NationStates Jolt Archive

The US likes its 'wars', but I don't think it's come right out and declared this one openly, yet is seems clear that in some circles, this is exactly what it is. First they started with attacks on homosexuality, (a favourite target for many), attacks on gay marriage, and abortion and now the 'war' is against BIRTH CONTROL.

Judie Brown, president of the American Life League: "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion. The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set.... We oppose all forms of contraception."

More and more pharmacists are being allowed to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/29/earlyshow/health/main683753.shtml ).

All women to consider themselves 'pre-pregnant'. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html)

Look, living north of you guys, we tend to get a lot of spill over, and this shit is starting to spread like a disease. We have a new Conservative government that loves licking your asses, so you need to smarten up now and start fighting for your rights before you...and we...find ourselves perpetually pregnant/paying child support and told who to marry. Either that, or we're going to have a generation of stupid-ass kids who only got abstinence education, think that babies are brought by the stork and that oral sex isn't actually sex...all of them walking around with various horrible STDs because condoms are 'anti-child'.

What a bunch of douche bags. People should always be allowed to have non-procreative sex.

What a bunch of douche bags. People should always be allowed to have non-procreative sex.

^ What he said.

Now Potaria will never get laid.

First they came for the gays
and I did not speak out
because I was not a gay.
Then they came for the women who wanted abortions
and I did not speak out
because I was not a woman who wanted an abortion.
Then they came for the people using birth control
and I did not speak out
because I was not a person using birth control.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Oh but poker parties involving strippers and hookers are okay as long as its congresspeople doing it.

Birth control (condoms, etc.) are vital. It decreases drastically the number of teen pregnacies, STD's, and such. If I'm married and I want to have sex, I'm gonna use a condom unless we wanted kids. Or, if I want to have sex with my girlfriend, we'll be able to do it. These pricks have no right to do any of this. I don't understand these people! What's wrong with gays and pro-choice? Nothing! Just as non-procreative sex isn't wrong.

Birth control (condoms, etc.) are vital. It decreases drastically the number of teen pregnacies, STD's, and such. If I'm married and I want to have sex, I'm gonna use a condom unless we wanted kids. Or, if I want to have sex with my girlfriend, we'll be able to do it. These pricks have no right to do any of this. I don't understand these people! What's wrong with gays and pro-choice? Nothing! Just as non-procreative sex isn't wrong.

Nothing is wrong with it, these assholes just dont want the common people doing it. They want to limit it to a priviledged few.

If it were just a few nutjobs preaching from the pulpits, I wouldn't be that worried, but laws are being passed that mirror these views. A few years ago, I would have thought it unthinkeable that the Pill would be denied to women 'on moral grounds' and yet here we are. What is next? I mean that seriously, no slippery slope argument here, I'm just asking...what the hell else is going to be denied to people 'on moral grounds'?

Nothing is wrong with it, these assholes just dont want the common people doing it. They want to limit it to a priviledged few.

That's what pisses me off the most!!

We have to protest. Everyone find three people and have an orgy. It's the only way to save our freedom.

The government is not composed of a single group of people who all think and believe the same things. This is not a case of a group of people saying, "hey, we love anal sex, we want to have gay orgies and we want abortions for dessert...but let's deny this to everyone else!". This is a case of a few key people gaining positions of power, and not opposed enough, are influencing legislation.

We have to protest. Everyone fine three people and have an orgy. It's the only way to save our freedom.

Hells yeah!! :D

What a bunch of douche bags. People should always be allowed to have non-procreative sex.
Not just allowed, encouraged. Maybe even forced. Well, maybe not forced. Sex calms people down and boosts one's self esteem. It's good for you.

The US likes its 'wars', but I don't think it's come right out and declared this one openly, yet is seems clear that in some circles, this is exactly what it is. First they started with attacks on homosexuality, (a favourite target for many), attacks on gay marriage, and abortion and now the 'war' is against BIRTH CONTROL.

Judie Brown, president of the American Life League: "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion. The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set.... We oppose all forms of contraception."

