TheHuaHauh Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Well, now that I think about it, Democrats are more into strengthening their own countries', especially through economy and safety, while Republicans are more into foreign relations and outside investment. Republicans also have a bad name out for themselves...Southerners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Supreme Gamesmaster Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Last I checked' date=' this thread was about hating conservatives, not abortion. Back on topic pl0x.[/quote'] Last time I checked, the Republican Party has a certain stance on abortion, and thus abortion is completely relevant to why everyone hates Republicans.True, but debating the veracity of a single point of Republicanism really won't get us anywhere. @HuaHauh: Despite your banishment, I would like to request evidence of your point of all members debating here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 ' pid='2467479' dateline='1246431483']=| How is abortion not killing a baby? Something cannot be killed if it is not alive' date=' so it depends on your definition of "alive", which people will argue to no avail. Personally, I consider the point of viable independence from the mother to be the most reasonable cutoff, which occurs between five and six months in.[/quote'] It's not directly killing a baby. But it is indirectly killing a baby, without a doubt. The fact remains that had the abortion not been performed, a baby would have been born. How do I indirectly killed baby? Hmm.... Ummm... When you killed the cells you stopped their development. Had they not been bothered they would have grown into a child. At the time, you killed a mass of cells. Indirectly, you've killed a baby. Perhaps, but either way: After all, it was indirectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 ' pid='2467479' dateline='1246431483']=| How is abortion not killing a baby? Something cannot be killed if it is not alive' date=' so it depends on your definition of "alive", which people will argue to no avail. Personally, I consider the point of viable independence from the mother to be the most reasonable cutoff, which occurs between five and six months in.[/quote'] It's not directly killing a baby. But it is indirectly killing a baby, without a doubt. The fact remains that had the abortion not been performed, a baby would have been born. How do I indirectly killed baby? Hmm.... Ummm... When you killed the cells you stopped their development. Had they not been bothered they would have grown into a child. At the time, you killed a mass of cells. Indirectly, you've killed a baby. Perhaps, but either way: After all, it was indirectly. Anybody that is empathetic should care. ' pid='2467479' dateline='1246431483']=| How is abortion not killing a baby? Something cannot be killed if it is not alive' date=' so it depends on your definition of "alive", which people will argue to no avail. Personally, I consider the point of viable independence from the mother to be the most reasonable cutoff, which occurs between five and six months in.[/quote'] It's not directly killing a baby. But it is indirectly killing a baby, without a doubt. The fact remains that had the abortion not been performed, a baby would have been born. How do I indirectly killed baby? Hmm.... Ummm... When you killed the cells you stopped their development. Had they not been bothered they would have grown into a child. At the time, you killed a mass of cells. Indirectly, you've killed a baby. Using birth control prevents pregnancies. Preventing pregnancies prevents babies from being born. Every time you use a condom, you're a murderer. That's to a different extreme. While it's technically true; there hasn't been any fertilization. From that extreme you could say that masturbation is killing babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HORUS Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Pro-Life activists, answer me this: What is wrong with terminating the growth of an unwanted miniscule grouping of nerveless cells? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky leslie Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 ' pid='2467479' dateline='1246431483']=| How is abortion not killing a baby? Something cannot be killed if it is not alive' date=' so it depends on your definition of "alive", which people will argue to no avail. Personally, I consider the point of viable independence from the mother to be the most reasonable cutoff, which occurs between five and six months in.[/quote'] It's not directly killing a baby. But it is indirectly killing a baby, without a doubt. The fact remains that had the abortion not been performed, a baby would have been born. How do I indirectly killed baby? Hmm.... Ummm... When you killed the cells you stopped their development. Had they not been bothered they would have grown into a child. At the time, you killed a mass of cells. Indirectly, you've killed a baby. Cancer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 ' pid='2474890' dateline='1246514545']Pro-Life activists' date=' answer me this: What is wrong with terminating the growth of an unwanted miniscule grouping of nerveless cells?[/quote'] The wording in your question is a facade. Reword it: What is wrong with ending the life of an unwanted developing child? Biased words can change the funk out of a statement.' pid='2467479' dateline='1246431483']=| How is abortion not killing a baby? Something cannot be killed if it is not alive' date=' so it depends on your definition of "alive", which people will argue to no avail. Personally, I consider the point of viable independence from the mother to be the most reasonable cutoff, which occurs between five and six months in.