| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Ohh, but I DO speak of a human child. He just hasn't developed all of his organs yet. Let's say that I took a human being at the earliest stage of its individual life, when it is a one(1)-celled organism, and unraveled the DNA of that cell and compared it with the DNA of its mother. Would the DNA test show that this is the mother or would the DNA comparison say that this is someone else? The DNA would show that this one cell is NOT a part of the mother's body but is a DIFFERENT PERSON because only half of its DNA matches is mother; half of the time it won't even be female.
Condoms are entirely different because all the cells they deal with are part of one person or the other. DNA tests have been run on condoms to prove that. Sperm cells are not children; they are part of the man that made them.
Hardly.
Who on Earth would treat the lump of cells as a complete child? It may continue to grow into a child if the mother lets it, but before that its just a part of the mothers body, NOT an independent organism. It is just another step in the production line, after the fusing of a sperm and an egg. Both which are much like the pile of tissue, building blocks of a child.
So the neglection of a persons liberties is a right, and not a wrong, then? So two wrongs CAN make a right?
If someone would need to be connected to you to get a bloodtransfusion to live, they should get to do it whether you like it or not? |
Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:52 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
Darrius: Do you really think banning something will keep it from happening? Take a look at the war on drugs; it prevents some people from doing drugs, but creates a whole criminal culture dedicated to providing, consuming, and prosecuting.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:55 pm |
|
|
Toaster
Bread Alert
Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Posts: 5475
Location: Sweden |
Just so you all know, I'm all for abortion. But I can't possibly understand that anyone who has thought about it for some time, no matter the circumstances, can think abortion of a child, created due to a rape, should be illegal. Even in normal cases, a woman should have the right to decide about something that will change her life that much, and when she didn't even approve to the sexual act, it's bestial to force her to keep the child.
Darrius Cole, you said the purpose of sex is procreation. Well, it is, technically, but humans also make love for pleasure, it's inevitable. And I think that is OK, why should people have to be prepared for a child every time they're having sex? And if the pair's protection failed, or if they forgot/skipped to protect themselves, they should have the right to decide if they want the child as long as it hasn't developed into a (as we know it) human being, who can think and feel. You may say it's already a human being, but if you removed it from the mother, it wouldn't seem more human than any animal, and we have no problems putting an end to an animal's life.
I hope I have expressed myself in an comprehendable way, and that you understand why I think as I do.
(Edited recreation to procreation, damn typos.)
_________________
Tabbrowser Extensions
DictionarySearch
Last edited by Toaster on Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:02 am |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
I disagree that Democrats need to go as far as a literal 100% ban on abortion, but I think they definitely make a big mistake treating it as one of the cornerstones of their party platform. They make an even bigger mistake letting confrontational and fervent groups like NARAL almost be their official representatives on the subject. For one, it just doesnt have the significance today that it did 30 or 40 years ago as a facet of general feminist activism. To little high school girls and college sorority sisters in the year 2004, abortion is just not something they are all worried about. Furthermore, I think the fervor the abortion rights activists are known for gives people the impression that they are ghoulishly promoting and encouraging the practice. They take the most extreme stances on issues such as parental notification laws for minors, horrifying the parents of teenage girls. Opposition to treating the murder of a pregnant woman and her unborn child as 2 separate homicides is another stance of theirs that just makes anyone who hears it shake their head in disbelief.
As I said earlier, Democrats really need to start getting a handle on these one-issue militant groups, and stop letting the party itself be defined by them. I happen to think alot of people start out somewhat indifferent to the issue, but after the flamethrowers of groups like NARAL get done with them, they are sent running the other direction.
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
|
Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:13 am |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by xSamhainx
...
As I said earlier, Democrats really need to start getting a handle on these one-issue militant groups, and stop letting the party itself be defined by them. I happen to think alot of people start out somewhat indifferent to the issue, but after the flamethrowers of groups like NARAL get done with them, they are sent running the other direction.
It seemed to me that John Kerry had pretty reasonable positions on abortion and gay marriage, and would have probably left both things alone. The Republican string pullers trumped up the issues to extreme proportions, not the Dems. This won them the election, but may create friction in the country where there wasn't much before.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:33 am |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
Hexy, if it is just another part of the mother's body, why does it not share her genetic code like the rest of her? Is it still a part of a woman's body if it is male DNA?
quote:
Who on Earth would treat the lump of cells as a complete child?
