Abortion

[Napoleon Ier]

Did I say they were? That said, I see no reason why, when a National, Catholic and Monarchist government is restored, we can't have a Grand Nuremberg in which Republican traitors and Abortionnists would be tried...

Article 18
*Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Republicans have every right to live and belief what they want. Probably the reason why even in countries such as my own who have a monarchy, republicans are not put to trial or somesuch.

Oh, aye...but they don't have a right to commit acts of Treason, like sign the Lisbon Treaty, assist International Free-Masonry in raping our country, or promulgate abortion laws.

Just like Communists have every right to their freedom of thought and concsience until they start imposing their ridiculous ideas on society, regardless of democratic support.

[Napoleon Ier]

International Free-Masonry

EMOS

Communism

Cameron Diaz

Abortion

Nuu-Layborz

Islam

Just to give you an idea...

[Snorri1234]

Come on...snorri, PLAYER? John Brown at Harper's Ferry-justified?

I approve of his beliefs but not the whole way he went about it. He may have been an important figure in the freeing of slaves, but his attack in Harper's Ferry which failed anyway was no self-defense.

Though I think you're making a ridiculous comparison (as usual), as Brown was responding to violence with retalition and also advocated self-defense should be the only fights after he'd take the armory. He needed guns and used the only option he had to aquire them. Not to mention that this was 1859 and not modern society.

Whether his actions were justified is irrelevant.


Anyway, why am I arguing with a person who believes sex-education is a bad thing? A person so opposed to sex and abortion that he doesn't believe in the only thing that has been proven to lower abortion-rates.

[Napoleon Ier]

Come on...snorri, PLAYER? John Brown at Harper's Ferry-justified?

I approve of his beliefs but not the whole way he went about it. He may have been an important figure in the freeing of slaves, but his attack in Harper's Ferry which failed anyway was no self-defense.

Though I think you're making a ridiculous comparison (as usual), as Brown was responding to violence with retalition and also advocated self-defense should be the only fights after he'd take the armory. He needed guns and used the only option he had to aquire them. Not to mention that this was 1859 and not modern society.

Whether his actions were justified is irrelevant.


Anyway, why am I arguing with a person who believes sex-education is a bad thing? A person so opposed to sex and abortion that he doesn't believe in the only thing that has been proven to lower abortion-rates.

I'm not opposed to sex. Sex-ed? Maybe for complete mongs.

My analogy? It's not ridiculous: it just goes someway to show how outrageous it is that the abortion-doctor-killers oftheir age are today exulted...

[Snorri1234]

I'm not opposed to sex. Sex-ed? Maybe for complete mongs.

Oh I see. So you'd rather have more pregnancies because of stupid teenagers (that probably includes 90% of them as they usually show a lack of self-restraint or any thought whatsoever when it concerns sex) than tell them how not to get diseases or pregnant?

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm not opposed to sex. Sex-ed? Maybe for complete mongs.

Oh I see. So you'd rather have more pregnancies because of stupid teenagers (that probably includes 90% of them as they usually show a lack of self-restraint or any thought whatsoever when it concerns sex) than tell them how not to get diseases or pregnant?

I'm sorry snorri, but what idiot doesn't understand that?

[suggs]

Come on...snorri, PLAYER? John Brown at Harper's Ferry-justified?

Go Flashy!

[Napoleon Ier]

Come on...snorri, PLAYER? John Brown at Harper's Ferry-justified?

Go Flashy!

You know you're winning an argument when you can dismantle the opposition using Flashman.

[suggs]

Why don't we all just SHAG and discuss the abortion stuff afterwards. Otherwise its all pretty irrelevant.

[Napoleon Ier]

Why don't we all just SHAG and discuss the abortion stuff afterwards. Otherwise its all pretty irrelevant.

How can Oxford possibly hope to compete with this level of intellect...

[suggs]

Intellect's all well and good, but sometimes you just need a good, hard SHAG.

[Napoleon Ier]

Intellect's all well and good, but sometimes you just need a good, hard SHAG.

Can't fault your logic there.

[Snorri1234]

I'm not opposed to sex. Sex-ed? Maybe for complete mongs.

Oh I see. So you'd rather have more pregnancies because of stupid teenagers (that probably includes 90% of them as they usually show a lack of self-restraint or any thought whatsoever when it concerns sex) than tell them how not to get diseases or pregnant?

I'm sorry snorri, but what idiot doesn't understand that?

Oh I understand you have that opinion, I just think you're a fucking retard for holding it and I don't understand why someone as intelligent as you (though I disagree with you at stuff, I reckon you're smart) would not see the obvious stupidness of holding it.

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm not opposed to sex. Sex-ed? Maybe for complete mongs.

Oh I see. So you'd rather have more pregnancies because of stupid teenagers (that probably includes 90% of them as they usually show a lack of self-restraint or any thought whatsoever when it concerns sex) than tell them how not to get diseases or pregnant?

I'm sorry snorri, but what idiot doesn't understand that?

Oh I understand you have that opinion, I just think you're a fucking retard for holding it and I don't understand why someone as intelligent as you (though I disagree with you at stuff, I reckon you're smart) would not see the obvious stupidness of holding it.

No; but really: I swear the only people retarded enough to not understand that if you don't wear a condom, there's a far higher risk of pregnancy, should be chemically castrated anyway.

[PLAYER57832]

Granted, "right to lifers" argue that the Jew's rights should outweigh the Reichsvolksgemeinschaft's. BUT, the mere fact that there is such disagreement over this, UNLIKE murder, shows that this is not a case for government intervention, except at the margins. An Aryan MAY absolutely have a good-ol' timey Kristallnacht if his local business is in danger, no one can FORCE a German to horganise/participate in one against his wishes legally, and at the point of full economic viability (as defined when said Jew actually benefits the economy), there has to be an overwhIs it a 'ludicrouse' analogy, my sociology graduate friend? Is it? If you do nothing to oppose the premise that the foetus is a human being, then it comes down to the same thing: murder of an individual for the "common good" of society and to save "individuals" from Jewish competition/9-months of discomfort.

Makes perfect sense IF you are a Nazis.

No they are QUITE different. But, why try to confuse you with truth ... you know you are right.

ON second thought, I will give one more example ... more for any other veheminently pro-lifers than for you.

There is no REAL discussion about whether Jews are people. There is most DEFINITELY very real debate over when a group of cells become human. Science tells us some, religion must fill in the rest ( and if you read Dueteronomy, you will see that science pushes it back FURTHER than the Bible you cite so often).

Finally, those attempting to eradicate Jews do so of hatred. Those getting abortions often do so from love, as several people tried to explain.

You are the definition of a fanatic. And, I suggest you look up that term, in a real PRINTED dictinary (not "the internet") and think hard aboout that definition.




And, per your Harper's Ferry question.. COMPLETELY irrelevant.

But it becomes clearer and clearer why you don't think "mere education" will change anyone's opinions or actions.

[Snorri1234]

No; but really: I swear the only people retarded enough to not understand that if you don't wear a condom, there's a far higher risk of pregnancy, should be chemically castrated anyway.

Ah I see. You really are an idiot?

[Napoleon Ier]

No; but really: I swear the only people retarded enough to not understand that if you don't wear a condom, there's a far higher risk of pregnancy, should be chemically castrated anyway.

Ah I see. You really are an idiot?

No...just you have absolutely no answer to this, and hence have to stall with questions using rhetorically faked outrage.

[PLAYER57832]

Granted, "right to lifers" argue that the Jew's rights should outweigh the Reichsvolksgemeinschaft's. BUT, the mere fact that there is such disagreement over this, UNLIKE murder, shows that this is not a case for government intervention, except at the margins. An Aryan MAY absolutely have a good-ol' timey Kristallnacht if his local business is in danger, no one can FORCE a German to horganise/participate in one against his wishes legally, and at the point of full economic viability (as defined when said Jew actually benefits the economy), there has to be an overwhelmingly significant reason to lynch him.)

Attempting to narrow this, or almost any other debate to "all or nothing" is the route to fanatacism, not thinking.

THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS

REMOVE MY NAME IMMEDIATELY!

[Napoleon Ier]

Granted, "right to lifers" argue that the Jew's rights should outweigh the Reichsvolksgemeinschaft's. BUT, the mere fact that there is such disagreement over this, UNLIKE murder, shows that this is not a case for government intervention, except at the margins. An Aryan MAY absolutely have a good-ol' timey Kristallnacht if his local business is in danger, no one can FORCE a German to horganise/participate in one against his wishes legally, and at the point of full economic viability (as defined when said Jew actually benefits the economy), there has to be an overwhIs it a 'ludicrouse' analogy, my sociology graduate friend? Is it? If you do nothing to oppose the premise that the foetus is a human being, then it comes down to the same thing: murder of an individual for the "common good" of society and to save "individuals" from Jewish competition/9-months of discomfort.

Makes perfect sense IF you are a Nazis.

No they are QUITE different. But, why try to confuse you with truth ... you know you are right.

ON second thought, I will give one more example ... more for any other veheminently pro-lifers than for you.

There is no REAL discussion about whether Jews are people.

There was in the 1930s, and since your premise for justifying abortion is "there's debate so therefore no government is allowed to intervene", surely the same premise, logically, must be applied to the sporadic pogroms prevalent in early III Reich history? In which case, the justification for abortion lies on entirely ethically relative grounds.

And, per your Harper's Ferry question.. COMPLETELY irrelevant.

I'm sorry you don't have the intellect to understand the relevancy. Or the literary culture to appreciate the Flashman reference, but that is irrelevant, eh suggs?

But it becomes clearer and clearer why you don't think "mere education" will change anyone's opinions or actions.

Apart from the fact you wouldn't know education if it stripped naked, painted itself purple, clobbered you with an encyclopedia and started dancing on top of a harpsichord singing "education is here to enlighten us again", it really doesn't become clear, since I never stated I believe this.

What I did say is that it's entirely pointless to waste my time with sex-ed lessons. You may as well hire some pompous officials and set up executive educational committees complete with cups of lemon-tea and "feedback forms" devoted to the task of educating us as to how to breathe.


Now, according to you it's a case of defining whether or not you can "terminate" a group of cells by whether there's a debate raging in society as to whether this group of cells can existentially or metaphysically be granted a conceptual property...to me, it's aboutwhether this group of cells can existentially or metaphysically be granted a conceptual property full stop.

In short: cut the "but what if it's a 14 year old girl who cant care for the child blah blah blah whinge whinge isn't it tragic and arent everyone else nasty bigoted meanies" bullshit and stick to proper meat of the debate, which can only be:

What is a human?

[Napoleon Ier]

Granted, "right to lifers" argue that the Jew's rights should outweigh the Reichsvolksgemeinschaft's. BUT, the mere fact that there is such disagreement over this, UNLIKE murder, shows that this is not a case for government intervention, except at the margins. An Aryan MAY absolutely have a good-ol' timey Kristallnacht if his local business is in danger, no one can FORCE a German to horganise/participate in one against his wishes legally, and at the point of full economic viability (as defined when said Jew actually benefits the economy), there has to be an overwhelmingly significant reason to lynch him.)

Attempting to narrow this, or almost any other debate to "all or nothing" is the route to fanatacism, not thinking.

THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS ONLY THE DIRECT LOGICAL INFERENCE OF MY WORDS!

REMOVE MY NAME IMMEDIATELY!!!!11!ONE!!1!{lim x-->0[sin(x)/x]}1!!1!EIN!!!1

[jonesthecurl]

You know, I've said this before, but adding nappy to your ignore list makes for a calmer life.
You'll still see his most ridiculous postings in other people's quotes - and I don't don't think you need to read what he says to guess what his opinion is on any topic. Just wait for the most extreme bullshit to be quoted.

