Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/10/06 10:08 PM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: pro-life, I'm against religion in government. To decide when a person is human and has human rights should be pure science.

Good point. Now, how does your opinion of when that thing growing inside the body of someone else follow this at all?

You can sit around and say that a human isn't human untill it can think and feel, but that's purely philosophy and philosophy is religion.

Explain that one to me. Nice and slow-like.

Now science says a human will have human dna, simple as that and an unborn child has human dna from the first split and should have rights.

Law says that you're not a citizen unless you are either born in the United States or naturalized through a very long process. Now, are we listening to science or law?

Now I don't think abortion should be gone all together, but it should be very restricted to rape victims or when the life of the mother is put in danger.

Same argument as before for every single person that has made that argument against abortion.

Other then that you should have to deal with the consequences of your actions.

Even you're calling a child a "consequence." What kind of child wants to be known as the punishment to their parents' actions? Do you? Are you? What kind of therapy would ensue if your parents treated you like a burden rather than the joy that they should treat you as? What kind of life would ensue? How would that be good for society as a whole? Oh. I'm sorry. That's my philosophy and that shouldn't be put into law, right?

If a pregnancy is going to hurt your career, social life, or anything else that I for one don't give a shit about, I have a very short list of activities you should avoid.

If you don't give a shit about someone's career decisions, why are you suddenly up-in-arms about the way they live their social life? Why does it matter to you, personally?

We will have to make alot of changes once abortion is banned, but it is definately worth it. We'll need more adoption support making it available to more then upper middle class and above and we need to support gay marriage making more loving 2 parent couples available for these children.

I wholeheartedly agree. Until then, abortion should be legal and even after then for girls under the age of sixteen, rape victims, and mothers in danger of losing their lives.

I could go on, but I'll stop. Once I'm finished with my paper "Liberal arguments against abortion" I'll post it here, and I promise much better english and grammar.

I don't mind the lack of proper english or grammar. But if you're writing a paper... yeah...

At 7/9/06 05:47 PM, AccessCode wrote: Interesting...as the fact is that there were and still are WMDs there.

Delusional much?

Anyone with an ounce of common sense and an education level above High School sophomore would know that decade-old mustard gas isn't usable as a weapon. They found shell casings, not bombs. I don't know why you still believe that there are WMD's in Iraq. It's disturbing.

At 7/9/06 05:24 PM, AccessCode wrote: I like technicalities. Don't you?

"There are absolutely NO WMDs in Iraq"

*Old WMDs found that could be "destructive"*

"Well, uh, these aren't the same"

It goes a little differently, I believe, for the originator of this very old thread and people like you, Access.

"There were WMD's in Iraq!"

"Old WMD's found that can't be used in any fashion other than creating a big bump on someone's head."

"Well, uh, these are the same!"

At 7/8/06 03:47 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 7/8/06 03:20 AM, BigScizot wrote: It's not like human life is that valuable. Most of the babies that would have been aborted would probably just grow up to be criminals or homeless. Besides, there's already way too many people on Earth.

I don't see where you get that from, with the birth rate in the United States actually heading into a decline of 0.9 children per family. How is it just, then, to end a life only based on what one believes it may become?

What does birth rate have to do with the number of people in the country or on earth?

We've got plenty of immigrants coming in, offsetting whatever decline in birthrates we have, not to mention the fact that, in other countries, birthrates are too high. The world's population is still growing, as is the American population.

At 7/7/06 01:12 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Money can't get you two votes.

No. But it sure as hell can get you the exposure you need to win more votes from the voting public. It can also help you hire people that will tell you what to say and do in a political campaign that will help you win over the ignorant public. Because let's face it, the regular voting public isn't the most informed in the world. My grandparents and a few co-workers are still dead-set on the idea that Iraq harbored terrorists before and after 9/11. That's the general voting public for you. So money can get you more and more votes and it tells you who your real friends are. The friends that expect recompense for the money they gave you in the form of policy.

