NationStates Jolt Archive

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is bothering me. Why is it that the same people who view the 3,000-some-odd servicemen dead in Iraq as a moral travesty of titanic proportions, yet when they hear about thousands of babies aborted (killed) they think of it as the pinnacle of human greatness? (I'm only exaggerating a little bit, and if anyone can find exact numbers, I'd appreciate it.) I don't understand. How is it worse when somebody, who is willing to die for the cause, dies than when a completely innocent is killed for, sometimes, no better reason than the fact that the child would be an inconvenience to the mother? Don't get me wrong, not every abortion is like that, but you can't honestly say that they're all done out of necessity (i.e. saving the mother's life).

Does anybody understand why that is?

Comments/discussion appreciated.

Because aborted fetii make a great stew. Dead servicemen make an alright hamburger, at best.

Abortions tickle.

Plus it is a great 'third way' contraceptive.

Of course, for me, I ponder the reverse: If abortion is such a travesty to some, why are those same people so willing to throw those babies at a senseless war 18 years later?

Edit to add: I may have hit on something here! Those opposed to abortion want more meat for their wars?

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is bothering me. Why is it that the same people who view the 3,000-some-odd servicemen dead in Iraq as a moral travesty of titanic proportions, yet when they hear about thousands of babies aborted (killed) they think of it as the pinnacle of human greatness? (I'm only exaggerating a little bit, and if anyone can find exact numbers, I'd appreciate it.) I don't understand. How is it worse when somebody, who is willing to die for the cause, dies than when a completely innocent is killed for, sometimes, no better reason than the fact that the child would be an inconvenience to the mother? Don't get me wrong, not every abortion is like that, but you can't honestly say that they're all done out of necessity (i.e. saving the mother's life).

Does anybody understand why that is?

Comments/discussion appreciated.

Not everyone believes in the "sanctity of life", most people here would agree that personhood develops later on in life and that a cluster of flesh does not deserve the same respect as a self aware human being. The debate is where it becomes human.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is bothering me. Why is it that the same people who view the 3,000-some-odd servicemen dead in Iraq as a moral travesty of titanic proportions, yet when they hear about thousands of babies aborted (killed) they think of it as the pinnacle of human greatness? (I'm only exaggerating a little bit, and if anyone can find exact numbers, I'd appreciate it.) I don't understand. How is it worse when somebody, who is willing to die for the cause, dies than when a completely innocent is killed for, sometimes, no better reason than the fact that the child would be an inconvenience to the mother? Don't get me wrong, not every abortion is like that, but you can't honestly say that they're all done out of necessity (i.e. saving the mother's life).

Does anybody understand why that is?

Comments/discussion appreciated.
because they are FOR abortion but against the Iraq war.

same as for those arguing for GUN CONTROL and yet think nothing about tossing back a few cold ones then getting behind the wheel of their car.

Because abortion isn't murder.

Abortions are great. My blender is too small for a fully developed child.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is bothering me. Why is it that the same people who view the 3,000-some-odd servicemen dead in Iraq as a moral travesty of titanic proportions, yet when they hear about thousands of babies aborted (killed) they think of it as the pinnacle of human greatness? (I'm only exaggerating a little bit, and if anyone can find exact numbers, I'd appreciate it.) I don't understand. How is it worse when somebody, who is willing to die for the cause, dies than when a completely innocent is killed for, sometimes, no better reason than the fact that the child would be an inconvenience to the mother? Don't get me wrong, not every abortion is like that, but you can't honestly say that they're all done out of necessity (i.e. saving the mother's life).

Does anybody understand why that is?

Comments/discussion appreciated.

an undeveloped fetus is no more a human than a chicken....

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is bothering me. Why is it that the same people who view the 3,000-some-odd servicemen dead in Iraq as a moral travesty of titanic proportions, yet when they hear about thousands of babies aborted (killed) they think of it as the pinnacle of human greatness? (I'm only exaggerating a little bit, and if anyone can find exact numbers, I'd appreciate it.) I don't understand. How is it worse when somebody, who is willing to die for the cause, dies than when a completely innocent is killed for, sometimes, no better reason than the fact that the child would be an inconvenience to the mother? Don't get me wrong, not every abortion is like that, but you can't honestly say that they're all done out of necessity (i.e. saving the mother's life).

Does anybody understand why that is?

Comments/discussion appreciated.

Most abortions happen before there are even brainwaves detectable in the fetus. If it can't think it's not human to me. Abort away.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is bothering me. Why is it that the same people who view the 3,000-some-odd servicemen dead in Iraq as a moral travesty of titanic proportions, yet when they hear about thousands of babies aborted (killed) they think of it as the pinnacle of human greatness? (I'm only exaggerating a little bit, and if anyone can find exact numbers, I'd appreciate it.) I don't understand. How is it worse when somebody, who is willing to die for the cause, dies than when a completely innocent is killed for, sometimes, no better reason than the fact that the child would be an inconvenience to the mother? Don't get me wrong, not every abortion is like that, but you can't honestly say that they're all done out of necessity (i.e. saving the mother's life).

Does anybody understand why that is?

Comments/discussion appreciated.Babies are never aborted. Fetuses are. They aren't equivalent.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is bothering me. Why is it that the same people who view the 3,000-some-odd servicemen dead in Iraq as a moral travesty of titanic proportions, yet when they hear about thousands of babies aborted (killed) they think of it as the pinnacle of human greatness? (I'm only exaggerating a little bit, and if anyone can find exact numbers, I'd appreciate it.) I don't understand. How is it worse when somebody, who is willing to die for the cause, dies than when a completely innocent is killed for, sometimes, no better reason than the fact that the child would be an inconvenience to the mother? Don't get me wrong, not every abortion is like that, but you can't honestly say that they're all done out of necessity (i.e. saving the mother's life).

Does anybody understand why that is?

Comments/discussion appreciated.
Because fetuses do not equal fully-realized human beings.

This has been another edition of simple answers to stupid questions.

Not everyone believes in the "sanctity of life", most people here would agree that personhood develops later on in life and that a cluster of flesh does not deserve the same respect as a self aware human being. The debate is where it becomes human.

But whereever you believe life begins, you're still denying it the right to live.

But whereever you believe life begins, you're still denying it the right to live.

So.

because they are FOR abortion but against the Iraq war.Why must you be so fucking dishonest?

But wherever you believe life begins, you're still denying it the right to live.

We deny chickens the right to live when we make food. There's no problem in that.

Most abortions happen before there are even brainwaves detectable in the fetus. If it can't think it's not human to me. Abort away.

What about a Down's child? Or any child with damaged brain function? Are they not humans?

What about a Down's child? Or any child with damaged brain function? Are they not humans?

Yes, because they still have brain function. Unlike the vast majority of aborted fetuses.

So, things that aren't self-aware human beings deserve less respect than, saaay... a rapist and murderer of children?

Do you respect chickens and ducks? They're not self aware human beings either.

But whereever you believe life begins, you're still denying it the right to live.It has a right to live? Where's that written?

But whereever you believe life begins, you're still denying it the right to live.

You get rights when you're a living human being. Not before. It's just retarded to think that a person who doesn't exist yet has any rights.

So, things that aren't self-aware human beings deserve less respect than, saaay... a rapist and murderer of children?

And this is relevant because the vast majority of human beings are rapists and murders or children.



Oh wait......

We deny chickens the right to live when we make food. There's no problem in that.

But we don't eat people

Yes, because they still have brain function. Unlike the vast majority of aborted fetuses.

Sorry, should have said "Would that make them less human?"

Not everyone believes in the "sanctity of life", most people here would agree that personhood develops later on in life and that a cluster of flesh does not deserve the same respect as a self aware human being. The debate is where it becomes human.

