someone hates jews a lot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Übermensch Wrote:
>
>
> > No, YOU'RE the one that dense here. The Axis
> > powers did not exist during the First World
> War,
> > you're thinking of the Central Powers. The war
> did
> > NOT start in the Balkans - I pressume you are
> > confusing the assassination of the Archduke
> Franz
> > Ferdinand by a Serb with the war itself.
> > Yes, I realize you never refered to Hitler by
> > name, though your accusation of state-sponsored
> > antisemitism on the part of the Central Powers
> > nonetheless implied a lack of knowledge of WWI.
> If
> > you were not mistakenly suggesting that
> National
> > Socialism existed during the Great War, then
> > precisely what did you mean when you claimed
> the
> > Jews would have been wiped out had America not
> > partaken in the war?
>
>
> Sorry central powers not axis. Yes the that
> murder was one of the things that started the war.
> No I am not confusing that event with the entire
> war. Hatred of the Jews in Europe didnt start in
> the 1930s. Both world wars were land grabs, if it
> wasnt the Jews it would have been someone else
> which i already said.

Triggered the war, yes. Part of the war, no.

No, you're absolutely correct - antisemitism was widespread prior to WWII. America and Britain, France and Germany...all the way to Romania and Russia. No, antisemitism was definitely not a uniquely German phenomenon, nor was it a new ideology at the time.

But, this STILL has nothing to do with the Prussian and Austro-Hungarian states. You implied that antisemitism was state-sponsored at the time, and that it was the goal of these states to wipe out the Jewish people.
Both of which are quite incorrect.

> Also my initial post was referring to Paul saying
> we shouldnt have been in WW2
>
> > I never said it WOULD happen (though, likewise,
> I
> > would never be so naive as to insist that it
> never
> > will happen). You questioned me on my view
> > regarding nuclear armaments, and I gave you
> them.
>
> And I pointed out that their view is not a
> practical solution to it. Again Paul is fine with
> anyone who wants to get them having them.

That 'VIEW' is a fucking VIEW. A 'view' is in no way synonymous with a 'solution'. Get a fucking dictionary.

> > Clearly you know next to NOTHING about drugs.
> > Cigarettes are more adictive than most 'hard
> > drugs'. Other countries have experimented with
> > legalization and decriminalization of drugs,
> and
> > statistics have PROVEN that in such cases, use
> of
> > hard drugs does not increase.
> > Regardless, even were this not the case, who
> the
> > fuck are you to tell someone whether or not
> they
> > can become addicted to something? Do you also
> > intend to moniter television watching? What
> about
> > fat and carbohydrate consumption? IT'S NOT YOUR
> > FUCKING PLACE. This is supposed to be a free
> > society - clearly you are anti-fascism, so why
> the
> > fuck don't you recognize that the very laws you
> > attempt to defend are fascist?
> > Oh, right - I guess that goes back to the same
> > shitty education that failed to properly teach
> you
> > the history of Germany and Europe in general.
>
> Im glad a small country is Europe is what your
> going to use to compare to the USA which
> demographically has no equals. Its clearly you
> who knows nothing about hard drugs. You dont use
> heroin socially or crack. Their rehab rates have
> something like an 8 percent success rate.

Actually, I am very experienced with hard drugs, as well as the people that use them, and have previously used them.
I have no idea what 'small country' you are speaking of, but it doesn't matter, as at this point, your argument has already lost all cohesion.
Any drug can be used 'socially', not that this is relevant. I'm sure as hell not dropping my hard earned money on something as expensive as cocaine.
Doesn't mean I won't take a line if offered one.

> And its societies place to tell people they cant
> be addicted to heroin. Those same junkies will be
> the ones in the ER getting free health care and
> applying for welfare. When you take from others
> and expect government help they get the right to
> tell you you cant do heroin.

