13,861 Forum Posts by "Memorize"
At 3/2/14 05:10 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
Did you ever educate yourself on how to debate without using argumentative fallacy's ?
Reading comprehension fails you, doesn't it?
At 3/2/14 04:48 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
In your last post to me you ended it with the implying I am a creationist which is an argumentative fallacy first off and 100% untrue. You eluded to the false statement : "So... how are you Mr. Creationist?"
Do you ever leave that basement?
At 3/1/14 05:32 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
I am more of an open minded person and I do not believe in a Deity therefore it is a completely false statement to label me a creationist. I think that moral and ethical logic is preferential to personal opinion's and religious beliefs.
I didn't say you were a Creationist. I said arguing with the pro-choice was LIKE arguing with a Creationist.
At 3/1/14 08:08 PM, JackFrost23 wrote:
It seems that you didn't understand exactly what i meant, what i meant is that there's a certain point up to when we can say the embroy isn't developed enough yet to be qualified as sentient being; it's just a piece of cells, just like a tumor if you think of it.
1. A Tumor has different structural make-up and code.
2. Put everyone under a microscope and you'll be surprised to find out that EVERYONE is just a cluster of cells.
3. I know what you said. I was pointing out the inconsistency of your criteria. Why is sentience a requirement for a fetus to be considered a "person", but not for the brain dead in hospital rooms? Why is "viability" a requirement for a fetus, but not for the terminally ill in a cancer ward? And since you're basing it off sentience, would you be willing to ban abortions well prior to the 2nd Trimester since cognitive functions develop during the 1st Trimester?
At 3/2/14 02:04 PM, Knis wrote:
Aren't you the one who implied you believed consciousness is necessary for biological life.
And the will precedes existence?
And that spermatozoa and ovum are not stages of human development?
When did I ever assert the first two?
And are you still such an idiot to not understand the third? I said they were stages of human reproduction, but that a new individual, human life doesn't start until during conception. For instance, you're half the genetic material from your mother and half from your father (usually; there are other cases as well). If you're going to claim that a genetically independent, unique human life is "you" then I await the time when you claim you're just a slave and property to your parents.
At 3/1/14 04:11 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:At 3/1/14 04:05 PM, Memorize wrote:Arguing with the pro-choice is like arguing with a Creationist.I stand by the fact that if a child is going to be born into an abusive environment or worse yet become a child of the Government then it is best to end the birth before sentience is even achieved.
That... didn't address anything I said whatsoever...
So... how are you Mr. Creationist?
At 3/1/14 02:34 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
A fetus is not sentient. If a mother cannot legitimately care for her child then an abortion is 100% moral and justified.
So what is it then?
Viability? Or sentience?
And how would you define sentience? As merely cognitive faculties or being capable of sense of smell, feel, pain?
Because if you went with merely cognitive faculties, then you'd have to ban abortions part way through the first trimester. If you're going with the latter, then that presents several problems of people being born with cognitive functions and are yet incapable of other senses as well, and I doubt you'd consider them "not persons."
Even viability presents several inconsistencies. How does medical technology determine personhood when all it does is prevent the death at an earlier stage? There's no biological difference. And I doubt you're going to tell me society should run around cancer wards telling people who are terminally ill and about to die (even on medical assistance) that they're not "persons" either, are you?
Arguing with the pro-choice is like arguing with a Creationist.
At 2/19/14 07:28 PM, JackFrost23 wrote:
I do not consider it murder if the woman wishes to abort, because the fetus is not yet capable of independent life and thus is a part of her body.
"Because screw science and biology."
At 2/5/14 05:05 AM, Dr-Worm wrote:
I think you're vastly underestimating the effects these kinds of social pressures can have on people's behavior.
I like how the one thing you don't mention is culture's push to drive people to have sex before reaching the age of 16 or else you're a "loser."
But I guess that kind of behavior and public pressure isn't that big a deal, right?
At 1/31/14 04:14 AM, NeonSpider wrote:
A problem *I* created? So it's somehow *my* fault there are poor people out there who irresponsibly have too many children? I fail to see the logic in that. You may as well blame your dog for the existence of space debris.
You support almost never ending welfare payments to those individuals and families.
You support almost never ending social programs to these individuals and families.
All while using other people's money.
Now you're coming back claiming that because these programs exist (which you support and put in place) it then justifies stealing from others to pay for the personal sex lives of these individuals and families so the welfare and social programs you support aren't "as much of a burden."
Funny stuff!
At 1/31/14 03:27 AM, Saen wrote:
Federal funding for education isn't limited to public college education. Secondary education isn't limited to college. Degrees in mathematics, business, science, criminology, and medicine etc. all are experiencing shortages within the workforce. It's degrees in the arts that usually have few opportunities for employment.
No shit.
Had nothing to do with my example of affordability though, now did it?
Right, by the pharmacist either behind the pharmacy counter or locked in displays within isles. You do realize the over the counter implies no prescription required.
I've seen it right behind the cashier at the front (opposite pharmacy) for the past 2 weeks.
The choice of whether or not to sell Plan B (in certain states) is not within the control of the business, but to the individual pharmacist him/herself.
Difference being?
What makes them your slave to force them to sell you exactly what you want?
No one is baring you from getting it anywhere else.
That's quite a lucrative part time job to enable you to afford all housing, food, and education expenses without accumulating any debt.
I was referring the cost of education before the existence of the Dept of Education.
Someone I know, when he went to college in the 50's, had a father who earned $5000 a year. The cost of his yearly tuition was $1800.
Hahahaha actually you should. Compare where the U.S. ranks in education to the rest of countries within, oh I don't know, all of Europe's and more. Hint** those countries above the U.S. pay for their students education FULLY.
You're comparing different ways of funding from different countries with different cultures.
I was talking about the United States Dumb. Ass.
Further proving the point on Republicans selfish and entirely self-centered mentality. You don't care about poverty and you are oblivious to how others' poverty hinders your own finances and standard of living.
Right, because you're so virtuous. Too much of a lazy shit to pay for the price of a modern day theatre outing and using other people's labor and income to pay for it for you.
All while you pat yourself on the back telling yourself how generous you are... with other people's money and work.
I'm also not a Republican.
I'm actually much more liberal than conservative. What with my support for legalizing all drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, gambling, anti-death penalty, and anti-war.
