Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/21/07 02:31 PM, Experimental wrote:
Rodney King.

Thank you.

No, thank you. White cops beat him down on tape and walk. Perfect example, thanks.

You don't have to sell drugs to get money. If you stole food to feed your family, guess what? No one is going to convict you. Most likely the store owner would help you. Not to mention, plenty of charities.

So stealing is okay, but grasping the capitalist ideal of selling an item in demand isn't? Your logic is astounding.

So apparently, if you're poor, it's ok to sell crack, do drugs and murder. After all, it's for your family.

You do what you can to survive. Sure there may be other options, and many people take them. But sometimes a person really doesn't have any choice, or is unaware of other options or is, in some way, unable to take them.

As Carlos Mencia once said: "Hey black guy, get off your ass, find a job and stop putting all your problems on the white people". As he was walking around one weekday morning seeing who was working.

k...

I don't care. It's not hurting anyone. Sure is a hell of a lot more reponsible than abortions. If the discrimination of homosexuals is so horrible as you say, then wouldn't you agree to (as you like to say) make the life easier for the child?

No. Because I don't believe their discrimination is horrible. They do face discrimination, yes, but so do blacks (and I don't support eugenics or a homogonization of the gene pool to remove "race"), so do women, so does everyone. Overcoming that discrimination is in part the responsibility of the person/group being discriminated against, and a valuable part of being alive. Not only that, when we have the ability for people to choose sexuality, those who ARE homosexual could face even harsher discrimination.

Here's a question for you, a leftist... why do you support the mother's right to choose an abortion and not the mother's right to choose it's sexuality?

Never said I did. In fact, I've said a number of times that I'm torn on the issue. But you probably can't comprehend a stance that isn't black-and-white can you?

I'm not the one flip flopping on the issue here.

Ohnoes, the impenetrable "flip-flop" defense! Gogo flying V!!!

At 1/21/07 03:13 PM, Ravariel wrote:

No, thank you. White cops beat him down on tape and walk. Perfect example, thanks.

Apparently you didn't see the part where King was fleeing police. Driving on the sidewalks, nearly running people over. And how when he did pull over, he was uncooperative. How he tried fighting with police so they tasered him, but he didn't go down because he was using PCP.

But of course, the only thing they'll show you is them beating on the black person. Which is a prime example of white discrimination. As one of them went to jail and the others were fired.

So stealing is okay, but grasping the capitalist ideal of selling an item in demand isn't? Your logic is astounding.

Stealing is ok to feed your family. But what's doing drugs and killing people going to do for them?

You're an idiot.

You do what you can to survive. Sure there may be other options,

So you admit it. Thanks.

k...

What's this? Can't come up with anything against a mexican yelling at minorities to do their part?

You never can.

those who ARE homosexual could face even harsher discrimination.

So you're willing to make a child's life harsh because there's that very small possibility that other's lives may be a little harsher?

"Your logic is astounding"

Never said I did. In fact, I've said a number of times that I'm torn on the issue. But you probably can't comprehend a stance that isn't black-and-white can you?

I'm saying "you" as in "you leftists", thank you.

It's very funny. I take a stance on what is logical and because I don't agree with you, you're going to pull that stupid black and white shit.

Ohnoes, the impenetrable "flip-flop" defense! Gogo flying V!!!

You=You leftists.

You see, we "rightists" are ok with it as long as it gives the unborn a chance at life. At least our stance is more logical and rational rather than it being soley based on emotion.

At 1/21/07 02:49 PM, BanditByte wrote: That's exactly why they aren't in power. In recent decades the leftwing media and politicians have implanted the idea in blacks head that they cannot succeed due to nonexistant racism. The lack of opportunities didn't stop immigrants who came over here with nothing but the clothes on their backs. So why should the same conditions hinder blacks? Because politicians offer to always subsidize them and make them feel like they're victims. When infact they're only victims of their own sloth.

