1,102 Forum Posts by "VerseChorusVerse"
At 7/9/05 04:11 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: stuff
Oh, and I plan on being "away" when WW3 takes place, so I wouldn't be able to pick a side. However if I had to align myself with somebody, I would definitely choose Israel.
I believe that World War III will be the state of Israel against the world: led by the former USSR, the People's Republic of China, the Islamic nations of the Middle East, and the European Union (after tremendous expansion). When this occurs, I do not believe the United States will be the world superpower it is today. And that's my belief. :)
At 7/8/05 02:35 PM, Maus wrote: Do you see what I'm saying here?
C'mon, Maus. If a confessional doesn't satisfy you, then what kind of evidence will? It's like you're arguing that "Al Qaeda" is too obvious or something. Well why shouldn't we believe it's Al Qaeda? I would think (or at least hope) that our governments would be able to recognize the techniques used when Al Qaeda agents perform acts of terrorism. I just don't see why we shouldn't believe they did it. They have all the motive and plenty of opportunity. But for Pete's sake, quit being your usual patronizing self. >_<
At 7/9/05 12:33 AM, angrygandhi wrote: Would you want to live knowing that you are the accidental result of a rape and your father or mother was a rapist?
Yes, I would. I wouldn't wish "death" upon myself or anyone else because they life might be more of a challenge. And would you people quit brining up rape as your primary reason for supporting abortion? You know, as well as I do, that most abortions are not the result of forced sexual intercourse. The image pro-choicers like to present is an naive thirteen year old girl, dirt poor, violated by her alcoholic father. But good golly gosh, if she could just get an abortion, then everything would be all right, and she would live happily ever after. Get real, folks. The vast majority of women/girls who have abortions are people who either were foolish enough to use no protection or were ignorant of the consequences associated with being physically intimate. Also, "safe sex" isn't nearly as safe as we're led to believe. Can rape be a factor? Yes, of course. However does that give anyone the right to deprive that child of experiencing life outside his/her mother's womb? Just because you might believe that child would grow up in a poor environment, who gave you the authority to decide their fate for them? You could use that same logic as a reason to rid the world of those mentally, and physically, challenged. You simply don't have the right to say, "You're going to have a lousy life anyway, so we might as well end it here." That's a despicable attitude. You claim if we don't abort them now, they'll just grow up in poverty? So what? Call them monetarily challenged. If you are convinced that these children will face life at a disadvantage, then help them (don't kill them). Abortion isn't the answer.
or that you are a result of incest?
You seem to be pitching to the suicidal community.
And haven't you ever seen, "It's a Wonderful Life?" =P
At 7/1/05 07:20 AM, Znarglaxe wrote: Oh yes, you must mean the valid ones that state that the over OVERwhelming majority of rapes are not done for sexual pleasure, but didn't read into that part right? Google it like all the rest of you before you post a reply.
w00t. Another asshole on the BBS. ~_~
Listen up, princess. That post, for the most part, had absolutely nothing to do with what we've been discussing. I don't care if you think x-percentage of rape occurs for whatever reason, either out of lust or the will to dominate, etc. I'm not sure exactly how, but you related rape to overpopulation, and used the example of a bear killing a fetus. Secondly, I don't appreciate you pitching childish insults at the Bible. Respect the fact that we stand against this because we feel it is immoral, which is honorable. Logic does not, has not, and will never dictate reality. And lastly, you really need to organize your thoughts a little better, so that other people can understand the meanings behind your posts. That is all.
At 7/1/05 07:13 AM, Znarglaxe wrote: Something tells me that you failed to read the ENTIRE thing.
It might have been your response to it. I'm just guessing on that one...
You mean your bogus rape statistics? I read the entire post.
At 7/1/05 07:00 AM, Znarglaxe wrote: Forget your stupid biblical teaching...
Oh, and what biblical teaching would that be?
and think logically.
This is a question of ethics, not logic.
The logical decision isn't necessarily the "right" decision.
Is the bear a sinner? No.
The bear? o.O
At 7/1/05 01:35 AM, legendarysim wrote: (London, England) — According to a duo of London based researchers, being gay has nothing to do with outside influence or your family environment — it is all determined by your genes.
Bull crap. Homosexuality was only removed from the DSM in 1973, and now they claim that outside influences cannot affect sexual orientation? Yeah, right...