At 7/7/06 12:57 PM, KemCab wrote: Frankly, I agree with this decision to ban gay marriage.

I don't think society is ready for it yet.

I don't think society was ready for the desegregation of schools but does that mean the decision to do so was wrong?

It's always been that society needs a good slap in the face every fifty years or so in order to make a change worthwhile.

At 7/7/06 12:39 PM, seth_brown wrote:

At 6/27/06 10:43 PM, POND_MASTA_WESDOOD wrote: abortions are perfectly ok.

That's your opinion, not a proven fact.

Duh.

the majority of the people who get them have fucked up lives,

prove it.

Prove they don't.

or they arn't ready for a baby.

adoption

Doesn't always work and the kids end up in foster care and they have even worse lives.

some are scared of what their parents might say.

oh well, too bad. What's the worst that could happen, the girl having the baby and giving it up for adoption? sounds like a sweet deal to me.

Overflow the adoption pool, forcing less standards for both adoptive parents and foster families, creating a much worse system than we already have causing psychological and physical problems, higher unemployment rates in twenty years and furthering crime rates and death tolls of people who grew up with loving families as opposed to growing up with practically no future because they were born to a mother forced to have the child or raised in foster families that quite often create further psychological problems that can't be solved. To be fair, psychologists will be a desirable occupation again with great amounts of pay and sociological importance. Are you a psychologist or planning to become one?

Wow. That was one big run-on.

At 7/7/06 02:51 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 7/6/06 08:19 PM, Thespus wrote: I'm inclined to believe Sarge mostly because he's right but also because I'm pretty sure you were confused by what he meant.

Look at Anna Nicole Smith who had to sue to get any part of her HUSBAND'S estate. And also look at the little old lady who leaves her fortune to her cat. Sorry, gay marriage doesn't solve anything. I am not confused on anything.

Two extreme cases that you pointed out that have no bearing on normal occurrences when it comes to estates.

No. If anything, the courts decide simply for the gay community. How does gay marriage affect you, personally? I don't see how your amendment argument can hold up for any type of logical debate.

Hmm, marriage is the societal recognition of a union, therefore it is in effect society who gets to decide if a marriage is valid. Not a hard concept really.

It has nothing to do with society and everything to do with government. Society does not grant custody rights or rights to estate in the event of a spouse's death. It also has nothing to do with hospital visitation rights or right to attorney. Too complicated to claim that society alone gives these rights.

How does it affect me? Hmmm, well, let's see. It puts FURTHER strain on the Social Security system, adds more people to medicade and medicare. Adds more people to government benefits. So it leads to higher taxes for me. Yea it affects me.

How does it put further strain on social security? Last I checked, if you have a spouse that has a steady job, you don't need social security. Further strain? I think you should blame laziness on that one, not marriage.

Medicade and medicare? Yet again, insurance will be given to the spouse of anyone that has it. And I have to say that's better than no insurance for certain homosexual singles since that raises premiums and, eventually, taxes.

It doesn't affect you. If anything, it makes your life easier.

And I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed the whole point of the article. Despite your moronic assertion that the "courts decide for the gay community", the NY court found gay marriage unconstitutional. So, the courts in essence told the gay community to piss off. For once the courts did the right thing. The citizens of NY said no, and the courts left it that way. If in Conn., the courts said no after the voters said yes, that would be bullshit too.

I'm not talking about New York. I knew about this the second it happened, thank you. And, yes, the court did decide FOR the gay community. They just made the wrong decision in this case. One that was based solely on the state constitution's literal meaning as opposed to looking at it as a rights issue. Which it is.

They have civil unions. Not the same name which isn't fair, but it's still all the same rights and all that.

Gee, and to hear anyone talk...you'd think civil unions and marriage are completely different......which is why almsot everyone for gay marriage is somehow against civil unions.

They are completely different. Granting one person a marriage and the other a civil union is unjust. Everyone should be allowed to be legally recognized one way or the other, or just one way for everyone. Learn yourself up on anti-discrimination law and you'll realize what I'm talking about.

