Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/8/06 01:47 PM, SIMPLYB wrote: I never said that the Dems, librals, ect. have no responsibility for some of the bad things that have happend to this counrty.

No you just implied that Conservatives had all of it.

I knew people would rip what I posted apart. All that shows is that you will defend the party line at all costs.

Did you even read what I wrote? Did I say the Republicans were blameless? Of course not. All you just proved is that you either never read my reply, or that you did and only saw what you wanted to see.

And so you won't call me on hypocrisy here are a few things that actually suck about some liberals.

I called you on BS, not hypocracy. You said Republicans never took responsibility. I provided some instances where they did, in direct contrast to your little shots. You put blame on one person for things that hundreds if not thousands of people were guilty of. I corrected you. Nothing partisan there. Just reality.

At 3/8/06 12:47 AM, JoS wrote: Yes, i am refering to Fallujah about the town.

Yes the sanctions were UN imposed. The UN Security council wording was vague and allowed items for humanitarian purposes. Each item was reviewed case by case by the UN sanctions committee. Later the US and UK proposed UNSC 986 which created the oil for food program in Iraq and all its humanitrian goods were looked at and approved by the SC. The US attempted to define it as food and medical supplies only but eventually increased the list from pressure. Things they vetoed from the list include chemicals (hlorine, pestacides etc), lab equipment, generators, communication equipment, ambulances, chlorinators and pencils. The US and UK in 2002 alone placed holds on over $5 billion in goods.

Source - Behind the Invasion of Iraq; Research Unit for poltiical economy - 2003 Monthly Review Press

And? Keeping things that could be used to make weapons away from a man that uses gases and other weapons to murder his own populous is a bad thing? And with as little money from the oil for Food program that actually made it to the Iraqi people, I'd have to say that the problem is with Saddam not the US.

I find it ironic that opponents of the death penalty usually support abortion. And that they often times criticize when we save people from murderous dictators.

Regardless: I offered the three strikes rule for trials. You get three chances in court, then you die. Getting three different groups of people to give you the death penalty would still be very VERY hard. But it'd make sure that those who got it deserved it.

And I ask those who say it's "childish" to look at Charles Manson. He comes up for parole every other year. And there is a group lobbying seriously to get him released. They gain power every year. The life sentence is becoming unteniable.

At 3/9/06 12:05 AM, MrConspiracy wrote: It was Onan.
I'm fighting a losing battle here, but the Catholic Church's position isn't based on that. It's part of its general teaching on sexuality. Basically: sex was created for specific purposes, it's immoral to use it solely for pleasure.

Actually, in Catholic school, that story was given as the reason for the Church's stance on masturbation. It was the reason we weren't to masturbate.

At 3/8/06 08:33 PM, Begoner wrote: Have you ever read the Hippocratic Oath? Part of it goes like this:

it may also be within my power to take a life.

It says that, but that is far from the full sentence. Why do you think it's so hard to find a doctor to administer lethal injections or perform euthanasia.

Here is the Classic Hippocratic Oath:

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

Modern:
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

In other words, he has the power to kill, but that is not what he is supposed to do. He is not to play God, to choose who lives and who dies. So dispite his "power", he must remain humble and remember what he is supposed to do. Way to distort it.

At 3/8/06 09:38 PM, mackid wrote: The term Partial Birth Abortion is a NONMEDICAL TERM. The actual term is Dilation and Extraction.

No it is called Intact Dilation and Extraction. Two different procedures chuckles.

It occurs, as you've said, like this: "The procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later.

It is always performed after viability. Usually after the 6th month (3rd trimester.

The woman's cervix is dilated, and the fetus is partially removed from the womb, feet first.

Yea, that's called breach birth. A real doctor tries to avoid it at all costs as breach birth is dangerous to the woman. However in PBA, they don't really care.

The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb.
Absolutely repulsive procedure. No one in their right mind supports it.

3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:
The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.

This is never done for the woman's health as it is actually dangerous for her. Also it is not done when the baby is dead as (again stated) there are safer ways and a normal D+E is no longer cruel (the baby is dead).

By the way, D&X is rarely used..."Pro-life groups uncovered an internal memo by Planned Parenthood which estimated that up to 60 (0.24%) of the more than 25,000 abortions performed annually in Virginia were D&Xs. 1 If this figure is accurate nationally, then there would be up to 2,880 D&X procedures per year in the U.S. (http://www.religious..nce.org/abo_pba1.ht

m).

And they're now illegal. Happy day.

At 3/8/06 11:38 PM, Tervos wrote: i don't remember ever having read that theres anything wrong with it...i do remember, however, that according to the bible, something about God telling someone, Abram...i think...to basically make love to his dead brother's wife to continue the bloodline...or something like that. but anyway, he was going to do it but at the last moment before he came, he took it out and let it on the ground...i think that's basically how it went. but bad? haven't heard anything saying that.

Basically, Abram was punished. And instead of taking the logical meaning:

"God says jump, human says how high"

Catholics somehow interpreted that to mean that masturbation was wrong, as opposed to "God told that guy to get her pregnant and he refused, so he got punished"

Talking about abortions involves a lot of subjects.

The major benefits of abortion were supposed to be: safer for women to have them, reducing the population, making every child a "wanted" child, and lowering single, poverty and underaged pregnancy and motherhood. Yet, the number of those pregnancies went up under BOTH programs proposed. First birth control, then abortion. It was an almost immediate effect too. Just because you refuse to see it doesn't make it any less real. And we have no real stats on how safe abortion is so I didn't go into that. If you didn't mention it others did.

However, you did mention that it "empowered women" and "made them equal". I went on one of my "random rants about foster care" and refuted that, by saying most women are forced into abortions by men. Which you later admitted in an offhanded way.

And you called it a parasite, over and over and over and over. I showed you real medical info about how it isn't. How it has very positive benefits. And how termination of that pregnancy has very negative benefits. You called that useless rant, even though it is directly related to what you talked about. Another one of my foster care rants I suppose. Symbiote: both entities benefit, and there may be negative effects to prematurely breaking the connection. Whatever you believe, that DESTROYS your incessany parasite nonsense.

