Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2006-08-22 11:37:20
comet241
Member
+164|7009|Normal, IL

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Because the child can't choose.. They say they don't get a say because they don't have a voice. And without a voice they can't be heard, and even if they had a voice they don't have a brain till a certain point so they couldn't even use it, not only that but it's not the instant it's born that it has rights it's after the 3rd month I belive. 

Adoption sucks and it's a stupid choice that's way more irresponsable then an abortion.
ill have to 100% disagree that adoption is in any way irresponsible or that it is in any way stupid. I think the post two above mine says why.

as far as not having the choice and not having the capacity to say what you feel, that means nothing to a persons rights. Just because you can't communicate your choice doesn't mean you dont get one.

example: You cannot treat animals in most places inhumanely or neglect them. You WILL face some sort of punishment. The animal cannot tell someone how they wish to be treated, but they still have the right to be treated fairly. Many would argue that they dont have the brain capacity to even understand what being treated humanely is, but they still have that right. So, how come an unborn child doesn't have the right to be treated fairly and humanely? because they can't communicate it??? By your definition then, we should be able to kill our children up until the age of 1 or 2, when they can start to understand the issue. until then, fair game, right?

Last edited by comet241 (2006-08-22 11:37:51)

2006-08-22 11:45:23
mcgid1
Meh...
+129|6961|Austin, TX/San Antonio, TX

jonsimon wrote:

mcgid1 wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Because the child can't choose.. They say they don't get a say because they don't have a voice. And without a voice they can't be heard, and even if they had a voice they don't have a brain till a certain point so they couldn't even use it, not only that but it's not the instant it's born that it has rights it's after the 3rd month I belive. 

Adoption sucks and it's a stupid choice that's way more irresponsible then an abortion.
I'm adopted you ass hole, and adoption is in no way more irresponsible than abortion.  At least this way the child has a chance to live a life even if their conception was a mistake.  Do some research and find out that most kids who are adopted are loved by their parents, some times even more so than kids who are not adopted.  Oh, and have you even seen the statistics on the wait list for parents waiting to adopt, or the application process the parents have to go through?  It guarantees that the parents of the adopted children are prepared a capable for caring for a child.  Last I checked the only qualifications that the parents of unadopted children need was the ability to get laid, not have to jump through legal hoops to prove that they are capable of caring for a child.  So explain to me again how exactly adoption is more irresponsible than abortion?
What about the orphans that are never adopted?
At least they're still alive.  They have a chance to do something, make something of themselves.
2006-08-22 11:50:39
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6825|SE London

comet241 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

comet241 wrote:


and isn't your view pretty narrow-minded, my friend??????
Is it in any way inaccurate though?

Is anyone who is pro-life atheist? I think not, or at least the vast majority are not - which is what makes it a sectrian viewpoint.
ahhh, buddy, prepare to meet your first atheist pro-lifer.... ME! I went to catholic school for 10 years, which is why I am now an atheist. But I have morals and standards. High ones too. Im far from blowing smoke up my ass, Im just saying that I live by a high set of standards. I think abortion in the current sense is wrong. it's being used as a form of birth control. what ever happened to learning from your mistakes???? My dad raised me in that way, let me make my own choices in life, he will support me, but if I make a mistake, I deal with it. Advice can only get you so far, you have to choose to take it too. That's a rough version of it, but sums it up nicely I feel.
The very fact that you went to catholic school for 10 years makes you religiously prejudiced. You, despite not believing in a god, have been exposed from a young age to religious moral principles which make your decisions based on matters so clearly opposed by the catholic churches moral values, biased.

You are a reformed catholic, rather than a true atheist.

