The Modern Hitlers Children...................revisited

christiefan915 said:
Who knew? We women thought they were for the purpose of nourishing infants, and everything else was secondary.
Click to expand...

He groaned you for that post, does he actually believe the primary purpose of breasts is for man pleasure? why am I not surprised. Don't tell him sex is for procreation, he he.
 
bravo said:
Whats best overall or whats best for the baby, or whats best for the mother, or whats best for the community, is not for YOU to decide is it...? Not you and certainly not apple.....
Click to expand...


Nor for you.

I agree, there are circumstances that make abortion an option to consider, but the risk of that the child might experience hunger or be poor is not one of them.....
Click to expand...

If you did some research and LEARNED you might not come across as quite so ignorant. The hungry and the poor are predisposed to getting involved in criminal activities, joining gangs and ending up in prison. What sick individual would suggest, let alone try to change laws, enforcing children be brought into such circumstances?

My big issue is not abortion itself, its the denying the fact of killing a human being.....realizing that biological fact might affect its use or might not....
Click to expand...

And therein lies your problem. Abortion is not the killing of a human being. Our culture, our laws, the very foundation of our society is based on the understanding human beings are individuals. Human beings do not live inside other human beings. Human beings do not share bodies...well, not in the sense you suggest.

Saying abortion isn't killing a human, its killing a cell growth is like saying war in not killing people, its killing an enemy.....
Click to expand...

Saying abortion is killing a human being is like saying one eats scrambled chickens and bacon for breakfast. It's like saying squirrels gather oak trees for the winter. It's like saying it would be ethical for a grocery store chain to advertize a "door-crasher" sale; that being tomatoes for 5 cents each and offering customers a tomato seed.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
So it does seem that the religious right are more concerned about aberrant behaviour and the consequences thereof, rather than what's best overall.
Click to expand...
how is taking the life of a almost born baby considered 'whats best for all'????? and religious right? dude, i'm about as far from that as you get.
 
DamnYankee said:
Didn't do you any harm, did it?
Click to expand...

Actually I had a very nice childhood. Bought my first car when I was 13. It was a 1950 Oldsmobile. Paid $75.00 for it and worked at picking apples @ 50 cents a hour. I'd get together with a few neighbors and we'd have drag races between the rows of apple trees.

Those were the day, my friend.
We thought they'd never end....
 
DamnYankee said:
God made boobs for the pleasure of men, Poet. You're preference doesn't allow you to partake. :D
Click to expand...

God did not make "boobs" for the pleasure of men. Only a misogynist Neanderthal would think that. God made woman (according to the Bible) as a companion for man.....not a body part, to be used, solely for the pleasure of a man. Breasts hold mothers' milk for the nursing of infants. That some men are obsessed with them, is beside the point.
And you don't know me. Stop pretending to. I've been with women. One was doctor's wife, who was getting a divorce. She wanted to "keep me"...but I was more interested in her visiting male dance instructor. She was white, by the way. Playboy bunny type. One you could only dream of. I hope that unsettled you....me with buxom blond bombshell, who was into "chocolate". LOL. But I'm such a racist.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
babies are viable at around 7 months, right? so how is that not fully developed and sentient? or would you like to move the goal posts again?
Click to expand...

I think viability is a huge factor in the abortion debate. So did the Supreme Court.

And when did I move the goal posts previously?
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
quite often, you are the king goal post mover of the board, well, maybe tied with dune.
Click to expand...

Pure projection, brotha. But, since you stepped in, perhaps you'd care to show me where I did in my conversation w/ STY? Was it when I was making Obama out to be a hero?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
how is taking the life of a almost born baby considered 'whats best for all'????? and religious right? dude, i'm about as far from that as you get.
Click to expand...

I have already said that I think the limit should be 20 weeks, there was an unsuccessful move to make it so in 2008. It is currently set at 24 having changed from 28 weeks previously. What is the upper limit in the US?
 
Last edited:
SmarterThanYou said:
babies are viable at around 7 months, right? so how is that not fully developed and sentient? or would you like to move the goal posts again?
Click to expand...

They are not, actually. Surfactant, the substance that reduces surface tension in the lungs and allows the air sacs ( alveoli) to not collapse, is the last thing to form (around the 8th month)
•Weeks 29 to 32 of gestation; weeks 31 to 34 of pregnancy ◦A rapid increase in the amount of body fat occurs.
◦Rhythmic breathing movements occur, but the lungs are not fully mature.◦The bones are fully developed, but still soft and pliable.
◦The baby's body begins storing iron, calcium, and phosphorus.

That goal post is pretty rigid.
 
poet said:
They are not, actually. Surfactant, the substance that reduces surface tension in the lungs and allows the air sacs ( alveoli) to not collapse, is the last thing to form (around the 8th month)
•Weeks 29 to 32 of gestation; weeks 31 to 34 of pregnancy ◦A rapid increase in the amount of body fat occurs.
◦Rhythmic breathing movements occur, but the lungs are not fully mature.◦The bones are fully developed, but still soft and pliable.
◦The baby's body begins storing iron, calcium, and phosphorus.

That goal post is pretty rigid.
Click to expand...

http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/a/prematurebirth.htm
 
poet said:
God did not make "boobs" for the pleasure of men. Only a misogynist Neanderthal would think that. God made woman (according to the Bible) as a companion for man.....not a body part, to be used, solely for the pleasure of a man. Breasts hold mothers' milk for the nursing of infants. That some men are obsessed with them, is beside the point.
And you don't know me. Stop pretending to. I've been with women. One was doctor's wife, who was getting a divorce. She wanted to "keep me"...but I was more interested in her visiting male dance instructor. She was white, by the way. Playboy bunny type. One you could only dream of. I hope that unsettled you....me with buxom blond bombshell, who was into "chocolate". LOL. But I'm such a racist.
Click to expand...

They say, "Once you go black, you never go back". For a short period I dated a black gal who owned a woman's gym. You could bounce a dime of her butt! However (there's always a "however"), I found out her Ex was a biker and was trying to get her back. Remembering the snake and train parable I slowly backed away.
 
apple0154 said:
They say, "Once you go black, you never go back". For a short period I dated a black gal who owned a woman's gym. You could bounce a dime of her butt! However (there's always a "however"), I found out her Ex was a biker and was trying to get her back. Remembering the snake and train parable I slowly backed away.
Click to expand...

That's what they say...you're a smart cookie. The glaring sore thumb in my instance, was I would occasionally see her soon-to-be ex doctor husband, in the hospital halls, where I worked, and just knew he knew what was going on. Quite unsettling for me. He didn't know me from Adam, but I was not up for the drama. I locked my door and didn't answer my phone, and she went away. Pamela Anderson knock off. I swear. But then I always thought some women would actually nut at the thought of changing a gay man's mind.
 
poet said:
God did not make "boobs" for the pleasure of men. Only a misogynist Neanderthal would think that. God made woman (according to the Bible) as a companion for man.....not a body part, to be used, solely for the pleasure of a man. Breasts hold mothers' milk for the nursing of infants. That some men are obsessed with them, is beside the point.
And you don't know me. Stop pretending to. I've been with women. One was doctor's wife, who was getting a divorce. She wanted to "keep me"...but I was more interested in her visiting male dance instructor. She was white, by the way. Playboy bunny type. One you could only dream of. I hope that unsettled you....me with buxom blond bombshell, who was into "chocolate". LOL. But I'm such a racist.
Click to expand...

You are a racist, assuming that I'd be upset that you philandered with a slut who happened to be white.

And I know enough of you to note that you once again show that your sexual deviancy is merely a preference for franks and beans instead of clams and boobies. :)
 
DamnYankee said:
You are a racist, assuming that I'd be upset that you philandered with a slut who happened to be white.

And I know enough of you to note that you once again show that your sexual deviancy is merely a preference for franks and beans instead of clams and boobies. :)
Click to expand...

Oh, how clever. DY made a pun. Two, in fact.
By definition, I am not a racist (for the zillionth time)...but you're not to be convinced. Fortunately, you're just one fool, and insignificant, by all accounts.
How schizoid are you? To go from an anime character, bouncing boobs to a sonogram of a unborn child. Don't you get the disconnect, you imbecile? You are a clown. A racist, bigoted, homophobic clown. And everybody knows it. My theory about homophobic men, is that they are repressed homosexuals themselves, and just can't deal with it. So they lash out. Men...real men, who are comfortable with their sexuality are not bothered by gays or lesbians, as they don't see themselves reflected. Hello, somebody?
 
poet said:
Oh, how clever. DY made a pun. Two, in fact.
By definition, I am not a racist (for the zillionth time)...but you're not to be convinced. Fortunately, you're just one fool, and insignificant, by all accounts.
How schizoid are you? To go from an anime character, bouncing boobs to a sonogram of a unborn child. Don't you get the disconnect, you imbecile? You are a clown. A racist, bigoted, homophobic clown. And everybody knows it. My theory about homophobic men, is that they are repressed homosexuals themselves, and just can't deal with it. So they lash out. Men...real men, who are comfortable with their sexuality are not bothered by gays or lesbians, as they don't see themselves reflected. Hello, somebody?
Click to expand...
:lol: The boobs really piss you off, don't they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top