Political Affiliation

[Guest Just Looking]

7. believes in a strict separation of church and state, and would support any Congressional resolutions removing "In God We Trust" from the currency and "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance

Fuck yeah. And don't get me wrong, I think there's a god, but it doesn't belong on my moeny or in the Pledge fo Alleigance.

[Guest Kamui]

Okay, PETA did that? And here I thought they were just your everyday animal lovers. Whackos.

 

Anyway.....I believe in all that right to choose stuff, and I also believe that "will be" a human being and "is" a human being are two VASTLY different things. Are you preventing a human being from forming? Yeah, but then again, you're doing that also with condoms and birth control pills, so when does it end? Would you like us to take on a Vulcan approach to sex and only do it once every seven years?

A sperm, alone, can NEVER become a human being. Same with an egg. A fertilized egg WILL become a human being, discounting a very small minority of those who have genetic defects that won't allow it to come to term. That's what my definition is.

 

And I don't want a Vulcan way of life, but I don't think people thinking it's okay to have sex with everything and everyone because you always have the abortion backup is a safe thing to do, especially considering STDs. If you want to have sex, fine, but recognize that it's main function was not to be pleasurable but to create kids. If that happens, then sorry, but that's how the cookie crumbles; Just because you screwed up doesn't override the right to be able to live for a fetus.

But the question here then comes down to more of women's rights- whether she should have been having sex or not, now she's pregnant (ignoring how here for a moment). Do we, as males, really have the right to tell a woman that she should have to go through the hell of pregnancy if she doesn't want to?

 

I don't, and that's why I support early-trimester abortions- I believe the rights of the woman are more important than the rights of something as unintelligent as an early-trimester fetus. Sure, it will become a human- but again, whether that makes it more important than the woman is something you have to decide on your own, and I say no.

That's fine, your opinion and I respect it. But tread carefully on crude anologies eh?

I didn't think it was crude- scientifically it was correct, because an early trimester fetus' intelligent is lower than most animals we have no qualms about killing.

*sigh* Equating what many, including myself, believe as a very real human being as being lower than animals is not only a bad analogy, it has the potential to get a person you're debating with very hostile and angry and flame you when they normally wouldn't. Debating abortion is fine, it is an important issue, but animal intelligence and the spirtual worth of a human fetus are two different ball games. Equating the two just helps your opinion look that much dumber.

I didn't mention anything to do with spiritual or religious reasons- in fact, I completley avoided them, because how the fuck are you supposed to prove something like that?

 

Scientifically, the animals have more intelligence. That's what I was going on. You can believe anything you want religiously, but it shouldn't come into consideration when it's time to decide whether abortion is legal or not.

[Guest Cerebus]

Okay, PETA did that? And here I thought they were just your everyday animal lovers. Whackos.

 

Anyway.....I believe in all that right to choose stuff, and I also believe that "will be" a human being and "is" a human being are two VASTLY different things. Are you preventing a human being from forming? Yeah, but then again, you're doing that also with condoms and birth control pills, so when does it end? Would you like us to take on a Vulcan approach to sex and only do it once every seven years?

A sperm, alone, can NEVER become a human being. Same with an egg. A fertilized egg WILL become a human being, discounting a very small minority of those who have genetic defects that won't allow it to come to term. That's what my definition is.

 

And I don't want a Vulcan way of life, but I don't think people thinking it's okay to have sex with everything and everyone because you always have the abortion backup is a safe thing to do, especially considering STDs. If you want to have sex, fine, but recognize that it's main function was not to be pleasurable but to create kids. If that happens, then sorry, but that's how the cookie crumbles; Just because you screwed up doesn't override the right to be able to live for a fetus.

But the question here then comes down to more of women's rights- whether she should have been having sex or not, now she's pregnant (ignoring how here for a moment). Do we, as males, really have the right to tell a woman that she should have to go through the hell of pregnancy if she doesn't want to?

 

I don't, and that's why I support early-trimester abortions- I believe the rights of the woman are more important than the rights of something as unintelligent as an early-trimester fetus. Sure, it will become a human- but again, whether that makes it more important than the woman is something you have to decide on your own, and I say no.

That's fine, your opinion and I respect it. But tread carefully on crude anologies eh?

I didn't think it was crude- scientifically it was correct, because an early trimester fetus' intelligent is lower than most animals we have no qualms about killing.

