Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=WKByFPy7-RU I've linked you to the newscoverage of Sarah Palin's acceptance speech of becoming VP. It is 26 min long. This woman is the perfect person for vp. First, it takes away woman voters from the democrats. Second, she is the feminist that can work with pretty much all feminists except the radical leftists. She works, is pro life, and unlike Obama, actually has experiance leading people. She is the perfect VP candidate for reaching across he aisle for Democrats and Republicans.
lol this means McCain can't use his "inexperience" rhetoric against Obama. I think McCain cares more about winning this election than for the future of the country lol. A VP is suppose to be fit for role of President if something happes to the PResident. MAN, I would rather have Hillary be PResident than this unknown Palin lady....just imagine her being President. I think this VP pick has a chance to backfire. I can't wait for the VP debates where Biden will own Palin roflmao Muad, she is also pro-life...so women who are unsure about abortion or who believe that they should have a choice in their babies won't really like her. note; I am not for Obama or McCain...I am more liberatarian but just my 2cents I think. Obama seems to think everyone will cooperate to his plan lol he will have many enemies if he wins and he would find it very hard to accoplish things hes promising now.
I don't like her. And Pro-life restricts rights.
R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 29 August 2008 20:07 I don't like her. And Pro-life restricts rights. Restricts whose rights? The woman's? What about the child's?
cheesesoda wrote on Fri, 29 August 2008 20:45 R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 29 August 2008 20:07 I don't like her. And Pro-life restricts rights. Restricts whose rights? The woman's? What about the child's? Sadly Cheesesoda, a lot of people consider a baby in utero nothing more than a parasite with no fundamental human rights.
GoArmy44 wrote on Fri, 29 August 2008 20:52 cheesesoda wrote on Fri, 29 August 2008 20:45 R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 29 August 2008 20:07 I don't like her. And Pro-life restricts rights. Restricts whose rights? The woman's? What about the child's? Sadly Cheesesoda, a lot of people consider a baby in utero nothing more than a parasite with no fundamental human rights. Oh, I know. I posted a pro-life image on a liberal site (deviantART), I know the opinions of many.
Sorry, I should rephrase what I said. Pro-life restricts more rights than pro-choice. Pro-life restricts the woman's rights because the child's rights would be restricted either way. I did a debate in my government class about abortion, my side was pro-choice. I had an argument that I was trying to remember with what I stated above.. but I just don't remember what I was going to say. It had something to do with age restrictions on various things... but I just can't remember it. :\
I don't see how it's any different from the interaction between adults. We can't go killing anybody we want because they make our lives inconvenient, especially if we're to blame for their presence. This principle is just extended to unborn children because they're human that should be given the right to life.
lol whatever apply your moral and religious values elsewhere than law
Okay then, lets get rid of all our laws as they are all based in moral and religous values. Who knows, we might become like the innercity in 30 years. Biden will not "own" her in VP debates. The guy has been wrong for 30 years. I don't count that as experiance. He's a liar, and an idiot. Palin has some number of years, I can't remeber how many, as mayor of a town and then 2 years as governor of Alaska. That is not inexperiance. What Obama has is inexpericance. He's a street agitator with 143 days in congress. Thats nowhere near then amount of experiance that Sarah Palin has in office and leading people. He's never done that, and neither has Biden. So in a more ways than one, she has more experiance in what is needed to run the country than both Biden and Obama.
One of the things that pisses me off about Obama is that he seems to be slightly socialistic and more in favor of giving entitlements to people making them lazy.
Rocko wrote on Sat, 30 August 2008 02:19 lol whatever apply your moral and religious values elsewhere than law What moral or religious value did I apply to abortion? Do you not agree that people shouldn't be allowed to kill each other because they're an inconvenience?
I think she's an awesome choice. She will definitely appeal to the moms who were gung-ho about Hilary. Men too, will go for her, because she's pretty hot, she doesn't wear pant-suits, and because she is a traditional mother who doesn't have a vagina filled with teeth. Frankly, I was hoping for someone like Mitt Romney, or Bobby Jindal, but she makes the race much more interesting. McCain does get rid of the 'experience, or lack' argument by doing this, but judging by Obama's success, it seems 'experience' may not be a very high priority for voters. She's also earned a reputation for going after a lot of 'pork-barreling' projects, and people within her own party. I think she'll have what it takes to face off with Joe Biden, a man who I also have great respect for. Honestly, I'd have to say that this election shows the world what America is like when it's at its best, and Americans should be proud.
cheesesoda wrote on Sat, 30 August 2008 08:54 Rocko wrote on Sat, 30 August 2008 02:19 lol whatever apply your moral and religious values elsewhere than law What moral or religious value did I apply to abortion? Do you not agree that people shouldn't be allowed to kill each other because they're an inconvenience? okay you believe that a tiny blob of cells is a human being but I don't, and obviously it some way your views on the issue are going to be affected by your conservative christian values.
I think darkies like you aren't human beings, but that doesn't mean my opinion is right... If you can see how stupid and arrogant that sounds, then you might want to step back and look inside yourself for a while. I'm far from Christian conservative, but my fiancee and I didn't have an abortion. We came up to the point of doing it, waited right before she had to go in for the procedure and walked away. We knew it wasn't right. You might choose to kill that child if you were in my position. I didn't, and I don't feel anyone should have the choice to kill like that. The fact that we could have walked into a clinic and ended my daughter's life in a few moments is very real in my mind. That she walks around and is happy and healthy becuase we didn't go through with the procedure makes it look like attempted murder.
Believe what you want, but "a little blob of cells" is scientifically proven to be human. A Human being is defined by an entity that is composed of its own cells and DNA structure that dictate a human. And since the DNA structure of an unborn baby is different than that of the mother's, it is a human being.
Rocko wrote on Sat, 30 August 2008 20:50 cheesesoda wrote on Sat, 30 August 2008 08:54 Rocko wrote on Sat, 30 August 2008 02:19 lol whatever apply your moral and religious values elsewhere than law What moral or religious value did I apply to abortion? Do you not agree that people shouldn't be allowed to kill each other because they're an inconvenience? okay you believe that a tiny blob of cells is a human being but I don't, and obviously it some way your views on the issue are going to be affected by your conservative christian values. We were all a "blob of cells" at one point. In some ways, I don't feel that you progressed much from that point, either. If I view the cells as human, then I can't be a libertarian and NOT be pro-life.
Aircraftkiller wrote on Sat, 30 August 2008 20:27 I think darkies like you aren't human beings, but that doesn't mean my opinion is right... If you can see how stupid and arrogant that sounds, then you might want to step back and look inside yourself for a while. I'm far from Christian conservative, but my fiancee and I didn't have an abortion. We came up to the point of doing it, waited right before she had to go in for the procedure and walked away. We knew it wasn't right. You might choose to kill that child if you were in my position. I didn't, and I don't feel anyone should have the choice to kill like that. The fact that we could have walked into a clinic and ended my daughter's life in a few moments is very real in my mind. That she walks around and is happy and healthy becuase we didn't go through with the procedure makes it look like attempted murder. okay if you dont like black people thats not my problem. Anyways, besides the scientific definition, I don't believe the Supreme Court or law has ever set in stone when an embryo is legally a human being. Also it's not like I want everyone to have an abortion lol. Just that the government should not be involved in the matter and allow people to decide for themselves. And since you're christian why does it matter? if the fetus/baby is killed right away won't it go straight to heaven anyways? lol
You're fucking stupid. Re-read what I wrote, I said that.. You know what, it won't matter anyway because you didn't understand a damn thing.
I'd just like to throw in here that I'm pretty lucky to be here. While my mom was pregnant with me the doctor performed a test which came back stating I would likely be born with a rare debilitating disease and wouldn't live very long. He suggested she get an abortion and left it up to her. Turns out it was completely erroneous. I was born just fine. However I came very close to due to that mistake. Mind you this isn't totally relavent as if abortion was made completely illegal, there may still be allowances for medical reasons. This may have fallen into that catagory. Still something to think about, and something unsettling... Think of how many babies were never born due to that test giving incorrect results. They stopped administering it a few years after I was born for that very reason. I dunno I think it's kind of unsettling.
I only think abortions should be allowed in cases in which the the pregnancy was imposed and not expected. I don't mean not expected as "I forgot to take birth control" (If that's the reason, then they shouldn't allow it) I mean in a situation like rape or something similar. Also in the case of putting the woman's life at risk.
I watched the DNC to watch history in the making. I'll be watching the RNC for the hot women!! Sarah Palin Cindy McCain McCain's Daughter, Meghan I mean seriously, that's way better than the 'kumbaya'-singing, lesbian granola chicks the Democrats bring in.
lol. Actually, Sarah Palin does have experiance. She was Alaska's governor for 2 years. Unlike Congress, that is a full time job. She has much more experiance than Obama in my book. And yes, I thought of that my self, even though Rush Limbaugh said it first.
That picture of Sarah Palin makes her look absolutely amazing. She looks a little more aged in others...
Shit, McCain's wife and his daughter are very hawt.
Quote: I only think abortions should be allowed in cases in which the the pregnancy was imposed and not expected. I don't mean not expected as "I forgot to take birth control" (If that's the reason, then they shouldn't allow it) I mean in a situation like rape or something similar. Also in the case of putting the woman's life at risk. Laughing... have any of you guys even HAD sex? I have the feeling that your convictions would fold in a case where birth control failed or a condom broke (the latter has happened to me at least 2ce, luckily nothing happened). In other words - a genuine accident, after all measures to avoid pregnancy were taken. A lot of the people I know who are unapologetically anti-abortion are antisocial, bitter virginal losers who think women who have premarital sex are sluts. Also, what do you think of morning-after pills? Same as clinical abortion? Obviously this post does not apply to Aircraftkiller. I can respect him because when the shit hit the fan, he actually manned up and took responsibility.
I've had several partners, and more than one pregnancy scare. Did I consider abortion? Sure, for a minute, and then I realized that I can't take the easy way out of a situation that I put myself in. That and the idea of ending a life for being an inconvenience was absurd.
Ryan3k wrote on Sun, 31 August 2008 16:23 Laughing... have any of you guys even HAD sex? I have the feeling that your convictions would fold in a case where birth control failed or a condom broke (the latter has happened to me at least 2ce, luckily nothing happened). In other words - a genuine accident, after all measures to avoid pregnancy were taken. A lot of the people I know who are unapologetically anti-abortion are antisocial, bitter virginal losers who think women who have premarital sex are sluts. Also, what do you think of morning-after pills? Same as clinical abortion? Don't be stupid. My opinion wouldn't change. It is my opinion for everything, not just abortion. People always choose the easy way out, and when laws grant the easy way out, it screws up society because people become lazy, then the lazy way of doing something becomes the standard way of doing something. So what then? People try to laze out of the lazy way and it just keeps going down like that. There needs to be a law for anything that grants the easy way out of something and says "No, if you can't deal with the consequences, then that is your problem." It has absolutely nothing to do with me personally. If, in the event that I am involved in a pregnancy scare, would I her to consider abortion? Yes I would. But that shouldn't be an option if the pregnancy doesn't fall under on of those categories. And I still consider this to be pro-choice.
I really don't understand how the abortion debate still manages to heat up American politics so much. The United States has a whole slew of larger problems to deal with. Get back to that debate once your deficit is being payed off, and China has fewer of your T-Bills. Plus, if you're sleeping around, and yet are pro-life, something is messed up, because I thought God supposedly looked down on abortion, and premarital sex.
How is abortion not that big of an issue? If I view abortion as murder (as I do), then it is probably the largest impediment of an individual's rights as you can get. That seems to be a worthy cause to fight for. Who says that pro-life means you have to be Christian/religious?
I'm one of those people who believes in not dredging up the past. I figured that since it has been years since Roe v Wade, Americans would have either gotten past it, or put it on the back-burner, because frankly, I think the States has some bigger problems that need to be dealt with. Up here, we've had our abortion debate, and that chapter is over. There are some people who aren't happy with the outcome, but our current government, which is much more conservative than yours, has said that it's not worth opening up the debate. Same thing with same-sex marriage, we had our vote, and although the government doesn't care for it much, they still believe that the debate is over. From what I see, the only country that is so hung up (or at least the most vitriolic) about abortion is the United States. Maybe it's because the concept of 'God' is part and parcel of America, or because your politicians seem to not want to face the real issues... I really don't know. Anyone I have met who opposes abortion, at least to the point of getting angry about it, is religious, and is usually a Catholic or Protestant. I have met people who are not religious that don't particularly like it, because it's a grizzly subject, but they do understand the need for it, and just want to focus on other issues. I myself am in that crowd.
It is a heated debate in the US because the country itself is based on freedom. However there are two freedoms that are granted: The right of say and choice and the right to live. If you are for abortion, you are for the right of choice but against allowing an unborn baby the right to live. However if you are against abortion you are for giving the baby the right to live, but against the right of choice. It is a paradox that can't be settled very easily. That's why it so heated in the US. In fact, when I was doing research for the debate I mentioned in an earlier post, I found that there was this one dude (Who was pro-life) who took an assault rife and opened fire on an abortion clinic killing a desk attendant, and wounding a doctor a secretary and a few patients. Ironic? It just goes to show that it is taken very seriously.
Yeah, well, if we just settle on what was decided in the past then we couldn't fix the mistakes we have made. Our government has decided on allowing for wire tapping without warrants. It's been years since this has become common place. Is my right to privacy not worth the fight for? Anybody who can just say "it's in the past" when it comes to laws is too afraid of questioning what they believe. Any politician not willing to vocalize their views, all of them, is not strong enough in their views. Also, it's not a paradox. It's a matter of whether or not the unborn child is human or a human-to-be. Anybody turning to the argument "it's the woman's body" is looking for a cheap way out to deciding on their values. If the unborn child IS human, then it deserves all of the basic human rights, and unless the child poses a threat to the mother, its rights trumps the mother's misguided assumption that she shouldn't have to be inconvenienced. If it's NOT human, then the fetus doesn't have any rights and abortion should be left alone, unquestioned.
Abortion should only be legal if the sex was non consensual.
A fetus is a human being. It's DNA is different than that of the mother's, therefore, although physically connected to the mother, it is a separate being and therefore is NOT part of the Woman's body.
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 01 September 2008 01:21 A fetus is a human being. It's DNA is different than that of the mother's, therefore, although physically connected to the mother, it is a separate being and therefore is NOT part of the Woman's body. Then you cannot possibly give the woman domain over another human, especially because of an act that she committed. Unless by rape and/or she is physical (or mental) danger, abortion should not be a legal option. Yes, it's her body, but one's rights do not trump another's.
single issue voter alert! palin looks like a moderately manned librarian grr... but really she doesn't bring much for McCain except those sore loser bitch Clinton supporters he pretty much alerdy had. but i few can put it better than comedians: http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=8Aj2w0OdiIM
ids48 wrote on Mon, 01 September 2008 08:38 single issue voter alert! palin looks like a moderately manned librarian grr... but really she doesn't bring much for McCain except those sore loser bitch Clinton supporters he pretty much alerdy had. but i few can put it better than comedians: http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=8Aj2w0OdiIM lmfao lol...
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 01 September 2008 00:21 A fetus is a human being. It's DNA is different than that of the mother's, therefore, although physically connected to the mother, it is a separate being and therefore is NOT part of the Woman's body. So you may ruin three (maybe even four or more if those are twins and more) cause you can't end the existence of a bunch of cells? People should understand the difference between biological life (Even if your brains dead your body can be alive) and real life (emotions, having fun ...).
A fetus will gain brain function, though. A vegetable won't. If someone in a vegetative state will gain brain function, would you still justify pulling the plug?
w0dka wrote on Mon, 01 September 2008 10:49 People should understand the difference between biological life (Even if your brains dead your body can be alive) and real life (emotions, having fun ...). Yes you should. An unborn child develops full brainwaves early in the pregnancy. It is a lifeform that houses its own form of Human DNA and preforms all 7 life functions. If that isn't "alive human being" then would you care to explain what your definition of life is?
nikki6ixx wrote on Sun, 31 August 2008 19:57 I really don't understand how the abortion debate still manages to heat up American politics so much. The United States has a whole slew of larger problems to deal with. Get back to that debate once your deficit is being payed off, and China has fewer of your T-Bills. Plus, if you're sleeping around, and yet are pro-life, something is messed up, because I thought God supposedly looked down on abortion, and premarital sex. well, I consider Christianity to be not only rather absurd but positively immoral, and yet I'm leaning against abortion... though I'm happy to acknowledge what a terribly complicated issue it is, when you take into account factors like rape and the health of the mother...
