Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 155
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Good idea! They aren't really "people until they are 18 anyway....
    • How about welfare bums and the elderly? (After all, they are a drain on society?)
    • Can we also include people below a certain I.Q.?
    • Can we include republicans?
    • Voters from Massachusetts?
    • Anyone else that gets "voted off the island?

    EDIT: Last night, when reflecting on the day before retiring, the thought about Kenanator's post and my response weighed uneasily on my mind. While I'm pretty sure his response was satirical, and my response was along the same lines, I do believe our culture has begun to devalue human life and the result is that our society is heading in the above direction. The thought of this really bothered me.
    Last edited by sudoer; 01/22/2010 at 05:56 AM.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    "Assault" is a little different from "abortion" now isn't it? If a women chose to have the child yet was assaulted, then yes, she can take recourse for the lost child...
    Yes, I forgot. Abortion is an desired assault targeted primarily at the child while attempting to inflict minimal damage to the mother.

    EDIT: So if the mother values the child's life, would it be murder, or something less if the child died?
    Last edited by sudoer; 01/21/2010 at 04:29 PM.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    So you agree that ALL life is not important--only "innocent" life is important. Slippery slope. At what point does a life no longer become "innocent"? Just after birth? (So one can justify not automatically giving children healthcare and food) At 18? When?

    As for masturbating, this came up because an embryo was called a unique, human life. So is the direct potential for this life--like a sperm and egg also as sacred?

    Just a question.
    I think most consider 'Life' at moment of conception.
    Just call me Berd.
  4. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    I think most consider 'Life' at moment of conception.
    Most who respect scientific fact.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    So you agree that ALL life is not important--only "innocent" life is important. Slippery slope. At what point does a life no longer become "innocent"? Just after birth? (So one can justify not automatically giving children healthcare and food) At 18? When?
    I assert that all human life is important. I agree that there is a slippery slope when you start defining some lives as less valuable than others. I'm pleased to see that you (are perhaps beginning to) see the value in this point.


    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    As for masturbating, this came up because an embryo was called a unique, human life. So is the direct potential for this life--like a sperm and egg also as sacred?

    Just a question.
    Fair question: The potential for a life is biologically, not yet a life. As for being sacred, I'd say no. Firstly lets look at what meaning you might have applied to the term. I wouldn't call it proper to worship a sperm or egg, or to call them holy. I'm guessing your intended meaning sacred was "valuable". Some people might value sperm or eggs depending on their abundance or scarcity . (There are people who freeze sperm and harvest eggs for in-vitro fertilization.) But even people who value these in such a context would probably not call them "sacred". A human life (which in the context of religion, would have a soul) would be considered sacred (in the sense of meaning "valuable") This understanding of the value of human life is very close to your belief that all human life is "important". Did I help with your question?
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    I do wish that were true. However, not. Do a bit of reading - woman's reproductive rights...
    So the Bill no longer has the Provision for Rape or the Health of the Mother?

    I really don't see any other 'legit' reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Most who respect scientific fact.
    So at that Point it's 'Life'.
    I agree.
    Just call me Berd.
  7. #87  
    I asked earlier if this was where BARYE wanted his thread to go.
    He hasn't replied.

    So, it appears we're now talking about abortion.
    I asked this sometime back in these forums and never got an answer.
    This will actually be the third time;

    If Pregnancy isn't endangering the life of the mother or child, and the pregnancy isn't the result of rape, what 'legit' reason does one have for an abortion?
    It really seems irresponsible. That is; despicable. To end this 'Life' that has begun if the reason for the abortion isn't a serious one.
    Just call me Berd.
  8.    #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    I asked earlier if this was where BARYE wanted his thread to go.
    He hasn't replied.