More and more pharmacists are being allowed to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/29/earlyshow/health/main683753.shtml ).

All women to consider themselves 'pre-pregnant'. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html)

Look, living north of you guys, we tend to get a lot of spill over, and this shit is starting to spread like a disease. We have a new Conservative government that loves licking your asses, so you need to smarten up now and start fighting for your rights before you...and we...find ourselves perpetually pregnant/paying child support and told who to marry. Either that, or we're going to have a generation of stupid-ass kids who only got abstinence education, think that babies are brought by the stork and that oral sex isn't actually sex...all of them walking around with various horrible STDs because condoms are 'anti-child'.


What'd you get hit on the head, or something?

"The US likes its wars" I dont like wars and I'm in the US. No one I know here "likes its wars". And I know a few people here in the US.

First "they" started with attacks- you make it sound like the US is attacking it.
Clarify who "they" is before the legions of pimpled malcontents jumps on this rickety bandwagon.

You shouldn't be able to force what you believe is right and moral, on to someone else. It totally goes against peoples freedom of choice. And yet these are the sort of people who complain the most when it comes to the removal of that choice. :headbang:

More and more pharmacists are being allowed to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/29/earlyshow/health/main683753.shtml ).

All women to consider themselves 'pre-pregnant'. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html)


Had it not been for these articles and I would have said it'll blow off in some months. But it looks like it's starting to get serious, these housewifes have way too much power in their hands (not to talk about a high level of hypocrisy).

You shouldn't be able to force what you believe is right and moral, on to someone else. It totally goes against peoples freedom of choice. And yet these are the sort of people who complain the most when it comes to the removal of that choice. :headbang:

That's right. If a woman wants to give the pill, it's up to her, not the pharmacist who believes she is wrong. It's total bullshit!

What'd you get hit on the head, or something?

"The US likes its wars" I dont like wars and I'm in the US. No one I know here "likes its wars". And I know a few people here in the US. Butthead..."The War on Drugs", the "War on Terror", the "War on this, the War on that"...clearly the phrase turns peoples' cranks...even if the phrase is created by the opposition such as the "War on Freedom" etc. Things are more tepid up here...the strongest word we tend to hear is "The Disapproval of..."

First "they" started with attacks- you make it sound like the US is attacking it. Oh Christ, you're a smart boy Carn, I'm sure you can distinguish between those that oppose, and those that support without me listing names.
Clarify who "they" is before the legions of pimpled malcontents jumps on this rickety bandwagon.You can straighten them out if they do.

Now Potaria will never get laid.

As much as I get stared at? Hahaha, you wish.

We must engage in more raunchy sexual activity, that will show the government what we're made of!!! :D

The Marriage Protection Ammendment (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html) is once again coming up as a major issue. Bush if all the way behind it, just as *gasp* Clinton was. 38 states already have 'defensive marriage laws' which prevent unions that are not between a man and a woman.

Butthead..."The War on Drugs", the "War on Terror", the "War on this, the War on that"...clearly the phrase turns peoples' cranks...even if the phrase is created by the opposition such as the "War on Freedom" etc. Things are more tepid up here...the strongest word we tend to hear is "The Disapproval of..."

Oh Christ, you're a smart boy Carn, I'm sure you can distinguish between those that oppose, and those that support without me listing names.
You can straighten them out if they do.


So-you assume that "the War on this or that" motivates Americans ? It gets us all united and exited and we all get behind and push?

I know you're not that dim to believe we are. Maybe you just watch too much news and think everything they spout for 24 hours a day is the pulse of America and that the stuff you see is accurate.

Or maybe, since there are a half dozen or more channels devoted to 24 hour news, they have to whip things up into a frenzy as if it were a widespread issue.

Whats with the renewed bitterness?

Tepid? I'm sure. Its still not going to get me to start making up threads that seem as if I know what the average Canadian thinks about one issue or another, based on a news article I might have heard or seen.