No...it is not. You're probably one of those people that also thinks homosexuals shouldn't be able to serve in the military, simply because much of 'society' is too ignorant to approve. If you're worried about addicts 'in the ER getting free health care and applying for welfare' then go bitch about health care and welfare laws. Neither of those are the issue at hand.
Do you wish to ban tobacco? Should we re-implement alcohol prohibition?
After reading everything you've written, I almost wish you'd been forced to pay attention in your English classes (work on your fucking writing), but in the end, it's really not my place to force people to know what I believe they should know.

> All this goes back to is your hatred of people and
> YOUR desire to defend your own personal drug use.
How do you figure? What is 'all this'? And 'goes back' to when?
It's never too late to go back to school, my friend. Do yourself a favor and enroll in some English and logic courses.

Übermensch Wrote:



> Triggered the war, yes. Part of the war, no.

Triggering a war is being part of the start of a war.

> No, you're absolutely correct - antisemitism was
> widespread prior to WWII. America and Britain,
> France and Germany...all the way to Romania and
> Russia. No, antisemitism was definitely not a
> uniquely German phenomenon, nor was it a new
> ideology at the time.
>
> But, this STILL has nothing to do with the
> Prussian and Austro-Hungarian states. You implied
> that antisemitism was state-sponsored at the time,
> and that it was the goal of these states to wipe
> out the Jewish people.
> Both of which are quite incorrect.

It wasnt at the time but if these same places were willing to start a 2nd WW 20ish years later with one of the goals being to eliminate the jews, theres nothing that says they wouldnt do it when they already had control of the areas.


> Actually, I am very experienced with hard drugs,
> as well as the people that use them, and have
> previously used them.
> I have no idea what 'small country' you are
> speaking of, but it doesn't matter, as at this
> point, your argument has already lost all
> cohesion.
> Any drug can be used 'socially', not that this is
> relevant. I'm sure as hell not dropping my hard
> earned money on something as expensive as cocaine.
>
> Doesn't mean I won't take a line if offered one.

Its no shock to me that youve used hard drugs with the views you have. You can google the small pro drug countries on your own and figure it out. No you cant socially use highly addictive substances. Maybe a few people can the vast majority cannot.

Again its not a shock to find out you are a criminal.
>
> No...it is not. You're probably one of those
> people that also thinks homosexuals shouldn't be
> able to serve in the military, simply because much
> of 'society' is too ignorant to approve. If you're
> worried about addicts 'in the ER getting free
> health care and applying for welfare' then go
> bitch about health care and welfare laws. Neither
> of those are the issue at hand.
> Do you wish to ban tobacco? Should we re-implement
> alcohol prohibition?
> After reading everything you've written, I almost
> wish you'd been forced to pay attention in your
> English classes (work on your fucking writing),
> but in the end, it's really not my place to force
> people to know what I believe they should know.

No tobacco and booze shouldnt be illegal. Once somethings legal you cant unlegalize it and booze are only bad if you abuse them. In small quantities they are actually good for you, heroin is not in any quantity.

Healthcare and welfare is part of the drug legalization discussion because they same people like you who bitch it isnt legal will be the same ones who bitch if someone tries to say you have to take drug tests for welfare ect.


> How do you figure? What is 'all this'? And 'goes
> back' to when?
> It's never too late to go back to school, my
> friend. Do yourself a favor and enroll in some
> English and logic courses.

You should lay off the drugs, they have clearly destroyed your brain

I'd be okay for the at two year abortion idea if most of the population thought it a good idea.

Children are the world and they deserve the proper considerations. Sometimes there just isn't room, and you should mind your buisness.

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd be okay for the at two year abortion idea if
> most of the population thought it a good idea.
>
> Children are the world and they deserve the proper
> considerations. Sometimes there just isn't room,
> and you should mind your buisness.

Im glad you have no consideration what so ever for human life. Explains a lot about what you think like you do. Saying that something is okay just because most people think its okay is just asinine. The Germans thought it was okay to kill Jews so that made it okay? The Soviets thought it was okay to have forced labor camps so that makes it right? The North Korean military thinks its fine to let their people starve to death while they enjoy the riches of the country so thats fine?

Killing people is societies business, we dont live in a lawless land where its okay to go out and kill who ever you want. Children should be no different, and should be even more protected since they cant even defend themselves.

someone hates jews a lot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Übermensch Wrote:
>
>
>
> > Triggered the war, yes. Part of the war, no.
>
> Triggering a war is being part of the start of a
> war.
>
> > No, you're absolutely correct - antisemitism
> was
> > widespread prior to WWII. America and Britain,
> > France and Germany...all the way to Romania and
> > Russia. No, antisemitism was definitely not a
> > uniquely German phenomenon, nor was it a new
> > ideology at the time.
> >
> > But, this STILL has nothing to do with the
> > Prussian and Austro-Hungarian states. You
> implied
> > that antisemitism was state-sponsored at the
> time,
> > and that it was the goal of these states to
> wipe
> > out the Jewish people.
> > Both of which are quite incorrect.
>
> It wasnt at the time but if these same places were
> willing to start a 2nd WW 20ish years later with
> one of the goals being to eliminate the jews,
> theres nothing that says they wouldnt do it when
> they already had control of the areas.

Seriously, GO PICK UP A FUCKING BOOK. You need to study the inter-war period, because you clearly know nothing of what happened between the two wars.

> > Actually, I am very experienced with hard
> drugs,
> > as well as the people that use them, and have
> > previously used them.
> > I have no idea what 'small country' you are
> > speaking of, but it doesn't matter, as at this
> > point, your argument has already lost all
> > cohesion.
> > Any drug can be used 'socially', not that this
> is
> > relevant. I'm sure as hell not dropping my hard
> > earned money on something as expensive as
> cocaine.
> >
> > Doesn't mean I won't take a line if offered
> one.
>
> Its no shock to me that youve used hard drugs with
> the views you have. You can google the small pro
> drug countries on your own and figure it out.

What 'pro-drug countries' are you talking about? 'Pro-drug'? Now you're just making shit up.

> No
> you cant socially use highly addictive substances.
> Maybe a few people can the vast majority cannot.

And you base this claim on what?

> Again its not a shock to find out you are a
> criminal.
> >
> > No...it is not. You're probably one of those
> > people that also thinks homosexuals shouldn't
> be
> > able to serve in the military, simply because
> much
> > of 'society' is too ignorant to approve. If
> you're
> > worried about addicts 'in the ER getting free
> > health care and applying for welfare' then go
> > bitch about health care and welfare laws.
> Neither
> > of those are the issue at hand.
> > Do you wish to ban tobacco? Should we
> re-implement
> > alcohol prohibition?
> > After reading everything you've written, I
> almost
> > wish you'd been forced to pay attention in your
> > English classes (work on your fucking writing),
> > but in the end, it's really not my place to
> force
> > people to know what I believe they should know.
>
> No tobacco and booze shouldnt be illegal. Once
> somethings legal you cant unlegalize it and booze
> are only bad if you abuse them. In small
> quantities they are actually good for you, heroin
> is not in any quantity.

Alright, you REALLY need to stop now. EVERYTHING you say only serves to further clarify just how clueless you are. Do you not realize that heroin was originally used exclusively for medicine, and to this day, is STILL used for medicinal purposes? SERIOUSLY, kid, stop talking about shit you know nothing about.

> Healthcare and welfare is part of the drug
> legalization discussion because they same people
> like you who bitch it isnt legal will be the same
> ones who bitch if someone tries to say you have to
> take drug tests for welfare ect.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here. I'll repeat myself again, GO TO SCHOOL. LEARN THE FUCKING ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROPERLY.

> > How do you figure? What is 'all this'? And
> 'goes
> > back' to when?
> > It's never too late to go back to school, my
> > friend. Do yourself a favor and enroll in some
> > English and logic courses.
>
> You should lay off the drugs, they have clearly
> destroyed your brain

This is clearly not the case, though even if it were, my brain is functioning better than yours ever could.

Next time you reply, fucking read over what you've typed, because I'm sick of having to decipher your shitty English.

Übermensch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> Seriously, GO PICK UP A FUCKING BOOK. You need to
> study the inter-war period, because you clearly
> know nothing of what happened between the two
> wars.

Obviously logic is above your intelligence level.


> What 'pro-drug countries' are you talking about?
> 'Pro-drug'? Now you're just making shit up.

Look up information and not just base it off your own life you will learn a lot.


> And you base this claim on what?

Facts and research, something you should use once in a while.



> Alright, you REALLY need to stop now. EVERYTHING
> you say only serves to further clarify just how
> clueless you are. Do you not realize that heroin
> was originally used exclusively for medicine, and
> to this day, is STILL used for medicinal purposes?
> SERIOUSLY, kid, stop talking about shit you know
> nothing about.

What truth? Heroin is rarely used for medicine except in EXTREME cases for pain relief in a hospital. It has no benefit other than pain relief in extreme cases, its not a take home medicine and stop trying to imply that it is. Should I list all the other things that used to be used for medical purposes to show how dumb this argument is.


> I don't even know what you're trying to say here.
> I'll repeat myself again, GO TO SCHOOL. LEARN THE
> FUCKING ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROPERLY.

I forgot youd destroyed your brain ill break it down as simply as I can for you.

Health care and welfare is relevant to the discussion of whether or not drugs should be legalized because they will have drug addicts on them. Drug users like you will be the first people that will complain when other people want there to be drug tests in order to get welfare and try and make it so that drug users can get free money. Its not hard to understand.


> This is clearly not the case, though even if it
> were, my brain is functioning better than yours
> ever could.
>
> Next time you reply, fucking read over what you've
> typed, because I'm sick of having to decipher your
> shitty English.

It is the case. You think you are a lot smarter than you are and get off on trying to insult people to defend your own shortcomings.

Just for future reference if you are going to try and act like you are so much smarter than people you shouldnt use curse words in your response. All they do is show a lack of intelligence and in ability to express your self, but that shouldnt be surprising considering the source

someone hates jews a lot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Übermensch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> > Seriously, GO PICK UP A FUCKING BOOK. You need
> to
> > study the inter-war period, because you clearly
> > know nothing of what happened between the two
> > wars.
>
> Obviously logic is above your intelligence level.


Non sequitur...how terribly ironic.


>
> > What 'pro-drug countries' are you talking
> about?
> > 'Pro-drug'? Now you're just making shit up.
>
> Look up information and not just base it off your
> own life you will learn a lot.

I am quite well educated and have done, and continue to do, much research.
So explain to me, what the fuck is a 'pro-drug country'? I have never heard of such a thing. Is this something you learned about from Glenn Beck?


> > And you base this claim on what?
>
> Facts and research, something you should use once
> in a while.

Work on your comprehension (or, as I've suggested, GO BACK TO SCHOOL).
You did not answer my question. I asked what you're basing your outrageous claims on. If you believe they are based on 'facts', then present the fucking facts. It's as simple as that.


>
> > Alright, you REALLY need to stop now.
> EVERYTHING
> > you say only serves to further clarify just how
> > clueless you are. Do you not realize that
> heroin
> > was originally used exclusively for medicine,
> and
> > to this day, is STILL used for medicinal
> purposes?
> > SERIOUSLY, kid, stop talking about shit you
> know
> > nothing about.
>
> What truth? Heroin is rarely used for medicine
> except in EXTREME cases for pain relief in a
> hospital. It has no benefit other than pain
> relief in extreme cases, its not a take home
> medicine and stop trying to imply that it is.
> Should I list all the other things that used to be
> used for medical purposes to show how dumb this
> argument is.

I never implied anything, I stated precisely what I intended to. You claimed heroin had no practical medicinal value. I responded.
You were incorrect. Get over it.


> > I don't even know what you're trying to say
> here.
> > I'll repeat myself again, GO TO SCHOOL. LEARN
> THE
> > FUCKING ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROPERLY.
>
> I forgot youd destroyed your brain ill break it
> down as simply as I can for you.

It's unfortunate that you can't appreciate the irony of your insults.


> Health care and welfare is relevant to the
> discussion of whether or not drugs should be
> legalized because they will have drug addicts on
> them. Drug users like you will be the first
> people that will complain when other people want
> there to be drug tests in order to get welfare and
> try and make it so that drug users can get free
> money. Its not hard to understand.

This has nothing to do with welfare - welfare is a separate issue. If you wish to debate what qualifies someone for welfare, go ahead, but that is not what we have been discussing.


> > This is clearly not the case, though even if it
> > were, my brain is functioning better than yours
> > ever could.
> >
> > Next time you reply, fucking read over what
> you've
> > typed, because I'm sick of having to decipher
> your
> > shitty English.
>
> It is the case. You think you are a lot smarter
> than you are and get off on trying to insult
> people to defend your own shortcomings.
>
> Just for future reference if you are going to try
> and act like you are so much smarter than people
> you shouldnt use curse words in your response.
> All they do is show a lack of intelligence and in
> ability to express your self, but that shouldnt be
> surprising considering the source


I'm not 'acting' like anything, I'm simply responding to the terrible English you've been subjecting me to.
I will swear as much as I fucking like. This is the internet, get used to it. If you honestly believe that one's use of vulgarity is indicative of lesser intelligence, then you REALLY shouldn't be criticizing anyone's logic (let alone mine).

So you think killing a fetus is equivalent to Ethnic cleansing?

That is asinine.

How many children have you adopted?

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you think killing a fetus is equivalent to
> Ethnic cleansing?
>
> That is asinine.
>
> How many children have you adopted?

You're not talking to me, right?

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you think killing a fetus is equivalent to
> Ethnic cleansing?
>
> That is asinine.
>
> How many children have you adopted?

You made the statement if enough people feel its okay then it is when referring to killing 2 year olds. How is that any different? Or are you only against the killing of minorities?

Saying its okay to kill a 2 year old if enough people are for it is asinine.

You dont have to adopt children to have a stance on the issue, im not out there creating babies before im ready to have one. Others should do the same. If you dont want a kid dont get pregnant its 100 percent preventable.

If you get raped and want to take the morning after pill thats a different story than people getting abortions months into the pregnancy

how do you address the needs of unwanted children if you aren't adopting them.

You assume it's a perfect world and it isn't. You assume people will make the right decisions when they don't. You deliver ultimatums but you have no solutions. Grow up and mind your buisness.

Controlling abortions is impossible. All you accomplish is heightening the danger for women who are going to abort regardless of your attempts to control them. Again, mind your buisness.

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> how do you address the needs of unwanted children
> if you aren't adopting them.
>
> You assume it's a perfect world and it isn't. You
> assume people will make the right decisions when
> they don't. You deliver ultimatums but you have
> no solutions. Grow up and mind your buisness.
>
> Controlling abortions is impossible. All you
> accomplish is heightening the danger for women who
> are going to abort regardless of your attempts to
> control them. Again, mind your buisness.

Killing them isnt addressing their needs.

I dont assume its a perfect world but two wrongs dont make a right. Theres really not an excuse for an unwanted pregnancy its just people being stupid. That said yes abortions will probably never be illegal, but the fact that people want 0 restrictions on them is insane. You shouldnt be able to get one at 6 months, you should be made aware of what it really is, if your 15 you should have your parents notified. It shouldnt be viewed as a form of birth control.

If those woman took care of their own business and didnt get pregnant they wouldnt have to worry about other people getting in their business. Stop acting like theres some fundamental right to kill your child. At least own up to it for what it is.

Theres also a difference between speaking about it morally and then practically what could actually be done since so few people have no regard for human life

Do you live in the real world? Maybe you should stick to the practical.

Your "moral ideal" is a fantasy so youre just wasting your time. It has nothing to do with two wrongs. It has to do with very difficult, life changing decisions. The only wrong is you trying to force your moral authority on people's situation you have no idea about. Talk about a lack of understanding and compassion (wasn't Jesus for those things?)

You can't be pro-life unless you have a solution for unwanted children. Growing up unwanted is a horrid curse, and you are certainly not willing to take care of these kids.

