Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#581579 Jan 2, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>A person can only be charged with murder for killing a z/e/f if the woman pregnant with said z/e/f had no wish or desire to terminate her pregnancy.
And the charge would not be that of murdering a BABY, but of terminating a zygote, an embryo or a fetus against the woman's wishes.
If you think there is such a thing as an "unborn" baby, that would mean that you are an "undead" corpse.
There is NO corpse until there is a DEATH; there is NO baby until there is a BIRTH.
At any rate, and despite your personal feelings and beliefs about the topic, do tell what would be right about any woman being legally forced to remain pregnant against her will in order to be legally forced to give birth against her will.
Not your body? Not your uterus? Not your pregnancy? Not your z/e/f?
Then not your choice, not your decision and NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
Hope that helps to clear things up for you.
You should really call someone and at least get a clue about what you are saying prior to posting idiotic drivel like this one.

Here I will help read this,
http://www.ehow.com/list_7483847_laws-killing...

Here is just a little excerpt from that law.

"anyone who causes the death of, or injury to, an unborn child at any developmental stage is guilty of not only harming the mother but also, as a separate offense, of harming the child. In these cases, the court can convict perpetrators of two separate cases of bodily harm or murder."

Notice the word CHILD? Not any of those other terms you and your ilk like to use to dehumanize the child.

It is called a Child in utero.

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#581580 Jan 2, 2013
Back on to the gun thing for a minute.

This is good reading and says it very plain and to the point.

http://resistancetononsense.wordpress.com/201...

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#581581 Jan 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Nutz, anti choicers Bwha ha ha ha ha
Why do people insist on calling it anti-choice or pro-choice, when in fact it is Pro-life and anti-life.

The choice is life or death it is that simple. So you are either pro life or pro death.

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#581582 Jan 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I accepted those facts as soon as I read them.
<quoted text>
I want to call it an anecdote. Since you didn't accept my reasoned argument at http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE... , I'll try again. Here's my second rebuttal - an opposing anecdote. We might have seen it already on this thread, but no matter. Any of the thousands of such stories would do :
"3-Year-Old Boy Shoots Himself After Finding Gun"
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/03/15/what-ca...
Do you accept this as an argument that I'm right? If not, should I also call you dishonest?
OK I will try to dumb this down so you may have a chance of understanding it.
1. I did not post the link to the story of the girl being saved by having a gun in the house someone else did. I agreed that it shows the usufullness of the gun.
I have not dismissed your posted links in the same manner that you have dismissed the links of others that do not match your agenda.
The one you posted here is a good example of exactly what I am talking about.
When the posty about the girl was linked it was a straight forward link to a story and presented as such.
Now you post a link to a story and feel it necessary to add in the line about, "Any of the thousands of such stories would do" thereby again trying dishonestly to show how your story somehow holds more weight.
Thet are stories both of them. They are nothing more nor nothing less. Neither is the end all cure all of the argument.
So yes you are being dishonest in your presentation.

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#581583 Jan 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Me, too, if by "a God" you mean "a good god."
I don't know what "a God" means, but if it means Jehovah-Jesus, I have to disagree. That would be very bad - nearly the worst thing that could be true. I think we can agree that it would be better for mankind if we all went to sleep after death than for the overwhelming majority of us to suffer eternal torment.
So do you accept the claim that a god exists?
<quoted text>
Maybe. Do you accept the claim that a god exists?
<quoted text>
Me, either, although I don't respect faith.
Let me ask you this: Do you accept any of the god claims?
<quoted text>
That answers the second question. Do you know whether you accept any god claims?
I told you what my belief system was. I will not play your fooish little game of you rewording every question until you get the anawer you want.
Don't like how I answered your initial inquiries then to bad.
Try yout game on someone that doesn't understand exactly what you are doing.

