Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Dral

  1. 31 minutes ago, Mattrek said:


    Hypothetical question for you and no you can’t change the parameters of this scenario, it’s a straight up either or answer.


    You’re in a fertility clinic. Why doesn’t matter. You hear the fire alarm go off and start to run for the exit. Down the hallway you hear a child screaming behind a door. You open the door to find a 5-year old child crying for help. They’re in one corner of the room. In the other corner you spot a frozen container labeled “1000 Viable Human Embryos”. The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one. 


    Do you 1) Save the child, or 2) Save the embryos? There is no 3), 3) is you all die.



    What race is the child? What sex is the child? What's the socio-economic status of the child? What's the current going rate for 1 "viable human embryo" on the black market? How come my eyesight is so good that I actually read tiny writing through a smoke filled room on a container far enough away that I can't grab it and a child? Why is there a container of 1000 embyros that is actually small and light enough for me to pick up?


    Fine, since we're talking about some bizarro science fiction world that wouldn't ever exist and your hypothetical question is so really really ridiculous I laughed so hard, I peed a little bit... I'll take option #2

  2. 2 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

    It would be interesting to see which side of the debate fosters more children. However, it does seem to be a very common theme from pro-lifers that once birth happens, the concern goes out the window. 

    Where do you get this idea from?


    2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

    Just stop Jimmy.  Really.  There's no point.  We know the type.  No facts or proper argument will sway them.  You're better beating your head against a wall and hoping for a better view

    Please, you've provided no facts or arguments yourself... you've just resorted to name calling and emotional/ethical superiority because of your individual experience... facts don't care about your feelings and anecdotal evidence is not evidence.


    Give me some facts. Give me a proper argument other then "You're a clown", "You're not mature enough to discuss this", "You've never experienced abortion so you have no right to an opinion"

  3. 1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

    couldn't agree more. 


    The morning after pill is actually a good choice, it pre-empts the whole debate and needs to be there for when contraception fails. What odds do you put on the republicans providing access to that tho.... 

    Right now? Slime to none - it's definitely something I disagree with for republicans, but I don't have a problem saying that because I'm not a republican...

  4. 2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

    what evidence do you have for that statement? 


    you have to acknowledge that when the republicans do things like cancel coverage for birth control in insurance plans, it creates the potential for more abortions. Trying to to restrict women's choices like this makes no logical sense at all if you really care about reducing abortions in the US. 

    Right... you're going to call me out for that, but let DrFunk walk for saying the exact same thing? LoL - the proof is the fact that almost no one wants to adopt older children


    As for the second part... well I beat you too it

  5. 1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

    so is restricting access to the morning after pill and contraception. People wouldn't need as many medical procedures if these two things were widely and freely available. 


    That's not entirely true... the real correlation is between being against contraception and religious as well as being pro-life and religious... there are lots of people who are pro-life and pro-contraception.


    I think it's absolutely criminal that some people are trying to stop teenagers from having access to contraception.

  6. 20 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

    I really don't care champ.  My wife and I lost a child.  You're trying to push the narrative that a womans choice is the same as a school shooting.  You could adopt, but you didn't.  So you'd rather talk than take action, tell people what is acceptable vs doing something.


    End of statement.


    Good day

    Well I'm sorry you had to live through that tragedy, but that experience doesn't change facts. It also doesn't change my freedom to have an opinion. A Fetus is alive. The whole "well you could adopt" argument isn't a good one - like I said, there's a huge wait list for families who want to adopt already.


    But I do agree with you on one thing... they aren't entirely the same thing... as in the US there are over half a million abortions every year.

  7. 30 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

    And you're done.


    As you conveniently ignore the fact my wife and I know very well about this ugly choice.


    Take care now


    Make sure to adopt all the children in your crusade against womens rights.  Wouldn't want to be hypocritical or heavy handed now


    If I put my name on the waiting list to adopt a baby in Canada I could wait up to 9 years... yes there's a huge wait list for babies... so that's not really a problem

  8. 12 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

    Hmm...I wonder if a 25 year-old ruling still has relevance in current discussion....


    ...and then of course there's this (from the article you quoted)


    Although the ruling will not have any direct effect on abortion rights, a series of cases on fetal murder raises issues of intense interest to those on both sides of the abortion debate.


    It has relevance because my point was that someone who is not the mother ends up killing the fetus against the mother's wishes, they can, in the eyes of the law, be charged with murder... so it can and IS considered murder under certain circumstances...


    The fact that the ruling has no effect on abortion rights doesn't change my point... and yes, it does still have relevance

    • Upvote 1
  9. 12 hours ago, Warhippy said:

    It begins at the point the doctor comes in to the room my wife is in and tells us unequivocally that either my unborn son dies or that he and my wife possibly die and on the off chance he is born he will not live past the week.


    Human life begins when my wife, the mother of my children decides it does.  It begins the moment the mother of said child/fetus/seed/egg decides it does.


    It doesn't begin when a politician pandering to his base does.  It doesn't begin when some clown on a hockey forum decides it is a justifiable comparison to make between that horrible decision or a school shooting



    That's rather convenient... I guess that means if a mother of said child decides their child at 3 years old still isn't alive, that gives them the right to just kill them off...


    I actually feel sorry for you now if you don't think this was a life -


    Image removed - SN


    You're the one displaying an incredible amount of immaturity calling people clowns. Sorry Hippy, but just because I've personally never had an abortion doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion it. You can either stop posting in this thread because you've never been an American politician, or you can drop the ad hominems.




    One is a conscious choice a woman is making with HER body and HER life sometimes with HER partner and sometimes because HER partner is absent or refusing to be around.


    The other...is usually a guy from a background or family that is anti abortion murdering innocent children before they get the chance to make that decision or not.


    Only one of them deserves the death penalty.  And before you respond with some trite "those unborn babies are getting that sentence already" show me how many unwanted or abandoned kids you've adopted.


    They are so basically, fundamentally and profoundly different it actually makes me think less of you for ever even attempting to make the comparison

    And actually, its a conscious choice she's making with her body AND the body of another life form... a life form that isn't able to speak. Just because you don't hear it cry in pain, doesn't mean it's life is any less valuable.  But go ahead, ask me just how much I care about how you think of me... you've made it painfully clear it was never that much anyways.

  10. 2 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

    The difference of course being that the religious right sees one as a "life", while the law does not.


    OTOH, there is zero debate about teenagers.

    Actually, the law does sometimes...



    In the latest ruling on the question of when a fetus should have the legal status of a person, the California Supreme Court decided on Monday that an assault on a pregnant woman that kills her fetus can be prosecuted as murder, even if the fetus is not viable.

    The ruling came in a San Diego case involving a robbery in 1991 in which a pregnant woman was shot after cashing a welfare check. The woman, Maria Flores, survived the shooting, but her fetus, a male 22 to 25 weeks old, did not.



    So if someone else kills the fetus, it's considered murder, by law, but if the mother does it, it's not



    As for the quotation marks on the word "life"... what does it take for something to be alive in your opinion? If an ameba is considering a life, why not a fetus?

    • Upvote 1
  11. 7 minutes ago, Gnarcore said:

    I didn't take a stance....they did. Those are clear elements of the two parties platforms.  



    That said...yes I support women's rights but I like guns. 

    I didn't mean to insinuate your stance... I was just following up on your comment...


    5 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

    Seems to me you have that backwards. So many are against abortion, but don't seem to care that teenagers are being killed....

    Yeah, it's both that and vice versa...


    Does that show that no one really cares about lives, and only about their own agenda?

    • Upvote 1
  12. 5 hours ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:


    My retort would have been similar. 



    Flipping a district like this one means that the GOP is going to have to pay more attention to other districts that they won pretty easily in the past.  Money that the GOP could have used to attack "vulnerable" Democrat held districts.


    Anyone who tries to discount this victory needs to be reminded which candidate TRUMP!! and co. were clearly behind.  Which candidate TRUMP!! got off the golf course to attend a rally for.  It wasn't the one who won.

    Wasn't this the same seat that Obama held and was flipped when he became president?

  13. 3 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

    Geez, I’m no expert but I really thought the 1967 Outer Space Treaty made that kind of stuff a no-no?


    From Article IV:


    “The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.”

    The US has a long history of breaking treaties whenever they want...

    • Hydration 1
  14. 1 hour ago, debluvscanucks said:

    Sorry, should have been clearer that it is in reference to the tar sands, which I was looking for a picture to post.  You're right.  Fixed it.


    LoL - you can edit your post without the edit thing? Nice...


    It looks like Shift-4 actually edited your post in the quotes to make it look like you said something bad... when you originally never did

  15. 3 hours ago, nuckin_futz said:

    Trump says he looks at Kudlow "very strongly" and he has a "very good chance" at job

    Trump on Larry Kudlow

    Kudlow is up for Cohn's job as the leader of Trump's economic team.


    On December 7, 2007, Kudlow said: "There's no recession coming. The pessimistas were wrong. It's not going to happen. . . . The Bush boom is alive and well. It's finishing up it sixth consecutive year with more to come." <---------- :lol:


    In any case, Kudlow is an unabashed free trade supporter so the market will cheer his appointment, if it comes.






    Kudlow certainly is a curious choice. He's so pro free trade it would make your head spin. If you're adopting a more protectionist stance which they are with tariffs and more tariffs the choice of Kudlow is puzzling. I am sure he'll have some big fights with Peter Navarro.


    All I can think of is Trump sees him on tv frequently saying nice things about him.


    Hopefully Kudlow is over his nasty $10,000 a month coke habit. http://gawker.com/5469601/larry-kudlow-cokehead





  • Create New...