do you think i could eat aborted fetuses? i mean, ya know, safely?

8/21/2005 1:35:28 AM

a strong point, but do murdering villians come from caring mothers? hmm
not usually

8/21/2005 1:38:51 AM

clearly all murderers didnt have caring mothers?

8/21/2005 1:41:01 AM

^^

Quote :

"not usually"

8/21/2005 1:42:10 AM

I mean, to say some men and women are inately evil is argurable at best

8/21/2005 1:43:33 AM

Quote :

"i am not pro-abortion. i think abortion is a bad thing. but i also think that other people have the right to make their own decisions about this. also, it is not my place to tell others what they can and can't do with their bodies. epecially since i'm a man and can not possibly know what having a child is like. i feel there are some instances where abortions are a reasonable choice. i don't think that we should legislate when one can and cannot have an abortion. this is a woman's decision."

so in other words, you are pro-abortion

8/21/2005 2:05:47 AM

That is sarijoul's quote. And yes i'm pro abortion in the sense that i dont want government laws made to restrict, but on the moral level i'm not for it. You can be both at the same time. I just dont want America turning out like China. No offense to the chinese but their govt. is a bit overbearing.

8/21/2005 3:28:50 AM

Prohibiting murder is not overbearing - so before we even begin to talk about China and overbearing and choice and what not, we have to address the fundamental question of whether the unborn baby is a human life. Why do those on the pro-abortion side of the debate (a term I will explain in a bit) always seem to assume away that critical question?

Let's say you have a five year old child. You are busy doing something and the child comes up to you and says "Mommy (or Daddy, as it were), can I kill this?" Your first question would of course be "What is it?" If the "it" in question is a spider, then sure, kill it. But if the "it" in question is your baby brother, then the answer would likely be different. "What is it" is the critical question, and it cannot be assumed away.

I never use the term pro-choice because it is ambiguous. There are all kinds of choices that someone could make. What about someone who is in favor of domestic violence? Do you call that person pro choice because he is in favor of spouses CHOOSING to beat up their spouses? Spouse abuse is not an involuntary muscle spasm - it is a choice. So being in favor of domestic violence could rightly be called "pro choice". How about someone who believes that rape should be legal? Rape is a choice made by the rapist - he or she is not forced to rape. So if you believe rape should be legal, you are "pro choice". We could go on all day - but I think it clear that the term pro choice is way too ambiguous to be at all meaningful. So why not call it what it is? You are in favor of abortion remaining legal. Therefore, you are not pro choice, you are pro abortion.

Let's look at it on another level. What is a choice? A choice is a mental decision that one makes. An action is something completely different - it is the manifestation of that choice. Laws do not restrict choice, but they do restrict the manifestation of that mental decision in physical action. I can "choose" to break the speed limit - that is, I can make the conscious decision in my head that "I will break the speed limit" - and the law does not care. The only point at which the law becomes involved is if I carry that choice into action. The law prohibits the action, not the choice. All the pro-lifers are saying is that you can make any choice you want, but you should not be legally permitted to carry that choice into action. So, since we are talking about the law restricting action, the term "pro choice" is not only ambiguous but irrelevant, is it not?

Quote :

"i dont want government laws made to restrict, but on the moral level i'm not for it. "

I don't understand statements like this. Why are you not for it on a moral level? Is it because it is murder? If so, then why shouldn't government laws be made to restrict it? If it is murder, then of course we should not only restrict but abolish it. If it is not murder, then there is really no reason to be against it on a moral level. So how do you resolve that dissonance?

[Edited on August 21, 2005 at 4:17 AM. Reason : add]

[Edited on August 21, 2005 at 4:19 AM. Reason : another level]

8/21/2005 4:08:07 AM

well, if men don't have any choice, I don't see why both men and women don't have a choice. the baby was created by 2 people, and they'll both have to live with the consquences

of course, extenuating circumstances like rape and the health of the mother aside.

8/21/2005 8:45:46 AM

if i get a chick pregnant and i want to keep that baby, i believe i have just as much right as she does. Yes, she has to go through a lot more work for it, but it takes two to tango. All reproductive rights shouldnt be given to the female, sorry.

And as far as the title to this thread goes, it couldnt be further from the truth. All men are not pro-choice.

8/21/2005 10:59:24 AM

you shouldn't get someone pregnant who you don't trust to consult you with that decision, kiddo.

8/21/2005 11:20:15 AM

Likewise, one shouldn't be getting pregnant before one is ready. It's not like child isn't a known and common side effect of sex. Of course, we don't live in a perfect world do we?