YOU WILL, if you think it is your baby and you want it. You'll be rubbing her stomach and waiting for it to move and reading stories to it like any other man. Just because the child is completely helpless does not mean it is not a human being. Even after the child is born it is not independent. Guess who's responsibility it is to take care of it.
Jung, No, banning it won't stop it. But making it legal will cause it to happen more often.
Toaster, I said that the purpose of sex is PROcreation, not REcreation. I know that was just a typo, but the typo creates a wildly different meaning so I came with a correction.
Rape is a beastial act. People who rape should be subjected to the harshest penalties. Abortion is also a beastial act, involving invasive procedures that cut things that were not designed to be cut, and killing life that was not meant to die in this way.
I know sex is often used for pleasure, but people should be aware of the consequences of their actions each time they do it(sex). Thus, they should either prepare to have a child when they do it OR take precautions to not have a child when they do it. Either way, they must be required to deal with the consequences of their action. The decision to procreate is made at the point of sex, not after.
If we removed it from the mother it may not seem like a human but it would be human. Why else would we be fighting for the right to use its body to save ourselves.
quote:
Asked of Darrius Cole by Hexy
If someone would need to be connected to you to get a bloodtransfusion to live, they should get to do it whether you like it or not?
You are trying to draw comparison to put me in the position of a mother. Well, I can never truly understand what it takes to be a mother but let's try. First, your question needs to be tweaked to make it resemble the situation more closley.
If Darrius' 1-day old baby would need to be connected to a part of his body specifically designed to give his baby blood for 9 months to get a blood transfusion so she could live, should she get to do it whether Darrius likes it or not.
Answer: Yes, my baby can get my blood, my kidney, my feet, my lungs, etc.
The growing of a child is not a vampiric action. The pregnancy does not injure the woman. Their bodies are designed for childbirth. What children do is take up a LOT of their time and money. These people want abortions because they don't want to stay home every night and watch their children. They don't want to spend their money on diapers.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:05 am |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
quote:
It seemed to me that John Kerry had pretty reasonable positions on abortion and gay marriage, and would have probably left both things alone. The Republican string pullers trumped up the issues to extreme proportions, not the Dems. This won them the election, but may create friction in the country where there wasn't much before.
Oh, no you dont Jung. Dont even turn things around as people seem to always try to do when it comes to the Dems either screwing up royally or being put on the spot. Whether it's some scandal that totally backfires on them, or they are caught themselves red-handed saying or doing something politically damaging, the invisible hand of the all purpose Karl Rove Boogeyman is blamed.
It's not us Republicans who gave the Dems their parties' position on abortion, and it's not us who are up there on that stage with the pro-abortion zealots screaming and yelling about their right to terminate that inconvenient tissue mass. We arent the ones blacklisting pro-life Democrats from speaking at the Democrat National Convention. Any representative who doesnt tow the pro-abortion line in the Democrat party is seldom if ever given a microphone or audience, and it's a real shame because a whole lot of rank-and-file Dems are pro-life.
Now Kerry voted against the partial birth abortion ban and also against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Regardless of your view on either piece of legislation or the issue of abortion itself, to suggest that it's either not relevant or somehow a dirty trick or trumped-up issue to hold these people accountable for or make them defend their official congressional votes is something else. Laci Peterson and her unborn son were viciously murdered, and the entire nation has been watching not only the trial of her husband, but the amazing reaction of the abortion crowd to legislation pertaining to such a hideous crime. It's entirely relevant, and indicative of just how much clout these groups would have on a future President's term. A Democrat presidential candidate who softens his stump speech stance or debate points during an election campaign is hardly representative of his parties' unquestionable support otherwise for the abortion lobby and their political desires. Kerry's election year appreciation for the unborn makes about as much of a difference on the overall direction of where his interest groups and party want to take us, as our pro-choice Republicans make on our official party stance on the issue.
It's not us who are making Planned Parenthood and NARAL endorse John Kerry for president, and it's not us accepting those endorsements. And even worse yet, it isnt us who are blocking and slandering any and all judicial nominees who the abortion lobby disapproves of. Democrats apply a litmus test to all judicial nominees, and if they are known to have any religious conviction or pro-life views whatsoever they are filibustered and slandered until they end up just withdrawing. That's one of my main gripes about Bush, it pisses me off that he nominates great judges, but then he doesnt fight for them when these jackals start ripping them to shreds.
