Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

I don't particularly care what other priests say about things, as long they aren't being silly about it.
Being a woman and being ordained myself, I'd say that it's pretty much up to the woman. I would much rather people kill fetus's than bring them up badly and make yet another mediocre and stupid human.

After all, in America, a fetus is an 18 year commitment.

---

At 10/22/10 02:54 AM, BezFriend wrote: The thing about abortion is that only one party has the say to it - parents.

Right...

It doesn't have the consent of the child.

Define "child" because most abortions tend to happen when the fetus is not an actual human being yet in the medical definition.

It's like killing a mute because the person can't say no.

Not at all the same thing, no.

If it were you who were in the "shoes" of the kid, you will probably be not here right now.

Appeal to Emotion.

Also, have you seen the gruesome images from abortion?

No but as pointed out prior, shock tactics are weak.

Besides, if you don't want a kid, why not use contraceptives?

I know 2 people who got pregnant on the pill, contraceptives aren't 100%...they even teach you this in those horribly restricted sex ed classes in school...or did you sleep through those?

---

At 10/22/10 05:18 PM, Memorize wrote: "Is when it begins a 'regular rhythm"

Otherwise 3-7 weeks. The point being it's still far sooner than 3 months.

It's still not 2 weeks as you claimed.

---

At 10/22/10 11:33 PM, ChaosPetra wrote: I don't particularly care what other priests say about things, as long they aren't being silly about it.
Being a woman and being ordained myself, I'd say that it's pretty much up to the woman. I would much rather people kill fetus's than bring them up badly and make yet another mediocre and stupid human.

After all, in America, a fetus is an 18 year commitment.

I think you are smarter than what you type out from your keyboard.

Maybe you should also campaign to get all retarded or mentally handicap person to be killed -because they'll 100% certainly make yet another mediocre and stupid human. You know what, I think that instead of killing the fetus, society should kill the irresponsible woman and her partner instead.

Sarcasm aside, I think that judgement like these are just a bunch of self-fulfilling prophesies coming out from fear. Fear that they won't be good parents, fear that they won't be good mothers, fear that they would not be up to the challenge of raising a child. And you know what, these fears are common not just for those who want to get abortion but also for those newly weds who want kids. Most likely than not, these people are looking at the future pessimistically. There's a quote that really resonate with these kind of fears:

"Do not look back and grieve over the past, for it is gone. Do not be troubled by the future for it is yet to come. Live in the present and make it so beautiful that it will be worth remembering." - Ida Scott Taylor

I believe you are smart enough to figure this out.

---

At 10/23/10 01:15 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/22/10 02:54 AM, BezFriend wrote: The thing about abortion is that only one party has the say to it - parents.

Right...

It doesn't have the consent of the child.

Define "child" because most abortions tend to happen when the fetus is not an actual human being yet in the medical definition.

haha You're funny. Either that you're funny or you're just stupid. But calling you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. So I'd rather call you funny. Do you really believe in these technical terms?

This reminds me so much of the Holocaust. The Nazis do not define "humans" to include the Jews. So they killed them, treated them worst than how they treat animals, flush them to concentration camps and basically massacred them. I don't see the difference between what the Nazis did to the Jews to what these mothers do to their bodies. But don't get me wrong, I'm pro-legalization of abortion just so these mothers get care that every human being deserve (even if they didn't give the same care about the child).

It's like killing a mute because the person can't say no.

Not at all the same thing, no.

The analogy is clear.

If it were you who were in the "shoes" of the kid, you will probably be not here right now.

Appeal to Emotion.

And there is nothing wrong with an appeal to emotion because it resonates with people - much like appeal to reasons do.

Also, have you seen the gruesome images from abortion?

No but as pointed out prior, shock tactics are weak.

Well I don't care if you call them shock tactics. I call them arguments and proofs that holocausts and abortion is simply inhuman.

Besides, if you don't want a kid, why not use contraceptives?

I know 2 people who got pregnant on the pill, contraceptives aren't 100%...they even teach you this in those horribly restricted sex ed classes in school...or did you sleep through those?

Like I said, use the two -- Pill + Condom. Using only one is ignoring the fact that they are not fool proof. Didn't they teach these through sex ed classes in schools... or did you sleep through those?

