Logic dictates that a human thumb lets me grasp, and hence allows me to make tools.
The rest follows from there.
Therefore, I could.
Whether IÂ wouldis a different subject altogether.
Freedom is something that is always weighed against the interests of society.
That's a communistperception.Â
Freedom is an individuallevel concept, and society is merely a contractamong individuals.
Comprende ?
Yeah they have the choice to get out of the dumpster.
Stick to the basics.
The newborns discarded in dumpsters have otheroptions of "life" , - the oxygen from the atmosphere, the water from the environment, etc.
A foetus in an Amniotic Sac doesn'thave any otheroption .
Thatis the thrust of this point.
There are certain actions that are absolutely right and some that are absolutely wrong.
Two questions.
1) Who's the judge ?
2) On whatbasis is the verdict an "absolute" ?
There is a desire to live.
You admitthere is no needto live.
Why this illogicaldesire ?
Many are put up for adoption.
Eh ?
Try and understand the concept of "unwanted" first.
Some of nature may want it to live
The mother zebra may want the injured foal to live.
The hungry Hyenas don't agree.
Hence it isdoomed from the standpoint of Nature.
Ditto unwantedhuman foetus.
The mother may be unfit and maybe the mother should be eliminated but do we allow that?
Sure we do.
Never heard of Laci Peterson ?
In any event, you fail to realise that often mothers dieat childbirth , or from pregnancy complications like Ectopic Pregnancy and Placenta Previa, or from post-partum complications, haemorrhages and infections, despitehuman "intervention".
It is Nature's way of eliminating the unfit mother, and we doallow that.
You are the only one bringing up the Bible.
Lest you forget, all your "right to life" ilk thump the Bible as the last word in support of their cause.
What is the basisof their proclamation of "sanctity" of human life, when logicallythere is none?
Why does "life" matter to you, or - in your own words - "most people" , when clearly "life" is merely an organisational complexity and NOTHING more ?
Isn't it because the little book called Bible has brainwashed you ?
But you will find something about compassion.
Compassion has no objective logicalbasis, only a subjective emotionalone.
What does that have ANYTHING to do with aborting an unwantedmulticellular tissue ?
Your doubtsare irrelevant.
What is irrelevant is you.
Freedom is something that is always weighed against the interests of society.
That's a communistperception. No that is reality. I know it is not something you are in touch with.
Freedom is an individuallevel concept, and society is merely a contractamong individuals.
To live in society one has to compromise. Comprende ?
The newborns discarded in dumpsters have otheroptions of "life" , - the oxygen from the atmosphere, the water from the environment, etc.
Unwanted children in the womb have options, too. It is called adoption.
A foetus in an Amniotic Sac doesn'thave any otheroption .
Not having option is a reason to kill. That is real logical. What a whack job.
Thatis the thrust of this point. You have no point. You are simply looking for a justification. You lie to yourself that it is "logical." But it is a lie.
1) Who's the judge ?
Who's the judge of what is a right?
2) On whatbasis is the verdict an "absolute" ? You can say the same about rights.
There is a desire to live.
You admitthere is no needto live.
No one needs to live. But the need to live is another one of those things that you place emphasis on but which is irrelevant.
Why this illogicaldesire ?
You are "logic boy" figure it out.
Â
Try and understand the concept of "unwanted" first.
You try to understand, stupid shit. The mother that puts the child up for adoption doesn't want it.
Â
The hungry Hyenas don't agree. So what? The fact the mother zebra may want it to live contradicts you idiotic statement that the rest of nature wants it dead.
Hence it isdoomed from the standpoint of Nature. Not if someone or something intervenes.
Ditto unwantedhuman foetus. The child is not doomed if it is allowed to live and put up for adoption.
The mother may be unfit and maybe the mother should be eliminated but do we allow that?
Sure we do.
Never heard of Laci Peterson ? You are one fucking damn ignorant son of a bitch.
In any event, you fail to realize that often mothers dieat childbirth , or from pregnancy complications like Ectopic Pregnancy and Placenta Previa, or from post-partum complications, haemorrhages and infections, despitehuman "intervention".
Not often, stupid, in this day.
It is Nature's way of eliminating the unfit mother, and we doallow that.
We do everything to prevent it sicko bastard.
Lest you forget, all your "right to life" ilk thump the Bible as the last word in support of their cause.
You are full of shit. Your last word in support is because someone wants to. So take your fucking "logic" and shove it up your ass.
What is the basisof their proclamation of "sanctity" of human life, when logicallythere is none?
As I have said before you don't understand logic. So your "argument" is worthless. You try to use it to support a base desire. Logic dictates the unborn child is a human being. And if you can kill that human being there is no logic in not allowing the killing of any human being.
Why does "life" matter to you, or - in your own words - "most people" , when clearly "life" is merely an organisational complexity and NOTHING more ? There is more to life than what you call "logic."
Isn't it because the little book called Bible has brainwashed you ? It is apparent that you have never read the Bible. Because it doesn't go into it. It is about compassion for people. Now people do extrapolate from that that it is wrong to kill an unborn child because it is a human being. But someone that lacks a conscience like you do wouldn't understand.
Compassion has no objective logicalbasis, only a subjective emotionalone.
Life is emotional, stupid. You seem to place some value on "logic" but it isn't superior to other things. It is simply a tool.
What does that have ANYTHING to do with aborting an unwantedmulticellular tissue ?
Everything. Based on logic a lot of what Saddam did was justified but only sick people like could justify what he did.
1) Who's the judge ? 2) On what basis is the verdict an "absolute" ?
Spock, Your whole logical argument is based on misunderstanding of basic concepts Right - wrong, Good-evil!!
You are using Abrahamic conceptions of absolute good - absolute evil as a strawman!!
Goodness is a MEANS to an END called ORDER
Badness is a MEANS to an END called CHAOS
The judge is the unchanging "witness" to change, Consciousness! ORDER is absolute since it "mimics" unchangability condition!
From your own acknowledgement ORDER = Dynamic equilibrium, which in other words is the closest a changing system can get to "unchangability"!!
So it is wrong to say "Tell the truth", since such a thing can sometimes lead to CHAOS too. As the saying among Hindu-Buddhists goes "Speak truth, Speak good, it is important to speak truth that is good". In other words, sometimes it is GOOD to LIE.
ORDER which is the END is ABSOLUTE but the means can vary.
From Jethro's own acknowledgement, killing the foetusto save the mother is acceptable. So END is what is important here!!
Unwanted children in the womb have options, too. It is called adoption.
You miss the important point.
While in the womb, there is nooption.
All the trump cards are in the hand of the carryingwoman.
She can terminate it, or sustain it.
Adoption is only an option for those alreadyborn, and hence separatedfrom the woman's Amniotic sac.
Who's the judge of what is a right?
You can say the same about rights.
Did I evermention "rights" in the context of abortion ?
"Right" is as meaninglessas "life".
It is also merely a contractbetween individuals.
Abortion is about "choice", not"right".
And choiceis based on a logical set of outcomes in a probabilistic context.
Now, stop convulsing, and revisit your point about ABSOLUTE right/wrong, and answer my questions.
1) Whois the judge ?
2) On whatbasis is the verdict an "absolute" ?
You are "logic boy" figure it out.
In other words, you have no answer.
Thanks for playing!
The child is not doomed if it is allowed to live and put up for adoption.
It is a strict matter of probability.
And the probability of an unwantedfoetus "living", if the carrier - on which it is wholly dependent - makes the choiceto terminate it, is technically Zero.
Hence, logically, itisdoomed from the standpoint of Nature.
Your last word in support is because someone wants to.
Not really.
It is because someone can.
That makes it a choicesomeone can either avail of, if someone wants, Â or reject , if someone doesn't want, as well.
