ogmzergrush
LOL
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,198
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2002
Pretty rude hey? It's just not the same without themNot-That-Bright said:Can't Post Pics?!
Wtf.
Pretty rude hey? It's just not the same without themNot-That-Bright said:Can't Post Pics?!
Wtf.
But don't you see?! It has a tail! Therefore it MUST be murder!ogmzergrush said:You truly are fucked. Unfortunately, your wikipedia reference does not demonstrate that to kill the growth which we are discussing would be murder by the definition which I've stated was mine previously (which you read up on, remember?). Nor does it in any way invalidate my definition, as you suggested that your sources did. I also do not see references for your shit about self-awareness not happening until the child was one. Keep digging.
Ok lets evaluate "your" so called definition, and the many morons of this thread who share it.ogmzergrush said:You truly are fucked. Unfortunately, your wikipedia reference does not demonstrate that to kill the growth which we are discussing would be murder by the definition which I've stated was mine previously (which you read up on, remember?). Nor does it in any way invalidate my definition, as you suggested that your sources did. I also do not see references for your shit about self-awareness not happening until the child was one. Keep digging.
Yeah as a "psych", a profession who decides whether or not something is a mental disorder based on a vote :rofl: What a bloody joke of a profession. Feeding pills down some poor childs throat and lying through your sick fuck mouth to earn a wage, bet your balls are as big as grapefruits.veridis said:you cannot accept any logical argument nor acknowledge that according to my arguments that you have not been able to find fault with have established that foetuses until late in their development lack the required features to be classified as human. thus termination of these beings is not murder, along the same lines and turning off life support for braindead patients is not murder(the mother is pretty much life support).
you are right we have nothing to discuss because you lack the ability to have a discussion, you just talk but never listen.
as for me being a sick useless fuck we'll see whose more use in 10 years when you're in some mid level unimportant economics desk job while i'm out helping people as a psych
A fetus is already a composite of all the necessary features of a human, a cancer is not.veridis said:as is cancer, as are organs grown in labs. you have not yet established that human genome = human life
Fetus's feel no pain, They have no loved ones with fond memories of them (except perhaps the mother), They have no awareness of their own existance and have never known existance.You say that even though a fetus has its own genetic identity, its own bodily function and uniqueality, it does not constitute human becuase it does not posses "higher mental function" or "acute self awareness." Yet neither do people in comas, epeleptics, some of the mentally ill .. and ofcourse people who are sleeping. Thus if somebody killed you tommorow at night in your sleep, you would have no problem with it since you were not "alive" by your definition anyway. Yet you and people like you seem to think that you have a special "pick and choose" right, where you can pick and choose what lives and what is not fit for life, that makes you what? Maybe a tab bit better than an SS camp warden or a T4-administrator.
Not quite. See my previous suggestion about learning to read, and learning to understand the viewpoint which you're arguing about.bshoc said:You say that even though a fetus has its own genetic identity, its own bodily function and uniqueality, it does not constitute human becuase it does not posses "higher mental function" or "acute self awareness."
Discussed already, refuted, and judged to be somewhat irrelevant. Once again, learn to read.bshoc said:Yet neither do people in comas, epeleptics, some of the mentally ill .. and ofcourse people who are sleeping. Thus if somebody killed you tommorow at night in your sleep, you would have no problem with it since you were not "alive" by your definition anyway.
More than a little amusing, given that you somehow see that it's your right to decide on behalf of all that birth is clearly the best option. It's good that you're looking out for the growths, but it's more than a little sad that you can't see past your attachment to this little blob of meat to see that the decision also affects the OMG REAL LIFE of an OMG REAL PERSON. It's nice that you can decide that the rights of one outweigh the rights of the other though.bshoc said:Yet you and people like you seem to think that you have a special "pick and choose" right, where you can pick and choose what lives and what is not fit for life, that makes you what? Maybe a tab bit better than an SS camp warden or a T4-administrator.
The implication, as I believe I've stated, is that the logical line pursued by most pro-choicers over the last twenty pages of this thread, continues to remain unshaken by the emotive and factually devoid opposition, at least in my opinion. Yours of course will vary, and that's fine, because I don't have to live with your opinion (thank fuck). Your contribution is simply another shitstain on your side of the argument, and has not achieved the success which you seem to see. That's fine though, if you're too fucking stupid to know you're beat, to know that you're arriving at conclusions without a basis, and too stupid to know that you don't even understand the views you're arguing against, so be it, you are indeed the victor!bshoc said:So heres the implication, either stand up for what you say for and accept its entirety and impications, thus you have no problem with killing: the unborn, coma patients, epeleptics, mental patients, people in their sleep or you admit that in society women should have the legal right to murder their babies, thus making you, an extremely sick fuck who believes every little thing popular society shoves down you throat, and makes no better than a jew murdering nazi.
Fucking A I am. Like I said before, you're probably the dumbest cunt I've seen on here recently, and there's a lot of competition for the title. Way to make a case, you've conclusively destroyed twenty pages of reasoned and referenced material with a torrent of absolute bullshit, supported by a lone wikipedia reference about foetuses having tails after a few weeks. You're a fucking idiot, and I hope for your sake that your contribution here has been a joke gone wrong.bshoc said:You're done
That was the whole point.secret said:
Seriously, that was the worst thing I have ever seen in my life and it will undoubtably leave a fingerprint in my mind
Exactly, that foetus isn't human.robbie1 said:
Tastes like chicken!AntiHyper said:Exactly, that foetus isn't human.
cool thanks, i needed some new fap materialrobbie1 said:That was the whole point.
Look what you sick people actually SUPPORT!
Here it is for anyone who hasn't seen it:
http://www.geocities.com/kekogut/images/10_week.jpg
Yes. Reality is often harsh.robbie1 said:That was the whole point.
Look what you sick people actually SUPPORT!
Here it is for anyone who hasn't seen it:
http://www.geocities.com/kekogut/images/10_week.jpg
So murdering a child because it is an inconvinience is whats best?Not-That-Bright said:Yes. Reality is often harsh.
Thankfully we do have alot of strong, mature people in the world that can handle the gruesome reality of life, understand the situation and do what's best.
Yeah, how could you say such a thing NTB.robbie1 said:So murdering a child because it is an inconvinience is whats best?
Mature people? Please...
If they don't want a baby, why did they spread their legs?ogmzergrush said:Yeah, how could you say such a thing NTB.
REAL maturity would be making the woman have the baby anyway, insisting that "god" will help her look after it, and that she's actually a winner, and just doesn't know it yet.
PS: lol robbie, good one.
When did spreading your legs = pregnancy? Making babies requires two people and sex doesnt always involve the spreading of the legs. It would be better rephrase your post as 'why did she then have sex' rather than 'why did she spread her legs'. It makes you look like you hate any woman who chooses to have sex and enjoy that sex. It makes you look like a retard who believes the only person at fault for the birth of an unwanted child is the female. You arn't going to stop any abortions or prevent any unwanted pregnanies by being a patronising idiot who believes he knows whats best for all women. A quick perusal of your posts seems to indicate that you don't have the first clue about woman in general. You don't even attempt to understand their viewpoint, why do you expect anyone to listen to you?robbie1 said:If they don't want a baby, why did they spread their legs?
So only have sex for the purpose of procreation?robbie1 said:It's simple really, if your not ready to raise a child, don't fall pregnant.