Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 9:04 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2742 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 110  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
A rope leash wrote:
That "drop of goo", if left in its natural environment, is a probable person.

The disrespect for life shown here is wretched.


It's a sad state of affairs when one person/one group of people decide that their personal religious convictions supercedes one genders civil liberties. That is the definition of fascism, no matter how you try to boil it down.

The whole abortion issue, as it relates to politics is a ploy created by the Right to court the religious vote, at the expense of those living in poverty who can't afford the usuary created by the health care and insurance industry. That is the bottom line.

just plain doug wrote:
How can one agree with someone filled with so much hate?

If you're refering to me, all I'll say is you can choose to agree or disagree with me, but nobody can disagree with facts. I'm a product of my environment and have formulated my views based on personal life experiences and how other peoples decisions have directly and negatively affected mine and my family and friends lives.

pedro2 wrote:
It's old news anyway.

Check the date , also a few Dems voted with the Reps. :|


TUE MAR 01, 2011 AT 06:10 PM PST
House GOP votes unanimously to protect big oil subsidies


Grasping at straws , Spacer ?

:roll:


First off, thats not that old of news. That was a recent vote. Whether a few Dems voted with the unanimous Republicans doesn't matter. There are a number of Democrats who switched parties from Republican and who always vote Conservative, regardless. It's a ploy to mislead voters based on what the public sentiment is towards either party. The Dems who voted in favor most likely either switched parties from Republican, or they automatically always vote with the Republicans.

What I'm grasping are pieces of a puzzle that when all put together shows a picture of a man who isn't what his minions of cultish followers are brainwashed to believe. In the case of Ron Paul, he claims to be for less/no spending, small/no gov't and this Constitutionalist, who in actuality, is the highest spending congressional member in his state, voted to increase the size of gov't by regulating womens bodies, as well as a plethora of other issues.

Facts are facts. People on the Right seem to be challenged when it comes to things like facts and hard numbers and statistics for some odd reason.

If you keep rolling your eyes, you'll go dizzy.

KAPT.KIIRK wrote:
Spacebro',I get your against RP,but are you for anyone else or party? :?


I am. I've stated as much several times. I'll even state again "one more time for the world". Considering the pile of douchebags running for office, I'll stick with the incumbant, because he's less douchebaggy than the rest of them, plus he has a better record. Hopefully that satisfies you're curiosity.

Disco Boy wrote:
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Ron Paul voted to give free money via oil subsidies to billionaires, then tells his supporters that he's against them. Ron Paul supporters have to be the stupidest people on the planet...

House GOP votes unanimously to protect big oil subsidies

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/0 ... -subsidies

..................................................................................................

In typicical Republicasshole fashion, Ron Paul is obviouisly only interested in benefiting the rich at the expense of the poor. His support for oil subsidies in addition to his voting to kill Planned Parenthood and penalize women in poverty by gutting health care services is only the tip of the iceberg for this wolf in sheeps clothing.

Ron Paul is the sheep in wolfs clothing


...and his supporters are pathetic sheep


Suck on that Disco Boy


A little reading goes a long way...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread ... -subsidies


...



Notice how all of your sources only pro-Ron Paul websights?

Oh wait, you don't, you're the only one on the planet who is right, and everybody else and their news sources are wrong. Damn, to think, out of the 7 billion people who live on planet Earth, only one single dope smoking Ron Paul supporter in the entire world is right. :mrgreen: :lol:

How's that delegate thing workin' out for ya? You just know Ron Paul's gonna beat Romney...
Image

...also, I notice you like to crap a lot on the forum with your sand castle doo doo picture...
Disco Boy wrote:
Image


..you might want to change out your drawers sometime Disco Boy...
Image
...your the one who has to live in your own stink.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
Yes it did Spacebro',but your 'tude is rude and I wasn't being facisious in asking my question,only curious.Not curious enough to go back through all this political verbage,to find out where you stated your views.Why do you try to make me look like an ass for asking a simple question,just to clarify where your coming from? Attack Mitt the rich git! Not me,por favor.


Obama 2012.

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
KAPT.KIIRK wrote:
Yes it did Spacebro',but your 'tude is rude and I wasn't being facisious in asking my question,only curious.Not curious enough to go back through all this political verbage,to find out where you stated your views.Why do you try to make me look like an ass for asking a simple question,just to clarify where your coming from? Attack Mitt the rich git! Not me,por favor.