---

At 10/22/10 05:36 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 10/22/10 05:51 AM, BezFriend wrote:

Well yeah, but abortion is different in a way that it's like cannibalism - but instead of eating humans after they kill the baby, they just flush them to the toilet.

hahaha

It's like cannibalism, but you don't eat the person!

Did you even read after the "but"? I don't think you have the capacity to understand the analogy very well. In that case, please ignore the post because it is not for the likes of you.

---

At 10/22/10 10:44 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 10/22/10 04:30 PM, BezFriend wrote: Statistics are meaningless. If you wish to push through with that demand, I'd say that it is 88.99% of humanity.

Statistics are not meaningless when you are making claims about majorities and "most people" and so on. You said in regards to the subject of failed contraception, and I quote:

It is indeed meaningless. Let me ask you something in this analogy: "Research" suggests that only 1% of humans become billionaires. Is there any meaning to that statistics? Does that help you become a billionaire? How about this:

The world population is 80% predominantly Christians during 1876. Does that make the claim that Christians are superior than Muslims or any other faith?

I don't see what the use of statistics is for in the context of our discussion. Statistics are only good for trivial knowledge. And just to satisfy your questionable thirst for trivial numbers: 87.67% of Statistics are worthless.

Most often than not, these people did not take better precautions.

I will presume that you meant "More often that not" unless you are speaking a lesser-known English dialect that I am not yet aware of. When you say things like this you can be expected to back up your claims with evidence, which in this case would be statistics that support what you said.

More often than not = 86.89% of the time.

And if you're the type of guy who wants to ask where did I get that number, I'm just gonna say that the source is confidential and top secret. Happy now?

No. Because you are talking out of your arse. If you want to discuss the serious subject of abortion, I suggest you don't make outlandish, unfounded statistical claims like you constantly are doing.

Outlandish? Statistically, only 1.65% of my arguments are outlandish. Did I say that statistics are made up 87.67% of the time?

No. Where did I say that women do not think it through?

I quote:

But make sure that you will be happy after the abortion, because there are a lot of women out there who died or become traumatized after their procedures. And sometimes, these women would look back and ask the "what ifs" for the rest of their lives.

In posting this you are strongly suggesting that "a lot of women" don't think their decisions through enough because of the abject misery they suffer after going through with the procedure of abortion.

Where in that statement did I say that women do not think it through? And no, where did you even got that suggestion? I think it is you who is suggesting that when you read my argument. Nowhere in my statement did I write that. The quote is the proof.

Since you don't consider evidence to be important I will presume for the time being that by "a lot of women" you could really mean any amount from two women up to fifty billion women, depending on how your mind is working at this point in time.

If that'll make you happy, go ahead.

What I'm saying is that they should be 100% certain - that their actions are not motivated by fear, pressure from their boyfriends or sex partner or even parents.

You said yourself that the aftermath of an abortion is gruesome. I know it is. Channel 4 once broadcast a TV programme which showed a woman getting an actual abortion, and I watched it. The decision to go through with such a difficult and upsetting procedure is not something that a woman is likely to flip a coin over.

TV? Really? hahaha A women shown in TV does not constitute 100% of all women.

Yes, and considering these women only have a limited amount of time to make up their decisions makes it not similar to flipping a coin over. /sarcasm

You're the one who is implying that I'm implying something.

I didn't "imply" anything, I just made an accurate observation as to what you are suggesting. You are treating women as if they are stupid and can't think for themselves.

Well, I think you need better glasses. Because as far as I know, your observations are incorrect. You can observe my quote for eternity and the letters and words would not transform and suit your views of what you think my quote implies.

That was what you were implying when you said that there was no fail safe - when I think what you are referring to is "fool proof" contraceptive.

I didn't refer to anything as "fool proof" nor "fail safe". These are terms that you used in regards to contraception. I have never stated that there is any form or combination of contraception which is either fool proof or fail safe.

Look back at your quotes when you wrote that there are no fail safe.

Yeah, that is why I introduce the paragraph as "anyway..."

"Anyway" is a word used when one wishes to "resume the thread of a story or account". It does not mean "On a completely unrelated matter..."

