The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by truejedi
You can hate the man, but Bush is still the president. Respect the office. IF you have any pride as an american at all, you should have at least waited until he was out of office to blast him all the time.

I'm not going to do the reverse with Obama. He's going to be the president, he's going to have my respect and support.

On the abortion issue; I definitely don't consider it murder, let alone genocide (it's not wiping out a species). I'm firmly pro-choice, but I'm definitely not for loose and easily accessible abortion. Meaning, I don't think it should be used as birth control. In the cases of rape or incest, it should be guaranteed; if you just got knocked up because you were too drunk or stupid to wear a condom, there should be a fine or something. I also support having it done before the onset of the second semester.

But everyone should have the right. Think about what a child would go through growing up unwanted. Freakonomics details this pretty well, although I'm not sure I agree with a few of the conclusions drawn.

Did you people watch Lake of Fire?

On my abortion stuff, no, I don't believe it is ethically correct to have any woman be able to go "Hi, I'm pregnant. Can I get an abortion?" an automatically get one. On the other hand, however, it should be readily available in all states- all things considered, no one has a right to force somebody else to support a life, especially if that life is contained within somebody's body. Telling someone else what to do with their body is just absurd and anti-democractic. Especially considering that the Christian Church was- and still is- traditionally a male-dominated organization.

Especially if a woman is raped or incest is done. Forced pregnancy as a result of rape is the equivalent of a woman being forced to act as a 'breeding system' against her will.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Sorry, my argument last night was kind of shitty, probably because I had just completed four hours of brain-frying math work and it was 1:00 AM. So, anyways, I'm gonna round up my points. NOTE: Some of them are purely opinion and personal taste.

Thank God, I was beginning to lose faith in you.

And never say never.

I would never say never.

-Beckett's intense hatred of pirates- unlike Darth Sidious similar contempt for Jedi- is understandable and, if looked at from a certain point of prespective, even heroic (although the absolute genocide of pirates is an exagerrated, evil method). Pirates murder, steal, destroy, and rape. Hating them is understandable, and PotC could easily be retold into making Jack Sparrow and his cronies villains and Cutler Beckett an anti-hero. Indeed, can there be any denial that the world would be a better place without pirates? They're not guardians of the peace. Jedi may be fallible, prone to corruption, and an imperfect organization, but they aren't law-defying bandits.

Right, a comparison between piracy and Jedi isn't favorable to pirates. However, Jedi aren't saints, and I urge you to reconsider your requisite for evil: "law defying bandits"? Erm... how else would you describe the counterrevolutionary Alliance to Restore the Republic?

-When has the East India Trading Company been proven to be a dictatorial organization designed to dominate every single aspect of life in the world? I'm not saying you're wrong, but just give me the exact quote, please. Funny enough, I haven't seen At World's End since it was in theatres. If you're unable to prove that claim, then we can simply look at Beckett as an agent of a commercial organization who possesses extreme hatred of pirates.

According to the Pirates of the Caribbean Visual Guide, the East India Training Company expanded to such levels of power that "any threat posed to it was a threat to Britain itself." It was a political and militaristic juggernaut, Crimzon; the fleet rallied to crush the pirates at Shipwreck Cove numbered three hundred ships. And Beckett was "the supreme leader" of the Company.

-Beckett manipulated Jones, that much is true. But he did that purely by attaining an object that makes Jones helpless against him- he may have taunted or relishded tormenting Jones, but it was certainly not due to his own prowess in mental games/power.

With all due respect, you didn't pay attention at all to my argument. Palpatine didn't psychologically break Vader; like Beckett, he was in a position of greater power due to their disciple's vulnerabilities.

-All- and I repeat, all- minions attracted to Beckett were either because he kept them in check via a supernatural force (The Dutchman) or because they were interested in wealth and power.

Wrong, I repeat, wrong.

Mercer, who lacked total ambition and only existed to "further his master's agenda."

Perhaps it's a fault of the film, but the people who joined him did not do so because they hated pirates. Palpatine inspired deep, almost unwavering loyalty, and often times, assassination attempts on him were 'part of the plan'. Indeed, his charisma is proven by his rallying of the senate and achieving the control of the Republic via idealogical machinations and manipulations.

