CP3S

bkev said:

http://www.junonia.com/images/styles/372312b.jpg" target="_blank" title="web.archive.org/web/20070307114406/http://www.junonia.com/images/styles/372312b.jpg">http://web.archive.org/web/20070307114406/http://www.junonia.com/images/styles/372312b.jpg
You. Are. WELCOME. Due to the nature of web archive's links you'll have to click to see our lovely ladyfriend.

Woooooooo! Nicely done bkev!

Nice to remember how sexy I used to be! ;)

That is reasonable, because a stillborn is a hardship and has monetary and time loss associated with it. The thing I couldn't imagine would be akin to charging someone property tax on a fetus. 

The Leviticus passage was regarding charging a household taxes based on the number in their household, you pay more tax the bigger your family is (which means the more assets and workers you have). If they were under one month of age, they didn't get counted. 

True that! It was only genocide, not murder.

Yeah Sky, I'd give this a shot if I were you. They aren't actual webisodes (a gimmick I loathe!), it is the actual pilot episode of Blood and Chrome unceremoniously chopped up into short segments and delivered as webisodes.

If you liked the 2003 BSG series, then what I have seen of this so far feels very much in the same spirit. Of course, it is hard to tell this early on and with only a few fractions of the entire episode available to watch.

I feel the Exodus 21 bit is the only one that give any kind of indication at all.

The fact that children of less than a months age weren't counted for tax purposes or for population censuses is very likely to do with the infant mortality rate. In that time it wouldn't have been uncommon to lose an infant in the early months, or especially the early days, of its life. Making someone pay taxes on them or including them in the census may have been considered premature given the possibility they might not survive.

It is funny that site uses the conquest of Midian under what the Bible says about abortion. The Israelites were taking the city of Midian and were commanded by God to kill every Midianite male, including any woman who could potentially be pregnant with a male baby, which included all non-virgins (virgins, however, were valuable for integration). It is really stretching to try to see this section as having anything to do with abortion, since it is about all out war and wiping out an entire civilization of people. Same thing goes for the Hosea passages, which are Hosea's pleas to God to destroy their enemies.

The only time out of all of those that it is talking about unborn Isrealite babies is in Exodus 21, that is the only verse in the Bible that talks about unnatural occurring miscarriage from a legal standpoint. I don't think the taxing and the census stuff says much about the value of an unborn child, other than to say they were not yet considered in the tax you owed or that they weren't yet tallied as part of the population. I can't imagine any culture, modern or ancient that would count unborn children as a number of their population, or charge them taxes.

walkingdork said:

some dude in the bible shot one off (ejaculated) into the ground and was immediately put to death by God for wasting his seed.

Not exactly. You're thinking of the story of Onan and Tamar. So, Judah (one of the brothers of Joseph, the kid with the colorful coat) had a few sons, the oldest two were Er and Onan. Er married a woman named Tamar, God decided Er was kind of an asshole, so he stuck him down. Unfortunately, Er hadn't sired any offspring to carry on his lineage. So, as was the custom it was now his younger brother Onan's duty to have sex with Er's widow and impregnate her for his brother. The resulting child would be considered Er's offspring and would inherit his stuff. So, Onan does his duty and sleeps with his sister-in-law, but he doesn't like the idea that the resulting kid isn't going to be his, so he pulls out before coming and ejaculates on the ground. God get's mad that he refused to carry out his duty, and strikes him dead. 

So many people misuse this story to make it about masturbation or birth control. It had nothing to do with him "wasting his seed", it had to do with his attitude and his refusal to fulfill his duties and do what Judah told him to do.

Story get's even more crazy when Judah gets drunk, sleep with his daughter-in-law, forgets about it, get's outraged when he discovers she is pregnant (obviously through promiscuity as she is not remarried), and then ends up feeling all sheepish when she pulls out a few items her lover left behind which he identifies as his own belongings. Even the best and most smuttiest of soap operas can't roll with this stuff.

