Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/26/10 11:46 PM, satanbrain wrote: no because after it is born it can be fed not only by it's previous host, other people can take care of it, what can't be done when it's in the womb.

And those other people can decide to kill it, and if they do, it will be dead, no?

At 11/23/10 09:37 AM, The-General-Public wrote: Absolutely. Which is why I, unlike most Americans, take the threat of religious extremists like you who want to criminalize abortion seriously.

Um, why? You've already admitted rights don't exist above. You simply have no grounds to call me an extremist because there is no real morality, rights or anything else. We simply have two different worldviews that you admit are equally valid and I say are not.

So by even your pathetic argumentative attempts, I have a point that I stand behind and you think all cultures are equal...so I am right. Next?

At 11/23/10 03:03 PM, satanbrain wrote: It is nourished from the woman's body and therefore the woman can decide if it'll live or die, whatever it's name is.

So a woman can decide if a baby can live or die. It's really that simple.

Oh boy! You again! Circular logic to follow!

At 11/24/10 03:10 PM, The-universe wrote: Nope. What I'm saying is, the limit one can have an abortion is earlier than the ability to survive an early pregnany (results may vary) and it can only be a fetus if it's developing in the womb.

Am I supposed to guess what this means? Cause the words don't form a complete thought.
Are we continuing your game of re-iterating what terms we all know mean...mean, because you're too stupid to make a point? Of course a fetus is still in the womb. I said that twice above you stupid tit.

So hang on, murder and execution are exactly the same because they take another human life?....right. So unlawfully taking the life of another human being while comitting another felony, have prior knowledge of the killing, did so out of mercy or malice etc (look up first, second and third degree murder) is the exact same as taking another human life.

Sweet jesus you're stupid.

I'm done responding here. Because this example, as I pointed out above, was to show the ridiculousness of your argument. When there is a tiny similarity that helps your case, you overexaggerate it to great measure to show how brilliant you are. When there is a massive similarity that hurts your case, you downplay it like crazy to ignore just how worthless your case is. You'll argue 15 things just to throw crap against a wall and see what sticks.

What good is arguing you further. You have no basis in logic or honesty and simply seek to be right whether or not the facts support your case. I see no reason to respond to the rest of your useless twaddle.

At 11/27/10 05:08 AM, WolvenBear wrote: What good is arguing you further. You have no basis in logic or honesty and simply seek to be right whether or not the facts support your case. I see no reason to respond to the rest of your useless twaddle.

I know I said I wouldn't, but this is just too good to be true.

1. I argue that Numbers 5 is god committing an abortion. Because it is the termination of a fetus by a third party.

2. You argue this is not the case because it is a punishment just like executions are punishments but are not murder.

Now then. You have not given me ANY definition which states that an abortion is not classed as an abortion because of the cause. Whether it be legal or just simple dictionary definitions.

On the other hand, I have constantly tried to give definitions of an abortion, but you argue this too.

So I'll say it again.

Give me a definition of what an abortion is. Then give me any evidence stating that an abortion isn't an abortion due to the cause. Because your "it's a punishment" argument is weak.

At 11/27/10 06:58 AM, The-universe wrote: blah

Except you haven't done any of that.

You defined abortion as the removal of a fetus. Your definition was so broad that a doctor who was present to help birth the baby was an abortionist as he removed a fetus from a womb. While you've tried to play stupid games with this to make yourself seem like less of a halfwit...the fact remains. A fetus is removed from the womb, and, under your definition, that makes it abortion. Granted, I get it. You were pointed out as being a fool, and that sucks. But instead of admitting error, you simply doubled down, and pretended you were infallible, which you clearly aren't.

Beyond that, what do you want? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. But OH! OH! You're insulting Christianity! So it doesn't matter whether or not yu have a clue, Jesus sucks and all that!

I guess it astonishes me because I catch my own errors un arguments before others do and apoligize for them. And here you are, provably wrong, and you're the beligerent. I don't get it.

At 11/24/10 03:10 PM, The-universe wrote: Hmm...that accusation sounds awfully similar to what another guy was saying about you. And coincidentally only after he mentioned it....

..Strange, isn't it? That you accuse him of doing the exact same thing he accused you of. Or maybe he's just fed up of your attitute so he's playing your game because you don't like being given what you dish out (otherwise you wouldn't of mentioned it).