Obama 2012.


My intention is not to make you look like anything. Where in my response to your question do you interpret that I'm out to make you look bad, if you would indulge me?

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
KAPT.KIIRK wrote:
Spacebro',I get your against RP,but are you for anyone else or party? :?


I am. I've stated as much several times. I'll even state again "one more time for the world". Considering the pile of douchebags running for office, I'll stick with the incumbant, because he's less douchebaggy than the rest of them, plus he has a better record. Hopefully that satisfies you're curiosity.


I stated that I am for someone else. I further stated that I plan on voting for the incumbant. I'm sorry if that offends you in any way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
KAPT.KIIRK wrote:
Yes it did Spacebro',but your 'tude is rude and I wasn't being facisious in asking my question,only curious.Not curious enough to go back through all this political verbage,to find out where you stated your views.Why do you try to make me look like an ass for asking a simple question,just to clarify where your coming from? Attack Mitt the rich git! Not me,por favor.


Obama 2012.


My intention is not to make you look like anything. Where in my response to your question do you interpret that I'm out to make you look bad, if you would indulge me?

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
KAPT.KIIRK wrote:
Spacebro',I get your against RP,but are you for anyone else or party? :?


I am. I've stated as much several times. I'll even state again "one more time for the world". Considering the pile of douchebags running for office, I'll stick with the incumbant, because he's less douchebaggy than the rest of them, plus he has a better record. Hopefully that satisfies you're curiosity.


I stated that I am for someone else. I further stated that I plan on voting for the incumbant. I'm sorry if that offends you in any way.

Unclinch Spacebro',no harm,no foul,no bad.On my first read through,I just thought you were a little heavy handed with the douches and I sorta felt lumped into that catagory,so I said so.On second read through,it's not so,just a little confusing.Thats all.
We 8) now?

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3609
Location: Vancouver, BC
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
pedro2 wrote:
TUE MAR 01, 2011 AT 06:10 PM PST
House GOP votes unanimously to protect big oil subsidies

Grasping at straws , Spacer ?

:roll:


What I'm grasping are pieces of a puzzle that when all put together shows a picture of a man who isn't what his minions of cultish followers are brainwashed to believe. In the case of Ron Paul, he claims to be for less/no spending, small/no gov't and this Constitutionalist, who in actuality, is the highest spending congressional member in his state, voted to increase the size of gov't by regulating womens bodies, as well as a plethora of other issues.

Ron Paul voted to give free money via oil subsidies to billionaires, then tells his supporters that he's against them. Ron Paul supporters have to be the stupidest people on the planet...


Image

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Facts are facts. People on the Right seem to be challenged when it comes to things like facts and hard numbers and statistics for some odd reason.


POT. KETTLE. BLACK.

Image

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
A little reading goes a long way...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread ... -subsidies

...


Notice how all of your sources only pro-Ron Paul websights?

Oh wait, you don't, you're the only one on the planet who is right, and everybody else and their news sources are wrong. Damn, to think, out of the 7 billion people who live on planet Earth, only one single dope smoking Ron Paul supporter in the entire world is right. :mrgreen: :lol:


Notice how you've been wrong about EVERY god damn thing you've posted about Ron Paul.

And no, not all of the sources I've provided are pro-Ron Paul "websights", moron. But what the sources do CLEARLY show, is that you're an idiot of epic proportions.

Btw, I don't use drugs, jerk-off.

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
How's that delegate thing workin' out for ya? You just know Ron Paul's gonna beat Romney...


Pretty good, considering by the end of the week, RP should have nearly 300 delegates, asshole.

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
...also, I notice you like to crap a lot on the forum with your sand castle doo doo picture...

..you might want to change out your drawers sometime Disco Boy...

...your the one who has to live in your own stink.


POT. KETTLE. BLACK.

Image

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
KAPT.KIIRK wrote:
We 8) now?


We cool bro. 8) :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1844
Bricks aren't buildings, Arkay. A fertilized egg is a human being if left where it is. If mama decides she doesn't want it, she can have it killed. Ironically, if I hurt mama and the fetus dies, I can be charged with murder of a fetus.

My views of what is human life are not extrordinary or unscientific. They certainly do not make me a fascist, since I am not imposing my views on anyone. I just think it is disrespectful of human life to be so callous about abortion.

