Dixie's idiotic signature...!

[Jarod]

Dix's signature says...

"The only reason Slavery should be legal would be if a group of people
were "sub-human" like a dog."

Jarod explains why he supports abortion.
------

1) How does the quote come anywhere to explaining that I do or why I would support an abortion?

2) I dont support abortion, I think it should be legal, but I sure dont support it.

3) The difference between enslaving a person and removing an embryo from inside your body is HUGE, if you cant see that you are truely an IDIOT!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Call the Waaaaaambulance!

[uscitizen]

Oh I have him on Ignore, so no problem from here :)

[Jarod]

See his constant refusal to debate or back up his idiotic claims. I make my point and the idiot just says I am whining.

COME ON DIXIE DEBATE ME... or are you still afraid? Ill even give you a few cheap shots by promising to mispell a few words....

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

1) How does the quote come anywhere to explaining that I do or why I would support an abortion?

Abortions should only be legal if the embryo were "sub-human" like a dog.

Which is actually how you feel about it, right? Embryo's are a clump of cells, not a human, a sub-human, like a dog. This is what makes it okay to have abortions, in your opinion.

[AnyOldIron]

There are massive logic problems with Dixie's signature.... From Jarod's statement you cannot conclude an opinion on abortion. It doesn't follow, it is non-sequiter.

What was the original context of the statement?

[AnyOldIron]

Embryo's are a clump of cells, not a human, a sub-human, like a dog. This is what makes it okay to have abortions, in your opinion.

A dog isn't sub-human, it is a dog.

Whether an embryo is a human, or a clump of cells, depends on your definition of human. What characteristics does a human require? IE what makes us human?

[Jarod]

1) How does the quote come anywhere to explaining that I do or why I would support an abortion?

Abortions should only be legal if the embryo were "sub-human" like a dog.

Which is actually how you feel about it, right? Embryo's are a clump of cells, not a human, a sub-human, like a dog. This is what makes it okay to have abortions, in your opinion.



I dont support abortion.

[Jarod]

You are putting words in my mouth, I dont think its okay to have abortions.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Embryo's are a clump of cells, not a human, a sub-human, like a dog. This is what makes it okay to have abortions, in your opinion.

A dog isn't sub-human, it is a dog.


I'm using Jarheads words.

[uscitizen]

I support abortions, I just wish Barbara bush had had a couple of them.....

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What was the original context of the statement?

Oh that doesn't matter, Maine paraded around with an out of context sig from me for months, and no one said a word about it, wouldn't even acknowledge it was out of context. So, I figure, it really doesn't matter to you people, if context is accurate.

[AnyOldIron]

I support abortions, I just wish Barbara bush had had a couple of them.....

ROFLMAO! Don't we all... It's not too late you know..... :)

[AnyOldIron]

So, I figure, it really doesn't matter to you people, if context is accurate.

I didn't notice Maine's signature. What did it say?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I dont support abortion, I think it should be legal, but I sure dont support it.

Hmmm... I wonder how one could reconcile such a contradiction? I don't support murder, I think it should be legal, but I sure don't support it. ...Just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

[AnyOldIron]

Hmmm... I wonder how one could reconcile such a contradiction? I don't support murder, I think it should be legal, but I sure don't support it. ...Just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

I don't support religion but I think it should be legal.

Does that explain it?

[Jarod]

Oh that doesn't matter, Maine paraded around with an out of context sig from me for months, and no one said a word about it, wouldn't even acknowledge it was out of context. So, I figure, it really doesn't matter to you people, if context is accurate.

You should have said something....

[Jarod]

I also dont support having children out of wedlock, I still think it should be legal.

I dont support smoking, I think it should be legal.

I dont support drugs, I think they should be legal.

I dont support liposuction surgery, I think it should be legal.

I dont support lots of things that I think the government should stay out of!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Hmmm... I wonder how one could reconcile such a contradiction? I don't support murder, I think it should be legal, but I sure don't support it. ...Just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

I don't support religion but I think it should be legal.

Does that explain it?

Nope. Religion isn't the taking of a human life.

[Jarod]

Nope. Religion isn't the taking of a human life.

I dont support lethal force because someone feels "threatened", but I think it should be legal.

[AnyOldIron]

Nope. Religion isn't the taking of a human life.

It is an example of something that I disagree with (in the way Jarod does abortion) yet believe should be legal.

Also, you have yet to make the case that an embyro is a human life.

[Jarod]

Nope. Religion isn't the taking of a human life.


I dont support sending our boys to die in Iraq, but its legal!

[AnyOldIron]

I dont support sending our boys to die in Iraq, but its legal!

The legality of that is disputed.... :)

[Jarod]

I think there is enough doubt about;

1) if the embryo is an independent life and

2) What the "host" of that life's (if it is a life) responsabilities are.

That it should be left up to the individual to make her own decisions about abortion.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Also, you have yet to make the case that an embyro is a human life.

I think that is obvious. It is living, and it is something, if not human, what?

[Jarod]

Also, you have yet to make the case that an embyro is a human life.

I think that is obvious. It is living, and it is something, if not human, what?

Is your thumb a human life?


Its living, and it is something, if not human, what?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Is your thumb a human life?


Its living, and it is something, if not human, what?


My thumb doesn't have its own distinct DNA.

[Jarod]

My thumb doesn't have its own distinct DNA.

Why does that make a difference>?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Why does that make a difference>?

DNA is what distinguishes a living organism. It's what makes an embryo its own entity, rather than a part of an entity, like a thumb.

[uscitizen]

A tumor can have it's own distinct DNA.....

