13,861 Forum Posts by "Memorize"
At 11/30/10 01:15 AM, Imperator wrote:
Well I'm guessing part of the problem with it would be the clear majority of scientists and higher IQ individuals are atheists, so saying they outnumber atheists kinda makes.....no sense.
At 11/29/10 03:59 PM, poxpower wrote:
All of these are correlated with LOW EDUCATION. Same goes for religiosity. Low education / IQ = higher religiosity.
Hence the people who are scientists but religious are not representative of the trend, even if there's a great many of them. They are not the majority and they definitely are not the most devout even if they identify as X religion.
Then why is it that the majority of atheists support abortion for any reason under any circumstance during any time of the pregnancy?
You'd rarely find any individual who took such a primitive, unscientific position. And yet, these are your "educated types".
Point being: No group is more intelligent than the other, they all just use really dumb reasons to justify their positions.
A religious person will be pro-life because "God told me so" (dumb)
An atheist will then be pro-choice as a statement against the religious person (also dumb)
If you honestly believe that atheists believe in Evolution because of it being a scientific fact (or... uh... theory, don't want to insult some religious people on here), then you're really fucking dumb.
The reason why they believe in evolution is because it's perceived as the antithesis of the Creation myth.
Do you honestly believe they would suddenly believe in Creation if Science suddenly pointed in that direction? lol, fuck no.
Of course the true irony here is that you called it a "trend". That since the trend is such, then it automatically must be true.
I could just then say "The clear majority of scientists and higher IQ individuals greatly outnumber atheists so therefore...", but you won't accept that. Which is funny because you wouldn't accept the same bullshit logic you just used.
Isn't it great that the theory of natural selection actually came from Darwin's friend, who was a devout Christian?
At 11/29/10 01:36 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:At 11/29/10 01:33 AM, Warforger wrote: ...He's not talking about you. He's talking about all the other liberals who aren't on this forum to correct him.
The funny part is, I agreed with everything he just said.
Of course, why he didn't bring up those points on theburningliberal when he said a few of them... well... that's not exactly difficult to guess why.
It's always funny how liberals can claim to be against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming that they only retaliate due to their perception of us as being foreign occupiers and that to claim that the reasons why they attack us are due to our freedom is wrong, all while still being able to claim that suicide bombings are only occurring due to their religion.
oh look, theburningliberal truly is just as stupid today as he was 3 years ago.
It's amazing how you idiots still think Obama's policies are any different than the previous Administrations who helped put us in this ditch.
At 11/18/10 10:01 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
bc, please read my above post. In 2010, in America, "Straight Pride" is NOT about having pride in the fact that one is traight. It is intentionally meant to mock and deride "Gay Pride".
Selective discrimination is wonderful!
At 11/18/10 12:56 AM, The-General-Public wrote:
Thank You.
Congrats on going through all that for jack shit.
Without capping Medicare (though I would cap that)
At 11/14/10 03:21 PM, Warforger wrote:
They're the same thing..... Yours is just using % of GDP meaning how much they spent vs. how much money they made.
All I did was present a more accurate graph.
While you just measure Debt, I'm measuring Debt to GDP.
Point is: Having $200 with a $50 debt is better than having $100 with a $25 debt.
Based on that, the Republicans aren't as spend thrifty as you're making them out to be, nor are the Democrats the constant savers either.
Then again, I hate them all so...
Its funny how you and WolvenBear fire insults first then they are surprised when someone insults them back....
what are you talking about?
At 11/14/10 12:04 PM, Warforger wrote:
Unfortunately, I have actual news articles and actual evidence while you have crap.
says the guy who completely ignored the graph I posted.
At 11/13/10 10:56 AM, Warforger wrote:
That seems pretty clear that Reagan had higher taxes. Reagan also drove the debt to record levels just like both Bush's and Obama. What a "Conservative" he was.
Do I really have to put up this more accurate graph again?
At 11/11/10 09:40 PM, RentallyMetarded wrote:At 11/11/10 02:41 AM, TheMason wrote: He may go down as great a failure as Carter.*Cough* Nobel Peace Prize *Cough* Cough*
You know, Obama got the Peace Prize too... yet he hasn't changed jack shit about the wars he's continuing.
ie. Nobel Peace Prize means absolutely nothing.
At 11/8/10 05:38 AM, The-universe wrote:
If you think so, then prove it. However Lithium continued my point so you've got two to reply to. But I doubt you can without the usual straw man or red herring.
Translation: *WHINE CRY MOAN* "Stop using foul language to insult people!"
At 11/7/10 05:23 PM, Lithium-I wrote:
You were implying that the potential to become a person is the only thing necessary to have rights, I was commenting on how jizz, even though it needs an egg to fertilize, has the potetional to become a person when it fertilizes.
Uh... No.
I'm saying that the fetus should be considered a person, or at least, considered to be a person much earlier since there are so many counter examples to your stupidity.
I never said a damn thing about it being a potential for life, oh so incredibly smart one.
Sigh. Another misinterpretation of what I said. You're very good at that. I was saying that it's invalid to say that in all cases a fetus is a person solely because of the fact that when you kill a pregnant woman it's "double homicide" when that isn't even true in half the country.
That doesn't stop it from being a law that you people don't seem to have a problem with.
Why aren't you out there right now demanding they be in compliance with Roe v. Wade?
I bet I can guess...
Most miscarriages are due to neglect and/or abuse, but they don't become federally investigated. Thus, once again, you're whole "person in the eyes of the law" schtick falls short.
lol, such a fucking moron.
What does that have to do with my "person" argument? That's not an issue until afterwards.
But I do think it's funny that you and the other guy are now using the sympathy card like the other dumbass.
Which, by the way, also has no scientific backing AT ALL!
You sound more and more like those religious idiots every in every reply you make.
Okay, I'll concede. I got inconsistent on the scientific aspects of personhood. But it doesn't matter because a fetus hasn't been born yet, thus doesn't not gain inalienable rights.
So a 5 month premature infant that is less physically developed than an 8 month old fetus is considered "more human"?
I'm not willing, no. I'd personally let it live. But it's not my choice. Opponents of abortion may have a strong moral case and belief against abortion. Yet, their beliefs are not shared by all.
The guy robbing the store down the street might have a strong moral case and belief for robbing the store, and yet it's still illegal.
They must tolerate a woman's right to have an abortion, even if they believe the act to be morally wrong.
Why would a "Right" be morally wrong if your killing what you would consider no different than jizz?
If it's a "Right"... why do you want less of it when there's nothing wrong with it?
The best that opponents can hope for is to convince women that it is immoral, but to ask for the illegalization of abortion would be to wrongly deny that abortion is a right. Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State.
1) Any time people give women more information on their pregnancy that results in them NOT wanting an abortion, Planned Parenthood and politicians bitch and whine about them.
Most notably Ultra-sounds!
But I suppose Planned Parenthood wouldn't like that since it would cut into their profit margins quite a bit.
2) Once again: I will be forced into prison after robbing a store.
Hey... that would be like rape, wouldn't it?
Quit your emotional, borderline religious, crap.
What the fuck? I don't support condemning the physician.
Why not?
The fetus was BORN ALIVE.
I thought that by virtue of its birth it was automatically a person... or so you've said.
So answer one of the questions you refused to answer up top:Does this answer even matter?
According to you: Is a dead individual with no living cells considered more of a person than a LIVING fetus?
Uh... yes.
Because I would love consistency.
In what context is this even relevant to abortion?
You're the one who said that even a brain-dead patient hooked up on life support should be considered a person due to him at one point having real cognitive functions.
Well that dead guy did too.
So why is a dead person considered more a person than a fetus with actual living cells?
Rarely anyone would say that they are, so that "once upon a time" argument you pulled up doesn't amount to diddly-squat.
So by that logic, that brain-dead vegetable shouldn't be a person either.
I could say yes, but then you'd be all 'dudewtfmoron' You should probably stop with all the straw man shit and ask relevant questions that aren't misinterpretations of what I say. But I'll go ahead and answer this question. Yes. It's more of a person, because, even when dead, you're rights, given at birth still cannot be taken away. Happy?
How can you take away life from someone who's dead?
At 11/7/10 05:11 PM, The-universe wrote:
Actually yes.
Only in your delusional fantasy.
At 11/7/10 12:07 AM, Lithium-I wrote:
Is every single sperm cell in my jizz a person? How about the eggs in women, are they people too? Should we ban masturbation and menstruation because they kill things that could become people?
It's your DNA, smart one. Not another individual.
Let me help you out with this: We are all, from the moment of conception, a combination of DNA from both parents.
Is your jizz genetically separate from you?
This is just another of one of those idiot pro-choicer arguments which, once again, have no scientific backing whatsoever!
What a shocker!
Actually that's only the law in 25 states. It's a state's decision.
No shit.
So why do you people support a "state' decision on one hand, but not the other?
Pick up the pace, son.
Though you've once again, neglected to condemn those pro-abortion groups who NEVER criticize those laws.
L to the O to the L!
It's an extension to what I said.
Yeah! Just like "pain", but we saw where that argument went!
And besides, if a fetus was a person according to law, then all miscarriages would need a federal investigation, and abortionists would be charged with murder. Therefore, there is a fundamental inconsistency in this position.
Not really.
Abortionists being charged with murder would be funny as all hell.
But I fail to see where miscarriages would amount to federal investigations or even criminal charges.
Considering miscarriages wouldn't amount to an intent and the privacy would be between patient and doctor.
When didn't I say pain wasn't a criteria? I said most criteria have to be met,
And what let's you define "most"?
I could say a fetus should be a person when it begins development of its own heart and later begins pumping its own blood through its own genetically independent body.
But you wouldn't accept that because that starts WAY before the end of the 1st trimester (effectively making around 80% of abortions illegitimate).
And could you stay consistent at all?
First it's blood. Then when provided an example of how that won't work... it's cognitive functions... then when provided another example of how that doesn't make any sense... it's "well they USED to be aware"... and when that didn't work, it's suddenly "most have to be met"?
W...T...F?!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co mmons/5/57/Prenatal_development_table.sv g
So 2/3rds into the second trimester you have a 50% chance of surviving outside of the womb. That's close enough to the third trimester.
Congrats on skipping over an entire section of my reply because you couldn't back up your bullshit.
Even still: You're willing to kill a fetus during the 2nd trimester (of which people are alive today) based on what MIGHT happen?
Do you know how many dying patients would love to have even a 50-50 chance of survival?
After all, YOU'RE the one defending these abortions. You're the one defending Roe v. Wade. How can you support the woman going for an abortion, but then condemn the physician for killing it and throwing the newborn into the garbage when the procedure fails?
Whut.
You're still a moron.
So answer one of the questions you refused to answer up top:
According to you: Is a dead individual with no living cells considered more of a person than a LIVING fetus?
At 11/6/10 10:08 PM, Lithium-I wrote:
Alas, an infant left the womb, equivalent to a small tree leaving the seed. At that point, you can call the seed a tree.
I'm not saying the seed is a tree.
But to sit there and say that the seed that eventually became the tree aren't the same individual, is just plain dumb.
All the tree is, is a later development of that individual's life cycle.
Depends..Only if the fetus is in the third trimester, because by then they could survive outside of the womb. . By the time a women is in the third trimester she has no doubt decided she wants to keep the pregnancy - third trimester abortions almost never happen.
Is killing a pregnant woman grounds for Double homicide? Last I checked... Yes.
Oh, but wait... that's not what the law says... is it?
Because if you do kill a pregnant woman, regardless of what stage of the pregnancy, the law states it to be double homicide... which is supported by pro-choice groups with this statement:
"But the woman would have had the child, therefore it is a person!"
lulz
Most "personhood" lists diverge over precisely which features confer a right to life, but tend to propose that they are developed psychological features not found in embryos.