*sigh* Equating what many, including myself, believe as a very real human being as being lower than animals is not only a bad analogy, it has the potential to get a person you're debating with very hostile and angry and flame you when they normally wouldn't. Debating abortion is fine, it is an important issue, but animal intelligence and the spirtual worth of a human fetus are two different ball games. Equating the two just helps your opinion look that much dumber.

I didn't mention anything to do with spiritual or religious reasons- in fact, I completley avoided them, because how the fuck are you supposed to prove something like that?

 

Scientifically, the animals have more intelligence. That's what I was going on. You can believe anything you want religiously, but it shouldn't come into consideration when it's time to decide whether abortion is legal or not.

Whatever, I tried.

[Guest Kamui]

Okay, PETA did that? And here I thought they were just your everyday animal lovers. Whackos.

 

Anyway.....I believe in all that right to choose stuff, and I also believe that "will be" a human being and "is" a human being are two VASTLY different things. Are you preventing a human being from forming? Yeah, but then again, you're doing that also with condoms and birth control pills, so when does it end? Would you like us to take on a Vulcan approach to sex and only do it once every seven years?

A sperm, alone, can NEVER become a human being. Same with an egg. A fertilized egg WILL become a human being, discounting a very small minority of those who have genetic defects that won't allow it to come to term. That's what my definition is.

 

And I don't want a Vulcan way of life, but I don't think people thinking it's okay to have sex with everything and everyone because you always have the abortion backup is a safe thing to do, especially considering STDs. If you want to have sex, fine, but recognize that it's main function was not to be pleasurable but to create kids. If that happens, then sorry, but that's how the cookie crumbles; Just because you screwed up doesn't override the right to be able to live for a fetus.

But the question here then comes down to more of women's rights- whether she should have been having sex or not, now she's pregnant (ignoring how here for a moment). Do we, as males, really have the right to tell a woman that she should have to go through the hell of pregnancy if she doesn't want to?

 

I don't, and that's why I support early-trimester abortions- I believe the rights of the woman are more important than the rights of something as unintelligent as an early-trimester fetus. Sure, it will become a human- but again, whether that makes it more important than the woman is something you have to decide on your own, and I say no.

That's fine, your opinion and I respect it. But tread carefully on crude anologies eh?

I didn't think it was crude- scientifically it was correct, because an early trimester fetus' intelligent is lower than most animals we have no qualms about killing.

*sigh* Equating what many, including myself, believe as a very real human being as being lower than animals is not only a bad analogy, it has the potential to get a person you're debating with very hostile and angry and flame you when they normally wouldn't. Debating abortion is fine, it is an important issue, but animal intelligence and the spirtual worth of a human fetus are two different ball games. Equating the two just helps your opinion look that much dumber.

I didn't mention anything to do with spiritual or religious reasons- in fact, I completley avoided them, because how the fuck are you supposed to prove something like that?

 

Scientifically, the animals have more intelligence. That's what I was going on. You can believe anything you want religiously, but it shouldn't come into consideration when it's time to decide whether abortion is legal or not.

Whatever, I tried.

Explain to me how I'm wrong. Why do religious/spirtiual reasons factor into a secular conversation?

[MrRant 0]

I wish there were someway a <insert something here> would fall on <insert someone here> and it would <insert something here> them.

 

In anger.

[Guest Kamui]

I wish there were someway a <insert something here> would fall on <insert someone here> and it would <insert something here> them.

 

In anger.

Funny, I've been thinking that a lot lately.

[Justice 0]

Explain to me how I'm wrong. Why do religious/spirtiual reasons factor into a secular conversation?

I think the fact that it will become a human being take precedence over animals. I mean, infants probably don't have the intuitive capabilities of your average dog or chimp, so do you kill it because it's stupidier? Intelligence is not the only factor here.

[Justice 0]

I wish there were someway a <insert something here> would fall on <insert someone here> and it would <insert something here> them.

 

In anger.

Funny, I've been thinking that a lot lately.

So you've been considering suicide? *Rimshot*

[Styles 0]

Kamui, just because you're too fucking stupid to actually look into a group before you claim support for it, you can check out any of these threads to learn of numerous examples of stupidity you claimt to support...

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...t=28391&hl=peta

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...t=30873&hl=peta

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...=18&t=27275&hl=

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...=18&t=27235&hl=

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...t=44425&hl=peta

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...=18&t=20698&hl=

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...=18&t=18294&hl=

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...=18&t=15835&hl=

[Guest Cerebus]

Okay, PETA did that? And here I thought they were just your everyday animal lovers. Whackos.