"Anyway" could also be used to change the subject. In a conversation, this statement: "anyway, I've got to go" means that "on a completely unrelated matter..., I've got to go." To think that a word is only used for a singular purpose is like thinking that the wheel is only used for cars and not pottery.

---

At 10/22/10 05:51 AM, BezFriend wrote:

Contraception doesn't always work. Those who take all the precautions still sometimes end up with one of them being pregnant.

Most often than not, these people did not take better precautions. Pills + condoms = fail safe.

I like the pill for the simple fact that if you are horny at the moment you can still jump eachother without having to go through the hassle of putting on a condom, which can be somewhat of a moodkiller. It allows for 'spontaneous' sex. Of course, you got to make sure there's no STD's and all.

But the problem is that it depends on how well the woman is at remembering to take it. They forget once and they should be careful having sex until their next periods. On top of this, until you really do double dutch, it can be forgetting she forgot to take this, leading to unsafe sex on the pretenses it is save.
Even more so, sometimes the pill fucks up menstruation and things get incredibly complicated. (menstruation being delayed and so on)
But eventually, having sex with condom for the rest of a lifetime might not be as fun.

---

At 10/23/10 04:06 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 10/22/10 05:51 AM, BezFriend wrote:

Contraception doesn't always work. Those who take all the precautions still sometimes end up with one of them being pregnant.

Most often than not, these people did not take better precautions. Pills + condoms = fail safe.

I like the pill for the simple fact that if you are horny at the moment you can still jump eachother without having to go through the hassle of putting on a condom, which can be somewhat of a moodkiller. It allows for 'spontaneous' sex. Of course, you got to make sure there's no STD's and all.

But the problem is that it depends on how well the woman is at remembering to take it. They forget once and they should be careful having sex until their next periods. On top of this, until you really do double dutch, it can be forgetting she forgot to take this, leading to unsafe sex on the pretenses it is save.
Even more so, sometimes the pill fucks up menstruation and things get incredibly complicated. (menstruation being delayed and so on)
But eventually, having sex with condom for the rest of a lifetime might not be as fun.

I agree.

However, one cannot get all what a person wants. It is part of adult reality. Either have a "much lesser" fun and have better safeguards against pregnancy, or have fun and have lower safeguards against pregnancy.

Of course, women could always just get hysterectomy, or get their tubes tied but that's gonna be permanent.

---

I never understood why Christians try to hide behind religion on abortion, the only time the bible mention abortion it's accidental abortion & the punishment doesn't match that for manslaughter. There's also the issue that Jesus never mentioned it, despite being legal in his time.Kinda implies Jesus & God have no problem with abortion

At 10/22/10 07:16 AM, Memorize wrote:
How can people say it's "her body" when it's Genetically separate?

For starters, it is her body the parasite is incubating in the statement is entirely correct. Another issue is chimeraism & people with transplanted organs. That is if you hold the belief that separate DNA= separate person. & Would that make twins the same person?

At 10/22/10 11:06 PM, Memorize wrote:
I like how you people go on about how the "oh-so horrible" abortions and that we "fewer of them", but then turn around cry foul when states make people look at an ultrasound before the abortion procedure (which makes sense... if 3/4 of women opt of an abortion they were going to have, it would cut into Planned Parenthood's profits by quite a bit!)

Personally I don't care if someone gets an abortion before sentience occurs, the only problem I have is that it is an invasive procedure that carries with it some risks. Forcing someone to pay out of pocket for an unnecessary expense is something I don't agree with. You are aware Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit, any profits they net go into the organization, & it isn't usual practice for a company seeking profit to provide services at cost or a loss.

The funny part being that about half of abortions every year are by people who've had at least 1 previous abortion.

"It's SO horrible, I get to do it again!"

How's that funny? If you believe abortion is murder, you should be screaming that they are multiple murderers. If you don't then it really should be considered no different than cosmetic surgery.

---

At 10/23/10 03:28 AM, BezFriend wrote:

Did you even read after the "but"? I don't think you have the capacity to understand the analogy very well. In that case, please ignore the post because it is not for the likes of you.

I think it's pretty sad that you chose to defend your obvious blunder instead of just going "oh, yeah, haha I guess if you DON'T EAT ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE SAME SPECIES it's not cannibalism! Whoops!".

