Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Rank #4143 on Comments
Level 315 Comments: Wizard
Send mail to sonsofsol
Invite sonsofsol to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Highest Content Rank:
Highest Comment Rank:
Content Level Progress:
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress:
Level 315 Comments: Wizard → Level 316 Comments: Wizard
Times Content Favorited:
Total Comments Made:
What people say about sonsofsol
The quest for sauce
ubentpride is a wanker
The Craftworlds return!
latest user's comments
- They're opening a lot of shops in the land of the rising sun. …
perfect girls dont exi...
- Nah my man. Follow the example of our government. Point them o…
- Someone who watched the show. Is this basically telling Japane…
Idk if it's as far as tell people to get married, but family building is definitely a theme
I don't know if you're reading too much into it, but the creator just seems to like unlikely relationships, lesbians and monster girls.
- Official knightbean face reveal.
“The fetishization of...
nah this is me
- Oh No! The Stig!
Cars vs Deathspinner
- I was mainly talking about big bang theory. I mostly pl…
2007 ruined video games
- That's alright, someone has to be a pleb.
2007 ruined video games
I call bollocks. CoD4 was introduced in an era where WW2 shooters were flooding the market. A modern military shooter in that context was maybe not original but certainly fresh. CoD 5 WaW flopped in sales despite being arguably having the same level of quality a year after because it was yet another WW2 shooter. CoD 4 was the REASON modern military shooters oversaturated the market years later.
The multiplayer was groundbreaking- the whole game was well polished for that matter. SOCOM was a thing back in the early 2000s but died because its multiplayer was spawncamping galore compared to CoD4. James Bond 007 was thriving but it could never expand beyond local multiplayer because Nintendo didn't have that kind of technology- so the franchise died. CS: and CS:S were prolific on PC, but the franchise's ability to move to console was pretty much half-assed because Valve would have to pay a lot to update their games. Basically CoD4 figured out how to make multiplayer modern military shooters work from a mechanical perspective on many fronts, made it very polished and enjoyable, and even other renowned franchises like Crysis could barely keep up.
Counter-Strike has tried to make single-player campaigns before, and they have been pretty monotone. Battlefield Bad Company gave the singleplayer franchise an interesting take but it eventually got EAed over. CoD4's other achievement was simply making the modern military shooter singleplayer campaign palatable if nothing else. It went full Michael Bay, and... everything just lined up after that. It got boring after the third... fourth... eighth attempt, but the first time was a blast.
I was mainly talking about big bang theory.
I mostly play strategy games. So I haven't got a clue about shooters. Although I remember hearing good things about cod when it was released.
- See I'm no life begins at conception nutter, so the morning af…
Ron Paul on Abortion
Brain activity beginning seems like the perfect stopping point for me. Most countries/states abortion laws cut off WELL before that point.
Not in Canada. Now it's hard to find a doctor to do a third-trimester abortion, but I know that Quebec has been trying to find someone since 2004 and I'm not sure if they've found someone yet.
Canada, China, Vietnam, and North Korea are the only four countries in the world without any restrictions whatsoever on abortion.
There is a heart beat around 8-9 weeks. Many organs are in place fairly early on, though they aren't functional for a long while.
why does it being a rape baby make it ok?
if you think it's murder,
does it being a rape baby somehow make it not a person and thus not murder?
The thing is, as much as I hate to say it, the rape baby is a constant reminder of the rapist, and sadly it cuts the mother/victims life off at the moment they have the child. It's also entirely possible that the relationship between the two could become abusive.
Now I'm sure there are cases where the exact opposite is true but I've heard of a staggering amount of cases (and I have some friends for whom this is true too) where their pregnancy and the baby that resulted where the only thing that kept them going and helped them deal with their trauma. Further, if the baby is a constant reminder of the rape and the mother can't just deal with that, that's what adoption is for.
if you make exceptions for rape babies
you obviously don't see a fetus as a separate person at all
in which case you are a hypocrite and should mind your own business
Fuck you calling me a hypocrite makes it my business. However you want to look at it, a rape baby is a rape baby, carrying that to term can have lasting psychological effects on the mother. I'm not going to destroy a REAL person's life just so a baby from a person who decided he just didn't care if they said no can live. Hell, our world is so fucked up ND our laws are so fucked up the rape baby's life probably won't be that great either. Fuck you for calling me a Hypocrite.
you think forcing people to have kids when they are not ready doesn't have lasting effects?
