Abortion is... by dreamtrove

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

A womans right to choose.

But it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control.

I knew girls who, at 23-26, had already had 3-7 abortions. It was disgusting.

Like any right, it is easily abused and usually by the low.

But hey, after ObamaCare, the government will get to make these decisions FOR YOU. Do the leftists here really not understand that they will not ALWAYS be in charge, and what that could mean?

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 5:22 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

... not utilized often enough by liberals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 7:15 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
... not utilized often enough by liberals

Ooooh, ouch! Are you saying that liberal's babies will grow up to be liberals, hence the insensitive jab? C'mon, isn't this better than abortion?...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 8:43 AM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

...Free will.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 9:10 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
A womans right to choose.

But it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control.

Absolutely agreed.

On the other hand...ah, Wulf, you're so sad. You write something very valid, then spout idiocy:

Quote:
But hey, after ObamaCare, the government will get to make these decisions FOR YOU. Do the leftists here really not understand that they will not ALWAYS be in charge, and what that could mean?

Nobody but the Republicans ever believed they would have a "permanent majority"; there's even a BOOK about how to create it:

Quote:
http://www.amazon.com/Painting-Map-Red-Permanent-Republican/dp/0895260
026 the inside flap:
Quote:
How to Win Everywhere Warning: this is the book the Democrats don¹t want you to read.
Painting the Map Red is the insider¹s blueprint for achieving a permanent Republican majority. The Five Key Messages and Four Crucial Steps to a permanent Republican majority.
Karl Rove is often credited for having said he wanted one, but he didn't actually say it, he said "Not permanent - durable," Rove corrected. "Nothing in politics is permanent." He wanted a majority that would last for a decade or more and change the face of American politics. Kind of the same thing, and it has been the aim of the GOP for a very, very long time, as has been doing away with Social Security.

Also, it was the Republicans who worked so hard at putting non-government-funded-abortion language in the health care bill, OR introduced yet ANOTHER bill to make government-funded abortions illegal, when, as has been mentioned, abortion is an ELECTIVE surgery so wouldn't be allowed anyway AND was covered in Roe v. Wade in the first place.

So who's ALREADY making that decision for us, again? Maybe someday you’ll stop trying so desperately to blame liberals, Democrats, Obama, etc., for everything and claiming they are what they’re not. I’m not holding my breath.

DT, if you get this one going again, I'm gonna try HARD to avoid it. You were right initially, it IS a Fake World Event, and a waste of time to try and discuss.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 9:25 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
A womans right to choose.

Roe v. Wade says that abortion is a private matter and that privacy is a fundamental right protected by the Bill of Rights and that the State has a compelling govt interest in life that overides the woman's interests.

The Court draws the line at viability, which is why after Roe a woman could not have an abortion in her third trimester.

That is all based on forty year old science...viability now stretches back in the 2nd trimester which means the govt's interest in life is expanding.

This has two implications:

First, each expansion of the govt's interest undermines the logical foundation for the woman's privacy argument. After all, the state's right should not be limited by science any more then the woman's right championed by simple ignorance.

Second, science will eventually solve this problem by pushing theoretical viablility back to conception at which point Christians will take to the streets demanding Roe v. Wade be enforced and women's groups will march demanding it be overturned.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 9:30 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Niki,

My remark was actually very valid.

Abortions are not something I get worked up about.

Shit, there are too many stupid mundys around anyways.

BUT.

I agree in that its a right to choose. However, its disgusting to have 7 before you are 23.

Were I in charge, abortions would stay legal, so would birth control.

Yet, we are on the cusp of giving some fucking politician the right to choose FOR us.

When the Dems are in charge, a baby boom in brown and black people.

When the Repubs are in charge, a baby boom in white and asian people.

ObamaCare is also social contruction. Whether you can see that or not is on you.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 10:40 AM

KANEMAN

.....What pig liberal whores do a month or two after getting wasted and fucking a stranger. It is so much easier than responsibility.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 10:52 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Now, now, Kane.

Its what they do when they want a living doll of their own, but the baby-daddi is not rich enough.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 10:57 AM

STORYMARK

What Kane's Mama shoulda had.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 11:06 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

HA! Story left me out of his snark!

Son, I am disapoint.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 11:43 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Wulf,

Quote:
Were I in charge, abortions would stay legal, so would birth control.

Yet, we are on the cusp of giving some fucking politician the right to choose FOR us.

When the Dems are in charge, a baby boom in brown and black people.

How exactly do you reason that when Democrats were “in charge” (not even sure what that MEANS), they legislated a “baby boom” in any group? Just bullshit. Roe v. Wade has been around through each party being “in charge”, and it’s the only legislation addressing the subject.