Anyone with any sense of decency would feel the same. We have wars because people don't really give a shit about life other than their own.

Excuse me if I have a problem with that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
A fertiized egg is just that. A fertilized egg. You don't call a chickens egg a chicken do you? How about a fish egg? Is that a salmon?

All that this debate is, is a ploy to take womes rights away using religion as an excuse, period. Thats all it's ever been and all it will ever be.

If embryo's are people, then when you jacked-off this morning, you murdered a million unborn babies when you flushed the kleenex down the toilet. If you did that yersterday and the day before, that was another million people you murdered. That makes you a mass murderer leashie. Time to repent to your lord.


Ronny Paul voted to take womens rights away many times. He's unfit to lead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1844
"If embryo's are people, then when you jacked-off this morning, you murdered a million unborn babies when you flushed the kleenex down the toilet. If you did that yersterday and the day before, that was another million people you murdered. That makes you a mass murderer leashie. Time to repent to your lord."

That's really unbelievably ignorant, SPACEBROTHER. There are no embryos in semen. Surely you have had some education in this area. If not, let me tell you what your parents obviously did not...

Semen, produced by daddy's testicles, contain sperm cells that are able to move about by the tiny whip-like devices attached to them called flagellums. When mommy and daddy have sex, daddy's penis ejects the semen containing the sprem into mommy's vagina, and the sperm cells make their way up into mommy's womb, (what you might call her "belly"), and attempt to attach to and enter into one of mommy's eggs, which are produced in her ovary, and may or may not be there in the womb, depending o whether or not they have made their way down into it via her fallopian tubes. When one of daddy's sperm cells enters mommy's egg, a wonderful thing happens! The DNA within the sperm and egg cells combine, creating an embryo. The cells within the embryo continually divide and replicate, and if mommy doesn't have it removed from her womb, it becomes a baby person! After nine months or so, the baby person evacuates through mommy's vaginal canal, and there you are, a new little brother or sister for you!

I really cannot believe you do not understand this, and that you think embyros are contains in semen. I mean, honestly, if you don't understand this, what else don't you understand?

It's really just jaw-dropping ignorance that you think wasted sperm is wasted people. Are you a grown person?

...and what's the matter? Don't you want to talk about Stuxnet?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
An egg is still an egg. A person is not an egg, a chicken is not an egg, amphibians, reptiles and fish aren't eggs. Cows aren't eggs ect ect...regardless if it's fertilized. They only become what they are after going through period of mutation, gestation or whatever, I'm sure Mr Green Jeans can fill you in on the medical terminology better than anybody else here. Until then, it, is a glob of goo.


The problem is that people with religious agenda's hate science, unless they can use it to give them some sense that their superstitious diety really does exist, and thats why the Right uses it as yet another tactic to strike fear into people. It's a fascist theocracy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
A rope leash wrote:
"If embryo's are people, then when you jacked-off this morning, you murdered a million unborn babies when you flushed the kleenex down the toilet. If you did that yersterday and the day before, that was another million people you murdered. That makes you a mass murderer leashie. Time to repent to your lord."

That's really unbelievably ignorant, SPACEBROTHER. There are no embryos in semen. Surely you have had some education in this area. If not, let me tell you what your parents obviously did not...

Semen, produced by daddy's testicles, contain sperm cells that are able to move about by the tiny whip-like devices attached to them called flagellums. When mommy and daddy have sex, daddy's penis ejects the semen containing the sprem into mommy's vagina, and the sperm cells make their way up into mommy's womb, (what you might call her "belly"), and attempt to attach to and enter into one of mommy's eggs, which are produced in her ovary, and may or may not be there in the womb, depending o whether or not they have made their way down into it via her fallopian tubes. When one of daddy's sperm cells enters mommy's egg, a wonderful thing happens! The DNA within the sperm and egg cells combine, creating an embryo. The cells within the embryo continually divide and replicate, and if mommy doesn't have it removed from her womb, it becomes a baby person! After nine months or so, the baby person evacuates through mommy's vaginal canal, and there you are, a new little brother or sister for you!

I really cannot believe you do not understand this, and that you think embyros are contains in semen. I mean, honestly, if you don't understand this, what else don't you understand?

It's really just jaw-dropping ignorance that you think wasted sperm is wasted people. Are you a grown person?

...and what's the matter? Don't you want to talk about Stuxnet?

So say she dueches after sex and washes away some fertilized eggs from her overies/vagina or fallopian* tube.Does that make her a mass killer too?

*A fallopian tube pregnancy would kill the the sperm,egg and mother.
Why would you want to talk about Stuxnet Malware? :?

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3609
Location: Vancouver, BC
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Ronny Paul voted to take womens rights away many times. He's unfit to lead.


Image


You know, SPACEBROTHER...I'm running out of F fonts. You'd better start making some sense and soon.

Oh and btw, it's June! :wink:

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1844
A couple of quarts of beer isn't really making this any funnier...

"The problem is that people with religious agenda's hate science, unless they can use it to give them some sense that their superstitious diety really does exist, and thats why the Right uses it as yet another tactic to strike fear into people. It's a fascist theocracy."

- SPACEBROTHER, you said that. What does that have to do with what you said about my sperm containing embryos? You demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about the reproductive process. Explain that!

The real question is, why would I waste my time even responding to you? My thoughts on abortion have nothing to do with "right wing" politics, or religious beliefs. I'm an atheist, as I have said repeatedly, and if you are actually the exact same person using the SPACEBROTHER Frank Zappa forum account, and if you are a good and careful reader, you would know this many times over! You can't handle an anti-abortion argument that is based on common-sense humanitarianism...so you fall back on the same-old phony left-right mass media created bullshit. It doesn't play with anyone with over an ounce of intelligence.

Kaptain Kirkish! A woman that washes away a fertilzed egg is a mass murderer? Do the math! Gosh darn golly are you fucking with me? Abortion is not unknowingly washing away a fertilized egg...Good Earth, man! Pass that doobie my way!

Why do I want to talk about Stuxnet? Did you read the links? The United States, with help fromn Israel, released a computer virus designed to disable nuclear facilities. It was supposed to be limited to Iranian nuclear works, but it has been and still is spreading thoughout Asia and the world. It was reported to be in Japan before the tsunami hit...when the Fukashima nuclear plants were destroyed, key functions designed to prevent meltdown did not engage! Do a little reading on this subject...these reactors have not been contained and continue to disperse radiation into the atmosphere and ocean. Deep water fish off the coast of California are known to be contaminated with radioactive cesium. Tuna!

This is no small matter...these reactors will be dispensing radiation for much longer than our lifetimes, and there is even a threat of massive radiation fallout if Japan is hit with another major earthquake...and that WILL happen. Imagine Tokyo being evacuated, or worse...the entire Northern Hemisphere radiated to death.

This is absolutely the fault of war-mongering idiots like Obama and every other human-hating motherfucker that seems to be so adept at holding power in the Western world.

This might be news to you because you get your news from corporate-controlled television. They are not saying much about it...but the New York Times has seen fit to sound off about it just yesterday. Read the links, dammit!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1844
Ya know what? I love Frank Zappa...but I sometimes forget he made a lot of money catering to morons!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1844
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=n ... 24&bih=556


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
A rope leash wrote:
Ya know what? I love Frank Zappa...but I sometimes forget he made a lot of money catering to morons!

..and he didn't cater to you,right? :roll:
I still say it's a womans choice!

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4873
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
I have some sympathy for ARL's initial position on this as I don't think, if it were my decision that I would say 'yes' to abort one of my own possible children. On the other hand, I don't think it can ever be my decision as I'm not the one who is pregnant. This is the case in my own relationship and it is certainly the case in other people's relationships, which should be no concern of mine. A ban or restriction on abortions is any case both dangerous and pointless, because in countries where abortion is or was illegal the women tend to take matters into their own hands.
What would appear to be missing in the above discussion-cum-slanging match and what appears to be causing such fury, is a clear definition of when "human life" actually begins. I understand that ARL's definition is the moment that an egg is fertilized by a sperm, so therefore consciousness as such does not appear to play a role for him. I am assuming that Spacebrother knew before ARL told him that an egg needs to be fertilized by a sperm; I think the point he and Arkay are making is that a fertilized egg is just as much a human being as its constituent parts (sperm and egg) are and that one can only start talking about a human at some later, undefined point. I personally find both positions rational, but am of the opinion that some kind of consciousness must actually play a role in defining what a human being is. Up until that point (apparently it begins to develop at the 24th - 28th week of gestation "and the the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester." http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ness-arise) the embyro/foetus would appear to me to be only a potential human being.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 2:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
I hate to use a word such as "opinion" when things boil down to scientific facts. An egg is not a person. A sperm cell is not a person. A fertilized egg is not a person. There are lots of things that need to happen after a sperm cell fertilizes an egg, and even then it's still not a person. Before it could technically be called a person, there does need to be some form of conciousness, as Caputh stated, in what he was nice enough to call his opinion, though I'll call it what it is, a fact. A scientific fact.