[Jarod]

DNA is what distinguishes a living organism. It's what makes an embryo its own entity, rather than a part of an entity, like a thumb.



So twins are not seperate entities?

[Jarod]

I am for small government, and I think the government should stay out of decisions that are not clear cut!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So twins are not seperate entities?

Twins have distinct and different DNA in all but extremely rare cases. They never have the same DNA as the host mother.

[Jarod]

Sometimes they have exactly the same DNA... does that make them the same person?

[Jarod]

Identical Twins always have the same DNA, BTW...

http://www.wonderquest.com/twins-dna.htm

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I am for small government, and I think the government should stay out of decisions that are not clear cut!

I am for small government too, but I think our government has a moral obligation under the Constitution, to protect human life. I don't think they should allow people to kill other people, just for convenience sake. And I certainly don't think they should allow the use of my tax dollars to do it.

[Jarod]

Twins have distinct and different DNA in all but extremely rare cases. They never have the same DNA as the host mother.

WRONG... Do you just make shit up? Identical twins always have the same DNA except in VERY rare circumstances.

http://www.wonderquest.com/twins-dna.htm

[Jarod]

I am for small government too, but I think our government has a moral obligation under the Constitution, to protect human life. I don't think they should allow people to kill other people, just for convenience sake. And I certainly don't think they should allow the use of my tax dollars to do it.



Who is using your tax dollars, have you ever heard of the Hyde amendment?

I think the Government has a moral obligation to back out of people's private lives when the MORAL question is ambigious.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Identical Twins always have the same DNA, BTW...

http://www.wonderquest.com/twins-dna.htm

Is it the same DNA as the mother? This is the argument you presented with the thumb analogy, so that is what is the issue here.

[Jarod]

Is it the same DNA as the mother? This is the argument you presented with the thumb analogy, so that is what is the issue here.

But why does that make a difference, just because they dont share the same DNA?

So, a twin should be allowed to kill her twin because they share DNA...

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But why does that make a difference, just because they dont share the same DNA?

So, a twin should be allowed to kill her twin because they share DNA...


I've never said that having the same DNA should give you the right to kill. You gave the analogy about the thumb, and I pointed out, the thumb is part of your body, it belongs to you, it has your own DNA, you are free to do whatever you want to do with your own thumb, being it's part of your body. An embryo is not part of your body, it has its own unique DNA, and is its own entity, seperate from yours. If you want to divert the argument off into a debate about DNA and twins, that's fine, you are avoiding the original argument. I don't blame you a bit, it's hard to defend murdering innocent human life.

[Jarod]

I've never said that having the same DNA should give you the right to kill. You gave the analogy about the thumb, and I pointed out, the thumb is part of your body, it belongs to you, it has your own DNA, you are free to do whatever you want to do with your own thumb, being it's part of your body. An embryo is not part of your body, it has its own unique DNA, and is its own entity, seperate from yours. If you want to divert the argument off into a debate about DNA and twins, that's fine, you are avoiding the original argument. I don't blame you a bit, it's hard to defend murdering innocent human life.


1) I am not defending anything. Your words not mine.

2) You are diverting the origional argument about how your idiotic signature has NO relivence to my position on abortion.

3) My point is that there is plenty of moral ambiguity on this issue and thus the governmetn should stay out of it!

[uscitizen]

Alex, Bushies don't believe in moral ambiguity, just moral certainty. No shades of grey or colors, just black and white/yes no/ 1 or 0/ good evil, etc...

[Damocles]

A tumor can have it's own distinct DNA.....
Yes, but not human. Once it morphs into a Cancer cell it distinguishes itself from human DNA through the genetic shift....

[uscitizen]

Yes, but not human. Once it morphs into a Cancer cell it distinguishes itself from human DNA through the genetic shift....
So do some Fetusus, pretty much, not totally unhuman, but far from normal.......Should they be kept if not naturally aborted thru miscarriage ?

[Damocles]

So do some Fetusus, pretty much, not totally unhuman, but far from normal.......Should they be kept if not naturally aborted thru miscarriage ?
What would determine that they had no right to life?

[uscitizen]

That is my point, I can't decide for everyone, nor do I feel that I should decide for someone else.

[Damocles]

That is my point, I can't decide for everyone, nor do I feel that I should decide for someone else.
I believe that one should always err on the side of another's rights in a hierarchy. If we do not have a reason to deny the right to life there should be nothing that can trump it other than self-defense.

The "life of the mother" is about the only excuse good enough to take the right to life from another.

[uscitizen]

Your position and I respect you for it Damo. I however feel that the woman should have more leeway than that, at least in the early stages of pregnancy.
In any case pregnancies resulting from rape and incest should be allowed to be aborted.

[Damocles]

Your position and I respect you for it Damo. I however feel that the woman should have more leeway than that, at least in the early stages of pregnancy.
In any case pregnancies resulting from rape and incest should be allowed to be aborted.
I do too. Hence the reason I believe that we should remove the fetus with the intent to save it at her direction.

I do know that:

1. Many will die in the first stages of this.
2. In the end it will create an actual choice for all women whether to carry the child in utero or ex utero...

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

1) I am not defending anything. Your words not mine.

Oh, excuse me then! The whole thing about the thumb and twins DNA fooled me into thinking you were making an argument in defense of abortion.

2) You are diverting the origional argument about how your idiotic signature has NO relivence to my position on abortion.

DPQM is designed to illustrate the idiocy of pinheads, it's not my idiotic statement. And of course it has relevance to your position on abortion, just as I pointed out above, and you admitted, it should be legal to abort something when it's sub human, like a thumb.

3) My point is that there is plenty of moral ambiguity on this issue and thus the governmetn should stay out of it!

