Maggie’s Motivational Pic Thread v2.0 - - New Rules - See Post #1
- Thread starter Snake-Eyes
- Start date
- Tags
- motivational pictures
Well said. Although I am Christian through and through, my stance on the issue comes from the simple facts that babies feel pain incredibly early on in development, and even have individual finger prints at only a few weeks from conception. If a baby responds to pain in the womb, ripping it apart with forceps or suction is pure evil.
I'm pro choice - either don't have sex unless you want the risk of a baby, or be protected. Its not really that hard. All these leftests 'what about the rights of the mother!?', well how about the rights of a defenseless baby?
I agree. But others don't. And I draw the line at forcing others to share my beliefs.
It's a nasty issue... decided on feelings and beliefs. Which is why it's impossible to solve. And easy to hijack and use for 'other' political purposes. Which is the point of my argument.
Cheers,
Sirhr
Hell yeah! I worked that aircraft for 17 years.
I miss hearing that bad assed rumble on takeoff.
East of Great Falls in the Highwood mountain range.
For something to be funny, there has to be an element of truth to it. The truth meter is pegged on this one!
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Been called five times. Always made the first cut, but never selected for a trial. I think both sides sense my antipathy of lawyers.
There is a third facet of the discussion that we rarely even touch on the board, and that is good because it is even more explosive. Every medical decision has a cost, accept that fact or not, that is either medical, emotional or social. That would be an interesting discussion but not sure this is the best place for it.
I don't believe in slavery. However, I'm not going to force my belief on anyone who wants to own slaves.
I was at the back end of the launch runway at Ellsworth one day(96), watched one fire up and take off. It was awesome, sound was cool, I think the landing gear was being retracted in under 350 yards.
When I was first stationed there, we did a show of force with 35 B-1B's and 28 KC and EC-135's. Got all aircraft off the ground (except one B-1, tail number 85-0087, The Gremlin) in a continuous launch with one going wheels up and the next already picking up speed.
It was a sight to see and even more awesome to be part of.
I miss the days of The Strategic Air Command.
I grew up NW of Minot AFB. Made a number of Northern Neighbor Days. I was always in awe, every yr they had the B52 flyover, and someone would come on the PA and say, it'll back in few, it takes 35 miles to turn this bitch around.
Thanks for your Service! Mike too!
I bet! Thanks for doing it!
I don't believe in slavery. However, I'm not going to force my belief on anyone who wants to own slaves.
Exactly. Prohibiting murder isn't forcing your beliefs on anyone. If I thought it was ok to kill people because they're inconvenient there'd be a pile of "progressives" in my yard waiting for the ground to thaw.
Once upon a time I was walking out of the base police check-in building at Barksdale, it was across the road at the end of the runway, just as a B52 came over doing a touch and go.... That has to be the highest noise level I have ever experienced.
This might be purely semantics but the prohibition of anything is absolutely forcing an opposing belief onto another group. Prohibiting high capacity mags is an action put into place because one group does not believe that another group should own them. I am in no way saying that "prohibiting" is automatically a good or bad thing because that is case and belief specific.
Wait a minute...! That is just Leonardo DeCaprio in drag, isn’t it?
A prohibition on a person's liberty to do something is not harmful if it directly causes another person to lose their liberty.
So a person who wishes to exercise their liberty to kill someone, unless it is self-defense, should be prohibited from doing so.
When the sperm and the egg of two humans are joined together it doesn't create a fish. It is another human being and should be given all the rights and protections under the constitution. Depriving that unborn person the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is imposing one person's belief on them. It is also causing the death of someone.
The distinction between the imposition of the pro-abortion (pro-death) person's belief in the un-born's death is that the latter's rights are being taken away.
Prohibiting high capacity magazines is also an imposition of the anti-gun crowd's belief upon us. The problem with that is the former presumes that we have no other use for the magazines than to deprive another of their liberty when that is not true.
There are some people who have purchased high capacity magazines with the express intention of murdering someone.
Not everyone who owns a high capacity magazine wants to kill someone. Abortion, on the other hand, is driven by the belief that someone must die; not that they might die but that they WILL die.