The rest is just more bullshit by people who can’t seem to make a valid statement on the issue.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 11:47 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"YAY! ObamaCare! Just let the government CHOOSE FOR YOU!"

Blah blah blah Nicki....

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 12:30 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Now you are getting REALLY sad, Wulf...talk about one-note, stuck-record idiocy; don't you have ANYTHING of value to say???

Or are you just blathering to get attention?

Wail away, little man...the adults won't pay you any attention, sorry.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 2:43 PM

... killing a child. Nobody likes killing children (I hope) but that is what abortion is. Something was alive and you make it not alive. You make it dead.

Is a 'woman's right' more important than a child's life? We know it's never really that simple, but when we simplify things too much, we have a tendency to ignore the consequences. If you are going to kill a child, I hope you have a damn good reason. Personally, I can't think of a single reason good enough, but I am not the one who would make those decisions.

I hope there's a very good reason for making the decision to have an abortion and I feel sorry for those unfortunate enough to be making it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 4:41 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Women have miscarriages all the time. In the first trimester they go largely unacknowledged, certainly few people would have a funeral and/or memorial for an early term foetus. Most women (and men) grieve the life that might have been, rather than the person that was. The same is true when the pregnancy has been terminated.

This debate gets caught up in the whole sex before marriag/teenage pregnancy issue, but there are many reasons why a woman might abort...including foetal abnormalities, ectopic pregnancy, health risks to the mother as well as a whole host of social and economic reasons. Women of all ages and stages choose to abort for a whole host of reasons, not just the 'whoops I'm 15 and pregnant' variety.

People also tend to get caught up in the 'life is sacred' view point. That feels like a convenient social construct to me, and not a very coherent one at that. Life in nature is usually short and brutish and tenuous. Humanity, where we like to place ourselves above nature, is generally not much different. We kill animals all the time to consume, we kill people in war and for other reasons, we don't treat living humans on our planet with much care.

What do we regard as being sacred? Is an animals life sacred? Is a virus sacred? A group of cells? All these things are living, yet we hold them in scant regard. Why should the life of a collection of cells that one day might be a person be any more sacred than a chicken that currently exists?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 5:20 PM

WISHIMAY

My post got et...

...it's a necessary evil. There is injustice in allowing them and in NOT allowing them. I would definately like to have the option there, say, if I were raped and became pregnant...

Mass atrocity either way...Humanity SUCKS!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 5:20 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Like any right, it is easily abused and usually by the low.

Spoken like a true libertarionoid*... all about anti gubmint until it crosses some personal belief.

*Libertarianoid: someone who professes a belief in human freedom but who would deny it to the vast majority

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 5:33 PM

Quote:
People also tend to get caught up in the 'life is sacred' view point. That feels like a convenient social construct to me, and not a very coherent one at that. Life in nature is usually short and brutish and tenuous. Humanity, where we like to place ourselves above nature, is generally not much different. We kill animals all the time to consume, we kill people in war and for other reasons, we don't treat living humans on our planet with much care.

Yeah, humans occasionally kill other humans, but that's illegal. Just cause people kind of suck, doesn't mean we should feel free to terminate a life before it's had its chance to rise above the general suck or possibly become part of the problem.

Quote:
What do we regard as being sacred? Is an animals life sacred? Is a virus sacred? A group of cells? All these things are living, yet we hold them in scant regard. Why should the life of a collection of cells that one day might be a person be any more sacred than a chicken that currently exists?

The difference in life is obvious. Whether you believe life starts at conception or not, one is currently and only be a chicken, the other could very well become the next Albert Einstein or Adolf Hitler. Animals don't build governments or pass legislation and animals can't "tell" us how they feel about abortion.

I'm not sure when the soul enters a body and becomes truly 'alive' or 'conscious,' but I'd hate to risk killing a 'living' growing human out of convenience or carelessness. Of course I disapprove of abortions and I especially disapprove of the idea of our tax money funding it, but one of those possibilities directly affects me and one of those does not.

Does that make any sense? I guess I'm saying, if a got someone pregnant, my partner and I can choose not to abort and that's shiny. Some other couple can choose to abort and while I don't think that's shiny, that's their choice and not mine. But if (and I know this ain't happening) the government funded abortions with our tax dollars, it like we're accessories to murder. We helped pay for procedures designed to kill unborn children.

Now you can deflect and dismiss this, saying "what about war?" and listing all the other despicable things they accomplish with our money. That's all true and unfortunate, but it doesn't change anything, that's just another great big human engineered pile of suck to complain about.

Quote:
Women have miscarriages all the time. In the first trimester they go largely unacknowledged, certainly few people would have a funeral and/or memorial for an early term foetus. Most women (and men) grieve the life that might have been, rather than the person that was. The same is true when the pregnancy has been terminated.