Prior to discovering he was the one who screwed and impregnated his own daughter-in-law, Judah ordered Tamar to be burned to death, indwelling future human inside her and all.

A far more interesting bit pertaining to abortion is found in Exodus:

Exodus 21:22-25

When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but no other injury occurs, then the guilty party will be fined what the woman's husband demands, as negotiated with the judges. If there is further injury, then you will give a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a bruise for a bruise, a wound for a wound.

Apparently God doesn't (or at least didn't under the Old Covenant) equate the death of a fetus with that of a human either. The death of the unborn baby is treated here like a civil dispute, the same sort of charge that would be made for the loss of property or livestock, not the loss of a human life.

That was the first one I was going to put in here, but couldn't find it, so I GIS'ed hot fat women and the rolls of fat was one of the first hits. I threw up in my mouth a little, then laughed a bit, then decided I had to post it.

I'll admit, I've seen big girls I've found somewhat attractive, but phew, me and google image search (i.e. the internets) clearly disagree on what "hot fat women" might be.

darth_ender said:

I know C3PS doesn't want to talk about the definition anymore, but clearly Warbler's intention is that just because killing someone is legal doesn't make it right.

And also to be clear, regardless of any improper word choices, the intent of his argument is not invalidated just because his interpretation of the word 'murder' is not necessarily the legal definition.  We use many words improperly.  Warbler's argument is not deflated simply because his usage involves what he and I believe is the violation of a higher law than that here on earth.

I don't have a problem with talking about the definition of murder, I just wasn't interested in getting too hung up on semantics when I clearly understand what Warbler means when he says murder. In other words, it isn't important and it isn't garbling communication at all. Also let it be clear I was never trying to claim his argument invalid in anyway based on his interpretation of the word murder.

Waitaminute! So pat man 1 (not official name) is real? But pat man 2 and 3 were socks? If the second and third pat men were socks, how can we be sure the first one isn't a sock aswell? I mean, come on, what are that chances that two out of three pat men would turn out to be socks? I'm thinking there is something fishy about these pat men. Maybe they're all socks!

Wait, I thought it turned out Pat Man was a sock or something? Seem to recall there being a thread about this... He got in a fight with himself concerning decimals, or something.

DON'T LOOK MARION! KEEP YOUR EYES SHUT!!!

Warbler said:

please read the post from  twister11

Please read my post following Twister's.

CP3S said:

And murder is deemed illegal and socially unacceptable.

not always. 

When is it acceptable and legal?

Likewise, I am also not silly to be concerned about something horrible happening to a group of living things, I consider to be people. 

Sorry, I shouldn't have said it was silly. I apologize.

even though it has its own unique DND, and even though you have admitted it is a living human?  

I've said that it is definably human, human cells, human DNA. But to me that is still something very different from an actual person.

CP3S said:

CP3S said:

Should we extend it to sperm cells, as potential potentials?

no, because sperm cell alone is not a human life,  human life is the combination of the sperm and the egg cell. 

So once these two come into contact, sperm and ovum, we now have a human life that should be protected inalienably as per the Declaration of Independence?

I guess.  it is certainly something quite different from just a sperm/ege cell itself.

So this should be afforded all the rights granted to us by the Constitution and be considered a person?

 

CP3S said:

CP3S said:

Now we are back to a convenience thing (and I probably just reoffended Frink),

yeah, why'd you do that?

What? Should I not mention things if people find them offensive?

have you ever heard the old saying "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all"?   have you ever heard of the golden rule, "do unto others how you would have them do unto you"?    

You are essentially saying that I need to refrain from discussing this topic at all, because my views on it happen to be offensive to someone. 

CP3S said:

I'm not forcing any morality on anyone. If you don't feel right about abortion, then I strongly encourage you not to get an abortion.

and if you don't feeling right about 6 million Jews being murdered,  don't murder 6 million Jews?

