ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:34 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:32 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:14 pm
Posts: 2045
nick012000 wrote:
Because a child needs strong role models of both sexes to grow up into a balanced individual. The ideal way to get those is through having heterosexual parents.

Single parents are simply making the best of a bad situation. I'm against divorce when there are kids involved, in a broad sort of way. While it is the choice of the parents, it isn't as ideal as fixing whatever is wrong in the relationship. Granted, when spousal/child abuse is involved, I whole hearted endorse ending the marriage and locking the abuser up for a long time.
because every two people who decide to get married will find themselves perfectly matched for eachother 5 years later. You have a very disturbingly naive view of the world and the people who inhabit it. Well balanced doesn't come from simply having two parents of both sexes. In fact IMHO that has very little to do with it. I'd say it has infinately more to do with the love that a child recieves from his/her parent(s). Things are NEVER black and white; you can't say that a person who only has a role model of only one gender will automatically turn out to be fucked up and that a person with both will being a shining star of family values.

_________________
All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:04 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 4459
Location: Crawling up from the Harem
Addendum:

It would appear that the Government is trying to change the Law of the Land when dealing with abortions...by removing the act of abortion as per this bill:

The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005

_________________
Member of The Bishounen God's Cult of Lovers

Sifu of Corpse Child

Caecus fides est hostilis veritatis

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2038 9:00 pm
Posts: 3209
nick012000 wrote:
Because a child needs strong role models of both sexes to grow up into a balanced individual. The ideal way to get those is through having heterosexual parents.

Statistics don't agree with you. No study has shown any sort of disparity in delinquent behavior, future mental health, or violent tendencies between children raised in heterosexual households and children raised in homosexual households. I would think that instead of "strong role models of both sexes" children need "strong role models that fulfill all traditional roles, like the mothering figure, provider, etc." The only thing gender has to do with it is that it has typically determined what roles a person fulfills--that's not the case anymore. Is there a problem with stay-at-home fathers whose wives provide for the family? The roles traditionally fulfilled by the man and the woman are reversed, after all.

Re: BM2k's post. I love this new tendency to create bills that supposedly prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing it. Great understanding of checks and balances, guys.

_________________
election results: still an op
Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:48 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
BandMan2K wrote:
Addendum:

It would appear that the Government is trying to change the Law of the Land when dealing with abortions...by removing the act of abortion as per this bill:

The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005


Handbasket we are in yes. To hell we are going.


Lets hope that we aren't stupid enough to pass this gibberish. If so, lets hope the Supreme Court slaps it down as they should.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:05 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:25 pm
Posts: 294
nick012000 wrote:
Because a child needs strong role models of both sexes to grow up into a balanced individual. The ideal way to get those is through having heterosexual parents.


A child also "needs" to learn and tolerate the different cultures of the world in order to grow up to be a balanced individual. The ideal way to achieve this with interracial parents. And why stop with just one "strong" rolemodel from each gender? With polygamy you can have several role models. OMG BAN SAME-SEX SEGREGATED MONOGAMOUS MARRYAGES! THINK OF TEH CHILDS! SAVE US FROM OURSELVES, REPUBLICANS!

_________________
SERENITY NOW!

DNI'dby Gazing Rabbit


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:36 pm 
Offline
<font color=red><b>STALKER/FAG ALERT.
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:38 am
Posts: 1579
The Baron wrote:
nick012000 wrote:
Because a child needs strong role models of both sexes to grow up into a balanced individual. The ideal way to get those is through having heterosexual parents.

Statistics don't agree with you. No study has shown any sort of disparity in delinquent behavior, future mental health, or violent tendencies between children raised in heterosexual households and children raised in homosexual households.

Did I say anything about that? No, I didn't. To grow up a balanced individual, a child needs strong rolemodels of both sexes. I'd be looking more at their marriage and divorce statistics.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:50 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
nick012000 wrote:
The Baron wrote:
nick012000 wrote:
Because a child needs strong role models of both sexes to grow up into a balanced individual. The ideal way to get those is through having heterosexual parents.

Statistics don't agree with you. No study has shown any sort of disparity in delinquent behavior, future mental health, or violent tendencies between children raised in heterosexual households and children raised in homosexual households.

Did I say anything about that? No, I didn't. To grow up a balanced individual, a child needs strong rolemodels of both sexes. I'd be looking more at their marriage and divorce statistics.


Wait so you're presented with evidence saying that you're spewing bullshit and all you can come back with is that? How about trying to support your ignorance? Balanced individual my ass.

