posted 12-04-2001 01:58            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bad Mr. Spinch:
..I feel that it's time for Eod, Weis, and the rest of the Admins to start doling out the Medals of Fagotry.

---

I'm an admin too. I'll just get started, shall I?

BAD MR. SPINCH IS HEREBY AWARDED THE MEDAL OF FAGOTRY

posted 12-04-2001 05:33            

Speaking from personal experience, no amount of debate will prepare you for the emotions involved in making the choice to get an abortion. Although I firmly believe our (the X and I) genes would have spawned something so horribly depraved that even the best possible environment couldn't have made a positive effect, part of me can't help but wonder if it would have been a boy or a girl. And a whole lot of other shit.

When we decided to go to the clinic, I once again escaped a certain prison term, as there were no idiots with signs screaming at us as we went in.

Me, well I've always been a 'Pro-Death' guy myself, I think a lot of the people who come into this world on a shoestring would be better off taking one for the team. Back in time when we were on the same technological level as other predators, the slow ones were lion food. Or bear food, or alligator food, but they were weeded out of the gene pool and everything was peachy until some smart ass got the idea to bomb the lion clinics and now were stuck with all these broken people who may be 'alive' but they sure as hell don't work the way they're supposed to ... next thing ya know the former lion food needs ramps up onto sidewalks and into resturants and big ass toilets with wheelie bars and all the best parking spots just so they can 'get around like normal people'.

Furthermore, the whole 'Cram 26,000,000 on top of one another stacked like cordwood to save the planet' arguement is total bullshit. There have been studies released recently that prove 'Urban Sprawl' is by far the most environmentally friendly method of developement. Think about it. An acre of grassland absorbs a large amount of precipitation and holds it for a time allowing the earth to absorb it slowly, while an acre of high density cityscape sheds the water into sewers which is immediately forced out into rivers. Not to mention every big city I have been to has a noxious cloud hanging over it, the only thing that changes is the color.

I'd like to wind up this little rant by going to bat for CLME, who stated the obvious about where this discussion was leading many posts ago, and got reamed by KetchupRAT for it. KR, it's virtually painless to learn from others mistakes (even though I still wince once in a while) ... once you learn to stop your knee from jerking and look at things from a logical perspective, if nothing else you will be able to argue your point more effectively. If threads going off on tangents and single sentences being quoted out of context are not your cup of tea, this PenIs may cause you to go grey long before your time.

posted 12-04-2001 05:57            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenomas:
I suppose it could work, for certain people, but it sounds pretty unhealthy for all three people involved, and I wouldn't wish it on any friend of mine.

---

... I wouldn't wish getting the wrong woman pregnant (or getting pregnant by the wrong man) on any friend of mine, either.

posted 12-04-2001 09:46            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
i'll address you last point first: i don't know how true your assertion is, because i wasn't alive until the late 70's. anyway, my point is that you can't prove a negative; you can't prove the sun isn't made of oranges or that the the ocean's saltwater is not the planet's blood, or that my toenails are really a seperate symbiotic lifeform that really likes sticking to me. Also, please get your facts straight: "Abortion" is not a law. The Roe v. Wade decision says abortion is not illegal (although individual states make their own laws about it.)

speaking of oranges, i should clarify that i was not comparing religion and abortion (although the two issues are often brought up together,) but rather i was drawing a simile:

pro-choice people are outraged by others dictating morals to them [b]AS pro-life prople would be outraged by others dictating the terms of religion.

[/B]

---

You see, there is one thing that really gets on my nerves - not once have I used the arguement of religion in my favor (except to the jumper fellow, who assured us all that he was a Catholic...) because it just doesn't work. I've talked to people before, and I know what they listen to. Most of them, anyway.

