I've never had any kids. My perspective is one not attached to personal emotion, however, I still can't help but see the actual logic involved with whether an unborn child is considered a sentient life form or not. A potential person, or argued differently, an actual human in the making (unless we're defining humans as "those who have exited a vagina") is still being killed (Or... "gently prevented from existing", if that sounds better) in the procedure.
The obvious separation here is the line society draws between the acceptability of termination and the unacceptability of it, based on what we dictate via the arbitrary line we've come to accept.

While I don't disagree with the decision to terminate as a whole, I would definitely hope that this is less of a "women's rights" thing, and more of a human decency thing, whether it's more decent and necessary for the mother to abort, or allow the child to live. That's all I'm saying.

I'm pro-life and pro-choice. 100% in favor of both life and choices.

But are you in favour of life or the choice of a termination?

I thought my stance would be pretty controversial but I feel the same as here what FD has stated in this phrase- pro situational.

If you become pregnant and there is situational realities that mean you would not be able to care for the child adequately or it poses a health-risk to the mother or the baby (be it physical or psychological), I believe there should be a choice to abort the pregnancy. Same goes for if a woman was raped and became pregnant, or other situations where the sexual intercourse resulting in pregnancy was not wanted.

Being able to just abort any pregnancy you incur accidentally seems to take away from the adult responsibility you have when you enter a sexual relationship (i.e. the knowledge that if you choose to have sexual intercourse you are aware that there is a possibility a pregnancy could result, even if you are using contraception.)

Of course, the whole "situational" aspect of it is vague and subjective, it depends completely on the person who is going through the ordeal, their physical and mental state, whether they feel as though they could adequately care for a baby, etc. So I guess my stance almost leans towards "pro-choice" but I still believe it is situational and adults still need to take some responsibility rather than a "quick fix" because they were short-sighted in their sexual endeavours.

And yes, my decision is probably based more on an emotional connection I have with the issue than it should - I am close to somebody who lost their baby during the second trimester, I also know that my big sister was born at 26 weeks and is today an amazing person.

I was just poking fun at the dishonest euphemisms.

The pragmatist in me leans towards being in favor of abortion simply because I feel like the more control that people have over when they procreate, the better.

Morally, I can understand the pro-life point of view. Some of the defenses of abortion I see tossed around (it's not life/not a human) are pure nonsense. The argument that it's not conscious is a little more compelling, but still pretty iffy imo. You could probably make that same argument for new born babies - it just depends on where you want to draw that line.

But I guess I just don't have that rigid a moral code and don't view killing it as some sort of sin that won't be forgiven. I just look at cause and effect. Killing people is 'wrong' for all sorts of practical reasons. I can't think of a practical reason for why abortion is wrong - only the truism that killing innocent humans is always wrong. To me the benefits of increasing control over procreation outweigh strict adherence to that principle in this case.

I am pro choice, perhaps more than most. I think as long as we're largely talking about a lump of cells, completely dependent on its connection with the mothers body and generally lacking in capacity to suffer for the decisions made by its mother, then it's up to the mother if she wants to abort. Parents who argue the pro-life angle because of experiences with their own children often have the wrong perspective, I think. These lumps simply are not walking, talking children and just because they can be doesn't mean we should treat them as. You can't know for sure what these fetuses can or can't be so why base your choice in this matter on those kind of assumptions?

Arguing what's better for society, I don't think that wanting to abort is harmful to society or otherwise symptomatic for criminals. Hence, I don't think we will do society a favour by spending more money on stopping these women from getting their wishes. Someone who gets an abortion today may still have chidren in the future; a child she and perhaps her partner can support and who is wanted and/or healthy.

So it seems to me abortion can factor into giving us us freedom of choice, happier families and a healthier populace. A question to pro-lifers then, what does prohibiting abortion give us? And if someone has an illegal abortion, what does society gain from punishing that person? Having an abortion often comes with guilt and regret. Isn't that enough?

I think it's easy to base your choice on those kind of assumptions if you are a parent who has had the experience of something like miscarriage, infertility, or a premature baby. And I know it brings up the whole "potential life" argument - I agree with you here tore, potential life is not the same as an actual child - but you can see why many parents or individuals who have been through these difficult and confronting experiences have these beliefs.

For the record, I am not "pro-life." I guess my opinion is largely "pro-choice" but I just hope that individuals who are making those difficult choices are making an informed choice, rather than a "quick fix" for what they perceive as consequences of their sexual activity.

Take a close look at the criteria you're listing here. None of it really differentiates a fetus from other humans in all of their various (illegal to kill) forms and stages, other than the 'dependent on the connection to the mother' one. Of course, you still have to explain why the fetus not being independent makes it ok to kill.

As an aside, I think that the tendency to use terms like "lump of cells" points to an attempt at emotional detachment from the pro-choice angle. It's not a rational argument, just an attempt to dehumanize the thing we'd like to kill.

Really, aren't we all just a lump of cells?! :)

And you're the expert on killing, right John? :)

Take a good look at my post and you will see that I do. I also added "generally lacking in capacity to suffer for the decisions made by its mother". A person who has been born generally does have the capacity to suffer, emotionally, physically, socially. That is as long as they are of health. When people who have been in an accident are severly brain damaged to the point where people may call them vegetables, they are often taken off life support. The idea is that when it's just a body with no consciousness in it to feel neither pain, joy - perhaps even no perception of its environment - then it's okay to "kill".

In the present when the decision to abort is made, the fetus generally has more in common with that braindead person on life support than it does a grown, healthy human with regular human rights. I think the distinction between having the ability to feel, think, reflect and perceive - or not - is an important one and it's also one widely used in other situations. As a moral idea, it is widely accepted. F.ex a vegetarian may think it is better to kill a plant than it is a pig because the plant suffers less from getting killed.

Should we protect the "interests" of the fetus (it has no interests) or the interests of the mother (she does)? Of the two, the one who can feel, reflect, perceive and so on is the mother and so it is her interests/rights we should look after.

How is it not rational? It's pretty much calling it what it is without getting tangled up in future possibilities and human emotions. How is it more rational to portray it as a person with thoughts, feelings, perceptions, life experiences, etc. when it isn't?

For the sake of debate how would people view the actions of someone who slipped a drug into a pregnant woman's drink that caused her to miscarry? How important is the life that was wrongfully taken from her and how does it vary from the importance of an unwanted foetus? I think (though could be wrong) that it isn't considered murder legally. Does the fact that another foetus is unwanted make it any less valuable? It certainly wouldn't be justifiable homicide if a mother killed her unwanted children once they were born.

I think if you are pro-choice, you recognize that while we're talking about something like a 3 month or less old fetus, how important it is is ultimately up to the mother. Society doesn't have to place worth on and "invest" in that fetus just yet. If you, as an observer, do place worth in the fetus, you still respect the mother's decision and the worth she places in it. In other words, it's her business and her choice.

If someone causes someone else to miscarry, that is of course a horrible crime. Your example with poison is a little unusual, but I guess miscarriages happening due to violence (like punches or kicks to the stomach) happen now and then. I think causing miscarriage, however awful that crime is, should not be legally regarded the same as homicide. That is it should not be legally equivalent to killing f.ex a healthy adult human being.

edit :

The murder of a fetus would likely also entail the murder of the idea of who that person could be. The parent(s) may have fallen in love with the person they thought the fetus might become. But the law should stick to the facts and the events that took place, not on ideas or assumptions regarding what could've been.