8/21/2005 11:30:58 AM

Quote :

"^^^^ Is that the reason? Or is it because you have no answers to the quesion I asked? I suspect it is the latter."

yes, that is the reason. iraqis and kosovars are tied into my rebuttal to GrumpyGOP's argument.

obviously it has nothing to do with you so shut the fuck up.

Quote :

"Quote : "i dont want government laws made to restrict, but on the moral level i'm not for it. " I don't understand statements like this. Why are you not for it on a moral level? Is it because it is murder? If so, then why shouldn't government laws be made to restrict it? If it is murder, then of course we should not only restrict but abolish it. If it is not murder, then there is really no reason to be against it on a moral level."

Not being for something doesn't necessarily mean being against something. he's not for it morally, but he didn't say he's against it explicitly, that is just your inference.

[Edited on August 21, 2005 at 11:51 AM. Reason : f u]

8/21/2005 11:46:52 AM

sorry, can't always blame it on the penis

8/21/2005 12:09:37 PM

Quote :

"If I can't stop them by being nice, I stop them with force. Now you want to defend the lives of people who would commit genocide? Have fun with that."

i asked nicely for that fetus not to be born, but the damn thing kept growing....so i tosse dmyself down a flight of stairs.

8/21/2005 12:13:57 PM

Quote :

"you shouldn't get someone pregnant who you don't trust to consult you with that decision, kiddo."

you shouldn't get pregnant with someone if you won't consult them on such a decision. IT WORKS TWO FUCKING WAYS, DUMBASS

8/21/2005 12:27:21 PM

Quote :

"I never use the term pro-choice because it is ambiguous..."

Hmmm...No. You're stretching with this.

In the context of abortion, pro-choice is that those involved have the right to choose abortion/not abortion without interference from the government or others. The government's involvement with abortion should be on par with other medical procedures, e.g. certifying doctors, cleanliness standards, etc. In contrast, pro-life is that there is no choice; if you are pregnant, you will have the child.

Quote :

"The law prohibits the action, not the choice."

Without action there is no choice. By restricting action through law, the government has effectively made the decision for you, as you pointed out: "since we are talking about the law restricting action, the term "pro choice" is not only ambiguous but irrelevant." What pro-lifers are saying is that want to make the abortion choice for everyone by mandating the decision through law.

Quote :

"I don't understand statements like this. Why are you not for it on a moral level? Is it because it is murder? If so, then why shouldn't government laws be made to restrict it? If it is murder, then of course we should not only restrict but abolish it. If it is not murder, then there is really no reason to be against it on a moral level. So how do you resolve that dissonance?"

Someone choosing not to engage in an action does not equate to that person believing that government should ban others from that activity, i.e. just because I would choose not to do something doesn't mean that I want the government to impose my decision on others. I choose not to own firearms, but I don't think that the government should ban or limit others from owning firearms. Some choose not to look at pornography. Should the government prevent everyone from accessing porn (see the .xxx hooplah)?

This is what pro-life (and a lot of other things as well) is: people believing that because they wouldn't do it, nobody should do it.

8/21/2005 1:12:03 PM

Quote :

"In the context of abortion, pro-choice is that those involved have the right to choose abortion/not abortion"

so in other words, you are pro-abortion. CALL IT WHAT IT IS! its really does suck when you have to use a euphemism to say you are for something...

8/21/2005 1:19:29 PM

I'm pro-choice. You see the world isn't black and white. There are shades of grey. Pro-abortion would mean that I'm for everyone getting an abortion whenever they are preggers.

8/21/2005 2:11:11 PM

only no it wouldn't. pro-abortion means you are in favor of abortion being legal. pro-choice means... well... uhhh.... you are in favor of abortion being legal.

8/21/2005 2:16:00 PM

no, pro-abortion means I run for state government with the slogan, ABORTIONS FOR EVERYONE

8/21/2005 2:16:47 PM

I find it hard to believe anyone could be "pro-abortion"

"Pro-abortion" would entail that any time someone got pregnant they'd turn around and get an abortion.

No one, on either side of the fence, likes the idea of an abortion. Some just see it as a necessary evil.

[Edited on August 21, 2005 at 2:17 PM. Reason : e:f;b]

8/21/2005 2:16:52 PM

Quote :

"If it is not murder, then there is really no reason to be against it on a moral level."

birth control is not murder but plenty of people are morally opposed to it. hopefully those same people would not advocate the prohibition of birth control, though, because they would realize that by attempting to legislate every little moral value they held, our nation would turn into a taliban-style state.

