You're projecting your own emotionality on others and using it to soothe yourself in accusing others of being of such weak convictions as you are yourself. Nutty, but whatever gets you through the day...

I don't believe in individuality or human rights. both are social constructs. I do not relegate her to a baby incubator - I acknowledge her for what she is, a teresa of infinity whose seperateness is illusory. for the record, I don't believe in law - I'm not arguing that abortion be made illegal, I'm just arguing that it is morally wrong. by the same token that I believe it is wrong to kill the unborn child, I believe it is wrong to use force (even in its polite guise as law) to compell anyone to do anything. as far as "her body", it's just matter in the same constant flux as anything else. all of it deserves the respect to live and grow and flux as it does naturally - that includes the life inside of her. unless you want to argue she is an individual with a unique personal soul...which won't be very good for your abortion argument, I'm afraid. other than that, I don't see the basis for your making a valid ethical distinction between her and a qumquat.So you believe in morals, but not human rights?

And I'm spent.

I would agree that in the vast majority of circumstances, no person has the right to tell any other person what to do with his or her body, but can you really say that this is justified under no circumstances?
You can tell me all you want. That doesn't mean I'll do it.

To actually answer the question and not be a bastard, so long as what you do doesn't hurt anyone else or infringe on their rights, go for it.

I'm told that anecdotal evidence doesn't count on NS.

so your anecdotal evidence that woman do not all believe themselves to be glasses of orange juice doesn't count, right? I mean with other people's thoughts and opinions it's all just he-said-she-said, really.

*snip*

So, would you rather an infant be born to a woman who resents its very existence? Or, going off of the "hedonsim" angle you brought up earlier, be born addicted to drugs/alcohol? Why encourage the birth of children that will be unwanted? Even with adoption available too many slip through the cracks. Why do we as a society need to force people to endure that kind of suffering over the taking of a simple pill that can help people who should not even consider bringing a child into this world avoid such a fate?

*snip*

If I were wise and liberal, I would just take a page out of your book and dismiss everything you have to say out of hand without actually refuting it.

for the record, your point that abortion is not even debated in your country doesn't prove that it's not emotionally relevent. if something is so ingrained nobody challenges it, it hardly constitutes emotionally neutral ground.

so your anecdotal evidence that woman do not all believe themselves to be glasses of orange juice doesn't count, right?

If you can find an instance where I've said that, I'll give you a cookie.

That being said, determining what's a majority view certainly can't be done with that small a sample group.

So you believe in morals, but not human rights?

no, I don't believe in morals. I believe certain things make dealing with reality alot easier, and those take the place of morals. morality is also a social construct. where exactly do you get the concept of human rights from?

so long as what you do doesn't hurt anyone else

And suddenly you've spoiled your whole argument. Because clearly, the "pro-lifers" will maintain, someone is being hurt here - the fetus.

Bodily autonomy is important, but it is not absolute. There is no good reason to declare that it is always inviolable.

And suddenly you've spoiled your whole argument. Because clearly, the "pro-lifers" will maintain, someone is being hurt here - the fetus.

Can't hurt what cannot feel pain.

So, would you rather an infant be born to a woman who resents its very existence? Or, going off of the "hedonsim" angle you brought up earlier, be born addicted to drugs/alcohol? Why encourage the birth of children that will be unwanted? Even with adoption available too many slip through the cracks. Why do we as a society need to force people to endure that kind of suffering over the taking of a simple pill that can help people who should not even consider bringing a child into this world avoid such a fate?

these are not the majority of cases...and how is deciding for someone weither or not they want to exist, without consulting them or even giving them the chance to so much as breathe on their own less invasive and infringing on their rights than saying someone has to endure a natural bodily function?

If you can find an instance where I've said that, I'll give you a cookie.

That being said, determining what's a majority view certainly can't be done with that small a sample group.

could you say it, just so I can have the cookie?:)

and yes, that's a good point. of the women I have known who have been raped, none of them have said they desired an abortion. I do not know many rape victims, and rape victims do not make up even a sizable minority of abortions.