Hmm, would that be the dude that I have REPEATEDLY said had no clue what he was talking about and responded to others only with "I'm smarter than you"? Or would you just be channeling my mocking of you into your fellow halfwit?

Personally I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me. Even if they're wrong. But morons who simply assert that they're right, despite challenges in their logic from the pro-choice side, and who are simply incapable of defending themselves in a logical debate...

Yea I DO write them off as idiots.

At 11/27/10 02:13 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/26/10 11:46 PM, satanbrain wrote: no because after it is born it can be fed not only by it's previous host, other people can take care of it, what can't be done when it's in the womb.

And those other people can decide to kill it, and if they do, it will be dead, no?

if there is no one who wants to take care of the baby so they can kill it.

At 11/27/10 07:17 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Except you haven't done any of that.

You defined abortion as the removal of a fetus.

No I didn't you fucking liar.

I said:
"Abortion is generally defined as the termination and/or removal of a fetus by an external party."

I will admit, it is very vague. So I'm going to scrap it and head straight for my Oxford guide to the English language.

Abortion n. premature expulsion of a foetus from the womb.

Foetus n. (pl. tuses) developed embryo in a womb or egg.

Now let's look at numbers.

Woman cheats on her man.
Woman drinks cursed water.
Woman miscarries from gods curse.

Ergo, the bitch had an abortion. Moses, the priest, and the couple would know what would happen if she drank the cursed water. So they had full knowledge of the outcome if she was pregnant.

Now give me any medical, legal or dictionary definition stating that an abortion is not an abortion because it's a punishment. Thanx.

Beyond that, what do you want? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. But OH! OH! You're insulting Christianity! So it doesn't matter whether or not yu have a clue, Jesus sucks and all that!

And where did I insult Christianity? Where did I say that Jesus sucks?

I guess it astonishes me because I catch my own errors un arguments before others do and apoligize for them. And here you are, provably wrong, and you're the beligerent. I don't get it.

Just checked all the replies you've made to me. Not once have you made mention of any of your errors whatsoever.

At 11/27/10 07:25 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Hmm, would that be the dude that I have REPEATEDLY said had no clue what he was talking about and responded to others only with "I'm smarter than you"? Or would you just be channeling my mocking of you into your fellow halfwit?

Personally I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me. Even if they're wrong. But morons who simply assert that they're right, despite challenges in their logic from the pro-choice side, and who are simply incapable of defending themselves in a logical debate...

Yea I DO write them off as idiots.

Okay, let me rephrase.

You have said to me:
"Oh my. Someone who has no clue what the Bible says arguing anything. Always fun."
" But hey, have fun with your idiocy."
"I love people who think they're smart failing hard!"(never said I was smarter than anyone).
"because you're too stupid to make a point?"
"I said that twice above you stupid tit."
"Sweet jesus you're stupid."

Somewhere along the lines you say this:
"You just take shots and say "damn, you're stupid". "

YOU'RE A FUCKING HYPOCRITE. You moan that I call you stupid when you've been doing it to me since you made the second reply to me.

When I complained that your posts mainly comprise of you saying people are stupid/wrong, Shortly after you do the exact same thing!

Now I am done with you. You're inability to actually think is giving me a headache.

You can reply, but I'll be spending my time reading posts from people who are actually worth it. So all you'll be doing is wasting your time. Well actually, while I'm waiting for my gas pipe to be fixed I have just realised you have wasted your time reading this reply.

Now kindly fuck off.

At 11/27/10 01:01 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: if someone wants to abort a parasite from there body let them its their choice just as long as its in the proper stage.

I stand by this: if foetuses were parasite, species wouldn't reproduce, they would self destruct.
As foetuses are a natural effect in a woman's body, they are not parasites.

At 11/27/10 08:22 AM, satanbrain wrote: if there is no one who wants to take care of the baby so they can kill it.

Well wait. Can't someone be disapproving but unable to prevent the killing?

At 11/27/10 08:02 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/27/10 08:22 AM, satanbrain wrote: if there is no one who wants to take care of the baby so they can kill it.

Well wait. Can't someone be disapproving but unable to prevent the killing?

If no one takes care of a baby it dies, you can't be both disapproving and help the baby.

At 11/27/10 11:32 PM, satanbrain wrote: If no one takes care of a baby it dies, you can't be both disapproving and help the baby.

*disapproving of killing the baby.