Bill Cosby said it best:
I brought you in this world and I can take you out of this world, and it won't bother me and your momma one bit, cause we can make a whole bunch more, look just like you.

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Your "moral ideal" is a fantasy so youre just
> wasting your time. It has nothing to do with two
> wrongs. It has to do with very difficult, life
> changing decisions. The only wrong is you trying
> to force your moral authority on people's
> situation you have no idea about.

Yeah, just like all those people in prison. Why are we forcing our moral authority on them? Sometimes you just have to kill, steal, or rape. Depending on your situation. Who are we to pass judgement?

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You can't be pro-life unless you have a solution
> for unwanted children. Growing up unwanted is a
> horrid curse, and you are certainly not willing to
> take care of these kids.
>


Right now abortion is used as a get out of jail free card for by stupid/lazy people who make poor decisions. The ease and availability of abortion is what enables their irresponsible behavior. If that option were limited or taken away completely things would change.

Behavior would shift over time and there would be less unwanted pregnancies. And most adoption agencies currently have long waiting lists.

Why should "stupid/lazy people who make poor decisions" be the only ones giving birth? Believe me, those "stupid/lazy people who make poor decisions" are not going to change their behavior if abortion becomes unavailable.

I'm just glad Republicans like Rick Santorum are finally instituting laws to out birth control and condoms.

Sex is for creation only! I also support republican efforts to get rid of pornography that poisons minds!

We need more legislation on these matters!

So, you've compared women seeking abortion to war criminals, rapists and murderers. You think you're gonna win em over with that?

You can sling insults but you have yet to come up with anything close to a solution.

I think you better crack that bible open again; Maybe learn some empathy.

Getting an abortion is not easy, physically or mentally.

At least it's not deadly and extremly dangerous like the situation you and your ilk would like to see.

Adoption agency have not solved the unwanted child problem. You're either ignorant or you play fast and loose with the truth. I think Jesus is against that.

History negates your argument.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2012 12:14PM by Atom.

So the Republican party that stands for less government intervention and American freedoms is now trying to pass laws based on religious views.

Hypocrisy at it's finest. Keep up the good work GOPtards!

its murder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Theres really not an excuse for an unwanted
> pregnancy its just people being stupid.

I’d guess that you’re a virgin.

> You shouldnt be able to get [an abortion] at 6 months.

Just how many abortions are performed @ 6 Months?

> [Abortion] shouldnt be viewed as a form of birth control.

Who says that it is?

> If those woman took care of their own business and
> didnt get pregnant they wouldnt have to worry
> about other people getting in their business.

Yep, a virgin.

> Stop acting like theres some fundamental right to
> kill your child.

A fetus is not a child.

> Theres also a difference between speaking about it
> morally and then practically what could actually
> be done since so few people have no regard for
> human life

How is impractical morality useful?

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you live in the real world? Maybe you should
> stick to the practical.
>
> Your "moral ideal" is a fantasy so youre just
> wasting your time. It has nothing to do with two
> wrongs. It has to do with very difficult, life
> changing decisions. The only wrong is you trying
> to force your moral authority on people's
> situation you have no idea about. Talk about a
> lack of understanding and compassion (wasn't Jesus
> for those things?)


You reach new levels of stupidity with every response. You really just tried to use a Jesus was compassionate argument to defend murdering babies.

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I’d guess that you’re a virgin.

No and I dont have any kids either. Use a condom, have her on the pill too. Hell still pull out with all of that, no baby. Its almost like if you are responsible about it you can avoid unwanted pregnancies.

> > You shouldnt be able to get at 6 months.
>
> Just how many abortions are performed @ 6 Months?

WAY to many. Some people even want partial birth abortion to be legal where they cut the babies spin as its being born. You shouldnt be able to get abortions at 5 months or 4 months or 3 or 2 months either. You know if you were an idiot and had unprotected sex thats why theres a plan b pill.


> Who says that it is?

It absolutely is. The amount of them that are performed each year show that. The fact that NO regulations what so ever can be put on it without people going crazy shows that.


> Yep, a virgin.

I guess you are unaware of contraceptives.


> A fetus is not a child.

A fetus is a child. If you kill a pregnant mother you get charged with 2 counts of murder as well.


> How is impractical morality useful?

The bottom line is its murder but it will never be made illegal. Theres to many people in the pro abortion crowd for the time being so the hope of it being outlawed is miniscule. There is hope that some regulations could be put on it.

Let me ask this is the pro abortion crowd is so convinced that it is a hard choice ect, then why are they so against the women actually being made aware of what they are doing, or meeting with someone to talk about it, or being made aware of what their options are if they did want to keep it. Why do they just want it to be like stopping at the store to get your baby killed and be on the way

PartyofNo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the Republican party that stands for less
> government intervention and American freedoms is
> now trying to pass laws based on religious views.
>
> Hypocrisy at it's finest. Keep up the good work
> GOPtards!

Its got nothing to do with religion.

Abortion is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, Koran, etc. And there are plenty of pro-life people who are not the least bit religious.

its murder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Just how many abortions are performed @ 6 Months?
>
> WAY [too] many.

You have no idea how many abortions are performed @ 6 months.
As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

> > Who says that [abortion is used as birth control]?
>
> It absolutely is. The amount of them that are
> performed each year show that.

Well, how many abortions are performed each year? Of course, you
have no idea. How would the number indicate their reason/purpose.
Again, you don’t know because you are uneducated about the subjects
on which you pontificate.

> > A fetus is not a child.
>
> A fetus is a child.

Yet another unsupported, unsubstantiated statement.

> > How is impractical morality useful?
>
> The bottom line is its murder but it will never be made illegal.

So shut the fuck up already.

Thanks!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2012 03:01PM by sleepy.

Rent a clue... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Abortion is not specifically mentioned in the
> Bible, Koran, etc. And there are plenty of
> pro-life people who are not the least bit
> religious.

Then why is abortion wrong?

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, you've compared women seeking abortion to war
> criminals, rapists and murderers. You think
> you're gonna win em over with that?
>
> You can sling insults but you have yet to come up
> with anything close to a solution.
>
> I think you better crack that bible open again;
> Maybe learn some empathy.

Nice job refuting the argument...oh wait, you didn't.

Very few of these posts even mention the bible or religion. Except for yours. And none of the pro-life posters on here have cited a religious argument. I wonder why you keep bringing it up.

I don't see any reason to empathize with criminals. Unless you are one.

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You have no idea how many abortions are performed
> @ 6 months.
> As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking
> about.

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. About 2 million abortions happen every year and probably more since CA wont give CDC their information people have to just guess on it and its the state with the most in the country. 1 percent are performed at 6 months. Thats 20,000 WAY TO MANY. 1 is to many at 6 months.



> Well, how many abortions are performed each year?
> Of course, you
> have no idea. How would the number indicate their
> reason/purpose.
> Again, you don’t know because you are uneducated
> about the subjects
> on which you pontificate.

Says the person that has brought 0 facts, information, or even logical arguments to the table. Its you that lives in your pro baby killing box that has no idea how many happen a year. About 40 percent of women will have an abortion at some point in their life. In the younger generations that number is much higher. Either bring something meaningful to the conversation or stop wasting everyones time just trying to make personal attacks since the facts are against you but then again there would be no liberals if everyone dealt in facts.

> Yet another unsupported, unsubstantiated
> statement.

No its not. How is a baby not a child? Get an ultrasound you see a baby. Kill a pregnant woman you get charged with 2 murders. Tell me how its not a baby. Oh right you dont deal in fact you just say whatever you want and people are supposed to accept that it is true.


> So shut the fuck up already.

Take your own advice and let the adults talk since you have nothing to add to this what so ever

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rent a clue... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Abortion is not specifically mentioned in the
> > Bible, Koran, etc. And there are plenty of
> > pro-life people who are not the least bit
> > religious.
>
> Then why is abortion wrong?