Can't hurt what cannot feel pain.

chloroform suddenly has massive ethical implications...hrmmm

chloroform suddenly has massive ethical implications...hrmmm

Do you understand the meaning of "cannot"?

Can't hurt what cannot feel pain.

So if you kill someone painlessly, you aren't hurting that person?

Somehow I doubt that Sarkhaan's notion of "hurt" is that narrow. If it is, I think it's a bad standard, for obvious reasons.

Do you understand the meaning of "cannot"?

no I don't, because I am an ignorant bigoted pro-lifer, who deserves to be talked to disparagingly.

If I were wise and liberal, I would just take a page out of your book and dismiss everything you have to say out of hand without actually refuting it.

There was nothing in there to refute as it was all a bunch of nothing that made no sense.

for the record, your point that abortion is not even debated in your country doesn't prove that it's not emotionally relevent. if something is so ingrained nobody challenges it, it hardly constitutes emotionally neutral ground.

Actually, it does, but if you want to tell it to yourself oh, so, hard that it's oh, so emotional, then so be it. Your projection is what all you said was based on and I don't expect you to let go of it, because it's apparent that you can't, what with the mostly incoherent rambling.

Do you understand the meaning of "cannot"?

If hurt doesn't depend on physical pain, what does it matter whether or not a being is capable of feeling physical pain?

There was nothing in there to refute as it was all a bunch of nothing that made no sense.

you just did it again. are you masturbating or trying to have a discussion?

no, I don't believe in morals. I believe certain things make dealing with reality alot easier, and those take the place of morals. morality is also a social construct. where exactly do you get the concept of human rights from?
I'm just arguing that it is morally wrongEither you believe in morals or you don't. If you do, cool. If you don't, cool. But if you don't, then you can't argue that it is morally wrong.
As for human rights, I get them because I will fight for them.

And suddenly you've spoiled your whole argument. Because clearly, the "pro-lifers" will maintain, someone is being hurt here - the fetus.fetus=/=human being. I didn't spoil anything. for the first two trimesters, it really is nothing different from scraping your knee, as to how many cells are removed.

Bodily autonomy is important, but it is not absolute. There is no good reason to declare that it is always inviolable.There's no good reason not to.

*snip*

You didn't answer the questions I posed. Please at least try. Just saying "these are not the majority of cases" doesn't mean that these cases don't exist. So, again, would you rather have the scenarios I mentioned occur? And, if so, how come?

Why would you want to put all three (prospective) people involved in such a case through the trauma of being forced to give birth to/support an/live an unwanted, and resented life?

fetus=/=human being.

Then what you are really doing is just assuming your conclusion.

Presupposing that the rights of the fetus are negligible, I don't think anyone would deny a woman the right to an abortion.

There's no good reason not to.

You just provided one - harm to others.

you just did it again. are you masturbating or trying to have a discussion?

Oh, don't be silly. I know better than to have what you deem a "discussion." Or, well, to be blunt, I simply don't understand your posts. They're convoluted and seemingly without cohesion and purpose and are hinged on some "emotionality" which is solely your own doing and projection.

Frankly, the solitary release of masturbation would have given me much more than an attempt at a tête-à-tête with you, but that's hindsight and a whole bunch of words in what resemble sentences devoid of meaning under the bridge... which ironically was more like masturbation on your part.

Hahaha! Well played!

Off topic, but after I watched Mr. Scotish man it recommended I should watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y51nYr7O3nA&NR

It's kind of wierd and I think the woman is mentally ill.
you have to wonder sometimes, with these kind of videos, whether they're doing it for the camera or if there's actually something wrong with them...

Both are very hilarious.
Way off topic comes my contribuition,The Angry Nintendo Nerd!



http://www.screwattack.com/Flash%20HTML/ANN/TMNT/TMNT.html


EDIT:He doesnt need a reason to be in this post.

lol we used to think that game was cool :(

lol we used to think that game was cool :(

A kid I knew had it. He was a douche. And the game really did suck as much as the nerd said - it was just awful being reminded of playing it with the douchy kid, who was spawned by friends of my parents. Ugh...