We must engage in more raunchy sexual activity, that will show the government what we're made of!!! :D

I'm already one step ahead of you! There should be a massive orgy right in front of the capitol or White House. Or wherever these "moral" pharmacists work.

The Marriage Protection Ammendment (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html) is once again coming up as a major issue. Bush if all the way behind it, just as *gasp* Clinton was. 38 states already have 'defensive marriage laws' which prevent unions that are not between a man and a woman.

Which is something everyone should voice their opposition to. (http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fma_postcards)

Which is something everyone should voice their opposition to. (http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fma_postcards)

I think I already signed that.

So-you assume that "the War on this or that" motivates Americans ? It gets us all united and exited and we all get behind and push? I can't really comment other than to say, it sure seems a popular term...and if you guys really, really didn't like the word, your politicians wouldn't be tossing it around so much.

I know you're not that dim to believe we are. Maybe you just watch too much news and think everything they spout for 24 hours a day is the pulse of America and that the stuff you see is accurate.

Or maybe, since there are a half dozen or more channels devoted to 24 hour news, they have to whip things up into a frenzy as if it were a widespread issue. Are you going to actually comment on the issue, or just get pumped up about the term 'War'? Take it up with CNN.

Whats with the renewed bitterness? Sorry, I'm splitting up the real threads from the fuck-threads...you have a problem with that?

Tepid? I'm sure. Its still not going to get me to start making up threads that seem as if I know what the average Canadian thinks about one issue or another, based on a news article I might have heard or seen.Actually, if you'd pull your outrage out of your behind long enough to actually read the OP, you'd realise the thread is actually about legislation in the US that bans gay marriage, makes it more difficult for women to get abortions, allows pharmacists to deny women birth control...and the continuing trend that seems to be allowing your government to peep into your personal affairs. Are you going to deny this legislation exists? Whether or not people in the US are wholeheartedly behind this legislation is not the point...unless opposition actually manages to get these laws overturned. Public opinion, however, may have more impact on NEW laws that are passed in this vein. So you want to stick to the point, or what?

I think I already signed that.

Tell everyone you know to sign it then.

Which is something everyone should voice their opposition to. (http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fma_postcards)
Excellent! I know there is heavy opposition out there...but it can be hard to find amid all the church-sponsored websites that are just drooling in anticipation of this ammendment...

Tell everyone you know to sign it then.

Will do! :D

Gotta stop these fuckers from passing that bill.

I say.... HOT SEX! Plenty of HOT SEX!!!! :fluffle:

What a bunch of douche bags. People should always be allowed to have non-procreative sex.Well you see, there's something us degenerates haven't tried yet. Let's start urging our representatives to legislate immorality. Time to start discouraging non-promiscuous behavior with cleverly worded laws.

Now, the trend in the US is worrisome, because our current government is much more in line with yours than previously was the case. Back before Harper became PM, he promised to 'reopen' (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/11/29/harper-smaesex051129.html) the gay marriage issue. So far it hasn't happened...but there are rumblings that is soon may.

I say.... HOT SEX! Plenty of HOT SEX!!!! :fluffle:

Massive demonstrations (orgies)

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Well you see, there's something us degenerates haven't tried yet. Let's start urging our representatives to legislate immorality. Time to start discouraging non-promiscuous behavior with cleverly worded laws.
But just don't call it a War, or Carn will go Conan on your ass:D

Well you see, there's something us degenerates haven't tried yet. Let's start urging our representatives to legislate immorality. Time to start discouraging non-promiscuous behavior with cleverly worded laws.

Hahaha

Man, this annoys me.

And sadly, We all saw this sort of move coming... from the amount of religious nutjobs that seem to be getting mroe and more vocal and extremist.

Heavens forbid that homosexuals are allowed to marry. Ohnoes abortion!

The problem is that a lot of people seem to want to put their big noses in on other peoples business so they can have a smug sense of superiority over people.

Let's be really bloody honest here. There's no law that will stop abortion. The people who want it will get them. There's clinical procedures, drugs, hell, even a tea one could drink to flush the system. And worst case scenario, a person could always go for a trip to a country that it isn't illegal. All these laws do is make things more dangerous and difficult for people.