Anyway, I did point out that the 'vast majority' of pro-lifers are religious.
2006-08-22 12:00:30
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6940|NJ
Sorry it's just the way I look at it. I also don't know your situation of the adoption, but the reason I say it's irresponsable because you are bringing a Life into the world that you are no way shape or form even going to take care of. Like the pregnancy it's your choice in how you want to deal with it.
2006-08-22 12:11:09
KtotheIMMY
Member
+513|7007

Spearhead wrote:

Hellogoodsir wrote:

ThomasMorgan wrote:

I'm pro-choice in the sense that if either the baby or mother will be put at risk or if it's a case of rape or incest, then abortion should be allowed.  It should not be allowed as a form of birth control if the mother decides she is unfit to be a parent or just decides she doesn't want a child.
I agree, which is a very moderate view. But just to add though, should a mother abort a child if it will be born retarded? Caring for a handicapped child can be physically, and emotionally stressful, as well as expensive. Just a thought.
No human being should ever have to live it's life with a mental/physical handicap.  Especially if it's parents/mother knew that he/she would be like that before they were even born.
I agree
2006-08-22 12:11:17
comet241
Member
+164|7009|Normal, IL

Bertster7 wrote:

comet241 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Is it in any way inaccurate though?

Is anyone who is pro-life atheist? I think not, or at least the vast majority are not - which is what makes it a sectrian viewpoint.
ahhh, buddy, prepare to meet your first atheist pro-lifer.... ME! I went to catholic school for 10 years, which is why I am now an atheist. But I have morals and standards. High ones too. Im far from blowing smoke up my ass, Im just saying that I live by a high set of standards. I think abortion in the current sense is wrong. it's being used as a form of birth control. what ever happened to learning from your mistakes???? My dad raised me in that way, let me make my own choices in life, he will support me, but if I make a mistake, I deal with it. Advice can only get you so far, you have to choose to take it too. That's a rough version of it, but sums it up nicely I feel.
The very fact that you went to catholic school for 10 years makes you religiously prejudiced. You, despite not believing in a god, have been exposed from a young age to religious moral principles which make your decisions based on matters so clearly opposed by the catholic churches moral values, biased.

You are a reformed catholic, rather than a true atheist.

Anyway, I did point out that the 'vast majority' of pro-lifers are religious.
true, you did say vast-majority. But i want to know how can anybody, in your definition, be a true atheist? I would be hard pressed to find anybody who hasn't had any sort of religious "tainting" in their life that may skew their opinion one way or another.

I believe the fact that I have rejected the Catholic Church shows that I have rejected their religious ideologies. For example, I believe that gay persons should have the right to marry or do whatever they want. doesn't that go against the teachings of the church? Shouldn't my opinion be "tainted" by their teachings? I feel one can fully reject a set of ideologies that was forced upon them and form their own without it being called tainted because of one little overlap.

So, i reject your claim that my opinion is biased because I attended Catholic school for so long. I have rejected all of their teachings and formed my own. If I was truly biased, all of my opinions would be opposite of the Catholic Church. The fact that some overlap are purely coincidental and show no reflection of bias.
2006-08-22 14:35:53
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6825|SE London

comet241 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

comet241 wrote:


ahhh, buddy, prepare to meet your first atheist pro-lifer.... ME! I went to catholic school for 10 years, which is why I am now an atheist. But I have morals and standards. High ones too. Im far from blowing smoke up my ass, Im just saying that I live by a high set of standards. I think abortion in the current sense is wrong. it's being used as a form of birth control. what ever happened to learning from your mistakes???? My dad raised me in that way, let me make my own choices in life, he will support me, but if I make a mistake, I deal with it. Advice can only get you so far, you have to choose to take it too. That's a rough version of it, but sums it up nicely I feel.
The very fact that you went to catholic school for 10 years makes you religiously prejudiced. You, despite not believing in a god, have been exposed from a young age to religious moral principles which make your decisions based on matters so clearly opposed by the catholic churches moral values, biased.

You are a reformed catholic, rather than a true atheist.

Anyway, I did point out that the 'vast majority' of pro-lifers are religious.
true, you did say vast-majority. But i want to know how can anybody, in your definition, be a true atheist? I would be hard pressed to find anybody who hasn't had any sort of religious "tainting" in their life that may skew their opinion one way or another.