Here's the word we use for when we kill humans but don't eat them: MURDER

---

At 10/23/10 04:23 AM, BezFriend wrote:
However, one cannot get all what a person wants. It is part of adult reality. Either have a "much lesser" fun and have better safeguards against pregnancy, or have fun and have lower safeguards against pregnancy.

I get along with that. I do find this not really easy. It's sometimes like standing in a room with a platter of BBQ'd meat with a delicious scent and being told that you can not have a single piece. Only sex is much more cruel.

Of course, women could always just get hysterectomy, or get their tubes tied but that's gonna be permanent.

The problem with this is that young women are not that able to take care of kids, but the vast majority does want kids when they are older.
Men however, can always get a vasectomy, they don't want kids anyway. :)

---

At 10/23/10 05:11 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 10/23/10 04:23 AM, BezFriend wrote:
However, one cannot get all what a person wants. It is part of adult reality. Either have a "much lesser" fun and have better safeguards against pregnancy, or have fun and have lower safeguards against pregnancy.

I get along with that. I do find this not really easy. It's sometimes like standing in a room with a platter of BBQ'd meat with a delicious scent and being told that you can not have a single piece. Only sex is much more cruel.

Cruel, hard and cold world it is. You made me hungry for some BBQ =)

Of course, women could always just get hysterectomy, or get their tubes tied but that's gonna be permanent.

The problem with this is that young women are not that able to take care of kids, but the vast majority does want kids when they are older.
Men however, can always get a vasectomy, they don't want kids anyway. :)

I'm a man and I want kids. The movie "The Back-up Plan" sums up my personal experience regarding this issue.

---

At 10/23/10 05:05 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 10/23/10 03:28 AM, BezFriend wrote:

Did you even read after the "but"? I don't think you have the capacity to understand the analogy very well. In that case, please ignore the post because it is not for the likes of you.

I think it's pretty sad that you chose to defend your obvious blunder instead of just going "oh, yeah, haha I guess if you DON'T EAT ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE SAME SPECIES it's not cannibalism! Whoops!".

Here's the word we use for when we kill humans but don't eat them: MURDER

Another way to say 1 is to say that it is 2 minus 1. In our discussion this equation:

Cannibalism - Eating = Murder

I don't see what is your issue is with my choice of words since I practically satisfied the right side of the equation.

---

At 10/23/10 03:56 AM, BezFriend wrote: It is indeed meaningless.

Here we go.

Let me ask you something in this analogy: "Research" suggests that only 1% of humans become billionaires. Is there any meaning to that statistics? Does that help you become a billionaire?

No. A statistic is not meant to help you become anything. Statistics are a form of evidence which either support or negate claims that have been made.

YOU made claims about "most people" behaving one way or another. This is a CLAIM which requires EVIDENCE to back it up. In this case, an example of good evidence would be STATISTICS because you are making claims which can be quantified with basic numbers.

How are you not getting this?

How about this: The world population is 80% predominantly Christians during 1876. Does that make the claim that Christians are superior than Muslims or any other faith?

No. Because the percentage of people who were christian during 1876 has nothing to do with whether or not the religion is superior in any kind of moral or authoritarian sense (I presume that by "superior" you meant it in such a context)

Using your own analogy, let me illustrate the position you are taking:

You: "Most people in 1876 are christian."
Me: "Can you support that claim with evidence, such as basic statistics?"
You: "Statistics are meaningless."

With the same analogy, allow me to illustrate how any rational thinking person would respond:

Them: "Most people in 1876 are christian."
Me: "Can you support that claim with evidence, such as basic statistics?"
Them: "Yes. In fact according to the most recent census we have, 80% of the population are christian."
Me: "Oh, I see."

Get it?

I don't see what the use of statistics is for in the context of our discussion. Statistics are only good for trivial knowledge.

You are the one who made the claim that the majority of women who get abortions do so because they failed to use a reasonable level of contraception.

I asked you to validate this claim by means of BASIC EVIDENCE and you not only have failed to provide any such evidence but you have seemingly tried to waltz around all further discussion.

I can only conclude from your incessant waltzing that you are either a deliberate liar or you are too proud to admit that you made claims which you are unable to back up.