Which isn't what you said earlier.
You said that the fetus would have to have consciousness and be aware of itself in order to be considered a person.
Well guess what, here we have an example of where consciousness and awareness aren't present, yet the law still states: They are a person!
Wahoo!
Nope, I'm consistent.
No, because you still defended a brain-dead individual on life support with no self-awareness as a person.
They, as like I said, have developed psychological features not found in embryos.
Oh, so now pain isn't a criteria?
Then why did you even bother bringing it up on the first place?
Oh right... now you're just backtracking.
But the people on life support have gained personhood before, gaining inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are given at birth.
Under that logic, a dead individual with no living cells whatsoever would be considered more a person than a LIVING fetus simply based on the fact that they ONCE UPON A TIME were born.
On top of that, you've now resorted to the typical pro-choice argument above (on double homicide) where science and logic (according to you anyway) are completely thrown out the window.
What does an individual who USED to have consciousness have anything to do with that individual CURRENTLY not having any Consciousness or awareness?
I was under the assumption that, according to you (again), that you had to HAVE specific cognitive functions (key word being functions that have to... you know, function) in order to be a person.
They would exclusive have to had been third trimester abortions, which, again, almost never happen.
Really? Then how about this scenario!
Woman goes to have an abortion. The abortion procedure fails and ends up delivering a newborn infant, which the physician then promptly throws away to die in a garbage bin out in the back.
The Physician is then charged with homicide!
Which no pro-choice group opposes!
Now, what was the developmental difference of the fetus before the procedure (when it was legal to kill it) and after (when it was murder)?
Oh, right... there was absolutely no difference in development.
Now you could say that the doctor should be able to do that, but you already said that birth, in and of itself, automatically guaranteed rights.
So... how would premature births work then?
Btw... Oh, lookie here!
23 weeks pregnant by the way. Within the 2nd trimester and legal... despite the fact that healthy infants have been born earlier and lived.
Who says rights have to be based on scientific grounds? You can't prove scientifically the right to free speech and such.
Except that you already said you believed in the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. So you can't play that card.
At 11/6/10 08:38 PM, The-General-Public wrote:
It's a larger assumption to say there is some mysterious force giving anything rights at all.
Until the Government comes to throw you in prison without warrant or trial.
Then you start to whine and bitch like George Carlin about how your "Rights" were violated.
At 11/6/10 08:45 PM, Lithium-I wrote:
It is concluded that the fetus is or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak trees, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are.
An infant isn't an adult, but both are still human.
It's called a life cycle, smart one.
Is terminating a fetus, which can neither feel emotions nor be conscious of its own "existence," really be considered equivalent to killing a "person?"
Depends...
Is killing a pregnant woman grounds for Double homicide? Last I checked... Yes.
Would tearing out the life support system of another family's relative in a psychotic rage amount of homicide? Why... yes it would.
So your own examples are contradicted by laws pro-choice people, ironically, support.
Congrats on consistency.
:An embryo is not a person because it satisfies only one criterion, namely consciousness (and this only after it becomes susceptible to pain).
See above.
Also, you do realize that people are born with genetic disorders that render them incapable of feeling pain, right?
I guess they aren't people either.
No more than someone on life support is person because they lack a consciousness.
But wait... if someone is on a life support system, then that would be as if they were a fetus. So... would that mean the machine "owns" them?
Hurray for more contradictory examples!
For one thing, never did I once say a fetus was an organ. Never. I said it was no more than an organ, meaning that, it's a part of woman's body, and it has to stay there in order to be sustained.
Except for that whole separate genetic identity thing.
And the fact that there are abortion survivors...
Yeah screw them.
Abortion may be immoral, but it is still a woman's right.
An imaginary one based on no scientific grounds whatsoever.
It's merely an arbitrary standard made up by people like you.
After all, what more is Roe v. Wade than a repeat of the Dread Scott decision? Only rather than claiming individuals could only be "human" if they were white; moving the bar to say you could only be "human" if you aren't a fetus... despite it being made up of living cells... that everyone was at one point... as part of the human development life cycle...