8/21/2005 2:19:08 PM

Quote :

"In the context of abortion, pro-choice is that those involved have the right to choose abortion/not abortion without interference from the government or others. The government's involvement with abortion should be on par with other medical procedures, e.g. certifying doctors, cleanliness standards, etc. In contrast, pro-life is that there is no choice; if you are pregnant, you will have the child."

I know what it means "in the context of abortion", but my point is that it is a euphemism - it hides what you are really saying. We know what euphemisms mean in the specific context in which they are used - for example, "went to be with the Lord" means died, "making love to" means fucking, "powder my nose" is a euphemism women use for taking a piss, etc. However they are all euphemisms, and none of them refer to what is actually going on to the best of our knowledge.

When they are used in the advocacy context, euphemisms are intellectually dishonest. For example if I were a state legislator proposing a bill to give extra funds for "low income housing to fight homelessness", but what I really mean is "prisons", that would be intellectually dishonest. I am hiding what I am really in favor of behind a euphemism that on its face doesn't seem so bad. It is the same way in this context. Who could be against "choice"? We make choices all the time. But that is just a euphemism to hide what you are really advocating for - the right to "choose" abortion. Just like in my example, who coulid be against the state fighting homelessness by erecting low income housing? But that is flowery language I use to hide what I am really advocating for. That is intellectually dishonest.

Say what you mean. The "choice" that you are advocating for is the "choice" to have an abortion. "Choice" in general is not under attack, abortion is.

(We could go even further by showing that "abortion" itself is really a euphemism - what does "abort" mean? Ever see that computer error message, abort/retry/ignore?)

Quote :

"Without action there is no choice. By restricting action through law, the government has effectively made the decision for you, as you pointed out: "since we are talking about the law restricting action, the term "pro choice" is not only ambiguous but irrelevant." What pro-lifers are saying is that want to make the abortion choice for everyone by mandating the decision through law."

I disagree again. You can have choice without action. Let's say there is someone I really really dislike - for purposes of argument let's call him Professor Buck O'Smelley. I get so angry with Professor O'Smelley that I decide in my mind that I am going to go to his office and punch him in the face. At that moment I have made a choice. At that moment, can I be charged with battery? No, because the law requires an overt act before one can be charged with a crime. Now, let's say that I start on my way to Professor O'Smelley's office, fling open the door, and swing my fist at him - but he puts a book up in front of his face and I end up hitting the book instead of him. Can I be charged? Likely not for battery - maybe attempted battery, but even that is based on the fact that I took action in furtherance of my choice. In either case, I chose to punch Professor O'Smelley in the face, but that choice was not carried forth into action.

The law does not punish my choice, it punishes my action. As far as I am concerned, you can choose to have an abortion and the law should not punish you - but if you actually do try to have an abortion, then the law should punish that. It is a matter of the law punishing action, not choice. You can make whatever choice you want - choose to rape your girlfriend/boyfriend, choose to burn down your neighbor's house, choose to rob a bank, choose to hit Professor O'Smelley - but if you carry any of those choices into action, then the law should punish you for doing it, because it violates someone else's rights.

So the issue is the act of abortion, not the choice.

Quote :

"Someone choosing not to engage in an action does not equate to that person believing that government should ban others from that activity, i.e. just because I would choose not to do something doesn't mean that I want the government to impose my decision on others. I choose not to own firearms, but I don't think that the government should ban or limit others from owning firearms. Some choose not to look at pornography. Should the government prevent everyone from accessing porn (see the .xxx hooplah)? This is what pro-life (and a lot of other things as well) is: people believing that because they wouldn't do it, nobody should do it."

I disagree again. The reason nobody else should do it is because it violates another person's rights. Why else would you be against abortion morally? There is no reason to be against abortion, unless the unborn child is a human life. If he is not a human life, then there is no reason to be against abortion. If he is a human life, then there is no justification for abortion that would even be remotely sufficient. Which again illustrates my point, that the crucial question, really the only question of any significance, is "what is the unborn baby?". That is the only question that matters in the entire discussion - and it is the question that pro-aborts seem to dance around and assume away.

8/21/2005 2:26:40 PM

Quote :

"Say what you mean. The "choice" that you are advocating for is the "choice" to have an abortion. "Choice" in general is not under attack, abortion is."

It's not? Because I could have sworn that pro-lifers weren't big fans of even giving people the choice.

