Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWhich Party promoted the KKK? THE DEMOCRATS!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 6789>
Author
Gatyr View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Strike 1 - Begging for strikes

Joined: 06 July 2003
Location: Austin, Tx
Status: Offline
Points: 10299
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 September 2010 at 8:13pm
Of course it is. It's the genetically superior acorn that enters beauty pageants and models for magazines. 
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 8:38am
I read an interesting article today that touches on some of the discussion listed in the previous page.
 
 
"Stop being nice to the Left; after all, they’re never nice to you. Stop caring what they think. Stop trying to get along. You’re not going to get along. In fact, the only way you can get along is for you to abandon your bedrock principles and become a kind of Lefty Lite. Remember this simple mantra: Principles, Not Programs.

Most important, remember that the Left is a Potemkin village of hatred. Punch them and they run away; kick over the facades and there’s nothing there except empty, destructive rage masked as “compassion.” It’s long past time to stop being afraid of them and what they say about you. But do mock them; as Luther said, the devil cannot stand to be mocked."
 
 
 
 
So, when faced with the absurdity of  questions like this...
 
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:


So if we are going to apply the same rights and level of legality to a fetus that we do an existing human, you'd support charging a pregnant woman who had a miscarriage with involuntary manslaughter, yes? 
 
 
Which are so ridiculous that I burst out laughing... I must say, wow, that is one brilliant example of the absurdity of your position.
 
 
Well done, we have now entered into the realm of idiocy with examples like that.
 
But, I think I can top it. Let's see...
 
Wait, I've got it. So, your strawman is that if a woman loses her baby to miscarrage (a friend of mine just lost her twins this way, so this pains me to write, as our families are still grieving... But, I realize compassion is just a false mask for some liberals, anything to make a point, no matter how callused) she should be charged with a crime.
 
That uses the same logic as the teachers of a student who commits suicide should be charged with their murder, since they were the person instructing them and clearly are responsible for the outcome... Especially if they are promoting secular humanism! Survival of the fittest and all...
 
AMIRITE!!!
 
 
 
lolololololololol
 
 
 
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 8:59am
What we a dealing with here is a complete reversal of the 'moral compass' based on a generational change in education. Up until the total take over of the education system by the left, these issues were not debated. By now the agendas are taught as the norm, the tennants of the Bible the foundation of civilized law in the west are to be ignored or demonized in the persuit of the individual rather than society. A simple 'beating heart' medical arguement on the definition of life is countered by a legal arguement that fits the required agenda.
The goal line from fetus to infant has become so blurred that many doctors refuse to perform abortions.

Why is it so hard to see that 'supporting' one form of stopping a beating heart is 'approved' by a party, and another is condemned, and the numbers of 'approved' stopped hearts far out number the the other.
Where exactly is the 'moral compass'. If the country can not support and approve of the stopping of a heart by execution, how can it approve of stopping a heart by abortion and maintain a moral direction.
Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 11:08am
Wow.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 11:20am
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Why is it so hard to see that 'supporting' one form of stopping a beating heart is 'approved' by a party, and another is condemned, and the numbers of 'approved' stopped hearts far out number the the other.
Where exactly is the 'moral compass'. If the country can not support and approve of the stopping of a heart by execution, how can it approve of stopping a heart by abortion and maintain a moral direction.


This argument applies to both sides.  I do think that it is a very good point though.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 11:24am
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Up until the total take over of the education system by the left,

Citation needed. 

Quote By now the agendas are taught as the norm,

Citation needed. 

Quote the tennants of the Bible

Are taught in philosophy and social studies classes. 

Quote the foundation of civilized law in the west

Citation needed. 

 
Quote  Why is it so hard to see that 'supporting' one form of stopping a beating heart is 'approved' by a party, and another is condemned,
 

Still an argued inverse. 


"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 11:25am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

lolololololololol

So you don't have an answer? 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
Tolgak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Master of MSPaint and bri's Daddy

Joined: 12 July 2002
Location: BEHIND YOU!
Status: Offline
Points: 1239481
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 11:56am
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

What we a dealing with here is a complete reversal of the 'moral compass' based on a generational change in education. Up until the total take over of the education system by the left, these issues were not debated. By now the agendas are taught as the norm, the tennants of the Bible the foundation of civilized law in the west are to be ignored or demonized in the persuit of the individual rather than society.

The changes happened because you were once taught things that were not debated. Being taught that our morals and whatnot come from the Bible is great and all until you study history, which shows that there were moral codes and laws that long precede your book.

Also, you're speaking against the trend towards individualism? Don't you call the opposite communism? Every argument I've heard against the proclaimed "liberal agenda" by the right is - give me MY country back, I don't want MY kids exposed to A/B/C, MY taxes shouldn't be higher. Focusing on society means you cater to everybody in society. A focus on society over individual means you consider all those out there not like you. The Bible, and your beliefs, are anything but that.

Quote A simple 'beating heart' medical arguement on the definition of life is countered by a legal argument that fits the required agenda.

Beating heart is never a medical requirement to determine if something is living. We don't stop when someone has a severe heart attack. It's the function of the brain that determines if a person has died. If it can still manage the core systems of the body, the organism is said to still be alive.

But you're talking about the start of life, of course. No, there's really no way to define the start as it pertains to the human reproductive cycle. If anything, it's the continuation of life. So the debate comes from not when life starts (unlike what everybody seems to think), it's the point at which the fertilized egg gets the right to be born.

The debate is more complicated than what most people make it out to be. By definition of what a living organism is, all of our cells are alive.

The following terms are the exact same found in every Biology textbook I've ever read.

Originally posted by Wikipedia Wikipedia wrote:

  1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
  2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
  3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
  4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
  5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
  6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
  7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.


All living things have everything on that list. I can't really think of any exceptions. The fundamental to all of that is homeostasis. Without it, there wouldn't be any life. An organism can be born sterile, with defects in any other of those systems and still may be able to live in the environment it has evolved to. Without homeostasis, you die.

Homeostasis is something a fetus just cannot do. It takes until about 8 months for that to happen, considering, as we know that premature births must often be incubated.


I don't really have an opinion in the matter about a defined line. I'm against 3rd trimester abortions in all cases except danger to the mother, severe defects in the baby, or rape (in the case that the mother did not have access to abortion for that entire period (like having been a hostage that entire time)).

If the decision is just "I don't want it." I don't think it's reasonable to say that beyond a month after known conception.



Quote The goal line from fetus to infant has become so blurred that many doctors refuse to perform abortions.

Good, we don't want abortions. But you have to understand exactly what you said. It's not black and white.

Quote Why is it so hard to see that 'supporting' one form of stopping a beating heart is 'approved' by a party, and another is condemned, and the numbers of 'approved' stopped hearts far out number the the other.
Where exactly is the 'moral compass'. If the country can not support and approve of the stopping of a heart by execution, how can it approve of stopping a heart by abortion and maintain a moral direction.

Why is it so hard to see that the exact opposite set of beliefs don't jive with your moral compass argument? If life is sacred, if you want to follow the Bible and the line (thou shalt not kill), what makes it alright with your moral compass to kill killers? Is it because you're not the one doing it, and that line only applies to the individual? Is it because you like to make exceptions because the guys on death row are all evil? Do you want to expedite their trip to the hell you believe in? (That's pretty evil too). It costs more to execute someone than it does to incarcerate for life. It's not the most financially responsible thing to do. And, of course, what if the guy is innocent?

If we want to talk about fetuses this way. Innocent? Yes, we're ending a life it would never experience. It wouldn't know better because in the first 6 months, it doesn't really have the capability of knowing. Severe developmental issues? That's a life of torture for many. It would never have to experience the pain.


To add to this argument - what about euthanasia? If it's OK to kill a criminal, why not allow the death of somebody who is terminally ill and wants to end it all? Why force the patient to live out a torturous end?
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 12:21pm
Whale on your citations you more than understand that on the internet we both can find whatever 'citiations' we need to back any point we care to mention. If I post a citation that you do not agree with, you will post a counter, and then we are where. I base the assumption or opinion of my schooling in the 50's and 60's to today's and the real differences in style and content.
We recited the 'Pledge of Alligence' today not done, we had a moment of prayer, today not done, we had the 10 commandments on the wall, today illegal, we had respect for the teachers, today kids in general only obey and listen when they are not texting, talking or whatever and still expect thier 'A'. Teachers in my day were expected to know the subject they are teaching, today teachers and unions FEAR any skills testing of teachers. You screwed up the principal and in our case the 'whistle' paddle were feared, and the parents actually backed the school, today it is never my little Johnny's fault (see recent 12 year old shot terrorizing an elderly lady story).

Whale, I put my kids through catholic school but on my dime just as Obama puts his kids in private school and for the exact same reasons.

Public schools are a disaster, I had a chance to substitute at the local K-12 public school and you can confirm through RblCpl right here on the forum why it was not a good idea. And they call once a week to still see if I am interested, why put myself in a set of crosshairs at a school rated damn near last in the state.

Oh and now that man made 'Global Warming, Climate Change' whatever is being taught as a scientific 'fact' without a pure agreement from the scientific community, but is seen as a political football is that not teaching an agenda rather than 100% proven fact?
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 12:34pm
I always found it interesting that those most vehemently opposed to sex education in schools seem to be the ones most vehemently opposed to abortion rights. Perhaps if we taught little Johnny and Suzie how to play doctor without getting pregnant instead of towing the unrealistic abstinence/purity horsecrap line, abortions would be far less common than what they are.
 