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#581584 Jan 2, 2013
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do people insist on calling it anti-choice or pro-choice, when in fact it is Pro-life and anti-life.
The choice is life or death it is that simple. So you are either pro life or pro death.
So I guess because there was a clueless tag put on this post that someone disagrees,
Well answer this then. Is nothing killed during these procedures? Is there not a living organism that is terminated during these procedures?
It is really very simple if you think about it. Something was alive, call it whatever you like to make you feel better, and then that something is terminated, that means it is killed.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581585 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Once again you have completely misrepresented our discussion using your copy/paste technique.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
There's the claim. Where's the evidence and argument?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I don't save all conversations like you, you know what's been said.
You don't need to save posts to make your argument. You didn't even bother to note which words you disagreed with or why. You might as well post nothing at all as to post what you did here. It's simply not enough to make bare claims.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The crickets refer to you ignoring all of the data I cited from your own link that contradicts you.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Why the hell would Wikipedia put it in the "firearm crimes" section if it didn't have to do with firearm crimes?
I don't know the authors' reasons, but it appears that he/they wanted to indicate the background crime rate upon which the gun crime statistics are contrasted. The gun crime rate is apparently not only lower in the UK than the US, but it's lower against a higher overall crime rate.

But clearly, the stats you cited were not about gun crimes,as the other data that actually specified guns contradicted it. You STILL haven't addressed those statistics. That's what the crickets were about, and they're STILL chirping.

You can't win an arguments in this way. You can claim victory, but you critical and analytic eyes wince when you do.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581586 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
No you didn't say it, karl did. You just agreed with him.
What karl said was, "Your (personal) willingness to see children die, so that you can "feel" more like a man is disgusting."

Sorry, but them's the facts. You are willfully and stubbornly refusing to see or acknowledge the fact that children in homes with guns are much more likely to find a gun and kill themselves with it than in homes without gun. There is no possible way to successfully contradict that except to show that there are more children whose lives were saved by a gun than were lost in those homes, and we both know - we ALL know - that you cannot do that because it isn't nearly the case, and you would have done so already if you could.

So, your "f_ck you" is merely a proxy "f_ck them" to all those children. I don't blame you for not wanting to be connected to such an idea. But you are. Your entire demeanor in this debate si that you just don't care. Karl said it, I agreed, and you don't like it. Sorry. The conclusion stands, however much you are offended. What other conclusion is possible?

We are as offended by your indifference as you are by being called on it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581587 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
To correct you, I'm not insecure living without a gun, so your argument is moot.
I disagree. That's just not credible. Nobody would subject their family to that risk knowing what you know if they weren't afraid to live unarmed.

Furthermore, you're not credible about what your motives are. You're clearly playing the ostrich here.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581588 Jan 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with everything you said but the question was to you not everyone else.
"I would say that having children is a benefit"
Most at least 98% of mothers I know would say this.
But we're not talking about children. We're talking about fetuses.

The potential benefit of a child doesn't make the fetus not a parasite.

People used to swallow tapeworm eggs to lose weight. They perceived a benefit. But the tapeworm remained a parasite.

These resources refer to organisms that have both parasitic and free living stages, like the creature in the Alien series:

[1] http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/1951220174...
[2]http://books.google.com.mx/ books?id=1yBMvatXY1oC&pg=P A388&lpg=PA388&dq=para sitic+and+free+living+stages &source=bl&ots=-CgytDV 0VT&sig=Y_MnBoIVIbfIFVwsVO gIDquMigE&hl=en&sa=X &ei=wyblUO7fHOSu2gWSr4GoBA &sqi=2&redir_esc=y#v=o nepage&q=parasitic%20and%2 0free%20living%20stages&f= false

The human being is the same. It's earliest form parasitizes its host, the mother. So what? Why so much resistance to the use of this word? Because it is insulting or demeaning to a fetus?

“God of War”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#581589 Jan 2, 2013
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do people insist on calling it anti-choice or pro-choice, when in fact it is Pro-life and anti-life.
The choice is life or death it is that simple. So you are either pro life or pro death.
Actually it's not Catcher understand each other perfectly
on this subject. The idea you have is a distraction, you see it isn't about religion or abortion really. Though that's what they want it to seem . But it's a ruse to distract you from what the real agenda is.

Control

If the law is passed to prevent choice , it has taken choice from the people and rested in the the governments hands. You no longer have the choice and you must comply. Now both of us are really against abortion. But we are both very against the control.
It is the woman's right to choose.

