# Abortion.



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

What the fuck did you want to discuss on this topic <person of interest here>?
Come now, why are you so adamant about dragging another thread off topic?
Was making this thread so damn difficult?


So this thread is about abortion. Be prepared to watch the circus as I defend my views against certain individual(s). Let the show begin.


----------



## CannotWait (May 2, 2011)

I'd like to know your views before stepping into a steaming pile of shit.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> I'd like to know your views before stepping into a steaming pile of shit.


 I'll lay it all out and be the first to expose myself to the ravenous hate of FAF.

I do not support killing.
I am pro-choice.
I do not think that an embryo constitutes a person.
I value the personhood and rights of the mother over the "personhood"  and rights of an embryo that lacks a developed nervous system.


I will clarify these statements as I go along, but those are the bear bones.


----------



## Cam (May 2, 2011)

An acorn is not a tree

Im going to leave it at that


----------



## CannotWait (May 2, 2011)

I suppose to an extent I am pro-choice. I understand there are certain circumstances in which it would be more than reasonable to get an abortion. Though an embryo is not a person (as in they wouldn't give a fuck if you killed them or not), sometimes you have to wonder who the child of a rapist and a twelve year old girl would turn out to be.

If that doesn't sound creepy or anything.

The only reason I even associate myself with Pro-Life is I think there are to many people willing and able to abuse the power of abortion as an acceptable method of birth control.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> The only reason I even associate myself with Pro-Life is I think there are to many people willing and able to abuse the power of abortion as an acceptable method of birth control.


 That is a myth. The social stigma alone prevents women who probably should for reasons of health, wealth, or ability to parent from getting an abortion.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 2, 2011)

This reminds me of that one time, a 9 year old girl was raped by her father (a catholic priest) and concieved twins. She would have died, but they got her an abortion. They ended up excommunicating everyone but the father. Christianity is wierd.


----------



## Heliophobic (May 2, 2011)

Why do antiabortionists eat eggs?


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (May 2, 2011)

I support it to a degree.


----------



## CannotWait (May 2, 2011)

Deo said:
			
		

> That is a myth. The social stigma alone prevents women who probably  should for reasons of health, wealth, or ability to parent from getting  an abortion.


I was about to speculate that the word "myth" only refers to the past; then I was going to make a clever pun using the word "fur" to spell "refer"; but then I realized that myth refers to any tense and that making that pun would just be stupid.


----------



## CannotWait (May 2, 2011)

.


----------



## Icky (May 2, 2011)

Deo said:


> I'll lay it all out and be the first to expose myself to the ravenous hate of FAF.
> 
> I do not support killing.
> I am pro-choice.
> ...


 
Welp, no arguments here. c:

*waits for pro-lifers*


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2011)

I'm pro choice. I see a fetus as no different then a sperm or a fucking egg. I see a fetus as no different then a chicken egg. Kill em all.



Mojotech said:


> This reminds me of that one time, a 9 year old girl was raped by her father (a catholic priest) and concieved twins. She would have died, but they got her an abortion. They ended up excommunicating everyone but the father. Christianity is wierd.


 
Ahhaha. On Easter my dad was all "somewhere out there.. a priest is molesting a little boy"

Christianity *is* weird. Can't wait till that shit dies like the dinosaurs, then this world can actually move ahead.


----------



## ArielMT (May 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> This reminds me of that one time, a 9 year old girl was raped by her father (a catholic priest) and concieved twins. She would have died, but they got her an abortion. They ended up excommunicating everyone but the father. Christianity is wierd.



Thread here: Brazilian Catholic Church to pregnant raped nine-year-old girl: Drop Dead


----------



## Xenke (May 2, 2011)

Things that are not people:

Sperm
Eggs
Embryos

And I believe that anyone has the right to do what they want to their own <insert item from above here> to an extent. I do believe that if you wish to destroy or experiment on any of the above, you should be able to do so.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

Grycho said:


> Why do antiabortionists eat eggs?


 Eggs for consumption are technically/generally unfertilized.


----------



## CannotWait (May 2, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Christianity *is* weird. Can't wait till that shit dies like the dinosaurs, then this world can actually move ahead.


 
You do understand that statement is just as religiously intolerant as a Christian telling an Atheist they will go to hell. No offense.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (May 2, 2011)

Mixed. can't make a set in stone answer. sorry


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

Rukh, you demanded I make this thread.
You demanded that I answer to you.
Where are you?
Coward.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 2, 2011)

Not a choice to be taken lightly, but not something that should be illegal either so technically pro-choice.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 2, 2011)

Grycho said:


> Why do antiabortionists eat eggs?


 They probably eat chicken too, dude.


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> You do understand that statement is just as religiously intolerant as a Christian telling an Atheist they will go to hell. No offense.


 
Meh, you see.. unlike most Christians, I don't care if someone doesn't like my views. I don't believe in gods or any of that shit and I'm free to talk about it as much as I want. I'm free to say "god doesn't exist" and I'm free to say "kill fetuses because they're clumps of cells and not really people."
I think a fetus is as much of a person as jizz in my fucking hand


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

RUKH, you demanded this thread. You were incapable of making it, or fearful of doing so, or for some other unkown reason refrained from making it.
So I made it for you.
This thread is for you.
Now respond or forever shut up on the topic.


----------



## CannotWait (May 2, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Meh, you see.. unlike most Christians, I don't care if someone doesn't like my views. I don't believe in gods or any of that shit and I'm free to talk about it as much as I want. I'm free to say "god doesn't exist" and I'm free to say "kill fetuses because they're clumps of cells and not really people."
> I think a fetus is as much of a person as jizz in my fucking hand


 Lucky for you, I'm not most Christians.


----------



## Xenke (May 2, 2011)

Deo, you're being a crazy person screaming at the moon. :C


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> Lucky for you, I'm not most Christians.


 .."lucky for you"? Why? I'm spared the insane babbling?


----------



## Unsilenced (May 2, 2011)

What makes us human?
Is it intelligence? Some humans are not intelligent. Some are handicapped or have to be hooked up to machines to survive, but they are still human. 
Is it emotion? Nothing indicates that other animals aren't capable of emotion. We really don't know that we're unique in that regard. 
Is it that we have a soul? Personally, I don't believe in souls, so I can't really see that as a viable answer. 

I guess what we're left with is the literal answer. We are human because we are _homo sapiens. _

We are human by species, and species is determined by DNA. 

So once something has a complete set of DNA, is it not human?


----------



## CannotWait (May 2, 2011)

I may not have made this clear because I'm on a forum, but I rarely think about the consequences of my poor word choices. And I *did* notice.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 2, 2011)

Deo said:


> RUKH, you demanded this thread. You were incapable of making it, or fearful of doing so, or for some other unkown reason refrained from making it.
> So I made it for you.
> This thread is for you.
> Now respond or forever shut up on the topic.


 
Even if he came he's not going to listen, and he got an official mod warning in big purple font to drop it anyway, so this thread is pointless.


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> So once something has a complete set of DNA, is it not human?


I believe it's a parasitic clump of cells until it pops out the cooter


----------



## ArielMT (May 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Even if he came he's not going to listen, and he got an official mod warning in big purple font to drop it anyway, so this thread is pointless.


 
I meant for him to drop it while in that thread and pick it up here.  Still, yeah, it's the topic he and Deo wanted to argue, and we're just waiting on the other half of the choice to argue it.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 2, 2011)

ArielMT said:


> I meant for him to drop it while in that thread and pick it up here.  Still, yeah, it's the topic he and Deo wanted to argue, and we're just waiting on the other half of the choice to argue it.


 
Oh, alright then, carry on my Brony.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 2, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I believe it's a parasitic clump of cells until it pops out the cooter


 
That seems like an arbitrary place to put the line. Like it suddenly becomes a life right at that very moment. Nothing really changes. It doesn't start having more brain synapses... or suddenly gain conscious thought. That's not when its heart starts beating, it's not when it first becomes recognizable as a human. It's just a movement of the thing. One place its not human, move it somewhere else, now it's human. 


Besides, I was a c-section. :I


----------



## Conker (May 2, 2011)

Deo said:


> I'll lay it all out and be the first to expose myself to the ravenous hate of FAF.
> 
> I do not support killing.
> I am pro-choice.
> ...


 Well, I can't find anything to argue with. Guess we wait for Rukh


----------



## jcfynx (May 2, 2011)

I support everyone's right to kill babies, but I don't think women should have choices, in general. What does that make me?


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (May 2, 2011)

Why would he come here? Obviously people are just waiting to call him an idiot when he shows up. 

If anything this thread should be moderated where only he and Deo argue it out.


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> That seems like an arbitrary place to put the line. Like it suddenly becomes a life right at that very moment. Nothing really changes. It doesn't start having more brain synapses... or suddenly gain conscious thought. That's not when its heart starts beating, it's not when it first becomes recognizable as a human. It's just a movement of the thing. One place its not human, move it somewhere else, now it's human.
> 
> 
> Besides, I was a c-section. :I


ehh I guess you're right. Maybe once it becomes like a... an actual baby and not a jelly alien lookin thing? idk I don't know the ages and terms and whatnot

So basicaly when it looks like a pink rat is when I say "kill that bitch"



jcfynx said:


> I support everyone's right to kill babies, but I don't think women should have choices, in general. What does that make me?


 [yt]PXO3gKfOUN8[/yt]


----------



## CannotWait (May 2, 2011)

At what point does a baby gain thought? Would that be defined as memory?
The reason I'm curious is because it seems to be talked about as if its an opinion. The point in which a fetus gains thought can be scientifically proven.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Deo, you're being a crazy person screaming at the moon. :C


 I know. Why do I do this to myself? :C


----------



## ArielMT (May 2, 2011)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Why would he come here? Obviously people are just waiting to call him an idiot when he shows up.
> 
> If anything this thread should be moderated where only he and Deo argue it out.


 
I wish I could do that.  As it is, I'm really stretching the rules or at least feeling that way.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 2, 2011)

Let's also get this out of the way: I think we can all agree that it's justified in cases of rape/incest, incidences where attempting to carry to term would kill both mother and child, and for fetuses with serious lethal deformities, such as lacking a brain or heart or skeletal system.


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> At what point does a baby gain thought? Would that be defined as memory?
> The reason I'm curious is because it seems to be talked about as if its an opinion. The point in which a fetus gains thought can be scientifically proven.


 How do we know when a baby thinks


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Why would he come here? Obviously people are just waiting to call him an idiot when he shows up.
> 
> If anything this thread should be moderated where only he and Deo argue it out.


 If it is forced to be a discussion between only myself and Rukh then this thread is pointless and he should PM me if it bothered him that much. 
Honestly I only made this thread as an outlet for his opinions so that he would stop shitting up the Osama thread, but that turned out to be unnecessary after Ariel gave him a warning.


----------



## CannotWait (May 2, 2011)

Clayton said:


> How do we know when a baby thinks


 That's what I'm asking...


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> That's what I'm asking...


 Maybe when if i slap it it knows "dont fuck with that alpha male cause he'll slap me around" and it fucks off forever


----------



## Lobar (May 2, 2011)

jcfynx said:


> I support everyone's right to kill babies, but I don't think women should have choices, in general. What does that make me?


 
it makes you jcfynx


----------



## CannotWait (May 2, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Maybe when if i slap it it knows "dont fuck with that alpha male cause he'll slap me around" and it fucks off forever


 That just brought up an interesting thought... what language do babies think in? Especially if they are born deaf!


----------



## Rouz (May 2, 2011)

Depends on the situation. So I guess this would make me pro-choice?


----------



## Conker (May 2, 2011)

jcfynx said:


> I support everyone's right to kill babies, but I don't think women should have choices, in general. What does that make me?


 You are my favorite poster.


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> That just brought up an interesting thought... what language do babies think in? Especially if they are born deaf!


 I don't think that's a baby, that's a carrot


----------



## Alstor (May 2, 2011)

Deo, you're basically calling out the person you made this thread for in every post minus the OP. I don't know how the mods will look at it. :[

That said, I don't like the idea of abortion, since there are other options if you're healthy enough. But I don't think it should be illegal. It's the woman's body, and at the point between conception and birth, they have complete control of the baby, unlike a child. Plus, I definitely advocate it for ill mothers and rape victims.


----------



## InflatedSnake (May 2, 2011)

Deo said:


> I do not support killing.
> I am pro-choice.
> I do not think that an embryo constitutes a person.
> I value the personhood and rights of the mother over the "personhood"  and rights of an embryo that lacks a developed nervous system.


 I agree with everything you have to say, with the only exceprion being the killing.
Killing is a touchy issue and in my opinion peoples deaths are necessary i under drastic measures
EG: You're driving your car, you see someone walking down the street shooting everyone in sight. I personally would run this idiot down with my car before he gets the chance to hurt more innocent people.

But apart from that you and I think alike.


----------



## Ley (May 2, 2011)

Pro Choice. 

I was forced to watch my little sister's father constantly rape my mom every night. After Abby, every time she got pregnant he threatened to kill us both. So.  That kind of fuels my pro-choice bit. That and it's my body, I can do what I want with it. Sperm and embryos are not people. They will grow into people if I let the fuckers fester, but no.

I say fuck the pro lifers. It should be my goddamn choice if I want the kid or not.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (May 2, 2011)

It should probably be a PM thing, the overall theme may be a little too much to talk and it started out as a dispute.

This thread is the result of Deo make a very strong argument that she is against all killing of human life and Rukh arguing that if this was the case then she should be against abortion because abortion is the killing of human life regardless of whether it is necessary or moral circumstance.

Meaning this thread should probably attempt to establish:
-Whether or not the unborn at any stage does constitute a human life.
-If a fetus does constitute a human life, whether or not someone is not genuine in saying they are against all killing of human but supports the right of others to terminate an unborn life.

And so forth.


----------



## Azbulldog (May 2, 2011)

Sure, I'll consider an embryo a human, but I see that the welfare of the mother supersedes the _miniscule_ life of the child. Babies are not a scarce resource, so we shouldn't be taking them so seriously. Let's  instead give all those orphans a chance since they are already a free-living being and outright killing them now would cause many more complications.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 2, 2011)

Deo said:


> I'll lay it all out and be the first to expose myself to the ravenous hate of FAF.
> 
> I do not support killing.
> I am pro-choice.
> ...


Abortion is ending a life (The embryo is alive, or do you want to debate the definition of life?), therefore it is killing. Just because its tiny doesn't make it any less significant than a fully grown person Deo.

Being against killing and pro choice is an oxymoron.


----------



## Lobar (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Abortion is ending a life (The embryo is alive, or do you want to debate the definition of life?), therefore it is killing. Just because its tiny doesn't make it any less significant than a fully grown person Deo.
> 
> Being against killing and pro choice is an oxymoron.


 
I can swab some cells from my cheek and keep them alive in a petri dish.  They are also undeniably human, check their genome if you doubt it.  Is my petri dish culture a life?  Am I a killer if I run it through the autoclave?


----------



## Azbulldog (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Abortion is ending a life (The embryo is alive, or do you want to debate the definition of life?), therefore it is killing. *Just because its tiny doesn't make it any less significant than a fully grown person* Deo.
> 
> Being against killing and pro choice is an oxymoron.


 Except that's debatable.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

Alstor said:


> Deo, you're basically calling out the person you made this thread for in every post minus the OP. I don't know how the mods will look at it. :[


*sigh* My intent was to make a thread to allow him to speak his opinion without mucking up other threads. It was with good intentions, but you know about what they say about good intentions and pavement.


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Abortion is ending a life (The embryo is alive, or do you want to debate the definition of life?), therefore it is killing. Just because its tiny doesn't make it any less significant than a fully grown person Deo.
> 
> Being against killing and pro choice is an oxymoron.


 Whenever you jack off, you kill cells. Living cells.
You probably don't j.o though and you're angry because you've got a case of serious blueballs


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Abortion is ending a life (The embryo is alive, or do you want to debate the definition of life?), therefore it is killing. Just because its tiny doesn't make it any less significant than a fully grown person Deo.
> 
> Being against killing and pro choice is an oxymoron.


 
Odd, I wouldn't expect you of all people to argue against the bible.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (May 2, 2011)

ArielMT said:


> I wish I could do that.  As it is, I'm really stretching the rules or at least feeling that way.


 
I think that is a good idea. People who have a dispute can have a locked thread to argue in. It can be open for all to see but with no direct outside interference and no circle jerk chimp trooping.


----------



## CannotWait (May 2, 2011)

Ley said:


> Pro Choice.
> 
> I was forced to watch my little sister's father constantly rape my mom every night. After Abby, every time she got pregnant he threatened to kill us both. So.  That kind of fuels my pro-choice bit. That and it's my body, I can do what I want with it. Sperm and embryos are not people. They will grow into people if I let the fuckers fester, but no.
> 
> I say fuck the pro lifers. It should be my goddamn choice if I want the kid or not.


 
Oh... wow... if nothing that story makes me fully Pro-Choice...


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Abortion is ending a life (The embryo is alive, or do you want to debate the definition of life?), therefore it is killing. Just because its tiny doesn't make it any less significant than a fully grown person Deo.
> 
> Being against killing and pro choice is an oxymoron.


 The embryo is alive only at a cellular level, not alive as a person.


----------



## Fay V (May 2, 2011)

Personally I am Pro-choice. I don't think that it should be taken lightly though. I do think that women should see a counselor, or get a bit of therapy to help her understand and deal with what is happening, but in the end I see it as the woman's right to her body. 

To me it's a matter of moral agents. Basically the level of responsibility we can expect from someone. A person has more moral value than a chimp, and has the duty to live up to that. a chimp has more than a dog. etc. A woman has more moral agency than an embreyo. When do we really consider the child? it all depends. before the nervous system I don't care, it's a bunch of cells and I little difference between that and an unfertilized egg. As the child grows there's less and less that I would think is morally acceptable to do to it. 
as long as it's in a woman though it's still a danger to her, she still has more value, so there's a difference between that and a born child. After a kid is born you can take the kid away without harming the mother at all. they are separate. 
It will always be a bit unclear, always grey areas, but that is why I think it should be legal. With so many different cases, you have to have people work out the best solution for them with their doctor and other close persons.


----------



## CannotWait (May 2, 2011)

Deo said:


> The embryo is alive only at a cellular level, not alive as a person.


 
So you're saying it would be like killing yogurt?


----------



## Ley (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Abortion is ending a life* (The embryo is alive, or do you want to debate the definition of life?), therefore it is killing. Just because its tiny doesn't make it any less significant than a fully grown person Deo.
> 
> Being against killing and pro choice is an oxymoron.


 
So is war, yet people think it's necessary. 

In stuff like this, there's an abundance of humans on earth. I don't like the thought of intentionally ending a life of another living thing. BUT, we have the choice to jump off a building, we have the choice to put tatts all over our bodies, we have the choice to- hell, if I so wished to go downstairs right now and cut off my pinky finger, there's NO ONE ON THIS GREEN EARTH that can tell me I'm not allowed to do that.

So, that being said, if I were to have sex with the full intention of just making love with somebody I love, with the pill on my side and a condom on his, BUT I SO HAPPEND TO GET PREGNANT, I would get rid of it. It's not meant to be. I'm goddamn 16 years old.  It's not like I only have three baby tokens or some shit. Hell, women use their vags as clown cars most often, so why can't I keep mine a morgue? 

I feel that I have the damned right over everything in, on, and around my body. If that happens to be a cluster of cells that (if I so let it) become a gurgling, various liquid dropping sack of flesh, fine. But if I don't want it, before it has CONSCIOUS THOUGHT, I might as well end it there.

Even if I was forced to have the kid, at my current age, it'd have a worse off life because nine times out of ten the father would leave, it'd be forever poor, and its mom would be flippin' burgers without an education. OR god forbid I decide to have it, and it gets put into the child care system. THAT is a fate worst than death.

There is no one on this world that can tell me what I can and cannot do. Sure there's laws, but it's up to me if I want to break them or not. Abortion should be legal.

That's really all I have to say.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> So you're saying it would be like killing yogurt?


 Yes, and no. An embryo has potential that yogurt does not: it has the potential to grow into a person.
However, that _potential_ does not a greater right divested upon it than the rights of the mother who is already a person with a fully developed nervous system, with thoughts, emotions, memories, and social ties.


----------



## Icky (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Abortion is ending a life (The embryo is alive, or do you want to debate the definition of life?), therefore it is killing. Just because its tiny doesn't make it any less significant than a fully grown person Deo.
> 
> Being against killing and pro choice is an oxymoron.


 
Actually, it's way less significant than an adult human. The embryo is not thinking or feeling at the point when an abortion could be done.


----------



## ArielMT (May 2, 2011)

Deo said:


> *sigh* My intent was to make a thread to allow him to speak his opinion without mucking up other threads. It was with good intentions, but you know about what they say about good intentions and pavement.



I've allowed the letter of the rule to be broken, and I hope that the spirit of the rule, stretched as it is, remains intact.  I'm expecting a reprimand from the other mods if not.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 2, 2011)

Deo said:


> The embryo is alive only at a cellular level, not alive as a person.


 
Fortunately for you your parents didn't believe that...


----------



## Fay V (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Fortunately for you your parents didn't believe that...


 That's a really dick move dude. Seriously.

I'm actually speechless at such a tactless Bullshit reply. Purposefully simplifying the ideas like an idiot.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

ArielMT said:


> I've allowed the letter of the rule to be broken, and I hope that the spirit of the rule, stretched as it is, remains intact.  I'm expecting a reprimand from the other mods if not.


 My sincere apologies for causing you trouble. I genuinely had no intent of ill harm.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Fortunately for you your parents didn't believe that...


 Okay. 
Now why don't you try reasonable discussion instead of whatever that was?


----------



## CannotWait (May 2, 2011)

It could be worse... someone could quote Ronald Reagan.


----------



## ArielMT (May 2, 2011)

Deo said:


> My sincere apologies for causing you trouble. I genuinely had no intent of ill harm.


 
My choice, and I know.


----------



## Conker (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Fortunately for you your parents didn't believe that...


 Shame the same can't be said about you :[


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Fortunately for you your parents didn't believe that...


 Fortunately, my mother decided to let me fester and feed off her body like a leech for 9 months


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 2, 2011)

Rukh, your heart is so full of hate because you've rejected God's word. Please, open your heart and read your bible so the light of christ can finally enter your life. The bible is very clear on abortion: It's not really alive until it draws first breath, and if you accidently cause a miscarriage you have to pay the lost fetus's father a fee, but nothing else.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 2, 2011)

Fay V said:


> That's a really dick move dude. Seriously.
> 
> I'm actually speechless at such a tactless Bullshit reply. Purposefully simplifying the ideas like an idiot.


 
Oh, shall I get and spam post all the rude, tactless remarks Deo has left me?



Deo said:


> Okay.
> Now why don't you try reasonable discussion instead of whatever that was?


 
Are you saying that you don't do the same? Seriously, how about I go digging around and post how you have spoken to me in the past.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

Oh, also Rukh, my parents do believe that. They are both Pro-choice feminists.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Oh, shall I get and spam post all the rude, tactless remarks Deo has left me?


 I wonder why you kept them.
But, sure. Let us leisurely stroll down memory lane. Let's do it, but only if you hold my hand. :3c


----------



## Unsilenced (May 2, 2011)

I support abortion in cases of rape, severe developmental/genetic problems, or threat to the life of the mother. 

I do not support it however in cases of "oops I accidentally a baby." 

I'm sorry, but that is a risk you take when you have sex. When engaging in an activity that is specifically for the creation of babies, you should not be surprised when you get a baby.


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> I support abortion in cases of rape, severe developmental/genetic problems, or threat to the life of the mother.
> 
> I do not support it however in cases of "oops I accidentally a baby."
> 
> I'm sorry, but that is a risk you take when you have sex. When engaging in an activity that is specifically for the creation of babies, you should not be surprised when you get a baby.


 YEAH! THAT'S RIGHT MY BROTHER! I support dry-grinding with your partner  ABSTINENCE FTW!
IF YOU HAVE SEX WITH PROTECTION AND GET A BABY THAT WAY, YOU DESERVE TO DIE IN FUCKING HELL YOU SLUT
[im not calling unsilenced a slut]


----------



## Icky (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Fortunately for you your parents didn't believe that...


Half of me is disappointed that you would stoop so low and ignore this civil debate we have set up.

The other half is saying "Oh, wait, it's Rukh! Why would you expect a civil argument from him?"


----------



## Fay V (May 2, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> I support abortion in cases of rape, severe developmental/genetic problems, or threat to the life of the mother.
> 
> I do not support it however in cases of "oops I accidentally a baby."
> 
> I'm sorry, but that is a risk you take when you have sex. When engaging in an activity that is specifically for the creation of babies, you should not be surprised when you get a baby.



I can get behind this. I would hate anyone that just goes "oh i accidentally a baby" but having a baby can be such a terrible toll on a mother, that I do think she should have the option to turn to a doctor and not just have some politician go "mmm no, no you're not quite sick enough, power through it."


----------



## Azbulldog (May 2, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> I support abortion in cases of rape, severe developmental/genetic problems, or threat to the life of the mother.
> 
> I do not support it however in cases of "oops I accidentally a baby."
> 
> I'm sorry, but that is a risk you take when you have sex. When engaging in an activity that is specifically for the creation of babies, you should not be surprised when you get a baby.


 Well said. I'd only like to add on that the mother should be capable of taking care of the child first.

Edit: If only there was an unbiased way of determining if a women could have an abortion or not.


----------



## Fay V (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Oh, shall I get and spam post all the rude, tactless remarks Deo has left me?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that you don't do the same? Seriously, how about I go digging around and post how you have spoken to me in the past.



Yeah, show the point where she tactlessly simplified what you're saying and wished death on you. I'm dying to see. Yeah Deo called you out, but then in the actual debate has been sensible. She gave her position, you replied, she replied, then you used that. Way to go Ruhk, again you have shown there is no reason to deal with anything you say ever. You're the worst christian I have ever seen. That goodness they aren't all like you.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Rukh, your heart is so full of hate because you've rejected God's word. Please, open your heart and read your bible so the light of christ can finally enter your life. The bible is very clear on abortion: It's not really alive until it draws first breath, and if you accidently cause a miscarriage you have to pay the lost fetus's father a fee, but nothing else.


 
Since you brought up Scripture, I shall respond and show you where and how it says abortion is wrong.

*Premise #1 Murder is wrong.* Below is a small sample of verses.
Genesis 9:6, Matthew 15:19, Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, John 8:44, Acts 3:14, Romans 1:28-29, and Romans 13:19.

*Premise #2. The unborn is a person.*
Personal Attributes:
The unborn possesses personal attributes  such as sin and joy. Psalm 51:5 references this. And in Luke 1:44.

Personal pronouns:
Jeremiah 1:5 and Matthew 1:20-21 uses personal pronouns to describe an unborn child.

Unborn called children:
The unborn are called children, Luke 1:44.

Protected by the same punishment as for adults:
Exodus 21:22-23 says â€œIf men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that  she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be  fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the  judges decide.  But if there is any further injury, then you shall  appoint as a penalty life for life..."
So, Mosiac Law viewed unborn children as people worthy of the same protection as adults have.

Now, I can keep going on this, But I think this should suffice at this point.





Fay V said:


> Yeah, show the point where she tactlessly  simplified what you're saying and wished death on you. I'm dying to see.  Yeah Deo called you out, but then in the actual debate has been  sensible. She gave her position, you replied, she replied, then you used  that. Way to go Ruhk, again you have shown there is no reason to deal  with anything you say ever. You're the worst christian I have ever seen.  That goodness they aren't all like you.



No, I am saying shall I post up all the times she posted intentionally rude, inflammatory and derogatory remarks directed solely at me.

I find it funny that its okay for her to continue to act the way she does, but as soon as someone else acts in a similar way, they get reprimanded for it.

And this is where I ask for no favoritism by the mods, at all, for anyone. If someone posts up intentionally rude, inflammatory remarks solely directed at a user for the sole purpose of attacking said user, then it needs to be taken care of. (Yes, I am included in this.) I posted the way I did for a reason. Because I am not very well liked, I knew what I said would get peoples attention. So, I acted like a lot of people on here and posted something rude to make a point.


----------



## Mentova (May 2, 2011)

Rukh why are you even trying? You ruined any chance of anyone taking you seriously by acting like a dick. There is no way I can see this debate being anywhere but civil now.

You already lost if you have to resort to petty insults.


----------



## Aleu (May 2, 2011)

Rukh, you know the Exodus one, uh, it's saying that if the fetus is harmed, there's only a fine. You know that right? Of course you don't. You only want to see what proves your point.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Since you brought up Scripture, I shall respond and show you where and how it says abortion is wrong.
> 
> Now, I can keep going on this, But I think this should suffice at this point.


 
Rukh, you are a lost soul who reads falsehoods into the holy scripture. The bible clearly states that only injuries to the mother matter, all the fetus warrants is a fee. I will pray for your wayward spirit and hope you return to the flock of the lord some day.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

I don't accept the Bible as validation on any claim. What now, FAF?


----------



## Icky (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Since you brought up Scripture, I shall respond and show you where and how it says abortion is wrong.
> 
> *Premise #1 Murder is wrong.* Below is a small sample of verses.
> Genesis 9:6, Matthew 15:19, Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, John 8:44, Acts 3:14, Romans 1:28-29, and Romans 13:19.
> ...


 
i may be way out of line here, but since when was quoting a fiction novel considered to be a sufficient argument?


----------



## Jw (May 2, 2011)

Here it goes, as if it really matter what i put here.
My opinion on the whole matter: I wish this shit didn't happen, but if it IS going to happen, might as well be in a medically safe environment for the mother. 

Birth control is step #1 if you don't want a kid. Really. Abortion is not birth control. It is a last ditch effort. Not the go-to.

Birth control could prevent unwanted pregnancies for a very large portion of aborted births. In the instance that it is medically dangerous for a woman to carry a baby or that the woman was raped, the pregnancy would preferably be terminated early as possible. No need to let the child develop only to be killed later on, might as well get it over with before its pain receptors are present or partially functioning neurological system. I wish the government could supply "morning after"/ abortion pills to women that experienced rape in order to prevent fertilization if possible.

 I cannot condone 3rd trimester abortions (those past 30 weeks as the "age of viability" specifically) because frankly, I consider it killing and avoidable if dealt with sooner. By this point a child has developed pain reception and would experience generalized nonspecific pain if inflicted upon it. I also refuse to participate in active physical abortion (rather than chemical) processes as a healthcare provider.  While I can suggest it, it is my choice not to participate in that activity.   

I take the stand of nonmaleficence here. Though I hate this occurs, saying it's never going to exist is foolish. I do not think anyone would truly wish someone would have to go through with an abortion. Abortion should never be celebrated, and I have never seen such. 

I am pro-life. i dedicate my life to helping people with my profession. I cannot bear to see a person suffer. Take from that statement what you will.


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Since you brought up Scripture, I shall respond and show you where and how it says abortion is wrong.
> 
> *Premise #1 Murder is wrong.* Below is a small sample of verses.
> Genesis 9:6, Matthew 15:19, Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, John 8:44, Acts 3:14, Romans 1:28-29, and Romans 13:19.
> ...


 HRNNGGGHH
BIBLE VERSES


----------



## Fay V (May 2, 2011)

Deo said:


> I don't accept the Bible as validation on any claim. What now, FAF?


 any claim? what about a claim for what the church believes? /difficult.



Icky said:


> i may be way out of line here, but since when was  quoting a fiction novel considered to be a sufficient argument?


 When you are being challenged on your knowledge of said fiction.


no seriously though. this debate requires more than the bible. 

this does make me wonder what other religions say about abortion though.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 2, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Rukh, you know the Exodus one, uh, it's saying that if the fetus is harmed, there's only a fine. You know that right? Of course you don't. You only want to see what proves your point.


 
Is the fetus is harmed but not killed, then its a fine. If the fetus is killed, then the rule of a life for a life is in effect.

*"But if there is any further injury, then you shall  appoint as a penalty life for life..."* Bolded because you seemed to miss this before.


----------



## CannotWait (May 2, 2011)

I have no clue what makes people think The Bible holds ground to other people. Hell, I'm a Christian (sort of) and I'm not sure that the Bible is interpretable to anyone but the self.


----------



## RedSavage (May 2, 2011)

Fay V said:


> any claim? what about a claim for what the church believes? /difficult.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *"But if there is any further injury, then you shall  appoint as a penalty life for life..."* Bolded because you seemed to miss this before.


 


Why should the church even be involved? Fuck. If people are going to argue something, stick to basic ethics and morals without pointing to a book and ending the argument with, "Because THIS says so." 

Close the book. Don't hide behind it. And give me fucking _logic_ for your argument. Common sense would be nice too, thank you. But I won't ask for too much. 

(fyi this isn't really aimed at you Fay, just people who use the Bible and/or religion as an excuse/rational/argument.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 2, 2011)

Icky said:


> i may be way out of line here, but since when was quoting a fiction novel considered to be a sufficient argument?


 
Because someone else posted that scripture doesn't say abortion is wrong. So I posted up, giving proof, that it says otherwise. I am not using it as an argument in the "debate" with Deo.


----------



## Rouz (May 2, 2011)

Deo said:


> I don't accept the Bible as validation on any claim. What now, FAF?


 

You really are the devil. :V


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

Rouz said:


> You really are the devil. :V


 Devilish doings done by Deo Devil.
Don't dismiss my devilish doings on the distinction of my name that means "god". :V


----------



## Machine (May 2, 2011)

Rouz said:


> You really are the devil. :V


You've seen nothing yet.


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2011)

How about instead of telling fairy tales, we talk about why we believe abortion is wrong


----------



## RedSavage (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Because someone else posted that scripture doesn't say abortion is wrong. So I posted up, giving proof, that it says otherwise. I am not using it as an argument in the "debate" with Deo.


 
But honestly, that's just an automatic response to every argument with religious ramifications, because that's usually what the argument is about on that particular side.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 2, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> I have no clue what makes people think The Bible holds ground to other people. Hell, I'm a Christian (sort of) and I'm not sure that the Bible is interpretable to anyone but the self.


 
It's tragic that people like Rukh have become angry with the lord and try to turn people away from God by preaching false words. He is not happy with only himself being damned, and is trying to draw others away from salvation. For example, he is using an edited version of the bible and takes the lord's word out of context. All true christians know the bible really says:

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 

It is pretty clear cut, with the traditional hebrew referring to a miscarriage. It is truly sad he has to edit what the bible says to fit his viewpoint instead of following the lord's word...


----------



## Aleu (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Is the fetus is harmed but not killed, then its a fine. If the fetus is killed, then the rule of a life for a life is in effect.
> 
> *"But if there is any further injury, then you shall  appoint as a penalty life for life..."* Bolded because you seemed to miss this before.


 Obviously you do not know of Jewish laws. Hint: They don't give a damn about fetuses. It's not talking about the fetus. It's talking about the mother.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Rukh, you are a lost soul who reads falsehoods into the holy scripture. The bible clearly states that only injuries to the mother matter, all the fetus warrants is a fee. I will pray for your wayward spirit and hope you return to the flock of the lord some day.


 
And you completely missed the fact that the injury is talking about injuring or killing the fetus, which by the way, I backed up with Scripture that says the unborn are children, and thus by that definition a person, and again by definition in Scripture murder is wrong.

Either respond to the whole of that post, or don't. No matter which way you look at it, Scripture says an unborn is a child, and has the same rights as a full grown adult.



Aleu said:


> Obviously you do not know of Jewish laws. Hint: They  don't give a damn about fetuses. It's not talking about the fetus. It's  talking about the mother.



â€œIf people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and *she gives birth prematurely* (Talking about the fetus here Aleu, not the mother)but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the womanâ€™s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, (Again talking about the fetus.) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> It's tragic that people like Rukh have become angry with the lord and try to turn people away from God by preaching false words.


 
Meh, he's really only re-enforcing my views on religious people


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

Fay V said:


> any claim? what about a claim for what the church believes? /difficult.


 Oh ho ho! You've got me. But I rebuttle with the fact that many churches don't teach directly out of the Bible, but skim it for happy stories while the congregations and followers do not read their holy text. 
amidoingitright.jpeg ?


----------



## Mentova (May 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> It is truly sad he has to edit what the bible says to fit his viewpoint instead of following the lord's word...


 This isn't anything new. People have been interpreting the bible and other religious works differently (and to fit their own needs) for a long ass time.


----------



## Fay V (May 2, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Why should the church even be involved? Fuck. If people are going to argue something, stick to basic ethics and morals without pointing to a book and ending the argument with, "Because THIS says so."
> 
> Close the book. Don't hide behind it. And give me fucking _logic_ for your argument. Common sense would be nice too, thank you. But I won't ask for too much.
> 
> (fyi this isn't really aimed at you Fay, just people who use the Bible and/or religion as an excuse/rational/argument.


No worries, I feel the same way. I'm just incredibly annoying and was making a joke. In literature texts are used in arguments about text. So in literature you can use the bible for evidence to back up what the church believes. 

the funny thing about ethics, any decent ethicist uses more than the bible. Even religious men, priests and such that did believe in the divine rule of god used more than the bible to argue morals. Instead of those intelligent men we get idiots that claim the study of ethics is made up textbook shit and it's nothing beyond "god says this"



Deo said:


> Oh ho ho! You've got me. But I rebuttle with the fact  that many churches don't teach directly out of the Bible, but skim it  for happy stories while the congregations and followers do not read  their holy text.
> amidoingitright.jpeg ?


clever indeed! so it comes down to what you're arguing. Like all evidence, yay!


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And you completely missed the fact


 You missed the fact that no one cares what scripture says as it's irrelevant to this discussion since your religious beliefs do not apply to everyone.
Also you missed the part where I told you that you were wrong, and indeed my parents do share my belief on embryos and abortion, seeing as they are both Pro-Choice feminists, and look! Hark! I am alive today! Does this negate your world view that all Pro-choice people will never have children/will abort them?


----------



## Rouz (May 2, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> This isn't anything new. People have been interpreting the bible and other religious works differently (and to fit their own needs) for a long ass time.


 

I'm pretty sure the guy that just died kinda did that, but that's another thread.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And you completely missed the fact that the injury is talking about injuring or killing the fetus, which by the way, I backed up with Scripture that says the unborn are children, and thus by that definition a person, and again by definition in Scripture murder is wrong.
> 
> Either respond to the whole of that post, or don't. No matter which way you look at it, Scripture says an unborn is a child, and has the same rights as a full grown adult.



I tried to lead you to the lord, and I gave you his holy word, but your hatred towards God has clouded your vision and caused you to twist his word into falsehood. I will pray for you to one day to divorce Satan and come to Christ.


----------



## Icky (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And you completely missed the fact that the injury is talking about injuring or killing the fetus, which by the way, I backed up with Scripture that says the unborn are children, and thus by that definition a person, and again by definition in Scripture murder is wrong.
> 
> Either respond to the whole of that post, or don't. No matter which way you look at it, Scripture says an unborn is a child, and has the same rights as a full grown adult.


 
Y'know, I think you've managed to convince me to pick up the Bible and read.

Not because I want to start being a Christian, of course, but because I want to know what I'm talking about when people like you start twisting and spinning words to fit your argument.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Why should the church even be involved? Fuck. If people are going to argue something, stick to basic ethics and morals without pointing to a book and ending the argument with, "Because THIS says so."
> 
> Close the book. Don't hide behind it. And give me fucking _logic_ for your argument. Common sense would be nice too, thank you. But I won't ask for too much.
> 
> (fyi this isn't really aimed at you Fay, just people who use the Bible and/or religion as an excuse/rational/argument.


YESSSSSSSSSS


----------



## Mentova (May 2, 2011)

Deo said:


> You missed the fact that no one cares what scripture says as it's irrelevant to this discussion since your religious beliefs do not apply to everyone.
> Also you missed the part where I told you that you were wrong, and indeed my parents do share my belief on embryos and abortion, seeing as they are both Pro-Choice feminists, and look! Hark! I am alive today! Does this negate your world view that all Pro-choice people will never have children/will abort them?


 Deo I'd just give up if I were you. It's like bashing your head into a brick wall at this point.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 2, 2011)

Icky said:


> Y'know, I think you've managed to convince me to pick up the Bible and read.
> 
> Not because I want to start being a Christian, of course, but because I want to know what I'm talking about when people like you start twisting and spinning words to fit your argument.


 
Please do not listen to Rukh's word. He is a false christian who has been blinded by Satan. If you want someone to explain the bible to you, I will happily minister to you the Lord's word.


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Please do not listen to Rukh's word. He is a false christian who has been blinded by Satan. If you want someone to explain the bible to you, I will happily minister to you the Lord's word.


 
Is you serious.


----------



## Aleu (May 2, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Is you serious.


 TBH I'd rather listen to Mojo rather than Rukh. Jus' sayin'


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 2, 2011)

Deo, I have given you my response to why I hold abortion as wrong. You just don't like it. I hold to the fact that a fetus is an unborn child and that a fetus is a human being. 

And, I wasn't the one to bring the Bible into this, Mojo was. Not me. And I wasn't planning on bringing Scripture in either. Others did.


----------



## Icky (May 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Please do not listen to Rukh's word. He is a false christian who has been blinded by Satan. If you want someone to explain the bible to you, I will happily minister to you the Lord's word.


 
No. I don't want any fucking preachers tellling me what to think. I'll read it just like I would read any Stephen King or Dean Koontz novel; with an extreme suspension of disbelief.

And to be honest, your attitude isn't coming off as much better than Rukh's, at this point.


----------



## Jw (May 2, 2011)

God dammit I wish people would STOP REGURGITATING WHAT THEY WERE FORCE FED AS A KID AND SPEAK THEIR OWN FUCKING MIND FOR ONCE. One book cannot be a basis for your entire life. It's impossible. Pretending it to be true is a fallacy. Does it look like anyone here gives a shit what your parents/relatives/religious advisors have told you about things? Here's a hint: we don't.

Oops, I guess I'm wrong for expecting intelligent arguments on the internet. Start something deep and worth contemplating and OH SHIT HERE COMES SOMEONE WITH A BOOK TO PROVE US WRONG. Oh well,I guess we'll drop our thought-out ideals and bend over and kiss your arse like you want.

Meanwhile, I make a statement about my thoughts and it gets railroaded by someone speaking in King James' English. 
A message sent to thou in language most reverent: VERILY, NOT ONE SOLE FUCK WAST GIVEN THAT DAY.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkgco4WuGU1qikel5o1_500.gif
BIBLE FIGHT
GET YOUR AND CHUCK EM
MIGHT MAKES RIGHT BILBICALLY


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Deo, I have given you my response to why I hold abortion as wrong. You just don't like it. I hold to the fact that a fetus is an unborn child and that a fetus is a human being.
> 
> And, I wasn't the one to bring the Bible into this, Mojo was. Not me. And I wasn't planning on bringing Scripture in either. Others did.


 an egg is an unborn chicken


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 2, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Is you serious.


 
Good lord, no.



Icky said:


> No. I don't want any fucking preachers tellling me what to think. I'll read it just like I would read any Stephen King or Dean Koontz novel; with an extreme suspension of disbelief.
> 
> And to be honest, your attitude isn't coming off as much better than Rukh's, at this point.


 
Given I was modeling it after Rukh's normal levels of condescension, I'd say mission accomplished. Sorry for the ruse though.

If you're actually looking for a skeptical look at the bible, I'd reccomend - http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm - It uses an unedited copy of the most popular bible version (King James, Natch) and generally points out the various flaws and inconsistencies in it through sidenotes.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 2, 2011)

Clayton said:


> an egg is an unborn chicken


 
Is a chicken egg held to the same regard as a human life?


----------



## Jw (May 2, 2011)

Deo said:


> http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkgco4WuGU1qikel5o1_500.gif
> BIBLE FIGHT
> GET YOUR AND CHUCK EM
> MIGHT MAKES RIGHT BILBICALLY


 Go for the "family bible"-- none of the shitty leaflet paper and the covers are way thicker and harder.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 2, 2011)

Jw said:


> Go for the "family bible"-- none of the shitty leaflet paper and the covers are way thicker and harder.


 
I call the Waynal Bible!


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Is a chicken egg held to the same regard as a human life?


Yes, I believe so.
and guess what..


_I'd kill and eat them both._


----------



## RedSavage (May 2, 2011)

Deo said:


> http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkgco4WuGU1qikel5o1_500.gif
> BIBLE FIGHT
> GET YOUR AND CHUCK EM
> MIGHT MAKES RIGHT BILBICALLY


 
*chucks Bible at Deo*

It's like a pillow fight!

But more painful and stupidly bigoted!


----------



## Fay V (May 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Is a chicken egg held to the same regard as a human life?


 Is a chicken egg held to the same regard as a chicken. No. You would be a really stupid farmer to want an egg over a chicken.

the same goes for people.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 2, 2011)

Oh hai what's going on here?


----------



## Unsilenced (May 2, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Oh hai what's going on here?


 
More dicks.


----------



## Aleu (May 2, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Oh hai what's going on here?


 Same shit.
Different day.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 2, 2011)

It's like we planned this.  :V


----------



## MaverickCowboy (May 2, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> More dicks.


 

Mines the biggest and badddest.


----------



## Mentova (May 2, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Mines the biggest and badddest.


 We all know the reason you're into guns is to compensate for your micropenis.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 2, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Mines the biggest and badddest.


 
This post proves his is tiny and flaccid.

LIKE A LIL' BABY JESUS.  :V


----------



## Xenke (May 2, 2011)

Hey internet, has this happened to you? Have you been looking for a debate with a person who has a differing opinion, but you end up arguing with a book?

Never fear! Just hire someone to disagree with you! After all, a debate with real person, regardless of motivation, is more fulfilling than an argument with a book.


----------



## RedSavage (May 2, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Mines the biggest and badddest.


 
I beg to differ. Deo's is.


----------



## Fay V (May 2, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Hey internet, has this happened to you? Have you been looking for a debate with a person who has a differing opinion, but you end up arguing with a book?
> 
> Never fear! Just hire someone to disagree with you! After all, a debate with real person, regardless of motivation, is more fulfilling than an argument with a book.


 So Hire a philosopher today!


----------



## Icky (May 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:
			
		

> Given I was modeling it after Rukh's normal levels of condescension, I'd say mission accomplished. Sorry for the ruse though.
> 
> If you're actually looking for a skeptical look at the bible, I'd reccomend - http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm - It uses an unedited copy of the most popular bible version (King James, Natch) and generally points out the various flaws and inconsistencies in it through sidenotes.


M, alright then.  There is some cool shit on that site, but I think i'd rather figure those out myself.

the stuff about genesis was fucking great, though


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2011)

i beg to differ my friends
but it is i who has the nicest penis


----------



## MaverickCowboy (May 2, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> I beg to differ. Deo's is.



True...

Deo. you gotta be gentle on me next time...it really hurts...


I've been puking all day..


*feels a kick in his belly* ....Oh no.


----------



## RedSavage (May 2, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Never fear! *Just hire someone to disagree with you! *After all, a debate with real person, regardless of motivation, is more fulfilling than an argument with a book.


 
Correction. Hire someone to write a BOOK against that other BOOK, and then eventually they will never see the arbitrary premise of the argument.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I call the Waynal Bible!


 As my fursonaderp is a tasmanian devil I call the Codex Gigas (Devil's Bible)!


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 2, 2011)

Icky said:


> M, alright then.  There is some cool shit on that site, but I think i'd rather figure those out myself.
> 
> the stuff about genesis was fucking great, though


 
It also has a book of mormon and a Qu'Ran (Koran? Is there an official way to Romanize that?) for handy cross referencing.


----------



## Bloodshot_Eyes (May 2, 2011)

Kill your unborn crotch spawn, I don't care... >_>

(probable minus respect from people)


----------



## Xenke (May 3, 2011)

Clayton said:


> i beg to differ my friends
> but it is i who has the nicest penis


 
But mine is ribbed for pleasure. :C


----------



## Fay V (May 3, 2011)

Icky said:


> M, alright then.  There is some cool shit on that site, but I think i'd rather figure those out myself.
> 
> the stuff about genesis was fucking great, though


 Take a Bible as Lit course. You'll read the whole bible and learn some cool things about the history, styles, etc. It can be very nice as literature. Not perfectly written but it has some lovely poetry.


----------



## Deo (May 3, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> I beg to differ. Deo's is.


 My e-peen is ginormofantastic.


----------



## Mentova (May 3, 2011)

Deo said:


> As my fursonaderp is a tasmanian devil I call the Codex Gigas (Devil's Bible)!


 Deo I am bored get in your tinychat.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 3, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Take a Bible as Lit course. You'll read the whole bible and learn some cool things about the history, styles, etc. It can be very nice as literature. Not perfectly written but it has some lovely poetry.


 
Her breasts were as towers, and her lovers were as horses...

It seems King Solomon was very naughty indeed.

Edit: Whoa wait, Deo has a tinychat? lnkz pl0x


----------



## RedSavage (May 3, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> It also has a book of mormon and a Qu'Ran (Koran? Is there an official way to Romanize that?) for handy cross referencing.


 
I once smeared stamp ink onto the side of a Ramen noodle block and pressed it against some paper. The resulting markings are from the great Tentacle Beast from beyond, who may or may not be known as Inglip/Chtulu/Jesus/YourMom/or Dan Rather. 

As soon as I'm done decoding the markings I will have found some justification for all those dead hookers.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 3, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Her breasts were as towers, and her lovers were as horses...
> 
> It seems King Solomon was very naughty indeed.


 
Dude knew how to party.  So did JC with that whole water to wine thing.


----------



## RedSavage (May 3, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Dude knew how to party.  So did JC with that whole water to wine thing.


 
Shit was so cash.

ALSO: 314th post. Why yes, I would like some pie. :V

tis no more


----------



## Fay V (May 3, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Her breasts were as towers, and her lovers were as horses...
> 
> It seems King Solomon was very naughty indeed.
> 
> Edit: Whoa wait, Deo has a tinychat? lnkz pl0x


 
There is some dirty stuff in the bible. the story of david is still my favorite. How do you prove worthy of a marraige, 100 foreskins!


----------



## Volkodav (May 3, 2011)

Xenke said:


> But mine is ribbed for pleasure. :C


 
mine is really


frenum piercing


----------



## Icky (May 3, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Take a Bible as Lit course. You'll read the whole bible and learn some cool things about the history, styles, etc. It can be very nice as literature. Not perfectly written but it has some lovely poetry.


Sounds cool, but this is one of those things I would prefer to study myself.

And I wouldn't know where to find such a course :v 



Mojotech said:


> It also has a book of mormon and a Qu'Ran (Koran? Is there an official way to Romanize that?) for handy cross referencing.


 
Niiiiice.


----------



## RedSavage (May 3, 2011)

Fay V said:


> There is some dirty stuff in the bible. the story of david is still my favorite. How do you prove worthy of a marraige, 100 foreskins!


 
Didn't he go and get 200 just for the hell of it?

True. Fucking. Love.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 3, 2011)

Fay V said:


> There is some dirty stuff in the bible. the story of david is still my favorite. How do you prove worthy of a marraige, 100 foreskins!


 
What were the planning do with all those anyway? Fashion them into a fancy hat?


----------



## Xenke (May 3, 2011)

Clayton said:


> mine is really
> 
> 
> frenum piercing


 
I have a cat dick.

The soreness prevents the abortion that I support. :V


----------



## Deo (May 3, 2011)

I started reading the book of mormon. I don't think I can finish it. It's just SO ridiculous.


----------



## Volkodav (May 3, 2011)

Xenke said:


> I have a cat dick.
> 
> The soreness prevents the abortion that I support. :V


apparently cats have barbs on their dicks to [i think] make the female ovulate

yours just rips the babys scalp off



Deo said:


> I started reading the book of mormon. I don't think I can finish it. It's just SO ridiculous.


 Shitty quality but whatever..

[yt]2Gm6JYFdnD8[/yt]


----------



## Rouz (May 3, 2011)

Clayton said:


> apparently cats have barbs on their dicks to [i think] make the female ovulate
> 
> yours just rips the babys scalp off



Annnd my horse penis just kills both so I don't have to worry about child support or that naggy bitch.


----------



## RedSavage (May 3, 2011)

Deo said:


> I started reading the book of mormon. I don't think I can finish it. It's just SO ridiculous.


 
Mormonism is the Stephanie Smeyer of religion. :V

Also, I have a normal penis. I just ejaculate pure spermicide. It's this new app you can get.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 3, 2011)

Deo said:


> I started reading the book of mormon. I don't think I can finish it. It's just SO ridiculous.


 
It is, but to be honest some of their concepts make a lot more sense than other sects of christianity have. For example, original sin doesn't apply to anyone but adam and eve, and god doesn't send everyone to hell, that's actually reserved for actual devils and demons. Sinner Christians and good non-christians get sent to a 2nd and 3rd-rate heaven respectively. People who were serious assholes got sent to spirit jail for a few thousand years until they learned their lesson, then booted into 2nd or 3rd heaven depending on if they are mormon or not. None of that burning people forever for temporal sins nonsense.


----------



## Volkodav (May 3, 2011)

Rouz said:


> that naggy bitch.


 I'm a what now?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 3, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> It is, but to be honest some of their concepts make a lot more sense than other sects of christianity have. For example, original sin doesn't apply to anyone but adam and eve, and god doesn't send everyone to hell, that's actually reserved for actual devils and demons. Sinner Christians and good non-christians get sent to a 2nd and 3rd-rate heaven respectively. People who were serious assholes got sent to spirit jail for a few thousand years until they learned their lesson, then booted into 2nd or 3rd heaven depending on if they are mormon or not. None of that burning people forever for temporal sins nonsense.



And many of those other concepts about fire and brimstone were constructs of medieval and 17th century literature not associated with the church but was adopted by it regardless.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 3, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> And many of those other concepts about fire and brimstone were constructs of medieval and 17th century literature not associated with the church but was adopted by it regardless.


 
Yep, Dante's Inferno, one of the world's first, and most popular, "revenge fics".


----------



## Fay V (May 3, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> What were the planning do with all those anyway? Fashion them into a fancy hat?


 Nothing, they didn't think he could do it. to be fair I wouldn't expect a guy to circumcize 100 enemy soldiers and live. I wouldn't expect him to be able to circumsize 100 friendlies.



Mojotech said:


> Yep, Dante's Inferno, one of the world's first, and most popular, "revenge fics".


 Dante is one of my favorite lit trolls, but Swift is still the greatest


----------



## Endless Humiliation (May 3, 2011)

i am not gay or anything, but i wish i could shove jesus christs penis in my mouth right now and wash it around in my mouth like it is mouthwash just so i could spend a couple minutes with him


----------



## ArielMT (May 3, 2011)

And we're getting off topic, not that being on topic was all that desirable to begin with.



Fay V said:


> So Hire a philosopher today!



Wasn't that a skit in History of the World Part I?



Mojotech said:


> Edit: Whoa wait, Deo has a tinychat? *lnkz pl0x*



It's there.  "Talk to the devil," I believe.


----------



## Heimdal (May 3, 2011)

I'm Pro-choice. I don't believe anyone has the right to force a woman in regards to what she does with her own body. There are plenty of health-related legitimate reasons to require an abortion, and that should not be hindered. However, I also see no reason to disallow a woman to get an abortion for any less important reason either. If a woman fucks anything that moves and gets pregnant, presumably they might not be in a very stable situation to have a baby? Every situation is a special situation, just let them fuckin' handle it how they decide to. I support the idea of requiring counseling before-hand though, which I think Fay mentioned in passing.

I'm going back on topic with this post. Sorry guys.


----------



## Fay V (May 3, 2011)

ArielMT said:


> Wasn't that a skit in History of the World Part I
> 
> It's there.  "Talk to the devil," I believe.


that was the unemployment line "did you Bullshit today?" etc.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (May 3, 2011)

After some thought this is how I look at it. 

I will not stop a woman from doing it, but I'm still not for it, even if the child would be born with no bones or a brain.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (May 3, 2011)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> After some thought this is how I look at it.
> 
> I will not stop a woman from doing it, but I'm still not for it, even if the child would be born with no bones or a brain.






Fay V said:


> that was the unemployment line "did you Bullshit today?" etc.



RIP BA.

Damn, double post.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 3, 2011)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> After some thought this is how I look at it.
> 
> I will not stop a woman from doing it, but I'm still not for it, even if the child would be born with no bones or a brain.



I agree and have pretty much this same view. It's not something I'd totally agree with, however I'm not going to like join an anti-abortion group to try to make it illegal. I also agree with Heimdal, it's the woman's body, the womans life and should be left up to the woman to decide.


----------



## Leafblower29 (May 3, 2011)

I'm pro-choice but I could never do it because I can't get past the baby killing mentality.


----------



## Cain (May 3, 2011)

Deo said:


> I'll lay it all out and be the first to expose myself to the ravenous hate of FAF.
> 
> I do not support killing.
> I am pro-choice.
> ...



I completely agree with it. 
So deo, what are your views on euthanasia? (I think I spelt that right)


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 3, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> I completely agree with it.
> So deo, what are your views on euthanasia? (I think I spelt that right)



Euthanasia would be suited in another thread. 



Leafblower29 said:


> I'm pro-choice but I could never do it because I can't get past the baby killing mentality.


 
I don't think it is an easy decision for any mother-to-be to make. Well, maybe it is easier for some than it is for others.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (May 3, 2011)

I missed this thread, but... On the topic of abortion, I think cellular forms do not constitute people and while it is a potential human life, it will feel no pain, misery, fear or even happiness in its current state. If parents don't want children, it's up to them to take whatever measures possible to stop babby from forming. If these measures royally bugger up somehow they should go for abortion ASAP, when everything's still all nice and cellular. But for when the embryo gets larger... I honestly don't know what to say about that. Abortions shouldn't be left late, just do it ASAFP.

Anyway Rukh, stop hiding behind that bloody bible of yours. Everything in there contradicts itself so much that it's so useless in an argument, it's not even funny. God's word is bollocks and you know it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 3, 2011)

Gibby said:


> I missed this thread, but... On the topic of abortion, I think cellular forms do not constitute people and while it is a potential human life, it will feel no pain, misery, fear or even happiness in its current state. If parents don't want children, it's up to them to take whatever measures possible to stop babby from forming.



If parents plainly just didn't want children then they should have used contraception, and not just one form. The male should use a condom and the female, just to be extra safe, should consider going on the pill. Aborting because you just "didn't want a child" is a bs reason to abort when there are plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy to begin with.




> Anyway Rukh, stop hiding behind that bloody bible of yours. Everything in there contradicts itself so much that it's so useless in an argument, it's not even funny. God's word is bollocks and you know it.



Who's to say the bible is even God's word anyway? For all we know some deluded mad man could have written it.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (May 3, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> If parents plainly just didn't want children then they should have used contraception, and not just one form. The male should use a condom and the female, just to be extra safe, should consider going on the pill. Aborting because you just "didn't want a child" is a bs reason to abort when there are plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy to begin with.



That is what meant yes, but if there was something like unprotected rape involved, then abortion should become a choice then.



> Who's to say the bible is even God's word anyway? For all we know some deluded mad man could have written it.


 
Exactly. :3c


----------



## Lobar (May 3, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> If parents plainly just didn't want children then they should have used contraception, and not just one form. The male should use a condom and the female, just to be extra safe, should consider going on the pill. Aborting because you just "didn't want a child" is a bs reason to abort when there are plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy to begin with.


 
implying contraception is always readily available and never fails


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 3, 2011)

So I have a question for the pro-lifers (anti-choicers) here. What are you doing to bring down the number of abortions, aside from shouting at women and being angry?


----------



## Deo (May 3, 2011)

Lobar said:


> implying contraception is always readily available and never fails


 THIS.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 3, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> So I have a question for the pro-lifers (anti-choicers) here. What are you doing to bring down the number of abortions, aside from shouting at women and being angry?


 
Greater availability of birth control and sex education. 

Being angry is fun too though.


----------



## Deo (May 3, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> So I have a question for the pro-lifers (anti-choicers) here. What are you doing to bring down the number of abortions, aside from shouting at women and being angry?


 And what are you doing to help improve the lives of children who are parentless wards of the state? IT is one thing to care greatly about embyros, it is another to care greatly about embryos while forgetting the over burdened, overcrowded, sometimes dangerous, loveless system that we push these children through.


----------



## Ozriel (May 3, 2011)

Pro-Choice for me. 

Better to improve the quality of the children without families by adopting than "makin'" babies.
Abortion shouldn't be used as a method of birth control for skanky women.


----------



## Xenke (May 3, 2011)

Deo said:


> And what are you doing to help improve the lives of children who are parentless wards of the state? IT is one thing to care greatly about embyros, it is another to care greatly about embryos while forgetting the over burdened, overcrowded, sometimes dangerous, loveless system that we push these children through.


 
Hey, as long as we're not killing those blobs of cells with souls, right? :roll:


----------



## VoidBat (May 3, 2011)

I'd say it's up to the female if she wants to keep the baby or make an abortion.
But if the little bag of pink meat turns out to be deformed like Disney's Quasimodo or even worse, I'd vote for the coathanger to do the job. If she wants to keep it, despite said deformities I think the doctors would have to inform her about the risks and the future costs to care for her child. 

Ultimately, there are cases were abortion is needed. If said baby has all the traits that match the description of a vegetable, I'd say it would be humane to not let it exist anymore. Letting it grow up to drool and stare into a wall, without no sense of awareness, no ability to think, dream or fantasize is not a life, it's just cruel.


----------



## Thatch (May 3, 2011)

Lobar said:


> implying contraception is always readily available



I'm sure you can hold out NOT wetting your willy just that one time. That's not really an argument.



Lobar said:


> never fails


 
This is more of one, but still SEX = BABIES.

If you don't want kids that much, don't have sex or render yourself infertile. I am pro-choice, but everything save for rape is a silly excuse for being dumb and unable to resist carnal urges, and I'll see them as such. Being able to abort is a convinience (being able to escape responsibility for your actions, with the exception mentioned above) and should be treated as such.


----------



## Littlerock (May 3, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> So I have a question for the pro-lifers (anti-choicers) here. *What are you doing to bring down the number of abortions*, aside from shouting at women and being angry?


 Not having sex. Duh. :v

I'll be honest here, I'm pro-life. But I've got mixed feelings on the matter, considering rape-children and a mother's death upon childbirth. While I cannot speak for every woman in the world (obviously), if I did get raped (and somehow my pill didn't work), and was told by the doctor that childbirth would probably kill me, I'd still have the kid, and hope modern medical science can save me. If not, tough shit, I guess it's my time. There's no way I'm going to kill my baby, rape child or not. I see fetuses as having souls, simple as that. If a baby is going to die right after birth, then I'll want him/her to live as long as possible, even if it's only in the womb.

That being said, I don't ever plan to actually have a kid. If anything, I'd adopt. Tha's'all.


----------



## Volkodav (May 3, 2011)

I dont think we should be thinking of wht we believe o abortion
I believe we should be discussing what we could do to kill mor babies. What's the post popular tactic? Do I just stick a cigarette in her puss? or what?


----------



## Xenke (May 3, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I dont think we should be thinking of wht we believe o abortion
> I believe we should be discussing what we could do to kill mor babies. What's the post popular tactic? Do I just stick a cigarette in her puss? or what?


 
Pour in a Jack Daniel's.


----------



## Volkodav (May 3, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Pour in a Jack Daniel's.


 That's a good idea actually. I wonder if it would work


----------



## Heimdal (May 3, 2011)

Thatch said:


> I'm sure you can hold out NOT wetting your willy just that one time. That's not really an argument.


 
This isn't a specific, 'one person making a mistake' scenario. It is very common, and statistically prevalent. If contraception is not available, or is discouraged, there is a significant problem with unwanted pregnancies (and STI) in that populace.

Citation is hardly necessary. If you're not aware of some of these problems in Africa, it's incredibly easy to find data on it. It is probably one of the biggest arguments to make, unfortunately.


----------



## Volkodav (May 3, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> This isn't a specific, 'one person making a mistake' scenario. It is very common, and statistically prevalent. If contraception is not available, or is discouraged, there is a significant problem with unwanted pregnancies (and STI) in that populace.
> 
> Citation is hardly necessary. If you're not aware of some of these problems in Africa, it's incredibly easy to find data on it. It is probably one of the biggest arguments to make, unfortunately.


