Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

UOducksTK1 wrote:"Viagra is affordable. Birth control can be very expensive if you don't have insurance. Trust me."

You can get birth control, reasonably for 10-25 bucks a month. Just saying... You can mow my lawn once a week, and I'll buy you pills.

I am lucky to have insurance so I can afford my own if needed. However, I'll leave that lawn mowing spot open for the "lazy 16 year old who works at Taco Bell" you mentioned earlier. It's cool you have a lawn being a college student & all. I remember having to live in an apartment right on the parking lot. I would have given up a body part to have lawn space.

MFRDuckFan wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:"Viagra is affordable. Birth control can be very expensive if you don't have insurance. Trust me."

You can get birth control, reasonably for 10-25 bucks a month. Just saying... You can mow my lawn once a week, and I'll buy you pills.

I am lucky to have insurance so I can afford my own if needed. However, I'll leave that lawn mowing spot open for the "lazy 16 year old who works at Taco Bell" you mentioned earlier. It's cool you have a lawn being a college student & all. I remember having to live in an apartment right on the parking lot. I would have given up a body part to have lawn space.

Luck has nothing to do with it, unless you are raised in a rich family, then yes you are more fortunate. You make choices, you have to live with those choices.

Lol I don't have a lawn, I was just trying to point out how ridiculously easy it is to earn 15 bucks. Yet you exaggerate the pill to be at a monumental price. 99.9% of Americans can afford birth control, no need to beat around the bush. It's funny how every person can have an iphone 4 or a massive wide screen tv, but 50 cents a day on birth control pills, no way.

Duck07 wrote:

renfrO wrote:

Duck07 wrote:I believe we've been living in a one-party system for some time now and when taking an honest examination of the policies that each administration has put in place since Reagan I don't see how that can be argued. Good old Ronny took America from being the world's largest lender to debtor in less than a decade! Yay Reagonomics!

If it is a one-party system, why is so much money, time and effort put in by each side attempting to win?

Duck07 wrote:What about the moral argument for over-population?

You mean the myth of over-population?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... odJ0OOdgRg#!

Duck07 wrote:For the religiously inclined (let's not kid ourselves on this one either, this is very much a religious question so either recuse yourself or don't start with any insults, capiche?), how can you separate killing a fetus versus dropping a smart-bomb in a market?

How is killing a US citizen who has constitutional rights only a religious question?

Such a silly first post! You can't actually argue my points can you? Do you really believe that cute little video of yours? Or how it ignores the fact that we have a limited amount of resources such as arable land or fresh water and continuing to add more people only means fewer and fewer people will have access to those resources.

As for your abortion remark, I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where a fetus is given rights, is it in the Bill of Rights? I understand an implied right, but that isn't what you're talking about. Care to answer which is worse, abortion or dropping smart-bombs that "accidentally" land on innocent people?

The source of the numbers used in that "cute little video" is the United Nations Population Division. Do you believe that the numbers cited in the video or math presented are inaccurate? If so, specify.

And there is plenty of evidence suggesting that your claim about limited resources is false: http://overpopulationisamyth.com/food-theres-lots-it

A fetus is a living human being at a certain stage of development. Similarly, a teenager is a living human being at a certain stage of development. The constitution doesn't specify that teenagers have rights either. However, we all know that they do since they are living human beings.

Both are tragic. But, deliberately killing an innocent person is worse than accidentally killing one.

Elduderino wrote:

renfrO wrote: That is not what happened. No politicians are trying to take birth control away..

Rick Santorum disagrees.

One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s OK; contraception is OK. It’s not OK. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.

renfrO wrote:That's fine. However, taking a life as one of the options is to violate the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Protecting the rights and liberty of people is not a religious dictate on the basis that religions agree with the perspective. By that reasoning, all laws against murder would also be "religious dictates".

Well, we both know where this is headed--"where/when does life begin?" Not all people of all faiths agree on the subject, and those who subscribe to no organized religion might obviously feel different. Comparatively, there is no debate about the viability of a conscious human being.

renfrO wrote:

Elduderino wrote:The “Author of life,” in his/her/its various historical incantations, has been a major justification for some of the most heinous and insensible wars in the history of mankind.

One, wars over secular reasons easily outpace religious wars in the heinous and insensible categories. Even wars that are sometimes characterized as "religious" such as The Thirty Years War were arguably driven by old fashioned secular motives (expansion of states by taking over territories).

So you're saying what exactly? Yes, religion has been a justification for war, but there have been more secular ones, so no big deal? The major wars of our time (using "modern history") have admittedly been largely secular--but if you continue back through history and count the colonization/"civilization" of the Americas, the Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Jihads, the persecution of the Irish & continued Protestant-Catholic tensions, etc.. different religions have unavoidably been at the heart (wrongfully) of justification for war.

renfrO wrote:Two, the acts and judgment of people should not be confused with religious belief. For example, that some people have used God to justify something that is wrong does not logically mean that believing in God causes such judgments.

Nor have I ever claimed such things. My intent is to point out the irony in pointing to God (in whatever form one believes in) for judgment of a bloodthirsty culture, while ignoring that these same God(s) have been used as justification for "bloodthirsty" acts; sometimes by that very same society. Not to condemn any one religious belief system (I believe that most contribute in a very positive manner), nor those that believe.

Unless there is some other quote that I am missing, Rick Santorum has not called for the banning of contraceptives. He seems to be being purposely taken out of context from an article he wrote (in which he specifically clarifies that he is not agreeing with the law banning contraceptives).

"Now, before you jump to conclusions, let me clearly state that this law was badly written, and I would not have supported it or its intent."

http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/s ... 190728.asp

---

We don't need faith to lead to various interpretations on when life begins. Science confirms that an unborn child, at all stages, is A) alive and B) a unique individual member of the human species.

Even if people don't want to accept that secular basis, when life begins certainly is not defined by the constitution and thus should be subject to legislation rather than judicial fiat at the federal level.

---

I'm not contesting that people have justified war for religious reasons. Most religions do not warrant that the decisions and judgment of people are perfect. In other words, those wrongs are on the people that made them. Not on religions, many of which have clearly stated beliefs that contradict and condemn the acts that those people have carried out.

The irony you allude to doesn't really work since the people justifying bloodthirsty behavior (as religious or any other reason) could be wrong in the eyes of God and those who are condemning it could be right.

MFRDuckFan wrote:I'm going to hit the highlights on your posts ~

MFRDuckFan wrote:How about a man putting a sleeve on it & taking some responsibility of not getting her pregnant in the first place?

Deadbeat dads are certainly a problem. I don't think anyone is letting them off the hook.

However, a father not taking responsibility for their role isn't an excuse for taking a life.

It is that woman's choice to do what is best for her, not you. She has every right, it is her body. When you can carry that baby on your own, then you can have a say. Until then, women should not have to bend to what some man thinks is best. Sorry.

MFRDuckFan wrote:You should read up on what women did before abortion became legal. They went into back alleys & many died from those procedures. Outlawing abortion doesn't mean they're not going to happen just means more women are going to die.

Should we legalize burglary since robbing homes can be dangerous?

Really? You're going with that comparison? Please...........

MFRDuckFan wrote:You obviously don't live in the real world or have ever known any woman who has had to make such a hard choice. I've never known any woman that would treat a pregnancy as an "inconvenience". You make it sound so easy to just carry the baby to term & give that child up for adoption. Not one statement from you lends any responsibility to the male counterpart of this whole situation. You can't tell me that God is perfectly okay with a man going around making women pregnant and the woman must bear the complete responsibility of the situation. That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

These are two, separate acts.

The act of making a child takes two people. And, yes, they are both responsible. And yes, men who don't take responsibility for their role in a pregnancy are wrong.

However, the decision to take a life is a separate act. A man not taking responsibility for the pregnancy does not justify taking the life later. And certainly, the responsibility for taking that life can be shared by women and men. For example, the person performing the abortion could be a man. Or, a man could pressure or compel a woman to have an abortion. Or, men can fund and support abortion institutions or laws.

Men and women ARE responsible for taking human life through abortions. That there are deadbeat dads in the world is no justification for taking a life.

Same as above. It's not YOUR body, it's hers or mine. Sorry, you have no say. Try to take it away & you will not win.

MFRDuckFan wrote:Bloodthirsty? Give me a break. I would love to see you become socially active & come up with solutions instead of pointing your fingers at those who don't necessarily follow your doctrines. It's easy to quote from a centuries old book vs. taking a clear look at what's really happening.

How about quoting from our founding documents?

Taking a life through abortion is to violate the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Really? I don't think the founding fathers were worried about women getting abortions back then (although I'm guessing they did happen with horrible results). Interesting in trying to twist something to fit your argument. Eye roll from me on this one.

MFRDuckFan wrote:Open up your home to pregnant women who have nowhere to go. Stand up & have your voice heard against war. Solutions.