At 7/1/05 05:47 AM, ---GOD--- wrote: well I think most people would mostly agree with you, but not in the "abortion is ALWAYS wrong" stance.
You didn't read my response to Ravariel. I listed the only condition in which I would approve of abortion: and that is when the baby cannot survive and the mother's health is at risk. I would oppose abortion in rape situations because I still believe that baby is a gift from God, and I know He can use that child to do wonderful things. That's the neat thing about God. He can take miserable circumstances and make something good out of it. ^_^
Personaly, I don't give a shit about a foetus' life though, but I'd sound like an asshole by saying it :p We have enough full-grown babies to pick from.
"If they are going to die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population."
=P
At 7/1/05 05:36 AM, ReiperX wrote:At 6/30/05 02:27 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:A human fetus is a baby, dude. I promise you.Is it self aware?
Self-awareness is not part of the criteria to determine whether an entity is living or not. There is no actual proof to show that a fetus is self-aware and none to show that it isn't. You only assume that it isn't mainly because no one can recall being inside their mother's womb. But can you remember the trip home from the hospital after you were born? How can we be sure that YOU were self-aware at that time? I'm not saying you weren't, but you get the idea. I support embryonic stem cell research as long as people continue to have abortions. At least then their deaths shall not be completely in vain. But if abortions were illegalized, I would be totally against it. I believe it's unethical to kill for the benefit of others. Is it logical? Perhaps, but that doesn't make it right. I'm not sure why you replied under my "fetus is a baby" post, though. =/
At 7/1/05 04:13 AM, mikemill123 wrote: Abortion is wrong.
Nice to see another pro-life person on the board. Our views are not exactly well-represented here, but oh well --Newgrounds rarely speaks for the majority.
Welcome to the BBS, by the way. I trust your stay here will be a pleasant one. ^_^
At 7/1/05 01:39 AM, Ravariel wrote: VCV, i got a question for you. I already asked fenrus this, but I'm interested to hear another believer's view on the matter.
Do you believe that babys' souls go to heaven when they die? Be it through abortion, SIDS, or whatever.
Yes, because they are blameless in God's eyes. Some people believe that we are born with the stain of sin already on our hearts, but I don't believe this is the case. Men are born with a sinful nature. To us, sinning comes naturally. But is that a reason to kill them before they have a chance to live? No. God had a plan for each and every one of us before the heavens and earth were even created. If that baby is conceived, even from the most awful of circumstances (for example, rape), He has a plan for that child. Whether the spirit will go to Heaven or not isn't the issue, and it would be completely unethical for a Christian to base his or her judgment based on that truth. And to be honest, it angers me to hear non-Christians using that argument to persuade Christians (I'm not finger-pointing, here) because it obviously wasn't a factor in their decision. It's a dirty way to persuade others to come to your (again, that's a general "you") way of thnking. Anyway, I do believe that the unborn baby's spirit goes straight to Heaven when it's killed, but I believe that if God allowed for the conception of that child, then that child was meant to be here.
Conservative Independant... IMO, both parties are corrupt beyond repair. If I had to choose, I would pick Republican, but I really don't want to have to choose. ;)
Democrats seem to always be bashing rich people for the mere fact that they have money. If wealth is attained honestly, then I have no objection to it. But I find it ironic that Democrats are constantly complaining about the rich. The richest congressmen are liberal Democrats. Of the celebrities in Hollywood, almost all are liberal Democrats. New York? Democrat. California? Democrat. It seems like the richest states vote Democratically (excluding Texas, of course). As a believer in Christ, I know that helping the poor should be on top of the priority list; but I must say that we have sunk to new depths. If the left had their way, America would be economically socialist. It's an honorable thing to help those in need, but I oppose rewarding laziness. If Democrats are so concerned about unemployment, why do they take working people's money and hand it over to folks who refuse to get a job? That's encouraging unemployment, folks. Exactly why should they get a job when the government is willing to support them using other people's money? America is a land of opportunity. If one has the ambition and the will-power, he/she can succeed in this country. I don't believe the American dream is dead... just a little bit harder to achieve.
I'll probably post more on this and some of my objections to the Republican Party later. Right now, I feel like I need some ice cream. Yum. ^_^
At 6/29/05 10:03 PM, ChibiChii wrote: Ah, but a fetus is much like a fungus.
Similarities:
Not being able to survive sans-host.
That "host" you're referring to is the baby's mother, not some foreign body it has chosen to inhabit. The womb is simply a place where the child can develop free from harm. If that's your argument, I presume you are against partial-birth abortion, because at that stage, the baby can certainly survive away from its mother.
Sucking up host's nutrients to grow and live.
We ALL do that, but the baby's is supplied by another means. We get our oxygen through breathing; babies, while inside the whom, get their oxygen from the mother's blood. A born child must depend on his/her parents for food, as well, so what's the "big" difference? It must be big difference for you to regard one as the highest form of life on Earth and compare the other to a freakin' fungus.
Causing host general pain and aggreivances.
This is beginning to sound like the average teenager.
Differences:
Fetuses look human.
Correction:
The Human fetus has Human blood.
The Human fetus has Human genes.
The Human fetus has Human DNA.
The Human fetus is Human in appearance.
The Human fetus is a Homo sapien.
The Human fetus is a Human being.
It's not a potential human. That's a lame ass argument for those who refuse to accept the truth, and who reject scientific PROOF that it's a human being. I have little respect for people who regard the human fetus as a harmful parasite. Pretty soon, that same parasite will become the love of their life. It's hypocritical, selfish, and cruel.
Aliens can look human... You like them, too? ^_^
Ha-Ha-Ha. ~_~ Your logic sucks. ^_^
At 6/30/05 03:21 AM, Royce_Taraquin wrote: exactly! It's like taking skin or teeth! nothing truly human here!
Try "its own blood, genes, and DNA". Don't act so enlightened. >_<
Thought - There is brain activity within the first trimester. Babies often suck their thumbs in the mother's womb. For Pete's sake, it's not braindead.
Feelings - The human nervous system is also functioning within the first trimester. Babies kick in the uterus (any woman who's been pregnant can tell you that). When they're being aborted, the unborn child fights to get away from the device ripping it apart. I doubt it's a pain sensation, but it certainly does react to stimuli.
Memories - Memories are experiences. Using that logic, I could say that children are "less human" than adults because adults have more memories.
At 6/30/05 02:17 AM, darknezz1 wrote: They don't have a thought proscess, they don't realize they exist...want to know why? Becuase they aren't even babys.
A human fetus is a baby, dude. I promise you.
At 6/29/05 10:39 PM, eyeknowstuff wrote: I think we should elect Howard Dean, cuz he's the only democrat brave enough to say what's on his mind no matter what others say.
Howard Dean is a NUT.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...005/04/24/AR2005042401160.html
At 6/30/05 12:54 AM, red_skunk wrote: Adult stem cells are not nearly as rewarding as ones from rejected fetuses. And we're not talking about "corpses" here, we're mostly talking about clumps of one-hundred or so cells which have been terminated (completely seperate from the stem cell research). Stop getting your information from South Park for christs sakes.
Remains. That better? The "remains" of dead babies. And I can't stand South Park. =P
At 6/29/05 10:29 PM, Super_Jacob wrote: What we need is technology and life. Not war and death.
Not death? You must be unware that the cells needed for embryonic stem cell research come from the corpses of dead babies. And there's adult stem cell research, as well, and I don't believe anyone opposes that. But adult SCR couldn't be considered a breach of bio-ethics.
At 6/29/05 09:45 PM, ChibiChii wrote:At 6/29/05 08:06 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Just because a child is unborn, that doesn't mean he/she is not alive. All matter is either living, dead, or inanimate. The fetus could only be considered living.You support the protection of fungus and harmful insects, then?
Of all living things you could've compared the human fetus to, you choose fungi and harmful insects. Heh. All living creatures must be scientifically classified, and the human fetus can be classified as nothing other than a Homo sapien. Plus, living things can only reproduce after their own kind; humans only breed other humans. Therefore, killing a human fetus is killing a human baby. And I do support their protection.
At 6/29/05 08:19 PM, AngryToaster wrote:At 6/29/05 08:06 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Just because a child is unborn, that doesn't mean he/she is not alive. All matter is either living, dead, or inanimate. The fetus could only be considered living.So because it is living, we can't kill it?
You said there was irony in the phrase, "killing an unborn child". Well, by scientific definition, it's a living thing. So what's so ironic about killing it?
You're standing up for the "thing" inside a vagina that doesn't have feelings.
Dang, you're actually getting defensive about someone looking out for a baby. Geez.
At 6/29/05 07:52 PM, AngryToaster wrote: But does anyone see the irony in "killing an unborn child?"
