Recent PostsForum Rules
Next Topic Sign In to ReplyPrev Topic
FirstPrev23456NextLast
There's Nothing About Abortion in the Bible
151. Author: jpottsDate: Wed, 7/24/2013, 2:15PM EST
victor809 wrote:
Your apology is accepted.
Ill forgive your use of "high degree of probability" since math has never been your strong suit.





(cough)(cough)youstillownrugrunneranapology(cough)(cough)


Sorry, what was that?
152. Author: jpottsDate: Wed, 7/24/2013, 2:26PM EST
victor809 wrote:
It is invasive.

The abortion is invasive too. But it's her choice to get that performed. Just like liposuction is invasive, but I support a woman's right for that too. (encourage it in some parts of the country in fact)



Ok, since we're talking about rights: what about the rights of the child?

It isn't a mass of tissue. A tumor is a mass of tissue. It will never become a human being.

That mass of tissue you reference, however, will eventually form into a child that even at around 6 - 7 months development can exist outside of the mother's womb.

It doesn't have the "potential" to be a human. Potential implies that it is dormant, which it is not. It is actively becoming human. It therefore has rights. You can say your blood cells and your skin cells have the potential to be a human being, but they inactive, and require a trigger. A fetus does not....at all. It is already in motion.

At what point will it *not* become a human being? The answer is never.

Therefore it has rights.

So you are not being truthful, nor complete when the issue of rights is discussed, nor in the description of the human being forming inside the woman's womb.

I pity the person who just wipes out their child with little to no concern about what they are doing, or the implications thereof.

153. Author: victor809Date: Wed, 7/24/2013, 2:33PM EST
jpotts wrote:
(cough)(cough)youstillownrugrunneranapology(cough)(cough)


Sorry, what was that?


I don't expect you to understand any longer, since your math was bad back then, and has never improved.

Your apology is accepted.
154. Author: victor809Date: Wed, 7/24/2013, 2:40PM EST
jpotts wrote:
Ok, since we're talking about rights: what about the rights of the child?

It isn't a mass of tissue. A tumor is a mass of tissue. It will never become a human being.

That mass of tissue you reference, however, will eventually form into a child that even at around 6 - 7 months development can exist outside of the mother's womb.

It doesn't have the "potential" to be a human. Potential implies that it is dormant, which it is not. It is actively becoming human. It therefore has rights. You can say your blood cells and your skin cells have the potential to be a human being, but they inactive, and require a trigger. A fetus does not....at all. It is already in motion.

At what point will it *not* become a human being? The answer is never.

Therefore it has rights.

So you are not being truthful, nor complete when the issue of rights is discussed, nor in the description of the human being forming inside the woman's womb.

I pity the person who just wipes out their child with little to no concern about what they are doing, or the implications thereof.



Potts. You're wrong and your apology is accepted.

It only has potential if it continues to suck nutrients from a host. It is not independent, it's rights end at the rights of the mother, since its existence requires the mother. You want to allow it to continue growing, then take it out, implant it in yourself and get to work.

I'd be more inclined to be anti-abortion if the technology allowed them to be viable outside of their host, but that hasn't happened yet. Technology will always influence where we recognize complex ideas to lie, and unlike others (ahem, potts) I don't hold fast to an idea when better information and alternatives comes along. but at this time, you are talking about a parasite.
155. Author: tailgaterDate: Wed, 7/24/2013, 2:54PM EST
victor809 wrote:


I'd be more inclined to be anti-abortion if the technology allowed them to be viable outside of their host, but that hasn't happened yet. Technology will always influence where we recognize complex ideas to lie, and unlike others (ahem, potts) I don't hold fast to an idea when better information and alternatives comes along. but at this time, you are talking about a parasite.



So, today a 12 week old fetus is a blob of tissue. Lives, dies, who cares? Just don't get any on my shoes.

But tomorrow, when the technology exists to sustain that 12 week old fetus until fully developed, you'll recognize it as a human life and will therefore be anti-abortion?

Talk about shirking responsibility.
You'll change your opinion when someone else designs a better mousetrap.

Funny thing is, when biological technology advances and improves, it will be then that you'll think like the religious right.

Go figure.



156. Author: DrafterXDate: Wed, 7/24/2013, 2:56PM EST
hard to beat a cat for catching a mouse.... Mellow
157. Author: tailgaterDate: Wed, 7/24/2013, 3:10PM EST
DrafterX wrote:
hard to beat a cat for catching a mouse.... Mellow


What?
It's a cat.

