Debate reaction, anyone change any of their previous opinions?

all i have to say is.....Joe the Plummer

The event last night, where they boast roasted each other, was really good. See, McCain seemed to have a decent personality in that setting. I thought they were both friggin' hilarious.

Obama "My biggest fault? Well, it is possible I may be a bit too awesome"
priceless

All I'm going to say is I'm a socialist and I think we should follow the examples of other countries like Finland.

lol

Quote :

From my experience most against abortion disagree.

They're uneducated about the subject, but if you're pro-abortion, you shouldn't have an issue with using it regardless of what anti-abortion people thought of it, right?

Quote :

The point was that it is really no longer viewed/believed that you must be married and/or be intending to procreate to have sex by the majority of people

I completely agree. It's obvious you don't need to be married or want to procreate to have sex, but these days there are numerous ways to do this and prevent pregnancy. After all, this IS the 21st century as you said.

Quote :

Hmm to me that translates to, you have no right to have a choice.

Again, adoption is completely ignored as a choice. Why?

Quote :

Wow did you even read my entire post? I guess I'll re-post it in BOLD so you can see it :

Another thing is people seem to think that people who are pro-choice think this a a decision to take lightly. Wrong! This is a huge decision for any woman and they should talk to their family/boyfriend/friends/whoever they are close to, before they make such a monumental decision.

Quote :

It should be up to the woman what she decides to do with her body

Quote :

In the end it should be the woman's right to control her own body

So, you're saying the other people have rights, but only if the woman allows them? Let's take your second quote here and Ravey's argument about crazy inlaws or bf who sabotages birth control giving her the right to have an abortion. What happens when a crazy gf sabotages the birth control? It's not hard for her to poke a hole in a condom, not take her birth control without the man knowing. Where's the man's "choice" if she gets pregnant. (While this statement is arguing for the right to abortion for the man, it's also pointing out that women have all the control in the situation contrary to what you said. Nobody else has any "choices" or rights in these situations except for the woman. How is THAT fair?)

Quote :

Right, because accidents never happen, people are perfect, and if an accident does happen, the woman should be forced to carry the baby to term. Sorry but no thank you. This is my body, it's my choice. Taking away that simple right opens the door to eliminating other rights for women

Yes, the woman should, and you're preserving your rights at the expense of the man's rights? Seems pretty selfish. Again, another indicator that nobody else has any say in this except the woman. Therefore, it's a selfish decision. How about we allow men to punch their women in the stomach, or forcibly drag them down to an abortion clinic because it's their right to do what they want with the baby.

Quote :

I do. I'm an atheist

So am i, this has nothing to do with religion.

Quote :

On the flip side. Let's imagine, if you will, a family who believes the only path for women is be a house-wife and have babies. Would you put it past the husband or grandparents to sabotage the birth control?

Ok, in your exaggerated hypothetical, how exactly would this happen? Would they replace your daily pill with chiclets? Break into your doctors office and replace the depo shot with a water syringe? Stick your patch in a glass of water and water it down? Unlike the example i posted above about a woman sabotaging birth control, your example is unlikely, if not completely impossible. A woman has control over every aspect of sex, contraception, and birth.

Quote :

On another note, what you're saying is that it should be mandatory to have compulsory spay and neuter for people who make mistakes getting pregnant.

Not for people who make mistakes, but for people who are completely selfish.

Quote :

That would mean animals have more rights to breed than humans. Not that I don't want mandated spay and neuter policies for animals, I do. Do you know we kill hundreds of millions of unwanted companion animals every year in this country? If you want to talk about innocent life suffering, lets not forget to include all forms of life. And while a fetus is killed before it has the capacity to understand it's even alive, our companion animals are generally full grown and are lead to their fate aware of their own survival, frightened, and alone.

Why not add in wildlife conservation to your argument? It's causing suffering for animals. This has no bearing on the argument. You approve of one form of killing, over another simply because the baby doesn't have higher brain functions? Let's kill off mentally handicapped while we're at it, they have no idea what's going on either! So what you're saying is you care more about animals than you do a baby.

Lets talk about suffering since you brought it up. You don't think a woman who goes through with this precedure doesn't have lasting emotional and physical scars?

In the end, this "choice" is nothing but a selfish decision.

Vit wrote:

So what you're saying is you care more about animals than you do a baby.

I care more about animals than undeveloped cells. The more developed those cells are, the more I care about when they should or should not be removed. How those cells came to be maturing in a womb is also of great concern as well, especially if they are from something like rape or incest.