And dont get me started on the gay marriage thing because that is a direct result of Democrats own narcissistic, elitist attitude and flagrant judicial tyranny. We didnt pick that fight, but now that blows have been landed we are fighting back. Instead of trying to persuade people to join their cause like everyone else has to do in politics, those Democrat mayors and the gay lobby gave everyone the middle finger and completely ignored the law. We cannot have our state officials and outside parties picking and choosing what laws they wish to abide by or enforce. Secondly, when you have judges in Massachusetts literally commanding the legislature to write a gay marriage law or any law for that matter, that is flat out judicial tyranny and it will not be taken lying down by the people of this country. These elitists have for a long time thought they can make an end run around legislative process, the will of the people, and the laws of this nation, and decree on all of us from on high thru the judiciary their agenda. That 11 state ban is the direct result of a fed up populace that isnt going to sit around and quietly tolerate judicial tyranny or an arrogant bunch of elitists who dont think they serve this country, they think they rule it.
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
|
Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:20 am |
|
|
Lord_Brownie
High Emperor
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Unfashionable arm of the spiral galaxy |
LOL- I knew I would have something to do when I got to work today
From my view point:
Bad news on the election, Kerry lost. Was very close though, 4%? Well within the margin of error for our voting machines. No big deal, Kerry did the right thing and didn’t further strain a country that has been straining to find the legal spot were its ideals and freedom met. I don’t care for all the amendments against gay marriage. Seems odd to care more about others marriage than my own.
Horrible ads that offered slander at best, but were mostly just hate. Both sides need to get a grip here.
Good news: Dem. won reelection as state rep. (in Texas, too). And some good folks won here and there, too.
Overall, there was little suprise. The Presd. race was really close and legal suits where filed by Reb., before the first polls had even closed. I'm sure the Dem. were doing the same thing, it just didn’t make the backwater news.
Now for issues:
I'm not an extremist by any means, so to claim that Dem are controlled or overly influenced by few pro-choice or antigun extremists is a Strawman argument. Pointing to these guys and saying: "Hey this Nutz is for killing babies while drinking wine and making "love" so the party has gone crazy and anyone who thinks so is crazy, too” ignores the fact that good people, after lots of soul searching, may have decided that abortion or gun control (I'm against gun control myself) may be the best thing for the U.S. It's not fair to say that 52million people are represented by a few extremists. In fact, we could turn the table around and say the Reb are controlled by a few extremist called the Religious right that hates anyone who isn’t a the type of Christian the extremist thinks eveone else should be. In fact there is such a group, but I cant dismiss the policy ideas of Reb. because of it; nor, can I foreget that there are Reb who disagree with the extremists point of view on these issues.
Interesting enough, I was watching a round table discussion on CSPAN a few weeks ago and everyone one on there agreed that both Dem and Reb are far too control by their respected extremist groups, and if both don’t come back to the center soon, the country my be ripped apart. At the same time there is a book out that argues that the country is not nearly divided as it seems. Sounds like allot of divisions are out there.
Abortion is subject that will draw lots of fire, both sides makes some good points. I am pro-choice, not because I want to see people get abortions, but because some folks have to cross some roads themselves and they will try to cross them, law or not. The rich will just go to some safe hospital in another country, and the poor will have the additional risk from the wire hanger (it is harsh to say, but it is true). Needless to say, I don’t think a lump of anything is a human being till it is born of the womb and God grants it a soul. God grants a soul to human beings, not to strains of DNA, regardless of the DNA being the same as the mother or not. With the right research it is possible to make ANY lump of cells into to a human, will all death be consider abortion then? No more hamburgers, that thing could have been a human, so by letting it be a cow we aborted it. Potential is not the same thing as being. By making it so in the abortion debate (I don’t mean this as a Monty Python joke) we run the risk of making every egg scared, does this mean my wife commits a abortion on that one day of the month when one egg is destoryed and a new one put in place? Surely God didn’t mean this to be, abortion as a part of the natural cycle of life!! Absolutely not.
Just because a body produces something that has different DNA than it, doesn’t mean it isn’t apart of the body. This happens all the time in cells exposed to the sun or other sources of radiation which causes cells to reproduce with different DNA patterns or directly alters cell's DNA. These cells are still human, and they still are the person they help to compose. And it should be noted that there are plenty of things that our bodies produce we don’t want to let keep: cancer (a family member of my is currently battle this, lucky it is not a very progressive form), cysts (I am having one removed myself Wednesday from inside my neck), and on the humor side-my unmanageable hair. These things do not have the potential to be a human being, they are a human being, but we drop no tears over the loss of them. Were is the soul? No one knows, but I'm working on it.