Look, this is pissing me off. I took the time to give you about seven random examples of high placed Imperial figures actively plotting or entertaining the idea of betraying and murdering Palpatine. Upon his death, the Empire was completely fractured. There was no loyalty outside of his fanatic Royal Guardsman to the cause or to his ideals. The leading men of the Empire eventually feared his wrath and nothing more. Even the Core Worlds that, through most of the Empire's reign, "viewed Palpatine as a demi-god," eventually converted to New Republic rule.

-Beckett's sadism, while I'd give you that it exists, simply doesn't go to the same extent as Palpatine's sadism and cruelty. First off, he did visibly display pleasure at torturing Jedi, causing genocide and murdering every single Jedi or 'traitor' in the Republic. By I'd say his sickest cruelest act is getting the most promising Jedi in history to help him by crushing his morality. Indeed, note the sick smile on Palpatine's face when he sees Vader in complete agony after hearing about his wife's death. He also simply did not have any sort of compassion- even after supposedly befriending, courting, and assisting Vader for dozens of years, he only cared about Vader's lost power, treated him as a mere thug he enjoyed taunting and messing around with, and was eager to encourage Vader's own son to kill him. This degree of sadism and uncaring for human life goes beyond what Beckett displayed, even if he did similar traits. He also had no problem letting another apprentice die. He didn't just treat the force he opposed (Jedi) like that- he even enjoyed crushing and torturing his own allies and virtually every single being in existence.

Incorrect. Beckett may not have had Palpatine's degree of megalomania, but he was by far the more coolheaded schemer. That he didn't sit down and cackle every time a puppy was kicked simply means that he wasn't quite as prone to psychotic outbursts. Palpatine's most icy moments -- as Darth Sidious -- were comparable to Beckett's demeanor throughout the films. Actually, Beckett is even more icy.

You can go ahead and give me his treatment of Jones, but that's difference. As much as he fought zealously against piracy, part of what Beckett represents is the imperialization and the taming of the seas. Pirates exist as a chaotic force that disrupt the order Beckett attempts to tame- Jones also acts as something of a chaotic force of nature which disrupts balance and order, and so, for Cutler, he can be seen as another obstacle in his path.

And the Jedi were not?

-I don't know. Maybe it's Beckett's demeanor, his physical appearance, his voice... something about that kind of prevents him from being compelling. I can't quite put my finger on it.

Davy Jones, Mercer, Governor Swan, and James Norrington would all disagree with you.

-Mercer never truly duelled Barbossa as far as I can remember. In fact, I even fished this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JabaZUb-I6Q&feature=related.

Clearly, Barbossa fought Mercer for about five seconds and constantly held the upper hand, including kicking Mercer in the gut and knocking him down. And Mercer actually ran away from him

You're about as high as all get out. They clash swords. Mercer drives Barbossa back, Barbossa kicks Mercer in the gut and goes for the kill, Mercer blocks and knocks Barbossa back, Barbossa strikes again, Mercer knocks him aside, and then jumps overboard Not to mention that Barbossa's crew and Feng's crew were overwhelming Company troops.

Plus, a bad death undermines a character entirely- Mercer died like a punk.

WTF? Like being thrown into a reactor shaft by your minion?

Originally posted by Faunus
On the abortion issue; I definitely don't consider it murder, let alone genocide (it's not wiping out a species). I'm firmly pro-choice, but I'm definitely not for loose and easily accessible abortion. Meaning, I don't think it should be used as birth control. In the cases of rape or incest, it should be guaranteed; if you just got knocked up because you were too drunk or stupid to wear a condom, there should be a fine or something. I also support having it done before the onset of the second semester.

Abso-freaking-lutely.