Oh no, there is no moral ambiguity at all. I think we can all agree, intentionally taking a human life is immoral. The question is, does our government have a right to condone, fund, and support immorality or should they attempt to promote and enforce moral values, when it comes to human life? You feel it is okay for the government to allow abortion, because you view the fetus as "sub-human" like a thumb...or ...like the slaves once were.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That is my point, I can't decide for everyone, nor do I feel that I should decide for someone else.


You decide whether people are allowed to murder others, don't you?

If you were in a park, and you saw a man with a big knife, about to chop the head off of a little kid, would you just sit there and say... I can't decide for everyone, nor do I feel I should decide for someone else? When the police come and ask you what you saw, would you say that you didn't want to get involved in someone else's ordeal, it was none of your business? When they apprehend the guy, and you are asked to be a witness for the prosecution, are you going to recuse yourself and claim that you do not have the right to judge the decisions of others?

What you have decided, is to play it safe... publicly denounce abortions... claim that you don't support them... admit that they are awful and terrible... BUT, you don't feel obligated to stop them from happening, you don't think that is your right, you can understand that everyone has to decide for themselves. This way, you can play both sides of the fence, you can portray yourself as a moderate on the issue, and feel good about your views. Meanwhile, another million innocent human lives were sucked down a tube last year, because of the kind of indifference people like yourself maintain.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I however feel that the woman should have more leeway than that, at least in the early stages of pregnancy.
In any case pregnancies resulting from rape and incest should be allowed to be aborted.

Here is the problem... you want to have your cake, and eat it too. The debate over abortion is not going away, ever. With this factual consideration, we must decide as a society, what the boundaries are, and what we will accept and not accept, as civilized people.

Most people are sympathetic toward others, it's human nature, it's called 'humanity'. No one wishes to see a young woman agonize over what to do about this life she produced inside her, with the willing assistance of Mr. WooHoo! The thing is, there is something called 'personal responsibility' and most of today's generation has completely forgotten about it. We should be teaching young women, and young men, that life is not about having sex, relationships and love have little to do with sex, and there are more important aspects to consider, than personal sexual gratification in the heat of the moment.

My daughters were taught and raised to understand, their decisions and actions have consequences, and they were going to have to face them in life, so make good decisions. For the most part, they have. Abortion is being used as a cop-out for personal choices and responsibilities, and unfortunately, society is caught in the middle of it.

The sad thing is, so many Americans are like uscitizen, willing to allow the deplorable practice to continue unabated, to the horrifying extent of partial birth, no less... as they sit comfortably with their moderate viewpoint. Anyone who dares to challenge "a woman's right" is castigated and ridiculed as a religious zealot, trying to force their morality on others, and mind other people's business for them.

I have always said, I favor abortions, only if all three parties agree. I can understand an argument for abortion in rare cases of incest, rape, or life of the mother, although I wish there were a 'Damo-like' alternative for those cases. I can also understand a young couple being confronted with whether to give birth to a severely deformed or abnormal child, but these things can be detected very early in a pregnancy. There is no excuse for allowing second and third trimester abortions, under any circumstance.

I would hope that America could come to terms with the issue by fully understanding what we are talking about, the extermination of a human life. We can have a reasonable and civilized debate over the parameters for exterminating human life, when it should be allowed, under what conditions, etc... but we first need to come to terms with what we are discussing. As long as people don't have to see the human life, or hear its voice, know its pain... they can continue to hide in the false reality of 'cell clumps' and zygotes, pretty language to make it benign... sub human... then wrap themselves in fake pride for standing in defense of a "woman's right".

[maineman]

your daughters were taught and raised with YOU as an absentee father... what the fuck do you have to say about how they were, or were not raised? you, for whatever reason, were not there to play any sort of role in their upbringing. shame on you.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

your daughters were taught and raised with YOU as an absentee father... what the fuck do you have to say about how they were, or were not raised? you, for whatever reason, were not there to play any sort of role in their upbringing. shame on you.

Go to hell you fucking child predator pervert, you know nothing of my family or my life. Why don't you go get drunk and find someone to harass by threatening to rape their children again? Maggot!

[maineman]

I know that you have admitted that your daughter had to find YOU over the internet after being separated for several years.

I know, being a good father, that a good father would NEVER let their children drift away and would NEVER lose touch with them and would CERTAINLY be the one doing all I could to find them and not vice versa should we ever become separated.

And as I have said several times....you want a more cordial discourse on the issues, you know what you need to do - and you know what I have already done.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

....and I know you admitted that you wanted to rape my daughter at gunpoint with your disease-ridden biker buddies. As far as I am concerned, every allegation made against you, is true. I'm not the least bit sorry for anything I might have insinuated regarding you.

You are fortunate that I have not taken the advice of my friends at Perverted Justice and filed charges against you, the only thing that saved your ass was SR deleting the threads. If you continue to harass me, I will be happy to share what the people from the Maine chapter had to say about you... (yes they know your name.)

I think you need to cease and desist with the slander against me, and the continued haranguing for an apology from me, and consider yourself fortunate to live in Maine, far away from my retribution, and you'd better hope we never-ever cross paths.

[Beefy]

For God's sake, knock it off you two fat-headed egomaniacs.

Anyhow: Dixie says "I can also understand a young couple being confronted with whether to give birth to a severely deformed or abnormal child, but these things can be detected very early in a pregnancy."

Is that child "sub-human"? Would it be "cruel" to force a couple to accept into their family, a monster? Like Joseph Merrick or Rocky Dennis? Is life life Dixie, or is life subjective? Would it be okay to kill the Elephant man because his "young couple" parents could have in the womb, so thus he is and always will be sub human?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie says "I can also understand a young couple being confronted with whether to give birth to a severely deformed or abnormal child, but these things can be detected very early in a pregnancy."