    So, it appears we're now talking about abortion.
    I asked this sometime back in these forums and never got an answer.
    This will actually be the third time;

    If Pregnancy isn't endangering the life of the mother or child, and the pregnancy isn't the result of rape, what 'legit' reason does one have for an abortion?
    It really seems irresponsible. That is; despicable. To end this 'Life' that has begun if the reason for the abortion isn't a serious one.
    As much as BARYE would of course prefer that all discussion always be devoted to the rapturous appreciation of all things BARYE (and the composing of lyrical song, verse, and Haiku about him that would make his friend Chairman Kim Jong-il blush) -- he nevertheless has no issue with issues being raised and discussed in this thread as arise organically, its the natural product of vigorous debate...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    If Pregnancy isn't endangering the life of the mother or child, and the pregnancy isn't the result of rape, what 'legit' reason does one have for an abortion?
    It really seems irresponsible. That is; despicable. To end this 'Life' that has begun if the reason for the abortion isn't a serious one.
    My guess is you got no answer because there really isn't any reason that people can think of. This in itself is a telling answer.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Because it something that conservatives contradict themselves on: Conservatives are rah, rah, rah about the Constitution, literally as written--but forget about the 14th Amendment when it comes to gay marriage.

    You like to say you're for civil rights and equality, but not when it comes to gay marriage.

    The hypocrisy gets revealed quickly.
    Actually....you know nothing about my thoughts on gay marriage because I really haven't discussed it that much. I actually have rather mixed emotions on it, and not sure anyone would care to read my thoughts. But lets just say it isn't as clear cut as you might want to think. For those people who don't have religion in their life, it is probably easier to side on the "why not" side.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  11. acv4's Avatar
    Posts
    7 Posts
    #91  
    I BLAME THE REPUBLICANS AND GEORGE BUSH FOR EVERYTHING! WAR, POVERTY, HUMAN SUFFERING, AND THE FACT THAT THE PRE IS COMING OUT ON VERIZON WITH DOUBLED RAM AND MEMORY 4 MONTHS AFTER I SIGNED MY 2 YEAR CONTRACT WITH SPRINT!!!!!!!!!! THOSE MANIACS, DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL!!! (sarcasm intended)
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Why do I always have to read through your accusations of being idiotic and annoying just to get to your opinion--I don't think you can ever have a civil discussion because your emotion gets in the way and you resort to defensive name calling.
    It's probably related to your posts being idiotic and annoying. I know you'd like to imagine that this is "name calling" or that your posts are reasoned enough to cause someone to be "Defensive" but they aren't. No--I'm merely expressing what I think about your posts--the only knowledge I have of you, as we do not know each other personally. Name-calling has no purpose, other than to offend, and offending you isn't my goal. I'm calling your lies and distortions what they are--idiotic, because there is no reason a rational (presumed adult) person should engage in the constant stream of deception and distortion that is your normal practice. I'm hoping that you have SOME capacity to understand the difference between lies and reality.

    Your practice (and I'm not sure if it is due to some shortcoming on your part, or whether you are intentionally lying), as demonstrated is to constantly distort, or at times wholly fabricate something and then keep throwing it at others (me in this case). As I said--you aren't debating anything typically--you are merely creating lies or distortions and then attempting to force these things onto others--as if they had expressed them.

    To say that you rely on "straw men" would be an understatement, because, it is so all-consuming with you. It isn't a tactic--its just inherent in most everything you post. You simply cannot (by choice or deficiency) cannot deal with things in an honest manner. I find that practice to be unacceptable, and that I have to spend my time constantly correcting your false claims about what I say isn't really what discussion is about.

    In short--I think your primary (and perhaps only) purpose is to be a distraction, in order to drown out things that you dislike. You are a very tenacious noise machine, and I think you default to this, because you really have very little of substance to say.

    I just don't see how a reasonable adult can engage in practices that are are typical for you, and expect people to take them seriously. Now, granted, I have a very bad habit of trying to respond to people as if they are being honest and sincere, and aren't merely engaging in trollish behavior. My "benefit of the doubt" sense in posting is too large for my own good, because I simply can't understand why someone would waste their time engaging in endless dishonesty. What possible benefit could that bring. Then I remember, the internet is filled with people who behave as you do. That's my problem to work on I suppose.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    So, according to your post, you should give up your child for adoption if you cannot feed her or afford to take her for healthcare? What happens if I lose my job when the child is 3--send her off for adoption? Suppose no one wants to adopt her?
    No--I said that is an option one can opt for. Why is it that I always have to correct your distortions of what I say?