Ok... I'm definitely changing my mind about you. I had thought you to be in the same category as WolvenBear... a right-wing fellow with brains. Now I see you're just another spout for the propaganda machine.... and not worthy of any actualy debate. You want the last word in this conversaton, go ahead... this will be my fnal reply to you.

"You know, this guy studied hard in school, was ahead of his class and is reliable, but since he's a n***** I don't think I'll hire him." Why are you deluding yourself into thinking there's somekind of cabal out to get blacks? In our capitalist society people are hired based on qualification and not skin-color.

Lol... your naivite is refreshing... it really is.

Not in a utopian society, in a society that truly wishes to treat eachothers as equals, but once again certain race pimps and politicians play the race card to line their own pockets.

We're not in that society yet. Once we are you might have a point.

What do you think it means when someone says "bitch?" Does it not have the same connotation of being dominion over another? Yet it is less powerful. Once more the race police and politically correct asshole have to load certain words in order to promote a certain agenda.

So the n-word is more powerful because of a leftist political agenda? Wow, talk about right-wing paranoia. Did you know that leftist organizations actually funded and helped plan the 9/11 attacks in order to weaken America so that communist nations could take us over? No, really!

Neither is any other race. If David Dukes uses the n-word it's all of a sudden a big deal, but if Jesse Jackson uses a slur it's not. Despite the fact Jesse Jackson has more influence than David Dukes.

You really should read up on slavery a bit more... so that you can learn about power and dominance. I suggest Octavia Butler's Kindred as a start... maybe The Color Purple. Then spend some time in the ghetto... talk to people about their options... I'm sure you'll find they're all just lazing around waiting for their next welfare check smokin some crack.

It's more a case of leftist hypocrisy. An all white-college would be racist, but an all black-college would be a-okay.

Why do you CARE that there is an all-black college? Why do you care that there isn't an all-white college? Is our vast majority in university enrollment not enough for you?

Another example of the leftist media hypocrisy. Can you imagine the uproar if a college professor proposed the genocide of all blacks? He'd not only be fired, but his face would be plastered all over the tube for weeks to come. Yet when this black professor gets a free-pass.

So? Why do you care? What that professor says will have NO impact on you. A white professor, however would be able to use his or her influence to actually hold down black people, exercising dominance. Such opportunity doesn't present itself for blacks, and thus their epithets carry very little actual weight.

The guy wasn't fired.

What guy? That was a completely made-up scenario... just one that happens on a daily basis around the country.

I still stand by what I say, whites are typically more descriminated against than blacks.

I still stand by the fact that you're an idiot who refuses to live in the real world.

At 1/21/07 03:26 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Now I see you're just another spout for the propaganda machine.... and not worthy of any actualy debate.

Haha, so because he's not siding with your opinion and liberal media, he's suddenly "another spout for the propaganda machine". So what are you? Another spout of the propaganda spun by the media?

Americans are nothing more but sheep to the media. They'll believe anything they say. People aren't interested in the truth, they only want to hear what they want to feel. That war is wrong no matter how you look at it, despite what the troops have to say about the situation. That's why the US is losing to a 3rd world insurgency, because of weak people on your side of the political line.

At 1/21/07 03:23 PM, Experimental wrote: Stealing is ok to feed your family. But what's doing drugs and killing people going to do for them?

Buy a house, car and food so they don't have to steal.

You do what you can to survive. Sure there may be other options,

So you admit it. Thanks.

And you avoid the point. Thanks.

You never can.

Yeah... I'm going to appreciate the "irony" of an overpaid unfunny comedian trying to make a joke with a cheap patina of "social commentary"... sure.

So you're willing to make a child's life harsh because there's that very small possibility that other's lives may be a little harsher?

The possibility is not small. And the extra harshness is not little. This very issue is one that will beget a culture of "haves" and "have-nots"... and the "have-nots" will end up with even more discrimination because of their parents inability to afford the treatment, or their unwillingness to have it. And while this is a drop in the puddle in comparison to what would happen with full-blown genetic engineering, it WILL happen.

I'm saying "you" as in "you leftists", thank you.