Likewise.

You can't grasp a simple article. You don't understand the complexities of court and wills. You say that Conn. has gay MARRIAGE when it doesn't. And you don't seem to get why people have the right to decide how much they pay in taxes. Sorry if your pathetic attack on my 100% factual rebuttal doesn't mean a lot to me.

I never said Connecticut has gay marriage. Look at my alias before you decide to think that Sarge and I are the same person.

Yes. I can understand if people want to pay more taxes to keep homosexual marriages illegal. It makes perfect sense. Of course, the fact that they're all ill-informed on the subject and don't realize that they're hurting themselves along with the gay community by voting for something that's none of their business... well... I guess they're allowed that, aren't they? No matter how many people they hurt in the process, they're allowed to force their own moral opinion on other people.

By the way, if you can come up with adequate proof that gay marriage affects you financially, I will rescind these arguments I have presented. But I have a feeling that you won't.

At 7/6/06 07:10 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 7/6/06 06:58 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

At 7/6/06 06:51 PM, jlwelch wrote: What about it? Sounds like good news to me. Now only Massachusetts harbors their kind.

Connecticut has homosexual marriage too. Thankfully!

MORE GAY MARRIAGE! Not only does it mean more women for straight men, it also means less problems with estates as well as more stable families AND recognition of the equal rights of ALL HUMAN BEINGS!

Gsgt, how in God's name does Gay marriage mean more women for straight men?

Sarge was being facetious.

Gay marriage doesn't mean less problems with estates, more stable families or does it "recognize equal rights of all human beings". What a goofball.

I'm inclined to believe Sarge mostly because he's right but also because I'm pretty sure you were confused by what he meant.

This is why if we want marriage to be decided by the people, we need that amendment, otherwise the courts decide for us.

No. If anything, the courts decide simply for the gay community. How does gay marriage affect you, personally? I don't see how your amendment argument can hold up for any type of logical debate.

And Connecticut does not have gay marriage.

They have civil unions. Not the same name which isn't fair, but it's still all the same rights and all that.

Wow, there was nothing right in your post at all!

Likewise.

Seconded.

The plan they're using now, search for Al-Quaeda members based on region, and not just bin Laden since he's not really in control anymore, isn't a terrible one. That group was getting nowhere anyway. It wasn't like they were on the brink of finding him and then disbanded. But if that were the case, we'd know Bush's motives, not just how inept he is.

At 7/4/06 05:39 PM, arz756 wrote: Wow Keith Olbermann is so unbiased lol.

If you base all of your opinions on how biased someone is rather than the amount of proof they submit to you, you're in a dilemma.

At 7/2/06 04:35 PM, SteelReserve wrote:

At 7/2/06 01:51 PM, Thespus wrote:

At 7/2/06 10:16 AM, SteelReserve wrote:

Does that statement have anything to do with anything? Since when did G.W. own America?

Change George Walker Bush to Kim Jong ll, and it works.

Nah. Because he still functions under the guise of a democracy. And I never believed that countries should be allowed to control each other. I have no problem if you pro-lifers judge a girl that got an abortion, but stop trying to make it law that they can't get one.

At 7/2/06 12:26 PM, Mooperty wrote:

At 7/2/06 12:19 PM, Cajunspirit wrote: I'm pro life.

Saying a baby is part of the woman is non sense. That is a human being, and murder is murder.

I find it amazing the hypocrisy in this modern age. A woman who has an abortion is not seen as a murderer, yet if someone were to injure and kill the embrio, he/she is convicted for murder.

That's exactly what I said in a different abortion thread.

If a pregnant woman is murdered, it counts as a double homicide, while an abortion isn't considered a crime at all.

Two birds with one stone, I guess. In order for a life to be considered human in the sense we know it, it has to have an identity. Now, who, besides the mother, can possibly give a fetus an identity?

To the "double homicide" statement. Yes, it's considered a double homicide because, as long as the mother is intending on having the baby (giving it a familial identity), it is considered a human life. Now, until the baby has seen and physically other things, the mother retains the right to revoke this given identity.