Just like, if it is possible to create a human clone for stem cell research or organ regeneration, someone surely willavail of the choice.
Whether your "conscience" pricks you and your Jehovah/Yahweh, or not.
And if you can kill that human being there is no logic in not allowing the killing of any human being.
There isn't any.
There is only a contractwe call law/society.
If an Individual is weak, you abide by the contract.
If an Individual or an Oligarchy of Individuals is mightyenough to challenge the power of the Collective, you overstep the contract.
Thus you have terms like "pre-emption" and "collateral damage".
There is more to life than what you call "logic."
Life is emotional, stupid.
Emotions are merely a play of Dopamine, Serotonin, Adrenaline and Endorphine molecules and Electromagnetic impulses in Axons, Dendrons, Synapses and your Neural pathways.
Does it matter at all ? :)
It is about compassion for people.
If there is no needto live, there is nological necessity for compassion either.
The compromise isthe contract.
And what are the terms of that contract? They are not precise.
Unwanted children in the womb have options, too. It is called adoption.
You miss the important point.
You have no point other than idiocy
All the trump cards are in the hand of the carryingwoman.Â
Trump cards aren't "logic." Just because one can doesn't mean it is logical to do so or that one should.
She can terminate it, or sustain it.
That is the law. But that is not logic.
Adoption is only an option for those alreadyborn, and hence separatedfrom the woman's Amniotic sac.
It is an option from the moment of conception
"Right" is as meaninglessas "life".Â
What is meaningless is everything you write.
Abortion is about "choice", not"right". No it is about the law. What we as a society will allow and what we won't. Unfortunately for society it was not allowed to make that decision.
And choiceis based on a logical set of outcomes in a probabilistic context. Take you "logic" and shove it up your ass because you have no idea what it means. You use the word to hide behind.
Â
In other words, you have no answer.
You have no answers al you have is bullshit.
The child is not doomed if it is allowed to live and put up for adoption.
It is a strict matter of probability.
What utter crap. You talk reason but you are incapable of it.
And the probability of an unwantedfoetus "living", if the carrier - on which it is wholly dependent - makes the choiceto terminate it, is technically Zero.
The unwanted child that is protected by law probability of living is extremely high
Hence, logically, itisdoomed from the standpoint of Nature.
You talk gibberish over an over. Nothing but gibberish
It is because someone can. That isn't logical, jackss.
That makes it a choicesomeone can either avail of, if someone wants, Â or reject , if someone doesn't want, as well.
To violate the law or obey it is a choice, too.
And if you can kill that human being there is no logic in not allowing the killing of any human being.
There isn't any. Pyscopath.
Does it matter at all ?Â
Yes it does.
It is about compassion for people.
If there is no needto live, there is nological necessity for compassion either.
There is no need to converse with a psychopath, either. A person like you won't make it far. I would wish you good luck but I won't. But that would be a lie.
 is full of compassion, no ?
People that commit wrongs will be punished by God. So what? One must pay for their sins in one way or another. But your citation isn't the New Testament, is it? It isn't Christ's
teachings.
Verse 13-18 - The sword of war should spare women and children; but the sword of justice should know no distinction, but that of guilty or not guilty. This war was the execution of a righteous sentence upon a guilty nation, in which the women were the worst criminals. The female children were spared, who, being brought up among the Israelites, would not tempt them to idolatry. The whole history shows the hatefulness of sin, and the guilt of tempting others; it teaches us to avoid all occasions of evil, and to give no quarter to inward lusts. The women and children were not kept for sinful purposes, but for slaves, a custom every where practised in former times, as to captives. In the course of providence, when famine and plagues visit a nation for sin, children suffer in the common calamity. In this case parents are punished in their children; and for children dying before actual sin, full provision is made as to their eternal happiness, by the mercy of God in Christ.
The female children were spared, who, being brought up among the Israelites, would not tempt them to idolatry.
Wonderful.
Only Malechildren would tempt them, so slay them all, eh ? :)
Only female virginswouldn't , eh ?
and for children dyingbefore actual sin, full provisionis made as to their eternal happiness, by the mercy of God in Christ.
Chihuahua!
Given this extraordinary graceof Heavenly abode and eternalhappiness for an Aborted foetus, you Bible-thumpers - who only aspire to get the same - still complain about Abortion ?
Lookie , the aborted foetus is going straight to eternal happiness in the company of the Holy Trinity.
As it is, darned non-believers are ANYWAY going to Hell !
At least their unborn children wouldn't!
Rejoice, and encourage moreAbortion for non-believers and heathens/pagans !
Trump cards are the decidingfactors in the decision tree of logic.
The thing that let's you do whatever you want. No logic there.
If there were notrump cards, there wouldn'tbe a choice.
There is always choice
It is the factthat the woman hasa trump card over an unborn foetus that makes choiceto sustain or terminate a foetus possible.
What you call choice is nothing but power.
So, your assertion in plainly fallacious.
Every thing you have written is fallacious. You are nothing but a fool
Â
Take for example the sidestepping of UN Charter in the "preemption" of Iraq,  or the attempt to amend the Constitution. The UN is a corrupt organization.
The unwanted child that is protected by law probability of living is extremely high
Just ask a doctor. All it takes is a few days of Methyl Mercury and PCB laced Fish diet, and the foetus is doomed.Â
I said if protected by law the probability is extremely high the child will live. More people obey law than violate it. It would be the same with abortion.
Autistic repetition don't make it matter.
That is all you do. I am sorry that you do not have the intellectual capability to understand what I have written.
Maybe this "God" is punishing the foetus for the sins it committed by aborting it.
Maybe it is just someone attempting to exercise her will. An act that should be punished.
 But your citation isn't the New Testament, is it? It isn't Christ's teachings.
He said he came here notto destroy the law, but to fulfil.
You have no reason to state that he was to fulfill all laws. But read the links I posted and learn, se what was really going on. But you won't you are to full of yourself.
So the laws of the Old Testament are just as valid.
No, Jesus rejected some.
And from the Midianite fate, we can see how "compassionate" they are.
Apparently the Midanite were evil. One must fight evil. That is why I deal with you.
One must defineevil first. No one doesn't have to do shit. It is my fucking choice.No recourse to that flimsy "bible" allowed.
If I do I'll use whatever sourece I want. I son't limit my self in order not to deal with things I can't comprehend like you do.
Can an objective definition stand logical scrutiny ?
You are not objective so stop pretending that you are.
If you intend to subjectively avoidthe company of someone by branding someone as "evil", it certainly is yourchoice, ABSOLUTELY a "fucking" greatchoice.
But if you intend to engagesomeone in a fight by branding someone as "evil", it no longeris yourchoice alone.
Unless you define "evil" objectively, and it stands LOGICAL scrutiny, that is.
Choice of Abortion is the choice to act. more utter irrelevant nonsense.
You don't really think you look intelligent writing such gibberish do you?
The UN is a corrupt organization.
But the weaknations abide by its Charter
That is their "choice."
Only the mightynation or club oversteps its Charter.
As they should. There is no reason to bend to the desires of the UN.
Â
I said if protected by law
How would the Law prevent a woman from eatingwhat she wants ?
She can use a coat hanger, too. If she does then she would pay the price. That would be her choice. More people would follow the law and therefore, there would be less butchering.
Obviously, "protection" is doomed to fail.
Obviously you are a moron.
You could not, did not, and stillcannot answer.
I have answered. You apparently don't understand or don't want to.
So one should NOTexercise one's will.
Sometimes people should be punished for exercising free will
Why dowe have "will" then ?
That's something you will never understand.
Hesaid it. Not I.
You read more into it than is there. And you take things out of context and call it reason. There is no reason in you. But there is dishonesty.