 Ye I know what you're saying, and it's true. I remember watching a documentary on it in school.
Religion prohibits contraceptives, and these kids in africa are religious and also don't have education on teen pregs/STDs, etc, so they fuck like teens normally would and end up with diseases and preg


----------



## Thatch (May 3, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> This isn't a specific, 'one person making a mistake' scenario. It is very common, and statistically prevalent. If contraception is not available, or is discouraged, there is a significant problem with unwanted pregnancies (and STI) in that populace.
> 
> Citation is hardly necessary. If you're not aware of some of these problems in Africa, it's incredibly easy to find data on it. It is probably one of the biggest arguments to make, unfortunately.


 
Then they can do it up the ass. It's really not that hard to figure out that "Ejaculating into a fetile woman's vagina = babies". If it's about teenagers, improve sexual education. Hell, make parents legally bound to explain conception to their kids. I don't care. But saying "we need abortions because I can't figure out anything else to do besides jizzing in a woman's cooter" is NOT an viable excuse.
Don't want kids - don't do things that are pretty sure to knock up a girl.

I don't think the issue of abortion is the biggest problem in africa either. It's hard to think about such things on an empty stomach.


----------



## RedSavage (May 3, 2011)

Thatch said:


> Then they can do it up the ass.



Because every religion loves sodomy.


----------



## Thatch (May 3, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Because every religion loves sodomy.


 
Every (monotheistic) religion loves abortions, too. Or hell, the idea that people have sex WITHOUT the intetion to concieve.

A hit and a miss.

As I said, I'm pro choice, but I'd wish people would stop treating abortion as something else than a way to escape the responsibility following doing something purely for pleasure. Abortion is imo in the same cathergory as liposuction - there are people who legitimaly had no other choice in their predicament when they subject themselves to it (rape victims for one, people with imbalanced metabolism for the other), but mostly is just people who want to have an easy way out of the problems they brought on themselves.


----------



## RedSavage (May 3, 2011)

Thatch said:


> Every (monotheistic) religion loves abortions, too. Or hell, the idea that people have sex WITHOUT the intetion to concieve.
> 
> A hit and a miss.


 
To reference an earlier spiel, religion mucks everything up. It reminds me of the short story, The Lottery. Religion is the old, tattered box of tradition that's haphazardly put together with new ideals and rationalization, and serves no purpose other than to dodge the question.


----------



## Heimdal (May 3, 2011)

Thatch said:


> Then they can do it up the ass. It's really not that hard to figure out that "Ejaculating into a fetile woman's vagina = babies". If it's about teenagers, improve sexual education. Hell, make parents legally bound to explain conception to their kids. I don't care. But saying "we need abortions because I can't figure out anything else to do besides jizzing in a woman's cooter" is NOT an viable excuse.
> Don't want kids - don't do things that are pretty sure to knock up a girl.
> 
> I don't think the issue of abortion is the biggest problem in africa either. It's hard to think about such things on an empty stomach.


 
It is an excuse, but that doesn't change a thing. Standing on a soapbox, saying that someone ought to know better, is worthless to them after the fact. Scenarios are vastly different as well, and that has to be taken into account. There is a problem in Africa where the men refuse to use contraception, and the women are generally in a lot of trouble if contraception isn't available on their end.

I agree that improving sexual education is ideal. However, if it is not plausible to do in any statistically effectively way, then options that are should be made more available.


----------



## Thatch (May 3, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> It is an excuse, but that doesn't change a thing. Standing on a soapbox, saying that someone ought to know better, is worthless to them after the fact.



Well, we're not after the fact here, are we? I'm not preaching to people who already stepped into crap, I'm talking to those who advocate abortions in a way that seems to say "it's not their fault that they are pregnant just because they had sex". Well, we know for a fact that vaginal sex has a good chance of leading to procreation. If you ignore it, it is your fault. That is all.



Heimdal said:


> Scenarios are vastly different as well, and that has to be taken into account. There is a problem in Africa where the men refuse to use contraception, and the women are generally in a lot of trouble if contraception isn't available on their end.



Ok, I wasn't aware of that fact. That does pretty much constitute as rape, imo.



Heimdal said:


> I agree that improving sexual education is ideal. However, if it is not plausible to do in any statistically effectively way, then options that are should be made more available.


 
Maybe if more parents threatened to disown their kids if then have kids before marriage (and by kids, I mean those still under their jurisdiction) teenagers wouldn't be so eager to try sex. There are some things being conservative is good for.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (May 3, 2011)

as a mother I could never have an abortion. I went through nine months of discomfort and feeling sick but knowing that there is a person inside me that needs me and has the potential to do great things made it all worth it. I look at my child and tears streaked my face. If other women want to do it I have no say in the matter.

Women that use it as an "oops I goofed" makes me mad. Its not punishing the child but it seems like it. Get fixed if you don't want kids.


----------



## Heimdal (May 3, 2011)

Thatch said:


> Well, we're not after the fact here, are we? I'm not preaching to people who already stepped into crap, I'm talking to those who advocate abortions in a way that seems to say "it's not their fault that they are pregnant just because they had sex". Well, we know for a fact that vaginal sex has a good chance of leading to procreation. If you ignore it, it is your fault. That is all.


 
I'm not so sure about this point. Isn't the moral issue regarding the life of the embryo? I don't think the argument of 'people getting their just desserts' is anything beyond personal bias. Why would a woman need to 'earn the right to an abortion' (rape/life-threatening vs. 'just wants to') when the actual issue of concern is the embryo, which will suffer the exact same conclusion regardless?

And then there is the fact that it isn't a single person mistake, it's the mistake of two people. Unfortunately, it's only a problem for the woman, not the man. Depending on location, men can be forced into involvement, but there's a lot of places where they aren't so obligated. Hell, there's a lot of scenarios where men don't have to care about anything, it's just a fun night out. If those women want a fun night out, it could mess up their life. That's unfair as all fuck.

Abortion should be a personal decision, not a social one. If some immature girl gets herself pregnant and wants an abortion, I'd agree that she's an idiot. I'd agree with a social stigma against her using abortion as an 'easy out' to her mistakes. I just don't agree with denying her from that option entirely.


----------



## Thatch (May 3, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> Isn't the moral issue regarding the life of the embryo?





Heimdal said:


> I just don't agree with denying her from that option entirely.



I'm not discussing this. I don't care about morality towards the embryo. I already said I am pro-choice. I just hate when people form their arguments around shifting blame, in this case men and women who are fully aware that sex makes babies, despite that have sex because it's a cool thing to do, and whine when the woman gets pregnant. If you really don't want kids that much, there are way to render yourself infertile. That's an infailable way of ensuring you won't concieve. If someone doesn't want kids bad enough to consider abortions (except the obvious situations like rape), they SHOULD go through a procedure that renders them infertile. Because otherwise, that conception will be their, and ONLY their fault, and taking voice in the issue only makes everyone with a legit claim to it look bad.

"I don't give a fuck, it's my body and my baby" is enough of an argument for me. Want it, get it. Don't want it? Don't get it. But for christ's sake don't say it's not just for your personal convinience when it is.



Heimdal said:


> If those women want a fun night out, it could mess up their life. That's unfair as all fuck.


 
OH NOES THEY CAN'T HAVE FUN WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES. Well tough fucking luck. Some things have a price. It's not fair, but they know it. It's still their fault. Abortion is, as I say again, a convinient way to avoid the responsibility. A responsibility that could have been avoided by other methods altogether. That's all I'm saying. Only that. Nothing more. No more, no less. Do we have an understanding?



Heimdal said:


> I'd agree that she's an idiot.


 
I see we do. That's fine.


----------



## Volkodav (May 3, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> as a mother I could never have an abortion. I went through nine months of discomfort and feeling sick but knowing that there is a person inside me that needs me and has the potential to do great things made it all worth it. I look at my child and tears streaked my face. If other women want to do it I have no say in the matter.
> 
> Women that use it as an "oops I goofed" makes me mad. Its not punishing the child but it seems like it. Get fixed if you don't want kids.


What about a couple who uses protection and still manages to get preg?

Also, "getting fixed" dnot work all the time
My brother is living proof


----------



## Torrijos-sama (May 3, 2011)

I am pro-choice, but I actually advocate abortion.
I was raised in a Roman Catholic family, but I would prefer that many people in America stop breeding, so that they can spend their money on other things and not contribute to the voting base or population. And by many people, I mean everyone whose household makes less than $30,000 a year, since they can't afford children to begin with.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (May 3, 2011)

Clayton said:


> What about a couple who uses protection and still manages to get preg?
> 
> Also, "getting fixed" dnot work all the time
> My brother is living proof



I just don't like it being used as a oops I goofed. I know of a woman who had like 4 abortions. That just seems wrong. If you took measures to prevent it and it happens then I suppose it is up to the individual. Personally I couldn't have one though have no business telling someone else what they should do unless asked directly.


----------



## Spatel (May 3, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> I am pro-choice, but I actually advocate abortion.
> I was raised in a Roman Catholic family, but I would prefer that many people in America stop breeding, so that they can spend their money on other things and not contribute to the voting base or population. And by many people, I mean everyone whose household makes less than $30,000 a year, since they can't afford children to begin with.


 
Well that's a convenient way to get rid of the non-whites. Brilliantly played. :V


----------



## Dreaming (May 3, 2011)

Oh my. Well, there's not much point in this really, we aren't going to change eachother's views on the topic, are we? 

But alas......I am pro-abortion. Mainly because, its the Woman's body, she should do with it what she wish. She shouldn't have to go through pregnancy if she doesn't want to. Of course there is the issue of the farther, well thats the tricky part, if they should have more, less, and equal say in what happens with the baby. I guess the biggest issue, what it all comes down to is, when is it a life that you are terminating? I'm not a Doctor, so I can't say when a it is considered a 'life'. 

To those against abortion, what about rape? What should they do in this situation? 

Lastly, yes, I am too liberal. I could add another point to the above statement but it would probably start alot of shit  Edit: Alot MORE shit


----------



## Xenke (May 3, 2011)

AmerÃ­kumaÃ°urÃšlfur said:


> pro-abortion.


 
KILL THEM ALL.

NO MORE CHILDREN, _EVER_.


----------



## Volkodav (May 3, 2011)

Xenke said:


> KILL THEM ALL.
> 
> NO MORE CHILDREN, _EVER_.


 FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL THANK US.


----------



## Commiecomrade (May 3, 2011)

Clayton said:


> FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL THANK US.


 
THOSE NONEXISTENT CHILDREN BETTER THANK US FOR THE WORK WE'LL DO.


----------



## Volkodav (May 3, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> THOSE NONEXISTENT CHILDREN BETTER THANK US FOR THE WORK WE'LL DO.


 Yes, that was the joke.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (May 3, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Well that's a convenient way to get rid of the non-whites. Brilliantly played. :V


 
Not exactly against non-whites... More against my meth-head cousin who has 5 kids, and keeps popping them out like a shitty chinese factory.



AmerÃ­kumaÃ°urÃšlfur said:


> Oh my. Well, there's not much point in this really, we aren't going to change eachother's views on the topic, are we?
> 
> But alas......I am pro-abortion. Mainly because, its the Woman's body, she should do with it what she wish. She shouldn't have to go through pregnancy if she doesn't want to. Of course there is the issue of the farther, well thats the tricky part, if they should have more, less, and equal say in what happens with the baby. I guess the biggest issue, what it all comes down to is, when is it a life that you are terminating? I'm not a Doctor, so I can't say when a it is considered a 'life'.
> 
> ...


 
I am too conservative to not support Abortion.

The only choices for Americans that are constitutionally viable are: Complete freedom of operation for private abortion clinics and freedom of choice on behalf of the woman, or freedom for the states to choose whether or not Abortion should be legal.

That's true conservatism: Leaving religion out of matters that concern the constitution and the country.


----------



## Rouz (May 3, 2011)

I don't think the state should fund abortions.


----------



## Deo (May 3, 2011)

This was meant to be serious guys, don't turn this thread into dicks. Do that to other threads.



Rouz said:


> I don't think the state should fund abortions.


For the most part the state does not fund abortions, but for the sake of argument... Those who would rely on state money for abortions are two people: A- Rape victims and B- The lower class poor who cannot afford insurance or healthcare/prenatal care.
In effect you are saying that poor women don't deserve choices, and only the wealthy should have such health care options? Or that rape victims, unlike other victims, should not have their medical costs covered by our system and must bear that financial burden alone along with the stigma and the pain of being a victim?


----------



## CannotWait (May 3, 2011)

I wasn't aware that it was possible to turn a thread into dicks.


----------



## Deo (May 3, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> I wasn't aware that it was possible to turn a thread into dicks.


 Welcome to furries, oh new person.


----------



## Thatch (May 3, 2011)

Deo said:


> In effect you are saying that poor women don't deserve choices


 
They can always use the old staircase method :V


----------



## Deo (May 3, 2011)

Thatch said:


> They can always use the old staircase method :V


 Back alleys and coat hangers. I seemed to have forgotten that the poor have no right to proper legal treatment by professionals or general safety when seeking medical care. 
BOOTSTRAPS and all that.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 3, 2011)

Microwaves work wonders, though you can also go the colonist method of forcing someone to float out at sea, stomach up, and bake in the sun.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 3, 2011)

Clayton said:


> What about a couple who uses protection and still manages to get preg?


 The fact that they took the risk and decided to have sex is their own fault. Don't want to get pregnant/or get someone pregnant, then don't have sex. Plain and simple. If a couple isn't ready for the chance that they could have a baby, then they shouldn't be taking the risk at all.


Deo said:


> Back alleys and coat hangers. I seemed to have forgotten that the poor have no right to proper legal treatment by professionals or general safety when seeking medical care.
> BOOTSTRAPS and all that.


 
You ever see a video of a modern abortion Deo?, (I watched a surgical abortion, and no it was not a late term abortion. The child was still an embryo.) I have. It was sick, disgusting and nearly made me puke. If this wasn't a family computer I would find the video and post a link.
Its basically what you described above, a medical coat hanger ripping apart and embryo. The only difference is that the abortion was being done in a medical facility by someone who knew how to do abortions.
And yes, I know that one can take a pill of some sort (which makes the woman kinda just expel the embryo) or literally have the embryo sucked out of them too.

Either way I don't agree with it. The only, and I mean only way I can call abortion okay is when both the mother and child will die. Other than that, I don't agree with abortion.


----------



## Volkodav (May 3, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The fact that they took the risk and decided to have sex is their own fault. Don't want to get pregnant/or get someone pregnant, then don't have sex. Plain and simple. If a couple isn't ready for the chance that they could have a baby, then they shouldn't be taking the risk at all.


Are you a virgin


----------



## Azure (May 3, 2011)

I was gonna read this thread. But then I clicked it, and saw a Rukhpost. Nevermind.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 3, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You ever see a video of a modern abortion Deo?, (I watched a surgical abortion, and no it was not a late term abortion. The child was still an embryo.) I have. It was sick, disgusting and nearly made me puke. If this wasn't a family computer I would find the video and post a link.
> Its basically what you described above, a medical coat hanger ripping apart and embryo. The only difference is that the abortion was being done in a medical facility by someone who knew how to do abortions.


 
Fun fact: Most modern invasive medical procedures aren't pleasant to look at.  Should I post links to liposuction, draining boils and cysts, or brain surgery?


----------



## Unsilenced (May 3, 2011)

You think it's only acceptable if both will die? So if the kid has acephale it should be taken to term? If it will kill the mother it should be taken to term?

Pretty eff'd up bro.


----------



## Machine (May 4, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Are you a virgin


Just make an educated guess, Clayton. It shouldn't be too hard to guess.


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You ever see a video of a modern abortion Deo?, (I watched a surgical abortion, and no it was not a late term abortion. The child was still an embryo.) I have. It was sick, disgusting and nearly made me puke. If this wasn't a family computer I would find the video and post a link.
> Its basically what you described above, a medical coat hanger ripping apart and embryo. The only difference is that the abortion was being done in a medical facility by someone who knew how to do abortions.
> And yes, I know that one can take a pill of some sort (which makes the woman kinda just expel the embryo) or literally have the embryo sucked out of them too.
> Either way I don't agree with it. The only, and I mean only way I can call abortion okay is when both the mother and child will die. Other than that, I don't agree with abortion.


 Yes, but that is a "coat hanger" that won't tear the woman apart and kill her from either infection or bloodloss. Only the embryo, her life will be safe.


----------



## Machine (May 4, 2011)

Deo said:


> Yes, but that is a "coat hanger" that won't tear the woman apart and kill her from either infection or bloodloss. Only the embryo, her life will be safe.


BUT ONLY THE WELFARE OF THE FETUS MATTERS!!!!1


----------



## Icky (May 4, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Either way I don't agree with it. The only, and I mean only way I can call abortion okay is when both the mother and child will die. Other than that, I don't agree with abortion.


 
So if a rape victim gets impregnated against her will, you would force her to keep it?


----------



## Machine (May 4, 2011)

Icky said:


> So if a rape victim gets impregnated against her will, you would force her to keep it?


Of course, because it's obviously the ethically right thing to do.

"Hurrr it'll grow up to cure cancer, don't kill it durr hurrrrrrrrrrrr."


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 4, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Are you a virgin


 Truthfully, no. I had sex while I was in college. A decision I regret to this day. And since then, I have not. So, 5 years.


Deo said:


> Yes, but that is a "coat hanger" that won't tear the woman apart and kill her from either infection or bloodloss. *Only the embryo*, her life will be safe.


 And thats where the problem lies. A life is killed. A life that did nothing wrong and is paying for someone elses actions. And I will never, agree to that.
By your own post here Deo, you have just said an adult is more important than a child.


Icky said:


> So if a rape victim gets impregnated against her will, you would force her to keep it?


 I won't force anyone to do anything, I will say I don't agree to it, but I won't "force" people to not do it. It is their choice.


----------



## Machine (May 4, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> A life is killed. A life that did nothing wrong and is paying for someone elses actions.


1: The embryo is alive on a "cellular" level and only that.
2. If that above is false, the embryo is innocent. It has done nothing wrong, but has done nothing good either. It has done nothing.
3. Therefore, nothing of value was lost.

Sorry. :V


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Truthfully, no. I had sex while I was in college. A decision I regret to this day. And since then, I have not. So, 5 years.


 Did god tell you he cried?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 4, 2011)

Moth said:


> 1: The embryo is alive on a "cellular" level and only that.
> 2. If that above is false, the embryo is innocent. It has done nothing wrong, but has done nothing good either. It has done nothing.
> 3. Therefore, nothing of value was lost.
> Sorry. :V


 
I disagree, completely. Life begins at conception. And because that life is innocent I cannot ever condone abortion.


Clayton said:


> Did god tell you he cried?


 
Actually, yeah, you could say that. And it hurt, a lot. In fact, it was the most painful thing I have ever been through.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2011)

I propose that the well being of the living is more important than the yet to be alive. Considering many people today care not for the living, or not even for the future of the yet to be alive, they have no right to sit and also say that abortion is murder and should not be allowed.

I say this to anyone who says to me "Abortion is wrong". That's nice. Get rid of your doomsday ideologies and the associated self fulfilling prophecy, and show me you care to ensure the yet to be living have a good world to come into...then get back to me. Currently the world of living is kind of messed up.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 4, 2011)

Hey Rukh. How do you feel about IUD's?


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Actually, yeah, you could say that. And it hurt, a lot. In fact, it was the most painful thing I have ever been through.


Did she use a strap-on


----------



## Machine (May 4, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I disagree, completely. Life begins at conception. And because that life is innocent I cannot ever condone abortion.


And I'm sure that you agree all of the embryo's movements are conscious and not stimulated muscle reflexes?




> Actually, yeah, you could say that. And it hurt, a lot. In fact, it was the most painful thing I have ever been through.


Bet you weren't saying that while you were getting in her pants.


----------



## Heimdal (May 4, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> By your own post here Deo, you have just said an adult is more important than a child.



She said "embryo", not "child". Don't point statement call-outs like that when the issue is your own interpretation.



> I won't force anyone to do anything, I will say I don't agree to it, but I won't "force" people to not do it. It is their choice.


 
That's a sensible stance. Wouldn't it technically be Pro-choice? You just have personal distaste over the choice.



> The fact that they took the risk and decided to have sex is their own  fault. Don't want to get pregnant/or get someone pregnant, then don't  have sex. Plain and simple. If a couple isn't ready for the chance that  they could have a baby, then they shouldn't be taking the risk at all.



It's a statistic that is guaranteed to occur. Humanity is nowhere near perfect enough to never get into these problems. Instead of being dicks about something we know is going to happen, we should focus on providing better help. Right now, if a couple can't afford a kid, and is barred from having an abortion, the whole family is fucked. I would only ever accept a Pro-life setup if society put it's money where it's mouth is and helped the people too.


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Moth said:


> Of course, because it's obviously the ethically right thing to do.


 Women are baby incubators. They are not allowed rights or opinions when they are baby making objects. Obviously.


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Moth said:


> Bet you weren't saying that while you were getting in her pants.


Yeah, this. You weren't thinking of Jesus up there watching you when you two were slam bangin on the floor


----------



## Icky (May 4, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Truthfully, no. I had sex while I was in college. A decision I regret to this day. And since then, I have not. So, 5 years.
> 
> And thats where the problem lies. A life is killed. A life that did nothing wrong and is paying for someone elses actions. And I will never, agree to that.
> By your own post here Deo, you have just said an adult is more important than a child.
> ...


 
Why the hell do you keep insisting that the embryo is equally as important as an adult human? It's a little cluster of cells.

If I just gave you a baby right now against your will and said "sorry, you have to raise it and pay for it", would 697 +3 9(!6 285& 5&!5 5&3"/


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And thats where the problem lies. A life is killed. A life that did nothing wrong and is paying for someone elses actions. And I will never, agree to that.
> By your own post here Deo, you have just said an adult is more important than a child.


 No what I said was that an adult with a fully developed nervous system is more important than an embryo which lacks sentience, a fully developed nervous system, or even the ability to perceive pain. Please don't lie about what I say Rukh, it's rather rude.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 4, 2011)

Moth said:


> And I'm sure that you agree all of the embryo's movements are conscious and not stimulated muscle reflexes?



And did you know that I believe in a Soul? And at the moment of conception I believe that the Soul exists? Therefore Life begins at conception.


Moth said:


> Bet you weren't saying that while you were getting in her pants.


 I wasn't, she wanted in mine, and I didn't say no. She asked me. And I agreed to it. Which still made me just as guilty as if I had been the one to instigate it.




Deo said:


> No what I said was that an adult with a fully  developed nervous system is more important than an embryo which lacks  sentience, a fully developed nervous system, or even the ability to  perceive pain. Please don't lie about what I say Rukh, it's rather  rude.


 
In my eyes, you did say that. I disagree and say that an embryo is a life. And I cannot, nor will I ever condone abortion unless both the mother and child are going to die in childbirth.


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Icky said:


> Why the hell do you keep insisting that the embryo is equally as important as an adult human? It's a little cluster of cells.
> 
> If I just gave you a baby right now against your will and said "sorry, you have to raise it and pay for it", would 697 +3 9(!6 285& 5&!5 5&3"/


 You know what's also a cluster of living, evolving, growing cells? Fungus.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And did you know that I believe in a Soul? And at the moment of conception I believe that the Soul exists? Therefore Life begins at conception.


 Why are you capitalizing soul? What do you mean by "life"? Because a fungus is a cluster of growing, living cells just like an embryo [of any species] is. Would it be wrong to eat a mushroom?


----------



## Machine (May 4, 2011)

Deo said:


> Women are baby incubators. They are not allowed rights or opinions when they are baby making objects. Obviously.


Oh, right. Sorry.

So, judging by that statement, what am I doing on my computer? I guess I should be slaving over a parasite so I can shit it out into the horrible world in nine months.


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Actually, yeah, you could say that. And it hurt, a lot. In fact, it was the most painful thing I have ever been through.





Clayton said:


> Did she use a strap-on


 Did she use a strap on with THOR?


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Deo said:


> Did she use a strap on with THOR?


Is that even possible?

Also: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




GOODNIGHT, LOSERS


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And did you know that I believe in a Soul? And at the moment of conception I believe that the Soul exists? Therefore Life begins at conception.


 What is the scientific or quantifiable nature of a soul? How is it measured or reliably defined?


----------



## Machine (May 4, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Is that even possible?


If you're suicidal, yeah.



> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


`Night, Clayton. :3


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 4, 2011)

Guys, why are you assuming it was a she? Don't forget that Rukh was caught with GAY cub porn in his favorites and not the straight kind...


----------



## Machine (May 4, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Guys, why are you assuming it was a she? Don't forget that Rukh was caught with GAY cub porn in his favorites and not the straight kind...


What.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 4, 2011)

Moth said:


> What.


 
Rukh. Had gay furry porn in his favorites, and associates with known furry pedophiles.


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> In my eyes, you did say that. I disagree and say that an embryo is a life. And I cannot, nor will I ever condone abortion unless both the mother and child are going to die in childbirth.


 I don't care about your rose colored glasses Rukh, not when it comes to warping what I say for your personal agenda. You can quote me, you can rebuttle what I say, but don't alter it to help you prove your point. If you need to turn my words into deception in order to prove your claim rather than rely on your own points and fact then your claim is hardly sound.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 4, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Guys, why are you assuming it was a she? Don't forget that Rukh was caught with GAY cub porn in his favorites and not the straight kind...


 
Ignoring the shocking nature of that sentence, what was the point of clarifying "and not the straight kind" when you had already said "GAY cub porn." 

There's a straight type of gay porn?


----------



## Machine (May 4, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Rukh. Had gay furry porn in his favorites, and associates with known furry pedophiles.


*FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU*

I like where this thread is going. A lot.


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Moth said:


> What.


 And he was outed for hanging around a man who fucks children in his murrsuit and makes videos of that and distributes them online to his friends. Oh Rukh, do tell us how your buddy Koinu-Kun is doing? Do you still drink together?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 4, 2011)

Clayton said:


> You know what's also a cluster of living, evolving, growing cells? Fungus.
> 
> 
> Why are you capitalizing soul? What do you mean by "life"? Because a fungus is a cluster of growing, living cells just like an embryo [of any species] is. Would it be wrong to eat a mushroom?


 
A fungus doesn't have a soul. We do.


Deo said:


> What is the scientific or quantifiable nature of a soul? How is it measured or reliably defined?


 The soul is the very essence of our being. Its who we are.

You don't want the Biblical definition so I won't even bother with it.


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Sorry furriends, but this is my last post before I actually sleep.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> A fungus doesn't have a soul. We do.


How do you know? It's a living being. You do not have the power to decide if X has a soul and Y doesn't.


----------



## Eerie Silverfox (May 4, 2011)

70 percent of pregnancies in Russia end in abortion.
Just a fun fact for you.


----------



## Machine (May 4, 2011)

Clayton said:


> You do not have the power to decide if X has a soul and Y doesn't.


Yeah, he does. Because God tells him so.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 4, 2011)

Eerie Silverfox said:


> 70 percent of pregnancies in Russia end in abortion.
> Just a fun fact for you.


 
100% of all straight marriages worldwide end in either death or divorce, and there are six popes per square mile in the Vatican. Statistics are fun like that.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 4, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> 100% of all straight marriages worldwide end in either death or divorce, and there are six popes per square mile in the Vatican. Statistics are fun like that.



The average person has one boob.


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Eerie Silverfox said:


> 70 percent of pregnancies in Russia end in abortion.
> Just a fun fact for you.


 Cite your source.
Also are you aware of the terrible social system of Russia for it's unwanted children? Honestly if you learn about it you may say that the aborted are the lucky ones.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 4, 2011)

Moth said:


> So, you're saying it was ALL gay porn?
> 
> I am confuse.


 
Well, there were plenty of clean favorites, it's just the porn favorites were all gay, yes.


----------



## Machine (May 4, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Well, there were plenty of clean favorites, it's just the porn favorites were all gay, yes.


This makes me a very sad birdy. :[


----------



## 8-bit (May 4, 2011)

Deo said:


> What is the scientific or quantifiable nature of a soul? How is it measured or reliably defined?


 
According to that stupid DOOM movie, it's a part of the human genome we haven't mapped out. :V


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2011)

Hey let me remind you all that attacking a person for their person and not for what they say is not exactly good debate skills.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 4, 2011)

Moth said:


> This makes me a very sad birdy. :[


 
Sorry.  Why are you sad?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 4, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Well, there were plenty of clean favorites, it's just the porn favorites were all gay, yes.


 
Again with the lies. I won't deny I had a few of Blotches works in my favorites. But most of the porn I did have was straight. (which I didn't have much in porn to begin with).Which still is no excuse because all porn is bad. Hence why its all gone now and why my mature filter is on.

So, like Deo, shut your mouth with the blatant B.S Mojo.

Edit: Funny how this "discussion went from a "discussion" to a, lets talk crap about Rukh.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2011)

If I may bring something up. Many popular anti-abortion people say that life begins at conception. If this is the case why is it in the western world they don't start counting your age till you are actually birthed from the woman's womb? I mean you are born, and considered 1 day old a day after you are birthed. 1 year passes and you are one year old. Isn't this kind of contradictory? If you believe life begins at conception shouldn't you be at least half a year or 9 months old by the time you are finally born? Why isn't it counted?


----------



## Waffles (May 4, 2011)

Abortion. It should be up to the mothers. I'm totally pro-choice, because most of the lawmakers are just fartsy old white men. Even if they were careless, people don't look at the male, they look at the female. It's never "oh he didn't use a condom" it's "oh she was so unsafe!". Plus, abortions are a vital part for stem cell research (another debate in itself).


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 4, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> If I may bring something up. Many popular anti-abortion people say that life begins at conception. If this is the case why is it in the western world they don't start counting your age till you are actually birthed from the woman's womb? I mean you are born, and considered 1 day old a day after you are birthed. 1 year passes and you are one year old. Isn't this kind of contradictory? If you believe life begins at conception shouldn't you be at least half a year or 9 months old by the time you are finally born? Why isn't it counted?


 
Birthday: The day you were birthed... Not the day you were conceived.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Birthday: The day you were birthed... Not the day you were conceived.


I'm sorry but if you are considered alive the day the sperm and egg unite, what difference does it make between birthed and not birthed? What are you like half alive until you are born and then fully alive?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 4, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again with the lies. I won't deny I had a few of Blotches works in my favorites. But most of the porn I did have was straight. (which I didn't have much in porn to begin with).Which still is no excuse because all porn is bad. Hence why its all gone now and why my mature filter is on.
> 
> So, like Deo, shut your mouth with the blatant B.S Mojo.
> 
> Edit: Funny how this "discussion went from a "discussion" to a, lets talk crap about Rukh.


 
Sorry, I went through your gallery and that's all I remember seeing. You got called on it and took it down so it's not like you can back it up regardless. :V

No, because I haven't been B.Sing anyone with that. :V

And you might want to consider some introspection for that third one. :V


But seriously, let's get the discussion back on track. So you claim that a soul requires a brain to exist?


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Eerie Silverfox said:


> 70 percent of pregnancies in Russia end in abortion.
> Just a fun fact for you.


Here's a 215 page report on the terrible system in Russia of it's unwanted children who are instituionalized wards of the state. They are often abused, neglected, unloved, and have massive psychological trauma. Many suffer beatings, rape, and verbal abuse from the adults who are supposed to look after them as well as attacks from fellow children. 
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/reports98/russia2/

I somehow have a feeling that you won't sit down and read 215 pages on Russian abuse, so here's a synopsis for you: 
There are about 200,000 children live in state institutions in Russia. Beginning with infancy, orphans may be classified as disabled are segregated  into "lying down" rooms of the nation's 252 "baby houses," where they  are changed and fed but are bereft of stimulation and lacking in medical  care. Those who are labeled retarded or "oligophrenic" (small-brained),  face another grave and consequential violation of their rights around  the age of four. At that time, a state commission diagnoses them as  "ineducable," and warehouses them for life in "psycho-neurological  internats." After this diagnosis, it is virtually impossible for an  orphan to appeal the decision. According to official statistics, some  30,000 children are confined to these locked and isolated institutions,  which are little better than prisons. 
 The orphans may be restrained in cloth sacks, tethered to furniture,  denied stimulation and are sometimes left to lie half-naked in their own  filth. In both "baby houses" and "internats," children may be  administered powerful sedatives without medical orders.
 In a throwback to the abhorrent abuse in Soviet psychiatric  institutions, orphans and institution staff also told Human Rights Watch  of cases when children who tried to run away were sent to a psychiatric  hospital for punishment or treatment.
 Not only disabled orphans suffer violations of their rights in  Russian state orphanages, according to Human Rights Watch. Even 'normal'  abandoned children---whom the state evaluates as intellectually capable  of functioning on a higher level---may be beaten, locked in freezing  rooms for days at a time, or sexually abused.
 Public humiliation was one of the forms of punishment recorded by  Human Rights Watch in interviews with children from three different  regions of Russia. "The teacher would punish children by bringing  everyone into the classroom, and then making the ones who did something  wrong get undressed and stand in front of the open window when it was  very cold," according to an orphan interviewed in St. Petersburg.  "Several children would be stripped and have to stand like that while  the others had to watch...as a threat," the orphan said.
 Official statistics indicate that children have been abandoned to the  state at a rate of 113,000 for the past two years. This figure is up  dramatically from 67,286 in 1992.


Also, a video of a maternity hospital where babies mouths were taped shut to keep them from crying.
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=5500


----------



## Ozriel (May 4, 2011)

Deo said:


> Stuff



A friend of mine used to do missionary work at the Russian Orphanages...like building new building and things.
She said conditions in the orphanages were shitty compared to the orphanages we have here.

It is also to note that Some of the children, female children especially, get sold into sexual slavery when the Orphanages need money.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> A friend of mine used to do missionary work at the Russian Orphanages...like building new building and things.
> She said conditions in the orphanages were shitty compared to the orphanages we have here.
> 
> It is also to note that Some of the children, female children especially, get sold into sexual slavery when the Orphanages need money.


 
I remember that. Basically how well taken care of the facility is (the building's general shape) is what determines what money they get from the government. So even if they have many kids it doesn't matter. It's messed up.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 4, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> I remember that. Basically how well taken care of the facility is (the building's general shape) is what determines what money they get from the government. So even if they have many kids it doesn't matter. It's messed up.


 
This leads to the obvious cycle where an orphanage gets shorted one year, leading them to be unable to afford repairs the next, which means they get less the next year, leading to worse disrepair, which...


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> This leads to the obvious cycle where an orphanage gets shorted one year, leading them to be unable to afford repairs the next, which means they get less the next year, leading to worse disrepair, which...


 
Yep. It makes absolutely no sense. Personally I think that no one should touch the idea of abortion being wrong until we as collective touch the fundamental problems that exist in many orphanages throughout the world today. The problem is we have too many children that don't have homes and are unwanted. Not only that currently our system to take care of them is horrible. Until a time exists that this changes who cares how many would be children never get born due to abortion! Lets focus on the living first. Lets focus on a good solution for the unwanted children in the world before we even think about allowing a push for more unwanted children.

It bothers me how the people who are against abortion are also without any real thought to how to tackle the whole problem with our system for taking care of current unwanted kids. I guess it's easy though to care about the yet to be alive and say fuck it to the ones who are already alive.


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Birthday: The day you were birthed... Not the day you were conceived.


 Trp was talking about age.
Why, if life begins at conception, is the age not counted? Why when the baby is birthed, is that called day 1?

If a puppy is born, we call it a 1 day old puppy, we don't call it 64 days old [dogs gestation period is 63 days].. yet life begins at conception... so it would make sense to call a puppy a 64 day old puppy when it is born.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 4, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> Yep. It makes absolutely no sense. Personally I think that anyone should touch the idea of abortion being wrong until we as collective touch the fundamental problems that exist in many orphanages throughout the world today. The problem is we have too many children that don't have homes and are unwanted. Not only that currently our system to take care of them is horrible. Until a time exists that this changes who cares how many would be children never get born due to abortion! Lets focus on the living first. Lets focus on a good solution for the unwanted children in the world before we even think about allowing a push for more unwanted children.
> 
> It bothers me how the people who are against abortion are also without any real thought to how to tackle the whole problem with our system for taking care of current unwanted kids. I guess it's easy though to care about the yet to be alive and say fuck it to the ones who are already alive.


 
It's simple. For the "pro-life" people, It's never really been about the babies. It's about enforcing their own preconceptions about sex.

As Penn and Teller said - "Everyone is pro life and pro choice. It's for or against abortion that they're talking about."


----------



## Branch (May 4, 2011)

the children are our future.



UNLESS WE STOP THEM NOW.


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Pro-Lifers, what are you doing to help children who are wards of the state? Do you adopt? Do you foster? Do you mentor? Or do you yell at women over their choices and their bodies without regard to the lives that already exist and already suffer?


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Trp was talking about age.
> Why, if life begins at conception, is the age not counted? Why when the baby is birthed, is that called day 1?
> 
> If a puppy is born, we call it a 1 day old puppy, we don't call it 64 days old [dogs gestation period is 63 days].. yet life begins at conception... so it would make sense to call a puppy a 64 day old puppy when it is born.


 
I know in some countries they do count this, but in the western world they don't(for the most part). It's strange. I would expect people who feel that life starts at conception to count the days since conception, or at least from confirmed conception. Then I'd respect that they really do feel "life starts at conception" but that's just my own thinking here.


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Eerie Silverfox said:


> 70 percent of pregnancies in Russia end in abortion.
> Just a fun fact for you.


 Also I am still irked that you popped in, made up a statistic, and immediately ran off when you were called out on it.


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> I know in some countries they do count this, but in the western world they don't(for the most part). It's strange. I would expect people who feel that life starts at conception to count the days since conception, or at least from confirmed conception. Then I'd respect that they really do feel "life starts at conception" but that's just my own thinking here.


 I agree with you. I think it's nonsense. I think an embryo [a living clump of cells] http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~pine/book1qts/embryo-compare.jpg
Should be considered on the same level as a grown human. Look at it, it can't even think. It can't even dream. It just sits there sucking nutrients off the mother until it's old enough to develop thoughts and dreams and shit.



Deo said:


> Also I am still irked that you popped in, made up a statistic, and immediately ran off when you were called out on it.


 
I don't know how credible these sources are but I just found some after some Googly Moogly:
- http://www.monachos.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-3088.html
_"[...]three out of five pregnancies end in abortion. [...]Up to 70% of babies are murdered in many areas!
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/russia/ab-rusreg.html"_

- http://www.abortionhurts.blogspot.com/
_"[...]fight the decline in population resulting from the highest abortion rate in the world with nearly 70 percent of pregnancies ending in an abortion.[...]"_

http://www.pregnancyrussia.com/russia_abortion_statistics.html


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I don't know how credible these sources are but I just found some after some Googly Moogly:
> - http://www.monachos.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-3088.html
> _"[...]three out of five pregnancies end in abortion. [...]Up to 70% of babies are murdered in many areas!
> http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/russia/ab-rusreg.html"_
> ...


seeing that the one lists embryos and fetuses as "babies" and the other's URL is "abortion hurts" I'm going to have to say they are probably biased and those numbers are very very questionable.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I agree with you. I think it's nonsense. I think an embryo [a living clump of cells] http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~pine/book1qts/embryo-compare.jpg
> Should be considered on the same level as a grown human. Look at it, it can't even think. It can't even dream. It just sits there sucking nutrients off the mother until it's old enough to develop thoughts and dreams and shit.


 
I've always been of the opinion even though it's crude that a embryo for the beginning part of it's life is nothing more than an internal parasite. It has no real consciousness and no ability to think, or even feel at the beginning. So long as it is at that stage of unconsciousness it cannot be on par with a living human. So yeah I agree. It can't suffer. It can't even dream. If I had my text book I turned in I could churn out some disturbing statistics dealing with the real life suffering of already alive children put in shitty situations, deadly situations, situations where the majority of children live short, brutal, suffering lives and then meet very sad disturbing deaths. Then the ones still alive? Become prostitutes, or die violent deaths later on due to gang related activity.

I can't see how any sane actual caring person will simply shrug off the plight of living for the supposed plight of yet to be alive that will most likely join the plight of the living suffering soon to be dead that too many children grow up in. It is better to simply allow abortion and to encourage safer sex activities, and education world wide...so that we can lesson the amount of people born into suffering, and thus better handle the situation at hand.

Of course the people who tend to be against abortion also tend to be the ones against any form of working sexual education. Abstinence only and no abortion! Thanks a lot fuckwits for making situations like what you see in Africa several times worse.


----------



## Lobar (May 4, 2011)

Deo said:


> Also I am still irked that you popped in, made up a statistic, and immediately ran off when you were called out on it.


 
this is all Eerie Silverfox ever does btw, he will never actually defend anything once called out


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> I've always been of the opinion even though it's crude that a embryo for the beginning part of it's life is nothing more than an internal parasite. It has no real consciousness and no ability to think, or even feel at the beginning. So long as it is at that stage of unconsciousness it cannot be on par with a living human. So yeah I agree. It can't suffer. It can't even dream.


So basically, a tapeworm.


----------



## Shiryaju (May 4, 2011)

I'll throw my two cents in. 

I'm pro life, but I won't vote for or against abortion because what if the mother's life was in danger? That would be bad if she was going to die and couldn't do a single thing about it.

And well, I'd rather see people happy than miserable.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again with the lies. I won't deny I had a few of Blotches works in my favorites. But most of the porn I did have was straight. (which I didn't have much in porn to begin with).Which still is no excuse because all porn is bad. Hence why its all gone now and why my mature filter is on.



Please explain to me why porn is bad. I mean it doesn't hurt anyone.



> So, like Deo, shut your mouth with the blatant B.S Mojo.



Take a leaf out of your own book.



> Edit: Funny how this "discussion went from a "discussion" to a, lets talk crap about Rukh.



You should look at what you type sometimes.


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Deo said:


> seeing that the one lists embryos and fetuses as "babies" and the other's URL is "abortion hurts" I'm going to have to say they are probably biased and those numbers are very very questionable.


Hey I just copied the links, it don't mean I believe em


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 4, 2011)

Hey pro-lifers, that woman you prevented from having an abortion could have gone to university and studied medicine to find a cure for cancer.


----------



## CaptainCool (May 4, 2011)

in my opinion a woman should be allowed to abort the pregnancy. it can happen that you get pregnant by accident!
however, if she gets pregnant by accident AGAIN she shouldnt be allowed to


----------



## Schwimmwagen (May 4, 2011)

CaptainCool said:


> in my opinion a woman should be allowed to abort the pregnancy. it can happen that you get pregnant by accident!
> however, if she gets pregnant by accident AGAIN she shouldnt be allowed to


 
But what if she was raped twice and had to abort each time or she would die? I'd say it depends wholly on the circumstances.


----------



## Cain (May 4, 2011)

CaptainCool said:


> in my opinion a woman should be allowed to abort the pregnancy. it can happen that you get pregnant by accident!
> however, if she gets pregnant by accident AGAIN she shouldnt be allowed to


 
If she gets pregnant again, she shouldn't be allowed to abort?
There are so many things that are wrong in that statement.


----------



## RedSavage (May 4, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Hey pro-lifers, that woman you prevented from having an abortion could have gone to university and studied medicine to find a cure for cancer.


 
I'll play Devil's Advocate and say here that the baby that was not kept could have grown up, gone to a university, and found a cure for cancer, HIV aids, and herpes. 

You know. While we're taking our flights of fantasy and all.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Hey pro-lifers, that woman you prevented from having an abortion could have gone to university and studied medicine to find a cure for cancer.


 
That's a BS reason to abort. If a woman DOESN"T want a child, use contraceptives.


----------



## Cain (May 4, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> That's a BS reason to abort. If a woman DOESN"T want a child, use contraceptives.


 
You do realise they aren't 100% effective...


----------



## dinosaurdammit (May 4, 2011)

I was told my only chance of having a child was if I took "action" immediately. My husband and I agreed on having one child. There is no point in trying to add more children to the world. It is overpopulated as is. If we decide to have more I would love to adopt from a mother who does not want or cannot care for the child. 

I wish I could adopt every kid. I really do. I was in the system of foster care then was adopted. Foster care sucks and I know if its bad Russia is unthinkable. Rather than spawn more people should adopt.

On the topic of birth control, what if the age of puberty iud's or any contraceptive was given out freely. This would reduce unwanted pregnancies and save the government more money in the long run. And if on welfare provide medical education about birth control and provide care to insure that they won't have to go for an abortion. Skip getting pregnant with control. Should they get pregnant I suppose it is still up to them on what the next course of action is.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> You do realise they aren't 100% effective...



That is not an excuse NOT to use contraceptives. There are also more than one type of contraceptive and some can be used with others. The male could use a condom while the female takes the pill. There is no excuse.


----------



## Lobar (May 4, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> That's a BS reason to abort. If a woman DOESN"T want a child, use contraceptives.


 
_again_ implying that contraceptives are always readily available and never fail


But just stop with this whole "circumstances of conception" thing.  You know why?  Because it's wholly irrelevant to the matter of if you consider that ball of cells a person or not.  If you did believe in the personhood of an embryo, it wouldn't even make a difference if the woman was raped or not, we don't murder rapists' children as punishment.  

So if you're finding yourself arguing when a woman should and should not be able to get an abortion, stop, because you've already moved past the only relevant question.  Now you're just trying to institute a rule to punish women for what you perceive as sexual misbehavior, and in no sane nation is that ever a function of government.


----------



## Sai_Wolf (May 4, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> That is not an excuse NOT to use contraceptives. There are also more than one type of contraceptive and some can be used with others. The male could use a condom while the female takes the pill. There is no excuse.



Don't forget the "Morning After" pill too. Sex should not be withheld because "WELL WE DONT WANT BABY". That's a retarded notion. Passion is an integral part of any relationship, and sex for sex is just a part of us. Sex should not be confined to reproduction for straight couples, as they have options available to them (though I wish it were cheaper for the girls). To say "WELL JUST DONT HAVE SEX LOL" is utterly retarded.

Oh, right, abortion.

A woman has a right to choose what to do with her own body. I, however, feel uncomfortable if you move past a certain point in the pregnancy though. If you wait like 6 months then go OOPS I DONT WANT IT, I'd be opposed to aborting it. (Barring circumstance of course, say if the pregnancy would endanger the mother's life and they just found out, etc.)

If a woman's pregnancy is going to endanger her or her child, I believe she should have the right to choose what path she goes down (and at least talk with the father, if he's present, he gets a say too as it's half him in there.)


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2011)

Clayton said:


> So basically, a tapeworm.


 
And that part I would imagine makes lot of people uncomfortable. So they make up bs off the top of their heads that "life begins at conception" and put value on that life when it reality they don't give two shits about the living.



Sai_Wolf said:


> Don't forget the "Morning After" pill too. Sex should not be withheld because "WELL WE DONT WANT BABY". That's a retarded notion. Passion is an integral part of any relationship, and sex for sex is just a part of us. Sex should not be confined to reproduction for straight couples, as they have options available to them (though I wish it were cheaper for the girls). To say "WELL JUST DONT HAVE SEX LOL" is utterly retarded.


 
I would like to remind the two of you that not everyone actually can get access to such things. Not only that not everybody even gets proper education on how to use them should they have access. Go to places like Africa, and other third world countries and if a woman wants to use contraceptives A: She faces the possibility of being beaten, B: there is a high chance that contraceptions are unavailable and C: she's being lied to be catholic missionaries about the uselessness or the actual function of contraceptives.

It's not that easy to just scoff and tell women "just use contraceptives". Espeically when over half of America seems hell bent on Abstinence only education which also tends to be were lies and misinformation is spread about the usefulness of contracpetives not only in preventing conception but also helping to lesson the spread of Sexually transmitted disease. You also have groups currently with movements trying to make it so that a person can refuse to sell such things if it is against their religion. You also have people who can't afford it, and no one around them has programs to offer it to them for free. You can't tell people just don't have sex because when you are a hormone driven youth between your urges and your peers that's kind of hard to do.

People have sex. People just need to deal with it, expand on sexual education, promote the free and/or easy access of the basics when it comes to contraceptives, and who knows...just maybe we'll see less people getting abortions because they are properly educated and have access to birth control.


----------



## Sai_Wolf (May 4, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> And that part I would imagine makes lot of people uncomfortable. So they make up bs off the top of their heads that "life begins at conception" and put value on that life when it reality they don't give two shits about the living.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



(Lol. I clicked reply while you were merging your posts. Invalid thread go!)

And yes, I know full well that it's not available globally around the world. I fully agree with you, but I assumed that whole entire contraceptive argument up there was based in first world terms, and there are options available under that context. Yes, there are still some women and some couples that can't get a hold of birth control for whatever reason, and I think we should fix that. I think everyone should have the option.

So yes, more sex education and much easier access to contraceptives. Ultimately, I believe that a couple's passion shouldn't be hindered on if they want a baby or not, because that's just not fair to them.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2011)

Lobar said:


> _again_ implying that contraceptives are always readily available and never fail



Some contraceptives are readily available. Last time I checked condoms could be bought over the counter. :v

I also did not imply that they never fail, that is how you took what I said. I was just making a point that contraceptives are there to be used. Just because they can fail sometimes is no excuse NOT to use them.

If a female fell pregnant AND had used a contraceptive which had obviously failed, and still didn't want a baby then fine, go for an abortion. But to have sex without even trying the pill or a condom at the very least, falling pregnant, then wanting an abortion? Naa, doesn't wash as a good excuse to me.


----------



## Lobar (May 4, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Some contraceptives are readily available. Last time I checked condoms could be bought over the counter. :v
> 
> I also did not imply that they never fail, that is how you took what I said. I was just making a point that contraceptives are there to be used. Just because they can fail sometimes is no excuse NOT to use them.
> 
> If a female fell pregnant AND had used a contraceptive which had obviously failed, and still didn't want a baby then fine, go for an abortion. But to have sex without even trying the pill or a condom at the very least, falling pregnant, then wanting an abortion? Naa, doesn't wash as a good excuse to me.


 
well thanks for not addressing the main thrust of my post I guess


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2011)

Lobar said:


> well thanks for not addressing the main thrust of my post I guess



I may see some reasons as a BS reason, but it is still a woman's choice and I wont stand in the way. Remember, it is just my opinion.


----------



## Sai_Wolf (May 4, 2011)

Lobar said:


> addressing the main thrust of my post



I see what you did there.


----------



## Lobar (May 4, 2011)

Sai_Wolf said:


> I see what you did there.


 
unf unf unf *post*


----------



## dinosaurdammit (May 4, 2011)

Lobar said:


> unf unf unf *post*



harder lobar :V

Not enough unf


----------



## Lobar (May 4, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> harder lobar :V
> 
> Not enough unf


 
sorry i post a little early sometimes


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> I'll play Devil's Advocate and say here that the baby that was not kept could have grown up, gone to a university, and found a cure for cancer, HIV aids, and herpes.
> 
> You know. While we're taking our flights of fantasy and all.


 The whole point of the original was to counteract the usual Pro-Life mumbo-jumbo of "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT BABY WOULD DO" so your point is already well known Pro-Life rhetoric, what Hakar said was merely a means of refuting the idiocy of "what ifs" when it comes to serious debate on abortion.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (May 4, 2011)

Lobar said:


> sorry i post a little early sometimes



there is something that can fix that you know?
It is a miracle drug called faf.

Side effects include:
Dry mouth, irritability, confusion of ones gender, confusion over another's gender, skritching, wanting to yiff, urges to dress as an animal, posting on a forum regularly, constipation, anal seepage.


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> That is not an excuse NOT to use contraceptives. There are also more than one type of contraceptive and some can be used with others. The male could use a condom while the female takes the pill. There is no excuse.


 Contraceptives may not be readily available or too expensive for people to "double up on" as you suggest. The female pill is hugely expensive. Anyone who is even somewhat poor or lacks health insurance will have a horrible time being able to pay for the pill every month. The pill is about $60-80 a month without insurance. So for a year that is $720-960. And a woman is generally fertile for 35-40 or so years, the cost of the pill over a life time could be up to $40,300. For someone who is having financial troubles of simply feeding and housing themselves (and perhaps the children that they may already have) such a cost is absurd. And as we speak Legislature is being drafted against Planned Parenthood which is the largest provider of birth control to women who cannot afford it otherwise. What do you do then Randy? How do these women pay for pre-natal care? How do they afford a child? Especially when they cannot afford the pill?


----------



## Sai_Wolf (May 4, 2011)

Deo said:


> Contraceptives may not be readily available or too expensive for people to "double up on" as you suggest. The female pill is hugely expensive. Anyone who is even somewhat poor or lacks health insurance will have a horrible time being able to pay for the pill every month. The pill is about $60-80 a month without insurance. So for a year that is $720-960. And a woman is generally fertile for 35-40 or so years, the cost of the pill over a life time could be up to $40,300. For someone who is having financial troubles of simply feeding and housing themselves (and perhaps the children that they may already have) such a cost is absurd. And as we speak Legislature is being drafted against Planned Parenthood which is the largest provider of birth control to women who cannot afford it otherwise. What do you do then Randy? How do these women pay for pre-natal care? How do they afford a child? Especially when they cannot afford the pill?


 
Words cannot describe how angry I am over the whole STRIP PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF FUNDS crap going on up in DC.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (May 4, 2011)

Sai_Wolf said:


> Words cannot describe how angry I am over the whole STRIP PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF FUNDS crap going on up in DC.



look up "ever been so pissed you started swinging a cactus"


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Sai_Wolf said:


> Words cannot describe how angry I am over the whole STRIP PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF FUNDS crap going on up in DC.


 THEY DON'T USE GOVERNMENT MONEY TO FUND ABORTIONS, AND ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THEIR WORK IS ABORTIONS, BUT LET'S STOP THEM FROM HELPING WOMEN BECAUSE DA ABORTIONS.



dinosaurdammit said:


> look up "ever been so pissed you started swinging a cactus"


 I started swinging five, and they were on fire and covered in biting ants.


----------



## Shiryaju (May 4, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> That is not an excuse NOT to use contraceptives. There are also more than one type of contraceptive and some can be used with others. The male could use a condom while the female takes the pill. There is no excuse.



And to add to that, the male could use that condom, the female take the pill, and the female put spermicide in her vagina, that way, it is fool proof, I do believe that that could work to prevent pregnancy 100%. It's so easy too, or it seems.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (May 4, 2011)

Pitchforks covered in salt and rattle snakes, to DC! We march!


----------



## Mayfurr (May 4, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> On the topic of birth control, what if the age of puberty iud's or any contraceptive was given out freely. This would reduce unwanted pregnancies and save the government more money in the long run.


 
That is a pretty logical, reasonable and sensible approach, as it attempts to remove (some of) the reasons for abortion in the first place through contraception.

However, given that a significant chunk of the anti-abortion crowd also seem to be against any form of sex education that doesn't entirely consist of the word "Don't", view any person having sex outside of their narrow bands of morality as "sluts" and hold that any accidentally pregnant woman was "asking for it" (or "should have crossed her legs"), and insist on proclaiming that it's THEIR right to keep their children misinformed and/or ignorant of sexual matters, such a logical and sensible approach will sadly never take off.

"If you don't want abortions, make contraception free, legal, easy to use, and widely available to anyone who wants it."


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (May 4, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> That is a pretty logical, reasonable and sensible approach, as it attempts to remove (some of) the reasons for abortion in the first place through contraception.
> 
> However, given that a significant chunk of the anti-abortion crowd also seem to be against any form of sex education that doesn't entirely consist of the word "Don't", view any person having sex outside of their narrow bands of morality as "sluts" and hold that any accidentally pregnant woman was "asking for it" (or "should have crossed her legs"), and insist on proclaiming that it's THEIR right to keep their children misinformed and/or ignorant of sexual matters, such a logical and sensible approach will sadly never take off.
> 
> "If you don't want abortions, make contraception free, legal, easy to use, and widely available to anyone who wants it."


 
Speaking of cutting assistance to free contraception and women's health: Hi from Texas! But hey, at least you can get a "Choose Life License Plate." America liek being a third world country!


----------



## Sai_Wolf (May 4, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> However, given that a significant chunk of the anti-abortion crowd also seem to be against any form of sex education that doesn't entirely consist of the word "Don't", view any person having sex outside of their narrow bands of morality as "sluts" and hold that any accidentally pregnant woman was "asking for it" (or "should have crossed her legs"), and insist on proclaiming that it's THEIR right to keep their children misinformed and/or ignorant of sexual matters, such a logical and sensible approach will sadly never take off.
> 
> "If you don't want abortions, make contraception free, legal, easy to use, and widely available to anyone who wants it."



I love how people find those who, despite taking measures and doing all that can but wind up pregnant anyways, to be 'asking for it'. What really pisses me off when I hear assholes say that rape victims (male OR female) were just asking for it anyway (Just look at that slutty clothing!). 

And Jesus loves baabies, Mayfurr. Don't forget.



ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> Speaking of cutting assistance to free  contraception and women's health:  Hi  from Texas! But hey, at least you can  get  a "Choose Life License Plate." America liek being a third world  country!


 
"Proceeds from the specialty plates would be used to promote adoption as  an alternative to abortion and flow into a "choose life" account  supervised by the state attorney general, the newspaper reported."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.

HA.

Ha...

Wow. Yeah, that'll only get used for clothing and necessities. If you count legislature coke addiction to be one of those.


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Shiryaju said:


> And to add to that, the male could use that condom, the female take the pill, and the female put spermicide in her vagina, that way, it is fool proof, I do believe that that could work to prevent pregnancy 100%. It's so easy too, or it seems.


Seems would be the key word there.
 There is still availability and cost. (As mentioned above in context to the pill). And often people in times of passion rush using these and they are used improperly, like a spermicide must be inserted roughly 30 minutes before sex. How many usual people plan out their day as "Oh at 6pm I am going to have sex with John Doe. I must remember that at 5:30 I need to put in my spermicide, and at 5:50 we put on his condom. And then at 6pm we may commence the sexual things." Sex is often a current moment of passion thing, and not generally as "preplanned". People also sometimes get clumsy in the rush and heat of the moment, which is a reason condoms are sometimes not applied correctly and fail. Or younger people having sex don't feel that they can ask for/get spermicides or the pill. And I am positive that a rape victim isn't going, "hey can you wait 30 minutes before raping me for the spermicide to work? And please where a condom while you brutalize me?" Then there is the fact that some people have latex allergies, and some people are allergic to spermicides, and the pill has a whole host of side effects like heart disease and cancer.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (May 4, 2011)

Sai_Wolf said:


> "Proceeds from the specialty plates would be used to promote adoption as  an alternative to abortion and flow into a "choose life" account  supervised by the state attorney general, the newspaper reported."
> 
> AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.
> 
> ...


 
Hold that thought:

 IT GET'S BETTER 

That's right, the assembly wouldn't allow an amendment that would ban lobbyists from serving on the advisory committee intended to help the AG distribute funding. Another money pit our fucking pig of a governor and his crooked appointees can fill with stolen money from Texans and appoint political allies to. How cool is that? B)


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> Speaking of cutting assistance to free contraception and women's health: Hi from Texas!


 AFFILIATES? OH GOD. 
WITCH HUNT! WITCH HUNT! 
They _don't give abortions_ but they *may be affiliated* with Planned Parenthood so they need to be stopped. 
What the motherfucking fuck fucking fuckers. 
We're now just going to set fire to any institution or charity trying to help women get contraceptives? Fuck. This mentality goes beyond protecting "babies" this is purely about keeping women from having life choices and keeping them from having/enjoying sex. And you know who is a major target of such things? Not the wealthy who can continue to afford contraceptives when these programs are killed, but the poor and minorities. GREAT. Let's just make the gap between the wealthy and the poor larger, and extend it to sexuality, body choices, and women's health care.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2011)

Deo said:


> Contraceptives may not be readily available or too expensive for people to "double up on" as you suggest. The female pill is hugely expensive. Anyone who is even somewhat poor or lacks health insurance will have a horrible time being able to pay for the pill every month. The pill is about $60-80 a month without insurance. So for a year that is $720-960. And a woman is generally fertile for 35-40 or so years, the cost of the pill over a life time could be up to $40,300. For someone who is having financial troubles of simply feeding and housing themselves (and perhaps the children that they may already have) such a cost is absurd. And as we speak Legislature is being drafted against Planned Parenthood which is the largest provider of birth control to women who cannot afford it otherwise. What do you do then Randy? How do these women pay for pre-natal care? How do they afford a child? Especially when they cannot afford the pill?



This where I feel very lucky to live in England which has the NHS healthcare system. If you are not in work and claiming welfare, medication is free. So a girl can go to her doctor, explain the situation and 9 times out of ten the doctor will prescribe her the "pill". However, I do realize that condoms are hugely expensive.

I'd like to make a point here too, If they can't afford health care and can't afford contraceptives, how can they afford an abortion then? They can't. They don't have any option but to carry the child. In the UK, cost isn't an issue, apart from the friggin condoms that cost an arm and a leg.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (May 4, 2011)

The pill can also fuck up your body in other cruel ways. My left ovulation organ is dead because of a cyst caused by yaz, not to mention the blood clots I got and now I am facing regular treatments to make sure I don't have enderometriosis or however its spelled. I know contraceptives are available but they are also a lot of trial and error. Some may work for some women or cause irreversible damage to others.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (May 4, 2011)

Deo said:


> AFFILIATES? OH GOD.
> WITCH HUNT! WITCH HUNT!
> They _don't give abortions_ but they *may be affiliated* with Planned Parenthood so they need to be stopped.
> What the motherfucking fuck fucking fuckers.
> We're now just going to set fire to any institution or charity trying to help women get contraceptives? Fuck. This mentality goes beyond protecting "babies" this is purely about keeping women from having life choices and keeping them from having/enjoying sex. And you know who is a major target of such things? Not the wealthy who can continue to afford contraceptives when these programs are killed, but the poor and minorities. GREAT. Let's just make the gap between the wealthy and the poor larger, and extend it to sexuality, body choices, and women's health care.


 
Need a huge pool of poor saps in order to keep labor costs down so the bottom feeders eat each other for pennies on the dollar. Just gotta dangle a golden carrot in front of them by turning one poor sap into a rich one to keep them thinking they're the reason they can't get ahead in life. Ludicrous and conspiratorial but god if I didn't feel that way sometimes.


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> The pill can also fuck up your body in other cruel ways. My left ovulation organ is dead because of a cyst caused by yaz, not to mention the blood clots I got and now I am facing regular treatments to make sure I don't have enderometriosis or however its spelled. I know contraceptives are available but they are also a lot of trial and error. Some may work for some women or cause irreversible damage to others.


 I heard about YAZ, scary stuff there. Personally I do not find the health risks to outweigh the benefits. I don't want cancer, or to have a stroke, or blood clots, or cysts, or many of the other terrible things that artificial hormones can do to damage the human body. Guys, you bastards are so lucky that society doesn't pressure you to take medication that could kill you or leave your internal organs fucked up and your internal sex organs damaged. 
WHY DUN SHE TAKE DA PILL? IT HER FAULT.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2011)

Deo said:


> I heard about YAZ, scary stuff there. Personally I do not find the health risks to outweigh the benefits. I don't want cancer, or to have a stroke, or blood clots, or cysts, or many of the other terrible things that artificial hormones can do to damage the human body. Guys, you bastards are so lucky that society doesn't pressure you to take medication that could kill you or leave your internal organs fucked up and your internal sex organs damaged.
> WHY DUN SHE TAKE DA PILL? IT HER FAULT.



Takes two to tango. The man should use his head and cover it up. Also, I was not aware of these side affects of the pill.


----------



## Heimdal (May 4, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Takes two to tango. The man should use his head and cover it up. Also, I was not aware of these side affects of the pill.


 
Can't use both heads at once. All the blood goes to the lower one.


----------



## Xenke (May 4, 2011)

You know, as much as people like to say "use contraceptives", it really doesn't help with the issue:

I am pregnant and cannot have this child, what do I do?

Yes, do what you can to not end up there, but don't cut off people's options once they are already there.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> Can't use both heads at once. All the blood goes to the lower one.



Well, they do say "Two heads are better than one" XD


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Takes two to tango. The man should use his head and cover it up. Also, I was not aware of these side affects of the pill.


 Yes, but you're still arguing for the woman to suffer health risks and the man to... well not suffer anything and not undergo any risk by still demanding a "double up" on contraceptive. I'm not saying to not use the pill, or not use the pill in conjunction with other contraceptives, just be aware that when you demand women use the pill you are demanding that they put their lives and bodies at risk.


