The bigot cannot see his bigotry which means he can't see his own garbage. Bigotry is the unconscious bias that turns garbage into gold. His bigotry is a part of his ego identity, in this case how good a person he is pretends he having become a Christian. To die to that would be to expose himself to how worthless his ego identity keeps him from really feeling, how worthless he was actually made to feel as a natural programmed human being.
He doesn't even get what it means to die to be reborn even though it's part of his religion because even the great religion of Christianity has been perverted by the ego it was meant to transcend. Except in rare cases Christianity has become another factory for the production of fanatics.
Christians as a whole are a group who act in a way that is so offensive they guarantee they get to feel like martyrs. There is no persecution complex more self fulling than being an asshole who thinks he means well.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,943
- 541
- 126
Murder is the unlawful killing of a person, with malice aforethought. Fetuses are not persons, and so terminating pregnancy is not murder. You wouldn't be on the wrong side if the issues if you began from factual premises.
Don't be ridiculous. When a consequence involves a violation of your rights you certainly do not have to "live with" them. Seriously, get your facts straight.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
So...ever heard of a pregger woman getting murdered, and the defendant getting charged with two counts?
/thread
Facts regarding what exactly?
False. Up to 70% of ALL fertilized eggs never make it to birth, its called spontaneous abortion. For a multitude of intrinsic reasons, most zygotes fail during development. In addition, some zygotes decide they want to become "two" individuals, hence identical twins. So your premise is entirely BS.
Having unique DNA is not unique. In a single human body, one would be hard pressed to find two cells with exactly the same DNA sequence. If one is arguing that having different DNA is sufficient for being an individual, then a tumor would qualify as being an "individual." Clearly that's an absurd argument make.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
Miscarriage != abprtion dumbass
Whatever you say. Just because you have an opinion about something doesnt make it correct. Some things are true whether you believe ot or not. Your statement is taken out of context, therefor invalid.
Your context is the absurd assumption that unique DNA actually means something. You eat eggs for breakfast but you call abortion murder. You were taught to think that and live with the fantasy that what you were taught is better than what others were taught because you feel so bad about yourself you need some external bull shit belief to substitute for real self love. You think all the women in the world should think like you so you can maintain your lunatic fiction.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
Youre an ass. I wasnt "taught" anything, but rather made my own decision after studying in a lab environment. Why is it that those who believe life starts at birth are somehow brainwashed? Youre closed mindedness is whats wrong with the world. Its not your hate of yourself, its your hate and disrespect of others.
Did you see what I wrote? Or did you read through partisan eyes? I never said I would outlaw abortion. Quite the contrary actually. Read again.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,943
- 541
- 126
Yeah, in some states the murder statutes specifically name fetuses apart from persons in their lawbooks. That doesn't refute anything I've said, nor does it make you any less wrong. The definition I've given is widely-accepted, and it is a fact well-established in American law that fetuses are not persons.
The fact that an assailant can be charged with murder for causing the death of a fetus only supports the fact that a womans decision to remain pregnant is hers and hers alone -- which necessarily includes her right to decide for herself to become unpregnant.
Try reading what I wrote.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,943
- 541
- 126
In which lab did you observe life beginning? As far as I was aware, the scientific concensus was that life likely began some several billion years ago, and has been in continuous reproduction and diversification since then.
I would've thought that any experiments able to actually create new life from non-life would make journal headlines.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,567
- 6
- 81
I'm confused. You're saying that if the father does NOT consent to an abortion (and the woman carries the fetus to term), he is NOT liable for child support? I would think in this case the father would get sole custody of the child and that the woman would not be liable for child support.
The fact that I'm an ass or don't read good hasn't anything to do with anything. Once you're taught something you see the evidence that supports that.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
Washing State University. The life I saw start didnt happen billions of years ago. It staarted when the egg was introduced to the sperm.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
Perhaps I wasnt clear. there are many times the father is either suspected or not known. In that case, if the woman doesnt get consent and decides to give birth, the man in question isnt responsible. Or if the woman haves the child and the man denies responsibility due to not having say so in the birth.
I realize this may not ever happen, but its what I would propose. There was even a case a decade ago where the man presented a document that was to be notarized saying if the woman becomes preggers he will NOT support the baby. Unfortunately it didnt hold up in court as a valid legal document.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,567
- 6
- 81
In your advocated system, if the suspected father doesn't give consent for an abortion, can the woman still legally obtain an abortion?
In your earlier post you wrote, ". . . keep abortion legal so long as the father was required to give consent also." That suggests the father has veto power over the abortion. Obviously, a woman could avoid that complication by simply claiming she didn't know who the father was.
In that case, the man sues for the courts to do dna sample on the fetus, and has the woman thrown in prison for murdering his unborn child.
Everything is crazy about this.
When I was in the military, even though both my wife and I knew she was pregnant, she had to give the docs permission to tell me she was. That shit pisses me off. She may be the carrier, but it takes two to tango, and as a result both should have a choice.
I still believe pro choice, should mean, you make the choice to have sex, then you should bare the consequences of it, and at least carry the child full term, and give it for adoption if you can't raise it yourself, or you make the choice to go get your tubes tied. I made the choice to get a Vasectomy.
Let me clarify my personal experience.
The pregnancy was going fine, so we didn't go to the doctor immediately, because well, women have been having babies for centuries and you don't need a doctor during the whole thing.
So, at a time where she could have an abortion legally, and without my consent, and was required to give consent for me to know from the doctor that she was pregnant, the doctor got all bitchy at me and my wife and said we could be charged with child neglect, and abuse for not seeing the doctor early enough when we found out she was pregnant.
1. Abort baby that is 3 months old, and you are ok.
2. Don't see doctor in the first 3 months and you can be charged with neglect, endangerment, etc, for causing possible harm to the unborn child.
That MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE!
The only dumbass is the one stating that a zygote will to a child. False and incredibly wrong. There's no guarantee, in fact the odds are stacked against any conceptus to actually surviving to birth.
The fact that cells in any individual have unique genomes isn't opinion, its obvious fact. It is well within context, especially when someone is arguing that genetic uniqueness is somehow sufficient for being an individual. Don't blame me for your poorly strung together claims.
theflyingpig
Banned
- Mar 9, 2008
- 5,616
- 18
- 0
Adoption?! LOL. You have obviously not thought this through. If abortion were banned and all of these babies are brought to term do you think there would be enough people willing to adopt them? No, I think not. Fool.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
Of course. Ive NEVEr advocated doing away with abortion. Quite the contrary. Im not sure why its so difficult to understand if the father doesnt give consent he wont be held liable for support.
I didnt mean to imply the father had veto power. Sorry if it was taken that way. How many times does a guy get a knock on the door "Hi...meet your <insert age here> old kid!" In my scenario, that would and could never happen.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
Not in my scenario *shrug* Thats assuming I would want abortion illegal-which I dont. Just because I think its wrong to me, doesnt mean I dont have the unbiased ability to NOT push those beliefs on others and think whats right for me is right for others. Ive never, ever thought that way. Do I think a woman who has an abortion is guilty of murder? Yep I do. Especially if it was my kid. The law disagrees with me. Thats fine. But my saying abortion should be illegal is no different than those who dont share my view pushing THEIR values on ME. I dont do it, so fuck off and dont do it to me. Agree to disagree without name calling.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
Ive never, EVER implied pregnancies dont fail. Dont put words in my mouth. Theres a HUGE difference between the body rejecting a fertalized aegg and intentionally killing it. No different than intentionally causing a heart attack. Not the same as natually having one.
uh...I agree with your above statement. Are you confused??
Your opinion is how I feel. I feel it is murder as well, but I don't try to push my belief down others throats. Also as you said the law says otherwise, and that is what we go by obviously.
I see the debate though, people want the law changed to fit their belief, and I can't really blame people for that. So we fight back and forth, trying to get the laws to fit into our idealism.
Truth is, like most things a law needs to exist one way or another to prevent total chaos, and like many other hotly debated topics, the law falls in between both extremes of beliefs. On one end of the spectrum is "at conception" and on the other end "partial birth abortion, long as you kill it before it completely comes out, it ain't a baby"
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
Well the problem is we cant go backwards. History shows that. If this was PRE Roe v Wade, I would be out there protesting. But since its already done, we can really reverse it. Its a crude one, but prohibition is a good example.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter