Gunman shooting at abortion clinic in the US - multiple victims

[SoulMonster]

Honestly, i can't handle abortion, the idea of abortion. I ain't against it being allowed cuz, well, i ain't a bird and i don't have to carry em and give birth and be a mum and that...just the idea though, not sure I could handle it. But then I suppose it's not about me so much.

Pretty much my stance on it. Even more so now after becoming a parent.

It's nothing different than removing a tumour or any other clump of human cells that is definitely not a human being.

[shades]

I wonder what the GOP candidates are going to say? I have not heard any statements.

no telling,

But Obama has already politicized it, he won't even give the family time to grieve and he already opens his sick, thoughtless piehole.

Honestly, i can't handle abortion, the idea of abortion. I ain't against it being allowed cuz, well, i ain't a bird and i don't have to carry em and give birth and be a mum and that...just the idea though, not sure I could handle it. But then I suppose it's not about me so much.

Pretty much my stance on it. Even more so now after becoming a parent.

It's nothing different than removing a tumour or any other clump of human cells that is definitely not a human being.

sick bastard

[AtariLegend]

I was almost going to post inb4 shades blames it on Obama, then decided I was being too cynical. I was wrong .

That said, I don't agree with abortion in most scenarios and I think your comment is disgusting Soul.

Edited November 28, 2015 by AtariLegend

[Apollo]

Honestly, i can't handle abortion, the idea of abortion. I ain't against it being allowed cuz, well, i ain't a bird and i don't have to carry em and give birth and be a mum and that...just the idea though, not sure I could handle it. But then I suppose it's not about me so much.

Pretty much my stance on it. Even more so now after becoming a parent.

It's nothing different than removing a tumour or any other clump of human cells that is definitely not a human being.

Wow.

And your a father.

Just wow.

[DieselDaisy]

Honestly, i can't handle abortion, the idea of abortion. I ain't against it being allowed cuz, well, i ain't a bird and i don't have to carry em and give birth and be a mum and that...just the idea though, not sure I could handle it. But then I suppose it's not about me so much.

Pretty much my stance on it. Even more so now after becoming a parent.

It's nothing different than removing a tumour or any other clump of human cells that is definitely not a human being.

Wow.

And your a father.

Just wow.

Don't forget Soul wants to sterilise the world or something or other to bring population growth down. He's a real student of Germanic planing.

[Apollo]

Honestly, i can't handle abortion, the idea of abortion. I ain't against it being allowed cuz, well, i ain't a bird and i don't have to carry em and give birth and be a mum and that...just the idea though, not sure I could handle it. But then I suppose it's not about me so much.

Pretty much my stance on it. Even more so now after becoming a parent.

It's nothing different than removing a tumour or any other clump of human cells that is definitely not a human being.

Wow.

And your a father.

Just wow.

Don't forget Soul wants to sterilise the world or something or other to bring population growth down. He's a real student of Germanic planing.

Sick stuff man. Really disgusting.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Now now, guys, lets all calm down here. Put on a Guns N' Roses record, and relax.

[classicrawker]

I was almost going to post inb4 shades blames it on Obama, then decided I was being too cynical. I was wrong .

That said, I don't agree with abortion in most scenarios and I think your comment is disgusting Soul.

Exactly you knew it was coming.......... Obama is his antichrist.....

I was going to barbecue today but it rained........fucking Obama..........

That being said, I would never be in favor of an abortion if I got someone pregnant but I do support a Women's right to choose.

Edited November 29, 2015 by classicrawker

[Gordon Comstock]

Soul's not entirely wrong, though.

[DeadSlash]

The scary thing is, this is what other religions are starting to preach to kids. I saw a documentary on it. If someone says the M word in satire or god forbid, draws him, somebody is getting blown the fuck up. People piss on crosses and that's no big thing.

Strictly speaking in Islam and in Christianity you're not supposed to create images and idols in general. 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images' amd all that.

Would there be a show on Cartoon network called "Black Jesus" (It's pretty funny BTW) if Christians were beheading people over it? No.

I don't think the idea of Jesus being a white man is any kind of actual standard in Christianity. The bible describes him as 'having hair like lambs wool' or something, sounds like fuckin' Shaft to me!

That was pretty much the gist of what they were telling the kids. "You think you love Jesus? The Muslims are willing to die for their god, but you let Jesus be spat on every day. It's time we fight" I saw it last year, so that isn't an actual quote, but it was close.

It's the same God, they don't appreciate disrespect or abuse of Jesus either. That'd be something to worry about eh? Really and truly speaking the differences between Islam and Christianity and Judaism are minor, the similarities and things they have in common and overwhelming in comparison, that'll be the day to worry, when they band together

It's f'd up, but it's really hard to argue against it. If malls got blown up every time someone made a Jewish joke, or people got shot every time there was a drawing of Jesus, people would eventually stop bringing it up.

Last i looked Iraq and Afghanistan got a right royal shagging in the name of Christianity. Texas George made a point of speaking to God about them beforehand

Black Jesus has nothing to do with his color or debating his color, it's a comedy where he lives in the ghetto it's a pretty funny comedy, but if it was about Muhammad living in the ghetto... well, if you don't think people would die over that, I'm not sure how you are posting here because you clearly do not have contact with the outside world.

Overall, the difference between many religions is minor, you completely missed my point. Radical Muslims have no peer in other religions today. If we had Radical Hebrews and Radical Christians doing shit like shooting up abortion clinics all the time, the world would be a very different and scary place. There is zero tolerance from radical Islam. If Radical Christians were the same, this wouldn't have made the news, because it would be that common of a happening. We need to be worried because they are teaching this to kids. We need to be worried because it's coming.

[DeadSlash]

Now now, guys, lets all calm down here. Put on a Guns N' Roses record, and relax.

Civil War

[Georgy Zhukov]

Now now, guys, lets all calm down here. Put on a Guns N' Roses record, and relax.

Civil War

I don't need no Civil Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar

[SoulMonster]

That said, I don't agree with abortion in most scenarios and I think your comment is disgusting Soul.

But see, that's the problem. People think of fetuses as babies and as humans, and then OF COURSE they are eligble to the same protection as the rest of us. The problem is that fetuses at the stage of abortion is just a clump of cells no more resembling a human being than a tumor except for its superficial humanoid shape and a very early differentiation at the cellular level. Everything that is important for human worth, basically what makes us eligble for special protection, as defined by most philosophers, biologists and judicial systems, derives from a maturation of the nervous system that allows us the ability to think, feel, be aware, etc, and all this is completely lacking in fetuses at this stage. In fact, if we were to grant protection to fetuses because of their vague resemblance to humans, we might as well grant protection to apes as well (which are MUCH MORE like humans than fetuses are). What is left is of course the argument that "but, they have the POTENTIAL to develop into humans and therefore they should be protected", which is an argument I find rather silly, and begging of the slippery slope argument of how far back in pre- and post-fertizilization does this amazing potential suddenly become so great it means what could be should be protected as if it was, and what about modern stem cell research that will allow us to turn many clumps of cells into humans, shoudl now ALL cells be protected because they have this inherent potential?

What also makes people react to a comparison between a fetus and a tumour -- although it was CLEARLY only meant in the sense of whether they are human being deserving of protection -- is of course the fact the shock factor of comparing somethig oh so precious with something so intrisically connected to bad bad cancer. If you have biological background, though, you would now that tumours can be both malign and benign, and is just characterised by being clumps of cells growing in the body. And in that perspective they are just like fetuses. They are clumps of cells growing in the body. Clumps of cells that are either growing out of control, tumours, or growing according to a programmed plan, fetuses, but both can't live outside their "host bodies" and both are completely not at all like humans.

[SoulMonster]

Honestly, i can't handle abortion, the idea of abortion. I ain't against it being allowed cuz, well, i ain't a bird and i don't have to carry em and give birth and be a mum and that...just the idea though, not sure I could handle it. But then I suppose it's not about me so much.

Pretty much my stance on it. Even more so now after becoming a parent.

It's nothing different than removing a tumour or any other clump of human cells that is definitely not a human being.

Wow.

And your a father.

Just wow.

Yes, for some peculiar reason becoming a father didn't take away my knowledge on what an early fetus is and how different it is from humans, nor did it change my perception on what makes humans deserving of special rights and protection.

I would go out on a limb here and suggest that most people have a somewhat rudimentary knowledge on the cellular, molecular and neural differences between early fetuses and humans, nor have ever really considered the basis for why we are deserving of special rights or considered the demarcation lines that this must necessarily create between "humans" and closely related organisms (like apes) and also entities like fetuses and tumors. From blurry understanding comes opinions derived from gut feelings and emotions.

Honestly, i can't handle abortion, the idea of abortion. I ain't against it being allowed cuz, well, i ain't a bird and i don't have to carry em and give birth and be a mum and that...just the idea though, not sure I could handle it. But then I suppose it's not about me so much.

Pretty much my stance on it. Even more so now after becoming a parent.

It's nothing different than removing a tumour or any other clump of human cells that is definitely not a human being.

Wow.

And your a father.

Just wow.

Don't forget Soul wants to sterilise the world or something or other to bring population growth down. He's a real student of Germanic planing.

Nah, this statement is nothing but the result of your flawed memory of a previous discussion that apparently went above your head.

[SoulMonster]

Soul's not entirely wrong, though.

I dare say I am entirely correct.

Of course I both anticpated and hoped for these reactions when I decided to use the words "tumor" and "fetus" in the same sentence. It is a sure-fire way to rile people up.

But it is true, though. When talking about the factors that are the basis for human rights and protection, as most have defined them, early fetuses (we are talking about the first weeks where abortion is allowed) are comparable to tumours in the sene that they both lack all of these factors. The only difference between fetuses and (most, heh) tumours, are that the former have a vague resemblance to humans in its shape (and of course on a cellular level they are much more alike). But I doubt many here would grant them protection because they sort-of look like, in a good light, something that could eventually develop into a human. Hell, then we have to grant the same protection to so much else, not the least the early fetuses of most other mammals! This leaves the potential argument, which I find weak for reasons stated earlier. And of course religious arguments of the type "my god forbids it", but let's keep such silliness out of this thread.

[DieselDaisy]

Soul's not entirely wrong, though.

I dare say I am entirely correct

You can imagine him in a SS uniform, can't you? Ze will not produce babies for ze state, yaar?

[SoulMonster]

Soul's not entirely wrong, though.

I dare say I am entirely correct

You can imagine him in a SS uniform, can't you? Ze will not produce babies for ze state, yaar?

Not really, but I can imagine you trying to say anything relevant or intelligent about this topic but failing at that, instead going for dated jokes.

[DieselDaisy]

I can just imagine Soul with his sheet of paper there, his SS uniform, checking off who should be allowed to procreate.

In fact Soul is a good example of what happens when you allow atheism to run amok: a complete absence of spirituality or humanity. The human soul (no pun intended) is replaced by a mere statistician, a petty scientist, a socioloigist and Axl Rose fan (joke).

[SoulMonster]

In fact Soul is a good example of what happens when you allow atheism to run amok: a complete absence of spirituality or humanity. The human soul (no pun intended) is replaced by a mere statistician, a petty scientist, a socioloigist and Axl Rose fan (joke).

Atheism means humanity disappears? Oh Diesel. But can we discuss that somewhere else, this thread is sort of about abortion? I know you have nothing interesting to say on that topic (nor on atheism and humanity, either, for that sake), but let's just try to stick to the topic and not let it degenerate into your rambling posts about the evils of atheism and your flawed characteristics of other posters?

[DieselDaisy]

In fact Soul is a good example of what happens when you allow atheism to run amok: a complete absence of spirituality or humanity. The human soul (no pun intended) is replaced by a mere statistician, a petty scientist, a socioloigist and Axl Rose fan (joke).

Atheism means humanity disappears? Oh Diesel. But can we discuss that somewhere else, this thread is sort of about abortion? I know you have nothing interesting to say on that topic (nor on atheism and humanity, either, for that sake), but let's just try to stick to the topic and not let it degenerate into your rambling posts about the evils of atheism and your flawed characteristics of other posters?

It is completely relevant. It is how you can look at a x-ray of a fetus and see a ''bundle of cells'', whereas someone possessing human empathy will look at that same image and see a ''human''. Soul Monster analyses society with a surgeon's scalpel - prodding, dissecting, recording the results - yet possessing absolutely none of the knowledge in understanding what humanity essentially is.

Edited November 29, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[Jakey Styley]

In fact Soul is a good example of what happens when you allow atheism to run amok: a complete absence of spirituality or humanity. The human soul (no pun intended) is replaced by a mere statistician, a petty scientist, a socioloigist and Axl Rose fan (joke).

Atheism means humanity disappears? Oh Diesel. But can we discuss that somewhere else, this thread is sort of about abortion? I know you have nothing interesting to say on that topic (nor on atheism and humanity, either, for that sake), but let's just try to stick to the topic and not let it degenerate into your rambling posts about the evils of atheism and your flawed characteristics of other posters?

It is how you can look at a x-ray of a fetus and see a ''bundle of cells'', whereas someone possessing human empathy will look at that same image and see a ''human''.

What allows you to say that?

[DieselDaisy]

Have you not read his posts above? He actually described a fetus as worse than that - he described it as a 'tumour'.

[SoulMonster]

In fact Soul is a good example of what happens when you allow atheism to run amok: a complete absence of spirituality or humanity. The human soul (no pun intended) is replaced by a mere statistician, a petty scientist, a socioloigist and Axl Rose fan (joke).

Atheism means humanity disappears? Oh Diesel. But can we discuss that somewhere else, this thread is sort of about abortion? I know you have nothing interesting to say on that topic (nor on atheism and humanity, either, for that sake), but let's just try to stick to the topic and not let it degenerate into your rambling posts about the evils of atheism and your flawed characteristics of other posters?

It is completely relevant. It is how you can look at a x-ray of a fetus and see a ''bundle of cells'', whereas someone possessing human empathy will look at that same image and see a ''human''.

Again, this just demonstrates your lack of understanding. Fetuses can lok very differently depending upon what stage in development, gestation, they are. I doubt anyone would look at a fetus in early stages and think "human!" unless they have been trained to think that way. Sure, when we push towards the absolute upper limits of when abortion is allowed in most countries, the resemblance to humans becomes stronger and obvious. But if you had followed what I wrote you would know that the basis for human rights does not depend upon whether something looks human, but whether it has the neural development that allows it to be human. If we were to grant human rights to anything that looks human, then we might as well grant it to apes as well (again, previous argument that you either failed to read or failed to understand) and mannequins. Similarity/morphology simply can't be and isn't the basis for this; it is whether it has the peculiar characteristics of a human that decides if we think it is worthy of special recognition and protection, whether it can think and feel and so on. THAT is what makes humans special compared to all other living things, THAT is what is worth protecting. That is the basis of our own humanity, compassion, intellect -- all of which are glorious things that are completely absent in fetuses.

[DieselDaisy]

In fact Soul is a good example of what happens when you allow atheism to run amok: a complete absence of spirituality or humanity. The human soul (no pun intended) is replaced by a mere statistician, a petty scientist, a socioloigist and Axl Rose fan (joke).

Atheism means humanity disappears? Oh Diesel. But can we discuss that somewhere else, this thread is sort of about abortion? I know you have nothing interesting to say on that topic (nor on atheism and humanity, either, for that sake), but let's just try to stick to the topic and not let it degenerate into your rambling posts about the evils of atheism and your flawed characteristics of other posters?

It is completely relevant. It is how you can look at a x-ray of a fetus and see a ''bundle of cells'', whereas someone possessing human empathy will look at that same image and see a ''human''.

Again, this just demonstrates your lack of understanding. Fetuses can lok very differently depending upon what stage in development, gestation, they are. I doubt anyone would look at a fetus in early stages and think "human!" unless they have been trained to think that way. Sure, when we push towards the absolute upper limits of when abortion is allowed in most countries, the resemblance to humans becomes stronger and obvious. But if you had followed what I wrote you would know that the basis for human rights does not depend upon whether something looks human, but whether it has the neural development that allows it to be human. If we were to grant human rights to anything that looks human, then we might as well grant it to apes as well (again, previous argument that you either failed to read or failed to understand) and mannequins. Similarity/morphology simply can't be and isn't the basis for this; it is whether it has the peculiar characteristics of a human that decides if we think it is worthy of special recognition and protection, whether it can think and feel and so on. THAT is what makes humans special compared to all other living things, THAT is what is worth protecting. That is the basis of our own humanity, compassion, intellect -- all of which are glorious things that are completely absent in fetuses.

Totally disagree. Firstly intellect? A fetus has been known to react to human touch and has cognitive awareness of cyclic chronology (e.g. day and night). That is intellect even if it does not meet your criteria. What gives you the right to judge whether it has intellect or not?

I actually do not know why you are pursuing your ape analogy as I would not condone killing an ape fetus either. It is an awful analogy even if it is judged by your own prickly scientific mind since that baby ape is not human and will never be human and can be verified as such by DNA tests, etc.

[SoulMonster]

In fact Soul is a good example of what happens when you allow atheism to run amok: a complete absence of spirituality or humanity. The human soul (no pun intended) is replaced by a mere statistician, a petty scientist, a socioloigist and Axl Rose fan (joke).

Atheism means humanity disappears? Oh Diesel. But can we discuss that somewhere else, this thread is sort of about abortion? I know you have nothing interesting to say on that topic (nor on atheism and humanity, either, for that sake), but let's just try to stick to the topic and not let it degenerate into your rambling posts about the evils of atheism and your flawed characteristics of other posters?

It is completely relevant. It is how you can look at a x-ray of a fetus and see a ''bundle of cells'', whereas someone possessing human empathy will look at that same image and see a ''human''.

Again, this just demonstrates your lack of understanding. Fetuses can lok very differently depending upon what stage in development, gestation, they are. I doubt anyone would look at a fetus in early stages and think "human!" unless they have been trained to think that way. Sure, when we push towards the absolute upper limits of when abortion is allowed in most countries, the resemblance to humans becomes stronger and obvious. But if you had followed what I wrote you would know that the basis for human rights does not depend upon whether something looks human, but whether it has the neural development that allows it to be human. If we were to grant human rights to anything that looks human, then we might as well grant it to apes as well (again, previous argument that you either failed to read or failed to understand) and mannequins. Similarity/morphology simply can't be and isn't the basis for this; it is whether it has the peculiar characteristics of a human that decides if we think it is worthy of special recognition and protection, whether it can think and feel and so on. THAT is what makes humans special compared to all other living things, THAT is what is worth protecting. That is the basis of our own humanity, compassion, intellect -- all of which are glorious things that are completely absent in fetuses.

Totally disagree. Firstly intellect? A fetus has been known to react to human touch and has cognitive awareness of cyclic chronology (e.g. day and night). That is intellect even if it does not meet your criteria. What gives you the right to judge whether it has intellect or not?

Everyone has the right to judge whether they think something has sufficient intellect etc to be deserving of human rights There should be no doubt that the cognitive levels of a fetus in the stages we are talking about, and humans, are vastly different. If you think a fetus in early stages has sufficient cognitive levels to be deserving of protection as humans, then you must assign the same right to most mammals. I hear dolphins are rather bright.

Again, we are talking about what makes humans special. I argue that it is our humanity, compassion, intellect, etc -- as it differs from fetuses and other animals -- that are so fantastic that we must protect them. It makes us unique, it makes us special, it makes us deserving of special protection. This is a rational understanding of why we have human rights, and it is a celebration of what is good about humans.

Fetuses, on the other hand, lack this. All they have is a rudimentary resemblance to humans and the potential to develop these characteristics. And unless looks or potental is what we want to protect, then fetuses at those early stages shouldn't have human rights.

The reason why so many people are against abortion is not because they have thought these things through, for most part, but because they are raised to believe fetuses have "souls" or raised to believe their god is against abortion. VERY few are against abortion because they believe fetuses have sufficient cognitive, neural, humanity qualities to be deserving of it, or because resemblance in itself is sufficient, or because they have the innate ability to develop into a human being with these characteristics. I am afraid you too, Diesel, fall into the former category, for you have not at all been able to argue for any of the other reasons.