Are you ok with killing unborn babies but letting murderers live?

[Spare Moody]

what do you mean then?

that we don't know what it's like to be unborn so it's just as asinine to assume it's misery as it is to assume it's wonderful.

[ßringer]

I'm for killing unborn babies and murderers.

[ßringer]

You can't have it both ways. Conservatives love to protect the "sanctity of life" when it's a woman's uterus they're talking about, but jump at the opportunity to execute death row inmates.

And Liberals love to defend a woman's right to choose, but they're the first to protest for abolishing the death penalty.

Bottom line : Both groups are fucking hypocrites. I say we abort the children, and shoot the death row inmates in the skull instead of wasting valuable time, money, and resources on trying to educate a bunch of pimple faced twits on how to fuck safely (knowing damn well they won't listen anyway), and trying to rehab a bunch of psychotic necrophiliacs.

[..WaRSpencE..]

they ARE the ones who we should worry about because they don't realize the difference of playing mother vs. BEING a mother. they're irresponsible and that was my point.



well of course irresponsible sex is the root of the problem.....and it's not just the girl who's being irresponsible. she shouldn't have to TELL a guy to put a condom on anymore than he should know to do it from the start.

so it's unfair that a fetus dies. yeah i agree but some things are just unfair. the alternative is giving birth to a kid that will statistically be a fuck up and fuck other people up. in the end, it's basically de-evolutionizing the gene pool which is exactly what's happening right now.

so i don't care if it's murder.

Well for the first statement we can't worry about them because we can't force them upon abortion cuz like I said the scenario you gave put them in a position where abortion isn't an option..

and as for me being accused of misogyny..and you sayin the guy should know..of course he should..but how often does the guy do it wit out bein told to by the female?..and how much does his opinion really count if he really doesn't want the baby and she's headstrong on having it?..

All in all it could all be avoided by the female in the situation and if she felt it was so easy to let him have sex wit out a condom and no birth control than she has to pay for the consequences..the choice of adoption is still open..abortion is a sad excuse of erasing irresponsibility..and even if abortion is their choice..they'll pay the consequences in another form.

[Dan Saleamua]

[QUOTE=squealpiggy;4791735]

But I advocate a complete education, which consists of teaching about everything. Certainly mention that the only 100% failsafe method is abstinence, but don't rely on that. That's a big cause of the issue, reliance on abstinence only education in the misplaced belief that teaching safe sex makes people naughty.

Fair enough. Any sexual programme must be detailed and completely explain all the consequences of sex. Of course people have primal urges and the desired to reproduce is one of them. Regardless of practicality, it must be the ramifications of sexual intercourse must be deeply ingrained to the youth. The only way to get pregnant or contract STDs is by not having sex. Every other method has risks, but should be taught as well.

In any case part of the reason abortion is legal is because of the insistence of far too many men that STDs and pregnancy are purely a woman's problem.

Are you a women's lib proponent? While this statement may hold some truth it is primarily irrelevant, unless you are reffering to the "deadbeat daddy" issue.

To me "genetic superiority" is the ability of the genetic marker to replicate itself. That is to say that the more children people produce the more superior they are from a genetic point of view.

I was not reffering to specific DNA replication, although yours would be the true definition. When people feel superior to others, they often feel the are of a better "paygrade". Take that as you wish.

The assumption of moral superiority is the trait I am particularly annoyed by, and it is the pretense of moral superiority that leads wealthy well educated individuals to preach against responsible sex education directed at uneducated poor individuals.

Statistically, wealthy individuals reproduce in smaller numbers. If they choose to have a large family, they have the ability to financially support their offspring and are therefore being respsonsible; unlike the group you accuse them of scorning.

It really is. There are any number of programmes which are introduced because they sound good when the results are lousy. For example "getting tough on crime" is a vote winner. Too bad it doesn't, you know, affect the level of crime.

You are correct in the fact that rhetoric has little to no effect on the amount of crime...but what are you incinuating? Should we be "soft" on crime. What programmes are you talking in reference to crime?

So uneducated people should be sterilized? That's small government for you.

It was a bit of a joke. However, there are positive aspects to China's government controlling the birthrate of their population. In order to have more than one child, you must be financially stable and pay large fees. Obviously the tactic is gross government intrusion and should not apply to Western society, but you can appreciate it as far as population control goes.

The bizarre notions that people, particularly teenagers have about sex when they are not educated are staggering. People really believe that you can't get pregnant if you do it standing up... Telling them not to doesn't work. Abstinence pledges don't work. People are not abstinent and they have no plan B.

You are talking about a very ignorant part of the population...a part of the population that would should still be able to learn about the consequences of sex if it is seared into their brains with proper sexual education. People do have a plan B, in fact their is a pill named just that. After that, abortion is an option. If you are lacking resources to raise a chile, having an abortion is the most responsible option, followed by adoption.

I'd rather see both. I suppose you find the idea of Victorian values to be appealing, where single mothers starve to death or turn to prostitution in order to feed their children, where babies are left to die in the cold, where children are put to work. That's what life is like if you abandon social assistance and honestly the cost of not having it is far greater than the cost of having it.

Ah, nothing like some dramatic rhetoric to nail a point home. Social assistance should be for absolute emergencies only, and not available to continual or repeat users. The Victorian era was not all bad, any time where England was a dominating presence in the world holds value to me as an Englishman.