So, things that aren't self-aware human beings deserve less respect than, saaay... a rapist and murderer of children?

EDIT: I'm not trying to insult, I'm just curious as to whether you actually believe that, or if the implication was accidental.

So, things that aren't self-aware human beings deserve less respect than, saaay... a rapist and murderer of children?

This is all subjective anyway, but since they would probably get the death sentance i'm guessing they have lost all respect as well.

Why must you be so fucking dishonest?
I await your explination as to why you think I'm being dishonest.

What about a Down's child? Or any child with damaged brain function? Are they not humans?

Depends how damaged. If it doesn't even have brainwaves, or the ammount of living brain is smaller than the ammount you'd find in a rabbit's skull, it's just meat. Downs syndrome people I've seen can think. They're just not as quick to catch on as most.

Edit to add: I may have hit on something here! Those opposed to abortion want more meat for their wars?

I remember Meanstoanend actually making that argument not so very long ago. :p

It has a right to live? Where's that written?

Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution if I'm not mistaken.

So, things that aren't self-aware human beings deserve less respect than, saaay... a rapist and murderer of children?

EDIT: I'm not trying to insult, I'm just curious as to whether you actually believe that, or if the implication was accidental.

Yes. Even a rapist and murderer get a trial and a last meal before execution. Inanimate objects don't.

But whereever you believe life begins, you're still denying it the right to live.

Yes.

Of course, I also deny a potential human the right to live each time I menstruate. I've been denying a poor little egg the right to live every month since I was twelve years old. Perhaps you think it would have been more moral for me to find someone to knock me up when I was twelve, and presumably every nine months thereafter as well?

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is bothering me. Why is it that the same people who view the 3,000-some-odd servicemen dead in Iraq as a moral travesty of titanic proportions, yet when they hear about thousands of babies aborted (killed) they think of it as the pinnacle of human greatness? (I'm only exaggerating a little bit, and if anyone can find exact numbers, I'd appreciate it.) I don't understand. How is it worse when somebody, who is willing to die for the cause, dies than when a completely innocent is killed for, sometimes, no better reason than the fact that the child would be an inconvenience to the mother? Don't get me wrong, not every abortion is like that, but you can't honestly say that they're all done out of necessity (i.e. saving the mother's life).

Does anybody understand why that is?

Comments/discussion appreciated.

Two out of every three fertilised eggs are rejected by the womb and so are 'terminated' naturally. This means that, even if every pregnancy ended in an abortion, abortion would still only account for one third of ended pregnancies.

Besides, foetuses are easier to barbecue.

Yes.

Of course, I also deny a potential human the right to live each time I menstruate. I've been denying a poor little egg the right to live every month since I was twelve years old. Perhaps you think it would have been more moral for me to find someone to knock me up when I was twelve, and presumably every nine months thereafter as well?

The child hasn't been concieved yet, so no.

I await your explination as to why you think I'm being dishonest.

Well, first of all, there's the presumption in your statement that a person in favor of choice is necessarily in favor of abortion. Fact is, a person can be personally opposed to abortion and still recognize that an individual's right to control her body outweighs his or her distaste for abortion as a practice. Secondly, there's no real connection between being a supporter of choice and an opponent of the Iraq War.

The child hasn't been concieved yet, so no.

And what about those eggs which are fertilized but fail to implant--are you saying we should go to extraordinary efforts to save them too? Good luck with that.

Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution if I'm not mistaken.

Rights only extend to living people. Not masses of tissue with no brain function. The braindead can't vote, own property, and isn't entitled to equal protection under the law. A fetus is the equivalent of a braindead person. Abortion is just pulling the plug.

Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly like the idea of abortion. It's not nice seeing innocent beings, sometimes very similar to new born babies (depending on how far on the pregnancy is) having to be killed in sometimes a very savage manner. And I don't like the way dcd just dismisses them as "inanimate objects" either.

I'm still pro choice though.

The child hasn't been concieved yet, so no.

What's so special about conception? Is that when you think a "soul" enters the thing?

The child hasn't been concieved yet, so no.

Oh. I thought you quite specifically said "whenever you believe life begins." It seems what you meant was "provided you agree with me that life begins at conception."

Well, first of all, there's the presumption in your statement that a person in favor of choice is necessarily in favor of abortion. Fact is, a person can be personally opposed to abortion and still recognize that an individual's right to control her body outweighs his or her distaste for abortion as a practice. Secondly, there's no real connection between being a supporter of choice and an opponent of the Iraq War.

ah, but consider the op's question.
Maybe I'm missing something, but this is bothering me. Why is it that the same people who view the 3,000-some-odd servicemen dead in Iraq as a moral travesty of titanic proportions, yet when they hear about thousands of babies aborted (killed) they think of it as the pinnacle of human greatness? (I'm only exaggerating a little bit, and if anyone can find exact numbers, I'd appreciate it.) I don't understand. How is it worse when somebody, who is willing to die for the cause, dies than when a completely innocent is killed for, sometimes, no better reason than the fact that the child would be an inconvenience to the mother? Don't get me wrong, not every abortion is like that, but you can't honestly say that they're all done out of necessity (i.e. saving the mother's life).

Does anybody understand why that is?

Comments/discussion appreciated.

now I know the OP is not saying that all who are against the Iraq War are FOR abortion, the OP is focusing on those who feel that way.

The same if the OP reversed it... say... "How can people fight against the murder of babies (common argument of those against abortion) yet support a war that has caused so much death and grief."

and my answer would reverse, but still be basically the same. "because those people support the war but are against abortion."

People will rationalize what they support but argue against what they are against. even if the results (in this case, being a large number of lives and life potentials being snuffed out.) are basically the same for both issues.

just like why is everyone saying Global warming is bad, yet how many of those drive SUV's or non hybrid cars. it can be rationalized so many ways because that is how a human thinks.

Two out of every three fertilised eggs are rejected by the womb and so are 'terminated' naturally. This means that, even if every pregnancy ended in an abortion, abortion would still only account for one third of ended pregnancies.

That may be true, but why would one want to?

Besides, foetuses are easier to barbecue.[/QUOTE]

:eek:

I remember Meanstoanend actually making that argument not so very long ago. :p

I believe his exact words may have been something along the lines of "Abortionists support the islamofascists".

He loved to throw that words around.

That is all.

ah, but consider the op's question.


now I know the OP is not saying that all who are against the Iraq War are FOR abortion, the OP is focusing on those who feel that way.

The same if the OP reversed it... say... "How can people fight against the murder of babies (common argument of those against abortion) yet support a war that has caused so much death and grief."

and my answer would reverse, but still be basically the same. "because those people support the war but are against abortion."

People will rationalize what they support but argue against what they are against. even if the results (in this case, being a large number of lives and life potentials being snuffed out.) are basically the same for both issues.

just like why is everyone saying Global warming is bad, yet how many of those drive SUV's or non hybrid cars. it can be rationalized so many ways because that is how a human thinks.And yet you sidestepped the most blatant dishonesty of all, which is the inference that a person who is pro-choice is pro-abortion. How convenient for you.

The child hasn't been concieved yet, so no.

Don't worry Poli, you can keep menstruating. ;)

Because aborted fetii make a great stew.

The plural of fetus is not "fetii". In Latin, the plural of "fetus" is "fetus" with a long "u". English sometimes uses an incorrect, pseudo-Latin plural in the form of "feti", but never "fetii" since the word is not "fetius".

That may be true, but why would one want to?

Besides, foetuses are easier to barbecue.