Agreed, but you have to admit, there's a deference in some dieing of natural causes and someone being killed. Both are unfortunate, one is deliberate. IMO abortion is a terrible thing, but that doesn't mean people who've had them are terrible people.

As I've said with every comment on this subject, they deserve our sympathy, and I find other's attempts to stereotyping them as careless as selfish young folk with multiple abortions under their belt disgraceful.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 5:52 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:

Yeah, humans occasionally kill other humans, but that's illegal. Just cause people kind of suck, doesn't mean we should feel free to terminate a life before it's had its chance to rise above the general suck or possibly become part of the problem.

Firstly we often kill and it isn't illegal. How many Iraqis and Aghans have been killed by US troops? None of that is 'illegal'. Likewise, the US executes how many people a year. That is also not illegal.

Quote:

The difference in life is obvious. Whether you believe life starts at conception or not, one is currently and only be a chicken, the other could very well become the next Albert Einstein or Adolf Hitler. Animals don't build governments or pass legislation and animals can't "tell" us how they feel about abortion.

A foetus can't either. A collection of cells may or may not become a human, we just don't know. About a third of pregnancies end in miscarriage. And that is pregnancies that the woman is aware of. You can grieve the life that was not to be, but that's just it, it's not yet a life in any true meaning of the word, anymore than one of your organs is a life.

Quote:
I'm not sure when the soul enters a body and becomes truly 'alive' or 'conscious,' but I'd hate to risk killing a 'living' growing human out of convenience or carelessness. Of course I disapprove of abortions and I especially disapprove of the idea of our tax money funding it, but one of those possibilities directly affects me and one of those does not.

Of course you do, you believe in souls, which don't exist. There is no evidence that anything enters the body or leaves it either. We are simply a sentient lifeform, one that is aware of itself and its mortality.

But if you do believe in souls, do you believe that animals have them too? My dog has intelligence, feelings, relationships wiht others. Why should souls only be for humans? Why can't other creatures have them too? Surely the process of creating life is pretty similar for all of us, especially us mammals. If some invisible force enters us, then why not all living things? Do you have concern for the millions of animals that die every day for our use?

Quote:
Does that make any sense? I guess I'm saying, if a got someone pregnant, my partner and I can choose not to abort and that's shiny. Some other couple can choose to abort and while I don't think that's shiny, that's their choice and not mine. But if (and I know this ain't happening) the government funded abortions with our tax dollars, it like we're accessories to murder. We helped pay for procedures designed to kill unborn children.

what about if abortion will save the mother's life, would you condone having tax payers money save her life, or would she have to suck it up and die because you believe in the existence in some special magical force that enters cells at some a random point?

Quote:
Now you can deflect and dismiss this, saying "what about war?" and listing all the other despicable things they accomplish with our money. That's all true and unfortunate, but it doesn't change anything, that's just another great big human engineered pile of suck to complain about.

I was trying to demonstrate how the 'life is sacred' creed is generally not very consistent.

Quote:

Agreed, but you have to admit, there's a deference in some dieing of natural causes and someone being killed. Both are unfortunate, one is deliberate.

I was trying to demonstrate how we treat foetuses differently to people who are born. It would be probably truthful to say that we treat early foetuses differently, because closer to term, people do have funerals etc. But in that first trimester, little bubs, soul and all often gets flushed down the loo.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 6:27 PM

Quote:
Firstly we often kill and it isn't illegal. How many Iraqis and Aghans have been killed by US troops? None of that is 'illegal'. Likewise, the US executes how many people a year. That is also not illegal.

Nice deflection, but I am not 'pro killin' outside of the precious wedge issue. Just cause I don't like something being done, doesn't mean I won't be against the government doing more things I disagree with. All of that is bad, abortion is still bad.

Quote:
A foetus can't either. A collection of cells may or may not become a human, we just don't know. About a third of pregnancies end in miscarriage. And that is pregnancies that the woman is aware of. You can grieve the life that was not to be, but that's just it, it's not yet a life in any true meaning of the word, anymore than one of your organs is a life.

Uh... they totally can. Fetuses can grow into children can grow into adults who can build things, invent stuff and tell us what they think about it. Chickens can... be chickens...

That's your opinion that it's not alive. Look, bad things happen, sometimes naturally. That doesn't mean we should take it upon ourselves to cause them.

Quote:
Of course you do, you believe in souls, which don't exist. There is no evidence that anything enters the body or leaves it either. We are simply a sentient lifeform, one that is aware of itself and its mortality.

But if you do believe in souls, do you believe that animals have them too? My dog has intelligence, feelings, relationships wiht others. Why should souls only be for humans? Why can't other creatures have them too? Surely the process of creating life is pretty similar for all of us, especially us mammals. If some invisible force enters us, then why not all living things? Do you have concern for the millions of animals that die every day for our use?