“Thou shall not kill” doesn’t go very far these days, nor has it ever. We sanction the killing of other human beings all the time (Iraq, death penalty). How quickly we forget that we are not in the possession of the truth, that we are all sinners, and that no one can predict who is going to go to heaven or hell.
Gay marriage is something I think is wrong, but it doesn’t rise to the level of a constitutional amendment or even lesser laws against it. If you have a better argument against it, let me know, I’ll state the one I know of here and say what I have against it. The Christian right movement has stated, openly, that marriage was given to them by God and that it is holy union between a man and woman. Ok, I agree, but there is a problem when I use this argument to keep gays for getting married. Other religious groups, pagans, Hindus, Native American, and even Atheists are already allowed legal marriage. So the legally, marriage is a secular institution as well as a religious one. My religious definition of marriage isn’t changing by allowing gays to get married. Do I like it? No, not really. I admit my weakness that I feel uncomfortable about it, but I try to give others the benefit of the doubt in how they experience the world. When they, if they ever, come to me and ask what I think about it, I will have to say I don’t like it. That I don’t think God approves, just as he doesn’t approve of any of my own sins. And if making it legal for non-Christians to marry is a sin, then all non-Christian marriages must be made illegal for me not to sin, and this is just silly.
Amerca was not made great by Christains alone, and many non-Christians have paid a very Non-Christain bill so it could be great. A bill Christians forced upon them. They deserve the freedoms that America can offer them. That freedom is undoubtly the freedom to be wrong, to make mistakes. God gave us free will, I trust his judgement, just as Kerry didn’t win the elect, I trust in democracy that things will work out in the end.
LB |
|
Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:53 pm |
|
|
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland |
quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
The growing of a child is not a vampiric action. The pregnancy does not injure the woman. Their bodies are designed for childbirth. What children do is take up a LOT of their time and money. These people want abortions because they don't want to stay home every night and watch their children. They don't want to spend their money on diapers.
How many pregancies have you actually witnessed? I know women where the growing of a child within them, is tearing them physically apart. One of them was sick for 8 months and is now no longer capable of walking correctly anymore. Pregnancy can injure and kill a woman, it has done so in the past and it will continue to do so in the future.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla |
|
Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:51 pm |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
All of your other arguments break down when examined closely.
-The fact the people have been doing it is irrelevant to its justification.
-The power to make the decision and the responsibility for the consequences of the decision should rest with the same person.
-Just people are going to go somewhere else to do wrong is no reason to make it legal here.
-Many children are born to difficult circumstances but the mentally healthy ones all want to live.
-Abortion should not have to go to a ballot. No group of people have the right to take away someone else's right to life. Thus abortions should be illegal unless it is an honest attempt to save the mother's life. This technically agrees with you last point, but I think you intended to communicate a different idea..
1. The point that people have been doing it has every bit of relevance to its justification: Ideas that become common practices always start off with a small group of people doing them... and (like Christianity in the Roman Empire, giving women the right to vote, or letting black people share public space with white people) are often seen as illegal or at the least immoral.
Yet quite often these ideas lead to social change. Not always for the best, it is true (religious wars, Hitler's Nazis), but nevertheless ENTIRELY relevant to its justification.
2. I agree. In this case the woman: Abortions are not risk free 'get out of jail free' cards in the slightest: they are a medical procedure and like all procedures shouldn't be undertaken without serious thought. After all, even getting a wart removed via freezing can risk nerve damage to the surrounding tissue.
3. Again, I agree. There are numerous examples of where this is certainly a bad thing, such as pedophiles seeking countries with a lower age of consent or where selling children for sex is more commonplace. I would take up arms against any government that proposed to legalize sex slave trade. However, abortions are LEGAL in most states (if not all) so it's a matter of making things ILLEGAL where once they were legal. This is a bad idea in a lot of ways: Even more ILLEGAL abortion 'clinics' would spring up ... non government or health care regulated criminal locations which would certainly lead to an increase in mortality rate and a risk to public health.