I waited until I was married, settled, owned my home and was working before I started a family. I strongly believe in responsible parenting. I don't believe in punishing people for poor choices, and I don't believe in punishing everyone who has to put up with the resultant social decay and crime.

Your situation is ideal and responsible. Saying you do not believe in punishing people for poor choices is laughable. I won't rip that to shreds because it would be far too easy.

Perhaps, and I mentioned this before, the state of California should approach the doctor in order to recover some of that cost.

Agreed, and the media attention personified all the negatives of the situation.

I've done several tests both online and in person. My IQ is reliably at a level of 133, though IQ is not a reliable indicator. I once scored close to 160, because at the time I was doing a lot of puzzles. You can train for IQ tests which absolutely negates the point in them.

A proper IQ test is one that trancends race, culture, etc. I don't believe that internet tests are reliable, as they allow for "cheating" and are not conducted in the traditional manner that they should be. IQ scores can change over time, as well as from test to test. A 27 point gap is quite the abberation though.

Psychology has never settled on a definition for the word "intelligence" so your statement is false.

Psychology is a psuedo-science. It does not settle on much of anything. What do public schools use to determine whether or not to place children in gifted programmes? IQ tests. They do not perfectly measure intelligence. They do measure all aspects of intellect. However, it is our best barometer for measuring intellect at this time. My statement is not false.

It's the best indicator for measuring IQ.

Intelligent quotient..sure. But let's not be a smartass, an IQ test is the best, not perfect, means we have for measuring fluid intelligence.

The liberal people are less likely to vote. The religious will vote because their pastor or priest tells them. Hence the republican party is led and motivated by the wealthy religious right.

"The liberal people are less likely to vote." What is your measure of this? What is a "liberal" person? Can a person be liberal and conservative at the same time? In a cookie cutter sense, the liberals sure came out in droves in the U.S. presidential elections in November. When you are saying religous, I'm assuming you are talking about the very pious, not the social Christians. Your last sentence seems to be rhetoric again. While it holds some water, it would seem more objective had you said "influenced" and not "led and motivated". Not all Republicans are religous. In one of my earlier response I denoted the current split in the party between the religous base and the other portion that is not socially conservative.

I voted Labour back in England. If I was voting this week I would vote conservative, because a change is needed.

Is this Barack Obama?

Moral rules like the prohibition on prostitution and drugs which serves to stretch law enforcement and enrich criminals. For example

I'm not sure how I feel about the legalisation of all drugs, but I agree with your point. Crime would be reduced if drugs were legalised. As far as prostitution, they are providing a needed service. It should be conducted in a safe manner with government oversight. Sex workers should be protected under the law.

[Dan Saleamua]

that we don't know what it's like to be unborn so it's just as asinine to assume it's misery as it is to assume it's wonderful.

My first, consistent memories begin around ages 4-5.

[Vladimir303]

Not every ejaculation is worth having a baby......get used to that.

[squealpiggy]

Are you a women's lib proponent?

Of course.

Statistically, wealthy individuals reproduce in smaller numbers. If they choose to have a large family, they have the ability to financially support their offspring and are therefore being respsonsible; unlike the group you accuse them of scorning.

The wealthy and educated in power use their position in society in order to patronise the poor, while denying them access to things like contraception and education. Wealthy people have the resources to deal with the personal consequences of folly, the poor do not.

You are correct in the fact that rhetoric has little to no effect on the amount of crime...but what are you incinuating? Should we be "soft" on crime. What programmes are you talking in reference to crime?

Prison reform and rehabilitation are routinely criticized because it is seen as somehow "not fair" on people who do not break the law. When effectiveness is thrown out of the window in favour of rhetorical spin there is a problem.

It was a bit of a joke. However, there are positive aspects to China's government controlling the birthrate of their population.

Ooooh really?

You are talking about a very ignorant part of the population...

The enemy of ignorance is education.

A proper IQ test is one that trancends race, culture, etc. I don't believe that internet tests are reliable. IQ scores can change over time, as well as from test to test. A 27 point gap is quite the abberation though.

I've done both and both kinds were accurate to within a few points apart from in one period of my life when I was spending a lot of time doing mensa type puzzles and they trained me to do the tests and I managed to get some good scores. My IQ outside of those periods has been fairly consistent, between 129 and 136 on various tests.

Psychology is a psuedo-science.

Not really, it is pretty empirical nowadays. Plus it brought us IQ tests that you seem to find so useful.

"The liberal people are less likely to vote." What is your measure of this?

I should clarify: Liberal people are less prone to block voting, that is organising to vote on one particular issue. Churches will tell their congregation to all vote for one outcome or candidate. Liberals don't get told who to vote for at starbucks or wherever...

Is this Barack Obama?

Er... no. Barack Obama is not a member of the British conservative party to the best of my knowledge.

[res]

Somebody needs to get this guy up to date and tell him that changes to Welfare have actually improved things in this country for the poor.

[loui_ludwig]

Whats your opinion on that?

Kill the murderers, rapists, and criminals. The government have to spend on housing, food, and other expenses for a criminal. Just shoot them. A bullet is way cheaper than a long time imprisonment. It will save the government millions of money. And just cremate the bodies.