Quote :

"We could go even further by showing that "abortion" itself is really a euphemism - what does "abort" mean? Ever see that computer error message, abort/retry/ignore?"

You know, somehow I think abortions existed well before DOS.

somehow

8/21/2005 2:33:51 PM

Quote :

"no, pro-abortion means I run for state government with the slogan, ABORTIONS FOR EVERYONE I find it hard to believe anyone could be "pro-abortion" "Pro-abortion" would entail that any time someone got pregnant they'd turn around and get an abortion. "

I disagree again. Let's look at the issue of the death penalty. If someone is pro-death penalty, as opposed to anti-death penalty, what does that mean? Are they in favor of the death penalty remaining legal - in other words, in favor of it remaining a choice for juries? Or do they believe that every single criminal in the world, including jaywalkers, speeders, people who remove the mattress tags that say "do not remove under penalty of law", etc., should get the death penalty? It is likely the former.

Pro abortion does not mean that one believes abortion is great, everyone should get one, et cetera. (Make no mistake, there are people like Margaret Sanger who believe that, but the ordinary pro abortion person does not) Just like pro death penalty does not mean that one believes that everybody should get the death penalty. But since we are talking about what act should remain legal, pro abortion means that they believe the act of abortion should remain legal.

Quote :

"birth control is not murder but plenty of people are morally opposed to it. hopefully those same people would not advocate the prohibition of birth control, though, because they would realize that by attempting to legislate every little moral value they held, our nation would turn into a taliban-style state."

I did not say that the only reason to be against anything is because it is murder - I said that the only reason to be against abortion is because it is murder. On the broader concept, the only reason to be against anything is because it violates someone's rights. Here, there is no reason to be against abortion unless it is murder. If it is not murder, then one is hard pressed to find a reason to be against abortion morally. If it is murder, then one is hard pressed to find any justification that would be sufficient. Which again illustrates my point that the only question of consequence in the abortion debate is whether the child is a life.

[Edited on August 21, 2005 at 2:48 PM. Reason : Maggie]

8/21/2005 2:33:52 PM

Quote :

"It's not? Because I could have sworn that pro-lifers weren't big fans of even giving people the choice. "

Go back and re-read my Professor O'Smelley illusration. I can choose all I want. I can choose to hit Professor O'Smelley, choose to run over his foot as he walks in the parking deck, choose to shoot his dog, et cetera. But I cannot legally carry any of those choices into action. The law penalizes action,not choice.

As a pro life person, I say you can choose to have an abortion all day long. Choose away. But you should not be legally allowed to carry that choice into action. It is the overt act which the law should penalize, not the choice.

Quote :

"You know, somehow I think abortions existed well before DOS. somehow "

The point of that went right over your head, didn't it?

The point is that the word "abortion" is itself a euphemism. What does "abort" mean? It is a verb meaning, simply, to end. A military leader aborts a mission, for example. Now if I take a gun and kill Professor O'Smelley, under the usage of definitions I can rightly say that I have "aborted" him. I have ended him. But that is not what everyone else would say - they would say that I "killed" him, which is just as true as saying that I "aborted" him. So "abort" when it is applied to life is just a euphemism for "kill".

[Edited on August 21, 2005 at 2:41 PM. Reason : action not choice]

8/21/2005 2:39:31 PM

this is all damn semantics.

8/21/2005 2:40:49 PM

Well see, I don't really think it is. I think it shows intellectual dishonesty on the part of the pro-abortion side of the argument, that they assume away the only crucial question, that they use flowery language that hides what they are really advocating for. It is not only the issue of how to label each side, but it grows to more serious issues. For example, you rarely see a pro-abortion person addressing the only crucial question in the argument - whether the baby is a life - rather they hide behind their euphemistic language of "it's my choice". Euphemisms are not only the way they label themselves, but euphemisms are, in large part, the substance of the argument itself for pro-aborts. So it is not just semantics, but substance.

[Edited on August 21, 2005 at 2:46 PM. Reason : rarely ]

8/21/2005 2:45:02 PM

pro-abortion suggests that people actively support abortion. that is not usually the case. just as i'm for the choice of people to have a parade down hillsborough street with nazi flags if they file the correct paperwork, i'm not pro-nazi. just like people who support a woman's right to choose calling people of the opposing opinion anti-choice instead of their self-imposed pro-life title (again suggesting that their opposition is opposed to life). it is semantics. it is each side of the argument trying to make the other look bad. one side supports the right of women to have an abortion (and there are definitely shades of this side too) and the other does not support abortion. arguing over the words is silly. obviously people have different ideas about what life is and when life begins. that is what should be argued. not the fucking name of it.