Oh course we want her to make the right decision, if she doesn't want her baby she can give it to someone who would really really want one. The same is true with gun control.

Control.

I don't want no more stinking control.
If we allow the government to control us we have no control.
Now oddly enough I don't think he feels the same about guns.
But to me it's the chipping away of our own control that they want. Until we are complete robots that have nothing to do but ask what we have to do.

They have been working on this for 200 years.
And sadly enough to my surprise I found they can take our 2nd amendment and it would be legal, with nothing we could do about it. If the house and senate agree to it. It's like this
They wrote it into our laws already enabling it to be if they choose so.

I will show you how.

You see by being a body of people "We the People"
You are god granted the right to bear arms.
N/P right yes problem..

As citizen of the US However.......you only have privileges granted. AND
If the United States outlaws any privileges you must comply as a citizen of the USA. Of course you can defy but we know where that leads. I see how we teeter on razor and how they use the law to control us now. I urge you to watch all five of these videos but it is explained how it works in them.

Oddly enough there are groups springing up calling themselves
"sovereign people" or sovereign citizens and you would have to google that as it takes too much explanation.

But here is the video explaining People Vs Citizens and the law.



Here is where it starts should you want to see the full explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

I was shocked and awed that should they decide they can strip us with only passing federal laws. But many states will resist, and the outcome of that could be disastrous.

BTW I'm pro choice to choose my destiny and not be told "you have too". But that doesn't mean I want anyone to kill their baby.



“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#581590 Jan 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. That's just not credible. Nobody would subject their family to that risk knowing what you know if they weren't afraid to live unarmed.
Furthermore, you're not credible about what your motives are. You're clearly playing the ostrich here.
- 851 Accidental discharge of weapon
- 19,766 Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr...

- 8,583 total firearm homicide
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...

“God of War”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#581591 Jan 2, 2013
BTW here is the page showing it.

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvcrigh...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581592 Jan 2, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>BTW, you claim you are pro-choice yet use misnomers such as "baby" and "murder" to describe abortion.
And you buy into the BS of pics of "babies" aborted being "murdered" and that of abortion being "gruesome".
Sure doesn't sound like someone who is pro-choice and if you really believe a baby is what is aborted and that abortion is murder and that z/e/f have wills, you're pretty screwed up to be pro-choice.
What you have expressed here are some of the most rabid views of the anti-choice crowd.
Good observation. And it's an enigma.

I suppose that it's possible to rabidly anti-abortion yet still pro-choice. I think that most pro-choice people would love to hear that all pregnancies were wanted, and all fetuses delivered.

I find abortion repulsive, would be loathe to do one, send a lover to have one, or if I were a woman, have one myself. I'll bet that you and most pro-choice advocates are close to that position as well.

But I don't use charged words and phrases "baby," "murder," or "abortion on demand." Nor do you.
OCB

Raleigh, NC

#581593 Jan 2, 2013
OCB is clueless

“God of War”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#581594 Jan 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
But we're not talking about children. We're talking about fetuses.
The potential benefit of a child doesn't make the fetus not a parasite.
People used to swallow tapeworm eggs to lose weight. They perceived a benefit. But the tapeworm remained a parasite.
These resources refer to organisms that have both parasitic and free living stages, like the creature in the Alien series:
[1] http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/1951220174...
[2]http://books.google.com.mx/ books?id=1yBMvatXY1oC&pg=P A388&lpg=PA388&dq=para sitic+and+free+living+stages &source=bl&ots=-CgytDV 0VT&sig=Y_MnBoIVIbfIFVwsVO gIDquMigE&hl=en&sa=X &ei=wyblUO7fHOSu2gWSr4GoBA &sqi=2&redir_esc=y#v=o nepage&q=parasitic%20and%2 0free%20living%20stages&f= false
The human being is the same. It's earliest form parasitizes its host, the mother. So what? Why so much resistance to the use of this word? Because it is insulting or demeaning to a fetus?
Hogwash IANS , you too are calling a fetus a behavior
The fact remains it is not a parasite, it is in a parasitical stage of development . But it is also in the machine that makes it
and like all machines you have to feed it material and energy to produce it's product. If it were not in the making machine it would not ever have been in production

That's why it can't be called a parasite it is in a normal state of production, what we call procreation.
To call it a parasite it would have to have been introduced from the exterior.

