Twin fetuses learn how to be social in the womb

Twin fetuses learn how to be social in the womb
Types of movements. a, Video frame representing a self-directed movement towards the mouth. b, Video frame representing a self-directed movement towards the eye. c, Video frame representing the foetus reaching towards and “caressing” the back of the sibling. d, Video frame representing the foetus reaching towards and “caressing” the head of the sibling. Image credit: PLoS ONE doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013199
(PhysOrg.com) -- Humans have a deep-seated urge to be social, and new research on the interactions of twins in the womb suggests this begins even before babies are born.

Researchers from the University of Padova in Italy have been studying pregnancies involving . Leader of the team, psychologist Umberto Castiello, explained that appear to be already "wired" to interact socially with other humans soon after birth, and previous research has demonstrated that within only a few hours after birth babies can imitate gestures of people around them and make other social interactions. Studying twins in the womb made it possible to see investigate the pre-wired hypothesis and see if was already apparent while still in the womb.

The study, which was published in the Public Library of Science One (), used four-dimensional to make 3D videos of twins at 14 and 18 weeks of gestation. The five pairs of twins were found to be reaching for each other even at 14 weeks, and making a range of contacts including head to head, arm to head and head to arm. By the time they were at 18 weeks, they touched each other more often than they touched their own bodies, spending up to 30 percent of their time reaching out and stroking their co-twin.

The ultrasound technique the researchers used allowed them to change the depth of visual field, the frame rate, and the sweep angle. The twin fetuses were taped for 20 minutes each time, and the video recordings were digitzed for offline analysis of the hand movements.

Kinematic analyses of the recordings showed the fetuses made distinct when touching each other, and movements lasted longer — their hands lingered. They also took as much care when touching their twin’s delicate eye region as they did with their own. This type of contact was not the same as the inevitable contact between two bodies sharing a confined space or accidental contacts between the bodies and the walls of the uterus, and there was no increase in the frequency in these types of contacts in the four weeks.

The findings clearly demonstrate it is deep within human nature to reach out to other people.

More information: Wired to Be Social: The Ontogeny of Human Interaction, Umberto Castiello et al., PLoS ONE 5(10): e13199. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013199

© 2010 PhysOrg.com

Citation: Twin fetuses learn how to be social in the womb (2010, October 13) retrieved 18 April 2019 from https://medicalxpress.com/news/206164323-twin-fetuses-social-womb.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
2 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 13, 2010
There should be no studies done on fetuses. The more they are studied, the more they are proved to be fully human. The more people believe they are fully human, the less they support abortion. Also the word fetus should be replaced with clump of cells.

Oct 13, 2010
Most abortions are first trimester, which is 13 weeks or less. As I've stated before, a woman has full control over her body and has the right to give life or not, and nobody should be allowed to tell her what to do with her body. We all talk about our political freedoms in this country with so much fervor, but rarely think about the freedom of a woman to control her own body, which is much more fundamental than your right to carry a gun or have tax rates less than 30%. When you start treating certain humans in your society like walking incubators, you've made an ugly turn back to the first century.

Oct 13, 2010
When you start treating certain humans in your society like walking incubators, you've made an ugly turn back to the first century.
Very well said.

Oct 13, 2010
There should be no studies done on fetuses. The more they are studied, the more they are proved to be fully human. The more people believe they are fully human, the less they support abortion. Also the word fetus should be replaced with clump of cells.


OK I am for abortion, but seriously? I'm sorry but that's pure ignorance. Research on fetuses helps us understand ourselves in the fields of physiology, psychology, biology, and several other sciences. To say we shouldn't conduct studies on them is like saying we shouldn't let people read books about animals in case they feel sympathetic towards chickens and cows and then we won't want to eat them...

and well said @trekgeek1

Oct 13, 2010
"The findings clearly demonstrate it is deep within human nature to reach out to other people."

False.

It demonstrates the interpretation of adults (with bias)of the movements of fetuses. We already know they move and move reflexively. How do they distinguish reflex and volition, not to mention the pure supposition of purpose.

Oct 13, 2010
When one studies anything they love, for enough time, there is a tendency for people to get biased and project human emotions into a thing that are by nature not human. That being said, in this case, the people doing the studying and the thing being studied is by nature human. Study the ones doing the study and view the evidence they collected, and then decide if you agree that like can recognize like, that is the path to truth. But who in this day and age wants to find the truth.

Oct 14, 2010
The potentiality of said clump of cells to develop into human life should at least be considered. I'm not out and out anti-abortion, but we all need to be aware of just what we are throwing away. I also happen to be an identical twin and in those days they used X-Rays as confirmation, eeek!

Oct 14, 2010
I consider research like this to be crucial for abortion debate. Abortions after first trimester are often outlawed, precisely because nervous system is developed enough. The time when foetus becomes "sentient" is what separates a clump of cells from new human being.

Oct 14, 2010
Sentience must not be a criterion as there are adult humans without sentience.
The sole hard criterion is pregnancy. Thus it ought to be the sole right of the pregnant mother to decide about the part of her body called "fetus" - as trekgeek1 explained first.


There are no adult human persons without nervous system capable of sentience (without mind). Foetus in the first trimester has no mind, no thoughts.

Sufficiently developed fetus (after first trimester) is not a part of mothers body. Mother and this fetus are two people and they have two bodies that happen to be connected. Whether mother should have a right to kill this new person or not is an open question, but I believe she does not.


Oct 14, 2010
The criterion "nervous system capable of sentience" is unsuitable as it fits many animals, too.


So what? Specieism is as wrong as racism. Killing a sentient entity is wrong, regardless of some obscure order of its nucleotides.

It is - physically, chemically, biologically.


But not neurologically and psychologically. Thats what human (and not only human) rights stem from.

When this connection happened without the mother's consent it's a crime. Otherwise it's her property.


When two beings inhabit one body, and their rights and intentions collide, the situation is often complicated, and should be resolved on a case-by-case basis. The notion that a foetus is a property of mother is absurd. It is no more her property than for example 5-year old child is. It is supported by her body, but that does not make it her property.

Oct 14, 2010

Men always try to criminalize women who don't submit.


Dont be ridiculous. Why should the baby submit? We are not talking only about the woman now, remember.

It is - physically, chemically, biologically.


Oh, and foetus is not even physically, chemically and biologically a part of mothers body, not necessarily. Depends on how you define being a part of someones body. It is more or less just semantics.

Oct 14, 2010
Its interesting how pro-abortionist always say the baby isn't human. They do it so it is easier for them to justify the killing of the unborn baby. Those of you who are pro-abortion start being honest and say you believe it is the mothers right to kill a baby that is in her womb.

I'm honest, for example, I believe (though a lot of pro life people would disagree with me) in the death penalty in some cases. However I call the person who is going to be executed human.

BTW, I am for the studying of unborn babies. The more that is known about them the less pro-abortionists can deny that they are fully human.

Oct 14, 2010
We all talk about our political freedoms in this country with so much fervor, but rarely think about the freedom of a woman to control her own body
Does this include allowing any and all women to have as many children as they want, even though they may not be fit to be mothers or they wont be able to support these children?

Does it include allowing women to damage their fetuses by injesting drugs, alcohol, and tobacco? Is this what is meant by "freedom of a woman to control her own body"? Does her right to ruin the lives of her children preclude our imperative to protect those future children from harm?

Damage in the womb may well be the cause of much of the crime and dysfunction and suffering in society. We have the right to protect ourselves from it by restricting the rights of women who would choose to reproduce irresponsibly and criminally.

Oct 14, 2010
Those of you who are pro-abortion be honest and say you believe it is the mothers right to kill a baby that is in her womb.
Only if those of you who are godlovers would be honest and admit that you worship something with all of your heart and soul that doesnt exist.

Oct 14, 2010
If the baby belongs to the mother then by all means she can kill it whenever she wants. But she is the only one with that 'right'.
Anyone who assisted should be prosecuted for aiding and abetting murder.

So you're against the free market job creation ascribed to medical procedures?

Oct 14, 2010
If the baby belongs to the mother then by all means she can kill it whenever she wants. But she is the only one with that 'right'.
Anyone who assisted should be prosecuted for aiding and abetting murder.
Feed Me, says the troll. I will spout any sort of outrage just to get someone, anyone, to acknowledge Me.

Oct 14, 2010
We have the right to protect ourselves from it by restricting the rights of women and men who would choose to reproduce irresponsibly and criminally.


There, fixed. Reproduction should not be a right, but a privilege granted only to people who are ready for such a responsibility.

Oct 14, 2010
There, fixed. Reproduction should not be a right, but a privilege granted only to people who are ready for such a responsibility.
This is totalitarian in nature. You cannot forcably limit natural procreation as this will inevitably lead to the darker side of human nature, potentially akin to liebenstraum.

Oct 14, 2010
This is totalitarian in nature. You cannot forcably limit natural procreation as this will inevitably lead to the darker side of human nature, potentially akin to liebenstraum.


It is no more totalitarian than requiring a drivers licence before allowing someone to drive, or requiring a licence for medical doctors, or requiring a licence for obtaining a gun, or requiring some degree and a psychological check before allowing someone to be a teacher, etc.

I dont understand why some people agree with regulations like above, but to regulate maybe the most responsible and important job someone can have - to be a parent - is somehow totalitarian.

Forcing a miserable life on a child because anyone intelligent enough to know where to stick it can make one is much more totalitarian to the child, and should be a crime, IMHO. There are maybe stricter conditions to be met for having a pet than for having a child, for gods sake!

Oct 14, 2010
It is no more totalitarian than requiring a drivers licence before allowing someone to drive, or requiring a licence for medical doctors, or requiring a licence for obtaining a gun, or requiring some degree and a psychological check before allowing someone to be a teacher, etc.
Except none of those actions can be performed with no resources, education, or training. Sex is a function that continues the species. None of your examples above are vital to survival of the species.

If I take away guns, schools, hospitals, and cars the human race won't die out.

If I take away the right to procreate, it will. Above and beyond that, would you submit your right to procreate to me? I certainly hope not as I wouldn't return the favor.

Oct 14, 2010
The difference between driving and reproduction is clear, however. I was born with my reproductive organs and sufficient instinctive drives to make them function. I was not born with a car, and had to learn how to operate one.

Oct 14, 2010

How do you plan to enforce the rules?
Outlaws drive without licenses all the time.



It would indeed be tough to enforce, altough I believe we could do it if we tried. But the point of my post was not to determine if it is feasible in practice, but from an ideological standpoint.

I was not born with a car, and had to learn how to operate one.


You were also not born with a knowledge and resources to be a good parent, and you had to learn and earn them, too.

Oct 14, 2010
Except none of those actions can be performed with no resources, education, or training. Sex is a function that continues the species. None of your examples above are vital to survival of the species.


I fail to see how sex (for procreation) being the basis for continuation of human species somehow makes it an everyones right.

Oct 14, 2010
We have the right to protect ourselves from it by restricting the rights of women who would choose to reproduce irresponsibly and criminally.
This is a sexist statement as long as it doesn't also consider men who choose to reproduce irresponsibly and criminally.
The woman- and only the woman- 'chooses' to carry the baby to term. Are you saying that there are men who would force unfit, addicted mothers to carry children to term? Well, priests would, wouldnt they?