We'll have to agree to disagree on the first part and I'm not even going to touch the second. It's unimportant, we can focus on sentience for the purposes of this argument.

So how do we define sentience? That is an excellent question, one I'm not sure I can answer. Like I've said before, it's not a chance I think is worth taking. The fetus will be sentient, and if we can't agree or figure out when that really, it's better to assume it's always been alive and avoid the possibility of terminating it. That's my opinion.

Quote:
what about if abortion will save the mother's life, would you condone having tax payers money save her life, or would she have to suck it up and die because you believe in the existence in some special magical force that enters cells at some a random point?

Disregarding the petty irrelevant insult at the end, that is an excellent question, and perhaps cause for some form of amendment. If you're asking me to decide if the mother's life rates above the child's, or vice versa, I couldn't do that. That should be the choice of the mother and father.

I apologize if you feel threatened by my religion. I sometimes through a little of it out their in an effort to help others understand where I am coming from. When I argue in RWED I'm looking to understand the issue a little better, why some folks think and believe the way they do. I'll often share why I feel how I do about something to promote understanding, in an attempt to make it easier for others to see from my perspective, as I'm often trying to see from there's. Just cause I may be inflexible on some positions, doesn't mean I can learn something from opposing viewpoints.

Quote:
I was trying to demonstrate how the 'life is sacred' creed is generally not very consistent.

Well duh! Nothing human really is, not liberals or conservatives or even Australians. Though, now that you mention it, it has me thinking of some similarities between abortions and war. Both are nasty terrible things but we ignore the worst of, out of reasons ranging from apathy to necessity.

Quote:
I was trying to demonstrate how we treat foetuses differently to people who are born. It would be probably truthful to say that we treat early foetuses differently, because closer to term, people do have funerals etc. But in that first trimester, little bubs, soul and all often gets flushed down the loo.

Well, I'm not so sure the soul's going to follow it... There was a time in human history were babies weren't even given names for the first year or so cause they'd probably just die. If it survives, then perhaps they'd consider it alive. Regardless of where you stand on where life begins, you can't deny that there is a difference between an unfortunate death, whether due to old age or a miscarriage, and a deliberate death, via murder or abortion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 6:59 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

What I am trying to demonstrate is that we do make constant judgements on what is considered 'worthy life' for want of a better term, because we certainly don't treat all life, even human life the same. It so happens that your judgement differs from my judgement and that your judgement is, in part, based upon upon beliefs that I do not consider to be based in any truth.

The issue is not as clear cut and there is no objective truth - at least not how I see it - in 'all life is sacred' or 'abortion is killing something alive', because as I have demonstrated we don't follow those creeds. All life is not treated as sacred. Foetuses are not treated the same as born people. We often condone killing that which is alive, including humans. I see that a lot of the anti abortion crowd cherry pick their beliefs to fit their own agenda.

Now for you, you find abortion abhorrent. So I have no problems with that, as long as you don't impose your beliefs on others.

I'd also have no problems with the government not funding 'abortion on demand' and placing limits on who gets public funding, and again, there would have to be judgement calls about what would be considered a reasonable reason for terminating a pregnancy, as long as people can make private arrangements if they choose and are not hindered by people trying to impose their beliefs upon others.

Quote:
That's your opinion that it's not alive. Look, bad things happen, sometimes naturally. That doesn't mean we should take it upon ourselves to cause them.

I never said that it wasn't alive. It is alive. It's just not a person, not yet. And that is entirely my judgement on the matter.

I'd say a lot of women abort because bad things have happened, that mostly they have made a difficult decision in difficult times. There will be those who are cavalier about such a decision, I don't condone that, but then again, maybe it's best that those type of people don't breed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 9:28 PM

America loves a winner!

misunderstood by far too many.

Good intentions aside, those who first started promoting the idea that we could rid our species of " undesirables " by simply offing their young and there by ushering in a better world for all... didn't really think things through.

I think there's a better way. Has to be.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 3:38 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"YAY! ObamaCare! Just let the government CHOOSE FOR YOU!"

Blah blah blah Nicki....

So keeping abortion a legal choice is letting the government choose for you?

Huh.

Seems to me "ConservaCare" is the one that really wants the government to make all the choices.

By the way, it's nice to see you admit that you're a "low person", since you so clearly "abuse" your rights by having so many guns. After all, one is okay, but 3-7 is too many, right? ;)

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 3:40 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
misunderstood by far too many.

Good intentions aside, those who first started promoting the idea that we could rid our species of " undesirables " by simply offing their young and there by ushering in a better world for all... didn't really think things through.

I think there's a better way. Has to be.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

There is not *A* better way; there are several. Birth control. Contraception. Abstinence. Education.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 4:36 AM

KANEMAN

If I go and kill some pregnant whore and the fetus is killed in the process, I would be charged for two murders...'nuff said.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 5:09 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Idiots, the lot of you.

