Dr.Worthless

Slave of the US? I'm not completely sure how to respond to the question. We did free France from German control, we also poured an unprecidented amount of money into the country to assist in rebuilding it. Furthermore we spent gobs and gobs of money to ensure that a power hungry Stalin didn't swoop through and take Hitler place. Now, In my opinion is France on the same level of political power that they were pre-WW2, not even close. Does that piss France off? In my opinion yes. Again, I'm not sure how to respond to the "slave" comment. The only thing I can possibly think of is that France has yet to really make a return to the "superpower" stage. To be completely honest, the power that the country was given in international politics (In my opinion) was purely a sign of respect. Yes, they have turned their back on the US. Its completely understandable for the french to disagree with the decision that was made by GW. It was a tough decision no doubt, and not everyones going to agree with it. The key here is to judge the actions taken by the countries after the fact.. here and now is 1 year after the fact, and I don't think its doubtful in anyones mind that things would be going measurably better in Iraq if we had a large # of additional troops on the ground. Its in the best interest for the world community to see Iraq, now that Saddam is gone, a democratic nation that is a strong influence in the region. A true friend would say "Yeah US.. you !@#$%^&*ed up big time and it was a stupid move to invade Iraq, but not only is it in my countries best interest to see Iraq stable, I'm also going to be helping out an old friend thats been there to bail my !@#$%^&* out of a few tight spots before, how can I help?" When my friend gets sloppy drunk in a bar and picks a fight with a burly dude nicknamed "Killer".. I say "jesus christ that was a stupid move" but I swoop in and get my friend the !@#$%^&* out of the tight spot he was in. I disagreed with his choice of action, but the dude's been there enough for me that I'm willing to stick my neck out there and save his !@#$%^&*, at the cost of a potential !@#$%^&* kicking.

The original quote was To which you replied Then you state.. You've confused me.. to say the least. The defining difference in GW's presidency, and presidencies of past, is he's taken a proactive roll in attacking terrorism, opposed to the reactive roll of administrations past. Is it a stretch to say that Terrorists are going to increase attacks in hopes that the US will stop actively hunting them? I would say no. I disagree. I believe taking the stance of "I'm going to hunt you down and kill you" is exactly what is needed to "win" (if the fight is even winable) this global conflict against terrorism. The "Fight against terror" isnt inflaming any additional hatred and violence.. it was already there. The same hatred and violence is what caused some men to hijack planes and fly them into buildings.. the same hatred and violence is what causes men to strap bombs to themselves and detonate them in populated areas. The same hatred and violence is what caused some men to take a building of school children hostage, then murder hundreds of them in cold blood. We can not fight this war with a mix of compassion and understanding. The people we are fighting HAVE no compassion, if given the chance they will rip our nuts off and make sure we choke to death on them. The enemy will not be fighting with any level of compassion or understanding, all they care about is the west, and its ideals, gone. Their track-record should make that blatantly clear. I do not feel that a liberal US government would have the resoluteness that you understand is needed in a global conflict of this magnitude. If we are to ensure our joint safety, as democratic nations, we are going to have to hunt the s!@#$%^&* of the earth down that would perform such acts as what has been performed, and wipe them from the face of the earth. We cannot be nice about it, we cannot be politically correct about it, if we show any weakness these people will exploit it.. its what they do. My comment was in reference to I am starting to honestly believe that it would really be in the best interest of the US to pull out of world politics all together. We could easily influence it without an active military presence. But since ww2, the US has been the guard dog of freedom loving countries. Agree or disagree with the attack on Saddam Huessein, I do believe the world is safer without him. Weapons or not.. there's no possible way anyone could predict what he would do in the future, and judging by his past track record, I dont believe it would be a stretch to say it wouldn't be something beneficial to the world.. Saddam had to go, and I don't think anyone disagrees with that point. I think media has a big part of the general discontent of the world community toward the United States. Alot of people I discuss things with are horridly mis-informed about the facts surrounding the history of Iraq and the world community, and US activity/intentions in Iraq now. I attribute this to m!@#$%^&*-media spinning the actions going on in Iraq completely out of perportion. I suppose the only thing that the world community could be upset about is the supposed "Pre-emptive policy" that the US has made by invading Iraq. While I can agree that we more than likely did rush into Iraq.. given the intelligence that we had at the time I believe the President made the right decision to pe-*BAD WORD*-ion congress to give him the right to invade. I believe Congress made the right decision also. I do believe that France and Germany had reasons to oppose a war to remove Saddam Huessein, other than just disagree'ing with the principle of the pre-emptiveness of the invasion. Another thing I do believe is that after the goodwill and for-*BAD WORD*-ude that my country has shown all the countries of Europe throughout the last 70 years for them to forsake us, and not support us right, or wrong, in removing a viscious war-monger from power is a slap in the face and a blatant disregard for all this country has done in support of every country in Europe. To be honest, if any president in the near future was to propose a war against france, I would completely support it 100%. After all this country has done for France since WW2, for Chirac to completely turn his back on the US is completely unacceptable. Its one thing to disagree with a decision, its another thing to harbor discent and help spread the discent. What you are see'ing from Chirac, France, and Germany, is simply a power-play, a chance to thrust their names into inernational imporance. Sorry, Right or Wrong, Saddam had to go and this world is safer without him in it. Since we already ARE in Iraq.. it is in the world best interest for that country to be stable, with a stable government in it. For countries such as france and germany to still not support the actions in that country is a simple slap in the face. Neither country is interested in the cause of defeating terrorism, they are simply interested in see'ing the United States fail.

What do you mean probably? Oklahoma City.. USS Cole.. Original WTC attacks, Multiple emb!@#$%^&*y bombings... September 11'th happened what, a few months into bush's term? I do agree with the second statement.. if a person says "I'm going to hunt you down and kill you..." and has done it already to over 60% of the officials of a terrorist organization, I'm probably going to hop up attacks in hopes that I can frighten the guy off... I for sure wont sit on my !@#$%^&* and say "!@#$%^&*.. we've been had now..." I agree.. In hindsight mabye we should have just let hitler anal rape europe in the 40's and continue to throw a big finger to world politics.. Though knowing what we know now Hitler would have turned the US into a big pile of rubble.. but still. Ok, let me rephrase that.. We should have kicked hitlers !@#$%^&*, but we should have then retracted and threw a big finger to europe when they needed billions to rebuild. Stalin was over there, I'm sure he would have been nice enough to help rebuild france, england, and the other european countries. Ok so wait, thats not a good idea either.. Anywho... When you're top dog.. you can do no right..

I've heard it as low as 3 before. I do agree with the conciousness statement. If I would have to bend on the issue at all (which is the only way we could p!@#$%^&* law.. is to reach a happy medium) It would for sure be somewhere during the pre-3'ish month time. Although at 24 weeks, with given care a "fetus" could survive outside of the wound, I think if a medium was reached there should be a comprehensive study to give a better estimate of the time of "conciousness". I say estimate because there's truely no way to know, i suspect.

You're not denying a person their existence in the future, they aren't existing yet, unlike the case in question, aborting a fetus.. Sperm does not = a human. The combination of an egg and a sperm does. Reproduction 101 for you, sir. I concur.. Australians dont matter

Right Funk.. so when your child gets raped and killed by the pedophile down the street, just chalk it up to "Well, he was just another animal anyway.. cows get killed all the time, so what makes my kid so special..." Man.. what a hypocrite society is.. approves of the killings of animals, but not of humans.. OH THE INJUSTICE. Funk, if some thug knifes your !@#$%^&* to steal your wallet, make sure to pin a note on your chest that says "Don't press charges, we kill cows everyday, and since i'm just another animal my death really is insignifigant" Rediculous...

Likely a mis-understanding, because taking the "every animal has the right to live" path kinda destroys your old arguement.. Anyway yeah.. likely a mis-understanding Though I still find it puzzling that you'll accept killing of unborn humans, because humans kill unborn chickens..

Huh? That says HOMES....

The instance in question was the 3'rd time inspectors entered the country.. after being kicked out the first 2 times. BTW, nice reply to the resolution comment vile.. Why is it that Iraq was allowed to break multiple UN Resolutions for well over a decade without retaliation?

Ducky.. please tell me you're a vegan.. If not you're arguement is shot. Oh btw.. turn your computer off and all your electricity.. Alot of power plants still run off oil, which is harvested from animals homes.. which in turn may cause them to die. Infact, don't eat at all. Most animals eat vegetables, what gives you the right to steal their food? They have to eat too... Yes, your arguement is just as ludicrous as above.. but if you truely believe that animals == humans, why arent you living your beliefs? It is impossible for a human to live without the destruction of something.

I'm avoiding no point.. you're raising questions about "moral value" and I'm telling you that while morals may vary from person to person, Overall Moral view is dictated by the society in which we live. I might find it ok to !@#$%^&* little kids in the !@#$%^&* while they sleep.. but society sure doesn't.. so the action is wrong.. mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr) n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. Thats fine.. folks can feel whatever way they wish about abortion.. but if you wish to make abortion a moral issue, the overall moral code is/must be created by society. Society has deemed murder wrong.. but killing in wars ok. In most cases I wouldn't put war in the catagory of "unecessary killing", that is if you enjoy speaking french.. because your country would be speaking german if not for the unnecessary killing during ww2. Personally I think the majority of pro-choicers are self centered and greedy. I wont discuss that though because it is an opinion, which im allowed to have. Do you think pro-lifers are "Religious fanatics" ?

You're question originally was pointed toward "moral values" Morals are created by the society in which you live. Societies have deemed murder wrong. Ask society why murder is wrong, but death during war isnt..

Bacchus.. the only moral needed to justify the arguement is one accepted by every civilized country on this planet.. that murder is wrong.

I'll reply in chunks. If the "fetus" is proven to be a living human being.. what right does the mother have to abort its life.. I don't care how highly you think of women.. Their body or not they sure as -*BAD WORD*- dont have the right to kill anyone. They don't have the right to kill the baby after its born, why should they have the right to do it before? Perhaps because they are killing unborn people? You can replace "abortion" with killing, its the same thing. As I've said before throughout this thread, If I have to compromise at all i'll compromise with the pre-8 week timetable. Take your same 40% statistic and find out how many of those fit into the pre 8-week catagory, and how many fit into the post 3, 4, 5 month catagory.. Again I'll ask, when would you attribute the "mind" accompaning the "body" in a fetus. For any of the pro-choice arguements of "its not a human being" to be valid, they'll have to show when the baby recieves the "mind" part of his duality.. The reply I expect? "How do YOU know!?".. Simple answer, I don't.. but when dealing with another human i'll put things on the existance side for his sake.. So answer the above question, its at the core of your arguement.. when exactly do you attribute a "fetus" being human... Saying the death of an infant is illegal is no more "moral adjucating" than acknowledging the death of a born human being unjust.. Right.. the needs of "living people".. so babies aren't living until their born, babies shouldn't have rights until their born.. So even though the baby is human ( are you argueing that?) since it is unborn it has less of a right to exist than a human that is born.. "But worthless... they are nothing but living tissue".. There HAS to be a point that the "living tissue" becomes "human".. and no its not at birth.. so when is it? I want to hear your opinion on the exact date. At that date when the "tissue" becomes human.. it should be en-*BAD WORD*-led to EVERY right that EVERY OTHER HUMAN HAS.. and the most basic of that is the right to life, which NO person has the right to take away, even if it IS his/hers own mother... Up till the date that the baby is 'living tissue" I'll consent that it isn't yet human (Though I believe it is human the day it is concieved... just like a monkey is a monkey the day its concieved.. mold is mold the day its created.. it can be NOTHING else but what it is...) and that the mother has the choice. But to say the mother has the choice over the existances life because it is in her body is !@#$%^&*anine, you're putting more value on a born human than an unborn one.. Seriously though.. abortion is one of those topics that will really go no where, so we really really really need to let it die.. It boils down to when you believe the conception turns into a human. There has to be a scientific timetable for that, and that needs to be the cut-off point. Say it is at 8 weeks.. pre 8-week abortions = ok.. post 8-week = not. There's some point where an existance becomes human.. and at that point if you cancel that life.. its murder. Its not a "right".. its called a definition.

Heh.. You're right I wouldn't know, but It wouldn't be a big stretch to assume existance is better than the lack thereof..... (Without going into religion..) Oh and btw.. "And I dont think a non-existent would be living tissue would either." You wouldn't know.... So.. Your arguement is that a fetus is "living tissue" until when, it become concious? When does the human "mind" manifest itself within the body.. Is there any way to know? If the "living tissue" is occupied by the human "mind" would you then believe canceling that humans life murder, or just a difficult decision? Does being born cons-*BAD WORD*-ute having more rights than being unborn? At some point the canceling of a life turns from a "hard decision" to "murder".. when is that? Arguable at 8 weeks, by most profession opinion atleast.. So.. now for the pre 8-week discussion. I've heard the term "potential human" thrown around. See, the ball of "living tissue" is unique in that it is the only ball of "living tissue" that WILL grow into a human being. There is no potential.. it isn't a roll of the dice or luck of the draw.. 2 people !@#$%^&*.. the embryo is human, 100% take it to the bank. In my opinion there isn't much justification to canceling a life.. a Unique existance.. unless there's "extreme cir!@#$%^&*stances". As many folks have said.. they virew an embryo to be nothing else but a m!@#$%^&* of cells, not a human.. much akin to mold, or any other animal/plant/fungus on this earth. The core difference is at the day of conception a human embryo has a unique set of chromosomes that are uniquely his/hers, which makes is the only "living tissue" in this universe that can and will grow into human. Granted, I pulled the 85% straight out of my !@#$%^&*hole, but please clarify your statment, I really don't want to believe that you're making an arguement to justify abortion because 40% of women in the US do it. Worthless-- Who really doesn't expect more than 2 points in the above post to be addressed.

You failed to mention how adventagious living would be for the fetus... When compared to the alternative of NOT EXISTING AT ALL, I believe i'd pick "not knowing my true parents.." Infact, last time i checked, anything beats being dead.. call me wierd..

Not suprising... Read further on the vouchers.. you'll see some pretty intersting names on some of the lists.. (Moreso than texas oil companies.. IE folks on the UN security councle...)

Copy/paste important parts of the article for those of us who dont have subscriptions please, thx.

In a nuts-*BAD WORD*- "There's still alot more work to be done"

Somehow Wheat doesn't strike me as lucrative of a business as oil.. Anyhow, We'll see if its all a crock once the various councles complete their investigation.

The issue being that the life that was created was through no means of their own.. it was through the concious decision of 1 female and 1 male to have sex. If you perform the cause, there will be an effect. Except in this instance the "effect" isn't trival.. its a human being.. I agree, there should be more sex education, more social services for single mothers, a more robust adoption system.. but simply killing the fetus should not be an answer.. Essentially thats what it is, abortion is just a nice word for it. If the concious decision was made to !@#$%^&* then the consiquences are there... Yeah I'm sure its rough being a 16 year old female and being pregnant.. Does that justify canceling the life of the being in the female? I don't believe so.. I don't see how you can justifyable put one persons existance over another, no matter what the age.

So obviously the best solution is to make sure they never exist in the first place... <_<

Ok.. I'll break my own rules and comment, possibly just this last time.. And you believe that its the wrong !@#$%^&*umption to assume the organism would rather live than die.... Judging by your mold == human statement, I'll assume yes. But as I stated before If I had to compromise at all, I'd agree with your pre-7 week statement.

Wow, I guessing putting the value of a human life over that of a mosquito, or mold, makes me a wierdo.. Yes, you're right on the spot ducky.. I've got a superiority complex toward insects and fungus.. Unless that organism is unborn.. then its free choice doesn't matter.. eh ducky? Under your "more important organism ... !@#$%^&*anine" statement, you've just defeated your whole arguement FOR pro choice... Putting the mothers needs over a fetus's is by definition.. "picking which organism is more important.." GG As per my statement before, I gracefully bow out of the conversation. Enjoy.

There is no line... When 2 dogs !@#$%^&*.. the embryo that is created can be nothing other than dog. When two apes !@#$%^&*.. the embryo that is created can be nothing other than ape. When 2 humans !@#$%^&*.. the embryo that is created can be nothing other than human. Genetics is your friend. Sorry guy.. The second a human sperm merges with a human egg.. that "tissue" has the genetic predisposition of Homo Sapien. When mold spores come into contact with a food source and begin to grow.. they have the genetic predisposition to be MOLD, not humans. Comparing mold to a human embryo because both are have "life properties" is !@#$%^&*anine. Its not as if every life form just "is" when it is created, and by pure luck of the dice roll it becomes a chosen organism... So the Mother has the right to cancle a life because it doesn't fit her fancy.. I come into contact with people that fit into that catagory on a daily basis.. I wish I could cancle their lives...