Can't discuss abortion without adoption. Which I did. You said how it was a good system which an end to abortion would destroy. Which by the way is a way farther out claim than my "abortion and teenage pregnancy went up together". Then I DID go on my foster care rant (which was obviously completely unprompted), and told you how your facts about adoption were wrong.

So all of my "rants" were in address to something someone (usually you) said. I have addressed all of your points. Then you throw something out that contradicts yourself and go "what now?" You're the one who threw out emotion "How dare those right wingers?" "Men can't understand" Oh and "My friend had one" Hell if you take out emotion, and repetition of the same couple of refuted points (its a parasite, and abortion is done FOR the baby), I think your contribution would be three sentences long.

At 3/8/06 04:24 PM, Dulnar wrote:

So does abortion. Babies are allergic to abortion.

I have to ask you these constantly avoided questions again. Can they think? Can they move? Can they breathe?

1st Trimester: Think: No, brain is still forming. Move: Yes, quite a bit. Breath: no, lungs aren't formed enough. Not that breath is even remotely important.

You don't understand my meaning. I'm not defending the woman beating herself up or another person beating her up. If she intends on having a baby, and it gets hurt by her on purpose while in fetal development, then she should be held accountable for what she's done to that baby. However, if the baby is aborted, since it didn't feel anything and couldn't think at any point, it's not child abuse. It's legal.

So again, if she hurts it, charge her, if she kills it, it's all good. That doesn't make sense. Period.

Oh. Of course. Crap decision. Right. They didn't bother finding out when the baby was viable, or how it grew inside the womb or anything. They just said, "let's slap a date on it and we'll call it a day."

Pretty much. He admits in his own opinion that he doesn't have the medical knowledge to decide when life begins. And they had no where near the knowledge we have today. Yet he still made a ruling. That's almost like "You know, I know nothing about AIDS, but here's how we should treat it...."

It does. link

Uh, huh, I'll get to that right after I read Hitler's Mein Kemph. Kidding, I read it. OK, he calls it a parasite, takes it through "baby evolution", which has been denounced by the medical community, and deliberately uses words to make it sound not human. That's a GREAT medical paper. Took it with a grain of salt.

Well, we need that DOMA thing to be taken down, and they will be capable of being established, stable couples.

Or we could give them civil unions and the same would happen. Wait, we're not supposed to go off on tangents. I forgot.

I'm not talking about the foster system. Both systems would become even more sub-standard than they already are. If you thought we were arguing about changing foster family qualifications, we're not.

No, but you're arguing that we shouldn't drop adoption requirements, which is still ridiculous, and no one who understands the system would make it. By keeping adoption standards as high as they are, we are keeping kids in a less than sub-standard system that causes more damage than a mild reduction in standards for adoption would. The two subjects are completely interlinked. Let's discuss adoption without foster care is like discussion transportation costs without considering gas.

Read the link. I'm not just saying "first trimester" for my own benefit. It's the most logical time to allow abortion, since adoption and foster care won't work.

Are we talking about my paper on Intelligent Design? Ok. I'll respond to that book you sourced. Good source. However, I won't debate that abortion may be harmful to the mother. It's true. It may be. But that's her body and she can get treatment down the road if she needs it. Like you said before, what's wrong with smoking if it's "their body?" Well, it is just her body this time. The cancer and other defects she may have aren't hurting anyone else physically. And while you like to take this down the emotional road, it's the legal road that matters.

Because there is another DISTINCT human being that she is hurting. You know, the same argument you gave for why you can't smoke in public. The difference is, if I don't like someone smoking, I can go elsewhere. The baby doesn't have a choice.

How is it symbiotic? What physical benefits does a first trimester fetus give to its mother (not in the long run). Morning sickness, mood swings, bloating, hormone spikes. Yeah. Realy symbiotic, eh?

The benefits are over the course of the entire pregnancy. Heightened senses start during the first trimester. The drawbacks happen if the baby is aborted. Symbiosis means good for both entities. True the fetus gets more benefits, but that still pulls it out of the classification of parasite.

And I never ONCE wrote off anything you posted as being "right wing fringe shit." I called it bullshit once because it wasn't logical. And then you sidestepped my point and tried to throw bullshit statistics in my way.

Gotcha. You call it a parasite, so the stats that prove you wrong are bullshit. I understand. Comparing it to ID is calling it right wing BS btw. Unless you believe in ID.

You sick prick. She's one of my best friends. She knew that she couldn't provide for a baby. This means that she had to keep herself alive as well to take care of it. She didn't like the idea of abortion because it meant that she had to give the baby up after it was born and she didn't trust herself to do that either.

Exactly, it was about what she wanted. Better to not have to deal with it.

First of all, I started out by being facetious and pretty well-mannered. I don't mind being challenged, it's fun. And while I take your points into consideration, you've insulted me, insulted one of my best friends, and went on rants that had more to do with foster care versus adoption than both of those versus abortion. Secondly, I don't have room to type.

And you can rant all you like about how she said it was best for the baby and I still say BS. Insulting your friend or not, I don't care. If you expect me to believe that she didn't think about it's effects on her, you think I'm pretty stupid. So you make it personal to you. And? All of a sudden I HAVE to say "Hey didn't know you knew someone, you must be right." Forget that noise. She thought about herself. You can delude yourself all you want and call it "best for the baby", but no one believes it. I doubt even you do.

Nonsense, Christians are insulted all the time. Kanye West is portrayed as Jesus. Madonna as Madonna. There's a video on YouTube of someone pretending to be Jesus, singing I will Survive and then getting hit by a bus (I laughed my ass off by the way). The NEA (funded by the govt) paid some dude tens of thousands to put a crucifix in a jar of urine. Etc. Do Christians take to the streets and set things on fire? Of course not.
Religion vs freedom of speech is not comparable to yelling "Fire" in a crowded place. One is insulting, the other is DANGEROUS. What a bad comparison.
And finally, the outrage came about because the Imam made three comics of his own, one depicting the prophet as a pig. Did he get punished? Of course not.