Why does everything go back to Jew and black people?

again, I honestly felt like it fit.   Since all you could respond with, was this question, I guess it worked. 

No, it didn't work. And comparing abortion to the holocaust feels a little out there. Having Jewish ancestry myself, if I were the type to get offended easily, this might be something that would get me started. I simply don't think there is any comparison here, I said that previously when you made this comparison, so I didn't comment on it further this time.

CP3S said:

Soooo, does that make Obama, a strongly pro-choice President, a bit like Adolf Hitler?

ditto.

Wait a minute? Why is this one an ignorant comment? You're the one equating abortion with the holocaust.

you are right,  the birth control could have failed, but most of the time when you are talking about unwanted pregnancy(and its not one via rape) you are talking about a pregnancy via unprotected sex.

I don't think that is something that could possibly be verified statistically. I imagine if someone is sexually active and having unprotected sex, they are probably doing it fairly frequently, which would result in pregnancy fairly regularly. Abortion would be an inconvenient form of birth control, being a hassle and taking time and money every few weeks or months. Seems like it wouldn't take too many pregnancies before she'd decide, hmmm, I should probably wear something or at least have him pull out.

This issue is one that really needs education to beat it. I am all for limiting the number of abortions to the bare minimum, which I think can easily be done through education and ease of access to birth control.

yeah, they were protested gay soldiers some of the time.   and just about all of the time, the have have signs with very offense things about gays. 

They weren't gay soldiers. This was in the don't ask don't tell days. They had signs that said things like, "thank god for maimed soldiers", "god hates your tears", "the only good soldier is a dead soldier", "Pray for more dead soldiers", and "god sent the IED's" and they would carry them outside the funerals of fallen soldiers. Yeah, they are also very anti-gay, but the funeral protests had nothing to do with that.

Warbler said:

*sigh* I guess you're right.   I apologize for the comment.   But I did honestly think Bingo was just kidding when he said he believed a mouse had a human soul.   I still doubt he really believes that, but whatever.   Understand,  I was not saying it was crazy to think a mouse had a soul, I was only saying it was crazy to think a mouse had a human soul.    But I apologize nonetheless.    I was wrong to say Bingo was nuts.  

It's not an uncommon or weird belief. If you are a Buddhist a Hindu or any of those other things Bingo mentioned in his post, there is no distinction between human souls and the souls of anything else, they are all just souls, a soul that was once in a human may be in something else the next go round. Therefore you have a soul and the mouse has a soul, neither is greater than the other. Maybe in the next life you (meaning your soul) will be a mouse, maybe in the next life the souls of one of those mice you or I have killed will be in a human.

And yes, Bingo has said many times that this is his belief system and has been saying it for years, so I see no reason to doubt he is being earnest.

TV's Frink said:

CP3S said:

It is kind of amusing that the only two liberals that frequent this thread regularly are both against me on what is probably one of the most liberal stances I take.

I'm not exactly sure who you are referring to.

You and Warbler.

Bingowings said:

Murder is the act of illegally killing someone so if it's legal it's not illegal, so it's not murder.

Words can be a pain sometimes.

Haha, that response really tickled me for some reason. I know, I hate it when words don't mean what I want them to mean!

Seems if you go down the number of definitions enough, as Twist demonstrated, it eventually means killing someone brutally, which would go with Warb's abortions and genocides.

Anyway, discussion about whether abortion is murder or not based on the dictionary definition isn't the sort of thing I'd like to get into. I know I am the one responsible for putting it out there, but I don't want to see it go on for pages. When you, Warbler, say abortion is murder, regardless of how we want to define that word, it is clear you feel it is the same or pretty much the same as killing a human. There is really no confusion here on what the other one means, so it is a non issue.

Yes it is very different here.

You should wiki American liberalism and American conservatism sometime when you are feeling bored.

Well, I don't think you acted out of convenience.

It is kind of amusing that the only two liberals that frequent this thread regularly are both against me on what is probably one of the most liberal stances I take.