Most importantly, it's not a left wing or a right wing issue. Women (and men) have a human right to their own bodies. Some people hate the concept of free choice. Keep the fucking government out of peoples ding dongs and whooha's. You are all that you have. If you are willing to allow yourself or loved ones to surrender your rights to your own body, or other peoples bodies, then you lose everything.

Obviously, a rope leash has some kind of inflated ego complex going on when he states...

A rope leash wrote:
...If mama decides she doesn't want it, she can have it killed. Ironically, if I hurt mama and the fetus dies, I can be charged with murder of a fetus.

My views of what is human life are not extrordinary or unscientific......I just think it is disrespectful of human life to be so callous about abortion.

Anyone with any sense of decency would feel the same...

Excuse me if I have a problem with that.


...so yeah. Moral high ground mumbo jumbo. Chastize people for having freedom over their own bodies. Way to go. :roll:

~Author Unknown wrote:
Men fight for freedom, then they begin to accumulate laws to take it away from themselves.



.............................................................
I won't bother to point out all of the politco's who vote to take away peoples rights to thier own bodies, particularly women, but as you can guess, the namesake of this very thread is one of "them". Posting different font "F's" won't make Ron Pauls anti-women votes go away and neither will the fairies and unicorns...

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 3:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3609
Location: Vancouver, BC
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
I won't bother to point out all of the politco's who vote to take away peoples rights to thier own bodies, particularly women, but as you can guess, the namesake of this very thread is one of "them". Posting different font "F's" won't make Ron Pauls anti-women votes go away and neither will the fairies and unicorns...


Posting F fonts aren't exclusive to one particular (or another) moronic comment you've made. They're generalized, showing just how clueless you really are when it comes to ANYTHING to do with Ron Paul.

I find it fucking hilarious that you always rant about people's rights. When in REALITY, it's Obama who's currently destroying your constitutional rights (not to mention the COUNTLESS other horrifically bad decisions he's made)...

Image

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 5:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1844
Yes, Frank did cater to me. He used the money he made catering to morons so that he could cater to me. He also had a good grasp of the reproductive process.

Yes, SPACEBROTHER, I am taking the moral high ground, which means you are taking what? The low road...

I've never said people shouldn't have freedom over their own bodies. I support Ron paul, who has declared that people should be able to put whatever substance they wish into their bodies. It's just that I think a fertilized egg is a body within a body, and there's plenty of science to back that up...obvious science. Saying it's just the woman's body is a cop-out excuse for not wanting to take responsibility. That's my view, and if you are reading carefully, you know I have said many times that abortion should be legal, because all sorts of other immorall things are legal...but...

If a fertilized egg is not a person, and if it just a woman's body, then why can a person be charged with murder if they intentionally hurt a pregnant woman, and it results in the death of the fetus?

Answer that, intellects! If a fetus isn't a person, then how can it be considered murder when someone besides the mother or abortionist kills the fetus?

...and please, please explain to me how you grew up not knowing how the mammalian reproductive system works. After the statements made on this thread in earlier posts by SPACEBROTHER and Kaptin Kirk, I have to wonder if anything posted by them is worthy of reply or consideration.

Jacking off kills millions of babies? Douching makes a woman a mass-murderer? How can anyone with half a brain even say such things and expect to be taken seriously afterward?

Still, no one wants to talk about Stuxnet? How about Flame?

http://blogs.voanews.com/digital-fronti ... flame-war/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4873
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
A rope leash wrote:
Douching makes a woman a mass-murderer? How can anyone with half a brain even say such things and expect to be taken seriously afterward?