8/21/2005 2:53:01 PM

I don't think that pro abortion suggests what you say it does. I think it simply means in favor of abortion remaining legal. Just like pro death penalty does not mean that they want the people who remove mattress tags to get the death penalty - but they do want the death penalty to remain legal.

But, even if what you say is true and the whole issue of labels is just each side trying to make the other look bad, then my point becomes that the pro-abortion side is trying to make the pro-life side look bad in an intellectually dishonest way. Just like they did what that John Roberts ad. Even if it does amount to just semantics, using intellectual dishonesty to try to make the other side look bad, by using euphemisms to mislead the public about the real issues in the debate, is a substantive matter. A good position in a debate is not founded upon intellectual dishonesty.

I do agree with you that the only real issue that needs to be discussed is whether the unborn baby is a human life. So all of this business about "my body" and "choice" and poverty and all that needs to be set aside until this threshold question is answered - would you agree with that?

[Edited on August 21, 2005 at 3:01 PM. Reason : dishonesty]

8/21/2005 2:58:54 PM

Quote :

"The point is that the word "abortion" is itself a euphemism. What does "abort" mean? It is a verb meaning, simply, to end. A military leader aborts a mission, for example. Now if I take a gun and kill Professor O'Smelley, under the usage of definitions I can rightly say that I have "aborted" him. I have ended him. But that is not what everyone else would say - they would say that I "killed" him, which is just as true as saying that I "aborted" him. So "abort" when it is applied to life is just a euphemism for "kill". "

do you really want to get into a linguistics debate with me?

8/21/2005 3:02:01 PM

Not unless it is going to get down to the only issue of substance in the discussion - which is whether the child is a life or not.

8/21/2005 3:07:16 PM

but see you have already clouded the field by bringing in linguistics.

but to answer your question

A fetus isn't alive until it is born.

8/21/2005 3:09:00 PM

I understand that this is the conclusion that you draw, but I am not interested in merely conclusory statements. I could reply to your statement with "The baby is alive when he is conceived", and we would be no further along in a discussion than we were before it started. What I want to know is the intellectual reasoning behind your position - in other words, the foundation of your position in science and moral philosophy.

8/21/2005 3:14:20 PM

who cares about moral philosophy? I don't live by the dictates of moral philosophy.

and here is the science for you. The age of something is calclulated from the time it is born. Not from the time in which it was conceived.

8/21/2005 3:15:39 PM

Quote :

"I do agree with you that the only real issue that needs to be discussed is whether the unborn baby is a human life. So all of this business about "my body" and "choice" and poverty and all that needs to be set aside until this threshold question is answered - would you agree with that?"

i didn't say it was the only issue. but that it is an issue that should be discussed, not the label of what side of an argument one is on. the issue is more complex than just whether a fetus is a human life or not. but that is a core issue.

8/21/2005 3:16:55 PM

Quote :

"unfortunately i cannot quantify sentience."

Oh yes you can. You told me that a fetus is not sentient and a retard is. That must mean you can do a pretty good approximation. Approximate for me.

Quote :

"i didn't say that at all."

But it would be OK if we did, because they're animals. If we can spare anyone in society some unpleasantness by killing them, we can.

Quote :

"clearly you feel that they can be born in Kosovo and be killed in a hospital that gets blown up by a missile or bomb from NATO with a clean conscience."

Didn't I specifically say, "Don't talk about Kosovo in your response?" Christ. Nothing but shit between the ears.

If you can't read what I've already said in response to this "reasoning," I'm not going to keep repeating it in vain.

Quote :

"I implied that i agree with helping those wanting to die commit suicide."

But you implied it with regards to the senile, who lack the mental faculties to do something like consenting to suicide.

Quote :

"I don't know when Iraqis committed genocide."

You also don't know the definition of genocide. More than one thing Saddam did counted. Even if it didn't, wars of aggression against your neighbors is in the same ballpark.

8/21/2005 3:23:27 PM

but see, saddam had no ability to attack his neighbors. There was no reason to go to Iraq.

8/21/2005 3:24:59 PM

Quote :

"and here is the science for you. The age of something is calclulated from the time it is born. Not from the time in which it was conceived."