I believe the fact that I have rejected the Catholic Church shows that I have rejected their religious ideologies. For example, I believe that gay persons should have the right to marry or do whatever they want. doesn't that go against the teachings of the church? Shouldn't my opinion be "tainted" by their teachings? I feel one can fully reject a set of ideologies that was forced upon them and form their own without it being called tainted because of one little overlap.

So, i reject your claim that my opinion is biased because I attended Catholic school for so long. I have rejected all of their teachings and formed my own. If I was truly biased, all of my opinions would be opposite of the Catholic Church. The fact that some overlap are purely coincidental and show no reflection of bias.
Fair enough.

Although I'd say I'm an atheist - through and through, I've never believed in God, I haven't had any sort of religious upbringing and I can't say that I can see any way religion could have tainted my opinions in any way. I just to be friends with the son of a vicar and I always used taunt his dad about how god didn't exist, my lack of belief in any sort of God is kind of what got me so interested in physics - I'd say my religion is science.

The whole pro-life argument stems from where you draw the line at what is human life, some say a foetus is human life others say that even using contraception is wrong (a view that I utterly condemn) because sperm are already life that is being wasted. Is a morning after pill wrong? That is essentially the same as an abortion, just a while earlier. You do have to draw the line somewhere, obviously - otherwise it's just murder, you can't go around killing babies.
The legal line has been drawn by biologists, people who know more about it than I do - probably more about it than anyone who will post on these forums, I trust them to pick a suitable cut off point for what is acceptable and what isn't.

You are welcome to your opinion. What I severely disagree with are all the protests outside abortion clinics by pro-lifers (that only seem to happen in the US (well, I don't know about that, but they don't happen in the UK)). Protests that must make a difficult decision by the mother even harder. It is the mothers right to chose to do what she wants with her body and no one has the right to make those decisions more difficult than they already are.
2006-08-22 16:48:41
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6934|Tampa Bay Florida

|-LoNgHiLL-| wrote:

Hellogoodsir wrote:

I agree, which is a very moderate view. But just to add though, should a mother abort a child if it will be born retarded? Caring for a handicapped child can be physically, and emotionally stressful, as well as expensive. Just a thought.
That sounds so fucking selfish its funny...
The epitome of modern fucking culture; make YOUR life EASIER...
Disgusting...

Spearhead wrote:

No human being should ever have to live it's life with a mental/physical handicap.  Especially if it's parents/mother knew that he/she would be like that before they were even born.
Oh really? You think most, well, yes Im gonna say it, retards would feel the same?
You think retards dont appreciate life?
You think retards dont have people who love them?
I would like you to tell a retard that you think he shouldnt have to live, and that you advocate a type of birth control that would have put him out of his misery before he would have had to endure it...

Spearhead wrote:

Instead of banning/outlawing it, why not attack the root of the problem?  Sex ed maybe?  You really think that getting rid of abortion will just make it stop?  Hell no.  People resort to abortion because they know life would suck with the baby.  Getting rid of it won't stop irresponsible parents, it'll just worsen the problem.

I like to compare this kinda issue to the gun control issue : Will outlawing guns stop murder?  Will outlawing abortion stop irresponsible parents from having kids?
Im really not sure what you are trying to say...
Which side are you on?
Did you think that pro lifers want to stop stupid parents from existing by banning abortion?

Also just for the record, I agree with the abstinence view...
It's really more of the way you look at it.  I don't want to sound like an ass here, but to me it just seems sad when I see mentally handicapped people.  Nowadays, if the parents know their kids going to be like that, and never have a decent chance at life, I personally think they should just stop the baby from being born. 