:eek:[/QUOTE]

Rape, incest, various socio-economic problems that would arise, leading to a child that would be treated as unwanted throughout it's life, thus causing any number of social defects and problems.

Etc, and so forth.

And yet you sidestepped the most blatant dishonesty of all, which is the inference that a person who is pro-choice is pro-abortion. How convenient for you.

I didn't, the OP did.

the OP didn't bring up that person. so please correct your aim and place blame on the correct person.

That may be true, but why would one want to?

I never said they would, but it knocks a hole in the 'potential for life' argument. A fertilised egg is almost certainly going to fail to implant in the womb, or be rejected by the mother's body, or miscarry long before it develops brain activity.

Thank goodness. I mean, it's just so much fun! :p

So I've heard. Lucky women......

You think anything that's not a self aware human being is an inanimate object?

I believe this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animalia) should help you with the apparently enormous gap in your education... :D

Not anything. A cow, for example, isn't an inanimate object, but it doesn't get a trial before slaughter and if you kill one you're not charged with murder. And don't try to insult my intelligence. I do that just fine on my own.

Don't worry Poli, you can keep menstruating. ;)

Thank goodness. I mean, it's just so much fun! :p

Yes. Even a rapist and murderer get a trial and a last meal before execution. Inanimate objects don't.

You think anything that's not a self aware human being is an inanimate object?

I believe this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animalia) should help you with the apparently enormous gap in your education... :D

I didn't, the OP did.

the OP didn't bring up that person. so please correct your aim and place blame on the correct person.

Nope--your words, not his (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12365450&postcount=6).
because they are FOR abortion but against the Iraq war.
That's what I quoted and replied to. Now, if you don't actually believe that, fine. Say so. But my comment was always directed at your statement.

Rape, incest, various socio-economic problems that would arise, leading to a child that would be treated as unwanted throughout it's life, thus causing any number of social defects and problems.

Etc, and so forth.

QFT. Steven Levitt recently demonstrated that legalised abortion leads to a significant drop in crime rates, including violent crime.

QFT. Steven Levitt recently demonstrated that legalised abortion leads to a significant drop in crime rates, including violent crime.

Pretty simple really. More abortion=>less people=>less criminals=>less crime.

Pretty simple really. More abortion=>less people=>less criminals=>less crime.

Really? I thought it worked like this:

1. Abortion
2. ???
3. Profit!!!

Nope--your words, not his (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12365450&postcount=6).
That's what I quoted and replied to. Now, if you don't actually believe that, fine. Say so. But my comment was always directed at your statement.

yes, and my comment answered the OP's question. I never said I believed it or not. that was YOUR ASSUMPTION.

now please show me where in the original post does it make any attempt to include those who don't find the killing of babies (or fetuses) through abortion the "Pinnical of Human Greatness"

the OP makes those people sound like bloodthirsty curs. yet you turn your attention on me, for a statement that 1) answers the op's question, and 2) never states my belief and stance on both the Iraq War and Abortion.

and you call me "dishonest" as you yourself prove my point about the mind rationalizing things to suit the individual person. :rolleyes:

and again, my statement answers the question the OP asks.

Really? I thought it worked like this:

1. Abortion
2. ???
3. Profit!!!

Yeah, your model looks a lot more feasable.

Not anything. A cow, for example, isn't an inanimate object, but it doesn't get a trial before slaughter and if you kill one you're not charged with murder.
I wasn't talking about rights, I was talking about respect.

A cow gives us beef and dairy products, and a bunch of other things... like leather, I guess. Whereas the aforementioned person rapes and murders children.

Why is the cow deserving of less respect?

And don't try to insult my intelligence.
I didn't have to try.

I do that just fine on my own.
I noticed. :D
(I'm just kidding)

I wasn't talking about rights, I was talking about respect.

A cow gives us beef and dairy products, and a bunch of other things... like leather, I guess. Whereas the aforementioned person rapes and murders children.

Why is the cow deserving of less respect?

How do you know the cow wouldn't rape and kill everyone you love?

How do you know the cow wouldn't rape and kill everyone you love?

didn't you know... Cows are guilty of producing a green house gas called Methane... they have to be stopped!

How do you know the cow wouldn't rape and kill everyone you love?

Ask something less stupid!
http://www.kartelle.com/actors/futurama/farnsworth/poster/Farnsworth01b.gif

didn't you know... Cows are guilty of producing a green house gas called Methane... they have to be stopped!
:eek:
We must destroy them all!
Ask something less stupid!
http://www.kartelle.com/actors/futurama/farnsworth/poster/Farnsworth01b.gif

Why don't the gun smileys ever have to reload?

I wasn't talking about rights, I was talking about respect.

A cow gives us beef and dairy products, and a bunch of other things... like leather, I guess. Whereas the aforementioned person rapes and murders children.

Why is the cow deserving of less respect?


I didn't have to try.


I noticed. :D
(I'm just kidding)

Respect is determined by each individual. I may respect someone you think is shit. I don't respect or disrespect cows. They're property. They're food and leather on the hoof. I respect them no more than I respect a rock or a doorknob. Why? Because they don't create tools or art. They have no ability to communicate ideas, if they even have ideas to begin with. Even a serial killer/rapist like John Wayne Gacy was able to produce art, which I respect. He had some value as a creative individual rather than as a lump of meat.

Maybe this will help clear things up (but probably not):

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/magazine/18LIVES.html?ei=5090&en=f4176027eece64e3&ex=1247889600&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all

It's people like her, who reduce an issue as complex and divisive like this into a matter of personal convenience that get to me most. I don't know if she supports the Iraq War (I doubt it, though), but I don't think that's too important.

But we don't eat people.
We... don't? Uh-oh...

Uhm...

Why didn't anyone tell me?!?

What's next? Smoking is bad? :p

Why don't the gun smileys ever have to reload?
Rambo syndrome.

Maybe this will help clear things up (but probably not):

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/magazine/18LIVES.html?ei=5090&en=f4176027eece64e3&ex=1247889600&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all

It's people like her, who reduce an issue as complex and divisive like this into a matter of personal convenience that get to me most. I don't know if she supports the Iraq War (I doubt it, though), but I don't think that's too important.

The fact that you see altering one's entire life to carry and raise triplets as an "inconvenience" makes it hard to take you very seriously.

Why don't the gun smileys ever have to reload?
That's a very good question. Huh. I'll have to get back to you on that.
Respect is determined by each individual. I may respect someone you think is shit. I don't respect or disrespect cows. They're property. They're food and leather on the hoof. I respect them no more than I respect a rock or a doorknob. Why? Because they don't create tools or art. They have no ability to communicate ideas, if they even have ideas to begin with. Even a serial killer/rapist like John Wayne Gacy was able to produce art, which I respect. He had some value as a creative individual rather than as a lump of meat.
Cows don't make tools or art, but they don't make war or pollution, either (if anyone says "what about the methane?:eek:", I'll shoot them).
Furthermore, perhaps cows can, in fact, create art, but humans cannot perceive it, or recognize it as art. (I understand that this is far-fetched, but anything is possible *shrug*)
And, why are we limiting this to cows? Gorillas are capable of making both simple tools and art (if you can consider language an art. I find languages to be very beautiful and, therefore, I do consider them to be a form of art). Why is a gorilla deserving of less respect, simply because it is not a self-aware human being?

Maybe this will help clear things up (but probably not):

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/magazine/18LIVES.html?ei=5090&en=f4176027eece64e3&ex=1247889600&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all

It's people like her, who reduce an issue as complex and divisive like this into a matter of personal convenience that get to me most. I don't know if she supports the Iraq War (I doubt it, though), but I don't think that's too important.

