5 Top Debates - Where do you stand? For OR Against

[Draz]

For OR Against


Torture used for national security
Death penalty
Gay marriage
Abortion
Marijuana


Feel free to explain why you're for or against.

I'm FOR torture being used for national security. I believe we should do whatever it takes to protect our country.

I'm AGAINST the death penalty. Life sentences should be used to torture criminals. It also leaves room to find people convicted guilty as innocent, many people have been found innocent after being killed by the penalty.

I'm FOR gay marriage. It doesn't effect me. I don't care. Whatever makes people happy, less prone to commit crimes.

I'm FOR abortion. I don't think we should control the lives of others. We don't know if people are ready to commit to each other life-long. We don't know their financial status if they're even capable of raising a child. Age can play a factor as well, young girls being raped, they SHOULD be able to abort the child rather than keep it.

I'm FOR marijuana. Medically and recreational. People should have the right to use whatever substance they want to ease their pain. We should be able to use whatever we want, especially in the privacy of our own homes.

[TheSilentKiller]

Torture - AGAINST
Death Penalty - FOR
Gay Marriage - FOR
Abortion - FOR
MaryJ - FOR

[Godzuki]

pro everything :pimp:

torture has its place

death penalty is a real deterrence

gays can do whatever they fukk they want idc

america is a free country to make your own decisions, not have a bunch of high horse religious fgts making them for you

[HenryGarfunkle]

I'm FOR gay marriage.

I'm shocked

[Draz]

I'm shocked
:-*

[KyrieTheFuture]

Against
For (kind of)
For
For
For

Torture consistently produces false information in the desperate attempt to stop the pain. I would support the death penalty if it wasn't absurdly expensive to actually sentence someone to death.

[Derka]

I'm AGAINST torture for national security reasons. People will say anything to stop the pain.

I'm AGAINST the death penalty. I think capital criminals should be punished with a tiny concrete room with a mattress and a hole to piss in for the remainder of their lives. If they committed murder, a small screen should show them home movies of the person/people they killed on an endless loop.

I'm FOR gay marriage. I really don't care if gays want to get married. I really don't.

I'm FOR abortion but I hate the very idea of it.

I'm FOR marijuana. It should be regulated and taxed the same way alcohol and tobacco are.

[Cactus-Sack]

Against, except strictly as a punishment. It's not a good interrogation technique

Against, it does not deter murder and exonerations are far too common

For, none of my business

Against, don't kill babies

For, none of my business

[Draz]

Lots of baby killers in this thread.

[Cactus-Sack]

Lots of baby killers in this thread.
Sickens me

[Patrick Chewing]

So let me get this straight, some of you are against the Death Penalty, but FOR abortion??

You rather let a murderer live than an unborn child??

:facepalm

[Draz]

So let me get this straight, some of you are against the Death Penalty, but FOR abortion??

You rather let a murderer live than an unborn child??

:facepalm
I'm all for someone paying the consequences for their damages. The death penalty is the easy way out. Someone spending the rest of their life mentally and physically rotting sounds harsher. Their living to die, the death penalty, you're killing them and doing what they want faster. Also, it gives them a chance to be proven innocent as I already mentioned.

Abortion on the other hand, perhaps with certain limitations of x being the certain amount of weeks before the child inside can feel pain being the limit for someone to exercise this option beforehand.

[TheSilentKiller]

So let me get this straight, some of you are against the Death Penalty, but FOR abortion??

You rather let a murderer live than an unborn child??

:facepalm
:roll:

you dumb as shit my dude

[dude77]

for
against(torture instead for heinous crimes)
against(but not my place .. everyone does their thing as long as it's not hurting anyone)
against(with the rape exception etc)
for

[Draz]

The death penalty - "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

Why take away a life because we lost a life? It only shows we're as inhumane as the criminal himself.

[Terahite]

So let me get this straight, some of you are against the Death Penalty, but FOR abortion??

You rather let a murderer live than an unborn child??

:facepalm

thick post.

lot of baby killers in thread. :facepalm

[KyrieTheFuture]

The death penalty - "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

Why take away a life because we lost a life? It only shows we're as inhumane as the criminal himself.
Serial Murderers and Rapists deserve it

[Patrick Chewing]

I'm all for someone paying the consequences for their damages. The death penalty is the easy way out. Someone spending the rest of their life mentally and physically rotting sounds harsher. Their living to die, the death penalty, you're killing them and doing what they want faster. Also, it gives them a chance to be proven innocent as I already mentioned.

Abortion on the other hand, perhaps with certain limitations of x being the certain amount of weeks before the child inside can feel pain being the limit for someone to exercise this option beforehand.


A lot cheaper killing some of the worst offenders than feeding and housing them for years and years to come, but I understand your sentiment.

I'm for certain rare and extreme exceptions for abortions, but just because the child hasn't been born yet, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a right to live. The United States has the highest rate of abortion in the entire world. Higher than China and Russia.

[Cactus-Sack]

for
against(torture instead for heinous crimes)
against(but not my place .. everyone does their thing as long as it's not hurting anyone)
against(with the rape exception etc)
for

This is retarded. How does being the result of rape make the baby less of a person? Either it IS a human being endowed with the same natural rights as all others in which case it's not ok to kill, or it is not a human being and endowed with none of the same natural rights in which case it is ok to kill

[9erempiree]

Lol at against torture.

Nobody is being tortured to death. We are torturing for intel and info. It has proven to work and if not we just step up the methods.

Also the methods of torture should be kept secret so the enemy doesn't know what is going to happen.

It's actually not called torture. Torture is a word thrown at these interrogation practices to make us feel sorry for doing so.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

I'm against torture being used for national security.

I'm against the death penalty.

I'm for gay marriage.

I'm for abortion.

I'm for marijuana legalization.

[Cactus-Sack]

Baby killers everywhere

[Big_Dogg]

Against torture

For everything else but with strict controls for the death penalty and abortion.

[dude77]

This is retarded. How does being the result of rape make the baby less of a person? Either it IS a human being endowed with the same natural rights as all others in which case it's not ok to kill, or it is not a human being and endowed with none of the same natural rights in which case it is ok to kill

well that's true but I'd like to give someone the choice if they've been raped .. that is not a normal circumstance .. I don't think they should be forced to have a child that came about from a rape .. imagine she was brutally gangraped and now she's having a baby as a result .. you can argue she can put it up for adoption .. but that can also fk her up mentally and scar her .. it'll be like an extra mind fk in addition to having been gangraped .. yeah I think she should have the choice in that scenario imo anyways

[Draz]

A lot cheaper killing some of the worst offenders than feeding and housing them for years and years to come, but I understand your sentiment.

I'm for certain rare and extreme exceptions for abortions, but just because the child hasn't been born yet, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a right to live. The United States has the highest rate of abortion in the entire world. Higher than China and Russia.

False. It's actually more (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/#6a6bce317f09) expensive for the death penalty than it is to house an inmate for life.

There are several factors: (http://www.nbcrightnow.com/story/15519792/what-costs-more-the-death-penalty-or-life-in-prison)
Add prosecution costs, defense costs, then appeals and the cost is over one million dollars more than non-death penalty cases.

Trial Attorneys $467,000

Court Costs $70,000

Appeals $100,800

Personal Restraint

Petition $152,900

Habeas Corpus

Petition $238,000

Misc. Petitions ?

= $1,028,700+ MORE than a non-death penalty case

Last year's execution of Cal Brown cost nearly $100,000.

Execution Costs

(2010 Cal Brown Execution)

Overtime $48,771.66

Straight Time $27,090.93

Wages $75,862.59

Travel $5,745.54

Goods & Services $16,205.96

= $97,814.09

So the ballpark price tag of the death penalty in Washington State is $1.7 million, not including some appeals and petitions.

Total Estimated Death Penalty Costs

Court $1,028,700

Prison $606,928

Execution $97,815

=$1,733,443

[Cactus-Sack]

well that's true but I'd like to give someone the choice if they've been raped .. that is not a normal circumstance .. I don't think they should be forced to have a child that came about from a rape .. imagine she was brutally gangraped and now she's having a baby as a result .. you can argue she can put it up for adoption .. but that can also fk her up mentally and scar her .. it'll be like an extra mind fk in addition to having been gangraped .. yeah I think she should have the choice in that scenario imo anyways

Her choice should be to act like an adult and procure emergency contraception within 72hrs. If she fails to do this then she is just as culpable for the resulting pregnancy as the rapist.

Prevention of mental anguish is not an excuse to commit a murder.

[Draz]

Serial Murderers and Rapists deserve it
Here's where we actually debate.

Does an average, normal human being have it in his/her's obligation to seek murder in any way, shape, or form for happiness or revenge?

No.

There's obviously something wrong with the person. If it's for revenge or act of hate, it's not normal behavior. I wouldn't consider them normal. There's a loose bolt.

[Patrick Chewing]

Appeals have a lot to do with those costs though, but I respect those figures and the research.

[Draz]

Appeals have a lot to do with those costs though, but I respect those figures and the research.
Of course, but we have to factor them in. Just as we do with providing for an inmate. More tax dollars are being used to get a criminal in the death penalty as opposed to the morally better life sentence.

Removing someone from society and relocating them where they aren't harmful, is more humane, it's less money, and it's reversible.

[9erempiree]

Of course, but we have to factor them in. Just as we do with providing for an inmate. More tax dollars are being used to get a criminal in the death penalty as opposed to the morally better life sentence.

Removing someone from society and relocating them where they aren't harmful, is more humane, it's less money, and it's reversible.

Send them to Mexico or Canada.

[Draz]

Send them to Mexico or Canada.
Cuba :cheers:

[BasedTom]

The death penalty - "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

Why take away a life because we lost a life? It only shows we're as inhumane as the criminal himself.
breivik killed 77 of his countrymen in cold blood. For this crime, the Norwegian government is providing him with room and board for 21 years (no life sentence, that's too cruel! :rolleyes:)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/24/article-2192920-14AD0F8E000005DC-433_634x415.jpg

^tell me how this is supposed to pass for justice.

[Cactus-Sack]

Cuba :cheers:
Canada a harsher punishment

[Draz]

breivik killed 77 of his countrymen in cold blood. For this crime, the Norwegian government is providing him with room and board for 21 years (no life sentence, that's too cruel! :rolleyes:)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/24/article-2192920-14AD0F8E000005DC-433_634x415.jpg

^tell me how this is supposed to pass for justice.
Hey, I didn't create that prison lol. There are other nicer countries with more attractive prisons too.

Being locked up away from civilization and people, that takes a toll no matter how nice of an environment you're locked into universally.

[iamgine]

Torture used for national security - YES with correct protocol and documentation

Death penalty - NO the criminals can be used for science experiment.

Gay marriage - NO but lesbian marriage yes

Abortion - YES up to certain month

Marijuana - YES but in designated places like smoking/alcohol

[dude77]

Her choice should be to act like an adult and procure emergency contraception within 72hrs. If she fails to do this then she is just as culpable for the resulting pregnancy as the rapist.

Prevention of mental anguish is not an excuse to commit a murder.


well, after a brutal gangrape or any other rape she won't exactly be in a good state of mind .. she may not even go to the police or pretend it didn't happen initially .. 72 hrs can go by quickly at that stage .. but that is a valid point .. if she can do that, it will obviously take care of that .. but it's not that black and white

[Draz]

10 of the World’s Most Luxurious Prisons, and One Wild Card Thriller (http://www.takepart.com/photos/worlds-most-luxurious-prisons/bastoy-prison-norway)

[Cactus-Sack]

well, after a brutal gangrape or any other rape she won't exactly be in a good state of mind .. she may not even go to the police or pretend it didn't happen initially .. 72 hrs can go by quickly at that stage .. but that is a valid point .. if she can do that, it will obviously take care of that .. but it's not that black and white

No it's not black and white, but my earlier point is. Either it's a human and not ok to kill or it's not a human and okay to kill.

However unfortunate for the mother the circumstance of the conception does not have any bearing on the validity of the life.

[9erempiree]

Marijuana will be legalized under Trump.

He said it in a recent interview.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Torture used for national security - YES with correct protocol and documentation

Death penalty - NO the criminals can be used for science experiment.

Gay marriage - NO but lesbian marriage yes

Abortion - YES up to certain month

Marijuana - YES but in designated places like smoking/alcohol
???

[Solidape]

I'm against torture being used for national security.

I'm against the death penalty.

I'm for gay marriage.

I'm for abortion.

I'm for marijuana legalization.

+1

[Smoke117]

1.For...though it's useful in an facet and not just "national security"...as an American I can legit tell you I could care less if this country was buried in it's own shit. I would just move...I'm no patriot lol. I could care less about the USA even if I'm born and bred here. I've never understood how being on the same land mass makes us some kind of group...you can all go kill yourselves for all I care. I won't blink over it.
2. Absolutely. (all this all lives are precious bullshit can go **** itself)
3. Could care less
4. For it...nobody should tell a person what they can do or cannot do with their own body.
5. I'd rather have it illegal as i know if it was completely legal the price would raise and the quality would drop.

[Godzuki]

False. It's actually more (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/#6a6bce317f09) expensive for the death penalty than it is to house an inmate for life.

There are several factors: (http://www.nbcrightnow.com/story/15519792/what-costs-more-the-death-penalty-or-life-in-prison)
Add prosecution costs, defense costs, then appeals and the cost is over one million dollars more than non-death penalty cases.

Trial Attorneys $467,000

Court Costs $70,000

Appeals $100,800

Personal Restraint

Petition $152,900

Habeas Corpus

Petition $238,000

Misc. Petitions ?

= $1,028,700+ MORE than a non-death penalty case

Last year's execution of Cal Brown cost nearly $100,000.

Execution Costs

(2010 Cal Brown Execution)

Overtime $48,771.66

Straight Time $27,090.93

Wages $75,862.59

Travel $5,745.54

Goods & Services $16,205.96

= $97,814.09

So the ballpark price tag of the death penalty in Washington State is $1.7 million, not including some appeals and petitions.

Total Estimated Death Penalty Costs

Court $1,028,700

Prison $606,928

Execution $97,815

=$1,733,443


im 99.9% sure those numbers are very exaggerated for the anti death penalty agendas. public defenders are free unless theyre trying to somehow math their salary vs time spent, which isnt even that much working as a gov lawyer.

if they want to pull that then what does 3 meals a day cost for a lifetime? what do guards cost who often get overtime? how much did the prison cost to build factor to his space/use of it.

its laffable to me how a death penalty could cost more than a lifetime stay in prison. all of these anti death penalty fgts just like the pro life fgts are so fukkin nuts about their cause they blatantly make stupid shit up to dupe people. i mean stop fukkin yappin about what a baby feels and thinks when its a fetus because they got no fukkin idea :facepalm

[Draz]

Love a good abortion
Always knew you were a strong man emotionally

[TonyMontana]

Torture - AGAINST
Death Penalty - FOR
Gay Marriage - FOR
Abortion - FOR
MaryJ - FOR

First poster summed up my views nicely.

Torture is just fuked up and subhuman. During the French-indian war the french would use native americans to torture the prisoners by doing inhumane things such as pulling off fingernails, and mutilating their genitals. It went against the Europeans values, but the native americans did not think twice about doing it. Many of the British troops including eventuall Founding father George Washington were told to save the last bullet for themselves, in case they were to be subjugated to such torture before dying anyway.

But I am not opposed to just killing them quick. None of this expensive lethal injection shit. Most people sentenced to life in prison are true pieces of shit and it's not worth the tax dollars to keep them alive just so they can get out in 40 years and commit the same crime again.

Gay marriage, let them do it.

Abortion, yes let it happen. Most of the people who get abortions belong to the armpit of society. We don't want them reproducing anyway. This is the closest thing to eugenics we have. Also could be used to prevent babies with disabilities from being born, or help women who've been raped.

Legalizing marijuana would ironically hurt the people that deal it more than anyone. The worst part of marijuana is not actually smoking it, but it's associating with the pieces of shit whose lives revolve around it. Give the good people an honest alternative, and put the crums out of business. I don't smoke, but if people want to I don't see the big deal of it.

[Bandito]

For OR Against


Torture used for everything pretty much. ecurity
Death penalty
Gay marriage
Abortion
Marijuana


Feel free to explain why you're for or against.

I'm FOR torture being used for national security. I believe we should do whatever it takes to protect our country.

I'm AGAINST the death penalty. Life sentences should be used to torture criminals. It also leaves room to find people convicted guilty as innocent, many people have been found innocent after being killed by the penalty.

I'm FOR gay marriage. It doesn't effect me. I don't care. Whatever makes people happy, less prone to commit crimes.

I'm FOR abortion. I don't think we should control the lives of others. We don't know if people are ready to commit to each other life-long. We don't know their financial status if they're even capable of raising a child. Age can play a factor as well, young girls being raped, they SHOULD be able to abort the child rather than keep it.

I'm FOR marijuana. Medically and recreational. People should have the right to use whatever substance they want to ease their pain. We should be able to use whatever we want, especially in the privacy of our own homes.
For* everything

[9erempiree]

Torture is just fuked up and subhuman. During the French-indian war the french would use native americans to torture the prisoners by doing inhumane things such as pulling off fingernails, and mutilating their genitals. It went against the Europeans values, but the native americans did not think twice about doing it. Many of the British troops including eventuall Founding father George Washington were told to save the last bullet for themselves, in case they were to be subjugated to such torture before dying anyway.


Those practices are from 100's years ago.

We're talking about water boarding.

There is no 'torture' to death in modern times.

[Godzuki]

oh and being against torture for causing people to lie is the other one that trips me out :oldlol:

that mfer could lie in every scenario :facepalm

in fact u aint getting shit from me unless u bribe, torture, or mind trick me.

fact is i dont even have to say a word to you and there is zero incentive to unless u bribe or torture me.

id happily be taken prisoner knowing i wouldnt be tortured....on the other hand id either do a kamikaze or suicide pill knowing i was.

i swear the anti abortion, torture, death penalty crowd makes up some of the dirtiest lies :sleeping

[Draz]

First of all, mfers wouldn't be getting tortured if they weren't putting themselves in such terrorist activity. If they have vital information, we need to know. Anyone against torture just so terrorist or people can withhold intel that can save lives need to start appreciating their life.

[9erempiree]

Torture doesn't produce reliable intel

Intel is just the bonus.

These are terrorists and they need a little suffering.

[TonyMontana]

Those practices are from 100's years ago.

We're talking about water boarding.

There is no 'torture' to death in modern times.

I assure you there are places in the world who still perform what I said, along with worse things.

Whether it be middle easterners, south american cartel gangs, tyrone from the hood, albanian/israeli sex trafficers, africans, etc. we even know Chinese have almost no empathy for living things. Not everyone in the world(actually noone else in the world) values life, human pain the same as Europeans do.

Even in a relatively recent conflict such as WW2 it's well known the absolute worst people to be taken prisoner by were the Japanese, and Russians.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Torture used for national security - Sure, I don't really care.

Death penalty - YES. Why the fuhck would anyone want to pay to house, feed and bathe murderers and rapists? What I would really like to see is public hangings.

Gay marriage - Yes. But call it something other than marriage. Call it a civil union, a life partnership whatever the fahgs wanna call it, just don't call it marriage or being married, that's for sacred marriages between a man and woman. Give the gays all the same rights and respect.

Abortion - NO. Only if you can prove you were raped.

Marijuana - YES. It's already legal where I live so ioncare

[Goro]

Torture used for national security - Undecided
Death penalty - For
Gay marriage - For
Abortion - For
Marijuana - For

[rufuspaul]

I don't think anyone is actually "for" abortion, it's that they are for a woman's right to choose what to do with her body.

The death penalty makes perfect sense if you have a perfect justice system, which we do not. I'm for everything else.

[UK2K]

I'm FOR torture being used for national security. It works.

I'm FOR the death penalty. If you commit a crime so heinous that the death penalty is an option, you deserve it.

I'm FOR gay marriage. That's pretty much it. Don't care about it really.

I'm FOR abortion to a certain point. 5 months is plenty of time to decide if you want to keep it or not. Except in the case of health complications, then its whatever.

I'm FOR marijuana. Love it.

[Chrono90]

For
For
For
For
Against

[DukeDelonte13]

Very weird that weed isn't legal everywhere

Who is against it and why


older people who grew up being told that marijuana is as equally bad as hard drugs.

[UK2K]

Very weird that weed isn't legal everywhere

Who is against it and why

Mothers of America.

[NumberSix]

Torture - only for those who are not entitled to legal protections

Death Penalty - yes, but with very high standards

Gay Marriage - I can understand the legal argument, but if the government insists on being involved they should leave "marriage" to its proper traditional western definition or call it something else if they're just going to regard it as an expanded benefits contract.

Abortion - within reason (early in the pregnancy)

Weed - can't see any problem with it being legal

[Patrick Chewing]

I don't think anyone is actually "for" abortion, it's that they are for a woman's right to choose what to do with her body.

The death penalty makes perfect sense if you have a perfect justice system, which we do not. I'm for everything else.


What about the rights of the person that's in her body? If babies grew on trees then we wouldn't have this problem, but just because the woman is the carrier does not mean that she's judge, jury, and executioner.

What the pro-abortion crowd is generally saying is that all you have to do to "have rights" is just be pushed out of the woman's v*gina. That's silly.

[Nanners]

im surprised and disappointed by how many people around here support torture.

[greymatter]

The question was stupidly worded with regards to abortion. No one is "for abortion" or "pro-abortion". You are "for" choice or "pro-choice".

[TheSilentKiller]

too bad most pro-lifers are really just pro-birth and don't give a shit about the livelihood of the mother or the child once it's born.

[Dresta]

Torture - only for those who are not entitled to legal protections

Death Penalty - yes, but with very high standards

Gay Marriage - I can understand the legal argument, but if the government insists on being involved they should leave "marriage" to its proper traditional western definition or call it something else if they're just going to regard it as an expanded benefits contract.

Abortion - within reason (early in the pregnancy)

Weed - can't see any problem with it being legal
It's funny how people only yap about "discrimination" as regards gay marriage, as if the only type of person who could oppose it is a bigot. In reality it's just this idiotic need to frame everything on the basis of some kind of 'rights' (a concept which makes no sense whatsoever without restraint, which was formerly that all rights have carry corresponding duties

[greymatter]

too bad most pro-lifers are really just pro-birth and don't give a shit about the livelihood of the mother or the child once it's born.

The easiest way to find out if you can have a reasonable debate with a "pro-lifer" is to simply find out what choice of words they use to refer to it. An inbred bible-beating dipshit will refer to a zygote, blastocyst, or embryo as a "human being", "baby", or "child".

These are typically the same idiots that want all pregnancies carried to term, yet bitch about having any of their tax dollars go to welfare.

[greymatter]

Nah, I'm pretty pro abortion

Would be just pro choice if (some)prolife people weren't insufferable tw*ts

But keep slamming a bible in my face and I'll throw dead babies back in yours

I'm pro-4th+ trimester abortion in particular cases. The world (and gene pool) would be better off without the likes of ISH's biggest imbeciles.

[NumberSix]

too bad most pro-lifers are really just pro-birth and don't give a shit about the livelihood of the mother or the child once it's born.
It's true. Pro-lifers are totally in favor of it being legal to kill people who have already been born. They're always going on about how they want to legalize murder of born people. It's only unborn people who they think it should be illegal to kill. Total hypocrites.

:rolleyes:

[24-Inch_Chrome]

im surprised and disappointed by how many people around here support torture.
This.

[greymatter]

It's funny how people only yap about "discrimination" as regards gay marriage, as if the only type of person who could oppose it is a bigot. In reality it's just this idiotic need to frame everything on the basis of some kind of 'rights' (a concept which makes no sense whatsoever without restraint, which was formerly that all rights have carry corresponding duties—they are not absolute and ever-multiplying).

As if homosexuals didn’t have the same rights as everyone else before demanding an alteration in the definition and common understanding of the term marriage—this is not to say homosexuals should be denied any of the rights available to other citizens (nor were they)—but that even in Sparta, and other Greek provinces, where homosexuality and homosexual love were more or less institutionalised—even here they managed not to confuse a love that is purely sensuous, with one that is truly productive, and thus protected by the sanctity of the marriage bond. It never has been a question of either/or, and homosexuals have long had the “right” to establish legitimate marriages and engage in homosexual hijinks. Productive heterosexual marriage is the very basis of civilisation and the furtherance of human life; homosexual marriage is nothing but a self-indulgent sham masquerading as some kind of liberation—wholly facile, utterly banal, a fitting epitaph for the most frivolous and childish civilisation in the history of humanity.


There are homosexual couples that raise children. Some through fertilization clinics, others through adoption. Also, their relationships are typically far longer lasting than the average American marriage. The only white person I've ever met who adopted a black baby (actually 5 total) was a gay man and his partner. The closest I've ever seen from any white conservative I've known was just 1 Mexican baby and mainly b/c his wife was infertile.

Is it also wholly "facile, utterly banal, etc" for a 50+ year old woman to get married? After all, the marriage is incapable of producing children, hence is not "productive".

No one is impressed with your train of thought. It's just pretentious bloviation along the same lines as any typical bible-beating Murican redneck's arguments.

[Dresta]

The easiest way to find out if you can have a reasonable debate with a "pro-lifer" is to simply find out what choice of words they use to refer to it. An inbred bible-beating dipshit will refer to a zygote, blastocyst, or embryo as a "human being", "baby", or "child".

These are typically the same idiots that want all pregnancies carried to term, yet bitch about having any of their tax dollars go to welfare.


I'm pro-4th+ trimester abortion in particular cases. The world (and gene pool) would be better off without the likes of ISH's biggest imbeciles.
Ironically, this chump probably spends half his time calling other people nazis, while he basically endorses the mass execution/sterilisation of those with whom he disagrees. And how do you not see that the welfare state directly undermines the family, and the structures that raise useful and non-criminal children? It's amazing that you can be so deluded as to see a contradiction between being against abortion and against the welfare state (both of which massively weaken the institution of the family, which is the basis of all privacy and private life, of any non-absolutist civil order--hence why absolutist governments focus on destroying the family and supplanting the state in its place).

God damn: and here you are calling other people stupid :facepalm .

I also find it funny how non-Christians are always vaunting their own morality, and chastising Christian morality, and yet as soon as Christianity starts to recede, they're immediately back to cheering for infanticide. Then their reply is:

"b-b-but you don't support the self-perptuating welfare state"

:rolleyes:


I assure you there are places in the world who still perform what I said, along with worse things.

Whether it be middle easterners, south american cartel gangs, tyrone from the hood, albanian/israeli sex trafficers, africans, etc. we even know Chinese have almost no empathy for living things. Not everyone in the world(actually noone else in the world) values life, human pain the same as Europeans do.

Even in a relatively recent conflict such as WW2 it's well known the absolute worst people to be taken prisoner by were the Japanese, and Russians.

And the best were the British :rockon: -- though it wasn't the Russians per se that were terrible, but the Soviets, as it was the non-Russian elements of the Red Army that were the worst culprits.

Dat British rectitude and restraint. It really does say something in favour of the gentry and the chivalric culture of the gentleman, which America inherited, and then got rid of because of its democratic obsession (all the founders were of the gentleman class, and they thought the cultivation of the gentlemanly spirit to be an indispensable part of political leadership). Of course, once this class dried up, and America went full-tilt towards its money-grabbing obsession, and the speculation and avarice that now dominates its thinking, there was a civil war, showing that a country that had formerly been held together by a common bond, a mutual cordiality and good will, could now only be held together by force. It truly was the transition from Republic to Empire (one run from an abstracted city with no real ties to the rest of the country), and it is hard not to tie everything that has gone wrong with America back to that point (as well as the nationalising of rights through the 14th Amendment, which turned a confederation into a rather polarised "nation" with some provinces). Though i suppose you could even go back to the Constitution itself, and say, with Patrick Henry, that the founders never really wanted a Republic of liberty, but an Empire of conquest (certainly that's what Jefferson wanted).

[KNOW1EDGE]

There are homosexual couples that raise children. Some through fertilization clinics, others through adoption. Also, their relationships are typically far longer lasting than the average American marriage. The only white person I've ever met who adopted a black baby (actually 5 total) was a gay man and his partner. The closest I've ever seen from any white conservative I've known was just 1 Mexican baby and mainly b/c his wife was infertile.

Is it also wholly "facile, utterly banal, etc" for a 50+ year old woman to get married? After all, the marriage is incapable of producing children, hence is not "productive".

No one is impressed with your train of thought. It's just pretentious bloviation along the same lines as any typical bible-beating Murican redneck's arguments.

Is this a serious post?

[Dresta]

There are homosexual couples that raise children. Some through fertilization clinics, others through adoption. Also, their relationships are typically far longer lasting than the average American marriage. The only white person I've ever met who adopted a black baby (actually 5 total) was a gay man and his partner. The closest I've ever seen from any white conservative I've known was just 1 Mexican baby and mainly b/c his wife was infertile.

Is it also wholly "facile, utterly banal, etc" for a 50+ year old woman to get married? After all, the marriage is incapable of producing children, hence is not "productive".

No one is impressed with your train of thought. It's just pretentious bloviation along the same lines as any typical bible-beating Murican redneck's arguments.
What don't you understand about the word "production"--homosexuals do not produce children. And i don't see why the fact that marriage has been massively undermined by no-fault divorce law means that it should be further undermined by basically turning it into a frivolity.

And again with the pathetic ad hominems: "i don't agree with you, therefore you're a dumb redneck, durp, durp." **** me people like you are incredibly narrow-minded; so narrow-minded, in fact, that you think your narrow-mindedness is open-mindedness :roll: .

You wouldn't have many 50+ year old women getting married if marriage hadn't already become a frivolity, and the idea of actual lifelong marriage more or less abolished (you know, an indissoluble commitment, one that sometimes requires you to put your own interests second). Here was something that was the norm only 50 or so years ago, and which has become borderline ridiculous in a very short time; and yet people like you think this change has no real cultural impact, and that broken households don't produce broken offspring, ya know, because you know a gay guy that adopted a black baby.

When Daniel Patrick Moynihan talked about 'the crisis of the negro' family, the percentage of out of wedlock births among blacks was lower than it is now among whites; if you can't see why this might have negative knock-on effects, then i really don't know what to tell you aside from open your damn eyes.

"the welfare state did to the black family (in a generation) what centuries of slavery and Jim Crow failed to do" --- Racist redneck black man, Tom Sowell.

[UK2K]

There are homosexual couples that raise children. Some through fertilization clinics, others through adoption. Also, their relationships are typically far longer lasting than the average American marriage. The only white person I've ever met who adopted a black baby (actually 5 total) was a gay man and his partner. The closest I've ever seen from any white conservative I've known was just 1 Mexican baby and mainly b/c his wife was infertile.

Is it also wholly "facile, utterly banal, etc" for a 50+ year old woman to get married? After all, the marriage is incapable of producing children, hence is not "productive".

No one is impressed with your train of thought. It's just pretentious bloviation along the same lines as any typical bible-beating Murican redneck's arguments.

You ever seen that show Duck Dynasty? Several of them have adopted black children. Some have adopted Asian children as well.

Ever heard of Michael Berry? Conservative talk show host from Houston? Apparently he's super racist and what not according to MediaMatters... he has two adopted black children.

So, now you have a few more examples of conservatives adopting babies of a race other than Caucasian. You're welcome.

[UK2K]

The question was stupidly worded with regards to abortion. No one is "for abortion" or "pro-abortion". You are "for" choice or "pro-choice".

Abortion is a procedure. Either you support the procedure, or you don't.

You are pro-abortion, or anti-abortion. Period.

[TonyMontana]

Ironically, this chump probably spends half his time calling other people nazis, while he basically endorses the mass execution/sterilisation of those with whom he disagrees. And how do you not see that the welfare state directly undermines the family, and the structures that raise useful and non-criminal children? It's amazing that you can be so deluded as to see a contradiction between being against abortion and against the welfare state (both of which massively weaken the institution of the family, which is the basis of all privacy and private life, of any non-absolutist civil order--hence why absolutist governments focus on destroying the family and supplanting the state in its place).

God damn: and here you are calling other people stupid :facepalm .

I also find it funny how non-Christians are always vaunting their own morality, and chastising Christian morality, and yet as soon as Christianity starts to recede, they're immediately back to cheering for infanticide. Then their reply is:

"b-b-but you don't support the self-perptuating welfare state"

:rolleyes:



And the best were the British :rockon: -- though it wasn't the Russians per se that were terrible, but the Soviets, as it was the non-Russian elements of the Red Army that were the worst culprits.

Dat British rectitude and restraint. It really does say something in favour of the gentry and the chivalric culture of the gentleman, which America inherited, and then got rid of because of its democratic obsession (all the founders were of the gentleman class, and they thought the cultivation of the gentlemanly spirit to be an indispensable part of political leadership). Of course, once this class dried up, and America went full-tilt towards its money-grabbing obsession, and the speculation and avarice that now dominates its thinking, there was a civil war, showing that a country that had formerly been held together by a common bond, a mutual cordiality and good will, could now only be held together by force. It truly was the transition from Republic to Empire (one run from an abstracted city with no real ties to the rest of the country), and it is hard not to tie everything that has gone wrong with America back to that point (as well as the nationalising of rights through the 14th Amendment, which turned a confederation into a rather polarised "nation" with some provinces). Though i suppose you could even go back to the Constitution itself, and say, with Patrick Henry, that the founders never really wanted a Republic of liberty, but an Empire of conquest (certainly that's what Jefferson wanted).

Yeah true, I made the mistake of "Soviet Union = Russia" when it was in fact a multiethnic state of all kinds of people. I suppose there is probably a reason anti-soviet propaganda commonly depicts them as this:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MNpry2Z23qM/TaVlZOddhaI/AAAAAAAAGOM/zWgxr0WFkSQ/s1600/german-women-raped-berlin-1945.jpg

the nail in the coffin for America was the start of the 20th century when Rockefellers went around and centralized the school system with their money. in reutrn for higher wages and pension, America became retarded. America developed the most inventions of any nation in the 19th century(1800-1900), but since then not even close. The system they laid down is designed to close off the door of creativity and self thought. Just indoctrination and manufacturing of drones on the school assembly line.

disciples of Freud also worked on Wall street to change the culture of america from a frugal/moderate one, to a bling bling consumerist one.

and then of course the Fed, by Woodrow Wilson in 1913.

[DukeDelonte13]

[QUOTE=Dresta]It's funny how people only yap about "discrimination" as regards gay marriage, as if the only type of person who could oppose it is a bigot. In reality it's just this idiotic need to frame everything on the basis of some kind of 'rights' (a concept which makes no sense whatsoever without restraint, which was formerly that all rights have carry corresponding duties

[greymatter]

Ironically, this chump probably spends half his time calling other people nazis, while he basically endorses the mass execution/sterilisation of those with whom he disagrees.

It's a joke, dipshit. Also a Southpark reference.



And how do you not see that the welfare state directly undermines the family, and the structures that raise useful and non-criminal children? It's amazing that you can be so deluded as to see a contradiction between being against abortion and against the welfare state (both of which massively weaken the institution of the family, which is the basis of all privacy and private life, of any non-absolutist civil order--hence why absolutist governments focus on destroying the family and supplanting the state in its place).

God damn: and here you are calling other people stupid :facepalm .

Something tells me that you were amongst those nutjobs who came out as being against the royal pardon that was granted Alan Turing.




I also find it funny how non-Christians are always vaunting their own morality, and chastising Christian morality, and yet as soon as Christianity starts to recede, they're immediately back to cheering for infanticide. Then their reply is:

"b-b-but you don't support the self-perptuating welfare state"

:rolleyes:


Classic case of psychological projection. /golfclap

I don't chastise Christian "morality". I chastise Christian obtuseness with regards to basic biology and the idiocy of some of its adherents with regards to being incapable of examining human (adj, not noun for the comprehension impaired) development in an objective manner, always choosing to frame the debate as "OMG!!11one! It's a human BEING. It has a right to life!!" regardless of the stage of development.

Something also tells me that you aren't a fan of your fellow Brit Monty Python. His "Every Sperm is Precious" song no doubt rubs your ilk the wrong way.