I also find it ironic that FE is pissing and moaning about 49 million less potential welfare recipients. Can you imagine how much higher our taxes would be with an influx of 49million unwanted children that would in all probability turn into leaches on the system? From hospital bills that would have to be absorbed, to foster care, medicare costs, to public assistance later on in life?  And than the potential 100 million more that they would have produced? Think about it.
 
So logically speaking, if liberals and democrats are in favor of abortions, they are actually in favor of lower taxes. Thus Democrats are really just trying to keep our taxes lower.
 
 


Edited by oldpbnoob - 30 September 2010 at 12:40pm
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 12:46pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:


I also find it ironic that FE is pissing and moaning about 49 million less potential welfare recipients. Can you imagine how much higher our taxes would be with an influx of 49million unwanted children that would in all probability turn into leaches on the system? From hospital bills that would have to be absorbed, to foster care, medicare costs, to public assistance later on in life?  And than the potential 100 million more that they would have produced? Think about it.


Oh wow.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 12:49pm
Originally posted by Tolgak Tolgak wrote:

Being taught that our morals and whatnot come from the Bible is great and all until you study history, which shows that there were moral codes and laws that long precede your book.

 
 
Your studies of history must have been different from mine.
 
A friend of mine Ed Yamauchi who lives down the road from me, is one of the most gifted scholars concerning ancient texts, and he would disagree with your assessment.
 
 
 
 
We are still finding ancient scripture, and based on the region we will continue to do so.

This one is from 7 BC found in 1979.
 
 
 
Ed was one of the people that did work on this find (as well as many others), and he has shown me images and how similar it is to today's text, which blows holes in the whole arguement that the Bible has changed drastically over the centuries.
 
 
 
 
 
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 1:03pm
Originally posted by FE FE wrote:


Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:



So if we are going to apply the same rights and level of legality to a fetus that we do an existing human, you'd support charging a pregnant woman who had a miscarriage with involuntary manslaughter, yes? 


 

 

Which are so ridiculous that I burst out laughing... I must say, wow, that is one brilliant example of the absurdity of your position.

 

 

Well done, we have now entered into the realm of idiocy with examples like that.

 

But, I think I can top it. Let's see...

 

Wait, I've got it. So, your strawman is that if a woman loses her baby to miscarrage (a friend of mine just lost her twins this way, so this pains me to write, as our families are still grieving... But, I realize compassion is just a false mask for some liberals, anything to make a point, no matter how callused) she should be charged with a crime.

 

That uses the same logic as the teachers of a student who commits suicide should be charged with their murder, since they were the person instructing them and clearly are responsible for the outcome... Especially if they are promoting secular humanism! Survival of the fittest and all...

 

AMIRITE!!!

 

 

 

lolololololololol

 

 

 
you do realize your example didn't even come close to being on even terms with whale's right? His could be reached logically using you own thought process. You however are just pulling things out of your ass.

Also, for someone who whines about personal attacks and pretends he's seven years old when someone calls him out, by running off and tattling, you sure like to make brash, often completely unfounded, and generally just plain moronic generalizations. No, obviously the left is all composed of cold hearted sociopaths who don't care about others, so long as we can be right in the argument!
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 1:06pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Originally posted by Tolgak Tolgak wrote:

Being taught that our morals and whatnot come from the Bible is great and all until you study history, which shows that there were moral codes and laws that long precede your book.


 

 

Your studies of history must have been different from mine.

 

A friend of mine Ed Yamauchi who lives down the road from me, is one of the most gifted scholars concerning ancient texts, and he would disagree with your assessment.

 


 

 

 

We are still finding ancient scripture, and based on the region we will continue to do so.

This one is from 7 BC found in 1979.

 


 

 

Ed was one of the people that did work on this find (as well as many others), and he has shown me images and how similar it is to today's text, which blows holes in the whole arguement that the Bible has changed drastically over the centuries.

 

 

 

 

 
did you even read tolgaks post? Because your reply had nothing to do with what he said.
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 1:08pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Whale on your citations you more than understand that on the internet we both can find whatever 'citiations' we need to back any point we care to mention.

I was hoping you had some numbers or statistics?


Quote We recited the 'Pledge of Alligence' today not done,

I've not heard of this being not done. Link

Granted, we did it in my highschool, but I respectfully remained silent during it. 

Quote we had a moment of prayer, today not done, we had the 10 commandments on the wall, today illegal,

And you feel this has what effect? 

Quote we had respect for the teachers,

So nobody passed notes, talked or any other such distraction in school? You were all perfect little angels? 

Quote today kids in general only obey and listen when they are not texting, talking or whatever

Where are phones allowed again? 

Quote and still expect thier 'A'.

Yes, grade inflation is a problem. 

Quote Teachers in my day were expected to know the subject they are teaching

I would venture a guess that the education level of teachers is much higher now than in previous decades. 

Quote today teachers and unions FEAR any skills testing of teachers.

Citation needed. 

Quote Whale, I put my kids through catholic school but on my dime just as Obama puts his kids in private school and for the exact same reasons.

So Obama, the great liberal villain, put his kids in private school because it was too liberal? 

Quote without a pure agreement from the scientific community,

What has a pure agreement within the science community? 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 1:10pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:


I also find it ironic that FE is pissing and moaning about 49 million less potential welfare recipients. Can you imagine how much higher our taxes would be with an influx of 49million unwanted children that would in all probability turn into leaches on the system? From hospital bills that would have to be absorbed, to foster care, medicare costs, to public assistance later on in life?  And than the potential 100 million more that they would have produced? Think about it.


Oh wow.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 1:13pm
I am so glad I am near the end of my run on this little ride. I do fear for my grandchildren with the idiots from both sides many want to place in charge of thier future.
Having survived the turmoil of the 60's, seen the 70's pass, the 80's and onward, I wonder what my father's generation would have thought if they were here to see what we have done to what they saved in the 40's.

Watching the battle of generations here, I wonder sometimes what the defenders of youth will do when they are the targets of thier childrens wrath on how they screwed thier futures for petty political agendas and goals.

I never planned on getting old, and sometimes regret surviving what I have been through. But each day as I watch what happens in Washington, in my local papers editorial page, the TV news, and even here on the forum, I do fear for the world you all are going to leave for my grandchildren. I look back at my youth, the prosperity we squandered, the political infighting, the clash of ideas, and the battle over 'hearts and minds' where truth is only in the eyes of the beholder, elections are the lessor of two evils not a right and wrong, and today many that are willing to sacrifice generations to come for a political instant gratifacation and vote talley.

Whale one day you will have to answer to your children and thier when they ask why...as well as many others here, choose your words wisely, for they are already armed with the truth of the moment.
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 1:21pm

Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

But each day as I watch what happens in Washington, in my local papers editorial page, the TV news, and even here on the forum, I do fear for the world you all are going to leave for my grandchildren.

Then the media has succeeded in its true hidden agenda-selling you paranoia wrapped and labeled as news.
 
You know how the media keeps the attention of the American people? The scare the hell out of them. Suddenly, you're tuning in to to be continued...news stories. It's not rare to hear STAY TUNED TO <insert station name> FOR ALL THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS on a story that doesn't affect you or the rest of the world in any way.
 
Likewise, politicians make their living selling you grim futures in return for political capital. Really, political change happens in the same way the earth's temperature changes-slow, barely noticeable increments.
 
I don't fear for my generation, or my children's generation. Or their children's generation. I trust the American system far more than that.
 
I like to keep my outrage to a more localized level. Like, how to deal with the Social Security / Medicare crisis. One crisis at a time.
 
But Glenn Beck, and his liberal counter parts, would have you believe that indeed the sky is beginning to lower over your very head. In fact, I'll bet if you look outside right now, the clouds are edging closer than they've ever been...I mean gravity, right? It only makes sense that what is up will eventually be down, and the sky most certainly is up.
 
And what are liberals doing to stop the sky from falling? Not a thing.
 
Not a god damn thing.
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 1:23pm
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:


I also find it ironic that FE is pissing and moaning about 49 million less potential welfare recipients. Can you imagine how much higher our taxes would be with an influx of 49million unwanted children that would in all probability turn into leaches on the system? From hospital bills that would have to be absorbed, to foster care, medicare costs, to public assistance later on in life?  And than the potential 100 million more that they would have produced? Think about it.


Oh wow.
Wink
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
Tolgak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Master of MSPaint and bri's Daddy

Joined: 12 July 2002
Location: BEHIND YOU!
Status: Offline
Points: 1239481
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2010 at 1:26pm
The old testament goes back to maybe 500 BC. And written laws go back a few thousand beyond that. And you'd be ignorant to think that people before writing didn't have morals and rules.

If you look at the progression of morality in the Western world, we only stopped considering religion alone in our laws in the past 100 years. We don't burn witches, we no longer have any influence from Leviticus outside of sex, or the 10 commandments except for killing, stealing, and lying (not 100% illegal). And all those have been punishable long before the only history you wish to acknowledge.

Killing, stealing, and lying - the only actual commandments in our laws - are crimes in pretty much all societies when the actions are unprovoked. East Asian countries haven't practically been touched by the Abrahamic religions and they still have such codes dating back thousands of years.


Edited by Tolgak - 30 September 2010 at 1:27pm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 6789>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.