Roe vs. Wade is... before 1972 or 1971, Abortion was illegal. Then a single state made it legal... the supreme court disallowed it. But then they had a vote, and Roe vs. Wade decided that it was not up to the government. Had they been able to prove that the fetus was a different being (they had no DNA testing), sent out brain signals, pulsed like a human (I don't believe they had the ultrasonic equipment back then, but I might be wrong). The point is this isn't my main arguement - it is how to stop what's going on. So ... if you're really interested in that, you might as well do some own reading up.

posted 12-04-2001 09:55            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LonMabonJovi:
Furthermore, the whole 'Cram 26,000,000 on top of one another stacked like cordwood to save the planet' arguement is total bullshit. There have been studies released recently that prove 'Urban Sprawl' is by far the most environmentally friendly method of developement. Think about it. An acre of grassland absorbs a large amount of precipitation and holds it for a time allowing the earth to absorb it slowly, while an acre of high density cityscape sheds the water into sewers which is immediately forced out into rivers. Not to mention every big city I have been to has a noxious cloud hanging over it, the only thing that changes is the color.

I'd like to wind up this little rant by going to bat for CLME, who stated the obvious about where this discussion was leading many posts ago, and got reamed by KetchupRAT for it. KR, it's virtually painless to learn from others mistakes (even though I still wince once in a while) ... once you learn to stop your knee from jerking and look at things from a logical perspective, if nothing else you will be able to argue your point more effectively. If threads going off on tangents and single sentences being quoted out of context are not your cup of tea, this PenIs may cause you to go grey long before your time.

---

Interesting story... kind of weirds up at the end, but... very interesting.

Anyway... I'm not saying that we should, would, or even will fit that many people into one small space. It could be done, and while it wouldn't be environmentally friendly... it'd be (Kansas+a bit more land)/(total land mass of earth - antartica - land over the artic circle) = lots of land for people to grow, be happy on. People who make the "overpopulated" claim have, in general, never left the city (by leaving the city I don't mean going out to your local farm, I mean going half way [or all the way] across country and looking at what is out there [lack of what is out there, I should say]). I don't think we should cramp that many people together, but... the world is not overpopulated. We'd be in a much worse place if it were.

posted 12-04-2001 11:23            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KetchupRAT:
People who make the "overpopulated" claim have, in general, never left the city (by leaving the city I don't mean going out to your local farm, I mean going half way [or all the way] across country and looking at what is out there [lack of what is out there, I should say]). I don't think we should cramp that many people together, but... the world is not overpopulated. We'd be in a much worse place if it were.

---

:: blank stare ::

Um, dude, an awful lot of "empty land" is NECESSARY to support those urban sprawls you're talking about. You can't farm in a city, mine in a city, raise livestock in a city... all these things require vast tracts of open land.

Interestingly enough, while searching for the number of acres necessary to support a single human being (at today's technology levels), I found the following excerpt from a book written by a Christian about Christian reaction to abortion.

Even more interestingly, while I don't in any way, shape, fashion or form share his obviously heartfelt belief in Christianity... I do agree with him chapter and verse on what he had to say about abortion, morality, and where lines should and should not be drawn in the sand.

Check it out. ( From http://lwsloan.com/contents/book.htm )

quote:

---

I make no claim to be a biblical scholar, yet I feel confident in saying that abortion is not a topic to be found in either the old or new testament.

I know what abortion is. I have reasonable cultural grasp as to the conditions and manners under which it takes place. I have reasonable insight as to the various motives, which people have, resulting in their having an abortion or performing one. I am aware that in various times and places, abortion is illegal, while in other times and places abortion is legal.

I am a mature educated Christian. From that posture, I have to say clearly and emphatically, that I do not know if abortion is morally right or wrong, apart from the laws which exist in time and place.

Some things are true, I know because the Bible tells me so. But, there are other things which the Bible does not tell me. Abortion is one of those things.

Words are the substance of thought. Sentences are the packages of ideas. Discrimination is a fundamental of intellect. If there is no discrimination, all things are the same. There can be no choices. There can be no morality. There can be no decisions. There can be no productivity. There can be no life.

If all words meant the same thing, there would be need for only one word. Does good mean the same as bad? Does yes mean the same as no? Does constructive mean the same as destructive? Does death mean the same as kill? Does kill mean the same as murder: Does murder mean the same as abortion?