I'm simply a liberal who believes you're responsible for yourself and your own actions, not the actions of others. And who also realizes that the very idea of having the Government federally fund your personal life could end up leading to a Government using it as an excuse to dictate your personal life.
Just like what they did with Marriage in the early 1900's; getting involved claiming it was for (ironically) "Health Reasons", only to use it to bar inter-racial and homosexual marriages.
You must of ignored my point that Plan B is not to be used at a regular method of birth control. On top of this using Plan B regularly is VERY expensive.
You're the one who brought up Plan B claiming it was expensive.
Besides, first-year cost for the pill-$172, $160 for diaphragm and $131 for the IUD
That is literally about the price of Netflix every month.
It's less than the cheapest internet service plans.
You already do pay for my condoms, the government provides funding for Planned Parenthood and many other organizations that provide free condoms. You don't see me bitching about paying for your condoms and everyone else's. Chill dude.
That's because you're the one benefiting from it.
And besides, you don't pay for mine. Why? Because I don't believe I should be able to steal from you, so I choose not to participate in anything Federally funded (when I'm given the option to anyway).
You're welcome.
You completely missed the dartboard on that one buddy.
Oh really? How?
Better question: If people are already refusing to buy cheap and widely available protection/contraception that's literally less than the price of Netflix or basic internet service, and when anyone can walk into any Planned Parenthood and get it "for free", what the hell makes you think people are anywhere near smart enough to suddenly get off their lazy asses just because insurance covers it now?
A Red Herring, but nonetheless easily debunked. The government provides subsidies to the oil company, because the refinement process that creates gasoline is incredibly expensive, so much so it would push the price of gas to $9+/gallon.
And why would that be an issue? Aren't we polluting enough already?
If I'm able to ride a bike to work everyday for over an hour to get there and an hour back, why can't our overweight country do it?
But regardless, how is that a red herring? It's the exact same reasoning with a near identical issue that potentially effects and elevates all of those subjects.
The only difference is that access to energy far outweighs access to contraception in terms of quality of life.
Listening to people complain about how they can't get access to contraception is the equivalent of having to listen to someone tell me that a 5 minute drive is "out of their way."
As for power companies, the type and influence of power companies varies by state and local areas. Some have various private companies, regulated monopolies, or entirely government-based.
And it's all almost entirely terrible.
You really hate being called an inbred, uneducated, redneck I can see that.
Parents born in California, Father is Tri-lingual growing up around the world, mostly in Central America and Central and Southern Africa; while I was also born in a primarily Hispanic community in California and whose entire family lives on the West Coast and hates the South (mostly for the reasons you laid out).
Nice try.
Because you are uneducated you haven't brought up any thoughtful or original ideas within this topic. Cliche', conservative, "mememememe!!!", rehashed red meat is all that you have dished out.
Please. You're cheap, lazy ass has nothing.
You don't want the Government restricting access to your personal life, but then you turn around demanding the Government be involved to the point of paying for it with other people's hard work?
You freely admit that you already get your condoms for "free", yet you still demand other people pay for them for you?
You're primary complaint is that you're too cheap and lazy to pay the price of Netflix or Basic Internet with money you could literally find on the ground and that other people don't want to pick up the tab for you?
If ever there were a shining example of a bullshit first world problem, it's this right here.
Nevermind never ending wars. Nevermind Corporate bailouts. Nevermind people being thrown in prison for non-violent drug offenses. Nevermind many states not granting homosexual couples the same access and benefits as hetero couples.
No. The primary problem we're facing here today is the fact that a bunch of mentally incompetent wastes are bitching and whining about other people not paying for their entirely voluntary, non-medically necessary "personal" sex lives. All while they complain about how said sex life is no one else's business while using the exact same logic big corporations do to justify their bailouts and subsidies.
At 1/31/14 03:39 AM, NeonSpider wrote:
If you have a religious reason to object, fair enough. But the long-term fiscally conservative thing to do *is* free birth control.
No, the fiscally conservative thing to do would be to deny any form of any welfare for them whatsoever.
I find it ironic that you're using a problem you created to justify further stealing to prevent said problem.
At 1/31/14 01:37 AM, Saen wrote:
Education and reducing birth rates are the two most effective things a country can do to reduce poverty.
Bang (pun) up job it's doing so far...
Worthless degrees, lack of jobs upon graduation, with tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands in debt.
Depending on how redneck your state influences how restricted birth control access is. In Florida for example Plan B is kept by the pharmacist (rather than over the counter) and he/she is allowed to decide whether or not he/she wants to sell you it for whatever personal beliefs.
Actually, it's not. I live in Florida and it's sold directly over the counter.
It even has a written statement on the box saying "now sold over the counter."
But here's my point: Let's say, for example, that a business didn't want to sell you plan B... who are you to tell them that they have to?
Since when were they YOUR slaves?
Since when did not forcing someone else to pay for another person's personal life be considered "restricting access?"It's the same story when you drastically cut funding for education, access to education is restricted as a result.
Right. Because obviously being able to work part time and afford a year's worth of college tuition and graduate with no debt back in the day is just so much worse than today's standard of working full time and still graduating with student loan debt.
Fun Fact: Not everyone needs to go to college.
Also, aside from college: Do I really need to show you a graph comparing educational results and achievement with increased funding?
Educational funding doesn't determine quality of education. Washington DC should be a prime example of this.
Numerous studies and states have shown that regardless of levels of educational funding, the actual quality of said education and level of achievement doesn't correlate.
What good is educational funding when most of the money goes to paper pushing administrators and teachers that are nigh impossible to fire, combined with parents who lack interest in their child's education?
If you're viewing birth control simply as a "personal life" issue you are completely missing the point as to why it's so important in industrialized societies.
Translation: "People are stupid, therefore they can use their own personal stupidity as justification to steal from other's to cover for said stupidity."
Newsflash: Barring any extreme examples, such as rape, your problems are entirely because of your own personal, voluntary decision making.
Not mine.
And not my mom's.
There's no over the counter hormonal birth control what the hell are you talking about. Condoms, spermicide, and Plan B are the only methods available over the counter. Hormonal birth control requires a prescription. All hormonal birth control has at least a 93% effectiveness rate alone. News flash, lots of couples don't use condoms and they're only ~80% effective, spermicide is very irritating for most women and only ~70% effective, and Plan B is only ~80% effective, very expensive, and not to be used as a continuous method of birth control.