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#581595 Jan 2, 2013
Aura said, "If the law is passed to prevent choice , it has taken choice from the people and rested in the the governments hands. You no longer have the choice and you must comply. Now both of us are really against abortion. But we are both very against the control.
It is the woman's right to choose.

Oh course we want her to make the right decision, if she doesn't want her baby she can give it to someone who would really really want one. The same is true with gun control."

The problem I see with this is the fact that the Choice you speak of was not orihinally a choice. It is again the SCOTUS injecting itslef in the decision. So it would not actually be removal of the choice as much as it would be restoring the sanctity of life.

I do understand what you are saying but my point is that in order to make it more palatable they are dehumanizing the child there by making it easier to kill it.
This is practice that is as old as mankind. Dehumanize someone and they become easy to kill. In WWII Germans were not Germans they were NAZIs so it was ok to kill them. In Viet Nam and Korea the locals were not really peole they were Slopes, Slants, Gooks, Charlie so it was OK to kill them. The terminology used in the abortion deal is the same thing. It isn't a baby or a child it is a fetus, or a zygot or whatever else they come up with.

As to the Second Ammendment I can see your point and the point of the videos but that is where we must hold their feet to the fire. A simple law can not override a right that is guaranteed under the Constitution. They must ammend the Constitution in order to do that.

Bottom line is that no subjecy is 100% balck and white there are multiple shades of grey involved. The problem is that there are those out there like some of the fools on this forum that will support the erosion of our rights.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581596 Jan 2, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>That's another good one- but I really love the "4 out of 3 people"- that struck my funny bone BIG time!
http://www.theincometeam.com/blog/wp-content/... [image]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581597 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
But I'm not gonna lie to myself and say they're not aborting (killing) a lifeform.

I'm not romanticizing it, OCB. I'm just looking at it in a very logical & emotionless way.
Me, too, which is why I describe a fetus as a parasitic life form based on the organism's relationship to its host, and not on whether or not I find the word demeaning to the organism.

“God of War”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#581598 Jan 2, 2013
UR BS wrote:
Aura said,
The problem I see with this is the fact that the Choice you speak of was not orihinally a choice. It is again the SCOTUS injecting itslef in the decision. So it would not actually be removal of the choice as much as it would be restoring the sanctity of life.
I do understand what you are saying but my point is that in order to make it more palatable they are dehumanizing the child there by making it easier to kill it.
This is practice that is as old as mankind. Dehumanize someone and they become easy to kill. In WWII Germans were not Germans they were NAZIs so it was ok to kill them. In Viet Nam and Korea the locals were not really peole they were Slopes, Slants, Gooks, Charlie so it was OK to kill them. The terminology used in the abortion deal is the same thing. It isn't a baby or a child it is a fetus, or a zygot or whatever else they come up with.
As to the Second Ammendment I can see your point and the point of the videos but that is where we must hold their feet to the fire. A simple law can not override a right that is guaranteed under the Constitution. They must ammend the Constitution in order to do that.
Bottom line is that no subjecy is 100% balck and white there are multiple shades of grey involved. The problem is that there are those out there like some of the fools on this forum that will support the erosion of our rights.

The balance is held in check by the states than govern us.
They would have to agree with passing those laws , and seriously doubtful they could muster the votes to do so. After all they do not want another revolution.
And that's what could possibly happen.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 min confrinting with ... 574,713
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 21 min Aura Mytha 269,150
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 26 min Seentheotherside 39,683
If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 33 min Some Stoner Dude 1,049
Black people are more evolved then white people? (May '13) 34 min Stuart 52
What do u think of Jesus Christ?(God) (Oct '06) 35 min Some Stoner Dude 69,807
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 51 min trifecta1 608,338
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 10 hr Freebird 176,072
More from around the web