    Your example of a three year old child is irrelevant to the issue being discussed here.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    As for the death penalty, you may not have said it directly, but you did say that there is something unique about being human. But now you say that not only is it just good enough to be human, you must be an "innocent" human to have that uniqueness so you don't get killed.
    Again--your lack of ability to understand is bothersome. What I stated is the fact that an unborn child is an unique combination of DNA--unlike anyone else.

    And no--I merely noted that there is a difference between an innocent life and someone who commits a crime. That doesn't mean they aren't both human, nor that they are not both unique.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    So, when does that innocence end? Aren't I still innocent at birth an I should have the right to food and healthcare?
    Actually, we have a moral obligation to provide for innocent babies--specifically their parents do, but as I stated--even if a parent cannot, they can legally hand the child over to someone who will provide for their basic needs. Of course, one must understand that a child is dependent on their parent, or guardian--and I'm not sure why you don't seem to understand this.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Suppose I kill someone at age 11, 12, 13? I'm guilty but should I be given the death penalty?
    I've made no such claim about the death penalty at all, and I'm not sure why you continue to make wrong assumptions. Please try to stop imagining I say what you wish I did.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Ah, Guilty and innocent aren't so cut and dry.
    Actually, guilty and innocent are objectively very cut and dried--assuming the facts are known.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 01/22/2010 at 09:52 AM.
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    KAM probably thinks gays are "guilty" humans.
    I've reported this post. You've crossed the line here.

    I asked you stop misrepresenting what I say, and I'm sure as heck not going to let you continue this.

    Never have I said a single word that would make anyone think that I look at homosexuals as "guilty"--which implies that I look at them as criminals.

    That is a direct slander/libel.

    I'm sick of your inability to understand simple English, or overt choice to lie and misrepresent what I've said. Your dishonesty is appalling.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 01/22/2010 at 08:41 AM.
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Because it something that conservatives contradict themselves on: Conservatives are rah, rah, rah about the Constitution, literally as written--but forget about the 14th Amendment when it comes to gay marriage.
    No--it is what you imagine in your biased mind, and what you then project onto others. It is clear that you don't care what someone actually says--you simply declare what they think, and then say them of being guilty of your idiotic accusation.

    Then, whenever someone points out your non-stop campaign of lies, you whine and cry about how you are being victimized, or you are "just asking a question."

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    You like to say you're for civil rights and equality, but not when it comes to gay marriage.

    The hypocrisy gets revealed quickly.
    No--you are just too dishonest to actually deal with what people say, and are blatantly lying by projecting the caricature that you WANT to argue against on others.

    What's really sad, is that you are so dedicated to this dishonest practice that you don't even realized when people agree with what you claim to represent. It is clear that your own goal is to attack people--for phantom views that you create and then argue against.

    You're being extremely dishonest, or you are simply unable to understand things in a rational manner. Your trollish behavior has been apparent for some time, but you just don't know when to stop.

    KAM
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I assert that all human life is important. I agree that there is a slippery slope when you start defining some lives as less valuable than others. I'm pleased to see that you (are perhaps beginning to) see the value in this point.
    While I would agree that human life is important, this whole line of "reasoning" is flawed (not your reasoning--the other posters).

    One must first understand that people are responsible for their own actions. The fact that one acknowledges, understands and values human life does not give someone license to do whatever they wish, nor removes responsibility for themselves. Now, I realize that many people simply refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions, so this whole notion is not something they can understand.

    Apparently, the whole concept of innocence is also beyond some posters here. This results in them attempting (nonsensically) to equate someone being held responsible for their actions vs someone who is innocent--and has done no wrong.

    These people perhaps can't understand the difference between punishing someone who breaks a window (for example) vs punishing someone who happened to be nearby when a window was broken. Only if they lack this type of fundamental understanding of reality can they make arguments comparing an innocent life to someone's willful punishable actions.

    Those statements aren't intended to advocate anything in particular.