I'm sorry you misunderstood what I said, I admit I phrased it in a wrong way.  If I knew I would be mentally retarded, I honestly wouldn't want to live.  And I think a lot of people would do the same if they had the choice.  No, I don't think all retards should be dead, that's not what I said at all.  I said they shouldn't have to live, it's a sad life.  So if the parents know way beforehand, and they have a chance to abort, then go ahead with it. 

I'm not sure what YOU'RE trying to say here..... I said outlawing abortion won't stop irresponsible parents from having kids.  If I got a woman pregnant, no, I wouldn't want it aborted, but that doesn't mean I want it to be outlawed.  It's up to the parents.  Yet after so much arguing the only solution the neo-con pro-lifers provide is "Maybe they'll stop having kids if we outlaw abortion.  Ever dink of dat?!1111?!", as if people will just stop doing it and getting pregnant.

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-08-22 16:51:21)

2006-08-22 17:00:16
comet241
Member
+164|7009|Normal, IL
Bertster7: thanks for your well-thought post. My thoughts on not being tainted by any sort of religion would extend to you as well, IMO. the way I see it is if you have had any sort of interaction with a religious organization or something that stemmed from it, you are tainted. basically, IMO again, we are all tainted. you can't take two steps in this modern world without running face-first into some sort of religious influence. The government, you could argue, is influenced by religion. the laws and policies tend to be based off of religious input.

however, getting back to the point, which you made perfectly clear: where the hell do we draw the line at life and not-life? how old? how mature? what's the definition? what's the difference? As the religious right draws more power I see a coming legal battle, the outcome which is yet to be determined.

If a republican gets president next and the house and senate stay right, look for the battle then. otherwise, it may be a while.

Soooo.... we all get one vote here each (assuming you are of legal age and are a legal citizen of this fine country), I say: Get your votes ready!
2006-08-22 18:17:48
|-LoNgHiLL-|
Member Member
+7|6805|Classified

cpt.fass1 wrote:

So basically what your saying is wearing a condom is murder? And by your theory Blood in your body is alive as well. So why are you even worried about single abortions when ever time a teen fires off to his dad's playboy it's murdering Millions of babies..
Funny - Funny - Funny- Funny...
Im defending the fact that a Zygote is alive...
I said I was ok with the morning-after pill...
At that point the life is on the same level as your skin cells mixing with your saliva...

cpt.fass1 wrote:

This is why I love to voice my opion on this subject, because it isn't your option and has nothing to do with you at all.
Hmm, WTF did you just say to me?

cpt.fass1 wrote:

And about the 9 months thing, even during the period of time the baby hasn't been born the mother needs to take more care of herself and needs to pay for additional supplies. Also during the later periods of time work will not be an option because she is pregnant, she will also lose periods of time where she can't work.
Yeh, uhuh...
I have experience with children, pregnancy and abortion...

Spearhead wrote:

I'm sorry you misunderstood what I said, I admit I phrased it in a wrong way.
No I didnt...

Spearhead wrote:

If I knew I would be mentally retarded, I honestly wouldn't want to live.  And I think a lot of people would do the same if they had the choice.
You are ignorant...

Spearhead wrote:

No, I don't think all retards should be dead, that's not what I said at all.  I said they shouldn't have to live, it's a sad life.
I know what you said, and what I said still stands...
I want you to walk up to any "retard" that looks like hes old enough to understand you...
I want you to tell him what I told you to say...
I hope he tells you he thinks your ignorant...
With words or body language...

Spearhead wrote:

I said outlawing abortion won't stop irresponsible parents from having kids.
Exactly, is this what you thought all pro lifers are trying to do?
That was my question...
2006-08-22 19:57:26
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6825|SE London

comet241 wrote:

Bertster7: thanks for your well-thought post. My thoughts on not being tainted by any sort of religion would extend to you as well, IMO. the way I see it is if you have had any sort of interaction with a religious organization or something that stemmed from it, you are tainted. basically, IMO again, we are all tainted. you can't take two steps in this modern world without running face-first into some sort of religious influence. The government, you could argue, is influenced by religion. the laws and policies tend to be based off of religious input.

however, getting back to the point, which you made perfectly clear: where the hell do we draw the line at life and not-life? how old? how mature? what's the definition? what's the difference? As the religious right draws more power I see a coming legal battle, the outcome which is yet to be determined.

If a republican gets president next and the house and senate stay right, look for the battle then. otherwise, it may be a while.

Soooo.... we all get one vote here each (assuming you are of legal age and are a legal citizen of this fine country), I say: Get your votes ready!
I don't need to get my votes ready for this issue. I'm from the UK and there is no question of abortion becoming illegal over here.
2006-08-22 20:19:05
Wizardspike
Member
+0|6703
If you have strong opinions about the abortion issue, you should watch the  episode of 30 Days on FX channel or for those interested I found a video clip of the abortion episode on YouTube. Check it out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ScUKhmD7c8.

It looks nuts, but what else would we expect?

Last edited by Wizardspike (2006-08-22 20:20:36)

2006-08-22 23:13:57
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6934|Tampa Bay Florida
k, Longhill, then forget it.  Sorry I offended you, but I could've just as easily not wasted 5 minutes trying to explain what I meant.
2006-08-23 08:17:49
comet241
Member
+164|7009|Normal, IL

Bertster7 wrote:

comet241 wrote:

Bertster7: thanks for your well-thought post. My thoughts on not being tainted by any sort of religion would extend to you as well, IMO. the way I see it is if you have had any sort of interaction with a religious organization or something that stemmed from it, you are tainted. basically, IMO again, we are all tainted. you can't take two steps in this modern world without running face-first into some sort of religious influence. The government, you could argue, is influenced by religion. the laws and policies tend to be based off of religious input.

however, getting back to the point, which you made perfectly clear: where the hell do we draw the line at life and not-life? how old? how mature? what's the definition? what's the difference? As the religious right draws more power I see a coming legal battle, the outcome which is yet to be determined.

If a republican gets president next and the house and senate stay right, look for the battle then. otherwise, it may be a while.

Soooo.... we all get one vote here each (assuming you are of legal age and are a legal citizen of this fine country), I say: Get your votes ready!
I don't need to get my votes ready for this issue. I'm from the UK and there is no question of abortion becoming illegal over here.
lol, i didnt even read where you were from. well, its obviously some sort of issue here in the states and a battle is brewing, so i suppose stay tuned for more!
2006-08-23 11:21:52
KtotheIMMY
Member
+513|7007
I decided why not add a little story to further explain my pro-choice viewpoint.

I was born in The Philippines to an extremely poor family. My parents were devout Catholics--no birth control, and obviously, no abortion. In 1983 I had 1 older brother (already deceased--my drunken father 'accidently' killed him), 1 mentally handicapped older sister, and 2 starving hungry older sisters.

Because my mother was also starving to death, I was born 3 months prematurely (honestly, they didn't remember when I was conceived, and so 3 months is an estimatation). My parents were so poor that they couldn't afford to pay the hospital bill for my delivery. The state took custody of me, and I was taken away from my parents for the rest of my life. I was eventually adopted and moved to the US.

My parents continued to have children, and refused to allow the state to take away my other siblings. After a decade had passed they finally allowed my 3 older sisters to be adopted, but my sister Jenny will forever be stuck with a 4-year olds mind. She has to be under constant supervision. She will never experience life as life is meant to be experienced. My younger sister was recently removed from the house because of sexual abuse and my father's alcoholism. My younger brother has dropped out of school and still lives with my parents in a 5 x 5 cardboard shack.

I am absolutely 100% pro-choice, because I know what kind of life a child will live if they are brought into the world to un-fit parents. In all brutal pessimistic honesty, it would make sense to me if I hadn't been born and my mother had instead had an abortion. I was born after Jenny. What if I had been born handicapped as well? Sure, I wouldn't be here... but I wouldn't even know what 'here' was, and the pro-lifers would have one less pro-choice opinion thrown in their face.