You know what? If I was suddenly faced with the prospect of taking care of three kids on what I make now I think I'd want at least two of them aborted. It's not an inconvenience. An inconvenience is trying to find a parking space at the mall around Christmas time. This is a fucking major life-changing burden.

The fact that you see altering one's entire life to carry and raise triplets as an "inconvenience" makes it hard to take you very seriously.

Oh? There are a lot of women who gave up much more than a college lecture circuit to have kids.

And besides, there are far worse fates.

I also have trouble taking her seriously, because of this part:

...[N]ow I'm going to have to move to Staten Island. I'll never leave my house because I'll have to care for these children. I'll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise.

Oh, the humanity!

<racism snip>

Yay random racism.

That's a very good question. Huh. I'll have to get back to you on that.

Cows don't make tools or art, but they don't make war or pollution, either (if anyone says "what about the methane?:eek:", I'll shoot them).
Furthermore, perhaps cows can, in fact, create art, but humans cannot perceive it, or recognize it as art. (I understand that this is far-fetched, but anything is possible *shrug*)
And, why are we limiting this to cows? Gorillas are capable of making both simple tools and art (if you can consider language an art. I find languages to be very beautiful and, therefore, I do consider them to be a form of art). Why is a gorilla deserving of less respect, simply because it is not a self-aware human being?
I accord a gorilla, and all the great apes, some respect because of their ability to think and create. In fact, the recent discovery of chimps making spears to hunt small animals has got me thinking about wheather or not nearly full human rights should be extended to them.

Because abortion isn't murder.

Depends on your viewpoint.

I accord a gorilla, and all the great apes, some respect because of their ability to think and create. In fact, the recent discovery of chimps making spears to hunt small animals has got me thinking about wheather or not nearly full human rights should be extended to them.

I say better to do it now than have them rebel against us later.

All Italians are fit only to live in the squalor of a pig pen.

But then where will your mom live?

How do you know the cow wouldn't rape and kill everyone you love?

I don't know about cows, but pigs will do the murder part whenever they get the chance.

wow, you think being Italian is a race? Did you grow up in Brooklyn or something? its a nationalist thing, not racist. Fool.

Italians are the master race that civilized the Northern European barbarians.

But whereever you believe life begins, you're still denying it the right to live.

*yawn* If it doesn't even have brainwaves, it isn't alive, so it has no rights...

All Italians are fit only to live in the squalor of a pig pen.

Reported.

Yay random racism.

wow, you think being Italian is a race? Did you grow up in Brooklyn or something? its a nationalist thing, not racist. Fool.

Reported.

So its ok to bash the hell out of someones religion.... its ok to make continual abortion jokes that are absolutley discusting and you know offend people, but when someone says Italians belong in squalor is OMFG! OH NOES! REPORT HIM OMG! wow... why don't you grow up.

wow, you think being Italian is a race? Did you grow up in Brooklyn or something? its a nationalist thing, not racist. Fool.

It can be seen as racist. However, "bigoted" is bit better.

As an aside, "race" is merely a cultural contruction, with different cultures viewing races differently than others. For instance, some parts of South America consider blonde-haired people as a wholy seperate race than brunettes.

But whereever you believe life begins, you're still denying it the right to live.

Are you saying potential life has rights?
Menstruation is murder?

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is bothering me. Why is it that the same people who view the 3,000-some-odd servicemen dead in Iraq as a moral travesty of titanic proportions, yet when they hear about thousands of babies aborted (killed) they think of it as the pinnacle of human greatness? (I'm only exaggerating a little bit, and if anyone can find exact numbers, I'd appreciate it.) I don't understand. How is it worse when somebody, who is willing to die for the cause, dies than when a completely innocent is killed for, sometimes, no better reason than the fact that the child would be an inconvenience to the mother? Don't get me wrong, not every abortion is like that, but you can't honestly say that they're all done out of necessity (i.e. saving the mother's life).

Does anybody understand why that is?

Comments/discussion appreciated.

An aborted fetus is not yet a life.

So its ok to bash the hell out of someones religion.... its ok to make continual abortion jokes that are absolutley discusting and you know offend people, but when someone says Italians belong in squalor is OMFG! OH NOES! REPORT HIM OMG! wow... why don't you grow up.

Difference-When saying something with the sole intention of offending people is a far different story. And often times, those are reported as well, depending on context.

wow, you think being Italian is a race? Did you grow up in Brooklyn or something? its a nationalist thing, not racist. Fool.
Forgive my error, oh wise one. A bit of advice: continued flames will get you nowhere.

Italians are the master race that civilized the Northern European barbarians.

Yeah, but back then they were Romans, they were so much cooler....

Oh? There are a lot of women who gave up much more than a college lecture circuit to have kids.

Indeed, and it's very nice that they chose to do so. I'm sure, though, that many of them would be rather offended if you informed them that having to drastically alter their lives to have children was merely an "inconvenience."

And besides, there are far worse fates.

Also true. Of course, the fact that there are situations more difficult than suddenly being faced with raising three children hardly changes that into a mere "inconvenience." In much the same way, the fact that murder is a much more serious crime than rape does not make rape an "inconvenience."

It can be seen as racist. However, "bigoted" is bit better.

As an aside, "race" is merely a cultural contruction, with different cultures viewing races differently than others. For instance, some parts of South America consider blonde-haired people as a wholy seperate race than brunettes.

Ok dude, just breath and chill, I really don't care about Italians, its more I just wanted to see if saying something completley absurd would make people tweak out more than the abortion/fetus jokes. Sadly enough... it did. And FYI that is a quote from Napoleon.

thousands of babies aborted (killed)

Your question is already flawed in its premises (maybe, a bit instrumentally on your part). Anyway, I'm giving just this answer, and only once.

What is aborted, is a foetus (or an embryo in the first weeks). Not a baby. Ergo, not a human being.

A baby is a young human being: it is capable of living OUTSIDE the womb. A foetus isn't capable of living outside the womb - it uses the pregnant woman's resources and dies if disconnected; hence, the foetus an appendage of her body. (As for embryos, an embryo doesn't even have a BRAIN!)

The foetus isn't a complete, actual human being. The pregnant woman is an actual human being, the foetus is just a human in potentia. Thus, the woman's will is more important than the existance of the potential human. Women aren't kid-making machines: they are human beings, free-willed, in full ownership of their bodies.

Why are so many pro-lifers pro-death penilty?

Forgive my error, oh wise one. A bit of advice: continued flames will get you nowhere.

oooooooook.........I'm not flaming, the abortion jokes are flaming...yet this 200+ year old insult gets people's blood boiling more than a pile of dead babies? this forum is sad.

So its ok to bash the hell out of someones religion....
Bash someone's religion? You mean something like
Come on, eat, you know you want to. mmmmmmmmmmmmmm food. You must feel so hungry by now.... the food is good....*swallows egg roll* ;)
or
God is a Divine Rapist...

Strange. I wonder who said those things? I probably should add them to my post in the Moderation thread...

its ok to make continual abortion jokes that are absolutley discusting and you know offend people,
Emphasis on "jokes". Dead baby jokes are the lifeblood of NSG.

but when someone says Italians belong in squalor is OMFG! OH NOES! REPORT HIM OMG! wow...
...yep... that's exactly what happened. *nod* I even started screaming like that. *nod*
why don't you grow up.
Done. Your turn. :)

oooooooook.........I'm not flaming, the abortion jokes are flaming...yet this 200+ year old insult gets people's blood boiling more than a pile of dead babies? this forum is sad.

The abortion jokes aren't flaming. Flaming is generally considered to be insulting another poster/s. And anyway, if you have a problem with the abortion jokes then make a thread in Moderation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231) and tell the mods about it, don't make bigotted remarks and flame people to try and make a point.

Bash someone's religion? You mean something like

or


Strange. I wonder who said those things? I probably should add them to my post in the Moderation thread...


Emphasis on "jokes". Dead baby jokes are the lifeblood of NSG.


...yep... that's exactly what happened. *nod* I even started screaming like that. *nod*

Done. Your turn. :)


wow, way to take things out of context dude, the first thing, about eating, *i really was eating an eggroll btw* and how the hell is that offensive in anyway????? huh?

And do what if I said god is a divine rapist. If you read my post correctly it would make more sense to you. I said that to help disporve the idea of hell. I didn't say to flame or piss people off. I said that to logical put it in someones head that, wait, a benovlent being wouldn't do that to people...

and what does it make you feel big when you pick on someone in forum room? really, this is sad. why dont you relax and let people do there thing.

While I did delete TotalDomination69's post for trolling, after reading the thread more fully, he does make a good point. There are some other posts in this thread regarding dead soldiers making not such great hamburger and foetuses being better barbecued. Those are pretty trollish as well.

I suggest that both TotalDomination69 and those he made an ill-advised attempt to poke fun at try debating instead of making low-content incendiary posts.

Emphasis on "jokes". Dead baby jokes are the lifeblood of NSG.

Dead baby jokes are and have been against the rules.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

The abortion jokes aren't flaming. Flaming is generally considered to be insulting another poster/s. And anyway, if you have a problem with the abortion jokes then make a thread in Moderation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231) and tell the mods about it, don't make bigotted remarks and flame people to try and make a point.

Thats what half the people on this sever do! look at it!!!! half the posts on the NSG forum are done in this way. Excuse me whenevery oneelse acts the same way....

Depends on your viewpoint.

Depends also on the legal definition of murder.

Uh huh.

Anyways, here's the moderation thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519054
if anyone wants to make any comments or Mr. TotalDomination69 wants to defend himself.

Thats what half the people on this sever do! look at it!!!! half the posts on the NSG forum are done in this way. Excuse me whenevery oneelse acts the same way....

Usually, when a joke is ill recieved, the poster does say something along the lines of "Sorry, joking." or "I/you fail at humor" or some other post to indicate that the mis-understood post was supposed to be humorous. not defend the post.

Depends on your viewpoint.

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being. Abortion is legal. Ergo, it cannot be murder. (Also, most definitions of being would exclude all embryos and all fetuses younger than 22 weeks.)

While I did delete TotalDomination69's post for trolling, after reading the thread more fully, he does make a good point. There are some other posts in this thread regarding dead soldiers making not such great hamburger and foetuses being better barbecued. Those are pretty trollish as well.

I suggest that both TotalDomination69 and those he made an ill-advised attempt to poke fun at try debating instead of making low-content incendiary posts.




Dead baby jokes are and have been against the rules.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Alight, I agree fully with that. Thank you.

Reported.
I don't believe you're supposed to say that you reported a post - just do so and be quiet about it.
this forum is sad.
Nobody forced you to be here. It was your choice to join, I take it, and it can also be your choice to leave if you don't like it.
While you are here, though, it's better to play according to the rules.
Just my 2 cents.
And anyway, if you have a problem with the abortion jokes then make a thread in Moderation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231) and tell the mods about it, don't make bigotted remarks and flame people to try and make a point.
And then there's always the possibility to simply ignore what you don't like or what makes you say things you might later regret. :D

Dead baby jokes are and have been against the rules.

I know. I was kidding.

...is there an actual clause in the stickies that says "thou shalt not make dead baby jokes", or does it just fall under trolling? I'm just curious...

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being. Abortion is legal. Ergo, it cannot be murder. (Also, most definitions of being would exclude all embryos and all fetuses younger than 22 weeks.)
I thought it was 24 weeks?

Uh huh.

Anyways, here's the moderation thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519054
if anyone wants to make any comments or Mr. TotalDomination69 wants to defend himself.

Why? You've had two moderators in the thread already: HotRodia and myself. HotRodia made a ruling -- unless there's anything more, what's to comment on?

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is bothering me. Why is it that the same people who view the 3,000-some-odd servicemen dead in Iraq as a moral travesty of titanic proportions, yet when they hear about thousands of babies aborted (killed) they think of it as the pinnacle of human greatness? (I'm only exaggerating a little bit, and if anyone can find exact numbers, I'd appreciate it.) I don't understand. How is it worse when somebody, who is willing to die for the cause, dies than when a completely innocent is killed for, sometimes, no better reason than the fact that the child would be an inconvenience to the mother? Don't get me wrong, not every abortion is like that, but you can't honestly say that they're all done out of necessity (i.e. saving the mother's life).

Does anybody understand why that is?

Comments/discussion appreciated.

hmmm lets see?

why are people concerned about abortion but support the death penalty knowing that it is inevitable that innocents will be exectued?

why are people concerned about our soldiers dying in iraq but not about iraqi soldiers dying?

why are people concerned about abortion but not concerned about iraqi children dying in the war?

why are people concerned about our soldiers dying in the war but not about african aids orphans?

why are people concerned about abortion but not about malaria?

why are people concerned about our soldiers dying in iraq but not about infant mortality in palestine being exacerbated by sanctions?

why are people concerned about abortion but not about girls being forced into prostitution in thailand?

when you can answer those questions, you will be able to answer your own.

well that was a blast. back to the topic.....

I thought it was 24 weeks?

I can never remember.

The idea behind it is that soldiers are actual people, and fetuses you know, aren't. That said I don't agree with abortions and I think we would be better off without it.

. Women aren't kid-making machines:

eh..actually..that would be why we have reproductive organs. To make babies.

The sole purpose (most believe) of animal life is to procreate.

Humans just evolved to a higher thinking power (along with technology) to make the choice of whether or not we want to extend our line.

I can never remember.

one wonders tho. as medical science gets better, and the survival rates improve (the child 'born' 22 wks early for example) would the definition be pushed back?

what happens when the artificial womb is created? would abortion then be changed to become illegal? (assuming the fertile egg will be safely removed and placed in the artifical womb.)

Why? You've had two moderators in the thread already: HotRodia and myself. HotRodia made a ruling -- unless there's anything more, what's to comment on?

Uh, accident.
I started writing the above post before HotRodia posted.

Women aren't kid-making machines: they are human beings, free-willed, in full ownership of their bodies.
well, they can make a baby better than us men. :p

:eek:

Damnit... I promised myself NOT to think about where the child would emerge from should a man get pregnant!!!

:headbang:

:D :D :D

eh..actually..that would be why we have reproductive organs. To make babies.

The sole purpose (most believe) of animal life is to procreate.

Humans just evolved to a higher thinking power (along with technology) to make the choice of whether or not we want to extend our line.

Yeah, i'd wrong to say that women are, because men are too, humanities sole goal is to reproduce and expand. I'd say about 90% of evertying we do in everyday life and otherwise can be traced back to the need to reproduce.

I don't believe you're supposed to say that you reported a post - just do so and be quiet about it.

Oh. I'm terrible at this. :(:):D:eek:

I thought it was 24 weeks?

Whoa. (http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm)

Way later than either of us said. Brain activity begins at 20 weeks, and becomes sustained at 22 weeks, but syncronized activity doesn't occur until 26 to 27 weeks, apparently.

Whoa. (http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm)

Way later than either of us said. Brain activity begins at 20 weeks, and becomes sustained at 22 weeks, but syncronized activity doesn't occur until 26 to 27 weeks, apparently.

woah... intersting article! :eek:

oooooooook.........I'm not flaming, the abortion jokes are flaming...yet this 200+ year old insult gets people's blood boiling more than a pile of dead babies? this forum is sad.