    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Fair question: The potential for a life is biologically, not yet a life. As for being sacred, I'd say no. Firstly lets look at what meaning you might have applied to the term. I wouldn't call it proper to worship a sperm or egg, or to call them holy. I'm guessing your intended meaning sacred was "valuable". Some people might value sperm or eggs depending on their abundance or scarcity . (There are people who freeze sperm and harvest eggs for in-vitro fertilization.) But even people who value these in such a context would probably not call them "sacred". A human life (which in the context of religion, would have a soul) would be considered sacred (in the sense of meaning "valuable") This understanding of the value of human life is very close to your belief that all human life is "important". Did I help with your question?
    You are correct. Apparently, there is again a fundamental inability to understand reality and factual differences of things. Clearly, something that could potentially happen is not the same as something that HAS happened. A sperm and egg separate are not the same as a fertilized egg, until they come together, and the RESULT is something different. Apparently these people don't have a basic understanding of biology--even a layman's understanding. The two things merge to become a DIFFERENT third thing--which in this case is unique, and will ultimately grow to become a person like you or I--if left unmolested.

    A sperm or egg alone...never will. The human body produces these things, which are naturally processed and discarded (in one way or another).

    KAM
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Most who respect scientific fact.
    So you agree with all of the scientists that believe global warming is partly the cause of man?

    You believe the science that shows that homosexuality is not a choice?

    You believe in the science of evolution?
    Last edited by Kenanator; 01/22/2010 at 09:48 AM.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    If Pregnancy isn't endangering the life of the mother or child, and the pregnancy isn't the result of rape, what 'legit' reason does one have for an abortion?
    It really seems irresponsible. That is; despicable. To end this 'Life' that has begun if the reason for the abortion isn't a serious one.
    To me, it is also despicable to bring a child into this world if you are not ready emotionally and monetarily to provide for and raise it. Your rose colored glasses view of adoption is sadly not always the case. Many kids just get passed around from foster home to foster home. Unfortunately, not all kids get adopted. Are you a foster parent? Are you willing and able to adopt these kids?
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  18. #98  
    I still haven't gotten an answer for why one would need an abortion.
    If not beceause of rape or endangerment to mother or child, then what legit reason could one give?
  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    To me, it is also despicable to bring a child into this world if you are not ready emotionally and monetarily to provide for and raise it.
    Wouldn't that beg the question then why these people who are emotionally incapable of raising a child, are engaging in behavior that creates children. Isn't this really a question of personal responsibility? Do these people not have the capacity to control their own actions?

    If you are so concerned about making sure that children aren't born to these people you declare unfit, then shouldn't your focus be to insure that they do not create these children, instead of killing them after they've been created?

    Further--you are surely projecting a lot of assumptions on other people (the would be parents) in order to justify what you think they should do. Who are you to judge whether they are emotionally able to handle something. They don't even know--they ASSUME they can't handle something--perhaps because someone like yourself tells them they cannot.

    I think that people can handle a lot more than some others give them credit for, and I know they have the capacity to make choices in their lives to AVOID situations that would require this sort of justification for killing an unborn baby in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Your rose colored glasses view of adoption is sadly not always the case. Many kids just get passed around from foster home to foster home. Unfortunately, not all kids get adopted. Are you a foster parent? Are you willing and able to adopt these kids?
    What grounds do you have to argue for these kids never getting a chance? What makes you think that YOUR fears about what MIGHT happen is a justification to advocate killing an unborn child? Is the fact that this child MIGHT have a rough life really a justification for killing it--making sure it does not live at all?

    I'm sorry, but that doesn't strike me as a good argument.

    Many people in this world lead less than pleasant existences. Look at Haiiti right now--how many children there are living in misery. Should we advocate killing them? Should anyone who MIGHT have a tough life be killed? Is that really the justification you want to try and make for supporting this?

    Correct me if I am wrong, but is the possibility of something being less than idea really justification for making sure that person doesn't live?

    KAM
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    I still haven't gotten an answer for why one would need an abortion.
    If not beceause of rape or endangerment to mother or child, then what legit reason could one give?




    ..... was that a cricket?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions