What is up with the constant campaigning and bitching about abortion???
Personally, I am very conflicted on abortion, but frankly it annoys the shit out of me whenever abortion is brought up.
there are 3 things that piss me off about how people talk of abortion:
1)There is nothing in the fucking constitution about abortion, roe vs wade should have been thrown out before it started
2)Pro life, Pro choice, WHO CARES???? Because abortion is "constitutionally protected" there is nothing that ANYONE can do either way on abortion. QUIT FUCKING TALKING ABOUT IT!!
3)Aborted fetuses, something that could save lives with their precious stem cells, are not being used for that purpose. If they are not tested on, what will happen? They go in that cylindrical filing unit that we are all very firmiliar with.

Am I wrong???

Homer

I am pro choice.

The pro-life people have a point if and only if, they are willing to support the unwanted child. It is an intrusion on privacy for anyone to dictate how another should exercise their reproductive rights. However, for the morons who claim incarcerated felons have procreation rights, that is one of the rights they loose upon conviction. I am also opposed to conjugal visits.

Nox

There are many pros and cons. On one hand, people need to learn self-discipline and responsibility so that they don't need 'em in the first place.

On the other hand, without abortion society would have millions of more ghetto kids in the slums born to single mothers...all getting public "assistance".

As a happy medium, I think it should be a state or county decision, not a federal decision.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
There are many pros and cons. On one hand, people need to learn self-discipline and responsibility so that they don't need 'em in the first place.

On the other hand, without abortion society would have millions of more ghetto kids in the slums born to single mothers...all getting public "assistance".

As a happy medium, I think it should be a state or county decision, not a federal decision.

---

The problem with this POV, as stated, is that for some reason the supreme court ruled that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional. Thus any antiabortion law anywhere is impossible

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:
There is nothing in the fucking constitution about abortion

---

I do believe that murder is illegal still, right?

quote:

---

The problem with this POV, as stated, is that for some reason the supreme court ruled that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional. Thus any antiabortion law anywhere is impossible.

---

All the excess crap should be overturned, and America should revert back to a loose confederacy of independent states free to make their own laws within the bill of rights. Canada should do this too, with the provinces. No more leviathan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SouthernRebel1221:
I do believe that murder is illegal still, right?

---

That is not the point.
If you think abortion equates to murder, then yes there is a lot of anti-abortion things in there. However, there is NO pro-abortion thing ANYWHERE in the constitution, as the supreme court said there was.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am both pro-life and pro-choice. That may sound like an oxymoron, but the way I see it, it is evil to tell women what to do with their bodies, AND that it is evil to kill babies.
My point is this: Argument about abortion is stupid, and that nothing is going to happen either way in the issue.
Now that I think about it, I kinda screwed my whole philosophy by encouraging talk about abortion, but what're ya gonna do?

Homer

If I had a kid right now I would pay for a damn abortion.

Even though people are irresponsible if they need one, we shouldn't make people raise kids they can't afford.

"Argument about abortion is stupid, and that nothing is going to happen either way in the issue."

I see you're point, but I don't agree with it. Let's face it, it's a hot topic. Notice that neither Gore nor Bush addressed it much when they were running. It's clear that its possible that it could soon be made illegal (let's hope so) or that it will be legal to throw pregnant women down the stairs (which coincidentally happened to my mom when she was pregnant... I'm one lucky bastard... maybe that explains my liking to hang around the totse boards heh). The nation is conflicted about this, but if the right people were to reach power, large and impactful decisions could be made either way.

Mothers that abort their children because they are poor bastards, have other children, and a job, are pretty crappy but oh well. Women who get an abortion because a baby would inconvenience them should be executed promptly, along with the cowardly primate that impregnated them and stood by and let his child die. Local judges should decide this.

quote:

---

originally posed by Spirit of '22

Women who get an abortion because a baby would inconvenience them should be executed promptly, along with the cowardly primate that impregnated them and stood by and let his child die.

---

for once spirit i think i actually agree with you...

[This message has been edited by Askr (edited 10-23-2002).]

I am pro-choice, but do believe that federal funding for abortion should only be allowed if the woman can prove an abortion is neccesary. The government shouldn't give women money for abortions if it's because they're just not in the mood for another child.

I actually agree with Nox this time, but only to a certain extent. If someone is in jail for shoplifting, depending on the case it should be possible for a conjugal visit - this wouldn't be a protected right, only a possibility. If someone's in jail for violent crimes, sexual abuse, murder, or something of that calibur, in my book they shoudln't be allowed to have children.

quote:

---

but do believe that federal funding for abortion should only be allowed if the woman can prove an abortion is neccesary

---

It is necessary. Necessary because you wouldn't want to be that trickbaby. And necessary because wheather people know it or not we're overpopulating the earth. If people can't take care of their child, then we don't need that mouth to feed.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/23/footprint.people.reut/index.html

That's why if somebody CAN take care of the child, the federal government shouldn't pay for their abortion.

I might have phrazed myself badly. By "neccesary" I don't mean physically neccesary to the health of the woman. I mean that the woman wouldn't be able to take care of the child, and that giving birth would seriously get in the way of their education, job ect. An abortion is not neccesary if the mother is pefectly capable but unwilling to take care of the child.

getting in the way of a job? of education? thats bullshit. thats the consiquences of thier choice that put them in that situation.

other than if you're raped you made a choice that ended up in you having that child. thats your fault and you should deal with it. if you cant afford it you should have thought of that. put it up for adoption then.

and those people who say they dont want to have to go through the pain of giving birth make me sick! once again they made thier choice, they should have to deal with that. its called responsablity which is more and more lacking in our society.

if you were raped or if it can be proven to be a serious medical danger to you to have achild then an abortion might be alright. but this other crap is just that, crap. if you got pregnant its not dangerous to you and you werent raped you made a choice that put you there. people need to stop trying to dodge their responsiblity for thier actions and deal with thier lives. if someone wants to have an abortion and they werent raped and its not a serious physical danger to them then they are being childish and need to grow up and deal with the consiquences of their actions. theres no good argument to that. its all bullshit. in most cases its your fault so deal with it. if its not your fault then fine.

An inner city girl is really smart, and on the road to an ivy league scholorship, and her condom breaks - because of that she should be forced to drop out of school, get two jobs, and not go to college so she can attempt to support a baby who obviously will be deprived of the neccesary aspects of childhood?

Your view will simply put more children with single mothers in the ghetto who will resort to violence, drugs, gangs, and prostitution. More unneccesary welfare money from the government. Get real man, there are many cases where an abortion is not only benefitial but neccesary to a woman's life, be it physical or socialogical.

or my view could create more people willing to take more responsablity for thier actions and not put them selves into the position of having a child in the first place. a condom breaking is not an excuse. she still would have made a choice to put herself at risk for that. she gambled that it wouldnt't happen and lost. her fault for taking that risk she needs to deal with that. like i said theres no way to argue with the fact that responsiblity needs to be taken and other reasons besides rape and serious danger to the mother are responiblity dodging bullshit.

So nobody should ever have sex unless it's for procreation? That seems to be what you're getting on, and if not it's at least the idea you're subscribing to.

Teenagers are gonna have sex. Get over it. Trying to stop it coul donly result in making it worse. If we ban abortion, it'll only make larger ghetoes, more poverty, more crime, and more welfare.

im not saying teenagers arent going to have sex or that sex needs to be only for procreation. but if they have sex and get pregnant they should be ready to deal with that and make sure they are ready to deal with it if it should happen or put the child up for adoption. and besides that there are plenty of sexual activities that dont risk pregnancy. if they want to have sex they should be willing to deal with the consiquences. thats all there is too it. im not saying we should ban abortion either only that it should be restricted to certain cases. and it wont neccesarily create bigger "ghettos"(which actually refers to parts of citys set aside for jews by germany in world war 2 not the poverty stricken parts of the inner city) and would probably be better for society in the long run.

So nobody should have sex unless they're prepared and willing to give birth to and support a child?

How is that any different from saying sex should any be for procreation?

Even by your broken logic, how is the impoverished child without a father in any way at fault for some teenage girl's mistake? You say people should be responsable for their actions, but what about the children? Children shouldn't be born unless they can be raised. That's common knowledge.

[This message has been edited by UnclNastyFingerz (edited 10-23-2002).]

We're not overpopulating the earth. All the Western nations have declining birth rates.

I don't want inner city girls to be having kids either. Who's going to be paying for them? Taxpayers, that's who. That saying, "if you want something, subsidize it" rings true. That's why I think that only poor married families or widows should get taxpayer aid, and not 16 year old kids messing around.

The scenario of the inner city girl about to get an ivy league scholarship having to give it all up because of a pregnancy is likely very, very, very rare if not completely mythological. If she's smart enough to qualify for a scholarship, she should be smart enough to know that sex - birth control = preggers. There is birth control out there that is over 99% effective.

Maybe kids wouldn't be having so much sex in the first place if the pop culture weren't swamping teens with it and parents weren't so permissive. I swear, when I have kids they aren't going to be watching anything like MTV or listening to Britney Spears.

Conclusion: I support abortion for inner city girls because I don't want to have to pay for their children after they are born. I probably support more abortion for inner city girls than the inner city girls themselves want.

As for adults with money to afford kids, I don't unless it's rape or health threat. For one, adults with money should be smart enough to take BC if they don't want kids, thus should have nothing to complain about. Second, it's the adults with money who should be having more children in the first place. A nation with a declining birthrate will slowly wither away.

They can certainly be raised.

Esp. if they pass legislation mandating that babies born of drug-addicted mothers are taken away.

Why are you all assuming that everyone who has an abortion are teenage girls in the inner city? On the contrary, most people who get abortions are white middle class women and white middle class teenagers. People living in conditions of poverty extreme enough that they cannot raise a child usually cannot afford abortions.

Federal funding should NOT go to fund an abortion!!
I think that you all are forgetting one thing, ABORTION IS NOT THE ONLY OPTION FOR PREGNANT WOMEN WHO CAN'T SUPPORT KIDS!!!!
Adoption is just as good.
And waiting lines are long for people who want to adopt, so orphanages are not a big problem. I think that federal funding should go to pay for medical expenses incured during birthing, but not to kill children.
Again though, I am not anti-choice so I DO NOT favor the criminalization of abortion, just to remain clear.

Homer

Mothers are supposed to die for their children, not the other way around. The health threat thing is sucha faggot cop-out.

quote:

---

We're not overpopulating the earth. All the Western nations have declining birth rates.

---

Apparently you haven't known that as of right there there are about eight to nine billion people on this earth. Scientific studies suggets that the planet can only sustain around 12 billion. And at the current rates we will reach that limit within the next fifty years. Personally I believe we should limit a famly to two children. I'm pro-choice, and believe and unborn child that cannot be taken care of by their biological parents should be destroyed, and or used for stem-cell research. Think about it. It's a win-win situation.

[This message has been edited by UbiloZ (edited 10-23-2002).]

She said western nations' birth rates are declining. She is right. Africa will of course be swarmed over by too many people, but AIDS will take care of that nicely. The Asians have enough foresight and civilization to cope with the problem themselves. In either case, we'll be fine.

I propose we Bio-Vac africa, nothing good has ever come from africa. Well, I should not say that, but a lot of bad things have come from Africa to list a few:
AIDS
Ebola
Human kind
Malaria
Voodoo
The list goes on...

Mouse, why'd you have to throw in that bit about not letting your kids watch MTV? You can critisize Jews as much as you want, but lobbies tend to attack the obscene media as much as they promote Israel. If you want MTV to be censored, vote for Gore/Lieberman.

Teenagers are gonna have sex. There's no logical reason they shouldn't if they're smart about it. Trying to stop them will result in many more teenage mothers on welfare then funding abortions.

As for the "I want an abortion cause I don't feel like having this baby," I personally find it morally wrong. I don't believe it should be ILLEGAL, since such an issue in my opinion is a woman's right, but there's no reason the government should fund it.

quote:

---

Mouse, why'd you have to throw in that bit about not letting your kids watch MTV? You can critisize Jews as much as you want, but lobbies tend to attack the obscene media as much as they promote Israel. If you want MTV to be censored, vote for Gore/Lieberman.

---

Umm.. not only is the owner of MTV/Viacom a Jew, but I didn't say anything about censoring MTV. I said I wouldn't allow my kids to watch it. Parents are allowed to not allow their kids to watch some things on TV, ya know. Would you allow your kid to watch scat-fetish bestiality porn?

Once they hit a certain age, I would.

I don't understand not letting your kids watch MTV, at least for the reasons you're saying you woulnd't. It's fucking annoying and stupid, but I don't see how it's explicit material is dangerous. Nothing on MTV doesn't exist in the real world, and it's my personal opinion that hiding your kids from it will make them grow up with a couple of screws loose.

Youre saying kids who grow up without having seen Road Rules are psychologically disadvantaged?

Do you worship domestication on purpose?

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Mouse, why'd you have to throw in that bit about not letting your kids watch MTV? You can critisize Jews as much as you want, but lobbies tend to attack the obscene media as much as they promote Israel. If you want MTV to be censored, vote for Gore/Lieberman.

Teenagers are gonna have sex. There's no logical reason they shouldn't if they're smart about it. Trying to stop them will result in many more teenage mothers on welfare then funding abortions.

As for the "I want an abortion cause I don't feel like having this baby," I personally find it morally wrong. I don't believe it should be ILLEGAL, since such an issue in my opinion is a woman's right, but there's no reason the government should fund it.

---

I can honestly say that I agree with every thing you just said UnclNastyFingerz, KUDOS!
Normally I don't agree with anyone.
Also, I could be wrong, but is porn not on european television? And aren't europeans not only cooler than us, but statistically, don't they commit less sex crimes?

I could be wrong.
Homer

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:
Federal funding should NOT go to fund an abortion!!

---

Why not? It's a good investment compared to a lifetime's worth of welfare payments.
___

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
The Asians have enough foresight and civilization to cope with the problem themselves.

---

No they don't. The Chinese are struggling with it, and a lot of asians still live in third-world squalor.

Besides, didn't you recently advocate the past practice of abandoning deformed infants to the wolves?

No, I actually think anyone that watches Road Rules is pathetic.

I just think that sheltering your kids and not letting them see anything "obscene" will make them psychologically disadvantaged, because the real world after you leave mommy and daddy is more obscene then any TV, which will come as a shock to somebody ill prepared.

Sheltering from MTV doesn't leave people sick and disadvantaged at all. It's dependence on TV that leaves people sick in the head. My kids would have stacks of books, museums, and outdoor activities with the family. Yours would be glued to the set waiting for the next trend. The restrictions would slowly loosen based on age, but I would never let a TV be a babysitter for my kids.

You wanna know what's bad from MTV besides shitty ass music? Materialism, superficiality, and nothing but sex, sex, sex. I wouldn't want my daughter growing up thinking that she has to be like a little Britney Spears tart to get attention, and I wouldn't want my son growing up thinking that women are nothing but silicone objects for his personal amusement. I wouldn't want either thinking that they have to be trendy wanna-be rappers to be "cool". Fuck MTV.

The superficiality on MTV sucks, but how is it any different from the superficiality of the REAL WORLD? My kids would have a healthy diet of family activities, literature, TV, and all the various aspects of reality.

Materialism sucks, but it's only a reflection of our society as it stands. I'm not saying let your kids sit around in their underwear eating chips and watching Undressed, but never allowing your kids any exposure to this will leave them unprepared for the shocks of living on their own.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:

Also, I could be wrong, but is porn not on european television? And aren't europeans not only cooler than us, but statistically, don't they commit less sex crimes?

I could be wrong.
Homer

---

1) Yes there�s porn on cable/satelite pay-channels, around midnight, in some European countries. Sweden has it, while it�s forbidden in Norway, for example.

2) Of course we a cooler! ;-)

3) Statistically there�s less sex crimes commited in Europe, but then you have to consider that in parts of Europe many sex related crimes are not reported, because of the shame and disgrace and you name it. Take that into account and I�m not so sure there�s a significant difference.

FoxLeonard

Society is a reflection of the values of the people within it. If you let TV shape the values of the people, society will reflect what is on TV.

What about when society is too lazy or stupid to generate their own value system to begin with? What better way to automatically fill their heads than TV?

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:
And aren't europeans not only cooler than us

---

]

I'm gonna pretend I didn't read that...

I don't like the idea of sex on mainstream TV like in this Euro countries. Just because they will have sex doesn't mean we should surround them with it. I'm an old fashioned guy, I'm anti-sex before marriage, but I would drop my pants for any good looking bitch. What can I say, I'm a hypocrite.

As far as MTV goes, I hate that crap. I never watch that. I'm 18 and the only channels I watch is CSPAN, CNN, ESPN, NESN, and anything having to do with finances/stock market. My kid will do the same.

As far as the above mentioned having an impact on real life, you should not get any dose of the real world from MTV. Television should not be giving you a dose of the real world. Figure it out for yourself. The morals and ideals imposed by the media are dumbing down America... I fuckin hate MTV.

Uncl is never going to kiss a girl so we dont have to worry about his parenting tactics.

I actually have a pretty attractive girlfriend. I doubt I'll be a parent, though.

Pop culture reflect society, not vice versa. Taking MTV off the air wouldn't change the people that are on MTV. TThere are many people and places in the world similar to what's depicted on MTV, and it's impossable to hide people from it.

quote:

---

Pop culture reflect society, not vice versa. Taking MTV off the air wouldn't change the people that are on MTV. TThere are many people and places in the world similar to what's depicted on MTV, and it's impossable to hide people from it.

---

Bullshit. The entire world is not some trendy teenage utopia devoid of any deep values beyond what kind of fucking pants to buy next week with your allowance. Pop culture molds teenagers through heavy mass marketing.