I suspect whether or not you get a balanced individual will be more affected by whether or not his parents are divorced not whether or not they both have the same plumbing. Seeing as being a balanced individual means nothing to you except getting married and staying married, most likely in a heterosexual relationship. I imagine that individuals that had been in the same homosexual relationship for 40 years you would find unbalanced. What about a man who maintains a very healthy family life but has to rape a little girl once a month? Is he balanced?

I don't support everything homosexual but I support blind ignorant bigots who are too stupid to think for themselves and just spout the same propaganda they're fed by people with the same problems even less. I mean shit you're too stupid to even be able to know what your own bible means. Or should we go visit your last sad attempt to twist the words in that great novel in midlands to illustrate the point?

_________________
Why are you not wearing my pants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:58 pm 
Offline
<font color=red><b>STALKER/FAG ALERT.
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:38 am
Posts: 1579
Lifyre wrote:
nick012000 wrote:
The Baron wrote:
nick012000 wrote:
Because a child needs strong role models of both sexes to grow up into a balanced individual. The ideal way to get those is through having heterosexual parents.

Statistics don't agree with you. No study has shown any sort of disparity in delinquent behavior, future mental health, or violent tendencies between children raised in heterosexual households and children raised in homosexual households.

Did I say anything about that? No, I didn't. To grow up a balanced individual, a child needs strong rolemodels of both sexes. I'd be looking more at their marriage and divorce statistics.


Wait so you're presented with evidence saying that you're spewing bullshit and all you can come back with is that? How about trying to support your ignorance? Balanced individual my ass.

I suspect whether or not you get a balanced individual will be more affected by whether or not his parents are divorced not whether or not they both have the same plumbing. Seeing as being a balanced individual means nothing to you except getting married and staying married, most likely in a heterosexual relationship. I imagine that individuals that had been in the same homosexual relationship for 40 years you would find unbalanced. What about a man who maintains a very healthy family life but has to rape a little girl once a month? Is he balanced?

I don't support everything homosexual but I support blind ignorant bigots who are too stupid to think for themselves and just spout the same propaganda they're fed by people with the same problems even less. I mean shit you're too stupid to even be able to know what your own bible means. Or should we go visit your last sad attempt to twist the words in that great novel in midlands to illustrate the point?


You misunderstand me. Balanced individuals are the people who respect both sexes equally. Hardcore feminists, pussywhipped men, mysoginists, etc. aren't balanced people. They also seem to be less likely to get into longterm relationships, or less likely to have the capability to maintain them. Hence the marriage and divorce statistics.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:04 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
nick012000 wrote:
Lifyre wrote:
nick012000 wrote:
The Baron wrote:
nick012000 wrote:
Because a child needs strong role models of both sexes to grow up into a balanced individual. The ideal way to get those is through having heterosexual parents.

Statistics don't agree with you. No study has shown any sort of disparity in delinquent behavior, future mental health, or violent tendencies between children raised in heterosexual households and children raised in homosexual households.

Did I say anything about that? No, I didn't. To grow up a balanced individual, a child needs strong rolemodels of both sexes. I'd be looking more at their marriage and divorce statistics.


Wait so you're presented with evidence saying that you're spewing bullshit and all you can come back with is that? How about trying to support your ignorance? Balanced individual my ass.

I suspect whether or not you get a balanced individual will be more affected by whether or not his parents are divorced not whether or not they both have the same plumbing. Seeing as being a balanced individual means nothing to you except getting married and staying married, most likely in a heterosexual relationship. I imagine that individuals that had been in the same homosexual relationship for 40 years you would find unbalanced. What about a man who maintains a very healthy family life but has to rape a little girl once a month? Is he balanced?

I don't support everything homosexual but I support blind ignorant bigots who are too stupid to think for themselves and just spout the same propaganda they're fed by people with the same problems even less. I mean shit you're too stupid to even be able to know what your own bible means. Or should we go visit your last sad attempt to twist the words in that great novel in midlands to illustrate the point?


You misunderstand me. Balanced individuals are the people who respect both sexes equally. Hardcore feminists, pussywhipped men, mysoginists, etc. aren't balanced people. They also seem to be less likely to get into longterm relationships, or less likely to have the capability to maintain them. Hence the marriage and divorce statistics.


Definitions are good. I still don't agree with you seeing as I think that is entirely based upon how the two parental figures treat each other but you're not quite as stupid as you seemed before. You're at least trying to argue somethign that almost would make sense.