 

Anyway.....I believe in all that right to choose stuff, and I also believe that "will be" a human being and "is" a human being are two VASTLY different things. Are you preventing a human being from forming? Yeah, but then again, you're doing that also with condoms and birth control pills, so when does it end? Would you like us to take on a Vulcan approach to sex and only do it once every seven years?

A sperm, alone, can NEVER become a human being. Same with an egg. A fertilized egg WILL become a human being, discounting a very small minority of those who have genetic defects that won't allow it to come to term. That's what my definition is.

 

And I don't want a Vulcan way of life, but I don't think people thinking it's okay to have sex with everything and everyone because you always have the abortion backup is a safe thing to do, especially considering STDs. If you want to have sex, fine, but recognize that it's main function was not to be pleasurable but to create kids. If that happens, then sorry, but that's how the cookie crumbles; Just because you screwed up doesn't override the right to be able to live for a fetus.

But the question here then comes down to more of women's rights- whether she should have been having sex or not, now she's pregnant (ignoring how here for a moment). Do we, as males, really have the right to tell a woman that she should have to go through the hell of pregnancy if she doesn't want to?

 

I don't, and that's why I support early-trimester abortions- I believe the rights of the woman are more important than the rights of something as unintelligent as an early-trimester fetus. Sure, it will become a human- but again, whether that makes it more important than the woman is something you have to decide on your own, and I say no.

That's fine, your opinion and I respect it. But tread carefully on crude anologies eh?

I didn't think it was crude- scientifically it was correct, because an early trimester fetus' intelligent is lower than most animals we have no qualms about killing.

*sigh* Equating what many, including myself, believe as a very real human being as being lower than animals is not only a bad analogy, it has the potential to get a person you're debating with very hostile and angry and flame you when they normally wouldn't. Debating abortion is fine, it is an important issue, but animal intelligence and the spirtual worth of a human fetus are two different ball games. Equating the two just helps your opinion look that much dumber.

I didn't mention anything to do with spiritual or religious reasons- in fact, I completley avoided them, because how the fuck are you supposed to prove something like that?

 

Scientifically, the animals have more intelligence. That's what I was going on. You can believe anything you want religiously, but it shouldn't come into consideration when it's time to decide whether abortion is legal or not.

Whatever, I tried.

Explain to me how I'm wrong. Why do religious/spirtiual reasons factor into a secular conversation?

YOU belive it is an exclusively secular conversation, many do not. Think of that before you make stupid analogies.

[Styles 0]

It doesn't sound like he thinks much before he says anything!

[Guest Kamui]

I was under the impression this was a secular discussion, simply because once you bring religion/spirtuality into it, you mine as well end the debate right there. How am I supposed to reply to "Well, I think fetuses have souls and animals don't"- my point can be scientifically proven- yours can't. Pretty simple, really.

 

And JJG, do shut up.

[Styles 0]

And JJG, do shut up.

If you can't handle the heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen. You said you supported PETA even though you didn't know much about them. Brilliant, I gave you a bunch of links so you can see everything they have given to this world...

[Guest Kamui]

And JJG, do shut up.

If you can't handle the heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen. You said you supported PETA even though you didn't know much about them. Brilliant, I gave you a bunch of links so you can see everything they have given to this world...

I said I mildly supported them based on what little I read about them- you corrected me. Wonderful. Now I don't support them anymore. Would you like me to have a box of cookies shipped to your home?

 

Hint: If all you're going to do in every thread is point out "Boy that Kamui, man he's stupid" then stop wasting your time, because I GET THAT YOU DON'T LIKE ME ALREADY.

[Justice 0]

I was under the impression this was a secular discussion, simply because once you bring religion/spirtuality into it, you mine as well end the debate right there. How am I supposed to reply to "Well, I think fetuses have souls and animals don't"- my point can be scientifically proven- yours can't. Pretty simple, really.

 

And JJG, do shut up.

Actually, uh, no, it isn't. Explain to me how the right to privacy overrules the right to live. That's the legal argument at hand (And that's some real liberal interpretation of the right to privacy as well, no pun intended). Scientifically one could say that most animals could be proven smarter than your average infant, but that doesn't mean it deserves to die. Intelligence does not prove your argument in any way because of the accepted inherent difference between an animal life and a human life.

