So maybe I am. So what?
My cousin a while ago said, "Don't You want to be cool?" and my answer was, Yes, but not if I have to stop being a nerd. I like it this way. Lemme tell you, Social Retard (SR), I LIKE BEING A NERD! I told Annie this, now I tell You the same thing! OMG! What is so hard to understand about that? I wouldn't mind being cool, but not if I have to change how I am! Its the classic, don't change me, debate. It may not be the best, or most fun now, BUT I will almost definitely be better of than Bogurt, unless he is in the NFL, which won't happen. Ever listen t the radio, or watch TV? Notice all the "Raise your Salary", or "Go to college" commercials? That is for former Jocks! They Used to be cool, but now they are a factory worker. Right now, my grades are not the best, but I am working on brining them up, because 8th grade won't affect my job.
post on the ABORTION POST if you want to be killed about that. Retard.
I took a "Social Retard Test" and got like, a 20%. And Was proud. I don't care If I don't have a girlfriend! Its OK. Anyway, friendships dissolve after High School, especially if you go out of town for College(which I plan to do). I don't love IH, its waaaay to conservative for my tastes. Sorry. Also, cities are cooler than a suburb. I really want to go to California, because that state is AWESOME (not because I am gay. Gay marriage is not legal except in Mass. Even Unions are banned in California.)
So I do have an Ego, but it could be worse! I realize that I make mistakes, and I realize that I have an Ego. It could be worse.
Whatever
P.S. If I know SR, they will suffer.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Health
We probably need to drop this soon, but Im going with it because its FUN!
Thats STILL good enough to bet on AND prevent a pregnancy. Anyway, if you have a 1/10*84/100*98/100 chance of getting her pregnant, it WON't happen if you dont want it to.
Also, she mentioned that condoms expire. If you Dont use an expired condom, YOUR EVEN BETTER OFF!
whatever
Introducing, New From Trojan:
The FULL BODY CONDOM! 100% Protection from ALL STDs!
Lol. Anyway, I obviously agree with Doogles. My Idea is, and I really am not all that affected by what you say, that since 1960, women have become more independent.
I dont know about Eric or Douglas, but Scott's mom and my mom Both Go to Work Every Day (his more so than mine) The Stay-at-home-mom has virtually disappeared. When Women become more independent, they DON't have the Time to raise 7 kids.
the modern day average is 2.3-2.2 kids per family. it was around 5.5, NOT 7-10.
Also, I really don’t know how The Pill works, BUT If you take it during the first 3 days of a pregnancy (assuming its still effective then), you have a .02*.02*.02 chance of having a kid. That’s MUCH less than 1%. There is ALMOST NO Chance of "pill failure" Also, you DO have to use a condom 100 times to have it break 3 times.
Out of those 100 times (assuming once a day), there is a 1/10 chance Every day. that means you have a .03*.1 chance EVERY day of getting her pregnant. if you include her taking the pill, your chances (which were 3/1000) becomes 1/60000 (.00006)
t is most definetely NOT "pill failure" OR "Condom failure" My parents DID want to have a kid (actually two, but neveryoumind)
Mr. Roger's Kid was a mistake. But thats completely different.. Mr Rogers was a mistake.
Ya, her facts were:
1.Wrong
2.Made up (when in doubt, BS your way out)
3.unrelated
4.Out of proportion
Now, excluding HPV and Herpes, you have a 1/4 chance of getting an STD. And a condom is 97% effective (if used properly.
Therefore, If you properly use a condom, you have a 75/10000 chance of getting an STD.
Mrs. Jackson (no relation to Michael) told us that condoms have an overall 84% failure rateThats STILL good enough to bet on AND prevent a pregnancy. Anyway, if you have a 1/10*84/100*98/100 chance of getting her pregnant, it WON't happen if you dont want it to.
Also, she mentioned that condoms expire. If you Dont use an expired condom, YOUR EVEN BETTER OFF!
whatever
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Heath: Return of the Crap
Okay, more Sex (don't-have-sex-or-you-will-die-even-though-its-one-in-four) Ed today.
Less pronunciation slaughter today.
More Crap.
I understand their argument, BUT IT DOESN'T WORK.