_________________
Why are you not wearing my pants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:36 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 11:25 am
Posts: 2561
Location: Seoul, South Korea
I am deeply concerned by the amount of mildew in this country. It's against God, the Bible says so. At length.

There ought to be a law for everyone's own good to make sure no one can act against God by having mildew in their homes, because that's what Free Will is all about.

[/sarcasm]

^-^'

_________________
I <3 Parker


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:08 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:14 pm
Posts: 2045
nick012000 wrote:
You misunderstand me. Balanced individuals are the people who respect both sexes equally. Hardcore feminists, pussywhipped men, mysoginists, etc. aren't balanced people. They also seem to be less likely to get into longterm relationships, or less likely to have the capability to maintain them. Hence the marriage and divorce statistics.

Children aren't evil by nature. They aren't going lack respect for one gender or another just because there isn't a person of that gender close to them (and this a stretch as well as there is no way that any person won't meet a person of that gender). It seems to me that children will be predisposed to treat all equally, unless given a bad example.

Somebody should point a firehose on Lifyre. He's intimitading the counterpoint, and discussions don't tend to get anywhere without a counterpoint.

_________________
All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:10 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:09 pm
Posts: 555
Location: Ziapangu
arwing wrote:
Somebody should point a firehose on Lifyre. He's intimitading the counterpoint


Agree, although nick012000 needed to start giving definitions and concrete support for his statements.


nick012000 wrote:
You misunderstand me. Balanced individuals are the people who respect both sexes equally. Hardcore feminists, pussywhipped men, mysoginists, etc. aren't balanced people. They also seem to be less likely to get into long term relationships, or less likely to have the capability to maintain them. Hence the marriage and divorce statistics.


Give us a more detailed definition of "balanced individual". If by "respect both sexes equally" you mean "understand that while the human mind is neuter, there are biological differences between the sexes that should be understood and respected, albeit without forming predisposed biases or limiting potentials," then I might agree. However, if you are arguing that "men should act like men, and women should act like women," then understand that you may have some problems convincing people depending on your definitions of how men and women should act.

As for marriage/divorce statistics and eligibility to adopt, it is true that certain types of "couples" tend to be less likely to maintain long-term relationships. However, these are generalizations, and I believe there are fairly clear statistical thresholds along the lines of: "A relationship that has continued for 'x' years has a 'y' likelihood of continuing." Given the importance of a stable family environment for children, rather than restricting the right of certain people to adopt, how about instead requiring that all adopting "couples" must be non-abusive, have "balanced and open" views (regardless of their own sexual orientation), and have maintained a healthy relationship for 'x' number of years (verified through public records, interviews, background checks, etc.)?


Imp-Chan wrote:
There ought to be a law for everyone's own good to make sure no one can act against God by having mildew in their homes, because that's what Free Will is all about.


How compassionate... you fastidious fascist, you.
Any attempt to clean and/or disinfect my home/office will result in the exercise of my mildew's right to self defence, aided by a treaty coalition of mold, fungi and various assorted house dirt/dust. :P

e

_________________
Democracy is not liberty. It is majority rule, which is mob rule. We live in a Mobocracy.

"Political power is the game of playing God. It changes a person and makes him different from the rest of us. He begins to believe he has some kind of right to interfere in the lives of others. He may even believe he has the right to choose who lives and who dies."
— Richard Maybury


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:40 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 11:25 am
Posts: 2561
Location: Seoul, South Korea
But having mold is a sin! I have to protect you from your sins, otherwise I could go to hell!

Mr. Clean is my saint!

^-^'

Edit: It should be noted that while it is actually a sin to have mildew in your home (according to one of the same sections of the Bible commonly interpreted as condemning homosexuality, no less), I am not the slightest bit serious about it. In point of fact, Michael cleans more often than I do.

_________________
I <3 Parker


Last edited by Imp-Chan on Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:36 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:14 pm
Posts: 2045
I was just saying that nick hasn't presented any Biblical evidence in this particular discussion, and that calling him a "blind ignorant bigot who is too stupid to think for himself" is not advancing the discussion.

I can understand why a person "of faith" might interpret the Bible to mean that sodomy is a sin, however I cannot understand why this person would have any reason to persecute homosexuals and seek to deny them rights given to every other American. After all, there is that little old 1st amendment thing that grants freedom of religion.

I was hoping that this discussion could present a somewhat logical argument why these people should be persecuted.