4. Yes, many children are born to horrible conditions: Is it so wrong to want to reduce that number? If the Hindu are correct these children, if you wish to consider them children before birth, will be reincarnated (or end up in Nirvana): If Christianity is correct they will end up in Heaven and their parents will go to Hell. Even spiritually I fail to see how skipping the pain of living an unloved, unwanted, or even abusive childhood to go straight to the paradise of whatever afterlife you believe in as a horrible thing.
5. Yet this happens in every facet of our society. Criminals are incarcerated or executed.. the judicial system decided they have the right to deny them their right to live. Soldiers kill other soldiers because their government decided they had the right. The church burned heretics because they decided they had the right. Every social faction in the history of mankind has decided that they had the right, at one time or another, to end another's life.
Yet without denial of these liberties and a threat to one's existence there could be no enforcement to laws... there would be no reprecussions for violence or tyranny.
Off the beaten path, of course, but many, many, many groups ... publicly sanctioned... DO have the right to deny someone their right to life.
And as for a baby conceived in rape: No, it is not the baby's fault ... but it is NOT our place to force a woman to bear a child she doesn't want. More than threats to a woman's physical health should be taken into account in these discussions: Emotional and psychological threats are every bit as dangerous.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:39 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
How exactly did gay marriage get on the ballot anyway? Is that the "dirty trick" that was expected from Rove and company?
Gay marriage wasn't on the ballot. Marriage being defined as between one man and one woman only, was on the ballot in eleven states. And it was there because people in those states took the initiative to get it placed on the ballots. It passed overwhelmingly because that's what the majority in those states wanted. Rove and company had nothing to do with it.
@Darrius: So much for the peace and quiet I was enjoying. 
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:08 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
So much to respond to:
Xen,
Point #1 - What I mean is that it is either right (justified) or wrong (justified) whether people have been doing it or not.
Point #5 - The incarceration of criminal and the execution of prisoners (which I also disagree with) are defense actions done to protect the population. The point is, even if these things should not be voted on or legislated, they are going to be legislated, voted on, or ruled into law (or made illegal by the same processes.)
Point #2 - I have another concept I will introduce regarding this but I don't have the time now. I will do that in a later post.
Point #4 - We do not have right to take life because we can not give back the life we take. Thus, the taking of life should only be done under the gravest of circumstances. You also assume that aborted would be unhappy is they were allowed to continue living. This is not always the case. Moreover, like any other medical procedure abortion is less accessible to the poor because of cost. Thus it is probably more likely that an aborted child would have been born to a wealthy family than a poor one. But, that is irrelevant because it is wrong either way.
Myrthos
It's been a long time. Glad to hear from you.
You did not actually disagree with me. Such cases where the mother is in abnormal risk I think should be allowed abortion. They would be allowed to kill an adult who threatened them with such a fate. Children are no different.
Lord Brownie,
Things that your body produces all have your genetic code. That is why DNA testing is sufficient evidence to, put you on child support, put you in jail, convict you of murder. If is has your DNA there is only one place is could have come from, YOU. (or your identical twin)
If anything that does not have your DNA enters your body, your body attacks it. In fact, when a woman is pregnant her immune system recognizes the fetus as a foreign organism, and her body weakens her immune system so that she will not attack the fetus. That is right, it is a different person inside her. Beautiful isn't it?
I am sorry that you family develops cysts, I hope your operaton goes well. The cysts that your family suffers from are not human beings, they are a PART of a human being. What abortion does is it kill a WHOLE human being. True it may not have developed all of the parts that it needs to survive. Still, it is the entire human being. No other human has the same DNA as that clump of cells. And that clump of cells will grow to be an adult if the mother will only feed it, something she will be doing well AFTER it is born.
There is already a thread covering gay marriage, called "Sexually Deviant Marriages"
Val, Samhainx, and Jung
I think it is clear that the Republican powers used their influence to make sure the Gay Marriage amendments got on the ballot. It may have been worded differently, but we all know what it was about. That is not dirty politics. That is just smart politics. You fight the fights you can win. Republicans saw an issue that would motivate people to vote in their favor, an issue they could win on, and they made sure that people would have the choice to vote on it. That is the way the game is played.
Those amendments all passed. They all passed in percentages much larger than any Republican candidate got. It even passed in Oregon, a state that Kerry won. That means that issue is to the left of even democrats.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:14 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
You’re a Libertarian also Val? I consider myself a Jeffersonian Libertarian (which is basically Libertarian without the crazy). I have distanced myself from the party this election because of Iraq. They couldn’t be more wrong on the issue in my opinion. I see it as saying, “Well, if we just give Hitler all our Jews he will leave us alone.”