Abortion jokes are not flaming. Flaming is insulting people. Abortion jokes are not insults. You fail at internet.

Abortion jokes are not flaming. Flaming is insulting people. Abortion jokes are not insults. You fail at internet.

LOL! I'm gonna sig this.

hmmm lets see?
[...]
when you can answer those questions, you will be able to answer your own.

That's the second time today you've come up with something I 100% agree with. I'd worry if I were you - most people consider me more than a little bit crazy.

That's the second time today you've come up with something I 100% agree with. I'd worry if I were you - most people consider me more than a little bit crazy.

dammit!

ill try to do better in the future.

That's the second time today you've come up with something I 100% agree with. I'd worry if I were you - most people consider me more than a little bit crazy.

which may mean you're becoming... *gasp* SANE! :eek:

when you can answer those questions, you will be able to answer your own.

What if we are concerned about those things? I want to fight all of them, from abortion after the first trimester to war to child slavery and all of the other problems that plague our world.

Death is a disease that needs to be cured.

which may mean you're becoming... *gasp* SANE! :eek:

Nah, not me. You must be confusing me with some other person who steals biscuits from armed police officers (last summer) nails computers to walls (sometime in 2005) and uses a kitchen as a motorbike workshop (most days).

What if we are concerned about those things? I want to fight all of them, from abortion after the first trimester to war to child slavery and all of the other problems that plague our world.

Death is a disease that needs to be cured.

death cannot be cured.

but the point of my questions was not to make the asker feel hypocritical but to highlight the problem with his specific question which was how can one be concerned about american deaths in iraq but not concerned about abortion.

the truth is that the world is full of horrors. there is nothing special about abortion that anyone should automatically be more concerned about that than any of the other problems of the world. there is nothing more horrifying about military deaths in iraq than malarial deaths in africa.

there are some things you feel more personally, identify with perhaps or feel that you have a better chance of doing something about. you work on what is most important to you for whatever reason.

Nah, not me. You must be confusing me with some other person who steals biscuits from armed police officers (last summer) nails computers to walls (sometime in 2005) and uses a kitchen as a motorbike workshop (most days).

gee... that removes about 12% of the people I know. :rolleyes:

unless you also include Laptops, game consols and microwaves... then they're back in. :D

Death is a disease that needs to be cured.

Which means that you either want all life to suffer and die horribly, or you want all sex to cease to exist.

Here's something that's often puzzled me: why is it that the people who are vehemently anti-abortion are often the very same people who are vehemently pro-capital punishment? :confused:

How is it worse when somebody, who is willing to die for the cause, dies than when a completely innocent is killed for, sometimes, no better reason than the fact that the child would be an inconvenience to the mother? Obviously because the adult who dies for a cause has more to lose: history, relationships, memories, accomplishments, lovers, partners, contributions to society... the list goes on.

gee... that removes about 12% of the people I know. :rolleyes:
unless you also include Laptops, game consols and microwaves... then they're back in. :D

Ah, possibly you thought I meant 'put computers on shelves'. I really meant: 'take the circuits from a load of computers other people have thrown away, attach them to a plywood board using carpet tacks and elastic bands, nail the whole lot to the wall and switch it on.'
It has now expanded into a 3-computer network, with many useless extra bits wired in just because they look good. LEDs that flicker randomly, old hard drives with the covers taken off so you can see them spinning, that sort of thing.

Much to my surprise, most IT people hate it. It upsets them very much indeed.

Or did you mean that 88 per cent of your friends steal things from armed policemen? Your mates kick ass!

Here's something that's often puzzled me: why is it that the people who are vehemently anti-abortion are often the very same people who are vehemently pro-capital punishment? :confused:If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably to do with belief in souls. At least that's the impression I always get.
At the very least, it makes some peoples belief that denying an under developed fetus the opportunity to develop, is the same as killing a sentient human being, somewhat comprehensible.

But whereever you believe life begins, you're still denying it the right to live.
Have you ever had a wank? if so, by your definition, you are a murderer. That was a potential life you put in that hanky.
I assumed you are a man, but just in case you are a woman. Every time you have a period, you are flushing away a potential life. Why did you let that egg die? Why didn't you have a one night stand and get pregnant? Why? Murderer!

Poliwanacraca pretty much said the same thing earlier. I skim read the thread initially and missed it. Oh well. The point is such a good one, I'll raise it again.

But whereever you believe life begins, you're still denying it the right to live.

By that logic, every sperm is sacred. When you masturbate and flush your tissues or whatever you use down the toilet you are denying those sperm the right to live. You murdering bastard!

Ah, possibly you thought I meant 'put computers on shelves'. I really meant: 'take the circuits from a load of computers other people have thrown away, attach them to a plywood board using carpet tacks and elastic bands, nail the whole lot to the wall and switch it on.'
It has now expanded into a 3-computer network, with many useless extra bits wired in just because they look good. LEDs that flicker randomly, old hard drives with the covers taken off so you can see them spinning, that sort of thing.

Much to my surprise, most IT people hate it. It upsets them very much indeed.


we need a picture of this.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is bothering me. Why is it that the same people who view the 3,000-some-odd servicemen dead in Iraq as a moral travesty of titanic proportions, yet when they hear about thousands of babies aborted (killed) they think of it as the pinnacle of human greatness? (I'm only exaggerating a little bit, and if anyone can find exact numbers, I'd appreciate it.) I don't understand. How is it worse when somebody, who is willing to die for the cause, dies than when a completely innocent is killed for, sometimes, no better reason than the fact that the child would be an inconvenience to the mother? Don't get me wrong, not every abortion is like that, but you can't honestly say that they're all done out of necessity (i.e. saving the mother's life).

Does anybody understand why that is?

Comments/discussion appreciated.

According to Wikipedia the "exact numbers" are 46 million yearly. But from the viewpoint of someone who does not believe in the soul, abortion isn't about killing people it's about preventing people from coming to life. The idea being that something that has no perception and no capacity to think is not yet alive. Which makes a minor difference morally and a huge difference practically.

Babies are never aborted. Fetuses are.

NO they aren't.

Pregnancies are aborted, not fetuses.

I have posted already in two threads my theory that nobody really believes a fetus to be a person, and devised a hypothetical to deal with it. To date, I have not received a satasfactory response:

no, not even the "no abortions, no in vetro firtilization, no planned killing of an embryo EVER" people do not really, TRULY believe that an embryo is a human being. The results, as I said, would make you a monster.

Imagine, you are walking late and night and you come across a fertility clinic ablaze. You being the brave soul you are, rush in. FOrtunatly it is night time and the clinic is entirely empty, save for Bob, the Janitor. Bob is currently passed out near the door, and will likely die soon to the fire and smoke.

You think you can reach Bob, grab him, and make it to the front door, both alive. You are actually virtually positive, and believe that you would have a 80% chance of success at getting out alive the two of you. Unfortunatly that means you also have a 20% chance of dying.

You can also simply turn around and walk out, an activity that will with 100% certainty, spare your life. It will, unfortunatly, with equal 100% certainty, kill Bob the Janitor.

So you can run, and assure your survival, and bob will Perish. Or you can attempt a rescue, and risk the 20% chance that both of you will die.

But lo, what is this? You notice a cooler next to bob, with a sign that reads "one fertilized human embryo inside". Let's say, if you decided, you could grab the cooler and run. You'd make it out with 90% certainty. But if you attempt to rescue the cooler, and bob, all 3 of you will perish.

Now you have a third choice, save yourself with 100% certainty, save bob with 80% certainty, or save the cooler with 90% certainty.