I didn't mention condoms now did I... and I also said "You can combine with other methods to achieve greater results."
It's not like you're stuck with one.
I also said "If instructions are properly followed."
As of right now, in Florida, you can not only buy Plan B over the counter at around $35 - $40 at Walgreens, but there's also a Generic version for about $25 or $30.
I'd hardly call the price of a single movie ticket with large popcorn, drinks and candy to be "inaccessible."
So cut the crap about it being "out of reach" and "too expensive."
I do pay for my own condoms occasionally, but I also get them for free at Planned Parenthood and at my college campus.
You realize that doesn't help your argument, right?
You get them for free... but you're still demanding other people pay for you...
However, hormonal birth control is very expensive and that's why lots of insurance companies provide coverage for it.
And so we need to force people who either can't or don't want to use it to pay hundreds more for no reason.
The next step is coverage for every woman who chooses to use it.
Or forcing women who don't to cover for those who do.
Everyone benefits from reduced poverty. Less poverty means less crime, lower unemployment and higher wages, higher property values, cleaner cites, the list goes on and on. I'll say it again, the two proven most effective methods in reducing poverty are education and access to birth control for women.
I like how you use other people as hostages to force them to give you free stuff while telling them it's for their benefit.
"If you don't give me my free contraception and condoms (which I admit I get for free half the time), I swear I'll end up creating more poverty and crime for you. So pay for my shit, it's in your best interest."
I believe the big banks made that exact same excuse when they demanded their bail out as well.
When it comes to restriction on birth control, it ALL stems from religious agendas.
You're a stupid, lazy piece of shit.
You're the reason for higher unemployment, poverty and crime. It's because of dipshits like you who can't go a week without fucking someone you haven't met for 15 minutes as the reason why we have these issues.
You're like an ultra religious moron who grows up his whole life knowing that horrible shit happens all around the world to other people, who only begins questioning God's existence when horrible things happen to you.
People like you, grow up your whole lives knowing about single parent households, unwanted pregnancies, and poverty, but the moment you get stuck with an unwanted kid (through your own voluntary actions), you immediately cry foul and wonder "why am I being punished?"
You're a fucking moron who uses his own stupidity to justify stealing from others.
You're like a mugger who puts a gun to someone's head demanding his money, claiming it's in his self-interest to pay... or else.
You have to pay taxes for the benefit of our entire nation get over yourself.
Right. So how do you feel about the Government using your taxes to cut a check to the oil and coal industry?
What are you going to say when the oil companies come back and declare "We deserve that check! Without us, you wouldn't have the electricity in your home or the fuel to run your car. We uplift everyone's lives! And remember! That leads to less poverty, less crime, and higher employment! If you don't subsidize us, then does that mean you want these things to go away?"
Nationwide access to birth control is for the benefit of the nation economically and socially. You don't have the right to restrict anything within government based on religious beliefs.
You're so full of shit, you worthless hypocrite.
At 1/31/14 12:34 AM, Memorize wrote:At 1/30/14 10:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Medicine largely exists tp return people to normal lives. Shit, I alone cost the government $10K a month in medical costs to keep a relatively normal lifestyle. Why aren't you railing aginst the government funding my lifestyle?I am.
To use a phrase from our president: Let me be clear...
I do not mind giving people money. Even when I'm cash strapped, I still end up donating money despite my pessimism and overall dislike of people in general because my conscious ends up getting the better of me (a problem I wish would go away).
To be honest: I don't mind giving money, I actually find it to be rather pleasant and enjoyable (one of the few things I do...). What I don't like is when someone demands that I pay them as if I was responsible for the situation they're in.
At 1/30/14 10:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
What exactly is the government paying for by requiring private insurance companies to cover this stuff?
Because everyone is also being forced to by their corporate product.
You're enriching corporations and using them as middle men to transfer people's incomes to other people's personal lives.
I'm not against a private insurer covering these things. What I'm against is the Government mandating that all insurance cover these, then forcing me to buy it.
Also, if you're so categorically opposed to the government being involved (or paying for) people's personal lives, why aren;t you lashing out against viagra or all of that LowT bullshit?
I am against that.
That's equally as idiotic.
So, either get pissed about that shit, or admit your disagreement is selective and not based upon the idea of paying for another's lifestyle.
I am pissed about that shit.
The difference between then and now is that I wasn't forced to buy it, but now I am... well, not really... thanks Native American loophole!
If you want to talk about that kind of nonsense, sure. I'm as much against that kind of bullshit as this. But that's not what the author was referring to, nor was I previously forced to buy it like I am now.
EVEN THEN, the vast majority of medicines are lifestyle medicines.
ie. Not actually medically necessary.
Medicine doesn't exist to solely hold back diseases.
No one is saying it shouldn't. But your problems are your's. I didn't do anything to you. I am, in no way, responsible for whatever problems you have.
Forcing me or anyone else to pay for your problems is essentially the same as declaring us guilty without a trial and using that verdict to repay what we never stole from you.
Medicine largely exists tp return people to normal lives. Shit, I alone cost the government $10K a month in medical costs to keep a relatively normal lifestyle. Why aren't you railing aginst the government funding my lifestyle?
I am.
At 1/30/14 08:05 PM, Saen wrote:
Uh huh sure keep trying to tell yourself that.
And why not?
I actually want more people to use protection and contraception. People are stupid. They breed stupid kids.
Education (academic) and granting reproductive rights and control to women has reduced poverty and growth rates in entire countries. It is a grossly well known fact that cutting funding for education and restricting birth control access are the spearheads of the Republican platform.
What does education have to do with birth control?
And who's restricting access?
Since when did not forcing someone else to pay for another person's personal life be considered "restricting access?"
Last I checked, you could have an effectiveness rate into the upper 90's if you properly use birth control (and edge it up even further with other contraceptive/protection). Not to mention, it's cheaply available at every local Walmart and Target, in many instances for just $5.
How is anyone restricting your access to it just because they don't feel like paying for your cheap, lazy ass?
How incredibly sad and pathetic are you as a person, when you, as an adult and with a job, can't somehow be bothered to pay for your own personal sex life when my friends and I were able to get our hands on all this stuff before we even hit the teenage years?