More often than not = 86.89% of the time.

So is that an actual figure which can be sourced?

Where in that statement did I say that women do not think it through?

As I said already, you suggested (read: implied) it in what you were saying.

And no, where did you even got that suggestion?

Within your post which I already re-quoted for your convenience because you are incapable of remembering the nonsense you come out with.

I think it is you who is suggesting that when you read my argument. Nowhere in my statement did I write that.

You strongly suggested it in what you posted. If you are going to deny this I recommend gaining a better understanding of the English language.

If that'll make you happy, go ahead.

It's just that you seem to choose random words on the basis that if you don't fully understand them then nobody else must either.

TV? Really? hahaha A women shown in TV does not constitute 100% of all women.

I never said it does, you unbelievable fuckwit.

I said that after viewing the procedure that they go through I can conclude that no women out there would choose abortion at the drop of a hat. Unless they were mentally ill or something.

Well, I think you need better glasses. Because as far as I know, your observations are incorrect. You can observe my quote for eternity and the letters and words would not transform and suit your views of what you think my quote implies.

I have asked nothing of you but to support your claims with evidence. You have failed to do so.

I have shown you the things you have been saying and explained why your post makes X suggestion and Y implication. You deny these suggestions are there, but have failed to explain what your original intended point was.

Next.

I wrote:

I didn't refer to anything as "fool proof" nor "fail safe".

You just responded with:

Look back at your quotes when you wrote that there are no fail safe.

You just confirmed the fact that I didn't refer to any form of contraception as "fail safe", but worded it in such a way that proves you do not understand the language you are communicating in as much as you think you do.

"Anyway" could also be used to change the subject.

Or, more accurately, it can be used to revert back to an original subject after a conversation has gotten off track.

It is not used to just change the subject of conversation so that you don't have to go on digging yourself a hole you will never get out of because you don't know what you are talking about. Anyone who attempts this is essentially admitting their incompetency.

To think that a word is only used for a singular purpose is like thinking that the wheel is only used for cars and not pottery.

I didn't claim that the word can only be used for one purpose. I pointed out, to you, that the context in which you used the word was grammatically wrong. It made no sense.

---

Have you ever studied statistics? If you do, you'll know that statistics are just made up - because it is simply impossible to survey all your target audience. That is why they introduce the concepts of level of confidence, %error, skewness of tails etc should be included in reports. Now, in most (note: I don't need statistics) news that source their statistics, do they include these? No. And most often than not, they just really made it up on the spot.

At 10/23/10 06:26 AM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 10/23/10 03:56 AM, BezFriend wrote: Where in that statement did I say that women do not think it through?

As I said already, you suggested (read: implied) it in what you were saying.

I did not imply it. But you are being a jerk and putting words into my mouth. Do you have to stoop that low?

And no, where did you even got that suggestion?

Within your post which I already re-quoted for your convenience because you are incapable of remembering the nonsense you come out with.

Where? All I see here is you being non-sense and making a mountain out of a mole of statistics.

I think it is you who is suggesting that when you read my argument. Nowhere in my statement did I write that.

You strongly suggested it in what you posted. If you are going to deny this I recommend gaining a better understanding of the English language.

Nope. Again it is just you.

If that'll make you happy, go ahead.

It's just that you seem to choose random words on the basis that if you don't fully understand them then nobody else must either.

If that'll make you happy, go ahead.

TV? Really? hahaha A women shown in TV does not constitute 100% of all women.

I never said it does, you unbelievable fuckwit.

Look here, see what I've done there? I've put words into your mouth. How do you feel now? Better face the mirror and quote yourself.

I said that after viewing the procedure that they go through I can conclude that no women out there would choose abortion at the drop of a hat. Unless they were mentally ill or something.

Ok, I'll use your arguments against you. Prove with statistical evidence that your conclusion is true - that no women out there would choose abortion at the drop of a hat.

I can't even believe that you generalize the whole population of women and conclude just based on a single women on a TV show. Now, who's the "unbelievable fuckwit" as you say yourself.

Well, I think you need better glasses. Because as far as I know, your observations are incorrect. You can observe my quote for eternity and the letters and words would not transform and suit your views of what you think my quote implies.