In the real world, you don't find meaningful relationships by flashing your tits and ass around like on MTV.

In the real world, those "hip" young rappers that everyone is supposed to idolize, according to the MTV gods, are not good people to hang around with and are likely to to beat you, shoot you, or try and get you hooked on drugs.

In the real world, not everyones hates their parents and life like those whiny nu-metal angstcore bands.

In the real world, people do not become successful members of society by pulling useless stunts all over the place like on Jackass. In the real world, if they do that they get arrested.

In the real world, people do not spend 90% of their time dancing away at some club.

Nothing in my life has even remotely resembled MTV! Never and nowhere! Even in California, life did not resemble MTV.

It appears you've never walked into a mall. Look at the materialism on every billboard. Look at the consumer culture? Ever walked through Times Square?

Flashing your tits at someone won't land a meaningful relationship, but it'll certainly land a meaningless one, which alot of teenagers shoot for. Alot of girls I know behave the way divas do, and the basic views on sex shared by the majority of people I know resemble the shallow, emotionless game that people play on Undressed and similar shows. Binge drinking is incredibly popular in high schools, and the majority of people think more about what pants to wear that about any political or social issues surrounding them.

Society defines people by their image. It's sad, but it's a fact. It's better to get used to it by seeing it on TV then to believe that our world actually has values and go into adulthood expecting more depth then you're probably ever gonna see unless you go to a decent college (which the majority of people don't), or fall into the right scene, which really isn't easy to find. Alot of people DO spend way too much time dancing at clubs, and alot of teenagers do fall into the "I'm depressed, I hate everything" cliche.

We're living in a consumer culture. The easier it is to accept it and see through it, the easier it is to overcome.

The purpose of MTV is not to educate and inform children on real life. The purpose of MTV is to sell a warped image of reality on impressionable young people because they know that teens molded into a certain mindset will buy more of their junk. Watching something on TV is not necessary to learn about the world. Going outside and interacting with people is.

According to your logic, I should let an eight year old watch the playboy channel, because "people have meaningless sex a lot".

I personally don't see why an 8 year old shouldn't watch playboy. It's perfectly natural, and there's no reason people shouldn't be exposed to it at a young age.

And interacting with the world will teach you the exact same things that MTV does. MTV wasn't designed to teach people about life, it was designed to sell the image that people like, by trying to portray the way they live.

Have you ever walked through a mall? If you're not gonna let your kids watch Britney Spears, you shouldn't ever let them go to malls.

When you go to a mall, you're there specifically to buy some products. You know that everyone there just trying to sell their crap to you to make money.

When you watch TV, you're engaging in a passive behavior to simply let networks pour info into your head to sell a warped version of life.

There are plenty reasons why a kid shouldn't be allowed to watch playboy and MTV.

Playboy promotes an unrealistic version of women and an unrealistic version of relationships. Playboy teaches boys and girls that the other gender's only purpose is to be an object of lust and personal toy to satisfy some primal urges. The world of Playboy is just perfectly built men and women going through life carelessly copulating with no concern for the future. No rape, no babies, no families, no STDs, no aging, no different body types. I do not want my children to grow up thinking that Playboy or MTV is anything like reality. I don't want my daughter to grow up thinking that her breasts, ass, and vagina are her most important assets, or my son to grow up thinking that women are sex objects instead of partners meant to start families.

If you had kids, would you actually care about being a parent at all, or would you just let the random forces of the mass media mold them for you? And people wonder why kids are so alienated and messed up nowadays...

lol.. learn how to use the damn UBB code

Kids who are in loving homes care very much what their parents think of them and want to make their parents proud. Parents should bring up the children morally upright and doing more than using TV as a babysitter. If kids are flooded with sexual material at a young age that says "promiscuity is good!", they will grow up with conflicting values or the values shown on TV. There is no reason why a kid has to watch any TV in the first place. It dumbs them down and makes them lazy unless it's the rare video or educational program. I want my kids to read, do physical activity, or use their imagination and creativeness in hobbies for entertainment, not plop down on a couch and watch smut.

I never was allowed to watch smut when I was 10. I was watching cartoons at that age if I watched TV. I think it's insane that people nowadays think it's ok for young kids to grow up watching Britney Spears flash her tits around and rappers glorifying gangsterism.

Why do you think parents should be responsible for their childrens' morals? Parents should teach children not to walk into the street when cars on comming, not right and wrong.

I believe children should learn morals themselves based on their reflections to society. They should have aid from their parents, as well as their friends, teachers, ect. Children should develope their own morals, not define right and wrong based on what their parents think are right and wrong.

I'd allow my kids to watch Britney Spears, but I'd TELL THEM WHAT I THINK ABOUT HER, and let them come to their own conclusiosn, instead of forcing my cultural viewso n thema nd forbidding them to watch things I don't like.

I'd allo wmy kids to watch hip-hop, but I'd explain that following in their footsteps won't lead to such a glorious life as they appear to have. I'd explain my views on hip hop, which are that horiginally hip hop didn't glorify gansterism at all - it horrified it, explaining the realities of living in the ghetto and expressing frustration and desire to get out. It wasn't until they got rich that they decided to "sell" the ganster image.

I'd allow my kids to watch this, tell them my views - but let them develope their own. I don't feel that it's any parents right to control the way their cihldren think, as long as their "thought" doesn't endanger themselves or other people.

And when I was ten I had just emerged from the "girls have koodies" face, so I was incredibly curious about the birds and the bees. I asked my parents about it, and they explained it to me realistically, which is what should occur in all families.

My friends and I talked about sex when we were 12. It was really stupid though. When I was 12 my parents wouldn't let me watch smut. They would either let me watch MSNBC or the history channel. Those are channels that I would let my kids watch

[This message has been edited by punkrawkerstonershit (edited 10-27-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
[B]Why do you think parents should be responsible for their childrens' morals? Parents should teach children not to walk into the street when cars on comming, not right and wrong.

---

So theyre supposed to learn that from what?

[/QUOTE]I believe children should learn morals themselves based on their reflections to society. They should have aid from their parents, as well as their friends, teachers, ect.[/QUOTE]

Their peers, teachers, and society do not care about them.

[/QUOTE] Children should develope their own morals, not define right and wrong based on what their parents think are right and wrong.[/QUOTE]

Thats what you do though.

[/QUOTE]I'd allow my kids to watch Britney Spears, but I'd TELL THEM WHAT I THINK ABOUT HER [/QUOTE]

And in their world where they cant read or go down the street alone, you dont think your opinion presented as a "guide" isnt the same thing as telling them what to think?

[/QUOTE] and let them come to their own conclusiosn [/QUOTE]

Children dont make very many conclusions except dont touch the stove. Its funny how close your view of kids comes to the Puritanical one.

[/QUOTE] instead of forcing my cultural viewso n thema nd forbidding them to watch things I don't like.[/QUOTE]

Are you going to make sure they are in bed at decent times?

[/QUOTE]I'd allo wmy kids to watch hip-hop, but I'd explain that following in their footsteps won't lead to such a glorious life as they appear to have. I'd explain my views on hip hop, which are that horiginally hip hop didn't glorify gansterism at all - it horrified it, explaining the realities of living in the ghetto and expressing frustration and desire to get out.[/QUOTE]

LoL. Your kids would get tired of you and stop listening to your soap-box bullshit by age 11 and it would all backfire on you.

[/QUOTE]I'd allow my kids to watch this, tell them my views - but let them develope their own. I don't feel that it's any parents right to control the way their cihldren think, as long as their "thought" doesn't endanger themselves or other people.[/QUOTE]

Being exposed to Playboy before your exposed to normal sexuality and social norms is very damaging, actually.

Playboy doesn't depict anything that two people wouldn't do. People have labidos. They publish it cause people like it.

And I'd let my kids go to bed whenever they want. Usually people tend to sleep when they get tired. If kids have to wake up for school at 7am and go to bed at 4, they're realize that they have to go to bed earlier since three hours of sleep makes it impossable to wake up in the morning.

Children aren't stupid - they learn things themselves. If they accept everything their parents tell them, they'll never be able to think and that'll fuck them up more then lesbian sex would.

>>>>>Playboy doesn't depict anything that two people wouldn't do. People have labidos. They publish it cause people like it.<<<<

It has a lot of what most people wont do in front of an 8 year old.

>>>>And I'd let my kids go to bed whenever they want. Usually people tend to sleep when they get tired.<<<<<

LoL, dude youre so full of shit. My sister begs and fights and screams to stay up all hours of the night, because her brothers do.

>>>> If kids have to wake up for school at 7am and go to bed at 4, they're realize that they have to go to bed earlier since three hours of sleep makes it impossable to wake up in the morning.<<<<

No they wont.

>>>>Children aren't stupid <<<<<

Yes they are.

>>>>> they learn things themselves.<<<<<

Not really. A lot of lessons are pass/fail, and are only attempted once. Like the development of their sexuality.

>>>> If they accept everything their parents tell them, they'll never be able to think and that'll fuck them up more then lesbian sex would.<<<<

Probably not. Id have more respect for a real Christian guy from a Christian family than for some deviate who thinks women exist to get naked and pleasure each other while he masturbates.

How do you define such a deviate? Someone that believes that sex has a purpose other then procreation?

I'd have more respect for Hugh Heffner then somebody who never thinks for themselves and accepts everything their parents tell them.

If some kid gets two hours of sleep a night, he'll get really sick, and realize that if he got more sleep he wouldn't get sick. If kids enjoy being sick, or think it's worth having the flu in order to stay up for a certain show, then they deserve wahtever they get.

Children have more sense then you think they do. Maybe your idealistic portrait of the way children exist in society is the Hitler Youth, but that doesn't mean they're incapable of discovering things for themselves.

Actually, childeren would stay up much to late. Repetitively. Trust me, I've done it.

But that's not exclusive to childeren.

Uncl is just like every other idiotic liberal who reads a lot, sees failure as inevitable, and makes judgement calls and conclusions based on theory and isolation.

The world really isnt like MTV beyond the world of their target audience. After like, 15, whats on TV means nothing. Most people would know that if they left their house or had friends.

I'm not by any means a liberal. I guess to some people everyone they don't like is a liberal.

Ever been to a college frat party? People act exactly like they do on MTV? And, as I've said countless times, go to a mall. TV does hit it close to home, that's why people watch it.

>>>.Ever been to a college frat party? People act exactly like they do on MTV?<<<<

No, they were far more belligerent. I had to remove one fella's eye from the socket.

>>>> And, as I've said countless times, go to a mall. TV does hit it close to home, that's why people watch it.<<<<

The mall has the same target audience as MTV. The Mall is like an MTV Cathedral. As I said, once youre older than 15, that is just background noise with no bearing on reality.

Now that I think clearer about the Frat Party, there were like 80 drunk people in a creeky, dank basement, and in the rooms above them were kids talking about how being Irish is cool, and why Nietzsche ruled. Nope, nothing like MTV.

Obviously not your average fraternity. You probably wouldn't see any MTV at an Hare Krisna house either. The average frat party is exactly like MTV, I've been to several.

And the mall is exactly like an MTV cathedral - and it targets everyone between 10 and 25. Malls are incredibly popular, how do you think they proffit so much? MTV reflects American culture, all the mall does is exemplify that.

AuntNasty, you're as good a case as I've ever seen for mandatory sterilization. It pisses me off that my kids may have to live in the same world as the cretins you would've created.

The Hitler Youth will safely shelter your loyal children from my decadent slobs, so don't worry.

>>>>Obviously not your average fraternity. You probably wouldn't see any MTV at an Hare Krisna house either. The average frat party is exactly like MTV, I've been to several.<<<<

No. Youre 16. Any frats that are so regularly frequented by a 16 year old are not average ones.

>>>>>And the mall is exactly like an MTV cathedral - and it targets everyone between 10 and 25.<<<<<

I dont see many people beyond teenagers in there buying into any of the dumb bullshit, thus reinforcing my point, that your idea of reality ends when your hormones are more regulated.


>>>>> Malls are incredibly popular, how do you think they proffit so much?<<<<<

Because teenagers spend more money than most other age brackets combined.

>>>> MTV reflects American culture<<<<<

No it doesnt. It just likes to pretend that so dipshits like you fall for it and dont question the mindfuck they impose on the more gullible generations.

Uncl must think children are smart and capable of making their own decisions because is getting to that age now, because he is 16, and he is a child. Although, I doubt he will admit that.

I STILL watch cartoons, I've never seen a video porno, and I really don't want to. I hate the thought of such meaningless sex. Even when my girlfriend and I just want to ravage each other, we still have love for one another.

Going to sleep late never lets the kids realize they need to go to bed earlier, it just makes them figure out ways to fake sick so they don't have to go to school the next day. Trust me, I had years of experience in that. It doesn't always work, but you'd be surprised how creative kids can be.

MTV is about as realistic as Harry Potter.

I don't really remember half of the drivel you have been saying in here, but I have a faint hope that you will grow out of all of it.

one thing is for sure, im glad im not spirit's son.

the problem with your way spirit, is that either your offspring will rebel, or they will be weak (which would be good for you, as they would follow your every word)

the problem with sic's way is that he is very close but in some respect's gets a little too free and easy. However it is clear that you are manipulating alot of what he said.

I have to agree with is line of thinking about explaining rather than 'protecting', but a line has to be drawn at some point until they are a certain age (for me this age is quite young compared to what everyone else thinks). And in regards to smut, Japan and Amsterdam are a lot more 'liberal' in regards to viewing habits and they're instances of sexual crimes such as rape are far less than in USA

In this instance alot of what malaria said is correct in regards to children going to sleep.

What the mouse said just scares me. And the real reason she won't let her children watch tv is because the jews run it (cheap shot i know). let your kid's have some fun for crying out loud. TV is fine just don't let them watch too much and dont use it as a babysitter.

anywho this was more of a late night rant and commentary than anything. The main problem i have and always have had with spirit is that our views on moral's are so different that we cant really connect on any level to debate.

I find him referring to sexuality as a pass/fail test as abhorrent, and i dare say he finds my views equally so.

>>>>one thing is for sure, im glad im not spirit's son.
the problem with your way spirit, is that either your offspring will rebel, or they will be weak<<<<<

Why? There is nothing natural or normal about 'teenage rebellion,' that was a corporate invention pushed to sell more stupid shit to an age bracket with a lot of liquid funds. Before World War II, the phrase or practice was not a normal part of life, nor was it expected. I did not rebel from my parents, and Im not weak. None of my brothers did either now that I think about it. Thats because we live in a normal home, like my children will.

>>>>the problem with sic's way is that he is very close but in some respect's gets a little too free and easy.<<<<<

In some respects? What respects is he not just regurgitating cliches from some egghead thinktank in Sweden? They made it illegal to hit or yell at your kids. You gonna yell at or hit your kids Uncl?

>>>> However it is clear that you are manipulating alot of what he said.<<<<

He said in plain language he saw nothing wrong with letting his 8 year old watch Playboy. I cant manipulate that to appear any worse.

>>>>>I have to agree with is line of thinking about explaining rather than 'protecting', but a line has to be drawn at some point until they are a certain age (<<<<<

I dont think so. Theres an age limit on when parents can protect their offspring. Thats a natural instinct ya know.

>>>>> And in regards to smut, Japan and Amsterdam are a lot more 'liberal' in regards to viewing habits and they're instances of sexual crimes such as rape are far less than in USA<<<<

There are less blacks. And sex crimes is not a good measure of the effect of kids and porn. Im not very familiar with Amsterdam, but the Japanese are dirty, decadent people that regularly inflict psychological abuse on each other, a lot of it sexual. And they have a much more thriving sex slave industry.

>>>> What the mouse said just scares me. And the real reason she won't let her children watch tv is because the jews run it (cheap shot i know). let your kid's have some fun for crying out loud.<<<<<

Its scary that you think TV is necessary for a kid to have fun. What did kids just sit around bored as hell for 10,000 years until the magic box replaced their brains?

"one thing is for sure, im glad im not spirit's son.
the problem with your way spirit, is that either your offspring will rebel, or they will be weak"

That's a load of shit. The television industry has pumped your head full of these cliches: Child is totally different than parent, and rebels against everything. Parent is usually a conservative (which is bad according to Hollywood) and the child is more open, accepting, blah blah blah. I never rebelled from my parents, they never even worried about me, or just thought I was smart enough to think for myself. I never came home drunk, doped out of my mind, or commited any crimes... well, thats a different matter. That's because they raised me well, very well. I've never even tried a drug or drunk a beer. There's also that excuse about broken homes and shit. My parents split up years ago and its no freaking big deal, because they raised me right. My dad's ex-military, and has always been strict on me. My mom is liberal (blah) and while she seemed to want me to go out and get something pierced or color my hair I never have. Long story short, rebellion is not the norm. Rebellion is the term for those punks you see hanging out at Winn-Dixie at 10 at night for kicks. Nothing glamorous about that...

"In some respects? What respects is he not just regurgitating cliches from some egghead thinktank in Sweden? They made it illegal to hit or yell at your kids. You gonna yell at or hit your kids Uncl?"

That's messed up. I had no idea that that had happened. These government agency's are getting disgustingly out of hand, telling you how to raise your child. Thats the only thing I am against states-rights for. My dad spanked me whenever I did something wrong, and it fuckin works. One time, I wrote "I love my dad" on a piece of paper and walked up to him and tore it in half right in front of his face. Boy did I learn quick, and I see in hindsight how daring that was of me to do it. He belted me till I was severly sorry, and taught me he wouldn't take any disrespect...

"I have to agree with is line of thinking about explaining rather than 'protecting', but a line has to be drawn at some point until they are a certain age "

It's all case by case. Would I let my 5 year old boy watch Playboy? Hell no. At the age of 15 would I accept that he might look at it when I'm not around, or notice the way he looked at these women in movies. Yeah. At the same time, would I condone my son drinking at any age in my house (with the exception he was a grown man). Hell no. And if he got drunk he would be facing more shit.

"And in regards to smut, Japan and Amsterdam are a lot more 'liberal' in regards to viewing habits and they're instances of sexual crimes such as rape are far less than in USA"

Did you ever consider that their rape percentage might be lower because they are more liberal about it? The women who are raped might consider it natural because sex is more open in their societies, or if the authorities have less say in the instances. But Spirit made a good point, there are less blacks there... Also, those japs are perverts man... check out some of that anime shit they have... Got these women getting screwed up tentacles and shit.

Lol... people are so brainwashed by TV that they think it's "scary" to not raise a kid with it. I had a friend who was raised without television and he was finishing up college courses at the age of 15. He didn't need any TV to "enrich" his life. All the time wasted on TV can be spent actually learning things or doing some healthy physical activity.

I hear that. I have so many pointless things in my head concerning TV that its ridiculous. I'm severly wasting my high IQ on that. Is knowing a quote from King of the Hill crucial to my survival?

I'm not sadying children are fully mature enough to make all of thier own desisiosn. I'm saying children tend to not like extreme pain, so won't touch a burning stove. Experiments porove that hamsters don't step on switches that electrocute them, I'm sure children are more capable then hamsters.

TV usually wouldn't have an effect on someone's intelligent. Your friend's son would be in college with or without TV. Raising a child without TV is bad because prohibiting something that's sommon will alienate people. Raising your child without pillows to sleep on or without orange juice will also do this to an extent.

Spirit, why do you think I like MTV? I completly despise it. I don't buy into it at all. I just tihnk it reflects American culture, which I'm not too fond of either.

You mean reflects "African American" culture.

WTF? MTV is totally white!

No its not...I figured out why no one can make any headway with you dude, you are obviously not from this planet, nor do you currently occupy it.


>>>>Spirit, why do you think I like MTV? I completly despise it. I don't buy into it at all. I just tihnk it reflects American culture<<<<

I know, which is the way they try and present themselves so assholes wont question their harm. Its a shame you fall for it. Like I said,youd realize it was just irrelevant background noise if your experience with people was more than just cliche diatribe regurgitation online.

quote:

---

WTF? MTV is totally white!

---

Umm... no. It's mostly hip hop.

UNcl is not allowed to think its anything other than lily-white, because hes already decided not to like it, and the bad=white association was so thoroughly drilled into his head by the conditioning he lauds today will not let him see that some bad things are black or some sort of raceless hodge podge of anti-culture and decadence.

The majority of artists on MTV are white.

You could say that all rock, pop, and r&b are based on black foundations, since the only true white music is classical... but the aritsts are pretty much white.

Spirit, I don't know you personally, so I can't say I've had more "real life" experience then you, but I can say I've had more then the majority of people my age, and kindly ask you to stop making assumptiosn about my life and my background and actually come up with acent argument against the points I'm making.

What about America isn't MTV? Certainly not the consumerism. Certainly not music, certainly not Hollywood, definately not high school. Maybe once people hit 40 they write it off as bullshit, but by then they've already bought all the cell phones and mille lights the companies could possibly ask for.

jeez why did you have to reply to a midnight rant.

if i hardly even knew what i meant, of course you are going to misunderstand pretty much all of it.

now i have to go home, read everything properly and respond to all your responces.

for now just assume that either you are wrong, or misunderstood what i said ;-)

>>>>>The majority of artists on MTV are white.<<<<<<

Probably by about 5 percent, and even then, only about 40% of MTV is music anyway. Most of it is nigger ass-kissing in the form of cliche bullshit programming masquerading as some sort of reality series.

>>>>Spirit, I don't know you personally, so I can't say I've had more "real life" experience then you, but I can say I've had more then the majority of people my age, and kindly ask you to stop making assumptiosn about my life and my background and actually come up with acent argument against the points I'm making.<<<<<

There isnt a point youve made that I havent first most logically cut down. Thats why this argument is going on so long. If you notice, you are not defending your initial points, but just continue making new, stupider points as your others are mobbed by everyone on Totse with a brain. The conclusion I have reached after seeing your consistent misunderstanding of human nature is that you do not have experience with humans. I will stick by my theory that you are not from Earth.

>>>>>What about America isn't MTV?<<<<

Everything over the age of 18. I dont know people with homosexual dyed hair who spend their days cataloging the latest trends and discarding their former favorite ones. Ive never seen anyone dress like the queers on MTV except the queers in high school. I've never heard anyone defend the filth on MTV except the idiots in their target audience. I've never heard an adult say "phat" or "tight," or make a reference to Christina Aguilera, or the charisma of Carson Daly.

>>>> Maybe once people hit 40 they write it off as bullshit, but by then they've already bought all the cell phones and mille lights the companies could possibly ask for.<<<<

What the hell does MTV have to do with cell phones? If your point is that the shit on commercials on MTV are bought by Americans, duh- no shit. Thats not MTV though, those are the same dumbass commercials everyone sees.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Spirit, I don't know you personally, so I can't say I've had more "real life" experience then you, but I can say I've had more then the majority of people my age, and kindly ask you to stop making assumptiosn about my life and my background and actually come up with acent argument against the points I'm making.

---

I can't say I know full well a whole lot about you but I am assuming that we are in the same generation. I am 18, and I, like Spirit has said, rarely see homosexuals walking around. I got to college now and have seen a few and am disgusted. A few does not constitute them having equal representation. Whenever I hear "people" like Jesse Jackson come on television and bitch that there are not enough black television characters it makes me confused. Now, if the show is based in New York that is one thing, but before I came to college, I could go weeks without seeing a black person. No, I didn't live in Green Acres, but its true. They never entered my life. Basically, things are not how MTV presents it. If MTV is a representation of my generation, than I fear for the future...

MTV is a represantion of our generation, and I never claimed it's a good thing. I've seen a few homosexuals, and I'm not disgusted because I'm so so insecure that I'm intimidated by something different then what I'm used to. I still see shallow, materialistic robots that are slaves of the consumer culture, and for every intellectual I've met I've met 20 od these clones.

Spirit, if you're saying that average American is of higher quality then the average MTV cast member, you haven't seen the real world. You also haven't logically cut down a single point I've made, you've only said I'm wrong as if you're some sort of all knowing creature. My point is that MTV reflects the way Americans live. I've yet to here a logical refute.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
My point is that MTV reflects the way Americans live. I've yet to here a logical refute.

---

You can't really say that because you don't know how the entire generation is. I have family up in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and I visit every summer. When I was in New Hampshire and certain parts of Mass you will never see blacks. In the town my grandma lives, there was only one black and he was the mailman. He got like chased out of town or something, maybe not. Is it fair to say that that is not real life? In the town of Bolton Mass, my cousins biggest thrill is when they go get ice cream. It's not a real small town either. Is that not real life? They say that 10% of the population is homosexual, but that is a load of shit. I never meet them. Polling the city of New York or some other point of refuse isn't accurate...

quote:

---

My point is that MTV reflects the way Americans live.

---

It does not! America doesn't consist of nothing but "hip" urban teenagers with pockets full of allowance money to spare.

My point to Uncl is that his world obviously does. Thats why I say he must have very little experience with people. In years of interaction with many different groups of people, Ive known about 6 people who even watched MTV past 15. The older people on MTV are just there to sell to the younger kids, because they dont want to watch people their own age. That doesnt give them the illusion that they are the wonderfully sophisticated grown-ups they want to be.

Where in the United States can you escape the shallow materialism and consumerism of MTV, other then Omish Country?

Thats like asking, "MTV has people in it. Are you saying America doesnt?"

Randall Peabody MacPherson is a shallow materialist too, and him and MTV have nothing in common. Thats a weak argument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
...robots ...slaves ... clones.

---

heh
___

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Ive known about 6 people who even watched MTV past 15.

---

7, I started watching it in my 20's, when it was invented. it was cool for a couple of years; until they ran out of decent music stock for videos... then it got boring real fast. A great American media icon; relegated to just another advertising niche.

I watched it a lot in the 80s and early 90s when I was in like, 3rd grade.

MTV repressents consumerism and materialism. That's what I was referring to about it's reflection of culture.

Why children should not grow up watching MTV

>>>>MTV repressents consumerism and materialism. That's what I was referring to about it's reflection of culture.<<<<

No you werent. You specifically cited frat parties as a reflection of MTV influence. Stop backpeddling.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Why children should not grow up watching MTV

---

no, thats why morons shouldnt raise children.

quote:

---

no, thats why morons shouldnt raise children.

---

Redundant. People who raise their chilren using MTV as a babysitter are morons. However, people who advocate letting their children watch and do whatever they want will most likely change by the time they reach the age where they think of having kids.