I also know that adoption is not a complete answer. A Pro-Life person shouldn't say, "Oh, see? everyone should just have the child and put it up for adoption!".  Do you know first hand what it is like to be a young child waiting to find a new family? Were you born into a family that could not care for you at all? (I don't mean --- we were poor, my parents worked a lot, and I never saw them).

I may have a different opinion then you, but I will not change my position. Thank you for reading.

Edit. - I had to change the name of the topic. It looked ghey. Also, can we find another females' opinion around here? All these men with their own opinions about a "womans right to choose"... it's driving me insane
2006-08-23 11:40:45
TriggerHappy998
just nothing
+387|7091|-

KtotheIMMY wrote:

Also, can we find another females' opinion around here? All these men with their own opinions about a "womans right to choose"... it's driving me insane
lol.

I quite agree with you, even though I'm not a girl. I hate people who say "what if that aborted fetus turned out to be the next Einstien genius?" Yeah, well what if that aborted fetus also turned out to be the next John Malvo serial killer?

You have no way of knowing what that aborted fetus would turn out to be. That's why I hate the phrase "what if". If a mother sees it unfit for her to have her child then I am all for abortion. Pro-choice all the way.

At least we aren't like some species who eat their mothers when they are born...
2006-08-23 19:36:35
|-LoNgHiLL-|
Member Member
+7|6805|Classified

KtotheIMMY wrote:

I decided why not add a little story to further explain my pro-choice viewpoint.
Your post is basically one big moot point...
You have described life as it is supposed to be lived...

KtotheIMMY wrote:

I was born in The Philippines to an extremely poor family. My parents were devout Catholics--no birth control, and obviously, no abortion. In 1983 I had 1 older brother (already deceased--my drunken father 'accidently' killed him), 1 mentally handicapped older sister, and 2 starving hungry older sisters.
You said it abortion wasnt an option so having the choice is moot...

KtotheIMMY wrote:

She will never experience life as life is meant to be experienced.
How is it supposed to be experienced? Like Fitty Sent? P.Diddy? Mariah Carey?

KtotheIMMY wrote:

I am absolutely 100% pro-choice, because I know what kind of life a child will live if they are brought into the world to un-fit parents. In all brutal pessimistic honesty, it would make sense to me if I hadn't been born and my mother had instead had an abortion.
The life you and your family lived are not the definitive life of a saved child; moot point...

KtotheIMMY wrote:

I also know that adoption is not a complete answer. A Pro-Life person shouldn't say, "Oh, see? everyone should just have the child and put it up for adoption!".  Do you know first hand what it is like to be a young child waiting to find a new family? Were you born into a family that could not care for you at all? (I don't mean --- we were poor, my parents worked a lot, and I never saw them).
Im not for adoption either, but its better then giving up...
Your adoption has given you lots of opportunities...
You have done well for yourself, you can change topics when they look "ghey" and you can ban those that contradict you...

KtotheIMMY wrote:

I had to change the name of the topic. It looked ghey.
Oh, did you?

KtotheIMMY wrote:

Also, can we find another females' opinion around here? All these men with their own opinions about a "womans right to choose"...
Most women who have an intelligent view on this topic are busy working or taking care of their children...

TriggerHappy998 wrote:

At least we aren't like some species who eat their mothers when they are born...
Speak for yourself...
2006-08-23 19:55:10
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6934|Tampa Bay Florida

|-LoNgHiLL-| wrote:

KtotheIMMY wrote:

I decided why not add a little story to further explain my pro-choice viewpoint.
Your post is basically one big moot point...
You have described life as it is supposed to be lived...

KtotheIMMY wrote:

I was born in The Philippines to an extremely poor family. My parents were devout Catholics--no birth control, and obviously, no abortion. In 1983 I had 1 older brother (already deceased--my drunken father 'accidently' killed him), 1 mentally handicapped older sister, and 2 starving hungry older sisters.
You said it abortion wasnt an option so having the choice is moot...

KtotheIMMY wrote:

She will never experience life as life is meant to be experienced.
How is it supposed to be experienced? Like Fitty Sent? P.Diddy? Mariah Carey?

KtotheIMMY wrote:

I am absolutely 100% pro-choice, because I know what kind of life a child will live if they are brought into the world to un-fit parents. In all brutal pessimistic honesty, it would make sense to me if I hadn't been born and my mother had instead had an abortion.
The life you and your family lived are not the definitive life of a saved child; moot point...

KtotheIMMY wrote:

I also know that adoption is not a complete answer. A Pro-Life person shouldn't say, "Oh, see? everyone should just have the child and put it up for adoption!".  Do you know first hand what it is like to be a young child waiting to find a new family? Were you born into a family that could not care for you at all? (I don't mean --- we were poor, my parents worked a lot, and I never saw them).
Im not for adoption either, but its better then giving up...
Your adoption has given you lots of opportunities...
You have done well for yourself, you can change topics when they look "ghey" and you can ban those that contradict you...

KtotheIMMY wrote:

I had to change the name of the topic. It looked ghey.
Oh, did you?

KtotheIMMY wrote:

Also, can we find another females' opinion around here? All these men with their own opinions about a "womans right to choose"...
Most women who have an intelligent view on this topic are busy working or taking care of their children...

TriggerHappy998 wrote:

At least we aren't like some species who eat their mothers when they are born...
Speak for yourself...
Look, man.  She wrote a whole speech that must've taken at least 5 minutes to make.  The polite thing to do would be to respond in more than 1-2 sentence paragraphs, and at least tell us what YOU think.  Don't just sit there, and think you know more than us, and not even give a reason for it.
2006-08-23 20:31:18
|-LoNgHiLL-|
Member Member
+7|6805|Classified

Spearhead wrote:

Look, man.  She wrote a whole speech that must've taken at least 5 minutes to make.  The polite thing to do would be to respond in more than 1-2 sentence paragraphs, and at least tell us what YOU think.  Don't just sit there, and think you know more than us, and not even give a reason for it.
Jebuz, where do you come from?
My post took an hour to write, I do other things while writing...

Polite thing?
This is a discussion about allowing legalized murder to continue...
We are discussing, I countered her argument...
I personally think you are being rude...

I thought I have told people what I think...
Remember my past posts?

Do you think I know more then "you"?
I think I know more then "YOU", thats why I called you ignorant...

I think the rest of us know something about something and just have separate beliefs...
I believe in live and let live, kill and let kill...
If you want to legally murder babies let me legally murder you...
Im not saying I will murder you, I am too lazy to be bothered, but at least give me that option...

Last edited by |-LoNgHiLL-| (2006-08-23 20:33:49)

2006-08-23 20:37:30
=LZR= David_Leonard
Member
+5|6710
I'm pro Satan -I don't believe in him or anything- I just think he's funny.
2006-08-23 20:42:39
TriggerHappy998
just nothing
+387|7091|-

|-LoNgHiLL-| wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Look, man.  She wrote a whole speech that must've taken at least 5 minutes to make.  The polite thing to do would be to respond in more than 1-2 sentence paragraphs, and at least tell us what YOU think.  Don't just sit there, and think you know more than us, and not even give a reason for it.
Jebuz, where do you come from?
My post took an hour to write, I do other things while writing...

Polite thing?
This is a discussion about allowing legalized murder to continue...
We are discussing, I countered her argument...
I personally think you are being rude...

I thought I have told people what I think...
Remember my past posts?

Do you think I know more then "you"?
I think I know more then "YOU", thats why I called you ignorant...