You didn't answer the questions I posed. Please at least try. Just saying "these are not the majority of cases" doesn't mean that these cases don't exist.

true. I'm sorry, I'm not being deliberately evasive.

So, again, would you rather have the scenarios I mentioned occur? And, if so, how come?

Why would you want to put all three (prospective) people involved in such a case through the trauma of being forced to give birth to/support an/live an unwanted, and resented life?

what causes suffering?

I believe that human struggle against the natural flow of things causes suffering. insisting we get our way garentees that we will be disappointed - whereas learning to cope with any situation garentees we will cease to suffer. I can show you pictures, if you like, of buddhist monks who believe this and have reached a state where they can burn alive without budging or feeling any pain. by blurring the distinctions between ourselves and our environment, we can simply experience events, instead of constantly struggling to have them turn out one way or another.

that said, I believe that taking action against the natural playing out of nature causes far more suffering than attempting to bend nature to our own will and ideals. for that reason, attempting to prevent something as fundamentally natural as a conception or a birth is abhorent to me.

also, as I said the means to eliminate our experience of suffering is to eliminate our distinctions between ourselves and the rest of the world. that buddhist "oneness" you hear people talking about. I believe that individuality is an illusion, and that ultimately, we all might as well be the same body. that said, "it's my body, it's my right!" becomes a meaningless distinction - in fact it's one that I believe causes needless suffering.

does that answer your question? I'm not being deliberately obtuse or esoteric, I simply don't think about ethical questions in any other context but this one.

Oh, don't be silly. I know better than to have what you deem a "discussion." Or, well, to be blunt, I simply don't understand your posts. They're convoluted and seemingly without cohesion and purpose and are hinged on some "emotionality" which is solely your own doing and projection.

Frankly, the solitary release of masturbation would have given me much more than an attempt at a tête-à-tête with you, but that's hindsight and a whole bunch of words in what resemble sentences devoid of meaning under the bridge... which ironically was more like masturbation on your part.

I'm sorry - it's hypocritical of me to criticise someone for being rude and then go be rude to you. I'm running on very little sleep and to me it feels like rather than answering a great many people's idea of truth as expressed in something like carmina burana, you'd prefer to call it cliche and dismiss it. it's not my intention to insult you, I've just got my hackles up, and I'm being childish.

Hmmm...so that's why the morning after pill didn't relieve my hangover.

It might relieve a certain 18 year hangover.

And suddenly you've spoiled your whole argument. Because clearly, the "pro-lifers" will maintain, someone is being hurt here - the fetus.

Bodily autonomy is important, but it is not absolute. There is no good reason to declare that it is always inviolable.
In my society, it is not legal for any living human person to comandeer another person's body against their wishes, even if doing so is required to prolong the life of the first person.

Except, of course, if the first "person" is a fetus. See, my culture has concluded that either fetuses have rights which no living person has, or pregnant women lack the fundamental human rights possessed by every other person on the planet (including convicted murderers).

I would give pretty much anything to have people realize that the "personhood" of fetuses is totally and completely irrelevant to the subject of abortion. It doesn't matter if fetuses are people; they STILL do not have any "right" to inhabit the bodies of other human people against the wishes of those people. Period. It doesn't matter if the fetus will be "hurt" by being denied use of another person's body. No human person is entitled to take your body and use it to prolong their own life. Period.

It's really goddam simple, and I don't see why people spend so much time trying to make it complicated.

yes, pro-lifers are sexists. that's why so many of them are women. as a gay male who engages in many traditional female activities, I certainly have to admit that I constantly objectify women and expect them to behave as domestic servants.
Newsflash for the terminally confused:

Women can be sexist. Women can be misognynist. Women can be anti-feminist.

Gay men can be sexist. Gay men can be misogynist. Gay men can be anti-feminist.

People who are "feminine" can be sexist, misognynist, and/or anti-feminist.

People who participate in "traditional female activities" can be sexist, misognynist, and/or anti-feminist.