They were invented to take a beating. It's why they land on their legs.

A person with 5 dogs in an animal lover.
A person with 5 cats is the Crazy Cat Lady.

Black Dog is a popular clothing line.
Black Cat is bad luck.

Cats have 9 lives because they deserve to die more than once.

Scary dogs are wolves or coyotes.
Scary cats are just cats.

You bring the dog in at night so it won't get lost.
You kick the cat out at night but the friggin thing comes back the next day and thanks you for your stupidity with a dead mouse.

If I gave you 30 seconds you could think of 115 cool dog names.
You couldn't come up with 9 cool cat names (one for each life) if I gave you all day.

If Michael Vick killed cats he wouldn't have gone to jail.

People slow down after hitting a cat only because they're afraid a dog may have been chasing it.

If you leave for 2 days you put the dog in a kennel.
If you leave for 2 weeks you leave a bowl of water and a bag of food for the cat. You might even open the bag first.


158. Author: victor809Date: Wed, 7/24/2013, 3:20PM EST
tailgater wrote:
So, today a 12 week old fetus is a blob of tissue. Lives, dies, who cares? Just don't get any on my shoes.

But tomorrow, when the technology exists to sustain that 12 week old fetus until fully developed, you'll recognize it as a human life and will therefore be anti-abortion?

Talk about shirking responsibility.
You'll change your opinion when someone else designs a better mousetrap.

Funny thing is, when biological technology advances and improves, it will be then that you'll think like the religious right.

Go figure.





Come on tail, if you aren't willing/able to change your opinion on something when new information/technology presents itself? At this time I consider a brain dead person a lump of tissue on life support. If someone can develop a method of uploading a back-up of that person's personality into a computer and get it to run the body, suddenly that body becomes a life again (of course, if the personality is of some of the individuals in this forum, it will still classify as brain dead).

Currently, if you "pull the plug" on the fetus, it isn't going to start chatting with me. Create technology so it can fly around the room and shoot up everyone with cool lasers, then I'll reconsider if it's alive. (ok, the lasers are because its the end of the day and I'm bored.)
159. Author: jpottsDate: Wed, 7/24/2013, 3:33PM EST
victor809 wrote:
Potts. You're wrong and your apology is accepted.


You're over-using the tag line of someone else.

victor809 wrote:
It only has potential if it continues to suck nutrients from a host.


Incapacitated people basically do the same thing. Are you suggesting that we kill them off because they cannot feed themselves?[/quote]

victor809 wrote:
It is not independent


The same can be said of mentally impaired or incapacitated people.

victor809 wrote:
...it's rights end at the rights of the mother, since its existence requires the mother.


First, the rights issue is what is under dispute. Second, a child requires a mother to feed up until about 6 months of age (or thereabouts). So, by your definition, an infant can be snuffed out by its mother because it has "no rights."


victor809 wrote:
You want to allow it to continue growing, then take it out, implant it in yourself and get to work.


Rights to not depend on technological advancements. They are "inalienable."

However, your approach would make several members of the German National Socialist party proud.

Any idiot can define some sort of human life as less than human, as a justification for its extermination. Hitler did it with non-Aryans, Islamists do it with Jews, and so on.

victor809 wrote:
I'd be more inclined to be anti-abortion if the technology allowed them to be viable outside of their host, but that hasn't happened yet. Technology will always influence where we recognize complex ideas to lie, and unlike others (ahem, potts) I don't hold fast to an idea when better information and alternatives comes along. but at this time, you are talking about a parasite.


Oh, I see. So now children are parasites. Name for me one parasite that can and will become a human.

Baby formula: technology. Until then it was wet-nursing, and that has no guarantee of success. The extension of this is that if you cannot feed yourself for any reason, you can therefore be terminated by fiat.

Here's the deal, Victor: you are beholden to political view that clouds your rational view of conception and birth. Women's "rights" to an abortion is a purely political view. The country in which you live was founded upon the notion that the right to life is sacred and inalienable. We have court systems to determine when the right to life conflicts with another's right to life - that's what the courts are there to determine. But no one - including a mother of an unborn child - has a specific right to take the life of another person. Giving birth in itself is not a practice that sacrifices the life of the woman. Yes, it is a dangerous practice, but so is eating sushi or steak tartar, and it is something people have been doing - and is part of our function - since, well, forever.