I am reminded of a phrase (no doubt someone will chase down the source) "they don't need to be deprived of the oxygen of publicity: they just need to be deprived of oxygen."

[jonesthecurl]

Was it Jenny Eclaire?

[Neutrino]

Granted, "right to lifers" argue that the Jew's rights should outweigh the Reichsvolksgemeinschaft's. BUT, the mere fact that there is such disagreement over this, UNLIKE murder, shows that this is not a case for government intervention, except at the margins. An Aryan MAY absolutely have a good-ol' timey Kristallnacht if his local business is in danger, no one can FORCE a German to horganise/participate in one against his wishes legally, and at the point of full economic viability (as defined when said Jew actually benefits the economy), there has to be an overwhelmingly significant reason to lynch him.)

Attempting to narrow this, or almost any other debate to "all or nothing" is the route to fanatacism, not thinking.

Firstly, Napoleon loses (That's been happening a lot today...)
Secondly: Whut? "Abortion laws should be rendered stricter, but still allow abortion as a valid option until very late in the term, unless a valid medical reason is present" = Nazi Germany? Your pseudo-satirial quote isn't very clear as to your actual intentions with the post. Elaboration would be appreciated.

Anyways, Napoleon, you seem to be viewing this entire argument in a very monochrome (Multiple syllables, whee!) fashion, and are doing a very good job of ignoring mitigating circumstances (As far as I can tell. I've only skimmed through the rest of the thread, so accept my apologies if I happen to have missed it).

Firstly, have you actualy considered the impact of rendering abortion completely illegal? Illegality won't kill it, it'll simply drive it underground. Clean operating theatres will become grimy alleys, where they women are left to bleed out after the 'operation'. Do you consider this an optimal situation?

Secondly, a personal question: Roughly, what social bracket would you consider you and your family to be in? I'm betting upper-middle middle class, or upper middle class. If so, do you really think your lifestyle and education reflects that of the majority (84%, according to Wikipedia the Almighty) of those less well of than yourself? How does your exposure to informal sex-ed classes compare to that of a working class kid of the same age?
I find it very difficult to believe that even a large minority of people who are not explicitly told so can work out the dangers presented by STD's, the ease of conception, and the massive usefulness of contraception on their own.
I did, obviously, but with the idiots (Not always idiots; there are often other reasons. However, the net result is the same) who failed high school, I find it never pays to assume anything.

Thirdly, do you really think teenagers make good parents? No matter how amazingly informed you appear to think the average teenager is, a hell of a lot of 'em are going to end up pregnant anyways. Now, do you think it is fair to bring up a baby in the environment of two teenagers desperately trying to study and hold down jobs? In quite a few situations, I would be willing to wager, the child (and parents) would be so screwed up by the entire experience that they probably would have been better of not born. That, my friend, is not an environment where you want to bring up children.


Now, I know arguing with Napoleon "One Billion Abortions in the Last 50 Years" Ier is pretty pointless, but at least no-one can accuse me of not trying.

[PLAYER57832]

You know, I've said this before, but adding nappy to your ignore list makes for a calmer life.
You'll still see his most ridiculous postings in other people's quotes - and I don't don't think you need to read what he says to guess what his opinion is on any topic. Just wait for the most extreme bullshit to be quoted.

I am reminded of a phrase (no doubt someone will chase down the source) "they don't need to be deprived of the oxygen of publicity: they just need to be deprived of oxygen."

Generally good advice, but his mis-quoting of me is one reason I have not done so.

Though really, that he is resorting to such plain juvenile tactics is the best proof yet that his arguments are plain ridiculous.

[jay_a2j]

I was trying to avoid this thread because it has been debated forever and you won't change anyone's mind.

However, reading the post (2 up), makes me ill at the lack of respect for life. So a teenager gets pregnant. Do you think they are able to raise the child? What part of a fetus is a LIVING entity, do you NOT understand? If you kill something that is living, that's what abortion is, it's wrong. Hello? Anyone home? The fact that this issue is still debated and legal shows the moral decline of the people.