Ok, look, imma be real busy for the time being, but imma say it all, say it once, and if you don't get the point, welll...

Instead of whinging and whining about Abortion, why not reduce the NEED for them by striking at the source, better education, access to care, and a more developed understanding of ones own humanity, even if that does mean taking religion out back and beating it senseless with a fuckin crowbar.

Instead of whining and whining about Guns, why not reduce the NEED for them by striking at the source, the social values that reward sociopathy and laud harming others for gain or amusement, because otherwise it'd be like banning ladders when you live in three story buildings, and then throwing a hissy cause the roofs leak and you can't fix em - first remove the pressing NEED for the goddamn things, and the notion of owning and possessing one will wind up a hobby or sport rather than a threat.

Instead of whining and whinging about nutters committing violent acts, why not reduce the danger by striking at the source, the social constructs that psychologically and emotionally mangle children so they turn out to be warped and twisted adults, or at the very fuckin least deal with the issue of a serious lack of discrete, effective, affordable mental health care - and I don't mean shoving pills, any proper treatment of anything from a sprained ankle to malaria to dementia damn well should be a full treatment plan aimed at restoring and keeping a normal balance, rather than mere symptom abatement via medication, which over time due to tolerances and other factors, becomes less effective or even counterproductive...

Like we're talkin about here - all of you lookin in the wrong end of the telescope and arguing over what the picture looks like, taking nyquil for tuberculosis, bandaids on bullet wounds, lookin at the symptoms instead of the CAUSES.

You wanna sane society, you need sane people, and in order to have sane people, we gotta stop driving them mad on purpose by trying to turn them into warped, twisted, darker versions of ourselves, we need to stop accepting and glorifying harm for gain or amusement, and teaching them to do so even when we must completely brutalize their own natural human instincts completely out of them to do it.

When the notion of harm for gain or amusement becomes on a grand social scale, as horribly offensive as cannibalism, outright infanticide, human sacrifice (all of which, mind you, were at one point or another in history considered tolerable, if not glorified) when we finally "grow up" in a social-emotional-psychological way...

Do you really think those kinda problems are going to remain, when the root of them is our insane society and culture to begin with ?

Most of the time I feel like I am on a train headed toward a brick wall, and everybody on it arguing over whether they should speed up or slow down, while junction after junction that would put them on another track slides right by, unnoticed, and any attempt to point this out is shouted down by BOTH sides....

Anyhow, I got biz, might be a while at it too, so ponder these words well.

-Frem

P.S. - Happy, lemme clarify one thing, I see your religion as a weapon, in a sense, and most folk in the practice of it are pointing it AT me in a harmful intent kinda fashion...
But you ain't one of em, and I'd really like to get into that discussion sometime when I have the time, since it seems to me we might be able to have it without too much breakage of the furniture, you might say....
But I REALLY gotta head out now.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 5:13 AM

KWICKO

Isn't that pretty much what I just said, Frem?

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 6:02 AM

America loves a winner!

Everyone talks about " better education" , but for the past 40 years, what has our education system produced ?

People aren't taught to think for themselves, or the consequences of their actions ( good or bad ). EVERYONE is special, and we all deserve " 2nd chances ", etc... That's great, when you're young and still growing, still learning. But then we have adults making bigger 'mistakes', and what happens ? Oops. I didn't mean to have sex w/ my intern. Ooops. I didn't mean to carry on w/ that prostitute.... Why the hell isn't Charlie Sheen in jail ? Seriously, that much blow, that much hotel rampage, that much time w/ hookers.... and he's off to " rehab " ?? 3rd time in the last 12 months, right ?

We live in a world of zero consequences. Knocked up teen age girls get their own " reality " show. This, by the same folks who are promoting teen age sex.... classic.

Sure, teach the kids...but what the hell are you teaching them?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 6:15 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sure, teach the kids...but what the hell are you teaching them?

That sex sells. That people are judged by their fan base, not by their character. That buying shit is more important than doing, thinking, or making. That this is a trivial society taken down to its lowest common denominator by commercial television, where the only things that matter are sex, alcohol, mass consumption, wealth, sports, and popularity.

In each television show, each billboard, each magazine advert and article, there is a subliminal message, and that's the message.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 7:16 AM

DREAMTROVE

Frem,

Basically what I said too, and you flamed me in a mad tirade and called me Rappy.

Select to view spoiler:

This thread was not created to have a serious debate on the issue, it's a pointless wedge issue. It was created to illustrate that people were sheep who would consume each other at the drop of a hat by a ten second post.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 7:43 AM

Select to view spoiler:

That's all good and fine, but since when do thread discussions have anything to do with the boards original purpose? I try and watch myself, but I'm prolly as guilty as anyone else concerning that

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 8:45 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Basically what I said too, and you flamed me in a mad tirade and called me Rappy.