As Doogles said, 80% of teens who take "The Vow" break it. Before they are married. Also, I would like to point out that ALL of the people who were over 18 that she talked about had THE WORST luck. It was all "My husband cheated", or "He cheated", or "I married someone who had an STD already." You know what? Too BAD!
Also, the "Number vary depending on who did the study" crap was not needed. Of COURSE they vary! If you take the same study Twice, It WILL vary! Unless you ask the SAME people, in which case it is NOT A GOOD STUDY.
Barret, you have a good point of the Gross out factor. That IS lame. Totally (Like, Totally, Like, did you see that, like Guy?*). You cant base the majority of ANY argument (that is good) on a gross out factor if your audience has a maturity level greater than that of a Two year old (Bo, Sorry, you are gone).
The 2 vs. 25 factoid was WRONG. They WERE STILL THERE. Maybe A FEW mutated. But, to the extent of my biological knowledge, A disease DOES NOT change COMPLETELY in 40 years. Try 400. Or 4000. I could go on...
She asked "Why are there more?". There aren't. Putting that aside, they are more common because of two factors:
Scott: The republican fact is TRUE. I'm sorry. The Republican party Funds Abstinence-only Sex ed. It May be that the republican party is in control, but I doubt that. I get the feeling that It is because of the fact that most of the republican party leans heavily on the Catholic Church. :-)
Of course that raises the Question of: "If Not Abstinence Only education, What do we teach?"
I suggest A "We-Don't-Want-you-to-have-sex,-because-this-can happen-but-If-you-do-have-sex-Use-a-Condom-And-here's-how." Education. This would get the kids (20%) who DO keep their abstinence vow, to not have sex, AND it would get the kids who don't to have Safe sex (Which STILL is the term). They Really WOULD have safe sex, because the failure rate of condoms is MOSTLY that the kids don't know how to use them.
Bacteria-> Virus?? Scott, I'll let you take that.
Toodles
Motor.On
Next: the pill?
*Yes, this IS teenage Drama-Queen-Speak. Like totally.
Less pronunciation slaughter today.
More Crap.
I understand their argument, BUT IT DOESN'T WORK.
As Doogles said, 80% of teens who take "The Vow" break it. Before they are married. Also, I would like to point out that ALL of the people who were over 18 that she talked about had THE WORST luck. It was all "My husband cheated", or "He cheated", or "I married someone who had an STD already." You know what? Too BAD!
Also, the "Number vary depending on who did the study" crap was not needed. Of COURSE they vary! If you take the same study Twice, It WILL vary! Unless you ask the SAME people, in which case it is NOT A GOOD STUDY.
Barret, you have a good point of the Gross out factor. That IS lame. Totally (Like, Totally, Like, did you see that, like Guy?*). You cant base the majority of ANY argument (that is good) on a gross out factor if your audience has a maturity level greater than that of a Two year old (Bo, Sorry, you are gone).
The 2 vs. 25 factoid was WRONG. They WERE STILL THERE. Maybe A FEW mutated. But, to the extent of my biological knowledge, A disease DOES NOT change COMPLETELY in 40 years. Try 400. Or 4000. I could go on...
She asked "Why are there more?". There aren't. Putting that aside, they are more common because of two factors:
- The media. It is MUCH more acceptable to talk about sex now.
- Travel. The speed at which a disease can travel around the world is MUCH higher now.
Scott: The republican fact is TRUE. I'm sorry. The Republican party Funds Abstinence-only Sex ed. It May be that the republican party is in control, but I doubt that. I get the feeling that It is because of the fact that most of the republican party leans heavily on the Catholic Church. :-)
Of course that raises the Question of: "If Not Abstinence Only education, What do we teach?"
I suggest A "We-Don't-Want-you-to-have-sex,-because-this-can happen-but-If-you-do-have-sex-Use-a-Condom-And-here's-how." Education. This would get the kids (20%) who DO keep their abstinence vow, to not have sex, AND it would get the kids who don't to have Safe sex (Which STILL is the term). They Really WOULD have safe sex, because the failure rate of condoms is MOSTLY that the kids don't know how to use them.
Bacteria-> Virus?? Scott, I'll let you take that.
Toodles
Motor.On
Next: the pill?
*Yes, this IS teenage Drama-Queen-Speak. Like totally.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Health
Okay, As y'all Obviously Know, we are doing Sex ed in Health. Or Rather, If-you-have-sex-you-will-get-an-STD-and-die-slowly ed.
The problem with an Abstinece Education is it doesnt work!
Abstinence IS 100% effective at preventing STD's. But an Abstinence Education Isn't.
As weird as it seems, telling Kids NOT to have sex causes them to Get MORE STD's. How doees that work?
Abstinence educations (at least nowadays) are:
#2. Yes, It CAN cause STD's. One out of FOUR. In Poker, I would Bet on that! Maybe I am Reckless. But, If I was given thse chances, Considering Our Socio-Economic Area, I WoULD BET on those chances. ( not that I am going to be sexually active).
#3. Ummm... HUH? If the idea of this Republican-Funded Program is to stop STDs and Teenage Pregnancy, DOnt You WANT kids to USE a condom?
According to Cory, COndoms, when used properly, have a 97% sucess rate. thats REALLY GOOD. Lets think along the persons line of thought. If One out of Four sexually active teens has an STD, then 25/100 teens has an STD. If they ALL properly use Cndoms, only THREE get and STD. That means 28/100 Otherwise, Who knows...
Now, the 1/4 thing. ONE OUT OF FOUR DOS NOT HAVE AN STD! statistically speaking, of four RANDOMLY CHosen Kids from FOUR RANDOM SOcio-Economic Classes, Yes, One will have an STD. BUT If you have four frends who are active, It could be that One has an STD. ALL FOUR could have one. OR NONE! Or two. Or three.
The statisti is closer to:
100000/400000 Active Teens have STDs. NOT 1/4.
Actually If you think about it, The poulation of Active teens is smaler than the poulation of not active teens. Therefore, Most likely, All or None will have an STD. THE smaller the group, the more likely it is that ALL of them will have an STD.
Now Anywy, I am FINE with an Abstinece Education. I Am NOT fine with a condoms-are-bad Education. Also, I would appreciate some of the OTHER side of the issue.
Wh473v3r.
The problem with an Abstinece Education is it doesnt work!
Abstinence IS 100% effective at preventing STD's. But an Abstinence Education Isn't.
As weird as it seems, telling Kids NOT to have sex causes them to Get MORE STD's. How doees that work?
Abstinence educations (at least nowadays) are:
- Sex is Bad
- Sex causes STD's
- Condoms are BAD.
#2. Yes, It CAN cause STD's. One out of FOUR. In Poker, I would Bet on that! Maybe I am Reckless. But, If I was given thse chances, Considering Our Socio-Economic Area, I WoULD BET on those chances. ( not that I am going to be sexually active).
#3. Ummm... HUH? If the idea of this Republican-Funded Program is to stop STDs and Teenage Pregnancy, DOnt You WANT kids to USE a condom?
According to Cory, COndoms, when used properly, have a 97% sucess rate. thats REALLY GOOD. Lets think along the persons line of thought. If One out of Four sexually active teens has an STD, then 25/100 teens has an STD. If they ALL properly use Cndoms, only THREE get and STD. That means 28/100 Otherwise, Who knows...
Now, the 1/4 thing. ONE OUT OF FOUR DOS NOT HAVE AN STD! statistically speaking, of four RANDOMLY CHosen Kids from FOUR RANDOM SOcio-Economic Classes, Yes, One will have an STD. BUT If you have four frends who are active, It could be that One has an STD. ALL FOUR could have one. OR NONE! Or two. Or three.
The statisti is closer to:
100000/400000 Active Teens have STDs. NOT 1/4.
Actually If you think about it, The poulation of Active teens is smaler than the poulation of not active teens. Therefore, Most likely, All or None will have an STD. THE smaller the group, the more likely it is that ALL of them will have an STD.
Now Anywy, I am FINE with an Abstinece Education. I Am NOT fine with a condoms-are-bad Education. Also, I would appreciate some of the OTHER side of the issue.
Wh473v3r.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Bring It ON!
That is one of B\/$|-| 2's most imfamous comments.
The funny thing is, theY DID BRING IT ON. And they killed A LOTof americans.
Here is fox's official list, from May 10th 2004 to Dec 31, 2004
From Mission Accomplished to Wednesday, 5 May, 2004, this is the BBC's list.
This is the Washington Post's list, showing the soldier's faces (use te scroll button to go through)
The numbers of the wounded vary wildly, but it is above ten THOUSAND since "mission accomplished"
Dont tell me Im not supporting the troops, because I AM. Im just not supporting them blindly. I support the troops, NOT the leader.
Anyway, here are some of my other favrite Bush quotes:
"You've heard Al Gore say he invented the internet.
Well, if he was so smart, why do all the addresses begin with "W"?"
"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"
"Rarely is the Queston asked: Is our children Learning?"
"For NASA, space is still a high priority"
"[Its] time for the Human race to enter the solar system"
"Its your money. You paid for it."
"The most important job is not to be govenor, or first lady in my case."
Well, thats it for now. Next Up: The PATRIOT ACT.
The funny thing is, theY DID BRING IT ON. And they killed A LOTof americans.
Here is fox's official list, from May 10th 2004 to Dec 31, 2004
From Mission Accomplished to Wednesday, 5 May, 2004, this is the BBC's list.
This is the Washington Post's list, showing the soldier's faces (use te scroll button to go through)
The numbers of the wounded vary wildly, but it is above ten THOUSAND since "mission accomplished"
Dont tell me Im not supporting the troops, because I AM. Im just not supporting them blindly. I support the troops, NOT the leader.
Anyway, here are some of my other favrite Bush quotes:
"You've heard Al Gore say he invented the internet.
Well, if he was so smart, why do all the addresses begin with "W"?"
"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"
"Rarely is the Queston asked: Is our children Learning?"
"For NASA, space is still a high priority"
"[Its] time for the Human race to enter the solar system"
"Its your money. You paid for it."
"The most important job is not to be govenor, or first lady in my case."
Well, thats it for now. Next Up: The PATRIOT ACT.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
My theory on the 2004 Election
Ok, Keep the other debates up.
The 2004 Election, John F. Kerry vs. George W. Bush.
This election was, on the left(Kerry) based around Bush's Mistakes, how he hurt the country. For Bush, It was How Kerry's views "Flip-flopped".
Ok, My belief is, Kerry lost because of the Gay-Rights Movement. Many of the Religious (extreme) Right, don't want Gay marriage (Im not saying that ONLY the religious Right don't want Gay marriage). Many of them also don't normally vote. When their beliefs with marriage were threatened by Gay-Rights and Gay marriage, They VOTE. This is not bad, even though I don't agree with their views on Gay Marriage, but it tipped the election to G W Bush.
The reason I say this, is the exit polls had Kerry winning by like, 20%. not at all a small margin.
Flip-Flopped: THE WORLD IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE. (Beware: In this portion, I could get VERY mad. Threaten my beliefs, and I defend them too!)
If you listend to the debates, this is ALL Bush said. The question would be "what about the deficit?" And bush would come back with: Yes, Its bad, BUT KERRY FLIP-Flopped.
If you take a Black and White (B&W) view, He DID flip-flop. Then again, if you take a B&W view, Scott is pro-life (see abortion comments). Very little is B&W. Almost NO politics are B&W. Unfortunately, America (and most of the world) view things as B&W, because it is easier to understand.
Just like Scott and Erics views on abortion, Kerrys views were more complex than B&W. The main thing where Bush mentined Flip-Flopping was Iraq. Kerry voted FOR the war. its true. BUT, he had the understanding that it would be WITH UN support. Which never materialised. Then, Kerry didnt want a war. Flip flopping? NO. He wanted it With the UN suppot, not going alone (Yes there was a coalition, but its FORTY countries. and most of them are tiny, were bribed, dont have an army, or forced).
Also, I would Like you to HONESTLY say that your views have never changed. you cant, can you? If you can, You Lie.
I would also like to point out that the states that went for bush had a MUCH lower average IQ than the ones that went for Kerry. Just a fun little fact. This IS accurate, go here to see it.
Also, the Kerry states were usually making more $$$ (except DC, B/cause thats a bunch of politicinas. All politicaians are DUMB)
Toodles
Motor.On
The 2004 Election, John F. Kerry vs. George W. Bush.
This election was, on the left(Kerry) based around Bush's Mistakes, how he hurt the country. For Bush, It was How Kerry's views "Flip-flopped".
Ok, My belief is, Kerry lost because of the Gay-Rights Movement. Many of the Religious (extreme) Right, don't want Gay marriage (Im not saying that ONLY the religious Right don't want Gay marriage). Many of them also don't normally vote. When their beliefs with marriage were threatened by Gay-Rights and Gay marriage, They VOTE. This is not bad, even though I don't agree with their views on Gay Marriage, but it tipped the election to G W Bush.
The reason I say this, is the exit polls had Kerry winning by like, 20%. not at all a small margin.
Flip-Flopped: THE WORLD IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE. (Beware: In this portion, I could get VERY mad. Threaten my beliefs, and I defend them too!)
If you listend to the debates, this is ALL Bush said. The question would be "what about the deficit?" And bush would come back with: Yes, Its bad, BUT KERRY FLIP-Flopped.
If you take a Black and White (B&W) view, He DID flip-flop. Then again, if you take a B&W view, Scott is pro-life (see abortion comments). Very little is B&W. Almost NO politics are B&W. Unfortunately, America (and most of the world) view things as B&W, because it is easier to understand.
Just like Scott and Erics views on abortion, Kerrys views were more complex than B&W. The main thing where Bush mentined Flip-Flopping was Iraq. Kerry voted FOR the war. its true. BUT, he had the understanding that it would be WITH UN support. Which never materialised. Then, Kerry didnt want a war. Flip flopping? NO. He wanted it With the UN suppot, not going alone (Yes there was a coalition, but its FORTY countries. and most of them are tiny, were bribed, dont have an army, or forced).
Also, I would Like you to HONESTLY say that your views have never changed. you cant, can you? If you can, You Lie.
I would also like to point out that the states that went for bush had a MUCH lower average IQ than the ones that went for Kerry. Just a fun little fact. This IS accurate, go here to see it.
Also, the Kerry states were usually making more $$$ (except DC, B/cause thats a bunch of politicinas. All politicaians are DUMB)
Toodles
Motor.On
Monday, May 09, 2005
Supply-Side Economics
We WOULD be too young to get this, if Bush II wasn't using it.
Once again, Ill be doing the Arguments and then My view.
Supply-Side Economics (SSE): If we give Money to the rich, they will ut it back into the economy, and then it will trickle down to the poor.
me (me): Umm... How dsoes that work?
SSE: The rich spend the money on the things that the poor make, then the money goes to the poor.
Me: Ahhh... If Only it worked that way. But it doesnt. THe reality is, the rich people are high-up, or the owners of big companies. The rich dont get their money from the government, without the government, they would STILL be rich. They will put their money BACK into their company. For example: My parents work for P&G. P&G is a VERY large company, and my parents are fairly high-up. When they can buy something P&G makes, they will. This money does NOT go to the factory worker in China who makes the Swiffer, It goes to My parents, and the other People at their level and higher in the comapny. The factory worker gets Very little Money. (My parents are NOT evil, they give a TON of 4 to charity, they ARE NOT the ultra-rich that I may discuss later.)
By giving money to the rich, you dont help the Poor. You help the rich (this kinda makes sense doesnt it?)
SSE: But it wrks!
me: no it doesnt. Now let me introduve a plan that WILL help the poor AND the rich.
Once again, Ill be doing the Arguments and then My view.
Supply-Side Economics (SSE): If we give Money to the rich, they will ut it back into the economy, and then it will trickle down to the poor.
me (me): Umm... How dsoes that work?
SSE: The rich spend the money on the things that the poor make, then the money goes to the poor.