There are a number of questions I have about Longshot's post. The biggest question I have is whether science has answered when a collection of cells becomes a human being. I am totally convinced that at 8.9 months gestation, there is a human there. However shortly after conception when the egg and sperm have just started to divide, if there are only a dozen cells starting to divide, is that collection of cells considered a human being?
I'm not being critical of Longshot's posting, rather I have genuine questions about whether science or the courts have answered the question: "At which point does a collection of cells become a human being?"
I'm not being critical of Longshot's posting, rather I have genuine questions about whether science or the courts have answered the question: "At which point does a collection of cells become a human being?"
Well being more of a Constitutionalist I don't believe it's my right or the government's right to tell people what to do as long as it doesn't infringe on someone's rights.
I think if you don't want a gun, don't buy a gun, but you have no right to rain on my parade. If I do something wrong with my gun then there are consequences.
That is why as much as I disapprove of smoking pot (expect for medical purposes) I did not want to be a hypocrite so I voted for legalization here in Washington. There are laws in place if you abuse this privilege already.
Abortion is one of the actions future generations will look back at like we look back at slavery now. So having said that, I think it is the women's right up to a certain time frame unless it is a medical cause.
As with improper use of a firearm, liquor, pot or whatever; once you infringe upon another's right there is a penalty. If you have a abortion then you should be sentenced to have your tubes tied and not have the ability to have children again. No different than getting your gun rights taken away.
I am a strong believer in "letting the choice be your own" but remember rocks thrown in the air come back down.
I think if you don't want a gun, don't buy a gun, but you have no right to rain on my parade. If I do something wrong with my gun then there are consequences.
That is why as much as I disapprove of smoking pot (expect for medical purposes) I did not want to be a hypocrite so I voted for legalization here in Washington. There are laws in place if you abuse this privilege already.
Abortion is one of the actions future generations will look back at like we look back at slavery now. So having said that, I think it is the women's right up to a certain time frame unless it is a medical cause.
As with improper use of a firearm, liquor, pot or whatever; once you infringe upon another's right there is a penalty. If you have a abortion then you should be sentenced to have your tubes tied and not have the ability to have children again. No different than getting your gun rights taken away.
I am a strong believer in "letting the choice be your own" but remember rocks thrown in the air come back down.
Oh come on you can't be serious. The most basic law of civilization is "thou shall not kill". You're just being daft.
Good luck with that. I get rejected 100% of the time when I go to criminal court. If I am honest I get bounced from civil cases too
From the American College of Pediatrics:
"The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins."
https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins
From an article written by Maureen Condic, PhD.
"The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings."
https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/
I can find more. Does that help to answer your question?
Any other threshold used for determining the point of human life besides conception is purely arbitrary. Even birth. Some are born prematurely, others overstay and need to be induced — a two month old baby is scarcely different from one a month away from birth.
We’ve strayed pretty far from motivational pics at this point.
We’ve strayed pretty far from motivational pics at this point.
I am being daft because I don't agree with your opinion? You are using the "thou shall not kill" as part of your premise to define when a fetus is alive and I am pretty sure you have no idea of when that actually occurs.
You have done the liberal move here and this emotional and even threw out an insult. I was not arguing the merits, or lack there of, of abortion. I pointed out where your definition of prohibition is absolutely wrong.
I will say this again, my point was on what the word "prohibition" means, nothing more and nothing less. I am not going to get into an abortion debate because the people on this board for the most part will be guilty of the same things they accuse Democrats of doing. The argument will distill down to beliefs and emotion, not facts and reality.
Saved me some typing!
It's not a "belief". It is a scientific fact that within a minute of fertilization differentiation occurs, and at that point we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that is a complete human being at the earliest stage of development, period, full stop. No debate, no arguing, no equivocation. Establishing legal "personhood" at any other point is fully arbitrary, and we've been saying that for fifty years. It is only now, exactly as predicted, that the left is pushing the envelope and claiming that newborns can be legally subjected to fourth trimester "abortions". The truth of the matter is that abortion is now and always has been murder. There's just no way to delude yourself and lie to yourself when the umbilical chord is cut.
When you're in the business of arbitrarily determining who is and who is not a human being of course we are debating legalized murder. Again, we've been saying that for fifty years, but only now can the criminally obtuse no longer claim to understand or think we just have quaint "beliefs".