Measurement of age has nothing to do with the innate scientific character of the thing. Measurement of age is a social construct. For example, I am 25 years old, according to the definitions that society has set up in which a "year" equals 365 days. Now, assume that I lived in a society that, for the purposes of having everything be nice round numbers, said "a year is equal to 1,000 days." I would not be 25 years old, I would only be 9 years old. But there is nothing scientifically different about me in either society; I am still me, still have my innate characteristics and scientific makeup.

I'm not asking about the social constructs we set up, I am asking in terms of science. What is scientifically different about the child after birth that is so different than before birth to warrant drawing the line of "life" at that point?

Quote :

"who cares about moral philosophy? I don't live by the dictates of moral philosophy."

That would be material if we were just talking about you. However you are proposing a rule for society, which in order to be a good rule must be grounded in some sort of reasoning.

Quote :

"i didn't say it was the only issue. but that it is an issue that should be discussed, not the label of what side of an argument one is on. the issue is more complex than just whether a fetus is a human life or not. but that is a core issue. "

What other issue could there be? Either the unborn child is a human life or he is not. If he is not, then what difference does it make if he lives or dies? If he is a human life, then I submit that NO other justification, other than the law of dual effect, is sufficient to permit abortion. It's like the kid who asks "Daddy, can I kill this." Well, the first question is, what is it. If it's a spider, sure kill it who cares. If it's your brother, then NO you cannot kill him under any circumstances.

8/21/2005 3:42:58 PM

There were many and I've discussed them at length in countless other threads, so take your childish foreign policy ideas where they belong.

8/21/2005 3:43:07 PM

.

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 2:10 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2005 3:44:45 PM

Can a brother get a ban?

8/21/2005 3:45:44 PM

yes, let's punish Saddam twice. He was already punished for his invasion of Kuwait back during the reign of George I. And grumpy, calling my foreign policy childish merely because I believe in the value of human life is insane. If anything you policy is childish because you cannot solve the problems with words, only bombs.

8/21/2005 3:46:17 PM

Quote :

"That would be material if we were just talking about you. However you are proposing a rule for society, which in order to be a good rule must be grounded in some sort of reasoning. "

it's called law. That is where order comes from, not a mythical man in the sky.

8/21/2005 3:47:16 PM

I was far less concerned with Kuwait in the past than what would happen somewhere down the line. Or have we forgotten that the obvious heirs to Saddam's reign were even more bloody-mouthed and sociopathic than their daddy was? Would waiting for the inevitable be a better plan? I mean, sure, more civilians would die, but at least we'd have an obvious fucking reason to point at so that soppy cunts like the ones on this board could smile and say, "OK." That's got to count for something.

8/21/2005 3:49:01 PM

And laws can be either just or unjust. We should keep just laws, and remove unjust laws. Law is not the end in itself, every founding document of the country recognizes that. And in order to decide whether a law is just or unjust, we turn to the realm of moral philosophy.

8/21/2005 3:49:02 PM

The nazis referred to their genocide of the Jewish people as "the final solution" and referred to their gassing facilities as "showers." Slatin referred to his death camp gulags as "work camps." People who engage and support despotic means of death continuously rely on doubletalk and dishonesty to cover up their actions. These pro-aborts aren't any different.

8/21/2005 3:50:06 PM

Quote :

"I was far less concerned with Kuwait in the past than what would happen somewhere down the line. Or have we forgotten that the obvious heirs to Saddam's reign were even more bloody-mouthed and sociopathic than their daddy was? Would waiting for the inevitable be a better plan? I mean, sure, more civilians would die, but at least we'd have an obvious fucking reason to point at so that soppy cunts like the ones on this board could smile and say, "OK." That's got to count for something."

and yet saddam was no where near death so basically we pre-emptively attacked a country because we were scared of what Uday and Qusai would have done in 20 years.

8/21/2005 3:52:27 PM

Quote :

"As a pro life person, I say you can choose to have an abortion all day long. Choose away. But you should not be legally allowed to carry that choice into action. It is the overt act which the law should penalize, not the choice. "

So that means that right now, since it's not illegal to have an abortion, you're all for having people choose to have abortions?

Should we be informing the archbishop you bit about this stance? I'm sure he would love it.

You mean to get rid of the choice, by attempting to make the act illegal.

Quote :

"The point of that went right over your head, didn't it? "

No, it didn't. It was just a stupid statement.

Because on the other hand, what does "life" mean? You're going to be hard pressed to say someone isn't pro-life if you interpret life to mean "being alive".

We all understand what a euphemism is.

[Edited on August 21, 2005 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2005 4:02:51 PM