[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
lothario:
I see, Christians are “brainwashed” but liberal wonder boys are free thinking and open minded and dog gone it just better people. Got it, and thanks for clearing it up.
Dammit, you are one lovable goofy dude. The whole point is that you AREN’T brainwashed… that’s why I’m not calling you that. If you want to believe in the tooth fairy, fine. Just don’t demand that I believe in it, too. How hard is this? I’m trying to not make light of this (it’s difficult for me) and stick to the discussion, rather than break into another one of my famous “atheist club” rants. Isn’t it better this way?
Someday we will have to get into how it’s open minded and wonderful to bash Christians. Yet, if anyone even breaths a word of opposition regarding homosexuals they are somehow evil and oh soooo homophobic (which of course means homorepugnant :).
One more thing about “Christian bashing”. If you notice, even though I am fierce (is that the right word?) in my defense of gay marriage, I still call them fruitcakes and fags and leather pants-wearing peter-puffers. Because they are. When I see goofiness, it’s hard for me to not make some wisecrack, as I am a smart-assed jerk by my nature. So even though I find it somewhat ridiculous to pray to anyone/anything, especially a skinny Ted Nugent lookalike, I will stand firm in my defense of your right to do so, and damn anybody who gets in my way.
Next point, you claim since abortion has nothing to do with “public behavior” and is solely a womans body then it should be legal. I submit to you that suicide is all about a womans body, her entire body! Yet, suicide is illegal. You state that, “yes this (abortion) is an internal personal and most importantly female issue.”
Is it really? Your argument is that it is so personal that no one else is involved. Not true!
Okay, finally. If you notice, I am also against assisted suicide laws. In fact, I would almost go so far as to legalize drugs where it not in their nature to become addicting. This is going back to that “if you’re not hurting anybody else, then go for it” mindset from the gay marriage thread. Drug addicts do cause long-term harm to others, and are a result of and cause for many social ills, so I have to draw the line there, even though it would appear that the only person the drug addict hurts is himself. We probably agree on this, right?
Abortion and assisted suicide are different. Let me explain my position after the next snippet.
When a child (fetus) is killed because of abortion many are involved. Someone does not become a father, what about his rights? Someone else does not become a grandparent, what about their rights? Not to much different than suicide really. Someone is deprived, other than the person acting. You are claiming it’s her uterus so she can kill anything in it. I am claiming that if she can kill anything in her uterus then why can’t she kill her uterus along with herself? Moral law is moral law.
I can see how a potential father can argue for his contribution in the conception, and that the product of his loins is in his purview, but I would beg to differ based on biology and common sense.
a) Some folks might say that the man contributes roughly 50% to a conception. I would say that he contributes about a 20 millionth to it. A man’s issue is roughly 20 million sperm, whereas there is one (sometimes two or three) eggs to receive them. Do the math.
b) There are profound and unavoidable biological changes, lifestyle changes, and emotional/psychological changes which are undergone during a pregnancy. None of these consequences are suffered (or enjoyed) by the male.
Argue this as much as you want, but it is their uterus, not ours. We made our contribution at conception, buddy. After that, it’s their show. All we can do is provide support in whatever way we can (we’re both fathers, you know what I mean by this) and try to not go crazy when we’re woken up at four in the morning to go to the convenient mart for teriyaki beef jerky and mint chocolate chip ice cream.
When I finish designing my HFEP, then things will be different. You will have a voice in this. Then, the argument will change to “well shit, you’re pregnant and don’t want to be. Well, I want my baby to live. Let’s make an appointment at lothario science institute one afternoon and git 'er done.” Problem solved, man!
Your final statement is sort of…um nutty (sorry). “Any law that does not have a public setting does not need to be on the books.” Then I guess someone can get together with their gang, in private, and plan a murder? Someone can rape a 10 year old girl as long as it is done in private? Somone else can beat their wife as long as it’s in private?
Honestly, ZEB. That is not what I meant, and you know it. A public setting means one which involves more than one person. This applies to abortion only when the fetus is legally classified as a person/citizen, and we already went over the aftermath (or did we?) when we start to do that. Assisted suicide involves more than one person, in a way, but it is an intimate choice which has consequences to one person. I don’t think anybody is going to come out on these forums and demand that we let a suffering hospice patient with advanced ovarian cancer suffer until the very last second possible. And yet, that is what we are doing sometimes. I see this in action, and it’s horrible. The best we can manage in this country is to let them die naturally, and if they have a living will which says so, we won’t resuscitate them. We cannot actively OD someone who wants to die to end their suffering… why? Kevorkian had it right, people. Joke all you want, but when it’s your loved one who begs you to do something to them after the seventeenth time they’ve vomited that day, and the cancer is so bad that there is literally NO WAY they will make it another week, let alone a month, you tell me that they “need” to stick around for more.
(shaking head) you liberals are an odd lot indeed. On one hand you want to squash things like “hate speech” and create things like “hate crimes” (ever see a “love crime.?”) Then you come out in favor of eliminating “any law that does not have a public setting.”
Haha you nut. 
You know what’s even funnier? Calling me a liberal. Well… maybe that’s not such a stretch, seeing as how I’m not against gay marriage or abortion, and I think religion is kinda kooky… hmmm… But I’m all about the war in Iraq, hell I’m not afraid to say I hope we take it further to other countries. I’m also very pro-business and anti-welfare/socialism. I think Michael Moore is a lying asshole, I’m not scared to say that Bush is doing a great job as president, I’m disgusted by what the trial lawyer and health insurance lobbies have done to my beloved health care system, and I think folks who burn our flag to make a “statement” should stop running so fast from me when I want to shove my foot up their ass as a counterpoint. What the hell am I, anyway? :)[/quote]
Well…I’m thinking you are not so unique. You are a social liberal and more of a conservative when it comes to fiscal and world matters. That is actually pretty common over the past several election cycles. The old “moral relitivism” strikes again (another topic). You are not so different than Arnold (you know the big guy who became a Governor). Oh…and he’s a republican, don’t forget.
I would disagree that the man contributes the tiny amount that you state to the pregnancy. Especially when he stays around to help the mother through the pregnancy. Have you ever done it? It’s …it’s…um…it sucks! At times I think I contributed maybe 51%. I’ll leave it at that.
If I am to understand your definition of “private setting” it means what happens to one person and one person only. Do I have that right? If that is the case you think that suicide effects only one person? You think prostitution effects only one person? There are others. Glad you conceded that drug addiction effects many. Actually, every crime effects “many.”
Your comments on being an equal opportunity “basher” somehow sound hollow to me, sorry. As an athiest it is not okay for you to bash Christians. As a heterolsexual it is not okay for you to bash homosexuals (peter puffers? eye roll). I wonder why there has to be bashing? I wonder why you have to compare Jesus Christ to Ted Nugent (skinny guy with a beard)? I wonder…and then I realize that you admitted being a “smart ass jerk by nature.” That of course leads to other questions. Such as, what happened to you? Ahh never mind?
I suppose in the final analysis we can never agree on the abortion question (this forum never changes minds, but it is fun). You are someone who thinks it’s perfectly fine to kill an unborn baby. You think this way primarily because you are an athiest. The baby has no soul to you it is just a piece of flesh that is easy to kill, ripe for the picking, in the way…why not?
Hey, write back anyway, I like talking to you. Go figure…
Anyway, I did look up the stated verses myself on an online Bible.