Warbler said:

CP3S said:

Warbler said:

so 6 million jews were not murdered in Germany?   I am pretty sure the Holocaust was legal in Germany at the time.   Just because murder is legal, doesn't mean it isn't murder.  

Well, technically no, I suppose. "Executed" among other words, would be more accurate.

that is just crazy and offensive.   They were MURDERED.     I don't know how you can argue that murder is only murder, when it is against the law.

Offensive? Seriously? How is that offensive? I can argue that because that is how my dictionary (and yours, I reassure you) defines it. It doesn't make what was done to the Jews any less horrific, nor am I trying to make any claim that it is.

I suppose I do,  but just what part of your post were you expecting me to "fix"? 

Did you even read my post? I'm just going to quote the whole section below:

What does it hurt you, living in New Jersey, if some woman in California decides to terminate her pregnancy? The answer: not at all whatsoever. You are entirely unaffected, 100%.

I imagine you'll probably compare it to murder again, saying something along the lines of, "What does it hurt you, living in wherever you live, if a woman in California is raped and murdered by some thug? The answer: not at all whatsoever. You are entirely unaffected, 100%." Then you'd probably write something like "Fixed!" under it.

Then I found it really funny that Ender went and did just that:

If someone were to kill you, living in Tennessee (is that right?), what would it affect me, living in AZ?  I'd wonder why you never came around the site, but I wouldn't shed a single tear for your passing.  I wouldn't even know.

CP3S said:

CP3S said:

Allowing things like murder and rape to go without punishment or consequences would create anarchy.

it would also be morally wrong and would allow people to violate peoples' right to live and not be raped

Yeah, pretty much what I was saying.

I don't think it was.   You made it sound like we should only care about these things, rape and murder, when it effects us.  

Nope. I had a whole spiel about society not being able to function like that and that we need laws that discourage behavior such as rape and murder.

CP3S said:

CP3S said:

Again, what does some aborted fetus that you never even knew existed do to harm you or society or anyone else in this country other than the two people who conceived it? Again, nada. All those abortion that took place this very day, this week, and the past month, they had nothing to do with you and they didn't harm you. They don't effect your life in anyway.

they don't,  but I care anyway.   I care about human life.  I care about the right of a human to live.    Just like I care about all the death happening over in the middle east and other places.   I can't believe you'd actually try to argue that I shouldn't care about human life being snuffed out, as long as it doesn't effect me.   

I'm not arguing that at all.

sure sounded like it.

I never made any kind of argument that said you shouldn't care about people dying if it doesn't effect you. Nothing even close to it.

CP3S said:

But when it comes to abortion, something deemed legal and socially acceptable by the supreme court and the powers that be, I think it is silly to get your panties all tangled up simply because your neighbors are doing something you personally find morally wrong.

so it is silly to "get your panties all tangled up", when you see people committing murder, simply because the murder is deemed legal and socially acceptable?

I mentioned the supreme court, because you seem to hold them in very high regard And they are Federal government, which is something else you also seem to hold in incredibly high regard.

And murder is deemed illegal and socially unacceptable.

So all the abolitionists were silly to be so upset about slavery, because slavery was deemed legal and socially acceptable?

That has zero relation to this topic. Though I always have found it amusing that no matter what we are discussing, racism and/or slavery inevitable make their way into your side of the conversation.

Throughout history,  there are many instances of horrible, evil things done, that at the time were deemed legal and socially acceptable.   Yet, I don't think was silly to think that those things were evil and that they should be stopped.  

I absolutely agree.

CP3S said:

This moralistic thinking is also what leads to racism and homophobia. According to the Bible homosexuality is wrong, right? So would you be quite bothered if your male next door neighbor spent his weekend lovingly sodomizing another dude? I don't think you would, because you feel gay people should be treated the same as anyone else and what they do as consenting adults in their lives doesn't affect us.

it is more than just that their lives don;t affect us, allowing them to live there lives the way they want, doesn't violate anyone's rights.   I can not say the same for abortion, I believe it violates the right to life of the unborn child.  

I don't feel like a growing cluster of cells or a non viable fetus has the rights a person has, nor do I think it's rights should be elevated above the mother's (whose body it is occupying and dependent on) right to chose not to have it.

CP3S said:

The bottom line is, it isn't your body that has this parasitic early stage of human life growing inside of you. In fact, it is something you will never have to experience, or fear the potential of experiencing when you are not ready for it. It doesn't affect you, and it is only your personal morals (thus not shared by everyone, not even everyone in your own country) that are condemning it.

true, it doesn't affect me, but it does affect the unborn child.   Forcing black people to sit in the back of the bus would not affect me, but I am against that too.  I see nothing wrong with fighting for the rights of others, in the case, it is the rights of the unborn child that I fight for.

And at the same time against the rights of the mother (whose lives are severely affected). Damned if you do, damned if you don't, eh.

CP3S said:

Have you forgotten that the right to live was called an inalienable right by the Declaration of Independence?    According to that document, the right to live comes not from any law, but from nature. 

Show me where that applies to potential people?

1. show me where it doesn't

2. is the unborn child just a potential person?  Just exactly when does it become a person?  

Not when it is just a shapeless mass growing inside somebody elses body.

CP3S said:

Should we extend it to sperm cells, as potential potentials?

no, because sperm cell alone is not a human life,  human life is the combination of the sperm and the egg cell. 

So once these two come into contact, sperm and ovum, we now have a human life that should be protected inalienably as per the Declaration of Independence?

CP3S said:

I think you are kind of stretching by claiming the Declaration of Independence's "unalienable right to life" pertains to abortion.

am I?   I am pretty sure that many of the founding fathers would be pro-life.

Maybe. But you also think many of them would be anti-gun. (lol, the guys that started a violent rebellion against their ruing government because they were tired of paying taxes.)

Who can really say how they would have felt about it.

As for the situation of the mother's life being in danger, please remember that the mother also has the inalienable right to life. 

So then whose right do we alienate? What makes her right less alienable than her unborn child's? If they are both inalienable, then we have an issue. There is the iceberg tip of the before mentioned sticky

CP3S said:

Now we are back to a convenience thing (and I probably just reoffended Frink),

yeah, why'd you do that?

What? Should I not mention things if people find them offensive? I find obsession with sports offensive, could we please not ever mention them again?

I don't want to offend him by it, but I feel it is very clearly true. Religious people will suddenly grant that it is okay to abort a baby in the instance of rape, even though they'll adamantly argue it is murder in other instances, simply because it would be inconvenient to say that you're murdering the baby when the pregnancy was caused by rape. Also, religious authorities have traditionally really enjoyed the fact that the sin of sex comes with undesirable consequences, and have a history of strongly condemning interventions that allow people to commit the act with having to risk suffering the consequences.

Condoms greatly reduce the risk of STIs and pregnancy, so they are bad. Medical interventions can cleanly remove an accidental conception. Suddenly the consequences of sex are much more minimal, so those things must be labeled as bad and made as hard or as difficult to get as possible.

I'm not forcing any morality on anyone. If you don't feel right about abortion, then I strongly encourage you not to get an abortion.

and if you don't feeling right about 6 million Jews being murdered,  don't murder 6 million Jews?

Why does everything go back to Jew and black people?

CP3S said:

The unborn child, I suppose has to be at the mercy of those who conceived him.

sometimes, parents can be very uncaring.   I think we owe the unborn, better than that.  

Why do we owe them anything?

CP3S said:

CP3S said:

You think abortion is wrong, and therefore you don't want anybody to be able to do it...

yes,  just like I don't want anyone to murder 6 million jews, even if it is legal in the country where it would happen.  

I truly hope you see that there is a very massive difference between those two things you are comparing.

of course they are different.   But both are still murder in my mind.

