Good Luck
New member
Troll away. Like I said, it was your own deliberate misrepresentation of what I posted that started the nazi shit. Want to continue in your childish whiney vein, go right ahead. I'll be elsewhere debating issues.
To the pro-lifers
- Thread starter KingRaw!
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Hmm, in one hand I have "pregnancy" in the other I have "rape" ...let's take a look at the differences. Pregnancy results from a choice made to have sex, rape results from being the victim of a crime. In one case, the person in question has a clear and logical choice in their actions, in the other, she doesn't. One is the result of a choice made by the woman, the other is the result of a choice made by the perpetrator of a crime on the woman. So, we clearly see there is nothing remotely similar in comparing the two.
Well, small problem here... 99% of all rapes are not because someone was hanging out with fishy people or in a dangerous part of town. Getting drunk at a party and using the poor judgement to have sex, is not rape, although some rapes may occur this way. What you have presented is a bigoted and stereotypical view of women and rape, which says a lot about your character. In your mind, no rape is criminal, because the woman was obviously asking to be raped by her actions, that's how you believe. It's nice sounding "helpful hints" to not get raped, but what you have to say here is precisely what most rape victims are following when some asshole macho fuck like yourself, violated them physically and raped them against their will, wishes, or fantasies. I know that is hard for your machismo ass to understand, but try.
Also, I know you think you sound like some stud muffin to pop off about casual sex, but a lot of people in 2008 do don't share your promiscuous view at all, and don't think it's as cool as you seem to. But I do want to make this point, my position is not "anti sex" and I have never suggested people just stop having sex, although it is the best known way to avoid STD's and pregnancy. I am not the moral judge and I don't decide for other people, that is up to them, but with the CHOICE to have sex, comes a responsibility, and potential creation of a human life is one of them. With the introduction of AIDS, death has also become a potential consequence.
Yeah King, take off your gold chains and button up your purple silk shirt, and stop hitting on chicks half your age, the era of "free sex and love" is over, and you are so 1985!!
No, I am trying to support boundaries on indecent human behaviors, I think it's what makes me a human and not some wild monkey in a jungle. I would be completely happy with allowing communities to vote on abortion and decide what is right for their own community, and my earlier arguments for exceptions in cases of rape and risk of life, illustrate I am more than willing to allow moral viewpoints other than my own to be considered. Forcing women? No, I don't force women, that's your style dude. Women can make their own choice, I have no problem with that, but barbarism is not an option or choice any of us should be allowed, it's not a "right" we have as humans.
I don't know where you get your statistic from on children in need of adoption, but I personally know of several couples who have adopted children, and they had to wait... as in, on a waiting list for two or three years... as in, there weren't any children available to adopt. None of the things on your list are valid reasons for a human being denied the right to live, sorry, try again!
Oh, and by the way, a fetus is not just "technically" a human, it IS a human. Until you can provide some kind of evidence to the contrary, a human being is created at conception. It is biological fact, not a "technicality" at all. It is your denial of this fact, which enables your stupidity to flourish on this issue. It is why I earlier called you bigoted, because that is exactly what fuels bigotry, ignorant denial of facts.
Last edited:
So not allowing abortion is a punishment to the girl who should never have consented to the sex and thus should be required to bare the burden, had she not consented that would be a different story?
I can't see how the woman's choice in the pregnancy should make a difference in the value of the unborn child. Dixie, please explain that again. It makes no sense.
As for Jarod, I wouldn't call it a punishment, I would say that it is part of the accepted responsibility for deciding to use the reproductive organs as an amusement park. I wouldn't call the hard landing when the parachute fails a "punishment" for the skydiver. I wouldn't call pregnancy a "punishment" for somebody who is promiscuous.
As for Jarod, I wouldn't call it a punishment, I would say that it is part of the accepted responsibility for deciding to use the reproductive organs as an amusement park. I wouldn't call the hard landing when the parachute fails a "punishment" for the skydiver. I wouldn't call pregnancy a "punishment" for somebody who is promiscuous.
But he is saying its okay to remove the responsability of pregnancy depending on the intent of the woman who gets pregnant. If he does not like her intent, she should be required to stay pregnant... Id call that punatitive.
As for using sexual organs as an amusement park... As long as you are responsable, go for it! Ive been sexual for over 20 years. Twice did I want a pregnancy and twice did I get one.
*sigh*
Again,
I was speaking of my own opinion. As for the former, I asked Dixie to explain how the value of the life is different because of the means of impregnation for exactly that reason. That life is exactly as valuable as the other, it certainly should not be caused to feel the ultimate penalty for the sins of the father.
Well you and I agree, I was merely responding to your comment on my evaluation of Dixie's argument.
*SIGH!!!*
As for your, "Well, I only got pregnant when I wanted to!" argument.
There are far more skydivers that have never had that hard landing I spoke of as well, but it is still something one should consider when taking on that particular form of amusement. It isn't a punishment, but something you understand can happen if you are to take part in that form of amusement.
The "It hasn't happened to me!" argument is fundamentally selfish, and unrealistic.
Sure but I dont have the opinion that people should not skydive. I am all for people skydiving all they want.
*Sigh*
As long as they understand that there may be consequences I am all for it as well.
Attempting to take away the consequences of their own decisions is something I dislike. To call the consequences "punishment" for instance. It wasn't put onto them by some outside force, they chose to take that risk.
I am all for trying to take the risk out of fun behavyor. Skydivers wear parachutes, I used a condom. If I saw a skydiver whose chute failed I would likely try to rescue him, thus taking as much as the consiquences away from him as possable.
The attempt to take it to the level where another must pay the ultimate price to release them from the consequences is where we fundamentally disagree. I do not believe that it is a valid form of release when another pays such a high price.
No, we do not agree, I do not think abortion is a good choice for most situations, but that is my opinion, and I like to err with freedom in such situations.
And I prefer to err with life. Because none can exercise freedom without that first fundamental experience, that of being allowed to live.
I thought you were for abortion being legal, but with the requirement that the M.D. tried to save the life of the fetus...?
I can see my answer requires more explination, based on your response.
I perfer to err on the side of freedom. I dont belive that making abortion illegal will do much if anything to save lives. I dont belive that aborting a less than three month old zigot is much different than using contraception.
That would not be the same as abortion. It maximizes the rights of all involved. And realistically involves taking a much harder look at the idea of the reproductive organs being used as an amusement park in quite the same fashion.
Making the goal to kill human progeny illegal as part of a "medical procedure" would both err on the side of freedom and on life.
Your plan does not require the woman to take a harder look at the idea of using reproductive organs as an amusement park ride. She does not even have to care at all that the Dr. is required to "save" the zigot.