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Well, they do say "Two heads are better than one" XD


 Mmmm put your head in my vagina and lick my embryo brewing in my belly



Deo said:


> Yes, but you're still arguing for the woman to suffer health risks and the man to... well not suffer anything and not undergo any risk by still demanding a "double up" on contraceptive. I'm not saying to not use the pill, or not use the pill in conjunction with other contraceptives, just be aware that when you demand women use the pill you are demanding that they put their lives and bodies at risk.


I believe a man and a woman should both use contraceptives [whatever they may be] if they don't plan on having a child, but it's unfair to say "NO! MEN SHOULD WRAP THAT SHIT UP! I DON'T WANNA TAKE A PILL!". Women need to use some sort of contraceptive as well, whether it be something you stick in your cooter or a pill or whatever. & not all women have side effects to pills, so it's very unfair to say "DON'T TELL WOMEN TO DOUBLE UP PROTECTION!!" when men have only ONE contraceptive, and if that fails.. you're screwed.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2011)

Deo said:


> Yes, but you're still arguing for the woman to suffer health risks and the man to... well not suffer anything and not undergo any risk by still demanding a "double up" on contraceptive. I'm not saying to not use the pill, or not use the pill in conjunction with other contraceptives, just be aware that when you demand women use the pill you are demanding that they put their lives and bodies at risk.


 
Well, I was, until I just found out about those side affects. Now I don't think it is such a good idea. Though it does explain why some doctors are not keen on giving them out, particularly to teens.


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I believe a man and a woman should both use contraceptives [whatever they may be] if they don't plan on having a child, but it's unfair to say "NO! MEN SHOULD WRAP THAT SHIT UP! I DON'T WANNA TAKE A PILL!". Women need to use some sort of contraceptive as well, whether it be something you stick in your cooter or a pill or whatever. & not all women have side effects to pills, so it's very unfair to say "DON'T TELL WOMEN TO DOUBLE UP PROTECTION!!" when men have only ONE contraceptive, and if that fails.. you're screwed.


 All I am saying is that people should be cognizant of the risks. I do think people should have the pill, and I think it should be made more readily available especially for low income couples. All I am saying is that men and women should be aware of the risks. And, if you read, I did say I supported using multiple modes of contraceptive when available/possible/affordable.


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Deo said:


> All I am saying is that people should be cognizant of the risks. I do think people should have the pill, and I think it should be made more readily available especially for low income couples. All I am saying is that men and women should be aware of the risks. And, if you read, I did say I supported using multiple modes of contraceptive when available/possible/affordable.


 I read your post I quoted. I read it as "women sometimes have side-effects to the pill and men don't have side-effects to the condom, it's unfair to tell a woman to double up [take the pill] because sometimes they have reactions to it"


----------



## Thatch (May 4, 2011)

Deo said:


> Guys, you bastards are so lucky that society doesn't pressure you to take medication that could kill you or leave your internal organs fucked up and your internal sex organs damaged.


 
Ever heard of a diaphragm?

And if your society pressures women into taking the pill... Well, once again, you have a seriously fucked up society. Nothing new.

But then again, you can have sex in ways that do not need contraceptives, or not have it at all. It's not like someone's making you take a guy in your cooter.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Mmmm put your head in my vagina and lick my embryo brewing in my belly
> 
> 
> I believe a man and a woman should both use contraceptives [whatever they may be] if they don't plan on having a child, but it's unfair to say "NO! MEN SHOULD WRAP THAT SHIT UP! I DON'T WANNA TAKE A PILL!". Women need to use some sort of contraceptive as well, whether it be something you stick in your cooter or a pill or whatever. & not all women have side effects to pills, so it's very unfair to say "DON'T TELL WOMEN TO DOUBLE UP PROTECTION!!" when men have only ONE contraceptive, and if that fails.. you're screwed.



This is why I used the phrase "It takes two to tango" Imo, when it comes to contraceptives both are as responsible for using them as the other. However if the pill does cause these side affects, then I am not surprised women don't like using them. We as men are lucky, all we have to do is put a cover on it.



Clayton said:


> I read your post I quoted. I read it as "women  sometimes have side-effects to the pill and men don't have side-effects  to the condom, it's unfair to tell a woman to double up [take the pill]  because sometimes they have reactions to it"



I know a girl who has used the pill for years and as far as I am aware has never had any side affects. Could just be the brand of pill.


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> This is why I used the phrase "It takes two to tango" Imo, when it comes to contraceptives both are as responsible for using them as the other. However if the pill does cause these side affects, then I am not surprised women don't like using them. We as men are lucky, all we have to do is put a cover on it.
> 
> 
> 
> I know a girl who has used the pill for years and as far as I am aware has never had any side affects. Could just be the brand of pill.


 When it comes to contraceptives/pregnancy, women are in total control. Men have one form of contraceptive and if a woman chooses not to take one [even if the male is wearing one], she is in control.

& I've known a girl who used the pill and didn't have side effects


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2011)

Clayton said:


> When it comes to contraceptives/pregnancy, women are in total control. Men have one form of contraceptive and if a woman chooses not to take one [even if the male is wearing one], she is in control.
> 
> & I've known a girl who used the pill and didn't have side effects



You forget that men can have the snip.


----------



## CaptainCool (May 4, 2011)

Gibby said:


> But what if she was raped twice and had to abort each time or she would die? I'd say it depends wholly on the circumstances.


 
of course. thats a whole different story in my opinion!



Jagged Edge said:


> If she gets pregnant again, she shouldn't be allowed to abort?
> There are so many things that are wrong in that statement.


 
read again. women who got pregnant by ACCIDENT. something like that can happen (forgetting to use a pill or something like that). however, if you get pregnant a second time because of your own stupidity you should keep the child


----------



## Thatch (May 4, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> You forget that men can have the snip.


 
Men can get a vasectomy, women can get their tubes tied. Men have comdoms, women have diaphragms. 

AND women have pills.

There's also all the sexual acts that do not include ejaculating in a woman's vagina.


Seriously, who was the bright person to include "contraception fails" as a pro-abortion argument? Because it's unbelievably inane. It stops being a matter of "pro-choice" and starts being "pro-stupidity".


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> You forget that men can have the snip.


 http://adam.about.net/reports/Birth-control-options-for-women.htm

& that don't always work. My dad either.. got a vasectomy or my mom got her tubes tied.. idk which, and they forgot that they couldn't have sex for a while after the surgery and 9 months later my bro popped out


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2011)

Clayton said:


> http://adam.about.net/reports/Birth-control-options-for-women.htm
> 
> & that don't always work. My dad either.. got a vasectomy or my mom got her tubes tied.. idk which, and they forgot that they couldn't have sex for a while after the surgery and 9 months later my bro popped out



Well, that wasn't a fact of the operation failing, that was the fault of your parents for forgetting not to have sex for awhile after the operation. So it does work, providing people actually listen to the doctors.


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I know a girl who has used the pill for years and as far as I am aware has never had any side affects. Could just be the brand of pill.


 Most women do not have side affects. Or if they do, the sideeffects are generally mild things like bloating, weight gain, spotting, cramping, head aches, or fatigue. It is very unusual for death, stroke, cancer, or blood clots to result from using the pill.


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Deo said:


> Most women do not have side affects. Or if they do, the sideeffects are generally mild things like bloating, weight gain, spotting, cramping, head aches, or fatigue. It is very unusual for death, stroke, cancer, or blood clots to result from using the pill.


 So why are you freaking out at the suggestion of the pill


----------



## Tewin Follow (May 4, 2011)

Would you believe Gaia Online's Extended Discusion board used to have decent abortion discussion threads?


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

And Clayton, I'm sorry if I was unclear earlier.

Also as for the whole "women have more choices" in contraceptions I think we had a thread on this before. Let me see if I can dig it up.


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Clayton said:


> So why are you freaking out at the suggestion of the pill


 I'm not freaking, I'm just informing. There are side effects with it, and those have the potential to be very risky. That is a fact that people should know. 
Before you advocate or take any drug you should be fully informed of the effects and side effects, just sayin'. 
And a lot of men don't know about the side effects since your doctors don't generally go through that list with you as they prescribe the pill for you. :V


----------



## Mentova (May 4, 2011)

Harebelle said:


> Would you believe Gaia Online's Extended Discusion board used to have decent abortion discussion threads?


 No.

I cannot believe that any decent discussions would ever go on at Gaia's forum.


----------



## Ozriel (May 4, 2011)

Clayton said:


> When it comes to contraceptives/pregnancy, women are in total control. Men have one form of contraceptive and if a woman chooses not to take one [even if the male is wearing one], she is in control.
> 
> & I've known a girl who used the pill and didn't have side effects


 

You forget that contraception is not 100% full-proof. There will always be accidents.

EDIT: Thank you for the sexism. I missed it so much. :V


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Hey Clayton, the whole "women have more options because they have the pill" was pretty thoroughly discussed here: http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/94222-RANT-Male-reproductive-options.


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Deo said:


> And a lot of men don't know about the side effects since your doctors don't generally go through that list with you as they prescribe the pill for you. :V


If your doctor is prescribing the pill to your boyfriend, I suggest getting a new doctor.



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> You forget that contraception is not 100% full-proof. There will always be accidents.
> 
> EDIT: Thank you for the sexism. I missed it so much. :V


 I don't forget that, I know that. So why not get on the pill and the guy wears the condom too?
How is that sexism? Was watching Tyra show & she had a whole episode on contraceptives, and she said that herself.

You're too damn sensitive.



Deo said:


> Hey Clayton, the whole "women have more options because they have the pill" was pretty thoroughly discussed here: http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/94222-RANT-Male-reproductive-options.


 I know, I posted in it.


----------



## Mentova (May 4, 2011)

Clayton said:


> If your doctor is prescribing the pill to your boyfriend, I suggest getting a new doctor.


 I don't think that was the point she was making. :|


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> I don't think that was the point she was making. :|


 It was me making a funny
Hhahah look at me I'm a jokester


----------



## Deo (May 4, 2011)

Also I realize that my previous post on the price of birth control was wrong. Forgive me my error. Birth control with insurance or from PP is $35-80. Without insurance is can be up to $130. I am sorry for my mistake.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2011)

Perhaps it would be better to say that all avenues should be explored before decisions are made? Here, consultations with your doctor are free (again because of the NHS system) well, I say free, it isn't really, our taxes cover it all. We basically pay for our health care through our taxes, which is handy as we then don't have the worry about buying health insurance.

Anyway as I was saying before I sidetracked myself, it is free here to see your doctor, so maybe couples who don't want children should consult their GP for advice on the best or more appropriate contraceptives they should use?

I'm fairly certain a vasectomy can be reversed, so that could be an option for a male to take.


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Deo said:


> Also I realize that my previous post on the price of birth control was wrong. Forgive me my error. Birth control with insurance or from PP is $35-80. Without insurance is can be up to $130. I am sorry for my mistake.


 I don't think so. I had a friend on b/c without insurance and it cost around $30 for a pack of lil pills


----------



## Mentova (May 4, 2011)

Clayton said:


> It was me making a funny
> Hhahah look at me I'm a jokester


 oh.

Derp.


Deo said:


> Also I realize that my previous post on the price of birth control was wrong. Forgive me my error. Birth control with insurance or from PP is $35-80. Without insurance is can be up to $130. I am sorry for my mistake.


 Yes how dare you make that mistake I will never speak to you again vile woman. :V


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Perhaps it would be better to say that all avenues should be explored before decisions are made? Here, consultations with your doctor are free (again because of the NHS system) well, I say free, it isn't really, our taxes cover it all. We basically pay for our health care through our taxes, which is handy as we then don't have the worry about buying health insurance.
> 
> Anyway as I was saying before I sidetracked myself, it is free here to see your doctor, so maybe couples who don't want children should consult their GP for advice on the best or more appropriate contraceptives they should use?
> 
> I'm fairly certain a vasectomy can be reversed, so that could be an option for a male to take.


 I agree w/ your post, and yeah vasectomies can be reversed but it's hard.
You can see how thin that tube is if you google image search "reverse vasectomy". I can't link it here though cause it's NSFW


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I agree w/ your post, and yeah vasectomies can be reversed but it's hard.
> You can see how thin that tube is if you google image search "reverse vasectomy". I can't link it here though cause it's NSFW



As Zeke said, accidents do happen. In which case an abortion should be an option.


----------



## Volkodav (May 4, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> As Zeke said, accidents do happen. In which case an abortion should be an option.


 ...Yes Randy, and I agree. I think abortion should always be an option because I'm pro-choice.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> As Zeke said, accidents do happen. In which case an abortion should be an option.


 
Abortion should always be an option regardless of if it was an accident or not. Not directed to you specifically but to anyone who might think of placing restrictions so that you can't get an abortion unless you are raped or the pill didn't work or something similar...What? Going to expect people to "prove" it was an accident? Good luck with that.


----------



## Spatel (May 5, 2011)

Vasectomies are hard to reverse. The time of your life you plan to be most sexually active generally precedes the time you plan to have kids. I'd like to see a quicker push to get this form of contraceptive working in the near future. I can't see any downsides to it. You choose when the bus service runs, and when it closes, and there would be no chemical side-effects.


----------



## CannotWait (May 5, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Vasectomies are hard to reverse. The time of your life you plan to be most sexually active generally precedes the time you plan to have kids. I'd like to see a quicker push to get this form of contraceptive working in the near future. I can't see any downsides to it. You choose when the bus service runs, and when it closes, and there would be no chemical side-effects.


 
That's actually very interesting... despite the fact you're fucking with people's bodies.


----------



## Deo (May 5, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> That's actually very interesting... despite the fact you're fucking with people's bodies.


 Which IUDs and the pill don't? Seriously?

Spatel that looks neat and I hope it works.


----------



## Spatel (May 5, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> That's actually very interesting... despite the fact you're fucking with people's bodies.


 It's not terribly invasive compared to some of the things women go  through to avoid pregnancy. Really, some men bitch too much about taking  care of their bodies, and then they bitch that they don't get enough control over the process. Well... here it is. Complete control.

I'd sign up in a heartbeat, as long as *I* get a remote, and the doctor gets a spare.


----------



## foxmusk (May 5, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> sometimes you have to wonder who the child of a rapist and a twelve year old girl would turn out to be.


 
Yea, but you have to think about other what-ifs too. What if this child grows up to be a juvenile delinquent? What if this child grows up to be a rapist as well?

What if this child grows up to cure cancer? Then s/he is nonexistant proof that humans can cure cancer. Someone else will do it. That's like saying "Well what if the next egg i get out of the machine has money inside of it instead of a sticker?" So be it. you may still just get a sticker.

The other problems need to be taken into consideration as well.

"Well, why not just adoption? There's always adoption."
Well, see, the problem with that is that there are still children currently alive not getting adopted. You don't need to put another child in a home where they will NEVER know their birth parents and maybe even never get adopted. It's not someone else's place to force a child into a shit life because they think it has a chance to have a good life! This is nothing to gamble about. The child may also stay/get adopted into an abusive and uncaring family. Then what did that chance get? A ruined life.

Not calling you though, homes. sorry if it seems that way.


----------



## Lobar (May 5, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Vasectomies are hard to reverse. The time of your life you plan to be most sexually active generally precedes the time you plan to have kids. I'd like to see a quicker push to get this form of contraceptive working in the near future. I can't see any downsides to it. You choose when the bus service runs, and when it closes, and there would be no chemical side-effects.


 


			
				The article said:
			
		

> One potential problem, however, is that after a while the valve may clog with protein and remain shut, rendering the man permanently infertile.



*hurk*


----------



## Xenke (May 5, 2011)

Lobar said:


> *hurk*


 
It's GENIUS.

Radio receivers in my balls, I like it.


----------



## Waffles (May 5, 2011)

Spatel said:


> It's not terribly invasive compared to some of the things women go  through to avoid pregnancy. Really, some men bitch too much about taking  care of their bodies, and then they bitch that they don't get enough control over the process. Well... here it is. Complete control.
> 
> I'd sign up in a heartbeat, as long as *I* get a remote, and the doctor gets a spare.


 
But the article said, it might get clogged with proteins, rendering you permanently infertile. So don't get it unless you wanted a vascectomy anyways.


----------



## GoldenJackal (May 5, 2011)

I'm pro-choice in extreme cases but mostly pro-life. If it's not your fault that you're pregnant (rape, faulty condom and live in an environment that's horrible for a child, the child has a 99% chance of being retarded) then I can sympathize. However, if it's totally your fault that you got knocked up, fuck you. It's not your future life that's on the line, bitch.


----------



## Xenke (May 5, 2011)

GoldenJackal said:


> I'm pro-choice in extreme cases but mostly pro-life. If it's not your fault that you're pregnant (rape, faulty condom and horrible for a child, the child has a 99% chance of being retarded) then I can sympathize. However, if it's totally your fault that you got knocked up, fuck you. *It's not your future life that's on the line, bitch.*


 
Uhh.

I'm guessing having a child is an insignificant chore in life then. Because having a child don't require any effort, or money, or risk, etc.

I think the woman's future life has more influence than the future life of some hypothetical child.


----------



## GoldenJackal (May 5, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Uhh.
> 
> I'm guessing having a child is an insignificant chore in life then. Because having a child don't require any effort, or money, or risk, etc.
> 
> I think the woman's future life has more influence than the future life of some hypothetical child.



Hypothetical? If someone is pregnant, and abortion or a freak accident doesn't occur, than there's a baby and thus life.


----------



## foxmusk (May 5, 2011)

GoldenJackal said:


> Hypothetical? If someone is pregnant, and abortion or a freak accident doesn't occur, than there's a baby and thus life.


 
a baby that will be born into an uncaring/unresponsible shit life. YEA BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD WANT IF IT COULD TALK.


----------



## Xenke (May 5, 2011)

GoldenJackal said:


> Hypothetical? If someone is pregnant, and abortion or a freak accident doesn't occur, than there's a baby and thus life.


 
Ah, but see, it's not a baby yet.

People like to make up these stories of what this _thing_ will grow up to do someday, like curing cancer or inventing quantum computing, but in truth it's highly unlikely it'll ever come close to achieving anything like that.

Hence why I side with the woman who already has a life. If she wishes to not be burdened with a child in her ALREADY begun and progressing life, than I believe she should be able to do so regardless of her circumstances. She herself may not achieve something great, but she's already been brought into the world and should live it as she pleases.

Y'know, instead of having other people make laws to protect people who aren't even people and who don't have faces/genders/names/eyes/memories/voices/emotions. I think a person who already exists, in a world with too many people as is, takes precedent over clumps of cells.


----------



## GoldenJackal (May 5, 2011)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> a baby that will be born into an uncaring/unresponsible shit life. YEA BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD WANT IF IT COULD TALK.



Adoption does not equal a shit life.


----------



## GoldenJackal (May 5, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Ah, but see, it's not a baby yet.
> 
> People like to make up these stories of what this _thing_ will grow up to do someday, like curing cancer or inventing quantum computing, but in truth it's highly unlikely it'll ever come close to achieving anything like that.
> 
> ...



I don't really care if it grows up to be Einstein Jr. If it is happy making soda can art out of it's trailer, than it's still a future life. Pregnancy = babies provided nothing gets in the way. Adoption is almost always the better choice.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 5, 2011)

GoldenJackal said:


> Adoption does not equal a shit life.


 
For so many children out there it does.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (May 5, 2011)

GoldenJackal said:


> Adoption does not equal a shit life.



well not according to some people...


----------



## foxmusk (May 5, 2011)

GoldenJackal said:


> Adoption does not equal a shit life.


 
It may very well. You know, regarding that a family can stop caring, they may never know their biological parents, they may have it sprung on them 18 years later that they're adopted.

Or, you know, not get adopted at all. That's always a pleasant experience. You know, rather than just not ever knowing suffering or loneliness or being unwanted.


----------



## Xenke (May 5, 2011)

GoldenJackal said:


> Adoption does not equal a shit life.


 
You know, I really don't like this as the alternative abortions, especially when people who say that the women who need them are most likely sluts who couldn't use protection.

Because, what fails to be taken into account, is that these slutty women will keep popping out babies and giving them up for adoption, because they can't have an abortion, and then... oh, yes, right, agencies get clogged up and fucked up.

Of course, I'm not taking into account the current amount of given up babies, the current state of adoption agencies, nor how many women are giving up their children instead of terminating, but you get the picture.

How about we just not have unwanted babies, mmm'k?



GoldenJackal said:


> I don't really care if it grows up to be Einstein Jr. If it is happy making soda can art out of it's trailer, than it's still a future life. Pregnancy = babies provided nothing gets in the way. Adoption is almost always the better choice.


 
Except for when it's not. Not being wanted by a biological parent has a very striking psychological impression.

And pregnancy doesn't always lead to baby. Complications and such.


----------



## GoldenJackal (May 5, 2011)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> It may very well. You know, regarding that a family can stop caring, they may never know their biological parents, they may have it sprung on them 18 years later that they're adopted.
> 
> Or, you know, not get adopted at all. That's always a pleasant experience. You know, rather than just not ever knowing suffering or loneliness or being unwanted.



My roommate was adopted and he had some horrible experiences afterward but he is relatively happy now. He could have been aborted but his parents chose to throw him away instead. If they hadn't, he wouldn't be around. He is my ex boyfriend and current friend. He is adamantly against abortion. A life is beautiful and scars do heal given the right environment and time.


----------



## Xenke (May 5, 2011)

GoldenJackal said:


> He could have been aborted *but his parents chose* to throw him away instead.


 
KEY WORDS.

KEY. FUCKING. WORDS.

His parents *chose* to give him up for adoption. Some parents would chose to abort.

What you're saying is that any woman who has become pregnant should have to carry the pregnancy because you personally think that it can grow to be a good person.

Why can't people have _the choice_?


----------



## Vaelarsa (May 5, 2011)

What have I been doing the past week, watching Red Box movies and not answering this thread?

Stupid, stupid me.

Anyway, totally in favor of it.
If it costs that much, fucks up my health and could permanently cause problems, leeches off me, and I didn't want it in the first place _(Say what you will of sex being "consent to pregnancy." I say that argument is pure fucking bullshit, because sex is a pleasurable urge that we have plenty of methods to try to, and not always successfully, avoid the reproduction aspect involved. And sex is not always / generally in the aim of reproduction.)_, then I'm treating it like an organism invasion, not unlike a virus.

What's the point of putting an unwanted child into the world, when we as a species, have almost no qualms with killing millions of other things for our own personal benefit?
Tell me how "pro-life" you are when you shove some steak in your mouth, or get rid of the living bacteria on your skin.


----------



## GoldenJackal (May 5, 2011)

Xenke said:


> What you're saying is that any woman who has become pregnant should have to carry the pregnancy because you personally think that it can grow to be a good person.
> 
> Why can't people have _the choice_?



I never said that. I was simply saying that there are better options in all but extreme circumstances. You can chose to shoot your dog in the head and the dog wouldn't know any better... Don't shoot your dog in the head.


----------



## CannonFodder (May 5, 2011)

My personal opinion is if we ever see a commercial going, "Come to abortion-mart, now with drive through abortions.  75% off this mother's day", then we crossed the line by alot.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 5, 2011)

GoldenJackal said:


> I never said that. I was simply saying that there are better options in all but extreme circumstances. You can chose to shoot your dog in the head and the dog wouldn't know any better... Don't shoot your dog in the head.


 
That was a terrible analogy. It was bad and you should feel bad. I've got a great idea, how about people just lay off telling other people what to do and not to do when it comes to something as sensitive as what to do when you end up pregnant and you don't want the child. It's a personal choice. Lets keep it that way and not nose so much into "Well did you use protection? Did it fail? Did you even have access? Why didn't you just close your legs and say no?" and the many other questions nosy people like to ask because they make it their business for some absurd reason.


----------



## GoldenJackal (May 5, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> That was a terrible analogy. It was bad and you should feel bad.


----------



## Xenke (May 5, 2011)

GoldenJackal said:


> I never said that. I was simply saying that there are better options in all but extreme circumstances. You can chose to shoot your dog in the head and the dog wouldn't know any better... Don't shoot your dog in the head.


 
But do you support the option of abortion for women, regardless of situation?

Just because you think one option is better than another, doesn't mean everyone does, and I think that people should be able to choose whichever option they are more comfortable with.


----------



## Mayfurr (May 5, 2011)

Sai_Wolf said:


> I love how people find those who, despite taking measures and doing all that can but wind up pregnant anyways, to be 'asking for it'. What really pisses me off when I hear assholes say that rape victims (male OR female) were just asking for it anyway (Just look at that slutty clothing!).
> 
> And Jesus loves baabies, Mayfurr. Don't forget.



Until they're out of the womb, apparently - given the crusades by religious right types against welfare to solo mothers. I mean, it's _so_ logical to assume that if you don't have provisions for a solo mother to look after her children properly that the offending child will magically vanish...

And of course there's _no_ contradiction between proclaiming the value of the life of an unborn child, then turning around and implementing policies that ensure that said child once born to an "unworthy" mother is penalised for existing...

If "pro-lifers" were REALLY pro-life, they'd support welfare assistance for struggling parents so that the now-born child would have the best start in life as possible. Instead, they seem all to ready to condemn the now-born child for the "sins" of the mother.


----------



## GoldenJackal (May 5, 2011)

Xenke said:


> But do you support the option of abortion for women, regardless of situation?
> 
> Just because you think one option is better than another, doesn't mean everyone does, and I think that people should be able to choose whichever option they are more comfortable with.



I believe in responsibility. If a situation is out of someone's control, than that's another story. Sure, options are nice. I don't think it's anyone's business if I smoke or eat too much fast food but I know what I'm doing to myself and only myself. However, I wouldn't smoke around others or force them to eat McDonald's french fries just because I decided to screw up my own health. With freedom comes responsibility. A pregnant woman is responsible for a future existence of a human being. I just don't think it should be a decision that should be taken lightly. Many people, regardless of gender, would have a baby aborted out of a combination of ignorance of options and fear if given the chance.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (May 5, 2011)

As a Conservative Christian. I believe abortion should be allowed up until the 18th year of the fetus in question.


----------



## Deo (May 5, 2011)

GoldenJackal said:


> bitch.


 here we goa gain
always the fault of the woman 
bitch bitch bitch bitch


----------



## Deo (May 5, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> As a Conservative Christian. I believe abortion should be allowed up until the 18th year of the fetus in question.


 you're hilarious.
x3


----------



## Daisy La Liebre (May 5, 2011)

I'm not pro-life, per say, but I'm anti-abortion unless there are extreme circumstances like rape, danger to the mother's life, or the child will probably end up severely disabled.

I just think it's wrong to cheat someone out of their chance on life.


----------



## JackalTeeth (May 5, 2011)

Pro-Choice all the way.
People should be able to abort no matter what their reason is. I think it's a bit unsettling that people think that they should have a "good enough" reason to have a medical procedure that affects no one but the pregnant person and a clump of cells. The life of someone already here is more important than one that doesn't even exist yet.


----------



## Volkodav (May 5, 2011)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> Yea, but you have to think about other what-ifs too. What if this child grows up to be a juvenile delinquent? What if this child grows up to be a rapist as well?
> 
> What if this child grows up to cure cancer? Then s/he is nonexistant proof that humans can cure cancer.


This is bullshit logic. I'm 20, I could cure cancer later on in life.
"Don't abort children cause maybe they can cure __ later on!!" is complete BS because there are MILLIONS of other living people right now that can have a chance at curing it.


----------



## keretceres (May 5, 2011)

I have always been pro choice, till the Girlfriend of a guy I was in love with got pregnant, considered aborting the baby... I had such a surge of negative emotions at that whole situation I actually had to stop talking to both of them for a few weeks...

I am still pro choice, but I have learned a lot of sympathy for people against it too. Nothing is ever Black & White anymore it seems :/


----------



## Volkodav (May 5, 2011)

keretceres said:


> [...] till the Girlfriend of a guy I was in love with got pregnant, considered aborting the baby... [...]


 This is the most fucked up love-triangle I've ever heard of.


----------



## Xenke (May 5, 2011)

Deo said:


> here we goa gain
> always the fault of the woman
> bitch bitch bitch bitch


 
Well, yea.

Women are skanks.

You don't see men going off and getting pregnant every 9 months, now do you?


----------



## Volkodav (May 5, 2011)

Deo said:


> here we goa gain
> always the fault of the woman
> bitch bitch bitch bitch


No offense but bitching because someone says "bitch" kinda proves the whole "bitch" part in the first place.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 5, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> My personal opinion is if we ever see a commercial going, "Come to abortion-mart, now with drive through abortions.  75% off this mother's day", then we crossed the line by alot.


 
Such a shame that a lot of people already believe this happens.


----------



## Volkodav (May 5, 2011)

I wish my mom had gotten an abortion, that way I wouldn't have to sit here and listen to religious tards bitch about abortion


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 5, 2011)

Jared said:


> I'm not pro-life, per say, but I'm anti-abortion unless there are extreme circumstances like rape, danger to the mother's life, or the child will probably end up severely disabled.
> 
> I just think it's wrong to cheat someone out of their chance on life.



It's not a person if it is still a bunch of unformed cells.



Clayton said:


> This is bullshit logic. I'm 20, I could cure cancer later on in life.
> "Don't  abort children cause maybe they can cure __ later on!!" is complete BS  because there are MILLIONS of other living people right now that can  have a chance at curing it.



There are too many 'what if's' in this kind of a debate to make a proper decision.


----------



## Cain (May 5, 2011)

Clayton said:


> No offense but bitching because someone says "bitch" kinda proves the whole "bitch" part in the first place.


 
Please dear god, let's not escalate this into a full blown rage/hate fest.


----------



## Daisy La Liebre (May 5, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> It's not a person if it is still a bunch of unformed cells.


 
Yes, but it's going to be a person.


----------



## Lobar (May 5, 2011)

Jared said:


> Yes, but it's going to be a person.


 
No it isn't, because it's being aborted.  That's how it works, you see. :V


----------



## Volkodav (May 5, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> Please dear god, let's not escalate this into a full blown rage/hate fest.


 I'm always ready to get into a hate/rage fest


----------



## Spatel (May 5, 2011)

Waffles said:


> But the article said, it might get clogged with proteins, rendering you permanently infertile. So don't get it unless you wanted a vascectomy anyways.


 In those rare cases the procedure would be reversible.


----------



## Thatch (May 5, 2011)

Lobar said:


> No it isn't, because it's being aborted.  That's how it works, you see. :V


 
It could have full well never developed, be miscarried or stillborn.

One way or another, he was wrong :V


----------



## Aleu (May 5, 2011)

The argument "The baby never consented to be aborted" is such crap. You know, I never asked to be born either. Given my way, I'd say abort me. BUT NOW I'M STUCK. FUCK YOU LIFE.

I don't see a fetus as a person. Sure it WILL be but, you know, a child WILL BE an adult, does that mean we give it the right to vote right off the bat? No.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (May 5, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Such a shame that a lot of people already believe this happens.


 

There's a Clinic in Carol/Liberty in Miami Dade county that does this.


----------



## foxmusk (May 5, 2011)

GoldenJackal said:


> My roommate was adopted and he had some horrible experiences afterward but he is relatively happy now. He could have been aborted but his parents chose to throw him away instead. If they hadn't, he wouldn't be around. He is my ex boyfriend and current friend. He is adamantly against abortion. A life is beautiful and scars do heal given the right environment and time.


 
Why make unnecessary scars for our own selfish gain?


----------



## Lobar (May 5, 2011)

GoldenJackal said:


> My roommate was adopted and he had some horrible experiences afterward but he is relatively happy now. He could have been aborted but his parents chose to throw him away instead. If they hadn't, he wouldn't be around. He is my ex boyfriend and current friend. He is adamantly against abortion. A life is beautiful and scars do heal given the right environment and time.


 
His parents could have also listened to the anti-choicers such as yourself and "just not have sex, derp" and he would be every bit as nonexistent as if he'd been aborted.  Perhaps he should come out as a supporter of mandatory reproduction, too.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 6, 2011)

I was watching a very fascinating program on TV last night. It was called "Inside the human body" and the first episode concentrated on how we are created.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 6, 2011)

Jared said:


> Yes, but it's going to be a person.


 
And every person will become a corpse. Doesn't mean we treat them like such in advance.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 6, 2011)

Jared said:


> Yes, but it's going to be a person.



I'm still going to stick with pro-choice. It's a womans body, her life, she can make her own choices. As I said previously in this thread I am not fully for abortion, but I am not keen on the idea either. I think the best way to describe my stance on the subject is, I'm neutral.

I also have my own rule of thumb so to speak, which is "I don't want and don't like people interfering with my decisions so I wont do it to them". I always do my best not to do to others, what I don't like being done to myself.


----------



## Glitch (May 6, 2011)

I was an accident and I'm still pro-choice. :V


----------



## Mayfurr (May 6, 2011)

Lobar said:


> His parents could have also listened to the anti-choicers such as yourself and "just not have sex, derp" and he would be every bit as nonexistent as if he'd been aborted.  Perhaps he should come out as a supporter of mandatory reproduction, too.


 
_"Every sperm is sacred..."_


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 6, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> _"Every sperm is sacred..."_



Just as well as only 1% of a males sperm actually makes it into the uterus.


----------



## Deo (May 6, 2011)

GoldenJackal said:


> My roommate was adopted and he had some horrible experiences afterward but he is relatively happy now. He could have been aborted but his parents chose to throw him away instead. If they hadn't, he wouldn't be around. He is my ex boyfriend and current friend. He is adamantly against abortion. A life is beautiful and scars do heal given the right environment and time.


 I knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guys who had a friend who knew this girl who knew this guy who knew this guy who was adopted. 
By the way FAF, take anecdotes with a large heaping grain of salt.

Many of my cousins are adopted (4), and they *all *are horribly scarred mental-misfits who will *NEVER* fit into society. Two are institutionalized and held against their will in near prison environments. Seriously, we "spare" the lives of the embryo only to inflict so much damage in the formative years of childhood that we scar these people so much that they cannot function and we must imprison them for life for doing no wrong. What kind of life is that? 
The other one is only 14 and I hope she turns out better and the 4th one seems to be getting better but he can't talk and refuses to learn sign language. I can only hope that they too are not swept under the rug and silenced to rot aware in mental health facilities like dogs at the pound.


----------



## Deo (May 6, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> And every person will become a corpse. Doesn't mean we treat them like such in advance.


 DAMN.  Very nice zing, very nice indeed. Pat yourself on the back.


----------



## GoldenJackal (May 6, 2011)

Lobar said:


> His parents could have also listened to the anti-choicers such as yourself and "just not have sex, derp" and he would be every bit as nonexistent as if he'd been aborted.  Perhaps he should come out as a supporter of mandatory reproduction, too.



BC pills are really affective. No reason not to have sex. I'm not anti-choice, Christian, or a wigged out monk hippie. I'm pagan and simply believe that a future life is a future life. You all can gang up on me as much as you want but it doesn't change the fact.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 6, 2011)

GoldenJackal said:


> BC pills are really affective. No reason not to have sex. I'm not anti-choice, Christian, or a wigged out monk hippie.* I'm pagan and simply believe that a future life is a future life. You all can gang up on me as much as you want but it doesn't change the fact*.



Basically, you're anti-choice then.


----------



## CannotWait (May 6, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Just as well as only 1% of a males sperm actually makes it into the uterus.


 
Wow! So then what percentage actually makes it within a micrometer of the egg?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 6, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> Wow! So then what percentage actually makes it within a micrometer of the egg?



The one per cent that managers to enter the uterus. 

Did you know that the entrance to the cervix is blocked by solid mucus? When a woman is ready to become pregnant hormones are released which soften the mucus, forming a "sticky ladder" for sperm cells to climb. However once sperm cells are in the cervix they are seen as unwanted invaders by the the woman's body and the cervix releases white blood cells which then attack the sperm cells.

I learned this from watching a new series on BBC One called "inside the human body" I found the program so fascinating I was glued to the sofa for an hour.


----------



## CannotWait (May 6, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> The one per cent that managers to enter the uterus.
> 
> Did you know that the entrance to the cervix is blocked by solid mucus? When a woman is ready to become pregnant hormones are released which soften the mucus, forming a "sticky ladder" for sperm cells to climb. However once sperm cells are in the cervix they are seen as unwanted invaders by the the woman's body and the cervix releases white blood cells which then attack the sperm cells.
> 
> I learned this from watching a new series on BBC One called "inside the human body" I found the program so fascinating I was glued to the sofa for an hour.


 
That does sound interesting, reproduction in general is interesting. To think that two creatures can make another creature from essentially two cells.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 6, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> That does sound interesting, reproduction in general is interesting. To think that two creatures can make another creature from essentially two cells.



I want to see episode two. The program also told us why birds have such small brains and we humans have big brains. but that is another topic.


----------



## Ixtu (May 6, 2011)

This again?
For serious?


----------



## GoldenJackal (May 6, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Basically, you're anti-choice then.



If you want to paste that label on me, it's no skin off my nose.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 6, 2011)

GoldenJackal said:


> If you want to paste that label on me, it's no skin off my nose.



Well, it's just how I interpret it. I may be wrong of course.


----------



## Volkodav (May 6, 2011)

Just think, guys. A long time ago you were swimming around in your dads balls


----------



## CannotWait (May 6, 2011)

That was just my Y chromosome.


----------



## Volkodav (May 6, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> That was just my Y chromosome.


Ok well half of you was swimmin in your dads balls, the other half was swimmin in your moms cooter


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 6, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Ok well half of you was swimmin in your dads balls, the other half was swimmin in your moms cooter



Eggs don't swim in a cooter.


----------



## Volkodav (May 6, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Eggs don't swim in a cooter.


Ok well, half of you was chillin in your moms vagina


----------



## CannotWait (May 6, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Ok well, half of you was chillin in your moms vagina


 I think it was fine at "remember you were swimming in your dad's balls".
Degrading. Simple. Doesn't have to be technical.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (May 6, 2011)

I cant believe that some of you are against choice, and I'm the big evil killing conservative christian boogeyman that's_* pro choice*_.


----------



## CannotWait (May 6, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> I cant believe that some of you are against choice, and I'm the big evil killing conservative christian boogeyman that's_* pro choice*_.


 I would agree that abortion can be bad, but don't make it illegal. People need a choice about these kinds of things.


----------



## Volkodav (May 6, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> I think it was fine at "remember you were swimming in your dad's balls".
> Degrading. Simple. Doesn't have to be technical.


You're the one that made me go into detail!!


----------



## CannotWait (May 6, 2011)

Clayton said:


> You're the one that made me go into detail!!


 You did that of your own accord. I was merely posting something that I thought would generate lulz.


----------



## Wreth (May 6, 2011)

Technically, an embryo is human. Scientifically, and so factually, it is human. However can you be cruel to something that lacks consciousness, or are you stealing the potential life of something that is human.


Personally, I do think abortion is bad somewhat, however I am pro choice as there are plenty of valid reasons for the abortion of an embryo and parents should always have that option.


----------



## Lobar (May 6, 2011)

GoldenJackal said:


> BC pills are really affective. No reason not to have sex.


 
Missing the point; either abstinence or birth control would have caused your friend to be just an non-existent as if he was aborted, yet he's only against one of these.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (May 6, 2011)

Wreth said:


> Technically, an embryo is human. Scientifically, and so factually, it is human. However can you be cruel to something that lacks consciousness, or are you stealing the potential life of something that is human.
> 
> 
> Personally, I do think abortion is bad somewhat, however I am pro choice as there are plenty of valid reasons for the abortion of an embryo and parents should always have that option.


 
What if i don't consider you human? :V

GODDAMNED FURRIES.


----------



## GoldenJackal (May 6, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Missing the point; either abstinence or birth control would have caused your friend to be just an non-existent as if he was aborted, yet he's only against one of these.


 
There's a big difference between prevention and abortion. There's hardly a difference between having safe sex with bc and not having sex at all. No one gets pregnant in both cases.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 6, 2011)

GoldenJackal said:


> There's a big difference between prevention and abortion. There's hardly a difference between having safe sex with bc and not having sex at all. No one gets pregnant in both cases.



Except you still miss the point. Both stop a life from beginning, the only difference is one stops it before it has a chance to begin, the other stops it after it has begun, that is the only difference.


----------



## Volkodav (May 6, 2011)

Wreth said:


> Technically, an embryo is human. Scientifically, and so factually, it is human. However can you be cruel to something that lacks consciousness, or are you stealing the potential life of something that is human.
> 
> 
> Personally, I do think abortion is bad somewhat, however I am pro choice as there are plenty of valid reasons for the abortion of an embryo and parents should always have that option.


 
Yknow what? You're stealing the potential life of a great human every time you have sex, have wet dreams or jack off


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 7, 2011)

Wreth said:


> Technically, an embryo is human. Scientifically, and so factually, it is human. However can you be cruel to something that lacks consciousness, or are you stealing the potential life of something that is human.
> 
> 
> Personally, I do think abortion is bad somewhat, however I am pro choice as there are plenty of valid reasons for the abortion of an embryo and parents should always have that option.



Er....an embryo BECOMES a human (or starts the process) once it has been fertilized by a sperm, an embryo is not human itself, it is just an egg cell.


----------



## Bliss (May 7, 2011)

Hands off my eggs I lay them wherever I want to.

I'm sooo for reproductive rights. Any sentient being would choose when they have children. Pregnancy happens. "I AM NOT HAVING MY 8th BABBY, HONEY!"


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 7, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Hands off my eggs I lay them wherever I want to.
> 
> I'm sooo for reproductive rights. Any sentient being would choose when they have children. Pregnancy happens. "I AM NOT HAVING MY 8th BABBY, HONEY!"



8 babies is nothing, on "Inside the human body" they had an American family one there who had 16 kids. Same two parents, 16 kids, 17th being planned.


----------



## Bliss (May 7, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> 8 babies is nothing, on "Inside the human body" they had an American family one there who had 16 kids. Same two parents, 16 kids, 17th being planned.


 
Well... crazy people happen too. :smile:

How can they remember all of their children's names?


----------



## Thatch (May 7, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Er....an embryo BECOMES a human (or starts the process) once it has been fertilized by a sperm, an embryo is not human itself, it is just an egg cell.


 
Do you know the difference between an eggcell and an embryo? And embryo is fertilised and undergoing cell divisions.



Wreth said:


> Technically, an embryo is human. Scientifically, and so factually, it is human. However can you be cruel to something that lacks consciousness, or are you stealing the potential life of something that is human.


 
Every time a woman has her period, an egg that could have potentially grown into a person, had it been fertilised, is lost. Billions of women around the world are monthly wasting potential people by not getting knocked up.
Taking this further, every nun that opposes abortion is a godawful hypocrite.

The difference between this and getting rid of one that DOES get fertilised is but a technicality, unless you get into the whole "soul" deal.

This is why "what could have it been" is the deal of people who have no other arguments to support their cause.


----------



## Recel (May 7, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Well... crazy people happen too. :smile:
> 
> How can they remember all of their children's names?



They write it on there forhead :V

Aaaaanyways, on topic. I think abortion should be left to the family, its there kid, not others. And if they goof up, or change there mind or what ever, and they dont want the kid that if they cant have an abortion than only the kid will realy suffer. If they didnt want the child than they will threat him/her like it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 7, 2011)

Recel said:


> They write it on there forhead :V
> 
> Aaaaanyways, on topic. I think abortion should be left to the family, its there kid, not others. And if they goof up, or change there mind or what ever, and they dont want the kid that if they cant have an abortion than only the kid will realy suffer. If they didnt want the child than they will threat him/her like it.



I was thinking along those lines too. Except I was thinking Tattooed.

Exactly. It's the families decision and life. leave them to make their own choices.


----------



## CannotWait (May 7, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> 8 babies is nothing, on "Inside the human body" they had an American family one there who had 16 kids. Same two parents, 16 kids, 17th being planned.


 
Did it tell you we have an entire television *series* about this couple? Even though I'm American this makes me want to say "Pfft, America."


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 7, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> 8 babies is nothing, on "Inside the human body" they had an American family one there who had 16 kids. Same two parents, 16 kids, 17th being planned.


 
You mean the "Quiverfull" group?


----------



## jcfynx (May 7, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> I cant believe that some of you are against choice, and I'm the big evil killing conservative christian boogeyman that's_* pro choice*_.


 
I'm anti-abortion because I'm not comfortable putting society in charge of when a life is a _real_ life. Is that wrong? I don't know. A fetus may not be a baby but it is still a human _thing_.


----------



## CannotWait (May 7, 2011)

jcfynx said:


> I'm anti-abortion because I'm not comfortable putting society in charge of when a life is a _real_ life. Is that wrong? I don't know. A fetus may not be a baby but it is still a human _thing_.


 
That absolutely makes sense, but people still need a choice. Maybe if doctors had the choice or something. I don't know, but I wouldn't want a rape victim to be forced to have her attacker's child.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 7, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> You mean the "Quiverfull" group?



Dunno.



jcfynx said:


> I'm anti-abortion because I'm not comfortable putting society in charge of when a life is a _real_ life. Is that wrong? I don't know. A fetus may not be a baby but it is still a human _thing_.



Society doesn't make the choice, the individual woman makes the choice on whether to abort or not. Try another argument.



CannotWait said:


> Did it tell you we have an entire television *series* about this couple? Even though I'm American this makes me want to say "Pfft, America."



Nope, it didn't.


----------



## CannotWait (May 7, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Nope, it didn't.


 
Yep. America.


----------



## jcfynx (May 7, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Society doesn't make the choice, the individual woman makes the choice on whether to abort or not. Try another argument.


 
Society determines when or whether a life is a real life. That is, when the same living thing is a "baby" or a "not a baby." Any individual person has the choice to kill any thing but sometimes that will make them go to jail. You are so cute.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 7, 2011)

jcfynx said:


> Society determines when or whether a life is a real life. That is, when the same living thing is a "baby" or a "not a baby." Any individual person has the choice to kill any thing but sometimes that will make them go to jail. You are so cute.



I have no idea what the first part has to do with abortion when we are talking about individual woman being allowed to chose to abort a pregnancy.


----------



## jcfynx (May 7, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I have no idea what the first part has to do with abortion when we are talking about individual woman being allowed to chose to abort a pregnancy.


 
ok


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 7, 2011)

jcfynx said:


> ok



Anyway, what business is it of any ones to whether a pregnant woman chooses to abort?


----------



## CannotWait (May 7, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Anyway, what business is it of any ones to whether a pregnant woman chooses to abort?


 
Hold up, is abortion an issue in England too?


----------



## jcfynx (May 7, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Anyway, what business is it of any ones to whether a pregnant woman chooses to abort?


 
It's probably a bad thing to throw newborn baby dumpster. Do you think that is true? I would say it is the business of people to keep babies out of dumpsters.

What about premature babies, seven months through? Even though they haven't been born yet, we now have the medical science to keep them alive outside the womb.

What about at six-and-a-half months?

Four months and a quarter?

When does a tiny human become human enough to have the rights and protections of any person? Women enjoy chanting "it's my body," but nobody cares about what women do with their bodies. They care about the little person growing inside of them. This is not a decision I think should be made lightly, and certainly not by pregnant women. Killing human life is never a choice people have in their daily lives. I could not murder my children even though they are mine.

And have you seen pregnant women? They would post-natally abort everyone around them given the chance.


----------



## CannotWait (May 7, 2011)

Why don't we just get a baby to debate this? It's their rights.


----------



## OssumPawesome (May 7, 2011)

jcfynx said:


> And have you seen pregnant women? They would post-natally abort everyone around them given the chance.


 
If you ask me, women aren't emotionally stable enough to make choices. Men have to do_ everything._


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 7, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> Hold up, is abortion an issue in England too?



What difference would that make to my opinions?



jcfynx said:


> It's probably a bad thing to throw newborn baby dumpster. Do you think that is true? I would say it is the business of people to keep babies out of dumpsters.
> 
> What about premature babies, seven months through? Even though they haven't been born yet, we now have the medical science to keep them alive outside the womb.



Aborting a baby does not mean it's being thrown in a dumpster. You are taking things way too literally here.



> What about at six-and-a-half months?
> 
> Four months and a quarter?



Irrelevant. I have never heard of an abortion being done at such a late stage in a pregnancy UNLESS their is a serious health risk involved with the mother.



> When does a tiny human become human enough to have the rights and protections of any person? Women enjoy chanting "it's my body," but nobody cares about what women do with their bodies. They care about the little person growing inside of them. This is not a decision I think should be made lightly, *and certainly not by pregnant women.* Killing human life is never a choice people have in their daily lives. I could not murder my children even though they are mine.



Let's turn the tables here. A pregnancy goes fowl, let's say the baby has died inside the womb (which can happen), or it's going to be born with a serious deformity, or brain damage, or downs syndrome, or something else that will affect the babies quality of life, would it be fair to bring that child into being? To face humiliation by those who have no respect for those who are not "normal" in their eyes? To face bullying throughout their school years, to hear snide remarks from people as they walk down the street? 

What if the pregnancy goes so bad that it is risking the life of the mother? Then what?

My point is, it is not an easy decision to make, it is not a decision that should be made easily. It's a decision that should be given a lot of thought.


----------



## OssumPawesome (May 7, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> It's a decision that should be given a lot of thought.


 
I seriously don't think anyone in the known universe is advocating casual abortions.


----------



## Get-dancing (May 7, 2011)

Saying "it's none of your buisiness" is an ad hominen arguement. /your post.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 7, 2011)

Get-dancing said:


> Saying "it's none of your buisiness" is an ad hominen arguement. /your post.


 
Who are you responding to and how does that make sense?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 7, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Who are you responding to and how does that make sense?



He's responding to one of my earlier posts on this page. I don't get it either.



Exunod said:


> I seriously don't think anyone in the known universe is advocating casual abortions.



Jcfynx seems to think deciding whether to abort or not is as easy as deciding what you want for lunch.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 7, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> He's responding to one of my earlier posts on this page. I don't get it either.



The quote system is his friend. The definitions of logical fallacies, however, are not.


----------



## Get-dancing (May 7, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> The quote system is his friend. The definitions of logical fallacies, however, are not.


 
Yes, but, not. An ad hominen arguement, in simple english. Means that you don't make a point against the other persons arguement, you just make a point about the other person themselves.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 7, 2011)

Get-dancing said:


> Yes, but, not. An ad hominen arguement, in simple english. Means that you don't make a point against the other persons arguement, you just make a point about the other person themselves.



I was speaking in general terms. I couldn't care less if the pregnant woman down the street has an abortion, it has fuck bloody all to do with me no matter how I feel about it. It's not like they are aborting my baby, they are aborting their baby.

That was the point I was trying to make without writing a tl;dr.


----------



## Mayfurr (May 7, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Well... crazy people happen too. :smile:
> 
> How can they remember all of their children's names?


 
_Did I ever tell you that Mrs. McCave
*Had twenty-three sons, and she named them all Dave?*

Well, she did. And that wasn't a smart thing to do.
You see, when she wants one, and calls out "Yoo-Hoo!
Come into the house, Dave!" she doesn't get one.
All twenty-three Daves of hers come on the run!

This makes things quite difficult at the McCaves'
As you can imagine, with so many Daves.
And often she wishes that, when they were born,
She had named one of them Bodkin Van Horn.
And one of them Hoos-Foos. And one of them Snimm.
And one of them Hot-Shot. And one Sunny Jim.
Another one Putt-Putt. Another one Moon Face.
Another one Marvin O'Gravel Balloon Face.
And one of them Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate...

But she didn't do it. And now it's too late._

- "Too Many Daves", by Dr Seuss


----------



## CannotWait (May 7, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> _"Did I ever tell you that Mrs. McCave
> Had twenty-three sons, and she named them all Dave?
> 
> Well, she did. And that wasn't a smart thing to do.
> ...


 
I have the book that has that.


----------



## GoldenJackal (May 7, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> after it has begun


 
That's where the line is crossed in my opinion.


----------



## Aleu (May 7, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> Why don't we just get a baby to debate this? It's their rights.


 Except we're not talking about babies. We're talking about fetuses. :V

Oh yeah, I've already stated "I wasn't asked to be born so why the fuck should I have to deal with life?"


----------



## jcfynx (May 8, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Jcfynx seems to think deciding whether to abort or not is as easy as deciding what you want for lunch.


 
Well, when you've got as many kids out there somewhere as me... B)


----------



## Commiecomrade (May 8, 2011)

jcfynx said:


> Well, when you've got as many kids out there somewhere as me... B)


 I'm guessing you're responsible for a country's population's worth of children.


----------



## Bliss (May 8, 2011)

Y'know some silly women have and keep their anencephalic babies and pretend that is okay because of their "_firm Christian believe that all life shoud be protected_." That's *so* cute & sick.

Hih, that reminds me... Margaret Cho made a joke about pro-lifers trying to smuggle a happy meal for Terri Schiavo.


----------



## Dyluck (May 8, 2011)

I'll have one abortion please


----------



## Get-dancing (May 8, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I was speaking in general terms. I couldn't care less if the pregnant woman down the street has an abortion, it has fuck bloody all to do with me no matter how I feel about it. It's not like they are aborting my baby, they are aborting their baby.
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make without writing a tl;dr.


 
Hmm, just it's a logical fallacy that seems to keep popping-up in the 'pro-choicers' arguments. "It's MY body.", "You are a man, and will never be pregnant".

The reason that ad hominen is a fallacy is that; 
-It ignores the fact that anyone can make a good point in a debate
-It is used to quickly draw attention away from any good points the opposition might have made, usually just because they can't think of anything clever to say back to them
-It employs prejudice, since the oppositionâ€™s 'position' wouldn't necessarily mean that they would hold their opinion. 

My last point was a bit hard to put into simple English, so I'll give some examples. "Of course you support the invasion in Iraq; you're an American, which makes your opinion biased.". That statement ignores the fact that people do not necessarily support wars that the country that they live in fights for, and that some of the most dedicate activists against the Iraq invasion are American.

OR "You are against abortion, but you are a man, so you cannot understand fully how hard it would be to have an unwanted pregnancy, so your point isn't valid.". That argument ignores that whilst men can't get pregnant, they can understand how hard an unwanted pregnancy could be to cope with. Also, gender doesnâ€™t necessarily determine a personâ€™s opinion on the abortion debate like that. Because otherwise there wouldn't be pro-choice men or pro-life women.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 8, 2011)

For the general populace viewing this thread, I present this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY-bQ6UzhNI&feature=feedf 
It's a video I ran across that details various abortion statistics, putting a human face on it.





Get-dancing said:


> Hmm, just it's a logical fallacy that seems to keep popping-up in the 'pro-choicers' arguments. "It's MY body.", "You are a man, and will never be pregnant".
> 
> The reason that ad hominen is a fallacy is that;


 
Hold up, first off your post is... Barely legible. You're misusing ad-hominem, and "It's my body." IS a relevant point since, short version, it's the woman putting her health on the line. She should the first to have a say in the matter. It's not the men who have to carry the baby around for most of a year. The husband should also have a say in it, but nobody should be able to force a woman to get an abortion either.


----------



## Get-dancing (May 8, 2011)

Yes I do have problems in trying to express myself clearly, it's my downfall. But dammit I try! And I'm not nearly as bad as I used to be at it.


----------



## Ixtu (May 8, 2011)

ABORT THREAD
HUUUURRRRRGHGHHGHG.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 8, 2011)

Get-dancing said:


> Yes* I do have problems in trying to express myself clearly*, it's my downfall. But dammit I try! And I'm not nearly as bad as I used to be at it.



I have the same problem. But mine is caused by Dyspraxia.

Now I do have a question, Tell me why I should care about a woman's choice to abort? How does some random woman having an abortion (reason is irrelevant here) should have an affect on me? (Ok, that is two questions)


----------



## Commiecomrade (May 8, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I have the same problem. But mine is caused by Dyspraxia.
> 
> Now I do have a question, Tell me why I should care about a woman's choice to abort? How does some random woman having an abortion (reason is irrelevant here) should have an affect on me? (Ok, that is two questions)


 
Well, Pro-lifers care about the baby.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 8, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> Well, Pro-lifers care about the baby.



I don't care about them. I have more important shit to worry about at the moment.


----------



## Wreth (May 8, 2011)

Thatch said:


> Do you know the difference between an eggcell and an embryo? And embryo is fertilised and undergoing cell divisions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Despite me being pro choice, you seem to have forgotten than an egg cell is a gamete, and doesn't contain the full genetic code for a human. It is not yet human. AN embryo has the full genetic code


----------



## Waffles (May 8, 2011)

Wreth said:


> Despite me being pro choice, you seem to have forgotten than an egg cell is a gamete, and doesn't contain the full genetic code for a human. It is not yet human. AN embryo has the full genetic code


 So... whole genetic code = a soul, it's a person, and it has rights?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 8, 2011)

Wreth said:


> Despite me being pro choice, you seem to have forgotten than an egg cell is a gamete, and doesn't contain the full genetic code for a human. It is not yet human. AN embryo has the full genetic code


 

I know something that it seems most people here don't know. Even a fertilized egg can fail and be discarded in the same time frame as a non-fertilized egg. I learned this on that program I watched. So in fact, Thatch is actually correct.


----------



## Thatch (May 8, 2011)

Wreth said:


> Despite me being pro choice, you seem to have forgotten than an egg cell is a gamete, and doesn't contain the full genetic code for a human. It is not yet human. AN embryo has the full genetic code





Thatch said:


> The difference between this and getting rid of one that DOES get fertilised is but a technicality, unless you get into the whole "soul" deal.


 
...No I haven't?

As far as "potential person" goes, there is no difference. It's all IFs. "IF you let that baby be born/IF you let that egg be fertilised". It could have grown into a person given the chance, so it had "potential".



Randy-Darkshade said:


> I know something that it seems most people here don't know. Even a fertilized egg can fail and be discarded in the same time frame as a non-fertilized egg. I learned this on that program I watched. So in fact, Thatch is actually correct.


 
That doesn't make me correct, altough it fits into the theme. The fact that he just served a biological fact that has completely no impact on what I said, does.

Again, unless 


Waffles said:


> So... whole genetic code = a soul, it's a person, and it has rights?


----------



## Unsilenced (May 8, 2011)

Waffles said:


> So... whole genetic code = a soul, it's a person, and it has rights?


 
It's better than the line a lot of people draw, where "pushed through a vagina"="human rights get"


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 8, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I know something that it seems most people here don't know. Even a fertilized egg can fail and be discarded in the same time frame as a non-fertilized egg. I learned this on that program I watched. So in fact, Thatch is actually correct.


 
I'll add to this by saying that women "self-abort" so to speak and don't even realize it. 

Think of it this way, each time a male ejaculates inside a females vagina and each egg the ovaries release is a potential life, but so many never come into being. Many are wasted. Each month a woman fails to get pregnant is a wasted egg. Each times a males sperm does not fertilize an egg is a batch of wasted sperm. Each time it could have been a life.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 8, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I'll add to this by saying that women "self-abort" so to speak and don't even realize it.
> 
> Think of it this way, each time a male ejaculates inside a females vagina and each egg the ovaries release is a potential life, but so many never come into being. Many are wasted. Each month a woman fails to get pregnant is a wasted egg. Each times a males sperm does not fertilize an egg is a batch of wasted sperm. Each time it could have been a life.


 
Technically every time a given sperm doesn't combine with every single possible egg, it's all wasted potential lives. Once an egg is fertilized though, the potential for that particular human genetic code goes from near infinitely small to a pretty damned good chance.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 8, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Technically every time a given sperm doesn't combine with every single possible egg, it's all wasted potential lives. Once an egg is fertilized though, the potential for that particular human genetic code goes from near infinitely small to a pretty damned good chance.



Wrong. Even when an egg is fertilized they still fail often.


----------



## Thatch (May 8, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> It's better than the line a lot of people draw, where "pushed through a vagina"="human rights get"


 
It has to be drawn somewhere (we have to have SOME order, or things would get ugly), but at least the woman has ground to claim full authority when it's still physically attached to her and drawing nutrients from her body.



Unsilenced said:


> Technically every time a given sperm doesn't combine with every single possible egg, it's all wasted potential lives. Once an egg is fertilized though, the potential for that particular human genetic code goes from near infinitely small to a pretty damned good chance.


 
Yeah, the thing with sperm is that it can't grow into a fetus. The eggcell (as in the actual cell) can. It just needs a full set of genetic code, which doesn't need to be provided by the sperm. So the eggcell is, for all needs and purposes, a potential individual.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> Wrong. Even when an egg is fertilized they still fail often.


 
Randy, imagine this discussion as a football match. What you are now doing is taking the ball, and kicking it onto the sidelines.

tl;dr missing the point


----------



## Unsilenced (May 8, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Wrong. Even when an egg is fertilized they still fail often.


 
How often? Unless it's close to infinity% of the time, it's still an improvement of the odds.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 8, 2011)

Thatch said:


> Randy, imagine this discussion as a football match. What you are now doing is taking the ball, and kicking it onto the sidelines.
> 
> tl;dr missing the point



I'm not the one missing the point.



Unsilenced said:


> How often? Unless it's close to infinity% of the time, it's still an improvement of the odds.



I can't remember exactly. All the program kept saying was, that we defy all the odds to come into being. If I can find the show I'll link it here for you to watch.

Edit: Here we go:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01102yg  It's a four part series.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 8, 2011)

Yeah. We go up against near infinite odds to become a fertilized egg. 

Fucking that up for someone is a pretty dick move unless you have a damned good reason.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 8, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Yeah. We go up against near infinite odds to become a fertilized egg.
> 
> Fucking that up for someone is a pretty dick move unless you have a damned good reason.



My point was that the human body fucks it up a lot anyway.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 8, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> My point was that the human body fucks it up a lot anyway.


 
So?

"Well he had a 30% chance of living. What's it matter if we shot him in the fucking face?" 

MY point is that unless you have a good reason (rape, health concern, etc,) you oughtn't to be fucking that up.


----------



## Gavrill (May 8, 2011)

I agree with pro-choice, however, as someone with a vagina, I would not abort if the child was healthy, regardless of how it got there. I'm probably too soft. Even if I were raped, I simply could not abort the fetus. Fucking hormones.


----------



## Thatch (May 8, 2011)

derp, nevermind, I fail at comprehensive reading at near 2 am.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (May 8, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Edit: Funny how this "discussion went from a "discussion" to a, lets talk crap about Rukh.



Give and it shall be given unto you.


----------



## Lobar (May 8, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Yeah. We go up against near infinite odds to become a fertilized egg.
> 
> Fucking that up for someone is a pretty dick move unless you have a damned good reason.


 
I take a crate of dice and dump it out on the floor.  In this chaotic system, those dice went up against near infinite odds to form the particular arrangement of how they landed, and it'd be a pretty dick move to clean them up unless you have a damned good reason (better than "I just want a clean floor because it's _convenient_").

Except dice are not a person, and neither is a genome inside an embryo.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (May 8, 2011)

If we must give special treatment to embryos, then we must also give special treatment to the E. Coli and various other bacterial organisms that are incubating in your gut BECAUSE IT'S LIFE, GOD DAMNIT. We can't take actions against living organisms, now, can we? Especially when they develop inside of us.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 9, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I take a crate of dice and dump it out on the floor.  In this chaotic system, those dice went up against near infinite odds to form the particular arrangement of how they landed, and it'd be a pretty dick move to clean them up unless you have a damned good reason (better than "I just want a clean floor because it's _convenient_").
> 
> Except dice are not a person, and neither is a genome inside an embryo.



What are you then? Do you think you have a soul? Do you think you "poof"ed yourself some rights in the time between conception and birth?


----------



## Recel (May 9, 2011)

I still think that debating if its a person or not is totaly pointless.

Should a women have an option to not carry a person/embryo/sack of proteins for nine months than give it birth if she doesnt want it/got raped/was stupid/had an accident or not?

Lets see. If she cant, than the kid will *A,* have a horrible childhood because his/her mother doesnt care about him/her. *B,* have a horrible childhood because he got abandoned. *C,* have a horrible childhood because he has phisical or mental problems. *D,* have a horrible childhood because her mother died due to predicted complications. *E,* have a horrible childhood because he/she got adopted by horrible parrents. *F,* die because her mother just dumped him/her somewhere not long after the birth.* G,* grow up just to find out he/she was adopted. *H,* grow up to have a regular life without knowing he/she was adopted.

If she can, than she will only have a child when she wants to. The kid can still have a bad life, but if her mother wanted him/her in the first place, than there is a better chance that the kid will have a close to normal life.

Ofcourse in reality there are much more possibilityes, I just wrote these simpler ones to make a point. If a child is born, but his/her mother didnt want him/her in the first place than chances are good he/she wont have a regular life. This doesnt mean he/she cant grow up to be a normal person, but why should someone endure these problems in the first place? So we throw a dice, and if he/she is lucky he/she will have a regular life with a normal family?