If given the opportunity, MANY people would open their homes to pregnant women in order to prevent abortions. It is organizations like Planned Parenthood that are fighting against such solutions and charity.

This is 110% a lie and you know it. If you're going to make such an inflammatory statement, you need to back this up with facts. I'll be waiting.

MFRDuckFan wrote:It would be wonderful if abstinence was practiced first, but many married people might actually want to have a relationship with their spouse and ultimately have children down the road, so birth control is their best option and if it was reasonably priced, it may not be the typical choice of either paying for gas or birth control. That is a real life reality of the average American.

* It's very easy to get free birth control already.
* Even if you pay for it, it's not expensive.

Viagra is affordable. Birth control can be very expensive if you don't have insurance. Trust me.

It's not just your body. There is the body of another person involved. Why do you have a choice with your body but the person you want to kill does not? If you could speak as an unborn child, would you not object to harm and want to live to have the experiences you've been through so far? Think about your family and the positive things that you have done. Have you not done anything in this life that is worth protecting?

---

This isn't a man vs. woman thing. Women are against abortion as well. So, there is no "men can't tell me what to do" argument to be made.

---

How is my burglary comparison not accurate? Your argument is that because illegal abortions are dangerous, they should be legal to keep them safe. However, many crimes are dangerous to commit and people widely accept that they should still be illegal.

---

There is a massive amount of resources and assistance available for women who need help with a pregnancy: "There are over 4,000 CPCs in the United States, as compared with well under 750 abortion clinics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pregnancy_center#

Planned Parenthood has worked with politicians to try and punish CPCs. They absurdly characterize it as false advertising to list a CPC in a phone book under "family planning" or "clinics". In Planned Parenthood's world, it should be against the law for a CPC to call their organization a "Women's Resource Center".

The way they bullied Komen recently is another example of their anti-charity, self-serving model. As exposed by a former Planned Parenthood employee of the year: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/03/plann ... ue-colors/

Several other former Planned Parenthood employees are willing to testify to congress that, contrary to your assertion, Federal funds are used for abortion services (among other acts of serious malfeasance): http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/07/form ... nal-probe/

---

How is $20 a month for birth control expensive? And again, you can get it for free, without insurance, if you can't afford it.

renfrO wrote:The source of the numbers used in that "cute little video" is the United Nations Population Division. Do you believe that the numbers cited in the video or math presented are inaccurate? If so, specify.

And there is plenty of evidence suggesting that your claim about limited resources is false: http://overpopulationisamyth.com/food-theres-lots-it

A fetus is a living human being at a certain stage of development. Similarly, a teenager is a living human being at a certain stage of development. The constitution doesn't specify that teenagers have rights either. However, we all know that they do since they are living human beings.

Both are tragic. But, deliberately killing an innocent person is worse than accidentally killing one.

Not a single mention about water at all... Or that the main crop being grown is corn... Or that the overwhelming majority of people living on this planet are in poor health. The "myth" to the "myth of overpopulation" is that we are already able to adequately care for all of those people, or are you that daft that you think the world is doing just fine? My only legitimate gripe with Ron Paul is that he also wants to cut off all the Food Aid we gave out to so many people who without would be f-ed. Our socialist humantarian efforts are about the closest thing this government does to emulating Christ - propagating massive foreign wars (and the covert assassinations) the furthest.

Sigh.

Moving on, I was completely unaware that there has been a common consensus on when life begins. Last I checked, its still being debated and people of various ethos' share different views on it. IF you want to define it on a religious belief alone, then you better make it illegal to jerk off too since you're not supposed to let any seed hit the soil, or are you a Protestant? (of course, we can't make laws in this country based off religious beliefs alone - or are you arguing for a move to a theocracy?)

Finally, I am glad we agree on something. You must now agree with me then that is therefore immoral to kill babies and go to war. Or are you telling me that one is acceptable under certain situations and the other is not?

Ron Swanson for president? Anyone?

renfrO - the boxes are getting too big & tiresome to attach so I'm just going to lay it out very simply because it's clear we're not going to agree on this.

1. Of course I've done much in my life that's worth protecting but am not going to let you or anyone else decide what is best for me. Of course there are other women who don't believe in abortion, but they also have NO right to tell me (just like I have NO right to tell them) what they should or should not do with their own bodies. That is the simple argument. You don't seem to be understanding this so it's useless to go back & forth on it. I do not believe that conception is the set point to determine human life. It should be survivability outside the womb. Until then, your cells are just that, cells. If you've ever spent time in a neonatal intensive care unit, you would see what I'm talking about. But then again, it's just my opinion & it will not change yours.

2. Your burglary analogy is still ridiculous. You liken an abortion to a crime, which it is not in order to justify your position. Please read #1 above for the same response.

3. So we bullied Komen, eh? Interesting take, but I'm not surprised you would say that. Planned Parenthood offers valuable health services (including breast exams, prostate exams, etc.) and those wishing to outlaw abortion have targeted PP in order to try to make that happen. Do you think women are going to stand by & let you take away that choice? No. You can easily find former employees of any organization (including Komen) who would give negative testimony and I find it also not surprising that you would link to a pro-life article. Yeah, non biased there. Let's see the actual documents & bank statements of money funneling for abortions.

4. Depending on which birth control you use, it can be expensive or it can be free/low cost. I'm basing my view from personal experience & those of my inner circle.

5. Since you're against abortion, I'm guessing you don't believe in the death penalty, war, guns or hunting. Since you mentioned the word "innocent", that definitely describes those who could possibly be wrongly accused, men/women going off to war, children with guns & wild animals. I'm not sure how you can decide one is wrong & not all of the others.

Duck07 wrote:Moving on, I was completely unaware that there has been a common consensus on when life begins. Last I checked, its still being debated and people of various ethos' share different views on it. IF you want to define it on a religious belief alone, then you better make it illegal to jerk off too since you're not supposed to let any seed hit the soil, or are you a Protestant? (of course, we can't make laws in this country based off religious beliefs alone - or are you arguing for a move to a theocracy?)

Yeah, when did this happen?

Unless there is some other quote that I am missing, Rick Santorum has not called for the banning of contraceptives. He seems to be being purposely taken out of context from an article he wrote (in which he specifically clarifies that he is not agreeing with the law banning contraceptives).

"Now, before you jump to conclusions, let me clearly state that this law was badly written, and I would not have supported it or its intent."

Actually, the quote I referenced came from a Santorum interview--not his article you provided. He has since backed off his contraception claims (I think he's figured out they aren't as main-stream as he thought). The link below provides the context.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/ ... radiction/

RE Religion and War: I'll say, to be clear, I am far from anti-religion. I'm admittedly not an overly religious person myself, but I do recognize the the positive impact different religious groups can/do make in our communities. That being said, I think it is important to understand that not all people share the same interpretations of each religion and while some would use it for good, others would use it as justification for great tragedy.

Duck07 wrote:Finally, I am glad we agree on something. You must now agree with me then that is therefore immoral to kill babies and go to war. Or are you telling me that one is acceptable under certain situations and the other is not?

07, I know this isn't intended toward me, but for fun, I'll submit that both are acceptable under certain situations.

Duck07 wrote:

lukeyrid13 wrote:

Duck07 wrote:

Phalanx wrote:I just got done arguing with a guy who has no problem killing women and babies with drones as long as it doesn't consume over 5% of our GDP, and now I get to read a woman who wants to kill babies if carrying them to term is too much inconvenience, or a guy who thinks it's okay to kill babies because we need to cull some of the herd anyway. I live in a bloodthirsty culture. In public school, I can remember being in history class and each chapter was highlighted by a war; 95% of the class was just going from war to war, and that was the summation of American History 101. All I can say is, it's a good thing that you people have sports to placate you, or God only knows what you would be occupying yourselves with. I feel like I live in the Last Days of Pompeii or something. Some people think that Judgment Day is not coming. It is. There is accountability to the Author of life for these things. Do you think that saying, "But God, they were going to do it in a back alley anyway" is going to sway Him?

If you are referencing my point about over-population, you'll have to make a better analysis of it than that.

What are your thoughts on the book of Job? Personally, I find it sadistic that God would entertain Satan like that. If he were a person in the United States caught doing that he would be brought up for multiple felony charges. As Carl Jung famously said "Is it worth the lion's while to terrorize a mouse?"

God was showing satan that Job was a devoted follower. No matter what happened to Job he would never turn his back on God. It also showed the deviousness and ruthlessness of Satan.

Why does God have to show/prove anything to Satan?

What about the atrocities that King David committed?

Satan thought he was clever and could prove to God that with his power he could break down one of God's followers. God, Job's 'Father' was proud of his son and wanted to show off how much he trusted him and had faith in him. Satan has many many wins by deceiving and God 'won' that one as bad as that sounds.

As for David, he did some awful things. Not in God's name but in David's name. God didn't want David to cheat, lie, murder etc but David did all of those things. Just like a parent, God loved David and despite his extreme disappointment he forgave David just as he does with every other person.

Look at the ten commandments for example, I can say I've broken probably 8 out of 10 which would make me a total failure and I admit that. Just like David I've done some pretty bad things(nowhere near murder though). That is what separated David is he knew what he did was bad, very bad and asked for forgiveness. Most people think they're good but redeeming quality is knowing that you're bad and you need God. David knew that.

lukeyrid13 wrote:Look at the ten commandments for example, I can say I've broken probably 8 out of 10 which would make me a total failure and I admit that. Just like David I've done some pretty bad things(nowhere near murder though). That is what separated David is he knew what he did was bad, very bad and asked for forgiveness. Most people think they're good but redeeming quality is knowing that you're bad and you need God. David knew that.

Do you believe women enjoy the process of going through an abortion? Do you believe that the majority of them want to do it in the first place? Why is not acceptable for an individual to sin today and seek forgiveness if it was acceptable for David?

If you want to stop abortions than legislation is the absolute worst way to accomplish that.

Elduderino wrote:

Duck07 wrote:Finally, I am glad we agree on something. You must now agree with me then that is therefore immoral to kill babies and go to war. Or are you telling me that one is acceptable under certain situations and the other is not?

07, I know this isn't intended toward me, but for fun, I'll submit that both are acceptable under certain situations.

this thread is open ground for anybody to jump in like hacksaw jim duggan whenever they feel the need

I agree as well, which is why until something definitive is shown...which I don't think is possible based on where the many sides all stand.

Ha! I haven't thought about good ol' Hacksaw in years. The first thing I thought of when I read his name was the 2x4 with the flag on it!

Good times!

ncduck wrote:Ha! I haven't thought about good ol' Hacksaw in years. The first thing I thought of when I read his name was the 2x4 with the flag on it!

Good times!

Same thing as soon as I saw his name.

Duck07 wrote:

renfrO wrote:The source of the numbers used in that "cute little video" is the United Nations Population Division. Do you believe that the numbers cited in the video or math presented are inaccurate? If so, specify.

And there is plenty of evidence suggesting that your claim about limited resources is false: http://overpopulationisamyth.com/food-theres-lots-it

A fetus is a living human being at a certain stage of development. Similarly, a teenager is a living human being at a certain stage of development. The constitution doesn't specify that teenagers have rights either. However, we all know that they do since they are living human beings.

Both are tragic. But, deliberately killing an innocent person is worse than accidentally killing one.

Not a single mention about water at all... Or that the main crop being grown is corn... Or that the overwhelming majority of people living on this planet are in poor health. The "myth" to the "myth of overpopulation" is that we are already able to adequately care for all of those people, or are you that daft that you think the world is doing just fine? My only legitimate gripe with Ron Paul is that he also wants to cut off all the Food Aid we gave out to so many people who without would be f-ed. Our socialist humantarian efforts are about the closest thing this government does to emulating Christ - propagating massive foreign wars (and the covert assassinations) the furthest.

Sigh.

Moving on, I was completely unaware that there has been a common consensus on when life begins. Last I checked, its still being debated and people of various ethos' share different views on it. IF you want to define it on a religious belief alone, then you better make it illegal to jerk off too since you're not supposed to let any seed hit the soil, or are you a Protestant? (of course, we can't make laws in this country based off religious beliefs alone - or are you arguing for a move to a theocracy?)

Finally, I am glad we agree on something. You must now agree with me then that is therefore immoral to kill babies and go to war. Or are you telling me that one is acceptable under certain situations and the other is not?

There are regional problems for which population is not the primary cause. That there are inefficiencies and poverty in the world is not evidence that over-population is the problem. Nor is it justification for the immoral policies that such beliefs lead to.

---

No. When life begins is being debated by people of specific ethos: self-serving pro-abortion advocates. Life beginning at conception, before Roe vs. Wade was taught as uncontroversial fact for decades in biological science. Even today, years after Row vs. Wade, text books used for core teaching of biological science confirm that life begins at conception, as do medical dictionaries and encyclopedias.

Here is a list of references: http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/artic ... otes2.html

And where did I define it on a religious belief? Sorry to pull the carpet out from under you by not referring to the straw man you were hoping to debate with.

---

No nation that I'm aware of has ever gone to war for the purpose of killing babies.