At 3/8/06 12:57 PM, Lhotun wrote:

At 3/8/06 03:55 AM, PharaohRamsesII wrote: OK.....you fucking idiots. There is no such thing as a death penalty/death row in what I'am talking about. You just get dragged to court, convicted, and shot out back.

You do realize that "getting shot" would be the death penalty? I mean... I assume you're intending to cause death. Y'know... as a penalty. As in... a death penalty.

I like how your initial attack really seems to reflect quite a bit more on you than anyone else.

And for all other crimes such as stealing, raping, vandalism, you would get years of hard labour. Your telling me that people would still do things with the knowledge that they could easily get 5 to 25 years hard labour, or get shot?

In the case of stealing and vandalism, hard labor might be a deterrent.

Repetition: But for murder and rape? The thing is, people generally don't intend on being caught or don't think about such. If they do, then they are probably willing to do it despite the punishment being death.

Besides, you still ignore the fact that you are most likely submitting innocent people to these harsher punishments (including death), which is once again immoral.

So, as I said. What is the point?

There are two factors to everything we do. Risk and reward. What can I get by doing this, and what could or would be the punishment. Since the death penalty is so rarely enforced, it is a logical step to say criminals don't fear it. If it was made certain, that would change. It would suddenly be a very real threat again.

At 3/8/06 08:07 AM, mackid wrote: So, does anyone here oppose the theory of evolution? Support it? Post away. I believe that evolution is the most accurate way to describe development. But why do people support ID (intelligent design?)? Because it's simply repackeged creationism.

If in the fact that it means something started life here, that it didn't come about from random chance...yes you are correct. However, since it is 100% compatible with evolution, and you seem to think that means it pushes religion...no you're wrong. They support it, because there is no way to prove or disprove evolution. Not is there with ID. They are both theories.

At 3/8/06 11:49 AM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote: Anybody that opposes evolution, doesn't know what evolution is.

There are scientists who have legitimate questions about evolution. And they indeed know quite a bit more about it that you do. Look up Cambrian explosion.

How can you say evolution is incorrect?

They can't. It can't be proven or disproven. As such it is a theory as to how it happened, with both evidence that seems to support and more that seems to contradict it.

More over, how can you say ID is incorrect? You can't. It's can't be proven or disproven. Throw out a weak argument and it usually ends up getting turned around on you.

At 3/8/06 11:05 AM, SIMPLYB wrote: It’s not my fault! cried the Republican.

Oh goodie. A stupid rant. I love tearing these apart and showing the person just how dumb they are!

It’s not my fault that I shot one of my hunting partners, says Dick Cheney. It’s his fault.

What did Cheney say when he went on TV? Oh yes, "I held the gun. I pulled the trigger. It was no fault but mine. That's why I called the cops. That's why I cooperated with the investigation. It was ruled an accident."

It’s not my fault the invasion of Iraq is turning into a nightmare, says Donald Rumsfeld. It’s those evildoers!

And? Who's fault is it that things aren't going well? The people trying to run elections so the Iraqis have their own government? Or those who are blowing up buildings? Don't answer that. I'd prefer to think you have some intelligence.

It’s not my fault that we outed the identity of a valuable CIA operative involved in weapons of mass destruction proliferation, says Karl Rove. It was, um, um, um ... Lewis Libby! Yeah!

And yet no one has been charged with the leaking of a CIA agent! I personally believe Libby did it and that Rove was involved, but nothing can be proven. Considering the history of abuse of power Clinton had, this is a natural progression.

It’s not my fault that FEMA so badly bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina, says Michael Brown. It’s those local Democrats!

Hmmmm, considering Brown blames BUSH, but good try anyways. By the way, it was Nagin and Blanco's fault primarily. They just happened to be Democrats. As for hands in the blame, their are hundreds of people, some Republican, some Democrat, some independant. But the blame for loss of life falls on Blanco and Nagin.

It’s not my fault there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, says Condoleezza Rice. It’s the CIA’s fault!

Tho, everybody else in the world had the same info. Republicans, Democrats, every nation in the UN. Hmmmm.

It’s not my fault we ignored official warnings and were asleep at the wheel on Sept. 11, says George W. Bush and the whole cabal. It’s Bill Clinton's fault!

Yes, 30 years of failures must all be Bush's fault! No one else had a hand in it!

Ah yes. It’s a refrain we’ve come to know so well: The Buck Stops There.

And yet Bush takes responsibility for things that weren't really his fault: Katrina, 9/11, faulty intelligence in Iraq. So he's....taking responsibility? Dear God. Your entire argument is nullified!

At 3/6/06 06:25 PM, Gunter45 wrote: I feel the same way. Life in prison seems like a more fitting punishment, anyway, as it keeps them alive and suffering.

So if it's immoral to kill them, because they'll suffer, isn't it more immoral to keep them in prison for life? Since they'll suffer more? Sounds like the needle is the humane way out. We should kill him.....

At 3/6/06 06:30 PM, Gunter45 wrote: You do realize that it costs far more to put someone on death row than it is for them to serve a life imprisonment? Why don't you do a little research before firing off your shit canon.

No, it's cheaper to put a bullet in them. The court costs are what make it so damned expensive. Plus the death row inmate gets his own cell, etc. Eliminate that and the death penalty is obviously the cheaper option.

At 3/6/06 06:52 PM, Begoner wrote: What about those people that were found innocent on appeals? What are you going to tell their families? Oops, we accidentally shot him/her because we thought he was guilty and we didn't want to pay the additional money to keep him/her alive? Are you really that willing to kill an innocent person?

Yup. I'd be good with that. No one who's been executed has every been exonerated by DNA evidence. I'm good with that. But here's a middle of the road solution. 3 appeals. Period. Less chance of getting an innocent guy that way.

At 3/6/06 06:58 PM, SithPineapple wrote: Not to mention the fact that it wouldn't be innocent until proven guilty, it would be innocent until there's a pretty good chance they're guilty. It wouldn't be a government by the people, the government would take on a much more powerful role: deciding whether or not someone should live based on assumptions. That's not when things spiral out of control, that's a sign that things have spiraled way out of control already.

The same rules would apply as before. We don't just say "OH, you've been accused." And shoot them. Duh. It would still be innocent til proven guilty.