Is that child "sub-human"? Would it be "cruel" to force a couple to accept into their family, a monster? Like Joseph Merrick or Rocky Dennis? Is life life Dixie, or is life subjective? Would it be okay to kill the Elephant man because his "young couple" parents could have in the womb, so thus he is and always will be sub human?


Let me be clear, I am not in favor of abortion in these cases, although I do understand the difficult struggle people might have, in this situation. Raising a special needs child is a tremendous burden... And I've been told it also has special rewards... I don't know about it first-hand. I can't honestly say that I would not want to terminate such a pregnancy, I don't think anyone can say what they would do, until they are in those shoes. I don't think I would abort, that's my personal view on it, but I can understand the feelings of someone who might.

The point is, we can have reasoned and rational debate on when it is acceptable to terminate pregnancy and end human life, but first we have to agree on what we are doing, and stop hiding behind the sophistry of words to camouflage it. By not admitting this, we enable the 16 year old girl to get drunk, get pregnant, and have an abortion in time to fit into her prom dress... never-mind, that she will end up an alcoholic suffering from chronic depression the rest of her life over what she did.

[Beefy]

Let me be clear, I am not in favor of abortion in these cases, although I do understand the difficult struggle people might have, in this situation. Raising a special needs child is a tremendous burden... And I've been told it also has special rewards... I don't know about it first-hand. I can't honestly say that I would not want to terminate such a pregnancy, I don't think anyone can say what they would do, until they are in those shoes. I don't think I would abort, that's my personal view on it, but I can understand the feelings of someone who might.

The point is, we can have reasoned and rational debate on when it is acceptable to terminate pregnancy and end human life, but first we have to agree on what we are doing, and stop hiding behind the sophistry of words to camouflage it. By not admitting this, we enable the 16 year old girl to get drunk, get pregnant, and have an abortion in time to fit into her prom dress... never-mind, that she will end up an alcoholic suffering from chronic depression the rest of her life over what she did.

I'm wondering where the threshold of understanding the feelings comes in? Is it the level of burden that it might cause the young couple? Is it the horrible social stigma the child will suffer through life because of his disfigurement the source of burden? Is it about the source of burden or the magnitude of burden?

At what point can you understand an abortion? Where is the line in the sand?

[ManU1959]

can one of you all explain to me why you get to decide what other people do?

[maineman]

....and I know you admitted that you wanted to rape my daughter at gunpoint with your disease-ridden biker buddies. As far as I am concerned, every allegation made against you, is true. I'm not the least bit sorry for anything I might have insinuated regarding you.

You are fortunate that I have not taken the advice of my friends at Perverted Justice and filed charges against you, the only thing that saved your ass was SR deleting the threads. If you continue to harass me, I will be happy to share what the people from the Maine chapter had to say about you... (yes they know your name.)

I think you need to cease and desist with the slander against me, and the continued haranguing for an apology from me, and consider yourself fortunate to live in Maine, far away from my retribution, and you'd better hope we never-ever cross paths.

actually.... there are some golf courses in your area that I am considering flying down to play just for the added benefit of having the opportunity to come visit you face to face..... I do know your address and I do know the name of a good sporting goods store nearly...I can pick up a new utility wood for use on the fairway and a good aluminum baseball bat for use on your kneecaps all on the same trip. Sleep with one eye open, you slanderous motherfucker. But tell us all again how you lost touch with your own flesh and blood and she had to come looking for YOU after a decade apart. Now THAT is what I call redneck racist fatherhood at its finest!

[Jarod]

Dixie said...

I think we can all agree, intentionally taking a human life is immoral.

Now lets teach him about some grey area...

When our troops intentionally kill (take the human life of) a terrorist in the act of terrorising some 13 year old girl... Is that immoral?

[ManU1959]

Dixie said...

I think we can all agree, intentionally taking a human life is immoral.

Now lets teach him about some grey area...

When our troops intentionally kill (take the human life of) a terrorist in the act of terrorising some 13 year old girl... Is that immoral?

immoral ... yes .... justifed probably ....

[maineman]

immoral ... yes .... justifed probably ....

no doubt about that...at issue is whether our presence there to being with is, itself, immoral. No WMD's.... no connection to 9/11 or AQ..... what business did WE have in invading, conquering and occupying that country???

[ManU1959]

no doubt about that...at issue is whether our presence there to being with is, itself, immoral. No WMD's.... no connection to 9/11 or AQ..... what business did WE have in invading, conquering and occupying that country???

well.....saddam did violate 18 UN resolutions .... so since the US is the UNs cops maybe that is why .... but war is immoral ..... but so is a leader of a country and his sons feeding citizens into a wood chipper feet first, killing soccer players and gassing cities .....

but i believe the US should close all foreign bases and shut off all foriegn aid....and wish everyone luck

[Beefy]

actually.... there are some golf courses in your area that I am considering flying down to play just for the added benefit of having the opportunity to come visit you face to face..... I do know your address and I do know the name of a good sporting goods store nearly...I can pick up a new utility wood for use on the fairway and a good aluminum baseball bat for use on your kneecaps all on the same trip. Sleep with one eye open, you slanderous motherfucker. But tell us all again how you lost touch with your own flesh and blood and she had to come looking for YOU after a decade apart. Now THAT is what I call redneck racist fatherhood at its finest!


You're such an idiot. How can you care this much? How?