I don't see anyqualifiers. You don't want to.
Read some more.
No, Jesus rejected some.
If he did, he destroyedthe Law, contradictedhimself, and deserved to be punishedlike the Midianites and golden-calf worshipping Aaron'd followers.
Only someone that is illogically hostile to it and knows nothing about it would make such a statement. It is okay for you to admit you are ignorant about it. You might gain an ounce of respect if you did.
If you intend to subjectively avoidthe company of someone by branding someone as "evil", it certainly is yourchoice, ABSOLUTELY a "fucking" greatchoice.
Another worthless opinion. You are full of them.
But if you intend to engagesomeone in a fight by branding someone as "evil", it no longeris yourchoice alone.
Sure it is. Everything I do is my choice and my choice alone.
Unless you define "evil" objectively, and it stands LOGICAL scrutiny, that is.
You don't understand objectivity. You write the words, just many other words you have written but don't comprehend their meaning. You still haven't told me your age. Are you 15? Don't worry you'll grow out of that stage.
Jethro...i think it is time for u guys to acknowledge that the "west" is following a "neanderthal" religion. Abrahmic faiths (christianity, islam, judaism) have dominated the world thru a series of causal-coups!! There is NO stuff in it at all for a literate audience :))
Jethro...i think it is time for u guys to acknowledge that the "west" is following a "neanderthal" religion. No.Abrahmic faiths (christianity, islam, judaism) have dominated the world thru a series of causal-coups!! There is NO stuff in it at all for a literate audience :)) If that were true, which I disagree, you should enjoy reading it.
It's allabout "choice".
It isn't all about choice, whatever that word means to your derange mind. It is more about making the right choice and consequences for wrong choices.
Iran and North Korea should develop nukes too.
No they shouldn't. The US and others should see to it that they don't.
No reason to bend to the desires of NPT and IAEA.
They should bend to the will of the U.S. and our allies.
More people would follow the law and therefore, there would be less butchering.
More people would travel abroad, and take the RU-486 on a trip to Bangkok.
Some might. Some can't. A lot would follow the law.
Â
Sometimes people should be punished for exercising free will
Again, the questions remain unanswered.
It was answered just not one that satisfies you. Probably due to your ignorance.
You read more into it than is there.
It is a simplestatement,- "not todestroy the Law, but to fulfil it".
Read the entire book.
I read nothing more than what he himself says. You only see what it is you want to see.
Everything I do is my choice and my choice alone.
Everything youdo with your OWNbody and mind is yourchoice.
For example, choiceof Abortion is simply the choiceto terminate the NUTRIENT LINK of an unwanted Foetus with the woman's OWNbody.
It is the choice of the mother to or not to butcher her unborn child. Even most that support the legality of that choice condemn it.
Take the foetus out of her womb, and make it "live" under the protection of Law and Society in a Petri Dish.
Leave the child where it is, let it live and when the child is born the mother can give it away.
It is more about making the right choice and consequences for wrong choices.
There is nothing absolute about right and wrong.
The regurgitations of your flimsy Bible is irrelevant in this context.
Hence, itisall about "choice".
The consequenceof the choice of abortion is technically called PlannedParenthood.
End of story.
No they shouldn't.
Of course they should.
There is nointernational law. And the "treaties" are worth nomore than toilet paper.
They should bend to the will of the U.S. and our allies.
Sure.
And the US should bend to the will of Al-Qaeda and their allies.
Some might. Some can't. A lot would follow the law.
It takes at most $200 to visit a Caribbean island and take RU-486.
It takes ten times more time, money, and energy to carry a baby full term and deliver it.
Sensible women would alwayschoose the easy option to abort an unwantedfoetus.
just not one that satisfies you
In other words, you hadnoanswer that conforms to Logic.
Thanks for playing!
It is the choice of the mother to or not to butcher her unborn child.
Thanks for the admission.
It is her
choice
.
Notthe society, or the government's.
Period.
Leave the child where it is, let it live and when the child is born the mother can give it away.
You contradict yourself.
It is the choice of the womanto do what she pleases with herbody.
You want to keep the unwantedfoetus alive, Youhave an option.
The woman aborts the unwantedfoetus. She severs all link of that foetus with herbody. That's her choice.
Youhave the choiceto putin on a Petri dish, and pray to the Bearded Yahweh/Jehovah dude in the Cirrus clouds to keep it alive with the Holy Ghost and other "miracles".
There is nothing absolute about right and wrong.
Whether there is an absolute or not is irrelevant.
The regurgitations of your flimsy Bible is irrelevant in this context. You brought th bible up, you dishonest jackass.
Hence, itisall about "choice". That is what you have convinced yourself.
End of story. Only in your disturbed little mind.
And the US should bend to the will of Al-Qaeda and their allies.
No we should kick their ass.
It takes at most $200 to visit a Caribbean island and take RU-486.
So what? If they need to do that it is their choice.
It takes ten times more time, money, and energy to carry a baby full term and deliver it.
Money isn't the issue
Sensible women would alwayschoose the easy option to abort an unwantedfoetus.
You have a warped idea of sensible. Just like all of your other ideas.
In other words, you hadnoanswer that conforms to Logic.
You wouldn't know. As I pointed out ad nauseum, you don't know what logic means.
Â
It is the choice of the mother to or not to butcher her unborn child.
Thanks for the admission.
I never denied it. It was the choice of Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and Hitler to do what they did. That has never been the issue.
It is her
choice
.
Choice is not the criteria for the law. Law is based on right and wrong. Her choice to abort should be illegal.
Notthe society, or the government's. She would have the choice even if it were illegal. She would even have more choice because not only could she choose an abortion or not she would get to decide whether to break the law, too.
Period. No. You have no support for you proabortion chance other than she has choice. That is not a logical reason for it. Despite your idiotic claims to the contrary.
Leave the child where it is, let it live and when the child is born the mother can give it away.
You contradict yourself.
No you are a lying fool.
It is the choice of the womanto do what she pleases with herbody.
She can't possess certain drugs, can she? There a lot of things one can't do with one's own body under the law.
The woman aborts the unwantedfoetus. She severs all link of that foetus with herbody. That's her choice. Choice is not a reason and certainly isn't a logical reason. Admit it your position is all based on desire and emotion nothing else.
Have a nice weekend, everyone. Why is it necessary?Â
Will be back to respond to any posts on Monday. Don't bother it isn't necessary and there is no logical reason to do so.
I don't usually come in here but I saw something yesterday that REALLY pissed me off, I'm driving down 35 coming home from a great weekend up north and on a van is a slam on patty wetterling and 3 HUGE posters of an aborted baby, I think it's fine to believe whatever you want, what I don't like is when someone shoves it down my throat! I had my six year old in the car also, thank GOD he was sleeping! I don't know how the HELL I would have explained that to him had he seen it! I also have a 14 year old step-son who has a really hard time with death, his mom gave birth to twins and one of them didn't survive, he has been in counseling ever since, if he had seen that van, the poor kid would have had nightmares for a LONG TIME!so just for anyone who want's to shove their oppinions down everyone elses throats, stop and think about it first, make sure you know who you are affecting before you do it!
Whether there is an absolute or not is irrelevant.
Wonderful.
If there isno"absolute" about right or wrong, the wholeedifice of "morality" is irrelevant too.
No we should kick their ass.
Yup.
And the Iranians and North Koreans should kick ourass with theirnukes.
Maybe Jesus, or his ol' man Yahweh, will perform a miracle and save us.
Choice is not the criteria for the law.
But it isthe criterion for Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.
Law is based on right and wrong.
But the definitions of "right" and "wrong" are relative.
Hence laws based on outdated and irrelevant Ten Commandments need to be discarded.