You call a "fetus" stuff like "tissue mass" and "parasite." Again, none of these will ever become a human being. A fetus will.

The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is an umbilical cord and a few centimeters of birth canal.

Now I'm pretty sure you will not contemplate any of this - few who think like you ever do. However, your thinking is more in line with historical societies whose practices you would NEVER condone in public. However, hiding behind "wimmens rights" or "reproductive rights" is the cop-out you use to basically align yourselves with Nazis (and no I don't use that comparison lightly), and others who pushed that diabolical eugenics nonsense.

And like sterilizing people (which is just permanent birth control) off-ing the sick and disabled is also not far behind. In fact, this is what the assisted suicide types are pushing.

Oh, and high-minded medical ethicists from places like Oxford are now opening the door to legalized infanticide. They are claiming that you're not really a human being until some arbitrary age. You're not fully formed. Therefore, you can be put out of your misery. So really, your application of the term "parasite" as a means to justifying abortion, and straight-out infanticide is simply a matter of degree. If you are not productive in some form, you are a parasite, and need to be executed right away.

I know you don't like to acknowledge "slippery slopes," but abortion isn't just a potential slippery slope, we're sliding down it as we speak.

I don't have to invoke God, or use morality to make any of these cases - though it'd be REAL easy for me to do so. All I have to do is point out facts, and the foundations of out basic civil rights to back up what I say.

And frankly, if you don't like the fact that the right to life is inalienable, maybe you should try taking up residence in Communist China. They have the same basic viewpoint. Well...except for the fact that you don't have an inalienable right to life either.
160. Author: victor809Date: Wed, 7/24/2013, 3:39PM EST
Blah blah blah.
Didn't even bother reading the whole thing.
Got to the first point where you stuffed words in my mouth, and stopped.
"Rights to not depend on technological advancements. They are "inalienable.""
I never stated that it held any inalienable rights. Inalienable rights belong to "men" according to our constitution. Not "potential men" or "maybe it'll grow into a man in a few months". By arguing that this fetus has inalienable rights, you're trying to sneak in personhood without actually discussing it.

I didn't read the rest of your post. It's my new philosophy. I refuse to read any of your long ass posts past the first time you stuff words in my mouth or make a statement that is obviously debatable as if it is fact.
161. Author: DrafterXDate: Wed, 7/24/2013, 3:42PM EST
You get MY son to call you "Daddy," I **** YOUR WIFE! Mad

that's my new philosophy.... Mellow
162. Author: z6joker9Date: Wed, 7/24/2013, 3:52PM EST
We should bring up murder charges against any woman that doesn't make a good faith effort to fertilize every egg she produces. Men who waste would be tried for genocide.
163. Author: teedubbyaDate: Wed, 7/24/2013, 4:32PM EST
no more knucklebabies!
164. Author: tailgaterDate: Wed, 7/24/2013, 6:20PM EST
victor809 wrote:
Come on tail, if you aren't willing/able to change your opinion on something when new information/technology presents itself? At this time I consider a brain dead person a lump of tissue on life support. If someone can develop a method of uploading a back-up of that person's personality into a computer and get it to run the body, suddenly that body becomes a life again (of course, if the personality is of some of the individuals in this forum, it will still classify as brain dead).

Currently, if you "pull the plug" on the fetus, it isn't going to start chatting with me. Create technology so it can fly around the room and shoot up everyone with cool lasers, then I'll reconsider if it's alive. (ok, the lasers are because its the end of the day and I'm bored.)


But you forgot the ironic part.

More technology means you will share a viewpoint with the religious right.

You know you're going to lose sleep over that.

js


(that's crazy talk for "just saying")

165. Author: tailgaterDate: Wed, 7/24/2013, 6:22PM EST
z6joker9 wrote:
We should bring up murder charges against any woman that doesn't make a good faith effort to fertilize every egg she produces. Men who waste would be tried for genocide.


You've got a firm grasp on it now.

















(please don't use my above statement out of context)

166. Author: DrMaddVibeDate: Wed, 7/24/2013, 7:01PM EST
teedubbya wrote:
no more knucklebabies!



The population will dwindle in Georgetown!!!
167. Author: BrewhaDate: Wed, 7/24/2013, 9:03PM EST
tailgater wrote:
OK.
You view it as coercion.
I don't agree, but I see your point.

The problem is we're talking about the early stage of human development.
I don't pretend to know when life begins, but we all know it's not on the delivery date.
And I'm biased. I wanted to have kids, so the ultrasound of my 10 week old daughter shows a human being.