A baby doesn't develop a sense of identity until it starts breathing and experiences something outside of the womb for the first time. Only then is it absolutely illegal for a mother to kill her child (which is a child by that time and not a physical dependent)

At 7/2/06 10:16 AM, SteelReserve wrote:

At 6/27/06 09:09 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: Do what you like with things that are in your body. Fin.

Does George Walker Bush have the right to do what he likes to the people that are in his country?

Does that statement have anything to do with anything? Since when did G.W. own America? Listen, the citizens of America own America. Not the President. However, if you want to get technical, then I'll answer your question. No. But then again, George Bush isn't America, as I said before. He's an elected President.

Now, since we're getting technical and all that. Think back to ancient Egypt, medeival England, and then come back to America today. Here's my point. Back when the ruler of a country was considered the land itself, who batted an eye when they would have someone killed inside their own lands? No one. No one cared. Everyone knew it was their ruler's decision who lived and who died. Now, that covers both ancient Egypt and medieval England.

Let's move on to America today. According to our constitution, the government is no more than a representative of the people's will. And, if the people don't like a certain person because they feel that person has afflicted them in some evil way (i.e. murder) it is then alright for the government to take that person's life, because the people will it to be so (hence the reason every case is worded as "The people of the state of *insert state here* vs. *insert criminal here*). See how that works? So, since we're getting all technical, and the people are "technically" America, then I'd say that works out pretty well, doesn't it?

At 7/1/06 02:24 PM, -Rainmaker- wrote: Okay, let's say I set a date of July 31st for an infantry division to leave,

Infantry would be last to leave.

September 31st for a combat engineer group to leave, and November 31st for an ordinance division to leave.
It still fails, because terrorists would know when to attack what groups of U.S. and allied troops.
Shortsighted, yes, but correct? Also, yes.

You're making the mistake of thinking that they would disclose this information to the public and/or the terrorists. I'm positive that not even the soldiers would know the exact time and place of their departure.

Well, if they got a good plan rolling, it would cause some degree of important damage.

I find that you highly underestimate the intelligence of our generals. It's not our politicians that are determining point of departure or method of transportation.

They might not have the method of necessarily organizing a full-scale attack, but there is strength in numbers. If the perimeter around the airfield which would move troops back home is surrounded, chaos, injury, and fatality could occur.

You think we won't have our air bases swarming with armed guard? You think we will be using just air bases? You believe that we're dumb enough not to make sure we have the advantage at every checkpoint?

Losing any casualty in a military strategy known as "extraction" is defeaning and crude. If all things went right for the terrorists, there would be a massive loss of life.

There wouldn't be a massive loss of life. Everything you've been talking about has led me to believe that you know nothing of military strategy and you're highly underestimating our military and overestimating the insurgent threat (which usually isn't a bad thing, but when it leads us to not try and save lives, it's a problem.)

I think that we need to let the UN in, keep some U.S. troops there to help train the Iraqi military/police, and get as many troops out as we can within the next year and a half. That gives us enough leeway to be ready for any planned insurgent attack at any of the departure dates and will give us time to work around them.

See how I think? It's not a complete pull-out (no one ever suggested that) but it saves a lot of troops from living in that hell for another tour. It also keeps Iraq safe because we let other countries in that want to help with the rebuilding of Iraq.

At 7/1/06 12:25 PM, Freemind wrote: I am personally pro-life but I don't think it is my place to force what I consider to be moral on other people.

So, in essence, you're pro choice?

At 6/30/06 11:16 PM, -Rainmaker- wrote: It's actually quite simple, and you'll wonder why you thought a timeline for withdrawal would work in the first place.

I can't wait.

Let's say I name a deadline of 31 July 2006 for removing all troops from Iraq/Afganistan/Wherever the fuck Special Forces and Special Operations are.

I believe the popular idea is to set a timeline, not setting a date for every single troop to leave. You're already displaying how shortsighted your thinking is on this issue.