The same with contraception. The thing that the folks on capital hill are missing is this:

People are going to have sex. Many with multiple partners, and they're not going to quit drinking or smoking or snorting meth or whatever while they're doing it.

All that this movement is doing is making it so that there are more premature babies, more congenital defects, more unwanted babies, more STDs. Lovely.



Thankfully, the vast majority of pharmacists don't have an issue with prescribing BC or selling rubbers. Such a vast majority, that those that do make the news.

It's just amazing to me that these vocal people seek to set back the women's rights movement so willingly. What's next, Women should't be allowed to Vote because they're too busy being barefoot and pregnant?

stupid.

The religious right has sunk their teeth deep into government on all levels. Their influence is ridiculously strong and far reaching.

The US likes its 'wars', but I don't think it's come right out and declared this one openly, yet is seems clear that in some circles, this is exactly what it is. First they started with attacks on homosexuality, (a favourite target for many), attacks on gay marriage, and abortion and now the 'war' is against BIRTH CONTROL.
I thought the war against contraception was fought and lost in the 1960s. You're telling me it has returned?

Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control.
This sounds like good advice. Encouraging people to be healthy is a worthy thing.

First they came for the gays
and I did not speak out
because I was not a gay.
Then they came for the women who wanted abortions
and I did not speak out
because I was not a woman who wanted an abortion.
Then they came for the people using birth control
and I did not speak out
because I was not a person using birth control.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
You know I'm on your side in this one but I hope you are not ignorant of where you're modifying that quote from?

"The US likes its wars" I dont like wars and I'm in the US. No one I know here "likes its wars". And I know a few people here in the US.
Well, every time the government wants to solve a problem, a "war" is declared. Think, war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terror, etc. The governments of most other western nations don't speak in such dramatic terms.

We must engage in more raunchy sexual activity, that will show the government what we're made of!!! :D
Who's going to volunteer to fuck Bush and Dick? :fluffle:

I can't really comment other than to say, it sure seems a popular term...and if you guys really, really didn't like the word, your politicians wouldn't be tossing it around so much.

Are you going to actually comment on the issue, or just get pumped up about the term 'War'? Take it up with CNN.

Sorry, I'm splitting up the real threads from the fuck-threads...you have a problem with that?

Actually, if you'd pull your outrage out of your behind long enough to actually read the OP, you'd realise the thread is actually about legislation in the US that bans gay marriage, makes it more difficult for women to get abortions, allows pharmacists to deny women birth control...and the continuing trend that seems to be allowing your government to peep into your personal affairs. Are you going to deny this legislation exists? Whether or not people in the US are wholeheartedly behind this legislation is not the point...unless opposition actually manages to get these laws overturned. Public opinion, however, may have more impact on NEW laws that are passed in this vein. So you want to stick to the point, or what?

For some reason, you're just irritating the shit out of me.

I'll let it go.

You know I'm on your side in this one but I hope you are not ignorant of where you're modifying that quote from? Of course I'm not. But I'll admit I threw it in during a fit of whimsy, just to get a reaction.

I wish celebrities would demonstarte against this bullshit. I'd love to demonstrate with Halle Berry ;)

For some reason, you're just irritating the shit out of me. Yeah, I notice I do that when I'm not sweet-talking you.

I'll let it go.
So you're just not going to discuss the topic because I dared to phrase it in a manner that you disagree with. Got it.

Yeah, I notice I do that when I'm not sweet-talking you.


So you're just not going to discuss the topic because I dared to phrase it in a manner that you disagree with. Got it.


No- on some occasions, you're friendly and humorous-Not all caught up in some bitter crusade against some small aspect of the US.

You clearly missed my point and I dont have the energy or desire to explain myself in a manner you'll understand.

It's this sort of shit that's going to keep me from moving to the states.

Fuck, I can't believe that in this day and age, women are treated as only uteruses. We have no value other than for the fact that we don't have bits and pieces dangling between our legs.


Fuck.

No- on some occasions, you're friendly and humorous-Not all caught up in some bitter crusade against some small aspect of the US. You're the one seeing it as a bitter crusade. I see it as a pretty serious issue, one that will likely spill over in many ways to my own country. I don't find the issue particularly funny, hence the lack of humour. And you really have no opinion on it? No wonder such laws get passed.

This sounds like good advice. Encouraging people to be healthy is a worthy thing.
This isn't just "oh, everybody be healthy" this is "put your life on hold because you're nothing but a baby machine"

This sounds like good advice. Encouraging people to be healthy is a worthy thing.

It isn't about health, it's about being a healthy breeder. Push it as health, fine...good advice...but to consider every woman as 'pre-pregnant'...I'm sorry, but that chills me.

And isn't there considerable evidence now that the health of the man also affects the health of his sperm? So shouldn't men be targeted as pre-fathers?

I'm on two minds of this issue.

On one side, it's completely unreasonable to treat women like baby-machines, and to set out to deliberately restrict the availability of birth control to other people in furtherment of that notion is petty, manipulative behaviour the likes of we need to get rid of.

On the other, in a capitalist society, nobody has the personal responsibility to provide you with any sort of product, and birth control is no exception. If they don't want to sell you contraception, they don't have to and you can't make them. Admittedly, if nobody sells it then there's a gap for a market that someone would do well to capitalise on, but that gap could exist perpetually without you being capable to do anything about it beyond making it and selling it yourself.

Well it's more money for us Canuks...apparently there is big money flowing south to north for various drugs that are hard to get in the US...and I'm talking the legal kind, not our renowned BC bud.

Look on the bright side, if they won't fill prescriptions for contaceptives there's always anal sex!

:fluffle:

And isn't there considerable evidence now that the health of the man also affects the health of his sperm? So shouldn't men be targeted as pre-fathers?
Bingo. Well put.

They're not pro-life, they're moralistic control freaks, plain and simple. And damn near anti-woman, which I just don't get when legions of these brainwashed brood mares start braying about this topic.

Look on the bright side, if they won't fill prescriptions for contaceptives there's always anal sex!

:fluffle:
Well, I have no objection to that, though I hope there is never a day when condoms are made unavailable on 'moral grounds'.

Look on the bright side, if they won't fill prescriptions for contaceptives there's always anal sex!

:fluffle:
It might be non-procreative, but it still involves bodily fluid interchange, so condoms still play a part.

Anyway, women don't have prostate glands. It's not as nice for them as it is for you. :p

Bingo. Well put.

They're not pro-life, they're moralistic control freaks, plain and simple. And damn near anti-woman, which I just don't get when legions of these brainwashed brood mares start braying about this topic.
Well worse than that...for some bizarre reason, these people are writing laws and getting them passed.

I mean, quite honestly, a decade ago, I was sure that we'd fully emerged from the dark ages, and that sex education was going to be comprehensive and effective, that contraception would be easier to access, and that more openness would put an end to the number of abortions and cases of STDs. Instead, we're sliding backwards, and it is going to have serious detrimental affects on the health of our populations. I'm including Canada here, because though we are currently more liberal in many ways than the US, our sex ed still leaves a lot to be desired, and we have our fundies too.

It might be non-procreative, but it still involves bodily fluid interchange, so condoms still play a part.

Anyway, women don't have prostate glands. It's not as nice for them as it is for you. :p
I'd like to challenge that statement...but it's really not something you can compare objectively, so I'll leave it at that.

Well, I have no objection to that, though I hope there is never a day when condoms are made unavailable on 'moral grounds'.
No, they just poke holes in condoms on "moral grounds"

I'm Conservative, so I'm pro-life. A birth-control pill is FAR better then an abortion. So why is it they are...ah, well. If they get people to stop using both, withoput pissing-them-off, I'd say that's a step in the right direct. But, sooner, or later (http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/big/firemad.gif)...