Anyone on this board will give one of two answers, some will opt to attempt to save bob, and the more risk averse will chose their own life.

Nobody, ABSOLUTLY NOBODY will say "I will attempt to save the cooler". Nobody would. Either they'd risk their lives to save another living, breathing human being in Bob the janitor, or they would run, and assure their own life.

However, if you believed, if you TRULY BELIEVED that the fertilized egg sitting in that cooler was a human life, the same as you, and me, and bob, then you would be morally bound to rescue the cooler, and not bob. Anyone who actually, TRULY believed that this embryo was a life, would eitehr save themselves, or, given better odds, would save the cooler over bob. If you actually believed that the cooler contained human life you would chose to save the cooler and not bob, based purely on the odds.

Which is where the flaw comes, nobody would do it. They'd either save themselves, OR attempt a rescue of bob. Some would risk death to save another human being. Nobody, NOBODY would risk death to save a cooler. But for those who believe an embryo is human life, saving Bob and saving the embryo are one and the same, and one should save the cooler, not Bob, because the egg in the cooler is more likely to survive.

Now some would admit "ok, so maybe the embryo isn't FULLY human, but it's 'human like', somewhat 'fractional' human." So fine, let's change the hypothetical a bit. Let's So instead of one embryo in that cooler, instead the sticker read 2. Or 10. Or 10,000. Or a million. Or 10 million (embryo's are small, after all). But now it holds 10 million, so it has to be rather bigger. Now the odds of you getting out alive with that cooler are 80/20. Exactly the same odds as trying to rescue Bob the Janitor.

If that cooler contained 10 million tiny frozen embryos, then, according to the belief, that cooler contains TEN MILLION HUMAN LIVES. How many people here if given the answer would risk a 80/20 split on their own life if it meant saving TEN MILLION PEOPLE. How many people would take the bet on their life if success meant saving as many people as the holocaust killed?

Would anyone refuse, really? Would anyone here not be willing to take a 1 in 5 chance of death if success meant saving 10 MILLION lives? I'd take that bet, and I suspect most would too.

Would anyone risk their lives for that cooler? Would anyone forsake the unconcious bob for that cooler? According to the belief that cooler contains 10 MILLION human lives, ten million. To chose one, or two lives, over 10 million is barbaric, so the implication of that belief is that you MUST save the cooler.

Would anyone do it? Anyone? Would anyone risk the 20% chance of excuciating death and leave a helpless man to die for a cooler of frozen embryos? If you TRULY believed that an embryo is a human life, then that cooler contains TEN MILLION human lives. The result of that belief is that Bob the Janitor dies in that fire, because who among us would chose the life of one stranger, over the life of 10 million strangers? The belief that those embryos constitute 10 million human lives would compell you to leave Bob for death and save the cooler. And nobody, NOBODY would do it. As I said, the moral implications of such a stance would make you a monster.

And since not even the most die hard anti abortion fanatics would sacrifice bob to save one, or 10, or 10,000 or 10 million little tiny frozen embryos, the implication is they are not willing to lose one person to save 10 million. So either your belief turns you into a monster, or you don't REALLY believe it.

I have posted already in two threads my theory that nobody really believes a fetus to be a person, and devised a hypothetical to deal with it. To date, I have not received a satasfactory response:

im very surprised that no one has claimed to you that they would save the frozen embryos. not that i think they would but im surprised that no one would claim that they would or that someone might delude themselves into thinking it.

I have posted already in two threads my theory that nobody really believes a fetus to be a person, and devised a hypothetical to deal with it. To date, I have not received a satasfactory response:

I remember this. Bob is the only one I'd perceive as needing to be saved. I won't be paying attention to inaminate objects (like the cooler) while running inside a burning building to save Bob the Janitor.

Hmmm, I think Arthais has found the 'abortion thread killer'. He should patent it and sell it in spray form.

I have posted already in two threads my theory that nobody really believes a fetus to be a person, and devised a hypothetical to deal with it. To date, I have not received a satasfactory response:

Those 10 million embryos would never be implanted into women to grow into full humans anyway, Bob is already born with a family who will miss him, something no one can claim the cluster of cells have.

Those 10 million embryos would never be implanted into women to grow into full humans anyway,

To argue this is to admit that the embryos are not human lives. The exact counter to what the pro life crowd claims, that they are human, just as much as bob.

So...you kinda prove my point.

we need a picture of this.

Easier said than done. as there is no one place where you can stand and get a photo showing the whole thing. I have some old pics of it, but not in digital format. Perhaps I can use a scanner at work. I'll find a way.

(OP) you've raised a good point and it makes as little sense as many of the thigns human kind does. Really, it is retarded. I beleive that abortion is wrong and so is this 'war' but again its nothing compared to previous wars and the genocides going on right now.

Just my two cents but Im too busy to argue them. So if you feel like arguing with this post it'll be a 1-way convo :p

Ah, possibly you thought I meant 'put computers on shelves'. I really meant: 'take the circuits from a load of computers other people have thrown away, attach them to a plywood board using carpet tacks and elastic bands, nail the whole lot to the wall and switch it on.'
It has now expanded into a 3-computer network, with many useless extra bits wired in just because they look good. LEDs that flicker randomly, old hard drives with the covers taken off so you can see them spinning, that sort of thing.

Much to my surprise, most IT people hate it. It upsets them very much indeed.

Or did you mean that 88 per cent of your friends steal things from armed policemen? Your mates kick ass!
yeah, the people I know don't use plywood boards, they nail em straight to the wall. :p

I'll admit that they do keep the HD covers on. (they don't want dust getting onto the platters.) but it does make adding components easy since they don't have to unscrew anything.

as for stealing things from the police... they are the police! :p

one of my friends brother "stole" her car to run errands. it pissed her off. so we were sitting around as she ranted this to us, some of them were telling her that they could put out an island wide APB within seconds the next time it happens. (and considering some worked in Traffic while others were members of SWAT.) and others (undercover, vice, etc...) told her they could make his life hell by dropping a few choice words when they're back in the field.

That is one reason why I LOVE the police.

I have posted already in two threads my theory that nobody really believes a fetus to be a person, and devised a hypothetical to deal with it. To date, I have not received a satasfactory response:

*crickets* 7 Hours and no response.

*crickets* 7 Hours and no response.

it's a tough problem. Pro life crowd argues that a fetus is a human life RIGHT NOW. So it would mean, RIGHT NOW, it's 10 million lives.

some say as later, they will develop INTO human lives. Well that's fine and good, something that will later be human. But that means they're not human, and if they're not human...they don't get human rights.

I have posted already in two threads my theory that nobody really believes a fetus to be a person, and devised a hypothetical to deal with it. To date, I have not received a satasfactory response:

That's more because (we assume that) Bob has a family and will be missed should he die. What if we replaced the cooler with Fred the homeless, family-less, friendless bum-off-the-street? Ceterus Peribus, would the responses be any different? Wouldn't you rather save the man with a family and children over the bum without a family or even friends?

Back to your point, people would rather save Bob because (we assume that)he has a family, so to spare them grief over his loss, we save him. The embryos, however, have had no time to have any human interaction, and so we don't feel as bad letting them die as opposed to the family man simply because they won't be missed like a father; embryos can be re-made, but fathers can't.

EDIT/ASIDE: w00t, 200th post!

That's more because (we assume that) Bob has a family and will be missed should he die. What if we replaced the cooler with Fred the homeless, family-less, friendless bum-off-the-street? Ceterus Peribus, would the responses be any different? Wouldn't you rather save the man with a family and children over the bum without a family or even friends?