At 3/6/06 07:29 PM, Lhotun wrote:

It would be like going under for surgery, you wouldn't "feel" anything save for the needle/IV going in.

Actually... thats the problem.
It is believed by some that there may either be insufficient levels to cause unconciousness, nor do they use any equipment to detect the inmate's level of conciousness (so if unconciousness was not reached, we wouldn't know anyway).

Also, it isn't like the adminstrators of the death penalty tend to be the best trained out there, so the procedure is open to mistakes.

The idea is that basically they're paralyzed, on a table, feeling themselves slowly suffocate to death. That would be torture.

The people who do it are supposed to be licensed doctors. There are more restrictions on this than, say, abortion.

At 3/8/06 12:34 AM, YellowSnowman89 wrote: Guys: Unless you're the dad, why do you care? I think it's strange that many pro-life/pro-choice crusaders are men. If you don't want a kid, wear a condom. If you get one anyway, join the Army.
Girls: As a male, I'll leave it up to you to fight over whether or not abortion should be legal. Personally, I'm just sick of putting up with all this bullshit , so I'll take my seat on the fence, make some popcorn, and watch what will probably be a bloody fight.

You're not related to victims of crime, why do you care if they get justice? You're not a woman, why do you care if they get to vote, etc.

At 3/7/06 11:46 PM, zzazzman wrote: So what I don't understand is:
What was its purpose in theory?

To help those who had their savings wiped out in the bankruptsy.

What is its current purpose?

It pays for retirement for seniors. Disability benefits for those born with physical defects. Etc.

Why is it running out?

Because it pays for more things than it is intended to. And because corrupt politicians keep borrowing money out of it. It's invested in ways that don't net high returns.

What difference does that make?

That it's running out? It means it'll eventually stop paying out benefits.

What are the proposals to deal with it?

Republicans either want to privatize it or eliminate it. Democrats want to talk about their feelings and do nothing.

At 3/7/06 11:52 PM, JoS wrote: Lets put aside allt he times you hit the wrong target with your "smart bombs", all the people you killed in cross fire, looters you shot in the back etc.

Show me the country that has failed to hit a civilian during a war. I'll make them a shiny medal.

How about when the marines told everyone in an entire town they had to be out in a week then after that you virtually razed the city, killing hundreds of innocent people to squash the uprising?

Interesting. With as anti-war as the media is, I haven't heard this one. Source please?

Lets ignore the fact that the US blocked shipment of things like chlorine to Iraq during the 90's because it has potential military uses. Iraq ran out of clean water in a few months and people started getting sick and dying from diareha. What about refusing to allow Iraq to import generators to keep electricity running in the cities to power equipment, because generators could be used for military means. Hell you owuldnt even let them import ambulances because they contain communication equipment. Its nto just the bombs and bullets you have killed the people with, your sanctions and embargos killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Yes, because there was no one else involved in that besides the US. Not England, France, etc. Maybe if they hadn't lived under a brutal dictator who didn't care what happened to them, maybe it would've been different. Governments punished Saddam, but it really hurt the Iraqis instead. Ironic how it was the liberals who kept saying "Give the sactions longer. They're working."

At 3/7/06 10:44 PM, Dulnar wrote: What does abortion have to do with single motherhood? I fail to find any logical connection between STD rates, teenagers having babies (I'm guessing that means actually having the babies), and abortion. I'm confused as to how you find this telling in any way.

Hmmm, abortion is legalized, and there is an immediate spike in all of those. How could I have made the connection indeed. It's a pretty simple connection to make.

Did I say that, Wolven? I said that it's not fair to take something like that away. It's a woman's body, and the fetus isn't accorded the same rights as a person yet.

And it soon will be. We're giving rights to something else, which is completely fair.

And I never said your statement was "stupid". I said it was bullshit. There's a difference.

OK, fine. Yours is devoid of any logic whatsoever. Or science. Or basic reasoning.

Actually, smoking affects others as well. And there are people allergic to cigarette smoke.

So does abortion. Babies are allergic to abortion.

Ah, there's the rub. You see, I don't think a first trimester fetus is a person. You do. I think that, after the kid is BORN, he has the same rights as a human and ex post facto has no relevance in a case like this.

There is no such thing as an ex post facto rights. Sorry. It's a human being as defined by science. Therefore your lazy half-hearted defense is irrelevant. Besides your arguement is wrong. Sorry. You admitted tha taking drugs while pregnant is child abuse. If it is afforded that protection in the first trimester, it already has rights. Your argument is null and void.

Aw, Wolven, I'm sure if you got to know me, you wouldn't call me immoral. I don't oppose ANY restrictions. I think that Roe v. Wade made a good precedent. Wait until after the first trimester, then you can make all the regulations you wish.

It was made with no medical knowledge. Therefore it was a crap decision. A lot of criteria for what we call life happens DURING the first trimester. Scientists are coming out more and more against abortion. Your arguments are typical of the pro-choice side, made with very little understanding of the subject.

First. Fucking. Trimester.

You keep repeating that like it's supposed to mean something.

I know more about this system than you may think, ass. A) I'm happy with the adoption system. I'm not, in any way, defending the foster system. B) If we were to dump kids into the system because we took away a woman's right to choose, we would let almost anyone qualify to be an adoptive parent. We'd have to let those gays adopt more. You don't want that, do you? *end sarcasm*

Actually I'm fine with gays adopting, as long as they're an established and stable couple. Way to take a shot though. More adoption means less kids in the foster system. Being happy with the adoption system is by proxy being happy with the foster system. Allowing kids to go through a dozen or so shit foster homes where they are abused, neglected, killed, raped, etc, does more damage than giving them to a not completely "eligible" parent. For example, under current rules, a child can be stuck in foster limbo for years while his relatives try to get custody. This is most previlent in cases where the attempted guardian is a grandparent.

I'm basing this on a first trimester baby. Read my above post.

And there's no science to support you. Read my response.

Tapeworm. Not an insect.

Still quite stupid.

Thanks. I'll read it when I'm done with this paper on Intelligent Design.