Well, insurgents would lay low, and back off from attacking U.S. and Allied Troops until relatively close from the extraction date, all the while, plotting away.

Well, since you're giving such a quick date, they'd probably not lie low at all and try to do as much damage as they possibly could in the little time they have (which wouldn't be much).

When July 31st rolls around, they will launch a full-scale attack on U.S. Troops, delaying the extraction and causing numerous injuries and fatalities.

If there's one thing we all know about the insurgents, it's that they're not that cohesive. Every single attack has been commited at times when we would least expect it. They wouldn't launch a "full scale attack" on us when they have no way of organizing such a thing. Especially when our troops would be the most ready for such an attack.

It's that simple. We can't SAY when we're gonna leave, because we'll get our ass whooped when that day rolls around.

I'll tell you right now that our ass wouldn't get whooped. There would be a few casualties, but no more than if we stayed there for the indeterminate amount of time that Bush has commited us to. Hmm...

How simple is it? I didn't even have to use big words. Amazing, huh?

Likewise.

At 6/30/06 12:38 AM, Ass0lut3 wrote: Well I guess something had to replace the Terry Schiavo issue.

What? Abortion replaced Schiavo? I could have sworn that Schiavo was an extension of the same debate.

At 6/29/06 05:16 PM, zendahl wrote: That means that we rely on interperitations of laws made by forien or international conventions.

That we helped write and signed... What's your point?

At 6/29/06 04:47 PM, zendahl wrote:

At 6/29/06 04:31 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: If you had ever read the constitution, you would know that ANY treaty that the US signs becomes our LAW, supreme law to the same degree that the constitution would be.

I'm saying that our 14th ammendment does not apply to noncitizens on foriegn soil. That's why we keep them on foriegn soil instead of bringing them here. That was my point, they don't enjoy constitutional rights because they are not US citezens, or on US soil.

You're not paying attention to the Sargeant's point. They are held as POW's as prescribed by the Geneva Convention. Since that's true, and we signed the treaty, it is law comparable to the Constitution, according to the Constitution. So, since that's true, even if we were holding them on the moon, they'd still be held under Constitutional law. It has nothing to do with the fourteenth amendment.

From http://www.bradenton../nation/14930131.htm

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court this morning found President Bush exceeded his powers by creating military tribunals for prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, curtailing part of the administration's prosecution of the war on terrorism.

The ruling, a setback for the administration's aggressive anti-terrorism stance, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials violate U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions, signed by the United States in the aftermath of World War II.

''Trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the highest order,'' Kennedy wrote. The decision does not address whether the controversial camps should be closed, dealing only with whether the administration can pursue plans to try the detainees under the type of military trials not seen since World War II.

So, this is definitely a step in the right direction. Hopefully, we can find accomodations for those that were held for four years with no trial or set release date, or those that were held for a few months with no trial or set release date.

Anyone who disagrees with this decision, speak up.

Same goes for anyone who agrees with it. Defend it!

At 6/28/06 07:53 PM, AccessCode wrote:

At 6/28/06 07:37 PM, Thespus wrote: Does it have a name? No? Then there's no shame in letting it go.

If the kid isn't wanted, what's worse? Bringing it into the world and having another dysfunctional family that the neighborhood would have to deal with or the parents waiting until they're ready to have a kid?

I guess I should be able to go around killing every retard on my block who lives with a dysfunctional family.

Have you ever taken the intended meaning out of a post or do you enjoy making a spectacle out of yourself because you have to always take the most basic, literal meaning you can out of a post?

For the record, I am not in favor of killing anyone with an identity. That means a name (some parents name their kids while in the womb or intend on having their baby, giving it a strict familial identity) or a sense of identity (or knowledge of being alive). There, does that make you happy? An unwanted foetus is neither of these things, so it is perfectly fine to terminate them, in my opinion.

But I guess you can keep giving out excuses.

