The Official Religious/Political Debate Thread (quote)

[Spikey]

Originally Posted by jibber

no, but the point is, they DON'T know whats better for you when it comes to a decision like that. If you want their advice then that's a good thing, but if you end up in a situation like that, the decision should be yours and only yours. If you come to a decidion based on what your family wants, you'd be resentful towards them for the rest of your life. Plus, if you decide to have sex, you should be adult enough to be able to make such an important decision on your own, and you should know enough about yourself to be able to make that decision entirely on your own.

I agree... I lost again..

[Scarlett O'Hara]

Nope you're just too stupid to think straight.

[Spikey]

That's not really fair is it?

[adidasss]

Originally Posted by jibber

Abortion, that's definitely a tricky subject. I can't say that I'd agree with it, but hey, if it was me in that situation, maybe i'd feel differently. So many people have said "If they chose to have unprotected sex, they should suck it up and deal with the consequences." Its not as easy as that. Condoms are only 97% effective, the pill is 99%, sometimes, even with condoms AND the pill in effect, a pregnancy can happen. People can do everything right, and still be put into the most frightening situations possible. The bottom line for me is, if a woman chooses that that's what she wants to do, then she should have the right to do it. Adidass, i hear what you're saying, i understand all the points you're trying to make, but honestly, it's not you're place to tell someone what they should or should not be able to do with their bodies and their lives. The medical world unianimously agrees that a baby's life doesn't really begin until 24 weeks into the pregnancy. Until then, once again, there is a unianimous agreement in the medical world that that fetus is an extension of that woman's body, so no-one but her should be given any choice in the matter.

first of all, you say the medical comunity unanimously agrees that life begins in the 24th week ,it's simply not true, even they are having very heated debates about it. there are many different views inside the medical comunity on when life begins. from saying that it begins when a zygote is created ( genetic view ) about 12-24 hours after the fertilization ( within this theory, some say that it begins after the zygote can no longer split into two, the so called "twinning argument" ), to saying that it begins some 12-14 days after fertilization:"Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities . Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation. This view is endorsed by a host of contemporary scientists such as Renfree (1982), C. Grobstein (1988) and McLaren. This view of when life begins has also been adopted as the official position of the British government.", to the neurological view that life begins when the fetus "acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus "
source:http://www.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

personally, i think that life isn't about splitting zygots or EEG patters, it begins after the process of fertilization had finished and a new, genetically unique individual has been created. it may not have all of the functions that we attribute to a human being, but it's developing, growing, it's life.

second, just like franscar, you seem to be under the impression that i'm trying to dictate how someone else should feel or do. that's simply not true, i'm expressing my opinion on why i think abortion is wrong. you are perfectly free to disagree with me and do and think as you please, i'm not forcing my opinions on anybody.i never said that women shouldn't have the right to choose. quite the contrary.

[jibber]

Originally Posted by Crowquill

Yeah, but the medias gonna totally freak out and treat it like this is the first time its happened.

well, the media has every right to freak out. Like I said, it's not the first time it's ever happened because the world is full of idiots who are stupid enough to shoot someone on a hunting trip. And yes, I consider ANYONE who's accidentally shot someone while hunting an idiot. People would like to think that the vice president of the most powerful nation on the planet isn't an incompetent retard, unfortunately that notion has been disproven, many, MANY times over.

[sleepy jack]

I really fail to see how him accidentially shooting someone on a hunting trip affects his ability to do his job..

[jibber]

Originally Posted by Crowquill

I really fail to see how him accidentially shooting someone on a hunting trip affects his ability to do his job..

it doesn't affect his ability to do his job, it's an idication of his inability to function as an intelligent person, a quality which is pretty essential to being the Vice President of the US.

[Laces Out Dan!]

If he is as inteligent as the second most powerfull person in USA should be, he should have been doing necessary safety measures

[Barnard17]

Originally Posted by Crowquill

Its dark, there in the woods hes old and his eyes probaly aren't what they use to be. I don't see whats so shocking about it happening.

Maybe because when it's dark you're old in the woods and have bad eyesight you shouldn't be wandering around with a gun? It's like saying "He was drunk cutting carrots and thought it would be fun to cut his own **** off, what do you expect would happen?" Doesn't make it any less retarded.

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by Fal

Maybe because when it's dark you're old in the woods and have bad eyesight you shouldn't be wandering around with a gun? It's like saying "He was drunk cutting carrots and thought it would be fun to cut his own **** off, what do you expect would happen?" Doesn't make it any less retarded.

Well people typically bring guns when they hunt.