Exactly. Thanks for again proving my point. You cannot actually debate logically, so you have to throw out stupid little comments.

If you honestly think it's a child, don't get an abortion. But others are sure that a fetus isn't yet sentient. For the first trimester, it's comparable to a parasite, yes. Now, before you start attacking me for comparing a baby to a parasite, I have to tell you that I don't care. It's true. It's really sickening when someone tries to shove their opinion down other people's throats when they have no real experience in that person's shoes.

Oh, shut the hell up. How many times have I heard that pathetic excuse? You don't know what it's like to be in my shoes. "I beat my wife cause I love her." "I drowned my kids in the bathtub cause I couldn't provide for them." "Sure, I ran that black guy over, but hell, his kind are trying to hurt my family. How? He was black. You just don't understand." No, it's not comparable to a parasite, it's a symbiote. But hell, as long as you write off evidence written by doctors as right wing fringe shit, it's easy to ignore.

You have NO right, whatsoever, to judge me or anyone that defends abortion. You also have no right to constantly attack me, as you are doing. You have a knack for throwing irrelevant material at me and making me respond to it. You have no clue what I'm talking about when I say that it's a hard decision. People do it out of fear for the child, not themselves. I know that my friend would have NEVER gotten her abortion if she was afraid for her own financial security. She was afraid that she wouldn't be able to rais the child successfully. So get off your high horse.

Everybody has motivations. Doesn't make them right. They do it out of fear for themselves. Don't even try and say different. Yea, a woman never factors herself into the equation. Give me a break.

Most of the militant feminists? Are you blowing shit out of your ass again? Maybe a few prominent ones, but not MOST of them. Goodbye.

Coming from someone either too stupid, or who prefers to ignore the evidence that shoots her down, I'll take that as a compliment. I throw things in your way that negate your argument and you ignore them. You refuse to answer my points, just repeating your own, even though they have been scientifically disproven. I started off trying to debate you honestly. But you've proven to me that you have no desire to see logic. You will hold to your childish position even when I can prove beyond a doubt that you're wrong.

At 3/7/06 10:53 PM, Captn_ wrote: I don't hate religion, I simply have a level head about it. If I'm so wrong, why can't you prove it? And why do you act as though I'm being so derogatory against religion? I'm saying the religious opinion is no greater than any other. If you think otherwise, you're an ignorant baffoon.

One who believes that the unborn have a right to life have a superior opinion to those who argue for its destruction. Those who believe in liberating and reducing the agony of suffering instead of sitting by and doing nothing have a better opinion. Kinda like those who believe all people are equal have a better opinion than those who think blacks aren't people. Considering all the positive movements in our country started from a religious base, I'd say it helps if not proves that point.

I'm not part of your country. And it's derogatory zealots like you that are tearing your country apart. Have you noticed that I've been trying to keep a calm attitude towards you this whole argument? That's because I'm trying to give your argument fair consideration. Stop antagonizing me to do otherwise.

Meh, ML and I are getting sick of idiots who are impervious to logic. I didn't read enough of your previous exchange to see whetheryou qualify, but whatever. I'm certainly a lot more impatient on this board than I used to be, and ML has been here a lot longer than me.

Regardless, you have never met a real zealot. Read the abortion posts and read the schmucks we argue there. Impervious to logic. Impervious to facts or reason. Such as mackid.

If minimum wage is so horrible and damaging, why is it that it supposedly damages the economy so much?

What? If it is damaging...why does it damage? Huh?

If businesses gave fair wages all the time, regardless of whether they aren't being forced to or not, they would be beyond minimum wage and there would be no issue here. By arguing against minimum wage, you're confirming your own deep-seated lack of faith in total free business morals. And if you want to deny history; that workers suffered during times without minimum wage, you're being totally ignorant. I'd imagine your ignorance, molding history into what you want it to be is why you're so hard pressed against liberals in general, with nothing but speculation and derogation.

Nonsense. Why should everything have to pay above minimum wage? Why should a McDonalds worker make above minimum wage? Arguing against minimum wage is arguing FOR total free business morals. You said it yourself, "Business can't do the right thing, so we'll force them to."

Here's an economics 101 lesson. In a PERFECT and closed system, raising the minimum wage is a null effect. Those on minimum wage make (for example) 15 cents an hour more. Everybody else ALSO makes 15 cents more an hour. Prices in that economy therefore go up in equal accordance with that increase. This is called inflation. That is in a perfect and closed system. In a REAL system, minimum wage only affects certain businesses, big ones. Little businesses do NOT have to conform to minimum wage, because many of them can't. To pay more, they'd have to charge much more than their big competitors, losing business. Therefore, since money has devalued (inflation), small business workers are actually making less money, and small businesses are making less money as well. Seniors who are on fixed income also get shafted. And prices may not go up in accordance. They may have to go up MORE to make up for the fact that they have to pay more to all their employees, and have more costs, which of course are also going up. Pretty easy concept to understand if you actually know money.

I'm sure you'll respond in the predictable MoralLibertarian manner, by getting bitchy and overly defensive when questioned with the unbending belief that you are always right, regardless of fact, ignoring all facts that dispute your claim. Then when you start losing in an argument, you throw around insults and make absurd accusations, most likely implied through questions, meant to discredit your oppenent while avoiding the topic.

He directed you to the other topic. If we spent half an hour debating the same shit over and over with people who are too lazy to read the provided info (see most people here), we'd never do anything else. You don't even understand minimum wage. It was called by most economists as the worst anti-black and anti-poor law on the books. 95% of economists think that raising the minimum wage is always a bad idea.

At 3/7/06 10:42 PM, furball1 wrote: HAHA, wait, so you are just right, you are 100% sure that your statements are of the utmost importance and can never be wrong? HA! And speaking of this where exactly is this "irrefutable" evidence you speak of? Please, you are living in the past, making yourself look even more radical with each post, and are really making liberals look even worse. If you think Bush "stole" the elections you should watch a movie called "Celsius 41.11" it explains how Bush actually won the popular vote, AND Florida.

That movie is about as right on as Feirenheight 9/11. If we're talking about the 2000 election, Bush did in fact not win the popular vote. He did in 2004, but not 2000. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. He did however, win the electoral vote.