Converse accident. Attributing a feature of the few to the whole. It's like me asking why you rightists want to kill all n***ers, muslims and jews.

It's very funny. I take a stance on what is logical and because I don't agree with you, you're going to pull that stupid black and white shit.

Is that "you leftists" again? Or are you actually talking to ME, instead of some straw-man "leftist" you have created?

You see, we "rightists" are ok with it as long as it gives the unborn a chance at life. At least our stance is more logical and rational rather than it being soley based on emotion.

Yeah, rightists = caring about the unborn. Leftists = caring about those who ARE born. Once they're out of the womb you don't give a shit about their quality of life as long as they buy your products, don't ask for help, and stay out of the way.

see, I can do the generalization bullshit, too.

At 1/21/07 03:33 PM, Experimental wrote: So what are you? Another spout of the propaganda spun by the media?

Obviously... because I don't agree with you.

At 1/21/07 01:20 AM, BanditByte wrote: Due to the current culture it is not a big deal and in some cases permissible to descriminate against white people. All black college, Dr. Kambo saying all whites should be exterminated. connotation that the N-word is somehow worse than honkey, despite in a completely equal society they would be equally bad to utter.

Getting called a word like honkey may not be good, but it is not fucking discrimination. Having some nutjob professor that no one supports saying you should be killed is not widespread persecution. Getting turned down a job because of your race is persecution. Being treated differently is persecution. Sure there are some Black only colleges, but it's foolish to think that a group that makes up about 10% of the population isn't discriminated against. It's subtle, people are turned down jobs because of their race, just not blatantly. There are a lot of employers who will go out of their way to find a white person to take a job.

Stop pretending to be persecuted.

At 1/21/07 03:41 PM, Ravariel wrote:

And you avoid the point. Thanks.

And you missed mine. Certain things will help, but that there is a line.

Yeah... I'm going to appreciate the "irony" of an overpaid unfunny comedian trying to make a joke with a cheap patina of "social commentary"... sure.

See, you can't. Humorous.

The possibility is not small. And the extra harshness is not little.

Not little? Loud homosexuals are trying to compare their so-called struggle to blacks in the 60's, heh. Their only struggle was to marry each other. You overexaggerate, just like a typical leftist.

If any straight white person is murdered. No one thinks much of it. If a black or homosexual is murdered, the media likes to tack on that extra race or sexual preference as the motivation of the murder which is most likely not. The most likely reason for those murders is just because they were murdered just like a straight, white man. Not because of their color or sexual preference.

So what are you calling a black man shooting and killing a black man? What do you call a black man shooting and killing a white man?

Converse accident. Attributing a feature of the few to the whole. It's like me asking why you rightists want to kill all n***ers, muslims and jews.

Ha, but isn't that exactly what you're doing? How blacks will get put in jail over something whites will walk for?

Is that "you leftists" again? Or are you actually talking to ME, instead of some straw-man "leftist" you have created?

That was you. Apparently some people fail English and cannot understand the context of the word.

Yeah, rightists = caring about the unborn. Leftists = caring about those who ARE born.

Believing in 1 chance is better than none, wouldn't you agree?

Once they're out of the womb you don't give a shit about their quality of life

Really? Is that why i'm arguing for the parent to allow their children not to be born gay so that that small chance of discrimination isn't brought upon them? I mean according to what you believe, how homosexuals are widely discriminated against (by "the man") then by your own logic, you would support this. Nevermind the fact that your same logic gives the woman a right to her unborn.

see, I can do the generalization bullshit, too.

You've been doing it this entire time trying to demonstrate ethnicity and sexual preferance.

At 1/21/07 03:45 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Obviously... because I don't agree with you.

I was merely demonstrating your own hypocracy. Since you're playing that "i'm right, you're wrong" crap.

Of course, nothing gets by you Mr. Obvious.

At 1/19/07 01:06 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 1/18/07 11:09 PM, troubles1 wrote: Well by the numbers you give then 90% of the population is straight and so that is the majority and since we live in a society were the majority rules then we get to decide .

