Bewbs Bewbs Bewbs Bewbs

[Harri]

Following the trend of serious conversations and breasts-

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/jilted-ex-bo ... 42831.html

Is he right? Is it none of his business? Abortion, yay or nay?


























Also

[Fencerboy]

sorry i got distracted, what were u saying?

Also

[BoB Dolen]

Seems like another oxygen thief at work.

[Konfy]

[stanley]

nothing productive will get done out of this thread...

[Spyder]

inb4 Guy on post board has a striking resemblance to Gabe Newell.

[Jake]

Following the trend of serious conversations and breasts-
http://beta.news.yahoo.com/jilted-ex-bo ... 42831.html
Is he right? Is it none of his business? Abortion, yay or nay?

Ok ok I'll bite.

I think it's logical to assume that intent is the best barometer for determining whether he is justified. It's much easier for arguments sake to distill this down into a legal issue rather than a moral one. If we can determine his intent, we should be able to determine his rights in this matter. I'm of the opinion that cases of dispute regarding zygotes, fetuses and children should be treated (legally) in a similar way that we treat everything else (e.g. murder). Once we determine the intent of the individuals involved, then we can determine what what responsibility each person has to each other and or the zygote, fetus or child in question.

I'll use a spreadsheet to detail the many possibilities.

	man has sex with intent to impregnate	man has sex without intent to impregnate
woman has sex with intent to become pregnant	woman has baby and both are equally responsible	woman carries child to term and man relenquishes all responsibility to woman
woman has sex without intent to become pregnant	woman carries child to term but relenquishes all responsibility to man	if child is carried to term neither is responsible (adoption/abortion)

If he can prove that both of their intentions before sex were to have a baby and she changed her mind afterwards, there should certainly be legal recourse. To me this isn't an argument of Roe v Wade but simply an issue of keeping people honest when there's repercussions to your actions. In any other legal circumstance an individual would not be able to make up their mind after the incident in question has occurred. I don't feel that this should be any different.

If someone dies and you played a role in that person's death the job of the courts is to determine to what end you are at fault. Are you guilty or innocent of playing a role, and if guilty to what end. Did you murder the person and if so, with premeditation or simply commit involuntary manslaughter, an accident without any intent to do harm? This can mean the difference between you yourself being murdered with capital punishment or perhaps something as little as a monetary fine.

Issues with conception carry similar tones. Dealing with any foul play in the incident will become moot, it doesn't matter if she says she's on birth control or not, if he's really gotten a vasectomy, or if either are crazy and poking holes in the condoms; when you deal with intent, no one person is stuck with another persons judgement. Just as the act is mutual, so should be the control.

Abortion's only a hot topic because it's easy. Assuming the majority of the opposition is doing so because of their Judeo-Christian belief that you should not murder, there's much greater impact to be had in the world than trying to change abortion legislation. Lets talk about genocide, Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, a few morally conservative people posturing up on the unlucky don't realize how fortunate they are.

[Maringue]

My view on abortion is pretty simple; don't like abortions, then don't have one.

Also, the Christian thing about the sanctity of life has more holes in it that a soccer net. For instance Mississippi, the self described "safest state to be an unborn child in" is also the most unsafe state to be a born child in. They rank dead last in infant mortality rates: http://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/4129.pdf

Also, the same people who use the sanctity of life argument will often talk about needing to bomb the terrorists, Iranians, ect... or how we shouldn't have universal health care in the very next breath. Apparently they only give a shit about unborn life. Once you fall out of that vagina, you're on your on bucko.

I personally think that Roe v Wade should be struck down. I'm very liberal, so I'll explain my rational. As of now, it's already almost impossible to get an abortion in anti-abortion states like the Dakotas, Mississippi or Kentucky. Why, because in most of these states there is only a single clinic that performs abortions so by either having to travel too far or wait too long there are defacto prevented from this service. Once Roe v Wade is struck down, then each state can do whatever the fuck it wants to. States that have made it defacto impossible to get an abortion will make it illegal and the rest of the states will let it remain legal.

This will have several consequences, but a major positive one will be that abortion will cease to be a national issue. Sure, uber conservatives will find some other bullshit cause to rally around, but none will have the same punch as abortion when it comes to rallying their base. I won't have to listen to the endless fucking pointless debates over whether Federal funding might in some way be going to pay for abortions. We might actually be able to get to some of the important issues facing this country instead of constantly talking about fucking sideshows as a distraction.

Oh, and if a Republican wins the presidential election I'm fucking moving to Korea with my girlfriend because this country will be fucked beyond repair.

Also:

[Failhorse]

Not my business. But it's apart of the big 3 for Republicans. Need to get your base moving, guns god and gays. More important than jobs bills.
But if they dont' want governement money for abortion. I should be able to tell the gov't I don't want money going to war, nukes, or wallstreet.


Also girl with dragon tattoo poster. Totally NSFW
http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2011/06/08 ... oo_510.jpg

[Harri]

Ok ok I'll bite.

I think it's logical to assume that intent is the best barometer for determining whether he is justified. It's much easier for arguments sake to distill this down into a legal issue rather than a moral one. If we can determine his intent, we should be able to determine his rights in this matter. I'm of the opinion that cases of dispute regarding zygotes, fetuses and children should be treated (legally) in a similar way that we treat everything else (e.g. murder). Once we determine the intent of the individuals involved, then we can determine what what responsibility each person has to each other and or the zygote, fetus or child in question.

I'll use a spreadsheet to detail the many possibilities.

	man has sex with intent to impregnate	man has sex without intent to impregnate
woman has sex with intent to become pregnant	woman has baby and both are equally responsible	woman carries child to term and man relenquishes all responsibility to woman
woman has sex without intent to become pregnant	woman carries child to term but relenquishes all responsibility to man	if child is carried to term neither is responsible (adoption/abortion)

If he can prove that both of their intentions before sex were to have a baby and she changed her mind afterwards, there should certainly be legal recourse. To me this isn't an argument of Roe v Wade but simply an issue of keeping people honest when there's repercussions to your actions. In any other legal circumstance an individual would not be able to make up their mind after the incident in question has occurred. I don't feel that this should be any different.

If someone dies and you played a role in that person's death the job of the courts is to determine to what end you are at fault. Are you guilty or innocent of playing a role, and if guilty to what end. Did you murder the person and if so, with premeditation or simply commit involuntary manslaughter, an accident without any intent to do harm? This can mean the difference between you yourself being murdered with capital punishment or perhaps something as little as a monetary fine.

Issues with conception carry similar tones. Dealing with any foul play in the incident will become moot, it doesn't matter if she says she's on birth control or not, if he's really gotten a vasectomy, or if either are crazy and poking holes in the condoms; when you deal with intent, no one person is stuck with another persons judgement. Just as the act is mutual, so should be the control.

Abortion's only a hot topic because it's easy. Assuming the majority of the opposition is doing so because of their Judeo-Christian belief that you should not murder, there's much greater impact to be had in the world than trying to change abortion legislation. Lets talk about genocide, Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, a few morally conservative people posturing up on the unlucky don't realize how fortunate they are.

My view on abortion is pretty simple; don't like abortions, then don't have one.

Also, the Christian thing about the sanctity of life has more holes in it that a soccer net. For instance Mississippi, the self described "safest state to be an unborn child in" is also the most unsafe state to be a born child in. They rank dead last in infant mortality rates: http://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/4129.pdf

Also, the same people who use the sanctity of life argument will often talk about needing to bomb the terrorists, Iranians, ect... or how we shouldn't have universal health care in the very next breath. Apparently they only give a shit about unborn life. Once you fall out of that vagina, you're on your on bucko.

I personally think that Roe v Wade should be struck down. I'm very liberal, so I'll explain my rational. As of now, it's already almost impossible to get an abortion in anti-abortion states like the Dakotas, Mississippi or Kentucky. Why, because in most of these states there is only a single clinic that performs abortions so by either having to travel too far or wait too long there are defacto prevented from this service. Once Roe v Wade is struck down, then each state can do whatever the fuck it wants to. States that have made it defacto impossible to get an abortion will make it illegal and the rest of the states will let it remain legal.

This will have several consequences, but a major positive one will be that abortion will cease to be a national issue. Sure, uber conservatives will find some other bullshit cause to rally around, but none will have the same punch as abortion when it comes to rallying their base. I won't have to listen to the endless fucking pointless debates over whether Federal funding might in some way be going to pay for abortions. We might actually be able to get to some of the important issues facing this country instead of constantly talking about fucking sideshows as a distraction.

Oh, and if a Republican wins the presidential election I'm fucking moving to Korea with my girlfriend because this country will be fucked beyond repair.

Also:

Boo. I really can't argue with either of you.

I agree. I hate that abortion is such a huge topic in this country. We, of the 21st century, did not invent abortions. They have been around for centuries (longer than that). I think it is a perfectly normal operation to seek out when the odds of raising a good child are down. I don't think the moral issues behind abortions (i.e late term abortions, abortions due to retardation, abortion for birth control etc,.) are political concerns. I believe that making abortion legal is absolutely necessary; it helps prevent the medical issues behind a botched illegal abortion.

I'm not sure why we are so concerned over old news. The case I posted above has nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with his right to free speech, and/or his right to keep the child. Jake, you have made a fine list of possibilities; all of them are almost impossible to prove. I think he's keeping it classy for all of the anti-choice Christians. If this sign is an indication of his personality, I might have lost the child and left too.

Maringue- I don't like either parties (Republican/ Democrat). In my opinion they look the same. I think examining the candidate(s) individually, instead of by their party, will be the most successful way of determining eligibility for Presidency. But, I'm sure glad I have a joint citizenship. I can and will move if I see things going south for the so called "free" country.

[Harri]

Not my business. But it's apart of the big 3 for Republicans. Need to get your base moving, guns god and gays. More important than jobs bills.
But if they dont' want governement money for abortion. I should be able to tell the gov't I don't want money going to war, nukes, or wallstreet.


Also girl with dragon tattoo poster. Totally NSFW
http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2011/06/08 ... oo_510.jpg

-If we stopped worrying about this country being "under [Christian] God" we will advance.


I'm so excited for that movie!

[Failhorse]

I'm not completely thrilled. Was it really necessary to make an American version? Though there is a special place in my heart for the "goth." lol.

[Maringue]

Maringue- I don't like either parties (Republican/ Democrat). In my opinion they look the same. I think examining the candidate(s) individually, instead of by their party, will be the most successful way of determining eligibility for Presidency. But, I'm sure glad I have a joint citizenship. I can and will move if I see things going south for the so called "free" country.

The Republican party does a really good job of putting forth a monolithic platform. There is almost never any decent amongst their ranks, so it makes it easy for me to discount any Republican because they all say the same thing and I very much disagree with everything they say.

Democrats do not have this. There are pro-life and pro-choice Democrats. There is a variety of opinion on various subjects. This is a positive because they represent a diverse population, but it bites them in the ass when they can't line up and form ranks against idiotic Republican proposals.

If a Republican gets elected president, they are going to cut taxes again, despite the fact that we've had 10 years of their fucking tax cuts and have not entered their promised economic utopia. To do this, they are going to slash pretty much every social safety net that has been created over the last 60 years and turn us into a god damned 3rd world country, maybe 2nd world if we are lucky.

[Failhorse]

Today is the 10th anniversary of the George Bush Speech. "Yesterday" the big tax cuts were passed, and in 10 years we will have payed off the national debt.

My question. We extended the tax cuts so the "job creators" would have some certainty. Where is this? do we really have to wait for the black guy to be out of office? Everything out of the house has been to appease the Repub base and Wall Street. Meanwhile. The 1 congressman that was going after our corrupt Supreme Court gets busted with his Wiener out. And the same people that gave David Vitter a standing ovation, (you know the guy that was calling for prostitutes on the floor of the house,) are asking for Wiener to resign. Hmm. Maybe the standing ovation was cause a Republican was having sex with a woman.

Edit.

Oh and...

[Konfy]

cant handle the wall of text...

[Maringue]

Clarence Thomas, the most corrupt Supreme Court judge ever. I love the fact that his wife is a fundraiser for all of these conservative issues and yet he doesn't recuse himself from the issues that his wife is directly involved in. Citizens United is a really good example. His wife did a shit ton of lobbying on that issue and he didn't recuse himself...

[Failhorse]

Is that what people in Germany really look like?
so much for the master race.


Right on Maringue

[Konfy]

I dont think that these people are german :> maybe polish/russian or something like that or even german idk

btw:
there is no master race

aber ihr seid trotzdem UNTERMENSCHEN!







jk....

[stanley]

i know this is kind of irrelevant, but whatever..

[Jake]

Boo. I really can't argue with either of you.

I agree. I hate that abortion is such a huge topic in this country. We, of the 21st century, did not invent abortions. They have been around for centuries (longer than that). I think it is a perfectly normal operation to seek out when the odds of raising a good child are down. I don't think the moral issues behind abortions (i.e late term abortions, abortions due to retardation, abortion for birth control etc,.) are political concerns. I believe that making abortion legal is absolutely necessary; it helps prevent the medical issues behind a botched illegal abortion.

I'm not sure why we are so concerned over old news. The case I posted above has nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with his right to free speech, and/or his right to keep the child. Jake, you have made a fine list of possibilities; all of them are almost impossible to prove. I think he's keeping it classy for all of the anti-choice Christians. If this sign is an indication of his personality, I might have lost the child and left too.