At 3/7/06 07:09 PM, Begoner wrote: No, it's not that simple. First of all, you can't kill something that isn't living, like a fetus. However, I do think that you can still get an abortion after a baby is considered biologically living.

I get so angry when people have no clue what they're talking about yet argue it like they're knowledgable. Biologically living? Don't make up terms. It's either living or it's not. And according to science it's living. Your idiotic contention to the contrary is irrelevant. This sentence really leads into the rest in terms of intelligence.

The fetus/baby is just an extension of the mother's body -- it is connected to its mother physically.

The fetus is a distinct seperate entity after mere days. Again, science. The ambilical chord is still connected after birth too, until it is cut. Does she still have the right to kill it? Nope.

The mother should have the right to do whatever she wants to her own body. You own your own body, and no one should be able to tell you what to do with it.

But we can tell you what to do with it. And she doesn't have the right to do whatever she wants with it. Talk about reality not the way you want things to be.

And if you want the baby to be adopted, you have to go through a painful, stressful pregnancy. I really don't see the difference between not having sex at all and having sex and getting an abortion.

That's because you're a moron. If you can't see a difference between them, even ignoring moral, you're pretty damned dumb. I won't even debate the real merits of the discussion over your dumb attack on my values.

At 3/7/06 05:40 PM, Begoner wrote:

and stupidly suggested that endorcing the liberation of a nation of long-suffering people was somehow comparable to endorcing mass genocide of the Jews.

I didn't say that he was right about what he said, just that he wasn't comparing Nazi Germany's freedom of speech with the US's.

No, he was comparing Germany to the US. Kinda like you did. He used broad sweeping strokes, and I shot you both down. No ill will. But things need to be seen for what they are.

At 3/7/06 09:58 PM, ledzep1 wrote: I think that now that our troops are over there, we should support them and stop protesting about the war. Like previously said, the protesting is probably not going to change the administrations mind. Protesting the war will only bring morale down. We saw what happened in Vietnam. Protesting a war only leads to trouble. I'm not saying to support the war, but keep your discontent silent for the time being if you really care about the troops.

BS, honest criticizm of the war does not hurt troop morale. Cindy Sheehan type protest or the signs such as :We support our troops WHEN THEY SHOOT THEIR OFFICERS, hurts morale. Not just someone saying "it's time to pull out of Iraq and leave it to the savages." I don't agree with that statement, but it's part of what the soldiers fight and die for. I'll logically debate the war, but when people start calling for the death of our troops, that's when I stand up and tell them to shut the hell up.

At 3/7/06 09:43 PM, Dulnar wrote: Are you asserting that when women say "No, I could get pregnant," men say, "Aww, just get one o' them abortions?" Because I assure you that's complete bullshit. Women don't lose the power to say "no" because they still don't want to get pregnant. No one wants to spend three-hundred dollars to get an abortion. I don't even know how to further respond to that statement, Wolven.

I'm sorry. Looks at facts. Wow, since abortion became legal there have: been more abortions (obviously), single motherhood has increased, STD rates have gone through the roof, there is a higher rate of teenagers having babies. Sounds like something there has failed.

And as for my statement being "stupid", it is no stupider than to say "OH GOD. ABORTION HAS ENDED, WE HAVE NO RIGHTS ANYMORE." Yea, it's cool, you don't have to say it. I know I'm right.

A)Non-smoking is universal. It's not just the men or women who can't smoke. It's everyone.

Regardless. Still telling you you can't do something with your own body.

B)You have the kid and it comes out fucked up because you beat yourself up, you ruined that kid's life. That's child abuse.

So is killing the kid. So screwing the kid up is bad but murdering it is ok? Thanks for proving my point.

Yes, of course. There can't possibly be any other circumstances where a woman would want to have an abortion. Let me think... Lack of education comes to mind. Lack of financial security. Family pressures. Societal pressures. Those are just a few. They're not the immoral lot you make them out to be.

No, for the most part they're scared. Really scared. The people who push them into abortion are the immoral lot I make them out to be. Those who defend abortion as something that empowers women are the immoral lot I make them out to be. That's why your ilk opposes any restriction we try to put on it, even if the only possible result to the woman is a positive one. Try again.

Matter of science versus philosophy really. Can they think? Can they do anything on their own? Can they breathe? Can they see? Can they even eat on their own? Anything that is dependent on a host belongs to the host. Just like how I'm a dependent in my parent's house and, while they can't kill me (because I can think and such), I do have to live under their sovereign rule.

Not really. Matter of science. Nothing else. Well, issue of law as well. As for all of your questions, give me a time table, because yes a baby can do all of that before you give birth to it. And you living under your parent's roof is the perfect example. They can't kill you. Again, there is NOTHING that supports your argument.

Way to be a realist. Adoption isn't as unstable as you may think. The standards for an adoptive family are in place because, if they weren't, children would grow up with terrible lives. With every system, there's bound to be unfairness, but it's not as unfair as stuffing a shitload more kids into the system because their parents didn't get an abortion.

Well, considering I've worked inside the system, yea it is. Are you stupid? I mean really? The majority of children who are abused through the system get it through their foster parents, not the adoptive ones. And don't toss out fair again. It makes you sound really dumb. It's fair to tell my child "sorry Timmy, you're better off dead than adopted". Babies don't stay in the system. Ever. They're adopted almost immediately. It's the older kids they can't move.

Tapeworms have seperate DNA. Do I have a right to kill that or do I have to wait until it comes out of my toe?

Ya, but a tapeworm is not human. Will not ever be human. Doesn't have human DNA. Nor does it have positive benefits, as discussed below. So I'll use another's quote to respond to that.

"It's so damn stupid when people compare a fetus to insects."

Indeed. Indeed it is.

Can you show me proof of this?

Sure why not? The book that conbined all the evidence neatly and nicely is called "The Cost of Choice". It is the Seventh essay in that book "Reviewing the Evidence, Breaking the Silence" by Elizabeth M Shadigian, MD. I'd forgotten the other three side effects: placenta previa, pre-term birth and maternal suicide. Her main source was: Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 58:3 (2003) Survey 8 goes into breast cancer more detail by Angela Lanfranchi, MD FACS. It also explains why pregnancy helps reduce the risk of breast cancer.