Soooo, does that make Obama, a strongly pro-choice President, a bit like Adolf Hitler?

CP3S said:

CP3S said:

CP3S said:

snuffing that out should not be something taken lightly.

yet it is, every day. 

Do you think that many people are so flippant about it?

yes, unfortunately.   Remember you are talking about people who had unprotected sex, at a time in their life when they did not want a child.   They already made one irresponsible decision, is it so much a stretch that they'd make another?  

How do you know they had unprotected sex? I've had condoms break on me before. I'm sure everyone that uses them has had that happen at least once. Hormone birth control is really reliable, but it still have a failure rate.

I suppose I could flip your argument and say that since they are so irresponsible, they really have no business having and raising kids?

CP3S said:

Of course, it is hard for people to want to listen when they see people trying to take their rights away.

just as it is hard for people to sit by do nothing while they see people committing murder, legal as it may be.   

*Sigh*

Murder is NOT legal. And abortion isn't murder.

CP3S said:

 The Westboro Baptists for example, a lot of people fundamentally agree with their anti-war stance, but still feel like puking every time they hear about what these idiots do to make their points.

I didn't think they had an anti-war stance as much as they had an anti-gay stance.  

Wait, am I mixing up my asshole baptist groups? Who are the ones who protest at the funerals of fallen soldiers? I thought that was Westboro.

Warbler said:

you're nuts. 

Wow. I'm used to you being the guy that goes a long ways to defend Islam when I go off spitting venom at parts of it. You usually display multiculturalist ideals, so it is kind of surprising to see you take other beliefs and write them off as nuts.

Just because you feel there is a distinction between a HUMAN soul and any other kind of soul (your Western Judeo-Christian thought is showing) doesn't mean every else does, and just because they don't doesn't mean they're nuts.

:(

TV's Frink said:

I'm not a rapist, and my wife was not in danger.  But if you think we acted out of convenience, you can kindly fuck off.

Okay, so I get that you have a personal event that happened in your life relating to this subject and that it was pretty hard on you and your wife. That sucks. I'm really sorry that happened to you. I'm not a parent, nor have ever been close to being one, and have no idea how difficult that must have been.

But you're just getting pissed off and getting caught up on words. I don't even think you're reading all of my posts or have any clue what I mean when I say "matter of convenience". It doesn't even relate to the heartbreaking situation you and your wife were faced with (I recall you went into vague detail about it once on the forum), yours was a very sad situation and not the sort of thing that is being discussed here at all.

darth_ender said:

If someone were to kill you, living in Tennessee (is that right?), what would it affect me, living in AZ?  I'd wonder why you never came around the site, but I wouldn't shed a single tear for your passing.  I wouldn't even know.

Haha, it is funny you did that. It is exactly what I anticipated happening, but I figured Warb would be the one to do it.

Ender, I feel like you are taking many of the things I said in quite the wrong way. I have to debate you and Warbler on quite different levels, you both come at things from extremely different angles. As Mrebo (I think) pointed out, Warb doesn't give much thought to philosophicals, while you're all about them. You and I think a lot more alike, we both deal in philosophy and practicality defined by philosophy. I started to reply to your post, but it just felt monotonous. I kind of converted philosophical thoughts down to as practical as I could get them, then you up-rezed them back to a philosophical. Feels like a third gen VHS recording, there is a lot of noise and garbage that doesn't need to be there. We could be having a much deeper discussion about this than the one that would ensue if I spent the time replying to your post. Got to get to bed, but I'll look into some replies over the weekend.

Warbler said:

so 6 million jews were not murdered in Germany?   I am pretty sure the Holocaust was legal in Germany at the time.   Just because murder is legal, doesn't mean it isn't murder.  

Well, technically no, I suppose. "Executed" among other words, would be more accurate.

CP3S said:

What does it hurt you, living in New Jersey, if some woman in California decides to terminate her pregnancy? The answer: not at all whatsoever. You are entirely unaffected, 100%.

