Life begins at ejaculation
Comment 0
Cool
vote cool
vote uncool
Terms of Service Violation
strike inappropriate
not inappropriate
Other
sunlight
get permlink
Cool
|
Tagged with : i was a teenaged mass murderer , love sock becomes death sock , supernatural fisting What are tags? |
Life begins at arousal!
fatsean: Life begins at arousal!
Life begins at the first TCP/IP packet retrieval of intarweb porns.
Life begins at the first TCP/IP packet retrieval of intarweb porns.
LIfe begins with that twinkle in his eye.
spongegirl circleskirt: Life begins as hair gel
What ever happened to the old philosophy/religious belief that souls only inhabit the body of a child at birth. Was this ever an actual religious belief of judeo-christianity or just something made up in that crappy Demi Moore movie (Seveth Seal, I think is the name of it)?
What ever happened to the old philosophy/religious belief that souls only inhabit the body of a child at birth. Was this ever an actual religious belief of judeo-christianity or just something made up in that crappy Demi Moore movie (Seveth Seal, I think is the name of it)?
Shouldn't that be "life comes at ejaculation"?
vic rattlehead: What ever happened to the old philosophy/religious belief that souls only inhabit the body of a child at birth. Was this ever an actual religious belief of judeo-christianity or just something made up in that crappy Demi Moore movie (Seveth Seal, I think is the name of it)?
I think it may be a Buddhist thing. Not sure.
I think it may be a Buddhist thing. Not sure.
If you two don't get married and start cranking out new life, the government will fucking kill you!
spongegirl circleskirt: I think it may be a Buddhist thing. Not sure.
I think the jews in the old testament didnt even name children until they were a year old.
I think the jews in the old testament didnt even name children until they were a year old.
spongegirl circleskirt: I think it may be a Buddhist thing. Not sure.
It was implied in some of my Mormon sunday school lessons, but I'm sure they've gone full retard and say it begins as soon the uglies start bumping through the magic underwear.
It was implied in some of my Mormon sunday school lessons, but I'm sure they've gone full retard and say it begins as soon the uglies start bumping through the magic underwear.
I wonder how many bN "children" have died in the sock. Murderers
impasse: Life begins at the first TCP/IP packet retrieval of intarweb porns.
Forgive me for I have synned
Forgive me for I have synned
vic rattlehead: What ever happened to the old philosophy/religious belief that souls only inhabit the body of a child at birth. Was this ever an actual religious belief of judeo-christianity or just something made up in that crappy Demi Moore movie (Seveth Seal, I think is the name of it)?
they interpret biblical verses differently, just like they do about everything. For the Catholics, it was general doctrine per Thomas Aquinas that the soul entered a male fetus at 40 days and female's at 80. That was considered doctrine (which is weird when you think about it since they wouldn't be able to tell what it was until they pulled it out at which point it's too late anyway) until 1869, when the pope stated that life began at conception.
A more generally accepted and practical application was that the soul entered the body during "the quickening", at which point the fetus beheads the mother and absorbs her soul and all of her powers....wait, sorry, it's when the mother can first feel the baby moving, so between the 4th-5th month in.
And then you have Dante, who stated that fetuses were first animate but neither animal nor vegetable, then they become sort of a half-animal/half-vegetable hybrid, then they are animal but not human, and then finally they are human. Dante smoked a lot of weed.
they interpret biblical verses differently, just like they do about everything. For the Catholics, it was general doctrine per Thomas Aquinas that the soul entered a male fetus at 40 days and female's at 80. That was considered doctrine (which is weird when you think about it since they wouldn't be able to tell what it was until they pulled it out at which point it's too late anyway) until 1869, when the pope stated that life began at conception.
A more generally accepted and practical application was that the soul entered the body during "the quickening", at which point the fetus beheads the mother and absorbs her soul and all of her powers....wait, sorry, it's when the mother can first feel the baby moving, so between the 4th-5th month in.
And then you have Dante, who stated that fetuses were first animate but neither animal nor vegetable, then they become sort of a half-animal/half-vegetable hybrid, then they are animal but not human, and then finally they are human. Dante smoked a lot of weed.
gradivus: I think the jews in the old testament didnt even name children until they were a year old.
Well, I am pretty sure the Bible shows God has no problem with baby-killing as long as its non-jewish babies in the OT.
Well, I am pretty sure the Bible shows God has no problem with baby-killing as long as its non-jewish babies in the OT.
Just what we need, a bunch of CSI agents with their bottle of spray and black lights.
When life begins is not the issue, my friends.
The real issue is God reaching into a woman's vagina at fertilization--essentially supernaturally fisting her-- and putting a tiny soul in there.
God needs to be held accountable for the innumerable sex crimes he has committed.
If you elect me, I will make it my mission to bring God to justice.
The real issue is God reaching into a woman's vagina at fertilization--essentially supernaturally fisting her-- and putting a tiny soul in there.
God needs to be held accountable for the innumerable sex crimes he has committed.
If you elect me, I will make it my mission to bring God to justice.
gradivus: I think the jews in the old testament didnt even name children until they were a year old.
That was actually pretty common up to the 19th century.
That was actually pretty common up to the 19th century.
sloth: That was actually pretty common up to the 19th century.
Given the infant mortality rates of the times it makes a sad kind of sense.
Given the infant mortality rates of the times it makes a sad kind of sense.
This topic piqued my interest again on the many different opinions on the topic.
This page has a pretty interesting take on things.
This page has a pretty interesting take on things.
I'm creating life right now!
zombiestomper: This topic piqued my interest again on the many different opinions on the topic.
This page has a pretty interesting take on things.
I dunno, one of my kids is six and she still can't dance.
This page has a pretty interesting take on things.
I dunno, one of my kids is six and she still can't dance.
And here I've been told my whole life that life began at 40! Fuck, I was looking forward to that, only to find out I'm already 35 years late...
Whatever your feelings about abortion, I think the issue should be decided on rational, rather than religious or more generically moral terms.
First, does abortion increase or decrease the productivity of society as a whole?
If so, are there overriding societal harms caused by legal abortion?
How many abortions will be stopped by outlawing abortion?
Of those children who are "saved" by outlawing abortion, what is the net benefit/cost to society?
One other facet to consider is that we allow fully realized lives to be legally terminated in several situations: execution of criminals found guilty (even if innocent) of certain crimes; and persistent and unlikely to improve loss of certain (but not all) brain function. Would it be okay to abort a child if you could convince 12 people that child was likely to be a burden on society. Could you say its okay to abort up to the point of a certain level of brain consciousness?
First, does abortion increase or decrease the productivity of society as a whole?
If so, are there overriding societal harms caused by legal abortion?
How many abortions will be stopped by outlawing abortion?
Of those children who are "saved" by outlawing abortion, what is the net benefit/cost to society?
One other facet to consider is that we allow fully realized lives to be legally terminated in several situations: execution of criminals found guilty (even if innocent) of certain crimes; and persistent and unlikely to improve loss of certain (but not all) brain function. Would it be okay to abort a child if you could convince 12 people that child was likely to be a burden on society. Could you say its okay to abort up to the point of a certain level of brain consciousness?
vic rattlehead: Whatever your feelings about abortion, I think the issue should be decided on rational, rather than religious or more generically moral terms.
Rational discourse of a hot button issue?
DON'T YOU BLASPHEME IN HERE! DON'T YOU BLASPHEME!
Rational discourse of a hot button issue?
DON'T YOU BLASPHEME IN HERE! DON'T YOU BLASPHEME!
vic rattlehead: Whatever your feelings about abortion, I think the issue should be decided on rational, rather than religious or more generically moral terms.
First, does abortion increase or decrease the productivity of society as a whole?
If so, are there overriding societal harms caused by legal abortion?
How many abortions will be stopped by outlawing abortion?
Of those children who are "saved" by outlawing abortion, what is the net benefit/cost to society?
One other facet to consider is that we allow fully realized lives to be legally terminated in several situations: execution of criminals found guilty (even if innocent) of certain crimes; and persistent and unlikely to improve loss of certain (but not all) brain function. Would it be okay to abort a child if you could convince 12 people that child was likely to be a burden on society. Could you say its okay to abort up to the point of a certain level of brain consciousness?
The problem there is that you then have the slippery road of just offing someone because they decrease the productivity of society.
If a fetus is a "someone" then offing it is not okay, regardless of their "productivity"... if you care about "someone"s.
I'm not sure whether I do or not, honestly.
First, does abortion increase or decrease the productivity of society as a whole?
If so, are there overriding societal harms caused by legal abortion?
How many abortions will be stopped by outlawing abortion?
Of those children who are "saved" by outlawing abortion, what is the net benefit/cost to society?
One other facet to consider is that we allow fully realized lives to be legally terminated in several situations: execution of criminals found guilty (even if innocent) of certain crimes; and persistent and unlikely to improve loss of certain (but not all) brain function. Would it be okay to abort a child if you could convince 12 people that child was likely to be a burden on society. Could you say its okay to abort up to the point of a certain level of brain consciousness?
The problem there is that you then have the slippery road of just offing someone because they decrease the productivity of society.
If a fetus is a "someone" then offing it is not okay, regardless of their "productivity"... if you care about "someone"s.
I'm not sure whether I do or not, honestly.
so vote republican: The problem there is that you then have the slippery road of just offing someone because they decrease the productivity of society.
If a fetus is a "someone" then offing it is not okay, regardless of their "productivity"... if you care about "someone"s.
I'm not sure whether I do or not, honestly.
That was a great episode.
If a fetus is a "someone" then offing it is not okay, regardless of their "productivity"... if you care about "someone"s.
I'm not sure whether I do or not, honestly.
That was a great episode.
this makes me think of a story about Elvis and a time when he was fooling around with some girl.
He got too excited and had that problem that some men have, and when he did, he looked down and said to her "Oh, look at all them little babies we killed."
He got too excited and had that problem that some men have, and when he did, he looked down and said to her "Oh, look at all them little babies we killed."
vic rattlehead: Whatever your feelings about abortion, I think the issue should be decided on rational, rather than religious or more generically moral terms.
First, does abortion increase or decrease the productivity of society as a whole?
If so, are there overriding societal harms caused by legal abortion?
How many abortions will be stopped by outlawing abortion?
Of those children who are "saved" by outlawing abortion, what is the net benefit/cost to society?
One other facet to consider is that we allow fully realized lives to be legally terminated in several situations: execution of criminals found guilty (even if innocent) of certain crimes; and persistent and unlikely to improve loss of certain (but not all) brain function. Would it be okay to abort a child if you could convince 12 people that child was likely to be a burden on society. Could you say its okay to abort up to the point of a certain level of brain consciousness?
Society? How about a woman's own reproductive rights?
First, does abortion increase or decrease the productivity of society as a whole?
If so, are there overriding societal harms caused by legal abortion?
How many abortions will be stopped by outlawing abortion?
Of those children who are "saved" by outlawing abortion, what is the net benefit/cost to society?
One other facet to consider is that we allow fully realized lives to be legally terminated in several situations: execution of criminals found guilty (even if innocent) of certain crimes; and persistent and unlikely to improve loss of certain (but not all) brain function. Would it be okay to abort a child if you could convince 12 people that child was likely to be a burden on society. Could you say its okay to abort up to the point of a certain level of brain consciousness?
Society? How about a woman's own reproductive rights?
ohhh babay, imma gonna conceive all over your face
zombiestomper: Rational discourse of a hot button issue?
DON'T YOU BLASPHEME IN HERE! DON'T YOU BLASPHEME!
You misunderstand me my good fellow. I am not advocating rational discourse. Rather, I am trolling both sides of the debate, saying they should really be able to come to a solution.
My take is that no religion should have the right to make its tenets into a law affecting others. If you're religion is so weak that it cannot convince its own followers to follow its rules, and convince others to join, then it should take responsibility, not coerce people with the authority of man. By the same token, women should have the right to decide what happens in their bodies, but they made that choice when they had sex. Pretty much all women know the possible consequences and should be responsible for them. Abortion should be legal, but should require the consent of the father. If he refuses, he should be responsible for the full costs of the pregnancy and delivery. At delivery, mom should have the right to decide if she is in or out of the childs life. If she is out, she has no further rights or responsibilities to the child, but from the point of refusing consent to the abortion, Dad should become criminally liable if he fails to perform his responsibilities to pay for pregnancy and take full responsibility for the child.
DON'T YOU BLASPHEME IN HERE! DON'T YOU BLASPHEME!
You misunderstand me my good fellow. I am not advocating rational discourse. Rather, I am trolling both sides of the debate, saying they should really be able to come to a solution.
My take is that no religion should have the right to make its tenets into a law affecting others. If you're religion is so weak that it cannot convince its own followers to follow its rules, and convince others to join, then it should take responsibility, not coerce people with the authority of man. By the same token, women should have the right to decide what happens in their bodies, but they made that choice when they had sex. Pretty much all women know the possible consequences and should be responsible for them. Abortion should be legal, but should require the consent of the father. If he refuses, he should be responsible for the full costs of the pregnancy and delivery. At delivery, mom should have the right to decide if she is in or out of the childs life. If she is out, she has no further rights or responsibilities to the child, but from the point of refusing consent to the abortion, Dad should become criminally liable if he fails to perform his responsibilities to pay for pregnancy and take full responsibility for the child.
quinblake: Society? How about a woman's own reproductive rights?
And that's why I think it's so important to define when a fetus becomes a person. I'd love to see a Constitutional amendment on that point, rather than our rather hodgepodge attitude we have now.
We have a lot of rights given to people, but we don't have a clear definition of when being a person begins... or ends.
And that's why I think it's so important to define when a fetus becomes a person. I'd love to see a Constitutional amendment on that point, rather than our rather hodgepodge attitude we have now.
We have a lot of rights given to people, but we don't have a clear definition of when being a person begins... or ends.
quinblake: Society? How about a woman's own reproductive rights?
See my answer above. I agree women get a raw deal on the baby bearing part of reproduction, but having all the vagina kind of balances that out. With great power comes great responsibility.
See my answer above. I agree women get a raw deal on the baby bearing part of reproduction, but having all the vagina kind of balances that out. With great power comes great responsibility.
so vote republican: And that's why I think it's so important to define when a fetus becomes a person. I'd love to see a Constitutional amendment on that point, rather than our rather hodgepodge attitude we have now.
We have a lot of rights given to people, but we don't have a clear definition of when being a person begins... or ends.
So it boils down to this: What makes a person's life so special that it is worthy of protection?
Science is discovering that our brains are not really that different from many other animals, just bigger. We're better at using tools to change our environment and stop other animals from challenging our territory. But are we really so different that our lives are so much more valuable. Of course they are to us, but I am sure a Tiger would think, my cubs life is more valuable than that human's life. What makes us so special.
We have a lot of rights given to people, but we don't have a clear definition of when being a person begins... or ends.
So it boils down to this: What makes a person's life so special that it is worthy of protection?
Science is discovering that our brains are not really that different from many other animals, just bigger. We're better at using tools to change our environment and stop other animals from challenging our territory. But are we really so different that our lives are so much more valuable. Of course they are to us, but I am sure a Tiger would think, my cubs life is more valuable than that human's life. What makes us so special.
vic rattlehead: See my answer above. I agree women get a raw deal on the baby bearing part of reproduction, but having all the vagina kind of balances that out. With great power comes great responsibility.
Meh, not all women who become pregnant agreed to have sex. Not all cultures view the human with the vagina as being advantaged, see China, India.
Meh, not all women who become pregnant agreed to have sex. Not all cultures view the human with the vagina as being advantaged, see China, India.
vic rattlehead: So it boils down to this: What makes a person's life so special that it is worthy of protection?
Science is discovering that our brains are not really that different from many other animals, just bigger. We're better at using tools to change our environment and stop other animals from challenging our territory. But are we really so different that our lives are so much more valuable. Of course they are to us, but I am sure a Tiger would think, my cubs life is more valuable than that human's life. What makes us so special.
Science is discovering that our brains are not really that different from many other animals, just bigger. We're better at using tools to change our environment and stop other animals from challenging our territory. But are we really so different that our lives are so much more valuable. Of course they are to us, but I am sure a Tiger would think, my cubs life is more valuable than that human's life. What makes us so special.
quinblake: Meh, not all women who become pregnant agreed to have sex. Not all cultures view the human with the vagina as being advantaged, see China, India.
True. I would use a different analysis for forced sex pregnancies.
Other cultures are not engaged in the U.S. society's debate on abortion. They are having their own separate debate.
I will simply say this, I believe a woman has the absolute right to control her body, and should be allowed to enforce that right against everyone else and any government, except to the extent that she has consensual unprotected sex (being drunk not being a defense to consent), in which case the man should have the right to have a say so long as he steps up and fulfills the responsibility created by his exercise of his rights. And that means that when science can create an implantable uterus, he should have to carry the baby if its his sole wish to not abort.
True. I would use a different analysis for forced sex pregnancies.
Other cultures are not engaged in the U.S. society's debate on abortion. They are having their own separate debate.
I will simply say this, I believe a woman has the absolute right to control her body, and should be allowed to enforce that right against everyone else and any government, except to the extent that she has consensual unprotected sex (being drunk not being a defense to consent), in which case the man should have the right to have a say so long as he steps up and fulfills the responsibility created by his exercise of his rights. And that means that when science can create an implantable uterus, he should have to carry the baby if its his sole wish to not abort.
so vote republican: Pants.
I always thought pants were generally a sign of our weakness, and I am willing to bet are closely related to the failure of God to give us all the same size penis.
I always thought pants were generally a sign of our weakness, and I am willing to bet are closely related to the failure of God to give us all the same size penis.
I was a teenaged mass murderer.
nerd by proxy: Love sock becomes death sock
I'm sure you've inspired more than a few wholesale slaughters. :)
I'm sure you've inspired more than a few wholesale slaughters. :)
If you logged in, you could post here.