Providing coverage for birth control is not "being involved" in someone's sex life. Would you say the same of private insurance companies that offer coverage for birth control? No of course not.
Of course it is. You're forcing me, against my will to pay for it.
You're forcing people, like my own mother who has 3 kids and can't have anymore, to pay more for insurance for items she receives no benefit from.
Not only that, even if insurance companies offer coverage, guess what? I don't have to buy that insurance... oh wait... nevermind!
Let me make this clear to you, buy using your own bullshit left-wing perspective.
The Government's money is the "People's money". If you accept Government funds to pay for your stuff, then you're using the People's money to fund for your stuff. And since you're using the People's money, then you're subject to any restriction set forth by the people from their elected leaders.
Just like with Education. Just like with Welfare. Just like with the Military.
The reason why I find this so hilarious is that I know if and when the Government starts placing restrictions on your personal life (on the basis of you using Government funds, just like with education and welfare), you people are the first ones who will immediately start bitching about how "unfair" that is.
The reason why I don't want the Government paying for someone's personal life, is because your personal life is your's, not someone else's. You don't want me involved in your's, and I don't want you involved in mine.
What you seem to be incapable of doing is thinking it through the long term. If you allow the Government to steal for you to give you some short term benefit, don't come back whining later on when the Government uses the power you gave it to then do something you don't like.
You don't want me setting restrictions on your sex life? Stop making me pay for it.
You don't want me involved in your personal life? Stop dragging me into your personal life.
The only possible restrictions that will be set on National Health Care coverage for birth control will be made by Republicans that want to restrict its use purely because of personal beliefs. You're damn right people will start complaining when Republicans set out to make restrictions on birth control coverage (they are already attempting to do this btw).
Then what right do you have to complain about a power you've given them, dumbshit?
At 1/29/14 01:08 PM, WallofYawn wrote:
Disabled people actually have a brain. A very fucked up brain, but still a brain.
Having cognitive function doesn't determine person-hood in today's society.
So... a brain dead patient in a hospital is a person... but a fetus isn't... funny.
Explain that contradiction.
Aborting a fetus at the beginning of the first term is equivelent to me ejaculating into a toilet bowl.
This thread has been over this.
Take a biology class. Please.
They may feel some levels of pain, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have the brain functioning at a level that would be able to accurately and definitively interpret that pain. Ants and worms feel pain, too, but we feel no guilt in hurting, or even killing them.
You know what's hilarious?
You, bringing up having a brain as an aspect of person-hood, then supporting abortion at 20 weeks despite the fetus having cognitive functions.
Well, if you want to limit it before 24 months, I guess that's a valid issue you could bring up to your local senator, or start a petition. Personally, though, I still don't feel they qualify as actual "people" until after that period. But who's to really say? It's not like we can ask the fetus.
So... you need a brain to be a person... despite society frequently referring to those without brain activity as "people/persons", all while you support abortion at a moment when a fetus does have cognitive function.
The inconsistency is mind-blowing.
Bullshit. Rape happens all the time, and if you live in Texas or Kentucky...>_>
Could be vermont, where child molesters receive probation.
Second reason is health issues. If a mother can't carry a baby to full term without putting her life, and her babies life at risk, she may as well abort it so that at least one life is saved.
Accounts for only around 10% of all abortions.
Then rape comes in third, and incest is actually probably the least likely reason to have one. I would say that most are underage teens who have sex way too early or don't use protection.
Less than 1%.
At 1/25/14 02:39 AM, Saen wrote:
So if it is a well known fact that educating women and increasing their access to birth control reduces poverty, why aren't Republicans on board with funding? It's because Republicans only care about their own finances as individuals and don't give a shit about poverty, the selfish mentality Republicans have had for decades. Or maybe it's the fact that Republicans will never truly be able to look at birth control from a fiscal standpoint, because of their own beliefs which prohibit the use of it.
Not wanting to fund someone else's birth control has nothing to do with being against birth control.
My question is: How do liberals claim to not want other people or the Government involved in their personal/sex lives while simultaneously demanding the Government be involved in their personal/sex lives to the point of paying for it?
I guarantee if the Government treats federal funding on contraceptives like they do with education (ie. You accepted federal dollars, therefore you're subject to the people's/Government's restrictions), the very proponents of paying for a non-medically necessary item will, in turn, begin complaining.
At 1/20/14 07:31 PM, Knis wrote:
Your response "have you read this thread?" was to the question "Who says it [the fact a fetus looks different] does [mean fetuses aren't people]" So either stay on topic, or don't but don't claim you never said you hjust implied.
I said that people will actively say that a fetus isn't "human."
And that people are more easily able to justify or condone killing when they don't have to look at it, not that the reason for their being pro-choice was based on how a fetus "looks."
That is litterally impossible, free action requires motivation, which requires values, which are always subjective.
Which, once again, you'll claim to believe until you're the one being targeted. Then, just like with all of the inconsistencies of humanity, you'll start to complain about that subjective "unfairness."
No, I simply hold that my subjective values are valued by me. This doesn't change . Your accusation is BS.
Ah, the old "I'm tolerant of everyone's viewpoints... until they clash with mine" routine.
Fair enough, but "proabortion" is a lie that "prolife" people use knowing that it doesn't accuratly describe their opponenets position.
Sure it does.
You support abortion rights.
You claim there's nothing "wrong" with abortion.
You believe that people are entitled to it.
You are pro-abortion.
Which I find rather amusing because it's a "right" and "entitlement" that you claim to want "fewer of."
Not really, for starters, are people who oppose abortion always desiring for abortion to occur?
Then why does your side always suppress any measure to curb it without actually infringing on it? Why, if there's nothing wrong with abortion as you claim, do you want fewer abortions?
It'd be like if I said "There's nothing wrong with Free Speech. Everyone's entitled to it... but I want fewer of it."
If the fetus will be born only to die a horrible painful death, say from mermaid syndrom, I'm in favor, if the abortion would occur after the point of of achieving awareness, and the health of the woman isn't in danger, I'm against.
Awareness doesn't determine personhood in our society. It's only selectively enforced. The law, courts, and individuals still place many who are brain dead , on life support or in a vegetative state as a "person."