[/quote'] It's not directly killing a baby. But it is indirectly killing a baby, without a doubt. The fact remains that had the abortion not been performed, a baby would have been born. How do I indirectly killed baby? Hmm.... Ummm... When you killed the cells you stopped their development. Had they not been bothered they would have grown into a child. At the time, you killed a mass of cells. Indirectly, you've killed a baby. Cancer? Bowling shoe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HORUS Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 When you killed the (cancer) cells you stopped their development. That means you're killing life too! Horrible comparison dude. I find it to be a legitimate comparison. Cancer is a mass of cells, just like an early baby. Killing one is like killing the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 ' pid='2475213' dateline='1246522625']When you killed the (cancer) cells you stopped their development. That means you're killing life too! Horrible comparison dude. I find it to be a legitimate comparison. Cancer is a mass of cells' date=' just like an early baby. Killing one is like killing the other.[/quote'] Cancer cells don't usually develop into an organism. Not usually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HORUS Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 ' pid='2475213' dateline='1246522625']When you killed the (cancer) cells you stopped their development. That means you're killing life too! Horrible comparison dude. I find it to be a legitimate comparison. Cancer is a mass of cells' date=' just like an early baby. Killing one is like killing the other.[/quote'] Cancer cells don't usually develop into an organism. Not usually. So? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 ' pid='2477285' dateline='1246551185']' pid='2475213' dateline='1246522625']When you killed the (cancer) cells you stopped their development. That means you're killing life too! Horrible comparison dude. I find it to be a legitimate comparison. Cancer is a mass of cells' date=' just like an early baby. Killing one is like killing the other.[/quote'] Cancer cells don't usually develop into an organism. Not usually. So? So that defeats the whole purpose of my argument. If you kill a mass of cancer cells you haven't ended the life of an organism, you've just killed some parasitic cells. That's the difference. Ergh, stop playing Devil's advocate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 And yet a child conceived so recently is itself nothing more than a parasite with absolute zero chance of survival without the mother - and it stays that way until the point of viability, which is not until near the end of the second trimester. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 And yet a child conceived so recently is itself nothing more than a parasite with absolute zero chance of survival without the mother - and it stays that way until the point of viability' date=' which is not until near the end of the second trimester.[/quote'] But it is still wasting a lifeThe difference between a fetus and a tapeworm is that a fetus becomes more. To kill something that hasn't even had a chance to live to any potential is pointless/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky leslie Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 The difference between a fetus and a tapeworm is that a fetus becomes more. What exactly do you mean by "more"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HORUS Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 And yet a child conceived so recently is itself nothing more than a parasite with absolute zero chance of survival without the mother - and it stays that way until the point of viability' date=' which is not until near the end of the second trimester.[/quote'] But it is still wasting a lifeThe difference between a fetus and a tapeworm is that a fetus becomes more. To kill something that hasn't even had a chance to live to any potential is pointless/ What if the aborted fetus would have become the next Hitler? Buy Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, read the section detailing his views on abortion, and try to keep arguing. It's not possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuigiFan#1 Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Personally, I'm a democrat, and with good reason. Think about the presidents from the past 30-40 years. I could name 3 bad Republican presidents and why. 1) Richard Nixon - The Watergate Scandal2) George Bush Sr. - He brought the first Iraq war to America (that's right, the one we're in is NOT the original)3) George Bush Jr. - Bringing the current Iraq war, and not being able to fix the economy after 8 YEARS in office. So yeah, that's somewhat why I'm Democratic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 ' pid='2474890' dateline='1246514545']Pro-Life activists' date=' answer me this: What is wrong with terminating the growth of an unwanted miniscule grouping of nerveless cells?