Good point, but I honestly don't think that the capacity for suffering works as a consistent criteria either. Would it be alright to kill somebody if the death was quick, painless and unexpected? If not, then I don't see what the capacity for suffering has to do with the distinction between that scenario and killing a fetus.
There is of course one key difference between a fetus and a vegetable: the fetus (if healthy) is on course to wake up. If we knew for a fact that someone in a coma would wake up after 9 months, would it still be alright to kill them?
That's a hazy line to draw, though. Do you think newborns possess all of those qualities to the same extant as a 5 year old? If not, isn't it still equally wrong to kill both?

edit - Interesting article on the topic: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...iousness-arise
I'm inclined to agree with you here, for practical reasons. I still think we're side stepping the moral question to a certain extent.
It's not rational because while the phrase is technically correct, it's too reductionist. Like Lateralus pointed out, that phrase applies just as much to us as it does to an embryo.

It's also not rational to give a fetus the attributes you just listed (thoughts, feelings, etc). I don't see this as the obvious alternative to "just a lump of cells" though.

It would be the best way to kill someone, I'm sure most will agree. If you were convicted for it, you would probably do less time than if you had tortured someone to death. But in harming another adult human being, you are also hurting the ones whose happiness is, in part, dependent on that person. In addition, the murder may scare or otherwise discomfort a large number of people and so your action harms society by hurting people in it and even if you are not causing physical pain as you murder, you are most likely still causing a lot of suffering.

If you abort a fetus, you cause suffering to the mother who asked for it, is ready to take the moral responsibility, and probably thinks she's getting the best possible outcome, even if it's not painless for her.

Actually, I still think of someone asleep or in a coma as someone who has the capacity to care about their life and all it entails. The capacity is there, even if it's not being used. If you are asleep, you still care about things in your life, even though they may not be in your thoughts right then. If you're dreaming, you may be dreaming of someone you love.

A "lump of cells" without a developed nervous system doesn't have that capacity.

The more suffering it causes, the greater the crime. Generally speaking, I do think it is worse to kill a five year old than a one year old. Let's say their family loved them equally much and suffered equally at the loss of both. If the five year old suffers more from being killed than the one year old, then killing the five year old will have caused a little more suffering, even if the extra amount of suffering is miniscule compared to the total suffering added up across friends and relatives.

So generally speaking, I believe murders of five year olds on average causes a little more suffering than the murder of one year olds. A five year old on average has more relations which will suffer. But practically speaking, both crimes are so heinous that the difference doesn't matter much.

I disagree .. Well, of course it is reductionist. Describing something in that way using a few words always will be. But I think describing adult humans as a lump of cells is more reductionist than calling an early embryo a lump of cells. After all, humans are much larger and contain cells which are highly differentiated. We contain bones and highly organized and intricate structures, more so than any fetus.

If you want to mix personality, thoughts and dreams into it, those are also reduced when describing adults as lumps of cells, but not when describing fetuses as such as these things have yet to develop, if they would at all.

Let's forget about the thoughts and stuff for a sec because what I really think of as important is the capacity to suffer. I think there are many ways to suffer, not just physically, which is why I've mentioned stuff like an ability to reflect upon things. If you love your children, being separated from them hurts you and so your capacity for love also becomes a capacity for suffering.

So if we reduce all that to a simple capacity for suffering, that's really what I'm interested in and that's where I think fetuses are lacking. I also think there are few people whose happiness or suffering depends on a fetus compared to the average child or adult and so removing one does less harm in the world than when removing a born human being.

My thoughts are a mix between a utilitarian wish for the best outcome happiness / suffering wise, but I also think that having a choice to abort generally gives good consequences for society. As I wrote earlier, happy families with healthy children. Parents will have more freedom to have healthy children when they want them and can support them. If you force them to become parents at a time when they don't want them, can't support them or when the child would be so sick they'd rather not have it, of course they may in time become a fully functional, happy family. But I think on average, the families people make will be a little happier if they get to choose for themselves whether to make them / add to them or not.

I think this is probably necessary in regard to the "lump of cells" thing...