PS: You're still an idiot.
At 11/6/10 07:54 PM, Drakim wrote:At 11/6/10 06:34 PM, Memorize wrote: Because Stalin didn't do any of that.What are you doing here Mez? I thought you hated my topics?
Well aren't you a few watts short of a lit bulb.
Pft, only the religious threads... so... many of them... *Head S'plodes!*
At 11/6/10 08:34 PM, Lithium-I wrote:
Who said I was in favor of Stalin or anything he did?
The point is that any system can exploit people.
The irony of your statement is that some of the most anti-imperialist people in United States History happen to be the most Free Market/Capitalist oriented.
The other piece of hilarious being that that the most anti-freedom Governments in the past couple hundred years weren't Free Market whatsoever.
Socialism, in it's purest form, means a classless society where everyone owns the means of production. To argue that this was the case in the Soviet Union would be ridiculous.
No one is saying they were socialist.
The only point I made is that imperialism isn't only applied to Capitalism.
Hell, the total opposite of capitalism, Marxism, specifically states to exploit land for resources.
Or were you saying that the UK and France weren't being imperialistic when they exploited the land and labor of the Ottoman empire?
You might want to stick with empiricism and not insults, you'll at least appear smarter.
How about you get a clue and realize that economic systems in and of themselves aren't the cause of imperialism, moron.
At 11/6/10 06:15 PM, Lithium-I wrote: Capitalism, on the other hand, has fostered imperialism, exploitation, and suffering
Right.
Because Stalin didn't do any of that.
Well aren't you a few watts short of a lit bulb.
At 10/29/10 09:37 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:
and dont get me started on what a nutbar Margerat Sanger was
You mean the anti-Semitic, anti-black racist founder of planned parenthood who spoke at Klan meetings.
At 10/29/10 09:40 AM, AapoJoki wrote:At 10/29/10 09:11 AM, Memorize wrote: lol, hilarious.He and his 16-weeks-pregnant wife went to a women's clinic in Brookline, Mass. for an abortion after discovering that their baby had a congenital deformity with no chance for survival.
Funny thing is, he probly was just some lazy asshole who "couldn't handle" a kid.
Yeah, I already got that.
At 10/29/10 09:43 AM, ChainsawNinjaZX wrote:
Why? Because you're counter argument was invalid and didn't interest me in the least.
Because you know you're a pansy who doesn't have an argument.
Even*.
Oh, how rude of me not to push down the button all the way.
I will first state I never stated my real reason for my position as you so ignorantly assumed.
Actually, my wording the first time I wrote it was "pro-choicers" rather than "you". You then defended those people with "science is not the same as law" (which is such an obviously stupid response). It seemed rather obvious to me that because you defended them, that you were part of that crowd.
Either way, you didn't answer.
Secondly I pointed out the flaws of the association between laws and science. Third, you can charge someone with double murder because of the fact you are killing a potential life in cold blood, not for survival or to spare the potential life what may be a miserable life (example: if it is underdeveloped and may have a physical disorder).
I seem to recall that any time a pro-lifer uses that exact same argument of "potential life', it gets shot down every time with "but that doesn't make it life, so abortion isn't murder."
Holy hypocrisy, Batman!
C'mon, I know you like to make an ass of yourself, but I think you should shut the fuck up and leave you pretentious douchebag. If you knew half of what you think you know about me, you would know how badly you just insulted yourself. Unless you have a Ph.D from Harvard, you ARE a brainless monkey to me. Now, kindly leave other users alone or figure out how to troll better. With that, go fuck yourself.
So basically you're like Bush and Kerry. Both go to one of the most prestigious schools in the country and become rather successful, yet both idiots at the same time.
Let me guess. Did your parents pay for your schooling?
At 10/29/10 09:19 AM, Drakim wrote:
Actually, the fetus was already dead inside the mother. They came there to have it removed.
But it's not like the truth has ever mattered to you Mez as long as you get to troll, so nevermind.
Same goes for stupid people like you.