Back to your point, people would rather save Bob because (we assume that)he has a family, so to spare them grief over his loss, we save him. The embryos, however, have had no time to have any human interaction, and so we don't feel as bad letting them die as opposed to the family man simply because they won't be missed like a father; embryos can be re-made, but fathers can't.


so one person with a family is worth more than 10 million human lives?

That must be some family.

Fine, at what point does it change? How many embryos need to be there? Surely at some point the sheer weight of 10, 50, 100 million or more human lives will change your mind.

However if no amoutn of fetuses will change your mind, if you will always save bob, then you would let bob live despite killing 100 million lives?

How can you claim with a straight face those fetuses are human lives when you decline to save them, any amount of them, at the risk of one extra human life?

And if the value of the life of a fetus is SOOO SMALL, so infinitly tiny, that you value the life of ONE MAN over 100 MILLION fetuses, how can you at the same time, with a straight face, say that abortion should be outlawed, when that's just ONE fetus?

You'd let bob live over 100 MILLION fetuses, but you won't let a woman make the choice to get rid of one....

Is bob's right to live worth 100 million times more than a woman's right to bodily autonomy? Remember your claim, that fetus is HUMAN LIFE

A 18-year-old is sentient. A fetus is not. Why don't we stop killing other aniwals for food? And how about plants? And bacteria, can't kill them either...

so one person with a family is worth more than 10 million human lives?

That must be some family.

Fine, at what point does it change? How many embryos need to be there? Surely at some point the sheer weight of 10, 50, 100 million or more human lives will change your mind.

However if no amoutn of fetuses will change your mind, if you will always save bob, then you would let bob live despite killing 100 million lives?

How can you claim with a straight face those fetuses are human lives when you decline to save them, any amount of them, at the risk of one extra human life?

And if the value of the life of a fetus is SOOO SMALL, so infinitly tiny, that you value the life of ONE MAN over 100 MILLION fetuses, how can you at the same time, with a straight face, say that abortion should be outlawed, when that's just ONE fetus?

You'd let bob live over 100 MILLION fetuses, but you won't let a woman make the choice to get rid of one....

Is bob's right to live worth 100 million times more than a woman's right to bodily autonomy? Remember your claim, that fetus is HUMAN LIFE

Oh, no no no, I was just referring to the one embryo, my mistake. But yes, if there, say, 100 million embryos, I'd save them, then see what I can do for Bob because, after all, 100 million people, even if they're just potential people, are worth more than one man.

Oh, no no no, I was just referring to the one embryo, my mistake. But yes, if there, say, 100 million embryos, I'd save them, then see what I can do for Bob because, after all, 100 million people, even if they're just potential people, are worth more than one man.

you're the first person to say that.

You're also lying through your teeth.

you're the first person to say that.

I'm sure I am.

You're also lying through your teeth.

You're certainly allowed to believe what you want, but that doesn't make it true...

death cannot be cured.

Yes it can. Death is neither necessary nor desirable for our society. If you want to die, go ahead, but don't make those who don't want to suffer the same punishment.

Yes it can.
HAHAHAHAHA

Death is neither necessary nor desirable for our society.
It's called overpopulation.

If you want to die, go ahead, but don't make those who don't want to suffer the same punishment.
No one's making you die.

Yes it can. Death is neither necessary nor desirable for our society. If you want to die, go ahead, but don't make those who don't want to suffer the same punishment.

no it can't, not yet anyway. the best we can do is postpone it. Once we get to the GitS or Cyberpunk world where our minds and personality can be transferred to computers/robots, death is inevitable.

HAHAHAHAHA

Demonstrate to me in conclusive terms that death is a necessity and inevitable. There is absolutely no real barrier of any kind to us ending biological senescence and achieving effective immortality.

It's called fucking overpopulation.

Overpopulation is worst in places with the highest death rates and lowest life expectancy in the world. The places with longest life expectancy have zero population growth because birth rates decline as fast or faster than the death rates.

You presume that not only will we remain biological, but that we will continue to have children at current rates and that there is a finite amount of resources in the universe. Once we expand beyond Earth, there is no limit to our growth. We could support whatever we want without even remotely coming close to consuming the resources of this universe.

No one's making you die.

Biology is making me die. The cruel force of nature is responsible for this plague.

no it can't, not yet anyway. the best we can do is postpone it. Once we get to the GitS or Cyberpunk world where our minds and personality can be transferred to computers/robots, death is inevitable.

Well, of course. That's a lot closer than we think, however; it's easily within my lifetime and possibly that of others older than me.

Well, of course. That's a lot closer than we think, however; it's easily within my lifetime and possibly that of others older than me.

I dunno... I would perferre death than to live with... *shudder* Microsoft Windows! :eek:

I dunno... I would perferre death than to live with... *shudder* Microsoft Windows! :eek:

I hope, oh God I hope, that we are not going to use Windows on anything self-aware. That would be hell.

I have heard a lot of death lately...at least 10 times today, that have directly pertained to some point of my life....I think someone close to me is gonna die :(

Overpopulation is worst in places with the highest death rates and lowest life expectancy in the world.

Like Japan? Or China?

Like Japan? Or China?

Japan's not overpopulated. It's densely populated, but it's capable of managing its population; in order to be overpopulated, they would have to be suffering adverse effects from it. And China's not much different; they're capable of meeting their needs despite such a high population density. Their environmental problems are due to a government pushing unregulated industrialization at all costs, not due to their population.

And, for that matter, China's population growth is slowing to replacement along with Japan's. Both of them will be leveling off or declining in the near future because they're having fewer kids.

I hope, oh God I hope, that we are not going to use Windows on anything self-aware. That would be hell.

but it will bring new meaning to "Plug and Play"

Yay, another abortion thread. :)

*makes batch of popcorn*

Anyone else want some?

but it will bring new meaning to "Plug and Play"

Yeah, but you're also going to have nightmares of the bsod, security patches, and "error reporting".

but it will bring new meaning to "Plug and Play"


Is there supposed to be a naughty connotation behind that?

"Can I stick my flash drive in your USB port?"

"Can I stick my flash drive in your USB port?"

Only if you recompile your kernel first.

Only if you recompile your kernel first.


Dang, turned down again :(. I'll just go decompress my hard drive now.

Yay, another abortion thread. :)

*makes batch of popcorn*

Anyone else want some?

*grabs*

Mine.

Dang, turned down again :(. I'll just go decompress my hard drive now.

Make sure you defragment afterwards. It could be messy.

Make sure you defragment afterwards. It could be messy.

Heh, I actually meant to say defrag in my post, but I guess i typed decompress. ah oh well. You say potato, I say french fry.

Heh, I actually meant to say defrag in my post, but I guess i typed decompress. ah oh well. You say potato, I say french fry.

Electronic sexual innuendo is a tricky art.

yeah, the people I know don't use plywood boards, they nail em straight to the wall. :p


OMG, you've given me major culture shock. I thought the Revived Pictish Nation was a world pioneer in low tech computing, but now you're telling me people in Hawaii might have beaten us to it? Can you get some pics?

Thats just facinating. I read the first page of a thread, and its about abortiong, then read teh last page of a thread, and it seems to be computer based sexual inuendoes.

You have to kinda wonder how it got there.

Thats just facinating. I read the first page of a thread, and its about abortiong, then read teh last page of a thread, and it seems to be computer based sexual inuendoes.

You have to kinda wonder how it got there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070225/od_nm/life_hongkong_sex_dc_1

To argue this is to admit that the embryos are not human lives. The exact counter to what the pro life crowd claims, that they are human, just as much as bob.

So...you kinda prove my point.

I know. Bob's life is more important. I wasn't trying to argue, really I wasn't. :)