She would have the choice even if it were illegal.
Noshe wouldn't.
Threats eliminatechoice.
Her Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness would be compromised, if the Law prevented choice freeof coercion.
She can't possess certain drugs, can she?
Of course she cannot,- right now!
Just as during Prohibition, she did nothave the choice to possess liquor.
Just as a century ago, she didnothave the choice to vote in the world's greatest democracy.
Just as a few centuries ago, she did nothave the choice to divorce her husband.
Laws are a contractbetween individuals.
Contracts change for the better, towards a liberaltrend, when peopleacquire education, and thereby shed their narrow prejudices, religious bigotry, and become liberated in mind.
There a lot of things one can't do with one's own body under the law.
Sure.
Given an opportunity, the Abrahamic zealots would outlawmasturbation too.
But, thankfully, the contractcalled the Constitution guarantees right to privacy and pursuit of pleasure.
Moreover, the Law is modified by Individuals in a Collective to maximiseLiberty, and progressinto a democratic, liberal, secular world.
Curtailingindividual liberty through Law is a regressioninto Neanderthal era of Abrahamic religions, and noIndividual would agree to curtail one's own Liberty.
Wheneverthere is an attempt to curtailliberty, there is a counterbalancing revolutionary movement.
Protestants did that to Catholic Church.
The Colonial subjects did that to Imperial powers.
Democracy advocates did that to Communist Oppressors and Military Dictators.
Civil Rights advocates did that to Racists and Segregationists.
Secular humanists and atheists did that to evangelicals.
Go figure.
Choice is not a reason and certainly isn't a logical reason.
If you didn't have the choice to Abort an unwantedfoetus,the desireto do so would be futile.
Hence, Choice is thereason, and thelogical rationale.
I don't usually come in here but I saw something yesterday that REALLY pissed me off, I'm driving down 35 coming home from a great weekend up north and on a van is a slam on patty wetterling and 3 HUGE posters of an aborted baby, I think it's fine to believe whatever you want, what I don't like is when someone shoves it down my throat! I had my six year old in the car also, thank GOD he was sleeping! I don't know how the HELL I would have explained that to him had he seen it! I also have a 14 year old step-son who has a really hard time with death, his mom gave birth to twins and one of them didn't survive, he has been in counseling ever since, if he had seen that van, the poor kid would have had nightmares for a LONG TIME!so just for anyone who want's to shove their oppinions down everyone elses throats, stop and think about it first, make sure you know who you are affecting before you do it!
The truth should be seen. Hiding the truth just encourages the butchery.
If there isno"absolute" about right or wrong, the wholeedifice of "morality" is irrelevant too.
Since we all have to live together it is very relevant.
And the Iranians and North Koreans should kick ourass with theirnukes.
They can try, if they so CHOOSE.
Law is based on right and wrong.
But the definitions of "right" and "wrong" are relative.
That's life, dude. You'll just have to live with it.
Hence laws based on outdated and irrelevant Ten Commandments need to be discarded.
No, we need to continue with them because they are basis rules that allow us to live together. What needs to be discarded is people like you.
She would have the choice even if it were illegal.
Noshe wouldn't.
Threats eliminatechoice.
No, she would still have a choice as almost everyone except you understands it.
Her Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness would be compromised, if the Law prevented choice freeof coercion. Do you know how vague the terms "liberty" and "Pursuit of happiness" are? Why don't you mull that over while you are thinking about right and wrong.
Just as during Prohibition, she did nothave the choice to possess liquor.
They had a choice. Many people availed themselves of it.
Given an opportunity, the Abrahamic zealots would outlawmasturbation too.
More proof that you are an idiot.
But, thankfully, the contractcalled the Constitution guarantees right to privacy and pursuit of pleasure. No it doesn't. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution despite what Harry Blackmun said. You are free from unreasonable searches and seizures but that is not the same as a right to privacy. And again what is "pursuit of happiness?" For example, adultery was condemned in 1776, but it certainly could make some people happy.Â
Moreover, the Law is modified by Individuals in a Collective to maximiseLiberty, and progressinto a democratic, liberal, secular world. The Constitution can be amended through the proper procedures.
Curtailingindividual liberty through Law is a regressioninto Neanderthal era of Abrahamic religions, and noIndividual would agree to curtail one's own Liberty. People do it all the time in order to live in society.
Choice is not a reason and certainly isn't a logical reason.
If you didn't have the choice to Abort an unwantedfoetus,the desireto do so would be futile.
There is always a choice. Making it illegal will just provide another factor to be considered.
Hence, Choice is thereason, and thelogical rationale. Keep lying to yourself.Â
Your kind always will.
 You are simply misusing language to justify the unjustifiable.
The truth should be seen. Hiding the truth just encourages the butchery.
My 6 yr old is just an innocent little kid, why should he be subjected to such horrid pictures?? can I show your kids some porn?? how would you feel if someone shoved THAT down your throat? (no pun intended :)
The extremes on both sides of the abortion debate feel the duty to shove anything they want down the throats of anyone at any time as long as it advances they're agenda. They're very desperate people.
My 6 yr old is just an innocent little kid, why should he be subjected to such horrid pictures?? can I show your kids some porn?? how would you feel if someone shoved THATdown your throat? (no pun intended :) Don't you see a difference between porn and butchery? An argument can be made that porn is being forced upon society.
Whatever.....I don't think this guy should be deciding what my kid can and can't see, he was out driving on a major highway where nobody had a choice to turn away, that is the part that's wrong, he can believe whatever the hell he wants, just keep my kids out of it!
The extremes on both sides of the abortion debate feel the duty to shove anything they want down the throats of anyone at any time as long as it advances they're agenda. They're very desperate people.
A pox on both their houses.
Is it extremism to publish and display photos of aborted babies in an attempt to show the truth? Or is it extremism to hide the photos from the public so that the butchery can continue unabated? It is warped to think that saving the lives of human beings by displaying photographs is extremist.
Whatever.....I don't think this guy should be deciding what my kid can and can't see, he was out driving on a major highway where nobody had a choice to turn away, that is the part that's wrong, he can believe whatever the hell he wants, just keep my kids out of it!
What about the first amendment?  Is it okay to advertise gentleman's clubs?
answer my question, jethro
Your doubtsare irrelevant.
Logic dictates that a human thumb lets me grasp, and hence allows me to make tools.
The rest follows from there.
Therefore, I could.
Whether IÂ wouldis a different subject altogether.
That's a communistperception.Â
Freedom is an individuallevel concept, and society is merely a contractamong individuals.
Comprende ?
Stick to the basics.
The newborns discarded in dumpsters have
otheroptions of "life" , - the oxygen from the atmosphere, the water from the environment, etc.
A foetus in an Amniotic Sac doesn'thave any otheroption .
Thatis the thrust of this point.
Two questions.
1) Who's the judge ?
2) On whatbasis is the verdict an "absolute" ?
You admitthere is no needto live.
Why this illogicaldesire ?
Eh ?
Try and understand the concept of "unwanted" first.
The mother zebra may want the injured foal to live.
The hungry Hyenas don't agree.
Hence it isdoomed from the standpoint of Nature.
Ditto unwantedhuman foetus.
Sure we do.
Never heard of Laci Peterson ?
In any event, you fail to realise that often mothers dieat childbirth , or from pregnancy complications like Ectopic Pregnancy and Placenta Previa, or from post-partum complications, haemorrhages and infections, despitehuman "intervention".
It is Nature's way of eliminating the unfit mother, and we doallow that.
Lest you forget, all your "right to life" ilk thump the Bible as the last word in support of their cause.
What is the basisof their proclamation of "sanctity" of human life, when logicallythere is none?