Frem, he's never going to forget you called him Rappy.

DT, He also called you a liar. But I guess calling you Rappy is more insulting?

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 3:37 PM

DREAMTROVE

CTS

Of course. Frem knows I don't lie. I could be misinformed or inaccurate, but in this case, I don't think I am, IMHO, he's in denial because the truth of the issue, that his position is pro-NWO/TPTB and anti-child, is inconvenient for his worldview [/snark] but I really don't care. I'm not here to discuss wedge issues. People disagree on the, and they immoveable on them, that's why their wedge issues. It's like arguing soccer in the UK.

Speaking of Rappy, did he just say that there were *better* ways of exterminating the undesirables?

Oh and Rap, pardon the deflected snark, it's the national past time here

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 3:49 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
IMHO, he's in denial because the truth of the issue, that his position is pro-NWO/TPTB and anti-child, is inconvenient for his worldview [/snark] but I really don't care.

Whoa. Did you just call Frem "anti-child"? Really? Really?

I'm, uh...taking a vacation to Bora Bora. When the nuclear radiation levels return to normal, I'll duck my head back in and see who is still left alive.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 5:23 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
IMHO, he's in denial because the truth of the issue, that his position is pro-NWO/TPTB and anti-child, is inconvenient for his worldview [/snark] but I really don't care.
Whoa. Did you just call Frem "anti-child"? Really? Really?

I'm, uh...taking a vacation to Bora Bora. When the nuclear radiation levels return to normal, I'll duck my head back in and see who is still left alive.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

Nah, its sarcasm, hence the snark. Pointing out the inconsistency in the position. Its like right to lifers who are pro death penalty.

I'm sure I have some logical inconsistencies, we all do, t I'm so pro-life in general that I want to find a cure for malaria that doesn't involve killing mosquitoes ;)

And of course, I'm not kidding about that, but yeah, I am kidding about Frem being anti-child.

Select to view spoiler:

if I were to argue the point I'd just skip the whole abortion makes one less child argument and jump right to "teens far more likely to die from abortion complications than in child birth." IIRC, about a thousand to one more.

But as I said, its a moronic debate, which i feel bad about, because it got some really heartfelt responses.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 7:20 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

DT, He also called you a liar. But I guess calling you Rappy is more insulting?

At least they're not synonymous.

And confusing people is either a show of disrespect or a sign of confusion. Either Frem intended to insult, or simply doesn't know to whom he's speaking....

There are times when being hated by some folks is a good thing.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 8:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"That sex sells. That people are judged by their fan base, not by their character. That buying shit is more important than doing, thinking, or making. That this is a trivial society taken down to its lowest common denominator by commercial television, where the only things that matter are sex, alcohol, mass consumption, wealth, sports, and popularity. In each television show, each billboard, each magazine advert and article, there is a subliminal message, and that's the message."

Rappy, I agree with you. But curiously, you can't agree with me. It's like the Deepwater Horizon (Macondo) spill. You see the problem. But god help you, you can't assign the blame where it belongs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 9:42 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Rappy, I agree with you. But curiously, you can't agree with me. It's like the Deepwater Horizon (Macondo) spill. You see the problem. But god help you, you can't assign the blame where it belongs.

Yeah, sex sells. And kiddies like candy. But somewhere along the way, we figure out that giving kiddies a steady diet of just candy doesn't turn out too well. For anyone.

Macondo blow out, Sub prime economic melt down, does it really matter ? There's those who caused hte problem, and then there are those who will be blamed. Doesn't make the aftermath any less devastating, now does it ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 10:00 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Magons is handling this discussion so well, there’s no reason for me to rejoin it (plus it’s been going on for ages and nothing will ever change)

Quote:
A foetus can't either. A collection of cells may or may not become a human, we just don't know.... it's not yet a life in any true meaning of the word, anymore than one of your organs is a life.... Of course you do, you believe in souls, which don't exist. There is no evidence that anything enters the body or leaves it either. We are simply a sentient lifeform, one that is aware of itself and its mortality.

There’s nothing wrong in believing in souls, but not everyone does and there’s no proof of their existence. But Trader, I don’t think there’s any fear involved in rejecting the concept of “souls”. I certainly don’t fear any religion, but yes, sometimes it irritates me when people make a point based on their religious beliefs and expect everyone to accept that point as if the basis is the same for all of us. And sometimes I speak up about it...and sometimes it pisses me off. There can be many reasons for disagreeing with a specific religion, or organized religion in general, aside from anything having to do with “fear”.

Personally, I don’t want federal dollars funding abortions. But that’s not what this is about; this new law says that any health insurance company which provides abortions (which they wouldn’t anyway, as it’s elective surgery) cannot receive ANY federal dollars. That’s a huge, gigantic difference for me between federal funding of abortions and...whatever this law is supposed to say. I’m not sure, but does it go so far as to elminiate federal funds to any insurance company if any of their consumers pay for an abortion on their own? I wouldn’t be surprised, but I’m not well versed enough on the “new law” to know.

The main thing is this new measure is totally unnecessary, not only duplicative but TRIPLICATIVE, and only proposed to make a statement and make the RTLers happy with their “representatives”. Can anyone quote the new measure specifically and show HOW it is different than the other two things which eliminate federal funding of abortions? Those are the recent health-care law, and Roe v. Wade in the first place. Otherwise, this measure is grandstanding, nothing more.

Quote:
That sex sells. That people are judged by their fan base, not by their character. That buying shit is more important than doing, thinking, or making. That this is a trivial society taken down to its lowest common denominator by commercial television, where the only things that matter are sex, alcohol, mass consumption, wealth, sports, and popularity.

In each television show, each billboard, each magazine advert and article, there is a subliminal message, and that's the message.

I agree, Sig...until such time as (or if) we took the emphasis off sex in this country, unwanted pregnancy will always be a problem. Our puritanical beginnings have never changed: actual sex is bad; but if a couple has it, the female is to blame and accepts the consequences; titillating sex is good; BEING sexy is good; any contraception is bad; any education ABOUT sex is bad. It’s the most absurd dichotomy on the subject I think than any in the world. Muslims may think sex is bad and have all the same constrictions, but they don’t make their women sex objects or sell things by titillation. I don’t think there’s much comparison anywhere else in the world to our country’s outlandish attitudes toward sex. Even the Brits allow nudity on TV...not us, we allow everything UP TO full nudity, but gawd forbid we should be up front about it (double entendre intended.

I think it would be interesting to see who accepts the need for abortion to be legal here and who is against it, and see what sex each vote represents. I haven't been keeping track. In my experience, it’s been FAR more often both males and politicians who are so dead-set against abortion. Me, I’m female, I hate the idea of abortions, but I think it should be the choice of the person who is responsible for bringing the fetus to term and supposedly caring for it for the next 18 or so years. How about the rest?

Or, since I've seen a lot of greys expressed, how about is there anyone here who believes abortion should be illegal? From what I've seen, NOBODY here likes it, nobody wants it to happen, yet most seem to be willing to accept that it should be the choice of the person involved. Anyone wanna defend the idea of it being illegal?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 2:11 PM

Hey, just a quick itouch reply to clear up any misconceptions.

I can base my opinions on religion and souls, but I'm not expect everyone else to and using it as proof. My argument is based of of sentience, how do we measue it? When does it begin? If we abort a fetus early, do we really know that it was not sentient? In my opinion, it's not worth the risk and should be consider alive, intelligent and sentient. If you intend to kill it, there should be a damn good reason, like the mother could die or something.

The use of 'threatening' as my word choice was a semi childish response to Magons insulting my beliefs, kinda like saying "why ya so mad about it? Are ya scared or somethin'?" I tried to take the figurative high road concerning that, but I'm only human and couldn't resist throwing a little jab of my own.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 2:16 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And confusing people is either a show of disrespect or a sign of confusion.

Frem didn't confuse DT with you. He said DT was engaging in "Rappyism," which DT figuratively described as "He called me Rappy."

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 2:37 PM

America loves a winner!

Well then, this is me not caring ( showing disrespect ) for Frem.

I really don't care, to be honest.

Unless "Rappyism" is defined as being right, or looking to find the most honest, logical answer....

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 2:38 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Yeah, humans occasionally kill other humans, but that's illegal."

Well, you did kinda' skate by the question 'what about war', where killing of an actual, living, breathing, sentient human is not only NOT illegal, it's commendable, and even a paying government job. And let's also give a nod to the death penalty.

Human life is not sacred - and we don't treat it that way. It gets traded off for all sorts of things - economics, convenience, tribalism, vengeance (which we call justice or crime deterrence).

Out of curiosity, what was your stance on the Iraq War? Gun control? The death penalty?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 2:55 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Fetuses CAN grow into children CAN grow into adults ..."

I emphasized the word CAN to point out that your choice of words indicates you understand they are not children or adults - YET. It is only a future possibility, and only if everything goes completely as it should. You are not necessarily protecting a child, you are protecting a possibility. With the understanding that a fertilized egg for example is not a child YET but belongs in a different category of a potential future, do you find you regard that fertilized egg differently?

"do we really know that it was not sentient"

Well, sentience is hard to define. Is an amoeba sentient? It doesn't have a nervous system but it does have receptors and responds to changes in the environment with movement. OTOH trees also have receptors and respond to the environment as well, albeit without movement. Is movement a defining trait of sentience? Do we require a nervous system as a condition for sentience? Then an earthworm qualifies. Or are you talking about self-awareness? Then an infant doesn't meet that requirement.

The reason why I'm asking is because you seem to have a sense of what you FEEL you mean, but I can't figure out what it is.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 3:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Yeah, humans occasionally kill other humans, but that's illegal."

Well, you did kinda' skate by the question 'what about war', where killing of an actual, living, breathing, sentient human is not only NOT illegal, it's commendable, and even a paying government job. And let's also give a nod to the death penalty.

Human life is not sacred - and we don't treat it that way. It gets traded off for all sorts of things - economics, convenience, tribalism, vengeance (which we call justice or crime deterrence).

Out of curiosity, what was your stance on the Iraq War? Gun control? The death penalty?

Keep reading kiki and you'll come across this

Quote:
Now you can deflect and dismiss this, saying "what about war?" and listing all the other despicable things they accomplish with our money. That's all true and unfortunate, but it doesn't change anything, that's just another great big human engineered pile of suck to complain about.

I'm 'skating by' war because it's not related.

Quote:
I emphasized the word CAN to point out that your choice of words indicates you understand they are not children or adults - YET. It is only a future possibility, and only if everything goes completely as it should. You are not necessarily protecting a child, you are protecting a possibility.

That is correct. Protecting that possibility is protecting the child that might be and I do believe that is very important.

Quote:
With the understanding that a fertilized egg for example is not a child YET but belongs in a different category of a potential future, do you find you regard that fertilized egg differently?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking in this question. If we are fortunate, the fetus will become a child will become an adult. I do recognize those as different stages (and that there are several sub-stages in each one). I also recognize them all (even the lowly fetus) as human. Does that make sense?

Quote:
Well, sentience is hard to define. Is an amoeba sentient? It doesn't have a nervous system but it does have receptors and responds to changes in the environment with movement. OTOH trees also have receptors and respond to the environment as well, albeit without movement. Is movement a defining trait of sentience? Do we require a nervous system as a condition for sentience? Then an earthworm qualifies. Or are you talking about self-awareness? Then an infant doesn't meet that requirement.

Agreed, but the infant will meet that requirement. An infant will (barring unfortunate complications) become an adult and that's kind of a big deal. I think abortion is abhorred on account of the innocent soul in the equation, something I'm well aware that everyone here does not agree on, so I'm basing my argument on principals we can all relate to.

Quote:
The reason why I'm asking is because you seem to have a sense of what you FEEL you mean, but I can't figure out what it is.

I can't tell you with absolute certainty when the fetus is truely 'sentient' 'alive' 'has a soul.' Neither can you or anyone else. What we do know is that it will (again barring any unfortunate complications) become a full fledged human being. We don't (or at least shouldn't) take ending a human life lightly and a growing human should be held in the same respect.

Lastly, I'll take the bait on nikki's comment and say yes, I think abortion is terminating a life and should be illegal unless there's an extenuating circumstance such as magons scenario of the mother who will die unless they abort. It's not that I don't respect a woman's right to make her own choices, this choice affects more than just the woman's life and I respect the right of that unborn child to live and grow and make something of himself or herself more.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 3:45 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I'm 'skating by' war because it's not related"

Really? Why not? Because this

"We don't (or at least shouldn't) take ending a human life lightly ..."

seems to indicate they are in your mind one and the same.

ETA
However, as I think about it, I suspect the fertilized egg (maybe that's a stretch) or the embryo occupies a more important EMOTIONAL space for you than an actual human being. It is small, it is helpless, it is kinda' human looking after enough time, and you FEEL protective. Which has nothing to do with respect for human life since a fully adult human doesn't trigger that same response, or concern for sentience since an actual sentient human adult also doesn't trigger the same emotion, or souls or religion. It's more about protectiveness, and perhaps possessiveness.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 3:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I'm 'skating by' war because it's not related"

Really? Why not? Because this

"We don't (or at least shouldn't) take ending a human life lightly ..."

seems to indicate they are in your mind one and the same.

Well, they are and they aren't. They are both wrong, but one is easier to stop. Birth control and better education can prevent there from ever being a need in the first place and adoption can offer an alternative to murder.

War should be ended too (easier said than done right?). But with war, others can declare it. We can decide "we will not begin another war, period!" and some assholes can still attack us and then what? Well, we gotta fight back?

With abortion, the fetus can't really fight back. The fetus can't abort the mother. In short, the fetus is completely helpless. Those we engage in war with at least have (preemptive apology for bad pun) a "fighting chance."

Just because something else is bad and happening, doesn't mean I shouldn't be in favor of ending this separate problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 3:57 PM