And this is why I think abortion should be an option, but still not only decided by the woman.

And I abused he/she too much... gotta sleep soon...


----------



## Unsilenced (May 9, 2011)

Find me a random sample of children with horrible childhoods. 

Offer to mercy kill them. 

Tell me the acceptance rate and I'll consider your argument.


----------



## Recel (May 9, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Find me a random sample of children with horrible childhoods.
> 
> Offer to mercy kill them.
> 
> Tell me the acceptance rate and I'll consider your argument.


 
So, if they can live with it than thats reason enough to put them through it in the first place?

Edit: How thoughtfull. You care about there life before they are born, but you dont after that.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 9, 2011)

Pretty much, yes. 

If they don't think they'd be better off dead, I don't see what right you have to decide that they would.


----------



## Recel (May 9, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Pretty much, yes.
> 
> If they don't think they'd be better off dead, I don't see what right you have to decide that they would.



And thats as far as rights go. "Noone has the right to take a life", still people do it day by day, even legaly often. Thinking about rights is nice and all, but thats as far as it goes, its a nice thing to think about how we have the right to be free, yet other people can control your life as they please.

The problem with these things are that while there is a black and a white side to them, but the side wich is the black and the one wich is the white change from diffrent perspective. They just dont work when you want to fit them on everything.

You always have to decide everything when there are options. Oh, and who decides what decisions others can make?

Edit: And another thing. You cant know if you chose the better option even after you made your decision, because what you didnt chose, didnt happen. You can only gues and speculate if it would have been better or worse.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 9, 2011)

Just because people *do* take each other's lives, and often with good reason, doesn't mean we should shrug it off every time it happens. We can't make everything pure and white, but we can at least try to avoid the darker shades of gray.


----------



## Azure (May 9, 2011)

I'm gonna go abort some future possible children right now. My method? Wipe em off on a towel.


----------



## Recel (May 9, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Just because people *do* take each other's lives, and often with good reason, doesn't mean we should shrug it off every time it happens. We can't make everything pure and white, but we can at least try to avoid the darker shades of gray.



Yeah, we can try to avoid bad things, but still we cant know if we chose right only after we chose, sometimes withing seconds after it, sometimes more than a lifetime. What I wanted to get at is that we haveto decide, and we cant avoid bad things to happen if we only have one choice. Thats why abortion should be a decision, if bringing that baby to life seems like a bad idea for what ever reason than you should have the choice not to. You can regret it later, or be happy about it, but you haveto chose. If you cant chose than things will just happen, bad, good what ever comes by, without being able to even try to "avoid the darker shades".

Edit: Alos, there isnt anything in life where one choice is always the good one. So if you deny the ablility to decide between options than you didnt decide to take the good choice, you just decided that you will let what ever happens to happen, good or bad. Your basicly standing with wraped arms watching what ever happens.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 9, 2011)

Unless the kid is set for a REALLY fucked life (see my earlier posts for my oft-repeated stance on rape/deformities), aborting it is unlikely to be the "better choice."


----------



## OssumPawesome (May 9, 2011)

Why don't rape babies get to live? It's not their fault, is it?


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 9, 2011)

Exunod said:


> Why don't rape babies get to live? It's not their fault, is it?


 
I've always wondered this as well. Especially if you're against abortion because of the poor innocent babies.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 9, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> What are you then? Do you think you have a soul? Do you think you "poof"ed yourself some rights in the time between conception and birth?



A gene is not a person, it goes together with other gene's to make a person.



Unsilenced said:


> Pretty much, yes.
> 
> If they don't think they'd be better off dead, I don't see what right you have to decide that they would.



Hypocrite.



Unsilenced said:


> Just because people *do* take each other's lives, and often with good reason, doesn't mean we should shrug it off every time it happens. We can't make everything pure and white, but we can at least try to avoid the darker shades of gray.



Dude, there is no good reason to kill someone unless they are threatening your own life. Do sex offenders who murder their victims have a good reason to kill them? No, they didn't. Do serial killers who kill randomly have good reason to kill? No. What about that man who, sometime last year went on a rampage with a shotgun here in the UK killing random people, did he have a good reason? No. Do I seriously need to carry one giving example of example to prove that your statement is BS?


----------



## Gavrill (May 9, 2011)

Exunod said:


> Why don't rape babies get to live? It's not their fault, is it?


 
I would let a rape baby live. I mentioned that earlier. Fertilized eggs are life, pro-lifers! Didn't they say that themselves?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 9, 2011)

Skift said:


> I would let a rape baby live. I mentioned that earlier. Fertilized eggs are life, pro-lifers! Didn't they say that themselves?



A fertilized egg is not life, it's starting to build a life. To abort a pregnancy you are just stopping that production. A baby is not a baby until it has formed the shape of one, aka a fetus (imo) That is the point I'd say the baby had a life, once it had formed into one and started to mature. 

I'm at the point now where I am just going to agree to disagree with Unsilenced, we both have different views and that's fine.


----------



## Gavrill (May 9, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> A fertilized egg is not life, it's starting to build a life. To abort a pregnancy you are just stopping that production. A baby is not a baby until it has formed the shape of one, aka a fetus (imo) That is the point I'd say the baby had a life, once it had formed into one and started to mature.
> 
> I'm at the point now where I am just going to agree to disagree with Unsilenced, we both have different views and that's fine.


I was being sarcastic.


----------



## Recel (May 9, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Unless the kid is set for a REALLY fucked life (see my earlier posts for my oft-repeated stance on rape/deformities), aborting it is unlikely to be the "better choice."


 
I get what you mean, I know most likely, even a kid who is unwanted by her mother will want to live, even if he wont have a great life. But if you cant chose between keeping the baby, or aborting than when it isnt the better choice that there wont be a choice at all. The woman will be forced to take the bad choice.

Thats why I think that the option to chose should be there. If you want to chose the better choice, than you should be able to chose in the first place. Theres no choice that is automaticly the better choice in no situation. Situations shouldn't be linked to options, options should be linked to the diffrent situations.


----------



## jcfynx (May 9, 2011)

Azure said:


> I'm gonna go abort some future possible children right now. My method? Wipe em off on a towel.


 
Have you ever tried a banana peel? (blushing!)


----------



## Unsilenced (May 9, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> A gene is not a person, it goes together with other gene's to make a person.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I honestly can't tell what your point is, or what you think my point was. I said sometimes people have a good reason. I never said every killing is a good killing. What the fuck are you even talking about?


----------



## CrazyLee (May 9, 2011)

22 pages and this hasn't been closed. Amazing.

Anywhoo, for those who are pro-life due to a biblical reason (Rukh), I'd be interested in seeing them present concrete proof that the Bible says that abortion is wrong. Most of them believe the bible is the literal word of God, and God's word is final. I'd want to see concrete words that say "Killing fetuses is wrong." Not some wishy washy crap. Not interpreting a passage of the bible to fit your beliefs. The passage itself has to specifically indicate that preforming an abortion is wrong.

As far as I'm aware such a passage does not exist.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 9, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> 22 pages and this hasn't been closed. Amazing.
> 
> Anywhoo, for those who are pro-life due to a biblical reason (Rukh), I'd be interested in seeing them present concrete proof that the Bible says that abortion is wrong. Most of them believe the bible is the literal word of God, and God's word is final. I'd want to see concrete words that say "Killing fetuses is wrong." Not some wishy washy crap. Not interpreting a passage of the bible to fit your beliefs. The passage itself has to specifically indicate that preforming an abortion is wrong.
> 
> As far as I'm aware such a passage does not exist.


 
While there likely isn't a passage that says "Thou shalt not abort thy fetuses," there are (obviously) ones about not killing and ones that imply that fetuses count as people when it comes to "thou shalt not kill."


----------



## CrazyLee (May 9, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> While there likely isn't a passage that says "Thou shalt not abort thy fetuses," there are (obviously) ones about not killing and ones that *imply* that fetuses count as people when it comes to "thou shalt not kill."


Yes, but there's a difference between implying and actually coming out and saying something. The first one is open to many different interpretations. I figure that if God's Word is so certain and concrete as people make it that he would be absolutely clear on something like this.


----------



## Aleu (May 9, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> While there likely isn't a passage that says "Thou shalt not abort thy fetuses," there are (obviously) ones about not killing and ones that imply that fetuses count as people when it comes to "thou shalt not kill."


 Actually it's "Thou shalt not MURDER" not "kill". Killing is different from murder.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 10, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> While there likely isn't a passage that says "Thou shalt not abort thy fetuses," there are (obviously) ones about not killing and ones that imply that fetuses count as people when it comes to "thou shalt not kill."


 
Actually, all the passages in the bible that talk about that kind of thing only care about giving compensation to the father in cash form, and that those who dash infants upon the rocks are blessed in the eyes of the lord. Anything else only relates to damage incurred to the woman.



Aleu said:


> Actually it's "Thou shalt not MURDER" not "kill". Killing is different from murder.


 
Nope. It's thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not murder is a recent, ahem, "retranslation" and not really in the original bibles. This was mostly put in so people could better justify using the bible to kill people.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 10, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> I honestly can't tell what your point is, or what you think my point was. I said sometimes people have a good reason. I never said every killing is a good killing. What the fuck are you even talking about?



You said:


Unsilenced said:


> Just because people *do* take each other's  lives, and *often with good reason.*



I interpreted that as you saying that a majority of people who have killed another person had a good reason. Which I disagreed with. Maybe I misinterpreted it.

Also on the subject of "Thou shalt not kill" I was always under the impression that it was written as "Thou shalt not kill" and not "Thou shalt not murder" Well, that is what I was taught in R.E. at school.



Mojotech said:


> Nope. It's thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not  murder is a recent, ahem, "retranslation" and not really in the original  bibles. This was mostly put in so people could better justify using the  bible to kill people.



This is precisely why I call the bible bullshit these days. It has been re-written and magically "God's" word suddenly changes to suit the religion.


----------



## Thou Dog (May 10, 2011)

I'm personally opposed to abortion, but both common sense and my religion dictate that there are certain times when abortion is not just allowed, but virtually mandatory (i.e., if the mother's life is endangered). After all, if you are allowed to use lethal force against someone who sneaks into your house, on _presumption_ that he's _willing_ to kill you, surely you should be allowed to use lethal force against someone who _is_ threatening your life from inside your own _body._

Also, there is no way to restrict or ban abortion that does not put the health and sometimes life of women at risk. An obstetrician who has the law looking over his shoulder is going to be reluctant to perform procedures that are in the patient's best interest - either he won't perform those procedures except in the most grievous cases, which means that those patients are at greater risk of injury or death (not to mention their unborn children), or he will purchase legal insurance which will raise the cost of his care and make it unaffordable for many.

Especially in a society as insane as that of the United States, where health care is rationed by personal wealth, it is unacceptable to make any kind of medical help more expensive. Not to mention, like I said...

You know what makes me nuts, though? It's that these people who are fanatically opposed to abortion, who believe it is murder, and who want it banned, will very readily take themselves or their daughters to an obstetrician to have an abortion - sometimes even going into the same office that they had been protesting outside the day before! I know there are some doctors who believe opposition to abortion should be a contraindication to abortion, because it means the patients are less likely to comply with after-care instructions or make follow-up appointments, and thereby putting themselves at greater risk of things like serious infections.


----------



## Thou Dog (May 10, 2011)

One other thing that gives me a headache: lies.

Allegedly moral pro-life politicians lie left and right about abortion.

I guess lying is okay if you do it for a good cause, eh?


----------



## Thou Dog (May 10, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Also on the subject of "Thou shalt not kill" I was always under the impression that it was written as "Thou shalt not kill" and not "Thou shalt not murder" Well, that is what I was taught in R.E. at school.
> 
> This is precisely why I call the bible bullshit these days. It has been re-written and magically "God's" word suddenly changes to suit the religion.


You think it's "thou shalt not kill"? Fine. Get me the dictionary definition of ×¨×¦×—.

"recent retranslation" my ass. Ask someone who actually knows how to read the original text next time, all right?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 10, 2011)

Thou Dog said:


> You think it's "thou shalt not kill"? Fine. Get me the dictionary definition of ×¨×¦×—.
> 
> "recent retranslation" my ass. Ask someone who actually knows how to read the original text next time, all right?


 
"To kill (a human)". Can refer to premeditated murder, as well as manslaughter and executions.  The "It only means premeditated murder!" is just a recent spin from christian apologists. (And if it wasn't the case, all it would mean is the people who translated and edited the original bible into the KJV and other older versions were either incompetent or dishonest, neither of which points toward it being "god-breathed".)


----------



## Unsilenced (May 10, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> You said:
> 
> 
> I interpreted that as you saying that a majority of people who have killed another person had a good reason. Which I disagreed with. Maybe I misinterpreted it.
> ...



Often =/= always, or even most.


----------



## Frokusblakah (May 11, 2011)

All the people for abortion should have just been aborted.  :V

No but seriously, a shitty life is better than no life.  If somebody disagrees and thinks their life is just too hard, well they can see themselves out the door, as it is.  Either way it comes down to justifying taking a "life" based off the opinion of whether its a life or not.  I'm sure glad nobody decided I wasn't "alive" when I was in there, because my mother did have an abortion ahead of me.  *shrugs*

Regardless if what anybody says, abortion seems like making the choice to live or die for somebody who can't yet.


----------



## Bliss (May 11, 2011)

I'd rather 'see myself out the door' before developing sentience and growing up 16 years since birth.

We've been all over that making a choice for someone to live or die. Poor gametes not getting a chance at fertilisation.


----------



## Frokusblakah (May 11, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> I'd rather 'see myself out the door' before developing sentience and growing up 16 years since birth.



I'm sure all the other ones are very concerned with what you'd rather do :V

Most seem to disagree, I'm fairly certain that the majority of people that aren't exactly well too do aren't offing themselves left and right.  Seems the majority would rather live =P

Yet many still think its okay to just put them down.  Though more often than not the question isn't "making the decision for them", its the "is it a person yes/no" that is the argument.  >_<  

Hard question.  If you believe in souls, when does somebody get one?  Nobody can say I guess.  If you don't, I guess it doesn't even matter to begin with, we're just a lump of cells all our life.  =V


----------



## Bliss (May 11, 2011)

The person argument is an important one. I prefer my possibilities having no human rights, thank you. ^^


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 11, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> 22 pages and this hasn't been closed. Amazing.
> 
> Anywhoo, for those who are pro-life due to a biblical reason (Rukh), I'd be interested in seeing them present concrete proof that the Bible says that abortion is wrong. Most of them believe the bible is the literal word of God, and God's word is final. I'd want to see concrete words that say "Killing fetuses is wrong." Not some wishy washy crap. Not interpreting a passage of the bible to fit your beliefs. The passage itself has to specifically indicate that preforming an abortion is wrong.
> 
> As far as I'm aware such a passage does not exist.


 
Actually, it does. And I posted it on page 4 since someone asked about it. Anyways, here it it:



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Since you brought up Scripture, I shall  respond and show you where and how it says abortion is wrong.
> 
> *Premise #1 Murder is wrong.* Below is a small sample of verses.
> Genesis 9:6, Matthew 15:19, Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, John 8:44, Acts 3:14, Romans 1:28-29, and Romans 13:19.
> ...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 11, 2011)

Thou Dog said:


> You think it's "thou shalt not kill"? Fine. Get me the dictionary definition of ×¨×¦×—.
> 
> "recent retranslation" my ass. Ask someone who actually knows how to read the original text next time, all right?



Oh did I hit a nerve? cause you seem to have missed the part where I said "That is what I was taught in R.E. at school." And don't deny the fact that the bible has been re-written over the years. 

I believe in god, I just think most of what is in the bible is horse shit. That is my opinion and it wont change.



Frokusblakah said:


> All the people for abortion should have just been aborted.  :V
> 
> No  but seriously, a shitty life is better than no life.  If somebody  disagrees and thinks their life is just too hard, well they can see  themselves out the door, as it is.  Either way it comes down to  justifying taking a "life" based off the opinion of whether its a life  or not.  I'm sure glad nobody decided I wasn't "alive" when I was in  there, because my mother did have an abortion ahead of me.  *shrugs*
> 
> Regardless if what anybody says, abortion seems like making the choice to live or die for somebody who can't yet.



Sometimes you have to take a life to save a life.


----------



## Spatel (May 11, 2011)

Wait there are people actually arguing against abortion? What the hell?


Frokusblakah said:


> All the people for abortion should have just been aborted.  :V
> 
> No but seriously, a shitty life is better than no life.


No it isn't. There are people alive right now that are suffering tremendously. Their lives are pointless. They have good reasons to regret their existence. It's pretty easy to come up with situations where abortion is morally justified. 



Frokusblakah said:


> If somebody disagrees and thinks their life is just too hard, well they can see themselves out the door, as it is.  Either way it comes down to justifying taking a "life" based off the opinion of whether its a life or not.  I'm sure glad nobody decided I wasn't "alive" when I was in there, because my mother did have an abortion ahead of me.  *shrugs*


The people that oppose abortion on religious grounds also oppose suicide on the same grounds.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 11, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Wait there are people actually arguing against abortion? What the hell?
> 
> No it isn't. There are people alive right now that are suffering tremendously. Their lives are pointless. They have good reasons to regret their existence. It's pretty easy to come up with situations where abortion is morally justified.
> 
> ...



I oppose suicide on the grounds that a very large majority of suicide cases I have heard about didn't have good reason.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 11, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Wait there are people actually arguing against abortion? What the hell?
> 
> No it isn't. There are people alive right now that are suffering tremendously. Their lives are pointless. They have good reasons to regret their existence. It's pretty easy to come up with situations where abortion is morally justified.


Yes, there are people who are completely against abortion. I am.

Then go and tell all those who are suffering that their lives are  meaningless and pointless. Go and tell them they have no reason to  exist. And it is never morally justified for killing someone who has the chance to live just because someone else thinks said child won't make anything of their life... Go and hang out with a group of people with down syndrome. They can teach you something about loving life, no matter how hard it is. I have seen the joy in their eyes, I can see the happyness overflowing from their heart. They are some of the most generous people I know. They will not tell you that their life is meaningless or pointless.



Spatel said:


> The people that oppose abortion on religious grounds also oppose suicide on the same grounds.


 So suicide is okay? Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 11, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes, there are people who are completely against abortion. I am.
> 
> Then go and tell all those who are suffering that their lives are  meaningless and pointless. Go and tell them they have no reason to  exist. And it is never morally justified for killing someone who has the chance to live just because someone else thinks said child won't make anything of their life... Go and hang out with a group of people with down syndrome. They can teach you something about loving life, no matter how hard it is. I have seen the joy in their eyes, I can see the happyness overflowing from their heart. They are some of the most generous people I know. They will not tell you that their life is meaningless or pointless.
> 
> ...



What if that person is on their deathbed anyway? :v


----------



## Bliss (May 11, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So suicide is okay? Is that what you are saying?



Suicide is okay. Euthanasia is okay.

A life may be too much to bear. It would be horribly selfish to demand people to live.
It could be argued that the situation _could_ get better in the future and the choice be regretted as wrong but that is irrelevant for the present.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 11, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Suicide is okay. Euthanasia is okay.
> 
> A life may be too much to bear. It would be horribly selfish to demand people to live.
> It could be argued that the situation _could_ get better in the future and the choice be regretted as wrong but that is irrelevant for the present.


 
There is no good reason for suicide. I am having a really hard time this year, do I feel like killing myself because I am finding my life hard to bear? No. I'm dealing with it. Suicide is the cowards way out. "Oh no, I'm being bullied at school everyday, I know I'll go kill myself" BULLFUCKINGSHIT.


----------



## Bliss (May 11, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> There is no good reason for suicide. I am having a really hard time this year, do I feel like killing myself because I am finding my life hard to bear? No. I'm dealing with it. Suicide is the cowards way out. "Oh no, I'm being bullied at school everyday, I know I'll go kill myself" BULLFUCKINGSHIT.



You calling my family cowards? >:S


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 11, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> You calling my family cowards? >:S



I can't, I never met your family, I don't know them.

But yes, I do feel that those who commit suicide because they can't handle life are stupid assholes. It's selfish to those who care about them for starters. 

I have a lot of issues irl, I have debts up to my armpits, I am at risk of being evicted, I have a grandfather living in a care home after having a serious stroke, I have my mom, two sibs and moms BF struggling to find a new place to live before THEY get evicted (their eviction is no fault of theirs) My dad has a big dark patch on one of his lungs that the doctor's don't know what it is yet. I have to constantly scrape what ever money together that I can just pay the main bills and buy food, I have debt collectors wanting to visit me after cash I don't have. 

Am I wanting to commit suicide? Am I fuck.


----------



## Frokusblakah (May 11, 2011)

Spatel said:


> No it isn't. There are people alive right now that are suffering tremendously. Their lives are pointless. They have good reasons to regret their existence. It's pretty easy to come up with situations where abortion is morally justified.



Is it possible to come up with situations where abortion is morally justified?  I suppose if you wanted you could, I've seen cased where I felt that doctor assisted suicide was morally justified.

But abortion should be a last restort, not a choice.  Not a "oh, nah I don't want it".  If there is something seriously wrong with the child, and its life would be impaired, or perhaps the life of the mother is she tried to give birth, I guess a judgement call is in order.  If you are worried that you can't take care of it, foster care.  I've met plenty of people that have come from "poor" lives who NEVER wished they were never born.  I've met people with disabilities who don't throw their hands up and say "end it, its just too much".  Why should other people get to decide if its worth it to them or not ?

If you think a shitty life is better than no life, you're the type who probably gives up fairly easy.  There are plenty of people in history, hell everyday, who turn their shitty life into something they can love with some effort.  Sorry everybody doesn't get life handed to them on a silver platter =P


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 11, 2011)

Frokusblakah said:


> Is it possible to come up with situations where abortion is morally justified?  I suppose if you wanted you could, I've seen cased where I felt that doctor assisted suicide was morally justified.



Abortion would be morally justified where a pregnancy is risking the mothers life.



> But abortion should be a last restort, not a choice.  Not a "oh, nah I don't want it".  If there is something seriously wrong with the child, and its life would be impaired, I guess a judgement call is in order.  If you are worried that you can't take care of it, foster care.  I've met plenty of people that have come from "poor" lives who NEVER wished they were never born.  I've met people with disabilities who don't throw there hands up and say "end it, its just too much".Why should other people get to decide if its worth it to them or not ?



Do you really think it is THAT easy to decide to abort a pregnancy? "Why should other people get to decide if its worth it to them or not." In this case, who are you to tell people abortion shouldn't be a choice?


----------



## Frokusblakah (May 11, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Abortion would be morally justified where a pregnancy is risking the mothers life.



I edited that in, forgot to mention that, because I do believe that is a valid case =P



Randy-Darkshade said:


> Do you really think it is THAT easy  to decide to abort a pregnancy? "Why should other people get to decide  if its worth it to them or not." In this case, who are you to tell  people abortion shouldn't be a choice?


 
*shrug* that argument could go round in circles forever.  Is it okay for the mother to decide, for non life threatening reasons, that that "child" shouldn't get a shot at life?  Is it even considered alive yet?  Ect ect.  I know I don't think its okay, I know that I think it is a person, people on the other side of the fence do think its okay, most think its a clump of cells that, as of the abortion, aren't a person.  We could go rounds on it but I don't either of us would convince the other, especially since most people go into this with their feet dug into the ground already.  It is what it is, I suppose.

I suppose I only dropped by the thread to give my opinion, I don't think I'm going to change anybody elses opinion.  o_o;;


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 11, 2011)

Frokusblakah said:


> I edited that in, forgot to mention that, because I do believe that is a valid case =P
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, I choose to be pro-choice, mainly because I have such a mixed view on the subject. I feel it should be down to the mother's own choice, but abortion is something I am not very keen on, unless there is a good reason to go down that path.


----------



## Ixtu (May 11, 2011)

This thread is _still _going?
*Calls an exterminator.*


----------



## Frokusblakah (May 11, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Well, I choose to be pro-choice, mainly because I have such a mixed view on the subject. I feel it should be down to the mother's own choice, but abortion is something I am not very keen on, unless there is a good reason to go down that path.



Yeah, I'm kinda the same on pro-life I guess.  I do have mixed views on the subject, I won't lie.  I can't tell you, as a fact, that a fetus is a person or has a soul.  I can tell you that it "could", and I feel that is enough for me to not want it killed.  Better safe than sorry I suppose?  Anyway, not trying to step on anybodies toes, so I suppose I'll back out of the thread now.  =P


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 11, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Abortion would be morally justified where a pregnancy is risking the mothers life.



No, If the child will live, then I cannot justify abortion. I find it interesting that a person can draw a line on where a mother is willing to risk her life for her child. Aparently its okay to risk her child's life before her child is born, but its frowned upon in society after her child is born that a mother is not willing to risk her life for her child.

Maybe you should read when a mother who is halfway through her pregnancy finds out that she has cancer. Most women are willing to forgo treatment (Which while they are pregnant would kill their child if they got radiation teatment) And wait to give birth. Thus risking their own life to make sure their child can live. That is love, its a love so strong that a mother is willing to die for her child. And that type of love, dying for someone to make sure they have a chance to live, is the greatest form of love in the world.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> Do you really think it is THAT easy to decide to abort a pregnancy? "Why  should other people get to decide if its worth it to them or not." In  this case, who are you to tell people abortion shouldn't be a  choice?


The question is, are you willing to die for your child so they have a chance to live? Are you willing to forgo your own desires so that the child you are carrying can live? Is your own life more important than your child's? Thats the question you should be asking.
Self serving or self sacrifice, that is what it boils down to.


----------



## Spatel (May 11, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The question is, are you willing to die for your child so they have a chance to live? Are you willing to forgo your own desires so that the child you are carrying can live? Is your own life more important than your child's? Thats the question you should be asking.
> Self serving or self sacrifice, that is what it boils down to.


 A mother willingly letting herself die so that her child can live is the most self-serving thing she could ever hope to do. She gets to bring a child into the world to be a burden on other people, and her own death will also be a burden on them. The child will grow up knowing that he/she was responsible for their mother's death, and will be miserable for it.

It's entirely possible the kid will go on to have a great life. There are situations where this could be for the greater good. On the other hand... what if the mother already has kids? What if the quality of her current kids' lives would be that much better without another mouth to feed, and with a mother there to take care of them? Or what if she's able to have another kid later on and safely carry it to term?


----------



## CannotWait (May 11, 2011)

I haven't read through all of the pages, but has anyone started making dead baby jokes yet?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 11, 2011)

Spatel said:


> A mother willingly letting herself die so that her child can live is the most self-serving thing she could ever hope to do. She gets to bring a child into the world to be a burden on other people, and her own death will also be a burden on them. The child will grow up knowing that he/she was responsible for their mother's death, and will be miserable for it.
> 
> It's entirely possible the kid will go on to have a great life. There are situations where this could be for the greater good. On the other hand... what if the mother already has kids? What if the quality of her current kids' lives would be that much better without another mouth to feed, and with a mother there to take care of them? Or what if she's able to have another kid later on and safely carry it to term?



No, the child will learn that their mother loved them so much, that they died to give them life. Its love, its the greatest form of love.
I guess then if your ever in a situation where your mother has to choose between her life and yours, she should choose her life because choosing to save you would be selfish of her...


----------



## Spatel (May 11, 2011)

Frokusblakah said:


> If you are worried that you can't take care of it, foster care.  I've met plenty of people that have come from "poor" lives who NEVER wished they were never born.  I've met people with disabilities who don't throw their hands up and say "end it, its just too much".  Why should other people get to decide if its worth it to them or not ?


 
Children from various minorities rarely get adopted and it's tough growing up in a foster home. I think in some cases this is the best call, but there are situations where the mother's health and personal safety would be adversely affected by carrying the child to term. There is a huge negative stigma for teenagers that get pregnant. If (and this is often the case with abortions), she's in high school, living with her parents, she would probably be better off aborting early before anyone else finds out.

Some of those poor people you mentioned might've survived and gone on to live great lives because of abortion. Just think how poor they would be if they had even more siblings growing up. That's the difference between making ends meet and not.

Disabled people can live great, beautiful lives. The thing is though, depending on the disability, their life could have come at the cost of everyone around them taking care of them. Raising a mentally handicapped kid is a tremendous challenge. Living with certain types of disabilities can be extremely depressing and arduous. People who have severe physical or mental disabilities tend to be at a high risk for suicide and depression.


----------



## Spatel (May 11, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No, the child will learn that their mother loved them so much, that they died to give them life. Its love, its the greatest form of love.
> I guess then if your ever in a situation where your mother has to choose between her life and yours, she should choose her life because choosing to save you would be selfish of her...


Well, nothing says love like finding out you're going to die at the age of 5 from malignant tumors that killed your mother before you were born.

Thanks for directing the scenario personally at me. Y'know, it's interesting that the pro-lifers are the ones saying their opponents "should've been aborted". Real nice sportsmanship there. Don't worry though, the feeling is mutual.

By the way, if my mother died in order to give birth to me, then my little sister never would have been born. So we have two scenarios: one where I live, and one where my sister and mother live. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Also it's likely she would've had another kid to make up for losing the first one, so I don't really see what the point of this thought problem is.


----------



## ArielMT (May 12, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> I haven't read through all of the pages, but has anyone started making dead baby jokes yet?


 
I don't think so.  And with close to 600 posts and no such thing, it's probably for a good reason: This thread was started as a serious debate, and regardless of the merits of the tactics used, it has been kept pretty much on topic by all its participants.  If you ask me in either capacity, member or moderator, I think it should stay that way.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 12, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No, If the child will live, then I cannot justify abortion. I find it interesting that a person can draw a line on where a mother is willing to risk her life for her child. Aparently its okay to risk her child's life before her child is born, but its frowned upon in society after her child is born that a mother is not willing to risk her life for her child.



The key words here are "*IF* the child will live" There is no telling what will happen during a pregnancy, we can not predict the future but apparently you can.



> Maybe you should read when a mother who is halfway through her pregnancy finds out that she has cancer. Most women are willing to forgo treatment (Which while they are pregnant would kill their child if they got radiation teatment) And wait to give birth. Thus risking their own life to make sure their child can live. That is love, its a love so strong that a mother is willing to die for her child. And that type of love, dying for someone to make sure they have a chance to live, is the greatest form of love in the world.



I am aware this dose happen and again, it is what the mother CHOSE to do. Bottom line is, no one can tell a woman what to do, not you, not me, no one.




> The question is, are you willing to die for your child so they have a chance to live? Are you willing to forgo your own desires so that the child you are carrying can live? Is your own life more important than your child's? Thats the question you should be asking.
> Self serving or self sacrifice, that is what it boils down to.



Why are you asking me, a man, this question? Do men suddenly give birth now? Also, you dumbass, that is three questions, not A QUESTION, did you fail math at school or something?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *No, the child will learn* that their mother loved them so much, that they died to give them life. Its love, its the greatest form of love.
> I guess then if your ever in a situation where your mother has to choose between her life and yours, she should choose her life because choosing to save you would be selfish of her...



Here, you talk like you know every parent on the planet and know exactly what a child will be taught, again you must be psychic or something to know this.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 12, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Well, nothing says love like finding out you're  going to die at the age of 5 from malignant tumors that killed your  mother before you were born.
> 
> Thanks for directing the scenario  personally at me. Y'know, it's interesting that the pro-lifers are the  ones saying their opponents "should've been aborted". Real nice  sportsmanship there. Don't worry though, the feeling is mutual.
> 
> By  the way, if my mother died in order to give birth to me, then my little  sister never would have been born. So we have two scenarios: one where I  live, and one where my sister and mother live. The needs of the many  outweigh the needs of the few. Also it's likely she would've had another  kid to make up for losing the first one, so I don't really see what the  point of this thought problem is.



First off, I have never said the pro choice crowd should have been aborted. That was said by someone else.
Second, I am glad I made the question personal for you, it makes you think. And that question can be directed at your little sister too. Suppose your mother was going to die giving birth, but your sister would live. I mean, your mom and dad can just make another baby right, so who cares if they have to abort your little sister. She wasn't important anyways...



Randy-Darkshade said:


> The  key words here are "*IF* the child will live" There is no telling  what will happen during a pregnancy, we can not predict the future but  apparently you can.
> I am aware this dose happen and  again, it is what the mother CHOSE to do. Bottom line is, no one can  tell a woman what to do, not you, not me, no one.
> Here, you talk like  you know every parent on the planet and know exactly what a child will  be taught, again you must be psychic or something to know this.


 
No, we cannot predict the future, but isn't it worth the risk if the child will live. Or, is a life of an infant worth nothing to you at all?

Yes, it does happen with women who forgo treatment of cancer to save their child. It has nothing to do with telling them they have to do anything. All I am saying is, I can never support abortion.

And as for what a child can learn about their mother, who died to bring them into the world. When a child is raised in a loving and caring home. That is what they will learn. But that is a whole nother topic about correctly raising a child.


----------



## CannotWait (May 12, 2011)

Well I sure hope my mother is nice enough to let me die to save herself, I certainly wouldn't want her to live her life without me should I be in her shoes.


----------



## Thatch (May 13, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Or, is a life of an infant worth nothing to you at all?


 
It does have nutrition value.

EDIT:


ArielMT said:


> I don't think so.  And with close to 600 posts and no such thing, it's probably for a good reason: This thread was started as a serious debate, and regardless of the merits of the tactics used, it has been kept pretty much on topic by all its participants.  If you ask me in either capacity, member or moderator, I think it should stay that way.


 
Oops. Honestly read that after the fact. My bad :V


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 13, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Durrrrr.


 


Deo said:


> Okay.
> Now why don't you try reasonable discussion instead of whatever that was?


 
Seriously Rukh, making it into a personal thing was retarded the first time you tried that in this thread and is even more trite the second. Get a new tactic or get out.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 13, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No, we cannot predict the future, but isn't it worth the risk if the child will live. Or, is a life of an infant worth nothing to you at all?



Then stop talking as if you _know_ what will become of an unborn child.



> And as for what a child can learn about their mother, who died to bring them into the world. When a child is raised in a loving and caring home. That is what they will learn. But that is a whole nother topic about correctly raising a child.



This is only when a child is brought up in a loving and caring environment. Though I think we both know this is not always the case.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 13, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Then stop talking as if you _know_ what will become of an unborn child.


 
Stop saying an unborn child is worthless. Because you don't know what an unborn child may be later in life. By what standard are you using to decide that, an unborn child in one corner doesn't deserve the chance to live, and in another corner another unborn child does deserve to live?


----------



## Aleu (May 13, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Stop saying an unborn child is worthless. Because you don't know what an unborn child may be later in life. By what standard are you using to decide that, an unborn child in one corner doesn't deserve the chance to live, and in another corner another unborn child does deserve to live?


 If the mother decides that she wants to keep the child. Also, a fetus IS worthless. It can't do anything other than leech nutrients.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 14, 2011)

Aleu said:


> If the mother decides that she wants to keep the child. Also, *a fetus IS worthless.* It can't do anything other than leech nutrients.


 
And I do not agree, and I never will. An unborn child is a human being and deserves the chance to live.

But, you didn't answer the question in the comment you quoted, so I will put it up again.
*By what standard are you using to decide that, an unborn child in one  corner doesn't deserve the chance to live, and in another corner another  unborn child does deserve to live?*


----------



## Conker (May 14, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *By what standard are you using to decide that, an unborn child in one  corner doesn't deserve the chance to live, and in another corner another  unborn child does deserve to live?*


 He/she doesn't get to decide that, the mother of that unborn child does.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 14, 2011)

Conker said:


> He/she doesn't get to decide that, the mother of that unborn child does.


 
And by what standard does the mother choose to decide that? Their own? Humanities own judgment is flawed and skewed at best. So how can someone whos judgment is flawed and skewed decide whether an innocent life deserves to die? By what standard is there left to use?


----------



## Aleu (May 14, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And by what standard does the mother choose to decide that? Their own? Humanities own judgment is flawed and skewed at best. So how can someone whos judgment is flawed and skewed decide whether an innocent life deserves to die? By what standard is there left to use?


 I think I should be able to choose whether or not I let a parasite live in my, note* MY*, body.

Also, if humanity's judgment is so flawed, what right do you have saying that they shouldn't do it? :V


----------



## Conker (May 14, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And by what standard does the mother choose to decide that? Their own? Humanities own judgment is flawed and skewed at best. So how can someone whos judgment is flawed and skewed decide whether an innocent life deserves to die? By what standard is there left to use?


 If humanities judgment is flawed and skewed at best, then who should be drafting and enacting laws that make abortion illegal? Only humanity can do that, and with the flawed judgment, the laws will be flawed. 

Not to mention, since you are part of "humanity" your judgment is both flawed and skewed, so why should we listen to it? 

We only have our own standards because we are the only ones that can make the standards (plus society or some crap I don't want to word right now). Unless aliens show up with higher forms of life that is. But I wouldn't hold out on that.


----------



## Lobar (May 14, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And by what standard does the mother choose to decide that? Their own? Humanities own judgment is flawed and skewed at best. So how can someone whos judgment is flawed and skewed decide whether an innocent life deserves to die? By what standard is there left to use?


 
You're right, thatwoman clearly needs a group of men who don't know her or her situation to make that call for her.

No, really, who is _better qualified_ to make that decision more than the one who is actually involved?  And magical sky fairies don't count.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 14, 2011)

Aleu said:


> I think I should be able to choose whether or not I let a parasite live in my, note* MY*, body.
> 
> Also, if humanity's judgment is so flawed, what right do you have saying that they shouldn't do it? :V


 
I would think that answer is obvious. I don't use my judgment as a standard. 


Conker said:


> If humanities judgment is flawed and skewed at best, then who should be drafting and enacting laws that make abortion illegal? Only humanity can do that, and with the flawed judgment, the laws will be flawed.
> 
> Not to mention, since you are part of "humanity" your judgment is both flawed and skewed, so why should we listen to it?
> 
> We only have our own standards because we are the only ones that can make the standards (plus society or some crap I don't want to word right now). Unless aliens show up with higher forms of life that is. But I wouldn't hold out on that.


 
See first answer above. Also, There is a higher law than mankind's laws.


Lobar said:


> You're right, that woman clearly needs a group of men who don't know her or her situation to make that call for her.
> 
> No, really, who is _better qualified_ to make that decision more than the one who is actually involved?  And magical sky fairies don't count.


 
I never said to force people one way or another. And I won't. People can freely choose. But don't ever expect me to condone abortion. 

And you already know the answer of who is more qualified. You just don't like that answer.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 14, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Stop saying an unborn child is worthless. Because you don't know what an unborn child may be later in life. By what standard are you using to decide that, an unborn child in one corner doesn't deserve the chance to live, and in another corner another unborn child does deserve to live?



I never said fucking said a child's life was worthless. So your new tactic is to put words in people's mouths? You're seriously going to resort to being this fucking childish?


----------



## Thatch (May 14, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I would think that answer is obvious.


 
Nope, it isn't.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And you already know the answer of who is more qualified.


 
No, we don't.

Stop prancing around the issue and say finally that all your opinions are based on something some sandniggers wrote in the middle of the desert a couple thousand years ago.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 14, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I never said to force people one way or another. And I won't. People can freely choose. But don't ever expect me to condone abortion.



I'm 99% certain most of us don't _condone_ abortions either. I for one would like to see as few abortions performed as possible.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And you already know the answer of who is more qualified. You just don't like that answer.


 
Obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the most qualified.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> I never said fucking said a child's life was worthless. So your new tactic is to put words in people's mouths? You're seriously going to resort to being this fucking childish?





Randy-Darkshade said:


> *new tactic*



Hnnnnnnope.


----------



## Deo (May 14, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> may be


 Uh uh. No you don't get to use the WHAT IF fallacy. No one knows what a fetus may or may not grow into as a person (if it is not miscarried, or stillborn, or any other numerous natural things that have the possibility of naturally terminating the pregnancy). Throwing the WHAT IF is stupid. Most people 99.9% are of no true time withstanding value to humanity and those that are, well their discoveries and benefits to humanity are largely based on the findings of others so another person could easily be a substitute if they were so to say, aborted. Example: WHAT IF you aborted the man who cures cancer? Well, cancer has already been cured, and it was done by such a large number of scientists working together that the loss of a single one would be of no consequence to the project or the end benefit (curing cancer).


----------



## Conker (May 14, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> See first answer above. Also, There is a higher law than mankind's laws.


 I could just flat out call "bullshit" as I'm usually apt to do and write all of you arguments off as stupid (which I have done in the past)

But.

Let's assume the Bible shows us a higher form of law than mankind can craft. Let us assume the Bible is heavenly inspired. 

We, as humans, whose judgments are both flawed and skewed, are left to interpret the Bible. The Bible might be perfect (it isn't, but in this scenario it can be), but our interpretations of it can never be perfect using your own argument of humanity being flawed and skewed. If the Bible were that easy to interpret, we wouldn't have tons of Christian sects who argue about arbitrary matters. 

So, we're really fucked either way. I'll leave it up to the mother's judgments and not my personal interpretations of the Bible (though, if the mother so chooses, she can base her judgments off of her personal interpretations of the Bible).


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 14, 2011)

Deo said:


> Uh uh. No you don't get to use the WHAT IF fallacy. No one knows what a fetus may or may not grow into as a person (if it is not miscarried, or stillborn, or any other numerous natural things that have the possibility of naturally terminating the pregnancy). Throwing the WHAT IF is stupid. Most people 99.9% are of no true time withstanding value to humanity and those that are, well their discoveries and benefits to humanity are largely based on the findings of others so another person could easily be a substitute if they were so to say, aborted. Example: WHAT IF you aborted the man who cures cancer? Well, cancer has already been cured, and it was done by such a large number of scientists working together that the loss of a single one would be of no consequence to the project or the end benefit (curing cancer).


 
No Deo, Unlike you, I will not condone abortions, I will not say its a good thing, and I will never accept it as okay. So, how about at this point we end the conversation. You already know that I will not change my mind. Its set, and final.

Your first post was saying that abortions are okay. I say they are not. End of conversation.

You say murder is wrong, that killing is wrong, and then you deem to say what defines a life and doesn't. In other words, you pick and choose what is and isn't a life... By what standard are you basing that off of? How do you know its actually okay to abort? Just because you think it is? Sorry, that argument will never fly with me.


----------



## Bliss (May 14, 2011)

I want my pro-lifers vegan and Million Mom Marchers. :F


----------



## Mayfurr (May 14, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You say murder is wrong, that killing is wrong, and then you deem to say what defines a life and doesn't. In other words, you pick and choose what is and isn't a life... By what standard are you basing that off of? How do you know its actually okay to abort? Just because you think it is? Sorry, that argument will never fly with me.


 
And yet you say murder is wrong, that killing is wrong, that abortion is wrong, yet you've stated in the past you have no problems with accepting the rightness of God's actions in killing children in the Old Testament just because they made fun of a balding prophet. 

The only standard you are working off apparently is "Might is Right". At least pro-choice people are _trying_ to weigh up the pros and cons of what is a fairly desperate act on the part of the mother, rather than adhering to a heartlessly dogmatic perspective that in the real world sees doctors condemned by so-called "pro-life" priests for saving the live of a pregnant child that had been raped by her own father.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 14, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> And yet you say murder is wrong, that killing is wrong, that abortion is wrong, yet you've stated in the past you have no problems with accepting the rightness of God's actions in killing children in the Old Testament just because they made fun of a balding prophet.
> 
> The only standard you are working off apparently is "Might is Right". At least pro-choice people are _trying_ to weigh up the pros and cons of what is a fairly desperate act on the part of the mother, rather than adhering to a heartlessly dogmatic perspective that in the real world sees doctors condemned by so-called "pro-life" priests for saving the live of a pregnant child that had been raped by her own father.



And we are back to that. Even though I gave a full detailed explanation, using ancient Hebrew text. To which Deo didn't even argue against. It wasn't children. It was young men. You can go back, re read my entire post detailing that entire passage.


----------



## Bliss (May 14, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *It was young men.*



Totally more justifiable!


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 14, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Totally more justifiable!


 
Earlier he was arguing that they survived being torn to pieces, which also made it okay, so take that as you will.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 14, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Totally more justifiable!


 
They mocked and defamed a Prophet of God, which is the same as mocking God Himself. Which is blasphemy. So yes, it was very justified.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 14, 2011)

We have to make a lot of difficult decisions in this life, sometimes we choose right, sometimes we choose wrong. 

I just found out my brother got his GF pregnant (would be his third child with three different girls) and she, who want's to be a police officer after she is done at college, is thinking about abortion. 

No, in this case I'd be against it despite being pro-choice myself. Aborting a baby just because it will interfere with your future career is highly selfish. Especially since he didn't use protection. 

Though she has not decided anything as of yet.


----------



## Conker (May 14, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No Deo, Unlike you, I will not condone abortions, I will not say its a good thing, and I will never accept it as okay. So, how about at this point we end the conversation. You already know that I will not change my mind. Its set, and final.


It took 25 pages for someone to say "can we agree to disagree" ? :V


----------



## Thatch (May 14, 2011)

Conker said:


> It took 25 pages for someone to say "can we agree to disagree" ? :V


 
And it's Rukh of all people.

Mind=blown.


----------



## Aleu (May 14, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I would think that answer is obvious. I don't use my judgment as a standard.


 Of course you do, you have your own opinions and judgments.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> They mocked and defamed a Prophet of God,  which is the same as mocking God Himself. Which is blasphemy. So yes, it  was very justified.


 How is a prophet the same as god? When was this? I thought prophets were...you know, humans. Flawed. Just like everyone else.


----------



## Volkodav (May 14, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> They mocked and defamed a Prophet of God, which is the same as mocking God Himself. Which is blasphemy. So yes, it was very justified.


 Rukh, do you believe there is going to be an earthquake on the 21st that will kill everybody?
Pic related


----------



## Aleu (May 14, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Rukh, do you believe there is going to be an earthquake on the 21st that will kill everybody?
> Pic related


 AHAHAHAAA I LOVE lolGod


----------



## Thatch (May 14, 2011)

Aleu said:


> How is a prophet the same as god? When was this? I thought prophets were...you know, humans. Flawed. Just like everyone else.


 
But they were speaking god's words, of course. We know that because they said so :V


----------



## Volkodav (May 14, 2011)

Aleu said:


> AHAHAHAAA I LOVE lolGod


 LOL IKR
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/BVO/#by=sp
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/BRz/#by=sp
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/pms/#by=sp
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/Dik/#by=sp
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/DdV/#by=sp
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/Cs4/#by=sp

My fave ones


----------



## Wreth (May 14, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> They mocked and defamed a Prophet of God, which is the same as mocking God Himself. Which is blasphemy. So yes, it was very justified.


 
Verbally insulting someone or something does not justify violent retaliation, regardless of how high and mighty the target is.


----------



## Deo (May 14, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You say murder is wrong, that killing is wrong, and then you deem to say what defines a life and doesn't. In other words, you pick and choose what is and isn't a life... By what standard are you basing that off of? How do you know its actually okay to abort? Just because you think it is? Sorry, that argument will never fly with me.


 I don't pick and choose. A complete nervous system constitutes a human life. That is my standard. 
And Rukh, for all your bolster you condone war and shooting live persons, where their personhood is not under any question at all. By what standard do you base condoning shooting and killing off of? How do you know it is okay to kill a person? Just because you think it is? Sorry, that argument will never fly with me.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (May 14, 2011)

Aleu said:


> How is a prophet the same as god? When was this? I thought prophets were...you know, humans. Flawed. Just like everyone else.


 
Obv. you don't about the pope! 

ps. the pope isn't prophet because of catholic, the devils Christianity. 

And so forth.


----------



## Deo (May 14, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And we are back to that. Even though I gave a full detailed explanation, using ancient Hebrew text. To which Deo didn't even argue against. It wasn't children. It was young men. You can go back, re read my entire post detailing that entire passage.


 
WHAT
I ARGUED
MAINLY BECAUSE YOU FUCKED UP THE HEBREW AND CAN'T READ IT WORTH SHIT. YET YOU CONTINUED AND TRIED TO ALTER THE ORIGINAL WORDS AND PERVERT THEM TO YOUR OWN INTENTIONS.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 14, 2011)

Deo said:


> WHAT
> I ARGUED
> MAINLY BECAUSE YOU FUCKED UP THE HEBREW AND CAN'T READ IT WORTH SHIT. YET YOU CONTINUED AND TRIED TO ALTER THE ORIGINAL WORDS AND PERVERT THEM TO YOUR OWN INTENTIONS.


 
Oh no, don't even try this Deo. I sent you a message about it on FA months ago. I distinctly remember you saying that you had to go to your religious professor about it. And you never gave an answer after that. It was while you were temp banned the first time from the forum. So As I said, I went to your personal FA page to show you my resonance. To which you never countered...


----------



## Torrijos-sama (May 14, 2011)

Rukh, leave them be.

If Abortion is an immoral act, then don't get one... But as far as my biblical studies have taken me, I have found nothing directly concerning Abortion in either the Old Testament or the Old Testament, unless you count the portions of the Bible that say that "Murder is wrong" and "Murdering Infants is wrong". Other than that, the Bible gives no definitions for what an infant is or anything along those lines.

Instead, what i've found is this:



			
				 John 8:1-30 said:
			
		

> _but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives._
> 
> _*2* At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them._ _*3* The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group_ _*4* and said to Jesus, â€œTeacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery._ _*5* In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women._ _Now what do you say?â€_ _*6* They were using this question as a trap,_ _in order to have a basis for accusing him._
> _But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger._ _*7* When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, â€œLet any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone_ _at her.â€_ _*8* Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground._
> ...


 
Essentially, if the abortion is a one-time ordeal for a desperate woman, then it is okay, so long as she doesn't do it again, and so long as she is able to go on and make an active effort to sin no more.

So, leave them to their sins, but don't condemn people that get abortions. Do not punish them as the men were to punish the adulterous woman, and do not take active measures to try to change the system that is letting people get abortions. If it were a sin and somebody says that it must be stopped by all means, then one should back off, and resist the temptation to commit such an act, for that is what the Lord would really be looking for is CONTROL and ABSTINENCE on the part of the individual, not RESTRICTION and PUNISHMENT by the system itself.


----------



## Leafblower29 (May 14, 2011)

I'm against abortion because I can't get passed the killing mentality but I think it should stay legal because I don't care of other people kill their own babies.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 14, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> Rukh, leave them be.
> 
> If Abortion is an immoral act, then don't get one... But as far as my biblical studies have taken me, I have found nothing directly concerning Abortion in either the Old Testament or the Old Testament, unless you count the portions of the Bible that say that "Murder is wrong" and "Murdering Infants is wrong". Other than that, the Bible gives no definitions for what an infant is or anything along those lines.
> 
> ...



I am not condemning anyone. I am saying I don't agree with it.

And yet again, Scripture does say it is wrong. I posted about it in here before.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Since you brought up Scripture, I shall  respond and show you where and how it says abortion is wrong.
> 
> *Premise #1 Murder is wrong.* Below is a small sample of verses.
> Genesis 9:6, Matthew 15:19, Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, John 8:44, Acts 3:14, Romans 1:28-29, and Romans 13:19.
> ...


----------



## Volkodav (May 14, 2011)

Rukh you didn't answer my question about May 21st
But since you live in Michigan and taht is right beside me, if you feel the earthquake and I don't I'll know you're lying and I'm going to call you out on it


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Rukh you didn't answer my question about May 21st
> But since you live in Michigan and taht is right beside me, if you feel the earthquake and I don't I'll know you're lying and I'm going to call you out on it


 
Sorry, didn't see your post.

My answer is no. I don't believe it. Nobody knows when the Tribulation will begin. Only the Father knows.


----------



## Volkodav (May 15, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Sorry, didn't see your post.
> 
> My answer is no. I don't believe it. Nobody knows when the Tribulation will begin. Only the Father knows.


 But this guy knows it, says the bible proves it. So if it's not true [he says he made no errors this time] then I guess the bible was proved wrong again.
Either way I'm going to be standing outside in my driveway with my arms crossed waiting for judgement day to pop my earthquake-cherry. This will be my first earthquake so it had better be a fuckin good one.


----------



## Aleu (May 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> But this guy knows it, says the bible proves it. So if it's not true [he says he made no errors this time] then I guess the bible was proved wrong again.
> Either way I'm going to be standing outside in my driveway with my arms crossed waiting for judgement day to pop my earthquake-cherry. This will be my first earthquake so it had better be a fuckin good one.


 Actually, no where in the bible does it state when doomsday/rapture/whatthefuckever will happen.
IIRC he's made multiple "predictions" and chances are, he's lying out of his ass to get attention or he's stupid.

Either way, he's stupid.


----------



## Volkodav (May 15, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Actually, no where in the bible does it state when doomsday/rapture/whatthefuckever will happen.
> IIRC he's made multiple "predictions" and chances are, he's lying out of his ass to get attention or he's stupid.
> 
> Either way, he's stupid.


Hey Idk what it says in the bible, all I know is some batshit insane religious nut is 100% certain that this is the end!!! oooo!!!!



EDIT: and yes, he's stupid. He's blown his entire life savings on signs looololol


----------



## Mayfurr (May 15, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> They mocked and defamed a Prophet of God, which is the same as mocking God Himself. Which is blasphemy. *So yes, it was very justified.*


 
So you're not pro-life after all, as you're happily supporting capital punishment for someone just _saying _nasty things about your "god". 

And you have the *nerve *to condemn a woman who is faced with the choice between her life and the life of her unborn child, and chooses her own life.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 15, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> So you're not pro-life after all, as you're happily supporting capital punishment for someone just _saying _nasty things about your "god".
> 
> And you have the *nerve *to condemn a woman who is faced with the choice between her life and the life of her unborn child, and chooses her own life.


 
The difference is, God is justified because of who He is. I am not. Hence why I don't condemn. I merely speak.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 15, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The difference is, God is justified because of who He is. I am not. Hence why I don't condemn. I merely speak.


 
You complain about moral relativists, and then you go and say things like this...


----------



## Deo (May 15, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The difference is, God is justified because of who He is. I am not. Hence why I don't condemn. I merely speak.


 This just proves that Rukh is more bending and altering in his morals than I am. Damn.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 15, 2011)

Deo said:


> This just proves that Rukh is more bending and altering in his morals than I am. Damn.



This is why I stick to my own beliefs. I find religion to be very hypocritical.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 15, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> You complain about moral relativists, and then you go and say things like this...


 
Speaking truth is not the same as condemning. I don't condemn. God does what He does according to His will. And His will is just. 

Now, explain how that has anything to do with relativism. It doesn't, at all.



Deo said:


> This just proves that Rukh is more bending and altering in his morals than I am. Damn.


 
Deo, how am I bending anything? I stand by what I believe, firmly. Last time I checked, standing firm does not equal being wishy washy, unlike yourself.

You try and define at what point a person is alive, then you say killing is wrong, but you support killing of an innocent child. And your argument is "The woman gets to choose whether she wants to give birth or not." Murder is murder. Either stand by your own beliefs, or don't stand by them at all.

Now, here is the thing, you are right in the fact that choice gets to be made. But here is where I stand, there is a right and wrong choice. And I will speak out against abortion. Because it is the wrong choice. You don't want to be a voice for those who don't have one, fine. I will though.

Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.

So, how much longer will you continue to try and defend what cannot be defended? How long are you going to stifle out the voices of all those innocent children who were never given the chance to live? You have spoken about the atrocities of what happens to children, but you completely ignore the atrocity of a mother killing her own child. Its never right. And nothing you ever say will change that.

I will stand against abortion. I will be the voice for those who have none.


Now, I hope I have gotten my message across as clearly as possible. You can keep trying to defend  people who murder children, and I will continue to speak against it.


----------



## Conker (May 15, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Speaking truth is not the same as condemning. I don't condemn. God does what He does according to His will. And His will is just.
> 
> Now, explain how that has anything to do with relativism. It doesn't, at all.


 He's only just in that he says he's just and we have to believe him because he is stronger than we are. 

Pretty sure might doesn't make right though.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 15, 2011)

Conker said:


> He's only just in that he says he's just and we have to believe him because he is stronger than we are.
> 
> Pretty sure might doesn't make right though.


 
No, I am not using the word just, as an adjective. When I say God is just, the word just is a noun. God is Just. And that has nothing to do with might.


----------



## Bliss (May 15, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Speaking truth is not the same as condemning. I don't condemn. God does what He does according to His will. And His will is just.
> *



You serious with this? x_x

And to think that people who feel FBI is spying on them are put into the crazy house... 
Why not him? *Whyyy?!*


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 15, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Speaking truth is not the same as condemning. I don't condemn. God does what He does according to His will. And His will is just.
> 
> Now, explain how that has anything to do with relativism. It doesn't, at all.


 
Your god is neither objective nor just. (He doesn't even exist, but we'll let that slide for now.)

The short version is, a good objective moral law is one that is good in all situations. It's not subject to anything like situation or culture or status. A God that says one thing, like "thou shalt not steal, kill, or have extramarital sex." then goes on to do all three himself and then some- No longer objective in that case as it's no longer unjust in all situations.


----------



## Wreth (May 15, 2011)

Rukh seems to have the innability to realise that the appropriate reaction towards an event is situation dependent.


----------



## Deo (May 15, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Deo, how am I bending anything?


You are a classic case of DOUBLETHINK, holding two opposing beliefs side by side. 1. You say murder is wrong. 2. Then you say murder is justifiable. That is lenient and bending. Pick one or the other, but don't filander between the two at your personal discretion Rukh. Hold to your morals better, stop being a limp-moralled loud mouth. 
You call me a hypocrite fro defining a person as having a full nervous system. 
You call me a hypocrite for abhorring killing.
Yet you do not grant the rights of a person to all people, and you claim murder is justifiable on some grounds.
YOU are the hypocrite with the relative wish-washy morality that spins on a dime at your (and your opinion imposed on God's) whim.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I stand by what I believe, firmly. Last time I checked, standing firm does not equal being wishy washy, unlike yourself.


HA! Liar. Is it relatively okay to lie about your brothers on Earth Rukh? Is it relative in your morals to lie about me? Am I not a person like an embryo is? Do I have no rights that you get to lie about me? You do this far too often Rukh, and to tell you honestly I am sick of you lying about me and putting words in my mouth. It's sickening behavior on your part and the depravity you stoop to is disgusting and loathsome.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You try and define at what point a person is alive, then you say killing is wrong, but you support killing of an innocent child.


Not an innocent child. A child has a full nervous system. It can feel pain. Without that it is not a person, and until then the full right of the ownership of the clump of cells belongs to the owner of the body, the mother.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Murder is murder.


Yes it is. Why then do you support it as you condemn me for supporting the right to choice? You say murder is murder, and that killing is wrong, yet you support killing so long as it fits your needs and your holy book. LIAR. Your morals are as loose as a hay-penny whore.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Either stand by your own beliefs, or don't stand by them at all.


How horrible to hear such words from such a lying loose moralled mouth. I stand firm in my morals, it is you who bends and creates exceptions and loopholes. It is you who needs to stand by your own beliefs or don't stand by them at all.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.


You say this as if I s[end my free time doing evil. Rukh, you fool, I do good. I volunteer, I study, I donate my blood, I donate my time. I teach mentally inept children and foster wounded animals. I go to nursing homes and spend time with the elderly and the dying. I listen to them who have no families. I volunteer at the hospital cleaning the laundry. I study hard so that one day I can give amputees back their limbs and their independence. What light do you bring to this world other than the fires of your hell? 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So, how much longer will you continue to try and defend what cannot be defended? How long are you going to stifle out the voices of all those innocent children who were never given the chance to live?


How long will you condone murder, and stifle out the voices of many? How many times will you make allowances for murder, so long as it fits your agenda?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You have spoken about the atrocities of what happens to children, but you completely ignore the atrocity of a mother killing her own child. Its never right. And nothing you ever say will change that.


You speak of bringing unloved children into this world where they will inevitably be shuffled around and treated like a number by the state. Tossed between foster homes and orphanages. Unloved. Unwanted. Neglected, sometimes abused. YOU are the callous one. Rukh, if you care so much for children how many do you have adopted? How many have you opened your home to? How many times a week do you volunteer for Big Brothers Big Sisters and such organizations? How often do you step off your pedestal and walk among the people you claim you love? How often do you walk among them and help them, talk to them, and ease their suffering? You speak through your teeth like the serpent you are.


----------



## Thatch (May 15, 2011)

Deo said:


> You speak through your teeth like the serpent you are.


 
Best post here.


Rukh is satan. His words are poison. I mean, he constantly brags how what he does is the will of god, while it's obvious that what he's saying is twisted and evil.


----------



## Volkodav (May 15, 2011)

Thatch said:


> >he constantly brags how what he does is the will of god
> 
> >what he's saying is twisted and evil.



What does this _*really*_ say?


My persona question is.. okay. Okay since anybody who doesn't listen to god will go to hell and die, yeah that's fine. Okay, anybody who is gay or had sex before marriage is already going to hell, we have that down.
Why is it that we can choose to do things like sex before marriage & end up in hell, yet can't abort? I thought sinning was a choice, and we should be able to abort and go to hell if we want. I think it's just another way for religious men to control what women do.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 15, 2011)

Best rant ever.

And on an unrelated note-



Deo said:


> What light do you bring to this world other than the fires of your hell?


 
Christians say it's really dark in hell, but how can it be dark if everything is on fire?


----------



## Alstor (May 15, 2011)

Deo said:


> You say this as if I send my free time doing evil. Rukh, you fool, I do good. I volunteer, I study, I donate my blood, I donate my time. I teach mentally inept children and foster wounded animals. I go to nursing homes and spend time with the elderly and the dying. I listen to them who have no families. I volunteer at the hospital cleaning the laundry. I study hard so that one day I can give amputees back their limbs and their independence. What light do you bring to this world other than the fires of your hell?


 It should also be noted that you're doing it for yourself, not to just please or woo over a higher power.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 15, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Best rant ever.
> 
> And on an unrelated note-
> 
> ...



Christians have no clue wtf they are talking about.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 15, 2011)

Alstor said:


> It should also be noted that you're doing it for yourself, not to just please or woo over a higher power.



I don't see how Deo is doing it all for herself.


----------



## Pine (May 15, 2011)

Jesus titty-fucking Christ. Thank you, Deo.


----------



## Jashwa (May 15, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Christians say it's really dark in hell, but how can it be dark if everything is on fire?


 Hell, like Catholicism, doesn't follow any of the rules it's supposed to 



Randy-Darkshade said:


> I don't see how Deo is doing it all for herself.


 I think he meant that she was doing it because she wanted to, not because she thought it'd help her eternal soul. He phrased it horribly, though.


----------



## Volkodav (May 15, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I don't see how Deo is doing it all for herself.


I think it was just worded poorly


----------



## Ames (May 15, 2011)

If men could bear children, Christianity would have allowed it centuries ago.


----------



## Thatch (May 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> What does this _*really*_ say?


 
That he's trying to get get our immortal souls to hell.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> I don't see how Deo is doing it all for herself.


 
I'm pretty sure he meant that for a personal sense of fairness and the pleasure of helping others, as opposed to a sure pass to heaven.


----------



## Fay V (May 15, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Best rant ever.
> 
> And on an unrelated note-
> 
> ...



it is indeed the greatest rant of all time. 

As for the fire thing, there isn't really a biblical description of hell, but Apocryphal ones. So far as I am aware the lake of fire thing comes from a depiction in which hell is a lake of ever burning fire which gives off no light.


----------



## Deo (May 15, 2011)

Has my tongue lashing brought you back to the good flock Rukh? Are you willing to leave your pedestal and be humble and walk amongst us mere mortals?


----------



## Tycho (May 15, 2011)

Looks like Rukh got DeOWNED

please don't hurt me for that terrible joke


----------



## Volkodav (May 15, 2011)

Thatch said:


> That he's trying to get get our immortal souls to hell.


 Heheeee I think you missed my point.


----------



## Ames (May 15, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Looks like Rukh got DeOWNED
> 
> please don't hurt me for that terrible joke


 
I want to


----------



## Alstor (May 15, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I don't see how Deo is doing it all for herself.


 I meant doing it because she wants to, not to please a higher being.


----------



## Deo (May 15, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Looks like Rukh got DeOWNED
> 
> please don't hurt me for that terrible joke


 ilu


----------



## Thatch (May 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Heheeee I think you missed my point.


 
Nah, but it's fun to imagine him literaly being a malicious demon that's trying to get us to follow his skewed teaching so as to damn our souls.