If I'm not mistaken, (please correct me if I'm wrong) in California it's legal to have a free-will abortion up to 24 weeks into the pregnancy.
Here is a picture of a preterm at 23 weeks:

http://www.lovingit.co.uk/images/201...-week-baby.jpg

So, it may be relevant to note that if pregnancies can be legally terminated that far along, we're not unequivocally talking about a lump of cells in this debate, since we're not debating whether or not terminating a lump of cells is morally or ethically wrong, but whether the termination a life in its current legal boundaries is justifiable by simple free will and without context. At least, that's what I'm arguing.

I know well what fetuses look like as I've seen plenty at different stages of development. We had them in jars in the university.

Regarding when it should be okay to abort, it's a difficult question. Many things could or should factor into it, like how developed the fetus/baby is and how early you can test your baby for certain medical conditions. For example, a test may reveal that your baby is doomed to a short life of misery due to some sickness, but you could only get that test in week 14. If you were to base a limit on that, perhaps 16 weeks would be a reasonable limit. At earliest, you'd get the test done at week 14, a few days to get the results and a week or so to get the procedure done.

In Norway, the current limit is 12 weeks so within the first 12 weeks is what I generally relate to when I think of abortions. You can get it done later, but then you need special permission. Merely not wanting a child may not be good enough past 12 weeks. Two doctors will review your case and give the final answer. At a glance, it seems like a good system.

Your system is obviously better than California's.

I don't have the stats, but from what I remember, the leading reason behind abortion in the states is that the mother does not want a child at that time. At the very bottom of the stats, the reason is for the health of the mother.
I don't know at which stage in the pregnancy those stats are relevant to, however I think it's important to acknowledge that in a place where a fetus can be aborted up to 24 weeks for any reason at all, there is a likelihood that some relevant portion is near enough to that limit.

Again, I'm not anti-abortion/pro-life. I do think it's a little more than messed up that someone can abort at 24 weeks for any reason they wish, but honestly, I'm more concerned with getting the appropriate preventative and contraceptive measures in place and freely available so that there's less of a need for such lengths in the first place, regardless of reason.

i separated this from the rest of the quote because this is how i feel. the part about a sick baby really strikes me because it is true that some ppl would rather just flat out not have the baby. and many people want to stand on their moral mountain and gasp and say 'omg how could they not want a child??' but in all reality i think most people would feel the same given they wer ein that situation.

actually same goes for any abortion. i always feel like that if everyone was placed in a situation where abortion was an option then maybe they would feel differnet about it. because its very easy to make statements from a distance and make yourself feel like you ar emorally superior. like i said i had a girl get an abortion awhile ago and you just have to think practically and logically and try to remove emotion as best as possible.

So theoretically speaking, if you were to kill someone in that way who was a loner with no connections then there's nothing wrong with that as long as nobody finds out.
So then if someone is in a coma and there's no telling whether they will ever come out of it then it's still wrong to kill them because they might still have some self-awareness through dreams or whatever?
Fair enough. But following that line of thinking to its conclusion, it would be a significantly more heinous crime to kill a popular adult than a neglected or unloved child.
It is more reductionist, my only point was that both are reductionist. The fact that it's a lump of cells isn't really important - the reason people care about the lump of cells is because it's a growing human.
I agree with all of that. The utilitarian logic for supporting abortion is clear. It's only when I apply that same logic to other scenarios that inconsistencies start to surface.

Basically, utilitarian morality can easily give rational reasons for supporting abortion. What I am skeptical about is its ability to give a complete and consistent account of why we place such value on human life, which is honestly the only reason pro-lifers care about abortion in the first place.

^Mr. Booth, you can nitpick at my arguments all you like. I don't want to offend you, but some of your comments seem a bit below you. You are asking questions you seem to be able to answer yourself. You ask me if it's not morally okay to kill someone in a coma because they may have a dream. Are you sure you understand utilitarianism? I am under the impression that you do, so why this question? You know that, according to utilitarianism, an an act which causes more suffering than happiness is morally bad. If I killed anyone, I am pretty sure I would suffer with that personally and probably other people too, hence the act would be morally bad. How could it be good? In the future, if you do understand the concept of utilitarianism, you should be able to judge for yourself whether or not an action is good or bad without asking.

But before you nitpick again; the thing about humans and morale is we have evolved morality as we are highly social beings. When we see someone in need of our help, we may sympathize. What drives that feeling? It is not utilitarianism, nor any other morale theory. It's just some basic emotional reaction which is part of human nature. Without any kind of moral theory to base choices on, we still have a gut feeling we can follow. If you ask me if I would kill a homeless person who would not be missed, I could say no, because he (and I) would suffer for it and that makes it morally bad, according to utilitarianism. But that wouldn't be completely honest. I wouldn't kill a homeless person because my gut feeling tells me it's the wrong thing to do. I wouldn't kill him because I'm pretty much a normal human being.

Humans in general don't follow moral theories in their day to day lives. We instinctively know how to relate to other people which is what morals is mostly about. But sometimes, our inherent morals don't have the answers. We have not evolved to know what we should treat a fetus as from a moral point of view. Relating to them in a social, moralistic manner was not part of our evolution and neither were abortions so we have no inherent reaction to that. Different morale theories exist that can tell us what to do, such as various religious doctrines or moral principles like utilitarianism. So then I ask you, which one should you choose and why?

The reason I like utilitarianism is because it doesn't matter how difficult the question; it is still possible to find the best moral outcome with the best consequences for people. For that reason, it is often employed in difficult life and death situations, f.ex it may allow for one to be killed in order to save thousands. That doesn't mean utilitarianism is the only moral principle I appreciate or follow or that it's good for any situation you could possibly imagine (bring on the comatose hobos universally hated by all), but I still think it provides a good argument and point of view to the abortion debate. Certainly better than f.ex some christian idea that killing is simply wrong and that is that.

Your utilitarian answer sort of ignores the question: I said the death would be painless, quick and unexpected. The loner/homeless person wouldn't have time to suffer. You mentioned that you would suffer, but that isn't necessarily so. You could be a sociopath.

I agree with what you say about 'gut' morality, but I do think that is exactly why people are against abortion. I think that fundamentally, people value human life. I think that our gut morality often conflicts with conclusions that we might arrive at by utilitarian logic. That is really the point I was driving at with my questioning.

edit -I don't want to seem to dodge this, but I don't have an answer for you. I'll try to explain where I'm coming from instead.

I typically use some form of utilitarian logic to deal with moral questions, but lately I've started to feel like this approach falls somewhat short of the ideals that we're used to. I'm not religious, but it seems like we treat human life as sacred as a matter of habit.

For example, if I were pressed to choose between a painful death for a dog vs a quick death for a human, I would undoubtedly choose for the dog to die. I can't possibly rationalize this as being based on suffering - that's not it at all. It's the waste of a human life that irks me.

We are actually all one large lump of cells gyrating and moving in one bubbling universal stew.

Cue Bill Hicks?

Haha I suppose so, it's a very appealing reality. Sexy too, all those sweaty, hot molecules colliding with each other in the darkness. Reminds me of my 6th birthday party, and my 8th too.

An uncommon pro-choice stance:

When considering the sort of people who are more likely to get an abortion (dumb sluts, dysfunctional impulsive types, drug addicts etc), voluntary abortion helps improve the genetic stock of future generations by slightly reducing the disproportionately high rates of breeding by stupid people. When peak humanity is reached, do you really want the population to be comprised mostly of idiots?

According to Freakonomics, their explanation for the steady decline in crime rates in the 1990s, was due to the result of the Roe vs Wade decision 20 years earlier. Fewer unwanted children produced by stupid people, meant fewer criminals in the long run.

Abortion is legal in my state of Australia and "dysfunctional types" still procreate and have babies when they become accidentally pregnant. I would actually argue that those who choose to have an abortion are probably the "responsible types" who have thought long and hard about their decision and the fact that they probably don't have the means necessary to raise a child. The lower SES bogans, "sluts", drug addicts or "dysfunctional" as you say, get pregnant, and think "OMG YES A BABY YAY I'M GONNA BE A MUM!!11!!!"

idiots are having kids in record numbers regardless. just look at any hum drum town in this country and you'll find all te wrong people having kids. i remember when i worked an overnight shift years ago this 20 yr old girl who had a boyfriend fresh out of jail, a baby, and was on welfare went and had another one. i think a lot of thes eppl have kids because they didnt go to college, they kinda got thrown into the real world early, they arent smart, etc etc etc. well now im gettin way off track but regardless of abortions these people are still gonna have kids.

One of the few examples where utilitarianism breaks down is when applied as a personal guidance on morality for sociopaths. It is a theoretical problem; I don't think any sociopath who loves to kill have strived to do so in the utilitaristic way. To think that way requires a very moral sort of person and if their ideal is to maximize happiness and minimize suffering in the world, what are they doing killing people? It absolutely makes no sense, But yes, from a morale theory point of view, that is a shortcoming.

But I still think utilitarism is useful in the case in the case of abortion.

The death of a dog or the death of a human is something that your inherent morals can relate to. Of course people are worth more to us than dogs as our fitness is dependent on other people. I would argue that you don't really need utilitarianism to cover that bit. Instead you'd use it to help you when you don't have a gut feeling.

Whether or not an interest in fetuses is natural, I just don't think it can be. I think that gut feeling is placed there by culture, religious indoctrination or some other moral conditioning from the environment. As I mentioned, fetuses were just not a feature in the daily lives of our ancestors and neither were abortions. Therefore we can't have a natural instinct towards them. Imagine your lover being with another man; the feeling of jealousy is pretty much universal. It's natural and relevant to every man, even if some are more jealous than others. But can you say the same for wanting to protect fetuses? I don't think I have a gut feeling for fetuses and abortions, yet I am otherwise a healthy human being with normal feelings (including jealousy). You do stir feelings in me by showing me a picture of a 6 months old baby because that looks human to me, but an early embryo not so much.

I do have a gut feeling to sympathize with suffering mothers so I'm more interested in protecting them. Possibly, a good moral compromise between the interests of our natural instincts and the best possible consequences would be to allow abortions, but keep the time limit to do so as short as possible while still getting the best consequences from it (that is, people should have time to get tests done, but not wait for many months before making the decision).

Neither do I. The question is whether their actions are justifiable or even 'right' based on utilitarian logic.
Our fitness is dependent on certain people. We also compete with other people. It isn't as simple as saying we care about all humans because it makes good evolutionary sense. That isn't always the case.

The utilitarian model also wouldn't save us from this, assuming suffering is the metric being used. The dog's suffering is undeniably greater than the human's suffering in this case.

I don't think that all gut feeling morality is purely instinctual. You're right to say culture has probably played its role here. I would argue it has also played its role in convincing us to value fidelity. The jealousy you feel over your partner cheating is no more 'natural' than the urge to protect an innocent human fetus.

I don't think that's the question. Clearly, any action which results in net positive amount of happiness is a morally good action according to utilitarianism. It already answers your question. The question for you should be whether or not you agree with that, if you could ever think killing for pleasure is morally right. And if there are scenarios where utilitarianism would allow for it to be, whether or not that completely invalidates utilitarianism in other situations, like abortion.

For me, it doesn't. I don't require utilitarianism to be flawless like you seem to do. I can apply it when it makes sense to do so and not when it doesn't. For example utilitarianism would have me break laws for good consquences, but when it comes to laws, I think a normative approach is better. I generally think that we should follow the laws in our society, even if happiness could be maximized by breaking them.

So whether or not it is possible to dream up a scenario where utilitarianism defends what you perceive as the wrong action is, to me, not really interesting. Your requirement for a morale theory to be flawless in regards to your own moral interests is, in my opinion, unrealistic. If you submit different moral theories to extreme testing, like you have with utilitarianism, none of them will satisfy you in every instance. Utilitarianism is not unique in that way.

The reason I didn't mention competition is because abortion is not a matter of competition. But sure, we have an us and them sort of thinking. Most of the people you meet in your society, you'd probably include under the "us" umbrella.

Yes, utilitarianism will often protect animals over humans because it doesn't say that human suffering is more important than animal suffering. But what does that have to do with abortions?

I disagree and think that jealousy is completely natural. We all have an unconscious desire for sex, that is to pass our genes on to the next generation because our nature doesn't know about prevention like condoms. But in order to effectively pass on your genes, you also have to be careful with your resources and not squander them, because you have to survive and preferably help your children do so as well. (As a side note, other people are potential resources to us if they will cooperate.)

But, let's say you are a man and you have a female partner. That partner goes and has sex with someone else and becomes pregnant. If you have no jealousy, you would be less likely to find out and you would raise the child like your own. From an evolutionary point of view, you would have been the victim of an exploitation strategy from the other male who impregnated your woman. After all, you spent your resources rearing his child, his genes. He is the one getting rewarded while you've been penalized, I guess you could say. Jealousy is a defense against being exploited in that way and, as a result, some level of natural jealousy seems a reasonable expectation for humans to have.

So to summarize, nature is full of defense behaviours and emotions that have evolved as a response to such exploitation. Jealousy is one of them.

Tore and John, the way you argue makes me feel like an idiot. Just wanted to say, you're both incredibly intelligent and articulate, and I hope that in no way comes across as gay.:) You're both a great example of how to have a debate with wildly differing views without descending into name-calling or sulkiness or the other stuff that sometimes happens in these cases. You should both be proud of yourselves, I mean that.

You just had to include that phrase didn't you? couldn't you have left it out or used a different phrase.

It seems the hot topic on here at the moment.

I agree with TH, for Tore and John it is very interesting reading their points.

It does seem like beating a dead horse but come on. Why associate the word gay with being something negative?

I don't think that's necessary.

You just couldn't leave it without drawing attention to what was obviously a joke and a nod-and-a-wink when I was talking about praising two guys, and make it something more than it was supposed to be, could you? What are you: the male CrazyVegn? :rofl:

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a joke is just a joke, my reptilian friend...

nevermind I guess you don't get it and I should just leave it alone. :banghead:


I know the context of said joke but you are still making it seem like being gay is a bad/wrong thing regardless of if it is a joke or not.

If you still see it as harmless then so be it.

andrei you're perfect just sayin'

THATS AS GAY AS IT COMES BTW I MEANT IT IN THE GAYEST WAY POSSIBLE

ALL THE GAY

seriously though admiring people for their intellect/ideas is gay? why is this is a thing
just like the whole "girl crush" phenom, like

stahp

If this is true I'm even gayer than I thought I was.

Where did I ever say that? All I was doing is making it clear that I personally was not, and am not gay. I have no problem whatever with homosexuality or lesbianism, not in the least. I never intended my remark to give that impression, and I would think/hope that anyone else reading it would have realised this was "gay in a Batlord kind of way", in other words a simple joke that was meant to be inoffensive.

Christ! You can make anything offensive if you try. If someone wrote "he's a thick Irishman" or as thick as an Irishman I would be annoyed but would not take a huge amount of offence to it, just as if someone said to Fetcher you scots are all mean. It doesn't mean you denigrate the object of your comment. And anyway, what the ****? You've managed to completely misdirect and misrepresent my comment by picking holes in it. You've turned a completely sincere compliment into something you see as dubious. Why can't you just let things slide? It's not like I was saying gays are wrong, or to be gay is wrong! How careful do you have to be what you say around people like you? Christ! Again! :mad:

I'm a born again Christian and this offends me.