I think the cut off should be when the brain has developed. So about 5 month mark. Before that it is just a mindless parasite. Quite literally. By all means disagree with abortion. But I think it is retarded for people to try and ban it.
I'm one of those life begins at conception nutters. To me I don't see how we can claim to be human and not claim that the fetus is a living human individual from conception.
It's obviously a human since it has human parents and that's not in question. It's obviously living since it's cells are dividing and growing but it's also definitely a separate organism since it has unique DNA that is a combination of both parents. Thus from the moment of conception the fetus is a separate living human individual. If it wasn't an individual, it would just be a tumour and never become an individual and if it wasn't alive it wouldn't suddenly start being alive.
As to the obvious exceptions I don't see how they follow. From what I can tell the evidence is mostly circumstantial but there's been a lot of evidence that a rape victim having the baby increases their chances of being able to deal with their trauma. Whereas, aborting the baby in the case of rape just makes a rape victim also the mother of a dead baby. Also, this is basically semantics but there's technically no need for abortion in health risks. The medical procedure that generally occurs is that you deliver the baby and hope it survives but it usually doesn't. Which is different from pulling it apart or dissolving it in acid.
Obviously I agree with you on it being obvious when there's a nervous system and organs and a heart beat so nothing more needs to be said there.
I know a bunch of my pro-lifer friends are opposed to the idea of artificial wombs but I for one am excited. Especially since that makes the survival rate for premie c-sections so much higher. Not entirely certain how they'd work but here's hoping something works out.
Also, my circle of friends is basically the Pro-Life activist community here in Canada so this is basically my life these days... ;D
It's perfectly fine to be a "nutter" as you say. As long as you don't trample on actual peoples rights. My opinion is that up til a certain point, they are just a bunch of cells and quite literally a parasite until they are born. That probably sounds rude but by all means they are.
I mean, they can't be a parasite since a parasite has to be of a different species. Further, the fetus is existing where it is supposed to be. That's why unlike with actual parasites where the body fights them, with the fetus the mother's body helps create what they need for life.
I mean, they leech nutrients and other such things without giving anything back, that by itself is parasitical. Whatever anyways, I'm done now.
The weird thing is that they actualyl do give stuff back. Not much but there's a lower risk of ovarian cancer and the fetus can provide stem cells to the mother in the case of organ damage, and other positive side effects like that. So if anything it would be a symbiotic relationship but even that requires different species which isn't the case. Also, from an evolutionary perspective the fetus is the entire point of one's own life since without propagation of the species the genetic line fails so I don't see how reproduction can be classified as either a parasitic or symbiotic relationship.
Especially since parasitism is leeching nutrients away but the fetus is being provided with nutrients. The difference is that the parasite keeps leeching those nutrients to the point where the host is not able to properly provide for itself if it is able (such as tapeworms) whereas, unless the mother has a problem with the way her body handles pregnancy her body only provides the nutrients the fetus needs.
Huh, the more you know, it still doesn't change my stance on abortion though.
Hey man, I just want to say that there is at least one medical condition that can arise during pregnancy and that's an ectopic pregnancy.
That's where the embryo has implanted outside the womb - in the Fallopian tube, for example - and begins to develop there instead.
In such pregnancies, depending on exactly where the implantation took place, there is a risk of things such as ruptured organs or arteries which will kill the mother. Certainly in the case of arterial rupture, the mother will be dead before she can even get to hospital. In the case of such a pregnancy, the only solution is termination.
Personally I think it would be great if the embryo could be unseated from its implant site and moved to the uterus, but I have no idea if that's even possible.
What actually happens in that case is that the fetus is delivered via c-section. Now obviously it dies because we don't have a way to keep it alive outside of the womb, but it's still a different thing than abortion. Sure the end result is the same but to use an analogy, let's say that two people are drowning and you're only strong enough to save one. The one you don't save will die but that doesn't mean that you'll shoot him before rescuing the other one. It might seem like semantics but to me it seems to be an important distinction.
- Bed ridden elderly man mauled by dangerous dog.
Monday's Cute Things -...
- I think you have to call them Knives of Colour now.
Average day in Britain
I think it's Non-White Minority Ethnic Knives.
Show Comments (6)