Kind of interesting how everyone that doesn't agree with you is either a "racist" or a "sexist" I wouldn't be surprised. Maybe there should be some sort of law against posting in an internet forum under the influence
not everyone, only those that actually display it in public .. like you. There certainly should be one stopping racists from posting.
Yes, Fugazi resorts to name-calling, because either maybe he feels superiority in insulting other people, or maybe he simply just wants to demonize anybody that disagrees with him. Second of all, speaking about drunk posting, sobriety tests online actually does exist. http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/social.media/11/08/facebook.drunk.test/index.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...g-to-Facebook-and-Twitter-if-youre-drunk.html - - - Updated - - - Hahahah lol @ your baseless accusations and name calling.
Don't YOU advocate euthanasia of the DS in the 8th month?? The only difference between you and me is that I don't hold to the silly notion that geographic location of the victim makes some huge difference.
Fugazi is such a hypocrite. He criticizes you for supporting euthanasia (and I'm also against euthanasia, it's very immoral and cruel in my opinion), but then Fugazi supports euthanasia for the unborn humans. It's hypocrisy. Fugazi is no better than you are, and you're also no worse than he is. However, in some ways, Fugazi is even worse than you are, since he's a hypocrite that believes in this silly notion that the geographic location of the victim somehow makes some huge difference.
If you think the "geographic" location of the fetus is unimportant, even silly, you should consider this: scientific research is being done to enable men to carry a pregnancy. Now when this is achieved, I think it only fair that women who don't want to be pregnant can choose a pro-life man to gestate for her. Now pro-life men don't believe in choice when it comes to saving the lives of zefs, so they don't get a choice here. Once selected, they serve. You'd better get ready to give up about a year of your life to gestate, and be prepared for a C-section. But don't worry, the only lasting effects you'll have are hemorrhoids, varicose veins, stretch marks, loose skin, pelvic floor disorders (probably requiring surgery to correct), perhaps diabetes, perhaps kidney damage, the C-section scar, etc.
you want black children to live in poverty and misery? - - - Updated - - - Oh Lord, cry me a river for the poor little 3 week old ZEFs.
There is no such thing as "innate rights." Rights are social constructs, defended by force and open to change and improvement. Rights cannot be innate, like laws of nature, because nature enforces its laws absolutely, whereas rights are frequently broken. So rights are given out of a form of interest. A jew may have a right to not be sent to a prison camp out of his own interest or the state's interest. Furthermore, even if you want to rest on it being a human being and therefore deserving of such a right, I would challenge that by asking why belonging to a specific species should grant anyone rights? Why not give fruit flies rights too? Saying, "X needs rights because it belongs to Y group" is unintelligible.
Criminalization of abortion killed more black women than white. Pro-"lifers" are racist! FUN FACT: The Pro-"Life" movement is rooted in racism.
That's very different. Women are not selected to have babies. They take the risks of having a baby any time they have sex. They chose to have the baby in the first place. Women are not randomly selected to have babies. Second of all, I have absolutely no idea where you're getting your information from. Male pregnancy is physically impossible. Have fun reading your science fiction books, but this isn't the sci-fi forums, it's the political forums.
You risk the chance of getting in a car accident any time you drive, therefore, people choose to get in car accidents in the first place. You risk the chance of getting raped by walking alone at night, therefore, people choose to be raped in the first place. Such flawless logic.
So you admit that the primary reason for your opposition to abortion is to make sure women are punished for choosing to have sex? If the principle reason for your objection to abortion was saving the lives of zefs, you would be willing and even eager to step up to the plate to do your part. But it seems pregnancy and childbirth are too big a burden for YOU to bear in order to save lives. What is impossible now will not always be impossible. Oh sure, it's gonna be dangerous for men, they'll be risking their lives, but that's OK, women have been risking their lives for centuries to give birth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_pregnancy Robert Winston, a pioneer of in-vitro fertilization, told London's Sunday Times that "male pregnancy would certainly be possible" by having an embryo implanted in a man's abdomen with the placenta attached to an internal organ such as the bowel and later delivered by Caesarean section.[10][11][12] Ectopic implantation of the embryo along the abdominal wall, and resulting placenta growth would, however, be very dangerous and potentially fatal for the host, and is therefore unlikely to be studied in humans.[10][13] Gillian Lockwood, medical director of Midland Fertility Services, a British fertility clinic, noted that the abdomen is not designed to separate from the placenta during delivery, hence the danger of an ectopic pregnancy. "The question is not 'Can a man do it?'" stated bioethicist Glenn McGee. "Its If a man does have a successful pregnancy, can he survive it?"[11]
The law classifies fetuses as persons. Here's some proof about this. A California doctor got into some legal troubles for prescribing pot to pregnant women. *sigh* Here we go again. Nope. My primary reason that I am pro life is that I believe that abortions should be kept illegal is ONLY to save the lives of zefs. Unlike some pro lifers, my main goal is actually not to punish women for having sex. I have even read some pro lifers that are even opposed to birth control, because they want women to suffer the consequences of having sex. I'm not one of those people.
Why else would doctors get in trouble for prescribing pregnant women pot? Ohh, because it may harm the baby! Which clearly shows how the law cares even about the unborn humans. Prove me wrong, prometeus.
Why else would you not cite the law? You pull ideas out of your but and claim them to be fact. Is that really all you are capable of?
Nope, check out Roe vs. Wade. Historically, fetuses have never been treated as persons. Perhaps the CA doc got in trouble because it's illegal to prescribe pot to ANYBODY. You care so much about the lives of zefs that you're not willing to gestate one yourself when the science makes it possible. What you do says so much more than what you say. It's easy to SAY the lives of zefs are valuable, but actually doing something is too hard for you.
Nope, medical pot has been legalized in California since the late 1990s, first of all. Second of all, why would I even be obligated to carry somebody else's child, even if the technology was made possible for that to even happen?
You're right, it's 1996. You are remarkably well-informed about the legality of pot use. If saving the life is paramount, you would happily volunteer. You're demonstrating that the "life" is not the ultimate importance. The point is that NO ONE should be OBLIGATED to carry a pregnancy.
Okay, so that doctor got in trouble for prescribing pot to pregnant women. Now, doesn't this show that the law cares about the unborn humans? Saving whose life? If a woman wanted to have an abortion, she would just suddenly ask for people to volunteer to carry the baby for her? I still don't even get what your hypothetical scenario even is even about. This is why it's so hard to have a productive discussion today-it's simply because you're not being specific enough for me. Please be more specific for me, and then maybe I can answer your questions slightly better, okay?
NO. It's unclear even what the law was or if the doctor actually broke a law. The law is an unfeeling, uncaring set of rules for behavior. Sometimes those persons responsible for passing laws claim to care about one thing when their true agenda is something else entirely. How much more specific can I be? If a woman who is pregnant doesn't want to be pregnant, she should be able to select a pro-life male to gestate the fetus for her. Any true pro-lifer would gladly make such a sacrifice to save the life of a zef. Now if you're unwilling to do that, you're revealing your true colors, which are that the life is not exactly what is important.
Once again, stop living in the world of speculative science fiction stories. It's physically impossible for a human male to carry a fetus. All of this supposed so-called "research", is just people speculating random impossible stuff.