Its easier if you literaly imagine him taking a serpent 'sona :V



Fay V said:


> As for the fire thing, there isn't really a biblical description of hell


 
IIRC, the actual theological hell is a state of being deprived of God's presence or somesuch, not an actual place.

Fire and brimstone is a purely cultural thing. Not to mention that there are worse possible fates many people would fear. I'm p sure I'd take a searing hot asphalt bath with a couple other sinners over an eternity of soltitude. At least with the former you have to company to scream in agony with.


----------



## Recel (May 15, 2011)

Rukh reminds me how scary religion can be. It puts responsibility for actions to a fictional things shoulder that automaticly makes it right and justified. And what "God thinks" can be altered, since its only in books, wich can be read in many diffrent ways. You cant ask God what to do, you just _think_ what you do is what he wants you to do.


----------



## Fay V (May 15, 2011)

Thatch said:


> Nah, but it's fun to imagine him literaly being a malicious demon that's trying to get us to follow his skewed teaching so as to damn our souls.
> 
> Its easier if you literaly imagine him taking a serpent 'sona :V
> 
> ...


 
I did say it was apocryphal, as in apocrypha, not in the bible. But yeah, supposedly the worst punishment is to know of God's grace, but be separated from it.


----------



## Volkodav (May 15, 2011)

Thatch said:


> Nah, but it's fun to imagine him literaly being a malicious demon that's trying to get us to follow his skewed teaching so as to damn our souls.
> 
> Its easier if you literaly imagine him taking a serpent 'sona :V


More like an annoying Christian rat that squeaks and follows you around and you just want to stomp it's skull in.


----------



## Thatch (May 15, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I did say it was apocryphal, as in apocrypha, not in the bible.


 
Tough words hurt my head.



Clayton said:


> More like an annoying Christian rat that squeaks and follows you around and you just want to stomp it's skull in.


 
Well, that would be the other, more realistic visualisation. :V
But to Deo's post, the former fits better.


----------



## Mentova (May 15, 2011)

I find it funny and sad that these debate are always like, Rukh vs Everyone Else.


----------



## Jashwa (May 15, 2011)

What would be great is if like Hell was just another Earthlike place without any Christians.


----------



## Mentova (May 15, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> What would be great is if like Hell was just another Earthlike place without any Christians.


 Brb worshiping Satan


----------



## Volkodav (May 15, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> What would be great is if like Hell was just another Earthlike place without any Christians.


 Well it kind of is. We get to live without people like Rukh or Roose


----------



## Thatch (May 15, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> What would be great is if like Hell was just another Earthlike place without any Christians.


 
Dude, it'd be Hell because they'd all go there :V


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (May 15, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> What would be great is if like Hell was just another Earthlike place without any Christians.


 
I'm pretty sure Somalia already exists.


----------



## Jashwa (May 15, 2011)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> I'm pretty sure Somalia already exists.


 Oh wow, less than 1000? I didn't know that.


----------



## Wreth (May 15, 2011)

Isn't someone who does good deeds without being told to, better than someone who just does them because are told anyway?


----------



## Jashwa (May 15, 2011)

Wreth said:


> Isn't someone who does good deeds without being told to, better than someone who just does them because are told anyway?


 Nope. Because good and better are completely subjective and therefore vary between people.


----------



## Thatch (May 15, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> Nope. Because good and better are completely subjective and therefore vary between people.


 
You're bad if you help people who don't believe in god. They deserve to burn in hell :V


----------



## Tewin Follow (May 15, 2011)

Thatch said:


> You're bad if you help people who don't believe in god. They deserve to burn in hell :V


 
Oh god, it's true.


----------



## Conker (May 15, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No, I am not using the word just, as an adjective. When I say God is just, the word just is a noun. God is Just. And that has nothing to do with might.


 Nouns can be adjectival :V You're using "Just" as a description of God, you're just slapping a helping verb in there to.

And it has everything to do with might/power.


----------



## Deo (May 15, 2011)

Again Rukh, what do you do that helps children, or as you put it "comforts widows"? Are you all talk and no actual doing?


----------



## Tycho (May 15, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> Nope. Because good and better are completely subjective and therefore vary between people.


 
I disagree.  Someone who performs ostensibly beneficial and selfless actions without being prompted to by another person or external influence such as religious dogma demonstrates more initiative and more innate predisposition to being kind in the first place.  Someone who helps because they want to, because it feels right to them, because to NOT help would be anathema to their personal conscience... is better than a person who commits a "selfless" act out of fear of eternal damnation or under pressure from someone else to "do the right thing".  Someone who exercises their free will fully, and for the benefit of others, is indeed a BETTER person.


----------



## narutonfuzzi (May 15, 2011)

my mom had an abortoin, i wish he swallowed my lil brother


----------



## Volkodav (May 15, 2011)

narutonfuzzi said:


> my mom had an abortoin, i wish he swallowed my lil brother


 What.


----------



## Frokusblakah (May 15, 2011)

Nice new sig.  Reaction is priceless.  :b


----------



## Volkodav (May 15, 2011)

Frokusblakah said:


> Nice new sig.  Reaction is priceless.  :b


 
HAHAH i know, every time I look at it I lol so hard


----------



## Frokusblakah (May 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> HAHAH i know, every time I look at it I lol so hard



Yeah, when I popped open the thread and saw it and your response I couldn't stop laughing.  :b


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 15, 2011)

Deo, if you think that list of things you do is good enough, or makes you a good person. You are mistaken. Its not good enough. It never will be. Why? Because the first time you did something wrong, you were condemned. The evil in our lives far outweighs any good we do. If you want to be good, then you have to be perfect. Good enough doesn't exist. If you take stock in all the good things you do, if thats your basis of defining who is a good person and who isn't. It is, seriously flawed. Because not one person is good. Again, our sin outweighs any good we do. We can't cover sin up.

Second, you only care for someones physical needs. Which, mind you isn't a bad thing. But its not enough. What good is it if you help at an orphanage, visit the elderly or anything else in your list, if you have no concern over the most important part of a person, their soul. What good is just helping someones physical needs when you do nothing about their spiritual needs?
Everyone will die, so just meeting physical needs really accomplishes nothing in that aspect. 

Now, back to abortion.

The primary reason abortion is wrong is because God said we are not to murder.  But because you don't believe in God, lets look at this from a different angle so to speak. We are allowed to take a life under the prescribed requirements of law (self defense, just war, executions) Each one of those areas deal with law. Self defense is justified because the antagonist is breaking the law (burglary, robbery, assault) and we can use this force when protecting ourselves and our property. Execution is the legal taking of life against someone who has committed a crime, or crimes, worthy of execution. In each of these cases, the person or antagonist is dealt with for the wrongs they have committed.

However, the child in the womb has done no wrong, yet it is executed. The child is executed but has broken no law! What crime has been committed? What law did the child break in its existence? None, yet the child is killed.

And I know you are not going to like me referencing Nazi Germany, but just see where I am going with this. The Jews were guilty of being Jews and were, according to the Nazi's worthy of death. Likewise, the children in the womb are guilty of being unborn children, and are, according to their parents/other people/society, worthy of death. what law did the unborn child break? What made them unworthy of life? The answer is simple. It depends on the opinion of the ones in power, of those wielding the knife and redefining what life is, and of those deciding who is worthy of life and who should die.

It is only in abortion that someone is executed but has not violated the  law.  This is fundamentally wrong on so many levels, and this is why abortion is wrong.

Since when do we kill someone who has not broken a law. (And before someone brings up wrongful convictions, that has nothing to do with what I am talking about)

Since when do we kill someone who's only "crime" was being brought into existence via the copulation of his or her parents? Regardless of who the parents are.


----------



## Mentova (May 15, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Deo, if you think that list of things you do is good enough, or makes you a good person. You are mistaken. Its not good enough. It never will be. Why? Because the first time you did something wrong, you were condemned. The evil in our lives far outweighs any good we do. If you want to be good, then you have to be perfect. Good enough doesn't exist. If you take stock in all the good things you do, if thats your basis of defining who is a good person and who isn't. It is, seriously flawed. Because not one person is good. Again, our sin outweighs any good we do. We can't cover sin up.


 That is an extremely negative way to view the world. Everyone at some point has done something wrong and bad. Nobody is perfect. Saying everyone is a bad person because of their sins is just asinine even if it is part of your religion.


----------



## Conker (May 15, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Since when do we kill someone who has not broken a law. (And before someone brings up wrongful convictions, that has nothing to do with what I am talking about)
> 
> Since when do we kill someone who's only "crime" was being brought into existence via the copulation of his or her parents? Regardless of who the parents are.


 Yeah, but they'll eventually sin and be condemned to evil; moreover, keeping them alive only deals with their physical needs, which aren't as important as their spiritual ones. So keeping the child alive really doesn't accomplish anything. 

Guess abortions do children a favor, they can "die" before they sin! Now off to heaven they go ^_^


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 16, 2011)

Conker said:


> *Yeah, but they'll eventually sin and be condemned to evil*; moreover, keeping them alive only deals with their physical needs, which aren't as important as their spiritual ones. So keeping the child alive really doesn't accomplish anything.
> 
> *Guess abortions do children a favor, they can "die" before they sin! Now off to heaven they go ^_^*


 

First bolded part: 
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Psalms 51:5
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death  through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all  sinned. Romans 5:12

Second bolded part:
Except the fact that Scripture is not clear on that. In fact, you will find no verse about a unborn children automatically going to heaven. But, Since God is just, it would appear that He would allow these infants to go to heaven. It is difficult to be dogmatic about this issue, but we can rest in the  fact that God is holy, righteous, and just.  Therefore, whatever God  chooses to do with infants will be best for them.


----------



## Volkodav (May 16, 2011)

Wow, Christians must lead depressing, unsatisfactory lives  Like children to a dad who never acknowledges anything they do and yells at them all the time and pretty much always ignores them.


----------



## Mentova (May 16, 2011)

Ruhk I have a question for you.

So I try my best to be a good person. I help my friends and family when they're in need. I am polite to strangers. I take good care of my pets. I try to be as friendly as possible (IRL, at least. I know I can be a dick here sometimes). According to your beliefs, does it mean that by default, all of the good things I've done for people are void and I am a bad person regardless?


----------



## Volkodav (May 16, 2011)

_"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. "_

Does this mean that you're a ghost? How do you type on a keyboard? Won't your fingers just go through the keys?


----------



## Riley (May 16, 2011)

Oh hey Rukh, how's it going?  Still crazy?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Deo, if you think that list of things you do is good enough, or makes you a good person. You are mistaken. Its not good enough. It never will be. Why? Because the first time you did something wrong, you were condemned. The evil in our lives far outweighs any good we do. If you want to be good, then you have to be perfect. Good enough doesn't exist. If you take stock in all the good things you do, if thats your basis of defining who is a good person and who isn't. It is, seriously flawed. Because not one person is good. Again, our sin outweighs any good we do. We can't cover sin up.



Yep, I see that you are.  Cool.


Alright, now that I've set myself up for some infractions, my thoughts on abortion:

First off, aborted fetus tissue needs to be harvested for medical testing.  If some woman aborts a baby, she has to be okay with all sorts sciency stuff going on with that not-yet-human bundle of cells.
Second, there's no reason for it to be illegal.  No real reason, anyway.  Religious people will be butthurt because that's all religious people ever are, but they need to learn to suck it up and stop trying to live other people's lives.
Third, I'm not a doctor and have about less than zero medical training, but I'm pretty sure that within the timeframe abortions are performed, the "baby" isn't actually a baby yet.  Not cognizant.  Still not much more than a tumour with nubby little flanges.  

And actually, in that vein, a fetus is a parasite.  It feeds off the host-mother and gives nothing back in return.  By definition, a parasite is harmful, and people should be entitled to rid their bodies of harmful oddities that accumulate.  Just because it grows a brain later on and eventually learns how to be opinionated and pompous on the internet doesn't change the fact that a fetus is by definition a harmful entity living inside a human body.

Alright Rukh, preach at me bro.


----------



## Boondawks (May 16, 2011)

I am against abortion but I support the murder of newborns.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 16, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Ruhk I have a question for you.
> 
> So I try my best to be a good person. I help my friends and family when they're in need. I am polite to strangers. I take good care of my pets. I try to be as friendly as possible (IRL, at least. I know I can be a dick here sometimes). According to your beliefs, does it mean that by default, all of the good things I've done for people are void and I am a bad person regardless?


 
Define Good. By most people its defined as good enough, as in, its okay if you did wrong things. Those were mistakes.

Biblical definition of good:
Matthew 19:17: â€œWhy do you ask me about what is good?â€ Jesus replied. â€œThere is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.â€

Galations 3:10-11: *F**or all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is  written: â€œCursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything  written in the Book of the Law.â€*

If you want to work your way into heaven, then you must be perfect. That is what the Law says.

Good enough, is not good enough. If you rely on good works, then you must be perfect and follow the Law 100%.


----------



## Volkodav (May 16, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Since when do we kill someone who has not broken a law. (And before someone brings up wrongful convictions, that has nothing to do with what I am talking about)
> 
> Since when do we kill someone who's only "crime" was being brought into existence via the copulation of his or her parents? Regardless of who the parents are.



People kill gays because they're gay. But you probably consider gays bad/sinners/etc. Is it okay to kill them?


----------



## Deo (May 16, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Deo, if you think that list of things you do is good enough, or makes you a good person. You are mistaken. Its not good enough. It never will be. Why? Because the first time you did something wrong, you were condemned. The evil in our lives far outweighs any good we do. If you want to be good, then you have to be perfect. Good enough doesn't exist. If you take stock in all the good things you do, if thats your basis of defining who is a good person and who isn't. It is, seriously flawed. Because not one person is good. Again, our sin outweighs any good we do. We can't cover sin up.
> 
> Second, you only care for someones physical needs. Which, mind you isn't a bad thing. But its not enough. What good is it if you help at an orphanage, visit the elderly or anything else in your list, if you have no concern over the most important part of a person, their soul. What good is just helping someones physical needs when you do nothing about their spiritual needs?
> Everyone will die, so just meeting physical needs really accomplishes nothing in that aspect.



So Rukh, I see you took the time to bitch at me about what a terrible person I am because I genuinely *DO *stuff that helps people rather than sit around talking, preaching, and harping about doing things without getting off my ass and doing anything about them. 
So again, answer me this, WHAT DO YOU DO THAT HELPS THESE UNWANTED CHILDREN? Besides empty talk and hot wind. 
I mean you can tell me all day that I'm a bad person because I try to do good in this world, but it's rather shitty and hypocritical of you to say that when you do_ absolutely nothing _to benefit your fellow man. So yeah, no dodging the question by telling me how awful I am, I want an answer. What do you *do *that helps these unwanted children you so profess to love and wish to protect?

It's easy to cast scorn on this world. And it's easy to be lazy and do nothing. It's easy to play pretend and focus on magical thoughts of lands after death. And it's easy to ignore the suffering around you. It's easy not to do anything and just go about your life uncaring about the world and others _and doing shit-nothing_.
It's _easy_, but it's not right.
It's one thing to bitch about stuff Rukh, but the real good people of the world go out and impact it in a positive way rather than condemning this physical world and doing nothing to improve it and alleviate suffering. You can lie, and make up new loopholes and hoops to human goodness, but it's bullshit and even you must recognize it for what it is: fucking lies.


----------



## Mentova (May 16, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Define Good. By most people its defined as good enough, as in, its okay if you did wrong things. Those were mistakes.
> 
> Biblical definition of good:
> Matthew 19:17: â€œWhy do you ask me about what is good?â€ Jesus replied. â€œThere is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.â€
> ...


 By good person I mean someone who is thoughtful, helpful, and caring. Someone who is there for people. Who strives to make the world a better place. As opposed to someone who is a selfish asshole and only cares about themselves.

And no, I am not a religious person and am not trying to get into the christian heaven or anything. I just like being a good person. I don't need a reward for it.

Besides I'd rather go to Hell and rock out with Ronnie James Dio for all eternity. I'm sure he has taken it over by now.


----------



## Deo (May 16, 2011)

I thought this was a quote I should come back to since I had more to say on it.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Deo, if you think that list of things you do is good enough, or makes you a good person. You are mistaken. Its not good enough. It never will be. Why? Because the first time you did something wrong, you were condemned. The evil in our lives far outweighs any good we do.


I think it speaks greatly of your character that you believe all of humanity is condemned from the slightest wrong doing and that humans are not innately good. It's sad really. So very cold, dark, miserable, and nihilistic. I think the opposite Rukh. I believe that people are inherently good, they want to do good in this world and they pursue good, and that their transgressions do not (in most cases) outweigh their good deeds and actions. The world you live in must be very bleak and unhappy Rukh, I fear you must be a very lonely man for you detest evil and claim that humanity is evil in the absolute.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If you want to be good, then you have to be perfect.


Are you trying to say that if I am not perfect I should just give up and never try to do any good because it's either 
A: Perfection
B: Not good (evil).
I don't think that falling short of perfection makes trying to be good a worthless endeavor. I think that doing good is in itself good, and that goodness is completely separate from perfection. I think that if you want to be good, then you have to be good (not perfect, just good).



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Good enough doesn't exist. If you take stock in all the good things you do, if thats your basis of defining who is a good person and who isn't. It is, seriously flawed. Because not one person is good. Again, our sin outweighs any good we do. We can't cover sin up.


I have no idea what horrible things you must have done to think that this applies to every person. The worst things I have done in my life was lie about ding dong ditching my neighbor's house when I was eight. Or maybe when I broke Tate's arm because he broke my nose twice. I sincerely doubt _that_ is a justifiable thing that means_ I deserve to suffer for eternity _for a case of child hood pranks or playground scuffles. Nor do I think that after my escapades I should forsake attempting to make the world a better place. I think good enough does exist, and that the good people do far outweighs the bad. 
And as for the "your basis of defining who is a good person and who isn't" I ask that you clarify that. My basis is that if someone does good and tries to improve this world, or hell, just goes about their day doing none harm, then they are good. You seem to be far more demanding and helterskelter in your definition though, so I'd like you to elaborate on the definitions of what constitutes a good person.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Second, you only care for someones physical needs. Which, mind you isn't a bad thing. But its not enough. What good is it if you help at an orphanage, visit the elderly or anything else in your list, if you have no concern over the most important part of a person, their soul. What good is just helping someones physical needs when you do nothing about their spiritual needs?
> Everyone will die, so just meeting physical needs really accomplishes nothing in that aspect.


And you do absolutely nothing. How does that feel Rukh, to do absolutely no good unto anyone? Are you just now realizing how hollow your pomp is when you do nothing but holler and do nothing to help others? I help in he physical world because my hands are physical, I lift people up, I build houses for Habitat for humanity to shelter their physical heads, I help them in this physical realm because it is the only realm I have influence over and the only realm I can impact with my efforts. You on the other hand choose to sit back and do nothing despite having two arms and two legs, because you'd rather focus not on people, but on your own selfish afterlife.


----------



## Conker (May 16, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First bolded part:
> Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Psalms 51:5
> for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23
> Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death  through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all  sinned. Romans 5:12


God the Bible is one fucked up piece of literature.



> Second bolded part:
> Except the fact that Scripture is not clear on that. In fact, you will find no verse about a unborn children automatically going to heaven. But, Since God is just, it would appear that He would allow these infants to go to heaven. It is difficult to be dogmatic about this issue, but we can rest in the  fact that God is holy, righteous, and just.  Therefore, whatever God  chooses to do with infants will be best for them.


You mean, there are parts of the BIble that are unclear? You mean, I cannot get every answer I could ever want from the BIble? 

Well holy shit!


----------



## Mentova (May 16, 2011)

Deo said:


> stuff


 I couldn't have said it better myself. It's really sad if he honestly believes that humanity is nothing but evil. What a depressing and negative life he must live...


----------



## Deo (May 16, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> I couldn't have said it better myself. It's really sad if he honestly believes that humanity is nothing but evil. What a depressing and negative life he must live...


 And such a life he wishes to inflict upon others.


----------



## Mentova (May 16, 2011)

Deo said:


> And such a life he wishes to inflict upon others.


 See this is where I loose respect for religions. I'm a "whatever makes you happy" kinda guy. I personally am atheist, but if a religion helps someone live a more happy and fulfilling life I am all for it. However once they start preaching to people outside their religion about how to live their lives and try forcing their morals on others, it's just crossing the line. Especially when it's something so negative like what Rukh is preaching in here.


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (May 16, 2011)

While I tend to err on the side of pro-life, I support people's right to choose what they do with their lives, no matter how much I disagree. I just don't like it when people try to force their way of thinking into my way of living.

In other words, I don't really like abortion, but I'm not going to try and make other people's decisions for them.


----------



## Recel (May 16, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> I couldn't have said it better myself. It's really sad if he honestly believes that humanity is nothing but evil. What a depressing and negative life he must live...


 
Just think how empty heaven is with us being so evil. God must be a realy lonely guy. :V

Anyway. Rukh, the bible is a reeeaaaaly old writeing. It was writen by a human, just like you. And since humans are evil by default the bible is writen by an evil person. Now I probably didnt know that guy, but if I were an evil person, im sure I would write an evil book, full of evil things, and give it a good and charming coating to fool others into beliveing its good, because I would be that evil! :V

Funs aside. The bible is an old book, based on old morals. Things that made sense in that time lost it by today. Something that could only be read in one way in it now can be read in twenty diffrent way. As humans discover more things about the world around them the bible will only make less sense and things in it will only have more and more meanings. It was a clear guidline at its time, but by today it lost the clear direction it pointed to. Its not something that can clearly point out what people should do, or how they should live.


----------



## Thatch (May 16, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Deo, if you think that list of things you do is good enough, or makes you a good person. You are mistaken. Its not good enough. It never will be. Why? Because the first time you did something wrong, you were condemned. The evil in our lives far outweighs any good we do. If you want to be good, then you have to be perfect. Good enough doesn't exist. If you take stock in all the good things you do, if thats your basis of defining who is a good person and who isn't. It is, seriously flawed. Because not one person is good. Again, our sin outweighs any good we do. We can't cover sin up.


 
"Oh shit, I can't 1up her... OH WAIT, I CAN JUST CONDEMN **ALL** PEOPLE TO HELL, THAT'S A BRILLIANT IDEA!"
I seriously have no idea where you dig this shit up, because every priest would just tell you that you're retarded. Especially since God is supposed to be forgiving if you repent for your sins.

You're not even preaching the religion you claim to be part of. You are a filthy liar and a heretic, Rukh, and you defile the faith of many millions of people by forcing your own opinions as the words of truth, even though your only goal is to establishing a "moral superiority", nevermind how much you twist that what you say is "holy". This is truly disgusting and let God have mercy on your soul, because probably on he would have enough.



Conker said:


> Guess abortions do children a favor, they can "die" before they sin! Now off to heaven they go ^_^


 
Haha, I wanted to post this earlier, but now is the perfect moment XD


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 16, 2011)

Conker said:


> God the Bible is one fucked up piece of literature.


 
Original Sin is such a silly concept, I'm not sure why Christians believe it.

 That and we all know the soul enters the body at the first breath, not at conception. :V


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 16, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Original Sin is such a silly concept, I'm not sure why Christians believe it.


 
Because they go to hell if they don't.


----------



## Volkodav (May 16, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Because they go to hell if they don't.


Living a life of fear, like sheep


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (May 16, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Second bolded part:
> Except the fact that Scripture is not clear on that. In fact, you will find no verse about a unborn children automatically going to heaven. But, Since God is just, it would appear that He would allow these infants to go to heaven. It is difficult to be dogmatic about this issue, but we can rest in the  fact that God is holy, righteous, and just.  Therefore, whatever God  chooses to do with infants will be best for them.


 
God sends the unborn to hell. Got it.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 16, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Living a life of fear, like sheep


 
Be bold.
Be vigilant.
Behave!



ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> God sends the unborn to hell. Got it.


 
Filthy unrepentant sinners, hell is too good for them I say.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (May 16, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Filthy unrepentant sinners, hell is too good for them I say.



THEN TO MEXICO WITH THEM!


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 16, 2011)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> THEN TO MEXICO WITH THEM!


 
Unrelated, but where'd you get your icon?


----------



## Daisy La Liebre (May 16, 2011)

Alright, I'm all for people believing in what they want and stuff, but please stop bringing your religion into every single fucking moral debate thread. Because to me all it is is a bunch of stories people chose to believe, so quoting it has zero credability in my view.


----------



## Volkodav (May 16, 2011)

Rukh is just mad at everybody cause he had sex before marriage and now god hates him


----------



## Alstor (May 16, 2011)

Recel said:


> Anyway. Rukh, the bible is a reeeaaaaly old writeing. It was writen by a human, just like you. And since humans are evil by default the bible is writen by an evil person. Now I probably didnt know that guy, but if I were an evil person, im sure I would write an evil book, full of evil things, and give it a good and charming coating to fool others into beliveing its good, because I would be that evil! :V


Quoting this as this the biggest fallacy in all of Rukh's arguments ever.


----------



## Volkodav (May 16, 2011)

This whole thing about "as soon as you commit your first sin you're bad" thing is incredibly stupid. Very young children are capable of doing bad things, yet they don't know anything about religion or sinning.
Kind of cruel if you think about it. I personally think religion is a scam to scare people into giving you $$ and scare them into behaving.


----------



## Conker (May 16, 2011)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> God sends the unborn to hell. Got it.


 Not even Dante sends them to heaven 

But, they don't deserve a break so it's okay :3


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 16, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Deo, if you think that list of things you do is good enough, or makes you a good person. You are mistaken. Its not good enough. It never will be. Why? Because the first time you did something wrong, you were condemned. The evil in our lives far outweighs any good we do. If you want to be good, then you have to be perfect. Good enough doesn't exist. If you take stock in all the good things you do, if thats your basis of defining who is a good person and who isn't. It is, seriously flawed. *Because not one person is good.* Again, our sin outweighs any good we do. We can't cover sin up.



Perfection doesn't exist. If god wanted perfection he would not have allowed me to have a butt ugly skin condition called psoriasis. This is just one point I call bullshit on the bible. Look at what I put in bold. According to you, even you are going to hell. According to this, heaven must be pretty fucking empty.



> Second, you only care for someones physical needs. Which, mind you isn't a bad thing. But its not enough. What good is it if you help at an orphanage, visit the elderly or anything else in your list, if you have no concern over the most important part of a person, their soul. What good is just helping someones physical needs when you do nothing about their spiritual needs?
> Everyone will die, so just meeting physical needs really accomplishes nothing in that aspect.



Do you realise how much of a fucking dick you are being here? Deo is giving up her own free time to help others and all you are doing is putting her down like she is trash or something. What the fuck do you do with your time? Jack shit, I bet.




> The primary reason abortion is wrong is because God said we are not to murder.  But because you don't believe in God, lets look at this from a different angle so to speak. We are allowed to take a life under the prescribed requirements of law (self defense, just war, executions) Each one of those areas deal with law. Self defense is justified because the antagonist is breaking the law (burglary, robbery, assault) and we can use this force when protecting ourselves and our property. Execution is the legal taking of life against someone who has committed a crime, or crimes, worthy of execution. In each of these cases, the person or antagonist is dealt with for the wrongs they have committed.



Self defense isn't murder. If someone pointed a gun at me and started firing at me, I'm gonna fire mine back. 



> However, the child in the womb has done no wrong, yet it is executed. The child is executed but has broken no law! What crime has been committed? What law did the child break in its existence? None, yet the child is killed.



You seem to believe that an egg is a child as well. It is not. It becomes a being when all the cells have formed into the shape of a little human being, which, contrary to your belief, doesn't happen on the same day the egg was fertilized. It happens weeks down the line. Until that point in the gestation period it is just a ball of unrecognizable cells that haven't even decided on what part of the body they will be.



> And I know you are not going to like me referencing Nazi Germany, but just see where I am going with this. The Jews were guilty of being Jews and were, according to the Nazi's worthy of death. Likewise, the children in the womb are guilty of being unborn children, and are, according to their parents/other people/society, worthy of death. what law did the unborn child break? What made them unworthy of life? The answer is simple. It depends on the opinion of the ones in power, of those wielding the knife and redefining what life is, and of those deciding who is worthy of life and who should die.



Answer me this, how can you kill a baby, before it has formed into one? That's a pretty clever fucking thing to be able to do.



> It is only in abortion that someone is executed but has not violated the  law.  This is fundamentally wrong on so many levels, and this is why abortion is wrong.



Yeah, no.


----------



## Thatch (May 16, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Do you realise how much of a fucking dick you are being here? Deo is giving up her own free time to help others and all you are doing is putting her down like she is trash or something. What the fuck do you do with your time? Jack shit, I bet.


 
No no, you see, it's like this - Rukh is trying to save our immortal souls! Coincidentally it consists of sitting on his ass and doing nothing but spewing whatever bullshit is the most convinient for him at that moment, but since it means it'll help our souls then HE is the only true worthy person in this thread. Helping people physically is wrong because pain is good! God loves you, so you must suffer to be worthy of going to heaven. Of course you won't, because you're damned for every little sin, but still!

I would honestly want to see Rukh get into a discussion with a priest. That would be entertaining.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 16, 2011)

Thatch said:


> No no, you see, it's like this - Rukh is trying to save our immortal souls! Coincidentally it consists of sitting on his ass and doing nothing but spewing whatever bullshit is the most convinient for him at that moment, but since it means it'll help our souls then HE is the only true worthy person in this thread. Helping people physically is wrong because pain is good! God loves you, so you must suffer to be worthy of going to heaven. Of course you won't, because you're damned for every little sin, but still!


 
I don't believe god is so much of an asshole that he would condemn everyone to hell for everything they did wrong.


----------



## Riley (May 16, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I don't believe god is so much of an asshole that he would condemn everyone to hell for everything they did wrong.


 
Well then obviously you're not a TWUE KWISHTAN and you're going to hell FOREEEVER.  Right now, probably.  I bet that because you're so evil, Satan just vacuumed your soul out of your body _this very instant._


----------



## Thatch (May 16, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I don't believe god is so much of an asshole that he would condemn everyone to hell for everything they did wrong.


 
I don't see why he couldn't be :V

But the point is, Rukh is saying that only trying to save ones soul is worth it. And if being a good person doesn't do it, praising god must. Which means that we can all just go on a murdering spree, just do it in god's name. Even though killing is wrong.


tl;dr Rukh is stuck in the fucking middle ages.


----------



## Volkodav (May 16, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> It is only in abortion that someone is executed but has not violated the  law.  This is fundamentally wrong on so many levels, and this is why abortion is wrong.


 HAHHAHA
[LINK]
[LINK]
[LINK]
[LINK]
[LINK]

[LINK]
You're blind, you're warped, you've been warped by the cult that is religion. You are a sheep, you need to open your fucking eyes and stop repeating the things that have been engraved into your brain by controlling strangers. You need to start thinking for yourself.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (May 16, 2011)

Life is life. If you value the life of any living creature, like a bug for example, you wouldn't kill it. It's not a smart creature, nor of any importance, but an embryo can grow to be important, unlike a bug. The embryo becomes a baby. The baby becomes the hero we have all been waiting for.

Do you have any idea how many Jesus's have been aborted? I don't have the figures but it's a lot. Do you want to be saved? Then save babies. Don't let them die. Can you hear their screams.
If you can't, then you shouldn't kill them.
If you can hear them scream... it's too late.

Because you have damned the world, you wrong doers. You have killed the children of the future, the next generation is dead.
My best friend was aborted as a child. I never even got to meet him.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 16, 2011)

Riley said:


> Well then obviously you're not a TWUE KWISHTAN and you're going to hell FOREEEVER.  Right now, probably.  I bet that because you're so evil, Satan just vacuumed your soul out of your body _this very instant._



I never said I was Christian anyway. I don't participate in any religion.


----------



## Thatch (May 16, 2011)

Clayton said:


> You're blind, you're warped, you've been warped by the cult that is religion. You are a sheep, you need to open your fucking eyes and stop repeating the things that have been engraved into your brain by controlling strangers. You need to start thinking for yourself.


 
I think we have to face the sad facts that this IS what he thinks on his own accords. Brainwashed people are more consistent in their belief.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (May 16, 2011)

Everybody. This is what abortion looks like. We cannot let this continue.


----------



## Daisy La Liebre (May 16, 2011)

Clayton said:


> You're blind, you're warped, you've been warped by the cult that is religion. You are a sheep, you need to open your fucking eyes and stop repeating the things that have been engraved into your brain by controlling strangers. You need to start thinking for yourself.


 
I'M COUNTING BODIES LIKE SHEEP TO THE RYTHM OF THE WAR DRUMS.


----------



## Volkodav (May 16, 2011)

Hateful Bitch said:


> The embryo becomes a baby. The baby becomes the hero we have all been waiting for.


Approx 255 babies are born every minute, and the abortion procedure takes like 15 minutes so therefore, for every 1 abortion done, there are about 4000 "potential heroes" born. hahaha



Hateful Bitch said:


> My best friend was aborted as a child. I never even got to meet him.


 What


----------



## Daisy La Liebre (May 16, 2011)

I'm pretty anti-abortion unless it's absolutely neccessary. Denying someone of their chance on life is a pretty shitty thing to do...

Whatever, people can do what they want about it. I'm not outspoken.


----------



## Frokusblakah (May 16, 2011)

It sucks that so many people say "Christians are this and that" based off the outspoken ones.  =P

I try not to assume things about all atheists because of loud spoken ones that I don't particularly like.  

Just sayin'


----------



## Hateful Bitch (May 16, 2011)

Jared said:


> I'm pretty anti-abortion unless it's absolutely neccessary. Denying someone of their chance on life is a pretty shitty thing to do...


 
"mother don't kill me"
"shut up you don't even have vocal chords"

Abortion is like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h02a2HSB58M
Where the whale is the embryo and abortion is the ground

HE WONT CARE WHEN HE'S DEAD.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 16, 2011)

Frokusblakah said:


> It sucks that so many people say "Christians are this and that" based off the outspoken ones.  =P
> 
> I try not to assume things about all atheists because of loud spoken ones that I don't particularly like.
> 
> Just sayin'



It's the minority that spoil it for the majority.


----------



## Frokusblakah (May 16, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> It's the minority that spoil it for the majority.



More or less that is always the case.  I'm beating a dead horse by even bothering to say it, but I went ahead and said it anyway.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (May 16, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Approx 255 babies are born every minute, and the abortion procedure takes like 15 minutes so therefore, for every 1 abortion done, there are about 4000 "potential heroes" born. hahaha
> 
> What


 
You do not want to be saved.
You will never make it to paradise.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 16, 2011)

Hateful Bitch said:


> Do you have any idea how many Jesus's have been aborted?


 
Do you know how many Hitlers have been aborted?


----------



## Hateful Bitch (May 16, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Do you know how many Hitlers have been aborted?


 
God auto-kills all Hitlers before they are born. How else would we explain miscarriages?


----------



## Spatel (May 16, 2011)

Frokusblakah said:


> It sucks that so many people say "Christians are this and that" based off the outspoken ones.  =P
> 
> I try not to assume things about all atheists because of loud spoken ones that I don't particularly like.
> 
> Just sayin'


 
Even the worst atheists aren't trying to deny other human beings their rights because of their hardcore atheism, so I welcome that comparison.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 16, 2011)

Poe said:


> God auto-kills all Hitlers before they are born. How else would we explain miscarriages?


 
Daleks made me do it.


----------



## Daisy La Liebre (May 16, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Even the worst atheists aren't trying to deny other human beings their rights because of their hardcore atheism, so I welcome that comparison.



*cough*churchburnings*cough*


----------



## Hateful Bitch (May 16, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Daleks made me do it.


 
wow spoilers


----------



## Volkodav (May 16, 2011)

Hateful Bitch said:


> God auto-kills all Hitlers before they are born. How else would we explain miscarriages?


 LMFAO ahahah
that is genius

but according to rukh, all humans are bad


----------



## Daisy La Liebre (May 16, 2011)

Clayton said:


> but according to rukh, all humans are bad


 
My mother told me about people like you.


----------



## Volkodav (May 16, 2011)

Jared said:


> My mother told me about people like you.


She talks about me a lot, does she


----------



## Frokusblakah (May 16, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Even the worst atheists aren't trying to deny other human beings their rights because of their hardcore atheism, so I welcome that comparison.


 
*Shrug*  Doesn't change the fact that they don't represent the whole, regardless of how much you welcome it.  :b

We're all individuals like anybody else. ;o


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 16, 2011)

Frokusblakah said:


> *Shrug*  Doesn't change the fact that they don't represent the whole, regardless of how much you welcome it.  :b
> 
> We're all individuals like anybody else. ;o


 
All groups have good and bad apples. However, when someone does good or bad actions based directly on the principles of a group they belong to, it reflects poorly on the group.

If someone is a christian, and also just a dick, then yeah- he's a dick but it's not because of Christianity.

But, for example, If a family with holds a life saving blood transfusion from their dying child because they read in their holy text that putting blood in your body is bad, you can pretty safely chalk it up to said religion.


----------



## Frokusblakah (May 16, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> But, for example, If a family with holds a life saving blood transfusion from their dying child because they read in their holy text that putting blood in your body is bad, you can pretty safely chalk it up to said religion.



I could try to argue this with you, but there is no point.  To you, the child dies and is gone.  To them, they hold true to what they believe and the child goes on to the next life.  I'm not saying that I think its right, because I believe a lot of the bible was written for a different time period when things were much different.  I think refusal of medical care for that kind of reason is hogwash and they are focusing way to hard on parts of the bible that were written predating anything related to modern medicine.

You act like we are all bound together by secret pacts in dark rooms to follow the same "rules" or something.  Like I said, each christian is an individual and each person's relationship with god is a personal one.  We aren't all the same, regardless of what some do.


----------



## Discord Nova (May 16, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> All groups have good and bad apples. However, when someone does good or bad actions based directly on the principles of a group they belong to, it reflects poorly on the group.
> 
> If someone is a christian, and also just a dick, then yeah- he's a dick but it's not because of Christianity.
> 
> But, for example, If a family with holds a life saving blood transfusion from their dying child because they read in their holy text that putting blood in your body is bad, you can pretty safely chalk it up to said religion.


 
Replace that with any other religion and it's just the same.


----------



## Frokusblakah (May 16, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> Replace that with any other religion and it's just the same.


 
I think it goes without saying that "most" atheists regard all religions as psychobabble bullcrap.  ;o


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 16, 2011)

Frokusblakah said:


> I could try to argue this with you, but there is no point.  To you, the child dies and is gone.  To them, they hold true to what they believe and the child goes on to the next life.  I'm not saying that I think its right, because I believe a lot of the bible was written for a different time period when things were much different.  I think refusal of medical care for that kind of reason is hogwash and they are focusing way to hard on parts of the bible that were written predating anything related to modern medicine.



Then it is fair to say that those who opt to have an abortion believe it is the "right" thing to do, as some religions don't believe in blood transfusions as you said. Both types of people do what they believe is right, though they come from different back grounds.


----------



## Thatch (May 16, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> Replace that with any other religion and it's just the same.


 
I believe that was the point.


----------



## Frokusblakah (May 16, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Then it is fair to say that those who opt to have an abortion believe it is the "right" thing to do, as some religions don't believe in blood transfusions as you said. Both types of people do what they believe is right, though they come from different back grounds.



Yes, but nobody is arguing about other people's beliefs being valid.  Everybody is pitching their opinion of what they think is right.  If everybody was content with doing only when they thought was right and left everybody else to their own devices, this thread wouldn't even be here.  xD

For the record I'm pro-life when it comes to abortion, but I'd go farther and say parents shouldn't have the right to deny their child medical care based purely off those reasons either.  When the person is old enough to sign his own forms he can decide if he doesn't want it.  >_>


----------



## Deo (May 16, 2011)

I wonder if, when Rukh comes back, instead of answering my question he'll attack my character and denounce the work of my physical hands instead of answering me again.


----------



## Recel (May 16, 2011)

Deo said:


> I wonder if, when Rukh comes back, instead of answering my question he'll attack my character and denounce the work of my physical hands instead of answering me again.



I dont think he has an anwser. 

And I think he will just dodge everything writen between hes last post and the new one he makes. Or picks out things he can argue with while ignoreing the ones he doesnt have an opinion on, or an anwser to it.

Or he will pull the "Because God wishes it" type of anwser. I wouldnt be suprised.
So its kind of pointless to argue with him, nothing goes throug to him.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 16, 2011)

Deo said:


> I wonder if, when Rukh comes back, instead of answering my question he'll attack my character and denounce the work of my physical hands instead of answering me again.



He more than likely will do this.


----------



## Mentova (May 16, 2011)

Deo said:


> I wonder if, when Rukh comes back, instead of answering my question he'll attack my character and denounce the work of my physical hands instead of answering me again.


 Probably. I don't think he'd change all of a sudden.


----------



## Ozriel (May 16, 2011)

Deo said:


> I wonder if, when Rukh comes back, instead of answering my question he'll attack my character and denounce the work of my physical hands instead of answering me again.


 
Perhaps.


----------



## Deo (May 16, 2011)

Recel said:


> I dont think he has an anwser.


 He should have an answer, it's a fairly simple question. Either he does help people here, on this physical plane, or he does not.  The question is simple and must be either one of two answers, either he helps others, or he does nothing. One or the other. Simple, but telling of him as a person. And I am curious if he is all bluster and words, yet absolutely no action, even when he urges others into doing the things he himself does not do.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (May 16, 2011)

XD I saw your siggy and it's funny because he said 'you're' wrong and while saying you're dumb lollll I love irony!!!
what a witty choice in quotes


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 16, 2011)

Deo said:


> He should have an answer, it's a fairly simple question. Either he does help people here, on this physical plane, or he does not.  The question is simple and must be either one of two answers, either he helps others, or he does nothing. One or the other. Simple, but telling of him as a person. And I am curious if he is all bluster and words, yet absolutely no action, even when he urges others into doing the things he himself does not do.



The day Rukh gives a straight answer will be the day hell freezes over.


----------



## Recel (May 16, 2011)

Deo said:


> He should have an answer, it's a fairly simple question. Either he does help people here, on this physical plane, or he does not.  The question is simple and must be either one of two answers, either he helps others, or he does nothing. One or the other. Simple, but telling of him as a person. And I am curious if he is all bluster and words, yet absolutely no action, even when he urges others into doing the things he himself does not do.



If he would say, that pointing out how everyone is sinful, preching about the bible etc. is hes way of helping people, would you take it as a valid anwser?
I dont think he has a _real_ anwser. Tho what you think a real anwser is can difer from person to person, so it just how I see things.

Aaaaanyways, I wonder if he will bother to give a reply at all.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 16, 2011)

Recel said:


> If he would say, that pointing out how everyone is sinful, preching about the bible etc. is hes way of helping people, would you take it as a valid anwser?
> I dont think he has a _real_ anwser. Tho what you think a real anwser is can difer from person to person, so it just how I see things.
> 
> Aaaaanyways, I wonder if he will bother to give a reply at all.



He will, but he will most likely continue to avoid Deo's question.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (May 16, 2011)

This is the most pathetic conversation.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 16, 2011)

Hateful Bitch said:


> This is the most pathetic conversation.



It's killing time.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (May 16, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> It's killing time.


 
Time that could be better spent finding something better to do.

Like fucking bitches and making money.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 16, 2011)

Hateful Bitch said:


> Time that could be better spent finding something better to do.
> 
> Like fucking bitches and making money.



Except the bitches are the one's making money. :v

Unless we pimp some bitches yo.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (May 16, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Except the bitches are the one's making money. :v
> 
> Unless we pimp some bitches yo.


 
ah aint gangsta enuf 2 b conversin wit u homie
yo!!


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 16, 2011)

Hateful Bitch said:


> ah aint gangsta enuf 2 b conversin wit u homie
> yo!!



That is one of the best gangster impressions I have ever read.


----------



## Wreth (May 16, 2011)

Be a lazy sod, follow a few basic rules a thousand year old book tells you, help nobody, spew mindless babble as insurance that you are doing good.

That way you don't have to take responsibility for never doing that much for others. Talking at them in an attempt to convert is enough!

It's a convenient cop out I must say.


----------



## Deo (May 16, 2011)

Wreth said:


> Be a lazy sod, follow a few basic rules a thousand year old book tells you, help nobody, spew mindless babble as insurance that you are doing good.
> 
> That way you don't have to take responsibility for never doing that much for others. Talking at them in an attempt to convert is enough!
> 
> It's a convenient cop out I must say.


 It is a easy and convenient cop out. Talk is cheap and sleazy, action speaks louder than words. We'll just have to wait and see which Rukh is. Though I honestly doubt he volunteers at orphanages, or fosters or adopts the unwanted children he so vehemently claims he wishes to protect and comfort. All talk, no effort to actually do anything. Lazy and hypocritical. 
Especially when he patronizes those of us who do things to help other people in this world and casts scorn on us for never doing enough because it's all physical.


----------



## Daisy La Liebre (May 17, 2011)

Frokusblakah said:


> It sucks that so many people say "Christians are this and that" based off the outspoken ones.  =P
> 
> I try not to assume things about all atheists because of loud spoken ones that I don't particularly like.
> 
> Just sayin'



Irony is you've just generalised in the exact same way.


----------



## Volkodav (May 17, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> If someone is a christian, and also just a dick, then yeah- he's a dick but it's not because of Christianity.
> 
> But, for example, If a family with holds a life saving blood transfusion from their dying child because they read in their holy text that putting blood in your body is bad, you can pretty safely chalk it up to said religion.


If someone hates gays for no real reason except a book says to or,
If someone denies a woman rights to decide what she wants to do with her own body because of a book or,
If someone denies humans basic rights such as marriage because a book says to or,
If someone warps children by controlling them through fear and telling them if they don't ___ they'll go to a bad place for eternity because a book says to...

It's safe to say they're a dick because of religion.


Hahaha this reminds me of something my dad said the other day. "I think all you need to run a church is a book and to molest kids"


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 17, 2011)

Frokusblakah said:


> I could try to argue this with you, but there is no point.  To you, the child dies and is gone.  To them, they hold true to what they believe and the child goes on to the next life.  I'm not saying that I think its right, because I believe a lot of the bible was written for a different time period when things were much different.  I think refusal of medical care for that kind of reason is hogwash and they are focusing way to hard on parts of the bible that were written predating anything related to modern medicine.



And then you argue anyway. :V Whether the child dies and is gone, or whether they go on to an afterlife doesn't change from person to person. The existence of souls, for example, is a binary claim. Either they do exist as described, or they do not exist as described. This soul argument as also tangential, although if you'd like I would like you to tell me what exactly a soul is.

And whether or not you think it is hogwash is irrelevant, since the question is what influenced them to do so, and their source is still the main set of holy books used by most every christian.

And yes, the bible was written by dark age shephards (or people afterwards pretending to be), but there are still people out there who claim every part of the bible is factual, inerrant, and every part has applications in daily life. 



Frokusblakah said:


> You act like we are all bound together by secret pacts in dark rooms to follow the same "rules" or something.  Like I said, each christian is an individual and each person's relationship with god is a personal one.  We aren't all the same, regardless of what some do.


 
You guys use the same rulebook. Seriously. I mean, most every christian believes this book must be followed, so it's not too surprising that some would read it and follow it. When it's good, it's totally the bible's doing. When it's not so good, "oh well everyone's different".


----------



## Frokusblakah (May 17, 2011)

Haters gonna hate.  :V

I know where I stand with god, so that is all that matters in the end.  I'm not going to indulge you guys anymore, there are others you guys seem to find much more "entertaining" anyway.  :b


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 17, 2011)

Frokusblakah said:


> Haters gonna hate.  :V
> 
> I know where I stand with god, so that is all that matters in the end.  I'm not going to indulge you guys anymore, there are others you guys seem to find much more "entertaining" anyway.  :b



If you like, I can break it down to a simple yes/no question for you: Do you think a person's religion can influence their decisions?


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 17, 2011)

Deo said:


> I wonder if, when Rukh comes back, instead of answering my question he'll attack my character and denounce the work of my physical hands instead of answering me again.


 
Which is funny, since apparently helping people physically is pointless to him, since only spiritual help matters. If that's the case, what's wrong with abortions, since it's only a physical action? Answer that Ruk.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 17, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> If you like, I can break it down to a simple yes/no question for you: Do you think a person's religion can influence their decisions?



I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll give an answer anyway. Yes, I believe religion influences one's decisions.


----------



## Deo (May 17, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Which is funny, since apparently helping people physically is pointless to him, since only spiritual help matters. If that's the case, what's wrong with abortions, since it's only a physical action? Answer that Ruk.


 Oh ho ho~


----------



## Thatch (May 17, 2011)

Rukh obviously will not admit other people being right, rather not post at all, so you can all stop the circlejerk now. Yes, he's pwnd, stretching it further is just trying too hard :V


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 17, 2011)

Thatch said:


> Rukh obviously will not admit other people being right, rather not post at all, so you can all stop the circlejerk now. Yes, he's pwnd, stretching it further is just trying too hard :V



If he admitted other people were right, not only would he be admitting he was wrong, but also that his religion is wrong.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 17, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll give an answer anyway. Yes, I believe religion influences one's decisions.


 
Thanks, but it's just not the same. XD I mean seriously, nobody's saying "everything bad any christian does can be exclusively linked to their faith" or the like, just that it's silly to argue a person's beliefs, especially such wide-ranging and important ones as religion, don't inform their actions. Especially if they're saying it can totally do so for good things, but definitely not for bad things.


----------



## RagnarokChu (May 17, 2011)

I believe that you shouldn't be able to decide a personal life changing choice for me that affects nobody else me but my inner personal circle.


----------



## Thatch (May 17, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> If he admitted other people were right, not only would he be admitting he was wrong, but also that his religion is wrong.


 
I'm fully aware, that's why I said he won't. And boasting about finally cornering a bigot is all fun, but he's not going to be any more wrong since saying that "helping people doesn't matter", so pointing it out is getting kinda stale now :V


----------



## Heimdal (May 17, 2011)

That belief, that all people are more evil than they are good, is pretty interesting. It's a worthless argument to make. The person saying these things would obviously have to believe themselves to be evil as well. Would you agree to whatever spiritualism book being "true fact" when it's a self-professed "evil person" telling you that? No, it sounds like a bad con-job.

Now, I have a positive perspective. I generally believe people to be good. It's possible that I could lie and do bad, but my underlying ideas promote honesty and good, so there's a degree of integrity right there. Someone who believes all people to be evil, I don't know what to make of that, but I certainly couldn't trust them. It seems like it would only function as an excuse for evil acts, and to promote negativity and paranoia.

Anyways, after 32 pages of abortion stuff, there probably isn't anything that hasn't been said about it.


----------



## Discord Nova (May 17, 2011)

This thread has turned into Rukh bashing Deo because physical works are "worthless compared to spiritual works"

Im on the fence concerning abortion, i think if someone is a rape victim or it is life threatening to give birth to the child,  then they should be allowed to get an abortion. Getting it because they dont want to take care of a child is just selfish.


----------



## CrazyLee (May 17, 2011)

Completely forgot about this thread. 23 pages later. And here I was going to go over all the bible verses Rukh mentioned, many of which he took completely out of context. Where you take a sentence from some block of text just because it sounds good to you and completely ignore the rest of the text around it or the context of the text. Politicians do this all the time (especially Republicans, but Democrats are often guilty of this as well) of taking a single line from an opponent which makes that opponent look bad, even though if you read the rest of what they said you realize it was taken out of context.


----------



## Heimdal (May 17, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> Im on the fence concerning abortion, i think if someone is a rape victim or it is life threatening to give birth to the child,  then they should be allowed to get an abortion. Getting it because they dont want to take care of a child is just selfish.


 
I agree. It is certainly selfish. However, selfishness is not inherently bad, particularly when it doesn't effect other people. I consider it vital to be selfish about all the big life-altering decisions you make, or else they would be made for all the wrong reasons. I think selfishness is a perfectly fine reason.


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (May 18, 2011)

JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL


----------



## Deo (May 18, 2011)

HyBroMcYenapants said:


> JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 18, 2011)

Deo said:


> Again Rukh, what do you do that helps children, or as you put it "comforts widows"? Are you all talk and no actual doing?


 
Deo, you missed what I was saying completely. And I will not get into an argument over who supposedly does more good works than someone else. I will not play that game with you. So if you want to brag about what you do, go for it. Just remember all the while there are tens of thousands of children who are orphans living on the streets in Russia, or that 26,000 children die everyday because of curable diseases or starvation.
What I have been saying is, it doesn't matter how many good things one does without faith in Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior. Apart from Christ, one is still condemned. Thats what I am saying. You can't do enough good works to atone for the wrongs that you have done. In that regard your "good works" mean nothing, because they won't save you or someone else from spiritual death.


Deo said:


> I wonder if, when Rukh comes back, instead of answering my question he'll attack my character and denounce the work of my physical hands instead of answering me again.



Works apart from faith in Christ mean nothing Deo.





Thatch said:


> Rukh obviously will not admit other people being right, rather not post at all, so you can all stop the circlejerk now. Yes, he's pwnd, stretching it further is just trying too hard :V


 
Oh no, I didn't leave. I have been busy for the past couple days. And you should know, I never leave.


----------



## Riley (May 18, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Works apart from faith in Christ mean nothing Deo.



I take it you don't have a job, then?


----------



## Aleu (May 18, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> snip.


 so basically, don't bother helping people. Yeah, no.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 18, 2011)

Riley said:


> I take it you don't have a job, then?


 
Yeah, I do. I don't work for my own goals though. I work to serve God.


Aleu said:


> so basically, don't bother helping people. Yeah, no.


 Wow, just wow. You don't get it do you? I didn't say that. Again, what I am saying is, helping people is fine and all. But it will get you nowhere apart from Christ Jesus.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (May 18, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Works apart from faith in Christ mean nothing Deo.



So the first half of the Bible is null?

What of the Qur'an, since it treats Isa as an important prophet?


----------



## Conker (May 18, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Deo, you missed what I was saying completely. And I will not get into an argument over who supposedly does more good works than someone else. I will not play that game with you. So if you want to brag about what you do, go for it. Just remember all the while there are tens of thousands of children who are orphans living on the streets in Russia, or that 26,000 children die everyday because of curable diseases or starvation.
> What I have been saying is, it doesn't matter how many good things one does without faith in Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior. Apart from Christ, one is still condemned. Thats what I am saying. *You can't do enough good works to atone for the wrongs that you have done*. In that regard your "good works" mean nothing, because they won't save you or someone else from spiritual death.


Says who? I mean, if we put a numerical value to the bad and good things we can do, then we should be able to atone for the wrong things we have done. If rape is worth 200 and serving in a soup kitchen is worth 20, then all ya have to do is some simple math and BAM. 

Prison time might be required as well for the above example though :V


----------



## Aleu (May 18, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yeah, I do. I don't work for my own goals though. I work to serve God.
> 
> Wow, just wow. You don't get it do you? I didn't say that. Again, what I am saying is, helping people is fine and all. But it will get you nowhere apart from Christ Jesus.


 but why bother doing anything if it won't get you closer to Christ? 
I do recall you saying people should drop everything. So docs should just drop their careers then?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 18, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> So the first half of the Bible is null?


 
Nowhere in the OT does it say that works save you. And, Paul did write, that it was faith in the coming Messiah that saved Abraham and the others. They had faith in God that the Savior would come. Which, is faith in Christ.


Conker said:


> Says who? I mean, if we put a numerical value to the bad and good things we can do, then we should be able to atone for the wrong things we have done. If rape is worth 200 and serving in a soup kitchen is worth 20, then all ya have to do is some simple math and BAM.
> 
> Prison time might be required as well for the above example though :V



"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
"There is no one good, no not one."


Edit: I will respond later to all the other comments and questions. But for now, I have to leave.

The Bible is clear. The only way to be atoned for what we have done is to believe in Christ Jesus.


----------



## Conker (May 18, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
> "There is no one good, no not one."
> 
> 
> ...


 BUT WHAT IF THE BIBLE IS WRONG? WHAT IF IT IS AN AWESOME WORK OF FICTION WRITTEN IN A GOTHIC HORROR STYLE WITH GIANT FALLING SKULLS!


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 18, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So if you want to brag about what you do, go for it. Just remember all the while there are tens of thousands of children who are orphans living on the streets in Russia, or that 26,000 children die everyday because of curable diseases or starvation.


 Deo can't help all the children, so she can't feel good about helping some of them? 

Hm.


----------



## Riley (May 18, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yeah, I do. I don't work for my own goals though. I work to serve God.



Do you buy food with the money you earn?  Yeah?  You're working for your own goals right there.  Hope you enjoy hell!


----------



## CrazyLee (May 18, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> 8 babies is nothing, on "Inside the human body" they had an American family one there who had 16 kids. Same two parents, 16 kids, 17th being planned.


You're talking about the Duggars. They're a family of conservative "Quiverfull" christians who do not believe in birth control (all birth control is abortion, ect...) and letting God decided when they'll have babies. As if God has enough time while running the entire universe to worry about someone's birth control.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No, the child will learn that their mother loved them so much, that they died to give them life. Its love, its the greatest form of love.


It doesn't surprise me that Rukh uses this example. Remember, he's a Christian. Christians believe that Jesus loved people so much he died to give believers life. So does it really surprise anyone that he would feel that a mother sacrificing herself to give birth would be equally as loving?



Tycho said:


> Looks like Rukh got DeOWNED


YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH......



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Good enough, is not good enough. If you  rely on good works, then you must be perfect and follow the Law  100%.


 No one can be perfect though. So we're all screwed.


----------



## Deo (May 18, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Deo, you missed what I was saying completely. And I will not get into an argument over who supposedly does more good works than someone else. I will not play that game with you. So if you want to brag about what you do, go for it. Just remember all the while there are tens of thousands of children who are orphans living on the streets in Russia, or that 26,000 children die everyday because of curable diseases or starvation.
> What I have been saying is, it doesn't matter how many good things one does without faith in Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior. Apart from Christ, one is still condemned. Thats what I am saying. You can't do enough good works to atone for the wrongs that you have done. In that regard your "good works" mean nothing, because they won't save you or someone else from spiritual death.


 Don't evade. 
Please, answer the question. It's not a contest of who does more, but a question of do you do ANYTHING.
So Rukh, AGAIN, what do you do that helps these unwanted children or any other person besides yourself other than spew words?


----------



## Aleu (May 18, 2011)

Conker said:


> BUT WHAT IF THE BIBLE IS WRONG? WHAT IF IT IS AN AWESOME WORK OF FICTION WRITTEN IN A GOTHIC HORROR STYLE WITH GIANT FALLING SKULLS!


 Not just giant skulls, GIANT FLAMING SKULLS


----------



## Deo (May 18, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Deo can't help all the children, so she can't feel good about helping some of them?
> 
> Hm.


 I shouldn't bother because helping one or two children is imperfect, and as Rukh said, if it's not perfect it's worthless.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Bible is clear. The only way to be  atoned for what we have done is to believe in Christ Jesus.


 I did not ask about works affecting atonement. I asked you if you *did* anything to help other people.


----------



## Delta (May 18, 2011)

Deo said:


> I did not ask about works affecting atonement. I asked you if you *did* anything to help other people.


 
Im sure he's prayed for one or two people, despite himself.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 18, 2011)

Deo said:


> I did not ask about works affecting atonement. I asked you if you *did* anything to help other people.


 
Rukh has made it abundantly clear from my last debate with him that he feels that no matter what someone does, be it building a hospital and protecting it from a corrupt government like Dikembe Mutombo or traveling around the world to help the sick and needy like "Doctors Without Boarders", no amount of personal sacrifice, care, or love you show on this plane is worth jack compared to the guy who sits in his room all day with covers over his head, the blinds closed, and reading the Bible by flashlight.  As a Catholic I find this kind of belief absurd and completely against what JC was about.

The real question is, is Ruhk among the chosen faithful who believes that the world will end this Saturday, 6 PM local time?


----------



## Torrijos-sama (May 18, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Nowhere in the OT does it say that works save you. And, Paul did write, that it was faith in the coming Messiah that saved Abraham and the others. They had faith in God that the Savior would come. Which, is faith in Christ.



What of the Qur'an, then?

I don't think YHWH would leave such knowledge in the hands of a few people whose testimony would eventually be rewritten a thousand times, you know?


----------



## Heimdal (May 19, 2011)

Spirituality is good. It has it's uses. I mean, whatever gets you through your day. But spirituality isn't 'real'. You can't grab it, you can't even prove it's there. So I'm going to simplify this stuff Rukh is saying by necessity: If Heaven 'actually' exists, and it's 'actually' for good people, then 'actual' real life good works will have significance in getting there.

If all it requires is belief in God to get in, no matter how terrible a person you are, then it might as well be Hell. Additionally, I'm pretty sure Jesus lead by example and parables of example. I don't care if he said "you have to believe in me to get into heaven," he probably wasn't thinking about it too much, and didn't think anyone would be dumb enough to take it out of context (and let it overshadow every example he's tried to set in his life.) I'm pretty sure he would be horrified to see people try to narrow the requirements down to a bunch of intangible, subjective junk.

If Heaven _doesn't exist_, then spirituality alone will get you there.

But it's worthless to argue with Rukh anyways. He has a very strict set of beliefs, that he expects everyone else to adhere to as well (whether they want to or not.) It isn't even a belief system, it's _his_ belief system. His ego is all up in that shit. He thinks that the most valuable thing he can do is make more people think exactly what he thinks. He can fluff it up however he wants, but that's pretty much what he says will get people into heaven. That's a lot of fuckin' ego.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 19, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yeah, I do. I don't work for my own goals though. I work to serve God.
> 
> Wow, just wow. You don't get it do you? I didn't say that. Again, what I am saying is, helping people is fine and all. But it will get you nowhere apart from Christ Jesus.



You're avoiding Deo's question. Probably because you can't answer it because you do nothing to help anyone. Work to serve god, yeah, that is going to get you far in life. 

This is another reason why I choose not to participate in any religion, it's all brainwashing bullshit.


----------



## Kiru-kun (May 19, 2011)

Hooooooly shit. So after reading this, then re-reading it, all it sounds like to me is. Either Rukh lives with the Ropers, or he's down in some secret bunker somewhere whispering bible verses to himself while he condemns the outside word for their wrong doings.


Rukh, I only have this to say. Stop riding both Christianity and the Bible's nuts, they really aren't helping you in this debate.


as for abortion.... Guess I'm pro-choice, if you wanna label me with that, I never really thought about it before. It's the woman's body, let her do what she will and all that jazz


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 19, 2011)

Deo said:


> I did not ask about works affecting atonement. I asked you if you *did* anything to help other people.


 
You DO know what Calvinists believe in, right? It's arguably the most insane and out of touch version of Christianity, even more so than Mormons. All souls are, before birth, predestined to hell or heaven. Nothing a person does can change it, personal choice and responsibility is completely irrelevant to them. This is how he can say babies go to hell with a straight face, or how he can cope with the idea of original sin. What people do is literally not an issue.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 19, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> You DO know what Calvinists believe in, right? It's arguably the most insane and out of touch version of Christianity, even more so than Mormons. All souls are, before birth, predestined to hell or heaven. Nothing a person does can change it, personal choice and responsibility is completely irrelevant to them. This is how he can say babies go to hell with a straight face, or how he can cope with the idea of original sin. What people do is literally not an issue.



I know a family of Mormons. Yeah, I find their beliefs quite odd but in all they are a nice bunch of people to know.


----------



## Thatch (May 19, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> You DO know what Calvinists believe in, right? It's arguably the most insane and out of touch version of Christianity, even more so than Mormons. All souls are, before birth, predestined to hell or heaven. Nothing a person does can change it, personal choice and responsibility is completely irrelevant to them. This is how he can say babies go to hell with a straight face, or how he can cope with the idea of original sin. What people do is literally not an issue.


 
And that those who're destined for heaven live in prosperity, while those that'll go to hell are poor.

Ergo, someone's wealth can tell you whether they're damned. It's a sect made by rich nobles for rich nobles to make them even more special and explaining their nobility.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 19, 2011)

Thatch said:


> And that those who're destined for heaven live in prosperity, while those that'll go to hell are poor.
> 
> Ergo, someone's wealth can tell you whether they're damned. It's a sect made by rich nobles for rich nobles to make them even more special and explaining their nobility.


 
The Scientology of its day.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 19, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> You DO know what Calvinists believe in, right? It's arguably the most insane and out of touch version of Christianity, even more so than Mormons. All souls are, before birth, predestined to hell or heaven. Nothing a person does can change it, personal choice and responsibility is completely irrelevant to them. This is how he can say babies go to hell with a straight face, or how he can cope with the idea of original sin. What people do is literally not an issue.


 
Wrong. That is called hyper Calvinism. If your going to try and speak theolocically, then at least get your dang terms right Mojo...
Hyper Calvinism is not Biblical.

What predestination is, is not what you stated. Predestination is taught to believers to humble ourselves. Yes, we believe in Christ, but its nothing we did to get salvation.



Deo said:


> I shouldn't bother because helping one or two  children is imperfect, and as Rukh said, if it's not perfect it's  worthless.


Wrong. I have said what you do isn't enough, as in nothing we do on our own is good enough. You can brag all you want about what you do, but in the end, without Christ, it means nothing.



Deo said:


> I did not ask about works affecting atonement. I asked you if you *did* anything to help other people.


 Yeah I do. But as I said before, I will not start arguing who does "more". Its a pointless debate. And I will not participate in it. Because all it is, is bragging who is a supposed better person.

And all along I have said, there is no such thing as a good person. We all have fallen short.




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Rukh has made it abundantly clear from  my last debate with him that he feels that no matter what someone does,  be it building a hospital and protecting it from a corrupt government  like Dikembe Mutombo or traveling around the world to help the sick and  needy like *"Doctors Without Boarders"*, no amount of personal sacrifice,  care, or love you show on this plane is worth jack compared to the guy  who sits in his room all day with covers over his head, the blinds  closed, and reading the Bible by flashlight.  As a Catholic I find this  kind of belief absurd and completely against what JC was about.
> 
> The  real question is, is Ruhk among the chosen faithful who believes that  the world will end this Saturday, 6 PM local time?


 
You do know that Doctors without Borders IS a Christian organization right?

And I am not saying helping people is a bad thing. What I am saying is, it won't get someone who doesn't believe in Christ Jesus anywhere at all.

As for the May 21st thing, I laugh at it. Because Christ Himself said only the Father knows the time and date of the Son returning. We do not.


----------



## Tycho (May 19, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wrong. That is called hyper Calvinism. If your going to try and speak theolocically, then at least get your dang terms right Mojo...
> Hyper Calvinism is not Biblical.
> 
> What predestination is, is not what you stated. Predestination is taught to believers to humble ourselves. Yes, we believe in Christ, but its nothing we did to get salvation.



No.  Wrong.  You are either lying or mistaken, I care not which, but this statement is BULLSHIT.  Predestination and "being elect" are parts of Calvinism, at its core, and are both inherently disgusting in my opinion.  And Calvinism is at the core of numerous Protestant-derived branches of Christianity, particularly Evangelical Christanity.


----------



## Heimdal (May 19, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wrong? You mean "right", because you just said the same thing. I mean, there's nothing different there. You might think it's different, but nope, it's not.



> And I am not saying helping people is a bad thing. What I am saying is, it won't get someone who doesn't believe in Christ Jesus anywhere at all.



You're saying that it is either bad or neutral. Either way you are discouraging humanitarian efforts. It's more important to be selfish or help people who are just like you than it is to physically aid those who are different. Of course you think people aren't truly good, your whole life view is based on what's wrong in the world.

Honestly I think you should try to be a better person instead of projecting all your flaws onto the rest of humanity. It would be a better use of time.


----------



## Aleu (May 19, 2011)

Rukh, I think you missed my point on the previous page


----------



## Conker (May 19, 2011)

Rukh, if I drink in the name of God, am I doing something good? I mean Jesus liked his wine...so clearly I"m being an awesome Christian for drinking and yelling "PRAISE JEBUS" all night, right?


----------



## Aleu (May 19, 2011)

Conker said:


> Rukh, if I drink in the name of God, am I doing something good? I mean Jesus liked his wine...so clearly I"m being an awesome Christian for drinking and yelling "PRAISE JEBUS" all night, right?


 I guess we have sex in the name of God too ;3


----------



## ArielMT (May 19, 2011)

So, are we done, then?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 19, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> What predestination is, is not what you stated. Predestination is taught to believers to humble ourselves. Yes, we believe in Christ, but its nothing we did to get salvation.


 
You can't really tell me I'm wrong when you say the same thing I did, just in different words. It just doesn't work.



Tycho said:


> No.  Wrong.  You are either lying or mistaken, I care not which, but this statement is BULLSHIT.  Predestination and "being elect" are parts of Calvinism, at its core, and are both inherently disgusting in my opinion.  And Calvinism is at the core of numerous Protestant-derived branches of Christianity, particularly Evangelical Christanity.


 
Rukh seems to have forgotten that ALL Calvinists are, by definition, followers of the TULIP doctrines.


----------



## Discord Nova (May 19, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wrong. I have said what you do isn't enough, as in nothing we do on our own is good enough. You can brag all you want about what you do, but in the end, without Christ, it means nothing.


 
Rukh, one thing ive learned from my 2 1/2 years of being a christian is that God uses people, good and bad, for good things. Just because someone doesn't accept christ, it doesn't mean they cant do good works.


----------



## CrazyLee (May 19, 2011)

ArielMT said:


> So, are we done, then?


 
I want to look some stuff up about religion but haven't had the time lately.

I think in the end, whether or not Abortion is okay or not depends solely on when you think an embryo becomes a human, with full rights. And whether you believe in a soul or not and when that soul enters the body.

Deo and many others believe that, before birth, the embryo/fetus is NOT a full human thus has little or no rights, or at the very least the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the fetus. Thus aborting it is not murder, or is no different than squashing a worm.

Rukh believes that an embryo/fetus is a full human right at conception, and it gains a soul at that time, thus it IS a human and has rights. Thus, killing a embryo/fetus is murder, because you're killing a full human being.

I'm just trying to figure out myself if there's any definite proof in the bible that a fetus is a full human with a soul with full rights, and destroying it is murder.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (May 19, 2011)

Tycho said:


> No.  Wrong.  You are either lying or mistaken, I care not which, but this statement is BULLSHIT.  Predestination and "being elect" are parts of Calvinism, at its core, and are both inherently disgusting in my opinion.  And Calvinism is at the core of numerous Protestant-derived branches of Christianity, particularly Evangelical Christanity.


 
You know, why don't you actually look up theological doctrines before you post... Hyper Calvinism is NOT Calvinism. Thats like saying Pelagianism, Semi Pelagianism and Arminianism are the same thing.There is a huge, huge difference. You are the one who is mistaken because you have no idea what you are even talking about.
There, did I spell it out clear enough for you?


Mojotech said:


> You can't really tell me I'm wrong when you say the same thing I did, just in different words. It just doesn't work.


 I did not say the same thing at all. I said that predestination ONLY teaches humility. Thats it. It does NOT teach that God made some for heaven and some for Hell.



CrazyLee said:


> I
> I'm just trying to figure out myself if  there's any definite proof in the bible that a fetus is a full human  with a soul with full rights, and destroying it is murder.


 
I posted it twice in here giving detailed Scripture passages giving proof that the Bible does say that killing an unborn child is murder.


EDIT: You know people, instead of posting ignorantly, why don't you actually research the doctrines you claim to understand or know so much about...


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (May 19, 2011)

Since abortion is murder, mother who have abortions or intentionally have miscarriages should receive capital punishment. Because God is just.


----------



## Aleu (May 19, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I posted it twice in here giving detailed Scripture passages giving proof that the Bible does say that killing an unborn child is murder.
> 
> 
> EDIT: You know people, instead of posting ignorantly, why don't you actually research the doctrines you claim to understand or know so much about...



We have and we told you the Scripture doesn't say that yet you say we're wrong. Do you ever consider yourself wrong even once? Or are you that much of an arrogant prick that everything you say is right?


----------



## Conker (May 19, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> EDIT: You know people, instead of posting ignorantly, why don't you actually research the doctrines you claim to understand or know so much about...


 The same can be said about what you say and Christianity.

OH SNAP oh snap, come to my macaroni party and let's take a nap


----------



## Lobar (May 19, 2011)

Imagine that one night, you invite a bunch of guys in for a party, only to find the next morning that one didn't leave.  You ask him what's up, and he says that he has no place to go, and no food to eat, and he just needs a few months to get back on his feet and then he'll leave, or he'll die out on the streets.  While you can sympathize with the guy's situation, and choose to help him out if you want, you (especially you conservatives) wouldn't stand for someone else butting in and telling you that you're _obligated_ to provide all the food and shelter he needs.  But change a few things around, turn this fully functional adult human being into a small clump of loose cells, who no longer shares a house with you, but lives inside your OWN BODY, changes that should push the moral obligation in the _other_ direction if anything, and now everyone's up in arms.

Not the best analogy in the world, but it popped into my head regardless.  Conservatives are essentially trying to mandate pre-natal welfare.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You do know that Doctors without Borders IS a Christian organization right?
> 
> And I am not saying helping people is a bad thing. What I am saying is, it won't get someone who doesn't believe in Christ Jesus anywhere at all.
> 
> As for the May 21st thing, I laugh at it. Because Christ Himself said only the Father knows the time and date of the Son returning. We do not.



Uh, no it's not.  Check their own website here. They very clearly state they aren't affiliated with any political organization or religious agenda and remain completely neutral.  Ironic you're accusing other people of being ignorant.

Mutombo meanwhile is a very devout Christian who realizes that people who need help should receive it.  What you're essentially saying is that if someone doesn't believe in your idea of God, they are just wasting resources and ultimately don't matter, either as the supplier or receiver.  What a very archaic view you have there, certainly not one I'd think Christ would agree with.


----------



## Tycho (May 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You know, why don't you actually look up theological doctrines before you post... Hyper Calvinism is NOT Calvinism. Thats like saying Pelagianism, Semi Pelagianism and Arminianism are the same thing.There is a huge, huge difference. You are the one who is mistaken because you have no idea what you are even talking about.
> There, did I spell it out clear enough for you?


 
Asshole, Calvinism is Calvinism.  After sitting through a season of hour and a half long classes about Western religion being taught by a retired Navy Chaplain turned professor I am pretty sure I have a fucking decent grasp on the matter.  Hyper-Calvinism is simply what assholes like the WBC use - it's Calvinism but they claim to know that THEY are elect and everyone else is going to hell, and they like telling everyone about it.  In truth, ALL Protestant denominations do this to an extent - they assume that their piety makes them more likely to go to heaven than someone like, say, me.  The WBC is just more open and up-front.


----------



## Bloodshot_Eyes (May 20, 2011)

Hallelujah
Paramore
Riot


----------



## Mayfurr (May 20, 2011)

Aleu said:


> I guess we have sex in the name of God too ;3


 
Theistic sex - "Oh GOD!"

Humanistic sex - "Oh MAN!"


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Hyper Calvinism is NOT Calvinism.



Yeah! They totally put sugar on their porridge! Oh wait, no, they're a subset of Calvinism. Stop playing with scotsmen and stick to the point.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I did not say the same thing at all. I said that predestination ONLY teaches humility. Thats it. It does NOT teach that God made some for heaven and some for Hell.
> 
> You know , instead of posting ignorantly, why don't you actually research the doctrines you claim to understand or know so much about...


 
Yeaaaaah. That's not correct. At all. Predestination holds, in the area of calvinism, that the elect were chosen beforehand to be saved, and once god saves someone or damn someone they've always been destined for that. Unless you're suddenly saying that people can go against God's will and place themself into heaven or hell without God going along with it, which would just be straight out blasphemy.

Seriously though it'd be nice if you'd actually stick to the point and debate on the topic at hand instead of just insisting your opponents don't talk about. It's not earning you any points, especially when you don't actually demonstrate an understanding of the topic at hand.


----------



## Get-dancing (May 20, 2011)

Why does Christianity get brought into this and used as a punching bag for all the pro-abortionists SO easily? I hope you realise there are pro-life people who don't follow any religions, and there are pro-choice Christians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvshMADC7s0&feature=related

This video may change your opinion on how human the fetus really is. The doctor who made that documentary was one of the original American activists who made abortion legal in the first place. Only since ultra-sound was developed did he feel needed to do something to undo his actions.


----------



## Azure (May 20, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Theistic sex - "Oh GOD!"
> 
> Humanistic sex - "Oh MAN!"



Bro sex- OH JACK JOHNSON


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 20, 2011)

Get-dancing said:


> Why does Christianity get brought into this and used as a punching bag for all the pro-abortionists SO easily? I hope you realise there are pro-life people who don't follow any religions, and there are pro-choice Christians.


 Probably because the main anti-abortionist on this thread is a fundamentalist Christian who is arguing against abortion on religious grounds.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 20, 2011)

Get-dancing said:


> pro-abortionists


 
Oh look, it's Get-dancing.


----------



## Wreth (May 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But it will get you nowhere apart from Christ Jesus.



Wow, just wow

People aren't trying to get anywhere by helping others, they are doing it for the sake of the other person because they are a caring and selfless person.


----------



## CrazyLee (May 20, 2011)

GET FOUR ABORTIONS, AND THE FIFTH ONE IS FREE!!!1 (love how many dislikes there are on that video)



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I posted it twice in here giving detailed Scripture passages giving proof that the Bible does say that killing an unborn child is murder.


And you assume I've had the time enough to research the scripture you've posted instead of just taking your word for it. Which is, unfortunately, what a lot of religious people do, take the word of their leader without looking it up themselves.

Going all the way back to page 4 where you first posted this....
First, the Exodus verse. Everyone's already stated that this law refers to the mother, not the unborn child, and I agree, and I'm probably arguing to a wall about this, but let's visit it again.

_"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth* prematurely*"_ (NIV translation)
I've looked at about a dozen different translations of this. Many of them say "miscarriage" or "loses her child" instead of "prematurely". The KJV reads _"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her"_. The original Hebrew is "the child leaves her". In any case, even if the child were to be born prematurely, this isn't the 21st century when these laws were applied. This was in the bronze age. There was no modern medical facilities to help a premie live. If a baby's born premature back then it was going to die. So being born premature was a death sentence. Either the baby would come out dead or wouldn't survive very long.

Then we come to the second part of this sentence:
_"but there is no serious injury,"_
If they're talking about the infant, how can there be no injury? The baby's DEAD. She either miscarried or had him premature and he's going to die anyway. I don't see how, if you're talking about the baby, there can be no injury if he's not alive anymore! Seems a strange thing to say, right? He may be uninjured in every other way but he's still dead.

And then you have to look at the sentence structure.
_"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury,"_ (the [a] is a footnote that says _"or has a miscarriage"_).
The way the sentence is structured is to be read as there is no serious injury to the mother. All the translations I have read agree with this, as well as the original Hebrew. I'll even post some of those translations.
_"When there's a fight and in the fight a pregnant woman is hit so that she miscarries but is not otherwise hurt,"_ The Message
_"If men contend with each  other, and a pregnant woman [interfering] is hurt so that she has a  miscarriage,"_ Amplified Bible
_"If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child,"_ Good News Translation
_"And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart,"_ American Standard Version
_"Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting"_ Contemporary English Version

So, in other words, this bible verse refers to injury to a pregnant woman, and not injury to her child. So it's out as an argument against abortion.

That leaves us to the other bible verses you provided. And whether they prove or not that an unborn child is alive, has rights, and if killing it is murder. Let's get to that in a minute.

(or not. I have graduation rehearsal in a minute.)


----------



## Smart_Cookie (May 20, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> Bible Stuff.


 
Both me and Deo tried to tell him that earlier but he wouldn't listen.


----------



## Lobar (May 20, 2011)

ugh lets not make this another scripture thread :|


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 21, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Both me and Deo tried to tell him that earlier but he wouldn't listen.


 
God Himself could explain it and Ruk wouldn't listen.


----------



## Get-dancing (May 21, 2011)

Having a miscarrage might not be murder in the 2nd degree, but killing a pregnant woman is still considered double-homocide.


----------



## Thatch (May 21, 2011)

Get-dancing said:


> Having a miscarrage might not be murder in the 2nd degree


 
Having a miscarriage count as murder would be pretty much like having a heart attack count as suicide.


----------



## Thatch (May 21, 2011)

Get-dancing said:


> No, what I meant was a popular pro-choice arguement is 'If abortion is murder, then having a miscarriage would be murder in a lesser degree/manslaughter".


 
I never heard that argument. And I was a happy person until the point you told me. This is fucking retarded and anyone who thought it up should abort themselves asap.


----------



## Aleu (May 21, 2011)

Get-dancing said:


> No, what I meant was a popular pro-choice arguement is 'If abortion is murder, then having a miscarriage would be murder in a lesser degree/manslaughter". That might be a good point, but it's also true that whilst abortion isn't considered murder, killing a pregnant women is legally considered 'double-homocide'.


 Neither are good points. The double-homicide thing needs to be scrapped.


----------



## Deo (May 21, 2011)

Get-dancing said:


> Having a miscarrage might not be murder in the 2nd degree, but killing a pregnant woman is still considered double-homocide.


 
Every miscarriage would have to be investigated by police if abortion was made illegal. So if a family wants a child, and they misscarrry, that sad time in their life will compounded by police officers questioning and detaining the grieving people and bombarding them with "DID YOU KILL YOUR BABY?!!?!!" And most women who miscarry often already feel guilty and ashamed, so having the bureaucratic system after every miscarriage as if it was a murder case, yeah that will make a sensitive situation much better.


----------



## Redregon (May 21, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> At what point does a baby gain thought? Would that be defined as memory?
> The reason I'm curious is because it seems to be talked about as if its an opinion. The point in which a fetus gains thought can be scientifically proven.


 
i can't remember where i read it, but i've read somewhere that most human beings aren't able to form coherent, solid memories until they're about a year or so old... 

so... does one's memory dictate when it becomes a human? 

still, i'm pro choice because 1. i'm not a woman so it's not my body... 2. i'm queer so it's highly unlikely that i'll ever knock a chick up... so, basically, in the end, it's none of my damn business what a woman chooses to do with her body. if she wants to abort? that's her choice... but, she's going to have to live with the consequences (and the question "what if...?")


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 22, 2011)

oeod said:


> thanks you share



Why is this obvious bot not banned yet?


----------



## Jashwa (May 22, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Why is this obvious bot not banned yet?


 Because mods aren't on every second of every day.


----------



## Thatch (May 22, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> Because mods aren't on every second of every day.


 
I though that's what getting mods from different timezones was for :V


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 22, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> Because mods aren't on every second of every day.


 


Thatch said:


> I though that's what getting mods from different timezones was for :V



Perhaps appointing mods that are on on a regular basis would be a good idea.


----------



## CrazyLee (May 31, 2011)

Abortion is bad, because it's against God's plan for you to bleed to death.

Or should I have started another thread?


----------



## Werecatdawn (May 31, 2011)

Ohai this tread again

Maybe the forum needs an abortion.


----------



## Namba (May 31, 2011)

Sorry bro, but tell that to a guy who's own mother got pregnant (failed pill, broken protection... Coulda been anything since she was an alcoholic/druggie and not married) and could've easily killed me... I'm pro life, because to me anything with a heartbeat is life; anything that bleeds is life. I'm 100% against terminating a pregnancy for whatever reason (even rape)... But that's what I believe, but from enough experiences I know am not changing anyones mind... But if we can talk in a civil manner, I'm all up for debate


----------



## Spatel (Jun 1, 2011)

Do you ever swat cockroaches that get in the house or burn ticks that bite you?

Life is life, but some forms of life are more primitive than others. A fetus is an empty shell. It's hardware without software. It is a completely, totally replaceable thing with no personality and no individuality yet. Once a baby is born and develops those things, he/she is a person endowed with inalienable rights. That takes about 3 weeks after birth. The brain rapidly rewires itself to begin processing the environment at that point.

What I'm saying is there is no point to protecting an individual fetus. The mother can just as easily make another where that one came from, so saying it has 'potential' is a wasted argument.


----------



## GadallaRune (Jun 1, 2011)

My mother was on the pill (correctly taking it), using a condom, and had had her tubes tied, and I was still born. My mother decided to keep me. That was her choice, and I'm glad she made it.

BUT. I _and_ my mother support pro-choice. I sure as FUCK do not believe a woman should have to bear a child when raped. I also sure as hell don't think it should be used as a form of birth control, its cheaper just to buy condoms. Its ultimately the woman's choice, even if a potential father can bring his own opinion into the decision, its the woman's body and her choice.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Sorry bro, but tell that to a guy who's own mother got pregnant (failed pill, broken protection... Coulda been anything since she was an alcoholic/druggie and not married) and could've easily killed me... I'm pro life, because to me *anything with a heartbeat is life; anything that bleeds is life*. I'm 100% against terminating a pregnancy for whatever reason (even rape)... But that's what I believe, but from enough experiences I know am not changing anyones mind... But if we can talk in a civil manner, I'm all up for debate


 
Are you also a strict and pesticide-free vegan?


----------



## Nail_bunny (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Sorry bro, but tell that to a guy who's own mother got pregnant (failed pill, broken protection... Coulda been anything since she was an alcoholic/druggie and not married) and could've easily killed me... I'm pro life, because to me anything with a heartbeat is life; anything that bleeds is life. I'm 100% against terminating a pregnancy for whatever reason (even rape)... But that's what I believe, but from enough experiences I know am not changing anyones mind... But if we can talk in a civil manner, I'm all up for debate


 


Lobar said:


> Are you also a strict and pesticide-free vegan?



Lol.
I'm curious about that as well. It only seems logical that a pro-lifer should be against the meat industry.
Shit, mass breeding and slitting the throats of animals is a bigger atrocity than sucking out some unaware brainless goop from a woman's uterus.
It's barely life.

And you're even against abortion of rape babies?
Wtf is wrong with you? Do you have any idea the amount of trauma a rape victim goes through? And you're supportive of just tormenting them further by making them carry around a constant reminder.

In my book you're just as sick as the rapist.


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

Human beings are what I'm talking about; the meat industry is a whole different matter... and think about it, what if that was you your mother decided she didn't want? 
I think rape is a sick thing and I understand how you're thinking with that, I really do... however since I actually believe the fetus is a person, I think the mother is just as bad as the rapist for killing off someone that didn't do anything wrong. As for the "brainless goop" part, if you're familiar with partial-birth abortion, you'll know that right before the baby completely leaves the womb, they suck its brains out and throw it away... and barely life? What do you mean by that?

I'm not trying to make enemies of people here, but if you can't calmly discuss your opinion I can't really talk to you.


----------



## Redregon (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> and think about it, what if that was you your mother decided she didn't want?


 
given that the human brain is not capable of forming lasting memories until well into the development it's rather silly to say "well, what if YOUR mother decided to abort?" because... well... if your mother aborted, you wouldn't be any the wiser at all. you aren't able to form memories that long ago nor is your brain developed enough to even be capable of forming rational thoughts.

... i think the phrase "hindsight is 20/20" applies here.


----------



## Nail_bunny (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Human beings are what I'm talking about; the meat industry is a whole different matter... and think about it, what if that was you your mother decided she didn't want?
> I think rape is a sick thing and I understand how you're thinking with that, I really do... however since I actually believe the fetus is a person, I think the mother is just as bad as the rapist for killing off someone that didn't do anything wrong. As for the "brainless goop" part, if you're familiar with partial-birth abortion, you'll know that right before the baby completely leaves the womb, they suck its brains out and throw it away... and barely life? What do you mean by that?
> 
> I'm not trying to make enemies of people here, but if you can't calmly discuss your opinion I can't really talk to you.



If my mother decided to abort me I wouldn't give a damn, because I wouldn't exist.
That's a really daft argument you got there, not just the mother thing.
I mean all of it.


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

Redregon said:


> given that the human brain is not capable of forming lasting memories until well into the development it's rather silly to say "well, what if YOUR mother decided to abort?" because... well... if your mother aborted, you wouldn't be any the wiser at all. you aren't able to form memories that long ago nor is your brain developed enough to even be capable of forming rational thoughts.
> 
> ... i think the phrase "hindsight is 20/20" applies here.



Well, thank you for staying calm in this matter. ...but do you even remember anything since the age of six months? A year, even? If someone were to kill you at the age of eight months, you still wouldn't be any wiser as to what happened. That sounds harsh, and I hate talking like that but I think it's necessary.


----------



## Nail_bunny (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Well, thank you for staying calm in this matter. ...but do you even remember anything since the age of six months? A year, even? If someone were to kill you at the age of eight months, you still wouldn't be any wiser as to what happened. That sounds harsh, and I hate talking like that but I think it's necessary.


 
That's not the same as abortion.
You're doing what all pro-lifetards do. You're making up stupid hypothetical situations that have nothing to do with abortion.


----------



## Riley (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> what if that was you your mother decided she didn't want?



Then I wouldn't ever know.  You only enjoy things you've had a chance to experience, without ever having had life, you can't very well speak for a bundle of cells and say "Look at how much it has to live for!"  Because at that point, it kind of doesn't have _anything_ going on that it'd miss.

How much would it affect you if the country of Azerbaijan stopped serving beer?  The entire country, just suddenly and unexpectedly removes beer from its national menu and halts all production and imports.  How would you feel about that?


----------



## Redregon (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Well, thank you for staying calm in this matter. ...but do you even remember anything since the age of six months? A year, even? If someone were to kill you at the age of eight months, you still wouldn't be any wiser as to what happened. That sounds harsh, and I hate talking like that but I think it's necessary.


 
granted... and i'm not going to dip into the semantics argument of "what is murder, what age is a person to be murdered, etc.." but i think in this case, the fact that the child is autonomous to the extent that it doesn't need the umbilical cord for it's sustenance, it's fairly safe to say that it could have lived on it's own... so, that being said, i would definately consider it murder if a child were killed.

but, the fetus is another matter entirely. it isn't autonomous, it relies on the mother for it's life... now, if said mother made the decision to abort it, it's her decision (though i still contend that she would have to live with the consequences and one of those is the question of "what if?" so i'm not saying it's 100% okay... but, there IS a difference here.)

now, all things considered, i'm not going to go down the "what is life, when does it start" argument that most pro-choice/life arguments tend to fall into... because that's never going to be solved since each side has it's own belief system to support their own arguments.

as for me, well, the earliest memory i can recall is my fourth birthday and i only remember it because it was one of those "holy shit, a MOUNTAIN of presents" (which wasn't really a mountain, but when you're four years old, it seems like a mountain.)


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

It's called murder, you're right. But as long as the baby is in his or her mother's womb, it's abortion... but say it's born prematurely, and the mother was still considering whether or not she wanted the child?


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 1, 2011)

CrazyLee you evil bastard why did you bring this thread back up again?


----------



## Redregon (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> It's called murder, you're right. But as long as the baby is in his or her mother's womb, it's abortion... but say it's born prematurely, and the mother was still considering whether or not she wanted the child?


 
then there's always adoption.

but let's not go down the road of specific instances that attempt to validate or invalidate an argument in it's entirety where it would be best to use it to validate or invalidate specific instances.

if the mother births the child prematurely (and it somehow survives) then yeah... if she still doesn't want it, adopt it out. it's alive and autonomous at this point so assuming it survives the premie phase and such, it has a high liklihood of surviving through to it's natural death.

still, in the end, no matter what this argument presents, it's merely acting as a repository of opinions. everyone has one, everyone likes to speak of one but in the end, it's rare for one to change... especially on something that's so fundamentally ingrained in one's mind and such...


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

Redregon said:


> then there's always adoption.
> 
> but let's not go down the road of specific instances that attempt to validate or invalidate an argument in it's entirety where it would be best to use it to validate or invalidate specific instances.
> 
> ...


Adoption is very much okay. I was adopted myself lol... and if it dies, well, it dies and no one can be held responsible for it (realistically anyway).


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

Nail_bunny said:


> That's not the same as abortion.
> You're doing what all pro-lifetards do. You're making up stupid hypothetical situations that have nothing to do with abortion.


 
Neither does the meat industry bro. And keep a civil tongue would ya? I said I was up for debate, not insults.


----------



## Conker (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> It's called murder, you're right. But as long as the baby is in his or her mother's womb, it's abortion... but say it's born prematurely, and the mother was still considering whether or not she wanted the child?


 Considering that there is a time limit on abortions (second trimester), if there is a premature birth and the baby can live at all, it's probably in the third trimester and abortion would be illegal and not an option by that point. That example doesn't work.


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

True; I am very much familiar with the ban act of 2003... It's been signed since '05 and constitutionally upheld in 07. The jail-time doesn't seem fair to me, though. I was only trying to make a point. But really, I'd like to know; when can you really consider it a human being? You can't kill it past the first trimester, but if it's in the womb, isn't  it still "her body" according to you guys? Or are we merely playing God? There are other reasons people have abortions; they might have a defect, might not live (why kill it then?), have a possibility for mental retardation... As if we can decide who is fit for life. ...and if you just don't want a kid, put it up for adoption.

Okay, I've said all I needed to say, so I'm done with this subject.


----------



## Conker (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> True; I am very much familiar with the ban act of 2003... It's been signed since '05 and constitutionally upheld in 07. The jail-time doesn't seem fair to me, though. I was only trying to make a point. But really, I'd like to know; when can you really consider it a human being? You can't kill it past the first trimester, but if it's in the womb, isn't  it still "her body" according to you guys? Or are we merely playing God? There are other reasons people have abortions; they might have a defect, might not live (why kill it then?), have a possibility for mental retardation... As if we can decide who is fit for life. ...and if you just don't want a kid, put it up for adoption.
> 
> Okay, I've said all I needed to say, so I'm done with this subject.


 I honestly have a problem with abortions that take place during the second trimester, but only because those seem kind of irresponsible (bar a few extreme examples like broken birth control or something). If you had unprotected sex, you should be getting pregnancy tests as soon as possible. Get the abortion as soon as possible if need be. I just don't like the idea of waiting until the last minute. 

Playing semantics, I say it's a "human being" when it's out of the body, but its development by the third trimester is great enough for that to be a grey area. Either way, it's illegal to kill newborn babies and to abort them during the third trimester, so it doesn't matter to me :V 

But, it is HER body and her choice ultimately. 

As to your other little examples. If it has a genetic defect, I'd abort, if it wouldn't live, I'd abort (easier to do that than go through the natural process I'd wager), possibility for mental defects I'd abort. But I don't want kids so I'd be aborting either way :V Or rather, suggesting it since I"m a guy and can't get preggers.


----------



## Deo (Jun 1, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Are you also a strict and pesticide-free vegan?


 He also needs to be against the death penalty, and against the military and warfare/defense, oh and if he owns a gun or is a member of the NRA I will laugh forever.


----------



## Deo (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> if you're familiar with partial-birth abortion, you'll know that right before the baby completely leaves the womb, they suck its brains out and throw it away... and barely life? What do you mean by that?


 If you're familiar with abortion you'll know that partial-birth abortion is almost never done, is incredibly uncommon and rarely performed, and is illegal in many states. Bringing it up is like warning people to buy a parka in Texas because it snowed once in the past five years.


----------



## Deo (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> but say it's born prematurely, and the mother was still considering whether or not she wanted the child?


 _*LOL*_

Son, you do realize that prematurely born babies that generally are viable are only a few weeks early right? And there are no third term abortions? The two timeliness would never intercede. Seriously, do you not know about pregnancy and the stuff you are talking about (like biologically, not from some pseudo-scientific emotionally-hostaging shoddy website)?


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 1, 2011)

Deo said:


> If you're familiar with abortion you'll know that partial-birth abortion is almost never done, is incredibly uncommon and rarely performed, and is illegal in many states. Bringing it up is like warning people to buy a parka in Texas because it snowed once in the past five years.


 
And even then we don't buy them. We just wear our Carhartt jackets and skin tight jeans and shiver until it gets unbearably sweaty again.


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

Deo said:


> _*LOL*_
> 
> Son, you do realize that prematurely born babies that generally are viable are only a few weeks early right? And there are no third term abortions? The two timeliness would never intercede. Seriously, do you not know about pregnancy and the stuff you are talking about (like biologically, not from some pseudo-scientific emotionally-hostaging shoddy website)?


Yes I do know about pregnancy. I'm not your son, I do not know you, and I'm not up to making enemies. I said and did anything to make my point like anyone else and probably shouldn't have gotten into this because anything I say has and will get picked apart. My apologies for this major waste of time. Like I said, I don't feel like going into this any further.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Yes I do know about pregnancy. I'm not your son, I do not know you, and I'm not up to making enemies. I said and did anything to make my point like anyone else and probably shouldn't have gotten into this because anything I say has and will get picked apart. My apologies for this major waste of time. Like I said, I don't feel like going into this any further.


 
read as: I am a overgrown man-babby that lacks the maturity to listen my ideas being challenged and their logical flaws and inconsistencies exposed.

You never even offered any real argument to justify your position, much less why your opinion should override that of a pregnant rape victim.


----------



## Deo (Jun 1, 2011)

Lobar said:


> read as: I am a overgrown man-babby that lacks the maturity to listen my ideas being challenged and their logical flaws and inconsistencies exposed.
> 
> You never even offered any real argument to justify your position, much less why your opinion should override that of a pregnant rape victim.


 butt u guis r meanie buttheads and i dont feel that i want to talk about it ne-moar


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

Lol that's about right


----------



## Cocobanana (Jun 1, 2011)

Who has the right to decide the appropriateness of abortion? Let's run down the list old-school style.

1. Not men because they aren't women. Just because they think it's 'morally incomprehensible' doesn't mean their opinion is right.
2. Not doctors because it's be hypocritical. If doctors still aren't allowed to help old and suffering people commit suicide, then why should they be allowed to kill potential life?
3. Not the woman because 95 times out of 100 she could have prevented the baby by not having sex. When rape is involved, if giving birth wouldn't kill the mom, I'd keep the baby if it was me as an eff you to the guy who raped me. To show that something good and wonderful can come from a horrible ordeal. When the mom might be killed with the birth... I dunno... there's a logical (read: heartless) way to think about that, and a sympathetic way. Logical would argue that the baby has greater potential to be successful, but sympathetic would argue that the mom has already been around, has a husband, has friends, has a life she wants to continue, and why should the husband and love of her life have to lose a wife and then raise his kid on his own? I'd go with the sympathetic choice.

In conclusion, the only one who should have the right is the baby. Too bad babies aren't telepathic. 

But none of this matters because I fall into group one. I'm a man, there's no level of empathy I could muster which would equal that of a woman who is or has been pregnant. So instead of saying whether or not abortion is ever okay, I'll say that maybe it'd be good if women who are considering abortion look up those who did go through with it for various reasons, if they regret it or not, etc. To 'learn from other peoples mistakes' if they're seen to be that.


----------



## Conker (Jun 1, 2011)

Deo said:


> butt u guis r meanie buttheads and i dont feel that i want to talk about it ne-moar


 The silver lining is that's infinitely better than Rukh's arguing style :3


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Lol that's about right


 
aka: LALALALALALA I WANT TO POST AN OPINION AND HAVE IT TAKEN AT FACE VALUE

Hi Luti. Welcome to the internet where, believe it or not, people actually expect you to back up your opinions. Every. Single. Word of it.




Cocobanana said:


> 1. Not men because they aren't women. Just because they think it's 'morally incomprehensible' doesn't mean their opinion is right.


 
I'll call bullshit on this one. If it's the man's child, he should have every right to have a word on the fetus's life.


----------



## Cocobanana (Jun 1, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> I'll call bullshit on this one. If it's the man's child, he should have every right to have a word on the fetus's life.



What does the man go through besides dealing with the mood swings and more fragile nature of his wife/girlfriend? He just puts his penis inside, cums, voila a baby starts growing. Assuming he's not infertile. Though it started out as his seed, he gave it to her willingly. Like if you give someone a piece of cake from your fork, I would think it's unreasonable to expect them not to swallow it.


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> aka: LALALALALALA I WANT TO POST AN OPINION AND HAVE IT TAKEN AT FACE VALUE
> 
> Hi Luti. Welcome to the internet where, believe it or not, people actually expect you to back up your opinions.


 

The whole damn world bro. You can't prove an opinion... And I haven't exactly gotten any in-depth proof of whether it's right or wrong either. Anyone care to truly back up their opinion? Let's hear it.


----------



## Willow (Jun 1, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> 3. Not the woman because 95 times out of 100 she could have prevented the baby by not having sex. When rape is involved, if giving birth wouldn't kill the mom, I'd keep the baby if it was me as an eff you to the guy who raped me. To show that something good and wonderful can come from a horrible ordeal. When the mom might be killed with the birth... I dunno... there's a logical (read: heartless) way to think about that, and a sympathetic way. Logical would argue that the baby has greater potential to be successful, but sympathetic would argue that the mom has already been around, has a husband, has friends, has a life she wants to continue, and why should the husband and love of her life have to lose a wife and then raise his kid on his own? I'd go with the sympathetic choice.


You do realize that rape is a traumatizing experience right? Despite how "good and wonderful" having a baby can be, having a baby without any sort of say in the matter is kinda unfair to the would-be mother. It's also unfair for said mother to be left with the aftermath of the rape. All the rapist really gets is jail time and /maybe/ he might have to pay for child support if I'm not mistaken. 

Plus, how do you explain to a small child why Daddy's never around, or why mommy's sad all the time? The latter being a dramatic scenario I guess, but really, shit never goes away y'know. No matter how "good and wonderful" that child is..they're still the product of a rape.


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 1, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> What does the man go through besides dealing with the mood swings and more fragile nature of his wife/girlfriend? He just puts his penis inside, cums, voila a baby starts growing. Assuming he's not infertile. Though it started out as his seed, he gave it to her willingly. Like if you give someone a piece of cake from your fork, I would think it's unreasonable to expect them not to swallow it.


 
... wow. There is so much fucked-up'ness in this post I don't even know where to begin with the deconstruction of the pure depths of your dumbassery and callousness here. 

First off, believe it or not, some men AREN'T inconsiderate assholes who want nothing more than to ejaculate into women's vaginas. Accidentally pregnancy or not, some men would kindly like to see it through. 

Second,  I can think of plenty of men who want to joy and pleasure of raising a child. Enough so that they'd put up with mood swings, screaming babies, and everything else that comes with being responsible for a child.

Third, continuing that last line, some men do have a sense of honor and take responsibility for their actions. 

And lastly, that post is bad and you should feel bad.



luti-kriss said:


> The whole damn world bro. You can't prove an opinion... And I haven't exactly gotten any in-depth proof of whether it's right or wrong either. Anyone care to truly back up their opinion? Let's hear it.


 
I daresay out of the 889 posts thus far, many a person has put more honest and true effort into their views on this subject than you have so far.


----------



## Conker (Jun 1, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> Who has the right to decide the appropriateness of abortion? Let's run down the list old-school style.
> 
> 1. Not men because they aren't women. Just because they think it's 'morally incomprehensible' doesn't mean their opinion is right.


I call some amounts of bullshit. Since it takes two to make a baby, both people should have say on what happens. It's ultimately up to the woman to decide, but the father's opinion should not be meaningless. 


> 2. Not doctors because it's be hypocritical. If doctors still aren't allowed to help old and suffering people commit suicide, then why should they be allowed to kill potential life?


Because potential for life is totally the same as an actual life. 


> 3. Not the woman because 95 times out of 100 she could have prevented the baby by not having sex. When rape is involved, if giving birth wouldn't kill the mom, I'd keep the baby if it was me as an eff you to the guy who raped me. To show that something good and wonderful can come from a horrible ordeal. When the mom might be killed with the birth... I dunno... there's a logical (read: heartless) way to think about that, and a sympathetic way. Logical would argue that the baby has greater potential to be successful, but sympathetic would argue that the mom has already been around, has a husband, has friends, has a life she wants to continue, and why should the husband and love of her life have to lose a wife and then raise his kid on his own? I'd go with the sympathetic choice.


100 times out of a 100 she could have prevented the baby by not having sex. It's how babies are made. Because what you would hypothetically do should apply to what everyone will do, right? The logical way would be to off the baby too :V



> In conclusion, the only one who should have the right is the baby. Too bad babies aren't telepathic.


 Wouldn't really matter even if they were now would it, since they would lack the mental capacity to form words and thoughts that we could comprehend. Of course, we aren't talking about babies but fetuses, which are kind different. 


Cocobanana said:


> What does the man go through besides dealing with the mood swings and more fragile nature of his wife/girlfriend? He just puts his penis inside, cums, voila a baby starts growing. Assuming he's not infertile. Though it started out as his seed, he gave it to her willingly. Like if you give someone a piece of cake from your fork, I would think it's unreasonable to expect them not to swallow it.


 Well, there's the whole responsibility and monetary investment that comes with a child, but yeah, I'm sure all he really does is just shoot his seed in the woman and leave it at that :V


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

I think rape should carry a death sentence to be honest...put the child up for adoption.


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> I think rape should carry a death sentence to be honest...put the child up for adoption.


 
I think absolutes like this deserve a fair trial and realistic punishments, rather than punishing the poster for an obvious mistake he/she could learn from, because, yanno, people change after a good amount of years in the slammer.


----------



## Conker (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> I think rape should carry a death sentence to be honest...put the child up for adoption.


 Isn't that a little hypocritical? We should never ever terminate fetuses, but it's damn fine to kill people that commit crimes--whether the punishment fits said crime being irrelevant.  

I'm not defending rapists here, but holy shit. First you post like your some crazy vegan who values all life, now you're cool with killing people.


----------



## Willow (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> I think rape should carry a death sentence to be honest...put the child up for adoption.


 Because that really solves the problem.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Jun 1, 2011)

Deo said:


> He also needs to be against the death penalty, and against the military and warfare/defense, oh and if he owns a gun or is a member of the NRA I will laugh forever.


 
Still waiting for a response.

Also; it's good that kriss, being a male, is 100% behind forcing a woman to take the baby to term since it's such a tough burden he needs to bear. Also, more questions:

He called abortion murder. He thinks that rape should carry the death penalty. Based on these statements, it's fair to say that kriss's position is that murder should earn the death penalty. 

Therefore do you think women should be put on trail with the possibility of receiving the death penalty or a life sentence for having an abortion, i.e. their participation in murder?


----------



## Lobar (Jun 1, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> 3. Not the woman because 95 times out of 100 she could have prevented the baby by not having sex.


 
ITT the government should get involved to restrict women's access to medical care if they won't conform to my patriarchal, sex-negative sense of morality in their private lives.


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

I see why you think that's crazy. But to put someone through such an emotional trauma such as that is a disgusting thing and it pisses me off to think anyone would do such a thing... I dunno, maybe that's too harsh; I've seen some people change before.


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

Willow said:


> Because that really solves the problem.


 
Well how would you solve it?


----------



## Conker (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> I see why you think that's crazy. But to put someone through such an emotional trauma such as that is a disgusting thing and it pisses me off to think anyone would do such a thing... I dunno, maybe that's too harsh; I've seen some people change before.


 What about forcing them to carry the baby to term, which is its own emotional trauma. You're totally cool with that though.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Jun 1, 2011)

Conker said:


> What about forcing them to carry the baby to term, which is its own emotional trauma. You're totally cool with that though.


 
Nah that's different cause the baby.


----------



## Cocobanana (Jun 1, 2011)

I don't think there's any comparison between what a woman experiences by sharing her life with an organism growing inside of her to whatever emotional and financial investment her husband makes. 

What's the point in arguing bout this anyway, guys? Let's all love each other, let women do what they want with babies, and the world can be a happier place.


----------



## Willow (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Well how would you solve it?


 Not by killing the rapist because even if I did, I would still have to live with the fact that I was raped. Plus saying it's okay to kill my attacker but I can't abort a pregnancy that I chose not to have regardless of if I put the child up for adoption or raise it myself, seems a bit unfair on my part.


----------



## Cocobanana (Jun 1, 2011)

Aw, look at that face, who'd wanna prevent him/her from coming to life?


----------



## Conker (Jun 1, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> Aw, look at that face, who'd wanna prevent him/her from coming to life?


 That is one ugly ass baby.

Also, fuck your plea to our emotions. That wont' work here.


> I don't think there's any comparison between what a woman experiences by  sharing her life with an organism growing inside of her to whatever  emotional and financial investment her husband makes.


I dunno, I bet we could put a monetary value on the morning sickness, weight gain, and the want to eat really crazy foods. A lawyer could do it easily.


----------



## Redregon (Jun 1, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> What's the point in arguing bout this anyway, guys? Let's all love each other,* let women do what they want with babies*, and the world can be a happier place.


 
... even if it involves charcoal briquettes and barbecue sauce?



Conker said:


> That is one ugly ass baby.



naw man... needs more thalidomide. (or have i betrayed my age yet again with a pop-culture reference that is before most people's time?)


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 1, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> I don't think there's any comparison between what a woman experiences by sharing her life with an organism growing inside of her to whatever emotional and financial investment her husband makes.



goddammit where's tycho's WHY MUST YOU BE *THIS* STUPID avatar when you need it?

I'm calling shenanigans. There's no way you can be this much of an asshole, or that much of a feminist. While carrying a baby and giving birth is a big investment and all, that's only half the battle. In an ideal relationship, who helps raise a child? Who supports the woman during pregnancy and fetches all her munchies for her? And as you said, who patiently sits through all the mood swings and instability of a pregnant woman?

The man, who will lovingly do it all for the sake of having a child. Thus, he SHOULD have card in this perpetual game of 'who should kill/save the fetus'.



Cocobanana said:


> What's the point in arguing bout this anyway, guys? Let's all love each other, *let women *do what they want with babies, and the world can be a happier place.


 
Two things, first, THE FATHER SHOULD HAVE A SAY DIPSHIT. 

Second, if we were to follow your advice, there would be no FAF. Get over it. Participate or gtfo.


----------



## Cocobanana (Jun 1, 2011)

You mean FAF only exists because we pretend to, or actually, hate each other? Maybe throw some sex and perversion in there too? 

Seriously though, threads like this suck because no matter what your opinion is, someone is going to bitch about it. Compared to a thread about racism, where almost everyone would agree it's wrong to be racist, and/or make racist jokes because they also think it's wrong to be racist but think it's stupid that someone had to make a thread about it because it's SO obvious to them.

Let me word it this way. I would want my wife to do what she thought was best, because I love her and want her to be happy and live with no regrets. If she wants to keep the baby, if she wants to go through labor pains and throwing up and not fitting into any of her old pants ever again, then I would be there for her and support her no matter what. If she wants to give up the baby either through adoption or abortion, I would feel a little sad, though at the same time it can't be a happy home if we're both not 100 percent with raising the child. That's when the creepy Muncheausen by Proxy stuff happens. So basically, I feel as if I wouldn't be a good husband if I didn't support my wife no matter what decision she made. Period.


----------



## Redregon (Jun 1, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> goddammit where's tycho's WHY MUST YOU BE *THIS* STUPID avatar when you need it?
> 
> I'm calling shenanigans. There's no way you can be this much of an asshole, or that much of a feminist. While carrying a baby and giving birth is a big investment and all, that's only half the battle. In an ideal relationship, who helps raise a child? Who supports the woman during pregnancy and fetches all her munchies for her? And as you said, who patiently sits through all the mood swings and instability of a pregnant woman?
> 
> ...


 
but, you see, herein lies the lovely hyporcisy towards most typical pro-lifers... they care enough about the child that they want it to live... until it's born... then they bitch about the mother having to go to food stamps to feed it, government handouts to clothe it and even paying for it's 100% bill when it commits a crime and goes to jail on their dime.

gotta protect dem feetussses, yep yep... but damn to hell all those welfare bums popping out kids (because they can't afford to take precautions like condoms or the pill.)


----------



## Deo (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> I think rape should carry a death sentence to be honest


 WHAT
How is it okay to kill some people some of the time but not kill others? How can you be "pro-life" when you support death and killing?









Cocobanana said:


> Who has the right to decide the appropriateness of abortion? Let's run down the list old-school style.
> 
> 1.  Not men because they aren't women. Just because they think it's  'morally incomprehensible' doesn't mean their opinion is right.
> 2.  Not doctors because it's be hypocritical. If doctors still aren't  allowed to help old and suffering people commit suicide, then why should  they be allowed to kill potential life?
> ...


 This whole damn post is so full of sexism I gagged.
Lemme break it down fer ya.



Cocobanana said:


> 1.  Not men because they aren't women. Just because they think it's  'morally incomprehensible' doesn't mean their opinion is right.


The man should have a say in the matter. If it's a couple a child would  impact both of their lives immensely, and if they are separate it still  impacts his life. He should have input on what gets done, though since  it is not his body in the end it is still the body's owner's choice (aka  the pregnant woman's choice). It's sexist to say "UR A MAN U GET NO  VOICE OPRESS DA MEN". That's just stupid and immature. Yes, men cannot  get pregnant, but that doesn't mean we silence their opinions even if we  don't agree on them. There is no such thing as allowing one gender an  opinion on a topic and not allowing the other gender an opinion at all.



Cocobanana said:


> 2. Not doctors because it's be hypocritical. If doctors still aren't  allowed to help old and suffering people commit suicide, then why should  they be allowed to kill potential life?


It's beyond the hypocritical, you're missing the point. The reason  doctors don't make our decisions for us is because it's wrong to deprive  a person of the right to their own choices and hand that control of  their bodies over to another person (in this instance a doctor, but  doctor could easily be swapped out for legislature, etc). There is no  good reason that someone should be able to overide a mentally stable  person's right to their own decisions about their body. There's no  reason that there should be a middle man between you and your rights to  yourself.


This is the one that is the most abrasive I think.


Cocobanana said:


> 3. Not the woman because 95 times out of 100 she could have prevented  the baby by not having sex.


Abstinence only doesn;t work in the real world. Sadly not all of us are  nuns. It's illogical to say that people should never have sex, and only  have sex to make babies. Relationships involve sex, it's emotional and  it brings us closer, sex is more than just pleasure, it often binds us  closer in intimacy and love. Telling people to never have sex is callous  and unrealistic. Especially since you didn't say "people" as I have  done to remove gender from the issue. You just say "woman". So women  aren't allowed to have sex, but men on the other hand have the a-ok.  This is stratification of gender inequality and a social bias that finds  promiscuity in men to be praised as an "alpha male" thing but when a  woman is promiscuous she's a slut. Which is sexist.



Cocobanana said:


> When rape is involved, if giving birth  wouldn't kill the mom, I'd keep the baby if it was me as an eff you to  the guy who raped me.


You really lack maturity. You'd keep a child as a means of giving an  "eff you to the guy who raped" you? A child is a huge responsibility,  and not something to consider lightly, and your thinking of keeping one  around as a way of spiting someone else? This is absolutely ridiculous  to even mention _using a child_ as a means  to make another person unhappy.
_*Side note:*_ Please read the works of Immanuel Kant on *means* and *ends *and how they impact our moral obligations towards and treatment of other people. 


Cocobanana said:


> To show that something good and wonderful can come  from a horrible ordeal.


Children aren't sunshine and lolipops. And you can't always know that a  child will grow up to be "wonderful", I mean I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer's  mother loved him very much and thought he'd be "wonderful" too. It's  assuming of you (and naive) to think that in all situations throwing a  baby in the mix makes things automatically more "wonderful". There are  bills, and living space, and education, and more often than not  unplanned pregnancy (especially from a traumatic event) negatively  impacts the life of the mother in certainly un-wonderful ways.


Cocobanana said:


> When the mom might be killed with the birth... I  dunno... there's a logical (read: heartless) way to think about that,  and a sympathetic way.


If you deem that all logic is heartless by default you need to re-assess  yourself. Logic is not heartless, it is logical. It takes into account  feelings too. It's retarded that you cringe away from logic simpley  because you have misunderstood it and negatively associated it with a  term it has no connection to (ie: Heartless=logic). 


Cocobanana said:


> Logical would argue that the baby has greater  potential to be successful, but sympathetic would argue that the mom has  already been around, has a husband, has friends, has a life she wants  to continue, and why should the husband and love of her life have to  lose a wife and then raise his kid on his own? I'd go with the  sympathetic choice.


That's not logic. Nor is it logical. Logic has no ties to this  hypothetical idea you are bouncing here. But yes, a baby could be seen  as potential to live. But see, a rock with high kinetic energy is moving  faster than a rock with high_ potential_ energy. And likewise a  woman who is already alive has more importance over something that has  the potential for life. Depriving someone of their _actual life_ for the _potential life_ is wrong.


----------



## Deo (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> You can't prove an opinion... And I haven't exactly gotten any in-depth proof of whether it's right or wrong either. Anyone care to truly back up their opinion? Let's hear it.


 Have you even read this thread? à² _à²  
Or did you just accidentally wander in and vomit out your opinion and then tell us that we're not allowed to question you or your opinion because nobody backs up their opinions (even though there's 36 pages of people backing up their opinions with facts, ideas, logic, and appeals to emotion)?


----------



## Cocobanana (Jun 1, 2011)

Yup, you're right, so much wrong in that big post I did. I didn't really think it through, nor am I sexist. As posted in my last last post, I basically would want what's best for my wife over what's best for the potential for a child. After having thought about it more that's the conclusion I came to. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 1, 2011)

Logic? In an ABORTION thread? 

my brain is full of fuck


----------



## Deo (Jun 1, 2011)

I'm not sexist, I just accidentally say sexist things as part of my argument.
It's awwwwwwwwwriiiiiight
I'm not calling you sexist, but I do want to point out what say and how you say it did look sexist. And by pointing it out you're more aware of it, and by raising awareness we can as a society (hopefully) transcend our gender biases.




Redregon said:


> naw man... needs more thalidomide. (or have i  betrayed my age yet again with a pop-culture reference that is before  most people's time?)


 Hell, I'm young and I get that reference.


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 1, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> You mean FAF only exists because we pretend to, or actually, hate each other? Maybe throw some sex and perversion in there too?
> 
> Seriously though, threads like this suck because no matter what your opinion is, someone is going to bitch about it. Compared to a thread about racism, where almost everyone would agree it's wrong to be racist, and/or make racist jokes because they also think it's wrong to be racist but think it's stupid that someone had to make a thread about it because it's SO obvious to them.



And you know what? Threads that simply reiterate what everyone agrees on is BAD only last a few pages, if any. Why? You can only say in so many ways you agree on something before awkwardly nodding and letting the thread die. There's no POINT in re-stating fact where everyone agrees. 

Forums, not just FAF, thrive off of discussion and debate. If you want sunshine and rainbows, go elsewhere. We'll be busy bitching and arguing here whether or not you like it, and NO amount of claim towards a forum of 'peace and happiness' will persuade us otherwise. You see, I'll let you in on a secret, here in General Discussion we LOVE to disagree with the sake of argument along with 99% percent of the other parts of the internet. Pointlessness is a non-point because we don't care. We want to fight, squabble, and point out all the dumbassery. It's almost like a game to see what you can get away with saying and how far you can push your point until the other person walks away. 

This is why we're here, and we like it just fine. No one is making you log in, and any mission to detract from our ability to argue a point, no matter how pointless, will be met with yet another argument. 

Why? Because we can. Nothing more, nothing less. 



Cocobanana said:


> Let me word it this way. I would want my wife to do what she thought was best, because I love her and want her to be happy and live with no regrets. If she wants to keep the baby, if she wants to go through labor pains and throwing up and not fitting into any of her old pants ever again, then I would be there for her and support her no matter what. If she wants to give up the baby either through adoption or abortion, I would feel a little sad, though at the same time it can't be a happy home if we're both not 100 percent with raising the child. That's when the creepy Muncheausen by Proxy stuff happens. So basically, I feel as if I wouldn't be a good husband if I didn't support my wife no matter what decision she made. Period.


 
You see, this argument ends basically with your personal beliefs. Irrelevant. It takes TWO to make a baby, thus, a man should have a good amount of say in the abortion or raising of a child. I'm not sure how you run your relationship, but generally in a healthy one both people are apt to listen to each others idea.


----------



## Spatel (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Well how would you solve it?


You realize if rapists get the death penalty, they have nothing to lose by turning their rapes into murders right? Like, since they're going to die if they get caught either way, they now have an incentive to kill the victim that could identify them.

You stop rape by not supporting a rape culture.

How do you not support a rape culture? Many ways. One of them is supporting abortion. Because telling a rape victim she has to dedicate the next 9 months of her life to raising a child she doesn't want, from a sexual act she didn't want, is literally putting her through a fate worse than the rape itself. You're also providing an incentive for rape. If she can't abort the child then rapists can just go around impregnating women to spread their seed.


----------



## CrazyLee (Jun 1, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> CrazyLee you evil bastard why did you bring this thread back up again?


If people would have bothered to read my post I linked to an article where a woman was bleeding to death due to a failed pregnancy (the placenta was separating from the uterus wall, causing hemorrhaging), and the doctor on duty refused to terminate the pregnancy. Even though the baby was probably dead already due to lack of blood.

And I am sorry for bringing this back up. I should have made a new thread, and we could have argued it for another 35+ pages. :V




Cocobanana said:


> 3. Not the woman because 95 times out of 100 she could have prevented the baby by not having sex.


So, women should only have sex to make babies. Are you Catholic?



Cocobanana said:


> When rape is involved, if giving birth wouldn't kill the mom, I'd keep the baby if it was me as an eff you to the guy who raped me....
> ... I'm a man,


This is obvious. As a man, you have no idea what it's like to be raped. And the fact that the baby would remind the woman every single day of what happened to her. Apparently you've never heard of triggers for PTSD. The baby could very well be a trigger for that woman because it was conceived when she was raped, and would bring up those memories of that rape. Would you rather the woman deal with that torture every day?


Also, I noticed Rukh is reading this thread. INCOMING RUKH! ALL HANDS TO STATIONS! SHEILDS UP! :V


----------



## Deo (Jun 1, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> INCOMING RUKH! ALL HANDS TO STATIONS! SHEILDS UP! :V


 Cannae do it cap'ain, ah don' 'ave the pow'r!
http://www.editinternational.com/images/gallery/05a-scotty_low.jpg


----------



## Conker (Jun 1, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> You mean FAF only exists because we pretend to, or actually, hate each other? Maybe throw some sex and perversion in there too?
> 
> Seriously though, threads like this suck because no matter what your opinion is, someone is going to bitch about it. Compared to a thread about racism, where almost everyone would agree it's wrong to be racist, and/or make racist jokes because they also think it's wrong to be racist but think it's stupid that someone had to make a thread about it because it's SO obvious to them.


 You can have any opinion that you want, but you should have solid reasoning for the opinions you have. I don't think anyone expects to change any minds on this forum when topics such as this come up, but we sure can assess who is and who isn't a moron by the way they argue their points. 

If you cannot support your opinions well, then you shouldn't have those opinions.


----------



## CrazyLee (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> I think rape should carry a death sentence to be honest...put the child up for adoption.


How did I miss this one?!
Everyone else already responded to this, so I won't.



Spatel said:


> If she can't abort the child then rapists can just go around impregnating women to spread their seed.


I don't think people go around raping women to spread their seed.


----------



## Cocobanana (Jun 1, 2011)

Going back to what I said about the 95 out of 100 thing, I meant sex without a condom. But still, I take back all the dumb stuff I said anyway. Abortion isn't something I think about much, nor something I want to think about, yet stupidly tried to offer an uneducated and barely thought two cents. I'll do better next time.


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

Willow said:


> Not by killing the rapist because even if I did, I would still have to live with the fact that I was raped. Plus saying it's okay to kill my attacker but I can't abort a pregnancy that I chose not to have regardless of if I put the child up for adoption or raise it myself, seems a bit unfair on my part.


The child did nothing wrong.


----------



## Deo (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> The child embryo did nothing wrong.


 I think you meant to say:
"The embryo has done nothing wrong, it will only serve as a reminder of someone else's wrong deed and look like the rapist and traumatize the mother more. And by forcing rape victims to carry a fetus to term we are stripping the victim of their free will, their right to choices about their bodies, and aggravating emotional trauma by pushing incompetent government interference in a delicate situation and pushing bureaucracy on them at a time when they are most vulnerable all the while delegating them to the singular worth of being fetal incubators."


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 1, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> Going back to what I said about the 95 out of 100 thing, I meant sex without a condom. But still, I take back all the dumb stuff I said anyway. Abortion isn't something I think about much, nor something I want to think about, yet stupidly tried to offer an uneducated and barely thought two cents. I'll do better next time.


 
Holy shit someone on the internet admitted they were wrong. Props man, props, even if it is a bit of bactracking. 



luti-kriss said:


> The *fetus* did nothing wrong.


 
fix'd that for ya.

*edit* goddammit. deo in for the steal.


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

It all boils down to whether or not we think the embryo is a human being. I mean really, that's the nitty-gritty of this whole discussion right? Damn I have to admit this is a tough one though; I understand the part about it being a painful reminder, but killing the child won't kill the memory. In other words no matter what happens, you can't make retribution for the suffering. That being said I'm not seeing how killing someone off could help anything. Suppose by some miraculous chance she doesn't get pregnant? Does the pain go away? No.


----------



## Willow (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> The child did nothing wrong.


 You...missed the point.

Edit: And no, even if she gets pregnant the pain doesn't go away. Even when you kill the rapist, the still doesn't go away.


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

True, but the _offender_ did something wrong. I got what you were saying man, and that's a really valid point. It's a shit situation either way, really. Still, I believe the embryo is a separate body, not part of the woman's body. I see it as a person, and nothing can really change that for me unless I get some undeniable ground-breaking proof that it's not so.


----------



## Conker (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> It all boils down to whether or not we think the embryo is a human being. I mean really, that's the nitty-gritty of this whole discussion right? Damn I have to admit this is a tough one though; I understand the part about it being a painful reminder, but killing the child won't kill the memory. In other words no matter what happens, you can't make retribution for the suffering. That being said I'm not seeing how killing someone off could help anything. Suppose by some miraculous chance she doesn't get pregnant? Does the pain go away? No.


 The child won't kill as the memory, but it also serves as an added burden on top of that memory.


----------



## Nero_Baelside_89 (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> It all boils down to whether or not we think the embryo is a human being. I mean really, that's the nitty-gritty of this whole discussion right? Damn I have to admit this is a tough one though; I understand the part about it being a painful reminder, but killing the child won't kill the memory. In other words no matter what happens, you can't make retribution for the suffering. That being said I'm not seeing how killing someone off could help anything. Suppose by some miraculous chance she doesn't get pregnant? Does the pain go away? No.


 
Forcing them to keep the rape baby to term is piling on more unnecessary trauma. It can take a huge toll on the well being of the already traumatized victim.
What the hell do you not understand about that?

And how do you think the offspring will feel when it learns it's a product of rape?
More trauma.
Forcing the victim to carry to term is pretty much making sure you thoroughly fill the rest of their lives with anguish.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> I see it as a person, and nothing can really change that for me unless I get some undeniable ground-breaking proof that it's not so.


 
Here in the United States and every other developed, democratic nation, all rights are reserved by the people until a compelling state interest is shown in restricting them.  You're the one seeking to ban abortion, you prove that it _is_ so.


----------



## Deo (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> It all boils down to whether or not we think the embryo is a human being.


 Human being is a biological thing. By genetics yes, it is a human being. Person, with all the rights ascribed to personhood? No, I grant that to biological homo sapiens with a fully developed nervous system. If it can't feel pain, and it has no brain function we have no obligation to save it. We kill people who are brain dead, because they are no longer ascribed with the rights and cognizance of personhood. Why not an embryo that also lacks brain function, and beyond brain function, does not even have a developed neural network?



luti-kriss said:


> Damn I have to admit this is a tough one though; I understand the part  about it being a painful reminder, but killing the child won't kill the  memory. In other words no matter what happens, you can't make  retribution for the suffering. That being said I'm not seeing how  killing someone off could help anything. Suppose by some miraculous  chance she doesn't get pregnant? Does the pain go away? No.


If we kill the rapist as you suggest, does that kill the memory? We can turn this claim right back on you. But no, this is not about erasing the memory, this is about not extending the trauma and not robbing a victim of their rights because they were victimized.


----------



## CrazyLee (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> That being said I'm not seeing how killing someone off could help anything.





luti-kriss said:


> I think rape should carry a death sentence to be honest.


http://lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 1, 2011)

This thread should have been aborted.


----------



## Deo (Jun 1, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> This thread should have been aborted.


 BUT IT'S MAH BABY AND MAH CHOICE! >:V


----------



## anero (Jun 1, 2011)

Best argument for aesexuality = this thread.


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

It's a bad situation either way dealing with rape. This is the very reason it just shouldn't happen. You make a very valid point, however... I have a hard time with this because the child should not be sucked out of the womb because of someone else's wrong-doing... And the so-called vegetables being killed off... That pains me as well; basically we judge them as a waste... But the embryo will gain a consciousness... It's a matter of what you believe, really. I know I can't prove it's a human-being the same I can't prove God's existence. It's a matter of what you believe.