Pro death penalty. Not pro death.
Which is my point.
What?
Cognitive function develops well before 24 weeks...
Nice strawman. I'm merely asking for you to STATE YOUr POSITION, instead of giving random, often incorract data.
I've illustrated my position several times.
I don't think people are any special. I believe people are worthless and cowardly; that there's no special place for them in life whatsoever.
As a result, I see people from a very detached perspective. Every living person on this planet from ME to YOU, I merely view as a cluster of living cells comprising the combination of a genetic code from our parents.
So I find it fascinating that one human cluster of cells would designate another human cluster of cells to be "less human" to justify killing that other cluster for the sake of personal, selfish convenience.
Yes, I repeat a spermazoa and a ovum ARE also stages in human development.
In General animal life, but not YOUR individual human development.
I repeat what does "biologically independant" mean?
It's like trying to give a simple explanation to a lemon.
Exactly how, what critweria is required for a "human indavidual".
The same criteria for any biological "individual"; this just happens to be human.
You're not a clone of either of your parents, are you?
No, just like a blastocyst, fetus, or infant, you are comprised of both (or sometimes more depending) of their genetic material that makes you, you: A new Individual (human).
Because the term "biologically independent" is a term you pulled out of your ass.
Define biological, then independent.
It's a simple combination of phrase.
As does a cancerous tumor. Or a brain dead person, or flack of skin.
A cancerous tumor: Different biological structure and programming.
Brain dead person: Still considered a person, independent.
Flask of skin: Still you, not a separate individual.
It amazes me how your side always claims the scientific mantra.
Again, why? This is a nonsequiter as far as I can tell. Unless you want to say that since spermazoa and ovum are earlier stages....
I... seriously don't know what I can do to explain how that doesn't work.
I'm going to try and explain this, in simple terms again.
Think of you as your own individual. A cluster of cells made up the combining of genetic material of your parents that make you a separate living entity.
Those flasks of skin. Your sperm. All of that, is still you. It's your genetic material (the combination from your parents). It's when part of your genetic material is combined with part of another's genetic material that it creates a new, living, independent entity.
That's why the argument of "what about my sperm" is idiotic. Because that's still biologically you.
So leave it, or at least be consistant yourself.
Funny thing is. If society turns, you'll be the one refusing to leave. So... for you to lecture me on consistency is... amusing.
Killing a bacterium isn't violent, so no.
Do I need to crack open a biology book for you and lecture you on basic structure?
Already went over that. Disagree or don't but don't just ignore the facts.
Or you're too trusting of people.
I see so in your opinion people are completly unable to determine if they can care for a child.
I don't know.
All I do know is that people are worthless, pathetic, and cowardly. They're liars.
Economics, stupidity, etc, the real question is how does that magically change the fact?
Merely that a person's own individual stupidity shouldn't be the primary basis for their argument.
You seem to be doing just that.
Says the guy who compares cancerous tumors to a fetus despite their structural and biological differences..
Then you're a moron.
Excellent retort!
Define violence.
Really?
Define define.
Therefor it's okay to force you to do something against your will, in violation of bodily autonomy?
Not biologically your body, as we've been over this: It's a genetically unique, independent, living entity. Not to mention, that other living entity only exists because you forced it into existence by your own voluntary actions.
That's like saying walking down a dark alley is an invitation to rape.
You're right. Forcing another being into existence against it's will only to arbitrarily kill it off at a moment's notice as if you own it's life like a piece of property... is a lot like rape.
B4 24 weeks the fetus litterally has no will.
Despite people being born, alive, and still living at 23, 22, and 21 weeks...
So the chart still shows the opposite of what the OP claimed, this fact doesn't change.
So trusting...
And none of those would adress the issue at hand.
it addresses their issues.
That's not a fact it's a directive.
"Fun Fact" is a buzz phrase, Genius.
At 1/4/14 11:09 AM, Knis wrote:
I repeat, who daphaic says that the fact fetuses look different means they aren't persons?
I never said anyone didn't consider a fetus a person based on how a fetus looks.
Why does that fact matter when we're not discussing a matter of science but of ethics?
Because when deciding policy, it should be based on objective fact, not subjective feelings.
So saying a fetus isn't a person is just as arbitrary as saying african americans aren't persons. Or that women aren't persons. Or that children not old enough to reproduce aren't persons.In the objective sense you're right but only because all values are at their core arbitrary.
Which you only say until the moment you yourself are targeted. Then people like you whine about unfair it is and about how your "rights" are being violated.
As is the hypocrisy of human kind.
I see the "proabortion crowed"? You know I'm willing to go with the self identification of "pro-life" people despite the fact ,many, in fact most, demonstno concern for life what so ever, and virtually none are able to define what they mean when they say they are pro-life. I'd like to know how exactly believing that something shouldn't be outlawed arbitrarily means I must be for it?
Pro life and Pro choice are just vague buzz phrases to make ourselves sound more appealing.
Calling oneself pro abortion or anti abortion is a much more accurate statement. What the topic? Abortion. Well, are you for or against it? In what circumstances?
When discussing the issue of the death penalty, no one refers the group in favor of it as "Pro Death."
Wonder what?
How the world allows your uniquely low level of intelligence to exist.
What about people who were born pre-maturely at 22 weeks?&?
Viability?
That cognitive functions develop much earlier than that.&?
So you're going to kill a living human entity with cognitive function?
That pain is substantially proven after 24 weeks.After 30ish I believe, oh and; And??
So you think it's perfectly fine to kill… anything, in a painful manner?
That a fetus is merely an earlier stage of human developmentAs is a spermatozoa or an ovum, what's your point.
Did you ever take biology in any school you've ever been too?
Did you even read what I wrote?
Allow me to break this down… again. Biologically, fundamentally, what are you? A cluster of living cells comprising the combination of a human genetic code that you received from your parents.
That combination makes YOU a biologically independent, genetically separated living human entity. YOU are a "new" human life.
Sperm and an Ovum are merely extensions of who they belong to. Sperm has YOUR DNA. And it's when, through sexual reproduction, when half the genetic material from each parent combines together (in some cases three depending on procedure and how this takes place) that it forms a new living human entity.
Meaning: Your sperm is just your genetic material. A fetus (and I'll use fetus as the general term for simplicity) is a new, living, human individual.
This is simple stuff. Why is your side so biologically inept at that?
I asked what logic and/or science indicates that abortion laws should be changed. You gave a list of random datum, and opinions, and an undefined neologinism.
It should be changed based on the fact that people are essentially pathetic and worthless.
What you don't seem to understand about me is that I personally view humanity as nothing more than a happenstance that will ultimately disappear.
There's nothing special about me, you, or the rest of humanity. As a result, I tend to broadly view people for what they are to their core: Clusters of living cells comprising the combination of a human genetic code that they received from their parents.
And guess what else fits that biological criteria? A fetus.
So since a fetus is nothing more than an earlier stage of the human development life cycle…
And since society isn't going to classify the death of an adult as worse than the death of an infant (being less biologically and cognitively developed than an adult)…
Then, logically, the death of a fetus can not be classified any differently from that of an infant.
Point is: I refuse to be a part of such an inconsistent and cowardly society.
In some situations maybe. But what fetus under what circumstances?
You tell me.
Killing another life is an act of violence. And as such, shouldn't the burden of proof then be on you to justify that act of violence?
Actually over half of the respondents gave answers indicating they couldn't provide for a child adequately.
In what way?
If I were a multi-millionaire and said "I can't raise the child adequately because I'm traveling a lot", no one would ever buy that excuse.
And lack of maturity, and not ready.
Based on?
Doesn't really change the fact that stated reason has to do with the ability to provide, does it?
Claiming you don't have the ability and actually not having the ability are two different things.
Most likely indicates lack of ability to provide stability.
"I travel a lot… lack of stability"
Finished with childbearing?Nothings vague about this one, but it doesn't say convenience does it?
Then what the hell were you doing not using protection to avoid another one?
You shouldn't be able to use your own stupidity to justify your position.
Indicating most likely worry about stability.
So now we've gone from "Lack of stability" to "Well… maybe… I might, at some point, in the near future, down the line somewhere…. lack stability?"
What do you want a case study of each person,
Yes.
You're the one killing another human life.
You're the one committing an act of violence.
You're the one who voluntarily engaged in activity, thereby forcing the 'fetus' against it's will to be there in the first place.
You should have to have a better reason than "I fucked someone I didn't even know for 15 minutes and didn't use protection/contraception."
AND none of the respondents said or indicated "convenience", did they?
People are worthless. People lie all the time. People always have ulterior motives. Of course none of them will say "convenience" because that would only cause the public to be against them and see them for who they really are.
All the reasons given are just nice, little statements to make it sound more appealing. Just like the terms pro life and pro choice.
\What possible answers would you have given respondants the choice of, out of curiosity?
Only simple yes/no answers to the following:
Were you in a valid relationship or was it a fling?
Did you use protection/contraception?
If not, why didn't you?
What is your income level and what is the cost of living in your area?
Were you pressured into being here?
You're point being? No one is referring to any class of humanity nor is anyone declaring anything isn't human, so stay on topic instead of playing semantic games.
Fun fact.
If you consider a fetus to be a person, then look up the word "murder" in the dictionary.
At 1/4/14 06:46 AM, Knis wrote:
Who say's it does?
Have you read this thread?
I noticed that you like to use the term human as opposed to person. Is that because you secretly know that half this debate is what constitutes a person and wish to play a semantic game?
That's only because the word "person" has no scientific backing behind it. It's merely a word whose definition is subject to whatever society deems a person to be.
So saying a fetus isn't a person is just as arbitrary as saying african americans aren't persons. Or that women aren't persons. Or that children not old enough to reproduce aren't persons.
Which is why the pro-abortion crowd gets upset when people say it's an individual human life, because that's a scientifically proven statement.
Source?
No one can ultimately say a fetus can feel pain before 24 weeks. The problem is that everything necessary for there to be a feeling of pain is present at around 20 weeks, but there's no way to tell if a fetus can actually feel or sense pain at that time, or if a fetus can, there's no way to tell how much pain it can actually feel.
But when you have a fetus being born at 22 or 23 weeks, seemingly whimpering and gasping to stay alive, it makes people wonder, doesn't it?
What logic? What science?
That people have been born and lived prior to 24 weeks.
That cognitive functions develop much earlier than that.
That pain is substantially proven after 24 weeks.
That a fetus is merely an earlier stage of human development and is genetically independent.
How about those? Unless you think a fetus should be aborted at 8.5 months.
That's not what you're little chart shows. It shows that the majority of these pregnancies are terminated due to the inability to provide a good home for the child to be. So yeah, you proved yourself to be full of shit there.
Nothing on that chart is an indication of being incapable of providing a good home.
The closest thing would be "can't afford", but that's entirely subjective. What's their definition of "poor?"
And that only accounts for 25%, on a poll no less. Everything else with the exception of rape (ect.. which amount to almost nothing), is out of convenience.
I mean seriously.... Relationship issues? Finished with childbearing? Not ready/poor timing?
How vague are these? They sound like typical excuses all of humanity gives when attempting to justify their actions.
I value a dog above a fetus as one is a thinking, feeling being and the other is a mass of assorted tissues.
One class of humanity is always declaring another class as either less or not human in an attempt to justify killing that class.
At 12/29/13 05:58 PM, FAN773 wrote: I see no problem with abortion...if i had a problem with abortion i'd have to stop masterbating....
Open a biology book... please.
At 12/29/13 01:55 PM, 4761 wrote:
Who says you absolutely had to shove them onto your property? I know pregnancy due to rape is a rare case, but it is still a possibility. You cannot discount the grievances of the minority because it does not happen to everyone else.
I've said multiple times that I'm not including Rape in this scenario.
I've said multiple times that getting an abortion because of rape is a justified reason.
And even then, just because some women have sex willingly does not mean that they also wanted to invite a child into their lives. Having sex could entail pregnancy anyway, but a woman who commits the careless error of having sex unprepared for the consequences does not want a baby any more than, say, a man who drinks before driving wants to be involved in a car accident. Don't make it seem as if it was completely intentional.
But a drunk guy getting into a car accident can't say "It's not my fault, I was drunk!"
In the same way, if you live in a Globally rich, industrialized nation with sex education classes and where contraception is sold at every local walmart or target for under $5, then your excuse is invalid.
I know humans over history have degraded the value of certain human lives, but you must realize that those lives were devalued for absolutelyno good reason.
And it continues.
We can definitely see how blacks, Jews, the handicapped, women, and other devalued people are sentient human beings. You cannot, however, say the same for fetuses under the given weeks lest you dive into the absurd route of claiming that even fertilized egg cells should be considered humans. When it comes to race, religion, sex, or non-life threatening debilitating conditions, there is no justification for curtailing a person's rights. But age is different: we have always discriminated, and justly so, against people of certain ages.
But where you draw the line is non-sensical and entirely subjective.
At pain? Since when did pain determine person-hood?
Cognitive function? Going to have to ban it earlier than 6 months.
Viability? How is person-hood dependent on advancing technology rather than biology?
The younger people are, the fewer rights they have and the more they become essentially subject to their parents or guardians as property, by which I do not mean property that is bought or sold, but property that is in under constant care and supervision under a household.
But not property to be killed, now are they?
This is one of the few kinds discrimination we actually need for an ordered society. You can then see how a human offspring who is merely an enlarged egg devoid of any sentience or reception to pleasure or pain and any other characteristics even remotely resembling those of a human, only barring perhaps such faintest, poorest similarities suggesting human likeness as the same genes and rudimentary structure, has absolutely no say when it comes to its fate.
Still human life. Put there through YOUR voluntary actions.
And still entirely subjective. It's either human life or it isn't. As they say, you never have just a touch of pregnancy.
And if society isn't going to distinguish between the value of a human life between an adult and infant despite the adult being far more biologically developed and useful, then why should I be a hypocrite and label an earlier stage of human development as "not worthy" of living?
I think it is just for the fetus up to a certain age to be considered absolute property of the mother, for the mother should have the right to own her own body and the contents within, and if necessary, the right to adjust whatever is in her body so she is less burdened--unless, of course, she commits a crime involving her body and must be appropriately dealt with.
It's not biologically her body.
It's a genetically separated, biologically independent living entity that was forced to be there against its will.
You can't sit there with a straight face and claim "it's her body" when the majority of abortions take place after the beginning developments of a functioning organ that will be pumping its own blood through it's own body.
And for the pro-lifers who feel as if deciding the definition of life based on our feelings is arbitrary and unscientific, let it be known that in fact a hundred percent of the decisions we make, especially when it comes to deciding that murder, thievery, prejudice, and so on are wrong because of their impacts on our emotional states, come from our emotions; so your point is quite moot.
Making any decision based on feelings is bullshit.
And you seem to be under the impression that I actually like humanity. What you described, to me, is merely an example of how pathetic people in general are.
I, unlike you, merely refuse to be a hypocrite and succumb to society's bullshit double standards.
Like i said, if society is going to cry more over the death of an infant than the death of an adult despite and adult being more biologically and cognitively developed and...
if society isn't going to place the value of an adult over an infant despite these basic biological facts, and...
if a fetus is nothing more than an earlier stage of the human development life cycle and still biologically and genetically independent...
Then I refuse to be a part of such a pathetically inconsistent society. Especially one that has a pattern of arbitrarily determining who is and isn't considered a "person", be they women, homosexual, or a racial minority.
And that's why your explanation of our laws being grounded on an emotional level, though correct, is complete bullshit. Because I know the moment society suddenly decides that "people like you" don't count, you'll throw a bitch fit about how "unfair" that is.
At 12/12/13 12:26 AM, Feoric wrote:
Well, to be fair, he could use 13,949 of your posts as evidence if he wanted to.
I might take that seriously, if you didn't run away like a bitch every time, lol.
At 12/11/13 07:16 PM, Light wrote:At 12/11/13 07:24 AM, Memorize wrote:I just said in that post that I don't think IQ tests don't measure all or most aspects of a person's intelligence. Learn to read.At 12/10/13 10:07 PM, Light wrote:As a liberal/progressive, I do find the fact that conservatives have lower IQs entertaining, but I don't use that as evidence that progressives are generally smarter than conservatives."Look mom! I can say it without really saying it!"
Why do you think I wrote "say it without really saying it" ?
Think carefully, and take your own advice... dumbass.
Don't break on to someone's property, asshole.
At 12/10/13 10:07 PM, Light wrote:
As a liberal/progressive, I do find the fact that conservatives have lower IQs entertaining, but I don't use that as evidence that progressives are generally smarter than conservatives.
"Look mom! I can say it without really saying it!"
At 12/6/13 09:20 PM, Warforger wrote:
That doesn't make any sense, and yes that does have an effect on people. I'm guessing you're describing a boycott, if enough people do boycott Wal-Mart and their sales are affected then they'll be forced to change some of their policies that caused the boycott to begin with. So that's not "inactivity" which is essentially impossible.
I'm describing the Government's (and yours) idea of what it can regulate based on abstract logic.
The idea that because what you do can influence something somewhere, that it makes you responsible for the actions others take.
It's the idea that even if you don't engage in interstate commerce, that because your not engaging in interstate commerce can, in some way, influence prices and the market, that it then becomes regulated under interstate commerce.
It's the idea that even if I leave you alone and do absolutely nothing to you, that that somehow makes you my victim.
You must still be baffled by the term "you have to spend money to make money".
"You have to bail people out of their mistakes to prevent them from making future mistakes."
You know what else is expensive? Job training programs. You know what increases government revenue? Job training programs. Similarly here, you know what drains government revenue? Welfare for single parents, incarcerating people who grew up hated by their only parent, people paying lower tax rates because they cannot get higher paying jobs, food stamps these people then have to use since they don't have enough money for food.
I love that you consider keeping your own money to be "Draining Government Revenue" even though the Government has to steal the money first in order for it to even be considered revenue.
Once again... love that abstract logic.
Guess what some people say diminishes this drain? Abortions; allowing women to choose when they'll have children.
So why not just kill everyone in prison as cheaply as abortion procedures?
Oh right... it would be "inhumane" would it?
No that's not what I'm arguing and it's starting to be confusing about what you're arguing. Are saying these people who work to get the money to pay for their abortions? Are you telling me to encourage these people to do that?
I'm saying that people should accept responsibility for themselves and their choices, rather than coming up with convenient crap to try and tell me that bailing them out is somehow in my benefit.
