Which begs the question, why can't they protect themselves? Yes, in cases of rap, it is different, but in cases of being consensual, they should take measures to prevent getting pregnant. The responsiblity is on them more than anyone. There is no excuse to justify a fifty percent abortion rate in places like LA.
OMG. that's not what I am talking about. READ MY POSTS. please. Why can't they protect themselves. Gee. I don't know. Perhaps because there is no way to protect yourself from cancer. Come on man. It doesn't matter. The structure of debates on here is compleatly off base. I'm done.
You have missed my point by a mile. Looking at simple statistics, one can tell you that most of the births happening in this world are sucessful.
Facts? UYou are saying I am wrong? So you can tell me right now that the majority of the births left unhindered kill the mother....That is incredibly wrong.
Again, I think you missed my point. The point was, that the majority of the time, babies are born without killing the mother. Saying I don't have proof is incredibly un-well thought out. After all, we ALL know that most women die in giving birth :rolleyes:.
Okay, sir, so, you can sit here and tell me that at least 51 percent of women die from childbirth...After all, that is what you mean, amirite?
If you need proof that most women live from having a child, then I implore you to simply look around. I can guarentee you right now that everyone on this forum knows no-one personaly, and, if they do, one, at max. Then, turn around, and I can guarentee that the majority of people here know people that have had babies.
Medical stats? Do you seriously expect me to look up numbers for something so glaringly obvious?
Ah, yes, THIS is where the understanding comes from. You think I meant that in cases where the women will die, she doesn't.
This is wrong. I was saying that both sides are really not *both* on the side of life, since, the MAJORITY of women who have babises do not die from them. It's one thing to calim you are protecting the womens life, but another thing when they life usually is not jeopardized anyway.
Sometimes. Majority, of course not. Which was my point. In fact, I would go so far as to say less than 5 percent of women that give birth actually DIE from it. But, however, that is a ballpark, so don't burn me at the stake because of it.
Yes. Thanks for clearifying. However, you were positioning it in response to having an abortion when the mothers life could be in danger of having the kid. We were talking about aborting a kid when the mothers life is threatened and your response was...
Quote from {G}PiLeDrIvEr »
But you can't prove that the Women will DIE from the birth
Now. You went on, in all the things you quoted from me, and stated things that were compleatly off the subject.
Quote from {G}PiLeDrIvEr »
You have missed my point by a mile. Looking at simple statistics, one can tell you that most of the births happening in this world are sucessful.
I think you have missed the point. No one is arguing that the majority of children are born without problem. That has never been stated in this thread, so there is no reason to bring it up.
Quote from {G}PiLeDrIvEr »
This is wrong. I was saying that both sides are really not *both* on the side of life, since, the MAJORITY of women who have babises do not die from them. It's one thing to calim you are protecting the womens life, but another thing when they life usually is not jeopardized anyway
Please make sure you read everything. We aren't talking about everyday births here. If you would have read my post, you would have seen that I pointed out that this legislation is not black and white and needs exceptions and clearifications. We are talking about having an abortion when the mothers life is in danger. I have said this many times now...sigh You have gone on saying things to me that don't mean anything. Work with me houston, work with me.
Abortion is a form of protecting women. It is also something that is abused. Moving on...
Our "President" decleared State of Emergency today, because of rallies that want to change our form of government. Thoughts?
There is more to it than that. You must go deeper into it. Why exactly is there a state of emergency. There is much more than a rally. The Philippine islands are a republic. Demonstrations and rallies are legal. Please don't give half truths and political spin. Tell us exactly what happened.
Saying "somewhere there is a range" simple isn't good enough. We don't know where that range is, and we can not find it because the issue isn't as simple as weighing percentages.
When it comes to aborting a child, perhaps it would be better if "we were nowhere," as you say. Anything less than 100% probability is unacceptable. One is reminded, perhaps, of the parable of letting a thousand guilty men go free rather than punish one who is innocent.