Why does "life" matter to you, or - in your own words - "most people" , when clearly "life" is merely an organisational complexity and NOTHING more ?
Isn't it because the little book called Bible has brainwashed you ?
Compassion has no objective logicalbasis, only a subjective emotionalone.
What does that have ANYTHING to do with aborting an unwantedmulticellular tissue ?
Â
if such a child is adopted it isn't exactly unwanted now is it?
The child is unwanted by the mother, dip.
Â
what's your stance on stem cell research, jethro?
Your doubtsare irrelevant.
What is irrelevant is you.
That's a communistperception. No that is reality. I know it is not something you are in touch with.
Freedom is an individuallevel concept, and society is merely a contractamong individuals.
To live in society one has to compromise. Comprende ?
The newborns discarded in dumpsters have
otheroptions of "life" , - the oxygen from the atmosphere, the water from the environment, etc.
Unwanted children in the womb have options, too. It is called adoption.
A foetus in an Amniotic Sac doesn'thave any otheroption .
Not having option is a reason to kill. That is real logical. What a whack job.
Thatis the thrust of this point. You have no point. You are simply looking for a justification. You lie to yourself that it is "logical." But it is a lie.
1) Who's the judge ?
Who's the judge of what is a right?
2) On whatbasis is the verdict an "absolute" ? You can say the same about rights.
You admitthere is no needto live.
No one needs to live. But the need to live is another one of those things that you place emphasis on but which is irrelevant.
Why this illogicaldesire ?
You are "logic boy" figure it out.
Try and understand the concept of "unwanted" first.
You try to understand, stupid shit. The mother that puts the child up for adoption doesn't want it.
The hungry Hyenas don't agree. So what? The fact the mother zebra may want it to live contradicts you idiotic statement that the rest of nature wants it dead.
Hence it isdoomed from the standpoint of Nature. Not if someone or something intervenes.
Ditto unwantedhuman foetus. The child is not doomed if it is allowed to live and put up for adoption.
Sure we do.
Never heard of Laci Peterson ? You are one fucking damn ignorant son of a bitch.
In any event, you fail to realize that often mothers dieat childbirth , or from pregnancy complications like Ectopic Pregnancy and Placenta Previa, or from post-partum complications, haemorrhages and infections, despitehuman "intervention".
Not often, stupid, in this day.
It is Nature's way of eliminating the unfit mother, and we doallow that.
We do everything to prevent it sicko bastard.
Lest you forget, all your "right to life" ilk thump the Bible as the last word in support of their cause.
You are full of shit. Your last word in support is because someone wants to. So take your fucking "logic" and shove it up your ass.
What is the basisof their proclamation of "sanctity" of human life, when logicallythere is none?
As I have said before you don't understand logic. So your "argument" is worthless. You try to use it to support a base desire. Logic dictates the unborn child is a human being. And if you can kill that human being there is no logic in not allowing the killing of any human being.
Why does "life" matter to you, or - in your own words - "most people" , when clearly "life" is merely an organisational complexity and NOTHING more ? There is more to life than what you call "logic."
Isn't it because the little book called Bible has brainwashed you ? It is apparent that you have never read the Bible. Because it doesn't go into it. It is about compassion for people. Now people do extrapolate from that that it is wrong to kill an unborn child because it is a human being. But someone that lacks a conscience like you do wouldn't understand.
Compassion has no objective logicalbasis, only a subjective emotionalone.
Life is emotional, stupid. You seem to place some value on "logic" but it isn't superior to other things. It is simply a tool.
What does that have ANYTHING to do with aborting an unwantedmulticellular tissue ?
Everything. Based on logic a lot of what Saddam did was justified but only sick people like could justify what he did.
hello,
Mr Spock 7/30/04 6:41am
1) Who's the judge ?
2) On what basis is the verdict an "absolute" ?
Spock, Your whole logical argument is based on misunderstanding of basic concepts Right - wrong, Good-evil!!
You are using Abrahamic conceptions of absolute good - absolute evil as a strawman!!
Goodness is a MEANS to an END called ORDER
Badness is a MEANS to an END called CHAOS
The judge is the unchanging "witness" to change, Consciousness! ORDER is absolute since it "mimics" unchangability condition!
From your own acknowledgement ORDER = Dynamic equilibrium, which in other words is the closest a changing system can get to "unchangability"!!
So it is wrong to say "Tell the truth", since such a thing can sometimes lead to CHAOS too. As the saying among Hindu-Buddhists goes "Speak truth, Speak good, it is important to speak truth that is good". In other words, sometimes it is GOOD to LIE.
ORDER which is the END is ABSOLUTE but the means can vary.
From Jethro's own acknowledgement, killing the foetusto save the mother is acceptable. So END is what is important here!!
The compromise isthe contract.
You miss the important point.
While in the womb, there is nooption.
All the trump cards are in the hand of the carryingwoman.
She can terminate it, or sustain it.
Adoption is only an option for those alreadyborn, and hence separatedfrom the woman's Amniotic sac.
Did I evermention "rights" in the context of abortion ?
"Right" is as meaninglessas "life".
It is also merely a contractbetween individuals.
Abortion is about "choice", not"right".
And choiceis based on a logical set of outcomes in a probabilistic context.
Now, stop convulsing, and revisit your point about ABSOLUTE right/wrong, and answer my questions.
1) Whois the judge ?
2) On whatbasis is the verdict an "absolute" ?
In other words, you have no answer.
Thanks for playing!
It is a strict matter of probability.
And the probability of an unwantedfoetus "living", if the carrier - on which it is wholly dependent - makes the choiceto terminate it, is technically Zero.
Hence, logically, itisdoomed from the standpoint of Nature.
Not really.
It is because someone can.
That makes it a choicesomeone can either avail of, if someone wants, Â or reject , if someone doesn't want, as well.
Just like, if it is possible to create a human clone for stem cell research or organ regeneration, someone surely willavail of the choice.
Whether your "conscience" pricks you and your Jehovah/Yahweh, or not.
There isn't any.
There is only a contractwe call law/society.
If an Individual is weak, you abide by the contract.
If an Individual or an Oligarchy of Individuals is mightyenough to challenge the power of the Collective, you overstep the contract.
Thus you have terms like "pre-emption" and "collateral damage".
Emotions are merely a play of Dopamine, Serotonin, Adrenaline and Endorphine molecules and Electromagnetic impulses in Axons, Dendrons, Synapses and your Neural pathways.
Does it matter at all ? :)
If there is no needto live, there is nological necessity for compassion either.
And
Bible: Numbers 31:10-18
 is full of compassion, no ?
You forget that I amdealing with Abrahamic morons here. :)
You are preaching to the choir, Uncle-ji. :)
All I am doing here is leading the horseto the pool. :)
The compromise isthe contract.
And what are the terms of that contract? They are not precise.
You miss the important point.
You have no point other than idiocy
All the trump cards are in the hand of the carryingwoman.Â
Trump cards aren't "logic." Just because one can doesn't mean it is logical to do so or that one should.
She can terminate it, or sustain it.
That is the law. But that is not logic.
Adoption is only an option for those alreadyborn, and hence separatedfrom the woman's Amniotic sac.
It is an option from the moment of conception
"Right" is as meaninglessas "life".Â
What is meaningless is everything you write.
Abortion is about "choice", not"right". No it is about the law. What we as a society will allow and what we won't. Unfortunately for society it was not allowed to make that decision.
And choiceis based on a logical set of outcomes in a probabilistic context. Take you "logic" and shove it up your ass because you have no idea what it means. You use the word to hide behind.
Â
In other words, you have no answer.
You have no answers al you have is bullshit.
It is a strict matter of probability.
What utter crap. You talk reason but you are incapable of it.
And the probability of an unwantedfoetus "living", if the carrier - on which it is wholly dependent - makes the choiceto terminate it, is technically Zero.
The unwanted child that is protected by law probability of living is extremely high
Hence, logically, itisdoomed from the standpoint of Nature.
You talk gibberish over an over. Nothing but gibberish
It is because someone can. That isn't logical, jackss.
That makes it a choicesomeone can either avail of, if someone wants, Â or reject , if someone doesn't want, as well.
To violate the law or obey it is a choice, too.
There isn't any. Pyscopath.
Does it matter at all ?Â
Yes it does.
If there is no needto live, there is nological necessity for compassion either.
There is no need to converse with a psychopath, either. A person like you won't make it far. I would wish you good luck but I won't. But that would be a lie.
And
Bible: Numbers 31:10-18
 is full of compassion, no ?
People that commit wrongs will be punished by God. So what? One must pay for their sins in one way or another. But your citation isn't the New Testament, is it? It isn't Christ's
teachings.
What about God’s cruelty against the Midianites?
Read and learn: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html
or try this:
Read Numbers 31:13-18
Verse 13-18 - The sword of war should spare women and children; but the sword of justice should know no distinction, but that of guilty or not guilty. This war was the execution of a righteous sentence upon a guilty nation, in which the women were the worst criminals. The female children were spared, who, being brought up among the Israelites, would not tempt them to idolatry. The whole history shows the hatefulness of sin, and the guilt of tempting others; it teaches us to avoid all occasions of evil, and to give no quarter to inward lusts. The women and children were not kept for sinful purposes, but for slaves, a custom every where practised in former times, as to captives. In the course of providence, when famine and plagues visit a nation for sin, children suffer in the common calamity. In this case parents are punished in their children; and for children dying before actual sin, full provision is made as to their eternal happiness, by the mercy of God in Christ.
stem cell research, jethro, answer the question
They are neverprecise.
It is are an evolvingcontract based on the times.
Currently, it is called the Law.
Trump cards are the decidingfactors in the decision tree of logic.
If there were notrump cards, there wouldn'tbe a choice.
It is the factthat the woman hasa trump card over an unborn foetus that makes choiceto sustain or terminate a foetus possible.
Zygotes are regularly created on a Petri dish in an Infertility clinic with an extracted ovum and a semen sample.
Don't see "adoption" of such fertlised ova happening there for the unwantedones.
So, your assertion in plainly fallacious.
Law is a contract.
If an Individual or an Oligarchy of Individuals are mightyenough, the contract canbe renegotiated.
Take for example the sidestepping of UN Charter in the "preemption" of Iraq,  or the attempt to amend the Constitution.
Just ask a doctor. All it takes is a few days of Methyl Mercury and PCB laced Fish diet, and the foetus is doomed.
You still haven't been able to answer why.
Autistic repitition don't make it matter.
Wonderful.
Maybe this "God" is punishing the foetus for the sins it committed by aborting it.
He said he came here notto destroy the law, but to fulfil.
So the laws of the Old Testament are just as valid.
And from the Midianite fate, we can see how "compassionate" they are.
Â
Wonderful.
Only Malechildren would tempt them, so slay them all, eh ? :)
Only female virginswouldn't , eh ?
Chihuahua!
Given this extraordinary graceof Heavenly abode and eternalhappiness for an Aborted foetus, you Bible-thumpers - who only aspire to get the same - still complain about Abortion ?
Lookie , the aborted foetus is going straight to eternal happiness in the company of the Holy Trinity.
As it is, darned non-believers are ANYWAY going to Hell !
At least their unborn children wouldn't!
Rejoice, and encourage
moreAbortion for non-believers and heathens/pagans !
Â
Trump cards are the decidingfactors in the decision tree of logic.
The thing that let's you do whatever you want. No logic there.
If there were notrump cards, there wouldn'tbe a choice.
There is always choice
It is the factthat the woman hasa trump card over an unborn foetus that makes choiceto sustain or terminate a foetus possible.
What you call choice is nothing but power.
So, your assertion in plainly fallacious.
Every thing you have written is fallacious. You are nothing but a fool
Take for example the sidestepping of UN Charter in the "preemption" of Iraq,  or the attempt to amend the Constitution. The UN is a corrupt organization.
Just ask a doctor. All it takes is a few days of Methyl Mercury and PCB laced Fish diet, and the foetus is doomed.Â
I said if protected by law the probability is extremely high the child will live. More people obey law than violate it. It would be the same with abortion.
Autistic repetition don't make it matter.
That is all you do. I am sorry that you do not have the intellectual capability to understand what I have written.
Maybe this "God" is punishing the foetus for the sins it committed by aborting it.
Maybe it is just someone attempting to exercise her will. An act that should be punished.
He said he came here notto destroy the law, but to fulfil.
You have no reason to state that he was to fulfill all laws. But read the links I posted and learn, se what was really going on. But you won't you are to full of yourself.
So the laws of the Old Testament are just as valid.
No, Jesus rejected some.
And from the Midianite fate, we can see how "compassionate" they are.
Apparently the Midanite were evil. One must fight evil. That is why I deal with you.
It has now been firmly established that spock is a raving lunatic.
it has also been established that you won't answer a simple question on stem cell research, coward
There is a choice to accept/reject, and there is a choice to act.
Bothneed power/ability.
Choice of Abortion is the choice to act.
But the weaknations abide by its Charter
Only the mightynation or club oversteps its Charter.
How would the Law prevent a woman from eatingwhat she wants ?
Obviously, "protection" is doomed to fail.
You keep repeating that "life matters".
I asked you why.
You could not, did not, and stillcannot answer.
Thanks for playing!
Ah!
So one should NOTexercise one's will.
Why dowe have "will" then ? :)
Hesaid it. Not I.
I don't see anyqualifiers.
If he did, he destroyedthe Law, contradictedhimself, and deserved to be punishedlike the Midianites and golden-calf worshipping Aaron'd followers.
Not very godly, is it ?
One must defineevil first. No recourse to that flimsy "bible" allowed.
Can an objective definition stand logical scrutiny ?
Oh, and BTW,
Mr Spock 7/30/04 10:37am
 stares you in the face.
Care to respond, or do I take it that you have folded  ? :)
One must defineevil first. No one doesn't have to do shit. It is my fucking choice.No recourse to that flimsy "bible" allowed.
If I do I'll use whatever sourece I want. I son't limit my self in order not to deal with things I can't comprehend like you do.
Can an objective definition stand logical scrutiny ?
You are not objective so stop pretending that you are.
jethro can't define anything that isn't in Webster's, forgive him, he's blissfully ignorant
If you intend to subjectively
avoidthe company of someone by branding someone as "evil", it certainly is yourchoice, ABSOLUTELY a "fucking" greatchoice.
But if you intend to engagesomeone in a fight by branding someone as "evil", it no longeris yourchoice alone.
Unless you define "evil" objectively, and it stands LOGICAL scrutiny, that is.
Go figure. :)
Â
Choice of Abortion is the choice to act. more utter irrelevant nonsense.
You don't really think you look intelligent writing such gibberish do you?
But the weaknations abide by its Charter
That is their "choice."
Only the mightynation or club oversteps its Charter.
As they should. There is no reason to bend to the desires of the UN.
How would the Law prevent a woman from eatingwhat she wants ?
She can use a coat hanger, too. If she does then she would pay the price. That would be her choice. More people would follow the law and therefore, there would be less butchering.
Obviously, "protection" is doomed to fail.
Obviously you are a moron.
You could not, did not, and stillcannot answer.
I have answered. You apparently don't understand or don't want to.
So one should NOTexercise one's will.
Sometimes people should be punished for exercising free will
Why dowe have "will" then ?
That's something you will never understand.