As for the benefits:
http://health.discov..ancybenefits_02.html

or
http://www.americanb..rBaby.xml&page=1

It's selfish to not want to raise a child in the situation you're in? Do you honestly think it's an easy decision for a woman to have an abortion? It takes a lot of thought and soul searching and realizing that you wouldn't be the best thing for a child and adoption isn't the answer either. So, kill the fetus (yes, fetus, not baby) before it grows up in a terrible situation.

No baby, not fetus. As I discussed, responsibility means what's doing best for the child, not your own selfish wants. Don't feed me shit and tell me it's sugar. It's all about convenience. Bullshit to soul searching. Don't try and feed me that crap either. It's done out of fear and prompting from others OR sick disgusting feelings that you have the right to murder a CHILD for your convenience. And I don't care whether the decision is "easy" or not. How many criminals say it was hard for them to kill their wife, or neighbor. Hell, people have even used that excuse after they murdered THEIR CHILDREN. Ease is not an issue.

Science, numbers, logic, religion, etc are all on my side. Nothing is on yours. Hell, even most of the militant feminists who used to support abortion now decry it for what it is: one more way for men to victimize women.

At 3/5/06 11:06 AM, mayeram wrote: I think a much better comparison would be between George w bush and McCarthy.

I like that comparison.

They both promote the use of fear to control the public.

McCarthy had the support of the public. And he wasn't interested in controling them. He was right and they knew it. He did a necessary job and will be considered one of history's greatest villians for it.

They both promote the use of the big lie to control the public.

McCarthy said there were communists in sensitive places. And lo and behold, there were. His entire point was that "if you were suspected of communism, you shouldn't work with classified US info." He was right. The result of his suspicions? Firings, not jail.

They both picked out minorities to pick on and punish for no good reason.

Both had a damn good reason to go after who they did. And both were right to do so.

They both personally attacked anyone that raised concerns about their actions.

None of the people who attacked McCarthy faced much in the line of consequences. Nor have many who have faced Bush. Much like those who verbally crap on Bush now, those who slammed McCarthy were considered geniuses and lauded. You have a crappy grasp of history here.

They both use the argument that essential liberties may be sacrificed in order to have temporary security.

Neither have made those arguments. Bush has made the argument that temporary liberties must be sacrificed for neccessary safety. A decision almost every president has made during wars that could be on our soil. McCarthy never argued any such thing.

They both felt that the ends justified the means. (we must remember that this is one of the first steps down the road of evil)

You're actually right here. McCarthy was an asshole, and even his own party began to hate him because he was a prick. Bush too often makes decisions people disagree with and he more or less tells them to piss off. Therefore, he's not well liked.

I can understand where this teacher is coming from, Hitler did do these things, but Joe McCarthy would be a better person to draw a comparison to.

Using your own criteria: Hitler had people's support because of promises, not fear. By the time he had power, fear was irrelevant. He told no real lies. Immigrants were overloading Germany's economy. However, he promised to close the deporters and to kick out the illegals, not to kill all the Jews. Hitler went after anyone who agreed with him, including those in his own party. Jews, blacks, Catholics (the majority), etc. Hitler never argued that "essential liberties" nonsense. In Germany, you had the liberties the state gave you. You acted for the good of the state. You had nothing in the line of rights. And there was no "ends justify the means" bs either. The means were the end. He had no one to justify himself to. He wanted the Jews dead, so they died. Pure and simple.

Wow, Hitler and Bush were nothing alike after all. HMMMM.

At 3/7/06 08:20 PM, Begoner wrote:

Wait just a damned minute! I aint no damn conservative.

MoralLibertarian (I don't care if his name has Libertarian in it -- he's a conservative) and Fenrus 1989 were the ones I was referring to.

Being a conservative, I can say there's a difference between Libertarian and Conservative. Don't speak again until you understand it. Have a nice day.

Bush won't get impeached. Stop getting your hopes up.

At 3/7/06 04:47 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 3/7/06 04:25 PM, WolvenBear wrote: His little girl can't spell cat, and his son thinks 2 and 2 equals brown shoe, but at least they both know we are at fault for 9/11 and that Cheney shooting his hunting partner is more newsworthy than border security.

OH MY GOD YOU WENT THERE! You are the man. That part was funny.

I'm glad you liked that. I laughed as I wrote it. Consider it my thank you for all the times I've laughed at you owning others.

At 3/7/06 06:52 PM, Dulnar wrote: Ugh. Why do the righties have to always try to take down the legislation that actually help equalize our society and gave women a little bit more power over their own bodies? Why do righties always think that the womb is off-limits to women?

And the law is obviously aimed for Roe v. Wade and keeps rape victims out of the equation because they plan on making allowances after they acheive their agenda.

Well, here's a few things for starters. Abortion doesn't "equalize" men and women. What a stupid assertion. Abortion makes women subservient to men. Their best recourse for saying no to sex "I could get pregnant" is now taken away. It's now easier to bully women into sex. Also, most women who have abortions are forced into it by their boyfriend/husband/sex partner, or their family, prominently their fathers. What nonsense you assert. The pro-choice movement has victimized women from its inception.

You still don't have "power" over your own body. You can't smoke in public in many places. You can't do drugs. If you abuse yourself and give birth, we can charge you with child abuse, even tho it was "your body" when you did it. And as for "giving you power", you always had power. It's your body. Say no to sex. Make him use a condom. If you're raped, it's a crime and we will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. If you defend yourself and stave off rape, there are groups that will defend you to the death. What a crock.

So because it's in your body it's yours? What about a guy's penis? It's inside you during sex. Is it yours? (Don't throw out stupid, of course it is, comments) Is it LEGALLY yours? Of course not. Neither is the baby. It is a distinct life. That's why you don't have a right to it.