I have asked nothing of you but to support your claims with evidence. You have failed to do so.

I said there is no need for evidence. Geez, what's up with you and statistics. Do you even think that statistics are "evidence"? Let me ask you something, in all those surveys and statistics that people make up, did they even bothered to ask you? So how can you be so sure that these statistics are not just made up? How can it be representative of humanity if your views are not included. That they didn't just asked their immediate families or close friends for answers? Do you even check the sources, validate the responses or data regarding these statistics? You can give me a bunch of survey questionnaires and I can answer 1,000 of them and make a hell of a statistics and show it to people. And guess what, I'm pretty sure you'll believe the lies because of the stupid notions that numbers never lies - but disregards the one creating the numbers.

I have shown you the things you have been saying and explained why your post makes X suggestion and Y implication. You deny these suggestions are there, but have failed to explain what your original intended point was.

Next.

I wrote:

I didn't refer to anything as "fool proof" nor "fail safe".

You just responded with:

Look back at your quotes when you wrote that there are no fail safe.

You just confirmed the fact that I didn't refer to any form of contraception as "fail safe", but worded it in such a way that proves you do not understand the language you are communicating in as much as you think you do.

Maybe it is you who do not understand. What is wrong with my statement anyway? That there is no fail safe? Really? What do you call a back-up plan in case a pill goes wrong? Isn't that a fail safe?

"Anyway" could also be used to change the subject.

Or, more accurately, it can be used to revert back to an original subject after a conversation has gotten off track.

Can't you even see the use of the word based on its context?

It is not used to just change the subject of conversation so that you don't have to go on digging yourself a hole you will never get out of because you don't know what you are talking about. Anyone who attempts this is essentially admitting their incompetency.

It is you who is digging a hole here, pal. You shifted the arguments away and focused on stupid statistics and use of "anyway".

To think that a word is only used for a singular purpose is like thinking that the wheel is only used for cars and not pottery.

I didn't claim that the word can only be used for one purpose. I pointed out, to you, that the context in which you used the word was grammatically wrong. It made no sense.

I never said that you claim it to be used for one purpose. But you are arguing that I can't use "anyway" in another purpose. Your arguments made no sense.

---

At 10/23/10 08:15 AM, BezFriend wrote: And most often than not, they just really made it up on the spot.

... like for instance, "there are a lot of women out there who died or become traumatized after their procedures."?

("most often than not" is grammatically incorrect. Read up on the difference between the word "more" and "most". "more often than not" actually means "most often".)

---

At 10/23/10 05:32 AM, BezFriend wrote:

I don't see what is your issue is with my choice of words since I practically satisfied the right side of the equation.

Yeah, see, only crazy people talk like that.
Hmmm how can I put this in a way you will understand...

see...
You're like a doctor at a mental hospital except you're the patient.

---

At 10/23/10 08:55 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 10/23/10 08:15 AM, BezFriend wrote: And most often than not, they just really made it up on the spot.

... like for instance, "there are a lot of women out there who died or become traumatized after their procedures."?

("most often than not" is grammatically incorrect. Read up on the difference between the word "more" and "most". "more often than not" actually means "most often".)

Thanks for correcting me. You could've done it more politely instead of being a rude grammar Nazi. As I see it, the only word I used incorrectly is using 'most' instead of 'more'. Again, thanks. You're better than a bunch of people who I know - who just kept on attacking without pointing the error.

---

At 10/23/10 08:15 AM, BezFriend wrote: And most often than not, they just really made it up on the spot.

... like for instance, "there are a lot of women out there who died or become traumatized after their procedures."?

---

At 10/23/10 02:54 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 10/23/10 08:15 AM, BezFriend wrote: And most often than not, they just really made it up on the spot.

... like for instance, "there are a lot of women out there who died or become traumatized after their procedures."?

If you'd kindly backtrack and look at the original context where that quote was taken from, I was referring to statistics - not opinions.

---

At 10/23/10 02:59 PM, BezFriend wrote: If you'd kindly backtrack and look at the original context where that quote was taken from, I was referring to statistics - not opinions.

And if statistics are made up on the spot, how are statistics not a matter of opinion?