If you want everything to be by majority, then the Chinese would decide everything. There are more of them than anyone else... and majority rules...

no, because this is America, so we get to decide for ourselves , and the chineese can dop the same for there own country.

And except for a strange few , most parents would prefer there offspring to be heterosexual. Do any poll you want comen sense would tell you that. SO therefore if there is a scientific way to ensure your child will be healthy and heterosexual,

It's the will of the few that needs protecting.
in some issues yes but when it is something like this were it is the liberales who are the hiporcrites then no the majority gets to decide , the few may get mad but the majority will prospur

I am sure the loving parents to be wile getting that ultrasound and smiling at what they created together as a heterosexual couple will say Doctor give my wife that pill or vaccine to to let our baby grow up healthy ,happy, and so one day will be able to give us grandchildren with there heterosexual spouse, as We are right now.

This argument is so far off the mark of what we were discussing, I gotta put us back on point. This isn't about people wanting to have steraight kids, or the majority deciding what should be done for everyone. Ours was an argument about the "naturality" of homosexuality.

I guess you did not read the beginning, but to just inform you it is not natural top be gay, it serves no purpose , in fact it is sort of evolutions way natural selection, in that it gets rid of the unwanted or week genes so I guess maybe you are right in that we need certain people to be gay so they do not reproduce..

I already mentioned that I don't really know which way to fall on this subject. On one hand, who am I to tell another how to raise their child (within the confines of the law)... on the other hand, this seems like only the first step towards "designer" humans. And there's a whole can of worms that gets opened once we go there.

just another liberal who is pro Gay, Pro Abortion , Uses the argument that the fetus is not a human truly alive so does not desirve the right to live unless the parent chooses, then turned around and says hypocritical thing like the parent has no right in deciding what is best for there child's future, well witch is it does the fetus have rights or is it all in the hands of the parent , quit straddling the fence and using double standards to make people act and choose what you want them to.

At 1/21/07 03:26 PM, Ravariel wrote: Ok... I'm definitely changing my mind about you. I had thought you to be in the same category as WolvenBear... a right-wing fellow with brains. Now I see you're just another spout for the propaganda machine.... and not worthy of any actualy debate. You want the last word in this conversaton, go ahead... this will be my fnal reply to you.

Answer the question. If immagrints can succeed why aren't blacks able to? I mean back in the olden-days people of italian and irsh descent were openly descriminated against. Don't dodge the question with your half-assed ad hominem because you cannot give a plausible cause for the blackman's plight other than self inflection.

Lol... your naivite is refreshing... it really is.

So my quote advocated my some sort of unrealistic idea and my citation of capitalism did the same? Once again, you can't respond because you yourself know you're wrong. Seriously, if you're going to belittle me at least do a good job at it.

We're not in that society yet. Once we are you might have a point.

Once again, we would have a society like that if not for the work of the leftwing race police that have to make white-descrimination more of an issue to reverse racism.

So the n-word is more powerful because of a leftist political agenda? Wow, talk about right-wing paranoia.

Call it what you wish. But typically leftwingers are self-loathing assholes that have to enforce the idea whites are responsible for all the evils in the world and how every bit of genuine racism against us is just-desserts. Even though you don't see them giving much to charity. :/

Neither is any other race. If David Dukes uses the n-word it's all of a sudden a big deal, but if Jesse Jackson uses a slur it's not. Despite the fact Jesse Jackson has more influence than David Dukes.

You really should read up on slavery a bit more... so that you can learn about power and dominance. I suggest Octavia Butler's Kindred as a start... maybe The Color Purple. Then spend some time in the ghetto... talk to people about their options... I'm sure you'll find they're all just lazing around waiting for their next welfare check smokin some crack.

I don't need to read a book to understand slavery, but you outright denying racism against whites seems to be self-induced stupidity. I am in awe you can so easily read over a post of my proving the point of the double-standard of the leftwing media when it comes to the race game.

Why do you CARE that there is an all-black college? Why do you care that there isn't an all-white college? Is our vast majority in university enrollment not enough for you?