I am pro-abortion, but I hate that people treat it as purely a women’s issue. Great, a women doesn’t want to pay the rest of her life for a one night stand—and she shouldn’t in a free Country that has separation of Church and State. But even if the father of the child conceived during a one night stand wants the woman to get an abortion and she doesn’t want to, he is stuck paying child support. So the woman has the right to not pay for a mistake but the man has no rights at all. Up with abortion, down with child support! Women’s rights? Where the hell is men’s rights? We have the right to stand silently by with an open wallet. Yeah, that’s about it. Who is sticking up for men’s choice? We have none, because society is a government sponsored sexist institute.
The Democratic party is so f-ed up it is crazy. That party really needs a split. What you have is the richy-rich Harvard and media elites telling every one they are for them when their policy works directly against them. How is enforcing subgroups going to end racism? Subgrouping creates and reinforces racism and bigotry and works against cohesion and the melting pot. An African-American is just an American when traveling in France, or if captured by terrorists.
Raising the minimum wage would create further outsourcing. Making anything more expensive for businesses here in America creates more outsourcing. So when all the bottom jobs are gone or performed by illegals the state of America will be so divided between the haves-and have-nots that we will essentially have a cast system.
Taxing the rich is bad for everyone. If the rich save their money there is the money-multiplier effect that keeps inflation lower and creates wealth by keeping interest rates low enough for lower income people to take out a mortgage. If the rich spend it is good for the economy. So the rich saving or spending more money the better off we are.
The more business friendly America is the more business will stay here, the more capital we retain for more business. What is the only thing keeping business in America? Capital and a skilled and educated work force. India has a skilled and educated work for, as well as China and they both have cheap labor that offsets distribution costs so the capital is moving over there. Slowly, thanks to 401k’s.
Traitors and American haters are all in the Democrat party. They gave Moore and other Anti-Americans a place of honor at their convention. Every American hater in Hollywood is a Democrat. Every act of violence committed this election was done by a democrat. For every act of Fraud and Vandalism committed by a republican this election, 28 were committed by democrats. Look at the 100 people that raided and destroyed the Rep HQ in NC yesterday, guy trying to run the lady over with the car, all the tire slashing of people with Bush/Cheny stickers. I abhor violence, so I can’t help but abhor the violence committed and not condemned by the Dems.
I was always a democrat, I was raised a democrat by democratic parents (who are both immigrants). Both my parents were born in a Muslim country under the French flag—Tunisia. (My mother is Sicilian though, and my father is a want to be Italian, but his family is Cape Vedian though his parents were born in France. He is basically a black Frenchman who tries really hard to be Italian, he’s a big wannabe or a witalian).
I left the party after realizing my party is the party of lies. Lie, lie, lie. That’s what they do. The media and Harvard elites have changed history to be a lie. They do what the Nazi propagandists do, say anything loud enough and long enough and it will become the truth. History is being rewritten by the far left “intellectual elites.”
The democrat party has given shelter to America haters and communists since the forties. If you are pro-communist you side with the greatest mass murders and enslavers the world has ever seen.
Why has no one asked themselves why rich people like Soros and the Hollywood and Harvard Elites are pro communist? Because communism has never taken the wealth and power away from their rich supporters. They are anti-freedom. All communism has ever done is enslave the common man, reduced the top 20% of the wealthy to controlling 80% of the wealth and reduced it to the top 1% controlling 100% of the wealth. How is that good for the working man? I don’t want to be a slave to the government.
If all these rich bastards are so big on helping the poor, why are they so rich? The best way to help the poor is to give them some of your wealth. You don’t need the government to take it out of your paycheck. Give it to the poor. Cut out the middleman. My household income last year was $8,000. I could really use the help. Open your wallet Michael Moore, open your wallet Sean Penn, open your wallet Heinz-Kerry, open your wallet Soros, let me have a little of that wealth you hoard.
They don’t do it because they don’t care. They lie and say they care. The social elites in this country are neither social nor elite. They are socialist and elitists. Socialism has always enslaved and removed the freedom and autonomy of its people, and I don’t want it. I don’t want the government to take the little money I earn busting my ass working and give it to those who don’t want to work. And I don’t want “liberals” and the media and the Harvard elites and the Hollywood crazies forcing lies down my throat and changing history.