---

At 10/23/10 05:28 AM, BezFriend wrote:

Cruel, hard and cold world it is. You made me hungry for some BBQ =)

One corollary is, of course, that I can hardly be all holier than thou to young people who do get pregnant. I don't think it's any more stupid than a person who overslept and missed a crucial exam.

---

At 10/23/10 03:30 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

One corollary is, of course, that I can hardly be all holier than thou to young people who do get pregnant. I don't think it's any more stupid than a person who overslept and missed a crucial exam.

Yeah seriously, what kind of cold-hearted ass would be happy that if you made a mistake once in your teen years, it should follow you FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE!

Got pregnant because you were stupid when you were 16? WELL TOO BAD! NOW DROP OUT OF SCHOOL AND RAISE YOUR BABY ALONE! That'll teach you to love someone else and want to have sex with them!

And that's coming from the religion that believes if your baby dies without getting baptized / accepting Jesus, he's going to hell!
That's right, God takes aborted foetuses and SENDS THEM STRAIGHT TO HELL, because they have souls and are people!

THAT IS SOOOOOOOOO FUCKED UP. Seriously, SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS!
That's worse, FAR FAR WORSE than what Hitler thought. ANY DAY, THIS HANDS-DOWN BEATS HITLER, NO CONTEST. That's the most horrible idea ever.

That's the truest purest evil I can imagine, creating a life JUST TO SEND THEM TO HELL FOREVER. That's almost not even subjectively evil! It's that bad, you can almost call this truly, objectively, EVIL.

---

Think this fits in quite well here:

---

At 10/23/10 06:00 PM, Kev-o wrote: Think this fits in quite well here:

Also this:

---

Some Neutral Perspective:

The United States Code "is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States." In Title 1, a human being "shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."

Changing abortion laws would change the United States Code. There are many laws that rely on the definition of a human being. This doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed; that's what amendments are for, anyway.

The topic of Abortion has nothing to do with "Freedom of Religion." My treatment of what is defined as not a human being in U.S. law does not prevent you from exercising free religion.

The problem at hand is the definition of a human being. The argument should not be on whether the bible says it's right or wrong, it should be on what a "person" is defined as.

---

At 10/23/10 07:46 PM, CaptinChu wrote: it should be on what a "person" is defined as.

Right but you'll never come to an answer with that.
It's like asking "how many grains of sand does it take to make a beach?".

There's no answer, there's just a blurry middle-ground where some people will start switching sides.

I guess the safest definition would be that a person is physically separate and fully autonomous biologically, which a foetus definitely is not and which everyone who was born is.

Then you have to find out when it is that a fetus can survive on its own outside the mother's body and to that I say: you can be pretty generous with the time limit on that because no one gives a fuck about fetuses if their mom's not gonna love and care for them. If you're that torn up over it, put your money where your mouth is and go adopt a kid who's already there and needs parents.

---

At 10/23/10 08:15 AM, BezFriend wrote: Have you ever studied statistics? If you do, you'll know that statistics are just made up - because it is simply impossible to survey all your target audience.

If 1000 people from various backgrounds are surveyed and 900 of them seem to give the same answer to the same question, this is indicative of the opinion of the population overall. It might not be 100% accurate, and I am not suggesting it is, but it is a million miles away from being "made up".

I did not imply it. But you are being a jerk and putting words into my mouth. Do you have to stoop that low?

You did, and I already pointed it out to you. And like I already said, if you are going to deny ever making an implication, do the sensible thing and reiterate what your original intended point was.

Me: "You just implied x."
You: "No I didn't."
Me: "Ok. Then what were you really saying?"
You: "I didn't imply anything. You are putting words in my mouth."
Me: "Ok, but what was your original point?"
You: "But I didn't imply anything."

Repeat to fade.

Where? All I see here is you being non-sense and making a mountain out of a mole of statistics.

Again, I will quote your own statement for you:

But make sure that you will be happy after the abortion, because there are a lot of women out there who died or become traumatized after their procedures. And sometimes, these women would look back and ask the "what ifs" for the rest of their lives.

Do you honestly not see how unbelievably condescending this is?
Women can think for themselves. They do not need voice-of-reason BezFriend telling them "yeah but what if you're not happy afterwards."

It is obvious to everyone except you apparently that abortions sometimes result in unhappiness.