And you keep putting words in the mouths of those that disagree with you, calling us apologists only makes you look the fool.

Does it have a name? No? Then there's no shame in letting it go.

If the kid isn't wanted, what's worse? Bringing it into the world and having another dysfunctional family that the neighborhood would have to deal with or the parents waiting until they're ready to have a kid?

At 6/27/06 01:43 PM, sdhonda wrote: The government should ban cars. Then, everyone will have to walk/bike. That should do it.

Besides, cars are ineffeceint and polluting.

Cars are incredibly efficient, I thought. I don't remember the last time I biked forty miles in thirty minutes and only had to end up paying five to eight dollars to refuel (if I was biking, I'd buy a lot of water to bike that far, that fast you know?).

At 6/27/06 01:19 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: I'm all in favor of letting people eat twinkies, but they can still eat them even if there's a label like I proposed.

It was just a musing, really. Black market ding dongs, apple pies, mini muffins!!!!

At 6/27/06 03:44 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 6/27/06 03:35 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: Devil's advocate:

What if they decided to raise everyone's rates because you and others are fat slobs?

Then I would hope some insurance company would come out not letting obese people in or charge them extremely exorbiant rates based on how many more services they use. But Im pretty sure thats illegal under some form of discrimination law. Because God knows, we shouldnt discriminate and make the people who use the insurance more, like the smokers, old people, and obese.

I think Nighthawk was trying to say that, because of obesity, more people that can't pay for insurance are in the ER because of a fat-related disease. Now, since they can't pay for the insurance, the premiums go up a few pennies. Multiply that by about .8% (sounds about right, so I put it there) of the obese population in your state every day, and in a month, your premium will go up a few bucks. Is that fair at all? In a year, your premium could rise fifty dollars simply because of these obese people.

I don't think the government has a right to ban any food, really. If someone wants to eat it, let them eat it. But the government should take more proper measures to try and prevent obesity. Some cities have locally funded gyms and nutrition centers. If we're talking about federally, forget it. The day won't come when the federal government tries to impede on our consumption again. They'll force corporations to put nutritional facts on their food, but banning any food that isn't harmful if taken in moderation won't ever happen again.

Besides, who wants to buy twinkies off the black market?

Someone explain this to me:

George Bush is disallowing the enforcement of a precedent when that precedent was there to give the federal government more power than before. He's basically saying that he will never take someone's private property with the excuse of eminent domain. Now, he can change this at any time and all that, right? Isn't that further limiting his power?

Now, I hate Bush. You all know that. Or you should. But what's wrong here? Comparing this to the Indian Removal Act is so off base it's insane. Bush doesn't want to destroy the precedent, he's just choosing not to implement it. He's not taking anyone's property, he's letting them keep it, right?

So what's wrong? If the federal government wants to further limit its own power, that's fine. The way he's doing it isn't terrible either. Any corporation is fully capable of circumventing this through the use of the Supreme Court, but it won't work. This is completely legal. The executive is allowed to limit its own power seeing as how that's the Constitution's job. It doesn't give a maximum limit, it gives a minimum. That's what makes this so different from Jackson.

The public elected you because they trust what you have to do. Sometimes officials do things that aren't what the public wants, but it's usually in their best interests. For example, George H.W. Bush raising taxes before his only term was over and losing the election over that. It wasn't what the public wanted, but it was a move that was in the best interests of the country.

At 6/22/06 05:02 PM, uberpyro911 wrote: Yeah They banned stem cell research and Cloning., I think its crap

They need to unban this stuff. If we continue research on human bio engineering then just think of the limitless possiblities...we could alter our very race to become stronger and better people..And they say no because of god...I for one do not beleive in god so..yeah haha

Who agree's that Stem cell research and cloning should be unbanned

How in the wide, wide world of sports did you get the idea that they banned stem-cell research? They stopped funding embryonic stem-cell research, but some Ivy-League college is starting up again without government funding. In no way was any of this banned.

I'm not sure about cloning, but I have a feeling that wasn't banned either.