In the Old Testament, there are numerous accounts wherein God "did away" with people. Did God murder them? Does God sin? If murder is bad and if God does not sin, then, I must accept that all killing is not murder.

With regard to abortion, and since the Bible does not specifically mention abortion, Christians often take the position that abortion is bad and it's wrong because it's murder. Such a position contains two basic problems. One deals with a precise definition of what murder means within a Biblical context. The other involves an understanding of the definition of a murder victim.

If we don't differentiate between kill and murder, we have a real problem. If kill and murder are the same thing; then we can't exist morally, because we can't exist without eating. That which we eat is organic in character, plant or animal, and must die or be killed to accommodate eating. Further; societies would not be able to defend themselves in war, because fatalities occur. Our soldiers would have to be tried and punished for carrying out their duty of defense.

To say that society in general, has a crystal clear concept of what murder is, is simply to be unrealistic or irrational. Our legal system recognizes justifiable homicide, accidental death, misadventure, self defense, manslaughter, second degree murder, and first degree murder. To put it another way; society describes death along a legal continuum.

In a similar way, life is described along a continuum. The terminology of life's continuum includes: egg, sperm, fertilization, zygote formation, morula, gastrula, cell epiboly, primitive streak, invagination, neural fold, lateral fold, germ layer development. tissue thickening, tissue unions, outpocketings. and inpocketings; and, a continuing and increasingly complex parliament of functional and structural developments. Embryologists use the terms embryo and fetus. There is no precise line between the two; However, it is believed that an embryo has no chance of surviving in the "outside" environment, while a fetus has some chance. There can be no individual, in the absence of any of these steps. Nor could there have been an egg or sperm had there not been ovary and testes, and an appropriate interplay of body hormones.

The point is this: reproduction is a process which occurs along a continuum. The continuum can be rendered inoperable at any place. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? At exactly what point does chicken become chicken and egg become egg? Some things in our existence have clear boundaries. Most things do not. Some things we call paradoxes because they seem to have no answer at all. The problem there, seems to lie in asking the wrong questions. Our labels, or vocabulary, and our thought patterns tend to create "facts" which are invalid. Therefore, our questions may mandate assumptions which are invalid.

Biologists and medical men cannot define when a human being becomes an individual. There are opinions, but there is no factual data to clarify the contrasting opinions. Many hold the idea that a human individual does not really become so, in the human sense rather than the physiological sense, until after he has interacted considerably with the environment. Infants raised without "mothering affection" soon die. Obviously there are other people who take the position that cell fertilization constitutes the beginning of human life. Now this is an expression of opinion. It is not based on compelling data. There is no way to test this idea. If one chooses to accept the authority of a person, such as the Pope, then he is free to do so. But, he is not free to compel agreement by others not willing to accept that authority, to believe in the same manner.

---

posted 12-04-2001 11:59            

quote:

---

Originally posted by damnit:
Why is it women get to make the sole decision whether the fetus lives or dies. It requires two consenting people for fetus production to begin. Shouldn't it require two consenting people for it to end? Technically wouldn't 50% of the fetus be the property of the male? Presently, its "possession is 9/10ths ownership". If the "father" of said fetus was willing to sign his life away swearing he will forever do right by the child shouldn't the "mother" be required to carry the fetus to term. Seems a bit unfair that the "mother" can decide to keep the child even though the "father" doesn't want it, and he will be financialy responsible for the child even though he didn't want it to begin with. Seems when an "mother" finds out she is pregnant a trip to a lawyer by both parties should be in order.

---

The reason is this: the man can say "Yes, I want the baby", but there's no force that can make him actually be responsible for the baby. For the first couple years, the mother has to be present to breastfeed, etc.

Ideally the man should have the option, but it is a fetus growing in the WOMAN's body. The man doesn't have to give birth. Because a man can up and leave at any time (and frequently does) the woman should hold full say on whether the baby is had or not. Hopefully the woman has a good enough relationship with the man that she's willing to factor in his opinion, but she shouldn't be obligated to.