Kentucky is deep within Bible territory, you see, and abortion is one of those subjects that very few people talk about. When it is discussed, people are vehemently pro-life in all cases. It's those sort of people that give my faith a bad name. Given the amount of sex education and how exposed we all are to the details of sexual activity on a daily basis, through the media and otherwise, to not be aware of birth control, contraceptives, or condoms (and all of these are readily given out without question) is obscene. To ignore it is a sign of absolute stupidity. In rape and incest cases, it should be a guarenteed option. But for those out there who simply didn't wear a condom, there should be an absolutely ridiculous fine or denied outright. Perhaps even jailtime. And even if the condom breaks, it doesn't matter. If you're smart enough to have sex, you're smart enough to realize that abstinence is the only foolproof way to not get pregnant (unless you're Mary), so you assume the risk.

Ah the pro choice vs. pro life argument. That brings me back to intro to ethics.

Originally posted by Gideon
Thank God, I was beginning to lose faith in you.

Never lose Faith in Jesus.

Not that I'm Jesus or anything.

Originally posted by Gideon
I would never say never.

Then what did you just say?

Originally posted by Gideon
Right, a comparison between piracy and Jedi isn't favorable to pirates. However, Jedi aren't saints, and I urge you to reconsider your requisite for evil: "law defying bandits"? Erm... how else would you describe the counterrevolutionary Alliance to Restore the Republic?

Jedi certainly aren't saints. I am not, under any circumstances, saying that they are saints- in fact, I had argued (not here) that Jedi cannot be expected to be saints.

On the other hand, the Jedi organization is a group that is, ultimately, a good group. And contrary to the Rebel Alliance, pirates are a purely self-serving group that have brought far more evil upon the world than good.

Originally posted by Gideon
According to the Pirates of the Caribbean Visual Guide

Holy shit, I didn't even know that existed.

Originally posted by Gideon
, the East India Training Company expanded to such levels of power that "any threat posed to it was a threat to Britain itself." It was a political and militaristic juggernaut, Crimzon; the fleet rallied to crush the pirates at Shipwreck Cove numbered three hundred ships. And Beckett was "the supreme leader" of the Company.

Then the 'East India Trading Company' was still a branch of England- and they never depicted the will to rebel against Britain and become an all-dominating empire. They were still below the English Royalty. Due to their massive commercial power, they were a vital part of life. -BUT- it is hardly comparable to the Galactic Empire.

Originally posted by Gideon
With all due respect, you didn't pay attention at all to my argument. Palpatine didn't psychologically break Vader; like Beckett, he was in a position of greater power due to their disciple's vulnerabilities.

Did Palpatine purely manipulate Vader due to simply being more powerful than he was? No. He did not. He converted Vader to his side via careful machinations that lasted for more than ten years- when he finally turned Vader against the group that was his entire life, it was because of intelligent machinations.

He used the fear of Padme's death against Anakin, yes. But it wasn't the only factor- convincing someone that the Order he has been faithfully serving for years is evil is certainly an impressive feat. If Vader was really convinced of that.

Oh, and not to mention Palpatine designed Anakin's fear of Padme's death, too. He didn't just randomly take advantage of a convenience- like Beckett basically did.

Originally posted by Gideon
Wrong, I repeat, wrong.

Mercer, who lacked total ambition and only existed to "further his master's agenda."

Is that in that Visual Dictionary thing, too?

Originally posted by Gideon
Look, this is pissing me off. I took the time to give you about seven random examples of high placed Imperial figures actively plotting or entertaining the idea of betraying and murdering Palpatine. Upon his death, the Empire was completely fractured. There was no loyalty outside of his fanatic Royal Guardsman to the cause or to his ideals. The leading men of the Empire eventually feared his wrath and nothing more. Even the Core Worlds that, through most of the Empire's reign, "viewed Palpatine as a demi-god," eventually converted to New Republic rule.

This does NOT change the fact that many of Palpatine's servants- particularly his early ones (Maul, Dooku, Grievous, etc...)- served him due to loyalty and respect. Maul can be written off, I guess, because Palpatine is basically a father to him. But Dooku? Sidious converted a lifelong Jedi based on idealogy. An intelligent Jedi who he completely duped.

And in Vader's case, too. Converting him via not physical force, but via psychological manipulations and cunning tactics spread over so long- indeed, the complexity and sheer power of his plan to kill all the Jedi and become the Galactic Emperor is a huge part of what makes him a great villain.