_________________
All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 1:44 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 11:25 am
Posts: 2561
Location: Seoul, South Korea
KirimaNagi wrote:
Imp-Chan wrote:
But having mold is a sin! I have to protect you from your sins, otherwise I could go to hell!


I find those statements mildly disconcerting from someone named "Imp-Chan" who claims to be a goddess (albeit of the huggle variety) and uses an avatar showing them with wings and horns... :P


They're each nicknames from friends... though in the context of the story that I never got around to writing (not Nezeal, a different one) it is entirely possible to be both at once... common, even.

Also... it seems to be the attitude of many who are fond of banning things they feel are immoral, so I was mostly being ironic.

^-^'

_________________
I <3 Parker


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:28 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Mod's please do not alter posts prior to this one, as they are strait over from the Unrelated.

Moderation on those would probably destroy this thing.


Anything after this is free game.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:22 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
krylex wrote:
Mod's please do not alter posts prior to this one, as they are strait over from the Unrelated.

Moderation on those would probably destroy this thing.


Anything after this is free game.


You missed a few posts in the other thread that are part of this side of the conversation. and now I sahll leave and not come back since this part of the forum burns like hygiene...

_________________
Why are you not wearing my pants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:16 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 4459
Location: Crawling up from the Harem
As much as I wish for more evidence to show, there's unfortunately much more than you can shake a stick at. For instance:

[url=http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html]Gay Parenting Does Affect Children Differently, Study Finds
-- Authors Believe Gay Parents Have "Some Advantages"[/url]

This is from a group called NARTH (Nat'l Ass'n for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) According to their mission statement, they go with the thoughts of "Homo" (only using this to save space) is a choice and if there are those that wish to change or not, that's their perogative...at least as far as I could tell.

In the study mentioned in the above link, two socialogists review study done over 20 year time span and finds that although more children raised with Homo families are more willing to venture into a Homo relationship compared to Heteros, the resulting children of Homos are more open-minded to other ideas or notions as well as being more well-rounded in terms of actions. Males taking on more distinctly female thoughts and actions (More caring, less prone to outbursts, etc.) and vice versa with Females.

In the same breath, there's this:

Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk

This is from the Family Research Council - a group who's stance is well known to be against Homo relationships and confining marriage as "One Man - One Woman" per their own mission statement.

This article from Dr. Timothy Dailey Ph. D. states that the studies done that have shown the results as that of the previous one above are not valid due to having methodological defects--a mark of substandard research. The studies having been done with Middle-class Caucasian families and small groups that are not conducive to being generalized to all of all races and social-economic backgrounds.

In the end, we can argue until the End of All That We Know about this issue and still get nowhere due to either a not-diverse enough pool of subjects to study or political underpinnings that are directing things to head one way or another. If ANY change of thinking is going to happen, it'll take time and happen the old-fashioned way: Through the actions of our decendents and the changing times ahead. The best I think we can do now is to work on a one-on-one basis. Considering that this has been in the spotlight only for the last 35 or so years, there's still much that needs to be understood or studied. It is true that Homosexuality was considered the norm millenia ago during the times of the Greeks and Romans, then vilified over the past two millenia. We're only now getting back into the discussion about this and as a result, I can form my own opinion based on what empirical evidence I've collected over my lifetime. However I can't see how I can show someone else who believes differently what I see UNLESS they are also open about it and frankly there are just too many on both sides that are not willing to take anything but their ideas and thoughts with a FUCK YOU to anyone else that says otherwise.

Of course, I'm sure I'll be roasted very much so I'm asking that if you are gonna roast me, make sure the Spit is shoved cleanly through and that you only work me until I'm Medium Well.