------------------
Reverend Rob

posted 12-04-2001 12:19         

====================================

I challenge ANYBODY who was witnessed the birth of their children to tell me that their child was not "alive and human" when it left the womb. Life is truly a miracle; the birth of my children is the most profound thing I have EVER witnessed.

posted 12-04-2001 12:26            

quote:

---

Originally posted by marcel:
Witnessing life/birth will convert the staunchest atheist into one who will accept the concept of a higher power, perhaps even to reconsider antiquated democratic egalitarian thinking.

---

What an utterly religio-centric load of crap.

posted 12-04-2001 12:35            

quote:

---

Originally posted by marcel:
I challenge ANYBODY who was witnessed the birth of their children to tell me that their child was not "alive and human" when it left the womb. Life is truly a miracle; the birth of my children is the most profound thing I have EVER witnessed.

Witnessing life/birth will convert the staunchest atheist into one who will accept the concept of a higher power, perhaps even to reconsider antiquated democratic egalitarian thinking.

---

I watched my cousin being born. It was truly amazing, but NOT religiously so. It is BIOLOGY.

And you are truly a jackass.

posted 12-04-2001 13:11            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KetchupRAT:
And you can prove the negative. I'll give a small case... 2*(x^2) [it is high school math or something] is unknown... but we do know that it can not be an odd integer, we do know that it can not be negative. What proofs... once again, they exist, somewhere, theorems and postulates and shit like that... but, I don't really have an interest to look right now...

---

posted 12-04-2001 16:21           

quote:

---

Originally posted by weis:
Someday, I'm going to find a pro-lifer who understands that "should people have abortions" and "should abortion be illegal" are almost wholly unrelated arguments. Either that, or I'd like to see some Christian "activists" stand up on a podium and argue that illegal, unsafe abortions are preferable to legal abortions in clinics.

---

posted 12-04-2001 16:34            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jumper42:
[B] what are you trying to prove here? that if you square a number and multiple it by two you will always get a positive even number. that is just fucking basic math..[B]

---

Jumper, Jumper, what did we just go through? Stick to swearing please.

posted 12-04-2001 16:39            

I do think that babies should decide whether or not to abort their mothers, that would even out the playing fields!!!!!

posted 12-04-2001 17:54            

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenken:
Well just let me say this. Since abortions are legal as of now, a person is free to have one but also at the same time a person is not punished for not having one. But if abortions were illegal a person that had an abortion would be punished. So doesn't that prove its own point. You have to look at things on both sides of the fence. No matter what, not having an abortion is legal , but having an abortion can be illegal. That just makes it obvious that abortions are wrong.

---

posted 12-04-2001 17:57         

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenomas:
Jumper, Jumper, what did we just go through? Stick to swearing please.

And pity to say, he's entirely correct, whoever said "You can't prove a negative" was talking out of his ass. Who said that?

---

i said that.

i wasn't talking about mathematics; negative numbers exist and are used daily in millions of operations. i know that. but you can't prove a negative argument ("god does not exist" or "OJ is did not kill two people" or "there is no ocean made of orange juice"). you can prove a positive argument to the exclusion of the negative argument; i.e., you can prove that all the oceans we know of on earth are of saltwater and not orange juice, but you can't prove that orange juice oceans don't exists -- in legalese this is called "reductio ad absurdum". this is a well known argument against religious declarations of god's existance.

although you can prove that the opposite of something is true, you can't prove it's negation. which is why people who are out to prove something don't just assert it, but rather give proof that it is true; it would be laughable to say something without proof. here's a link to an article about the burden of proof.

but as this article puts it "How do you prove that Polka-dot unicorns don't exist? How do you prove that Leprachauns don't exist?" -- proving a negative argument is so close to impossible (unless the argument is about a very specific, non-quantitative, thing, like 'there is ice in the freezer right now.')

although i'm fairly certain that it's wrong, in the interest of fairnes, here's an article that says i'm wrong.

