kumble_rocks Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 Just for kicks KR/CC. What do you think should be the law when it comes to steroids? I mean how can we have abortion as legal, basically telling it is my body and hence my responsibility, and then make steroids illegal? Now I can understand it being illegal in World Events as it offers undue advantage etc, however if a person is strictly using it for his physique should it be illegal? xx I am ok with steriods and HGH for personal growth. Been very busy lately , don't get time for detailed posts !
CC1981 Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 but from a purely metaphysical point of view,one can still argue that as long as the heart is beating, you have a human being. Completely incorrect. You have people who can get a heart beating inside a laboratory made outta completely non-living stuff. From a purely metaphysical point of view, life is synonimous with conciousness and/or independent survivable ability- the foetus has neither until there is brain function. This is the FUNDAMENTAL ARGUMENT that has made abortion legal in Canada: that before there is a brainwave, it cannot be technically considered alive. You have doctors who agree on this aspect. Then they are wrong. No doctor can challenge the view that it is the brain, not the heart that defines life. That is clear-cut and i am sure Dhondy will back me up on this if he is around. Then I became pro life, but I am hardly fanatical about it. The extent of comfort with pro-life or pro-choice is something i find is easily determined by the answer to this question: Your girlfriend/wife tells you that she's pregnant,( practically speaking, its inside 6 weeks of conception- you dont have many women who are dumb enough to not check in the western world re: pregnancy if they ARE in a sexual relationship and have missed a period) but that she wants to abort. Are you going to be okay with the decision ? yes/no ? And if no, what would be the level of your discomfort - to the point of leaving her or just grumbling about ti for a while and getting over it ?
Lurker Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 As regards to abortion , I was for pro choice until I heard the first heart beat of my own kid. Then I became pro life, but I am hardly fanatical about it. I can understand why women want to abort. And I will not support over turning of Roe V Wade by Conservative supreme court justices. I think most of us will fall in that bracket, one way or the other. I am pro-choice, for example, but I am hardly going to support a women who has multiple abortions in a year. To me that would be grossly wrong thing to do.
CC1981 Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 but I am hardly going to support a women who has multiple abortions in a year. To me that would be grossly wrong thing to do. Again, in reality, the few women who actually have multiple abortions in a year, mostly have no choice in the matter ( read: sex workers of the immigrant/illegal-immigrant types cubbied up in a clandestine brothel. Its there in **EVERY** city i can think of or know of). Most women who are sexually active arnt stupid - they don't go around having multiple sex partners with no protections ( or atleast, birth control). I dunno which world you live in, but out here,getting a woman to do it without a condom or BC pills is as rare as a peacock in Russia. Like THX, a long time ago i did some activism in pro-abortion stuff around campus - most women who get abortions are in an accidental or victim case- rarely is there repeated cases of abortions happening.
beetle Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 Where do you draw the line ? What about a rape victim who doesnt want to have the child of the rapist ? If you are gonna say that its okay to abort in case of rape ( i notice you made the argument later on in your post), it still doesnt change the fact that it'll be the death of an innocent ( the foetus). Rape is not consensual sex...the victim can not be punished further.Unfair to the child but the woman shouldnot be made to take responsibility. So then you are against female birth control ( ie, birth control pills) ? If you havn't noticed, birth control pills prevent the zygote (which is AFTER conception point) from attaching itself to the uterine walls ( as well as preventing the release of the egg). As long as it has not attached,it is non viable pregnancy.I have no issue with pills that prevent release of egg. This is one area where i cast away 'morals' and look at the practicality of the situation : 1. It is NOT alive until it has conciousness...what seperates a tumour from a baby is that the baby has conciousness...ie, in the first few months of pregnancy, the 'baby' is no different from a tumour. Hence i am in full support of early stage abortion. Ask a mother how she feels about the baby when she gets a positive test. The moment you know,it becomes your baby.I don't see how killing this baby is any different from killing a child once it is born. 2. If the mother doesnt want the child, its better to abort. If she doesn't want,she should take precaution or make her partner take precaution Yes, i know of the high-falutan argument of 'give the child away if you cant raise it', but in 99.99% cases, these kids end up in orphanages or worse and have terribly tragic lives. If the mother doesnt want the baby,the baby isnt gonna have a very good life - he/she isnt gonna get much motherly love and is gonna grow up being a ****ed up kid. So its better to end it then and there instead of condemning one to a life of suffering. And what is the punishment for the parents for getting this child into existence.Who gives them the right to create when they don't need one.If we havelaws that punish such careless butchers ,there will be more people willing to act responsibly
CC1981 Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 I don't see how killing this baby is any different from killing a child once it is born. It is simple : your baby is alive, a human being. In the first few months, your baby isnt a baby, it is simply a mass of cells- no different than a tumor. What you are talking about mothers feelings is hormonal i think- and for the sake of the women who don't feel it or can intellectalize it, i dont see why our laws should be hostage to a hormonal quirk instead of the logic of ethics that is the basis of civilization ? No matter what you feel like, it isnt murder if it isnt alive. The two tests for life are : 1. **MUST** be able to survive independently and procrate and/or 2. MUST have brain function. The former is there to make sure there is no ambiguity and even plants/bacteria etc. are considered living and the latter is to encompass ALL animal kingdom. Otherwise, eating eggs is murder, eating 'unborn wheat kennel' is murder and so on and so forth. I think you are talking from a moral viewpoint, i am talking from a practical and ethical viewpoint heer. Nomatter how you put it, if a foetus doesnt have brain function, it technically isnt alive. Arrey baba, how can you be alive when you exhibit the EXACT condition that is required to pronounce someone clinically dead ? ( no brain activity) ??? I agree that post brain function, it is a controversial topic but before there is brain function, the question shouldn't arise whether it is murder or not- it cannot be murder if it isnt alive, so thats pretty cut and dried. And rahee baat post brain function, i simply believe that it is the best alternative for the child if the mother so chooses - for i sure as hell wouldnt wanna be a kid who's mom didnt really want him or wants to be rid of him ASAP. I dunno if you have some first hand knowledge of this, but i know a few abandoned kids/orphans who grew up in orphanages or programs as such. It really is not a pretty life. I suppose if it were up to me, i could consider a compromise : If abortion is that abhorrent for the conservatives, let them adopt the kid. If a woman can't have the choice to terminate, then she must have the choice to abandon. I think an argument can be made that if you care so much about the life of what at this point is a mass of cells like a tumour, then maybe you should sign up for motherhood and take full custody the moment the baby is born ? Who gives them the right to create when they don't need one. This is ultimately irrelevant- for it contradicts human nature. Look, the only surefire way of eliminating the dilemma of abortion is to practice abstinence. I hope you realize that statistically speaking, if you have a healthy and long sexual life, even using a condom or birth control pills may see you getting pregnant ( unless you are one of those rare persons who has a very specific and short ovulation period). As a species with sexual proclivities, you simply cannot rule out the fact that ***** sometimes happens that you dont wanna deal with /can choose not to deal with, especially when technically speaking, its NOT murder if done at an early stage. Otherwise you end up with a f*cekd up society like Arabia.
triam Posted September 23, 2008 Posted September 23, 2008 Interesting article about Sarah Palin http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080/page/1
Ram Posted September 23, 2008 Posted September 23, 2008 I think Sarah Palin's nomination as running mate may prove to be a big double whammy for McCain. Sure, she may have temporarily stolen all the spotlight with her fresh looks and sleek glasses, but lets be clear here. We are potentilly looking at someone, with almost zero Washington experience and an almost next to nothing exposure to foreign policy, at some point, having to don the role of President of United States, given that McCain is 72 and a cancer survivor. When once asked how much she knows on foreign policy, Palin answered Alaska is close to Russia, so she understands the workings of foreign policy. It is truly scary to think such a person can one day, become President of USA.
THX_1138 Posted September 23, 2008 Posted September 23, 2008 I don't believe in pollsters anymore. It is not science. actually it is statistics and if done right, they are remarkably accurate.
punjabi_khota Posted September 23, 2008 Posted September 23, 2008 actually it is statistics and if done right' date=' they are remarkably accurate.[/quote'] Maybe it is never done right then ? Atleast in India.
THX_1138 Posted September 23, 2008 Posted September 23, 2008 Maybe it is never done right then ? Atleast in India. those are not scientifically accurate polls... exit polls can offer suffer regional bias, and polls conducted over an unscientifically chosen sample who are not adequately representative of the electorate will of course be inaccurate.
THX_1138 Posted September 23, 2008 Posted September 23, 2008 I think Sarah Palin's nomination as running mate may prove to be a big double whammy for McCain. Sure, she may have temporarily stolen all the spotlight with her fresh looks and sleek glasses, but lets be clear here. We are potentilly looking at someone, with almost zero Washington experience and an almost next to nothing exposure to foreign policy, at some point, having to don the role of President of United States, given that McCain is 72 and a cancer survivor. When once asked how much she knows on foreign policy, Palin answered Alaska is close to Russia, so she understands the workings of foreign policy. It is truly scary to think such a person can one day, become President of USA. actually that was something Cindy McCain said... not Sarah Palin. Though Palin is still unqualified in my book. What i dont get is America's infatuation with electing a man of the people or someone from amongst them... when what you really need is a goddamn freakin genius who understands public policy, foreign policy, constitution law, and it doesnt hurt to be a particle physicist either...
CC1981 Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 What i dont get is America's infatuation with electing a man of the people or someone from amongst them... when what you really need is a goddamn freakin genius who understands public policy, foreign policy, constitution law, and it doesnt hurt to be a particle physicist either... The ability to relate is integral to trust. Your intellectual upbringing and education gives you a better ability to relate to this 'freakish genius particle physicist' better than a redneck hobo- just as the redneck hobo's ability to relate to his/her type is much greater than the upper-crust intellectual. Ultimately, electibility isnt a factor of capability, it is a factor of trust- if i find you less trustworthy than your competitor, my vote would go to the latter, even if you are 10 times more qualified and intellectually developed than your competitor. And when it comes to political candidacy, the only thing that one has to go by is the ability to relate : i know McCain personally just as well as i know Obama- which is zilch. Same is true for 99.999% people who'd vote in the election. And without knowing a person at all, the trust factor relies solely on the ability to relate- which is solely determined by the intellectual commonality between you and the person you are going to vote for. America isnt made up of intellectual people of great educational pedigree. No nation is, no nation ever was. America, just like all nations, is largely made up of people who simply care about having a job, getting a raise, having friends, getting drunk/having a good time, having relationships/families/girlfriends/boyfriends etc. This large majority finds itself identifying with 'one amongst them' better than the Harvard-type of slick intellectual genius.
Lurker Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 Yep retard is the right word. No wonder even the Conservatives are calling for her to quit. I am almost always amazed at how brain dead Conservatives are when it comes to Foreign policy. Most of them, including the numbnut that goes by name Palin, have issues of Ahmedinejad coming to NYC and calling for the head of Israel at "USA soil". Do they realize that it is done because UN is in NYC?? If UN was in Tokyo it would be the same statement. The utterances has little to do with USA. Considering most of Americans do not appreciate UN anyway why not move UN out of NYC? But no the buggers want to have the cake and eat it too. Retards.
riya Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 She reads too many newspapers that she can't even remember those names .True Gem.I never expected some one who is dumber than me can be the vice president of such a powerful nation .:D
punjabi_khota Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 She reads too many newspapers that she can't even remember those names .True Gem.I never expected some one who is dumber than me can be the vice president of such a powerful nation .:D And maybe, the president if McCain chokes on his viagra one night.
Brainfade Posted October 2, 2008 Posted October 2, 2008 Yep retard is the right word. No wonder even the Conservatives are calling for her to quit. I am almost always amazed at how brain dead Conservatives are when it comes to Foreign policy. Most of them, including the numbnut that goes by name Palin, have issues of Ahmedinejad coming to NYC and calling for the head of Israel at "USA soil". Do they realize that it is done because UN is in NYC?? If UN was in Tokyo it would be the same statement. The utterances has little to do with USA. Considering most of Americans do not appreciate UN anyway why not move UN out of NYC? But no the buggers want to have the cake and eat it too. Retards. Huh? What good does it do the US to have the UN in NY? How is it having the cake and eating it too? The US contributes 22% of the UN budget - amounts to over 5 billion per year. To what end? http://www.eyeontheun.org/facts.asp?1=1&p=15 http://www.eyeontheun.org/facts.asp?pl=28&p=230 If anything, the UN is the most inept, corrupt organization there is. Remember Kofi Annan and his misadventures? Man, your rants against conservatives are truly astounding. I am a fiscal conservative. I am a social conservative with respect to abortion, but a social liberal as far as gay rights etc. go. And I am certainly not a retard (except when I am agonizing about a sporting event that has no impact on my life) Looks like you work with some extreme redneck types who get on your nerves. :-D
Brainfade Posted October 2, 2008 Posted October 2, 2008 Clinical death may be brain death but from a purely metaphysical point of view,one can still argue that as long as the heart is beating, you have a human being. You have doctors who agree on this aspect. So , I am nobody to speak for or against. As regards to abortion , I was for pro choice until I heard the first heart beat of my own kid. Then I became pro life, but I am hardly fanatical about it. I can understand why women want to abort. And I will not support over turning of Roe V Wade by Conservative supreme court justices. How do you feel about PBAs?
Lurker Posted October 3, 2008 Posted October 3, 2008 Huh? What good does it do the US to have the UN in NY? How is it having the cake and eating it too? The US contributes 22% of the UN budget - amounts to over 5 billion per year. To what end? http://www.eyeontheun.org/facts.asp?1=1&p=15 http://www.eyeontheun.org/facts.asp?pl=28&p=230 If anything, the UN is the most inept, corrupt organization there is. Remember Kofi Annan and his misadventures? Firstly we arent discussing if UN is the greatest organization or not, are we Cricaddict(do correct me if I am wrong). What we are discussing, specifically what I have spelt out, is how the Conservatives like Palin are unable to differentiate the simple fact that these leaders, like Ahmedinejad are NOT saying these lines in USA per se, they are saying this in UN. Would Ahmedinejad go to Las Vegas Caesars Palace and say something like that? Course not, he wont even get a visa. So question to you now. Do you agreedisagree: a) Such statements, as by Ahmedinejad, happen due to UN being in USA and there is a differentiation when someone says it was uttered on a USA soil Man, your rants against conservatives are truly astounding. I am a fiscal conservative. I am a social conservative with respect to abortion, but a social liberal as far as gay rights etc. go. Then we are not exactly very different on Fiscal and social side. We differ on Social Conservatism side with respect to pro-life And I am certainly not a retard (except when I am agonizing about a sporting event that has no impact on my life) I am not even sure why I am even forced to explain this. My assertions were obviously towards people who can not make a simple differentiation, I have explained it above, and I am pretty sure you are smart enough to understand that differentiation. xxx
Recommended Posts