[maineman]

what makes you think that I care at all? I just love to get his goat.... and even though he claims to ignore me, I know I still can....it is like shooting fish in a barrel! LOL

[maineman]

I am so excited to face the folks at the maine chapter of "erverted justice" ROFLMFAO!!!!!!

hey dixie ....as your boyfriend in bluejeans says...."bring em on, motherfucker!!!"

[Beefy]

what makes you think that I care at all? I just love to get his goat.... and even though he claims to ignore me, I know I still can....it is like shooting fish in a barrel! LOL

Really?? What makes me think you care? Okay.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Is it about the source of burden or the magnitude of burden?
At what point can you understand an abortion? Where is the line in the sand?


Personally, I don't understand how anyone could terminate innocent human life, regardless of the circumstance. Society is not controlled by what I personally believe, however, so I am able to "understand" circumstances, where a legitimate argument might be made, for making the decision to terminate a life. I don't know what the threshold would be for that, it certainly comes somewhere before partially delivering the living fetus, to shove a shunt into the skull and suck the brain down a tube.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

can one of you all explain to me why you get to decide what other people do?

Do you think you live in a society where no one is told what to do? No one here has advocated for the sole right to tell anyone what to do, I am sorry if you misunderstood. We are talking about society's role in general, all of us deciding what kind of society we want to live in.

I think it is fairly clear, someone decided that you and I can't run around naked in the streets and masturbate in public. Someone decided that you can't have sex with kids. Someone decided you can't shoot your neighbor because he looked at your wife. Someone decided you will drive 35 mph in the school zone... you get the picture... you are inundated with things that someone got to decide you would do, or not do.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie said...

I think we can all agree, intentionally taking a human life is immoral.

Now lets teach him about some grey area...

When our troops intentionally kill (take the human life of) a terrorist in the act of terrorising some 13 year old girl... Is that immoral?


Awww... what's the matter Jarhead? You wanted me to debate you, and I did. Now you want to run off and change topics again, instead of addressing my posts? I'm astonished.


There is no grey area when it comes to human life, it either IS or ISN'T human life... no grey area. As I said, there might be "grey areas" with regard to when it is moral and ethical to terminate a life, and I can certainly be open-minded enough to listen to those rare exceptions, I just can't tolerate abortion on demand, simply for the sake of vanity, convenience, and avoiding personal responsibility.

[ManU1959]

Do you think you live in a society where no one is told what to do? No one here has advocated for the sole right to tell anyone what to do, I am sorry if you misunderstood. We are talking about society's role in general, all of us deciding what kind of society we want to live in.

I think it is fairly clear, someone decided that you and I can't run around naked in the streets and masturbate in public. Someone decided that you can't have sex with kids. Someone decided you can't shoot your neighbor because he looked at your wife. Someone decided you will drive 35 mph in the school zone... you get the picture... you are inundated with things that someone got to decide you would do, or not do.

you can do whatever you like....you get to deal with the results of your choices....but you should readers the words i wrote each one was picked on purpose....i asked why you get to decide....key word ...you...i did not ask about others i asked why you think you get to decide

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

you can do whatever you like....you get to deal with the results of your choices....but you should readers the words i wrote each one was picked on purpose....i asked why you get to decide....key word ...you...i did not ask about others i asked why you think you get to decide

WTF? I'm supposed to sit here scratching my head, trying to figure out the mystery of the riddle or something? I read the words, and I responded to them! I never claimed that I was "getting to decide" a damn thing! Or that I felt I was entitled to decide anything! If I got to decide, we wouldn't be having abortions at all, under any circumstance for any reason! I realize we don't live in a world where "I get to decide" anything! We live in a society, which collectively decides what the rest of us can and can't do, what we will and will not tolerate as a societal whole. This has asbo-fucking-lutely nothing to do with what "I get to decide."

[Prakosh]

Awww... what's the matter Jarhead? You wanted me to debate you, and I did. Now you want to run off and change topics again, instead of addressing my posts? I'm astonished.


There is no grey area when it comes to human life, it either IS or ISN'T human life... no grey area. As I said, there might be "grey areas" with regard to when it is moral and ethical to terminate a life, and I can certainly be open-minded enough to listen to those rare exceptions, I just can't tolerate abortion on demand, simply for the sake of vanity, convenience, and avoiding personal responsibility.


So Dixie, are you against the death penalty?

And since we have the highest infant mortality rate and the highest rate of child poverty in the industrialized world (and those two statistics must be seen in relation to each other) do you support universal health care and other programs that might raise the level of health care and general health of those little children once they are born?

Or do you believe that letting them die once they are born is somehow morally superior to having an abortion before they are born?

Do you also support state funded social programs that would raise the life conditions of those children who are born into poverty and are unable to do anything about their conditions?

When was the last time you went up to Appalachia or down to the Delta and helped one of the resident of those areas world famous for the poverty of the resident by installing running water in their home?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So Dixie, are you against the death penalty?

And since we have the highest infant mortality rate and the highest rate of child poverty in the industrialized world (and those two statistics must be seen in relation to each other) do you support universal health care and other programs that might raise the level of health care and general health of those little children once they are born?

Or do you believe that letting them die once they are born is somehow morally superior to having an abortion before they are born?

Do you also support state funded social programs that would raise the life conditions of those children who are born into poverty and are unable to do anything about their conditions?

When was the last time you went up to Appalachia or down to the Delta and helped one of the resident of those areas world famous for the poverty of the resident by installing running water in their home?


Wow Prikish, you made an impressive list of questions! In reading them, it seems to me, you want to justify abortions on the grounds that I don't care about people after they are born. This is a rather odd way to justify abortions, or anything, for that matter.

