+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: This really going to go down? "this" being America (/showthread.php?tid=7682)
- BLINGMW - 10-06-2008
the Salem one? Nope, didn't get to hit it up with the baby and all. Hopefully armageddon will hold off until the next one. I see the market sure did well today!
- Evan - 10-06-2008
Apoc Wrote:Evan Wrote:I just dont buy into the pop culture language manipulation used to change the perception of something in our head, so I call it what it is.
Everyone has their own right to be for or against it, but thats what it is.
as for you, I think you're just like every other trendy yuppie liberal except with some financial sense, but you cant stand being trendy so you just call yourself libertarian :lol: :wink:
See... that's the hitch. You're so convinced that "it is what it is" but don't concede that others may not believe that. To you, it's so black and white but don't care to see that it may just be as black and white to the other guy. I don't want to get into a debate about when life begins but that's the fundamental difference between the two beliefs. It's not that liberals have just twisted it so they can feel good about killing babies... because some actually believe it's not taking a life. They are just as entitled to their belief as you are... and that's what it is, a belief. Didn't they teach you anything about biases in grad school?
I don't believe everyone was created equal, I don't believe in socialism and I believe in the right to bear arms so I'm not really sure I qualify as a liberal. :wink:
moral relativism! you really are a trendy yuppie liberal
If you truly believe that a baby can be not alive for days, hours, or minutes then suddenly alive only the second it is born then I will question either your intelligence or the motives behind this belief.
You can make your case for 1 month, 2 months, or even 3 months into a pregnancy, but a baby reaches every reasonable scientific definition of life relatively early in the pregnancy. And certainly a day or two before the birth when a baby can still be legally aborted it is every bit as 'alive' as any other organism.
(given many liberals want post birth abortion....clearly the definition of life isnt the linchpin belief in this argument)
Funny how the libs abandon science when inconvenient to their agenda, eh?
- rezarxt - 10-06-2008
JohnC Wrote:Well, I figured this thread was a great excuse to expand my armory - picked up an M4 and a few hundred rounds of 5.56 today. First date with it is on Sunday 8)
Thats my plan also. Im extremely lucky since my brother owns an online gun store. So I can pick up some stuff cheap. I think my dad got his m4 for somewhere in the ballpark of $600 so pretty good deal. Hell Im thinking about buying 2 m4s. One to sell after obama is elected and bans assault rifles, and one to keep. I already have my Ak47. Bring on the zombies.
- CaptainHenreh - 10-07-2008
rezarxt Wrote:Thats my plan also. Im extremely lucky since my brother owns an online gun store. So I can pick up some stuff cheap.
Maybe you can work an MM discount? :wink:
- HAULN-SS - 10-07-2008
+1..i'm in
- JackoliciousLegs - 10-07-2008
Evan Wrote:If you truly believe that a baby can be not alive for days, hours, or minutes then suddenly alive only the second it is born then I will question either your intelligence or the motives behind this belief... (given many liberals want post birth abortion....Late term abortions are not nearly as contested an issue. Come on. And post birth abortions? If people that that do exist, we can just strangle them. The fact of the matter is, conception doesn't mean self sustaining life. You can't make a woman carry a baby if she doesn't want to. If she wants to scrape her insides out, we should let doctors do it. It's her body, and her choice.
- Kaan - 10-07-2008
JackoliciousLegs Wrote:Evan Wrote:If you truly believe that a baby can be not alive for days, hours, or minutes then suddenly alive only the second it is born then I will question either your intelligence or the motives behind this belief... (given many liberals want post birth abortion....Late term abortions are not nearly as contested an issue. Come on. And post birth abortions? If people that that do exist, we can just strangle them. The fact of the matter is, conception doesn't mean self sustaining life. You can't make a woman carry a baby if she doesn't want to. If she wants to scrape her insides out, we should let doctors do it. It's her body, and her choice.
condoms and pills are better birth control jacko!
- CaptainHenreh - 10-07-2008
JackoliciousLegs Wrote:Late term abortions are not nearly as contested an issue. Come on. And post birth abortions? If people that that do exist, we can just strangle them. The fact of the matter is, conception doesn't mean self sustaining life. You can't make a woman carry a baby if she doesn't want to. If she wants to scrape her insides out, we should let doctors do it. It's her body, and her choice.
Where do you draw the line, Jack? I mean, babies are born premature and go on to live long happy lives. Babies are hardly what I'd call "self sustaining life", they require care after they exit the vagina for sure. So what's the difference between a baby at 9 months and a baby at 9 months + 1 day? Or 8 months? 7? All the way back to 24 weeks? (that's 6 months, and premature babies have been born back as far and lived)
Where do you draw the line?
- Apoc - 10-07-2008
Evan Wrote:If you truly believe that a baby can be not alive for days, hours, or minutes then suddenly alive only the second it is born then I will question either your intelligence or the motives behind this belief.
I never said anything about life at birth.
FWIW, I'm pretty much against abortion in anything after the first trimester but I don't consider someone who aborts their fetus at 4 months a murderer.
In addition, even though we don't want kids, I also wouldn't consider abortion an option should something happen... but that doesn't mean I think anyone who does a baby killer.
- Steve85 - 10-07-2008
JackoliciousLegs Wrote:Evan Wrote:If you truly believe that a baby can be not alive for days, hours, or minutes then suddenly alive only the second it is born then I will question either your intelligence or the motives behind this belief... (given many liberals want post birth abortion....Late term abortions are not nearly as contested an issue. Come on. And post birth abortions? If people that that do exist, we can just strangle them. The fact of the matter is, conception doesn't mean self sustaining life. You can't make a woman carry a baby if she doesn't want to. If she wants to scrape her insides out, we should let doctors do it. It's her body, and her choice.
A healthy newborn cannot self sustain either, nor can many humans in various stages of life.
Her body? Really? If you don't have another body growing inside you then you don't need an abortion. It has different DNA which means...not her body, not her choice. She wants to cut her arm off, go for it, her body, her choice.
- JackoliciousLegs - 10-07-2008
Apoc Wrote:FWIW, I'm pretty much against abortion in anything after the first trimester but I don't consider someone who aborts their fetus at 4 months a murderer.Condoms and the pill are great birth control. GREAT.
- G.Irish - 10-07-2008
Steve85 Wrote:A healthy newborn cannot self sustain either, nor can many humans in various stages of life.Not quite the same. A fetus is being sustained directly through the body processes of the mother. A born baby is not.
Quote:Her body? Really? If you don't have another body growing inside you then you don't need an abortion. It has different DNA which means...not her body, not her choice. She wants to cut her arm off, go for it, her body, her choice.That is an interesting way to look at it, never heard that one before. One could certainly make a logical argument based on that.
- Apoc - 10-07-2008
G.Irish Wrote:Quote:Her body? Really? If you don't have another body growing inside you then you don't need an abortion. It has different DNA which means...not her body, not her choice. She wants to cut her arm off, go for it, her body, her choice.That is an interesting way to look at it, never heard that one before. One could certainly make a logical argument based on that.
By that measure, one could argue that a conjoined twin could be cut off even if they'd die because of it.
Or what about a virus? It has different DNA.
- G.Irish - 10-07-2008
Apoc Wrote:Excellent riposte sir.G.Irish Wrote:Quote:Her body? Really? If you don't have another body growing inside you then you don't need an abortion. It has different DNA which means...not her body, not her choice. She wants to cut her arm off, go for it, her body, her choice.That is an interesting way to look at it, never heard that one before. One could certainly make a logical argument based on that.
By that measure, one could argue that a conjoined twin could be cut off even if they'd die because of it.
Or what about a virus? It has different DNA.
Don't know what you mean by the virus though. Microbes aren't human beings.
- Steve85 - 10-07-2008
Apoc Wrote:G.Irish Wrote:Quote:Her body? Really? If you don't have another body growing inside you then you don't need an abortion. It has different DNA which means...not her body, not her choice. She wants to cut her arm off, go for it, her body, her choice.That is an interesting way to look at it, never heard that one before. One could certainly make a logical argument based on that.
By that measure, one could argue that a conjoined twin could be cut off even if they'd die because of it.
Or what about a virus? It has different DNA.
I think the current law actually allows for a better argument of that. If one of the twins cannot survive without using the others "body processes" then it is not self sustaining and subject to abortion by the organ hosting twin.
"Stop touching me"
"No."
"Fine then I'm not letting you use my heart today, jerk"
- Evan - 10-07-2008
JackoliciousLegs Wrote:Late term abortions are not nearly as contested an issue.
Apoc Wrote:I never said anything about life at birth.
Ill save the ideological debate for another thread (or another post) because my initial point was that of law, not ideology.
The supreme court didnt differentiate between the length of the term of the pregnancy. Before birth = legal abortion. (and the recent ban on parital birth abortions only covered 2 methods of mid-birth abortions, not the practice itself)
That is why I said
Quote:If liberals can figure out how to turnand stand behind it as a factual and not morally relative statement. You can legally abort a baby a number of days before birth (or during for partial birth abortions)
"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
into
"you can kill an unborn baby"
- Evan - 10-07-2008
G.Irish Wrote:aside from science still classifying symbiotic relationships between organisms still as seperate living organisms, nature did in fact design our bebbbies to be sustained from a mother's breast milk alone for several months.Steve85 Wrote:A healthy newborn cannot self sustain either, nor can many humans in various stages of life.Not quite the same. A fetus is being sustained directly through the body processes of the mother. A born baby is not.
- Apoc - 10-07-2008
Steve85 Wrote:If one of the twins cannot survive without using the others "body processes" then it is not self sustaining and subject to abortion by the organ hosting twin.
Wouldn't that basically be the same for a baby though? I mean up until about 6 months, babies require body processes of the mother. Shouldn't it be subject to abortion from the hosting mother?
I like the argument that if it ain't your DNA you can't make the choice but it kinda seems like a double standard.
- Apoc - 10-07-2008
Evan Wrote:That is why I saidQuote:If liberals can figure out how to turnand stand behind it as a factual and not morally relative statement. You can legally abort a baby a number of days before birth (or during for partial birth abortions)
"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
into
"you can kill an unborn baby"
Well, I think it was your choice of words. It seemed as though you were asserting that because the current law allows for abortion days before birth that somehow all "liberals" believe that should be the case. There are shades of gray.
- Steve85 - 10-07-2008
Apoc Wrote:Steve85 Wrote:If one of the twins cannot survive without using the others "body processes" then it is not self sustaining and subject to abortion by the organ hosting twin.
Wouldn't that basically be the same for a baby though? I mean up until about 6 months, babies require body processes of the mother. Shouldn't it be subject to abortion from the hosting mother?
I like the argument that if it ain't your DNA you can't make the choice but it kinda seems like a double standard.
You argued the DNA example could allow one conjoined twin to cut off the other even though it would die. My statement argued that the current law is much closer to allowing for that. A law I disagree with. Mommy nor twin should be allowed to abort.
So yes, the baby relies on the body of the mother. But no, it should not be subject to abortion by the host. Relies on her body and is her body are two very different things.