(edited to fix a link.)

posted 12-04-2001 18:44            

quote:

---

anyway, my point is that you can't prove a negative; you can't prove the sun isn't made of oranges or that the the ocean's saltwater is not the planet's blood

---

I never saw antyhing restricting it to fields excluding mathematics. What you said was you can't prove a negative. You used two examples that I could not prove without digging up some resources; I used a much more simple method.

And, yes, you could use thermal imaging and temperature sensors to prove that while we do not know what the sun is entirely made up of, we know that it is for a fact it is not made up of anything that could not withstand temperatures of a certain range. What this temperature range is, I am not certain of, however I will assume (however, I have no sources to prove) that oranges do not fall into this category.

And the oceans being the earth's blood... I disagree on this point as well. For you see, in almost all fauna I can think of, the bodily fluids are contained on the inside of the creature. Since blood is associated with fauna and not non-living entities, we must assume that the earth is a living entity as well (simply for comparison reasons). Being that the oceans are all superficial to the earth (yes, they do travel deep down, but they still have direct line of sight to the surface), I argue that the earth's blood is either A. Natural springs of water travelleing throughout the crust of the earth, or B. Liquid hot magma (to take a line from Dr. Evil) travelling underneath the earth's crust, constantly moving. Another reason that I can support these two is that when the blood of a creature is exposed to the surrounding atmosphere of the creature, it either A. Clots, or B. Flows. Ocean water does neither of these; it may freeze when it meets the poles, but that is affected by other forces. Magma both clots when it comes in contact with the outside air, but not before doing a bit of flowing. Natural springs do flow, but they do not clot naturally (they either clot because of something stops their flow, or they simply exhaust their supply).

posted 12-04-2001 18:47            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
i said that.

i wasn't talking about mathematics; negative numbers exist and are used daily in millions of operations.

---

Now, when I went ahead and disproved you the first time, I wasn't negating the existence of negative numbers. I know they exist, I'm not a fucking retard. I was saying, that in the case that I used them, the equation could NOT yield a negative number or an odd number (simply because any number squared is going to be positive, and any number [well... real number] multiplied by two is going to yeild an even number).

posted 12-04-2001 19:34            

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenken:
Well just let me say this. Since abortions are legal as of now, a person is free to have one but also at the same time a person is not punished for not having one. But if abortions were illegal a person that had an abortion would be punished. So doesn't that prove its own point. You have to look at things on both sides of the fence. No matter what, not having an abortion is legal , but having an abortion can be illegal. That just makes it obvious that abortions are wrong.

---

posted 12-04-2001 21:05            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KetchupRAT:
Jeez man stay on the fucking topic, this arguement is not over whether or not Canada has enough cows to feed the square root of the population of Asia's second largest metropolis. What can't you understand: it's the fact that god was on earth a long long time ago, they didn't sell heat sensitive eyepeices until a few years ago. what the hell is so hard to understand about that.

I do think that babies should decide whether or not to abort their mothers, that would even out the playing fields!!!!!

and what about babies with no fathers, did you ever ask yourself about that one?!?!?!? 0wned

---

I would like to vote this post into the message board hall of fame. Did you do any warmups, like banging your head into a concrete wall? This post rules!

It sounds like you had a bad experience, and I don't think any less of you for being passionate about your opinions (although most of the kewl d00ds on the internet say it isn't 1337). It's good to see it wasn't traumatic enough to wipe out your sense of humor.

quote:

---

by J1mb0Um, dude, an awful lot of "empty land" is NECESSARY to support those urban sprawls you're talking about. You can't farm in a city, mine in a city, raise livestock in a city... all these things require vast tracts of open land.

---

What was that movie, I swear in my minds eye I see Gene Wilder holding out his arms as if he had giant hooters and saying "vast tracts of land"?

quote:

---

by Der Senfmeister 'Childbirth is wonderful, childbirth is a miracle.' Wrong. It's no more a miracle than eating food and a turd coming out your ass.

---