Constantly creating a thread about religion left and right. Like anyone gives a shit over a topic so meaningless.
At 10/28/10 11:15 PM, ChainsawNinjaZX wrote:At 10/28/10 11:28 AM, Memorize wrote:lol, looks like we got another mentally retarded primate on the boards!No need to point out the obvious or be modest, we all know you're a retarded primate.
lol, says the guy who couldn't even give an answer to my last reply.
Why? Because you know you've lost and this is the best you can do.
How amusing. Typical of you pro-choice idiots.
Here, I'll be nice and give you 1 last chance: If the fetus isn't a person or eve human (according to you), then how can you support certain laws that will charge someone with murder if they kill that fetus?
c'mon, I know it's difficult for you to use that brain of your's (provided you even have one), but give it a shot!
lol, hilarious.
Funny thing is, he probly was just some lazy asshole who "couldn't handle" a kid.
At 10/29/10 03:30 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
not really, when it comes to people making decisions about there own body its theirs alone,
Not her body. A fetus has its own genetic identity, moron.
Funny you idiots claim to be scientific, but yet your entire reasoning for being pro-choice has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Also, you immediately used religion to cover your ass. So you automatically lose the argument.
But seriously... why did you bring up religion? Why are you so fascinated with it?
At 10/28/10 10:18 AM, ChainsawNinjaZX wrote:
How is this scientifically inaccurate? I am fairly certain we own our own bodies. The only other way it may be inaccurate is that it includes the fetus as well.
I was under the assumption that the fetus was genetically independent from the mother, just as we are from our parents.
So how can you claim it's "my body"?
Especially given the fact that almost 90% of abortions occur when the fetus has developed its own heart and is pumping its own blood.
Laws do not equal science. Your argument is flawed.
Which is my point.
Care to explain how, in any way, it would be consistent to claim a fetus isn't a person (or even living), but yet support laws stating that if you do kill it, it consists of murder?
Like your argument for instance.
lol, looks like we got another mentally retarded primate on the boards!
At 10/28/10 06:05 AM, RP207 wrote:
Well it sounds to me you're speaking out of disgust by your peers rather than actual concern. An unwanted child might end up with a bad life, abuse and so on (there's been lots of real life and fictional stories of how raising unwanted children can be horrible to them).
So you're willing to act and essentially "kill" the fetus over what Might happen?
At 10/27/10 08:12 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Any more retarded than the people who say abortion is a social evil, but leave the unfit parents and their unfortunate children to fend for themselves?
Pro-Choice people who are pro-choice for that reason are sensible; logical.
Pro-Choice people who are pro-choice because they claim it's "her body" (scientifically inaccurate) and find numerous excuses to claim it's "not a person" despite supporting so many inconsistent laws (double homicide for killing a pregnant woman... Claiming it's ok for the woman to have an abortion, but if the abortion procedure fails and delivers a newborn infant and the doctor proceeds to throw it in the garbage, that it amounts to murder on the doctor's part... claiming the fetus isn't a person due to brainwave activity, but support murder charges on any stranger who "kills' anyone on life support who have no brain function... ect. ect.)
... are REALLY damn stupid.
Like you, for instance.
At 10/27/10 03:52 PM, The-General-Public wrote:
Way to contribute to the discussion
Am I the only one who finds it amusing when people claim they want there to be less abortions, but then demand it be legal and free for everyone by taking other people's money by force to fix someone else's problem they had nothing to do with?
lol, he's retarded.
At 10/27/10 12:30 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:
I don't want more abortions. However, I still think it should be legal and free for all, collectively financed
And this would be why you idiots can't be taken seriously.
At 10/24/10 02:11 PM, The-universe wrote:
Classification =/= acceptable for abortion.
The point was to see if you actually believed what you were selling.
Thank you, my replies to you were a test to see if you were still up to your old tricks. Instead of debating/accepting whether or not a fetus is classified as a parasite you immediately jumped on something completely unrelated.
*Cough*Cop out*Cough*
I'm very disappointed in the result.
I'm not.