In my society, it is not legal for any living human person to comandeer another person's body against their wishes, even if doing so is required to prolong the life of the first person.

And there is no reason that anyone need accept this position as the proper one.

It doesn't matter if fetuses are people; they STILL do not have any "right" to inhabit the bodies of other human people against the wishes of those people. Period. It doesn't matter if the fetus will be "hurt" by being denied use of another person's body. No human person is entitled to take your body and use it to prolong their own life. Period.

Why not?

Again, which is more important - a human life or a person's bodily autonomy? Since life is required for the exercise of all rights, and bodily autonomy is merely one, it's pretty clear to me that life is more important.

It's really goddam simple

No, it isn't. And there's your answer.

And there is no reason that anyone need accept this position as the proper one. There's more reason to accept it than to accept the converse.


Again, which is more important - a human life or a person's bodily autonomy? Since life is required for the exercise of all rights, and bodily autonomy is merely one, it's pretty clear to me that life is more important.

Until a fetus is outside the woman and is breathing and kicking on its own, it is not a human life; therefore the answer to your question is both--the mother's life and the mother's bodily autonomy are the most important. The fetus is only potential life until it's on its own.

this should stir up the "debate" http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/ :D



(my take on the abortion row: killing is wrong. however, getting rid of an unwanted ball of cells is not killing as biologial matter does not a human make. how do you decide when a foetus has turned into a human? when the thing becomes sentient and concious - after that point the human has the right to life and to make its own decision whether to live or not. before then a unconcious, non-sentient ball of biological matter and cells doesn't count. recent research has shown that foetuses become sentient and concious at about 19 to 22 weeks of pregnancy. thus, before then abortion should be legal and after then it should not be. simple.:))

i founf that both offensive and funny.

this should stir up the "debate" http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/ :D



(my take on the abortion row: killing is wrong. however, getting rid of an unwanted ball of cells is not killing as biologial matter does not a human make. how do you decide when a foetus has turned into a human? when the thing becomes sentient and concious - after that point the human has the right to life and to make its own decision whether to live or not. before then a unconcious, non-sentient ball of biological matter and cells doesn't count. recent research has shown that foetuses become sentient and concious at about 19 to 22 weeks of pregnancy. thus, before then abortion should be legal and after then it should not be. simple.:))
You're actually a bit wrong on the conscious bit. Although brain waves appear at 22 weeks, the fetus is no more conscious than anything with an electrical nervous system.

I love his accent!

/And he's easy on the eyes, too.

Yeah, tell me about it...

Not to mention funny. :D

Yeah, tell me about it...

Not to mention funny. :D

There is something to those Scottish men that you just can't put your finger on, but they radiate it.

Originally Posted by Pure Metal
this should stir up the "debate" http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/



(my take on the abortion row: killing is wrong. however, getting rid of an unwanted ball of cells is not killing as biologial matter does not a human make. how do you decide when a foetus has turned into a human? when the thing becomes sentient and concious - after that point the human has the right to life and to make its own decision whether to live or not. before then a unconcious, non-sentient ball of biological matter and cells doesn't count. recent research has shown that foetuses become sentient and concious at about 19 to 22 weeks of pregnancy. thus, before then abortion should be legal and after then it should not be. simple.)I find what that Christian had to say hypocritical, I'm Christian, the Bible is the law for Christians, science is the law for the universe. Bad mouthing science is like saying that you disobeyed your leader's rules in order to serve him. About the atheists, I think that both atheists and fundies should stop trying to force their beleifs on others, we have a thing called free will you know. That was discgraceful and it dters people from the Christian faith. :(

it deters people from the Christian faith. :(

You say that like it's a bad thing.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Why do you say that it isn't bad?

Why do you say that it isn't bad?

It's not bad because religion is bad. Less people wasting their time with such nonsense (especially the sucky Abrahamic religions) = good.

It's not bad because religion is bad. Less people wasting their time with such nonsense (especially the sucky Abrahamic religions) = good.
Agreed. We're grown-up now: we don't need gigantic invisible friends anymore.