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> http://lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg


Put together it sounds rediculous.


----------



## Dreaming (Jun 1, 2011)

anero said:


> Best argument for aesexuality = this thread.


 
pfft


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 1, 2011)

Deo said:


> Abstinence only doesn;t work in the real world. Sadly not all of us are  nuns. It's illogical to say that people should never have sex, and only  have sex to make babies. Relationships involve sex, it's emotional and  it brings us closer, sex is more than just pleasure, it often binds us  closer in intimacy and love. Telling people to never have sex is callous  and unrealistic. Especially since you didn't say "people" as I have  done to remove gender from the issue. You just say "woman". So women  aren't allowed to have sex, but men on the other hand have the a-ok.  This is stratification of gender inequality and a social bias that finds  promiscuity in men to be praised as an "alpha male" thing but when a  woman is promiscuous she's a slut. Which is sexist.


 
So, abstinence doesn't work because you can't keep your pants on? That's what it boils down to right? Abstinence is the 100% guarantee birth control. Works every time. 
The argument that abstinence doesn't work because people somehow can't keep their pants on doesn't work. And, its a petty argument to make. Its a choice you make, one that you can make if you are willing.
Now, in before someone says "but you have had sex before", yes I have. A long time ago. A choice that I wish I could take back. But here is the thing, I haven't made the same mistake since. Its been 6 years, so don't tell me that we can't keep ourselves in check.

If a situation causes you to stumble, and keep stumbling, cut yourself off from the source of the problem. Is it hard? Yes. Can it be painful? Absolutely. But you can make the decision to walk away from something. So please, don't say that abstinence  is unrealistic.

Instead of just society saying "Its okay to go fornicate your brains out and not really pay for all the consequences" Why not teach the children that sex isn't something that is recreational. That it should be kept to marriage. You think that maybe that could cut down on teenage pregnancy? And cut down on abortions?

Don't you think that fundamentally changing how society is raised and taught instead of just brushing off bad behavior is a better idea?

Your entire argument is that society says that abortion is okay and abstinence doesn't work. Which boils down to, that your using what society says as the basis of your argument.
Which is a really piss poor argument that is flawed from the get go. Why?

Lets go back a couple hundred years to where society said that slavery was okay. Society said it was fine so that must make society right, right?
You are basically telling us, that if society says something is okay, then its okay. Which, clearly written in history is not correct.


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

Interesting


----------



## Deo (Jun 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Lets go back a couple hundred years to where society said that slavery was okay. Society said it was fine so that must make society right, right?


 The bible said that slavery was correct, since your argument always boils down to the bible I want you to think on that and I'm going to ignore the rest of your post.


----------



## Nero_Baelside_89 (Jun 1, 2011)

This is a ridiculous argument.
Just stay out of peoples business because you're only accomplishing looking like an asshat.
Besides, if you got your way and abortion was illegal everywhere. It still won't stop and pregnant women will be going to extremely dangerous lengths in order to have one.

You know what? screw it.
Bring back the coat hanger and decrease the human populace by two more often in abortions.


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Why not teach the children that sex isn't something that is recreational. That it should be kept to marriage.


 
People are taught not to run red lights, but they still do. They cause accidents. The jaws of life are needed to cut some people out. But just because people are allowed to use the jaws of life, it doesn't mean I'm going to run every red light because there's a fifty-fifty chance it'll be okay, thanks to a bit of metallurgic surgery.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 1, 2011)

Rukh, if abstinence worked then how did the virgin Mary get preggo with Jesus? :V


----------



## Nero_Baelside_89 (Jun 1, 2011)

Abstinence is denying basic nature. It's repressive and damaging to growing young adults to be ignorant of sexuality.
Not to mention abstinent teens and evangelicals have a higher chance of contracting std's.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 1, 2011)

Deo said:


> The bible said that slavery was correct, since your argument always boils down to the bible I want you to think on that and I'm going to ignore the rest of your post.


 
No, it does not. What it does say, is, if you own a slave "this is what you do" It doesn't condone slavery nor does it say that it is good. It was a part of that culture and all societies back then. You couldn't get around it.

But, that is a whole nother subject. So, I will take a leaf from your own book. Start a thread on it if you want to talk about it.


I also like how that's the *only* part of my post that you quote.




CoyoteCaliente said:


> People are taught not to run red lights,  but they still do. They cause accidents. The jaws of life are needed to  cut some people out. But just because people are allowed to use the jaws  of life, it doesn't mean I'm going to run every red light because  there's a fifty-fifty chance it'll be okay, thanks to a bit of  metallurgic surgery.


 
So, because some people run red lights, we should just stop teaching that its a bad behavior? Of course people won't always follow the right direction. But I really don't think that, that is a reason to not teach to not run red lights at all.


----------



## Cocobanana (Jun 1, 2011)

anero said:


> Best argument for aesexuality = this thread.



What about homosexuality? No one to get pregnant there either.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 1, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Rukh, if abstinence worked then how did the virgin Mary get preggo with Jesus? :V


 
What's even wierder is a big deal a lot of christians make about Jesus's bloodline having to have been "pure". When the end result of the bloodline was Joseph. Who, as the fables go, didn't have sex. So...


----------



## Aleu (Jun 1, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> What about homosexuality? No one to get pregnant there either.


 Sexier too. At least male on male. Mmmm ;3c


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

Haha! Not for me, but it sure doesn't hurt anything at least.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So, because some people run red lights, we should just stop teaching that its a bad behavior? Of course people won't always follow the right direction. But I really don't think that, that is a reason to not teach to not run red lights at all.


 The point is that people are going to do it no matter what you teach them. So screaming "ABSTINENCE" isn't going to help anything.


----------



## Willow (Jun 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Instead of just society saying "Its okay to go fornicate your brains out and not really pay for all the consequences" Why not teach the children that sex isn't something that is recreational.


Why do we have to teach children that having a natural urge should be ignored unless it's to procreate. Because I highly doubt every sexual urge makes a kid think "time to make babies". So why not, instead of cutting sex out all together, promote safe sex? (inb4 something about condoms and Jesus :B)



> Your entire argument is that society says that abortion is okay and abstinence doesn't work. Which boils down to, that your using what society says as the basis of your argument.


Abstinence doesn't work when sex is forced. Jus' sayin'...


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 1, 2011)

Aleu said:


> The point is that people are going to do it no matter what you teach them. So screaming "ABSTINENCE" isn't going to help anything.


 
To further the analogy, this is why we have seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, etc. But it's also a false analogy since running a red light is something objectively bad/extremely risky, whereas sex outside the recent invention of the nuclear family is much more morally ambiguous and not as dangerous.


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So, because some people run red lights, we should just stop teaching that its a bad behavior? Of course people won't always follow the right direction. But I really don't think that, that is a reason to not teach to not run red lights at all.


 
Dude, you completely fucking missed my point so bad. I'm not saying STOP teaching them. I'm saying that despite teaching, we shouldn't expect things to stop happening. And we SHOULDN'T reiterate that point by taking away the jaws of life, which was a sly metaphor for abortion, in case you missed it. 

yes, i'm aware of the irony in the comparison.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 1, 2011)

Aleu said:


> The point is that people are going to do it no matter what you teach them. So screaming "ABSTINENCE" isn't going to help anything.


 
Oh, so because people are always going to do things that are wrong, we should never teach anyone right and wrong then? We should just get rid of all the laws we have because, you know, people are just going to break them anyways...

Teaching people can change people. Again, the difference is just handing the keys to someone who never had driven before, to giving them driving lessons.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Oh, so because people are always going to do things that are wrong, we should never teach anyone right and wrong then? We should just get rid of all the laws we have because, you know, people are just going to break them anyways...
> 
> Teaching people can change people. Again, the difference is just handing the keys to someone who never had driven before, to giving them driving lessons.


I love it when you just take something and spin it into something completely different. It's like spin art but instead of art you're just making a mess.


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Oh, so because people are always going to do things that are wrong, we should never teach anyone right and wrong then? We should just get rid of all the laws we have because, you know, people are just going to break them anyways...
> 
> Teaching people can change people. Again, the difference is just handing the keys to someone who never had driven before, to giving them driving lessons.


 
dude, NO ONE IS FUGGIN SAYING TO NOT TEACH PEOPLE ABOUT ABSTINENCE. 

Quit dodging the fuckin' argument, which is that of abortion. Teach abstinence and let people make an informed decision about abortion and their own with no laws bro. That's it, that's all I'm sayin.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 1, 2011)

Willow said:


> Why do we have to teach children that having a natural urge should be ignored unless it's to procreate. Because I highly doubt every sexual urge makes a kid think "time to make babies". So why not, instead of cutting sex out all together, promote safe sex? (inb4 something about condoms and Jesus :B)
> 
> 
> Abstinence doesn't work when sex is forced. Jus' sayin'...


 Where did I say about anything about procreation? All I said, is sex should be kept to marriage. You do know their are plenty of married couples who don't have children right?
And, no, I won't promote "safe sex" (Which is not fool proof anyways) because that promotes premarital sex.


Mojotech said:


> To further the analogy, this is why we have seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, etc. But it's also a false analogy since running a red light is something objectively bad/extremely risky, whereas sex outside the recent invention of the nuclear family is much more morally ambiguous and not as dangerous.


 Oh, so going and having sex with whoever doesn't have consequences? Is that what you are saying?
Pregnancy, std's (I don't think I should need a list of all the std's out there), emotional trauma, medical problems. These are all consequences that can happen Mojo.



CoyoteCaliente said:


> dude, NO ONE IS FUGGIN SAYING TO NOT TEACH PEOPLE ABOUT ABSTINENCE.
> 
> Quit  dodging the fuckin' argument, which is that of abortion. Teach  abstinence and let people make an informed decision about abortion and  their own with no laws bro. That's it, that's all I'm sayin.


 
Sure seemed like Deo said that because, oh what were her words "Abstinence is unrealistic" that it was pretty clear that she thinks that it is pointless.

And for me dodging a question, I haven't. I have said right out front, abortion is wrong. Plain and simple.

Now, I won't stop people from doing it (abortion), that's their choice, but I will not condone abortion. Ever. And that is the most anyone will ever get out of me on abortion.


----------



## Nero_Baelside_89 (Jun 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And, no, I won't promote "safe sex" (Which is not fool proof anyways) because that promotes premarital sex.



That is exactly why abstinence makes things worse.
Most young adults who try to practice abstinence fail at it and since no one taught them proper birth control. They get knocked up or pumped full of fucking STD's.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 1, 2011)

Rukh, you do know that you can have "safe sex" WHILE being married, right? What? You think married couples that have no childre are all sterile or don't have sex? Okay, maybe the latter but still.

Even so, who the fuck CARES if people have sex outside of marriage? Why must you have a ceremony before you get a chance to fuck? In a way, it's kinda creepy as it makes it even MORE obvious. It's basically shouting "HEY! THESE PEOPLE ARE GONNA DO IT TONIGHT! WOO!"


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Where did I say about anything about procreation? All I said, is sex should be kept to marriage. You do know their are plenty of married couples who don't have children right?
> *And, no, I won't promote "safe sex" (Which is not fool proof anyways) because that promotes premarital sex.*
> 
> Oh, so going and having sex with whoever doesn't have consequences? *Is that what you are saying?*
> Pregnancy, std's (I don't think I should need a list of all the std's out there), emotional trauma, medical problems. These are all consequences that can happen Mojo.


 
Awww fuck this shit. You're just turning every argument around into a irrelevant point. So let me just say NO. THAT'S NOT WHAT HE'S SAYING. 

And then I'm leaving this shit and doing something worthwhile, which will include not being a bigoted, religious nut.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Jun 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No, it does not. What it does say, is, if you own a slave "this is what you do" It doesn't condone slavery nor does it say that it is good. * It was a part of that culture and all societies back then. You couldn't get around it. *


 
Did you just write that God tailored scripture to how society was at the time?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 1, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Rukh, you do know that you can have "safe sex" WHILE being married, right? What? You think married couples that have no childre are all sterile or don't have sex? Okay, maybe the latter but still.
> 
> Even so, who the fuck CARES if people have sex outside of marriage? Why must you have a ceremony before you get a chance to fuck? In a way, it's kinda creepy as it makes it even MORE obvious. It's basically shouting "HEY! THESE PEOPLE ARE GONNA DO IT TONIGHT! WOO!"


 
Yes, I do know that people have safe sex while married. The point I was making is I won't just promote safe sex alone. I say promote both sex only while married and safe sex.
And why do I care that people have sex outside of marriage? Because it promotes promiscuity, because it promotes something that is wrong. Again, I don't condone the behavior.



ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> Did you just write that God tailored scripture to how society was at the time?


 Nope. I guess I need to explain the entire reason behind what I said. God, being who He is, omnipotent and all knowing, knew that slavery was going to happen. And because of that He basically said "If you are going to do this, then here are the rules and regulations that you have to follow."
Which, by the way are pretty extensive.


----------



## Willow (Jun 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Where did I say about anything about procreation? All I said, is sex should be kept to marriage. You do know their are plenty of married couples who don't have children right?
> And, no, I won't promote "safe sex" (Which is not fool proof anyways) because that promotes premarital sex.


You're saying that we should teach kids abstinence and that sex isn't for recreation. Which by the way, if it's not recreational whether it's premarital or not, doesn't that mean it has to be for procreation? What else would it be for?

But whatever. The point I was trying to make was that instead of teaching children that experiencing a natural urge is a bad thing that should be suppressed until you're married, promote safer sex. Teach SAFER METHODS. But don't tell them that something natural is bad.

Edit: And NO, sex outside of marriage doesn't promote promiscuity. And that behaviour doesn't end with marriage y'know.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes, I do know that people have safe sex while married. The point I was making is I won't just promote safe sex alone. I say promote both sex only while married and safe sex.
> And why do I care that people have sex outside of marriage? Because it promotes promiscuity, because it promotes something that is wrong. Again, I don't condone the behavior.


 Not always. It's possible to, you know, be with someone for years (unmarried) and have sex with them and not be promiscuous.


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 1, 2011)

Willow said:


> But whatever. The point I was trying to make was that instead of teaching children that experiencing a natural urge is a bad thing that should be suppressed until you're married, promote safer sex. Teach SAFER METHODS. But don't tell them that something natural is bad.


 
but teaching safe sex is baaaaad because that automatically means EVERYONE WILL HAVE PROMISCUOUS SEX AND NOT GIVE A DAMN

\shitpost end


----------



## Nero_Baelside_89 (Jun 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And why do I care that people have sex outside of marriage? Because it promotes promiscuity, because it promotes something that is wrong. Again, I don't condone the behavior.


 
And it should be none of your fucking bees wax.


----------



## Conker (Jun 1, 2011)

And Rukh steps up to the plate to shit up this thread! Onto page 40 we go.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 1, 2011)

Willow said:


> You're saying that we should teach kids abstinence and that sex isn't for recreation. Which by the way, if it's not recreational whether it's premarital or not, doesn't that mean it has to be for procreation? What else would it be for?
> 
> But whatever. The point I was trying to make was that instead of teaching children that experiencing a natural urge is a bad thing that should be suppressed until you're married, promote safer sex. Teach SAFER METHODS. But don't tell them that something natural is bad.
> 
> Edit: And NO, sex outside of marriage doesn't promote promiscuity. And that behaviour doesn't end with marriage y'know.


 
I used the word recreational in the sense that sex isn't something you casually throw around.

And the point I am trying to make, is, instead of just treating the symptoms, we should treat the disease so to speak.
Instead of just teaching safe sex to protect and make possible to have casual sexual relations without consequences, why not change the way society views sex? So that the whole problem can be fixed, and not just the consequences of bad behavior.




Conker said:


> And Rukh steps up to the plate to shit up this thread! Onto page 40 we go.


 Considering that this thread was made as a call out on me, I have every right to post in here.


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

I think a new thread is in order


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> I think a new thread is in order


 
Shhh not yet. I wanna see this thing bust 1000. Make momma-deo proud and shit.


----------



## Nero_Baelside_89 (Jun 1, 2011)

I think a nuke is in order, but I'm torn since I'm having so much fun reading all this ridiculous shit two people are posting.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I used the word recreational in the sense that sex isn't something you casually throw around.
> 
> And the point I am trying to make, is, instead of just treating the symptoms, we should treat the disease so to speak.
> Instead of just teaching safe sex to protect and make possible to have casual sexual relations without consequences, why not change the way society views sex? So that the whole problem can be fixed, and not just the consequences of bad behavior.


 Because that HASN'T WORKED.
It SHOWS in statistics that people taught abstinence only are more likely to fuck up (hehe) than those that are taught safe sex.


----------



## Deo (Jun 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And, no, I won't promote "safe sex" (Which is not fool proof anyways) because that promotes premarital sex.


 You do realize that there are married people who use "safe sex", and that abstinence only is an absolute that ignores and over simplifies the wide range of human emotion, intimacy, and love. 

Abstinence may work for you Rukh (*well actually it didn't, you had premarital sex*) but you cannot mandate your life choices onto how other people must live their lives.


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

Let the show commence.


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 1, 2011)

Nero_Baelside_89 said:


> I think a nuke is in order, but I'm torn since I'm having so much fun reading all this ridiculous shit two people are posting.


 
...only two people?


----------



## Vukasin (Jun 1, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Let the show commence.


 
It's been going for a long while. You're just late.


----------



## Nero_Baelside_89 (Jun 1, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Because that HASN'T WORKED.
> It SHOWS in statistics that people taught abstinence only are more likely to fuck up (hehe) than those that are taught safe sex.



That's what I've been trying to say.
And I'll repeat.

Most teens fail at abstinence and since no one taught them proper birth control most of them get knocked up or fucked up with STD's
It's a god damn fact abstinent supporters just won't fucking learn from.
What's the harm in teaching a plan B just in case they can't follow through with your ridiculous anti sex crap?
We're human, it's natural to want to fuck.



CoyoteCaliente said:


> ...only two people?



Rukh and Luti seem to be the only ones posting bullshit.


----------



## Willow (Jun 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I used the word recreational in the sense that sex isn't something you casually throw around.
> 
> And the point I am trying to make, is, instead of just treating the symptoms, we should treat the disease so to speak.
> Instead of just teaching safe sex to protect and make possible to have casual sexual relations without consequences, why not change the way society views sex? So that the whole problem can be fixed, and not just the consequences of bad behavior.


Should we stop masturbating too while we're at it? I mean, that technically promotes promiscuity too. 

Also, you can have casual relations without consequences. You can even have casual sexual relations without consequences. Or is the fact that you got into someone's pants period a bad thing? Don't answer that because it's redundant.


----------



## Namba (Jun 1, 2011)

Vukasin said:


> It's been going for a long while. You're just late.


 
Dammit...


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 2, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Because that HASN'T WORKED.
> It SHOWS in statistics that people taught abstinence only are more likely to fuck up (hehe) than those that are taught safe sex.


 So, because its not a fool proof system, we should just give up? As I said. Premarital sex is wrong. And I will not, and cannot abide by anything that teaches anything less than that.


Deo said:


> You do realize that there are married people who use "safe sex", and that abstinence only is an absolute that ignores the wide range of human emotion, intimacy, and love. Abstinence may work for you Rukh (well actually it didn't, you had premarital sex) but you cannot mandate your life choices onto how other people must live their lives.


 I have said that I do know that married couples who use safe sex. I have acknowledged that. And I will continue to say, that, that kind of love (sexual) should not be awakened before it is ready. 
In other words, one should not have sex before they are married. Yes, I say this knowing that I failed in this regard. The point is, to wait until you find the one you should marry.

Far too often we focus on the recreation aspect of sex without  recognizing that there is another aspectâ€”procreation. Sex within  marriage is pleasurable, and God designed it that way. God wants men and  women to enjoy sexual activity within the confines of marriage. Song of  Solomon and several other Bible passages (Proverbs 15:19) clearly describe the pleasure of sex. However, the couple must  understand that Godâ€™s intent for sex includes producing children. Thus,  for a couple to engage in sex before marriage is doubly wrongâ€”they are  enjoying pleasures not intended for them, and they are taking a chance  of creating a human life outside of the family structure God intended  for every child.

While practicality does not determine right from wrong, if the Bible's  message on sex before marriage were obeyed, there would be far fewer  sexually transmitted diseases, far fewer abortions, far fewer unwed  mothers and unwanted pregnancies, and far fewer children growing up  without both parents in their lives. Abstinence is Godâ€™s only policy  when it comes to sex before marriage. Abstinence saves lives, protects  babies, gives sexual relations the proper value, and, most importantly,  honors God.

That is my view, which will never change.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Nope. I guess I need to explain the entire reason behind what I said. God, being who He is, omnipotent and all knowing, knew that slavery was going to happen. And because of that He basically said "If you are going to do this, then here are the rules and regulations that you have to follow."
> Which, by the way are pretty extensive.


 
You're countering that question with the same argument that people here are using to promote safe sex. X is likely inevitable so why not promote Y for the safety and dignity of those involved. 

Moreover, why didn't God outright condemn slavery as being wrong and a sin if he didn't want it to occur rather than just regulate it? Why shouldn't treating another person like property be reason for the same harsh punishment fornicators and other sinners receive?

No, I'm not buying your argument.


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 2, 2011)

And thus, Rukh has hidden behind his bible.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 2, 2011)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> You're countering that question with the same argument that people here are using to promote safe sex. X is likely inevitable so why not promote Y for the safety and dignity of those involved.
> 
> Moreover, why didn't God outright condemn slavery as being wrong and a sin if he didn't want it to occur rather than just regulate it? Why shouldn't treating another person like property be reason for the same harsh punishment fornicators and other sinners receive?
> 
> No, I'm not buying your argument.


 
First off, start another thread. You want to go off on another subject, go for it.


----------



## Nero_Baelside_89 (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So, because its not a fool proof system, we should just give up? As I said. Premarital sex is wrong. And I will not, and cannot abide by anything that teaches anything less than that.
> 
> I have said that I do know that married couples who use safe sex. I have acknowledged that. And I will continue to say, that, that kind of love (sexual) should not be awakened before it is ready.
> In other words, one should not have sex before they are married. Yes, I say this knowing that I failed in this regard. The point is, to wait until you find the one you should marry.
> ...



Yes we know your views by now, you've only repeated them a thousand times.
However your views don't work and will never work because you just cannot control the sex lives of others.
Not without the very consequences you claim to elude anyway.

Know why? 
Because repression of natural sexual urges and oppression of sexual knowledge is only a mere kink in the hose. 
Once the pressure builds to breaking point that hose will whip around all over the fucking place.

To hell with it, trying to reason with a christ-fag is like trying to reason with a brick.
I'm going to crash.


----------



## Conker (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> That is my view, which will never change.


 Hello brick wall, how many bricks do you consist of?


----------



## Aleu (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So, because its not a fool proof system, we should just give up? As I said. Premarital sex is wrong. And I will not, and cannot abide by anything that teaches anything less than that.


 YES. You know why? Because god dammit, it doesn't work. You know what the definition of insanity is, right? DOING THE SAME THING AND EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT.
How is premarital sex "wrong"? There is no right or wrong with sex. Sex is neutral. It's there. It happens.



luti-kriss said:


> This is getting pretty rediculous I must say. This thread needs to be put down mercilessly.
> Note to self: keep opinions to yourself if you don't want to step in shit.


 How about this. Stop shitposting. You're not adding anything relevant or thoughtful to the discussion.


----------



## Riley (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Sex within  marriage is pleasurable, and God designed it that way. God wants men and  women to enjoy sexual activity within the confines of marriage.



I'm not married, but I'm pretty sure people who are don't take themselves into a repair shop to get opened up and have the "pleasurable sex" switch set to the 'on' position.  

Marriage itself is a human construct, and it sure as hell isn't one brought about after some scraggly carpenter showed up and started ranting about magic sky people.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> That is my view, which will never change.


 Intelligent people tend to call that "closed-minded."  It's generally frowned upon in a 21st century, first-world culture like ours.  But hey, since you're still living in the times of the Egyptians, go right ahead.  Try not to get scared by all the metal horseless chariots on the strange, black rivers inside our villages.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 2, 2011)

Nero_Baelside_89 said:


> Yes we know your views by now, you've only repeated them a thousand times.
> However your views don't work and will never work because you just cannot control the sex lives of others.
> Not without the very consequences you claim to elude anyway.
> 
> ...



Never said I want to control others. I have said that people can do whatever they want. Just don't expect me to condone or go along with certain behaviors. I am not going to stop people from doing what they want to do. But don't expect me to agree with bad behavior.

And to your last point. I knew this was going to come up. And I should have mentioned it (The answer) but people won't like it/agree with it whatever. Anyways.

Scripture actually talks about this very problem you address. And the answer is found in 1 Corinthians 7:2
_But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.  _
The clear answer: â€œBut since there is so much immorality, each man  should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.â€ In this  verse, Paul states that marriage is the â€œcureâ€ for sexual immorality. 1 Corinthians 7:2http://biblia.com/bible/esv/First Corinthians 7.2  is essentially saying that, because people cannot control themselves  and so many are having immoral sex outside of marriage, people should  get married. Then they can fulfill their passions in a moral way.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 2, 2011)

Riley said:


> Marriage itself is a human construct, and it sure as hell isn't one brought about after some scraggly carpenter showed up and started ranting about magic sky people.


 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
Here's a youtube video explaining the traditional bible-based marriage. :3c


----------



## Deo (Jun 2, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Note to self: keep opinions to yourself if you don't want to step in shit.


 Naw, voice your opinion. Just be prepared to defend it reasonably, that's all.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 2, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> It's a matter of what you believe, really. I know I can't prove it's a human-being the same I can't prove God's existence. *It's a matter of what you believe.*


 
Boy, that sure sounds like an argument for *choice*!  Don't like abortion, don't have one.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh, a lot of married people have affairs. Marriage ISN'T going to stop them from being immoral if they're already promiscuous. They're just going to hurt someone in the run.


----------



## Willow (Jun 2, 2011)

So umm, if God wanted for men and women to enjoy sex by getting married, then you know..why do we start experiencing sexual urges at such young ages? God must have had a sick sense of humour then. And you never did answer my other post.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 2, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Rukh, a lot of married people have affairs. Marriage ISN'T going to stop them from being immoral if they're already promiscuous. They're just going to hurt someone in the run.


 
Well that's why you have laws letting women having affairs be stoned to death by their family. Not the men of course, that'd be immoral....


----------



## Riley (Jun 2, 2011)

Willow said:


> So umm, if God wanted for men and women to enjoy sex by getting married, then you know..why do we start experiencing sexual urges at such young ages? God must have had a sick sense of humour then. And you never did answer my other post.


 
Well you know, back in GODLY TIMES, young girls were often married off at the ripe young age of 8!  Clearly we have just fallen from our GODLY WAYS since those tender times.


----------



## Xenke (Jun 2, 2011)

I feel like we're a bit side tracked.

But hey, at least this thread isn't going in circles for the hundredth time, _again_.


----------



## Willow (Jun 2, 2011)

Riley said:


> Well you know, back in GODLY TIMES, young girls were often married off at the ripe young age of 8!  Clearly we have just fallen from our GODLY WAYS since those tender times.


 Yea but..they usually died by the time they were 16 too.


----------



## Deo (Jun 2, 2011)

Xenke said:


> I feel like we're a bit side tracked.
> 
> But hey, at least this thread isn't going in circles for the hundredth time, _again_.


 Hey there sonny, let me tell you about fetuses and god...


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 2, 2011)

Willow said:


> So umm, if God wanted for men and women to enjoy sex by getting married, then you know..why do we start experiencing sexual urges at such young ages? God must have had a sick sense of humour then. And you never did answer my other post.


 
Look at the age a male was considered an adult back then. 12 years old a boy was considered an adult. Add to that, marriage happened a lot younger than it does today. Mary, the mother of Jesus was  around the age of 14 when she gave birth.
And what was your other question?


Aleu said:


> Rukh, a lot of married people have affairs. Marriage ISN'T going to stop them from being immoral if they're already promiscuous. They're just going to hurt someone in the run.


And adultery is wrong too. Did you know just thinking lustfully after someone is adultery?


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 2, 2011)

HOT DAMN THOUSANDTH POST. 

Also, Rukh please don't quote the bible. Just.... don't. And how the fuck can you even know those ages? 

Then again... don't answer that. i really don't care. I was just sticking around to nail the 1000th post.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And adultery is wrong too. Did you know just thinking lustfully after someone is adultery?


 So that means EVERYONE (aside from asexuals) has committed adultery and continues to do so, forever and ever.

Welp, so much for that. Now, back to my gay fanfiction.


----------



## Namba (Jun 2, 2011)

Yeah, I think I'm done too and on some (if not all) points have made an idiot of myself. I apologize for the wasted time.
Lesson painfully learned


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 2, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Rukh please don't quote the bible. Just.... don't. And how the fuck can you even know those ages?


 
First off, good luck telling me not to quote Scripture. Secondly, its not that hard to research and get a good estimate about how old Mary and Joseph were.We know when Christ was born so all we have to do is look at the average age of couples who were married back then.

Mary was around the age of 14, and Joseph was around the age of 30 (probably late 20s)


Edit: Anyways, I am done for the night. I have work in the morning.


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First off, *good luck telling me not to quote Scripture. *


 
Good luck trying to get people to take anything you say seriously.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First off, good luck telling me not to quote Scripture. Secondly, its not that hard to research and get a good estimate about how old Mary and Joseph were.We know when Christ was born so all we have to do is look at the average age of couples who were married back then.
> 
> Mary was around the age of 14, and Joseph was around the age of 30 (probably late 20s)


 
So not only did Yahweh supposedly have extramarital relations with Mary, she was also jailbait at the time. That's just _great._


----------



## Deo (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Mary was around the age of 14, and Joseph was around the age of 30 (probably late 20s)


 Are you sure you're not still friends with that 30 year old pedophile?


----------



## Willow (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Look at the age a male was considered an adult back then. 12 years old a boy was considered an adult. Add to that, marriage happened a lot younger than it does today. Mary, the mother of Jesus was  around the age of 14 when she gave birth.
> And what was your other question?


 You forget though, people practically /had/ to get married young back then because people (women especially iirc) didn't live very long and it was mainly to reproduce. It's still pretty evident in medieval times, and young girls didn't even have a say in who their husband was. Half the time they didn't even know what was going on or why they were being told to do this. Which by the way, was probably not very enjoyable for the girl at least. 

But we live in a day and age where we can keep people alive well past 100 even so no need for people to run right off and get married anymore.

Oh yes, and I had asked earlier if having premarital sex leads to promiscuity, then should we stop masturbating because that can cause promiscuity too.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 2, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Good luck trying to get people to take anything you say seriously.


 
Not my problem if they don't like what Scripture says. I can show them why they have a problem with it, and what Scripture says about that problem. But honestly, if they don't like it, tell me how that is my problem?


----------



## Aleu (Jun 2, 2011)

Willow said:


> Oh yes, and I had asked earlier if having premarital sex leads to promiscuity, then should we stop masturbating because that can cause promiscuity too.


 Well YES because that's adultery, Willow, GOSH.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Not my problem if they don't like what  Scripture says. I can show them why they have a problem with it, and  what Scripture says about that problem. But honestly, if they don't like  it, tell me how that is my problem?


 You'd have to come up with better reasons other than something some guy wrote 2000-some odd years ago.


----------



## Enwon (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Not my problem if they don't like what Scripture says. I can show them why they have a problem with it, and what Scripture says about that problem. But honestly, if they don't like it, tell me how that is my problem?


The issue, Rukh, is you're trying to argue with and persuade atheists that abortion is wrong using the Bible.  But of course, both parties disagree on whether the Bible is the truth.  So it devolves into that argument.

If you want to make the case for the pro-life, you have to find scientific facts, and good, secular arguments.  Trying to debate an idea using the Bible among atheists is ridiculous, on accounts that atheists don't follow the Bible.

It's lazy arguing.


----------



## Willow (Jun 2, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Well YES because that's adultery, Willow, GOSH.


 Well shit..


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Not my problem if they don't like what Scripture says. I can show them why they have a problem with it, and what Scripture says about that problem. But honestly, if they don't like it, tell me how that is my problem?


 
Yes, because you're trying to prove your argument with something that no one here sees as a viable point to this argument.


----------



## Riley (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Not my problem if they don't like what Scripture says. I can show them why they have a problem with it, and what Scripture says about that problem. But honestly, if they don't like it, tell me how that is my problem?



So you're going to attempt to think for us, and then continue to be completely baffled as to why people don't like your brand of religion.  Way to go.  Just...yeah, way to go.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 2, 2011)

Deo said:


> Are you sure you're not still friends with that 30 year old pedophile?


 
DEO. How many times do I have to tell you, I have no idea who he is. That was my first fur con and I got pulled into a random picture. Thats it. Now, you can keep bringing this up, even though you can ask they other guy in the photo that I am telling you the truth. But you won't. Because you enjoy spreading B.S.

At this point, shut your mouth with your utter bull crap. You bring this up in every thread I post in, literally. No matter what topic, no matter where its located in this forum. Enough is enough.


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> DEO. How many times do I have to tell you, I have no idea who he is. That was my first fur con and I got pulled into a random picture. Thats it. Now, you can keep bringing this up, even though you can ask they other guy in the photo that I am telling you the truth. But you won't. Because you enjoy spreading B.S.
> 
> At this point, shut your mouth with your utter bull crap. You bring this up in every thread I post in, literally. No matter what topic, no matter where its located in this forum. Enough is enough.


 
... just how you like to bring up that wonderful piece of fiction called the Bible. 

Sucks, don't it?


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Jun 2, 2011)

Aleu said:


> You'd have to come up with better reasons other than something some guy wrote 2000-some odd years ago.


 
That some guy wrote two thousand years ago and based scripture and law on Jewish society at the time.


----------



## Riley (Jun 2, 2011)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> That some guy wrote two thousand years ago and based scripture and law on Jewish society at the time.


 
Plus, a whole bunch of those stories only got written decades after Jesus died, then of course the dozens of translations from various languages and dialects, finally into a 400 year old form of English as ordered by some notoriously insane king.

And yet, people will still take more of an issue with Wikipedia.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Edit: Anyways, I am done for the night. I have work in the morning.





			
				Rukh_Whitefang; said:
			
		

> Disregard that, I cook socks. *Continues posting anyway*



Thought you were going to bed, Rukh. :V



Enwon said:


> The issue, Rukh, is trying to debate an idea using the Bible among atheists is ridiculous, on accounts that atheists don't follow the Bible.


 
Well, it also doesn't apply to people who don't believe in the bible but aren't atheists (hindus, jews, muslims, etc), and people who DO believe in the bible but a different version/interpretation of it. But for the same reasons.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> So not only did Yahweh supposedly have extramarital relations with Mary, she was also jailbait at the time. That's just _great._


 
Tell people not to commit adultry
(trollgod)
Commit adultry. 



Tell people not to kill
(trollgod)
Kill people


Tell people not to be vain
(trollgod)
Demand endless worship


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Not my problem if they don't like what Scripture says. I can show them why they have a problem with it, and what Scripture says about that problem. But honestly, if they don't like it, tell me how that is my problem?


 
I think it's cute that you actually believe people don't take the bible serious because they _don't like_ what it says, instead of their actual reasons.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 2, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> I think it's cute that you actually believe people don't take the bible serious because they _don't like_ what it says, instead of their actual reasons.


 
It's wierd, most fundies on this board won't actually argue what you say, but rather will argue what they wish you said. It's almost like they don't actually know how to deal with people who have informed opinions that disagree with them...


----------



## Nero_Baelside_89 (Jun 2, 2011)

So much bible bullshit doesn't belong in a respectable debate.
I'm going to Kenny Powers myself from the thread.

I'M FUCKIN OUT.

But on my leaving note, I wish there was a hardcore muslim quoting Koran scripture against rukhs.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 2, 2011)

Hey, I've got this old-as-dirt book written by men who knew nothing of embryology and had never even conceived (hurr hurr seewhatIdidthere) the idea of surgical abortion, let's read really deeply into random lines about unborn children "jumping for joy" in the womb.


----------



## Discord Nova (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And adultery is wrong too. Did you know just thinking lustfully after someone is adultery?


 
So im sinning if I look at someone and think they are hot? No that's complete BS.


----------



## Tycho (Jun 2, 2011)

Once again, Rukh pokes his head in and promptly gets it torn off and has his neck shat down by pretty much everyone with a brain in the thread.

Glutton for punishment.  But then, masochism IS important for the devoutly religious, isn't it?


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 2, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> So im sinning if I look at someone and think they are hot? No that's complete BS.


 
YES. If you follow your biological urge to scope up a woman for the ideal hips, ass, and legs for optimal baby-birthing, you're going to hell and burning forever. ]

Damn you for ensuring the survival of the species and liking a fine ass. Damn you to HECK.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jun 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> It's wierd, most fundies on this board won't actually argue what you say, but rather will argue what they wish you said. It's almost like they don't actually know how to deal with people who have informed opinions that disagree with them...


 
I bet that every time they lose an argument they retreat to their fundie hugbox for prayers and comfort. From my experience it's always the same people who leave debates at the same moments, only to come back a while later with the same arguments as before.


----------



## Nero_Baelside_89 (Jun 2, 2011)

Also according to the bible if you hate someone, you've committed murder.

By those standards I have murdered at least 5 times a day if not more.


----------



## Vukasin (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh, can you stop quoting the Bible and talking about it? You're making me and other religious people look bad. Also, this is about abortion, not religion.

So that I actually contribute something to this thread, I will say that I am pro choice. Women should be able to abort if they want to.


----------



## Nero_Baelside_89 (Jun 2, 2011)

Vukasin said:


> Rukh, can you stop quoting the Bible and talking about it? You're making me and other religious people look bad


 
He actually can't.
He already said said it's a fat chance that he'd ever stop quoting the bible.

He's even probably going to call you out on your faith, because your level of faith is wrong to him.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 2, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> So im sinning if I look at someone and think they are hot? No that's complete BS.


 Matthew 5:28
_But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart._

You can't get any clearer than that.


Vukasin said:


> Rukh, can you stop quoting the Bible and talking about it? You're making me and other religious people look bad. Also, this is about abortion, not religion.
> 
> So that I actually contribute something to this thread, I will say that I am pro choice. Women should be able to abort if they want to.


Let me tell you how this thread started. Deo called me out on the topic of abortion because it came up in another thread.
I post that I abhor abortion. I then gave the reasons why. And those reasons include the Word of God.
People didn't like my explanations nor my reasons for being pro life.
People then start arguing that how I feel on abortion is basically wrong.
I tell them my stance will not change. Ever. Period. 
People get more butthurt.

That is the basic description of this entire thread.




Hakar Kerarmor said:


> I bet that every time they lose an  argument they retreat to their fundie hugbox for prayers and comfort.  From my experience it's always the same people who leave debates at the  same moments, only to come back a while later with the same arguments as  before.



Why do you assume that I am like Charlie Sheen, screaming WINNING!!!!

I am not trying to win an argument. Not even close. This isn't even a debate. I gave you my stance on a subject. A debate means the the individual may change his or her mind, or that said person is open to changing their mind.
That is not the case with me, as everyone can clearly see. My mind has already been made up. And nothing in this universe can change it.
This has nothing to do with winning or losing. I could care less about that.

I won't back down (nor change it)in my stance on anything (especially on things that society deems as a touchy subject). I am that firm in what I believe.


----------



## Recel (Jun 2, 2011)

Pro-life vs Pro-choice argument in circles. 
Than religious view vs non religious argument in circles.
Than Pro-life vs Pro-choice argument in circles.
Than religion vs not religion argument circle again now.

If there wouldnt be some herpderp minded posts in between I would get realy dizzy from runing in circles by now. :V

Someone please... bring a fresh view or argument material instead of picking at each other, trying to change the other ones view, wich just wont happen.


----------



## Vukasin (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Let me tell you how this thread started. Deo called me out on the topic of abortion because it came up in another thread.
> I post that I abhor abortion. I then gave the reasons why. And those reasons include the Word of God.
> People didn't like my explanations nor my reasons for being pro life.
> People then start arguing that how I feel on abortion is basically wrong.
> ...



You are using the Bible to tell people that they are wrong. Nothing in the Bible (as far as I know) has been proven as fact, and it should not be treated like is is a fact. Besides, most of the people you are debating with do not believe in God and they will not take Bible quotes as valid arguments. 

When you say: "My opinion on this subject is this because the Bible says that and I believe it to be true." That is fine.
When you say: "Your opinion is wrong because the Bible says this." Then that is not fine.

I think Deo made this thread to _challenge_ your opinion, not to prove it wrong. No opinion is ever wrong, but if you have one then you should be able to defend it.


----------



## Nero_Baelside_89 (Jun 2, 2011)

Recel said:


> Pro-life vs Pro-choice argument in circles.
> Than religious view vs non religious argument in circles.
> Than Pro-life vs Pro-choice argument in circles.
> Than religion vs not religion argument circle again now.
> ...



Eradicate earth. BAM! No more retarded arguments and no more religious oppression.


----------



## Recel (Jun 2, 2011)

Nero_Baelside_89 said:


> Eradicate earth. BAM! No more retarded arguments and no more religious oppression.



Sometimes I wish I could.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Why do you assume that I am like Charlie Sheen, screaming WINNING!!!!
> 
> I am not trying to win an argument. Not even close. This isn't even a debate. I gave you my stance on a subject. A debate means the the individual may change his or her mind, or that said person is open to changing their mind.
> That is not the case with me, as everyone can clearly see. My mind has already been made up. And nothing in this universe can change it.
> ...


 
Your stance is noted, now GTFO.


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> All of this.


 
Alright, I can dig that. You believe in X because of your religion. 

But you were arguing it as if it was infallible logic, rather than a personal belief. Thus the main grinding of gears these past few pages.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh, sweetums, telling people that you are entirely convinced and will never back down for any reason and just want to preach isn't endearing to most people.

It makes you look _*insane.*_


----------



## CrazyLee (Jun 2, 2011)

Hmm, I wonder if those who support Abstinence-only education like Rukh ever think what will happen after marriage.

Okay, think of it this way. A pair of young people are only taught abstinence. They go through their life not having sex. Then they get married. Now what? Rukh said he doesn't care if married couples use protection or birth control. But how do they get the information for birth control *IF THEY WERE NEVER TAUGHT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE*? What, in his world do you suddenly know everything about the pill and condoms the instant you get hitched? Does God himself show up in front of you and show you how to use a condom? He goes on about how safe sex should never be taught but never explains how married couples would learn how to use protection, which is okay in his mind, if they were never given that information.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 2, 2011)

Smile all Jesus loves and your mom chose life :V


----------



## CrazyLee (Jun 2, 2011)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> Moreover, why didn't God outright condemn slavery as being wrong and a  sin if he didn't want it to occur rather than just regulate it?


Funny that, if God considered slavery wrong, he just regulated it. And yet condemned a whole lot of other stuff, like eating certain meat. "I don't like slavery but since you'll do it anyway I'll set up rules for it... BUT NO EATING PIGS OR I'LL HAVE YOU STONED TO DEATH!!!" Apparently eating a certain meat is much worse than treating a human like an animal.




Mojotech said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
> Here's a youtube video explaining the traditional bible-based marriage. :3c


That video is glorious and so very true.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Mary was around the age of 14, and Joseph was around the age of 30 (probably late 20s)


And to think, if you did that kind of thing nowadays, you'd end up in jail, or at least become a pariah. But Christians are totally cool with a middle-aged man hooking up with tweens. :V




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Matthew 5:28
> _But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart._


John 8:7
_When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to  them, â€œLet any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a  stone_ _at her.â€
_
LOOK, I CAN QUOTE THE BIBLE TOO!!!! :B

*Rukh, if you can quote the Bible so well, find the passage or passages in it that shows that premarital sex is against the Bible. Find the place or places in it where God commands that sex only happen in marriage. That is your challenge from me. If you use the Bible to form your opinions and beliefs then show me where in the Bible it says this.*


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 2, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> *Rukh, if you can quote the Bible so well, find the passage or passages in it that shows that premarital sex is against the Bible. Find the place or places in it where God commands that sex only happen in marriage. That is your challenge from me. If you use the Bible to form your opinions and beliefs then show me where in the Bible it says this.*



We've spent the entire thread trying to drill it into Rukh's thick skull that quoting the bible isn't a replacement for actual thinking skills and then you ask this. Either way, Given there are multiple places god commands sex outside of marriage...


----------



## Aleu (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Matthew 5:28
> _But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her* in his heart*._
> 
> You can't get any clearer than that.


 In his heart =/= physically doing so
Adultery is basically sex outside of marriage. People can't be committing adultery if they're virgins fapping to porn in their mother's basement.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 2, 2011)

Well physically true you can't commit adultery that way, but for those of us that follow that kind philosophy mentally thinking about such things is just as bad as actually doing it, 

but what teenage boy doesn't think of sex, we are biologically programmed to do that, because we are genetically flaw, what can you do? try your best to follow whatever believes you want to follow.


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 2, 2011)

Aleu said:


> In his heart =/= physically doing so
> Adultery is basically sex outside of marriage. People can't be committing adultery if they're virgins fapping to porn in their mother's basement.


 
As an aside, if the modern Christian can choose to ignore the passages that say all women should be kept beneath the heels of men, not to eat pork, and not to condemn others and love all for who they are, whether it's gay, muslim, or anything else, then I can choose to ignore the bits that go against basic biology. 

I treat people with respect. I treat them as I would like to be treated. I try not to lie. I try to do what's right. Jesus, son of god or not, had some good things to say. He spoke about peace and I can dig that. But if I want to share my body with another consenting adult, I'll do so any time I want. I'll do this with an easy heart and a wary mind of the consequence of my actions on this earthly plain. And if it really is a sin because this Bible book, so be it. If I'm going to hell for an outdated passage, 98% of other Christians are going with me for eating bacon for breakfast. 

Also, what gives the Bible so much precedence over any other religious text? It's meaning has been twisted, and it's HARDLY the first religious text out there, much less the first religion. So, why should it be taken any more to heart than some of the ancient Egyptian religious texts (which, btw,  outdate the Bible by a SHIT load).

That's why I think that quoting the Bible is not a valid reasoning for an argument. Is it a valid standpoint for why you believe things in a certain way? Yes, it can be. But your personal and biased beliefs have no place in the modern argument (which Rukh claims to have never taken part in to begin with, but whatev~)


----------



## Redregon (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Let me tell you how this thread started. Deo called me out on the topic of abortion because it came up in another thread.
> I post that I abhor abortion. I then gave the reasons why. *And those reasons include the Word of God*.


 
STOP right there... you're not using the words of god to justify your view, you're using them to hide behind them. you have failed to make your own mind up on the matter of your own accord and as such, you are sinning right here. (bearing false witness and hubris okay, i think i used the wrong word... but it's still there in Matthew 3:22-30 where he states that speaking against the holy spirit is the unforgivable sin... and when you're taking the words of god and twisting them to suit your purpose, you are doing just that through arrogance.)

remember, God gave you free will... if you choose not to honour him by using such a gift and deferring to the words and opinions of a (fallable) man or woman on the pulpit, you are tarnishing said free will. God WANTS you to think for yourself (it's in there) and he WANTS you to make your OWN mind up... not just regurgitate passages that have been changed, rearranged, translated and butchered by the hands of MANY, many monks and such (and often at the direction of the monarch at the time... you don't think they call it the "King James" bible for nothing, eh?)

besides, if it's not your body and it's not your child, it's not your say. you can condemn and judge anyone you want however they choose to make said decision, but again, it's not YOUR say unless it's your body or your seed that's burbling.

... though, wasn't the line "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" regarding condemnation and such?
... also, isn't it in there the whole "Judge not lest ye be judged" bit? 

seems the good book is also telling you to STFU on the matter. *whistles innocently*

... though, interesting to note, aren't there stories in the bible of women using the belladonna flower or other abortificant herbs? gee, i wonder why they'd use those... certainly not because they make a nice tea (they don't.)


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 2, 2011)

What are some other arguments against abortion ?
biological perspective ?
taxpayer perspective ?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Rukh, sweetums, telling people that you are entirely convinced and will never back down for any reason and just want to preach isn't endearing to most people.
> 
> It makes you look _*insane.*_


 Jews demand signs and *Greeks look for wisdom*,  but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and *foolishness to Gentiles*,  but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 

Again, your telling me nothing new here Mojo. Christians have been labeled as insane since the time Jesus apeared and started teaching.


CrazyLee said:


> Funny that, if God considered slavery wrong, he just regulated it. And yet condemned a whole lot of other stuff, like eating certain meat. "I don't like slavery but since you'll do it anyway I'll set up rules for it... BUT NO EATING PIGS OR I'LL HAVE YOU STONED TO DEATH!!!" Apparently eating a certain meat is much worse than treating a human like an animal.



And your post shows that you clearly don't understand the Mosiac Law at all.
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1822580/. I suggest reading that if you want to have a better understanding.



CrazyLee said:


> John 8:7
> _When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to  them, â€œLet any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a  stone_ _at her.â€
> _
> LOOK, I CAN QUOTE THE BIBLE TOO!!!! :B
> ...


 

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for  God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. 

1 Corinthians 5:1
It is actually reported that there is  sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans

1 Corinthians 6:13
Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for foodâ€â€”and God will destroy both one http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1 Corinthians 6.13#footnote1and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1 Corinthians 6.13#footnote2for the Lord, and http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1 Corinthians 6.13#footnote3the Lord for the body.  

1 Corinthians 6:18
Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sinhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/1 Corinthians 6.18#footnote1 a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1 Corinthians 6.18#footnote2sins against his own body.  

Galatians 5:19
Now http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians 5.19#footnote0the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,  

Ephesians 5:3
But http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ephesians 5.3#footnote0sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ephesians 5.3#footnote1must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.  

Colossians 3:5
Put to death therefore http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Colossians 3.5#footnote1what is earthly in you: http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Colossians 3.5#footnote3sexual immorality, impurity, http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Colossians 3.5#footnote4passion, evil desire, and covetousness, http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Colossians 3.5#footnote5which is idolatry.  

1 Thessalonians 4:3
 For this is the will of God, http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1 Thessalonians 4.3#footnote0your sanctification:http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1 Thessalonians 4.3#footnote1http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1 Thessalonians 4.3#footnote2that you abstain from sexual immorality;  

Jude 7
just as http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Jude 7#footnote0Sodom and Gomorrah and http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Jude 7#footnote1the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Jude 7#footnote2pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.  

Sex is a gift to married couples. It is meant only for married couples. Sex outside of marriage is sexual immorality. Which is clearly written in the Bible as a sin.



Aleu said:


> In his heart =/= physically doing so
> Adultery is basically sex outside of marriage. People can't be committing adultery if they're virgins fapping to porn in their mother's basement.


 
Its called adultery with the eyes Aleu.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 2, 2011)

my eyes should be removed!


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 2, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> my eyes should be removed!


 
Hey, going along with that:

Matthew 5:30
And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it  off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your  body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Now, joke aside, what is being said, is to remove yourself from situations that you know you would be compromised in. Because, it is better to cut yourself off from whatever is causing you to stumble, than to keep stumbling.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Pointless Bible quote. Also,
> 
> Again, your telling me nothing new here Mojo. Christians have been labeled as insane since the time Jesus apeared and started teaching.


 
I know you want to feed your persecution complex, Rukh, but I wasn't calling christians in general crazy, even if the concept itself is. Just you.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I know you want to feed your persecution complex, Rukh, but I wasn't calling christians in general crazy, even if the concept itself is. Just you.


 
There is no persecution complex here Mojo. If it happens (persecution), it happens. I don't focus on it at all. It doesn't bother me. I really could care less about it.

Secondly, your basically saying that any Christian who holds to the Word of God (Which is the correct line of thinking for a Christian)absolutely is crazy. So its not just me your talking about.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> There is no persecution complex here Mojo. If it happens (persecution), it happens. I don't focus on it at all. It doesn't bother me. I really could care less about it.
> 
> Secondly, your basically saying that any Christian who holds to the Word of God (Which is the correct line of thinking for a Christian)absolutely is crazy. So its not just me your talking about.


 
You seem more than happy to bring it up constantly. :V
to borrow a page from your book, and play the "some christians aren't real christians" card, which I think is total bupkis but you probably won't see this-
The belief system is inherently intractable, (not the least of which is the perfect being claiming to be perfect despite having every indication of being actually evil), but one does not have to be crazy to get sucked into these sorts of scams and cults, just vulnerable or mislead. For example, people who have alcohol problems often end up in a 10 step program like AA, or going to a priest for help, and just end up replacing a chemical high for an emotional high. They don't really convert, they're just junkies faking it for a rush.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jun 2, 2011)

....


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 2, 2011)

what kind of help program should be made for you?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> You seem more than happy to bring it up constantly. :V
> 
> The belief system is inherently intractable, (not the least of which is the perfect being claiming to be perfect despite having every indication of being actually evil), but one does not have to be crazy to get sucked into these sorts of scams and cults, just vulnerable or mislead. For example, people who have alcohol problems often end up in a 10 step program like AA, or going to a priest for help, and just end up replacing a chemical high for an emotional high. They don't really convert, they're just junkies faking it for a rush.


 
I hardly bring it up. And when I have, I just mention it. I don't focus on it or harp on it. Why? Because its not an extraordinary thing. Its normal. It is the logical step in ones walk with Christ. Its going to happen.

As for your second point, your still falling into that verse I quoted about the gentiles saying Christ crucified is foolishness. Of course you will say this about Christianity. Your trying to apply faulty human logic to a Being who can't be comprehended by human understanding. It won't work, ever. You simply cannot on your own try and define or understand who God is.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 2, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> what kind of help program should be made for you?


 
Ones that actually, yaknow, help the person with the addiction instead of using it as an excuse to make them find faith, which does nothing for the addiction itself.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I hardly bring it up. And when I have, I just mention it. I don't focus on it or harp on it. Why? Because its not an extraordinary thing. Its normal. It is the logical step in ones walk with Christ. Its going to happen.
> 
> As for your second point, your still falling into that verse I quotes about the gentiles saying Christ crucified is foolishness. Of course you will say this about Christianity. Your trying to apply faulty human logic to a Being who can't be comprehended by human understanding. It won't work, ever. You simply cannot on your own try and define or understand who God is.


 
When you do it seems pretty important, at least to you. Funny how changed your tune when presented with the numbers. :V

I can understand your deity well enough, he's a fictional being and a raging omnipocrit. His nature is pretty obvious when he spells it out by proclaiming himself synonymous with jealousy, then proceeds to commit multiple atrocities and have a general case of megolomania.


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 2, 2011)

Hey, rukh, don't gloss. Give me an answer to this.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 2, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Hey, rukh, don't gloss. Give me an answer to this.


 
Rukh believes most christians aren't actually christians. At least most people, myself included :V, have the sense to acknowledge people are usually sincere when they say what religion they follow. Not Rukh. He believes only Calvinists are true christians.


----------



## Namba (Jun 2, 2011)

Denominations... Sub-religions rather. I stay away from that for very good reasons, but that's a matter for another thread :/


----------



## Vukasin (Jun 2, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Denominations... Sub-religions rather. I stay away from that for very good reasons, but that's a matter for another thread :/


 
This whole conversation should probably be in another thread.

The thread is no longer about abortion.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 2, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Hey, rukh, don't gloss. Give me an answer to this.


 So, that can be broken down to one main question correct?


> Also, what gives the Bible so much precedence over any other religious text?


And that boils down to a single answer. Either Jesus is who He said He was and what He said is true, or He is  false.  This is the choice you must make:  To trust what He said, or  reject His words.




Mojotech said:


> Rukh believes most christians aren't actually  christians. At least most people, myself included :V, have the sense to  acknowledge people are usually sincere when they say what religion they  follow. Not Rukh. He believes only Calvinists are true  christians.


 
Explain something to me Mojo, you label me as a Calvinist. And yet I hold to the teachings of John Wesley. Figure that one out...

True Christians are ones that really follow Jesus, it doesn't matter what denomination. Hence why the church I go to is un-denominational.

Again, answer how one can agree with Calvinism and Arminianism? You claim to have theological knowledge. So answer the question.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 2, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Denominations... Sub-religions rather. I stay away from that for very good reasons, but that's a matter for another thread :/


 
It's impossible to stay away from them, given there's how various different groups of beliefs are classified. Wether a christian believes in the trinity or not, how baptism is performed and when, which books of the bible are actually god inspired or not, the importance of the virgin birth, what it means, the nature of salvation, etc. - Endless numbers of different interpretations of them.



Vukasin said:


> This whole conversation should probably be in another thread.
> 
> The thread is no longer about abortion.


 
Rukh tends to have this effect on threads. :V He derails them, but alright, let's try to get this back on track-

Condoms. Atrocity or awesome?


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So, that can be broken down to one main question correct?
> 
> 
> And that boils down to a single answer. Either Jesus is who He said He was and what He said is true, or He is  false.  This is the choice you must make:  To trust what He said, or  reject His words.



...

Soooooo...

Since the bible is the only one that says the bible is true, if you don't accept the bible you don't accept the bible. 

...

Yeah ok I'm going to be over here smashing myself with a brick until that sounds smarter.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 2, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> As an aside, if the modern Christian can choose to ignore the passages that say all women should be kept beneath the heels of men, not to eat pork, and not to condemn others and love all for who they are, whether it's gay, muslim, or anything else, then I can choose to ignore the bits that go against basic biology.
> 
> I treat people with respect. I treat them as I would like to be treated. I try not to lie. I try to do what's right. Jesus, son of god or not, had some good things to say. He spoke about peace and I can dig that. But if I want to share my body with another consenting adult, I'll do so any time I want. I'll do this with an easy heart and a wary mind of the consequence of my actions on this earthly plain. And if it really is a sin because this Bible book, so be it. If I'm going to hell for an outdated passage, 98% of other Christians are going with me for eating bacon for breakfast.
> 
> ...


 

The Bible is flaw cause man has written it, and its been twisted to serve the believes of various Christian groups, but for Christians its our , main guideline, we aren't limited to learning from its pages, theres truth in just about any text. My grandparents church had a program going on that involved studying the religious texts of other religions, some would agree thats a move in a good direction.
Arguing a point with the Bible isn;t invalid completely, its only valid if the other party is willing to allow the scripture to be valid.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 2, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> ...
> 
> Soooooo...
> 
> ...


 
Christianity is all or nothing. There is no in between. Either its all true or none of it is. 
If you don't believe in God's Word, then you don't believe in God.




NobleThorne said:


> The Bible is flaw cause man has written it,  and its been twisted to serve the believes of various Christian groups,  but for Christians its our , main guideline, we aren't limited to  learning from its pages, theres truth in just about any text. My  grandparents church had a program going on that involved studying the  religious texts of other religions, some would agree thats a move in a  good direction.
> Arguing a point with the Bible isn;t invalid  completely, its only valid if the other party is willing to allow the  scripture to be valid.


 
If the Bible contains the word of God, but is not the word of God, then we must ask which parts of the Bible are the Word of God and which are not? The problem in answering this question is that the one who seeks to do so inadvertently places himself as the judge of what is and what is not inspired and without error. But by what standard would such a person make such judgment?


----------



## CAThulu (Jun 2, 2011)

Vukasin said:


> This whole conversation should probably be in another thread.
> 
> The thread is no longer about abortion.



It's another Everyone Vs. Rukh thread.  There's really no point in keeping it going.


----------



## Vukasin (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity is all or nothing. There is no in between. Either its all true or none of it is.
> If you don't believe in God's Word, then you don't believe in God.



This is so wrong. So, so, so, so wrong.

See fluttershy's face in my avatar? That is the face I am making right now.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 2, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> The Bible is flaw cause man has written it, and its been twisted to serve the believes of various Christian groups, but for Christians its our , main guideline, we aren't limited to learning from its pages, theres truth in just about any text.


 
Correct.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity is all or nothing. There is no in between. Either its all true or none of it is.
> If you don't believe in God's Word, then you don't believe in God.



Incorrect.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If the Bible contains the word of God, but is not the word of God, then we must ask which parts of the Bible are the Word of God and which are not? The problem in answering this question is that the one who seeks to do so inadvertently places himself as the judge of what is and what is not inspired and without error. But by what standard would such a person make such judgment?



At that point, you have to look at how the bible compares between what it says it is, (absolutely true, god is good, this book is moral, etc.) with what it actually is (has hilariously huge inaccuracies, god is an evil dick, the bible promotes atrocities then tries to pass them off as good things, etc).


----------



## Namba (Jun 2, 2011)

Vukasin said:


> This whole conversation should probably be in another thread.
> 
> The thread is no longer about abortion.


 
Any volunteers? I'm sure as hell not up to it




Mojotech said:


> It's impossible to stay away from them, given there's how various different groups of beliefs are classified. Wether a christian believes in the trinity or not, how baptism is performed and when, which books of the bible are actually god inspired or not, the importance of the virgin birth, what it means, the nature of salvation, etc. - Endless numbers of different interpretations of them.


yes there are different beliefs. I however prefer to be a "mere Christian" In other words while I have my own interpretation of the faith, I prefer not to identify myself with something more... "official" whether it's Catholicism or being Methodist or baptist or whatever... None are 100% right


----------



## Aleu (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Hebrews 13:4
> Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for  God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 5:1
> ...


 Since when is sexual immorality code word for idolatry and why is it "immoral"? I believe I asked this already, I just never received an answer for it.

Also, you made that up, Rukh.


----------



## Riley (Jun 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Jews demand signs and *Greeks look for wisdom*,  but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and *foolishness to Gentiles*,  but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
> 
> Again, your telling me nothing new here Mojo. Christians have been labeled as insane since the time Jesus apeared and started teaching.
> 
> ...



None of that says anything about sex before marriage.



> Sex is a gift to married couples. It is meant only for married couples. *Sex outside of marriage is sexual immorality. Which is clearly written in the Bible as a sin.*


Too bad none of your quotes said that.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> There is no persecution complex here Mojo.  If it happens (persecution), it happens. I don't focus on it at all.


Then why are all 1,392 of your posts about you focusing on it.



> It doesn't bother me. I really could care less about it.


Could you?



> Secondly, your basically saying that any Christian who holds  to the Word of God (Which is the correct line of thinking for a  Christian)absolutely is crazy. So its not just me your talking  about.


 Religion certainly isn't for the sane.  And you're probably less sane than most of them, anyway.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 2, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> It's another Everyone Vs. Rukh thread.  There's really no point in keeping it going.



Nawh its more like a busy 4 way intersection

Rukh who's right the mormons or the calvanists?


----------



## Vukasin (Jun 2, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Any volunteers? I'm sure as hell not up to it


 
No, I don't think that it would turn out so well.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Correct.



Says one who doesn't even have a basis of knowledge on theology... You never answered my question either. Yet again I might point out.



Mojotech said:


> Incorrect.


 Again, says the one who understands nothing of what the Word of God says. I like you you can say right and wrong is all relative, but your own judgments and opinions are absolutes...




Mojotech said:


> At that point, you have to look at how the bible compares between what it says it is, (absolutely true, god is good, this book is moral, etc.) with what it actually is (has hilariously huge inaccuracies, god is an evil dick, the bible promotes atrocities then tries to pass them off as good things, etc).


 
Wrong. There are no inconsistencies, you just have a problem reconciling verses. Add to that, your basing this entire line of thought on your flawed human logic. Since when does God have to conform to what you think is right and wrong?



Vukasin said:


> This is so wrong. So, so, so, so wrong.


 
Oh really? Show me where moralism, relativism, and conforming to the world is preached in Scripture.



Aleu said:


> Since when is sexual immorality code word for  idolatry and why is it "immoral"? I believe I asked this already, I just  never received an answer for it.
> 
> Also, you made that up, Rukh.


 
Since when is sexual immorality (aka fornication) idolatry?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Or do you not  know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom  of God? Do not be  deceived;* neither fornicators*, nor idolaters, nor  adulterers, nor effeminate,  nor homosexuals,  nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor  revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 

And again, Hebrews 13:4
"Let marriage be held  in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be  undefiled; for fornicators and  adulterers God will judge." 