**EDIT** for the record after this post I'm going to stop arguing my point. I think we should stick to gaming and not real life issues. I don't want to get anyone angry or hurt anyone's feelings when we're supposed to be playing together. This is my view point though, and I can't change that. That said, I was going to just delete this post and say the hell with it, but it took me too long to type and I think I made a couple good points.

Vit wrote:

I completely agree. It's obvious you don't need to be married or want to procreate to have sex, but these days there are numerous ways to do this and prevent pregnancy. After all, this IS the 21st century as you said.

And clearly they're not all 100% effective which leaves a margin of error. Plus, in case you didn't notice, humans are fallable.

Vit wrote:

Again, adoption is completely ignored as a choice. Why?

I could NEVER EVER if I were to give birth to a child give it to a complete stranger and expect them to care for it the way I would. It would rack my brain every minute of everyday thinking "oh my god, I hope it's ok, I hope they aren't abusing it." You want to talk lasting emotional harm? A lot of children who are adopted also suffer from identity issues, abandonment issues, etc. So that decision for me has the opportunity to ruin two lives. I prefer the odds on abortion. At least the fetus can't feel pain, or even understand that it's been aborted. If this were the case, why not attack women for "selfishly" miscarrying their babies?

Vit wrote:

So, you're saying the other people have rights, but only if the woman allows them? Let's take your second quote here and Ravey's argument about crazy inlaws or bf who sabotages birth control giving her the right to have an abortion. What happens when a crazy gf sabotages the birth control? It's not hard for her to poke a hole in a condom, not take her birth control without the man knowing. Where's the man's "choice" if she gets pregnant. (While this statement is arguing for the right to abortion for the man, it's also pointing out that women have all the control in the situation contrary to what you said. Nobody else has any "choices" or rights in these situations except for the woman. How is THAT fair?)

It's fair when you get to go through the pain of childbirth. You want my solution to this problem? Mandatory tube tying for any man that is against abortion. It's reversible, and you won't have to worry about it.

Vit wrote:

Yes, the woman should, and you're preserving your rights at the expense of the man's rights? Seems pretty selfish. Again, another indicator that nobody else has any say in this except the woman. Therefore, it's a selfish decision. How about we allow men to punch their women in the stomach, or forcibly drag them down to an abortion clinic because it's their right to do what they want with the baby.

Again, when your mind and body gets to go through an actual unwanted pregnancy, then you can have a say here. If you don't like it, and you have such strong personal convictions against it, don't have sex or get your tubes tied. But don't try to say that ALL WOMEN should be forced to carry their babies to term. Not all pregnancies occur in the ideal conditions. A LOT of them occur in abusive relationships, a LOT of them occur to uneducated or low income women, and even more occur in teens who are not given the proper information to protect themselves before they have start having sex. I fully support sex-ed in middle school that tells these kids not only about the dangers of STDs, but also about the dangers of unwanted pregnancies. I also think they should be given free condoms. Clearly, we can't stop them from doing it (pun intended) so why not give them the tools they need to be responsible.

Vit wrote:

Ok, in your exaggerated hypothetical, how exactly would this happen? Would they replace your daily pill with chiclets? Break into your doctors office and replace the depo shot with a water syringe? Stick your patch in a glass of water and water it down? A woman has control over every aspect of sex, contraception, and birth.

There are ways to sabotage birth control, like poking holes in condoms, outright theft or disposal of birth control pills, severe beatings for women who do choose to use birth control. Just because you're not psycho doesn't mean there aren't people out there who are.

Vit wrote:

Not for people who make mistakes, but for people who are completely selfish.

Ok. Let's examine this selfish argument for a second. Say I'm a single woman who accidentally gets pregnant. I don't really know the guy all that well, we weren't dating that long. Must have been a condom malfunction because it definitely wasn't intended. I'm renting a room out of someone's house because I can't afford my own place. I work two jobs to get by, and I have a hard enough time paying my own bills. I don't have insurance so I can't really afford to even get neo-natal care, which means I would be putting my health and the baby's health in danger. The guy doesn't want anything to do with me or the baby. My options are to have an abortion, put the baby up for adoption, or keep it. I think you underestimate the emotional cost to women who put their babies up for adoption. For me, that is a more painful and emotionally scarring decision than killing a small mass of cells with no conscious thought. You are entrusting an actual living being to a complete stranger who may or may not be a loving parent, IF you can even find a home. Do you know how many children are up for adoption in this country? It's not a small number. I could keep the baby and raise it in poverty, apply for food stamps, welfare, etc. Since I'm low income, the chances this child would have to live a decent life, get a good education, etc. are very slim. These are quality of life issues, not for the mother, but for the child. I wouldn't call weighing these options a "selfish" decision by any means. The third option is to have an abortion. A tough decision, yes, but at least the baby wouldn't be given away to some random people to live a life possibly full of abuse or neglect in the foster care system.

Vit wrote:

So what you're saying is you care more about animals than you do a baby.

No. A "baby" for me is when the fetus develops brain function, which is what, something like 7 months? I care more about living creatures, including "babies", than I do about cells that will one day become a living creature. For someone so compassionate about life, I think you would be more willing to see my point about the mass murder of millions of companion animals. It's probably the single most disgusting aspect of modernity, our casual dismissal of animal life like it's something to be treated lightly.

Vit wrote:

Lets talk about suffering since you brought it up. You don't think a woman who goes through with this procedure doesn't have lasting emotional and physical scars? In the end, this "choice" is nothing but a selfish decision.

Perhaps she has emotional issues, perhaps not. Perhaps she rests easier at night thinking she didn't bring a child into the world who wasn't wanted, who may not be loved as much as it deserves, and who may be worse off for entering the world. Physical scars...no. It's really not as invasive a procedure as you may think. And seriously, if you think it's so selfish of woman, go get your tubes tied. If all you men go and do that, we won't have to worry about it. And when your woman is ready to have a baby, go get the procedure reversed. If this sounds like too much effort on your part, you can start rethinking that selfish comment.

So, you get pregnant, and god forbid Tran wants to keep it, its "Fuck him, he should have gotten a vasectomy"?

The kids with "identity issues" and "emotional problems" we're given up for adoption at birth. They were more than likely taken by CPS from an abusive or harmful situation. But then again, we don't have any real children for either example. It's pure speculation.

This discussion really has no point. It's turned into whimsical hypotheticals and arbitrary comments that have nothing to do with the topic and blanket statements with no sources.

I agree to disagree.

Honestly if we take this right away from women i think men shouldn't be allowed to Jerk off(mass murder we kill millions of sperm). Or atleast everytime we have sex with a women we should have to sign a contract stating our intentions.

I hope the chargers destroy your bills tomorrow! Then my team will be one game back!

Vit wrote:

So, you get pregnant, and god forbid Tran wants to keep it, its "Fuck him, he should have gotten a vasectomy"?

The kids with "identity issues" and "emotional problems" we're given up for adoption at birth. They were more than likely taken by CPS from an abusive or harmful situation. But then again, we don't have any real children for either example. It's pure speculation.

This discussion really has no point. It's turned into whimsical hypotheticals and arbitrary comments that have nothing to do with the topic and blanket statements with no sources.

I agree to disagree.

ok you can leave my husband and I's personal life out of this. I make up hypothetical situations because they show my points. And for the record, my husband fully supports the decisions I make.

I foresee flame war.


This thread is now about trains.

A train is a connected series of vehicles that move along a track (permanent way) to transport freight or passengers from one place to another. The track usually consists of two rails, but might also be a monorail or maglev guideway. Propulsion for the train is provided by a separate locomotive, or from individual motors in self-propelled multiple units. Most modern trains are powered by diesel locomotives or by electricity supplied by overhead wires or additional rails, although historically (from the early 19th century to the mid-20th century) the steam locomotive was the dominant form of locomotive power. Other sources of power (such as horses, rope or wire, gravity, pneumatics, and gas turbines) are possible.



I'm curious, does anyone know the linguistic origin of "locomotive"?

My exhusband used to put together N scales. That was pretty nifty. Loved making mini-scenery

Trains are fantastic. I love trains.

I always wondered why in old movies trains were the evil method of death for fair maidens

It's curious, since being run over by a speeding train isn't the scariest way to go. The Iron Maiden, or some other twisted form of torture, would be far more frightening.


Anyway, a great example of an old movie villain with the train method would be the silent movie "Hazards of Helen". At 23 hours long, the movie marathon series had that same typical damsel in distress, tied to those train tracks.

mm...dukes of hazzard...

nezitic wrote:

It's curious, since being run over by a speeding train isn't the scariest way to go. The Iron Maiden, or some other twisted form of torture, would be far more frightening.


Anyway, a great example of an old movie villain with the train method would be the silent movie "Hazards of Helen". At 23 hours long, the movie marathon series had that same typical damsel in distress, tied to those train tracks.

IRON MAIDEN!!!!

The first thing that popped into my head was the train scene from My Fellow Americans. Where the two presidents are surrounded by all Marilyn Monroe and Elvis, and when they go to jump off the train, one of them pushes the other. lol that movie cracks me up. I miss Jack Lemmon