[Guest Cerebus]

I was under the impression this was a secular discussion, simply because once you bring religion/spirtuality into it, you mine as well end the debate right there. How am I supposed to reply to "Well, I think fetuses have souls and animals don't"- my point can be scientifically proven- yours can't. Pretty simple, really.

 

And JJG, do shut up.

YOUR POINT IS STUPID AND OFFENSIVE!

 

Like powerplay said, when you popped out from the womb you had less intelligence than your average adult cat. Does that mean if someone killed you then that they should have been slapped with animal cruelty than murder?

[Styles 0]

Would you like me to have a box of cookies shipped to your home?

Sure, chocolate chip would be scrumptious!

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

God, shut the fuck up. YOU'RE NOT COOL JUST BECAUSE YOU MAKE FUN OF HIM.

[Guest Kamui]

I was under the impression this was a secular discussion, simply because once you bring religion/spirtuality into it, you mine as well end the debate right there. How am I supposed to reply to "Well, I think fetuses have souls and animals don't"- my point can be scientifically proven- yours can't. Pretty simple, really.

 

And JJG, do shut up.

Actually, uh, no, it isn't. Explain to me how the right to privacy overrules the right to live. That's the legal argument at hand (And that's some real liberal interpretation of the right to privacy as well, no pun intended). Scientifically one could say that most animals could be proven smarter than your average infant, but that doesn't mean it deserves to die. Intelligence does not prove your argument in any way because of the accepted inherent difference between an animal life and a human life.

I'm not talking about killing infants. Science says infants are alive. Doesn't say fetuses are alive in the same sense that a fully completed human is.

 

Show me proof that the early trimester fetus has enough intelligence to be considered a human being and thus more important than the mother. I see none other than religious/spiritual reasons, which are impossible to prove and mean nothing when it comes to a secular law.

[Guest JMA]

What page did this thread turn into an abortion debate? And more importantly, why?

[Guest Kamui]

I was under the impression this was a secular discussion, simply because once you bring religion/spirtuality into it, you mine as well end the debate right there. How am I supposed to reply to "Well, I think fetuses have souls and animals don't"- my point can be scientifically proven- yours can't. Pretty simple, really.

 

And JJG, do shut up.

YOUR POINT IS STUPID AND OFFENSIVE!

 

Like powerplay said, when you popped out from the womb you had less intelligence than your average adult cat. Does that mean if someone killed you then that they should have been slapped with animal cruelty than murder?

Show me where I typed anything about infants. Obvi-fucking-ously there's no reason to kill an infant, considering it's already out of the womb. It has nothing to do with women's reproductive rights, which is the only reason to allow abortion, and thus the point I made wouldn't even come into play in this situation.

 

And you say I need to think before I post....

[Justice 0]

Show me proof that the early trimester fetus has enough intelligence to be considered a human being and thus more important than the mother. I see none other than religious/spiritual reasons, which are impossible to prove and mean nothing when it comes to a secular law.

Then you are an idiot because you fail to see LEGAL reasons. The basic Right to Live overrules the Right to Privacy that abortion is claimed under. That's not a religious reason, that's a COMPLETELY SECULAR reason. GET WITH IT!

[Guest Kamui]

Show me proof that the early trimester fetus has enough intelligence to be considered a human being and thus more important than the mother. I see none other than religious/spiritual reasons, which are impossible to prove and mean nothing when it comes to a secular law.

Then you are an idiot because you fail to see LEGAL reasons. The basic Right to Live overrules the Right to Privacy that abortion is claimed under. That's not a religious reason, that's a COMPLETELY SECULAR reason. GET WITH IT!

A right to live for a HUMAN. A fetus is not yet a human. You basically have to stretch the right to live farther than its original intention.

 

In another words, the same thing I'm doing with the right to privacy. Pot. Kettle. Blaaaaack.

[Justice 0]

Show me where I typed anything about infants. Obvi-fucking-ously there's no reason to kill an infant, considering it's already out of the womb. It has nothing to do with women's reproductive rights, which is the only reason to allow abortion, and thus the point I made wouldn't even come into play in this situation.

 

And you say I need to think before I post....

BECAUSE THAT IS YOUR ENTIRE REASON BEHIND PUTTING THE LIFE OF AN ANIMAL OVER THE LIFE OF AN UNBORN CHILD. YOUR WHOLE REASON BEHIND IT IS BECAUSE THE ANIMAL IS MORE INTELLIGENT. WE ARE QUESTIONING SAID REASONING BECAUSE YOU ARE SIMPLY BASING THIS OFF INTELLIGENCE, THEREFORE AN ANIMAL'S LIFE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN AN INFANT'S LIFE.