Did you even fucking read my point? I'm starting to think you're an utter dumbfuck. My point is that its okay for black colleges to exist because the leftwing mentality is that whites have done bad shit in the past and blacks deserve some form of reverse-descrimination. This kind of thinking is the reason why honkey is perceived as less power than the n word.

So? Why do you care? What that professor says will have NO impact on you. A white professor, however would be able to use his or her influence to actually hold down black people, exercising dominance. Such opportunity doesn't present itself for blacks, and thus their epithets carry very little actual weight.

Read above.

The guy wasn't fired.

What guy? That was a completely made-up scenario... just one that happens on a daily basis around the country.

I suggest you google Dr. Kambo. Since you obviously don't live in the real world and would not be up to date in current events.

I still stand by the fact that you're an idiot who refuses to live in the real world.

"Lololol, wtf iz u talkin aboutz? whiits rnt discrimenaded agenzst." I suggest you read Bernard Golberg's 100 People Who are Screwing up America.

Nobody should have the right to dictate their child's sexual preference.
I think that although this could lead onto discoveries like how to ensure your child will never catch (insert deadly disease or bodily malfunction here), this could be a troublesome discovery.

I don't think this should be allowed. I mean, if a woman is impregnated accidently, and can not afford to have the baby, it should be her decision on whether or not to give birth. I do not believe it should be her decision on whether or not the child should be homosexual. That is not her choice. She can have the choice whether or not to give birth, but not the sexual preference.

Besides, this treatment w most likely be available as a hormone treatment later in life. If the child does not want to be homosexual, then it could most likely take a genetic or hormonal treatment to get rid of homosexuality.

If homosexuals don't breed anyway, what's the difference? It's obviously not a genetic trait, or it would have disappeared thousands of years ago. People choose to be gay, end of story.

At 1/25/07 01:15 AM, BrooklynBrett wrote: If homosexuals don't breed anyway, what's the difference? It's obviously not a genetic trait, or it would have disappeared thousands of years ago. People choose to be gay, end of story.

Sperm Bank

Also, a gene has been found that is in many homosexuals, but, like most genetic diagnosis', just because you have the gene does not mean you will be homosexual, and just because you don't have the gene doesn't mean you won't be homosexual. Although some do choose to live life like that, many are simply born like that and can't get turned on by females no matter how hard they try.

i recon your right there you can't breed out a person

At 1/13/07 10:33 AM, I-AM-PIRATE wrote: Homosexuality isn't a disease, you can't cure it.

SamE with pregenecy, but you do not see the media worked up about abortion. I think the whole idea is stupid. You should never aleter with nature that much when it comes to living things.

At 1/25/07 01:03 AM, Twerpo wrote: I don't think this should be allowed. I mean, if a woman is impregnated accidently, and can not afford to have the baby, it should be her decision on whether or not to give birth. I do not believe it should be her decision on whether or not the child should be homosexual. That is not her choice. She can have the choice whether or not to give birth, but not the sexual preference.

Besides, this treatment w most likely be available as a hormone treatment later in life. If the child does not want to be homosexual, then it could most likely take a genetic or hormonal treatment to get rid of homosexuality.

Sorry for double post, but this guy is a hypocrite. KILLING something is ok, because it is your baby, but stopping that baby from being gay is a terrible act. This logic is retarded. It is saying you can take the very life of a baby away, but not his sexuality. I restate what i said, never alter with the human race.

At 1/25/07 01:15 AM, BrooklynBrett wrote: If homosexuals don't breed anyway, what's the difference? It's obviously not a genetic trait, or it would have disappeared thousands of years ago. People choose to be gay, end of story.

No, homosextuallity is due to having only one chromozome. Basically, if you have an extra chromozone, your autistic and if you're missing one, you're gay.

I just learned that somewhere.

And people don't chose to be gay. I didn't and most of the people you are talking to who are gay will tell you that they didn't choose to be that way.

Hence the point of this thread.

Its not the mothers choice in lifestyle is it ? So why should she decide ?

At 1/25/07 12:11 PM, texicomexico wrote:

At 1/25/07 01:03 AM, Twerpo wrote:

Sorry for double post, but this guy is a hypocrite. KILLING something is ok, because it is your baby, but stopping that baby from being gay is a terrible act. This logic is retarded. It is saying you can take the very life of a baby away, but not his sexuality. I restate what i said, never alter with the human race.

I do understand that this area is the main area that causese the arguement over abortion. Personally, I support a woman's right to choose as long as it is in the early stages of pregnancy. In the early stages, it does not think, it is merely a extremely small growth. Having an abortion during that time is the equivalent of having a wart removed, at that point in time, it is just flesh. No though or anything. As long as the decision is made early I am pro-choice. It has been found that there is a correlation between poverty and teenage pregnancy. It is very difficult to raise a child while going to school and even more so to do that alone. For the teenager, it improves the life of not only them, but saves their child from being born into a world where he is not wanted, and will live a poor life. It is the mothers choice to decide whether or not to give birth. It is not, however, her choice on what kind of lifestyle that child should have.

Personally, I am an accidental child. I was never planned, at I happened to be made by suprise. If my mom had had an abortion, I would not mind at all considering the fact that I would would not be a concious sentient being. I would be a lump, roughly the size of a grain of rice. I do, however, mind when my mother attempts to control my lifestyle. I am not saying that I am homosexual, in fact I find homsexuals creep, un-natural and weird. I still believe they should all be given the same rights as other people. Since it is their life it is their choice to make. Since they, essentially, are not human yet in the early stages of pregnancy, there is nothing wrong with aborting the fetus.

Like I have said before, this treatment seems to be a hormonal or genetic treatment. Both of these kinds of treatments could be administered later in the homosexual's life. Also, I stated that when they find the homosexual gene, it doesn't mean that you are going to be homosexual. It just means that many homseuxals have that gene that you have. Just beecause you have that gene doesn't mean you will be homosexual and just because you don't have that gene doesn't mean you won't be homosexual.

I am not only against this because it is wrong for the mother to decide what kind of lifestyle her child should have, but also for medical reasons. I'm sure that if this is commonly used, it will be found that it fucks many babies up do to them not actually being homosexual and then making them overly-masculine or something of the sort. I'm not sure of this, but these new treatments always seem to have some kind of problem with them.

Once the homosexual matures, that person can make the decision on whether or not they want to stay homosexual. Also, it would filter out the possibility of a non-homosexual getting the treatment.

Homoshmexuals are just people who think that there friends are shmexy. I have nothing against the female side of this issue, but the male side.... *SHUDDER* Who wants to think about it?

At 1/25/07 05:58 PM, Twerpo wrote:

I am not only against this because it is wrong for the mother to decide what kind of lifestyle her child should have

And therein lies your hypocricy. Life style>Life.

Gotta love that liberal logic.

At 1/25/07 07:53 PM, mrpiex wrote: Homoshmexuals are just people who think that there friends are shmexy. I have nothing against the female side of this issue, but the male side.... *SHUDDER* Who wants to think about it?

You know, it's people like you who I really hate. You think that lesbians are okay but gay people aren't. With this case, you have no argument because the argument that you do have is very sexist.

Also, you're being atracted to people who will never in their life be atracted to you. Good job.

At 1/25/07 08:03 PM, Experimental wrote:

At 1/25/07 05:58 PM, Twerpo wrote:

I am not only against this because it is wrong for the mother to decide what kind of lifestyle her child should have

And therein lies your hypocricy. Life style>Life.

Gotta love that liberal logic.

As I have stated, I believe that early abortion is not the destruction of life because it is very similar to cutting off a growth of cancer.

The cancer is living, growing material. If it is left alone, it will keep on growing and getting bigger, much like a baby. It also takes much away from the host. This is very similar to a teenage pregnancy. The baby is unwanted, but sucks money, resources, and the ability to move up in society from the parent. I'm not saying that babies are evil, I'm merely stating that the the fetus is not a child yet, as long as the abortion is done during the early pregnancy stages.