Your myopia causes you to see sexism where none exists. Women damage fetuses through their irresponsible actions, not men. These women should not be allowed to do this, as it ruins entire lives.

Are you saying that, just because there are crimes that only women can be culpable for, we should try to find similar crimes for men also? Is this equality in your mind?

Oct 14, 2010
If I take away guns, schools, hospitals, and cars the human race won't die out.

If I take away the right to procreate, it will.


Making procreation a privilege and not a right does not mean that human race will die out.

Above and beyond that, would you submit your right to procreate to me? I certainly hope not as I wouldn't return the favor.


Well, if your judgement of who to grant the privilege of procreation would be wise enough, I would certainly submit to your authority. :p

Oct 14, 2010
We have the right to protect ourselves from it by restricting the rights of women and men who would choose to reproduce irresponsibly and criminally.


There, fixed. Reproduction should not be a right, but a privilege granted only to people who are ready for such a responsibility.
Is this perhaps sarcasm? Reproduction is neither a right nor a privilege; it is an ability. Societies have the right and the responsibility to restrict this ability, arguably potentially the most dangerous one that humans can wield, in order to protect itself and its members from harm.

This includes future children of course, who should not have to suffer for the abuses that their thoughtless, gutless, boozing, crack-addicted, AIDs-infected imbecile mothers might inflict on them. And neither should the rest of us.

Oct 14, 2010
The ability to remotely monitor in realtime a pregnant womans health, including what she is ingesting, is almost a reality. On the first infraction this woman would immediately be placed in a lockdown clinic for the remainder of her pregnancy.

The woman herself can decide if she is fit to be a mother.

AND, genetic prescreening of parents and embryos will be mandatory. Courts and politicians and the public can all fight over what to restrict, as usual. As medical technology progresses, we will be able to correct more abnormalities which would cause critical birth defects.

Oct 14, 2010
China tried that and they now have a squewed male/female ratio.
Are you prepared to deal with ALL the unintended consequences?


I consider Chinas population policy to be a big success. According to official numbers, it prevented three hundred million births, and chinese population has a very healthy looking population pyramid. Their gdp per capita has by far the fastest rise on the planet, partly because it is not diluted by population explosion. Just compare it to neighbouring India, where procreation anarchy leads to famous slums.

If China, a third world dictatorship manages to take care of its children, why not the rest of the world?

Oct 14, 2010
As for the Chinese male to female ratio, it is a result of their specific male oriented culture coupled with population control program that did not recognise this. Nothing that cannot be prevented. But even the skewed male to female ratio is better than letting anyone procreate at will, IMHO. Besides this, chinese male to female ratio is not so bad, there are countries without any policy that have similar ratios naturally.


Oct 14, 2010
From Wikipedia's "Lebensborn" article:
In line with the racial and eugenic policies of Nazi Germany, the Lebensborn programme was restricted to individuals who were deemed to be "biologically fit" and "racially pure", "Aryans", and to SS members.

Simply replace biologically fit with socially fit.
As for the Chinese male to female ratio, it is a result of their specific male oriented culture coupled with population control program that did not recognise this. Nothing that cannot be prevented. But even the skewed male to female ratio is better than letting anyone procreate at will, IMHO. Besides this, chinese male to female ratio is not so bad, there are countries without any policy that have similar ratios naturally.
The chinese do not restrict the right to procreate, they simply make additional children very unattractive in terms of taxation.

Oct 14, 2010
"The chinese do not restrict the right to procreate, they simply make additional children very unattractive in terms of taxation."

I dont want to argue semantics, and as I said, actual mechanism of enforcing this policy and the shape of policy itself is beyond my speculation.

Oct 14, 2010
"The chinese do not restrict the right to procreate, they simply make additional children very unattractive in terms of taxation."

I dont want to argue semantics, and as I said, actual mechanism of enforcing this policy and the shape of policy itself is beyond my speculation.
Well that's quite a huge difference. Certainly well beyond the boundary of what "semantics" would apply to.

Oct 14, 2010
Well that's quite a huge difference. Certainly well beyond the boundary of what "semantics" would apply to.
It appears my prior commentary was incorrect in any event. Marjon, I was unaware of this. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, and good work.

Oct 14, 2010
Monitoring pregnancies to the extent of daily testing? Are you f-ing kidding me? Can you spell Orwellian?

Wow, just....wow.

If there is one and only one right that we should all have, without interference, it is to reproduce. I'm all for improving our society, but damn! Forget slippery slopes. Inhibiting making babies in any way is a complete affront to any kind of logic, rational or emotional. I'm awestruck at the audacity, callousness and lack of even a hint of empathy by some in this thread.

Oct 14, 2010
I want some of you internet tough guys (Otto!!!!) to go to a fertility clinic and tell a woman who has been trying to get pregnant for years what you have been saying in this thread. Your ideas probably won't even be relevant to her, and ,still, if you don't get immediately assaulted, I'll s**t bricks.

Otto, you are clearly an emotional retard.

Oct 15, 2010
Well that's quite a huge difference. Certainly well beyond the boundary of what "semantics" would apply to.


They can procreate, but they have to pay additional money in taxes and fines for it. That is clearly a restriction of their so-called "right" to procreate in my interpretation. Is it not?

Oct 15, 2010
If there is one and only one right that we should all have, without interference, it is to reproduce. I'm all for improving our society, but damn! Forget slippery slopes. Inhibiting making babies in any way is a complete affront to any kind of logic, rational or emotional. I'm awestruck at the audacity, callousness and lack of even a hint of empathy by some in this thread.


I disagree completely. This attitude of entitlement for a baby is exactly what I am talking about. "Let me have a baby, and it does not matter that I may infringe on his/her right to live in good conditions." This right of a baby is certainly more important than so-called "right" of parents to procreate. Baby is not a pet that anyone can have, period.


Oct 15, 2010
This right of a baby is certainly more important than so-called "right" of parents to procreate.


Except the baby doesn't exist at the point of copulation. Future people have more rights than existing ones?

Attitude? It's far more than that and you know it. Your condescension shows your ignorance of how encompassing sex is to our thoughts, actions, daily lives, self-actualization, and ties to the future of humanity.

Oct 15, 2010
I want some of you internet tough guys (Otto!!!!) to go to a fertility clinic and tell a woman who has been trying to get pregnant for years what you have been saying in this thread.
...
I did not say that all mothers are thoughtless, gutless, boozing, crack-addicted, AIDs-infected imbeciles now did I. But the ones who are should NOT be allowed to conceive. Should they.

@skultch
Bite me.
emotional retard
Well if I am, it could be because my mum was a thoughtless, gutless, boozing, crack-addicted, AIDs-infected imbecile. And because of that I wouldnt have the chance to live a normal, happy life but would be constantly plagued by low IQ, ADHD, anti-social compulsions, criminal tendencies, as well as physical deformities and constant subliminal pain. All because my mum didnt give a shit.

Oct 15, 2010
He's obviously been traumatized by a/his woman so much that he's gone misogynist. Not everybody is strong enough to stay fair.
Fair.

NO ONE, no doctor, no nurse, no caregiver, no father, no MOTHER, has the right to damage a child. The mother carries the initial Responsibility because she is the ONLY one who carries the fetus.

If she cannot protect that fetus then it is societys Responsibility to do it for her because that future human being is NOT her property. Not any More. It belongs to itself and will soon become a part of the society who must protect it.

Frajo seems to think that the Right to Choose confers no Responsibility whatsoever, but only relieves women of it? That it is a declaration of freedom from Responsibility and not of the maturity and sound judgement necessary to assume it?

Frajo attacks otto for using harsh words without realizing how harsh- and Cold- the denial of Responsibility for a future life is.

Oct 15, 2010
But the ones who are should NOT be allowed to conceive. Should they.


Funny; you don't like how religions control daily life (me, too), but you suggest a secular govt ought to.

Genetics affect society, too. What about the autistic? Dwarfs? People with an IQ below 80? The congenitally xenophobic?

Sorry, you don't get to decide which genes enter the pool and which one's don't. Like it or not, we are all still competing.

Oct 15, 2010
@skultch
Bite me.


I was unusually emotional last night. For that, I am sorry. I had a few drinks and my wife and I have been trying to conceive for over 2 years. It's crushing her.

So, I have to admit, I am biased on this. However, I think this experience has helped me understand the 'emotional' reasoning that takes place in us human animals. IMO, it is no less valid than the 'logical' reasoning many men claim is superior.

I am open to debate on this, as well as the evolutionary basis of reproductive rights.

Oct 15, 2010
Genetics affect society, too. What about the autistic? Dwarfs? People with an IQ below 80? The congenitally xenophobic?
Do you actually believe that people who are born with these afflictions would choose to have them? Would you force them to live this way even if it could be avoided?
Sorry, you don't get to decide which genes enter the pool and which one's don't. Like it or not, we are all still competing.
You are being insensitive. If we can prevent suffering, then we should, and we will. And prevention can start in the womb.
you don't get to decide which genes enter the pool
-including the ones which cause people to be born without a spine?
For that, I am sorry. I had a few drinks
What?? In my country 'bite me' is a term of endearment.
the evolutionary basis of reproductive rights.
Humans are in new territory. Our tropical repro rate will not be adjusted evolutionarily- we need to do it culturally, as always; and soon, genetically. Its critical.

Oct 15, 2010
Funny; you don't like how religions control daily life (me, too), but you suggest a secular govt ought to.
Religions would force us to live with the defects we acquire in the womb, gods 'black box'. Secular society would force us to prevent and correct them. Which is better? Which is acceptable? Which is Right? Which is EVIL? You decide.

I trust that society will do the Right thing despite the EVIL which has prevailed until recently. After all, would most thoughtless, gutless, boozing, crack-addicted, AIDs-infected imbeciles choose to be that way if they had a choice? We have a chance to end the Cycle, and so we should try.

Oct 15, 2010
How would you help them not to live this way?
By PREVENTING their afflictions. I suggest you read what is written instead of what you expect to be written.
a lot - happier than you
Bite me.

Oct 15, 2010
I think some of you gents have gone a little too far down the rabbit hole here and are arguing from disparate emotional positions.

I'm available to objectively counsel anyone who requires assistance through PMs.

In the meantime, we must recognize that this topic is an opinion piece. Some of us will be of the mind that we should limit the ability to procreate, others will say we shouldn't.

The way I look at it, if you cannot determine an objective and unbiased mechanism for regulation of this process, there should not be a regulation upon said process.

Oct 15, 2010
This right of a baby is certainly more important than so-called "right" of parents to procreate.


Except the baby doesn't exist at the point of copulation. Future people have more rights than existing ones?


Future people definately have rights, and their basic human right to grow up in good conditions is surely more important than this so-called "right" of parents to have a child whenever they want.


Oct 15, 2010
How terrible it must be for people who want children seeing a woman go into abortion clinic, knowing that the child she is killing is actually wanted by someone.

Then you have the government of the US making it difficult to adopt and then there are the lawyers other that profit out of the adoption industry, making it extremely expensive to adopt.

If you are in Washington state there is an adoption agency doesn't charge a fee http://www.antioc...ons.org/

FYI I do not work for them, I just know and support the work in bringing down the cost of adoptions. Adoptions should be easy, quick, and inexpensive, so more kids can be adopted.


Oct 15, 2010
Frajo -- An honest statement would have been: "Those whom I call 'pro-abortionists' and who call themselves 'pro-choice' --- your wrong, its abortion they support -- should start being honest --- I agree --- and say that they believe that the mother has the right to do what I ---and everyone who tells the truth --- call 'killing a baby' --- which is what they are doing --- in her womb and what they call the woman's 'right of self-determination'."

Not to differentiate between a fact and one's opinion is not honest. --- I agree, your rewording was all opinion and not facts.

Baby in womb -- fact
Pro-abortionist is correct term, not pro-choice
killing -- fact

Oct 15, 2010
The way I look at it, if you cannot determine an objective and unbiased mechanism for regulation of this process, there should not be a regulation upon said process.
We convict violent offenders and execute them based on reasonable doubt. A mother who has the potential to commit violence against her future baby should be judged in the same manner. How is it that the ability to bear a child imbues a mother with some special immunity from the responsibility of protecting it from harm? She can be prosecuted for abuse after the baby is born, but we can't do a thing to protect it until it is?

If she intends to keep it, we need to make sure she doesn't harm it. Same as we would if it was laying in it's crib. Would she put booze in it's formula? Would she stick a needle in it's little arm or teach it to smoke like that vietnamese kid? Some do, and we can do something to stop it. Many more do it in the womb and we are at present, in the US, powerless to act.

Oct 15, 2010
Not to differentiate between a fact and one's opinion is not honest. --- I agree, your rewording was all opinion and not facts.
And you religionists uniformly cannot tell the difference, or choose not to, so your opinions can be considered worthless. And dangerous.

Oct 15, 2010
. if you cannot determine an objective and unbiased mechanism for regulation of this process, there should not be a regulation upon said process.


Skeptic heretic trumps you all. the only person here that uses there mind. good god the rest of you need help.

Oct 15, 2010
@otto1923, im not a "religionists", and i dont like you or your junk bin you call a mind, just shut your mouth. all your non-sense cry-baby bullshit. i consider you worthless and even more so dangerous because you think your right about things that are up for guess...get a clue. go do something besides messin up these pages with lack of mind...grade A tard.

Oct 15, 2010
otto - you pro-abortionists will not differentiate the difference between opinions and fact.
Unborn baby--- is human -- it isnt a pig or a goat if you argue that fact, I would say you need to go back to pre-school.

Ripping the baby apart, burning the baby, or sucking their brains out (late term abortion) is killing that unborn human. That is a fact. Taking a life, even a child knows that is killing.

Pro-abortionists are just that. Again a fact.
Pro-choice is a lie as the unborn human has no choice in being killed.

So instead of arguing over is it right to kill a unborn baby because it is unwanted, or sick, or deformed in some way, pro-abortionists lie. They call themselve pro-choice, or that the unborn human is nothing more than a clump of cells.

Pro-abortionist devalue life. They are the dangerous ones. Especially if you are a unwanted human.

Oct 15, 2010
@otto1923, im not a "religionists", and i dont like you or your junk bin you call a mind, just shut your mouth. all your non-sense cry-baby bullshit. i consider you worthless and even more so dangerous because you think your right about things that are up for guess...get a clue. go do something besides messin up these pages with lack of mind...grade A tard.
Hey noob. Hoo cares?
otto - you pro-abortionists will not differentiate the difference between opinions and fact.
And you godlovers... Your selfish disregard for the future, your self-centered overgrowth, is what makes abortion necessary. It is YOUR fault the earth is overcrowded. The blood of the neverborn is on YOUR hands.

Oct 15, 2010
Pro-abortionist devalue life. They are the dangerous ones. Especially if you are a unwanted human.
Nah, you would rather force people to 'fill up the earth' and then shrug as they send their children off to war, or watch them starve. "I guess they didn't pray hard enough." -says the religionist. "Anyway, it's the enemys fault. We have every right to steal from the other side, and slaughter them, before the do the same to us." -This is how you ruin the earth.

Oct 16, 2010

The way I look at it, if you cannot determine an objective and unbiased mechanism for regulation of this process, there should not be a regulation upon said process.


The way I look at it, the mechanism needs not be objective and unbiased (few legal mechanisms really are), it just needs to be better for children and human society than having no mechanism at all.

Oct 16, 2010
Not respecting women's interests has never in history been better for human society.
This, of course, makes sense if women are considered to be subdued by men.
Which is a common denominator of (many) believers, (most) conservatives, and (all) misogynists.


Again, you do not seem to realize that there are also the interests of the baby, not just the woman. I consider the interests of the baby important enough to ban late-term abortions, and to ban unresponsible procreation.

Oct 16, 2010
Rights are something given to specific, existent things so that the person(s) giving that right reap benefit. I'm not thinking of this in a modern political sense, but a philosophical and biological sense. Sure, we could decide to give rights to a placeholder (future persons) because we could benefit from that action. I don't see why we would also then choose to have that placeholder's rights trump the rights of the presently existing person(s).

Oct 16, 2010
Obviously, we should be protecting a growing, conscious, living being in the womb. But going from that to preventing an immature 17 yr old HS dropout, for example, from conceiving is a stretch I cannot take. I understand where one comes from, but I just don't agree.

Oct 16, 2010
Also, are there psychological surveys done on the tragically handicapped? Has anyone ever asked them if they would have preferred not to be born at all? If you think that study is necessary, I feel sorry that you apparently lack the simply empathy most chimps have.

I do not define myself or feel relative happiness based on my shortcomings; and I have many, as do most. Isn't it better to have lived and been happy for any amount of time than to have never lived at all? Does suffering erase past happiness? Human memory says no.

Oct 16, 2010
Skultch - I just dont see why should rights of some baby be less important if he/she does not live yet. When parent does not take care of children, it is a crime and the parent goes to jail. Not allowing people that are not ready to procreate is thus direct prevention of criminal offense against their children.

Anyway, I also dont see how procreation should be a right. Human being should have a right to personal liberty, property, safety, growing up in good enough conditions and maybe some more rights I cant think of now. But procreation? Why?

Oct 16, 2010
Also, are there psychological surveys done on the tragically handicapped? Has anyone ever asked them if they would have preferred not to be born at all? If you think that study is necessary, I feel sorry that you apparently lack the simply empathy most chimps have.


When we can prevent their suffering, it is our moral duty to do so, before they begin to exist.

Isn't it better to have lived and been happy for any amount of time than to have never lived at all?


But to never live is not bad. It is neutral. It is better to never live than live a bad life, in my opinion.

Oct 16, 2010
Shot,

Ok, let's say we ought to give the futures rights. Would you agree that if there is a legitimate dispute, that the presently living should be favored? Isn't that "more" rights, whatever that means? We have a naturally selected emotion to provide for our own future offspring, but to others?

Biologically speaking, procreation is possibly the 'only' "reason" any individual is alive. Maybe it's an unfair hypothetical, but imagine if I went back in time and infringed on the right of your parents to procreate.

Oct 16, 2010
But to never live is not bad. It is neutral. It is better to never live than live a bad life, in my opinion.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm an atheist, but in some way I haven't quite figured out yet, life seems to be a gift of sorts. Perhaps the strongest emotion I have is gratitude towards my parents for making me. Preventing life seems hardly neutral to me.

Oct 16, 2010
I don't have children yet, but from what I gather, having them is the most profound action one can ever undertake, on multiple levels. I think that should be a right, for their sake, not the child's.

Oct 16, 2010
Would you agree that if there is a legitimate dispute, that the presently living should be favored?Isn't that "more" rights, whatever that means?We have a naturally selected emotion to provide for our own future offspring, but to others?


I dont understand the point of these questions. There may be a case where presently living are favored.. Any example of what you mean?

Maybe it's an unfair hypothetical, but imagine if I went back in time and infringed on the right of your parents to procreate.


Well, I would never exist. But how is that different from millions of children that do not exist because, for example, their parents chose to use a condom? The end effect is the same, a non-existing child that could exist. It is not bad or good thing, not existing is neutral, otherwise using condoms or birth control would be bad.


Oct 16, 2010
I don't have children yet, but from what I gather, having them is the most profound action one can ever undertake, on multiple levels. I think that should be a right, for their sake, not the child's.


I think there needs to be a balance of rights of parents and children. A big majority of people should have a right to have a child. I just believe that there indeed are some people that should not, for the sake of children.

Oct 16, 2010
A person is innocent of a crime until they are proven guilty by a jury of their peers. A person cannot be guilty of a crime they have not committed, even if there is a high likelihood, demographically speaking, of their committing it in the future. Prohibiting women from conceiving or giving birth who do not meet some arbitrary standard of "fitness" is claiming they are guilty of being bad parents before they've even tried. Further, what is fit in today's world may not be fit in tomorrow's. If you accidentally eliminate the genes that might help us cope in some indefinable future, you will hamstring our adaptability and risk the future of our species. Even "defects" may have some advantage, witness Sickle Cell Anemia.

Oct 16, 2010
And as for protecting the rights of children, insofar as we are speaking of children already born, you may step in when you have evidence that their rights are in danger. Speculation of danger based on statistics is not evidence. Conflicts of rights must be adjudicated between the individuals who's rights are in question. One cannot claim rights for a group of nebulous individuals, because groups do not in themselves have rights, and in the case of future unborn children, there are not even any individuals you can point to. And as for the "right to be born," no one has that right, because no one can choose to exercise it or not.

Oct 16, 2010
I just believe that there indeed are some people that should not, for the sake of children.
For the sake of which children? If you prevent them from having kids you're effectively persecuting the people for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's very Orwellian.

Oct 16, 2010
Thrasymachus
A person cannot be guilty of a crime they have not committed, even if there is a high likelihood, demographically speaking, of their committing it in the future.


Skeptic_Heretic
For the sake of which children? If you prevent them from having kids you're effectively persecuting the people for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's very Orwellian.


Thats not Orwellian, we do it all the time in case you two did not notice - it is an ordinary preventive law.

Medical doctors need to have a licence, even tough no crime happens when they dont, but it prevents future crimes from happening. Drivers need a licence, for the same reason. There are speed limits on the roads, again a preventive, victimless law. Gun licence, teachers licence and psychological tests - the same.

Sufficiently increased probability of crime is legitimate reason to restrict someones freedoms, even tough no crime happened yet.

Oct 16, 2010
Shot,

The desire to reproduce is so strong that it is just as much of who an individual is as their race or gender. More so, actually, because it's something every sexual animal shares. What you suggest is beyond normal, illegal, discrimination. It's genocide.

Oct 16, 2010
Last, but not least: Would you forbid a father to procreate because his potential children will be suffering their life long due to his stupidity?


Yes. If he is stupid enough and unprepared to be a father, probability of him infringing on right of his future children to grow up in good conditions would be high enough to not allow him to procreate. At least until the situation gets better.

Oct 16, 2010
The desire to reproduce is so strong that it is just as much of who an individual is as their race or gender.


So if I have strong enough desire to do something, I have a right to do it, even tough it may infringe on other persons rights? That is crazy..

Oct 16, 2010
If the missing verb here is "procreate" then I do not agree.
If, however, the missing verb is "raise" then I do agree.