I made my case regarding abortion because it's much less obvious than the gentleman's rights to free speech. I think he's got every right to put up any signage he wants as long as it meets the cities criteria. As far as the burden of proof is concerned, if the legislation changed we would see changes in our pre-sex rituals. I can imagine dozens of phone apps that record audio of both parties consenting to baby-less sex, printed forms on notepads and email and chat logging being turned on. You must give someone the ability before they can begin to utilize it.

[Maringue]

Yeah, the sign is an easy legal question. He never mentions her name or even his name, so he's totally in the clear legally. That doesn't mean he isn't a douche. It's not like he was going to gestate the baby for 9 months so he doesn't get nearly as much of a say. That pretty much distills my ideals around abortion. The woman in question has to put her life at risk (being pregnant increases your chance of dying of all kinds of stuff, albeit a slight to moderate increase) so she gets to make the call whether she wants to gestate a fetus for 9 months and squeeze it out of her vagina at the end. The man in question can inform that decision, but his say pretty much ends there in my opinion.

Also, intent is not king. There are areas of the law where intent is important and many, many others where it means dick (ie strictly statutory). Example: In Russia, you can be acquitted of illegally having sex with a minor if you can convince a jury that the girl in question looked like she was 16 (the age of consent in Russia). In the US, it doesn't matter if the chick looked like she was 43, if she's underage you're fucked. That's why it's called statutory rape.

Baby making is one of those times where intent would count for absolutely nothing. Also, I hate all this bullshit calling for the legal rights of a fetus. A fetus or any of the prior stages after conception can never be given the legal rights of a person.

On a related note, it's amazing how much legal knowledge you pick up from living with law students.

[Jake]

While he doesn't have to "gestate the baby for 9 months" he does have to impregnate his girlfriend. No one person should be able to "make the call" when it took two people to create the situation.

You fail to see that it's arbitrary whether we decide to use intent or not. There are points of reason against both. It's just as good as is it bad.

Also when dealing with strict liability there are several statutes that are quite antiquated and deserve a refreshing, when citing one such as statutory rape to oppose a modern concept it's kind of like saying "But that's how we've always done it so it must be right". If we are assuming one area of law needs to be updated then from my perspective it's safe to say that there will be more.

Law is boring compared to philosophy. I act because I feel justified in my actions, not because I'm in the legal right.

edit:clarity

[Failhorse]

iroquois law. Only the women could vote. And any law passed had to consider what the 7th generation, that day, would have to deal with. Ben Franklin wrote a lot about this. I suggest you research. Put 400 men in 1 room and you only find war and stupidity. As a man I understand this. America is a nation in decline. Such as the Romans. Empire we grow. Empire we die. We can't even learn from the Romans on the simplicity of building large cities below sea level.

[Techercizer]

iroquois law. Only the women could vote. And any law passed had to consider what the 7th generation, that day, would have to deal with. Ben Franklin wrote a lot about this. I suggest you research. Put 400 men in 1 room and you only find war and stupidity. As a man I understand this. America is a nation in decline. Such as the Romans. Empire we grow. Empire we die. We can't even learn from the Romans on the simplicity of building large cities below sea level.

In my opinion, American politics are in the decline because they let their entire legal system fall to two main parties with nothing preventing collusion, and put their executive branch under the direct influence of one of those parties. It's not surprising what's happening at the moment, really. What you lot need is some Lelouche vi Britannia style hostile takeover and accompanying tyranny to get your citizens concerned about their government's policies again/

[Jake]

iroquois law. Only the women could vote. And any law passed had to consider what the 7th generation, that day, would have to deal with. Ben Franklin wrote a lot about this. I suggest you research. Put 400 men in 1 room and you only find war and stupidity. As a man I understand this. America is a nation in decline. Such as the Romans. Empire we grow. Empire we die. We can't even learn from the Romans on the simplicity of building large cities below sea level.

What I take from this isn't so much the foresight that comes with considering 7 generations of impact but the gender bias of war v. peace. For the sake of argument I'm going to call bullshit.

You take 3 people
* 1 man who's a fighter (chooses to engage)
* 1 man who runs (chooses not to choose)
* 1 woman who's a pacifist (chooses not to engage)
and confront each with a single aggressor and the only one with any chance of survival and therefor evolution is the man who fights.

The expansion and subsequent contraction of an empire mimics the oldest and most natural motion of the universe. There is no stasis-utopia.
We are in decline because that is the natural progression of things. Everyone sees failure as a negative instead of it just existing within the system. This is truly one of the problems America has, we promote thought which indicates us as far more important than we are; so when we fail we view it as a problem instead of seeing it as simply one of the things that happen.

[doppelganger]

How about you use birth control, get fixed, or don't have sex...? End of debate? If you're going to have sex with an individual more than once (and I know people get impregnated from one time), than the conversation of "what will we do if we get pregnant" should be a priority. I think it boils down less to rights and more to responsibility. On the same note, if the parents want to abort the child and they aren't allowed, what kind of a fucked up life is that kid going to have? Our adoption agencies are far from wonderful, adoption fucks with a kid anyway, and there's plenty of wanted children that have a shitty life because society sucks. 'nuff said.

[doppelganger]

iroquois law. Only the women could vote. And any law passed had to consider what the 7th generation, that day, would have to deal with. Ben Franklin wrote a lot about this. I suggest you research. Put 400 men in 1 room and you only find war and stupidity. As a man I understand this. America is a nation in decline. Such as the Romans. Empire we grow. Empire we die. We can't even learn from the Romans on the simplicity of building large cities below sea level.

What I take from this isn't so much the foresight that comes with considering 7 generations of impact but the gender bias of war v. peace. For the sake of argument I'm going to call bullshit.

You take 3 people
* 1 man who's a fighter (chooses to engage)
* 1 man who runs (chooses not to choose)
* 1 woman who's a pacifist (chooses not to engage)
and confront each with a single aggressor and the only one with any chance of survival and therefor evolution is the man who fights.

The expansion and subsequent contraction of an empire mimics the oldest and most natural motion of the universe. There is no stasis-utopia.
We are in decline because that is the natural progression of things. Everyone sees failure as a negative instead of it just existing within the system. This is truly one of the problems America has, we promote thought which indicates us as far more important than we are; so when we fail we view it as a problem instead of seeing it as simply one of the things that happen.

As far as our dying economy goes... economies work like this: company hires people and gives them money, people with money buy from company, demand is created, financial backing is there, company keeps working and so do the people. Decline in economy goes like this: Company makes less money than they did last year, but still makes a profit, calls it a loss and lays people off. Laid off people sit on their money because who knows when they'll get a job again, thus company makes less money, so company lays off more people who also spend less money. The only way to not be in an "economic" depression is to act like you're not in one.

The man who runs sometimes lives over the man who fights, because men are known to fight battles in which they cannot win... and if you're really fast, you may live to see another day. As far as evolution exists, man has thwarted his own evolution with the medical field. With no natural predator, a creature tends to grow and grow until it's ecosystem can no longer support it, then the overpopulated creature starves out to a much lower number, where it may sustain itself and grow again. High and lows are a part of balance... our highs and lows are just much larger than most animals. Just like the evolution of the planet... our planet is getting hotter. ¿Por Que? because if our planet did not increase in temperature than we would not exist or we'd be really adept at running over glaciers because we would still be in the Ice Age.

War vs Peace: If we were more concerned about fighting for what we believe in and not what you, him, her, or Bob believed in, than there would be a lot less war and much more peace. If we still had to fight hand to hand, face to face, than the sacrifice would be much more real and not taken for granted by those that push buttons. Meh... it's late and Im done again.

[Hatred]

yay to abortions because worst case scenario you make another and thats a win situation since you get laid again right ?

but seriously for a sec ... they are legal here and in canada life doesnt count as life until it takes its first breath of air .... so is not murder .... and it sounds to me like this guy knocked her up on perpose to try and make her stick around and it failed so he's mad ....

[TH3_SHAD0W_SAMUR4I]

Bewbs Bewbs Bewbs Bewbs

[Balubish]

Bewbs Bewbs Bewbs Bewbs

Why shadow, fucking why!?

[TH3_SHAD0W_SAMUR4I]

Bewbs Bewbs Bewbs Bewbs

Why shadow, fucking why!?

Cuz bewbs are great.

And I wanted to bring this old thread back to life.

[Poppet]

Not that he rezzed it. Was a stupid paid politics pandering bot thinking it was an article.

[TH3_SHAD0W_SAMUR4I]

Not that he rezzed it. Was a stupid paid politics pandering bot thinking it was an article.

LOL.

Where the hell do you find these awesome pics? You must have some kind of anime library or something. I cannot recall any pic not looking on point/cool.

[Ron Swansons Stache]

Best. Spambot. Ever.

[TH3_SHAD0W_SAMUR4I]

Best. Spambot. Ever.

I know I am