There is the chance of miscarriage with any child anyway. Saying that abortion is murder is like saying that masturbating is murder, because the sperm could have grown to be a human being.

At 1/25/07 08:16 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:

At 1/25/07 07:53 PM, mrpiex wrote: Homoshmexuals are just people who think that there friends are shmexy. I have nothing against the female side of this issue, but the male side.... *SHUDDER* Who wants to think about it?

You know, it's people like you who I really hate. You think that lesbians are okay but gay people aren't. With this case, you have no argument because the argument that you do have is very sexist.

When issues of sexuality and intercourse are being discussed, gender-based qualifications are a necessity, not sexism. It is absolute fact that intercourse is distinctly different between the genders and that is critically relevant for this topic.

Sure, he may be an idiot, but he isn't sexist for bringing up the truth of the issue for the majority of males. It is simply a fact that the general view of lesbians is relatively positive in an objectifying sense and the general view of gay males is distinctly negative, and his comments get to the root of that problem.

At 1/25/07 09:23 PM, Twerpo wrote:

The cancer is living, growing material.

There's just 1, little, tiny flaw with your entire arguement. And it is quite simpley this... it's not a cancer. It's not a parasite. So if it is not those things, then what is it? We know it's not going to grow and kill the mother like a cancer. It's just going to grow into a natural human being.

So where's the link between a fetus and a cancer? Simpley put (again), there isn't any. It's just another one of your bullshit excuses. I mean afterall, no one is going to confess on supporting what's so far hypothetically killed millions of "innocents" or "potential children".

There is the chance of miscarriage with any child anyway. Saying that abortion is murder is like saying that masturbating is murder, because the sperm could have grown to be a human being.

Sperm is just DNA. Can't do much until it hits the egg.

There would be the occasional baby who isnt affected by the patch and is homosexual, then wouldnt that person be especially persecuted? I don't like modern medicine, getting into psychological drugging like this; the brain is a delicate thing and shouldnt be screwed around with unless its life or death, which homosexuality isn't. Screwing with the brain may lead to some unexpected side effects.

At 1/25/07 10:07 PM, Experimental wrote:

At 1/25/07 09:23 PM, Twerpo wrote:

The cancer is living, growing material.

There's just 1, little, tiny flaw with your entire arguement. And it is quite simpley this... it's not a cancer. It's not a parasite. So if it is not those things, then what is it? We know it's not going to grow and kill the mother like a cancer. It's just going to grow into a natural human being.

So where's the link between a fetus and a cancer? Simpley put (again), there isn't any. It's just another one of your bullshit excuses. I mean afterall, no one is going to confess on supporting what's so far hypothetically killed millions of "innocents" or "potential children".

It's called a metaphor dumbass.

There is the chance of miscarriage with any child anyway. Saying that abortion is murder is like saying that masturbating is murder, because the sperm could have grown to be a human being.

Sperm is just DNA. Can't do much until it hits the egg.

A young fetus is just flesh. It can't do much until it is given time to develop. I'm perfectly fine for it to be illegal for abortions in the latter stages of pregnancy, but if a woman does not want to have a child, it should be her choice, not the choice of a bunch of old men in Congress.

At 1/25/07 11:17 PM, Twerpo wrote:

It's called a metaphor dumbass.

And I was just saying, it's a very poor one.

A young fetus is just flesh.

*pulls skin* ...Would ya look at that!

It can't do much until it is given time to develop.

An infant cannot live on its own.

You have very poor examples.

I'm perfectly fine for it to be illegal for abortions in the latter stages of pregnancy, but if a woman does not want to have a child, it should be her choice, not the choice of a bunch of old men in Congress.

THE TRUTH! SHALL SET YOU FREE!

Thanks, now answer my question then. If a woman is able to have an abortion, then why is it all of a sudden not her choice on weather or not her child is born straight or homosexual? I didn't know the right to be born gay outweighed the right to be born.