So, very clearly fornication is condemned in scripture and there is no   provision for it being acceptable just because someone loves another  person.   Besides if this couple is so much in love, then why don't they  carry out what  true love is and marry each other?  True love is when  you put another person  first, not when you take something from them.   *When a man and woman engage in  fornication they declare that such love  for the other person is more self-centered, rather than other-centered.* Self-centered is idolatry Aleu.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 2, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Any volunteers? I'm sure as hell not up to it
> 
> yes there are different beliefs. I however prefer to be a "mere Christian" In other words while I have my own interpretation of the faith, I prefer not to identify myself with something more... "official" whether it's Catholicism or being Methodist or baptist or whatever... None are 100% right


 
Really I'm just waiting for mods to finally get him for thread derailment or something. He brings nothing to the forums aside from being an occasional lulzcow.

Also, I can dig that, just so long as you're not like Rukh and start classifying others as non-christians just because they don't interpret your holy book the same way you do.


----------



## Namba (Jun 3, 2011)

Yeah man that's how I roll... And yeah, I already got warned myself (I was kinda deserving since I was being such a smart-ass lol)... I'm getting a little wary of this. I think I might have to call it quits here


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 3, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Really I'm just waiting for mods to finally get him for thread derailment or something. He brings nothing to the forums aside from being an occasional lulzcow.
> 
> Also, I can dig that, just so long as you're not like Rukh and start classifying others as non-christians just because they don't interpret your holy book the same way you do.


 

So what fits your description of a non-christian?


----------



## Cocobanana (Jun 3, 2011)

ITT: People trying to make sense of a nonsensical book for grandpas to tell little babies as a practical joke.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 3, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Yeah man that's how I roll... And yeah, I already got warned myself (I was kinda deserving since I was being such a smart-ass lol)... I'm getting a little wary of this. I think I might have to call it quits here


 
Mkay, peace out.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Says one who doesn't even have a basis of knowledge on theology... You never answered my question either. Yet again I might point out.


 
Look, just because I'm not willing to bust out my old thesises on the Synoptic Problem or that the bible can't even agree on basic things in the jesus birth/resurrection stories doesn't mean I don't understand. It just means I don't take you seriously enough to want to waste everyone else's time, including my own, especially since you have said repeatedly you're not actually listening to anyone.


----------



## Vukasin (Jun 3, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Oh really? Show me where moralism, relativism, and conforming to the world is preached in Scripture.


 
Show me where believing that some things in the Bible are a bit outdated means I believe in God less than you do.

There are things in the Bible that I think are wrong, such as the whole gays are bad thing. Technically that would mean I don't entirely believe in the word of God, and by your logic I am not a Christian.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 3, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> So what fits your description of a non-christian?


 more than likely, anyone that doesn't believe in christ.


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 3, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity is all or nothing. There is no in between. Either its all true or none of it is.
> If you don't believe in God's Word, then you don't believe in God.


 
Well, then may you be damned to hell for eating bacon, not covering your woman's face, and shaving. 

All or nothing, right?


----------



## CAThulu (Jun 3, 2011)

Vukasin said:


> No, I don't think that it would turn out so well.


 
we had a mega-religion thread for a while.  I don't know what happened to it though :/


----------



## Aleu (Jun 3, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> we had a mega-religion thread for a while.  I don't know what happened to it though :/


 It died.


----------



## CAThulu (Jun 3, 2011)

Aleu said:


> It died.


 
Well then, I suggest we do this with the thread: http://cdn3.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/102/344/original/1298787074140.png?1298787241


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 3, 2011)

Vukasin said:


> Show me where believing that some things in the Bible are a bit outdated means I believe in God less than you do.
> 
> There are things in the Bible that I think are wrong, such as the whole gays are bad thing. Technically that would mean I don't entirely believe in the word of God, and by your logic I am not a Christian.


 
Which is why I posted this question;

If the Bible contains the word of God, but is not the word of God, then we must ask which parts of the Bible are the Word of God and which are not? The problem in answering this question is that the one who seeks to do so inadvertently places himself as the judge of what is and what is not inspired and without error. But by what standard would such a person make such judgment?

The Bible doesn't contain the Word of God, it *is* the Word of God.

When claims that the Bible contains the word of God but is not the word  of God are made, it is done so usually because the critic of inspiration  wants to assert that the original documents in the Bible contained  errors.  The problem is that this undermines the very trustworthiness of  God's Word.  How are we to decide what is and is not inspired, and  therefore true, if the very breath of God moving through a sinner  results in documents with mistakes?  Does this inspire trust in God's  Word?  Does it promote security and rest in believing God's Word?   Obviously not.

This undermines the faith of Christians and is, naturally, a dangerous and false teaching.




CoyoteCaliente said:


> Well, then may you be damned to hell for  eating bacon, not covering your woman's face, and shaving.
> 
> All or nothing, right?


 
Seriously, please read this. Maybe, just maybe you will understand how the difference between the Moral Law, Ceremonial Law, and the Social Law. http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1822580/


Mark 7:15 and Mark 7:18-23

*You are not defiled by what you eat; you are defiled by what you say and do!*

*Don't you understand it either? He  asked. Can't you see that what you eat won't defile you? Food doesn't  come in contact with the heart, but only the stomach and then comes out  again. And then He added, It is the thought-life that defiles you. For  from within, out of a persons heart, come evil thoughts, sexual  immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit,  eagerness for lustful pleasure, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness.  All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you and  make you unacceptable to God.*

So, the point of these laws were not to tell them what they could and  could not eat. It had nothing to do with it. It had nothing to do with  how pure you were compared to your neighbor. The whole point was that we  are not to surround ourselves with evil things. Its a call to live for  God in all we do.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 3, 2011)

Aleu said:


> more than likely, anyone that doesn't believe in christ.


 
Hey thats a good definition kudos to you!


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 3, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> This undermines the faith of Christians and is, naturally, a dangerous and false teaching.


 
You're arguing that people not trusting a silly and false document because it has errors in it is a bad thing.



NobleThorne said:


> So what fits your description of a non-christian?


 
What Aleu said. Any who believe in Christ, even if you disagree on his skin color (black for Rastafarians, bleached for Americans, Jewish for everyone else.) or the exact nature of the trinity. (Catholics, Mormons.) It's still entirely possible to believe in the same god and not be Christian if you, say, don't accept the Jesus schtick, (Jewish), or in a deity that is arguably the same if you want to commit blasphemy for both religions but had a different intial prophet (Islam). Anything else is just secondary and determines what type of christian they are.


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 3, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Bible doesn't contain the Word of God, it *is* the Word of God.


 
But then God wants your women to be covered, for you not to eat bacon, and for you to never shave. So, why do you sin?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 3, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> So, why do you sin?


 
Go read Romans chapter 7.

But, basically though, because its our nature to sin.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death  through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all  sinned.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 3, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Stuff.


 
And Rukh dodges the question entirely again. The judges award him no points for this maneuver though, since this isn't olympic mental gymnastics.


----------



## CAThulu (Jun 3, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Go read Romans chapter 7.
> 
> But, basically though, because its our nature to sin.
> 
> Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death  through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all  sinned.



Here's Romans 7 for anyone who wants to check up on that.


----------



## Vukasin (Jun 3, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> This undermines the faith of Christians and is, naturally, a dangerous and false teaching.


 
Alright, let's try this:

A person believes in God and that Jesus is their savior. So far so good, yes? This person is a Christian.
Now lets say that same person thinks gays should be treated as equals and be allowed to marry, but he also thinks that women should have the choice of aborting their baby if they want to. Does that mean he is no longer a Christian now?


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 3, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Go read Romans chapter 7.
> 
> But, basically though, because its our nature to sin.
> 
> Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death  through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all  sinned.



We are genetically corrupt, just like we are programmed to break down at a certain age, we are programmed with flaws



Vukasin said:


> Alright, let's try this:
> 
> A person believes in God and that Jesus is their savior. So far so good, yes? This person is a Christian.
> Now  lets say that same person thinks gays should be treated as equals and  be allowed to marry, but he also thinks that women should have to choice  of aborting their baby if they want to. Does that mean he is no longer a  Christian now?



I may disagree with their non traditional believes but they'd still be Christian, no better no worse than any one else.


----------



## CAThulu (Jun 3, 2011)

Vukasin said:


> Alright, let's try this:
> 
> A person believes in God and that Jesus is their savior. So far so good, yes? This person is a Christian.
> Now lets say that same person thinks gays should be treated as equals and be allowed to marry, but he also thinks that women should have to choice of aborting their baby if they want to. Does that mean he is no longer a Christian now?



Depends on who you talk to and/ or what denomination of christianity they belong to.  You can have two people that are members of the same church who have opposite views on these topics, and sometimes church communities are torn apart because of it.    Whether or not you agree or disagree with these views can also determine your place as a teacher, deacon, or elder in the church as well.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 3, 2011)

Rukh, how can it be the Word of God if man wrote it?

Man is flawed. Man creates religion. Thus religion must be flawed.
It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 3, 2011)

Dammit Rukh. I'm asking a simple fucking question. 

*How can you say the Bible is ALL or NOTHING, yet choose to not follow many of the outdated scripture such as NOT eating bacon, KEEP your women covered and controlled. and NOT doing something as simple as shaving?*

For once in your fucking life, answer the direct and obvious question.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 3, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> We are genetically corrupt, just like we are programmed to break down at a certain age, we are programmed with flaws


 
It's more we're not programmed to not break down over old age. Organisms that sacrificed late life for better reproductive chances on did better at reproducing, natch.

Unless you're one of those christians who believes people are getting smaller and weaker because of original sin, in which case-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwHkuvF89O8


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 3, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Depends on who you talk to and/ or what denomination of christianity they belong to.  You can have two people that are members of the same church who have opposite views on these topics, and sometimes church communities are torn apart because of it.    Whether or not you agree or disagree with these views can also determine your place as a teacher, deacon, or elder in the church as well.



My grandpa's baptist church now has a calvinist preacher, set out to remove the old folks that don't agree with his ways.
My grandpa ain't leaving, he's been going to that church for fifty something years, he helped build and fund it, it kind of saddens me that that preacher took over



Mojotech said:


> It's more we're not programmed to not break down  over old age. Organisms that sacrificed late life for better  reproductive chances on did better at reproducing, natch.
> 
> Unless you're one of those christians who believes people are getting smaller and weaker because of original sin, in which case-
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwHkuvF89O8


 

I like to look evolution as clock that runs on its own, self adjusting and what not.
and I haven't met or heard of a the " we are getting smaller and weaker argument"



Aleu said:


> Rukh, how can it be the Word of God if man wrote it?
> 
> Man is flawed. Man creates religion. Thus religion must be flawed.
> It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.



To that note, Christianity isn't meant to be a mundane ritualistic religion, its meant to be a personal relationship between the deity and the individual.

Maybe thats in our genes too, every people has a religion, every race seeks to answer or explain things by giving credit to a higher being,


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 3, 2011)

Vukasin said:


> Alright, let's try this:
> 
> A person believes in God and that Jesus is their savior. So far so good, yes? This person is a Christian.


And yet Jesus says:
Matthew 7:22-23
_Many will say to me on that day, â€˜Lord, Lord, did we  not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your  name perform many miracles?â€™  Then I will tell them plainly, â€˜I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!â€™_


Vukasin said:


> Now lets say that same person thinks gays should be treated as equals and be allowed to marry,


 Homosexuals should be treated at people. Never said they shouldn't be. Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same they  would any other person in sin.  They should treat homosexuals with the  same dignity as they would anyone else because, like or not, they are  made in the image of God.  However, this does not mean that Christians  should approve of their sin.  Not at all.  Christians should not  compromise their witness for a politically correct opinion that is  shaped by guilt and fear.



Vukasin said:


> but he also thinks that women should have to choice of aborting their  baby if they want to. Does that mean he is no longer a Christian  now?



Once saved, always saved. You cannot lose your salvation, if you truly had it to begin with.

And, not one person is beyond saving.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 3, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And yet Jesus says:
> Matthew 7:22-23
> _Many will say to me on that day, â€˜Lord, Lord, did we  not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your  name perform many miracles?â€™  Then I will tell them plainly, â€˜I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!â€™_
> 
> ...


 Rukh, homosexuality is not a sin. How many times must I explain this?


----------



## CAThulu (Jun 3, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> My grandpa's baptist church now has a calvinist preacher, set out to remove the old folks that don't agree with his ways.
> My grandpa ain't leaving, he's been going to that church for fifty something years, he helped build and fund it, it kind of saddens me that that preacher took over


 
It's sad when that happens :/   I'm honestly surprised that a Baptist church would let a Calvinist lead the congregation.  They're pretty strict about what's taught in their churches (having been raised in the Baptist faith with my grandfather being a Baptist minister).  I hope he doesn't have to leave, but that may end up happening if they make him feel uncomfortable.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 3, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And, not one person is beyond saving.


 
*Cough cough*Calvinism*Cough cough*Unconditional Reprobation*Cough cough*


----------



## Vukasin (Jun 3, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> My grandpa's baptist church now has a calvinist preacher, set out to remove the old folks that don't agree with his ways.
> My grandpa ain't leaving, he's been going to that church for fifty something years, he helped build and fund it, it kind of saddens me that that preacher took over


 
This is basically my main point. That preacher thinks his views are the right ones and not your grandpas, just like Rukh says that my views are not right.


----------



## Deo (Jun 3, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Rukh, homosexuality is not a sin. How many times must I explain this?


 Neither homosexuality, nor sin, is the topic of this thread. Though I am loathe to open a n ew religion thread, I advise you to make one if you wish to further discuss this topic. But not here in this thread, which is about abortion.


----------



## CAThulu (Jun 3, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> *Cough cough*Calvinism*Cough cough*Unconditional Reprobation*Cough cough*



Calvanists, like Mormons, don't count :V


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 3, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Dammit Rukh. I'm asking a simple fucking question.
> 
> *How can you say the Bible is ALL or NOTHING, yet choose to not follow many of the outdated scripture such as NOT eating bacon, KEEP your women covered and controlled. and NOT doing something as simple as shaving?*
> 
> For once in your fucking life, answer the direct and obvious question.



*I DID!!!! *You just choose not to read the link that I am giving you, that I wrote... So, here it is again. You want an answer to the difference between the Moral Law, Ceremonial and Social Laws, and why only the Moral Law carried over to the New Testament? Then read the dang link. 
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1950183/
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1822580/



Aleu said:


> Rukh, homosexuality is not a sin. How many times must I explain this?


 
Says the one who isn't a Christian and doesn't believe in sin. Funny, for someone who doesn't believe in sin you seem to have no problem defining what is and isn't a sin.

And how many times do I need to explain, giving full detailed Biblical explanations that it is a sin. Just because you personally don't think it is, doesn't mean its okay Aleu.



Mojotech said:


> *Cough cough*Calvinism*Cough cough*Unconditional Reprobation*Cough cough*


 
You throw the word Calvinist around a lot Mojo, but you don't answer how I, someone you call a Calvinist can hold to the teachings of John Wesley, who taught Arminianism.

So, stop hiding behind this and answer the question.


----------



## Deo (Jun 3, 2011)

THIS IS NOT A THREAD ON RUKH's PERSONAL RELIGION. ALL OF YOU SHUT UP.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 3, 2011)

Deo said:


> THIS IS NOT A THREAD ON RUKH's PERSONAL RELIGION. ALL OF YOU SHUT UP.


 
Okay okay, but even if we do he's going to keep dragging it up in every conversation. Here, let me segue back to abortion.

Rukh is a born again christian.

born again christians have the highest rates of teen, accidental, extra-marital pregnancies, as well as STDs and Abortions as a result.

Abstinence only is a complete failure of a sex education model.


----------



## Cocobanana (Jun 3, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Dammit Rukh. I'm asking a simple fucking question.
> 
> *How can you say the Bible is ALL or NOTHING, yet choose to not follow many of the outdated scripture such as NOT eating bacon, KEEP your women covered and controlled. and NOT doing something as simple as shaving?*
> 
> For once in your fucking life, answer the direct and obvious question.



He doesn't have an answer and is probably waiting for his pastor to respond since Rukh must've left a similar question on that pastor's answering machine, which the pastor hasn't answered yet because he has a similar question waiting on the Pope's answering machine, and the pope just doesn't give a shit because he's too old to want sex with anyone.


----------



## CAThulu (Jun 3, 2011)

Deo said:


> THIS IS NOT A THREAD ON RUKH's PERSONAL RELIGION. ALL OF YOU SHUT UP.



http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/data/500/Derail_1.jpg


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 3, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Rukh, homosexuality is not a sin. How many times must I explain this?


 
Hey your right its an abomination, wonder what the hell that is?



Mojotech said:


> *Cough cough*Calvinism*Cough cough*Unconditional Reprobation*Cough cough*


  you got asthma ?


----------



## Aleu (Jun 3, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *I DID!!!! *You just choose not to read the link that I am giving you, that I wrote... So, here it is again. You want an answer to the difference between the Moral Law, Ceremonial and Social Laws, and why only the Moral Law carried over to the New Testament? Then read the dang link.
> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1950183/
> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1822580/
> 
> ...


 I LOVE how you put out assumptions. I may not be a christian by name I still hold it's beliefs. I just don't want to be associated with lots like you. So, obviously I DO believe in sin. There are no more detailed biblical explanations that it's a sin than abortion is wrong.
You say you do "research" when you only go to the same biased websites and refuse to challenge anything that disagrees with you. Instead you stick your fingers in your ears and pick and choose WHICH questions to "answer" (read as actually dodging).

Things are only wrong because you WANT to perceive it that way. Just because you have terrible interpretations, do not make them right.



NobleThorne said:


> Hey your right its an abomination, wonder what the hell that is?


 if that is then so is eating shrimp and women wearing pants.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 3, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> He doesn't have an answer and is probably waiting for his pastor to respond since Rukh must've left a similar question on that pastor's answering machine, which the pastor hasn't answered yet because he has a similar question waiting on the Pope's answering machine, and the pope just doesn't give a shit because he's too old to want sex with anyone.


 
Did you see the links to sermons that I put up on the mainsite? Are you blind? I answered the questions a long time ago. And I posted links to the journals.



Aleu said:


> I LOVE how you put out assumptions. I may not be a christian by name I still hold it's beliefs.


 
If you hold to the doctrines of the faith, then you would hold to what the Word of God says. Which clearly you don't.


Edit: When you have 15 questions being directed toward you all at once, and then have more being asked while you are answering the first ones, I want to see if you don't accidentally miss a question or two.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 3, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Did you see the links to sermons that I put up on the mainsite? Are you blind? I answered the questions a long time ago. And I posted links to the journals.
> 
> 
> 
> If you hold to the doctrines of the faith, then you would hold to what the Word of God says. Which clearly you don't.


 Love others
Love God.

Check, check. 
By the way, you STILL haven't answered WHY sexual immorality is automatically adultery or why sex outside of marriage is immoral.


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 3, 2011)

Deo said:


> THIS IS NOT A THREAD ON RUKH's PERSONAL RELIGION. ALL OF YOU SHUT UP.


 
What Deo said.
Justice has been in a mood. Please, for the love of all things shiny, do not turn this into a religion thread! :V


----------



## Aleu (Jun 3, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> What Deo said.
> Justice has been in a mood. Please, for the love of all things shiny, do not turn this into a religion thread! :V


 Abortion topic + Rukh = religion thread.

Actually, make any topic and add rukh and it'll turn into a religion thread. It is inevitable. Just pointing out the obvious.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 3, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> What Deo said.
> Justice has been in a mood. Please, for the love of all things shiny, do not turn this into a religion thread! :V


 
It'd help if you'd actually infract Rukh for derailing the thread occasionally. :V


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 3, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Abortion topic + Rukh = religion thread.
> 
> Actually, make any topic and add rukh and it'll turn into a religion thread. It is inevitable.



So I should just sweep his posts under a rug and send him to Jerusalem for 3 days?




Mojotech said:


> It'd help if you'd actually infract Rukh for derailing the thread occasionally. :V


 
You have a very good point.
It also helps that if something like this happens in the near future, report it.


----------



## Deo (Jun 3, 2011)

Aleu said:


> By the way, you STILL haven't answered WHY sexual immorality is automatically adultery or why sex outside of marriage is immoral.


 Aleu, while this is a deep and interesting topic, and one that I am sure Rukh would love to discuss, make another thread. Please.


Abortion. Go.
At what developmental stage is a zygote
(since most of us will agree that sperm and ova alone are not a person, nor deserve special protections)
granted personhood and all the rights and protections thereof?


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 3, 2011)

So how bout the government ran abortion clinics in relation to tax payer dollars, lets light a fire on that subject


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 3, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity is all or nothing. There is no in between. Either its all true or none of it is.
> If you don't believe in God's Word, then you don't believe in God.


 
So you believe all the stuff about suffer not the witch to live? 

Y U NO OUT STONING PEOPLE???

EDIT: OK I'm done here. Just had to get that in. :v

On topic: Government funding of abortion clinics is something that should be decided by the voters/taxpayers. If people support it, go for if it. If they don't, don't.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jun 3, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Love others
> Love God.
> Check, check.
> By the way, you STILL haven't answered WHY sexual immorality is automatically adultery or why sex outside of marriage is immoral.


 
Love God comes first Aleu, and if you loved God, you would listen to His Word... As per Scripture in James.
If you love others more than God, well, Jesus said that person isn't worthy of the kingdom of heaven.

I did answer it. Sex is designed for married couples only. That's the way God intended it. Its written all through Scripture.
I have given you verses. But you just ignore them.



Unsilenced said:


> So you believe all the stuff about suffer not the witch to live?
> 
> Y U NO OUT STONING PEOPLE???


 
Seriously, Do I need to give out the explanation of the difference between the 3 types of Law?

There are 3 forms of Laws in Leviticus. God's Moral Law-which reveals  God's unchanging character to us. These are things that God says are  detestable to Him. The 2nd type is the Ceremonial Laws-these are the  laws about the sacrificial system (and those sacrifices had to be done  over and over and over.), the tabernacle and all the feasts. And the  last type if the Civil Law-these are the laws by which the Israelite's  were to live their day to day lives with. It was their form of  Government. Much like we have laws today that dictate how we act in  public.

 The Ceremonial Laws were directly fulfilled by Christ because He was the  final sacrifice, he was the perfect sacrifice to atone for our sins.  And the Civil laws all pointed to the fact that not one man or woman can  live up to God's standard. Both the ceremonial laws and civil laws  pointed to Christ Jesus as the only way to Heaven. And God's Moral Law  has never changed, because God is unchanging. God doesn't change his  character. For He is omnipotent.

As for stoning people, that is a civil law. Which, has not been carried  over by Christ. The moral law behind the reason for stoning has not  changed.


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 3, 2011)

That is it!


----------



## Deo (Jun 3, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> So how bout the government ran abortion clinics in relation to tax payer dollars, lets light a fire on that subject


 There are no government ran abortion clinics. Should there be some?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 3, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> So how bout the government ran abortion clinics in relation to tax payer dollars, lets light a fire on that subject


 
Justifiable in cases where the mother's health is in danger, the fetus is not going to be viable at any stage, or rape-including-incest cases.


----------



## CAThulu (Jun 3, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *posts something relevant and insightful relating to Deo's abortion thread.*



fix'd


----------



## Deo (Jun 3, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Offtopic shit


 Stop that. >:[


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 3, 2011)

Deo said:


> Aleu, while this is a deep and interesting topic, and one that I am sure Rukh would love to discuss, make another thread. Please.
> 
> 
> Abortion. Go.
> ...


 
I say once it has a nervous system that starts to control bits of it's body. Imho


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 3, 2011)

Next Hijacking will result in a 1-day trip to the Deep roads. 
Thou hast been warned. >:{


----------



## Aleu (Jun 3, 2011)

Deo said:


> Aleu, while this is a deep and interesting topic, and one that I am sure Rukh would love to discuss, make another thread. Please.


Dropping



Deo said:


> Abortion. Go.
> 
> At what developmental stage is a zygote
> (since most of us will agree that sperm and ova alone are not a person, nor deserve special protections)
> granted personhood and all the rights and protections thereof?


Birth since people are granted all citizenship rights as soon as the child is born, why must there be special considerations of those unborn? That's how I see it.

Also, another thing I wanted to ask opinions on but kept forgetting about because it's so ridiculous.
Birth control pills or pre-abortion pills?


----------



## Enwon (Jun 3, 2011)

Deo said:


> Abortion. Go.
> At what developmental stage is a zygote
> (since most of us will agree that sperm and ova alone are not a person, nor deserve special protections)
> granted personhood and all the rights and protections thereof?


At whatever point it can be birthed and live outside the womb.

So about third trimester.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 3, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> I say once it has a nervous system that starts to control bits of it's body. Imho


 
Depending on how you want to call it, that can happen pretty damned early. 

By week 9 it has a heartbeat. 

If that's where you want to draw the line, abortions better be performed by ninjas.


----------



## CAThulu (Jun 3, 2011)

Enwon said:


> At whatever point it can be birthed and live outside the womb.
> 
> So about third trimester.



Let's say the baby is wanted, but in the first trimester a man punches a pregnant woman in the stomach and she loses the baby.  Is that assault on the part of the mother, or murder of the baby?  And does that change if she didn't want it?


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 3, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Justifiable in cases where the mother's health is in danger, the fetus is not going to be viable at any stage, or rape-including-incest cases.


 
As a a conservative, I do disagree with abortion, sept in cases endangering the mothers life, but I don't agree with trying to make it illegal, cause that just leads to backyard hanger treatments.



CAThulu said:


> Let's say the baby is wanted, but in the first  trimester a man punches a pregnant woman in the stomach and she loses  the baby.  Is that assault on the part of the mother, or murder of the  baby?  And does that change if she didn't want it?


 
Lets charge him with both and lock him up, dumbass shouldn't go around punching women in the stomach


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 3, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Depending on how you want to call it, that can happen pretty damned early.
> 
> By week 9 it has a heartbeat.
> 
> If that's where you want to draw the line, abortions better be performed by ninjas.


 
Oddly, fetuses have heartbeats before they have hearts- their have developing heart cells, but not something that can actually support their body. The mother establishes the heart rythm at first, and the fetus eventually gets its own later.



NobleThorne said:


> As a a conservative, I do disagree with abortion, sept in cases endangering the mothers life, but I don't agree with trying to make it illegal, cause that just leads to backyard hanger treatments.


 
That's fine, you don't have to get one, but they need to be available, and have doctors trained to do them, available for when they become neccessary.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 3, 2011)

Unless he was trying to cause a miscarriage it couldn't even be murder, just manslaughter.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 3, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Let's say the baby is wanted, but in the first trimester a man punches a pregnant woman in the stomach and she loses the baby.  Is that assault on the part of the mother, or murder of the baby?  And does that change if she didn't want it?


 I say assault. No charge for murder.


----------



## CAThulu (Jun 3, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Unless he was trying to cause a miscarriage it couldn't even be murder, just manslaughter.



But that still means that in the first trimester that the zygote has rights to exist, whether the charge is murder or manslaughter.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 3, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Oddly, fetuses have heartbeats before they have hearts- their have developing heart cells, but not something that can actually support their body. The mother establishes the heart rythm at first, and the fetus eventually gets its own later.
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine, you don't have to get one, but they need to be available, and have doctors trained to do them, available for when they become neccessary.


 

Not disagreeing with you on that, I wonder if giving an abortion is something all doctors must learn in med school, they got to learn how to birth em in med school *shivers at the thought*, nawh if I get to that point, I'll just get it over in done with like the rest of the nasty stuff that is taught.


During the last few years of the Bush era, my mom had an idea that seemed reasonable for me regarding government ran abortion clinics.
Lets say a teenage girl gets pregnant and wants an abortion, the clinic does its job, removing the unwanted embryo, later on the same girl comes in pregnant again, the abortion clinic again removes the embryo; but this time they clip the tubes of this girl because she isn't responsible with her reproductive organs.

Now I think that is fair, as long as the girl is aware of the policies of the clinic, if she doesn't like those policies she can go to a private owned clinic for an abortion.

but nowadays it shouldn't be a problem, we gots shots that will make a woman infertile for five years, yay no more abortions ! or well at least there is a potential to reduce the number of abortions.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 3, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Not disagreeing with you on that, I wonder if giving an abortion is something all doctors must learn in med school, they got to learn how to birth em in med school *shivers at the thought*, nawh if I get to that point, I'll just get it over in done with like the rest of the nasty stuff that is taught


 I think that only if you're going into that specific field. I don't see why they must teach how to abort with every doc.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 3, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Not disagreeing with you on that, I wonder if giving an abortion is something all doctors must learn in med school, they got to learn how to birth em in med school *shivers at the thought*, nawh if I get to that point, I'll just get it over in done with like the rest of the nasty stuff that is taught


 
I'd say yes. They're not obligated to do it if they think it's immoral, but they're obligated to do it in cases where not being willing/able to do it would lead to both the death of the mother and fetus.


----------



## Calemeyr (Jun 3, 2011)

Pro-choice, but it's an important choice. None of this "Like, I just don't feel like it because it's boring and stuff" bullshit. If it's a late-term fetus already, you've waited too long. Late-term abortions should only be done when absolutely necessary. Not because of a whim. Fellow men, wear condoms!


----------



## Namba (Jun 3, 2011)

Okay... It's back on track

Okay, so starting with the case of rape... Actually only 1% of abortions are rape-related. There is actually a standard medical procedure to wash out the sperm of the attacker to avoid pregnancy, so really a rape-related abortion is a small percentage.

Did you know if you murder a pregnant woman it counts as a double-homicide? What gives? The embryo counts all of a sudden?

Protected sex, such as condoms or birth control pills, while not 100% effective, most of the time will eliminate any possibility of an unwanted pregnancy. Sleeping around, of course, ain't the wisest thing. Can't take care of the kid? Adoption is best.

I believe, religion aside (ahem) that the embryo should constitute as a person as soon as it starts development.
Caliente, I believe you said


CoyoteCaliente said:


> I say once it has a nervous system that starts to control bits of it's body. Imho


The nerves, brain heart and spinal cord begin development in the first trimester, the period in which it's legal to abort (correct me if I'm wrong). The brain, the heart, the nerves. But it still doesnt constitutionalize as a person... But according to you it does.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 3, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Okay... It's back on track
> 
> Okay, so starting with the case of rape... Actually only 1% of abortions are rape-related. There is actually a standard medical procedure to wash out the sperm of the attacker to avoid pregnancy, so really a rape-related abortion is a small percentage.
> 
> ...



I don't believe in the abortion due to rape thing, if an embryo does result from the rape, its not the embryo's fault; the mother still has the right to abort it, i don't think its right, perhaps a government incentive to go to full term and adopt the baby away is an option.

And if some monster murders a pregnant woman, why shouldn't it count as double murder, two organism of a unique genetic code no longer have life.
(off topic: I believe if you kill another intentionally, you've lost all human rights, because your victim no longer has their human rights, so inject em and bury em, save the tax payer some money).


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jun 3, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> (off topic: I believe if you kill another intentionally, you've lost all human rights, because your victim no longer has their human rights, so inject em and bury em, save the tax payer some money).


 
Actually, executions cost taxpayers more money over the course of the prison stay from investigation to execution than life in prison, but let's not get sidetracked.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 3, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I don't believe in the abortion due to rape thing, if an embryo does result from the rape, its not the embryo's fault; the mother still has the right to abort it, i don't think its right, perhaps a government incentive to go to full term and adopt the baby away is an option.
> 
> And if some monster murders a pregnant woman, why shouldn't it count as double murder,* two organism of a unique genetic code no longer have life.*
> (off topic: I believe if you kill another intentionally, you've lost all human rights, because your victim no longer has their human rights, so inject em and bury em, save the tax payer some money).



"Organism" might not be the best word, seeing as how when use anti-bacterial soap you kill a great deal many more than that. :v


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 3, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Actually, executions cost taxpayers more money over the course of the prison stay from investigation to execution than life in prison, but let's not get sidetracked.


  but they don't have to, they've been made to, 
rope is cheap
bullets are cheap
electricity is cheap
so are lethal injections

the system has just grown too much into a parasite

sorry I'm very strong opinionated, lets continue wit da abortions



Unsilenced said:


> "Organism" might not be the best word, seeing  as how when use anti-bacterial soap you kill a great deal many more than  that. :v



probably right, but people will argue about where to draw the line of what constitutes and individual, I would count the fetus, others would not, the point was that the mom didn't survive and neither did the embryo (proto-person)


----------



## Namba (Jun 3, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I don't believe in the abortion due to rape thing, if an embryo does result from the rape, its not the embryo's fault; the mother still has the right to abort it, i don't think its right, perhaps a government incentive to go to full term and adopt the baby away is an option.
> 
> And if some monster murders a pregnant woman, why shouldn't it count as double murder, two organism of a unique genetic code no longer have life.


Number one: yes absolutely. Having a right to do something doesn't make it right. Adoption is always an option.

NÃºmero dos: it definitely should count. I was merely pointing out an inconsistency.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 3, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> but they don't have to, they've been made to,
> rope is cheap
> bullets are cheap
> electricity is cheap
> ...


 
 THE PARASITE! 

And I feel the urge to quote you out of context with "lets continue wit da abortions" :v


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 3, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> THE PARASITE!
> 
> And I feel the urge to quote you out of context with "lets continue wit da abortions" :v



ya I liked that game, wonder what they do with aborted fetuses in rapture?

I picture a soylent green result or ADAM additive or something


----------



## Wreth (Jun 3, 2011)

This really depends on whether people believe a human is worth saving the moment they because human ; ie when the sperm and egg combine their genetic information to form the full genetic code for a human being. At his point it is not arguable whether this is human, these cells are human scientificly.

However, there is not yet a consciousness, or the ability to feel pain or suffer in any way. Taking the life of the organism before it even forms a mind, isn't really changing much.


----------



## Redregon (Jun 3, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity is all or nothing. There is no in between. Either its all true or none of it is.
> If you don't believe in God's Word, then you don't believe in God.




*Clears throat* Ahem... 

Purgatory.

though this is somewhat mildly entertaining, i fail to see how all of this argument pertains directly or indirectly to abortion.

granted, using the bible as the moral authority and the bible's authenticity is a discussion that could be applied since abortion is very much a moral decision (as well as practical or medical sometimes) all this debate and bickering about religion and this thread turning into a "Hey, Rukh is a silly person" thread is actually starting to peeve me off just a little bit. (I don't call myself christian but i do recognize that there is a good wealth of lessons on how one can live their life in a positive manner...)

though i will state that it makes me very sad when i hear of people using the bible to justify their hatred and ignorance. hatred and ignorance are the things that the bible tries to remove from someone (if you ignore the bits that have no societal value anymore or laws that when analyzed with current technology or whatever, do not apply... such as the no-pork bit or other things... because back then they didn't know WHY pork caused people to get sick in those times but now we do ... parasites, improper handling and cooking as well as improper storage of said meat.)

as much as i do get enjoyment seeing people run around trying to prove their points, can we keep it on track instead of turning into some grand holy-war like thread? kthx. 

p.s. to Rukh, i hope you're not ignoring the old testament... because, Jesus was a jew and he followed and taught the wisdom from the old testament... so, ignoring or placing less weight on the old testament is kinda insulting Jesus's aim on this earth (well, once he accepted his lot, that is.)


----------



## Deo (Jun 3, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> but nowadays it shouldn't be a problem, we gots shots that will make a woman infertile for five years, yay no more abortions ! or well at least there is a potential to reduce the number of abortions.


 Implanons? Man, those are priiicey. And it is only up to three years and should not be left in for more than three years. The "shot" is actually a needle injection that implants a 1.5inch long chip-like hormonal regulator under the skin of the arm. It sounds like a good idea, and I think it's something that should be made more readily available to women, especially women in financial need. Of course like all birth control hormonal regulants it has the potential for bad side affects. :C


----------



## Tycho (Jun 3, 2011)

Deo said:


> Implanons? Man, those are priiicey. And it is only up to three years and should not be left in for more than three years. The "shot" is actually a needle injection that implants a 1.5inch long chip-like hormonal regulator under the skin of the arm. It sounds like a good idea, and I think it's something that should be made more readily available to women, especially women in financial need. Of course like all birth control hormonal regulants it has the potential for bad side affects. :C


 
The amount of money and hassle it would ultimately save EVERYONE outweighs the initial cost, IMO.  The "pro-lifers" should be advocating contraceptives like crazy if they are so desperate to see abortions get banned.  (But "life" is not what it's really about, ofc.  Not about prevention, not about cure, only about CONTROL.)


----------



## Deo (Jun 3, 2011)

Tycho said:


> The amount of money and hassle it would ultimately save EVERYONE outweighs the initial cost, IMO.  The "pro-lifers" should be advocating contraceptives like crazy if they are so desperate to see abortions get banned.  (But "life" is not what it's really about, ofc.  Not about prevention, not about cure, only about CONTROL.)


 The cost is offset, yes. I think anyone who is pro-life needs to up their game and become pro-contraception and help people have more access to things that prevent pregnancy rather than do nothing and bitch about the consequences. Or the welfare/child of the state costs.


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 3, 2011)

Deo said:


> The cost is offset, yes. I think anyone who is pro-life needs to up their game and become pro-contraception and help people have more access to things that prevent pregnancy rather than do nothing and bitch about the consequences. Or the welfare/child of the state costs.



It is sad that places in my state will refuse to give condoms to anyone under the age of 18.


----------



## Redregon (Jun 3, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> It is sad that places in my state will refuse to give condoms to anyone under the age of 18.


 
right, because if we ignore a problem (minors fucking eachother) it'll go away... yep yep... 

or maybe they WANT them to get knocked up and squirt out a kid they can't take proper care of? i dunno... those fundy's really are a big-ol bag of crazy so it's anyone's guess.


----------



## Bobskunk (Jun 3, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> So how bout the government ran abortion clinics in relation to tax payer dollars, lets light a fire on that subject


 
I noticed that you said this and ignored when people said these simply don't exist.  You lied, got called out, and didn't even have the balls to say "Yeah, you're right, I lied, I'm a liar.  I'm sorry."

Also lol at your love for the death penalty.


----------



## Namba (Jun 3, 2011)

Redregon said:


> right, because if we ignore a problem (minors fucking eachother) it'll go away... yep yep...


Ha! That's a whole lot of brilliant, isn't it? I can't grasp the concept of ignoring a problem... Like if you ignore a house on fire, will it go away? Most likely, no... it could spread and cause massive damage and in the long run the people ignoring the situation realize they are in deep sh... er, doody. Really, what the hell?


----------



## Calemeyr (Jun 3, 2011)

Here's something I just remembered. You can't be both pro-life and pro war/execution. If you are then you are a hypocrite. GTFO. We have enough of you on TV. We don't need anymore.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jun 3, 2011)

1dynamofox1 said:


> Here's something I just remembered. You can't be both pro-life and pro war/execution. If you are then you are a hypocrite. GTFO. We have enough of you on TV. We don't need anymore.


 
The usual response to that I hear is that unborn babies are innocent by definition, while adults can choose to do things that deserve death.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Jun 3, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> The usual response to that I hear is that unborn babies are innocent by definition, while adults can choose to do things that deserve death.


 
Like be from another country. :V


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jun 3, 2011)

Harebelle said:


> Like be from another country. :V


 
Or not white/Chistian/straight/male/conservative/republican/wealthy. :V


----------



## Tycho (Jun 3, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> The usual response to that I hear is that unborn babies are innocent by definition, while adults can choose to do things that deserve death.


 
They aren't exempt from original sin, how can they be innocent?


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jun 3, 2011)

Tycho said:


> They aren't exempt from original sin, how can they be innocent?


 
This is normally from the same people who weasel their way out of this problem by claiming that babies are in fact exempt, due to sin entering their body after birth or some other mumbo jumbo.


----------



## Namba (Jun 3, 2011)

God's not unreasonable. But that's for another thread 

honestly, war doesn't thrill me. As for execution, a life for a life doesn't seem unreasonable. If you kill someone, death seems the only fitting retribution.


----------



## Calemeyr (Jun 3, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> This is normally from the same people who weasel their way out of this problem by claiming that babies are in fact exempt, due to sin entering their body after birth or some other mumbo jumbo.


 Do babies gain sin when they are exposed to air? Are they made of potassium? That's why we annoint them with oil! Stops the sin reaction!


----------



## Conker (Jun 3, 2011)

1dynamofox1 said:


> Do babies gain sin when they are exposed to air? Are they made of potassium? That's why we annoint them with oil! Stops the sin reaction!


 I think it was Aquinas who believed that original sin comes from the sperm and is present in the womb, but I could be misquoting or misinformed. But, if that's the case, then even a zygote isn't exempt from original sin. Course, he wrote that a long time ago and I"m sure we don't believe in that anymore...:V


----------



## Calemeyr (Jun 3, 2011)

I'm confused.


----------



## Conker (Jun 3, 2011)

1dynamofox1 said:


> I'm confused.


Aquinas was a theologian and a philosopher. I don't remember when he was around though, but it was quite some time ago. The thought is that as soon as a man and a woman have sex, and as soon as the egg is fertilized, it has original sin because original sin is carried in the semen. 

So, the whole "babies are exempt from original sin until they are exposed to air" would be false, assuming people still believe the above.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 3, 2011)

Redregon said:


> right, because if we ignore a problem (minors fucking eachother) it'll go away... yep yep...
> 
> or maybe they WANT them to get knocked up and squirt out a kid they can't take proper care of? i dunno... those fundy's really are a big-ol bag of crazy so it's anyone's guess.


 

No, man. You don't get it at all. See, inside every condom is a bit of pure evil, and if we give them to kids they will suddenly have over 20x as much sex, thus INCREASING the rate of teen pregnancy! 

MY LOGIC IS AMAZING!


----------



## Calemeyr (Jun 3, 2011)

So we're all fucked even if we don't fuck at all?


----------



## Tewin Follow (Jun 3, 2011)

1dynamofox1 said:


> I'm confused.


 
You aren't allowed to say things like this if your avatar is Gordon Freeman.


----------



## Bambi (Jun 3, 2011)

Adding my bullshit.

I am against abortion if:



 Someone uses it as an excuse for convenience, i.e, "Yeah, so I had sex without a condom. Oops, now I have a kid, and now I want to get rid of it because of blah reason." IMHO: Keep your legs crossed if you're not certain that you can handle the responsibility of intercourse.
 

 It does not meet ethical requirements, and is frequently abused and promoted as a tool of infanticide for minorities most exposed to disproportionate crime rates, or birth rates.
 
I am for abortion if:


 It meets valid, ethical requirements that the community can agree upon, not lobbyists; for example, this kind of procedure, performed at this time of development, is unethical: silent scream.
 

Abortion is used in cases of rape, incest, or sexual assault, that has resulted in pregnancy.
If the parents of any child who has conceived are informed of the procedures request, and the actions which resulted in pregnancy, so as they can decide as the legal guardians what decision is best at that point.


----------



## Namba (Jun 3, 2011)

Holy shit! Someone who presents both sides of the matter!


----------



## Tewin Follow (Jun 3, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Adding my bullshit.
> 
> I am against abortion if:
> 
> ...





Yeah man, because someone like that would make a great parent.
And women aren't allowed sex unless they want kids. Yeah. What a wonderful world.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 3, 2011)

Prevailing thought well before Aquinas was that within the man's body were tiny human homonculi, which when implanted in the womb grew to become babies.  These homonculi also in turn had their own homonculi within them, and those had homonculi within them, _ad infinitum_, such that everyone that has ever existed and will ever exist was already present in Adam's body at the time of creation (and the Fall).  Thus, everyone was tainted with sin when Adam sinned.

All obviously bullshit now, yet the doctrine of original sin remains.  Also another excellent reason why the thoughts of men from two to six thousand years ago on the subject of abortion should be discarded entirely; even masturbation would be murder.


----------



## Rsyk (Jun 3, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Prevailing thought well before Aquinas was that within the man's body were tiny human homonculi, which when implanted in the womb grew to become babies.  These homonculi also in turn had their own homonculi within them, and those had homonculi within them, _ad infinitum_, such that everyone that has ever existed and will ever exist was already present in Adam's body at the time of creation (and the Fall).  Thus, everyone was tainted with sin when Adam sinned.
> 
> All obviously bullshit now, yet the doctrine of original sin remains.  Also another excellent reason why the thoughts of men from two to six thousand years ago on the subject of abortion should be discarded entirely; even masturbation would be murder.


 To certain sects, it still is. Even the act of having sex without the express purpose of having a child is bad. 
This is why fundamentalist families have so many children.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 3, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Someone uses it as an excuse for convenience, i.e, "Yeah, so I had sex without a condom. Oops, now I have a kid, and now I want to get rid of it because of blah reason." IMHO: Keep your legs crossed if you're not certain that you can handle the responsibility of intercourse.


 
You're asking for the government to act to restrict the right to a medical procedure based on your perception of immorality.  That is entirely unacceptable.


----------



## Bambi (Jun 3, 2011)

Lobar said:


> You're asking for the government to act to restrict the right to a medical procedure based on your perception of immorality.


And you're asking for the government to release the right to a medical procedure based upon your perception of morality? Pecan, _Pecan_. 





Lobar said:


> That is entirely unacceptable.


You'd be right, assuming that this is what I was asking.


----------



## Rsyk (Jun 3, 2011)

Lobar said:


> You're asking for the government to act to restrict the right to a medical procedure based on your perception of immorality.  That is entirely unacceptable.


 ...


----------



## Azure (Jun 3, 2011)

Rsyk said:


> True. Personally, I don't begin to have a problem with it until the fetus begins to look like a child, at which point I wouldn't want to have anything to do with it. Then again, this is a personal viewpoint.
> The only real argument I could present against abortion is that, if programs that provide it are government funded, you are forcing a fraction of the population to pay and support something they do not agree with or believe in.


 Yeah? Well they do it every day, one way or another, most of which aren't as helpful or useful as clean, legitimate abortions and family planning services. So that simply doesn't hold water. I'm not a huge proponent of abortion, but it doesn't bother me at all. Adoption is an option, but I think money would be better spent on sex education that is useful and informative instead of the Abstinence bullshit that some places pull, or just a complete lack of it at all. For parents as well, because these problems start at home, and are passed down generation to generation, just like alcoholism.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 3, 2011)

Bambi said:


> And you're asking for the government to release the right to a medical procedure based upon your perception of morality? Pecan, _Pecan_. You'd be right, assuming that this is what I was asking.


 
I'm saying it's not the place of government to take any punitive action against a woman just because you feel she's a _slut_.  Rights are to be reserved by the people until a compelling state interest is demonstrated for its restriction, and pushing an antiquated, patriarchal sense of sexual morality doesn't qualify.


----------



## Bambi (Jun 3, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I'm saying it's not the place of government to take any punitive action against a woman just because you feel she's a _slut_.


You're missing the point, Lobar.

I support abortion; but not for issues of inconvenience. 





Lobar said:


> Rights are to be reserved by the people until a compelling state interest is demonstrated for its restriction, and pushing an antiquated, patriarchal sense of sexual morality doesn't qualify.


Save those labels for a bible thumper.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Jun 3, 2011)

Bambi said:


> I support abortion; but not for issues of inconvenience.


 
Why, though? Surely a situation where a foetus is an inconvenience is the worst possible situation to allow it to grow into a child.
EDIT: If you value foetuses at all, why are they only of value in certain situations? Shouldn't you want them all saved, no matter what?


----------



## Azure (Jun 3, 2011)

Bambi said:


> You're missing the point, Lobar.
> 
> I support abortion; but not for issues of inconvenience. Save those labels for a bible thumper.


 Who are you to determine the inconveniences of another? How many children grow up poorly cared for because they're birthed to people who can't handle them in any way, financially or emotionally. Is that the price of your convenience?


----------



## Lobar (Jun 3, 2011)

Bambi said:


> You're missing the point, Lobar.
> 
> I support abortion; but not for issues of inconvenience. Save those labels for a bible thumper.


 
The pregnancy in and of itself is just as inconvenient regardless of if the circumstances of conception were consentual or not.  It comes down to the matter of feeling it's OK to say "the dumb slut deserves it".


----------



## Bambi (Jun 3, 2011)

Harebelle said:


> Why, though? Surely a situation where a foetus is an inconvenience is the worst possible situation to allow it to grow into a child.


Well, to keep things short, I am against allowing the medical procedure to benefit someones convenience because then that would be enabling their ignorance of sexual responsibility, and further leave undamaged this self-destructive behavior which would go unchecked if we did not enforce certain penalties that encourage responsibility.

Rape victims? Yes. Incest victims? Yes. Sexual assault victims? Yes. Experimental ignorance turned accidental, unintended pregnancy? Lenient, with some stipulations. For a grown adults convenience, someone who should already know the risks of sexual promiscuity? Not so lenient.





Lobar said:


> The pregnancy in and of itself is just as  inconvenient regardless of if the circumstances of conception were  consentual or not.


And what's so wrong with saying that there  should be a capacity of tolerance to irresponsible behavior?


----------



## Tewin Follow (Jun 3, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Well, to keep things short, I am against allowing the medical procedure to benefit someones convenience because then that would be enabling their ignorance of sexual responsibility, and further leave undamaged this self-destructive behavior which would go unchecked if we did not enforce certain penalties that encourage responsibility.
> 
> Rape victims? Yes. Incest victims? Yes. Sexual assault victims? Yes. Experimental ignorance turned accidentally, unintended pregnancy? Lenient, with some stipulations. For a grown adults convenience, someone who should already know the risks of sexual promiscuity? Not so lenient.And what's so wrong with saying that there  should be a capacity of tolerance to irresponsible behavior?



None of this solves the problem of "I have a foetus I am not willing to raise growing inside me."

You can wag your finger and tell people they should have listened, but it doesn't stop an a child nobody wants being born and costing the government who will have to provide for it for 18(+) years.

Unless you're saying the "punishment" for unprotected sex should be a baby, because you aren't demanding any other sort of slap on the wrist.


----------



## Bambi (Jun 3, 2011)

Harebelle said:


> None of this solves the problem of "I have a foetus I am not willing to raise growing inside me."


Well, you have to solve the problem before it happens. One way to do that would be a more comprehensive sexual education program. It wouldn't solve the issue of ignorance completely, but it would give the most vulnerable demographics a chance to learn what's responsible behavior, and what's irresponsible behavior, and what happens when you embark on a metaphorical quest of self-destructiveness.


Harebelle said:


> You can wag your finger and tell people they should have listened, but it doesn't stop an a child nobody wants being born


Than don't have sex.

If you're not sure about the risks, about your partner, the level of trust you share, then avoid intercourse until you're prepared with enough knowledge to avoid getting pregnant. I'm just not convinced yet that I should be in support of eighteen year old adults, and higher in age, getting pregnant by "accident", and than wanting to cost the tax-payers money for their trivial conduct.

I say, if you want that to be legalized fine. I'll make a concession: You can have the abortion, but the tax-payers don't have to pay for it. Instead, the people wanting it get to pay for it out of their pockets.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 3, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Well, you have to solve the problem before it happens. One way to do that would be a more comprehensive sexual education program. It wouldn't solve the issue of ignorance completely, but it would give the most vulnerable demographics a chance to learn what's responsible behavior, and what's irresponsible behavior, and what happens when you embark on a metaphorical quest of self-destructiveness.
> Than don't have sex.
> 
> If you're not sure about the risks, about your partner, the level of trust you share, then avoid intercourse until you're prepared with enough knowledge to avoid getting pregnant. I'm just not convinced yet that I should be in support of eighteen year old adults, and higher in age, getting pregnant by "accident", and than wanting to cost the tax-payers money for their trivial conduct.
> ...


 
Under the Hyde amendment, no tax dollars have ever been used to pay for abortions.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Jun 3, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Well, you have to solve the problem before it happens. One way to do that would be a more comprehensive sexual education program. It wouldn't solve the issue of ignorance completely, but it would give the most vulnerable demographics a chance to learn what's responsible behavior, and what's irresponsible behavior, and what happens when you embark on a metaphorical quest of self-destructiveness.



I agree fully with as much sexual education for everyone, though I sense you're getting into personal morals and ethics, while expecting other people to have the same opinions.



> Than don't have sex.
> 
> If you're not sure about the risks, about your partner, the level of trust you share, then avoid intercourse until you're prepared with enough knowledge to avoid getting pregnant. I'm just not convinced yet that I should be in support of eighteen year old adults, and higher in age, getting pregnant by "accident", and than wanting to cost the tax-payers money for their trivial conduct.



I'm going to use a counter example I've heard before: Does this mean paramedics shouldn't help people in car accidents, because they knew the risk of driving, but still decided to get into a car?

And how do you prove someone is pregnant because they forgot a condom? How do you know the condom didn't have a hole in it?


----------



## Bambi (Jun 3, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Under the Hyde amendment, no tax dollars have ever been used to pay for abortions.


Contention: Acknowledging the presence of the Hyde amendment, requesting that the bill be understood to be not a comprehensive and set legislation, rather a bill that's been defined as a floating argument, or a rider.

Addendum: Health-care reforms might change the use of this bill, and the constitutionality of it under third rail ruses; my argument has not changed, and has been aimed at possible changes to it's use, ultimate employment, and future employment, if any.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 3, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Contention: Acknowledging the presence of the Hyde amendment, requesting that the bill be understood to be not a comprehensive and set legislation, rather a bill that's been defined as a floating argument, or a rider.
> 
> Addendum: Health-care reforms might change the use of this bill, and the constitutionality of it under third rail ruses; my argument has not changed, and has been aimed at possible changes to it's use, ultimate employment, and future employment, if any.


 
So you're now operating entirely in hypotheticals to argue existing policy with real-world effects, despite the Hyde amendment being in effect for 35 years running.


----------



## Bambi (Jun 3, 2011)

Harebelle said:


> I agree fully with as much sexual education for everyone, though I sense you're getting into personal morals and ethics, while expecting other people to have the same opinions.


Not true.

Sexual education is something most people acknowledge, even within conservative circles; and I would like to maintain the usefulness of it's application, especially as it concerns educating the ignorant and at risk. Let me be more specific here: Allowing someone to continually act on impulses, to avoid learning about sexual responsibility, to give them the metaphorical cushioning to their otherwise at risk conduct, would reward them for their behavior. Sexual education might put that into check, even as it concerns what I believe is an illegitimate use of a valid procedure: abortion for the sake of convenience.

Disallowing abortions for reasons of convenience is in my opinion, one way to press a necessary boundary that articulates society has the right to defend itself and others from at risk behavior, and that it's not going to promote that kind of irresponsibility to ignorance.





Harebelle said:


> I'm going to use a counter example I've heard before: Does this mean paramedics shouldn't help people in car accidents, because they knew the risk of driving, but still decided to get into a car?


Hm, good example.

I'd have to say with that, I still believe that encouraging irresponsibility is detrimental to all of us, and communicates the wrong message to people who deserve to know better and the truth; and the people who are most at risk to being lied to and used are young people, the impoverished, and some racial minorities. However I will relent on one point, if it was understood as this, and that is not giving someone medical attention because they knew the risks is a fallacy.


----------



## Bambi (Jun 3, 2011)

Lobar said:


> So you're now operating entirely in hypotheticals to argue existing policy with real-world effects, despite the Hyde amendment being in effect for 35 years running.


It's a rider.

Meaning it was never permanent, but continually altered, disguised, or directly put into effect when it was appropriate for power to invoke.


----------



## Tycho (Jun 3, 2011)

Conker said:


> original sin is carried in the semen.



So THAT'S where that taste comes from...


----------



## Wreth (Jun 3, 2011)

Abortion is not a pleasant procedure, women aren't going to go around having sex without a condom, not caring for the use of one because they can always have an abortion later. With the exception of some incredibly dumb couples or sex partners, that do unfortunately exist, women are for the most part are going to use protection when having sex. It is MUCH more convenient for everyone this way.

Even if abortion is free, and not seen as taboo, most women will still use protection when having sex because it is safer and more convenient than what could happen if they don't.


----------



## Thatch (Jun 3, 2011)

Wreth said:


> Abortion is not a pleasant procedure,



How do I perforated uterus.



Wreth said:


> women aren't going to go around having sex without a condom, not caring for the use of one because they can always have an abortion later.


 
In my experience many poeple, ESPECIALLY the kind that're all for one night stands, are completely unaware of the health risks of these kind of procedures. So yeah, they will. Until they then bleed out to death or find themselves infertile.


----------



## Redregon (Jun 3, 2011)

Thatch said:


> Until they then bleed out to death or find themselves infertile.


 
Darwinism for the win!


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 3, 2011)

Deo said:


> Implanons? Man, those are priiicey. And it is only up to three years and should not be left in for more than three years. The "shot" is actually a needle injection that implants a 1.5inch long chip-like hormonal regulator under the skin of the arm. It sounds like a good idea, and I think it's something that should be made more readily available to women, especially women in financial need. Of course like all birth control hormonal regulants it has the potential for bad side affects. :C


 

I was watching a story on CNN , about an aid group that uses camels to transport medical supplies to remote tribals in Africa, locations that cars and helicopters can't reach.
Well unwanted pregnancies are a problem there, so five year counter-conception implants were made available for the women. However problems with this aid program have risen, the catholic funding was cut. Now there's no money for meds .



Bobskunk said:


> I noticed that you said this and ignored when  people said these simply don't exist.  You lied, got called out, and  didn't even have the balls to say "Yeah, you're right, I lied, I'm a  liar.  I'm sorry."
> 
> Also lol at your love for the death penalty.



I got called out? failed to notice.


Deo said:


> There are no government ran abortion clinics. Should there be some?


 There it is my bad
Guess they ain't as prominent as I thought, maybe someday when Obama care takes off.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 3, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> There it is my bad
> Guess they ain't as prominent as I thought, maybe someday when Obama care takes off.


 I highly doubt it. There will be such a massive shitstorm and for good reason. People don't want to fund things they don't believe in. 
It is the woman's choice for her abortion so I believe every bit of it is her responsibility. Emergency abortions to save the mother's life can have a little more leniency.


----------



## Redregon (Jun 3, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Ha! That's a whole lot of brilliant, isn't it? I can't grasp the concept of ignoring a problem... Like if you ignore a house on fire, will it go away? Most likely, no... it could spread and cause massive damage and in the long run the people ignoring the situation realize they are in deep sh... er, doody. Really, what the hell?


 
i was assuming with my comment that you replied to that it would be so overwhelmingly dense that the sarcasm that it was meant to be would have come through. *shrugs* live and learn i guess... silly me for forgetting that :V emoticon (honestly, i don't really see that as being sarcastic but i guess if it's the accepted code... *shrughs*

... unless you replied to my sarcasm with additional sarcasm... in which case... well played, good sir. well played indeed.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 3, 2011)

Aleu said:


> I highly doubt it. There will be such a massive shitstorm and for good reason. People don't want to fund things they don't believe in.
> It is the woman's choice for her abortion so I believe every bit of it is her responsibility. Emergency abortions to save the mother's life can have a little more leniency.



huh thats is a pretty surprising post for FAF, kind of glad to see it.
Ya I'm not looking forward to obama care.

and damn strait its their responsibility


----------



## Lobar (Jun 4, 2011)

Bambi said:


> It's a rider.
> 
> Meaning it was never permanent, but continually altered, disguised, or directly put into effect when it was appropriate for power to invoke.


 
There has been zero tax dollars spent on abortions since the Hyde Amendment was first passed, and that will continue for the forseeable future.  A challenge to the Hyde Amendment is not even on the table.  Your concern about taxpayers is unfounded.



NobleThorne said:


> I got called out? failed to notice.
> 
> There it is my bad
> Guess they ain't as prominent as I thought, maybe someday when Obama care takes off.


 
They aren't merely not prominent, they're non-existent, as they would violate the Hyde amendment.  Do try to keep up with the thread.


----------



## Conker (Jun 4, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> huh thats is a pretty surprising post for FAF, kind of glad to see it.
> Ya I'm not looking forward to obama care.


 The health care system in Massachusetts seems to be working well; it's all statewide universal and shit. Oh, and I'm pretty sure it was a republican that started it. Scary huh?

OT: Pro choice bla bla bla


----------



## Namba (Jun 4, 2011)

Redregon said:


> i was assuming with my comment that you replied to that it would be so overwhelmingly dense that the sarcasm that it was meant to be would have come through. *shrugs* live and learn i guess... silly me for forgetting that :V emoticon (honestly, i don't really see that as being sarcastic but i guess if it's the accepted code... *shrughs*
> 
> ... unless you replied to my sarcasm with additional sarcasm... in which case... well played, good sir. well played indeed.


 
:V


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 4, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> There it is my bad
> Guess they ain't as prominent as I thought, maybe someday when Obama care takes off.


 
"Goverment funded abortions" only exist if you stretch the definition farther than goatsie guy's asshole. There was an enormous shitstorm a while back because a medical organization that was receiving government fund to help people also performed abortions. The organization was careful to make sure that no money from the government went to the abortions, but HURRURHURUHDUDUHRUDURDUHRUDURHRUDUHRUDURHRUHURGUBBERMUNTFUNDEDABORTIONZTINKOFTEHCHILDRUNNNZZZZ!!! 

Or something. I forget how it turned out. Presumably everyone imploded from the force of the stupidity.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jun 4, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> HURRURHURUHDUDUHRUDURDUHRUDURHRUDUHRUDURHRUHURGUBBERMUNTFUNDEDABORTIONZTINKOFTEHCHILDRUNNNZZZZ!!!


 
I think you're over-estimating their intelligence just a wee bit there.


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 4, 2011)

Forgot to mention:

Any OT comments in the thread, please direct it to PMs. 
Thank you. 

On another note: Abortions for some, Miniature American flags for all!


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 4, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Forgot to mention:
> 
> Any OT comments in the thread, please direct it to PMs.
> Thank you.
> ...


 

but I wants a Trump size American Flag!


----------



## Bliss (Jun 4, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> On another note: Abortions for some, Miniature American flags for all!


No Flag of Europe? Typical Americanism!  3;


----------



## CrazyLee (Jun 4, 2011)

fuck. I go away for two days and this thread shoots to 10 more pages. Do you honestly expect me to read all of this?

*will end up spending 2 hours reading it all anyway*

Edit: Welp, I get through all that, have a bunch of comments I want to reply to, and then find out that if I reply to them I'll be going off topic and get infracted/banned. And here I thought up all sorts of great replies I can never use. I are sad.

I would argue that the thread started out about abortion and religion, and debating things like fornication and sex when applied to religion would also be on topic, considering that you have to have sex IN ORDER to have an abortion, and many pro-lifers would argue that only people outside of marriage get abortions, thus if you end fornication you end the need for abortions, but I think the mods would digress.

I would also say the rules for topics going off topic around here may be a little too literal and strict, as I have been to other successful boards where topics go off topic and nothing bad ever happens. However, now I'm going off topic myself. :X

So, abortion.
-I believe everyone has their own choice on whether to do it or not.
-I believe that many people who are pro-life and christian often end up getting abortions anyway, which would make them hypocrites.
-I believe that technically life begins at birth. At the beginning of conception the spawn is no more than a bundle of cells incapable of surviving outside of the mother's womb. Thus, much like other parts of the body that cannot survive removed from the body, it is not a separate person. Once the fetus is able to viably survive outside the womb, then maybe we can talk.
-It does not matter what the fetus COULD have become because no one can predict that. Maybe the next child the parent has could become that, who knows.
-And it's not like the fetus will care if it's destroyed as it has the mentality of a primitive animal and cannot understand what's going on.
-Nothing in the bible says abortion is wrong, and nothing Rukh has posted says otherwise, even if he chooses to misinterpret the Bible and take the entire Bible as God's literal word. I surmise that he's like many Christians that feel they aren't Christian enough unless they follow "traditional" beliefs like pro-life or anti-fornication which have no true basis in the Bible. Catholics do this the most.

I also find it interesting that Rukh brought up that law about injuring a mother and causing her to miscarry, and yet says that OT law is Jewish law and should not be followed by Christians.


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 4, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> No Flag of Europe? Typical Americanism!  3;


 
This is Amurrikkka! 3:<


----------



## Grey Wolverine (Jun 4, 2011)

Wow, what has happened here. 49 pages and still on topic, bravo, bravo.


----------



## Vukasin (Jun 4, 2011)

Grey Wolverine said:


> Wow, what has happened here. 49 pages and still on topic, bravo, bravo.



You missed some of the other pages.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jun 4, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> No Flag of Europe? Typical Americanism!  3;


 
Silence sweed! :V


----------



## Grey Wolverine (Jun 5, 2011)

Vukasin said:


> You missed some of the other pages.


 
Okay fine, somewhat on topic. Its not like I'm going to look through 48 more pages, I may not have much of a social life, but even I don't have that much free time.


----------