Cutler Beckett can hardly claim to have been the single, absolute 'king' player in the pirate genocide. Yes, it was due to military expansion of the East India Trading Company- but it was, even more than that, due to Davy Jones' heart conveniently being given to him. He was hardly as competent as Palpatine was. And indeed, he ultimately relied on the force of his armada- which is a more typical and less interesting plot than Palpatine's internal takeover of the Republic.

Originally posted by Gideon
Incorrect. Beckett may not have had Palpatine's degree of megalomania, but he was by far the more coolheaded schemer. That he didn't sit down and cackle every time a puppy was kicked simply means that he wasn't quite as prone to psychotic outbursts. Palpatine's most icy moments -- as Darth Sidious -- were comparable to Beckett's demeanor throughout the films. Actually, Beckett is even more icy.

He's a great schemer- but he was never, EVER shown to be as intelligent, as charismatic, or as good a long-term planner as Palpatine is. He has never shown the same degrees of sadism, either.

Besides, where's the fun in a villain who is purely cold? I find it more interesting to see a villain with some level of displayed, vibrant emotions.

Originally posted by Gideon
And the Jedi were not?

Yes, they were obstacles in his path- but unlike Beckett, his plan did not stop at 'kill the pirates'.

Not only did he accomplish the ultimate revenge of his sect by kill every single Jedi (and relishing it), he both did that and removed them as the only obstacle keeping him from becoming a full-fledged dictator.

Originally posted by Gideon
Davy Jones, Mercer, Governor Swan, and James Norrington would all disagree with you.

Yeah. Thankfully, I'm the one behind the computer and they aren't.

Originally posted by Gideon
You're about as high as all get out. They clash swords. Mercer drives Barbossa back, Barbossa kicks Mercer in the gut and goes for the kill, Mercer blocks and knocks Barbossa back, Barbossa strikes again, Mercer knocks him aside, and then jumps overboard Not to mention that Barbossa's crew and Feng's crew were overwhelming Company troops.

The battle scene was blurry and lasted about six seconds, and honestly, from what I saw, it was Barbossa that got in a kick that caused Mercer to scream out, and it was Barbossa that almost killed him. And it was Mercer than ran away.

Originally posted by Gideon
WTF? Like being thrown into a reactor shaft by your minion?

A perfect death which makes perfect sense. Being choked by a dude the instant you lose control over the one device that keeps him in check = not cool.

Originally posted by Gideon
But for those out there who simply didn't wear a condom, there should be an absolutely ridiculous fine or denied outright. Perhaps even jailtime.

But yeah, there would definitely need to be some form of payment, monetary or through community service.

And even if the condom breaks, it doesn't matter.

And I'm curious as to what you think of embryonic stem cell research. I would assume that you're an at least tentative supporter.

Just saying- Sarah Palin dearest is also an advocate of not giving an explicit (read: decent) sex ed in schools. She's also against the distribution of contraceptives. And she's against abortion.

It's as if she wants teens to get pregnant. Hmm...

And, I'm wondering. What do you people think about gun control policies? I'm personally not sure where I stand on that.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Never lose Faith in Jesus.

Not that I'm Jesus or anything.

Jesus would have the foresight to not engage in an argument with me.

Then what did you just say?

Never.

Which I'll never say.

Jedi certainly aren't saints. I am not, under any circumstances, saying that they are saints- in fact, I had argued (not here) that Jedi cannot be expected to be saints.

Correct.

On the other hand, the Jedi organization is a group that is, ultimately, a good group. And contrary to the Rebel Alliance, pirates are a purely self-serving group that have brought far more evil upon the world than good.

Nonsense. Look at it like this: the Alliance to Restore the Republic started a galactic civil war that resulted in the deaths of billions, prompting the Empire to drop its facade and unleash its massive war machine against it, prompting the destruction of more civilian lives. Three decades and countless lives later, the New Republic is invaded and promptly crushed by the extragalactic menace known as the Yuuzhan Vong. So what did it do? It started a war that cost countless civilian lives and, after the decades it took to win, they were crushed by an invader whom the Empire would have decimated rather easily. As Caedus (in his only intelligent statement ever) told Leia, the Rebel Alliance was a terrorist organization that overthrew the legitimate galactic government and erected a joke of a replacement. While you can say, "Well their intentions were good," we all know what the road to hell is paved with.

Holy shit, I didn't even know that existed.

Yeah.

Then the 'East India Trading Company' was still a branch of England- and they never depicted the will to rebel against Britain and become an all-dominating empire. They were still below the English Royalty. Due to their massive commercial power, they were a vital part of life. -BUT- it is hardly comparable to the Galactic Empire.

I love how you can draw conclusions out of thin air without basis. Cutler Beckett was the de facto admiral of a three hundred ship fleet and the master of Davy Jones, an immortal, all-powerful sea-faring force of nature. It is implied heavily throughout the Visual Guide that Beckett has dark ambitions for the future. One statement that I recall concerns the globe in his office and instruments on his desk -- "cleverly disguised torture devices, perhaps reflecting the rule he would unleash upon the globe." So that they never got around to conquering the world doesn't mean that Beckett wasn't capable of it.

And again, you miss the point entirely. No global organization, however powerful, is going to compare realistically to the Empire -- which spans a galaxy. Suffice it to say, however, that both the Emperor and Beckett were masters of the most powerful regimes in their environment.

Did Palpatine purely manipulate Vader due to simply being more powerful than he was? No. He did not. He converted Vader to his side via careful machinations that lasted for more than ten years- when he finally turned Vader against the group that was his entire life, it was because of intelligent machinations.

He stroked Skywalker's ego and manipulated his marriage into being, and then took advantage of his fears for Padme. But the second Palpatine pronounced Skywalker as "Darth Vader," that manipulation was broken. The neophyte Sith Lord, from day one, was entertaining the idea of killing Palpatine up until Return of the Jedi.

He used the fear of Padme's death against Anakin, yes. But it wasn't the only factor- convincing someone that the Order he has been faithfully serving for years is evil is certainly an impressive feat. If Vader was really convinced of that.

He wasn't. He muses in Rise of Darth Vader that he had "seen through" Palpatine, eventually, and executed the Jedi because they never would have allowed him to save Padme.

Oh, and not to mention Palpatine designed Anakin's fear of Padme's death, too. He didn't just randomly take advantage of a convenience- like Beckett basically did.

Great. You have the evidence to support the idea that Palpatine was responsible for his nightmares?

Is that in that Visual Dictionary thing, too?

Yes.

This does NOT change the fact that many of Palpatine's servants- particularly his early ones (Maul, Dooku, Grievous, etc...)- served him due to loyalty and respect. Maul can be written off, I guess, because Palpatine is basically a father to him. But Dooku? Sidious converted a lifelong Jedi based on idealogy. An intelligent Jedi who he completely duped.

Dooku is a great example. But also the only one.

And in Vader's case, too. Converting him via not physical force, but via psychological manipulations and cunning tactics spread over so long- indeed, the complexity and sheer power of his plan to kill all the Jedi and become the Galactic Emperor is a huge part of what makes him a great villain.

And I'm regularly accused of being a Sidious fanboy. This is ridiculous, Crimzon. You don't know what you're talking about. After the conversion, Vader plotted for twenty years to kill the Emperor. I repeat: Dooku is the sole example of lasting manipulation on Sidious's part.

Cutler Beckett can hardly claim to have been the single, absolute 'king' player in the pirate genocide. Yes, it was due to military expansion of the East India Trading Company- but it was, even more than that, due to Davy Jones' heart conveniently being given to him. He was hardly as competent as Palpatine was. And indeed, he ultimately relied on the force of his armada- which is a more typical and less interesting plot than Palpatine's internal takeover of the Republic.

He was hardly as competent as Palpatine was? Proof? Because he didn't conquer the galaxy? I suppose that Grand Admirals Thrawn or Zaarin aren't as competent either? Raith Sienar? Darth Revan? Marka Ragnos?

He's a great schemer- but he was never, EVER shown to be as intelligent, as charismatic, or as good a long-term planner as Palpatine is. He has never shown the same degrees of sadism, either.

Oh, stop being dense. He demonstrated remarkable intelligence, charisma, and long-term strategy throughout the trilogy.

Besides, where's the fun in a villain who is purely cold? I find it more interesting to see a villain with some level of displayed, vibrant emotions.

Because a raving loon who chews the scenery or speaks in stupid voices tends to ruin the luster of villainy. McDiarmid's finest moments were before he was disfigured; after that, he became an absolute joke.

Yes, they were obstacles in his path- but unlike Beckett, his plan did not stop at 'kill the pirates'.

Proof that Beckett's did?

Not only did he accomplish the ultimate revenge of his sect by kill every single Jedi (and relishing it), he both did that and removed them as the only obstacle keeping him from becoming a full-fledged dictator.

Are you high?

Have you watched any post-RotS movies or read any post-RotS EU? Dozens upon dozens upon dozens of Jedi escaped the Jedi purges.

Yeah. Thankfully, I'm the one behind the computer and they aren't.

It's not doing you a whole lot of good.

The battle scene was blurry and lasted about six seconds, and honestly, from what I saw, it was Barbossa that got in a kick that caused Mercer to scream out, and it was Barbossa that almost killed him. And it was Mercer than ran away.

Watch it again. Mercer knocks Barbossa back, hard, twice.

A perfect death which makes perfect sense. Being choked by a dude the instant you lose control over the one device that keeps him in check = not cool.

LOL.

Look, Crimzon, I like you and all, but this is a stupid argument. How is being murdered by a supernatural entity who despises you, the second you lose the object that keeps him in check, not cool? It's realistic. You're in a circus, and you're hurling a whip at a tiger, the second you lose the whip, you're dead.

I don't know if I want to continue. I'm shocked at a lot of your logic here. How about we agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Gideon
Abso-freaking-lutely.

Kentucky is deep within Bible territory, you see, and abortion is one of those subjects that very few people talk about. When it is discussed, people are vehemently pro-life in all cases. It's those sort of people that give my faith a bad name. Given the amount of sex education and how exposed we all are to the details of sexual activity on a daily basis, through the media and otherwise, to not be aware of birth control, contraceptives, or condoms (and all of these are readily given out without question) is obscene. To ignore it is a sign of absolute stupidity. In rape and incest cases, it should be a guarenteed option. But for those out there who simply didn't wear a condom, there should be an absolutely ridiculous fine or denied outright. Perhaps even jailtime. And even if the condom breaks, it doesn't matter. If you're smart enough to have sex, you're smart enough to realize that abstinence is the only foolproof way to not get pregnant (unless you're Mary), so you assume the risk.

QFT. wow. i agree with you pretty much all the way down the line on this one: suprises me.

I guess the only thing i would offer in the rape case is, two wrongs truly don't make a right, but i would be a fool to tackle that one. I realize a lot of it is personal in that situation. I obviously will never be in that sit. so i'll keep my mouth shut about it; however, i agree completely about plain carelessness, with the child paying the price.

Thats what personally checking out abortion facts have led me to conclude. A fetus really is a child. And what about the abortions where a baby (or fetus, as you will) is to the point that it COULD be supported outside of the womb? Thats happening around the 4 1/2, 5 month mark now. Would that change someone's opinion who claims that the fetus is dependent on the mother?

using kinda the logic we use for star wars: These two sources don't contradict, they just fill in the blanks for each other: read the description of an abortion from both a pro-life, and a pro-choice site or two. You i think will realize that a pro-choice site never actually contradicts anything claimed by the pro-life site. The details are glossed over instead.

i'm seriously wondering though, and i don't think anybody answered it: what happened to the british armada? The flagship was taken down, so the armada stood down? Never made any sense to me. any ideas?

indeed. However I am one of the few who will disagree that a rape victim should be allowed an abortion. Why? because its still a human being. Other things can be done with it like putting it into adoption or something like that.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
indeed. However I am one of the few who will disagree that a rape victim should be allowed an abortion. Why? because its still a human being. Other things can be done with it like putting it into adoption or something like that.

thats what i said i wouldn't tackle, considering the wide gap in beliefs on that one. but i basically agree with you. Its a very sad situation overall, and i would totally agree with rapist being executed painfully, its a despicable crime. But the situation is not the fault of the resultant baby.

I guess being a libertarian through and through, it's not surprising that I say pro-choice all the way.

Originally posted by truejedi
thats what i said i wouldn't tackle, considering the wide gap in beliefs on that one. but i basically agree with you. Its a very sad situation overall, and i would totally agree with rapist being executed painfully, its a despicable crime. But the situation is not the fault of the resultant baby.

Originally posted by truejedi
thats what i said i wouldn't tackle, considering the wide gap in beliefs on that one. but i basically agree with you. Its a very sad situation overall, and i would totally agree with rapist being executed painfully, its a despicable crime. But the situation is not the fault of the resultant baby.

No offense, but that's absurd. I understand that it's basically a lose-lose situation for a lot of people, but no one should have to endure rape and then be forced to have the resultant child. I've only heard of a single woman who ever bore such a child with relatively positive results, and even then she sometimes thought she was seeing her rapist in her son; his eyes and hands were the same as his father's.

Originally posted by Faunus
I've only heard of a single woman who ever bore such a child with relatively positive results, and even then she sometimes thought she was seeing her rapist in her son; his eyes and hands were the same as his father's.

Someone should make a chick flick about that.

Here's my problem with the so called 'pro-life' movement. Their objection to abortion is frequently founded on religious conviction, which is fine, that they try to force upon the american public- which is not fine. It is perfectly alright for a family to believe that their child's life began at conception, and it is well within the rights of any female to chose not to get an abortion. It is not alright to say that everyone must share your ideology and choice.

I have no reason to believe that life begins at conception- a zygote stirs no empathy in me, nor does a blastocyst. The needs of a fully grown, actual human being trump the rights of a cluster of cells, which may or may not survive to birth anyway. As many as 1 in 4 pregnancies naturally abort- usually very, very early in the pregnancy.

Some support abortions preformed by a doctor until a certain developmental stage- usually a certain week or one of the later trimesters. Pragmatically, this is the best solution, but ideally there would be no limit, or one applied on a case by case basis. The problem with any definite limit on abortion has two major causes: who gets to set it, and when will it be.

Because of the inflamatory nature of religion in interpersonal discussions (like debates on KMC) I will just say that I don't think that any religious faith should have its doctrines applied as law, so clergy or religious personnel can't place the limits.

I would suggest scientists, but when the religious are faced with a scientific fact they don't like (think evolution) they reject scientific thought completely (just look at Knightfa11- shell of Ice increased C14 levels... but I digress.) The group that determines the line is the first problem

Where the line is set is the obvious stumbling block, one that will most likely never be fully resolved. Birth provides a natural rubicon- a dividing line that says "These organisms are living babies" and "These (still in the womb) are still just tissue." Anywhere else has problems: is it determined by what can live outside the womb? that changes with technology. Is it determined by what "seems human?" That is purely subjective. Birth is the only (current) definite and objective line we have to determine what is and is not human life.

Another problem I have with pro-life people is that they are often for the death penalty. That is just plain hypocrisy. I'm all for irony in real life... but please!

Lol I'm done arguing with people's personal views. You want to believe in evolution, go right ahead. You want to support abortion, I don't give a damn. My reason is from looking at this, it probably has enough nerves to feel pain from right at the beginning. Please, read the details of an abortion, and if you still feel that this is appropriate to be doing to someone that could very well be a human being, come talk to me again and I will kill you for your psychopathic insanity.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Here's my problem with the so called 'pro-life' movement. Their objection to abortion is frequently founded on religious conviction, which is fine, that they try to force upon the american public- which is not fine. It is perfectly alright for a family to believe that their child's life began at conception, and it is well within the rights of any female to chose not to get an abortion. It is not alright to say that everyone must share your ideology and choice.

its not a matter of belief Red. Its a matter of science that citizens try to ignore for convenciences sake. What say you to the fact that a baby can survive outside the womb between 38 and 40 weeks? Would you then be in favor for a law preventing abortions after this time?