Dark Moth

Still spouting out the same asinine drivel, I see. Admit it, the only reason you started this topic, like so many others, was so you could have a stage to voice your anti-Americanism (and get others to do the same). First off, the Iraqis wanted Saddam out to begin with. He wasn't well-liked. Even most of those who hate us over there didn't like him any more. His followers in Iraq were very few and are decreasing still. Secondly, if that's your line of reasoning, how come it didn't happen in Afghanistan? Why don't you see Afghans slaughtering themselves on the same level? Simple. We are not solely the cause of the conflict. It's because unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was already the victim of a tribal division within its borders. The Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. Watch Black Hawk Down sometime if you want to get an idea of why things are so bad. We basically have three groups of people who are distrustful and/or hateful of one another, and you have the clerics or terrorists who are daily convincing the ordinary guy to go out and fight the other Iraqi. Saddam, though I hate to admit, actually kept things stable in Iraq, though he did so with an iron fist. The Iraqis were too repressed by him to actually be able to do things to each other. Don't believe me, look at the casualties. How many victims of terrorist attacks are US troops and how many are Iraqis? Case closed.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's simply because there are more US troops in Iraq. I figured even you'd be able to figure that out. "

More US troops in Iraq = more people to piss off Iraqis and make them into insurgents? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is this some simplified math equation you worked out yourself, or what? It's not like every new soldier in Iraq spawns off an insurgent. As has been said, more troops = more people to kill the other guys in battle, and less casualties for us.

Meh, haven't read it. I'd be willing to bet it's a lot better than The Left Hand of Darkness, though.

Oh wow, and what have I been saying all along, Sand? Geez. Beforehand you were saying how the woman had the final say regardless of the situation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but now it's as if you're just contradicting yourself for the sake of being right. Anyway I'd love to stay and continue this insightful chat, but alas I have to go. Adios.

No [expletive], Sherlock. Father, husband, man, whatever. I'm just talking about the father in the relationship, married or not.

The issue is not abortion laws. The issue is whether or not the husband can have a say in whether or not they keep the child or not. Oh okay, a form of birth control. Some might see it as a form of murder, but let's look at it positively, shall we? Frankly, I'd rather contraceptives be a form of birth control than abortion. And I'll say it again, the child is not hers alone. Therefore, she should not be the one to have all the say. Plain and simple. I find it rather amusing that you speak as if you've been there before. And you're speaking as if every single relationship is like what you've personally experienced. But the fact of the matter is, it's not, therefore I do have a point and you don't. So you say that just because not all relationships are loving that we have to apply your POV to every single one? What logic. Keep it simple? Wow. You mean, keep it so it fits your opinion. Unlike you, I'm making exceptions to my opinion based on the situation. You however are trying to force your standard, even though you've had no experience in the matter, onto everyone out there regardless of the situation. Funny, you complain about religions doing the same thing. I think we'll step a little more lightly, dear Fio.

I get off mine when you get off yours, Moth. I am not going to change my position. A man has absolutely no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body or things that are dependent on her body. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Unlike you, I've had a father and know what a loving relationship is like. So unlike you, I at least have experience to back up some of my POV. I know. Otherwise you might be wrong, and we all know how bad that'd be.

I knew you'd say something like that. You're either not grasping any of my points or just choosing to ignore them. All your points have either been discredited or shot down, so you just go back to stating your opinion without actually giving any more reasons why.

Again, circular reasoning. A tapeworm is also dependent on its host for survival. That doesn't make it part of the host's body. A baby is dependent on the mother, but it is not a part of her body. It grows develops independently from her. She was not born with it or the ability to create it alone, nor is it it made up of her cells. Her DNA only makes up half of its genome. Biologically, it is not part of her body. Case closed. Uh, no. Frankly I'm surprised you speak as if you've actually been through it before. Until you actually are a father or are in a loving relationship, maybe you should get off your moral high horse.

But it's not part of a woman's body. We've been over that before. Now you're just using circular reasoning because you have nothing else to fall back on. I already have more of a case than you do because you can't use any other argument and can't erase the fact that it's partly the man's child. A child that is formed out of the loving relationship of a couple belongs to both, not just the woman. Keep in mind I'm not talking about rape victims here or fathers who abandon the mother. And I know you're taking some of your own reasoning from your own personal bad experiences and looking at it solely through your own eyes. You've never had a father, nor have you ever been one, so how the hell do you know? Simply put, you don't. Also, putting all the power in the woman's hands is not 21st century thinking. Giving power to both the mother and the father is.

she gave up ultimate control when she agreed to be impregnated... taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Agreed. But it's not a parasite. And in case you missed the point earlier, it's something she AND the father both helped create. Kind of blows both your points out of the water, doesn't it? :D

Maybe because the baby is not part of her body?

Radical feminist logic at its finest. But hey, who cares about the man? It's not as if he didn't help create it [/sarcasm]. Does the child just carry her genes? No. Did the father help create it? Yes. I'll say it again: A relationship, with or without a child, is not just the woman's alone. It's supposed to be both. Trying to give all the power to a woman is both selfish and unfair. Should the woman have more influence over the decision? Probably. But in no way should she have 100% power over the final say.

Yes, I have, Hades. I think it's rather unfair and absurd for you to think I haven't, especially with all the times you've been wrong in said subject. Unlike you though, I've studied more than just its violent aspects. The fact that you only look at the negative history of religion and judge it based on its followers is really not my problem. And if you really have to hate a religion simply because it tries to reach out to others, then that's your problem. Also, I think you'd do well to watch the two episodes of South Park - "Go God, Go!" Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go waste my time elsewhere.

What is it with you people and always assuming that the father won't even care or won't even be around for the child? Is the baby the woman's alone? No. Was she solely responsible for creating it? No. The fact that she has to carry it is not enough to say it's her decision alone. If she consented to sex and the father is still around (and isn't a total deadbeat) then he has a say in it as well.

Actually, it doesn't. ) But we're getting way off topic, here. I suppose it was asking too much of you not to troll about violence in religion when the topic wasn't really about it to begin with. Not that it really matters I'm sure, as long as you have an excuse to voice your [unjustified] hatred and intolerance.

I know, because one man always represents one religion and its followers. Ah, Hades logic at its finest.

No, but it does say a lot about a religion on what type of people it attracts. Take Christianity's 2000 years worth of history. Can you honestly say it hasn't done as much, if not more, harm as good? A religion's worth is not just what its scriptures hold, but also the deeds of people who act in its name. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Frankly I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond to you, but I'll say it one more time. Just to highlight the barefaced silliness of your point, most of the people today who practice the religion are peaceful people. The same thing goes throughout history, actually. Those who practice violence in its name were always in the minority. Hell, the religion was started with the blood of its own followers, not the blood of others. It's people who twist religion to suit their own purposes who are to blame most of the time. Same goes for any religion, not just Christianity. How about the Romans, hmm? Not practicing Christians, and yet they were still pretty violent people in their own respect. And no, the majority of a religion's worth is what the scriptures hold, not just the people who follow it. Deeds that are committed but go against such scriptures really aren't part of the religion. Yes. Christianity has promoted things such as loving your neighbor as yourself, loving your enemies, blessing the poor and humble, encouraging charity to others, and other such things. Not that you'll acknowledge it anyway, just FYI.

Maybe because it's not part of the mother? And that's not opinion, that's a biological fact. Trying to compare it to a mother's hand is just beyond silly.

*sigh* A fetus does have value because it is a human and has a future as a person. But as I said, it's not as if future potential is the only factor here. I just used it as an example. A terminally ill person is still a fully-grown, intelligent person. It's still alive. That's why you just don't go around killing him or her. That's actually murder and is illegal in most countries. You're really not grasping my point at all. You're using circular reasoning and doing both the things I mentioned in my post above. You're also trying to justify your POV by bringing up an entirely different situation. Once again, the issue is not whether or not a fetus is more valuable than a person with a fatal disease. The issue is whether or not a fetus has value at all. Trying to compare it's value to a fully-grown person with a fatal illness is both irrelevant and pointless. You're basically saying it's worthless because being human and having a future doesn't make it's life worth anything at all. If that's true, a human being's life is no more valuable than a tree. Well, that's where your own personal opinion comes into play. Call me a callous conservative nutjob, but I'd choose to save a person's life over a tree's life any day.

In your opinion, you mean. So that makes it worthless, is that it? Also, many abortions take place when a the baby is a fetus, so arguing about a zygote really isn't all that helpful. Is a fetus worthless to you as well?

It's still a concept of survival, no matter how you look at it. And some people are against the killing of animals for meat anyway, so that's a moot point. As for your second point, the issue is not whether or not it's outside the womb, just it's ability to grow into a whole new organism. Also, see my post above.

It's not the same thing. You're making two big logical errors here. First, you're trying to say that just because one principal applies to one then it must apply to everything. Secondly, you're making it seem like potential future is the only thing that applies to both a zygote and a terminally ill person. Besides, the original point was not comparing a zygote to a terminally ill person. The point was comparing a zygote to just a piece of skin and explaining why a zygote could have more value than it. A terminally ill person is an entirely subject altogether - which is why it's pointless to try to compare the two.