_________________
Member of The Bishounen God's Cult of Lovers

Sifu of Corpse Child

Caecus fides est hostilis veritatis

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Er, this thread was originally split more evenly between the abortion and gay rights issues, but in the time it took me to get around to writing this it seems to have shifted towards the latter. I'm not just throwing up posts on random subjects, honest!
PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 8:29 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1967
Location: All curled up in a Calabi-Yau space
The problem with abortion laws, as I've said before, is the attempt to apply a binary standard to what is really a continuum, which is bound to be inherently problematic. From what I understand of the human phenotyping process, there isn't really some switch that flicks and the fetus* goes from "not human" to "human" in the blink of an eye. Rather, there is a gradual development from "less human" to "more human". The problem, of course, is that the law requires definite binary distinctions on what is and isn't allowed. Usually with matters that are a continuum we can employ a similarly continuous legal response (for example, the overarching principle of severity of punishment being linked to the severity of crimes, along with courtroom sentencing flexibility for adjustment to specific cases). In the case of abortion however, in which the only possible outcomes are literally life and death, such a sliding scale approach doesn't apply. The question is simply whether or not a fetus at a particular stage of development is to be considered "human", and hence subject to the basic rights thereof, or not. The legal system in the US pretty much gave up on the concept of "semi-human" a long time ago (I believe the "3/5ths of a person" rule for Blacks was the last example of such, although I haven't looked into it. In any case, a similar rule for fetuses wouldn't help much with the subject at hand, as the binary life/death distinction would still have to be made at the end of the day). And although such things may exist in a de facto sense in areas of limited enforceability, there similarly isn't really such thing as "semi-legal". Hence, binary distinctions must be made for legal purposes, regardless of the realities of human development.

Almost everyone agrees on where the goalposts are; on one end, unfertilized sperm and eggs, which no one opposes killing (except possibly Catholics, and they don't seem terribly concerned about promoting that view to others, so I would assume it's an internal moral matter rather than an external ethical one), on the other end, a newborn infant, which as far as I know no one supports being able to kill, except for people who are either crazed nihilists or just like to pretend they are for Cool Points™. What we can't agree on is where in the intervening region to place the dividing line (this is where everyone jumps in and says, "That's silly, all reasonable/sane people agree it should be here!" while pointing at wildly differing areas of the continuum. Bloodshed and naked mud wrestling to follow). But of course there is no unassailable way to determine where it should be. No amount of scientific knowledge about the development process can settle the question of what does and does not constitute "human", which is for most people a personal philosophical matter. Most philosophical matters without real answers cause nothing more disruptive than a lot of idle chatter in coffee houses (or message boards, for that matter ;), but in this case, again, it determines life and death. Which is why disagreements about abortion tend towards the psychotic; since everyone's opinions are based on the dialectic equivalent of quicksand rather than any truly solid scientific or ethical principles, all they can really try to do is shout down the other side using polemic.

I do think that the problems can be ameliorated slightly by a "buffer zone" or zones of development which divide the legal status of the fetus into more that simply a harsh binary. Something like, before this point you can do what you want, abortion-wise, from that point to this point it is allowable only in cases where the mother's life is in danger (which places the situation in a similar medical ethics territory as cases involving siamese twins) and certain other extenuating circumstances, after this point it is not allowed although you can have the baby c-sectioned and put up for adoption, etc. This will not eliminate the central objection, just make the disagreement somewhat less potent. (I believe we have just such an arrangement in the US in most states, based on the three trimesters/degree of viability [with that last in flux due to improving medical technology, which demonstrates the pitfalls of ethical definitions based on current practicality rather than any overriding philosophy] ).


My central point is, no matter how many variables you try to take into account in the decision-making process, at the end of the day a determination must be made as to whether a particular fetus is only a proto-human lifeform, and hence legally able to be killed, or an actual human possessing the basic rights thereof, with no rational way to determine exactly and unquestionably where the dividing line is. Which is why I don't think the issue will ever be solved, except in a de facto manner if technology advances enough to provide cheap 100% effective passive birth control, thereby making the question effectively statistically moot (and while I'm not a huge fan of the government being involved in areas not explicitly allowed it by the Constitution, I can certainly bend my principles enough to be fine with the idea of it distributing such birth control for free if it becomes available, for reasons both humane and practical).

...

*looks around*

Ew, ew, I'm engaging in political discourse! Get it off me!

*Goes off to read about something more clear-cut, like how reality is just waves of probability which change when we look at them. Possibly.*


* Note: I use the term "fetus" above in a general sense of any stage of human development between fertilization and birth, not the strict scientific one. Given the broad nature of my point, trying to remain stringent with the terms would have forced me to use something like "zygote/morula/blastocyst/embryo/fetus" every time I wanted to say the same thing. It was picked for being the longest period of development, not in an attempt to skew an (I hope) otherwise fairly neutral analysis.

_________________
Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.
- Robert Anton Wilson


Last edited by Wandering Idiot on Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:43 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:44 pm
Posts: 1821
Location: Home! Wheeeeee!
See, this is one of the benefits of being gay. I don't ever expect to be impacted by the final decision on this one. :P

In other news, USAREUR (US Army Europe) Medical Command authorized army doctors to prescribe the "morning after pill", so they're not stupid about everything, i guess.

Quote:
reality is just waves of probability which change when we look at them
I thought they collapsed, rather than changed?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group