Me: Ahhh... If Only it worked that way. But it doesnt. THe reality is, the rich people are high-up, or the owners of big companies. The rich dont get their money from the government, without the government, they would STILL be rich. They will put their money BACK into their company. For example: My parents work for P&G. P&G is a VERY large company, and my parents are fairly high-up. When they can buy something P&G makes, they will. This money does NOT go to the factory worker in China who makes the Swiffer, It goes to My parents, and the other People at their level and higher in the comapny. The factory worker gets Very little Money. (My parents are NOT evil, they give a TON of 4 to charity, they ARE NOT the ultra-rich that I may discuss later.)
By giving money to the rich, you dont help the Poor. You help the rich (this kinda makes sense doesnt it?)
SSE: But it wrks!
me: no it doesnt. Now let me introduve a plan that WILL help the poor AND the rich.
UPSIDE-DOWN SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS
Here's How it works:
You give 4 to the poor (kinda like welfare, but more of a tax-break). THe poor dont have that muh money, so they will usually not invest, they spend it. Where do they buy from? THE BIG COMPANIES. Who owns the big companies (or works High-up in them)? THE RICH. Now lets put this all toghether. Here is my diagram of where the money goes to:
$from the poor -> goes to buy food, Clothes etc. -> bought from BIG company -> $goes to the rich
This WOULD actually WORK. The poor get the money they need, and then it goes to the rich!
You help the poor, and its harder to follow! BOTH sides are supported by big companies ( I am of the brainwashed opinion that the Democratic paty is less so, but I know thats not true) All laws are made with the rich/Big companies in mind. therefore, when the legislators make a law, it favors the rich + powrful.
My view is it DOESNT work @ all, so drop it. Want proof? Regan employd it, and as Soon as Bush I got into office, he dropped it. If the republicans (who created it) dont like it, Dont DO IT!
toodles
Motor.On
p.s. 85 omments and counting!!
You give 4 to the poor (kinda like welfare, but more of a tax-break). THe poor dont have that muh money, so they will usually not invest, they spend it. Where do they buy from? THE BIG COMPANIES. Who owns the big companies (or works High-up in them)? THE RICH. Now lets put this all toghether. Here is my diagram of where the money goes to:
$from the poor -> goes to buy food, Clothes etc. -> bought from BIG company -> $goes to the rich
This WOULD actually WORK. The poor get the money they need, and then it goes to the rich!
You help the poor, and its harder to follow! BOTH sides are supported by big companies ( I am of the brainwashed opinion that the Democratic paty is less so, but I know thats not true) All laws are made with the rich/Big companies in mind. therefore, when the legislators make a law, it favors the rich + powrful.
My view is it DOESNT work @ all, so drop it. Want proof? Regan employd it, and as Soon as Bush I got into office, he dropped it. If the republicans (who created it) dont like it, Dont DO IT!
toodles
Motor.On
p.s. 85 omments and counting!!
Friday, May 06, 2005
Abortion
I'm feeling like dealing with a heavier topic, so hear it goes! (beware, this may make you MAD) ( if it does, go flush your head down a toilet) (also tell the teenage girl who was raped and her life as saved because she got an abortion that abortion is evil) (did I mention flush your head? Good)
Ok, here it goes:
The standard Pro-life argument goes something like this: All life is precious. You cant kill a person, so why should you go on killing a fetus?
my argument: A fetus is not a person!! DUH!! Then it would be called a PERSON Not a fetus. If you think a fetus is a person, Is a seed a tree? You eat corn and peas, so are you eating a live plant? The fact is, abortion is not necessarily a good thing (there you go, the only thing I will agree with Pro-life PPL), But the argument as I see it isn't about ONLy abortion, its the fact of whether or not a woman has the ability to control yet another portion of her life. You got your dog fixed, therefore are you killing puppies?? PUPPy-KILLER!! I do realize that there is a MAJOR difference between a woman and a dog, but its the same idea. I don't want my balls cut off, thank you VERY much. If you want to cut them off, too bad. I Wont let you.
Also, back to the fetus. It is not a person, it is a group of cells that MAY become a person under the right circumstances. I ALSO argue that it is better to 'kill' (its not really killing, see above) a fetus than send a kid to an orphanage. Or ruin the mothers life. A fifteen-year-old may be able to get her groove on (if you get what I mean), and give birth, but she isn't ready to be a mother! Leave that to the thirty-year-olds. Not the fifteen-year-old. That is common sense. It may have worked in the middle ages, but things are DIfferenT *gasp* Its better to have to dispose of a fetus, than put a kid in a government organization (aka an orphanage).
More Pro-life crap: It cost the government to get an abortion.
Me- HUH??? Since when??? What the crap?? When in doubt, make crap up!!. That's just wrong. Totally wrong.
Pro-life- Embryonic Stem cell research KILLS BABIES
me- Awww.. Then its Evil.. Boo hoo. WRONG. First off, look above for my reason why it CANt kill babies. its a FEtUS/Embryo, not a baby. Second, even if you DO consider an embryo a human, its not killing babies. they ONLY use embryos that are going to be discarded. They dont g up to a prenant woman and steal her embryo, then put it through torture. They use an already aborted embryo, and THEN, and ONLY then do they preform experiments on it. AN it's NOT evil. If it works, when you are old and grey, YOU may need another lung/liver/other organ, and get one from Embryonic stem-cell research. Then Id like to see you say that they are killing babies.
Pro-life: THEY [Liberals/pro-choice activists] KILLED TERRY SCHAVIO. THEY ARE NOT ONLY BABY-KILLERS, THEY ARE ALSO MURDERORS!!!! HANG THEM!!!
Me- On terry schavio. OMG!! how DUMB can you be!?!!?!?!?!?!? she was a VEGTABLE!!! DUH!.
I was on a ski trp when she died. you may ant me to say 'passed away', but tough. had decided not to ski (I was REALLY tired) the day afet, or maybe the day of her death. doesnt matter. Anyway, i was bored, so I turned on "the O'Reiley Fator" (for a description, read the title of barrets blog). They got some cracker preist who was lie "She was very responsive. whn I went into prayer,she bowed her head,and closed her eyes. She knew I was praying, and prayed along as best she could." i instatnly was like OMG!!! what is his problem?!?!?! " she bowd her head" maybe to drool? (no offense) SHE WAS IN A VEGATATIVE STATE! every Non-Catholic dotor (and a good portion who were catholic) said she WOULD NEVER RECOVER. then the pro-life people come back "her husband wants the insurance $$$" Ummmmm.... He HAD To PAy for the feeding tube and other medical treatment fo like 10 yrs. thet cost MOrE than $100000. DUH.
Pro-life: Cloning is EVIL. (ever notice how these guys are ALWAYS mad??)
me- Ummmm... Lemme get this straight. You dont want to kill PPL, but you dont want more ppL? HUH? you say Kerry flip-flopped. Wow. they Say, embryonic stem cell research is bad, because it kills Ppl. Clones are bad becaus they arent PPL. So we cant use clones for Embryonic stem-cell research??? HUH?????? TALK ABOUt CONtRADICtory!
Pro-life: Fetuses can feel things.
me- Hold on. Do you remeber being a fetus?? does anyone??? i can remeber certain things frm being a baby, mostly just little things, but I STiLL ReMeBEr them!! OMG!! Fetuses CANT feel things...
Pro-Life: Be glad your mother chose life
me- Ummmmm.. My MOM was in a COMPLETEly different situation. Not at all similar. i should b offended that you would suggest that.
Ok, b/cause there was some question on my vews, here it goes.
Abortion is not Good. Under certain circumstances, It IS good. See above. Also chek out Erics views. He said it better, and shorter than I did. This is NOT a B&W issue. Nothing is. The world being seen is, in my view, the #1 reason Kerry lost the race (more on that later)
Ok, thats the majority of my rant.
motor.on
Ok, here it goes:
The standard Pro-life argument goes something like this: All life is precious. You cant kill a person, so why should you go on killing a fetus?
my argument: A fetus is not a person!! DUH!! Then it would be called a PERSON Not a fetus. If you think a fetus is a person, Is a seed a tree? You eat corn and peas, so are you eating a live plant? The fact is, abortion is not necessarily a good thing (there you go, the only thing I will agree with Pro-life PPL), But the argument as I see it isn't about ONLy abortion, its the fact of whether or not a woman has the ability to control yet another portion of her life. You got your dog fixed, therefore are you killing puppies?? PUPPy-KILLER!! I do realize that there is a MAJOR difference between a woman and a dog, but its the same idea. I don't want my balls cut off, thank you VERY much. If you want to cut them off, too bad. I Wont let you.
Also, back to the fetus. It is not a person, it is a group of cells that MAY become a person under the right circumstances. I ALSO argue that it is better to 'kill' (its not really killing, see above) a fetus than send a kid to an orphanage. Or ruin the mothers life. A fifteen-year-old may be able to get her groove on (if you get what I mean), and give birth, but she isn't ready to be a mother! Leave that to the thirty-year-olds. Not the fifteen-year-old. That is common sense. It may have worked in the middle ages, but things are DIfferenT *gasp* Its better to have to dispose of a fetus, than put a kid in a government organization (aka an orphanage).
More Pro-life crap: It cost the government to get an abortion.
Me- HUH??? Since when??? What the crap?? When in doubt, make crap up!!. That's just wrong. Totally wrong.
Pro-life- Embryonic Stem cell research KILLS BABIES
me- Awww.. Then its Evil.. Boo hoo. WRONG. First off, look above for my reason why it CANt kill babies. its a FEtUS/Embryo, not a baby. Second, even if you DO consider an embryo a human, its not killing babies. they ONLY use embryos that are going to be discarded. They dont g up to a prenant woman and steal her embryo, then put it through torture. They use an already aborted embryo, and THEN, and ONLY then do they preform experiments on it. AN it's NOT evil. If it works, when you are old and grey, YOU may need another lung/liver/other organ, and get one from Embryonic stem-cell research. Then Id like to see you say that they are killing babies.
Pro-life: THEY [Liberals/pro-choice activists] KILLED TERRY SCHAVIO. THEY ARE NOT ONLY BABY-KILLERS, THEY ARE ALSO MURDERORS!!!! HANG THEM!!!
Me- On terry schavio. OMG!! how DUMB can you be!?!!?!?!?!?!? she was a VEGTABLE!!! DUH!.
I was on a ski trp when she died. you may ant me to say 'passed away', but tough. had decided not to ski (I was REALLY tired) the day afet, or maybe the day of her death. doesnt matter. Anyway, i was bored, so I turned on "the O'Reiley Fator" (for a description, read the title of barrets blog). They got some cracker preist who was lie "She was very responsive. whn I went into prayer,she bowed her head,and closed her eyes. She knew I was praying, and prayed along as best she could." i instatnly was like OMG!!! what is his problem?!?!?! " she bowd her head" maybe to drool? (no offense) SHE WAS IN A VEGATATIVE STATE! every Non-Catholic dotor (and a good portion who were catholic) said she WOULD NEVER RECOVER. then the pro-life people come back "her husband wants the insurance $$$" Ummmmm.... He HAD To PAy for the feeding tube and other medical treatment fo like 10 yrs. thet cost MOrE than $100000. DUH.
Pro-life: Cloning is EVIL. (ever notice how these guys are ALWAYS mad??)
me- Ummmm... Lemme get this straight. You dont want to kill PPL, but you dont want more ppL? HUH? you say Kerry flip-flopped. Wow. they Say, embryonic stem cell research is bad, because it kills Ppl. Clones are bad becaus they arent PPL. So we cant use clones for Embryonic stem-cell research??? HUH?????? TALK ABOUt CONtRADICtory!
Pro-life: Fetuses can feel things.
me- Hold on. Do you remeber being a fetus?? does anyone??? i can remeber certain things frm being a baby, mostly just little things, but I STiLL ReMeBEr them!! OMG!! Fetuses CANT feel things...
Pro-Life: Be glad your mother chose life
me- Ummmmm.. My MOM was in a COMPLETEly different situation. Not at all similar. i should b offended that you would suggest that.
Ok, b/cause there was some question on my vews, here it goes.
Abortion is not Good. Under certain circumstances, It IS good. See above. Also chek out Erics views. He said it better, and shorter than I did. This is NOT a B&W issue. Nothing is. The world being seen is, in my view, the #1 reason Kerry lost the race (more on that later)
Ok, thats the majority of my rant.
motor.on
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