Just because a child is unborn, that doesn't mean he/she is not alive. All matter is either living, dead, or inanimate. The fetus could only be considered living.
At 6/29/05 05:48 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: I really thought FAB0L0US was above this sort of thing. =/
Oops, I meant Reiper X. LOL
At 6/29/05 05:36 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: That was kinda random.
I really thought FAB0L0US was above this sort of thing. =/
And I make a prophecy. Yes, it is clear to me. Another 5 page thread of flaming will be born.
No one will take this topic seriously, dude.
If the mods dont lock this, which I dont think they will. But hey, my powers can only see so far.
It was created for no other reason than to tick people off; it's blatantly offensive. I don't see a reason in this world why the mods should leave it open.
At 6/28/05 01:10 PM, SilasTheAntichrist wrote: Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, David Berkowitz, and Dennis Rader were all devout Christians.
Claiming to be a Christian and actually being born again in Christ are two different things. It is my understanding that Dahmer did repent for all the things he did, but that was after he committed those atrocities. I'm not sure about the others.
Did that stop them from murdering several innocent people?
Are you blaming what these men did on Christianity?
At 6/27/05 10:00 PM, altanese_mistress wrote: Like LordRobbo said; its a big problem for all people sexually active. Then why do you hear about it happening to homosexuals most? Maybe cause people like to use STDs to justify their discrimination against homosexuals?
Nope, HIV/AIDS really is a huge problem for the male homosexual population. See here:
Eh, I'm resigning from this discussion, as well. It's not getting anywhere. I might post in this topic in a few pages, but I'm taking a break like I said I would. You're on your own, Ravariel. ;)
At 6/26/05 04:55 AM, ScrollButtons wrote: Rather than wasting my time arguing with a person who refuses to acknowledge the validity of any opposing viewpoints but rather chooses to insult them
Oh, come on. You are the one who's been bickering over semantics, and I wouldn't exactly call your "breathing" argument valid. In no other species is this the case, so I don't really give a ditch-digger's damn what Canadian law claims is a living human. I've presented scientific arguments, and you respond with "It's gotta breathe to be human," which makes no logical sense. You've ignored my reproductive arguments completely, and I have made every effort to remain civil in this discussion. Now, I've had it. You're argument is devoid of reason, of common sense, and I just cannot argue with you anymore. By the way, I have not made any personal insults toward you in this debate.
I have resigned to state my viewpoint in the most conscise way I can in the hopes that other individuals who may be interested in real discussion are able to bring credible questions for honest debate.
You want people to ask you questions? Who made you an authority on this?
At 6/26/05 04:40 AM, Ravariel wrote:At 6/26/05 04:25 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:Ha-ha. -_-At 6/26/05 04:21 AM, Ravariel wrote: came in late, and didn't read too far back...
Now that you're done being cute, how about some actual answers?
=P
To quote myself:I point again to the In-vitro fertlization, stem cell, and risk to mother's life examples.
Sperm = Potential life.
Egg = Potential life.
Zygote = Life, itself.
Concerning in vitro fertilization...
Inside or outside the womb, it's living and human. I have no doubt in my mind.
Here are my views on your subjects (for what they're worth):
Concerning embryonic stem cell research...
I would be against it if babies were to be aborted for the purpose of scientific research. But if human fetus corpses could possibly be used to help someone (anyone), then it should be done. I am VERY pro-life, but if abortions cannot be prevented, my belief is that we might as well use those dead fetuses to help people. In my opinion, it's the lesser of two evils.
Concerning risk to the mother's life...
If there is no hope to save the baby, then I think it's alright to abort it to save the mother. But if the mother's life is at risk and the baby's is not, then I don't believe that abortion should be option. I value both the mother's AND the baby's life; but just as a mother should die to save her born child, I think she should make every effort to save her unborn child.
And anyway, isn't that just as arbitrary as my "Third trimester, when the baby is able to live outside the womb" marker? The way I see it, until a being can live, it is not alive.
Oh it can and does live, but it requires its oxygen and nourishment from its mother.
At 6/26/05 04:34 AM, Ravariel wrote: Holy shit. Never thought I'd hear that from YOUR lips (metaphorically speaking). Who'd'a thunk you were actually such a moderate, logical, intellectual? ;-P It seems I may have misunderestimated you!
Bravo!!
From you, Ravariel, I'll take that as a compliment. ~_^