I put liberals in quotation marks because I am a liberal, I am a social liberal. I am for legalized drugs, pro-abortion, stem cell research, pro naked society, pro free love, pro-gay marriage, pro polygamy and polyandry, pro prostitution, pro everything that gives Americans more freedom. I am ant-slavery, anti-racist, and I love America so that rules me out of the democratic party.
That’s why the democratic party needs a split, people, like my family, mistakenly believe that the democratic party is ant-slavery and racism, but they are wrong. If they forced the crazies out off the party, or stopped letting them be the voice of the party, a democratic candidate would have won this election, would have the majority of senate and the house. and I would be a member of the party. But they let the lying, America-haters speak for the whole party, and give them a place of honor at their conventions.
Kerry’s record proved that he was pro-communist. The cold war and his stance on Nicaragua proved his communist intent. Enough for me to vote for Bush.
Down with slavery, racism, and violence: which translates into down with the Dems. Up with all three of the Jeffersonian Libertarians (I haven’t met the other two yet but I bet they’re good freedom lovers and racism, slavery, and violence haters also).
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:41 am |
|
|
|comy|
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Posts: 42
Location: Slovenia |
Well, here we go again...
gg dubya.
When can we expect another war ? 
EDIT : I guess there is a good thing about all this, I'll be amused for another 4 years ( just by looking at him )
_________________
now as the lights go down
deeper now it seems than long before
there are no noises here
just a silence gone bad
something I will never hide
this urging need to
invite the darkside in
into my haven |
|
Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:47 pm |
|
|
Lord_Brownie
High Emperor
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Unfashionable arm of the spiral galaxy |
quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
Things that your body produces all have your genetic code. That is why DNA testing is sufficient evidence to, put you on child support, put you in jail, convict you of murder. If is has your DNA there is only one place is could have come from, YOU. (or your identical twin)
If anything that does not have your DNA enters your body, your body attacks it. In fact, when a woman is pregnant her immune system recognizes the fetus as a foreign organism, and her body weakens her immune system so that she will not attack the fetus. That is right, it is a different person inside her.
Here is a problem: "Things your body produces all have your genetic code"; however, the mother produces a child that does not have her genetic code. This is a contradiction. The mother can't produce the child if it doesn’t have her genetic code, then she can’t reproduce: she can only make clones of herself. In fact this premise is wrong, the body can, and does have cells that don’t have your genetic code, this is a result of mutation. This is bad for the most part, but it does happen, therefore your body can produce cells that don’t have your genetic code.
The body's immune system doesn’t check DNA to decide if something is foreign or not. If this were true blood and organ transplants would be impossible. Instead, it mostly (but there are other things that can trigger an attack) checks the protein structure of the cell. The immune system has no idea if the cell is foreign or not, it can even mistake it's own body and attack it, and it often does. DNA would then be a secondary factor, as it produces the "molds" that are then use to make the proteins. I am straining my brain to try and remember if I read an article a few years back that claimed that the immune system could check the DNA in cancer cells and destroy them; not because they were foreign to the body though as they cant be, but my mind is hazy at the moment. Interesting stuff, even if it doesn’t help with the topic. Not to put words but is your argument, Cole, that the ‘new’ human is originated when the male fertilizes the egg and a new strain of DNA is formed?
The fact is I'm arguing that the cells is not a human being, and it will not be a human being till it is born of the womb. Especially after my little brain storm about DNA above, I doubt I have enough knowledge, even after taking a college level course that focussed on reproduction at the cell level, were being a human is and isn’t in cells. It is really complicated, and no typing I can do here would do it justice, for that reason alone I would be loath to make illegal, something that is based so much on the pure abstractions. The more I think about it, the more using DNA and cell structure to justify one way or the other seems pointless. There is just too much that we only know as hypnotize or theory and I prefer to wait for something more substantial before making it illegal.
DNA used as evidence requires expert testimony that spends a few days explaining why the DNA isnt an exact match to the parent or suspect. They then get grilled over why they dont know what most of the DNA does, or how it does what they say it does. When DNA was newer, DA had a great advantage, but defense attornies are starting to catch up.
Thanks for your well wishes, Cole, it will be interseting at any rate. I havent seen this much paper work since I left the millitary! 
LB |
|
Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:55 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:22 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