No different than how the wealthy bankers did to cover their screw ups.
Yah, it's called the Constitution. There's this part where the government works for "the general welfare".
The articles of confederation had that too. And it's written as a restriction. They even argued with Hamilton about that because he attempted to make the same argument you're using.
Exactly; that's why Classical Economics don't work that well.
Because we're doing great now, right?
To some extent; those bailouts weren't for all the banks and those banks had to change their executives. Some banks like Lehman Brothers were allowed to go under.
When they made the correct decision and later panicked as a result.
Yes I do because making abortion legal does not place restrictions on my "lifestyle". Oh I guess I don't have the right because I don't agree with you, yah I guess I'll just wait for the day that Rand Paul takes over the government and changes the 1st amendment to say that those people who don't agree with him will be jailed.
I'm not saying you don't have the right. You have all the right to be a hypocrite any way you damn well please.
What I am saying is that hypocrisy is getting irritating from people like you.
Oh, so if a school accepts federal funds they have to abide by federal restrictions... but if you take federal funds for your sex life or abortions then restrictions are somehow magically off limits?
Fuck off.
That would be true, if the majority of positions you're criticizing and responding to had any relevance to a word I had typed. Instead you literally ignored everything I said and focused on attacking some imaginary liberal you despise. It starting to seem that you're the hypocrite, since you are calling everyone here "idiots".
Says the guy who is incapable of understanding basic comparisons.
That's ridiculous, does that mean I can now send a bomb to a police station because I don't like the fact that they also murder people? Or if I shoot up an army camp because I don't agree with the Afghanistan war, is that a good form of protest? Yes I generally expect people to not be hypocrites or at the very least downright terrorists over an issue.
No. Dumbass.
I'm saying that if you shouldn't be surprised that these things happen when you actively steal from people and use their money to fund who they consider to be murderers or performing murders.
In the same way we shouldn't be surprised that Arabs hate us for our Government killing people and supporting authoritarian regimes in the Middle East.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying you shouldn't be surprised by it.
Oh, the guy who just said that Abortion Clinic bombings are justified called me a Neo-Con.
Reading comprehension... so very little of it.
Yes, because I totally said that all of his money should be taken away as well as all the money of oil companies because apparently I believe that investing is evil and that when people pay taxes they should donate the rest of their income to the government. There are totally posts you can quote that have me saying that.
But that's the thing. You don't actually believe it's his money. If you support a system whereby politicians can forcibly take money from someone at the threat of gunpoint, then you don't really believe it's his, do you?
Oh let me guess... it all depends on the will of the majority, is that it?
He doesn't? You just said he invested in a Green company. There are political opponents who claim that after all, but the only thing I found that was a critique of him was "He rides a private jet". That's fucking ridiculous, yah he does, he's a famous person who goes around campaigning for something he believes in so he'll use a Private Jet.
Do I need to give you a story of his carbon emission rates from his mansion?
it was already politically polarized enough, but he should've known better than to assume the average voter would listen to the scientific community over Republicans.
I accept Global Warming. I just don't believe him when he opens his mouth.
Why did you say "forcing you"? Again, you're missing the point, you're doing textbook strawman i.e. you make up my viewpoints and then debate against those viewpoints instead of addressing the topic at hand. So you're literally talking to no one, or maybe you have some deep mental issue where you hate stereotypical liberals so much that you have imaginary fights with them in your head because you don't seem that interested in actually addressing their viewpoints.
Why should I be interested in people who merely pretended to give a shit about military intervention and Soldier and Middle Eastern deaths during Bush's presidency?
As someone who is anti-war, anti-everything Bush, and has become even more liberal over the years, why in the world would I ever be interested in the perspective of some dipshit, lying, modern American Liberal hypocrite?
Remarkable, because nothing in that addresses anything previously stated by me
It has everything to do with you.
You know how irritating it is when Conservatives blabber on about how the Government should enforce "family values" and "we need the war on drugs" and "abstinence?" All while using those as excuses for the greater good?
Why should I be any less irritated when all you liberals do is use the exact same argument, only instead applying to the things that you personally like "for the greater good?"
At 12/6/13 02:58 PM, Feoric wrote:
I admit that the battle to make you realize why you're a wrong stupid asshole is a battle I will always lose.
You write it out that way after I accuse you of a pre-school level intellect.
That's hilarious.
At 12/6/13 02:33 AM, Feoric wrote:At 12/6/13 01:13 AM, Korriken wrote: Why do I get this creeping feeling that you're full of shit? This outright reeks of stereotyping. It's akin to asking why all Italians are in the mafia and why they all yell "Fogedaboutit!" all the time.Odd, coming from the guy who loves to rant about nonexistent "welfare queens."
Several of my shift leads where I used to work had EBT cards... when they frequently just bought new cars.
At 12/6/13 02:21 AM, Feoric wrote:At 12/6/13 12:06 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Actually, it's a phenomena kown as "second hand stupidity"Now this is why liberals are so hated. They are far better at insulting their opponents.
They insult the same.
liberals just run away when they start losing.
Speaking of which...
At 12/4/13 10:16 PM, Feoric wrote:
Do you see the difference between these two statements? One is a) asking for sources that back up the assertion that welfare prevents certain people with very low food security from starving, and b) asking for sources that back up the assertion that welfare prevents from mass starvation.
It's not my fault you have the reading comprehension of a pre-schooler.
You're also proving my point about the bubble first world idiots live in.
"In comparison to other advanced economies, the U.S. had high levels of hunger even during the first few years of the 21st century, due in part to greater inequality and relatively less spending on welfare. As was generally the case across the world, hunger in the U.S. was made worse by the lasting global inflation in the price of food that began in late 2006 and by the financial crisis of 2008. By 2012, about 50 million Americans were food insecure, approximately 1 in 6 of the population, with the proportion of children facing food insecurity even higher at about 1 in 4.
"relatively less" meaning "More, but not as much as we would like."
I also like how you disprove your own point with wikipedia, considering the reason why people are going hungry is due to inflation (which you support) and an economic crash, not lack of food assistance.
Ah, the fabled no true starvation fallacy. Been a while since I've seen that one.
First world bubble.
It'd be nice if you liberals actually acknowledged the living conditions outside your front yard. It's amazing how pathetically little you know of the world.