I am not trying to troll you, Voice.
We both agree that using "happiness in future life" to determine whether or not a fetus should live or die is impossible without some sort of mystical power, or, as you put it, time travel. I have simply chosen to attack this problem from the opposite direction for once, and the result has been the same. If it's a stupid and pointless question to ask someone who has actually endured hardships and traumas whether they wish they had never been born, how much more so it must be to ask the same question about one who has not even endured such hardships and may never do so at all.
Perhaps a better question would be:
If I told you now that there is a "good likelihood" that you will be gored to death by a bull in twenty years, would you accept a bullet to the back of the head now - and only now - to thwart such a fate?
I disagree Nick. You are trying to troll and you dont even know it. Our views are the same on almost everything, so I am not criticising you on that. But, you created this topic to show that no one can know if a life is going to be bad? Thank you Dr. Science. I think we know this. This is a topic that, though I can not atest to your mindset at the time you created, is now a "gotcha" topic and compleatly irrelevant to everything. As a moderator, you should realize this and lock/delete this topic. This is tastless, tactless, and sick. STOP IT
The fact that the sole reason this law was made to go to the Supreme Court is disgusting.
As someone with a degree in political science, I can partially agree here. I can tell you though that this particular argument needs to go to the supreme court, not be voted on, but to be rewritten. The liberals seem to think that this is a black and white issue. You have to make it legal because if you don't then you are infringing on the civil liberities of the individual.
I haven't seen anyone on here make this argument, and for that I applaud, however, if any of you are thinking about it, I will crush you. You have no sense of logic and you, like most liberals, don't know what a civil liberity is. You have double standards and you don't think problems through.
Here is the thing. If you make it illegal, then there is another civil right that you are infringing on, and that is the right for the to be mother to live. What if the mother is young? I know that we all know someone, in one way or another, that is a girl, 12 or 13 and pregnant. That is dangerous. What if she is hemophilic? Why should the mother have to die? What if the mother is a drug abuser. The baby is going to come out mentally damaged? Is that fair to the child? What if there was a rape? What if there was incestual acts and the baby will be mentally and physically deformed? What if the mother is a prostitute? Should the child have to be raised in that enviroment.
However, you make it unconditionally legal. What does that mean. That means that you have a group of people that will use it as contriception, which is sick in my book. What about the people who get an abortion because they get cold feet. I can't have a month go by that I don't hear about a baby that was left in a dumpster, or a public bathroom. I don't know the exact number, so I won't make a comment, but frankly, one is too many.
This is clearly not a black and white issue. It is also an issue that needs to be decided on at the national level. You won't hear me say that often due to me being a libertarian, but this is one of them. If it is decided by the states, then you have a problem, then it just becomes gay marrage (Don't get me started on that ****). If it is illegal in colorado, that's fine, I'll take my girlfriend, hope in the civic, and drive to Nebraska and get one. That's aweful.
This is an a very detailed law that needs to be researched thoroughly. People who are compleatly for abortion are wrong. Logically wrong. People who are compleatly against abortion are wrong. Logically wrong.
this is a fallacy and you can't argue this until the proper definition of live is brought out, and since no one can define it yet, you don't get to argue this. If an unborn child is still alive, then how is killing it wanting to protect lives.
Quote from joseyoutlaw »
I'm pro-choice because more lives can be saved that way
Whenever you give an argument that is like this is based on two things. First, it is because you are giving us your opinion that more lives can be saved, which doesn't mean anything. In proper debate format, opinions of anyone other than an expert, are not taken. Or, second, because you have seen this as a statistic. If it is the latter, then show us the statistic. Link it, quote it from a book, something. You don't know that more lives can be saved that way. You can not make these statements.
Quote from {G}PiLeDrIvEr »
But you can't prove that the Women will DIE from the birth...
Why not. Who says. A doctor tells me that my wife is suffering from internal bleeding because of some random condition and if she gives birth, then she will die. Now, I don't like doctors much, I won't lie, but he is an expert in his field. That's what a doctorate degree is (except for the field that I am going into, louis black says that metoroligist is latin for, Liar). Now, if you are a medical doctor, then I yield to you facts, if you can give them. But you didn't, so you can't make this argument.
Quote from {G}PiLeDrIvEr »
If it is truly the same, it would both have to deal with death...Either the women dies, or the child...But saying that both want to 'protect life' is kinda a fallacy, because, more often than not, the Women will still go on living. In a diminished capacity? Maybe. But that gets down to individual examples, which really don't go in proving any points.
Oh, so close. You were going in the right direction, A for effort, but your overal grade has to be a C. Yes, saying that they both want to protect life is a fallacy. It is a flawed argument with no support. Good job. Bad thing here, you continued on by saying that the women will most likely live anyway. How do you know this. Where are the medical stats. I can tell you now, you don't have them. There are no medical stats. When a doctor sees something inside the women that will cause her death, how can you say that they will go along living after that just fine. That argument itself is a fallacy. It is flawed with no factual support.
Why are you coming down on marcus for trying to comparelast seasons tog with this seasons. It's a better comparison than trying to compare todays fast decks with last season. The last 3 seasons of extended have had nothing but turn 2 and 3 wins.
If you say that all the top decks are control now, great. That means that wish is needed. I also ran one upheaval that won me 5 games. Yay upheaval. Yay wish. Yay me and everyone else with a brain that thinks tog is a control deck and not a combo, aggro, splash green and run Boomerang, deck
Thirst is terrible. Opt is really good. BTW. I played in the Q this last weekend. I played 3 tog decks. One was kenji tog. I destroyed him. One was Julien tog. I destroyed him. The other was UB tog with no wish. I compleatly destroyed him because of cunning wish. So....yeah. Cunning wish wins again.
Acvar. the entire last post you wrote was compleatly retarded and we are all now dumber for have reading it. At no time did you say anything that resembled a rational thought nor did you prove any point that you most likely didn't have in the first place. You should be banned from speaking any further on this subject and may God have mercey on your soul
It can. A friend of mine invented this concept in Denver when onslaught first came out. It didn't have life in the loam then. I just don't know if you have a decent enough late game against the control decks with out it
OMG. that's not what I am talking about. READ MY POSTS. please. Why can't they protect themselves. Gee. I don't know. Perhaps because there is no way to protect yourself from cancer. Come on man. It doesn't matter. The structure of debates on here is compleatly off base. I'm done.
Yes. Thanks for clearifying. However, you were positioning it in response to having an abortion when the mothers life could be in danger of having the kid. We were talking about aborting a kid when the mothers life is threatened and your response was...
Now. You went on, in all the things you quoted from me, and stated things that were compleatly off the subject.
I think you have missed the point. No one is arguing that the majority of children are born without problem. That has never been stated in this thread, so there is no reason to bring it up.
Please make sure you read everything. We aren't talking about everyday births here. If you would have read my post, you would have seen that I pointed out that this legislation is not black and white and needs exceptions and clearifications. We are talking about having an abortion when the mothers life is in danger. I have said this many times now...sigh You have gone on saying things to me that don't mean anything. Work with me houston, work with me.
Abortion is a form of protecting women. It is also something that is abused. Moving on...
Doubtful. Does it matter. You should stop the crappiness of this topic.
Speak for yourself. I plan on living forever.
There is more to it than that. You must go deeper into it. Why exactly is there a state of emergency. There is much more than a rally. The Philippine islands are a republic. Demonstrations and rallies are legal. Please don't give half truths and political spin. Tell us exactly what happened.
I disagree Nick. You are trying to troll and you dont even know it. Our views are the same on almost everything, so I am not criticising you on that. But, you created this topic to show that no one can know if a life is going to be bad? Thank you Dr. Science. I think we know this. This is a topic that, though I can not atest to your mindset at the time you created, is now a "gotcha" topic and compleatly irrelevant to everything. As a moderator, you should realize this and lock/delete this topic. This is tastless, tactless, and sick. STOP IT
As someone with a degree in political science, I can partially agree here. I can tell you though that this particular argument needs to go to the supreme court, not be voted on, but to be rewritten. The liberals seem to think that this is a black and white issue.
You have to make it legal because if you don't then you are infringing on the civil liberities of the individual.
I haven't seen anyone on here make this argument, and for that I applaud, however, if any of you are thinking about it, I will crush you. You have no sense of logic and you, like most liberals, don't know what a civil liberity is. You have double standards and you don't think problems through.
Here is the thing. If you make it illegal, then there is another civil right that you are infringing on, and that is the right for the to be mother to live. What if the mother is young? I know that we all know someone, in one way or another, that is a girl, 12 or 13 and pregnant. That is dangerous. What if she is hemophilic? Why should the mother have to die? What if the mother is a drug abuser. The baby is going to come out mentally damaged? Is that fair to the child? What if there was a rape? What if there was incestual acts and the baby will be mentally and physically deformed? What if the mother is a prostitute? Should the child have to be raised in that enviroment.
However, you make it unconditionally legal. What does that mean. That means that you have a group of people that will use it as contriception, which is sick in my book. What about the people who get an abortion because they get cold feet. I can't have a month go by that I don't hear about a baby that was left in a dumpster, or a public bathroom. I don't know the exact number, so I won't make a comment, but frankly, one is too many.
This is clearly not a black and white issue. It is also an issue that needs to be decided on at the national level. You won't hear me say that often due to me being a libertarian, but this is one of them. If it is decided by the states, then you have a problem, then it just becomes gay marrage (Don't get me started on that ****). If it is illegal in colorado, that's fine, I'll take my girlfriend, hope in the civic, and drive to Nebraska and get one. That's aweful.
This is an a very detailed law that needs to be researched thoroughly. People who are compleatly for abortion are wrong. Logically wrong. People who are compleatly against abortion are wrong. Logically wrong.
this is a fallacy and you can't argue this until the proper definition of live is brought out, and since no one can define it yet, you don't get to argue this. If an unborn child is still alive, then how is killing it wanting to protect lives.
Whenever you give an argument that is like this is based on two things. First, it is because you are giving us your opinion that more lives can be saved, which doesn't mean anything. In proper debate format, opinions of anyone other than an expert, are not taken. Or, second, because you have seen this as a statistic. If it is the latter, then show us the statistic. Link it, quote it from a book, something. You don't know that more lives can be saved that way. You can not make these statements.
Why not. Who says. A doctor tells me that my wife is suffering from internal bleeding because of some random condition and if she gives birth, then she will die. Now, I don't like doctors much, I won't lie, but he is an expert in his field. That's what a doctorate degree is (except for the field that I am going into, louis black says that metoroligist is latin for, Liar). Now, if you are a medical doctor, then I yield to you facts, if you can give them. But you didn't, so you can't make this argument.
Oh, so close. You were going in the right direction, A for effort, but your overal grade has to be a C. Yes, saying that they both want to protect life is a fallacy. It is a flawed argument with no support. Good job. Bad thing here, you continued on by saying that the women will most likely live anyway. How do you know this. Where are the medical stats. I can tell you now, you don't have them. There are no medical stats. When a doctor sees something inside the women that will cause her death, how can you say that they will go along living after that just fine. That argument itself is a fallacy. It is flawed with no factual support.
If you say that all the top decks are control now, great. That means that wish is needed. I also ran one upheaval that won me 5 games. Yay upheaval. Yay wish. Yay me and everyone else with a brain that thinks tog is a control deck and not a combo, aggro, splash green and run Boomerang, deck