Now that I think about it, It seems geared more towards making the women less able to make decisions on her own. Pharmacists refuse to give birth control, but would they refuse to sell a condom? Ive read a story about a pharmacist refusing to give a woman antibiotics after her abortion procedure (which, if she does contract an infection, should be criminal), but would he refuse to sell antibiotics to a male who had a vasecomy?

It might be non-procreative, but it still involves bodily fluid interchange, so condoms still play a part.

Anyway, women don't have prostate glands. It's not as nice for them as it is for you. :p

Well I rather meant in committed relationships. Incidentally women tend to get annoyed with you when you suggest this alternative to their husbands.

I'm on two minds of this issue.

On one side, it's completely unreasonable to treat women like baby-machines, and to set out to deliberately restrict the availability of birth control to other people in furtherment of that notion is petty, manipulative behaviour the likes of we need to get rid of.

On the other, in a capitalist society, nobody has the personal responsibility to provide you with any sort of product, and birth control is no exception. If they don't want to sell you contraception, they don't have to and you can't make them. Admittedly, if nobody sells it then there's a gap for a market that someone would do well to capitalise on, but that gap could exist perpetually without you being capable to do anything about it beyond making it and selling it yourself.
Thank god we are not a pure capitalist society … We have things like regulating agencies to make sure that the public is being served as well

I personally like to see them kept to a minimum, But I don’t think any company that allows employees personal choice to trump the health of a patient that is legally proscribed a medication to be serving the public good. They should not be licensed (Same with any medical facility that discriminates by race gender sexual orientation or any other criteria)

The Marriage Protection Ammendment (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html) is once again coming up as a major issue. Bush if all the way behind it, just as *gasp* Clinton was. 38 states already have 'defensive marriage laws' which prevent unions that are not between a man and a woman.

It's an election year. If you can't kick the niggers, you kick the fags. The amendment won't pass, but it's a way for Republicans to get the hate vote.

Well I rather meant in committed relationships. Incidentally women tend to get annoyed with you when you suggest this alternative to their husbands.
Why assume that the husband alone would be the recipient?

It's an election year. If you can't kick the niggers, you kick the fags. The amendment won't pass, but it's a way for Republicans to get the hate vote.
It does amaze me that it's still okay to hate anyone so virulently as even some average people tend to hate 'teh gays'.

I live in a country with a monarchy and a state religion, but if someone tried that nonsense here they'd be laughed at.

Surely it's not so hard to get contraception there, though? You can buy condoms in the supermarket here, and get them for free if you can be bothered to go to a surgery. Other forms are free, but require medical intervention (a prescription or fitting), so far as I know. Emergency contraceptives can be had from a chemist without prescription.

I really don't understand what the people who think this stuff up have stuck up their backsides, though. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set"? They'd rather everyone spawned uncontrollably? Isn't six-and-a-half-billion humans enough?

It does amaze me that it's still okay to hate anyone so virulently as even some average people tend to hate 'teh gays'.
Hopefully that sort of behavior will be as frowned upon as race discrimination is becoming (It still exists but much improved)

I live in a country with a monarchy and a state religion, but if someone tried that nonsense here they'd be laughed at.

Surely it's not so hard to get contraception there, though? You can buy condoms in the supermarket here, and get them for free if you can be bothered to go to a surgery. Other forms are free, but require medical intervention (a prescription or fitting), so far as I know. Emergency contraceptives can be had from a chemist without prescription.

I really don't understand what the people who think this stuff up have stuck up their backsides, though. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set"? They'd rather everyone spawned uncontrollably? Isn't six-and-a-half-billion humans enough?
Lately most of these people are worried there are not enough white babies around … them darn darkies and slant eyed are out producing us in the baby market.

I thought the war against contraception was fought and lost in the 1960s. You're telling me it has returned?

Yeah basicaly. It's part of the neo-con's plan to bring us back to the fifties...

Lately most of these people are worried there are not enough white babies around … them darn darkies and slant eyed are out producing us in the baby market.
Well yes, this is why no one is applauding the fact that immigrants tend to have a higher birthrate.