At 11/28/10 03:21 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/27/10 11:32 PM, satanbrain wrote: If no one takes care of a baby it dies, you can't be both disapproving and help the baby.

*disapproving of killing the baby.

oh, then the disapprovers able to prevent it by taking care of it (after the baby is born not the fetus itself).

At 11/28/10 07:08 AM, satanbrain wrote: oh, then the disapprovers able to prevent it by taking care of it (after the baby is born not the fetus itself).

False dilemma. If there is a means to prevent [x], that does not mean there are not conditions under which such prevention is impossible. So. Try again...

Can't someone be disapproving but unable to prevent the killing?

At 11/28/10 07:26 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:
Can't someone be disapproving but unable to prevent the killing?

As far as I know, this is a very common thing. When confronted personally, I think the person who disapproves can prevent it. Should he do it? Depends on what kind of morale one wishes to instil.

At 11/28/10 07:26 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Can't someone be disapproving but unable to prevent the killing?

nope. if someone doesn't want a baby (a fetus cannot be fed from anyone but it's mother or surrogate mother) to die he'll always be able to take care of it, otherwise he's a hypocrite.

At 11/28/10 08:12 AM, satanbrain wrote: nope. if someone doesn't want a baby [...] [killed] he'll always be able to take care of it, otherwise he's a hypocrite.

'Someone shot your baby dead? If you really wanted your baby to live you woulda stopped it, hypocrite.'

Oh sweet babies. For God's sake. If you're going to call me a liar, don't prove me right.

At 11/27/10 09:14 AM, The-universe wrote: No I didn't you fucking liar.

I said:
"Abortion is generally defined as the termination and/or removal of a fetus by an external party."

Do you not know the meaning of sentences? Let's rewrite your sentence above. "Abortion is generally defined as the termination of a fetus, the removal of a fetus, or both." That's what and/or means. One or both. So you DID indeed say that removal of a fetus is an abortion. I'm hoping you're just trying to be a disingenuous little prick, and are not serious in your lack of knowledge of basic English... But wait, the rest says you aren't.

Abortion n. premature expulsion of a foetus from the womb.

Ergo, the bitch had an abortion. Moses, the priest, and the couple would know what would happen if she drank the cursed water. So they had full knowledge of the outcome if she was pregnant.

Yawn. There's a problem with this.
Not all translations agree with this.
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?passage =Numbers+5%3A11-31
This translation tends towards "she's not pregnant".

Damn.

Just checked all the replies you've made to me. Not once have you made mention of any of your errors whatsoever.

I guess it's because I haven't made one with you.

"You just take shots and say "damn, you're stupid". "

YOU'RE A FUCKING HYPOCRITE. You moan that I call you stupid when you've been doing it to me since you made the second reply to me.

Except I'm not a hypocrite. I said that I don't call people morons for simply disagreeing with me, and being wrong. I do, however, mock self important schmucks who have no clue what they're talking about. If you'd like to recheck:
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1207 410/7

I respond rather nicely at first, despite you just asserting over and over that you're right. It's not until two pages in that I start mocking you. Yes, you accused me of using ad hominims. And I absolutely do. Once I write you off as stupid, I'll say you're stupid. But I never just say "You suck at life, please die." I'll mock you, but then I back up WHY I'm mocking you. Such as "Abortion would include birth under your definition." Or "Making someone infertile is not the same as having an abortion." Or even "The Bible is the first book that says..." But we get the idea.

However, you gave such ridiculous responses as "Since you can't give birth to a two month old baby, my definition applies!" So since a two month old can't be born, your definition of an abortion as any fetus removed from the womb is correct? What kind of retardery is that? It's like saying "Since Ford doesn't make Chevys, my monetary policy is correct!" It simply doesn't follow. No one claimed that a two month old could be born. However, as shown above (by you), you did say that every removal of a fetus from a womb was an abortion. Taking something no one disagrees on and claiming it makes you right on a wider point is insane. Moreover, on claiming that the Bible was the first book to say slaves and women had rights, you idiotically claimed "Except for Numbers, Leviticus, etc". This is moronic claptrap. Because the Bible didn't define female rights like we do today, they didn't mention rights? Find an earlier book that claims that slaves had the right to be freed after seven years. Find a book that claims that rapists have a right to make their victims whole. Again, nowhere did I claim that the Bible made men and women, slave and free equal. Only that it mentioned the idea of basic human rights. This is indisputable.