[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 10-31-2002).]

it was a nice try at circling around the point.

I'm not backpeddling, my point was always that MTV represented the materialism and consumerism at pop culture.

No it wasnt. If it was, this argument would never have taken place.

And even then, youre wrong. They obviously take many forms. Anyone being a materaliast is not doing so because of the influence of MTV, or even American culture. There has always been a stupid and lazy majority of people.

And MTV reflects this stupid and lazy majority.

They're not materialistic because of MTV. MTV is materialistic because of them.

Wrong. I listen to Maiden though. However, I was talking about bands like Rhapsody.

Lol.. Rush isn't power metal. Rush isn't even metal.

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 11-05-2002).]

Rhapsody's kinda good. I didn't know they had a label for that kind of music, I always considered it symphonic metal that happened to have classical influence.

Rush is metal, maybe not good metal, but they're considered metal.

Malaria, relax. I wasn't dissing those bands, I really like them. "Shit" was not meant negatively.

*gives Malaria a cooky*

[This message has been edited by UnclNastyFingerz (edited 11-05-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
The Supreme Court has ruled that abortion isn't murder.

---

And? The Supreme Court also ruled it was lawful for Toricelli to drop out of the race and have a replacement after the law said was allowed.
Ive asked you this in the past- How come when you disagree with the nation's political machinatines, you deny their legitimacy and authority, but when they are unquestionably liberal and agree with you, you cite them like their rulings came from God?

quote:

---

A fetus is recognized in this country as a part of the mother's body until birth. The only people that literally believe abortion is murder are religious people or people who are naive about science.

---

Are you saying a fetus is a part of a mother's body? It has its own DNA. The only way to define it as another human appendage is using the Supreme Court's definition, not science. Science told me that a body was a continuous mass of tissue with the same DNA.

quote:

---

Rhapsody's kinda good. I didn't know they had a label for that kind of music, I always considered it symphonic metal that happened to have classical influence.

---

They have a lot of labels. The standard one used is usually "Power metal". The others are classical metal, symphonic metal, epic metal, blah blah blah..

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
And? The Supreme Court also ruled it was lawful for Toricelli to drop out of the race and have a replacement after the law said was allowed.
Ive asked you this in the past- How come when you disagree with the nation's political machinatines, you deny their legitimacy and authority, but when they are unquestionably liberal and agree with you, you cite them like their rulings came from God?

---

Dude, the Supreme Court of the US never heard the damn case. The Supreme Court of New Jersey said he could. The 51 days was a New Jersey state law. The reason they ignored the law is because the judges are a pack of bedwetting liberals who want the Democrat to win. You see, the Democrats ignore the rule of law and will use any means necessary to gain total control of our lives.

We need judges who respect the Constitution and respect your right to have the government out of your business.

Vote Libertarian for less government.

I've heard Epic metal, but I don't fit into the label thing that well. I label music in two ways. "Good Music," and "Bad Music."

I don't neccesarily worship supreme court rulings, nor am I by any means a liberal. I'm simply saying that if the majority of our country, and the civilized world, does not consider abortion murder, the idea that abortion isn't murder has some credibility.

Fetus's are developing lifeforms. They have their own DNA, but they can't breath without a mother, thier lungs function with their mother's blood. Their brains aren't fully developed, and can't function unless the mother is functioning.

Butthrax, you just completely contradicted yourself. Judges who respect the Constition are neccesary, but so is someone's right to not have the government interfear with their business? Who preserves the Constituion? Who stops corrupt politicians from pocketing corperatiosn and using money to completely overurle the Constitution?

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
I don't neccesarily worship supreme court rulings, nor am I by any means a liberal.[QUOTE]

It's so lame when people try and deny a label that fits them.
And I didnt say you worship the Supreme Court, I asked why you act like it when it suits your argument, and hate it when it doesnt.

[QUOTE] I'm simply saying that if the majority of our country, and the civilized world, does not consider abortion murder, the idea that abortion isn't murder has some credibility.

---

No you werent. YOu said because the Supreme Court said so.

quote:

---

Fetus's are developing lifeforms. They have their own DNA

---

Then they are not part of their mother's body. Not in the sense that an arm or liver is.

If women laid eggs, would you think it acceptable to smash them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Butthrax, you just completely contradicted yourself. Judges who respect the Constition are neccesary, but so is someone's right to not have the government interfear with their business? Who preserves the Constituion? Who stops corrupt politicians from pocketing corperatiosn and using money to completely overurle the Constitution?

---

How is that a contradiction?

Yes, I know politicians are out of control. Libertarian will correct many of these problems. No corporation will donate to the L.P. because the Libertarians will not support them and play games with public office.

Yes, the Constitution was designed to have minimal government and maximum personal liberty.

"The aggregate happiness of the society, which is best promoted by the practice of a virtuous policy, is, or ought to be, the end of all government . . . ."

-George Washington

George Washington was an anti-Federalist, but he did believe that the governmnet had to enforce the Constitution. The Libertarians would not only fail to enforce the Constitution, but they'd leave the poor to die with their flawed logic.

I didn't mean abortion isn't murder cause the Supreme Court said so, I meant the idea that abortion isn't murder has credibility because the Supreme Court said so.

If someone is arguing that the death penalty is wrong, no if and's or butts, I'd say enough people in America support to death penalty to give it some credibility, which is shown by a few Supreme Court rulings.

And I'm not a liberal, I'm a Marxist. A few of my ideas could be categorized as liberal, but that's pretty much all. I'm completely opposed to NAFTA, which the majority of liberals support. I'm not quite the opposite of a liberal on several issues you must've overlooked. I don't even believe in freedom of speech, I don't think I fit the label.

Neither do Liberals. Stop being so purposefully naive.

Anyway, if women laid eggs, would it be acceptable to smash them?

If the woman wanted you to smash the eggs...

If a chicken wants her eggs smashed, it's okay to smash them.

Liberals are affiliated with the ACLU and other dumbass organizations with shallow ideals like "freedom of speech." Lots of liberals also heavily support the WTO, and free trade. I'm not a liberal Calling me a liberal would be like calling a fascist a NeoConservative.

*Pulls out the nifty political definitions*

Centrist � Just what it sounds like. Someone who doesn�t have any particularly strong ideological leanings in any direction.

Conservative � Specifically a "fusionist" conservative of the National Review - Heritage Foundation mold. Someone who believes in traditional morality and capitalism, and the need for a limited government to allow both to flourish.

Left-libertarian � The quiz uses a mild definition of a left-libertarian, an anti-statist who is somewhat fearful of corporate and religious influence on public life.

Liberal � Supports economic regulation to promote social justice and takes a progressive stance toward moral or cultural issues.

Libertarian � A libertarian opposes most or all government activites. Does not favor much or any government support for either moral or economic systems.

Neoconservative � A "neocon" is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well.

Paleoconservative � "Paleocons" want less US involvement in foeign affairs than other conservatives and oppose mass immigration. They are also more favorably disposed toward the South and the idea of secession, or at least decentralization, than neoconservatives.

Paleo-libertarian � Similar to other libertarians except for oppostion to mass immigration, and shares the paleocon appreciation of the South.

Radical � Critical of bouregois morality and strongly opposed to capitalism and willing to use state power to achieve desired ends.

Third-way � More supportive of foreign intervention than liberals and less supportive of economic regulation, coupled with more-or-less progressive social views. "Third-way" is to liberal what neoconservative is to conservative.

I would categorize Uncl as a radical.

How is that different than a Liberal?

Gun control.

Abortion.

Hate Crimes.

What we owe blacks.

" " Injuns.

Thoughts on poor Jewish people.

What turns the wheels of history.

Federal participation in education.

Views on gender.

Redistribution of wealth.

Polarizing man's animal instinct vs civilized domestication.

Uncl will not differ two steps from the liberal position on a single one of those. A radical is just a liberal with enough backbone to admit it.

You know, i sort of think that untill you seperate the baby from the mother, its really only an extension of her being. If it is dependant on her life force, it may not be "alive" live as it may be. Also a better question is what is up with those anti-abortion people? Damn it, why are people so hyped about cloneing? It has no practical purpose! Cell harvesting does however.

A newborn baby is dependent on her too.

A newborn baby can breath on it's own, and has it's own nerve ending and it's own functioning tendons.

And I don't believe in hate crime legislation. I'm also against affirmative action.

And what the hell is with poor Jewish people? I've never stated my views on poor Jewish people, and I don't even know if I have views on poor Jewish people. I don't believe that they should all be executed, if that's what you're hinting at.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceFalcon2001:
Damn it, why are people so hyped about cloneing? It has no practical purpose! Cell harvesting does however.

---

actually therapeutic cloning has many many practical applications.

whether you are morally opposed to it or you think its the way of the future, AT LEAST HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

to spirit: yeah explain that thing about poor jews, im struggling to figure that one out as well.

quote:

---

What turns the wheels of history.

---

???


Liberal is like the Democrats. Radical is far left wing, like outright Marxist.

Democrats are Marxist too, at least the younger generations of them, they just never admit it.

And Uncl, in terms of Hate Crimes, even against legislation (like a lot of liberals i know), you still have the spirit of liberalism that says when white people do things its racist and evil, and when blacks hunt and kill whites with machetes, its righteous racial vengeance.

>>>>A newborn baby can breath on it's own, and has it's own nerve ending and it's own functioning tendons.<<<<

So your definition of alive is, can breathe on its own, has nerve endings and tendons...


I guess that paralyzed guy on a respirator in the burn ward is fucked.

I never got that ruling that the fetus is part of the womans body. I know this is kinda stupid logic, but if thats true, why does it grow and then leave it body? Also, if it is part of the body, what is it? Organ? Appendage? Certainly ain't a limb...

Nah, Democrats are cultural marxists, but not economic marxists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Nah, Democrats are cultural marxists, but not economic marxists.

---

You got that right. The Democrats don't know shit about the economy. Regressive tax rate is what I say...

Democrats aren't liberal. With an acception of Bill Bradley, the late Paul Wellstone, Walter Mondale, and a handful of people in the house, Democrats are NeoConservatives, just like Republicans.

Spirit, what makes you think I have that view? I believe that any sort of a violent crime, regardless of race or motive, can only be judged based on how severe the crime.

Marxists and liberals are on the opposite end of the corner on several issues. Liberals support free trade more then conservatives.

By the way, how are Democrats social Marxists? I here Al Gore yapping away about family values and how they reflect American society, Bill Clinton saying everyone should join a church in order to renew the American lifestyle, and shit like that. Marxists believe in abolishing the family.

They're cultural Marxists. They support Multiculturalism and Secularism. Never pay attention to what Clinton and Gore say. They say anything to get votes.

Clinton and Gore arent liberals, so what they say doesnt matter. Uncl is a liberal.

most Democrats aren't liberals. Clinton and Gore represent the politics of the democratic party. The democratic party HAS liberals within it, and has a somwhat more liberal platform then the Republicans, but for the most part the Democratic Party is comprised of the center-right.

Spirit, if I'm a liberal, you're a NeoCon. I suppose that would be the right wing equivelent of the way you twist up and misrepresent my views.

What the Democrats think is irrelevant, I wouldnt really consider you one. You dont consider yourself a Democrat, do you?

And I barely believe in private property, I am not conservative at all.

I know you're not conservative, i'm just saying calling you conservative would be as rediculous as calling me liberal.

Mouse said Democrats are cultural Marxists, I said that's completely wrong since most Democrats believe in family values and free trade. Democrats don't believe in Secularism either. They buy into the god thing just as much as Republicans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Democrats don't believe in Secularism either. They buy into the god thing just as much as Republicans.

---

I think we would all be surprised - to know how many of them - are just playing along, to get votes.

Weak religious beliefs are a political death knell.

I think it is funny to sit here and read about how bad demoblicans are and how not as bad republicrats are. Seriously, the only way democrats or republicans exalt their puny leaders is to denounce the other's. There are very few politicians at any level that I would say are good human beings. "That government which governs least governs best" Take that further and you get, "that government which governs not at all governs best."-Henry David Thoreau

Gun control is lame. Abortion is pro-choice or anti-woman. It's fuckin her body you sluts. I bet there are one or two women on this thread. None of you have a clue. And you sit here and talk about the sanctity of life, when most of you support the death penalty. Or you support war with iraq or terrorism or whatever excuse they come up with to keep the military industrial complex rich and happy. You make me sick.

No one said anything about the sanctity of life, unless I missed it, and its the baby's body.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
So your definition of alive is, can breathe on its own, has nerve endings and tendons...

---

Tell me, do you consider a seperated head and body alive if both were somehow still responding? How about the chicken running around without the head? is that alive? I consider an embryo alive.
But untill it has been seperated so that it does not require liveing off the life force of another, (that means while the child depends on the transfer of blood through an organic cord for life, not the act of being brought food or given a glass/bottle of drink), I consider the death the same as cutting off an arm or a leg. Not something I reccomend, but you cant stop someone who really wishes to do so.
Also the third trimester baby I would consider alive. I know it is still connected, but if it were seperated from the mother, it would live.

In essence, your arm is alive, made of living matter, but not a seperate entity. Same with a 1-2 trimester baby.

No. Your arm has your DNA, and does not have a conciousness.

Up until the last trimester, fetus's don't have consciences - mainly since they don't have developed brains. They don't have working cerebral cortexes, how could they process emotions?

I dunno, dead people have a conciousness all the time too. No one understands conciousness.

I'm willing to listen to a spiritual and rhetoric argument about conciousness, but scientifically fetus's and dead people don't have functioning brains, so fetus's aren't fully human.

We can continue to do laps around ourselves beating the definitions of when life begins et al. However, at the end of the day, the bottom line is: Who makes the choice? I refuse to believe that any woman making the decision to have/not have an abortion does so with a flippant attitude. It is after all, her body and the life form is growing inside of her. My attitude is now and always has been that it is the woman's choice...and only the womans choice (I wouldn't make a very good Muslim). As far as a fathers' rights...he has the right to find a woman who either does or doesn't want to conceive and bear his children. Should he find that woman and she does conceive and bear his child/ren, then that male has the duty/obligation/responsibility to be a genuine father for that/those child/ren as opposed to merely being some mindless sperm bank.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
No one said anything about the sanctity of life...

---

If the unborn don't have parents; that want them; and that will love and nurture them; then their lives have as much sanctity as a head of cabbage. You piss and moan about the spiritual regression in man, and you also advocate the survival of the weak, by virtue of it's "sanctity". That's a contradiction.

No I dont. I didnt say anything about the sanctity of anything, what the hell are you people talking about?

And I would prefer to just kill women who abort their children.

Spirit's views on abortion make sence to his general thinking. I can see how abortion would be viewed as a sign of weakness on the mother's part, by giving up her child and destroying an innocent life because of her own discomfort and inconvinience. Fascists also worship lief, and view at as a neccesary struggle, and an abortion looks horrible under that standpoint. If you believe a fetus is alive, being pro-life fits the fascist agenda.
I'm kind of getting the concept of fascism in it's entirety. I'm still having trouble with Hitler being a vegitarian for political reasons. I'll never work that one out.

It wasnt for political reasons...

It doesnt even have to be alive to be consistent with the point of life and parenting. It is likewise wrong to do drugs that will later fuck with your baby's genes and make it stupid. It probably isnt even concieved yet, but you still have a duty to the future.

If you do drugs, it will affect your baby when it is alive, since a fetus is a developing lifeform. If you abort it, the lifeform will stop developing.

Spirit, if no one said anything about the sanctity of life, then why are you opposed to abortion? You do not seemed opposed to war and civilian deaths. Plus, population growth is out of control. There are already too many people on this plantet, and only more will come. What is inherently wrong with an abortion?

Fascists tend to view women as brood mares for the state. I personally do not agree with this attitude.

He's probably opposed to abortion based on something like the necessity to create future generations.

By the way, population growth is not out of control. I wish I would not have to repeat myself so much. Population in every Western Nation and Japan is declining.

Population is exploding in third world nations.

And there are still too many people in Western nations.

If you get rid of all the migrants in Western nations, there aren't too many people. As for third world nations, if everyone stops subsidizing them, their populations will drop off (AIDS will drop it too)

No, there are still too many people in those nations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askr:
Why are you all assuming that everyone who has an abortion are teenage girls in the inner city? On the contrary, most people who get abortions are white middle class women and white middle class teenagers. People living in conditions of poverty extreme enough that they cannot raise a child usually cannot afford abortions.

---

They usually actually want childeren, to qualify for welfare.

quote:

---

No, there are still too many people in those nations.

---

How do you come to this conclusion? Better yet, how many do you think is "too many" and why?

Probably on the basis that population has increased by 50-100% over the last 100 years even in Western countries and our food production hasn't yet caught up.

Are you kidding? There is no food shortage in Western nations, and most of the rising population are hordes of third world immigrants and their families. White birthrates in Western nations have stabilized and even declined. Same story with Japan.

Food production has so caught up. You are going off the faulty assumption that food production increases arithmetically while population increases geometrically. This was a fallacy of ancient economists and has long since been proven false. Why? Because with new technology comes new farming methods and the land is able to produce much more food.

You are also forgetting that every major industrialized nation in the world subsidizes their farmers to produce LESS. Almost alone, America could feed the world.

[This message has been edited by NukeChild (edited 11-11-2002).]

this topic was about abortion... but has also cuncluded our society,some religion and politics.. all of these are very close.

there are just to many wrong things in this world.I mean everyone can think of at least 5 issues probly more important than this. but still this one has a very large impact.

now I really think abortion in the 3rd trimester should be illegal.. and the father should be forced to "marry" the women. but then the husbands would probly beat the snot out of the women or kill the child.so then again its a bad idea. so I think things won't change for a long time on the abortions. The only way "we"(as the society) will be albe to stop this is prevention, in other words education. I think if the parent(S) don't have a job, it should be mandatory that they take a course on how to parent their kids. But wait that will cast way to much tax dollars
. I guess if you go on earlier you could make it illegal for kids drop out, I mean you would have way less kids on the street less dealers out there they would me more educated it wouldn't cost much more.

also another bad thing is society and media which promote are "primal" instinks and influncing us through the squak box which will make us lazy and kill our ambition.

ps way to go homer starting such along thread! i think we should all give him a hand

[This message has been edited by ardene (edited 11-13-2002).]

[This message has been edited by ardene (edited 11-13-2002).]

quote:

---

... most of the rising population are hordes of third world immigrants and their families. White birthrates in Western nations have stabilized and even declined. Same story with Japan.

---

No, look at the timescale. Over the last 100 years the white population in the West has increased significantly, and continues to increase slightly in many Western countries even discounting the number of immigrants. Birthrates have stabilised but lifespans have increased, and old people need feeding too. I can assure you that death rates are lower than birth rates in the district I live in.

America isn't the whole of the West. Most European countries are much more densely populated - they aren't self sufficient and don't have the ability to be to be either. Europe doesn't have any food shortages - as you pointed out governments subsidise farmers in order to prevent any chance of a surplus, and inflate prices only because it is able to buy food from elsewhere. We import food from Third World, who are hungrier but are slightly better off financially as a result.

Sure, the Third World could easily feed the West and their own steadily rising population if they adopted modern farming methods but that isn't going to happen without massive investment, education and political stability.

UN Report Defuses "Population Bomb Theory"

I don't disagree that overpopulation is greatly exaggerated, nevertheless Europe is not self sufficient and the percentage population decreases projected in the West for the next 50 years simply negate some of the population increases of the last 50 years.

>>>>Spirit, if no one said anything about the sanctity of life, then why are you opposed to abortion?<<<<

Contradiction and violation of man's most primal and basic instincts, and the point of existence.


>>>Plus, population growth is out of control. There are already too many people on this plantet, and only more will come. What is inherently wrong with an abortion?<<<<

Contradiction and violation of man's most primal and basic instincts and the point of existence.

>>>>Fascists tend to view women as brood mares for the state. I personally do not agree with this attitude.<<<<

Congratulations.

Do condoms and pills violate these instincts as well?

Rhythm method?

Sponge? Spermicide?

Good ol' pulling out and spilling on the ground?

No, of course not. If sex was meant to be optimized for efficient conception, women would not hide their ovulation. Killing a fetus is not contraception though.

That's cool. You can tell me how abortion and the point of existence are related. Basically, you know the meaning of life. Well, let us in on it.

Is the morning after pill also considered abortion? If so, if a woman is raped and takes the morning after pill, would you want her executed?

Population growth is not just about food. It is also about pollution. Cars, factories, you name it. With more people there will be more pollution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Killing a fetus is not contraception though.

---

Then what is it? It's damn sure not conception. How do you think the abortionists see it? If you realized that restrictive abortion only weakens a society, by helping propagate babies into the arms of incompetent parents, then you would see it as contraception too.

Yes there will be more pollution but it will not effect the earth that greatly. Every one complains about the "green house" effect and how that we should stop usin aresol products.

This is the biggest line of bullshit I have ever heard. A single volcanic erruption alone exceeds the amount of "Green House" gases that have ever been produced my man. If you want to stop the Green Hous effect then tell a volcano to stop errupting.

So, in the long run pullution will not be greatly effected by our population inincrese.

punk, not just carbon monoxide. I am talking about shit like DDT. It is still in the environment, poisoning people and killing them. In Vietnam women are still dying and children are born deformed from all the chemicals we dumped on those innocent people. We use tons more energy in the West, than any other group of people. We are allowed to use this excess of energy by stepping on the backs of the poor of other nations. That is fucking bullshit.

Contraception stops conception, not what is concieved...

DDT has not been proven to be dangerous to people. One of my relatives once had a professor who before every morning class, would present a bowl of cereal and a jar. He would take DDT from the jar and then sprinkle it on the cereal and eat it. He never once had a problem.

I'm not arguing about "other stuff," but DDT is not one of them.

We step on the backs of the poor for our energy? That is wrong, but if you truly believe this, then I suggest that you go nuclear as this would solve a large part of our domestic energy needs and compared to coal, it is extremely clean and efficient.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ardene:
i think we should all give him a hand

---

Me too...first a left, then a right.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Contraception stops conception, not what is concieved...

---

Ahh, the technical definition, zzz...

All of your reasons to detest abortion, come from the procreation instinct, so it would be reasonable to believe that you dismiss all forms of birth control. Like the garden-variety devout Catholic.

And, this runs counter to your beliefs on race and government.

What was the religious environment like in your childhood?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ardene:
...also another bad thing is society and media which promote are "primal" instinks and influncing us through the squak box which will make us lazy and kill our ambition.

---

I'm not so sure I agree with this. If society's "primal" instincts are out of control, it could be blamed on the fact that media dilutes other worthy human functions; like honor, ethics, justice, courage, etc.

>>>>All of your reasons to detest abortion, come from the procreation instinct, so it would be reasonable to believe that you dismiss all forms of birth control.<<<<

I do...

>>>And, this runs counter to your beliefs on race and government.<<<<

No it doesnt...

>>>>What was the religious environment like in your childhood?<<<<

There really was none.

Nuke, your story about a relative of yours had a professor who sprinkled DDT on cereal is amusing to say the least. What university did he/she go to? Either way that is a tough one to swallow.

Nuclear energy is no where near as clean and efficient and cheap as solar energy. Nuclear energy causes waste that will always be radioactive. Are you going to say radioactivity does not affect humans?

The University was CSU Fresno.

Solar, wind, and hydro are by far the cleanest, but Nuclear is the most efficient.

Radioactivity will always exist, that is obvious, however, the half-life is what is key. Most radioactive waste after a hundred years will have decayed back to the original radioactivity that it had when the ore was mined. When coal is burned, a chemical waste is produced, like mercury. Mercury will never decay, it will always be posionous. Radioactive waste will always be radioactive, but its potency decreases over time.

From all the coal plants about 100,000,000 million tons of mercury laced flash ash and sludge is produced, this does not even account for air polution! Nuclear waste on the other hand is only around 2,000 tons annually. It is possible to safely store nuclear waste. Given the ammount of power produced and the relatively small ammount of waste products, Nuclear power is an excellent energy choice.

Fusion will be online in this century anyway. It's suppossed to be clean.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
>>>[thinking that ALL birth control is unnatural] runs counter to your beliefs on race and government.<<<<

No it doesnt...

---

So you would depend on war, to keep from being overun. I forgot, that your perspective is a group of unified and homogenous ideologies.

I dunno wut the hell youre talking about still.

I haven't what he's on about either, but on a similar note, you believe in eugenics, don't you? Surely eliminating those who are socially handicapped (ie. having a shitty single teenage parent and a high chance of spending the rest of their life as a worthless dropout) is no worse than eliminating those who are physically or mentally handicapped.

Yes it is. Its stupid and not based on anything other than a flawed conservative cult of domestication. By their logic, a perfectly evolved physical specimen of a woman whose father was killed in war and whose mother died of consumption is useless and a burden to humanity.

They're not the women having the abortions. A teenage girl on a trailerpark who doesn't want a baby and doesn't know who the father is probably is unlikely to produce a kid who's going to contribute anything useful to society, however genetically perfect the kid is.

Though in most cases the kid would be better off if it was adopted.

Yeah, that's what I'm trying to tell him FOAD. He shits and moans about his culture being overun, by people that breed 50% faster than his, but he thinks all birth control is unnatural. How are we supposed to reconcile that logic?

Occidental reliance on birth control...

All Occidentals, or just the white ones? And if it's that categorical to you, then why do you get more emotional over abortion, than you do for the patch?

You don't practice birth-control with your girlfriend?

No.

Do you fuck?

Duh, of course. I dont know if its unique to her or characteristic of women, but you can smell ovulation, menstruation, and impending both in mucus. Maybe Im just perfectly in tune with more ancient senses, lol.

Ah, the rhythm method.

How is that not birth control?

You know what I mean.

meh fuck you all, some people hate kids and couldn't care less about a few measly cells.kids make me puke, and no one without a secure job, and a worthy husband should invest in the little terrors. people who commit rape? do you really want a kid whose father is a wife beatin disgusting dick head. or some jock from school who nailed you cause he was bored then left ou pregnate and when you told him he turned his back away, i don't think so, don't make abortion illegal,

quote:

---

Originally posted by scary_anna:
meh fuck you all,

---

Please use correct capitalization and spelling. It makes it easier for me to read, plus it makes it easier to take you seriously.

Nox