Hesaid it. Not I.
You read more into it than is there. And you take things out of context and call it reason. There is no reason in you. But there is dishonesty.
I don't see anyqualifiers. You don't want to.
Read some more.
If he did, he destroyedthe Law, contradictedhimself, and deserved to be punishedlike the Midianites and golden-calf worshipping Aaron'd followers.
Only someone that is illogically hostile to it and knows nothing about it would make such a statement. It is okay for you to admit you are ignorant about it. You might gain an ounce of respect if you did.
If you intend to subjectively
avoidthe company of someone by branding someone as "evil", it certainly is yourchoice, ABSOLUTELY a "fucking" greatchoice.
Another worthless opinion. You are full of them.
But if you intend to engagesomeone in a fight by branding someone as "evil", it no longeris yourchoice alone.
Sure it is. Everything I do is my choice and my choice alone.
Unless you define "evil" objectively, and it stands LOGICAL scrutiny, that is.
You don't understand objectivity. You write the words, just many other words you have written but don't comprehend their meaning. You still haven't told me your age. Are you 15? Don't worry you'll grow out of that stage.
hello,
Jethro...i think it is time for u guys to acknowledge that the "west" is following a "neanderthal" religion. Abrahmic faiths (christianity, islam, judaism) have dominated the world thru a series of causal-coups!! There is NO stuff in it at all for a literate audience :))
Correct.
It's allabout "choice".
Good that you are learning.
Perfect.
Iran and North Korea should develop nukes too.
No reason to bend to the desires of NPT and IAEA.
More people would travel abroad, and take the RU-486 on a trip to Bangkok.
Like they go there now for the services of a prostitute.
Really ?
Explain once again.
Whydoes "life" matter ?
Again, the questions remain unanswered.
1) Who is the judge ?
2) On what basis ?
It is a simplestatement,- "not todestroy the Law, but to fulfil it".
I read nothing more than what he himself says.
Why addqualifiers where there is none?
Everything youdo with your
OWNbody and mind is yourchoice.
For example, choiceof Abortion is simply the choiceto terminate the NUTRIENT LINK of an unwanted Foetus with the woman's OWNbody.
Take the foetus out of her womb, and make it "live" under the protection of Law and Society in a Petri Dish.
Nobody objects.
Jethro...i think it is time for u guys to acknowledge that the "west" is following a "neanderthal" religion. No.Abrahmic faiths (christianity, islam, judaism) have dominated the world thru a series of causal-coups!! There is NO stuff in it at all for a literate audience :)) If that were true, which I disagree, you should enjoy reading it.
let's, for the sake of argument, accept what bodine says.
it's the pre-meditated murder of a child.
now...what is the current penelty for murdering a child?
most would say it should be life in prison...other would call for the death penalty.
Now, bodine...what are you gonna do about prosecution of all these women who have murdered children?
build more prisons for them?
kill them all?
explain the ramifications of your argument that it's child murder.
It's allabout "choice".
It isn't all about choice, whatever that word means to your derange mind. It is more about making the right choice and consequences for wrong choices.
Iran and North Korea should develop nukes too.
No they shouldn't. The US and others should see to it that they don't.
No reason to bend to the desires of NPT and IAEA.
They should bend to the will of the U.S. and our allies.
More people would travel abroad, and take the RU-486 on a trip to Bangkok.
Some might. Some can't. A lot would follow the law.
Â
Again, the questions remain unanswered.
It was answered just not one that satisfies you. Probably due to your ignorance.
It is a simplestatement,- "not todestroy the Law, but to fulfil it".
Read the entire book.
I read nothing more than what he himself says. You only see what it is you want to see.
Everything youdo with your
OWNbody and mind is yourchoice.
For example, choiceof Abortion is simply the choiceto terminate the NUTRIENT LINK of an unwanted Foetus with the woman's OWNbody.
It is the choice of the mother to or not to butcher her unborn child. Even most that support the legality of that choice condemn it.
Take the foetus out of her womb, and make it "live" under the protection of Law and Society in a Petri Dish.
Leave the child where it is, let it live and when the child is born the mother can give it away.
now...what is the current penalty for murdering a child?
most would say it should be life in prison...other would call for the death penalty.
Now, bodine...what are you gonna do about prosecution of all these women who have murdered children? Sure why not.
build more prisons for them?Â
kill them all?
explain the ramifications of your argument that it's child murder. Whatever that means. Expediency isn't a good excuse for murder.
this isn't an answer.
so, you advocate capital punishment for millions of women?
this isn't an answer. What the hell was it then? You asked a question and I gave you a response. That is an answer.
so, you advocate capital punishment for millions of women? A lot
of states don't have capital punishment.
There is nothing absolute about right and wrong.
The regurgitations of your flimsy Bible is irrelevant in this context.
Hence, itisall about "choice".
The consequenceof the choice of abortion is technically called PlannedParenthood.
End of story.
Of course they should.
There is nointernational law. And the "treaties" are worth nomore than toilet paper.
Sure.
And the US should bend to the will of Al-Qaeda and their allies.
It takes at most $200 to visit a Caribbean island and take RU-486.
It takes ten times more time, money, and energy to carry a baby full term and deliver it.
Sensible women would alwayschoose the easy option to abort an unwantedfoetus.
In other words, you hadnoanswer that conforms to Logic.
Thanks for playing!
Thanks for the admission.
It is her
choice
.
Notthe society, or the government's.
Period.
You contradict yourself.
It is the choice of the womanto do what she pleases with herbody.
You want to keep the unwantedfoetus alive, Youhave an option.
The woman aborts the unwantedfoetus. She severs all link of that foetus with herbody. That's her choice.
Youhave the choiceto putin on a Petri dish, and pray to the Bearded Yahweh/Jehovah dude in the Cirrus clouds to keep it alive with the Holy Ghost and other "miracles".
End of story.
Have a nice weekend, everyone.
Will be back to respond to any posts on Monday.
sorry bodine, but "sure, why not" isn't an answer to the question "what are you going to do about?"
There is nothing absolute about right and wrong.
Whether there is an absolute or not is irrelevant.
The regurgitations of your flimsy Bible is irrelevant in this context. You brought th bible up, you dishonest jackass.
Hence, itisall about "choice". That is what you have convinced yourself.
End of story. Only in your disturbed little mind.
And the US should bend to the will of Al-Qaeda and their allies.
No we should kick their ass.
It takes at most $200 to visit a Caribbean island and take RU-486.
So what? If they need to do that it is their choice.
It takes ten times more time, money, and energy to carry a baby full term and deliver it.
Money isn't the issue
Sensible women would alwayschoose the easy option to abort an unwantedfoetus.
You have a warped idea of sensible. Just like all of your other ideas.
In other words, you hadnoanswer that conforms to Logic.
You wouldn't know. As I pointed out ad nauseum, you don't know what logic means.
Â
Thanks for the admission.
I never denied it. It was the choice of Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and Hitler to do what they did. That has never been the issue.
It is her
choice
.
Choice is not the criteria for the law. Law is based on right and wrong. Her choice to abort should be illegal.
Notthe society, or the government's. She would have the choice even if it were illegal. She would even have more choice because not only could she choose an abortion or not she would get to decide whether to break the law, too.
Period. No. You have no support for you proabortion chance other than she has choice. That is not a logical reason for it. Despite your idiotic claims to the contrary.
You contradict yourself.
No you are a lying fool.
It is the choice of the womanto do what she pleases with herbody.
She can't possess certain drugs, can she? There a lot of things one can't do with one's own body under the law.
The woman aborts the unwantedfoetus. She severs all link of that foetus with herbody. That's her choice. Choice is not a reason and certainly isn't a logical reason. Admit it your position is all based on desire and emotion nothing else.