 

Jesus H. Christ. No one, not Jobber, not Tyler, not ANYONE has made me type my entire argument in caps. At least I can believe that those two are down to Earth in real life and that the CE folder only makes them a bit more extreme (Like I), but I can't believe the same in you. I'm surprised that you haven't been killed by the people around you.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Jesus H. Christ. No one, not Jobber, not Tyler, not ANYONE has made me type my entire argument in caps.

 

Can I try?

[Justice 0]

Show me proof that the early trimester fetus has enough intelligence to be considered a human being and thus more important than the mother. I see none other than religious/spiritual reasons, which are impossible to prove and mean nothing when it comes to a secular law.

Then you are an idiot because you fail to see LEGAL reasons. The basic Right to Live overrules the Right to Privacy that abortion is claimed under. That's not a religious reason, that's a COMPLETELY SECULAR reason. GET WITH IT!

A right to live for a HUMAN. A fetus is not yet a human. You basically have to stretch the right to live farther than its original intention.

 

In another words, the same thing I'm doing with the right to privacy. Pot. Kettle. Blaaaaack.

...

 

Stretching the Right to Live to include those who will live is not near as much of a stretch as saying your right to an abortion is covered under the right to PRIVACY. Do you even know HOW it falls under the right to privacy?

[Justice 0]

Jesus H. Christ. No one, not Jobber, not Tyler, not ANYONE has made me type my entire argument in caps.

 

Can I try?

If you really want to, though we may shoot each other in the end, sparking me to crawl back to my room with a leg wound and- Well, I think we both know where this is going.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Just remember to dissemble the gun and dispose of it properly afterwards.

[Guest Kamui]

Show me where I typed anything about infants. Obvi-fucking-ously there's no reason to kill an infant, considering it's already out of the womb. It has nothing to do with women's reproductive rights, which is the only reason to allow abortion, and thus the point I made wouldn't even come into play in this situation.

 

And you say I need to think before I post....

BECAUSE THAT IS YOUR ENTIRE REASON BEHIND PUTTING THE LIFE OF AN ANIMAL OVER THE LIFE OF AN UNBORN CHILD. YOUR WHOLE REASON BEHIND IT IS BECAUSE THE ANIMAL IS MORE INTELLIGENT. WE ARE QUESTIONING SAID REASONING BECAUSE YOU ARE SIMPLY BASING THIS OFF INTELLIGENCE, THEREFORE AN ANIMAL'S LIFE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN AN INFANT'S LIFE.

No need to yell.

 

That's not my entire reason. I was throwing that out there more as a question. Here was my original post:

 

I wish more people would worry about all the animals that die who are, you know, ALREADY BORN than human fetuses that possess less intelligence than your average sewer rat. BUT HEY....they have SOULS~!! Or something.

 

Yeah, I probably didn't use enough tact, but that's what happens when you're sleepy. My post was merely meant to question why people have no problem killing things with far more intelligence than an early trimester fetus- and then answered its own question, with the religion thing. Nowhere did I say that fetuses deserve to die because they're unintelligent. You're basically stretching what I said in my post out further than I intended.

 

Let me repeat myself here: I DON'T LAUGH WITH EVIL GLEE EVERYTIME I HEAR ABOUT A FETUS DYING. I was just trying to pose a question and get people to think- I don't think fetuses deserve to die because they're unintelligent, I just value the one that's already born (the mother) over the one that's not (the fetus).

[Guest Kamui]

Show me proof that the early trimester fetus has enough intelligence to be considered a human being and thus more important than the mother. I see none other than religious/spiritual reasons, which are impossible to prove and mean nothing when it comes to a secular law.

Then you are an idiot because you fail to see LEGAL reasons. The basic Right to Live overrules the Right to Privacy that abortion is claimed under. That's not a religious reason, that's a COMPLETELY SECULAR reason. GET WITH IT!

A right to live for a HUMAN. A fetus is not yet a human. You basically have to stretch the right to live farther than its original intention.

 

In another words, the same thing I'm doing with the right to privacy. Pot. Kettle. Blaaaaack.

...

 

Stretching the Right to Live to include those who will live is not near as much of a stretch as saying your right to an abortion is covered under the right to PRIVACY. Do you even know HOW it falls under the right to privacy?

So whether a woman wants another human being growing inside of her shouldn't be covered under her right to privacy?