[quote]JEATON wrote:
Asinine halfwit. [/quote]
It just occurred to me that since the symbol for the Democratic Party is a donkey, and because our current president has a Caucasian mother, one could refer to him as an asinine halfwhite.
I would never refer to him in this manner, but one could.
If one were so inclined.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And humans have also judged some humans as more or less important than others. Hiroshima anyone? [/quote]
Do you understand how many lives were SPARED because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
[/quote]
You just proved my point. Some lives were viewed as less valuable, as expendable, based on human judgement and morality. [/quote]
Carlo, mi amigo, you are a bullshit artist wannabe if you think abortion and the invasion of Japan belong in the same conversation. Only a fool would equate the two.[/quote]
Why? Killing is killing, no? The decision to abort a fetus or fire bomb a city is made the same way. It is entirely possible that had we lost WW2 to the Japanese, after having nuked two of their cities, that those who made the decision to drop those bombs would be considered war criminals by the Japanese (they probably were regardless) and made to pay for their crime.
And why would you assume I’m Spanish? Is there an s after the o?
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
You have a right to pursue your desires insofar as it doesn’t deprive others of their fundamental rights, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Killing a baby deprives them of all of their rights, therefore it is an immoral path to take in pursuit of one’s own comfort. [/quote]
Explain war.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
You have a right to pursue your desires insofar as it doesn’t deprive others of their fundamental rights, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Killing a baby deprives them of all of their rights, therefore it is an immoral path to take in pursuit of one’s own comfort. [/quote]
Explain war. [/quote]
Start reading.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
You have a right to pursue your desires insofar as it doesn’t deprive others of their fundamental rights, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Killing a baby deprives them of all of their rights, therefore it is an immoral path to take in pursuit of one’s own comfort. [/quote]
Explain war. [/quote]
War is generally what happens when the leaders of one nation decide another nation has what they want. Conversely, it can be waged in defense against another country/people that wants what you have.
Explain war’s immediate relevance to this.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree that once it is living on it’s own then it is it’s own . If it’s life is dependent on Mom and mom decides to evict the child than it is Mom’s prerogative . No one would relish killing a child but I can understand how some mothers deem it , not the right time to bring another human into their life .
[/quote]
This is such a lame argument but one that so many misguided fools espouse. It’s so, so, so easy to stroke this addle-brained abortion philosophy just a little so as to eventually justify shoving Jews and gypsies into ovens.[/quote]
And that kind of drivel is exactly why I put pittbull on ignore. I suggest you do the same.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree that once it is living on it’s own then it is it’s own . If it’s life is dependent on Mom and mom decides to evict the child than it is Mom’s prerogative . No one would relish killing a child but I can understand how some mothers deem it , not the right time to bring another human into their life .
[/quote]
This is such a lame argument but one that so many misguided fools espouse. It’s so, so, so easy to stroke this addle-brained abortion philosophy just a little so as to eventually justify shoving Jews and gypsies into ovens.[/quote]
Your argument says you disagree ( i can appreciate that) It does not say why
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree that once it is living on it’s own then it is it’s own . If it’s life is dependent on Mom and mom decides to evict the child than it is Mom’s prerogative . No one would relish killing a child but I can understand how some mothers deem it , not the right time to bring another human into their life .
[/quote]
This is such a lame argument but one that so many misguided fools espouse. It’s so, so, so easy to stroke this addle-brained abortion philosophy just a little so as to eventually justify shoving Jews and gypsies into ovens.[/quote]
And that kind of drivel is exactly why I put pittbull on ignore. I suggest you do the same. [/quote]
Good job !!!,ignoring me
[quote]Nards wrote:
I love Parker Jotters. I have four of them.
But more seriously…I can’t understand people that are pro-abortion but won’t eat unfertilized free range chicken eggs.[/quote]
Nobody is “pro-abortion” you fuck tard… pro choice saves lives… because the people that want the abortions will still get them but instead of having a safe place they will do them at home…
[quote]krummdiddy wrote:
Nobody is “pro-abortion” you fuck tard… pro choice saves lives… because the people that want the abortions will still get them but instead of having a safe place they will do them at home… [/quote]
And this is why the issue will never be settled to everyone’s satisfaction. Abortion is not just about “right” and “wrong”. It’s an emotional and moral issue, yes, a legal issue, certainly, a religious issue, definitely (religion being an amalgam of morality and legality) and a “who has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body” issue. But it’s primarily an economic and ecological issue, as one of my favorite ecologists, Dr Colinvaux, explains.
[i]"People have strange sex habits. Our females ovulate roughly every single month and the males are apparently ready for sexual adventure every day of the year. We must note a necessary and remarkable consequence of it: there will certainly be too many babies.