Nope. Again it is just you.

Refer back to the earlier simplification I made in this post for you.

It's just that you seem to choose random words on the basis that if you don't fully understand them then nobody else must either.

If that'll make you happy, go ahead.

Me: *Suggesting you don't know what you are talking about*
You: *Possibly-deliberate nonsensical response*

Look here, see what I've done there? I've put words into your mouth. How do you feel now? Better face the mirror and quote yourself.

I have not been putting words into your mouth. I have taken the utter bullshit that you have been coming out with and explained to you how your opinions/statements/claims seem to suggest one thing or another.

You have done nothing but deny ever intending to make these suggestions, while somehow failing, despite being given every opportunity, to correct me on my apparent misunderstandings.

I can't even believe that you generalize the whole population of women and conclude just based on a single women on a TV show.

Except I'm not generalising based on one woman. I raised the fact that I had seen an abortion taking place so I could explain to you that it is an incredibly unpleasant experience. This is not rocket science. You yourself have mentioned the gruesome imagery of abortion.

It is obvious from such evidence that abortion is not something which any sane, rational-thinking human would take part in without strongly thinking through beforehand.

You are the one who made claims which can be supported ONLY by statistics, and failed to provide them.
The claim I have made can be supported by the fact that humans have a biological and evolutionary inclination to support life, especially the lives of their own children, and that to go against this instinct is a fundamentally difficult thing to do.

I said there is no need for evidence.

This speaks for itself.

Do you even think that statistics are "evidence"?

Statistics are a form of evidence, yes.

Do you even check the sources, validate the responses or data regarding these statistics?

I would have, if you had provided any evidence to begin with.

I'm pretty sure you'll believe the lies because of the stupid notions that numbers never lies

I didn't say that. I said that statistics are indicative of the overall opinion or attitude of a population, while acknowledging that they aren't 100% reliable.

Maybe it is you who do not understand. What is wrong with my statement anyway? That there is no fail safe? Really? What do you call a back-up plan in case a pill goes wrong? Isn't that a fail safe?

Fail safe: guaranteed to work; totally reliable.

But when you don't consider "evidence" to have any sort of meaning I suppose dictionaries don't count when looking up the definition of words.

Here you go, I just randomly chose a page from the dictionary so you can use whatever's on there as your own personal fantasy definition of what "fail safe" means.

Can't you even see the use of the word based on its context?

You used the word in an incorrect context. It did not make sense.

No amount of "but if you look at it from this angle" will change the definition of words. This is how I imagine you communicate with people:

You: "Oh man, that movie was totally shower curtain."
Them: "Shower curtain? That doesn't make sense; it's not an adjective."
You: "It CAN be. And it IS be. In the marmalade context I used it in."

See? Lunacy.

It is you who is digging a hole here, pal. You shifted the arguments away and focused on stupid statistics and use of "anyway".

You made claims that can only be substantiated with figures.
I asked you to provide such evidence.
You have avoided doing so, instead choosing to argue that "evidence means nothing" while refusing outright to explain how you arrived at your original conclusions.
You have attempted to debate using words you don't fully understand, and then attempted to assign new definitions to these words when your madness has been pointed out to you.

Next.

The following line was something that you said, to myself:

To think that a word is only used for a singular purpose is like thinking that the wheel is only used for cars and not pottery.

Now you say:

I never said that you claim it to be used for one purpose.

So have I suggested that words can only be used for one purpose, or not? Which is it?

Do you just make as many different contradictory statements as possible so that in the event of one of them actually being correct you can just disregard the wrong ones?

But you are arguing that I can't use "anyway" in another purpose. Your arguments made no sense.

... I am arguing that the reason why words have MEANINGS and DEFINITIONS is so that when two people communicate using WORDS they both know what they are both talking about. That's sort of how language works.

Language is not "This word can mean this if I want it to".

That is the kind of thing that children do when they've said something idiotic and want to try and cover up their stupidity.

---

At 10/22/10 05:51 AM, BezFriend wrote: Well yeah, but abortion is different in a way that it's like cannibalism - but instead of eating humans after they kill the baby, they just flush them to the toilet.

What? Did anyone else see this? What the fuck kind of analogy is this?