So if you have collectivist arguments why it's a good thing to control population through murdering the innocent, but all means, make the arguments. There are certainly many valid points and benefits to it, which were pretty fully explored in Europe prior to WWII. Just don't pretend you're advocating something different, or that your discredited, immoral , progressive ideas are new. They've already been defeated, and we will defeat them again either peacefully or with violence. Your choice.
It's not a "belief". It is a scientific fact that within a minute of fertilization differentiation occurs, and at that point we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that is a complete human being at the earliest stage of development, period, full stop. No debate, no arguing, no equivocation. Establishing legal "personhood" at any other point is fully arbitrary, and we've been saying that for fifty years. It is only now, exactly as predicted, that the left is pushing the envelope and claiming that newborns can be legally subjected to fourth trimester "abortions". The truth of the matter is that abortion is now and always has been murder. There's just no way to delude yourself and lie to yourself when the umbilical chord is cut.
When you're in the business of arbitrarily determining who is and who is not a human being of course we are debating legalized murder. Again, we've been saying that for fifty years, but only now can the criminally obtuse no longer claim to understand or think we just have quaint "beliefs".
So if you have collectivist arguments why it's a good thing to control population through murdering the innocent, but all means, make the arguments. There are certainly many valid points and benefits to it, which were pretty fully explored in Europe prior to WWII. Just don't pretend you're advocating something different, or that your discredited, immoral , progressive ideas are new. They've already been defeated, and we will defeat them again either peacefully or with violence. Your choice.
I think there's a lot of guys that read Playboy just for the articles here. I think its been like 25 pages since a T&A pic was posted here...
Yes, it does. Thank you. I'm probably not asking the right questions though. The idea of abortion at 8.9 months really bothers me. What I am trying to wrap my head around is whether there is a point at which it is generally accepted that a fetus can survive outside the womb before birth. The idea of aborting a baby at 8.9 months bothers me much more than a woman taking a "morning after pill". I'm just not sure if science, or the courts have decided when life is sustainable (even with assistance) outside the womb.
It would seem that if a life could be sustainable outside the womb (even with assistance) allowing adoption rather than abortion might be the way to go.
I realize these are very personal matters. Another consideration I am wondering about is the rights of both the child, and the child's father. If the child could survive outside the womb at 8.9 months, I would think that the father might be granted some rights and asked if he wants custody of the baby rather than just killing it.
If someone's actions cause the accidental death of an in utero child, some states can levy charges of manslaughter. If that is true, why wouldn't that same logic be applied to aborting a fetus of the same age?
This is all inconsistent logic to my way of thinking. I think that logic should be applied consistently. However, if manslaughter charges can be pressed for the inadvertent death of a fetus, why wouldn't the deliberate death of a fetus bring the same charges?
Obviously, I have far more questions than answers. I'm not trying to challenge anyone's point of view because mine isn't totally fixed. I realize that being in favor of the death penalty should mean that I am pro choice/ pro-abortion, but I can't accept late term abortions where the fetus could live outside the womb. If the woman doesn't want the baby, I am sure there would are plenty of people who would gladly adopt the child once the hospital is ready to release it from care.
It would seem that if a life could be sustainable outside the womb (even with assistance) allowing adoption rather than abortion might be the way to go.
I realize these are very personal matters. Another consideration I am wondering about is the rights of both the child, and the child's father. If the child could survive outside the womb at 8.9 months, I would think that the father might be granted some rights and asked if he wants custody of the baby rather than just killing it.
If someone's actions cause the accidental death of an in utero child, some states can levy charges of manslaughter. If that is true, why wouldn't that same logic be applied to aborting a fetus of the same age?
This is all inconsistent logic to my way of thinking. I think that logic should be applied consistently. However, if manslaughter charges can be pressed for the inadvertent death of a fetus, why wouldn't the deliberate death of a fetus bring the same charges?
Obviously, I have far more questions than answers. I'm not trying to challenge anyone's point of view because mine isn't totally fixed. I realize that being in favor of the death penalty should mean that I am pro choice/ pro-abortion, but I can't accept late term abortions where the fetus could live outside the womb. If the woman doesn't want the baby, I am sure there would are plenty of people who would gladly adopt the child once the hospital is ready to release it from care.