I think the rest of us know something about something and just have separate beliefs...
I believe in live and let live, kill and let kill...
If you want to legally murder babies let me legally murder you...
Im not saying I will murder you, I am too lazy to be bothered, but at least give me that option...
You must be one of those elitist sexist catholic assholes that I've been hearing about. Become a woman, put yourself into her shoes and then formulate an opinion. You may then call her argument "moot points".

Legalized murder? What is your definition of murder?

mur‧der 
–noun
1. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

Note how the term "Legalized murder" is a double negative. A phrase that contradicts itself.

The killing of another HUMAN BEING. Technically a child does not have even have a conscience until the second or third trimaster.
2006-08-23 20:48:19
KtotheIMMY
Member
+513|7007

|-LoNgHiLL-| wrote:

How is it supposed to be experienced? Like Fitty Sent? P.Diddy? Mariah Carey?
Just because they might be your idols don't mean they are mine.

|-LoNgHiLL-| wrote:

You have done well for yourself, you can change topics when they look "ghey" and you can ban those that contradict you...
You know ohh so much about my life.

|-LoNgHiLL-| wrote:

KtotheIMMY wrote:

I had to change the name of the topic. It looked ghey.
Oh, did you?
Yes I did.

|-LoNgHiLL-| wrote:

Most women who have an intelligent view on this topic are busy working or taking care of their children...
So according to you I'm not intelligent?

Btw. I like the fact that I've temp banned you before, and warned you for flaming a moderator. Shows us all just how intelligent you are. Actions speak for themselves.
2006-08-23 22:58:58
Wizardspike
Member
+0|6703
Hey guys have you seen the episode on FX Channel about abortion? But if you missed the show you can watch it on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ScUKhmD7c8
2006-08-23 23:16:59
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7016|PNW

"They'll be miserable anyway, so kill them now" is a dangerous mindset. Might as well start wearing your red, white and black armbands now.
2006-08-23 23:44:06
|-LoNgHiLL-|
Member Member
+7|6805|Classified

TriggerHappy998 wrote:

You must be one of those elitist sexist catholic assholes that I've been hearing about. Become a woman, put yourself into her shoes and then formulate an opinion. You may then call her argument "moot points".
Im defiantly NOT a sexist or a catholic...
Im not for organized religion...

Oh so dont knock it till you try it?
You want me to go become a drug dealer and addict and then decide if its disgusting?
Ridiculous, get an imagination...

TriggerHappy998 wrote:

Legalized murder? What is your definition of murder?

mur‧der 
–noun
1. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

Note how the term "Legalized murder" is a double negative. A phrase that contradicts itself.
Thats not a double negative, an oxymoron maybe...
A double negative would be to "no" words...Murder is also a verb honey bunch...
Means to kill or the act of committing the noun you talk about...
Does the word slay come to mind?

TriggerHappy998 wrote:

The killing of another HUMAN BEING. Technically a child does not have even have a conscience until the second or third trimaster.
We have already gone over the point that different people have different views of when life starts...
You start as a Zygote of a human being and end as a Body of a human being...

KtotheIMMY wrote:

|-LoNgHiLL-| wrote:

How is it supposed to be experienced? Like Fitty Sent? P.Diddy? Mariah Carey?
Just because they might be your idols don't mean they are mine.
Funny - Funny - Funny - Funny...

KtotheIMMY wrote:

So according to you I'm not intelligent?
No, you must have low self esteem...
I assumed you wanted intelligent points...
I wasnt openly insulting your intelligence...

KtotheIMMY wrote:

Btw. I like the fact that I've temp banned you before, and warned you for flaming a moderator. Shows us all just how intelligent you are. Actions speak for themselves.
Banned for making fun of your buddy there...
Actions do have a voice...

I will say that from what you were saying; you pity your sister, I think thats what makes people like that dislike there lives...

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

"They'll be miserable anyway, so kill them now" is a dangerous mindset. Might as well start wearing your red, white and black armbands now.
Shit man! Be careful! Insinuating they are Nazis will get you banned, I know...

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard