Quote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 11, 2015, 10:37:01 PMAdoption is an option. An option preferable to denying someone life.So you'd rather either the kid suffer in foster homes and probably end up becoming a criminal or the parents drop out of university to take care of the kid and they all live mediocre lives. I'm not exactly pro abortion, but it's not a terrible thing to do compared to other outcomes. Now, if the parents can help raise the kid so their kids can stay in school, hell no you shouldn't have an abortion. But it's not just about money. It's about how it's extremely likely the parents will separate and that they're bad parents. Why bring a kid into all that? We're getting overpopulated as it is.
Adoption is an option. An option preferable to denying someone life.
Quote from: Azumarill on April 11, 2015, 08:48:21 PMQuote from: challengerX on April 11, 2015, 06:38:41 PMQuote from: Voro 'Cinotai on April 11, 2015, 03:33:11 AMWell when he makes stupid comments like this..YouTubeYeaaahhhh......I'm committing such a jihad against the Christians.I'm so sick of ignorant motherfuckers twisting the meaning of jihad. It means "struggle" or "to struggle (against)". It doesn't mean "war" or whatever the fuck people think it means, dumbshit Muslim terrorists included. The point of jihad is to be faithful, pure, remain true to Islam, and to struggle against wickedness.there are two jihadsthe "lesser" jihad is holy warthe "greater" jihad is what you describe; an inner struggle to remain pious and transcend worldly desireNo, there isn't. What the Afghans were doing to the Russians is Jihad. What ISIS is doing is terrorism.
Quote from: challengerX on April 11, 2015, 06:38:41 PMQuote from: Voro 'Cinotai on April 11, 2015, 03:33:11 AMWell when he makes stupid comments like this..YouTubeYeaaahhhh......I'm committing such a jihad against the Christians.I'm so sick of ignorant motherfuckers twisting the meaning of jihad. It means "struggle" or "to struggle (against)". It doesn't mean "war" or whatever the fuck people think it means, dumbshit Muslim terrorists included. The point of jihad is to be faithful, pure, remain true to Islam, and to struggle against wickedness.there are two jihadsthe "lesser" jihad is holy warthe "greater" jihad is what you describe; an inner struggle to remain pious and transcend worldly desire
Quote from: Voro 'Cinotai on April 11, 2015, 03:33:11 AMWell when he makes stupid comments like this..YouTubeYeaaahhhh......I'm committing such a jihad against the Christians.I'm so sick of ignorant motherfuckers twisting the meaning of jihad. It means "struggle" or "to struggle (against)". It doesn't mean "war" or whatever the fuck people think it means, dumbshit Muslim terrorists included. The point of jihad is to be faithful, pure, remain true to Islam, and to struggle against wickedness.
Well when he makes stupid comments like this..YouTubeYeaaahhhh......I'm committing such a jihad against the Christians.
>pro life>anti gay (marriage, parades, public outings)>pro traditional marriage>pro death penalty>pro local education policies>denies climate change and doesn't believe in environmental protection>pro gun and arms trade>anti universal health care>wants to build a wall to keep immigrants out>pro religion in the public sphereThose are pretty good reasons to consider him an awful politician.
And don't throw out rape as an example, or when the mother's life is in danger. Those are grey areas.
Yeah, screw freedom of religion.
Wanting to stem the flow of ILLEGAL immigrants is not bad.
Quote from: challengerX on April 12, 2015, 04:12:33 AMQuote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 11, 2015, 10:37:01 PMAdoption is an option. An option preferable to denying someone life.So you'd rather either the kid suffer in foster homes and probably end up becoming a criminal or the parents drop out of university to take care of the kid and they all live mediocre lives. I'm not exactly pro abortion, but it's not a terrible thing to do compared to other outcomes. Now, if the parents can help raise the kid so their kids can stay in school, hell no you shouldn't have an abortion. But it's not just about money. It's about how it's extremely likely the parents will separate and that they're bad parents. Why bring a kid into all that? We're getting overpopulated as it is.Firstly: You're assuming the worst possible outcome. Who is to say family member''s couldn't take the child in? And if they can't, you are operating under the assumption that the child's life will be unpleasant and have no happiness in it whatsoever.And even then, I'm sure the kid would rather be in a foster home than dead.
Quote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 04:15:56 AMQuote from: challengerX on April 12, 2015, 04:12:33 AMQuote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 11, 2015, 10:37:01 PMAdoption is an option. An option preferable to denying someone life.So you'd rather either the kid suffer in foster homes and probably end up becoming a criminal or the parents drop out of university to take care of the kid and they all live mediocre lives. I'm not exactly pro abortion, but it's not a terrible thing to do compared to other outcomes. Now, if the parents can help raise the kid so their kids can stay in school, hell no you shouldn't have an abortion. But it's not just about money. It's about how it's extremely likely the parents will separate and that they're bad parents. Why bring a kid into all that? We're getting overpopulated as it is.Firstly: You're assuming the worst possible outcome. Who is to say family member''s couldn't take the child in? And if they can't, you are operating under the assumption that the child's life will be unpleasant and have no happiness in it whatsoever.And even then, I'm sure the kid would rather be in a foster home than dead.because they're usually as poor and impoverished as the baby having family is.And besides, the foster system is overburdened already. No need to ruthlessly throw another soul into it.
Quote from: the boat ECKS two on April 12, 2015, 06:14:49 AMQuote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 04:15:56 AMQuote from: challengerX on April 12, 2015, 04:12:33 AMQuote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 11, 2015, 10:37:01 PMAdoption is an option. An option preferable to denying someone life.So you'd rather either the kid suffer in foster homes and probably end up becoming a criminal or the parents drop out of university to take care of the kid and they all live mediocre lives. I'm not exactly pro abortion, but it's not a terrible thing to do compared to other outcomes. Now, if the parents can help raise the kid so their kids can stay in school, hell no you shouldn't have an abortion. But it's not just about money. It's about how it's extremely likely the parents will separate and that they're bad parents. Why bring a kid into all that? We're getting overpopulated as it is.Firstly: You're assuming the worst possible outcome. Who is to say family member''s couldn't take the child in? And if they can't, you are operating under the assumption that the child's life will be unpleasant and have no happiness in it whatsoever.And even then, I'm sure the kid would rather be in a foster home than dead.because they're usually as poor and impoverished as the baby having family is.And besides, the foster system is overburdened already. No need to ruthlessly throw another soul into it.Yeah, I'm sure the kid would much rather be fucking dead than be in a poor foster home.Do you not understand how callous you sound?
Quote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 06:19:46 AMQuote from: the boat ECKS two on April 12, 2015, 06:14:49 AMQuote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 04:15:56 AMQuote from: challengerX on April 12, 2015, 04:12:33 AMQuote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 11, 2015, 10:37:01 PMAdoption is an option. An option preferable to denying someone life.So you'd rather either the kid suffer in foster homes and probably end up becoming a criminal or the parents drop out of university to take care of the kid and they all live mediocre lives. I'm not exactly pro abortion, but it's not a terrible thing to do compared to other outcomes. Now, if the parents can help raise the kid so their kids can stay in school, hell no you shouldn't have an abortion. But it's not just about money. It's about how it's extremely likely the parents will separate and that they're bad parents. Why bring a kid into all that? We're getting overpopulated as it is.Firstly: You're assuming the worst possible outcome. Who is to say family member''s couldn't take the child in? And if they can't, you are operating under the assumption that the child's life will be unpleasant and have no happiness in it whatsoever.And even then, I'm sure the kid would rather be in a foster home than dead.because they're usually as poor and impoverished as the baby having family is.And besides, the foster system is overburdened already. No need to ruthlessly throw another soul into it.Yeah, I'm sure the kid would much rather be fucking dead than be in a poor foster home.Do you not understand how callous you sound?But of course they would rather live. Living things tend to be biased towards to remaining alive if given the option.However, I myself could not wish such a sub-par life on anyone. It would be more merciful to simply not let them experience it.
Quote from: the boat ECKS two on April 12, 2015, 07:18:53 AMQuote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 06:19:46 AMQuote from: the boat ECKS two on April 12, 2015, 06:14:49 AMQuote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 04:15:56 AMQuote from: challengerX on April 12, 2015, 04:12:33 AMQuote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 11, 2015, 10:37:01 PMAdoption is an option. An option preferable to denying someone life.So you'd rather either the kid suffer in foster homes and probably end up becoming a criminal or the parents drop out of university to take care of the kid and they all live mediocre lives. I'm not exactly pro abortion, but it's not a terrible thing to do compared to other outcomes. Now, if the parents can help raise the kid so their kids can stay in school, hell no you shouldn't have an abortion. But it's not just about money. It's about how it's extremely likely the parents will separate and that they're bad parents. Why bring a kid into all that? We're getting overpopulated as it is.Firstly: You're assuming the worst possible outcome. Who is to say family member''s couldn't take the child in? And if they can't, you are operating under the assumption that the child's life will be unpleasant and have no happiness in it whatsoever.And even then, I'm sure the kid would rather be in a foster home than dead.because they're usually as poor and impoverished as the baby having family is.And besides, the foster system is overburdened already. No need to ruthlessly throw another soul into it.Yeah, I'm sure the kid would much rather be fucking dead than be in a poor foster home.Do you not understand how callous you sound?But of course they would rather live. Living things tend to be biased towards to remaining alive if given the option.However, I myself could not wish such a sub-par life on anyone. It would be more merciful to simply not let them experience it."This person, if they could answer, would probably ask they be allowed to live. Life sucks though, or at least we assume it would, so let's kill them so they don't experience it."You are operating under the assumption that life for the child has no chance of improvement or happiness.
Quote from: Flee on April 08, 2015, 12:29:51 PM>pro lifeThis really doesn't matter, we can just kill the ones we don't want after they're born. It's has a higher rate of precision. Quote>anti gay (marriage, parades, public outings)I don't know about you, but they need to keep their "outings" in their fucking pants instead of in my children's faces. Quote>pro traditional marriageWhy wouldn't you want this? It's like you think you can rape your wife, or something. Quote>pro death penaltySo now you are pro-life? Quote>pro local education policiesI can't be having my kids be exposed to this African, chimp-fucking homosexuality Obama is mandating in the public schools. Quote>denies climate change and doesn't believe in environmental protectionYeah, well if the environment is so tough it can protect itself.Quote>pro gun and arms tradeWell, duh. We need efficient tools when we're killing queers.Quote>anti universal health careSo? If it's universal, that means we haven't denied it to people. And we want to deny it to any gays or Mexicans we miss.Quote>wants to build a wall to keep immigrants outNo, it's not so we can keep them out. It's so they'll drop a few feet before hitting the land-mines; gives them better trajectory. Quote>pro religion in the public sphereBlood for the Blood God.
>pro life
>anti gay (marriage, parades, public outings)
>pro traditional marriage
>pro death penalty
>pro local education policies
>denies climate change and doesn't believe in environmental protection
>pro gun and arms trade
>anti universal health care
>wants to build a wall to keep immigrants out
>pro religion in the public sphere
Quote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 11, 2015, 09:11:09 PMI do not see why these are bad things.Because the death penalty is a cruel form of punishment that does not deter crime. It's inhumane and has no place in a developed first world society.Because a young fetus is not sentient being. It's far from an actual baby. While obviously a debate of morality and ethics, I don't see why women should not have the freedom of choice rather than be forced to deliver a child they do not want or can not raise. And other than an appeals to emotion, I haven't heard many good arguments agains this.QuoteYeah, screw freedom of religion.This isn't about freedom of religion, it's about freedom from religion. "Religion in the public sphere" basically means that there shouldn't be much of a separation of church and state. It means that there could be religious conditions on public authorities ("you have to be a christian of this particular denomination or otherwise you aren't eligible for this government job") and that religion directly commands state policy. Lower taxes for Christians! Higher taxes for atheists, and even higher for Muslims (and jews, because they killed jesus)! You can't vote unless you are part of a church! You can't sell books or make movies that go against Christianity! Gay people need to wear a yellow star on their clothing to show that they're sinners! Mandatory daily church attendance for everyone! No graduating from high school unless you can cite the bible by heart! Bible studies replaces biology, history, geology or any science classes! No public worship of any religion that isn't Christianity! Priests replace judges and juries! Freedom of religion means you can follow the religion that you want. That you are welcome to attend any sort of church, take on certain habits and spend your free time praying to your god. That the government or anyone else can't tell you not to believe in a god or follow a religion, or break into your home, destroy your shrine and force you to forsake your god and worship theirs. What it doesn't mean, is that you have the right to dictate others what to do because of what you believe. That your bible should be a crucial part of all the laws and policies that directly affect the lives of millions of others in your country. Religion should stay far, far away from lawmaking and the government. Or we would be going back in time by a few hundred years.QuoteWanting to stem the flow of ILLEGAL immigrants is not bad.By using a wall across the entire South of the US? Not only does that give an incredibly hostile signal, it's also a very bad idea in general, both economically and practically.
I do not see why these are bad things.
A potential life is worth far more than "choice". I listed alternatives in my exchange with Das. The person to suffer the consequences for a decision should be the one who made it, not the person who resulted from such decisions.
]Yeah, I'm sure the kid would much rather be fucking dead than be in a poor foster home.
a life which WILL begin, unless it is prevented from doing so.
Quote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 09:03:05 AMa life which WILL begin, unless it is prevented from doing so.What the fuck kind of sentence is that? "Something will happen, unless it doesn't".
Quote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 06:19:46 AM]Yeah, I'm sure the kid would much rather be fucking dead than be in a poor foster home.It doesn't have a preference. There's nothing inherently wrong with the killing of an unborn baby, it's about whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs.
You can't just dictate who goes on to live life
Who's to say a family looking to adopt would suck/be impoverished?
Quote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 12:38:37 PMYou can't just dictate who goes on to live lifeThe person that carries it can. It's their body, they're one that's going to nurture it for the 9 month period. QuoteWho's to say a family looking to adopt would suck/be impoverished?there are plenty of kids already in need of homes, it's not exactly like we're running out.
Quote from: gats on April 12, 2015, 12:47:24 PMQuote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 12:38:37 PMYou can't just dictate who goes on to live lifeThe person that carries it can. It's their body, they're one that's going to nurture it for the 9 month period. QuoteWho's to say a family looking to adopt would suck/be impoverished?there are plenty of kids already in need of homes, it's not exactly like we're running out.Yes, because 9 months of someone's life is definitely worth someone else's actual life.
Quote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 12:48:22 PMQuote from: gats on April 12, 2015, 12:47:24 PMQuote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 12:38:37 PMYou can't just dictate who goes on to live lifeThe person that carries it can. It's their body, they're one that's going to nurture it for the 9 month period. QuoteWho's to say a family looking to adopt would suck/be impoverished?there are plenty of kids already in need of homes, it's not exactly like we're running out.Yes, because 9 months of someone's life is definitely worth someone else's actual life.what?
Quote from: gats on April 12, 2015, 01:04:29 PMQuote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 12:48:22 PMQuote from: gats on April 12, 2015, 12:47:24 PMQuote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 12:38:37 PMYou can't just dictate who goes on to live lifeThe person that carries it can. It's their body, they're one that's going to nurture it for the 9 month period. QuoteWho's to say a family looking to adopt would suck/be impoverished?there are plenty of kids already in need of homes, it's not exactly like we're running out.Yes, because 9 months of someone's life is definitely worth someone else's actual life.what?I am saying that 9 months spent carrying a burden is nowhere near equal in worth to the life of a human being.
Quote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 01:07:45 PMQuote from: gats on April 12, 2015, 01:04:29 PMQuote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 12:48:22 PMQuote from: gats on April 12, 2015, 12:47:24 PMQuote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 12:38:37 PMYou can't just dictate who goes on to live lifeThe person that carries it can. It's their body, they're one that's going to nurture it for the 9 month period. QuoteWho's to say a family looking to adopt would suck/be impoverished?there are plenty of kids already in need of homes, it's not exactly like we're running out.Yes, because 9 months of someone's life is definitely worth someone else's actual life.what?I am saying that 9 months spent carrying a burden is nowhere near equal in worth to the life of a human being.looooool, don't. you don't have the ability to carry a child so you have no right to comment on how it feels like.
Quote from: gats on April 12, 2015, 01:20:21 PMQuote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 01:07:45 PMQuote from: gats on April 12, 2015, 01:04:29 PMQuote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 12:48:22 PMQuote from: gats on April 12, 2015, 12:47:24 PMQuote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 12:38:37 PMYou can't just dictate who goes on to live lifeThe person that carries it can. It's their body, they're one that's going to nurture it for the 9 month period. QuoteWho's to say a family looking to adopt would suck/be impoverished?there are plenty of kids already in need of homes, it's not exactly like we're running out.Yes, because 9 months of someone's life is definitely worth someone else's actual life.what?I am saying that 9 months spent carrying a burden is nowhere near equal in worth to the life of a human being.looooool, don't. you don't have the ability to carry a child so you have no right to comment on how it feels like.I'm not saying it isn't tough. But seriously, is a nine-month long inconvenience, however great, worth a human life? No.
An abortion is effectively killing a human being, even if it isn't "alive" yet.
Quote from: Mmmmm Napalm on April 12, 2015, 12:28:54 PMAn abortion is effectively killing a human being, even if it isn't "alive" yet.You're still yet to demonstrate why this is bad.
Can somebody tell me exactly what's wrong with Ted Cruz?