I imagine you'll probably compare it to murder again, saying something along the lines of, "What does it hurt you, living in wherever you live, if a woman in California is raped and murdered by some thug? The answer: not at all whatsoever. You are entirely unaffected, 100%. "

right, and yet you think the murder of that woman should be outlawed but murder of the baby not.   

Already covered in the very post you are quoting from.

CP3S said:

Then you'd probably write something like "Fixed!" under it.

?

You know how you take quotes from other people, make changes to them, then exclaim "Fixed!"? Lot's of people here do it, you know what I am talking about.

CP3S said:

Allowing things like murder and rape to go without punishment or consequences would create anarchy.

it would also be morally wrong and would allow people to violate peoples' right to live and not be raped

Yeah, pretty much what I was saying.

CP3S said:

Obviously, I don't want to have to worry about being picked off by someone every time I step out my door because he might think my car is nice or that the girl I am with is pretty and he wants them for himself. Nobody does. It'd make life miserable and society would crumble.

so let me get this straight, you only care about someone being murdered, about that person's right to live being violated, when it affects you?   I find selfish. 

Nope, you don't have it straight at all. And I completely covered all that in the very post you're quoting from.

CP3S said:

Again, what does some aborted fetus that you never even knew existed do to harm you or society or anyone else in this country other than the two people who conceived it? Again, nada. All those abortion that took place this very day, this week, and the past month, they had nothing to do with you and they didn't harm you. They don't effect your life in anyway.

they don't,  but I care anyway.   I care about human life.  I care about the right of a human to live.    Just like I care about all the death happening over in the middle east and other places.   I can't believe you'd actually try to argue that I shouldn't care about human life being snuffed out, as long as it doesn't effect me.   

I'm not arguing that at all.

But when it comes to abortion, something deemed legal and socially acceptable by the supreme court and the powers that be, I think it is silly to get your panties all tangled up simply because your neighbors are doing something you personally find morally wrong.

This moralistic thinking is also what leads to racism and homophobia. According to the Bible homosexuality is wrong, right? So would you be quite bothered if your male next door neighbor spent his weekend lovingly sodomizing another dude? I don't think you would, because you feel gay people should be treated the same as anyone else and what they do as consenting adults in their lives doesn't affect us.

The bottom line is, it isn't your body that has this parasitic early stage of human life growing inside of you. In fact, it is something you will never have to experience, or fear the potential of experiencing when you are not ready for it. It doesn't affect you, and it is only your personal morals (thus not shared by everyone, not even everyone in your own country) that are condemning it.

Have you forgotten that the right to live was called an inalienable right by the Declaration of Independence?    According to that document, the right to live comes not from any law, but from nature. 

Show me where that applies to potential people? Should we extend it to sperm cells, as potential potentials? Someone mentioned their dog was more of a person than an unborn fetus was, I don't think I could go that far not really being much of a pet person, but nobody argued with him on it so perhaps it wasn't seen as that outrageous of a comment. A lot of people swear their pet is a "person". Since their sensibilities are inclined to think of pets as people, should they then fight for the inalienable rights of dogs and cats?

I think you are kind of stretching by claiming the Declaration of Independence's "unalienable right to life" pertains to abortion. I think we can both agree that is not what was in mind when it was written, and if you take it to mean that, you suddenly find yourself in all sorts of sticky dilemmas. So now we are alienating the unborn baby's right to life because his father is a rapist or because his mother's life is in danger? That doesn't fit the definition of "inalienable". Now we are back to a convenience thing (and I probably just reoffended Frink), sometimes we see fit to grant the right to life to our unborn, and sometimes we feel justified in alienating that right.

I think I have already well demonstrated that even you, Warbler, don't hold a fetus at the same value as a small child.

CP3S said:

It is all about morality and forcing that morality on others.

did you ever stop and think that maybe you are forcing your morality on the unborn child? 

I'm not forcing any morality on anyone. If you don't feel right about abortion, then I strongly encourage you not to get an abortion. The unborn child, I suppose has to be at the mercy of those who conceived him.

CP3S said:

You think abortion is wrong, and therefore you don't want anybody to be able to do it...

yes,  just like I don't want anyone to murder 6 million jews, even if it is legal in the country where it would happen.  

I truly hope you see that there is a very massive difference between those two things you are comparing.

CP3S said:

 

so you believe that the fetus is human life, yet you are willing to allow women to decide to kill them?

Yup.

that's nuts.

I know, right!

CP3S said:

CP3S said:

snuffing that out should not be something taken lightly.

yet it is, every day. 

Do you think that many people are so flippant about it? Maybe they are. In that case educating would be a good idea. Of course, it is hard for people to want to listen when they see people trying to take their rights away.

I think part of the reason so many people have such a stunted view on abortion has a lot to do with a knee jerk reaction to those who are so vehemently against it. When someone has a good point to make, but they go about making that point in the wrong kind of way, it is hard to want to have even the slightest acceptance of their views. The Westboro Baptists for example, a lot of people fundamentally agree with their anti-war stance, but still feel like puking every time they hear about what these idiots do to make their points.

I think if there wasn't such a strong, forceful, religiously centered opposition to abortion, more people would be willing to look at it objectively and draw tighter boundaries. Instead, it is a right that is perceived as being under attack. 

Warbler said:

CP3S said:

 

If everyone would just mind their own business on matters like this, life would be so much more enjoyable.

that's right, lets mind are own business . . . and pay no attention to that doctor murdering a child behind that curtain.

The definition of "murder" is technically an unlawful killing. Abortion is legal, this is not murder.

What does it hurt you, living in New Jersey, if some woman in California decides to terminate her pregnancy? The answer: not at all whatsoever. You are entirely unaffected, 100%.

I imagine you'll probably compare it to murder again, saying something along the lines of, "What does it hurt you, living in wherever you live, if a woman in California is raped and murdered by some thug? The answer: not at all whatsoever. You are entirely unaffected, 100%. "Then you'd probably write something like "Fixed!" under it.

Allowing things like murder and rape to go without punishment or consequences would create anarchy. Obviously, I don't want to have to worry about being picked off by someone every time I step out my door because he might think my car is nice or that the girl I am with is pretty and he wants them for himself. Nobody does. It'd make life miserable and society would crumble.

Again, what does some aborted fetus that you never even knew existed do to harm you or society or anyone else in this country other than the two people who conceived it? Again, nada. All those abortion that took place this very day, this week, and the past month, they had nothing to do with you and they didn't harm you. They don't effect your life in anyway.

It is a little sad a potential person was snuffed out, they could have gone onto be someone awesome, so it goes. But if you are going to use that argument, I suppose you could take it just a modicum farther and say that it is truly a shame about all those potential pregnancies that would go on to produce potential people if it weren't for condoms and other forms of birth control.

It is all about morality and forcing that morality on others. You think abortion is wrong, and therefore you don't want anybody to be able to do it... Well, that is unless it is done in away that you approve of, of course, such as in the instances of rape. It is totally the wrongful murder of an innocent baby, unless his daddy was a rapist, then it's cool if you want to kill the little tike. 

 

so you believe that the fetus is human life, yet you are willing to allow women to decide to kill them?

Yup.

CP3S said:

snuffing that out should not be something taken lightly.

ricardo said:

Speaking of Reach, out of all the Halos I've played, I enjoyed Reach the most. Surprising!

That is interesting. Reach seemed like a game everyone either loved the crap out of, or completely disliked.

I honestly don't get that game at all. I tried to like it, but just found it really disappointing. I felt like I bought a game I've already played over and over and over and over and over again, only now it had different cut-scenes and a far less interesting storyline featuring far less likable and engaging characters.