Have a nice weekend, everyone. Why is it necessary?Â
Will be back to respond to any posts on Monday. Don't bother it isn't necessary and there is no logical reason to do so.
End of story. End of story is right.
sorry bodine, but "sure, why not" isn't an answer to the question "what are you going to do about?"
What part of "sure" don't you understand?You can't be that utterly stupid.
the part where you think it answers the question "what are you going to do about?"
I don't usually come in here but I saw something yesterday that REALLY pissed me off, I'm driving down 35 coming home from a great weekend up north and on a van is a slam on patty wetterling and 3 HUGE posters of an aborted baby, I think it's fine to believe whatever you want, what I don't like is when someone shoves it down my throat! I had my six year old in the car also, thank GOD he was sleeping! I don't know how the HELL I would have explained that to him had he seen it! I also have a 14 year old step-son who has a really hard time with death, his mom gave birth to twins and one of them didn't survive, he has been in counseling ever since, if he had seen that van, the poor kid would have had nightmares for a LONG TIME!so just for anyone who want's to shove their oppinions down everyone elses throats, stop and think about it first, make sure you know who you are affecting before you do it!
Wonderful.
If there isno"absolute" about right or wrong, the wholeedifice of "morality" is irrelevant too.
Yup.
And the Iranians and North Koreans should kick ourass with theirnukes.
Maybe Jesus, or his ol' man Yahweh, will perform a miracle and save us.
But it isthe criterion for Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.
But the definitions of "right" and "wrong" are relative.
Hence laws based on outdated and irrelevant Ten Commandments need to be discarded.
Noshe wouldn't.
Threats eliminatechoice.
Her Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness would be compromised, if the Law prevented choice freeof coercion.
Of course she cannot,- right now!
Just as during Prohibition, she did nothave the choice to possess liquor.
Just as a century ago, she didnothave the choice to vote in the world's greatest democracy.
Just as a few centuries ago, she did nothave the choice to divorce her husband.
Laws are a contractbetween individuals.
Contracts change for the better, towards a liberaltrend, when peopleacquire education, and thereby shed their narrow prejudices, religious bigotry, and become liberated in mind.
Sure.
Given an opportunity, the Abrahamic zealots would outlawmasturbation too.
But, thankfully, the contractcalled the Constitution guarantees right to privacy and pursuit of pleasure.
Moreover, the Law is modified by Individuals in a Collective to maximiseLiberty, and progressinto a democratic, liberal, secular world.
Curtailingindividual liberty through Law is a regressioninto Neanderthal era of Abrahamic religions, and noIndividual would agree to curtail one's own Liberty.
Wheneverthere is an attempt to curtailliberty, there is a counterbalancing revolutionary movement.
Protestants did that to Catholic Church.
The Colonial subjects did that to Imperial powers.
Democracy advocates did that to Communist Oppressors and Military Dictators.
Civil Rights advocates did that to Racists and Segregationists.
Secular humanists and atheists did that to evangelicals.
Go figure.
If you didn't have the choice to Abort an unwantedfoetus,the desireto do so would be futile.
Hence, Choice is thereason, and thelogical rationale.
Thanks for playing!
I don't usually come in here but I saw something yesterday that REALLY pissed me off, I'm driving down 35 coming home from a great weekend up north and on a van is a slam on patty wetterling and 3 HUGE posters of an aborted baby, I think it's fine to believe whatever you want, what I don't like is when someone shoves it down my throat! I had my six year old in the car also, thank GOD he was sleeping! I don't know how the HELL I would have explained that to him had he seen it! I also have a 14 year old step-son who has a really hard time with death, his mom gave birth to twins and one of them didn't survive, he has been in counseling ever since, if he had seen that van, the poor kid would have had nightmares for a LONG TIME!so just for anyone who want's to shove their oppinions down everyone elses throats, stop and think about it first, make sure you know who you are affecting before you do it!
The truth should be seen. Hiding the truth just encourages the butchery.
If there isno"absolute" about right or wrong, the wholeedifice of "morality" is irrelevant too.
Since we all have to live together it is very relevant.
And the Iranians and North Koreans should kick ourass with theirnukes.
They can try, if they so CHOOSE.
But the definitions of "right" and "wrong" are relative.
That's life, dude. You'll just have to live with it.
Hence laws based on outdated and irrelevant Ten Commandments need to be discarded.
No, we need to continue with them because they are basis rules that allow us to live together. What needs to be discarded is people like you.
Noshe wouldn't.
Threats eliminatechoice.
No, she would still have a choice as almost everyone except you understands it.
Her Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness would be compromised, if the Law prevented choice freeof coercion. Do you know how vague the terms "liberty" and "Pursuit of happiness" are? Why don't you mull that over while you are thinking about right and wrong.
Just as during Prohibition, she did nothave the choice to possess liquor.
They had a choice. Many people availed themselves of it.
Given an opportunity, the Abrahamic zealots would outlawmasturbation too.
More proof that you are an idiot.
But, thankfully, the contractcalled the Constitution guarantees right to privacy and pursuit of pleasure. No it doesn't. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution despite what Harry Blackmun said. You are free from unreasonable searches and seizures but that is not the same as a right to privacy. And again what is "pursuit of happiness?" For example, adultery was condemned in 1776, but it certainly could make some people happy.Â
Moreover, the Law is modified by Individuals in a Collective to maximiseLiberty, and progressinto a democratic, liberal, secular world. The Constitution can be amended through the proper procedures.
Curtailingindividual liberty through Law is a regressioninto Neanderthal era of Abrahamic religions, and noIndividual would agree to curtail one's own Liberty. People do it all the time in order to live in society.
If you didn't have the choice to Abort an unwantedfoetus,the desireto do so would be futile.
There is always a choice. Making it illegal will just provide another factor to be considered.
Hence, Choice is thereason, and thelogical rationale. Keep lying to yourself.Â
Your kind always will.
 You are simply misusing language to justify the unjustifiable.
jethro, you're a moron
The truth should be seen. Hiding the truth just encourages the butchery.
My 6 yr old is just an innocent little kid, why should he be subjected to such horrid pictures?? can I show your kids some porn?? how would you feel if someone shoved THAT down your throat? (no pun intended :)
The extremes on both sides of the abortion debate feel the duty to shove anything they want down the throats of anyone at any time as long as it advances they're agenda. They're very desperate people.
A pox on both their houses.
My 6 yr old is just an innocent little kid, why should he be subjected to such horrid pictures?? can I show your kids some porn?? how would you feel if someone shoved THATdown your throat? (no pun intended :) Don't you see a difference between porn and butchery? An argument can be made that porn is being forced upon society.
Whatever.....I don't think this guy should be deciding what my kid can and can't see, he was out driving on a major highway where nobody had a choice to turn away, that is the part that's wrong, he can believe whatever the hell he wants, just keep my kids out of it!
The extremes on both sides of the abortion debate feel the duty to shove anything they want down the throats of anyone at any time as long as it advances they're agenda. They're very desperate people.
A pox on both their houses.
Is it extremism to publish and display photos of aborted babies in an attempt to show the truth? Or is it extremism to hide the photos from the public so that the butchery can continue unabated? It is warped to think that saving the lives of human beings by displaying photographs is extremist.
the shit is all over the internet, if I wanted to check it out, I'd look it up! A major highway is no place for it!
Whatever.....I don't think this guy should be deciding what my kid can and can't see, he was out driving on a major highway where nobody had a choice to turn away, that is the part that's wrong, he can believe whatever the hell he wants, just keep my kids out of it!
What about the first amendment?  Is it okay to advertise gentleman's clubs?
An argument can be made that porn is being forced upon society.
not really. i can't go and put up an explicit porn billboard can i?