[/quote'] The wording in your question is a facade. Reword it: What is wrong with ending the life of an unwanted developing child? None the less, a nerveless developing child. Well, technically not nerveless, but not developed enough to feel rather is what I am going for. Until about 5-6 months, the answer is nothing; there is nothing wrong with killing a nerveless developing child/fetus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Personally' date=' I'm a democrat, and with good reason. Think about the presidents from the past 30-40 years. I could name 3 bad Republican presidents and why. 1) Richard Nixon - The Watergate Scandal2) George Bush Sr. - He brought the first Iraq war to America (that's right, the one we're in is NOT the original)3) George Bush Jr. - Bringing the current Iraq war, and not being able to fix the economy after 8 YEARS in office. So yeah, that's somewhat why I'm Democratic.[/quote'] That's hardly conclusive. Every president in the last half-century has sucked. Eisenhower: Lies and claims America isn't spying on Russia. That's fine. The problem: he got caught. Leaves in shame. JFK: Low dexterity score plus a critical failure on a dodge attempt left him in the path of a magic bullet. Leaves in body bag. LBJ: Blatant lies about Vietnam. Leaves in shame. Nixon: Watergate. Leaves in shame. Ford: Never elected, pals with Nixon, pardons Nixon, despised by everyone, and departs with his party predicted to never win again for the next twenty years. Leaves in shame. Carter: Circular organization renders him unable to concentrate on important matters, leading him to do so badly that he loses to the Republicans just four years after Ford left. Leaves in shame. Reagan: Hey, guess who gave us the deregulation that ultimately put the economy in its present state? Also, couldn't remember minor details like massive arms deals. Leaves without as much shame as you'd expect, because people are idiots. Bush I: Foresaw the problems with Reagan's economic policies... then did nothing about them. That came back to bite him with a recession. Leaves in shame. Clinton: Healthcare reforms are blocked by Republicans. Scandal occurs. Leaves in shame. Bush II: You know the drill. Leaves in shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 And yet a child conceived so recently is itself nothing more than a parasite with absolute zero chance of survival without the mother - and it stays that way until the point of viability' date=' which is not until near the end of the second trimester.[/quote'] My point was that it's a parasite that develops into something more, unlike cancer cells. That's the reason I used the term Parasite. ' pid='2482544' dateline='1246596118']And yet a child conceived so recently is itself nothing more than a parasite with absolute zero chance of survival without the mother - and it stays that way until the point of viability' date=' which is not until near the end of the second trimester.[/quote'] But it is still wasting a lifeThe difference between a fetus and a tapeworm is that a fetus becomes more. To kill something that hasn't even had a chance to live to any potential is pointless/ What if the aborted fetus would have become the next Hitler? Buy Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, read the section detailing his views on abortion, and try to keep arguing. It's not possible. What if it would have? A war would have broken out probably resulting in further development of man. ' pid='2474890' dateline='1246514545']Pro-Life activists' date=' answer me this: What is wrong with terminating the growth of an unwanted miniscule grouping of nerveless cells?[/quote'] The wording in your question is a facade. Reword it: What is wrong with ending the life of an unwanted developing child? None the less, a nerveless developing child. Well, technically not nerveless, but not developed enough to feel rather is what I am going for. Until about 5-6 months, the answer is nothing; there is nothing wrong with killing a nerveless developing child/fetus. Nothing wrong from a skewed perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 ' pid='2474890' dateline='1246514545']Pro-Life activists' date=' answer me this: What is wrong with terminating the growth of an unwanted miniscule grouping of nerveless cells?[/quote'] The wording in your question is a facade. Reword it: What is wrong with ending the life of an unwanted developing child? None the less, a nerveless developing child. Well, technically not nerveless, but not developed enough to feel rather is what I am going for. Until about 5-6 months, the answer is nothing; there is nothing wrong with killing a nerveless developing child/fetus. Nothing wrong from a skewed perspective. Ad Hominem; f-ck I don't care. Grow some nads kid; even if it we do consider it a person, it's one in 7 billion, and one without a voice for itself at that. I'm not saying I'd abort them, but there's nothing wrong with idly accepting that nerveless beings are being killed for the benefit of their host. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 ' pid='2474890' dateline='1246514545']Pro-Life activists' date=' answer me this: What is wrong with terminating the growth of an unwanted miniscule grouping of nerveless cells?[/quote'] The wording in your question is a facade. Reword it: What is wrong with ending the life of an unwanted developing child? None the less, a nerveless developing child. Well, technically not nerveless, but not developed enough to feel rather is what I am going for. Until about 5-6 months, the answer is nothing; there is nothing wrong with killing a nerveless developing child/fetus. Nothing wrong from a skewed perspective. Ad Hominem; f-ck I don't care. Grow some nads kid; even if it we do consider it a person, it's one in 7 billion, and one without a voice for itself at that. I'm not saying I'd abort them, but there's nothing wrong with idly accepting that nerveless beings are being killed for the benefit of their host. Haha. I don't give a sheet dude. All I was saying is that you are in fact killing a baby when you have an abortion. And to say otherwise is just deluding yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 ' pid='2474890' dateline='1246514545']Pro-Life activists' date=' answer me this: What is wrong with terminating the growth of an unwanted miniscule grouping of nerveless cells?