Our breeding strategy requires that each couple arrive at the optimum size of family, not too few and not too many. It is claimed that a healthy woman can give birth to twenty-five children. An inescapable conclusion follows from this: the primeval human breeding strategy involved a culling of the surplus. In order to avoid evolutionary disaster, our ancestors must have been able to call a halt to each expanding family. There is, in fact, plenty of evidence for how the halt is called in primeval human societies.
The most obvious and direct check to the baby crop is to kill the surplus, a practice we know as “infanticide”. Surplus babies were, and indeed are, killed (or left to die) by their parents. This behavior is a frequent, persistent, and hence normal, property of humans. The modern practice of getting at the babies before they have actually been born–abortion–is but a variant on the theme. The same selective process that gave advantage to some distant ancestors of ours who persisted in year-round sex had to ensure that the consequences of that sex were not families too large to raise. Infanticide this gave selective advantage to the families that were programmed to do it."[/i]
–From Fates of Nations, a Biological Theory of History, Chapter 3 “The Human Niche”
One cannot legislate biology, any more than one can legislate morality. Though we try. Oh do we ever try.
And now I am just tingling with anticipation to see who will reject Dr. Colinvaux’s observations based on his allusion to natural selection. It seems that the spheres of those who hate abortion and those who reject the idea of natural selection occupy roughly the same area on a Venn Diagram.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]krummdiddy wrote:
Nobody is “pro-abortion” you fuck tard… pro choice saves lives… because the people that want the abortions will still get them but instead of having a safe place they will do them at home… [/quote]
And this is why the issue will never be settled to everyone’s satisfaction. Abortion is not just about “right” and “wrong”. It’s an emotional and moral issue, yes, a legal issue, certainly, a religious issue, definitely (religion being an amalgam of morality and legality) and a “who has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body” issue. But it’s primarily an economic and ecological issue, as one of my favorite ecologists, Dr Colinvaux, explains.
[i]"People have strange sex habits. Our females ovulate roughly every single month and the males are apparently ready for sexual adventure every day of the year. We must note a necessary and remarkable consequence of it: there will certainly be too many babies.
Our breeding strategy requires that each couple arrive at the optimum size of family, not too few and not too many. It is claimed that a healthy woman can give birth to twenty-five children. An inescapable conclusion follows from this: the primeval human breeding strategy involved a culling of the surplus. In order to avoid evolutionary disaster, our ancestors must have been able to call a halt to each expanding family. There is, in fact, plenty of evidence for how the halt is called in primeval human societies.
The most obvious and direct check to the baby crop is to kill the surplus, a practice we know as “infanticide”. Surplus babies were, and indeed are, killed (or left to die) by their parents. This behavior is a frequent, persistent, and hence normal, property of humans. The modern practice of getting at the babies before they have actually been born–abortion–is but a variant on the theme. The same selective process that gave advantage to some distant ancestors of ours who persisted in year-round sex had to ensure that the consequences of that sex were not families too large to raise. Infanticide this gave selective advantage to the families that were programmed to do it."[/i]
–From Fates of Nations, a Biological Theory of History, Chapter 3 “The Human Niche”
One cannot legislate biology, any more than one can legislate morality. Though we try. Oh do we ever try.
And now I am just tingling with anticipation to see who will reject Dr. Colinvaux’s observations based on his allusion to natural selection. It seems that the spheres of those who hate abortion and those who reject the idea of natural selection occupy roughly the same area on a Venn Diagram. [/quote]
Damn We agree
Like clockwork.
Outstanding.
Go back two pages and read my previous post. Tell me whether or not you agree with that assessment, and then answer for me the question that I posed.
For the record, you and I are probably on the same side of the issue, but you already knew that.
After you’re done reading my previous post, reread the one you just commented on, and tell me where I or Dr Colinvaux spoke at all about the morality of the practice of infanticide. I think it’s a horrible practice, but the fact remains that it is a practice that has been going on long before recorded history, long before any religion came down against the practice, and will likely continue far into the future, no matter what the law or religion has to say on the matter. Kind of like slavery, another abominable practice with a long and illustrious history.
And putting on my snarky hat for just a moment, I could mention that inasmuch as an estimated 80 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage in the first trimester, the most prolific abortionist in the world appears to be God (we certainly know His position on slavery).
Far be it from me to question the wisdom or morality of Almighty God in not choosing life in these instances. I might even be tempted to call His choice “natural selection.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Damn We agree
[/quote]
A damning indictment of Sir Varq.[/quote]
Yeah, we’ve had this discussion before too, about Aleister Crowley, a despicable human being, by most accounts. An idea exists independently of who came up with it, or who agrees with it.
Hitler thought Manifest Destiny was pretty cool. Hitler was a bad man and a lunatic. Does it follow that the settling of the American West was a crazy, bad idea?
Sorry, Pittbulll, I don’t actually mean to compare you to Hitler. 
Next prediction: Pushharder says, “I wasn’t aware you ever took your snarky hat OFF!”