But I suppose if I didn't want to have kids, that ultrasound would have been nothing more than Victors fish hearted alien.

An ultrasound is NOT invasive. It's simple. It doesn't require a real doctor. It's fast. And it is most certainly educational.





I think we differ on a point of freedom.

I think people should be free from the uniformed dictating what they must endure to satisfy their personal standards. Note that the people in the know - the AMA for example - don't feel this 'education' is required.

I'll ask you again, don't you think we should keep our noses out of people's business?
168. Author: frankj1Date: Wed, 7/24/2013, 9:16PM EST
Brewha wrote:
I think we differ on a point of freedom.

I think people should be free from the uniformed dictating what they must endure to satisfy their personal standards. Note that the people in the know - the AMA for example - don't feel this 'education' is required.

I'll ask you again, don't you think we should keep our noses out of people's business?



both/all sides want that, except when they don't.
169. Author: JadeRoseDate: Wed, 7/24/2013, 9:20PM EST
I don't know about the rest of this but jpotts sure did a lot of apologizing in this thread.
170. Author: teedubbyaDate: Wed, 7/24/2013, 10:19PM EST
The dicks dig into jpitts
171. Author: tailgaterDate: Wed, 7/24/2013, 10:55PM EST
Brewha wrote:
I think we differ on a point of freedom.

I think people should be free from the uniformed dictating what they must endure to satisfy their personal standards. Note that the people in the know - the AMA for example - don't feel this 'education' is required.

I'll ask you again, don't you think we should keep our noses out of people's business?


So this is where we draw the line on freedoms.
The father isn't free to decide what happens to the pregnancy.
He must pay support if the mother demands it.
He can't save the child even if he wanted to.
My insurers are forced to pay for the abortion.

But god forbid we want to bounce a few sound waves off the belly for 4 minutes and reveal to the girl what she is about to agree to.
No. Because THAT would infringe on her freedom.

This is perhaps the ONLY elective and invasive surgery/procedure that a young woman could receive without full knowledge of the details.
If the same girl went in at age 18 and wanted her tubes tied, the medical staff would council her and educate her regarding the choices, and the risks.

Just don't slow down that abortion train.

172. Author: tailgaterDate: Wed, 7/24/2013, 11:02PM EST
And Brew,
I'm not asking to remove the woman's freedoms.
She still maintains 100% of her right to abort her child.

And if you want to prevent coercion, please see planned parenthood.

And if a few girls change their mind? Do you think they'll be angry and resentful? Or grateful.

I know it's not perfect.
But it's a pretty decent compromise. Which is why I am astounded at the level of resistance I hear.


173. Author: RICKAMAVENDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 12:26AM EST
quip

While state-controlled divorce forms in the US do not ask religious affiliation, private studies can pole a sampling of divorced people and claim to have yielded the following in a report by the Barma Group in 2009:

Population Segment Have been divorced #of interviews

All adults 33% 3792

Evangelical Christians 26% 339
Non-evangelical born again Chrisitans 33% 1373
Notional Christians 33% 1488
Associated with non Christian faith 38% 197
Atheist or agnostic 30% 269
All born again Christians 32% 1712
All non born again Christians 33% 2080
Protestant 34% 1997
Catholic 28% 875
Upscale 22% 450
Downscale 39% 367
Conservative 28% 1343
Moderate 33% 1720
Liberal 37% 474
(Source: The Barna Group, Ventura, CA)
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released

174. Author: HockeyDadDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 8:27AM EST
Aborted Marriage Outrage!
175. Author: victor809Date: Thu, 7/25/2013, 8:27AM EST
tailgater wrote:


This is perhaps the ONLY elective and invasive surgery/procedure that a young woman could receive without full knowledge of the details.
If the same girl went in at age 18 and wanted her tubes tied, the medical staff would council her and educate her regarding the choices, and the risks.



You do realize that statement is false, right?
176. Author: DrMaddVibeDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 8:43AM EST
I don't believe an 18 year old girl could get her tubes tied if she wanted to.