At 3/7/06 07:39 PM, Dulnar wrote: Why is it that whenever someone says the words "Just put it up for adoption" or some variation of that I get angry? Could it be because, with all the abortions in this country stopping, adoption would become an incredibly unstable system? There wouldn't be enough families to take care of the kids, so the standards for choosing proper families would go down, and then there would be even more unhappy children in the world. Abortion keeps the adoption agencies running the way they should be. If we just got rid of abortion, adoption would end up being the only choice for parents with unwanted children, and it wouldn't be a very good choice, either.

Adoption is already an unstable system. Welcome to the real world. Do you know how many people go out of country to adopt? A lot. Many of them are turned down by the system here in the US. Standards for adoption NEED to go down. We should have higher standards for foster care and lower standards for adoption. It's amazing how many productive people started their lives poor. It would be a wonderful choice for parents. And a better choice for the child.

At 3/7/06 07:59 PM, Dulnar wrote: Matter of opinion. First of all, you have to prove that a fetus in the first trimester can actually be afforded the right to life.

Seperate DNA, seperate life form. You have no right to kill another human being unless it is a threat to your life, not your pocketbook. Even if it's inside you.

All it does at that point is feed off its host (mother) and gives nothing back. It can't do anything on its own and can't take in any information so it can't formulate a single thought. It's just a motionless mass that can't form a sentient thought. Scientifically speaking, it's not human yet. Just like how eggs aren't chickens yet.

Before the chicken hatches it's still a chicken. Good call tho. As for not giving anything back. Pregnant women who go to term have a lower risk of breast cancer. They have increased sensory perception. There's several others. Abortion however, increases the risk of breast cancer. Abortion, harmer of women.

They are. That's what you do when you realize that you can't offer the best possible life for your child, you give it up for adoption or you terminate the pregnancy.

That's not responsibility. That's selfishness. Don't even call it responsibility. Responsibility is doing what is best for the child, and that's never abortion. You disgusting human being.

At 3/7/06 05:42 PM, Begoner wrote: I seriously hope that you are joking. Almost every single teenage mother who did not want to have a baby has had her life ruined.

Speaking from the perspective of someone who knows no pregnant women you have no basis to say that. You are, quite simply, full of shit.

Hell in my English class alone, we have 8 mothers out of 15 women. All under the age of 21.

Where do you live? Here, not one single student is pregnant, and we have over 1000 students.

They always say liberals are divorced from reality. Number one bud, I'm in college. Number two, even when I was in high school, there were girls getting pregnant. I've known hundreds of women who have given birth as a teen. Not one has had her life ruined. It's very simple. Life goes on. You are still able to go to college, get a job, live a life, get married, etc. You have no clue of how the real world works.

I agree that it's her fault. She may not have been thinking clearly, she may not have thought out all the consequences, some event may have happened that made her change her mind, she may have been drunk, etc. Even though I think a mother should try to go through with a pregnancy, I don't think she should be punished for one mistake. The rest of someone's life is a high price to pay for one error.

Yet through your own nonsense, someone else should have to pay by not having a life for one simple mistake. I repeat, not one mother's life has ever been ruined by having a baby. I assure you, life doesn't end when you give birth. Life does end at abortion though.

Yeah, she made a mistake. But she shouldn't be punished for it that brutally -- having a baby will affect the rest of her life and ruin her aspirations. All because of one mistake? It doesn't seem fair to me.

Brutally? Jesus grow up. Having a baby doesn't affect the rest of your life either. Especially if you give it up for abortion. If you don't understand that, you're really too stupid to be debating this.

How about we ask the mothers if they would prefer their life with or without the fetus? Because the mothers are being forced to carry a baby for 9 months. It should be their choice and theirs alone.

No. It shouldn't. For reasons stated above. Why do pro-lifers always win the debate? Because they are right. They have logic, numbers, and reality, not to mention science on their side. Abortion proponents have only emotion, and idiocy.

At 3/7/06 05:34 PM, Begoner wrote:

HAHAHAHAHA banning abortion is morally wrong. What an incredibly stupid thing to say. It can be morally wrong to have an abortion, but not to ban it.

There is no universal set of morals. You must indeed be stupid to think morals are objective instead of subjective. And if you think ruining a teenage mother's life -- someone who made one mistake and will now have to not go to college, have no future, have to spend their life caring for their baby, be alienated by all their friends -- is "moral," then good for you. Have a cookie. I don't. I think women have a right to their body that no law can intrude upon.

And you're wrong. I really don't care what you think honestly. No teenagers life has ever been ruined by giving birth. NOT ONE. EVER. Thousands have been ruined by having an abortion and feeling guilty for the rest of their life. Thousands have died or ben sterilized. Give it up. So what a mother can't attend college? Are you stupid? Hell in my English class alone, we have 8 mothers out of 15 women. All under the age of 21. And as for "being alienated by their friends", that doesn't happen either. Maybe by their family. But guess what....the abortion doesn't fix that. You have no clue how the real world works. We have the right to tell potential momma to be: no drugs. Can't have sex if you've got AIDS. We can't say anything about abortion? Don't be stupid.

At 3/6/06 10:47 PM, vulcanus_1313 wrote: The typical conservitive in a few words:

is for everything stupid, and against everything not stupid.

The typical conservitive in a bunch of words:

Is for the following:
Killing pople they hate

Murder is outlawed and we try anyone who commits it. Thank you conservatives!

Denying people basic rights

Like owning property? Even though liberals support eminent domain? Like having the right to vote instead of being killed by a ruthless dictator? Whom liberals supported leaving in, by the way? HORRAY CONSERVATIVES!

Domestic spying

Got us there. I'm outside your window now watching you build a bomb. No wonder it bothers you so much.

christainity

And?

owning murder weapons (ie. guns)

Even though criminals vote liberal. And criminals have guns. Good call. How dare those innocent victims have ways to defens themselves?

is against:
Gay marriage

And? The state has a right to define what it will recognize as marriage. Do you support polygamy? Marriage to family? The state doesn't. Or we could leave it up to the church and no gays will get married EVER. Grow up.

abortion

And?

not killing people they hate

I am against not killing people I hate. However, that conflicts with that damn Christianity I have to have as a conservative. So I'm slowly dying on the inside since I cant kill you.