[/quote'] The wording in your question is a facade. Reword it: What is wrong with ending the life of an unwanted developing child? None the less, a nerveless developing child. Well, technically not nerveless, but not developed enough to feel rather is what I am going for. Until about 5-6 months, the answer is nothing; there is nothing wrong with killing a nerveless developing child/fetus. Nothing wrong from a skewed perspective. Ad Hominem; f-ck I don't care. Grow some nads kid; even if it we do consider it a person, it's one in 7 billion, and one without a voice for itself at that. I'm not saying I'd abort them, but there's nothing wrong with idly accepting that nerveless beings are being killed for the benefit of their host. Haha. I don't give a s*** dude. All I was saying is that you are in fact killing a baby when you have an abortion. And to say otherwise is just deluding yourself. It's not a baby when it dies, and it is thus not killing a baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 ' pid='2474890' dateline='1246514545']Pro-Life activists' date=' answer me this: What is wrong with terminating the growth of an unwanted miniscule grouping of nerveless cells?[/quote'] The wording in your question is a facade. Reword it: What is wrong with ending the life of an unwanted developing child? None the less, a nerveless developing child. Well, technically not nerveless, but not developed enough to feel rather is what I am going for. Until about 5-6 months, the answer is nothing; there is nothing wrong with killing a nerveless developing child/fetus. Nothing wrong from a skewed perspective. Ad Hominem; f-ck I don't care. Grow some nads kid; even if it we do consider it a person, it's one in 7 billion, and one without a voice for itself at that. I'm not saying I'd abort them, but there's nothing wrong with idly accepting that nerveless beings are being killed for the benefit of their host. Haha. I don't give a s*** dude. All I was saying is that you are in fact killing a baby when you have an abortion. And to say otherwise is just deluding yourself. It's not a baby when it dies, and it is thus not killing a baby. If you're really a Determinist, you'll see the flaw in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 ' pid='2474890' dateline='1246514545']Pro-Life activists' date=' answer me this: What is wrong with terminating the growth of an unwanted miniscule grouping of nerveless cells?[/quote'] The wording in your question is a facade. Reword it: What is wrong with ending the life of an unwanted developing child? None the less, a nerveless developing child. Well, technically not nerveless, but not developed enough to feel rather is what I am going for. Until about 5-6 months, the answer is nothing; there is nothing wrong with killing a nerveless developing child/fetus. Nothing wrong from a skewed perspective. Ad Hominem; f-ck I don't care. Grow some nads kid; even if it we do consider it a person, it's one in 7 billion, and one without a voice for itself at that. I'm not saying I'd abort them, but there's nothing wrong with idly accepting that nerveless beings are being killed for the benefit of their host. Haha. I don't give a s*** dude. All I was saying is that you are in fact killing a baby when you have an abortion. And to say otherwise is just deluding yourself. It's not a baby when it dies, and it is thus not killing a baby. If you're really a Determinist, you'll see the flaw in that. It was never going to become a baby because it was aborted. It was never going to feel, have a soul or anything along those lines, so it isn't the same as killing a baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 [spoiler=OH sheet]' pid='2474890' dateline='1246514545']Pro-Life activists' date=' answer me this: What is wrong with terminating the growth of an unwanted miniscule grouping of nerveless cells?[/quote'] The wording in your question is a facade. Reword it: What is wrong with ending the life of an unwanted developing child? None the less, a nerveless developing child. Well, technically not nerveless, but not developed enough to feel rather is what I am going for. Until about 5-6 months, the answer is nothing; there is nothing wrong with killing a nerveless developing child/fetus. Nothing wrong from a skewed perspective. Ad Hominem; f-ck I don't care. Grow some nads kid; even if it we do consider it a person, it's one in 7 billion, and one without a voice for itself at that. I'm not saying I'd abort them, but there's nothing wrong with idly accepting that nerveless beings are being killed for the benefit of their host. Haha. I don't give a s*** dude. All I was saying is that you are in fact killing a baby when you have an abortion. And to say otherwise is just deluding yourself. It's not a baby when it dies, and it is thus not killing a baby. If you're really a Determinist, you'll see the flaw in that. It was never going to become a baby because it was aborted. It was never going to feel, have a soul or anything along those lines, so it isn't the same as killing a baby. Honestly, I'd love to respond but this will just go in circles. =\ It would have became a baby had it not been aborted. But it was aborted. But it could have not been aborted. But it was. Etc, etc, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.