Aliath

I used a golden deagle and walked on power lines. That is being ninja pimp. And yes, I remember Jesus Christ.

Why should marijuana be legalized? :)

Sorry, I only looked at the first page. :( Should have looked back further.

Should drugs such as heroin, marijuana and cocaine be legalized? Feel free to do some research before you post. It can change your perspective or help you make a point.

Don't care. That's the price of a free society. Prohibition doesn't work. It didn't work with alcohol, and it doesn't work with illegal drugs. And it's not like Big Pharma isn't finding ways to hook millions on legal drugs anyway. There's a reason more kids smoke cigarettes, here in Québec, than they do drugs. Ease of access. Sorry. We're straying off-topic. xD

That link isn't working but I am assuming you posted a Death Star. The Death Star is the most powerful weapon in the Universe! It has no flaws. None. Except for... uh, I mean, yeah, it's like virtually indestructible. Like, 99.999%. I mean, there's this little hole. It was kind of an aesthetic choice by the architect. And if you shoot a lazer in the hole... It... Uh, blows up. I mean, it's not big. It's just like two meters across. And to even get to it you have to skim along this whole trench-- it's not a big deal. I mean, can't we like put some carboard over it or something? :thumbsup: Yeah, but that would looks terrible! You've gotta think about the resale value.

That's not the reason suiciding is illegal though... Probably not. But I was demonstrating how suicide isn't just something you do to your own body, it goes further than that. I still find drug-consumption, suiciding, and abortion as acts that should be perfectly legal. I agree with the two latter. If you attempt to commit suicide, you shouldn't be prosecuted. And providing safe, legal abortions is a good way to prevent unsafe ones. But if you legalize drug consumption, companies will try to profit from it and sell drugs, thus hooking more people.

What I find odd is that people believe that teens aren't responsible for the child, if ever they get pregnant, just because they used protection. They believe pregnancy is a "side-effect" of sex, and that you can't blame them for doing it. Right. As for "a few who should have been aborted", that's just wrong. You'd rather kill a murderer at birth rather than change the events in his life which shaped him to be who he is?

YOU'RE choosing who lives and dies when you buy lunch instead of donating the money. It's part of every day life, if you can't accept that then you're in for some real disappointment. What about killing someone in defense? What about someone planning on killing being killed? What about 20 people starving people killing another so they can live? People deserving life is not black and white as you make it out to be. We don't live in a disney movie. War and disease are controllable things. They aren't some sinless population control that aren't influenced by people. Don't pretend there is any real difference. It doesn't matter whether people in foster homes turn out to be successful or not. Foster homes can't be sustained forever, and the earths resources can't currently be sustained forever. Adopt a child yourself, open your own foster home or kindly stop pushing your hypocritical views. As I said earlier, it's easy to tell people to put a kid up for adoption. It's something else to actually give these kids a home. Really, is it? So you know for a fact that everyone who says its best to put your child up for adoption as opposed to killing him/her is a hypocrite and will never adopt a child, ever? You're straying from the debate, you know. This isn't a question of 'if they're going to adopted or not.' It's a question of 'Are they going to have the right to live or not.' Who are you to say a kid is better off dead than not being adopted?

*applauds Fakit.* I didn't see any harm in that Hitler reference. You were making a point, and a good one, too.

Because its her own child. But that's her choice, I guess. Are you a woman? Do you know any more than I do what pregnancy is like? What makes your opinion any better than mine? So if its not self-aware its okay to kill it. Applying that logic, killing babies because they could potentially be unhappy or an inconvenience to the mother is okay.

Started reading The Running Man by Stephen King. I've seen a few movies with that kind of futuristic scenario, and it's pretty scary. It got me thinking-- Could something like that actually happen?

I want one of those.

Because he/she is her responsibility. Because she had sex. Pregnancy isn't a "side-effect" of sex that you can just get rid of. When you have sex, you accept that you might get pregnant. And a fetus is just about as "sentient" as a born baby. When you kill a pregnant woman, you get charged with her murder and that of her unborn child, as fakeitormakeit mentioned. In my opinion, abortion is a last resort. It should never be your first option.

They could sharpen the Popsicle sticks into shanks. :mellow:

Maybe someday two sentient species from two different planets will meet. I hope we encounter wookies. Seriously. That would be awesome.

Thank you, fakeitormakeit. I couldn't have said that any better. :)

Rawr. I agree. Now I'm leaving.

I added a story to that other post of mine. It was nice debating with you all. You've broadened my views, as these kind of debates normally do. I hope you feel the same. :) G'night. edit: BACKUP!! I NEED BACKUP!!

someone seems to have been scare-mongered by a radical example again -.-' Media really does know how to manipulate people: It's more likely to be struck by lightning multiple times than to survive a lethal injection of any kind. A fetus does not, will not and cannot survive a medically sound procedure of this kind. my assertion stands, scientifically speaking. It can survive.

You, sir, have all my respect. TEACH ME.

And they're so unhappy it's best we put an end to a child's life before he ever is. Life is tough for pretty much everyone. Yes, life is tough for a lot of people, but parents still want the best for their kids, which is why not everyone has an abortion because their kid will be unhappy; they want their kid to be happy. If you're putting it up for adoption, odds are the kid won't be very happy, so you might as well just have an abortion to prevent that life from happening, however cruel that may sound. I don't live in ideal conditions. My mother is supporting us on her own (because her boyfriend has his own kids to deal with). It's tough for us financially and emotionally. I have a lot of bad days. I consider myself relatively unhappy, but it doesn't mean I wish I was never born. I love life, and I appreciate it for what it is. I don't know what its like to live in a foster home, so I can't say for a fact that a child would be unhappy or happy. That applies to you, too. I hope none of you are antagonizing me. I'm just trying to widen your view on things, because a lot of you seem to be obstinately pro-choice. To summarize my views, I think abortions should be taken as a case-by-case thing. But I understand that the mother goes first, and she has the legal right to have an abortion, even if its not because she's in any kind of physical or emotional danger. And yes, I make a distinction between late-term abortion and abortions performed before the fetus is viable. Anyways, I'm having a little trouble debating with five people at a time, so I'm going to take a little break. You seem to be ignoring what I'm saying. I'm just saying to weigh your options, because a child in a foster care system isn't necessarily going to be so unhappy its best we kill him out of mercy. He can have a long, fulfilling life.

And they're so unhappy it's best we put an end to a child's life before he ever is unhappy. Life is tough for pretty much everyone. In late-term abortion, the fetus is viable. You poison the baby, and then extract it. Sometimes it survives.