Because some people believe its murder, which is considered wrong in every civilized society.

its murder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> About 2 million abortions happen every
> year and probably more since CA wont give CDC
> their information people have to just guess on it
> and its the state with the most in the country.

From the CDC: In 2008, 825,564 abortions were
reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion
ratio was 234 abortions per 1,000 live births in 2008.
We can guessimate the number of abortion in California
thusly: There were 551,567 live births in California in 2008.
Using the 49 state abortion rate (234/1,000 live births),
we can calculate that 129,067 abortions were performed in
California in 2008. The grand total of abortions performed
in the US in 2008 was 954,631.

Since you’re not very good w/numbers, I’ll tell you that
954,631 is less than half of 2 million.

> 1 percent are performed at 6 months. Thats 20,000 WAY TO
> MANY. 1 is to many at 6 months..

According again to the CDC, in 2008 1.38% of all abortions occured
after 21 weeks gestation. Using our 954,631 total above, that
means 13,129 abortions were performed after 21 weeks (which,
since you’re bad a math, is 5 weeks short of six months). Again,
what you think/feel/believe is wrong.

> Says the person that has brought 0 facts,
> information, or even logical arguments to the
> table.

Okay, I brought facts. They prove that you’re wrong.

> How is a baby not a child?

A baby is a child. A fetus is neither a baby nor a child.
Up until the 10th week of gestation, its not even a fetus.
It’s called a zygote. Fetuses are not capable of feeling
pain at the beginning of the fetal stage, and may not
be able to feel pain until the third trimester. Before 21
weeks, fetuses are not viable (they cannot exist independently
of their host) and therefore are not babies/children/people.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2012 03:57PM by sleepy.

1 million abortions in a single year is not people using it from tragic circumstances thats people using it as birth control.

Nice try trying to spin the numbers you forgot to mention 16 abortions per every 1000 women aged 20-24 and 21.6 for every 1000 women aged 25-29. You also didnt mention that kids aged 15-19 accounted for 16.9 percent of ALL abortions.

1 in 200,000 is absolutely not the rate in California who does not report to the CDC.

All of these numbers are before the economy really tanked and you can bet that even more people are doing it now than before.

A fetus is absolutely a child.

YOU GET CHARGED FOR TWO COUNTS OF MURDER WHEN YOU MURDER A PREGNANT WOMAN.

Keep ignoring things yous dont like and spinning numbers though

its murder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1 million abortions in a single year is not people
> using it from tragic circumstances thats people
> using it as birth control.

What are "tragic circumstances"? What do you mean
when you say, 'use abortion as birth control'?

> Nice try trying to spin the numbers you forgot to
> mention 16 abortions per every 1000 women aged
> 20-24 and 21.6 for every 1000 women aged 25-29.
> You also didnt mention that kids aged 15-19
> accounted for 16.9 percent of ALL abortions.

I didn't 'forget' those stats, they're just not
germane to the conversation.

> 1 in 200,000 is absolutely not the rate in
> California who does not report to the CDC.

The abortion rate I ascribed to CA is 234
per 1,000 live births. Can you not read?

> A fetus is absolutely a child.
>
> YOU GET CHARGED FOR TWO COUNTS OF MURDER WHEN YOU
> MURDER A PREGNANT WOMAN.

That the law considers a fetus to be a child does
not make it so.

> Keep ignoring things yous dont like and spinning
> numbers though

I've proven my point and you wrong, so I'm done.

Thanks for playing.

I'd bet you Jesus would agree with me.

Your whole ethos is the afterbirth of clergy calculation to increase their flock and their fleecing.

Less abortions and less contraception mean more parishioners.

You're the one whO comes off as dull and narrow minded.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2012 04:43PM by Atom.

I'd say Ron Paul has excellent chance to take Virginia. It will be interesting to see what happening today and if Romney can win.

Hey, you fuckers wanna start a new thread about abortion or something? 'Cause you've sure done a great job derailing this thread from its stated topic.


Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd bet you Jesus would agree with me.

lol.
Jesus...