/snipped rest of unrelated bloviation

[~primetime~]

Torture - AGAINST
Death Penalty - FOR
Gay Marriage - FOR
Abortion - FOR
MaryJ - FOR
this

[greymatter]

What don't you understand about the word "production"--homosexuals do not produce children. And i don't see why the fact that marriage has been massively undermined by no-fault divorce law means that it should be further undermined by basically turning it into a frivolity.


They (lesbians), in fact, do. It's as easy as finding a sperm donor. Some gay men pay women to be surrogate mothers (incubators). What part of that don't you understand?



And again with the pathetic ad hominems: "i don't agree with you, therefore you're a dumb redneck, durp, durp." **** me people like you are incredibly narrow-minded; so narrow-minded, in fact, that you think your narrow-mindedness is open-mindedness :roll: .

More projection.

Really ought to get out in the world and expand your circle of friends or acquaintances. Bible beaters who would attribute full personhood to a zygote aren't a good pool of people to develop your *snicker* range of mindedness.



You wouldn't have many 50+ year old women getting married if marriage hadn't already become a frivolity

And there it is. If marriage isn't about anything other than producing and raising kids, then it is frivolity. And I'm the narrow-minded one (ke ke ke, snicker, ke ke).




, and the idea of actual lifelong marriage more or less abolished (you know, an indissoluble commitment, one that sometimes requires you to put your own interests second). Here was something that was the norm only 50 or so years ago, and which has become borderline ridiculous in a very short time; and yet people like you think this change has no real cultural impact, and that broken households don't produce broken offspring, ya know, because you know a gay guy that adopted a black baby.

More pointless bloviation about something I never argued for or against. Any other strawmen you care to offer up?



When Daniel Patrick Moynihan talked about 'the crisis of the negro' family, the percentage of out of wedlock births among blacks was lower than it is now among whites; if you can't see why this might have negative knock-on effects, then i really don't know what to tell you aside from open your damn eyes.

"the welfare state did to the black family (in a generation) what centuries of slavery and Jim Crow failed to do" --- Racist redneck black man, Tom Sowell.

More of the same.

All I've offered was that:

1. Just because people choose to get married for a reason other than producing children (love being that primary reason) doesn't make it frivolous/banal/etc.

2. A zygote/blastocyst/embryo is not a full fledged human and that to assert that it is one is an opinion based purely on emotion and religion and not one based in fact.

3. The type of people who insist on attributing full personhood are deserving of no respect for their positions because they are either (or both) ignorant or retarded.

A freshly planted acorn is still a damn acorn. The types of people who would call it a tree are the same types of imbeciles who fit the bill for #3.

[Dresta]

Dresta on some wild shit in here

Real passionate about marriage

Or at least the definition of it

But it's 2016 and society has basically defined marriage as the union of two people regardless of gender orientation whatever

Who gives a fvk
I don't personally care all that much, as i am still a child of my time, and so never took marriage all that seriously. I am just aware of the long-term consequences, and also the long-term importance of the institution. Society is more atomised and narcoticised, depressed and anxious, than it's ever been; private life is quickly evaporating as the state swells to gargantuan proportions, and civil liberty is on the wane--these are all consequences of the attack on marriage and the family, and to my eyes, they don't bode well for the future.

Just wait until you have masses of only children looking after both their divorced, decrepit (and dying) parents, in two different parts of the country; then you will have mass-misery, and it will have been caused by this completely unnecessary dismantling of the family. When people are sick, when they are dying, when things are really hard, then you start to understand the importance of family, and sadly, most people are going to be facing these things without the requisite support that having a solid and stable family provides.


WTF are you talking about? Marriage is a legal status that carries of lot of legal implications. Taxes, benefits, intestate death, etc. How can you say gays didn't have the same rights?
I said they did have the same rights, exactly the same rights, in fact: they were perfectly entitled to marry in the same way as everyone else; what they wanted was to marry in a new and novel way, basically, to change how things are done to suit their own interests; i don't see the need to overhaul how something is commonly defined and understood so as to confer benefits onto the pitiful minority of homosexuals who actually do want to get married (this is a ridiculously small issue, though it is the natural path to dissolution engendered by no fault divorce laws).

Yes, marriage carries benefits because it is essential to civilization, in fact, the very foundation of it; that is why you incentivise it, and don't make it into a frivolity that no longer means anything outside of its 'legal implications.' Marriage is not supposed to be something 'fun,' but a dutiful commitment, which is why it is granted special privileges: because actual, committed, life-long marriage is something of a personal sacrifice. It is also a matter of duty and obligation (two words that have fallen out of the lexicon in the modern obsession with "rights" in the abstract), a commitment to something other than yourself; as you seem to be saying, homosexual marriage is completely meaningless except for its legal implications--so why not confer the same legal privileges on homosexual union (or the "civil partnerships" that something like .01% of the population took advantage of). Why do you need to use the word marriage? Denying the use of the term marriage is not denying the value (or importance) of homosexual love, it's just continuing to make a distinction between something that massively benefits human survival and propagation, and something that doesn't.

Because this isn't about expanding rights, it's about continuing to tear down a great edifice, and really, about attacking conservative christians, and making them angry (i.e. sadism). I don't think that is true of you, but it is true of many (see the sadistic joy it brings to someone like ThePhantomCreep, for example, or even that other guy who wants to eradicate "rednecks").

I dunno, my views have grown and changed over the years, and the more i read and live and experience, the more i come to realise that such distinctions are important. As i said before: look how massively things have changed since the introduction of no-fault divorce, and not at all for the better. The ultimate consequences of the welfare state replacing the family have still not been met, but you can kiss goodbye to any real idea of liberty and freedom, that's for certain.

edit: greymatter, i'm done with you: you're behaving like a child, and i really can't be bothered to have a discussion with someone that can't say anything aside from calling his opponents 'rednecks' or 'bible thumpers'--you also don't seem to have understood anything i've said, so your intelligence is clearly lacking, and you really aren't worth anyone's time, let alone my own. Go emote and repeat the same idiotic ad hominems somewhere else.

And you can't even recognise that marriage is clearly a function that has developed for the very purpose of raising children, and building a family structure that fosters human propagation. If you want to change that, then that's fine, but your trying to pretend you aren't changing anything is laughable (marriage being about "love" is a modern contrivance--a lifelong tie cannot be grounded in something as changeable as feelings, not if it's to last, at least).

And yes, as soon as you take away purpose from the institution of marriage, you make it frivolous--why is that so hard for your pea brain to understand?

[Patrick Chewing]

too bad most pro-lifers are really just pro-birth and don't give a shit about the livelihood of the mother or the child once it's born.


America is the welfare state. So please, don't tell us we don't care about the livelihood of other people since our tax dollars go towards feeding and housing those too lazy to get a job or that can't get a job because they chose to commit crimes.

[Draz]

Abortion also helps lessen population and living below the poverty line. Gives another chance to be an individual without having a dependant.

[BurningHammer]

FOR for all of them.

[TheSilentKiller]

America is the welfare state. So please, don't tell us we don't care about the livelihood of other people since our tax dollars go towards feeding and housing those too lazy to get a job or that can't get a job because they chose to commit crimes.
the irony is strong here

[greymatter]

Abortion is a procedure. Either you support the procedure, or you don't.

You are pro-abortion, or anti-abortion. Period.

Only in the minds of simpletons.

[NumberSix]

Only in the minds of simpletons.
What if you're pro-choice on slavery? Maybe you don't personally support slavery, but you just think people should have the choice to enslave people or not.

[LJJ]

FOR for all of them.

ditto.



Torture used for national security
It's easy to take the moral high ground on this, but even the biggest "anti-torture" moralist would agree torture is justified if the situation was dire enough. The when and why is very important, it obviously shouldn't be used systematically to gain pieces of unknown and possibly non-existent intel, to coerce confessions, etc. But there are situations pressing enough where it is justified.

Death penalty
What do you do with a Saddam, with an Osama? Is locking them away in a box isolated from all human contact until they pass from old age really more moral than executing them for their unquestionable guilt of massacring thousands of innocent people? Or whatever else you have planned for them? For common murderers it's an extreme punishment, but for people who have committed atrocities it's simply the correct punishment.

Abortion
It's hard to argue completely against abortions, but they should only be done with extreme care and consideration past the first trimesters. Some countries are definitely taking it too far, aborting fetuses that might already be viable to live outside of the womb.


Put gay marriage and marijuana to the side, because no one is making any even remotely valid or compelling arguments for why they should be banned.

[Draz]

My reason why Marijuana is illegal - The government doesn't want it's people growing their own medicine.


Marijuana has been classified as a Schedule I drug, the highest rank by the Drug Enforcement Administration, since the 1970s. Marijuana's listing among the most dangerous drugs has been heavily influenced over the years by politics and public opinion, while advocacy groups have been working to change it for decades.

List of Schedule 1 Drugs
Schedule I drugs are those that have the following characteristic according to the United States Drug Enforcement Agency:

The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical treatment use in the U.S.
There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or substance under medical supervision.
No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances, and they are not readily available for clinical use.

NOTE: Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, marijuana) is still considered a Schedule 1 drug by the DEA, even though some U.S. states have legalized marijuana for personal, recreational use or for medical use.




Drugs / Substances listed in DEA Schedule I include (http://www.drugs.com/article/csa-schedule-1.html):
Heroin (diacetylmorphine)
LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide)
Marijuana (cannabis, THC)
Mescaline (Peyote)
MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or “ecstasy”)
GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyric acid)
Ecstasy (MDMA or 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine)
Psilocybin
Methaqualone (Quaalude)
Khat (Cathinone)
Bath Salts (3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone or MDPV)

Really? Marijuana is on par with Heroin. Bs.

[UK2K]

Only in the minds of simpletons.
Abortion is not a procedure then.

Got it.

[greymatter]

What if you're pro-choice on slavery? Maybe you don't personally support slavery, but you just think people should have the choice to enslave people or not.

I'll ignore the stupid question. You're not the first person to attempt to draw a comparison between abortion and slavery. Have seen plenty of the same from AFA, Focus-on-the-family, and other random bible-beater organizations. All of their idiotic arguments center around the assumption that you are dealing with a full-fledged human being the moment an egg gets fertilized.

I'll ask you a simpler question:

At what point during pregnancy do you ascribe full personhood?

[greymatter]

God damn

Your slope slippery as fvk

Yes, classic epic fail on the list of logical fallacies.

[greymatter]

Abortion is not a procedure then.

Got it.

Kim Davis must be an idol of yours. Must suck having a palm-shaped family tree.

[NumberSix]

I'll ignore the stupid question. You're not the first person to attempt to draw a comparison between abortion and slavery. Have seen plenty of the same from AFA, Focus-on-the-family, and other random bible-beater organizations. All of their idiotic arguments center around the assumption that you are dealing with a full-fledged human being the moment an egg gets fertilized.

I'll ask you a simpler question:

At what point during pregnancy do you ascribe full personhood?
Brain activity.

[KyrieTheFuture]

So people who think babies are alive at X point prior to birth, do you think Mothers who have miscarriages and still births should go to prison for murder? Accidentally killing someone isn't an excuse.

Why aren't we born 9 months old?

[falc39]

So people who think babies are alive at X point prior to birth, do you think Mothers who have miscarriages and still births should go to prison for murder? Accidentally killing someone isn't an excuse.

Why aren't we born 9 months old?

You are equating purposely ending life to having a miscarriage, something that happens by accident in which the mother has no control over?

[Patrick Chewing]

Draz, this being your thread, can we get a tally on how many baby killers versus non-baby killers??

[Dresta]

So people who think babies are alive at X point prior to birth, do you think Mothers who have miscarriages and still births should go to prison for murder? Accidentally killing someone isn't an excuse.

Why aren't we born 9 months old?
Why do you think people who question the morality of abortion view things in such a black and white manner? Surely the problem is that the actual drawing of a line is well-nigh impossible, and if medical and technological developments manage to get to the point where a child can be grown outside of the womb, from 6 weeks or so, what then? And then, if you had to draw a line, the most scientifically accurate would probably be at conception. That even the most partially formed embryo is both fully human (as if there were any other thing) and alive (in however rudimentary sense), is a matter of fact, not speculation.

Personally, I can't see any excuse for someone getting pregnant if the morning after pill is at least allowed--I think that is a fair compromise, and you'd still have to be rather stupid and irresponsible to conceive with the access we now have to methods of contraception. I can't say I approve of the current consensus, which basically amounts to abortion on demand.

Starting and snuffing out a life out of sheer irresponsibility is something that should at least be met with widespread condemnation, even if it's not illegal; not to mention that negative consequences are the primary means through which people learn (aside from custom, which is often ignored anyway) and grow; if there are never any consequences for irresponsibility, then people will keep being irresponsible, as we see with the high numbers of second and third and fourth abortions:

[QUOTE]While compassionate understanding of individual circumstances is a good thing, there is solid reason to believe that more revelations like these will have next to no effect on public views about abortion. Advocates of abortion rights often state that they believe the procedure should be

[falc39]

Why do you think people who question the morality of abortion view things in such a black and white manner? Surely the problem is that the actual drawing of a line is well-nigh impossible, and if medical and technological developments manage to get to the point where a child can be grown outside of the womb, from 6 weeks or so, what then? And then, if you had to draw a line, the most scientifically accurate would probably be at conception. That even the most partially formed embryo is both fully human (as if there were any other thing) and alive (in however rudimentary sense), is a matter of fact, not speculation.

Personally, I can't see any excuse for someone getting pregnant if the morning after pill is at least allowed--I think that is a fair compromise, and you'd still have to be rather stupid and irresponsible to conceive with the access we now have to methods of contraception. I can't say I approve of the current consensus, which basically amounts to abortion on demand.

Starting and snuffing out a life out of sheer irresponsibility is something that should at least be met with widespread condemnation, even if it's not illegal; not to mention that negative consequences are the primary means through which people learn (aside from custom, which is often ignored anyway) and grow; if there are never any consequences for irresponsibility, then people will keep being irresponsible, as we see with the high numbers of second and third and fourth abortions

This comes closest to my views on abortion. I don't have a religious background. Parents weren't religious and to this day I have never gone to a church for services or to pray, but there is just something inherently wrong with abortion to me. It's a moral thing and really no amount of explanation I can give to people can get them to see that if they are on the other side (at least from what I have tried). Sometimes I can get them to see from at least my perspective by example say some advanced civilized alien race visited our planet and saw that we were exterminating our young that are still in the womb, how horrible would they see us as? They would be like 'WTF is wrong with this species? Why would they do that?' Some of the reasons for abortion make it even worse. The majority that would do it out of convenience to self, or that it is cheaper for society, like that would somehow justify playing around with life on such a mass scale. Hopefully, someday when we understand better how valuable life and the potential contained in life is that such an abhorrent practice will be discontinued. I honestly see it at the same moral level as cannibalism, and what I mean by that is just because it might make sense and someone out there can probably make a case that it is cheap and convenient, there is a damn good moral reason for people to object to such a disgusting practice.

[Draz]

Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder (http://christiannews.net/2016/03/06/oklahoma-senator-introduces-bill-to-criminalize-abortion-as-first-degree-murder/#disqus_thread)


OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — In a move that is unprecedented nationwide, an Oklahoma Senator has introduced a bill that would criminalize abortion as first-degree murder.

Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.

“No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”

The bill defines abortion as “the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug or any other substance or device to intentionally kill an unborn human being” and provides the unborn with protection from the moment of conception.

The bill is stated to come as the result of a petition signed by over 30,000 Oklahoma residents, calling for lawmakers to immediately present legislation that would result in a complete end to abortion in the state.

“[W]e hereby respectfully demand that our state government stop protecting the murder of children by abortion within its jurisdiction and establish justice for all pre-born human beings in our state,” the petition reads in part. “We demand that our legislators stop passing laws to regulate abortion and instead outlaw all abortion as murder. ”

“We demand that these changes be made now—not five, ten or fifteen years down the road,” it continues. “In short, we the people of the state of Oklahoma demand the total and immediate abolition of human abortion as the legal, constitutional and moral duty of our elected and appointed officials.”

The petition had been circulated by the Abolitionist Society of Norman and hundreds of supporters across the country who traveled to Oklahoma to help obtain signatures.

“This bill aims to protect all children from destruction in Oklahoma, and bring Oklahoma law into compliance with the United States Constitution,” the group said in a press release. “This bill unabashedly defies the Supreme Court’s perversion and denunciation of the constitutional right to life, and seeks to establish justice for those being deprived of life without due process of law.”

A similar bill was also recently presented by Sen. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow, that would revoke the medical license of any physician who performs an abortion.

“Any physician participating in the performance of an abortion shall be prohibited from obtaining or renewing a license to practice medicine in this state,” S.B. 1552 reads. “No person shall perform or induce an abortion upon a pregnant woman. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than three years in the state penitentiary.”

Both bills are scheduled for a hearing on Tuesday before the Oklahoma Senate.


Hope ya'll pull out game on point.

[UK2K]

Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder (http://christiannews.net/2016/03/06/oklahoma-senator-introduces-bill-to-criminalize-abortion-as-first-degree-murder/#disqus_thread)



Hope ya'll pull out game on point.

If you can't handle the consequences, don't perform the action.

Like these people in Africa, starving to death with no food and no money and barely any shelter. But yet, they can have a family of 16... :wtf:

Um, for the record, that bill seems extreme AF.

[Draz]

If you can't handle the consequences, don't perform the action.

Like these people in Africa, starving to death with no food and no money and barely any shelter. But yet, they can have a family of 16... :wtf:

Um, for the record, that bill seems extreme AF.
Not that I don't agree with handling consequences due to risky decisions, but, you believe people should be charged with first degree murder?

It's a chain. Who are more likely to have abortion? Low & middle class. Who are more likely to go to jail? Low & middle class. These bills don't help people.. it's another reason to put people behind bars.

[Cactus-Sack]

Not that I don't agree with handling consequences due to risky decisions, but, you believe people should be charged with first degree murder?

It's a chain. Who are more likely to have abortion? Low & middle class. Who are more likely to go to jail? Low & middle class. These bills don't help people.. it's another reason to put people behind bars.
They definitely help the babies getting killed. Poor people should stop fvcking. Sex has one purpose and that is procreation if you do not intend to procreate or cannot deal with the aftermath of procreation, do not engage in the act that leads to it.

[Draz]

They definitely help the babies getting killed. Poor people should stop fvcking. Sex has one purpose and that is procreation if you do not intend to procreate or cannot deal with the aftermath of procreation, do not engage in the act that leads to it.
Lol yall hear this goy

[UK2K]

They definitely help the babies getting killed. Poor people should stop fvcking. Sex has one purpose and that is procreation if you do not intend to procreate or cannot deal with the aftermath of procreation, do not engage in the act that leads to it.
Seems fairly easy to understand to me.

No different than any other choice. It's why we don't all go out and try to rob banks, because we don't want to deal with the consequences.

[Nick Young]

FOR:

Freedom


AGAINST:

Tyranny

[Cactus-Sack]

Seems fairly easy to understand to me.

No different than any other choice. It's why we don't all go out and try to rob banks, because we don't want to deal with the consequences.

The poor are generally poor for a reason. The cream of the crop rises to the top. Poor people usually have less impulse control and that's why dumb rednecks shit out 7 kids to 4 different daddies and upper middle class couples have one IVF child at 39 once they've got the 500,000 in the bank and a nice white picket fence house in the burbs.

Depo-Provera should be a condition of receiving welfare

[Draz]

I should be pro life. My pull out game is ridiculous.

[TheMan]

So let me get this straight, some of you are against the Death Penalty, but FOR abortion??

You rather let a murderer live than an unborn child??

:facepalm
You're looking at it all wrong, Chewy.

What are the odds that among the millions of abortions performed all over the world, there were a few serial killers, rapists, thugs who never grew up to sow their terror.

If only one life has been spared because a future criminal was nipped in the bud, then it was all worth it. Just think of it as collateral damage, if it's acceptable in US military strikes, I don't see why it couldn't be applied here too :confusedshrug:

Against torture for intelligence gathering (not reliable), but for for punishment reasons.

For death penalty only in air tight cases where the accused is found guilty without a trace of doubt and only if whites are also executed equally as minorities.

I don't like abortion but too many messed up people in this world already, don't need any more.

Not for gay marriage but not against it either, don't care. I am against gays raising children, talk about messed up kids.

For MJ, nobody's business if I want to get high or not.

[Overdrive]

Torture and terrorism is a big problem. What do you do with someone who isn't a resident of your country, obviously tried to do damage to some extent on your territory, might have intel on further acts(highly unlikely though as it's mostly indoctrinated pawns), but you cannot extradate him, because in his country they don't give a shit about what he was going to do(at best)?
I don't know to be honest. I'm against the act of torture, but I also don't have an answer how to deal with such people.

Death penalty: We don't have it here. Since I'm aware of crime through media there were only a few people who got out and did the same shit again. Way more people were incarcerated for deeds they didn't do.

Gay marriage. I don't care. Let them have it.

Marijuana. Everything aside, financially it would help alot of countires. Put tax on it and sell it 1-2$/

[UK2K]

The poor are generally poor for a reason. The cream of the crop rises to the top. Poor people usually have less impulse control and that's why dumb rednecks shit out 7 kids to 4 different daddies and upper middle class couples have one IVF child at 39 once they've got the 500,000 in the bank and a nice white picket fence house in the burbs.

Depo-Provera should be a condition of receiving welfare


But they dont....

http://diversitydata-archive.org/Data/Rankings/Show.aspx?ind=88

Pick any city in the country, your average white family is smaller than any other race, and generally only half as large as your average Hispanic family...

You said dumb rednecks, you meant dumb blacks and dumb Hispanics. We forgive you though.