But you don't seek to argue in fact. When the case is against you, you argue some inane little point that noone made, and call yourself brilliant! When the scripture doesn't say what you claim, you simply assert again that it does. And you wonder why I call you stupid? Piss off you little moron.

It's telling that you can't respond to anything anyone here says that doesn't directly involve the bible.

At 11/30/10 02:20 PM, The-General-Public wrote: It's telling that you can't respond to anything anyone here says that doesn't directly involve the bible.

I responded to a biblical claim with the Bible. Fuck you're a stupid tit aren't you?

"Bible thumpers always respond to biblical arguments with Biblical responses!"

Imbecile.

At 11/28/10 12:40 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: 'Someone shot your baby dead? If you really wanted your baby to live you woulda stopped it, hypocrite.'

I meant while knowing it is going to die.

At 12/1/10 08:26 AM, satanbrain wrote: I meant while knowing it is going to die.

Oh. We're allowed to do that? Ok... If someone wants a fetus to live, he can always find a way to take care of it.

At 11/27/10 04:57 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Um, why? You've already admitted rights don't exist above.

I haven't said that once.

:You simply have no grounds to call me an extremist because there is no real morality, rights or anything else. We simply have two different worldviews that you admit are equally valid and I say are not.

Equally valid doesn't mean I can't prefer one over the other. I don't want to live in a society where the government can control what people do to their bodies because of what they believe God wants them to do, you do. Both those positions are equally valid, I just think that yours would lead to a miserable and awful society.

So by even your pathetic argumentative attempts, I have a point that I stand behind and you think all cultures are equal...so I am right. Next?

Reading comprehension isn't one of your strongpoints

So a woman can decide if a baby can live or die. It's really that simple.

Infanticide was practiced in nearly every society throughout antiquity. It's still considered moral in some societies even today.

At 12/1/10 04:04 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 11/30/10 02:20 PM, The-General-Public wrote: It's telling that you can't respond to anything anyone here says that doesn't directly involve the bible.

I responded to a biblical claim with the Bible. Fuck you're a stupid tit aren't you?

"Bible thumpers always respond to biblical arguments with Biblical responses!"

Imbecile.

Actually, I was commenting on how it seemed that you'd withdrawn from the debate and had stopped answering any questions unless they were related to the bible. Now granted, given the quality of your new responses, It probably would be better for you to stick to the one thing it seems you're not completely ignorant about.

At 12/1/10 02:09 PM, The-General-Public wrote: It probably would be better for you to stick to the one thing it seems you're not completely ignorant about.

That's impossible.

He needs to be competent on something first. Or honest, or even smart.

But he's just another half witt who'll bullshit his way into annoying people until they go away and he claims a win.

Shaggytheclown has a new best friend.

about we have a system?

if the woman has 2-3 abortions we have the ability by law to remove her uterus/ovarys as she obvisously doesnt want erm

At 12/1/10 04:19 PM, yonokowhat wrote: about we have a system?

if the woman has 2-3 abortions we have the ability by law to remove her uterus/ovarys as she obvisously doesnt want erm

How about no?

At 12/1/10 05:05 PM, The-General-Public wrote:

At 12/1/10 04:19 PM, yonokowhat wrote: about we have a system?

if the woman has 2-3 abortions we have the ability by law to remove her uterus/ovarys as she obvisously doesnt want erm

How about no?

For a group of people who claim to want "as few abortions as possible', could you give me a good reason on how an individual could have a legitimate claim to several abortions?

At 12/1/10 05:10 PM, Memorize wrote: For a group of people who claim to want "as few abortions as possible', could you give me a good reason on how an individual could have a legitimate claim to several abortions?

are records kept for abortions and the individuals receiving it?
and speaking of abortions; i heard Canada has no real legislation on it other than "its legal; have fun."

i should probably go do some research instead of bringing hearsay into a discussion like this. to wiki!

At 12/1/10 05:10 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 12/1/10 05:05 PM, The-General-Public wrote:

At 12/1/10 04:19 PM, yonokowhat wrote: about we have a system?

if the woman has 2-3 abortions we have the ability by law to remove her uterus/ovarys as she obvisously doesnt want erm

How about no?

For a group of people who claim to want "as few abortions as possible', could you give me a good reason on how an individual could have a legitimate claim to several abortions?

I want as few abortions as possible. Having a solution as insane as yours doesn't fit into "possible"