It would be some hack of a back alley clinic performing the procedure.
177. Author: DrafterXDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 9:59AM EST
let me go ahead and throw another log on da fire here...... Is the morning after pill ok..?? Huh
178. Author: HockeyDadDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 10:16AM EST
DrafterX wrote:
let me go ahead and throw another log on da fire here...... Is the morning after pill ok..?? Huh



YES!
179. Author: teedubbyaDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 10:29AM EST
HockeyDad wrote:
YES!



you own stock in Teva Pharmaceuticals don't you
180. Author: bloody spaniardDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 10:32AM EST
So did you guys settled the issue on abortion yet?
Goodie.
Next, let's tackle why Cheetos settle so much in the box and why women who wear burkas should harvest their yeast.Think
181. Author: teedubbyaDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 10:34AM EST
bloody spaniard wrote:
So did you guys settled the issue on abortion yet?
Goodie.
Next, let's tackle why Cheetos settle so much in the box and why women who wear burkas should harvest their yeast.Think


I don't buy cheetos in a box and how else would you make islamic prison wine?
182. Author: HockeyDadDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 10:37AM EST
bloody spaniard wrote:
So did you guys settled the issue on abortion yet?



It was determined that abortion (women's reproductive rights) is legal.
183. Author: DrafterXDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 10:43AM EST
teedubbya wrote:
you own stock in Teva Pharmaceuticals don't you


Think
184. Author: bloody spaniardDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 10:47AM EST
HockeyDad wrote:
It was determined that abortion (women's reproductive rights) is legal.


brilliant conclusion Applause
Now, lets whip up some of dat hairy wine and celebrate.
185. Author: victor809Date: Thu, 7/25/2013, 10:47AM EST
teedubbya wrote:
you own stock in Teva Pharmaceuticals don't you


Mmmmmm pharmaceutical stock.
186. Author: HockeyDadDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 10:52AM EST
bloody spaniard wrote:
brilliant conclusion Applause
Now, lets whip up some of dat hairy wine and celebrate.



I'm still finishing off a batch of Spanish Tempranillo.
187. Author: teedubbyaDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 11:16AM EST
HockeyDad wrote:
I'm still finishing off a batch of Spanish Tempranillo.


Are the antibiotics finally kicking in?
188. Author: HockeyDadDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 11:47AM EST
teedubbya wrote:
Are the antibiotics finally kicking in?



Jane...you ignorant slut.
189. Author: teedubbyaDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 11:57AM EST
HockeyDad wrote:
Jane...you ignorant slut.


watch it or I'll make you into one of those endangered feces
190. Author: teedubbyaDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 11:58AM EST
all grain brew this weekend just trying to decide on a style/recipe
191. Author: HockeyDadDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 12:02PM EST
teedubbya wrote:
all grain brew this weekend just trying to decide on a style/recipe



I'm drinking a scotch ale and a Fin du Monde clone now.

Three red wines in various stages of fermentation/finishing! My kitchen is starting to look like a winery. I'm trying to pile up some wine inventory so I can age it a bit.
192. Author: teedubbyaDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 12:41PM EST
I'm thinking something simple like BierMuncher Centennial Blonde
193. Author: HockeyDadDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 12:43PM EST
Do an oktoberfest. Now actually is the right time to brew it.
194. Author: bloody spaniardDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 1:15PM EST
I know it's not fair but why do I get slight dry heaves from imagined yeasty feet smells coming out of a partly dirty bathtub almost every time you guys broach homemade brew recipes?

I'm sure your elixirs are delicious and better tasting than the store bought beer.Mellow
195. Author: DrMaddVibeDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 1:17PM EST
Smells more like fresh banana bread...when its fermenting.
196. Author: bloody spaniardDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 1:19PM EST
Do you ever worry that you may get food/metal poisoning? (serious question)
197. Author: HockeyDadDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 1:21PM EST
There is a slight yeasty smell in my kitchen right now from the Brunello in primary fermentation. The Barolo in secondary fermentation is pretty much beyond yeasty at this point.
198. Author: HockeyDadDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 1:23PM EST
bloody spaniard wrote:
Do you ever worry that you may get food/metal poisoning? (serious question)



Restaurant-grade cleaners and sanitizers are very important. I don't use any metal in my wine production. I do use a stainless steel pot for beer production.
199. Author: BuckwheatDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 1:25PM EST
Who cares if it is in the Bible or not? I personally think that it is wrong to use it as a contraceptive but I still think that it should be legal. fog

Coat hangers in alleys are worse, IMO. fog
200. Author: HockeyDadDate: Thu, 7/25/2013, 1:28PM EST
That is prejudicial against coat hangers. It is not fair to lump all coat hangers into the same barrel.

Hangerist!
FirstPrev23456NextLast
Sign In to Reply
Next TopicJump to TopPrev Topic