Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-20 09:27:18)
Sec. 871. Threats against President and successors to the
Presidency wrote:
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-20 09:31:59)
Last edited by Chuckles (2006-07-20 09:50:28)
By your logic, how do you eat? Plants and animals are alive and grown for our consumption.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Im not a crazy christian or anything. Its a matter of morals. I just dont like the idea of creating life then ending that life, especially when there are alternative methods able to be used.B.Schuss wrote:
unbelievable. I wonder who is behind that decision ( apart from GWB, of course ). Bible-belt fanatics...
note to self: never again elect a reborn christian into office.
So now we are equating unborn human life down to the level of food?Pinto wrote:
By your logic, how do you eat? Plants and animals are alive and grown for our consumption.
As you are happy to fling personal insults around, you are a complete clownshoe for a couple of reasons.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
You have no morals or any ability to use spell check. That "thing" would become a child. It could be a the next Mozart or just an ordinary person. Who are we to decide that we can end that life before it even begins? Thats playing God and I dont have faith in humans to be able to make that judgement.
Get your facts straight. The cells that were to be used are abandoned or deformed cells.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Creating life just to destroy it creates a moral dillema.
There is a huge difference between overthrowing a dictator that had killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and creating babies just to harvest stem cells. Its not natural. Let me say again. I am all for stem cell research but not by creating life just to end it. There are alternative methods so use them.Foxhoundmgw wrote:
As you are happy to fling personal insults around, you are a complete clownshoe for a couple of reasons.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
You have no morals or any ability to use spell check. That "thing" would become a child. It could be a the next Mozart or just an ordinary person. Who are we to decide that we can end that life before it even begins? Thats playing God and I dont have faith in humans to be able to make that judgement.
1. Who are we to decide that we can end that life before it even begins?
When will Bush veto War then? War ends life before it has a chance to start.
2. You have no morals or any ability to use spell check.
What does someones spelling or grammar have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing, you are a twat.
In the future, don't belittle someones views because their 'Engrish' isn't as good as yours.
What do you say to this, Banannahands?Chuckles wrote:
Here's the thing though. Most stem cells come from fertility clinics. When fertility clinics are trying to create a baby artificially they create more embryos than they need, in the hopes that one or more will actually be usable to implant in the mother. The extras are disposed of. Tossed out with the coffee grounds. They weren't made in any way, shape for form with the intention of being used for research, just to give some poor couple a child they can love.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Im against this for similar reasons that I am against abortion. Its creating life just to kill it. There are other ways to get stem cells than this and I am fully in support of that.
The question is, if that couple doesn't need the embryos and they're gong to get tossed out anyway, shouldn't we try to get SOME good from them?
Thus we are left with the unanswered question: When does life begin? If you can answer that then you have a basis for your argument. If you can't, you don't.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
There is a huge difference between overthrowing a dictator that had killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and creating babies just to harvest stem cells. Its not natural. Let me say again. I am all for stem cell research but not by creating life just to end it. There are alternative methods so use them.Foxhoundmgw wrote:
As you are happy to fling personal insults around, you are a complete clownshoe for a couple of reasons.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
You have no morals or any ability to use spell check. That "thing" would become a child. It could be a the next Mozart or just an ordinary person. Who are we to decide that we can end that life before it even begins? Thats playing God and I dont have faith in humans to be able to make that judgement.
1. Who are we to decide that we can end that life before it even begins?
When will Bush veto War then? War ends life before it has a chance to start.
2. You have no morals or any ability to use spell check.
What does someones spelling or grammar have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing, you are a twat.
In the future, don't belittle someones views because their 'Engrish' isn't as good as yours.
When the process begins. Do I need to give you the birds and the bees talk?GATOR591957 wrote:
Thus we are left with the unanswered question: When does life begin? If you can answer that then you have a basis for your argument. If you can't, you don't.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
There is a huge difference between overthrowing a dictator that had killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and creating babies just to harvest stem cells. Its not natural. Let me say again. I am all for stem cell research but not by creating life just to end it. There are alternative methods so use them.Foxhoundmgw wrote:
As you are happy to fling personal insults around, you are a complete clownshoe for a couple of reasons.
1. Who are we to decide that we can end that life before it even begins?
When will Bush veto War then? War ends life before it has a chance to start.
2. You have no morals or any ability to use spell check.
What does someones spelling or grammar have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing, you are a twat.
In the future, don't belittle someones views because their 'Engrish' isn't as good as yours.
If you show me a procedure that does not harm embryos while still collecting stem cells, my objection might lessen.Altophish wrote:
Fine then...drag me into this stuipid debate kicking and screaming.
First of all...stem cells can harvested in a couple of different ways that dont involve death. The numbers are just much lower (of cells)
Well that is faulty logic to say the least, they were once illegal. Using that form of logic they would never have become legal. I hate to point this out, but abortion has been illegal for most of human history. Again, just because they 'happen' does not make them moral or ethical. And no, it is not the same thing as tissue donation. You had to make a concious choice to have that stamp put on your drivers license.Altophish wrote:
Second...How many of us have the stamp on our drivers for organ and tissue donating? Same thing. If your dead it is of no use to you. Abortions happen. Whatever your feelings on them is irrelavent. They are legal.
Bringing up selfish interests in order to bolster your argument is not going to get you much traction. Just because people are doing it does not necessarily make it right. Personally, it almost sounds like a perverse form of paedophilia to have children for the sole purpose of having ready tissues.Altophish wrote:
Yes, I feel like starting a pregnancy only to end it for your own gains is immoral. However, I know at least a dozen couples (from work I have done) who have had children for no other reason than tissue donating. Things like bone marrow or extra kidneys. They had children, not from a desire to propogate, but from a desire to live.
Try looking up the figures for the deaths attributable to communism/socialism...approximately 80 million in the 20th century. What are the figures for abortions conducted worldwide every year?Altophish wrote:
Remember, Christianity is somewhere at the top of list for leading causes of death through out the history of the world. Don't believe me?...try leafing through a history book.
That is just one year. 46 million lives ended in ONE year alone....I don't think that your 'Christianity being the leading cause of death' holds up to this unless you perform a mental sleight of hand and discount the fact that these embryos are 'life'. Do a little math...at that rate it adds up to more than a billion lives ended from abortion alone in the last 25 years. That is a staggering figure...if, and only if, you think about it.Guttmacher Institue wrote:
Approximately 26 million legal and 20 million illegal abortions were performed worldwide in 1995, resulting in a worldwide abortion rate of 35 per 1,000 women aged 15–44. Among the subregions of the world, Eastern Europe had the highest abortion rate (90 per 1,000) and Western Europe the lowest rate (11 per 1,000). Among countries where abortion is legal without restriction as to reason, the highest abortion rate, 83 per 1,000, was reported for Vietnam and the lowest, seven per 1,000, for Belgium and the Netherlands...
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html
I am sorry, but have you ever read the Hippocratic oath? It's origins do not spring from Christianity.Altophish wrote:
I'm not trying to be an ass but it seems to me that the wrong group of people is setting the bar for morality in this country. Remember "Blind faith is worse than no faith at all."
It seems that we willing to sacrifice any ethical system that gets in the way in order to cater to our increasingly venal society.The Hippocratic Oath wrote:
I swear by Apollo the physician, by Æsculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath.
To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.
Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."
Last edited by alpinestar (2006-07-20 11:46:34)
Bush is retarded? Your the one with a micheal J fox sig.alpinestar wrote:
When I said Bush is retarded lastime I got gangbanged by rednecks on these forums.
Why can't anyone open their eyes ?
Youre the one not getting the joke..-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Bush is retarded? Your the one with a micheal J fox sig.alpinestar wrote:
When I said Bush is retarded lastime I got gangbanged by rednecks on these forums.
Why can't anyone open their eyes ?
I get the joke, its tasteless.alpinestar wrote:
Youre the one not getting the joke..-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Bush is retarded? Your the one with a micheal J fox sig.alpinestar wrote:
When I said Bush is retarded lastime I got gangbanged by rednecks on these forums.
Why can't anyone open their eyes ?
rofl...alpinestar wrote:
Youre the one not getting the joke..-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Bush is retarded? Your the one with a micheal J fox sig.alpinestar wrote:
When I said Bush is retarded lastime I got gangbanged by rednecks on these forums.
Why can't anyone open their eyes ?
Dumbass huh? That "dumbass" found a way to become elected President of the most powerful nation on earth. The man isn't dumb.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
rofl...alpinestar wrote:
Youre the one not getting the joke..-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Bush is retarded? Your the one with a micheal J fox sig.
you cant say bush is really a retard... hes just not a bright president... hes kinda a dumbass i agree
Just like your grammar-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
I get the joke, its tasteless.alpinestar wrote:
Youre the one not getting the joke..-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Bush is retarded? Your the one with a micheal J fox sig.
Last edited by Major_Spittle (2006-07-20 11:56:53)
"Youre" the one with bad grammar.alpinestar wrote:
Just like your grammar-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
I get the joke, its tasteless.alpinestar wrote:
Youre the one not getting the joke..