To make a long list of questions short, I would support any of those socialist programs with the money saved from federally funded abortions. just tell me where I sign the deal! See, I had rather deal with the little problem of having a million lives a year sucked down a tube first, then we can deal with what to do with the poor. I think there is enormous potential to help the poor, if they are allowed to live, instead of being sucked down a tube. For some reason, I think it's pretty fundamental to prevent this being sucked down a tube first, then we can work on solutions to the other problems.... all the help in the world will not do a bit of good for a mangled fetus in a jar.

[Cypress]

Awww... what's the matter Jarhead? You wanted me to debate you, and I did. Now you want to run off and change topics again, instead of addressing my posts? I'm astonished.


There is no grey area when it comes to human life, it either IS or ISN'T human life... no grey area. As I said, there might be "grey areas" with regard to when it is moral and ethical to terminate a life, and I can certainly be open-minded enough to listen to those rare exceptions, I just can't tolerate abortion on demand, simply for the sake of vanity, convenience, and avoiding personal responsibility.

-DIXIE: There is no grey area when it comes to human life, it either IS or ISN'T human life... no grey area."

-DIXIE, Oct. 10: Here's a plan... Bush should just say, what the fuck... they all want to call me a cowboy, they all want to blame everything on me, anyway... I'm going to send the B-2's to the capital of Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Venezuela, armed with 1m nukes, and inflict a little collateral damage, as a final warning. If they are so eager to get involved with the big dog, in a nuclear confrontation, let's get it on! After the initial attention-getter, he issues a 48 hour deadline to turn over all nuclear-related materials to the UN and IAEA, or we will release the list of cities to be targeted next week, with the next higher level of nuclear technology in our arsenal."

[Jarod]

Awww... what's the matter Jarhead? You wanted me to debate you, and I did. Now you want to run off and change topics again, instead of addressing my posts? I'm astonished.


There is no grey area when it comes to human life, it either IS or ISN'T human life... no grey area. As I said, there might be "grey areas" with regard to when it is moral and ethical to terminate a life, and I can certainly be open-minded enough to listen to those rare exceptions, I just can't tolerate abortion on demand, simply for the sake of vanity, convenience, and avoiding personal responsibility.


I am not trying to change any topic. My point is that there are grey areas when it comes to even taking lives. I think Early abortion is one of those grey areas. Personally I would not have an abortion... but I think there is enough ambiguity about it that the government should STAY OUT OF IT. When it comes to private morally grey medical decisions the government should stay out!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I am not trying to change any topic. My point is that there are grey areas when it comes to even taking lives. I think Early abortion is one of those grey areas. Personally I would not have an abortion... but I think there is enough ambiguity about it that the government should STAY OUT OF IT. When it comes to private morally grey medical decisions the government should stay out!

Indeed, there are grey areas when it comes to taking lives, there is no grey area with regards to what is or isn't human life. There is no ambiguity about it, from a moral standpoint, it is wrong to take innocent human life. The government has every right to set rules, boundaries, and guidelines, regarding issues such as this, there are countless examples of it. To sluff your responsibility here, is moral laziness, and nothing more.

I have no problem with medical privacy, and people making choices with their doctors about their medical conditions, abortion is not a medical condition, it is a procedure. It is used to terminate a human life inside the womb, which required at least one vital choice to be made, in order for that to happen. I support a woman's right to choose, just not unlimited choices. From my standpoint, the woman has the right to choose to use any number of birth control methods available, the woman has a right to choose whether to have sex or not, and she also chooses to accept the consequences of unprotected sex when she has it. So, by the time a fetus is in her womb, she has made several choices already, giving her the choice to murder another human because of her previous choices, is just unacceptable to me.

[Prakosh]

Wow Prikish, you made an impressive list of questions! In reading them, it seems to me, you want to justify abortions on the grounds that I don't care about people after they are born. This is a rather odd way to justify abortions, or anything, for that matter.

To make a long list of questions short, I would support any of those socialist programs with the money saved from federally funded abortions. just tell me where I sign the deal! See, I had rather deal with the little problem of having a million lives a year sucked down a tube first, then we can deal with what to do with the poor. I think there is enormous potential to help the poor, if they are allowed to live, instead of being sucked down a tube. For some reason, I think it's pretty fundamental to prevent this being sucked down a tube first, then we can work on solutions to the other problems.... all the help in the world will not do a bit of good for a mangled fetus in a jar.

What year was abortion made legal under Roe v. Wade; 1973??? And what did you do for the poor before 1973??? Especially the black poor in the South?? Nothing that I know if, in fact conservatives have been doing nothing for the poor since long before that. And prove that 1 million late term abortions take place in America every year.

And why aren't you out talking up the morning after pill?

More importantly, why are you holding the poor who live in America today hostage to an abortion policy that you claim is taking away money that you would be glad to give to poverty programs when the amount of money for federally funded abortions is miniscule in comparison to the 43 millions who have no health care and the millions living in abject poverty in the South itself. So why are you holding those poor people hostage to a program that they have nothing to do with?

You also didn't tell me whether or not you support the death penalty?

And even more absurd and ironic. You are here everyday talking about how we need to kill more women and children in Iraq where some speculate over 650,000 have died yet you still want more war and are still posting incendiary and inflammatory posts about Muslims in order to create more fervor for more war to kill more people. So how can you make any claims about abortion or any other life taking procedure when you care nothing about the hundreds of thousands of men, women and children who have died in Iraq and seem to be speculating that we need to kill even more Muslims in your posts?

And since you didn't answer either of these questions I will repeat them:

And since we have the highest infant mortality rate and the highest rate of child poverty in the industrialized world (and those two statistics must be seen in relation to each other) do you support universal health care and other programs that might raise the level of health care and general health of those little children once they are born?

When was the last time you went up to Appalachia or down to the Delta and helped one of the resident of those areas world famous for the poverty of the residents by installing running water in their one of their homes?

And one other question:

What was the "solid South" and how did those primaries work?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And what did you do for the poor before 1973??? Especially the black poor in the South?? Nothing that I know

That's right... nothing that you know of, because you are an ignorant bigot who knows nothing of me or my personal life. It makes no difference what someone did for someone else in 1973, when it comes to the moral question of exterminating innocent human lives at the rate of a million per year. Of course, you don't give a shit if it matters because you are an ignorant bigot. Most ignorant bigots don't give a shit about what matters, they only give a shit about themselves and their own pathetic lives and viewpoints.

What was the "solid South" and how did those primaries work?

The Solid South was a DEMOCRAT strategy to control the elections. It effectively ended in 1972, when Richard Nixon defeated George Wallace, a Dixiecrat (aka: Southern Democrat) in the South. It had nothing to do with Republicans, it had nothing to do with Conservatives, and no matter how much you try to manipulate the facts, that's how it was. Now, I have answered your question, and you are free to create whatever lie you want to explain why Wallace, Maddox and Byrd remained DEMOCRATS during this mystical, mythical and magical transformation process you speak of happening. Frankly, I am tired of hearing the spin. Your party fractured itself over Civil Rights, deal with it! Stop trying to smear your shit onto Republicans in this silly attempt to insult our intelligence and re-write history!

[maineman]

who has won the south recently?

[Jarod]

Indeed, there are grey areas when it comes to taking lives, there is no grey area with regards to what is or isn't human life. There is no ambiguity about it, from a moral standpoint, it is wrong to take innocent human life. The government has every right to set rules, boundaries, and guidelines, regarding issues such as this, there are countless examples of it. To sluff your responsibility here, is moral laziness, and nothing more.

I have no problem with medical privacy, and people making choices with their doctors about their medical conditions, abortion is not a medical condition, it is a procedure. It is used to terminate a human life inside the womb, which required at least one vital choice to be made, in order for that to happen. I support a woman's right to choose, just not unlimited choices. From my standpoint, the woman has the right to choose to use any number of birth control methods available, the woman has a right to choose whether to have sex or not, and she also chooses to accept the consequences of unprotected sex when she has it. So, by the time a fetus is in her womb, she has made several choices already, giving her the choice to murder another human because of her previous choices, is just unacceptable to me.


So its about punishing women who choose to have unprotected sex?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So its about punishing women who choose to have unprotected sex?

From my perspective, it's not about "punishing" anything. It is about accepting responsibility for your actions. If we as humans, simply didn't understand how women got pregnant, and they just suddenly turned up pregnant, it might be different, but we know, women who have unprotected sex know, and it is a risk taken by the action. Pregnancy is a consequence of the choice to have unprotected sex, and abortion is merely a 'pass' on personal responsibility.

Imagine if... We had a law... It says that murder is wrong and bad, we hope that no one ever has to murder another human, but if you do, and you go to the police and confess your crime, you can't be held accountable or punished and they can't charge you with murder. Now imagine, some people saying, this isn't right, people should be held accountable if they choose to murder, and then some pinhead says... but it's their "right" to choose, and you can't take it away. Does this make sense? Is this unfairly punishing people who murder, or is it holding people accountable for their actions and demanding people accept personal responsibility for their choices?

People are faced with choice everyday, and generally, with the consequences as well. This isn't like buying the wrong color shoes, or not showing up for work on time, this is willfully terminating a human life! Yet, we've established a system where people can avoid personal responsibility for their actions. And yes, I said "people" not just women, I think that men should be held equally accountable in this. In fact, that might be one of the underlying factors we should consider... that men are able to walk away from the responsibility, since they don't share the burden of child birth. With modern DNA testing, it shouldn't be that difficult to pinpoint the father, and they should be held financially responsible.

Some abortion advocates will say, what about rape? incest? life of the mother? These are not common situations, they are rare and extreme, and the element of personal responsibility is somewhat different, no one chooses to have unprotected sex in a rape, except the rapist. Abortion is a serious thing, it is the taking of innocent human life, and it shouldn't be treated the same as buying the wrong shoes.

[Jarod]

WE have a law, at least here in Florida, that if you feel threatened by another person, you are allowed to use deadly force to counter that threat. This law was passed with vast support from many REpublicans and the gun lobby. However opposed by most prosecutors.... due to the inability to prosecute most murders due to this law.

That is the same as abortion... bascially. If a woman feels a threat she according to Florida's new self defense law... she would have a right to murder the fetus if it were a full grown person making her feel the same threat!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

WE have a law, at least here in Florida, that if you feel threatened by another person, you are allowed to use deadly force to counter that threat. This law was passed with vast support from many REpublicans and the gun lobby. However opposed by most prosecutors.... due to the inability to prosecute most murders due to this law.

That is the same as abortion... bascially. If a woman feels a threat she according to Florida's new self defense law... she would have a right to murder the fetus if it were a full grown person making her feel the same threat!

No, I am sorry, but it's not anywhere remotely close to the same thing. First of all, if you read the Florida law, I think you'll find there is some criteria other than "feeling" involved. You simply can't go out and kill someone who you "feel" is a threat to you. Secondly, you are trying to compare a situation where no choice was made and the victim should not be held responsible for the consequences. There is a distinction between inviting someone to your home to play poker, and a burglar invading your property... the law doesn't treat these two conditions the same, there is no law that says you have the right to kill anything inside your home, because it's your home and you should have the right to choose. Again, I go back to what I previously said, if we didn't understand what happened to make women pregnant, and it wasn't a choice they made which resulted in becoming pregnant, then you might have a point. This isn't the case at all.

[Jarod]

You are wrong, thats the whole contraversy about this law. It is based on a subjective feeling that you feel threatened. Ill find you the wording when I am at my office tomorrow.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are wrong, thats the whole contraversy about this law. It is based on a subjective feeling that you feel threatened. Ill find you the wording when I am at my office tomorrow.

So you are claiming that you don't have to have any sort of reason or rationale other than your personal feelings? This makes no sense at all. I think you should have to at least show that you were justified in your feelings or something. IF what you say is true, I don't support the law, and I hope it is changed. As it stands, by your definition, I could come to Florida and kill you, just because I felt you were a threat to me. I somehow don't think that is the law, but you are saying it is. I can see a lot of unhappy couples planning a vacation to Florida, where they would kill their spouse and simply tell the police... I felt threatened by them. Now, you don't really believe this is what the law says, do you? I certainly am skeptical.

[Jarod]

No, you must be able to provide evidence that you felt threatened. If you kill a 98 lb 16 year old girl in broad daylight and you are a 350 lb body builder merely testifying that you felt threatened will not do it, no jury or prosecutor would belive you.

However we have a case here in PBC where a 16 year old kid was helping his family move into his new home, the move ran very late into the night. At about 3AM the neighbor heard noise and went outside to investigate. The 16 year old kid was cutting through his yard to get to the moving van. The neighbor pulled his gun and shot the unarmed 16 year old kid dead!

THe guy claimed he felt threatened and is VERY likely to get off. IN fact I know that the local prosecutors office is considering not filing charges because the dudes story fits RIGHT into Florida's new self defense law.

What percent of cases where a kid is cutting across a yard are achually a threat to the owner of that yard?

What percent of pregnancies are achually a threat to the mother?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, you must be able to provide evidence that you felt threatened. If you kill a 98 lb 16 year old girl in broad daylight and you are a 350 lb body builder merely testifying that you felt threatened will not do it, no jury or prosecutor would belive you.

Well okay now, so we find that there is a criteria besides simply "feeling" someone was a threat. You do have to show that the feeling of threat was legitimate, which is what I thought.

To make your analogy to abortion work, we would first have to assume that abortion were completely illegal, like murder. Then we could compare the FL law to allowing abortion in cases where the life of the mother is threatened, rape or incest, perhaps. Some people would undoubtedly 'beat the system' and claim rape or incest when none occurred, just to get away with an abortion, but this would not be a reason to legalize abortion or not allow for extreme cases such as rape and incest.

The case you cite is interesting, it seems to me, the man would be guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter, but not murder. He did not intend to murder an innocent kid, but he did make the decision to pull the trigger, whether he felt justified or not, and there is a consequence to that action, or at least, there should be. All I am advocating for, regarding abortion, is personal responsibility. It's not about forcing my views on others, my views would ban abortion under all circumstances entirely, because that is my personal feelings on the issue... but I realize the world doesn't operate on my personal views. I think, most people are able to draw a moral distinction between aborting a fetus conceived from a rapist and aborting a fetus for vanity and convenience. Just as, people can discern the difference between shooting an intruder and just gunning down people you don't like. Yes, the end result is the same, a person is dead... but it's about responsibility, consequence of actions, and the moral ethics of taking innocent human life.

[Jarod]

No, you must be able to provide evidence that you felt threatened. If you kill a 98 lb 16 year old girl in broad daylight and you are a 350 lb body builder merely testifying that you felt threatened will not do it, no jury or prosecutor would belive you.

Well okay now, so we find that there is a criteria besides simply "feeling" someone was a threat. You do have to show that the feeling of threat was legitimate, which is what I thought.

To make your analogy to abortion work, we would first have to assume that abortion were completely illegal, like murder. Then we could compare the FL law to allowing abortion in cases where the life of the mother is threatened, rape or incest, perhaps. Some people would undoubtedly 'beat the system' and claim rape or incest when none occurred, just to get away with an abortion, but this would not be a reason to legalize abortion or not allow for extreme cases such as rape and incest.

The case you cite is interesting, it seems to me, the man would be guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter, but not murder. He did not intend to murder an innocent kid, but he did make the decision to pull the trigger, whether he felt justified or not, and there is a consequence to that action, or at least, there should be. All I am advocating for, regarding abortion, is personal responsibility. It's not about forcing my views on others, my views would ban abortion under all circumstances entirely, because that is my personal feelings on the issue... but I realize the world doesn't operate on my personal views. I think, most people are able to draw a moral distinction between aborting a fetus conceived from a rapist and aborting a fetus for vanity and convenience. Just as, people can discern the difference between shooting an intruder and just gunning down people you don't like. Yes, the end result is the same, a person is dead... but it's about responsibility, consequence of actions, and the moral ethics of taking innocent human life.


You clearly do not understand the difference between murder and manslaughter or between 1st and second degeree murder.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You clearly do not understand the difference between murder and manslaughter or between 1st and second degeree murder.

Perhaps not, but I also don't know anything about this case, nor was it the focus of this thread. I merely gave my opinion based on what you told me. I do know that voluntary manslaughter is the intentional taking of someones life without malice or forethought. Damn if that doesn't sound like what this guy did, to me. Maybe not, but whatever, it doesn't matter with regard to this thread topic, or this debate.

[Jarod]

That is AKA second degree murder. And "Malice aforethought" can be infered by the act of taking your gun with you and or taking time to aim.

Now if you beat someone so badly that they die, while you were in a fistfight, that is your more classical third Degree murder.