Extreme views in either direction concerning abortion ignore one of two facts of biology: 1. An early-term embryo has no functional nervous system (though the first activity can be measured fairly early), thus no brain, no consciousness, no feeling. 2. A late-term fetus does have a near-fully-developed nervous system; thus it is capable of feeling and limited thought (possibly consciousness, though we really don't know where that begins), even motor control. We can safely assume that the line between a human being and a potential human being- if a definite line exists- falls somewhere between those two stages of development. There is a huge, obnoxious gray area there, and both sides of the abortion 'debate' (since it is never a formal debate so much as a passionate argument) tend to expand their position from one end clear across the gray area into the opposite end of the pregnancy. This is absolutely stupid. Everything we know about biology tells us that an embryo which is only a month old is not a human being yet- that it is not capable of thought, feeling, or anything beyond the basic metabolic processes which sustain even the most elementary bacteria. Likewise, everything we know about an 8-month-old fetus tells us that it is clearly a human being; it is even able to survive and finish developing outside the womb if necessary (with some assistance from modern medicine- I should know; I was born a month early). Hell, a 6 or 7-month-old fetus is well-developed enough to be recognizable as human, to the point where its brain- as it truly is a brain by that time- is able to effect control over muscles. Arguments to the effect of "we don't know where the line is, so we must err on the side of caution" are utter bullshit- we do know where the line is, we just don't know where it is exactly, and we know damn well that it doesn't lie at conception. Arguments to the effect of "until you are born, you have no rights" are utter bullshit also; we know, and have known since the ECG (that's Electrocardiogram) and the ultrasound became mainstream medicine, that a late-term fetus is as human as a newborn baby. Arguments from the "it's your responsibility, slacker" perspective are even worse, relying on ad-hominem to make their point. Yes, it's your responsibility... but the argument goes both ways, doesn't it? It is your responsibility not to bring a baby into the world when you know you can't care for it, just as it is your responsibility to make sure that baby is cared for if and when it is born. It is an inherently neutral argument given weight only by the actual or implicit inclusion of "you kill babies because they're inconvenient." Based on the known facts- not on bullshit, not on the "Word of God," and not on those heart-wrenching pictures of dead embryos- my stated opinion on the subject is that abortion only becomes objectionable late in a pregnancy when the fetus is known to be a thinking, feeling creature. What would I do if I got someone pregnant? I honestly have no idea; I've never been there. I like to think that I'd consult her, then make a decision based on our situation at the time- but who knows, maybe I'd get all sentimental over that little clump of cells and try to hold onto it no matter what. What I do know is that sentimentality makes horrible policy; the difference between "right" and "wrong" on this subject is almost always defined by entirely subjective views- not by biology. Not to drag this even further off-topic or anything- just trying to inject a little common sense (appalling how uncommon it is) into the thread. By all means, flame away.
R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 29 August 2008 19:07 I don't like her. And Pro-life restricts rights. Nais offtopic post to get us way ot.
It wasn't off topic. You mentioned her being pro-life, so I responded.
cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 01 September 2008 10:19 A fetus will gain brain function, though. A vegetable won't. If someone in a vegetative state will gain brain function, would you still justify pulling the plug? If he maybe recover? No. I will not. Cause he feeled before he get into this state. If he never feeled before. Yes I would pull the plug. If he really will never feel again. Yes I would pull the plug.
What the fuck? If someone is in a vegetative state with promise to recover, but never had consciousness to begin with, you'd still pull the plug? Wow, that's heartless.
Be careful- there are several different "vegetative states," and some of them allow no possibility of recovery. They're misdiagnosed fairly often, though- which is one good argument against pulling the plug. On the other hand, once it is known for sure that a patient will never recover, keeping an empty body on life support is rather pointless and wasteful of medical resources. Here's a hypothetical question for you: if a patient were to recover from a PVS after all higher brain functions had ceased for months, perhaps years- would it be the same person who awoke in that body?
People need to learn the RIGHT thing to do isn't always the WANTED thing to be done. If someone is in a vegetative state, and they have said they wanted the plug to be pulled, regardless if they will recover or not, you have to do it. I don't think it is anyone else's business to get involved in it. No one other than the family or the person(s) involved should have a say in the matter. It is just not your place to say "It is not right to pull the plug on this person" when you don't even know who they are or why they are there.
NukeIt15 wrote on Mon, 01 September 2008 16:45 Be careful- there are several different "vegetative states," and some of them allow no possibility of recovery. They're misdiagnosed fairly often, though- which is one good argument against pulling the plug. On the other hand, once it is known for sure that a patient will never recover, keeping an empty body on life support is rather pointless and wasteful of medical resources. Here's a hypothetical question for you: if a patient were to recover from a PVS after all higher brain functions had ceased for months, perhaps years- would it be the same person who awoke in that body? Trust me, I'm all for euthanasia. If someone wants to end their life, then by all means, listen to them. I used to be on the Republican side of the Terry Shiavo case, but now I think it was cruel to keep her alive. You know, even if it's NOT the same person, that doesn't mean someone is incapable of having a happy life. This one lady had a terrible case of amnesia. She had a seizure (I think) and woke up one morning not having any memories. She used to hold a good career job, but lost all of that. Essentially, she had a completely clean slate, though she could drive and talk. For the past 10 years, she's had to start all over. She can now recall memories from the time that she had to start all over again, but nothing before. She says she's happy. She says she can't miss memories that she doesn't remember ever having. So I say that if the person is capable of starting over, it'd be cruel to not let them.
I am still undecided on the abortion issue at this point. However, I think the same people who think a fetus is a human and has feelings should also be against cutting off part of a male baby's penis. I am profoundly against circumcision and mostly against abortion. Like others, I wouldn't want an abortion ban to exclude certain circumstances where it is preferable. But, what if people just say it was rape since it often can't be proven?
Well, they could just take the DNA and track the father. And one more thing, even though I said I only accept abortion in those circumstances, I also don't want the current law to change. I realize that it is wrong, but would rather focus attention elsewhere because the current system works and I don't think it needs to actually change. Like I said, the right thing isn't always the wanted thing. :\ And I actually support circumcisions. I am male, and I find it as a very important thing to do. I always thought it was kind of disgusting not to do it.. :\
It was important back before people were able to bathe every day... nobody wanted fungus growing under their foreskin, so the age-old response was to cut it off- or so one explanation of the practice goes. Not terribly practical in this day and age, but typically when you have it done you're too young to remember it hurting later anyhow- I certainly don't. Still, it is a questionable practice- causing some harm, however small, and doing no good. The fact that anybody finds an uncircumcised prick disgusting is grounded in learned cultural perception- and if we're circumcising our kids because we think it looks nicer, we're doing it for entirely the wrong reason anyway. Personally, I find the human body much more beautiful au natural- no unnecessary surgery, no tattoos, no piercings- but recognize that others don't see it the same way.
Crimson wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 01:10 I am still undecided on the abortion issue at this point. However, I think the same people who think a fetus is a human and has feelings should also be against cutting off part of a male baby's penis. I am profoundly against circumcision and mostly against abortion. Like others, I wouldn't want an abortion ban to exclude certain circumstances where it is preferable. But, what if people just say it was rape since it often can't be proven? Talking of the circumcision, I was watching Pen & Teller's: Bullshit on that, fucking inhuman! I'm totally against it too, cutting off someone's manhood like that. as for abortions, can't really give an opinion on it.. just woke up so I'm too tired for a wall of text. Oh and Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant at 17 years of age.
NukeIt15 wrote on Mon, 01 September 2008 11:58 Extreme views in either direction concerning abortion ignore one of two facts of biology: 1. An early-term embryo has no functional nervous system (though the first activity can be measured fairly early), thus no brain, no consciousness, no feeling. 2. A late-term fetus does have a near-fully-developed nervous system; thus it is capable of feeling and limited thought (possibly consciousness, though we really don't know where that begins), even motor control. We can safely assume that the line between a human being and a potential human being- if a definite line exists- falls somewhere between those two stages of development. There is a huge, obnoxious gray area there, and both sides of the abortion 'debate' (since it is never a formal debate so much as a passionate argument) tend to expand their position from one end clear across the gray area into the opposite end of the pregnancy. This is absolutely stupid. Everything we know about biology tells us that an embryo which is only a month old is not a human being yet- that it is not capable of thought, feeling, or anything beyond the basic metabolic processes which sustain even the most elementary bacteria. Likewise, everything we know about an 8-month-old fetus tells us that it is clearly a human being; it is even able to survive and finish developing outside the womb if necessary (with some assistance from modern medicine- I should know; I was born a month early). Hell, a 6 or 7-month-old fetus is well-developed enough to be recognizable as human, to the point where its brain- as it truly is a brain by that time- is able to effect control over muscles. Arguments to the effect of "we don't know where the line is, so we must err on the side of caution" are utter bullshit- we do know where the line is, we just don't know where it is exactly, and we know damn well that it doesn't lie at conception. Arguments to the effect of "until you are born, you have no rights" are utter bullshit also; we know, and have known since the ECG (that's Electrocardiogram) and the ultrasound became mainstream medicine, that a late-term fetus is as human as a newborn baby. Arguments from the "it's your responsibility, slacker" perspective are even worse, relying on ad-hominem to make their point. Yes, it's your responsibility... but the argument goes both ways, doesn't it? It is your responsibility not to bring a baby into the world when you know you can't care for it, just as it is your responsibility to make sure that baby is cared for if and when it is born. It is an inherently neutral argument given weight only by the actual or implicit inclusion of "you kill babies because they're inconvenient." Based on the known facts- not on bullshit, not on the "Word of God," and not on those heart-wrenching pictures of dead embryos- my stated opinion on the subject is that abortion only becomes objectionable late in a pregnancy when the fetus is known to be a thinking, feeling creature. What would I do if I got someone pregnant? I honestly have no idea; I've never been there. I like to think that I'd consult her, then make a decision based on our situation at the time- but who knows, maybe I'd get all sentimental over that little clump of cells and try to hold onto it no matter what. What I do know is that sentimentality makes horrible policy; the difference between "right" and "wrong" on this subject is almost always defined by entirely subjective views- not by biology. Not to drag this even further off-topic or anything- just trying to inject a little common sense (appalling how uncommon it is) into the thread. By all means, flame away. You've mentioned the huge grey area...shouldn't we draw the line at the beginning of it as long as we're unsure? Unless the woman's life is threatened (I'd include carrying the child of your rapist because there's a good chance of the woman contemplating suicide), there's no valid reason to allow abortions. I'm an agnostic, not an abortion clinic bomber...the left likes to make this a religious issue, when it's in fact a common sense issue (and liberals have always had problems understanding those). Government's only real job is to protect the lives of the citizens...ironic how Obama with his lifetime fascination for Marxism and big government fails in that regard. Palin seems like a decent VP. As long as she's not the president I could care less about her right-wing social views. Concerning circumcision...I decided to get circumcised at 18 solely for aesthetic reasons and I don't regret my choice in the slightest...denying your child the right to choose against an irreversible aesthetic surgery seems like bad parenting to me.
NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 00:18 The fact that anybody finds an uncircumcised prick disgusting is grounded in learned cultural perception- and if we're circumcising our kids because we think it looks nicer, we're doing it for entirely the wrong reason anyway. What I meant by "disgusting" is that it gives off the image of someone who doesn't seem clean. Even though it is completely out of their ability to of been circumcised or not. I didn't mean it in a such a grand offensive way as I may of sounded. As for the reasoning behind it, I always thought that it was to prevent cancer.. I heard that that skin they cut off was unhealthy for you.
R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 16:14 NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 00:18 The fact that anybody finds an uncircumcised prick disgusting is grounded in learned cultural perception- and if we're circumcising our kids because we think it looks nicer, we're doing it for entirely the wrong reason anyway. As for the reasoning behind it, I always thought that it was to prevent cancer.. I heard that that skin they cut off was unhealthy for you. WTF???
JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 22:18 R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 16:14 NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 00:18 The fact that anybody finds an uncircumcised prick disgusting is grounded in learned cultural perception- and if we're circumcising our kids because we think it looks nicer, we're doing it for entirely the wrong reason anyway. As for the reasoning behind it, I always thought that it was to prevent cancer.. I heard that that skin they cut off was unhealthy for you. WTF??? ^ Apparently it's to "Prevent" STD's (which is bullshit).. It was a tradition hundreds of years ago to prevent fungus growing there due to lack of clean water for cleansing, etc. But.. circumcising your baby's is just wrong, in 16 years time they'll probably hate and disown you for making a choice they didn't want, It should be a choice you make when you're old enough to think for yourself, really.
me and my huge wonderful black penis aren't circumsized and i'm happy that way. if i wanted to get it trimmed i would do it myself.
Ryu wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 17:41 JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 22:18 R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 16:14 NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 00:18 The fact that anybody finds an uncircumcised prick disgusting is grounded in learned cultural perception- and if we're circumcising our kids because we think it looks nicer, we're doing it for entirely the wrong reason anyway. As for the reasoning behind it, I always thought that it was to prevent cancer.. I heard that that skin they cut off was unhealthy for you. WTF??? ^ Apparently it's to "Prevent" STD's (which is bullshit).. It was a tradition hundreds of years ago to prevent fungus growing there due to lack of clean water for cleansing, etc. But.. circumcising your baby's is just wrong, in 16 years time they'll probably hate and disown you for making a choice they didn't want, It should be a choice you make when you're old enough to think for yourself, really. It does prevent AIDS and other STDs to an extent and would help lower the number of infections in 3rd world countries...in the civilized world, the only medical reason would be phimosis.
Wait a second. I'm going to sound like an idiot here with this statement, but I thought we were talking about something else. I'm not going into any more detail than that. Forgive me. Disregard anything I've said on the subject up until this point including my stance on the the matter.
Penn & Teller did a great episode of 'Bullshit' on the subject of circumcision. Hope you like dongs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q_UWlvoTHc
nikki6ixx wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 18:41 Penn & Teller did a great episode of 'Bullshit' on the subject of circumcision. Hope you like dongs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q_UWlvoTHc That's a load of bullshit indeed. The show claims that with foreskin, you have more ejaculatory control...I experienced the exact opposite myself. Perhaps it's because I learned to cope with the sensitive foreskin, so once it was gone ejaculatory control seemed like a piece of cake...might not make that much of a difference if you've never been used to having foreskin.
Ok, after watching that video I now feel informed enough to back up my new argument. It doesn't matter. Both sides are wrong. That is my argument. You are wrong if you are against it and you are wrong if you are for it. There are simply not enough positives and negatives on either side to pull it in either direction. Plus, either if you circumcised or uncircumcised, you can still perform as you would always. This is why this argument is pointless and anyone who supports a strong feeling about it either way should just stop. There are more important things in the world to worry about than some stranger kid losing a small bit of skin or not. So yea, just to recap, I'm not for it but nor am I against it.
Being against it has a very strong argument. We're talking about mutilating a part of a male child's body. Yes, we have to entrust parents to make decisions for their kids, but that's a permanent act done that has no real benefits besides aesthetics (which, according to stats -- that actually make sense -- women prefer a cut penis. Whether or not that's rational is another thing). Are parents wrong for doing it? I don't know. I don't think it matters all that much, but when it comes to changing the anatomy of someone, even a child, I think it's best left up to the person to decide for themselves as long as there is no significant medical reasons for doing it.
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 03 September 2008 01:23 I now feel informed enough to back up my new argument. unfortunately...
Are parents wrong for doing it? No they aren't. However are they right for doing it? Still, no they aren't. It isn't like they are cutting it off completely. It can still be used therefore the only thing that stands left over is if they prefer to have it on or off. That's it. "Mutilating" is an interesting choice of word. Although it correctly describes the procedure, I think it is a bit too strong of a word for this. It is like saying you mutilate your hair when you get it cut or mutilate your fingernails. Sure both your fingernails and hair don't have nerve endings in them and can't feel pain, but it doesn't impact your life once they are removed. Which is what I'm trying to point out. If you tend to prefer one over the other, that is perfectly fine. However if you are against one and not the other, that is different and I think such opinions should be avoided. It's like being against a certain hairstyle or clothing line or skin color. It doesn't have an impact on your functionality in life so it should not be an issue. And as far as these "organizations" that are for or against it... they are a waste of money and I think they should be disbanded.
JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 03 September 2008 00:38 Ryu wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 17:41 JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 22:18 R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 16:14 NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 00:18 The fact that anybody finds an uncircumcised prick disgusting is grounded in learned cultural perception- and if we're circumcising our kids because we think it looks nicer, we're doing it for entirely the wrong reason anyway. As for the reasoning behind it, I always thought that it was to prevent cancer.. I heard that that skin they cut off was unhealthy for you. WTF??? ^ Apparently it's to "Prevent" STD's (which is bullshit).. It was a tradition hundreds of years ago to prevent fungus growing there due to lack of clean water for cleansing, etc. But.. circumcising your baby's is just wrong, in 16 years time they'll probably hate and disown you for making a choice they didn't want, It should be a choice you make when you're old enough to think for yourself, really. It does prevent AIDS and other STDs to an extent and would help lower the number of infections in 3rd world countries...in the civilized world, the only medical reason would be phimosis. I'm not so sure on how it prevents STD's, You can still get crabs, a womans juice can still slide down your pee-hole and infect you, or cold sores (I forgot the medical name for that infection) on yer dong, all with or without the skin. I mean, with a cut dick I'd think it would make it easier to infect you, since your foreskin can be a protective layer. But again, I'm no doctor nor scientist so yeah.
How did we manage to go from McCain's VP to talking about extra skin on a penis?
R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 21:53 How did we manage to go from McCain's VP to talking about extra skin on a penis? Maybe there's a relationship between the two? Palin vs Bear = dead skinned bear lulz
R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 20:20 Are parents wrong for doing it? No they aren't. However are they right for doing it? Still, no they aren't. It isn't like they are cutting it off completely. It can still be used therefore the only thing that stands left over is if they prefer to have it on or off. That's it. "Mutilating" is an interesting choice of word. Although it correctly describes the procedure, I think it is a bit too strong of a word for this. It is like saying you mutilate your hair when you get it cut or mutilate your fingernails. Sure both your fingernails and hair don't have nerve endings in them and can't feel pain, but it doesn't impact your life once they are removed. Which is what I'm trying to point out. If you tend to prefer one over the other, that is perfectly fine. However if you are against one and not the other, that is different and I think such opinions should be avoided. It's like being against a certain hairstyle or clothing line or skin color. It doesn't have an impact on your functionality in life so it should not be an issue. And as far as these "organizations" that are for or against it... they are a waste of money and I think they should be disbanded. In case you haven't noticed, your fingernails and hair grow back...
I changed the subject. Sue me. I fully support an adult's right to decide if he wants a circumcision. I don't think a parent has the right to decide something like that for their child. Saying that women prefer it isn't necessarily true, either. You have to ask women who have been "with" both. I believe a survey done found that over 70 or 80 percent of women who have been with an uncut penis prefer to be with an uncut penis.
JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 23:21 In case you haven't noticed, your fingernails and hair grow back... That's besides the point. Does cutting your fingernails or hair effect the reproduction rate of humans on earth? No, and neither does circumcision. That is why I like to think of circumcision as nothing more than a simple style that stays with you for the rest of your life. As for what Crimson said, I do agree that it should be left up to the person and not the parents, however there is also the fact of choice: would someone rather have it when they are old enough to choose for themselves or young enough to not remember the pain?
R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 22:39 JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 23:21 In case you haven't noticed, your fingernails and hair grow back... That's besides the point. Does cutting your fingernails or hair effect the reproduction rate of humans on earth? No, and neither does circumcision. That is why I like to think of circumcision as nothing more than a simple style that stays with you for the rest of your life. As for what Crimson said, I do agree that it should be left up to the person and not the parents, however there is also the fact of choice: would someone rather have it when they are old enough to choose for themselves or young enough to not remember the pain? Cutting off a woman's clitoris doesn't change the reproduction rate of humans, either...I really don't understand your line of thought.
If you don't want to remember the pain, there are drugs you can take...
Sparing a child the pain later is not as important as giving said child the chance to make their own decision. Irreversible procedures should not be undertaken lightly, nor should they be carried out without the consent of the person on whom the procedure is being done- or unless their life is in danger and a decision must be made. I've never heard of someone dying because their foreskin wasn't removed, and it is a procedure that can bloody well wait until the kid's old enough to make their own decision- it should be at least that long before they take their penis out of their pants anyway.
I knew someone who had to have it done for medical reasons, so the procedure's not without meaning always. I do agree the choice should wait though.
This is interesting. People here believe that circumcision should be done later in life, and should be based on their own choice. That's exactly what abortion should be about too. The woman is in control of her body, and it should be her decision, not someone else's... especially not her government's.
The people who say "it's her body" completely miss the point of the argument. It's whether or not it's a human life and if its rights are equal to the mother. The only reason why I would ever support the rights of someone being taken away is if it protects the rights of an innocent being.
It's not really the same argument in that respect. A foreskin is not and never was a human being or the potential to become one. I just don't get that a child doesn't have a right to decide on its foreskin removal but it does have a right to life if it's conceived. Why should it have the right to life but not the right to decide whether or not you lop off part of his dick?
45 more minutes to go and then Palin is gonna make her speech...omgcan'twaitomgcan'twaitomgcan'twaitomgcan'twaitomgcan'twaitomgcan'twai tomgcan'twaitomgcan'twaitomgcan'twaitomgcan'twait
JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 03 September 2008 00:50 Cutting off a woman's clitoris doesn't change the reproduction rate of humans, either...I really don't understand your line of thought. What does that have to do with anything? It is in the exact same boat as circumcision... Just because you don't like it and I don't like it and many other people don't like it doesn't take away from the fact that it is still a valid optional choice to do it. Also, about the they should have the right to chose argument. I already said I agree with that, but that isn't the case. If you automatically give the right to chose to the person and wait until they are older, then that means that the entire procedure should just be discontinued as it really has no meaning. Even though I would prefer people to chose for themselves, I think it is simply the better option to let the parents chose because the child won't ever remember the procedure or the pain, and they will grow up with what they have thinking it is normal. I don't know about you but I didn't go around as a kid checking other little boy's penis' to see if mine was "normal." Which is why the argument shouldn't be "Is circumcision good or bad?" but it "Should circumcision be left up to the parents or abolished completely?" Neither of which I feel is mine or anyone else's business but the family of the child and the child themselves. Err... I don't even know why I keep replying here.. it goes against what I'm saying.... This issue should not be important to you or anyone at all. I'm done replying cause it makes me look like a hypocrite.
nikki6ixx wrote on Wed, 03 September 2008 18:12 This is interesting. People here believe that circumcision should be done later in life, and should be based on their own choice. That's exactly what abortion should be about too. The woman is in control of her body, and it should be her decision, not someone else's... especially not her government's. The embryo doesn't fall into that category, tho...it's not her body, but a life form with it's own genome of human DNA growing inside her body.
It's a valid choice for a parent to lop off the clitoris of a newborn girl? o_O
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 03 September 2008 20:27 JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 03 September 2008 00:50 Cutting off a woman's clitoris doesn't change the reproduction rate of humans, either...I really don't understand your line of thought. What does that have to do with anything? It is in the exact same boat as circumcision... Just because you don't like it and I don't like it and many other people don't like it doesn't take away from the fact that it is still a valid optional choice to do it. Also, about the they should have the right to chose argument. I already said I agree with that, but that isn't the case. If you automatically give the right to chose to the person and wait until they are older, then that means that the entire procedure should just be discontinued as it really has no meaning. Even though I would prefer people to chose for themselves, I think it is simply the better option to let the parents chose because the child won't ever remember the procedure or the pain, and they will grow up with what they have thinking it is normal. I don't know about you but I didn't go around as a kid checking other little boy's penis' to see if mine was "normal." Which is why the argument shouldn't be "Is circumcision good or bad?" but it "Should circumcision be left up to the parents or abolished completely?" Neither of which I feel is mine or anyone else's business but the family of the child and the child themselves. Err... I don't even know why I keep replying here.. it goes against what I'm saying.... This issue should not be important to you or anyone at all. I'm done replying cause it makes me look like a hypocrite. Let me get this straight: You support parents decising to have their daughter's clitoris removed, which can lead to her never experiencing an orgasm and severe psychological damage...but I guess it's all fair game since she's still able to reproduce, right? Have you actually hit puberty, yet? Jeez... Your "letting the individual choose about having irreversible surgeries done to his body = abolishment of circumcision" argument seems pretty absurd...I already told you that I decided to get cut as an adult, so you do the math.
cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 04 September 2008 02:40 It's a valid choice for a parent to lop off the clitoris of a newborn girl? o_O I know right.. then how would males find the G-spot later in life?!
cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 03 September 2008 20:40 It's a valid choice for a parent to lop off the clitoris of a newborn girl? o_O Female circumcision/genital mutilation/cutting/etc. Apparently there's different ways of doing it, but that is one of the gruesome possibilities.
Ryu wrote on Wed, 03 September 2008 21:30 cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 04 September 2008 02:40 It's a valid choice for a parent to lop off the clitoris of a newborn girl? o_O I know right.. then how would males find the G-spot later in life?! Hahaha... the clitoris and g-spot are two totally different things, loverboy.
Ryu wrote on Wed, 03 September 2008 21:30 cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 04 September 2008 02:40 It's a valid choice for a parent to lop off the clitoris of a newborn girl? o_O I know right.. then how would males find the G-spot later in life?!
cheesesoda wrote on Sat, 30 August 2008 09:54 Rocko wrote on Sat, 30 August 2008 02:19 lol whatever apply your moral and religious values elsewhere than law What moral or religious value did I apply to abortion? Do you not agree that people shouldn't be allowed to kill each other because they're an inconvenience? Do you know the kind of body count I would have built up by now?
I know I said I wasn't going to post again, but this isn't defending my argument like I said I wanted to avoid doing, it is defending and reinforcing the words I used in my last post. --- JohnDoe said: Let me get this straight: You support parents decising to have their daughter's clitoris removed, which can lead to her never experiencing an orgasm and severe psychological damage...but I guess it's all fair game since she's still able to reproduce, right? Have you actually hit puberty, yet? Jeez... That is not what I said. I never said "It is alright to do and I support them doing this." In fact I said specifically that I did not approve of it. R315r4z0r said: Just because you don't like it and I don't like it and ... Then I said that I agreed that I think the choice should be left up to the individual and not the parents: R315r4z0r said: about the they should have the right to chose argument. I already said I agree with that And then I went on saying not that I agree with this practice, but that it is none of our business what parents do to their kids within law.
Ryan3k wrote on Thu, 04 September 2008 04:35 Ryu wrote on Wed, 03 September 2008 21:30 cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 04 September 2008 02:40 It's a valid choice for a parent to lop off the clitoris of a newborn girl? o_O I know right.. then how would males find the G-spot later in life?! Hahaha... the clitoris and g-spot are two totally different things, loverboy. I know, I was making out it's a quick way to pleasure a girl hence "G-spot".. but uhh.. taking a joke seriously doesn't help.
Ummmm... as owner of a clitoris and a g-spot, I can definitively say you're incorrect. Here's a hint... clitoris outside, g-spot inside.
For shame, Crimson! How dare you actually educate people on something that's perfectly natural! On a more serious note, I totally believe in choice. However, abortion is something that I've always kind of been "bleh" on. It's a hard thing to decide. On one hand, it's the woman's body, and she has to go through a lot of pain, possibly risk dying, etc. Therefore, on that perspective, it should be up to the woman to get the abortion. At the same time however, a fetus could very well be considered human life, and killing it is just as bad as murder. You're not giving the soon to be human a choice if they wish to live or die, and the same goes for simply running up and shooting a person. But, for the most part, we can all agree that no two major parties can agree on the abortion issue. Therefore, in the event that such a thing arises, I'd say the person in question should be able to choose for themselves. If they want to not have an abortion, they can. Those with the personal convictions against it still don't have to do it. At the same time, those who truly have good reasons for it should be given the option to. Perhaps, to possibly prevent stupid people who simply don't want the baby from getting an abortion for all the wrong reasons, have it be a fairly quick trial on whether she should be allowed to have an abortion or not. If they have legitimate reasons, they could be allowed to, and etc. As for the whole circumcision thing... Yeah, I really think it's best to let the kid decide for themselves, except for perhaps medical reasons. There's no reason outside life threatening diseases or the like to chop off a part of a kids dick.
Crimson wrote on Thu, 04 September 2008 12:29 Ummmm... as owner of a clitoris and a g-spot, I can definitively say you're incorrect. Here's a hint... clitoris outside, g-spot inside. Your custom title should be Captain Obvious!
Apparently you're only making sense to yourself. To the rest of us, you are looking like an idiot. You asked how men would be able to find the g-spot later in life without the clit. The clit isn't a map. You don't need the clit to hit the g-spot. If you're to bring up the g-spot, it probably would have been funnier to say, "then men would actually have to try to find the g-spot."
cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 04 September 2008 13:30 Apparently you're only making sense to yourself. To the rest of us, you are looking like an idiot. You asked how men would be able to find the g-spot later in life without the clit. The clit isn't a map. You don't need the clit to hit the g-spot. If you're to bring up the g-spot, it probably would have been funnier to say, "then men would actually have to try to find the g-spot." Finally. someone who is catching my drift! yeah, that's pretty much was I was getting it, some men dub the clit as a g-spot so yeah, I just hope I still don't have to paint a picture here.
Any guy who thinks that the clit is "a" g-spot is an idiot, then. There's only one g-spot.
Ryu wrote on Thu, 04 September 2008 08:29 cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 04 September 2008 13:30 Apparently you're only making sense to yourself. To the rest of us, you are looking like an idiot. You asked how men would be able to find the g-spot later in life without the clit. The clit isn't a map. You don't need the clit to hit the g-spot. If you're to bring up the g-spot, it probably would have been funnier to say, "then men would actually have to try to find the g-spot." Finally. someone who is catching my drift! yeah, that's pretty much was I was getting it, some men dub the clit as a g-spot so yeah, I just hope I still don't have to paint a picture here. Who the fuck are you bullshitting? You got caught with your pants down so now you're going in damage control mode switching up your story as you're gradually learning more about female anatomy. This shit is harder to watch than some Borat scenes.