Stop me if I'm wrong Rope, but your position is that a fertilized egg is a human being. If a fertilized egg is douched away by a woman (intentionally or unintentionally), doesn't that make her action abortion, and therefore murder according to your personal morality? The same would appear to apply to a "day after" pill. I don't think, up until now, that Kiirk's point is as ridiculous as you make out, as I think he's merely trying to address one possible logical consequence of your train of thought.

A further thought; if - and you haven't disputed it yet, perhaps you will - the fertilized egg has no ability to engage in conscious thought. Full-grown animals actually do have have the ability to engage in conscious thought - at least, more conscious thought than a human, fertilized egg. Shouldn't we therefore all become vegetarians? ( I actually think, morally speaking, we should be, even though I'm not. I suppose this makes me a hypocrite).

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Last edited by Caputh on Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
Caputh wrote:
A rope leash wrote:
Douching makes a woman a mass-murderer? How can anyone with half a brain even say such things and expect to be taken seriously afterward?


Stop me if I'm wrong Rope, but your position is that a fertilized egg is a human being. If a fertilized egg is douched away by a woman (intentionally or unintentionally), doesn't that make her action abortion, and therefore murder according to your personal morality? I don't think, up until now, that Kiirk's point is as ridiculous as you make out, as I think he's merely trying to address one possible logical consequence of your train of thought.

A further thought; if - and you haven't disputed it yet, perhaps you will - the fertilized egg has no ability to engage in conscious thought. Full-grown animals actually do have have the ability to engage in conscious thought. Shouldn't we therefore all become vegetarians? ( I actually think, morally speaking, we should be, even though I'm not. I suppose this makes me a hypocrite).

Thank you caputh,I was to flabbergasted to reply. :wink:

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
A rope leash wrote:
Yes, Frank did cater to me. He used the money he made catering to morons so that he could cater to me.

Wow. What an egomaniac. A misinformed egomaniac.

A rope leash wrote:
He also had a good grasp of the reproductive process.

If you are getting pediatric advice from a musician, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

A rope leash wrote:
Yes, SPACEBROTHER, I am taking the moral high ground, which means you are taking what? The low road...
Sometimes the right and moral road is a not-so-pleasant place to be, high or low. It's not up to you, a damn politition or anybody else to deny another person a right to make choices regarding themselves. No excuses. No exceptions.

A rope leash wrote:
I support Ron paul, who has declared that people should be able to put whatever substance they wish into their bodies.

HA!!! But you're fine with Ron Paul's extensive voting record denying women rights to their own bodies? Get real. :roll:

A rope leash wrote:
It's just that I think a fertilized egg is a body within a body, and there's plenty of science to back that up...obvious science. Saying it's just the woman's body is a cop-out excuse for not wanting to take responsibility. That's my view, and if you are reading carefully, you know I have said many times that abortion should be legal, because all sorts of other immorall things are legal...but...
...Womens rights are immoral?


A rope leash wrote:
If a fertilized egg is not a person, and if it just a woman's body, then why can a person be charged with murder if they intentionally hurt a pregnant woman, and it results in the death of the fetus?

Answer that, intellects! If a fetus isn't a person, then how can it be considered murder when someone besides the mother or abortionist kills the fetus?


A fetus and a fertilized egg are two different things. A rhetorical question about a theoretical situation doesn't change that fact.

A rope leash wrote:
...and please, please explain to me how you grew up not knowing how the mammalian reproductive system works. After the statements made on this thread in earlier posts by SPACEBROTHER and Kaptin Kirk, I have to wonder if anything posted by them is worthy of reply or consideration.

Wonder no more, you are not worthy to respond to my posts. I can't speak for the good 'ol Kapt.


A rope leash wrote:
Jacking off kills millions of babies? Douching makes a woman a mass-murderer? How can anyone with half a brain even say such things and expect to be taken seriously afterward?

They're in the exact same league as believing in the tooth fairy, unicorns, and that a fertilized egg is a human being.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4873
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Actually, it's very unlikely that a fertilized egg would be destroyed by douching, though I presume it is theoretically possible. The more likely result is an ectopic pregnancy.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
Caputh wrote:
Actually, it's very unlikely that a fertilized egg would be destroyed by douching, though I presume it is theoretically possible. The more likely result is an ectopic pregnancy.

Lets say I walk in a Vagina and go to the back room and start shooting a little nine ball with the fertal eggs.Am I a murder if I miss a shot or just a bad pool player? :mrgreen:

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2742 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 110  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group