Whats the difference? I am willing to accept practical obstacles, like not being able to prevent parents from procreation etc. But ideologically speaking, there is no difference.

Nobody makes a child just for the sake of it, the reason is to raise the child, take care of it and live with it, not to make a child and then dump this responsibility on someone else. That is totaly unethical and wrong.

Oct 16, 2010
Consider this: When a pair wants to adopt a baby, there is quite detailed background check first, including their financial, social and psychological background. If they lack sufficient minimal conditions in some area, they are not allowed to adopt. Do you agree with this? Of course, it is a sensible thing to do, for the good of the child.

How is it any different, if the child is their own? No background check allowed now, before the baby arrives? How so?

Oct 16, 2010
So if I have strong enough desire to do something, I have a right to do it, even tough it may infringe on other persons rights? That is crazy..


The desire does not make it a right, the fact that we all have the exact same NEED makes it an effortlessly easy right to grant.

Please explain how your little pet theory here is significantly different from Nazi eugenics.

Oct 16, 2010
This, of course, makes sense if women are considered to be subdued by men.
Frajo, in the thrall of rabid idealism, fails to consider the damage done to unborn women by the depraved indifference of some mothers. Who, because of the resulting damage, lack the faculties to avoid damaging their own daughters before and after birth. Tell me frajo, is this too a mans fault?
Would you agree that if there is a legitimate dispute, that the presently living should be favored?
The presently living have to suffer the results of poor parenting. We suffer the crime, emotional turmoil, confusion and loss of productivity in the workplace, etc. We pay for the prisons and the healthcare and the accidents caused by people damaged in the womb, and left dysfunctional because of it.

Oct 16, 2010
The desire does not make it a right, the fact that we all have the exact same NEED makes it an effortlessly easy right to grant.


It is not a need, there are plenty of people that do not have or want children. It is a desire, and it is a selfish desire if you do not consider the future child.

Please explain how your little pet theory here is significantly different from Nazi eugenics.


My pet theory would not discriminate on the basis of race or sexuality, but on the basis of material and psychological conditions. Sterilization would be either prohibited, or very rare (like in China).

Of course, no killing would be acceptable, this includes late-term abortions (contrary to China).

Oct 16, 2010
I swear shotman, do you believe all the blatantly selfish bullshit being posted here? 'We don't care about tomorrow. We don't care about fixing things. We just want to do what we want and that's that.' prenatal damage causes the crime, ignorance, and cost that directly affects their quality of life- and they don't care.

@trashy
Speculation of danger based on statistics is not evidence.
Sifting thru all your big fat juicy words is such a chore. Past performance is always used to moderate freedoms. Proven addicts and alcoholics would be given the chance to prove they can stay sober. Others with histories of neglect, abuse, or violence would again be given the chance to reform through counciling and testing.
Cont.

Oct 16, 2010
People with a history of substance abuse and exposure to genotoxics would need to be tested for damage, most likely during mandatory IVF.

This level of protection is ALREADY the way it is with existing children and family service agencies. We will very soon have the technology to constantly monitor prospective mothers at risk in order to validate their suitability to bear children. Women who FAIL to prove that they are mature enough to bear the awesome responsibility of bringing a healthy baby to term, should NOT be allowed to do so.

Oct 16, 2010
I guess the difference in the two sides here is caused by optimism and fear.

I can't speak for others, but I am optimistic about human individuals. Why? Because I have changed dramatically over my life, and I have seen others overcome their genetic and environmental challenges. The %s don't matter. We all deserve the chance to fight and succeed.

I also fear the society that thinks it can effectively handle the evolution of our species.

Oct 16, 2010
I swear shotman, do you believe all the blatantly selfish bullshit being posted here? 'We don't care about tomorrow. We don't care about fixing things. We just want to do what we want and that's that.'


Yeah, me, me, me, and screw the rest. As I said, breeding of pets or farm animals is more strictly regulated than procreating of human beings. It is absurd.

Oct 16, 2010
blatantly selfish bullshit


...says the guy who would criminalize conception for the good of the rest of "us."

Oct 16, 2010
What you are proposing is eugenics, no matter how you'd like to dress it up. The genes that currently contribute to mental and physical maladies may one day in the future protect us from a more terrible disease, or be adaptive to some future situation that none of us can now imagine. You would purge those genes from our gene pool. You point to the fact that oppressed peoples have oppressed children, so you propose to oppress them further, by denying them one of the few joys they may have in this life, rather than combating their oppression, which is not their birth rate, but the economic and social conditions that prevent and discourage them from saving wealth.

Oct 16, 2010
I guess the difference in the two sides here is caused by optimism and fear


Or responsibility and selfishness.

Oct 16, 2010
Thrasymachus - I frankly dont care if it can be called eugenics or not. You have to try more to disprove an idea than label it eugenics or connecting it with Nazis. Eugenics is the science of improving human genome, and as such is not good or bad. It is its concrete implementation that can be judged.
And my pet theory has nothing to do with genetics, thus I dont think the word eugenics applies. It could be called applied social Darwinism, maybe.

Oct 16, 2010
Demographic statistics can predict fairly reliably how populations behave, but they cannot at all predict how any individual within that population will behave. When a person has proven themselves a drug addict and child abuser through their own past actions, it is reasonable to deny them the ability to raise their children until they can demonstrate reform. But to take another person, and say, "look, he has the same income, is of the same race and age, the same level of education, and even comes from the same neighborhood as this drug addict child abuser, so we should take his child too, just to be safe," that is a step too far and is unjust.

Oct 16, 2010
It is a desire, and it is a selfish desire if you do not consider the future child.


Your strongest desires are effectively needs. The organism NEEDS to pass on it's genes. If it didn't, we wouldn't be here.

My pet theory would not discriminate on the basis of race or sexuality, but on the basis of material and psychological conditions.


Not a significant enough difference. Both Nazism and ShotmanMasloism are trying to reach the same ends. They both ignore the ability of positive practical growth of the seemingly less able. Women change after motherhood. Parents "grow up" when they need to.

I guess at this point we should be defining "disease."

Oct 16, 2010
Further, there can be no true "science" of improving the human genome, only of studying it. "Improvement" is a subjective term, and what you think may be an improvement someone else in some other environment may find it to be a detriment. To think that you are wise enough to direct the future course of human evolution, whether social or biological, indeed to think that any human being or group of human beings is wise enough to do so, is perhaps the very height of folly. The only thing I have ever heard as arrogant as that is the claim of some that they know the mind of god.

Oct 16, 2010
The %s don't matter. We all deserve the chance to fight and succeed.
We all DESERVE to be protected from abuse and insanity. We are most vulnerable in the womb. What's wrong with you people??
What you are proposing is eugenics, no matter how you'd like to dress it up.
More bullshit and you would realize it if you weren't such a knee-jerk phrase lover.
You would purge those genes from our gene pool.
And we're not even TALKING about that, but protection from damage in the womb. See how clueless you are?

Oct 16, 2010
Women change after motherhood. Parents "grow up" when they need to.
But the DAMAGE they can do before they might 'change' is often unfixable. Why wouldnt you want to prevent this?? You think being born with FAS is actually a chance for spiritual growth? You realize how demented that is?

Oct 16, 2010
We all DESERVE to be protected from abuse and insanity. We are most vulnerable in the womb. What's wrong with you people??


Shotman is saying much more than that.

So, you can predict insanity? I'd love to hear how.

I'm not saying we should let pregnant women smoke crack. I'm saying we should not criminalize the pregnancies of a former crack addict.

I know people who did coke, ex, and acid for years. They grew up, had two kids, and those kids are fine and dandy. Social Darwinism would not have allowed that to happen.

Oct 16, 2010
Women change after motherhood. Parents "grow up" when they need to.
But the DAMAGE they can do before they might 'change' is often unfixable. Why wouldnt you want to prevent this??


Because it's not fair to those who do no damage, and damage does not guarantee unhappiness or a person who wishes they were never born. You claim to be fighting for the rights of this future person, but how can you claim authority to speak for them?

Oct 16, 2010
So, you can predict insanity? I'd love to hear how
Insanity which threatens the health and well-being of future children. How's that? We let experts decide these things. Addiction is a disease of insanity.
I know people who did coke, ex, and acid for years. They grew up, had two kids, and those kids are fine and dandy
Good for them. How many addicts give birth to babies going through withdrawal, or AIDs infected? You want to just leave that up to luck of the draw? Kind of like drunk driving?

Oct 16, 2010
You claim to be fighting for the rights of this future person, but how can you claim authority to speak for them?
Because it's the right thing to do. Because I know that much of the crime and suffering and misery present in today's world can be avoided by ensuring that babies are born damage-free.

Your friends may have been lucky but science tells us that those activities do produce damaged babies. If your friends had known this, and it was possible to be tested and treated, would they have done so instead of just rolling the dice? Gods will and all that?

Oct 16, 2010
How many addicts give birth to babies going through withdrawal, or AIDs infected? You want to just leave that up to luck of the draw? Kind of like drunk driving?


AIDS (not AIDs) is not the death sentence we once thought.

Our current decision-making systems are much too slow to keep up with current, and especially future scientific advances. This is a problem beyond the scope of this argument.

We don't punish alcoholics for the drunk driving they have yet to commit. Do you really advocate punishment or just disincentives? I don't think we have found where we exactly disagree on everything in this discussion.

Oct 16, 2010
Your friends may have been lucky but science tells us that those activities do produce damaged babies. If your friends had known this, and it was possible to be tested and treated, would they have done so instead of just rolling the dice?


I know dozens of such families. Did I convey that they stopped well before conception? Have you heard of mothers who quit smoking when they know? Yes, some damage was done in the first weeks, but those kids aren't hopelessly unhappy or unfit, or result in a net negative for society.

I don't have any evidence, but I think most would "roll the dice." I don't think they would do it for logical reasons, though. None you would accept, at least.

Oct 16, 2010
This "damage" you deplore is often the source of mutations which one day may be beneficial for mankind. You are proposing to treat people differently because of who they are instead of what they have done. And you don't even see a problem with that. Of course, I'm not surprised at you otto, you're as crazy as marjon, with your insane super-historical conspiracy theories.

Oct 16, 2010
This "damage" you deplore is often the source of mutations which one day may be beneficial for mankind. ... And you don't even see a problem with that. Of course, I'm not surprised at you otto, you're as crazy as marjon, with your insane super-historical conspiracy theories.
This from someone who thinks he actually knows what he's talking about? FAS is the process of adapting to booze-soaked prenatal environments? Downs is also favored evolutionarily? Go guess somewhere else godder.

Oct 16, 2010
This from someone who thinks he actually knows what he's talking about? FAS is the process of adapting to booze-soaked prenatal environments? Downs is also favored evolutionarily? Go guess somewhere else godder.
This from a sci-fi fanboy who mistakes his fiction for real life? Go grow some humility. Your 'noble intentions' would have you dictating family life for the whole world. You have some balls to claim you know what's best for everybody in all places and all times. And you know well enough that I am as militant an agnostic as they come, and am no friend to any organized faith. Go try that bait in another hole.

Oct 16, 2010
You are proposing to treat people differently because of who they are instead of what they have done.
Again the Pavlov metaphysicist skims posts and rewrites them to say whatever he wants.
Proven addicts and alcoholics would be given the chance to prove they can stay sober. Others with histories of neglect, abuse, or violence would again be given the chance to reform through counciling and testing.
-is what otto actually said. Read it this time.

Oct 16, 2010
This from someone who thinks he actually knows what he's talking about? FAS is the process of adapting to booze-soaked prenatal environments? Downs is also favored evolutionarily? Go guess somewhere else godder.
This from a sci-fi fanboy who mistakes his fiction for real life? Go grow some humility. Your 'noble intentions' would have you dictating family life for the whole world. You have some balls to claim you know what's best for everybody in all places and all times. And you know well enough that I am as militant an agnostic as they come, and am no friend to any organized faith. Go try that bait in another hole.
So trashy devolves once again. You're as religionist as any bible-thumper: you're in love with the metaphysical.

Oct 16, 2010
I'm not saying we should let pregnant women smoke crack. I'm saying we should not criminalize the pregnancies of a former crack addict.

I know people who did coke, ex, and acid for years. They grew up, had two kids, and those kids are fine and dandy. Social Darwinism would not have allowed that to happen.


I agree, we should not criminalize the pregnancy of a former crack addict, if she is clear. But we should criminalize pregnancy of crack addict currently addicted to crack.

Grow up, and then have kids. In that order.

Oct 16, 2010
Trashy goes thru his limited catalogue full of established philosophies searching for ones that best fit the response he wants to make. 'Hmmm. Genetics, prenatal tampering, restricting birthrights... Ah yes here it is- eugenics, Naziism for god sakes! and his names otto! I know all about that stuff- I read Philosophy magazines...'

In reality, most of what Shotman and I have been talking about is already in the works... It is illegal for expectant mothers to smoke in Britain, and Physorg just posted an article about genetic screening. Universal healthcare is just a precursor to this.

As soon as MEMS and remote monitoring techs mature, you will see a groundswell of laws and restrictions aimed at protecting future people, all supported by incontrovertible research.

Oct 16, 2010
They both ignore the ability of positive practical growth of the seemingly less able. Women change after motherhood. Parents "grow up" when they need to.


I am not ignoring it. Quite the contrary, I am counting on it. If potential parents want kids, they should change and grow up BEFORE kids are in this world. If they really want kids, it would be pleasure for them. If they cannot change, well, nothing of value was lost..

Oct 16, 2010
Otto,

Since you are thumping bible thumpers, I just wanted to let you know that people like you, and even the worst abortion doctors can change and admit the truth that just like slaves, unborn babies are fully human. Also I have the hope that one day just like salvery abortion will be outlawed.

To prove that even abortionist can change I have a link below for you to watch.
http://www.youtub...sBRFdrA0

Since you are probably not familiar with the song, below gives the story of the song.
http://en.wikiped...ng_Grace


Oct 16, 2010
FT
Pray your moms eternal soul is not roasting in hell for ruining your brain with daiquiris and Pall Malls and valium while she carried you in gods Mystery Machine.

Educate yourselves:
http://www.google...QQ1QIoAA

Oct 16, 2010
Also the word fetus should be replaced with clump of cells.


I agree with that part

Oct 16, 2010
Not respecting women's interests has never in history been better for human society.
This, of course, makes sense if women are considered to be subdued by men.
Which is a common denominator of (many) believers, (most) conservatives, and (all) misogynists.
This blind militancy disregards the reality that women are just as capable of criminality as men, and that these particular women need to be subdued, just as their male counterparts do, for the good of society. Or do you consider women a little more equal than men?

The US just executed a woman, because she happened to be a monster, not because she was female. Should she have gotten a break frajo?

Oct 17, 2010
More insight- 'secondary effects' of FAS:
Mental health problems — Diagnosed with ADHD, Clinical Depression, or other mental illness, experienced by over 90% of the subjects
Disrupted school experience — Suspended or expelled from school or dropped out of school, experienced by 60% of the subjects (age 12 and older)
Trouble with the law — Charged or convicted with a crime, experienced by 60% of the subjects (age 12 and older)
Confinement — For inpatient psychiatric care, inpatient chemical dependency care, or incarcerated for a crime, experienced by about 50% of the subjects (age 12 and older)
Inappropriate sexual behavior — Sexual advances, sexual touching, or promiscuity, experienced by about 50% of the subjects (age 12 and older)
Alcohol and drug problems — Abuse or dependency, experienced by 35% of the subjects (age 12 and older)

Oct 17, 2010
Fetal alcohol exposure is the leading known cause of intellectual disability in the Western world.[12][13] In the United States and Europe the FAS prevalence rate is estimated to be nearly one in every 100 live births.[14] The lifetime medical and social costs of each child with FAS are estimated to be as high as US$800,000.

Frajo should understand that men who abuse women are created in the womb, by and large, according to this information. Frajo would rather treat the symptoms than address the cause, thereby perpetuating abuse.

Oct 17, 2010
Stardust, You are nothing more than a clump of cells as well, so I'm assuming you are giving unborn clump of cells the same respect and right to life you give to your own clump of cells?

Oct 17, 2010
Thats not Orwellian, we do it all the time in case you two did not notice - it is an ordinary preventive law.

We only do it after a crime has been committed involved children. We estsablish guilt before legal censure, or do you not recognize that?
Sufficiently increased probability of crime is legitimate reason to restrict someones freedoms, even tough no crime happened yet.
And that is exactly what Orwell wrote of.

Purely Orwellian.

Oct 17, 2010
We only do it after a crime has been committed involved children. We estsablish guilt before legal censure, or do you not recognize that?


You clearly do not understand how law works. You do not need to be guilty of a crime to have your freedoms restricted, period. There are plenty of laws that are preventive, and do restrict freedom of people BEFORE they would have a chance to commit crime.

And that is exactly what Orwell wrote of.

Purely Orwellian.


Orwell wrote of restricting personal freedoms of people. Right to procreate is not one of them, in my opinion. It is a privilege, just like driving a car, possesing military grade weapons, and lots and lots of other freedoms that are restricted in modern society.

Oct 17, 2010
You clearly do not understand how law works. You do not need to be guilty of a crime to have your freedoms restricted, period. There are plenty of laws that are preventive, and do restrict freedom of people BEFORE they would have a chance to commit crime.
Aside from traffic citations, name one.
Orwell wrote of restricting personal freedoms of people. Right to procreate is not one of them, in my opinion.
Exactly right, in your opinion. In mine you're commiting people to a sentence for thought crimes.
It is a privilege, just like driving a car,
I wasn't born with a car, but I did come with a penis and germ cells. Didn't need to take a 6 hour course to learn how to use them either.
possesing military grade weapons,
Ridiculous, many of them are freely available to the consumer.
and lots and lots of other freedoms that are restricted in modern society.
Like the right to burn your own house down. You don't have a sound definition of priv vs right.

Oct 17, 2010
@otto and Shotman,
This is procreation as seen through Orwell's warning.
We have cut the links between child and parent and between man and man and man and woman. No ones dares trust a wife or child or friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality, like the renewal of a ration card...

There will be no curiosity, no employment of the process of life...

But always - do not forget this, Winston - always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler...

You are beginning, I can see, to realize what the world will be like. But in the end you will more than come to understand it. You will accept it, welcome it, become part of it.


I'd suggest you stop welcoming it. As those among us, like myself, will never accept it.

Oct 17, 2010
I'd suggest you stop welcoming it. As those among us, like myself, will never accept it.
A concept stretched past logic, in order to shape artificial ideals. Ideals which are replaced with each generation. Ours will soon die with us. Future gens will be given different ideals, and I guarantee they will look back at ours with horror, as do we the ones we were taught to revile.

Oct 17, 2010
Aside from traffic citations, name one.
Based on past performance. Convicted felons cannot own firearms, vote, etc. Look at your credit report- anything there which would restrict future actions? Get a loan or a job? Will your past enable you to get a security clearance?

Society will allow you privileges based on your perceived ability to handle them responsibly. And forming a future human in the womb is arguably the most serious of all responsibilities.

Oct 17, 2010
Aside from traffic citations, name one.


- restrictions on weapons - they vary from no restriction, a need to have it registered, to ban unless you are a member of military or total ban.

No crime has to happen if I own or even shoot one, but they are banned for prevention.

- plenty of restrictions on poisons or addictive substances

No crime would inevitably happen without them, but probability of negative effects simply outweight the positive ones, so they are here for prevention of crime.

Oct 17, 2010
- restrictions on jobs - you cannot work as a doctor, teacher, operating heavy or dangerous machinery etc. unless you qualify and have done tests to prove it.

Again, you may even do the job better than a licenced and tested proffesional, but the law is here for prevention.

I could go on and on, because most of our current laws indeed somehow resemble the traffic laws! Traffic laws are a rule, not an exception.

The notion that legal restrictions apply only AFTER a crime happens is simply wrong. I would say that MOST of laws and regulations in modern society are PREVENTIVE laws, restricting freedoms of people BEFORE bad things happen. And thats how it should be.

Oct 17, 2010
We can look at this from a Wider Perspective:
The Feminist Ideal the the womb is sacrosanct, that no one can decide what goes on in there but the woman herself... obviously disregards the potential for abuse and the damage to future humans, feminists included. History has shown us all sorts of practical restrictions during gestation- not to oppress women, but to ensure the health of future gens. This has been the NORM.

But in the last few gens we have seen changes in acceptable lifestyles, many of which would endanger reproductive health. Could there also be practical sociopolitical Reasons for this, having little to do with 'freedoms', which few living in an overcrowded world ever truly enjoy?
Cont.-

Oct 17, 2010
Caste systems traditionally arose from the necessary division of labor, and lower castes often could not earn enough to maintain good health or support large families. In Europe the feudal system prevented large communal farms by allotting peasants only enough land to keep them on the verge of starvation. These measures restricted growth and provided adequate labor for work that needed to be done.

Castes as such were incompatible with capitalism, which required everyone to have disposable income and the free time to spend it on unnecessary goods. But there remained the requirement for division of labor. Industry created tedious, repetitive, mind-numbing jobs and the need for people who could consistently perform this work.

So on the one hand there was capitalism, which promised to raise the quality of life for everyone, and yet required workers with the same stunted intellects as were created in feudal caste systems of europe and Asia.
Cont.-

Oct 17, 2010
About this same time, religionist systems based on maximizing growth and maintaining reproductive health, were being replaced by progressive ideals which promised freedoms for oppressed minorities such as women, who had always been restricted by the biological realities of birthing and rearing.

But these minorities, along with everyone else, were exposed to the temptations which growth-based religionist cultures had previously helped them to resist- tobacco, alcohol, unrestricted sex choices, etc; which were in fact only new forms of feudal slavery and depredation. People were newly confined by their addictions and stunted in the womb by mothers who could not resist temptation.
Cont.-

Oct 17, 2010
if we gather enough valid data, truth becomes clear

Oct 17, 2010
And so-
Castes have been recreated to satisfy the requirements of modern civilization, and through 'natural selection' if you will- by selecting for weakness through temptation, and exacerbating it. Those able to resist it can bear babies with sound minds and bodies while those who cannot bear sweatshop workers, ditch diggers, and inmates, and everything in between, which are all essential to the proper functioning of civilization in it's current form.

Because, if everyone had 140 IQs and MBAs, who would want to work in a toll booth? And how could competition and innovation be Controlled, in such an intellectual maelstrom? The Princeton campus can only grow so much; too many malls and freeways in NJ.
-Cont-

Oct 17, 2010
Those with a close-minded penchant for idealism, which in truth is only exclusionism and prejudice in pseudo-intellectual garb, were as usual enlisted in this Effort. As if 'the Right to Choose' really had anything to do with a womans freedom as compared to the Sheer Weight of the 1 BILLION abortions which were the direct result. Women can choose now not to stand in breadlines or send their children off to war, thanks to the mindless pseudo-intellectuals and their NOW buttons.

Idealists were used as they always have been, because they are the easiest to dupe- they think with their hearts not with their heads. They're used and discarded like Trotsky was, to aid in the installment of something far more Essential and Real than their cities with the shining white walls will ever be.

Oct 17, 2010
@auto-retard1932, you should have been aborted.

Oct 17, 2010
@auto-retard1932, you should have been aborted.
And the best part of you obviously ran down your fathers leg.

Oct 17, 2010
The immaturity is quite disappointing.
Thankyou.

Oct 17, 2010
otto1932, your thoughts on this?

http://www.bbc.co...11545519

Oct 18, 2010
Dog
Your thoughts on this:
http://en.wikiped...Disorder

Oct 18, 2010
TehDog - quote from your article:

Project Prevention founder Barbara Harris admitted her methods amounted to "bribery" but said it was the only way to stop babies being physically and mentally damaged by drugs during pregnancy.

Drug treatment charity Addaction estimates one million children in the UK are living with parents who abuse drugs.

Pregnant addicts can pass on dependency to the unborn child, leading to organ and brain damage.


It is entirely justified to do this.

Oct 18, 2010
@shot and otto,

You both opened up with a statement that the law prevents people from having rights to perform tasks then went into statements of licensure for vocations.....

and statements of committed criminal acts which come with restrictive penalties....

No where did either of you substantiate a ban on ejaculating for purposes of conception. You're both stating that not only do you accept, but that you both welcome the proclamations of 1984, something that until today I thought impossible. Brave New World, maybe, but 1984? Unbelievable...

It's a good thing the internet exists so that your future machinations will be seen over a wide course.

Oct 18, 2010
No where did either of you substantiate a ban on ejaculating for purposes of conception.


How exactly do you want us to substantiate it? There are plenty of laws licencing plenty of things, and parenting and procreation should for obvious reasons be one of them.

For a change, how about you try to come up with reasons why it should not be illegal to concieve a child unless you are ready for it materially, physically and psychically?

The only good reason I saw in this thread was that government would be incapable to determine or enforce it properly in practice. I dont share this opinion, but I accept it.

All the other things were just grasping at straws, or outright nonsense - including that our genome would deteriorate (not true at all), that we are born with reproductive organs or we have a desire to reproduce (so what?), that it resembles eugenics, that it appeared in 1984 (ts.. try harder..).

Oct 18, 2010
Hi, my name is Saul Horowitz (not his real name) and I was conceived in a van behind the HooDoo Lounge in secaucus. My mom had morning sickness, but then she was usually sick in the morning, so she didn't know about me for awhile. She couldn't decide to keep me or not because another baby would definitely impinge upon her fun, so she used to drink (more) to help her decide. One night she even tried to miscarriage with phenobarbs and laxative but that didn't work out too well.

My IQ is a little low (60) and I do get seizures so I wear this helmet. I cannot get work so I live here behind the HooDoo where it's usually ok, and live on cats and beer nuts. You got any money? They're charging me now for the gas I huff from the sunoco. As you can see, I was born big enough to THUMP you if you don't donate. Sometimes I do wish I was back in lockup-

Oct 18, 2010
Hi, my name is fraggo but everybody calls me Sugar. I forgit my last name. My mom was/is an addict and as a result I was born without a few very important parts, which makes life a little difficult. My eyes is crossed- so wut? But I was born with a vagina, which has been very useful in generating the income I need to support my own little habit and the 4 or 5 kids I already got. Otherwise I am a programmer, I know all the programs and especially the one oprah is on. You got money? You wanna little sweetness maybe? No that was NOT me in your garage and if you call the cops I'll tell them you tried ta RAPE me mofo.

Oct 18, 2010
But for the Grace of God eh guys? Had their moms not been substance abusers, these 2 may have grown up to be educators and computer techs with comfortable retirements and lots of free time.

You can quote any pop propaganda books and civil rights laws you want, but this is just WRONG. If we have the technology to stop it, then why not do so? Answer- it WILL be done, and soon, and if we are lucky we will get to see it. And the prisons and psycho wards will be emptied, and hookers will get degrees and certificates like all the other professionals.

And racy but classy books will be written by pop philos to be discussed in classrooms, and sensationalist news stories will be foisted to inflame a gen of activists who will march on the mall and DEMAND rights for the unborn. An old paradigm supplanted because it was contrived as an Ideal and not a Reality.

Oct 18, 2010
For a change, how about you try to come up with reasons why it should not be illegal to concieve a child unless you are ready for it materially, physically and psychically?
Well physically, age 16 for most people. Psychically? My mother only claimed she always knew when I was up to no good. I fear there's nothing to that ESP nonsense. As for materially, no one is ever ready for having children materially.

You certainly don't have children of your own shot. That is the most obvious thing that has come out of your commentary.

Oct 18, 2010
Hi my name is otto or something and I am a little depressed. I've been sitting in this place 17 years. Time sure flies when you're catatonic. I sure wish Billy would stop shitting on my coloring books. My little brother used to do that so I stuck a pencil in his face. 23 times. That was 17 years ago. 23 - 17 = who knows what? Sometimes I think I am king of the world, or at least Germany, but then the docs zap my brain and I forget A LOT. My shirt is covered with drool stains. Do I hate my mom? Yes. She's in the detox ward in the next wing. Again. Got any money? I like to chew on it. Etc. PS Don't tell anybody but there are PEOPLE running the whole WORLD. I have PROOF. I just can't remember where I put it.

Oct 18, 2010
SH - See where progressives go? Otto and ShotmanMaslo show where progressives lead which is government controling our lives. What people eat, what people drive, how people heat their homes, even how people of sex.

In Novembers election, vote everyone with a D out, so that the progressives get the hint Americans don't want to be controlled by their Governement. In the USA, the government should be controlled by the people.

Then in the next election vote out everyone who does not live up to their promises, or who lies, or who cheats, no matter if they are a D or a R.

Oct 18, 2010
The Ds hardly have a monopoly on fascism. Wasn't it the Rs that led the charge for the Patriot Act? McCarthyism? Conservatism very often equals fear of change then control of change. This is often why powerful people (in US: white, rich, xian, etc) are conservative. Rs.

I think a better way, yet still stupidly and dangerously lazy, would be to vote all with (incumbent) out this time. Why wait two more years?

Oct 18, 2010
Marjon wouldn't know fascism if it put him in an internment camp. Fascism is not socialism, it is government in the service of industry. When oil companies write the laws and regulations about oil drilling, refining and use, that's fascism. When banks write the laws and regulations about interest limits, fees, and finance in general, that's fascism. If whoever stands to make a profit from the imposition of some law or other actually has the power to put that law in place, that's fascism. Fascism has nothing to do with how much power government has. It has everything to do with who controls that power.

Oct 18, 2010
Heres one:
Hi my name is Marvon, and Ive always had a problem with chemicals (painkillers). I admit that freely, and have many times under oath. So when I decided to have another kid I had to go get an Array implanted because its the LAW, and I know the LAW is completely fair and unbiased and Constutional now, because it is written and enforced by COMPUTERS. Implants are a pain but I know in my heart of hearts its the best thing for me and the baby. I dont want this one turning out like my oldest Thrashyruckus, who is sitting in a lisbon jail right now because he tried to burn the soccer stadium down. I was doin ok until a party the other night where, in a moment of weakness, I downed a handful of percocets. well, within 15 minutes the cops show up and rush me to the hospital to get my stomach pumped. And now me and the future little Quentin Conniption get good food and watch tv all day until he arrives. And if I can stay sober maybe theyll let me keep him. After I get out of jail.

Oct 18, 2010
Incidently, instead of growing up to be a foaming, delusional godlover sociopath as do so many people damaged in the womb, little Quentin became a rich greek pharmacist who bought his mom an island in the aegean for her birthday, from gratitude.

Oct 18, 2010
In Novembers election, vote everyone with a D out, so that the progressives get the hint Americans don't want to be controlled by their Governement. In the USA, the government should be controlled by the people.
The way I see it, Ds vote laws which allow them to bear deformed and demented babies who grow up to be Rs. A reinforcing feedback loop if you will.

Oct 18, 2010
If you think the Rep went too far with the Patriot Act the Dems and Obama took far more rights away.

Unions support only Dems. That means the Dems are getting public money to suport their re-election as most Government employees are unionized, so part of the union dues go to directly to democrats. Wonder why public employees have such great pensions and benfits?

Largest Hedge fund polictical donations go to Democrats.

Most contributions from the medical industy in the last few years went to Democrats.

Media is overwhelmingly pro-democrats.

Most election fraud done by democrats.

Facism = government control over media, industry, unions. The most facist organization with that defintion is the democrats.

Vote them out this election. Start with a clean slate, then vow to keep all parties d&r honest. If they lie, get rid of them both D's and R's.

BP was top recipient of BP political donations

Dems receive twice as much foreign pac money as GOP.

Oct 18, 2010
Some people live in a world of complete fantasy. 3rd party advocacy for political candidates in this election cycle is on track to exceed $5 billion, making it the most expensive midterm election cycle in history. And that money, by a margin of 9-1, favor Republicans over Democrats. http://election-a...1013.pdf

If Tea-partiers are so sure they're a real populist movement, why are they trying to buy people's opinions and this election?

Oct 18, 2010
Thrasymachus, now accoring to the progressives the most dangerous group is the chamber of commerce. Yup you need to fear the small business people. Unions are shaking in their boots, who are they giving their money to? What about the communists who do they support? What about the Chinese government who are they going to support? (Caught giving money to dems)

Fear the progressives, they will take your freedom away.
http://www.wnd.co...d=216593]http://www.wnd.co...d=216593[/url]

http://www.wnd.co...d=216593]http://www.wnd.co...d=216593[/url]

Oct 18, 2010
SH - See where progressives go? Otto and ShotmanMaslo show where progressives lead which is government controling our lives. What people eat, what people drive, how people heat their homes, even how people of sex.
Oh so now I'm your buddy and not a progressive nut? How funny your mind must work to see everything in only red or blue.

Say it with me "Centrist".

Oct 18, 2010
Your local Chamber of Commerce is a far cry from the national Chamber. And really, putting up links to World News Daily? You might as well have linked to the Enquirer. The simple fact of the matter is the Chamber is soliciting money from foreign corporations, telling them how important this election is, while at the same time buying millions of dollars of ads supporting Republican candidates. And the idea that media has a leftward slant is ridiculous. Leaving Fox and MSNBC aside (and of the two, only Fox has donated to politicians, guess, who), the rest of the media slants to the stupid. Which is an inherent right-wing bias.

Oct 19, 2010
Say it with me "Centrist".

What is 'centrist'? Center of what?

A term for someone who treats the political agendas like Chinese menus. I'll take a little pro-marijuana legislation to reduce income taxes. I'll go with some financial regulation to prevent deflation. I'll pay into SS as long as the funds aren't delivered to other programs. I want a reduction in defense spending to alleviate the debt. etc.

Oct 19, 2010
So you have no principles.
Explain your statement. My principles are simply more complex than your red-blue bullshit.

Oct 19, 2010
Explain your statement. My principles are simply more complex than your red-blue bullshit.

Of course they are. Man-up! Take a stand! Or are you afraid you won't be invited to Cambridge cocktail parties?

Well I base my principles on evidence. For example on the abortion topic: http://www.youtub...NHygv4wE

That is a simple statistical study, no spin, all figures sourcable.

And another on the fetal pain aspect of abortion.
http://www.youtub...6b09VO9w

Oct 19, 2010
Media biased to the Right? Thrasymachus only a person who is a radical progressive leftist communist idiot would think that. Sorry for the name calling, but that statement is so stupid.


Oct 19, 2010
Media biased to the Right? Thrasymachus only a person who is a radical progressive leftist communist idiot would think that. Sorry for the name calling, but that statement is so stupid.
FOX News is deeply biased. Very deeply biased.

Oct 19, 2010
Fox news is more right wing I agree. However they are the most balanced news around. It is interesting that even my kids see that. When they talk about a political issue they have both a D and R present. The other channels they have 2 or 3 Ds slamming a R or conservative. No balance.

ABC (All oBama Channel) news, not very good.
MS and NBC (Nothing but oBama Channel) news, good for medical information. Or Now, lean over, this wont hurt a bit.
CNN (Communist News Network) good business info
Fox Best political information
Pravda - hey its called truth, so like CNN, ABC, NBC

Oct 19, 2010
marjon - ever heard of libertarianism (classical liberalism), pragmatism or social libertarianism? Or Nolan Chart? There is more to politics than rep/dem bullshit.

Oct 19, 2010
However they are the most balanced news around.
That's absurd.
When they talk about a political issue they have both a D and R present. The other channels they have 2 or 3 Ds slamming a R or conservative. No balance.
Then Karl Rove and Pat Buchanan would be broke and unemployed. They're both on the rest of the media very often. I agree there is a left bias in the majority of media, but it is far more balanced than FOX.

The MSM sucks, it is inaccurate and all points are biased perspectives rather than objective accounts. It's disgusting.

That's why I research the issues myself and make my own stance from an informed perspective.

Oct 19, 2010
Media biased to the Right? Thrasymachus only a person who is a radical progressive leftist communist idiot would think that. Sorry for the name calling, but that statement is so stupid.


Only the willfully ignorant choose not to see bias in the news. You should always assume what you are being told is being told with some bias. Try to separate the facts from the emotions.

Oct 19, 2010
If the MSM was doing it's job, it would have spoken up immediately when Bush said we were going to war and taxes didn't go up. Instead they broadcast green screen explosions of our wealth destroyed in a war agaist Al-Qaeda, an organization who's only goal was to ruin the financial base of America. They're fighting a war of economic attrition against us. The reason why Al-Qaeda hasn't attacked again....

They don't have to. We're doing exactly what they want by going broke fighting a group of maybe 5,000 people.

We simply didn't learn the price of empire from our European forebearers.

Oct 19, 2010
It is interesting that even my kids see that.


Fun fact: Kids generally believe what their parents want them to believe (consciously or subconsciously). Kids believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, Santa...

Look at the fun acronyms you have for the other news networks. You think it's suprising your children believe Fox is balanced?

Of course there is lots of Obama coverage on the majority of the stations: He's the President.

I remember when Obama was being sworn in, FOX only had the swearing in ceremony in the bottom corner of the screen with no sound and was actively covering Bush leaving in a helicopter.

Oct 19, 2010
As I said, leaving off MSNBC and Fox, which hardly balance each other out, as Fox has existed longer and has a larger viewer base, and as Fox has donated to the Republican party (I mean, do you need more evidence of bias than that?), the rest of the media leans towards the stupid. But since all of our national news media is owned by only 5 international companies, all of who's parent companies give 3 to 1 more to Republicans than Democrats (in donations that must be reported, independent anonymous expenditures favor Republicans 9 to 1). With these facts in hand, I'll leave the determination of political bias to the reader.

Oct 19, 2010
(SH: That is why principles are important.)
Your casting of aspersions upon my ethics and principles is becomming tired. Especially when you impeached your own by showing us your psycopathy. It doesn't bother me when you do it because it is meaningless.

Oct 19, 2010
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it marjon? I compared the length of the existence of MSNBC and Fox, not Fox and CNN. CNN is probably the most neutral of the big three cable new channels, and because of that provide some of the most inane coverage of the three. Fox's ratings are not at issue, and at any rate are far from a majority of Americans, who's regular viewers amount to about 5% of eligible voters. And Fox can only maintain those ratings through the most despicable kinds of sensationalism and outright distortions and lies.


Oct 19, 2010
marjon - ever heard of libertarianism (classical liberalism), pragmatism or social libertarianism? Or Nolan Chart? There is more to politics than rep/dem bullshit.

Until you can get rid of the two party system at the state level, you will have to deal with the R/D system. That is why Ron Paul runs as a Rep., so he can get elected. I like this site: http://www.theadvocates.org/
Michael Medved has it right when he says 'losertarians'. That is the challenge for classical liberals who want limited govt, they must get into the mud and root with the pigs and hope they have the integrity to maintain their principles.
(SH: That is why principles are important.)


I understand, but how is this relevant? That doesnt mean people who support some third party or different philosophy than rep/dem, have no principles. Thats what you said and to what I replied. Stay on topic.

Oct 19, 2010
FOLLOW THE MONEY, as the journalistic saying goes.
Color us all surprised - we were under the impression that journalists were unbiased, neutral, disinterested stewards of facts and information. Liberals will deny and try to obfuscate and distort this, but all you have to do is follow the money and see who 'journalists' personally open their wallets for while pretending they have no biases.

This list puts Former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta's (D) "study" on talk radio into some context.

The extent and depth of this bias is unbelievable how biased the 'news media' (all media, including TV, radio, magazine and newspaper). to see the 5-1 pro-Democrat imbalance of just the nation's newspapers.

All told Journalists Donate to Democrats 9 to 1

Oct 19, 2010
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs. Senior executives, on-air personalitites, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008.

The Democratic total was given by 1,160 employees of the tree major TV networkds, with an average contributions os $880.

By contrast on 193 of the emplyees contributed to Republican candiates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $774.

Oct 19, 2010
As for my kids being influenced by my impressions, several months ago we were flipping through news channels NBC, CNN, and FOX about health care debate. NBC had 3 guests, all democrats slamming the R's. NBC had 2 guests and the host slamming the R's. Fox news had 1 D and 1 R with the host moderating. My kids instantely saw the bias. Fox news with a Republican taking on health care issue shows just how biased Fox news is. (sarcasm)

D or R who can you trust? Answer is neither. News media who can you trust to report most unbiased, FOX.

Oct 19, 2010
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Real evidence at least comes in the form of links.
http://thinkprogr...-debate/

Oct 19, 2010
Can we stop with this political nonsense. I admit, I fed into it, but it is hopelessly futile. In my brief time on PO, I've realized there are two types of posters on this site that seem to make up 95% of all. Those who want to learn (and defend science) and those who want to argue their worldview with no intention of gaining knowledge from those they disagree with. It takes 1-2 posts to see which group a poster belongs.

Oct 19, 2010
Don't get me wrong. It's entertaining before it devolves. Actually, we should thank the crazies on this site. The crazy's apparent goal completely backfires, because they only strengthen their enemies. Us normal people get to learn a lot, we get the opportunity to hone our skills and we end up strengthening our own arguments. It's kind of ironic, adventurous, funny, and sad all at the same time.

Oct 19, 2010
T - gotta be kidding... thinkprogress.... bet you think Pravda is conservative.

http://www.sodahe...g-66727/

This one is much better than thingprogress
http://answers.ya...2AAWUweK

Not allowing anti health care ads
http://www.thenew...acare-ad

but again progressives the ends justify the means. Even if it calls for bribing voting high schoolers with icecream
http://www.thebla...-voters/


Oct 19, 2010
Omg a freaking blog. And answers.yahoo.com. I'm simply speechless at the level of scholarship you've performed here. I just can't stop laughing. With this level of integrity, you probably think Obama really was born in Kenya.

Oct 20, 2010
Why do you feel the need to defend science? Science is a process. Do you feel the need to defend 'scientific' conclusions that advocate political action?
That is what 'science' is doing today on many fronts. Do you defend that process?
One would ask why you feel you need to protect Christianity and free marketeerishness. Perhaps it's your Randian failure to look past your own hide.
SH, maybe this guy will get to NH.

http://fee.org/me...-policy/

Principles matter?
Yes they do. Which is why when you attempt to impeach mine, it's laughable because you have none of your own.

Oct 20, 2010
Since most Federal Employees have to be in a union, and since the union only supports Democrats, then isn't it really taxpayers funding democrats election, since the union dues are paid for by taxpayers?

https://afl.salsa...stowatch

I find it funny that progressive groups like the democratic party, AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood, ACORN, say they're grass roots, but couldn't survive without government money.

No Federal, State, or City workers should be unionized. If workers cannot trust the government to provide fair salaries and benifits, then how can the public trust the government.

To cut the budget, no funding to any political action group or special interests. If the grass roots/special interest want money, then let the grass roots/special interest raise their own money.

Oct 20, 2010
Since most Federal Employees have to be in a union, and since the union only supports Democrats, then isn't it really taxpayers funding democrats election, since the union dues are paid for by taxpayers?

I'm no fan of unions. I think any union that has paid "Union Leaders" should be considered a corporation that has to provide benefits, and they can act as a contract company for the employer. When the employees demand ridiculous things, the contract isn't renewed.
To cut the budget, no funding to any political action group or special interests. If the grass roots/special interest want money, then let the grass roots/special interest raise their own money.
You're talking less than 100 million. That's peanuts compared to the really screwed up corporate welfare we pay to the defense industry. How about we let them innovate on their own dime and see if their companies survive. Invisible hand and all that jazz.

Oct 21, 2010
That's all well and good, but when the govt needs a new, innovative product, it won't be there because no one in the commercial market needs it.
Are you admitting that we're paying defense companies to make things that no one needs?

Are you a free market guy or a big military industrial complex guy? Pick one, you can't be both. That would be an example of your lack of principle, Marjon.

(Is marjon a poorly built contraction for major moron?)

Oct 21, 2010
Because their principles (yes, principles again) have led to the freest and most prosperous societies in human history.


If this is true, why are you so outraged? According to you, this happened despite boat loads of evil govt intrusion. You seem to have no reason for your fear of the momentum of our govt.

Compared to 99% of human history, we all live in ridiculous comfortability and opportunity. You just have an illogical need to be outraged at anything.

Oct 21, 2010
SH - No company needs a M1A1 tank, so government goes to industry with specs of what they need. That industry then comes up with a cost to build the tank. No one in the commercial market needs a tank, but the USA does.

Also SH if you see how much the government gives to special interest groups it is in the billions. On example is that the US has given 457 million to fund international abortions. Planned Parenthood had over a billion dollars in revenue. Hundreds of million of that came state and federal funding. With that funding from public money, they lobby politicians. Guess which party they support?

Oct 21, 2010
How many leftist organization could survive without getting money from the Government? Since most of these leftist directly support Democrats, how well would democrats do without getting all the money indirectly form taxpayers?

We need to clean the system November 2'nd.

Oct 22, 2010
No company needs a M1A1 tank, so government goes to industry with specs of what they need. That industry then comes up with a cost to build the tank. No one in the commercial market needs a tank, but the USA does.
Why does a government need an M1A1 tank? You and Marjon are the two who consistently speak of a monopoly of force in the government. Why let them have tanks at all? To fight off all those Canadians who've been invading our land?

Here's the deal: since the end of Vietnam, the price of defense has gone down by about 300%, but the price of aggression has gone up by about 4000% due to the innovations in targetting and communications that enable defensive action to be more robust and more efficient.

If the job of government is to protect the people, why would we need tanks? We have no enemies that can get a military on our shores. None. We're building invasion forces that sit in a closet. That's destruction of wealth and not in the Constitution.

Oct 22, 2010
We need tanks. C'mon now. Ignoring the reasons for the war, we would not have been able to take Baghdad so quickly if it were not for the Abrams tank. I saw its successes first hand. Defense? Well, saying we won't get invaded is as naive as political and economic isolationism. Our ability to negotiate economic terms is heavily influenced by our military power.

Oct 22, 2010
Do you have a CO monitor in your house?
Nope How about a smoke detector? yep
Maybe you have a deadbolt lock
Yep
or a home alarm tied to a security company.
Nope
Have you ever used these. If no, then you wasted your money.
Actually I use each of them constantly to protect my investments. They're a defense against a fire, theft, breakin etc. All defensive measures.

How often has the US been invaded since the invention of the tank.....

That's right, never.

Oct 22, 2010
Marjon, I'm with you on the defense thing. Are you with me in saying we live in unprecedented economic prosperity and freedom when compared to the whole of human history? Is that not good enough for you?

Oct 22, 2010
How often has the US been invaded since the invention of the tank.....

That's right, never.

Then the tank did its job.

The tank is an offensive weapon. Are you not getting this.

To anyone reading, we're so off topic on each article due to this jerkoff that it's becommming almost untenable to continue posting. Excuse us for the rampant need to correct bigoted idiots like Marjon.

Oct 22, 2010
are satisfied with the current state of the world? Millions are still living under tyranny and millions more are under continuous threat of tyranny, including the USA. We are in the 'best of all possible worlds'?


No and no, but of course, you know that. I would not have gone into service had I thought either. Clearly, you agree.

BUT, I also don't see the same threat of economic tyranny you do. I don't agree with your appraisal of our current economic situation or the govt work done in the past couple years. I don't agree with the hyperbole you consistently use to describe such things or the fear you and your ilk invent. I am also willing to freely give up a small bit of economic freedom so that millions of families and their descendants may have the opportunity to escape cyclical suffering. It's a small price for me as I still live very VERY comfortably.

Oct 22, 2010
The tank is an offensive weapon.


No, not exclusively and especially not in a strategic sense. Defense is much MUCH more than simply holding ground. It's early in this digression, but it seems so far that you are out of your element on this subject.

Oct 22, 2010
Marjon, I'm with you on the defense thing. Are you with me in saying we live in unprecedented economic prosperity and freedom when compared to the whole of human history? Is that not good enough for you?

The "we" you use is not the "we" of "the whole of human history".
The way you use the "we" is - unconscious, I assume - deceit.


Can you elaborate? I probably should have been more detailed or explicit. The "we" to which I am referring, are the barely poor to upper middle classes of the economically modern nations. The abject poor are no better; that hasn't changed much, or at all for many. I realize these definitions are over generalized. My point is that Marjon is fighting for a population that has much to give and is sadly greedy with it's resources.

Oct 22, 2010
"Aim for high goals, when you miss, you will still have improved." -some idiot

You know, sometimes, when you miss a goal, you end up in a rough spot. Sometimes much worse than where you started from. And you're in the worst possible position, marjon, because you're aiming for a goal you can't even see, but insist it has to be there because of some idea you've got, even though all the available evidence proves you're only shooting at phantoms.

Oct 22, 2010
The tank is an offensive weapon. Are you not getting this.
Offense is the best defense. Usually.

"Mao Zedong opined that "the only real defense is active defense", meaning defense for the purpose of counter-attacking and taking the offensive. Often success rests on destroying the enemy's ability to attack. In reference to fighting terrorists, Matthew Levitt opines, "It's important to pre-emptively strike at those who intend to do us harm." The principle is echoed in the writings of Machiavelli and Sun Tzu."

Oct 22, 2010
SH - tank was an example, how about jet fighter or how about spy satellites, or what about ships to keep the sea lanes free? Interesting you use and or carry a gun, yet you don't see the need for national defense.

The US hasn't been invaded, however the US tanks, planes, missles prevented USSR from invading western europe during the cold war.

Oct 22, 2010
What is despicable about that is it creates a dependent class of people who are truly slaves to the state.

But they have to want to escape.


Yeah, I could have read any of that in innumerable conservative web sites. Tell me, do you have any original thoughts outside of your memorized ideologies?

You clearly no nothing of poverty, the strength and scope in which it grips, it's daily, building, feedback roadblocks, both practical and logistical. Your absolutes are beyond condescending. Your belief in the altruism of the rich and powerful is beyond naive.

Oct 22, 2010
"It's important to pre-emptively strike at those who intend to do us harm."
Sounds like a terrorist's credo. A killed person can't prove his intentions were harmless.
A vicious cycle. The enemy always has the same problems you do- too many people, nowhere to put them, nothing to feed them.

What to do? Ages ago Leaders decided to solve their mutual Problems by waging war on the people. Brilliant or what? They do this by dividing the people up and setting them against each other in orderly ways. This is how They conquered the world.
No better than the witch torturers and killers of the holy inquisition - the human history's losers united.
Exactly. They thought they were doing the right thing, yes? So do Sunnis when they bomb Shiite mosques.

The inquisition were the GOOD guys at the time. Perhaps if the witches and cathars had won, your history book would say some different things.

Oct 22, 2010
No, not exclusively and especially not in a strategic sense. Defense is much MUCH more than simply holding ground. It's early in this digression, but it seems so far that you are out of your element on this subject.
As a former F.I.S.T. and US Armored Cav Captain, I'd say, your assessment of my depth is wrong.
The US hasn't been invaded, however the US tanks, planes, missles prevented USSR from invading western europe during the cold war.
As someone who was there, it was because we sat in offensive stance in foreign territory, directly across an imaginary line from them.

Who does that to the US today?

Oct 22, 2010
No one and look at what is invading our southern border.
Border enforcement worked in Europe, it works in Israel and it would work in the USA if the govt had the courage to enforce the law. Next time, stop typing after you finish the word "one", because that is the extent of your information on the topic.
You insect, you're promoting a war with gangsters involving tanks invading Mexican sovereign land. Do you really want to start war with everyone on the planet just to suit your lazy ass Chelmsford, MA lifestyle?

Oct 23, 2010
Why do you suggest I have disregard the difference?
The structure of your statements and omission of differences regardless of your relative statement on the topic.

I assume that anyone who points a weapon at me wants to do me harm.
Do you understand the difference?

Do you think you should have the right to shoot someone who shakes an angry fist at you? That is what you're leading us to believe with your commentary. Hence frajo's statement.

Oct 23, 2010
the slaughter of Jews by the German Nazis, the mass murders of Jughashvili, nearly every genocide ever committed in human history and before.
Whaaat? My statement was only that the people who were doing those things, and the people who ordered them to do it, believed at the time that they were doing the right thing, which is TRUE.

This in no way implies that I think it was either good or right. Only blind ideologues could reach that conclusion. As only blind ideologues could be capable of committing such crimes, in defense of their ideology.

Sometimes one HAS to fight. Sometimes the enemy seeks to destroy you from beyond your borders and sometimes they live amongst you. And crucially, you are always TOLD who the enemy is, and why you absolutely HAVE to fight them or be destroyed.

Oct 23, 2010
This is certainly not my credo- it is one that is consistently used to create constructive conflict. 'The other tribe' is a biological concept. Competition is inevitable in life. A species always produces more offspring than can be expected to grow to maturity, and humans have made this far worse. Thus conflict is INEVITABLE. You disagree with any of these obvious realities?

Oct 23, 2010
How often has the US been invaded since the invention of the tank.....

That's right, never.


And this is an argument against having a lot of tanks sitting around HOW exactly?

Oct 23, 2010
And this is an argument against having a lot of tanks sitting around HOW exactly?
It isn't, it's an argument against stockpiling weapons that are not necessary.

Oct 23, 2010
And this is an argument against having a lot of tanks sitting around HOW exactly?
It isn't, it's an argument against stockpiling weapons that are not necessary.


So, the fact that say someone knows that we have tanks in abundance wouldn't be any kind of deterrent against invading the country?

Well that's certainly one opinion...

Oct 23, 2010
So, the fact that say someone knows that we have tanks in abundance wouldn't be any kind of deterrent against invading the country?
No, I would say the primary deterent is the fact that if you attacked the US, your country would be shut down economically, permenantly.I would say the inability to get an army into the US without being noticed would be the secondary deterent. That coupled with the fact that our citizens would be the strongest armed partisan force on the planet is a secondary.

Do you know how many guns are sold in the US per month? Enough to arm the full military might of the entire European combined forces. Enough to arm the entire Chinese military.

We're a scary, scary people.

Oct 23, 2010
What is really scary is MA gun laws which leave it to the discretion of the chief of police whether you can exercise your 2nd amendment right to self-defense.

On this point we agree.

Oct 23, 2010
For those that think Christians are fools the following link proves it

http://www.youtub...jyvnEidY

Oct 24, 2010
For those that think Christians are fools the following link proves it

http://www.youtub...jyvnEidY

Yuck. I will see your pap and raise you one Marduk:
http://www.youtub...a_player

-Your music seeks to enthrall people weakened by personal misfortune and the ravages of time, offering them the lie of eternal life. Black metal seeks to enthuse and enrage people against the evil lies of your false god, and all the horrors done in it's name. Plus it's a lot more fun.

Oct 24, 2010
Violence :) No security guards protecting Michael Card. I agree with you, Black metal seeks to enrage people who think they have no power, who think the world is agaist them, who think life is unfair. They rage agaist God and to hate.

Christian music purpose is to educates, bring peace, calm the soul, to encourage us to live right, to love.

Put your Black metal music side to side with Christian music, on one side you see love and power and hope, on the other side you have hate, rage, and violence.

Please Otto give the contrast.
Poem of your life - talks about the truth of life
http://www.youtub...index=29

Christians actually united
http://www.youtub...=related

lifes troubles and pain
http://www.youtub...=related

Gods power
http://www.youtub...ure=fvsr

http://www.youtub...kFSAFyfE