It does amaze me that it's still okay to hate anyone so virulently as even some average people tend to hate 'teh gays'.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/05/052806frist.htm

Gay people are yucky, so it's not hard to foment hatred against us. Divert attention from the actual important issues, and depict the fags as out to get you, for some reason. It worked with the Reichstag fire...

Well yes, this is why no one is applauding the fact that immigrants tend to have a higher birthrate.
Yup ... you just see them bitching about how these people with 6 kids need some help sometimes.

They dont want babies they want more of THEIR kind of babies

Wow, Sinuhue's back and whipping NS into a frenzy, eh? Has anyone brought popcorn into this thread?

That union between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of our society

Really? I thought the cornerstone was freedom and equality. You know, the whole "all men are created equal" thingy?

I like the immense amount of pretentious moral talk coming from a man who is under investigation.

An unrelated question: Is the union between a man and a woman okay even if the woman is the "top"?

Idiots! You're missing the bigger whole of this issue.

America's birth rate is slowing down greatly. I wouldn't be surprised if it became negative within the next few years, a decade or so at most. Were it not for the million or more illegal immigrants that hop the fence annually, our population would hardly be growing at all.

This means that our society is uncomfortable with the amount of people in it, therefore, it is aiming for there to be less babies. This is how developed societies work. When they exceed their comfortable population threshold, they have less babies, and the population declines until it equals out to a comfortable level again.

To go after non-procreative sex at a time like this is stupid. I would wholeheartedly support such a war if our population had decreased greatly following some kind of disaster, mass emigration, etc, but that has not happened. Infact, it would more behoove us to have more non-procreative sex, as that would further lower our birth rate, and we could slide back a bit to a more comofortable population level.

Of course, we will also need to clamp off on those illegal immigrants, but that's a topic for another debate.

This is hogwash. I don't mind programs that are ideologically motivated, as this one clearly is. However, it intentionally runs the gamut against common sense, and what's more, it isn't good for America's society at large. Up the birth rate, and with it goes the poverty rate, the size of urban sprawls, the level of education in that generation's children, etc, etc, etc.

Additionally, I support first trimester-only abortions, but I think fetuses have some rights too. This, though, is going waaaaay out of line.

Anyway, I don't see it happening. Non-procreative sex is far too good of a stress relief and, well, recreational activity, for it to get swept under the carpet in the name of morality. Plus it burns calories really well, and us fat Americans could use more of that, I say!

One final bit: you'll note the level of density in this notion is so great, no conservative politician I can think of has latched on to it. That should give you all an idea of what a bad idea it is.

It isn't about health, it's about being a healthy breeder. Push it as health, fine...good advice...but to consider every woman as 'pre-pregnant'...I'm sorry, but that chills me.
Indeed, I also dislike that phrase.

This isn't just "oh, everybody be healthy" this is "put your life on hold because you're nothing but a baby machine"
If only it was a different context.

Surely it's not so hard to get contraception there, though?

condoms are fairly easy in most places. other options get much harder depending on where you live and how much money you have - many (most?) of the insurance companies don't cover birth control at all, the theocrats have been holding up the approval of emergency contraception for years, and there are apparently large areas of the country where pharmacists just won't fill prescriptions that they find objectionable.

Addendum: A useful reference (http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/popclockest.txt)

Track US population growth throughout the years and such.

The US likes its 'wars', but I don't think it's come right out and declared this one openly, yet is seems clear that in some circles, this is exactly what it is. First they started with attacks on homosexuality, (a favourite target for many), attacks on gay marriage, and abortion and now the 'war' is against BIRTH CONTROL.

Judie Brown, president of the American Life League: "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion. The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set.... We oppose all forms of contraception."

More and more pharmacists are being allowed to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/29/earlyshow/health/main683753.shtml ).

All women to consider themselves 'pre-pregnant'. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html)

Look, living north of you guys, we tend to get a lot of spill over, and this shit is starting to spread like a disease. We have a new Conservative government that loves licking your asses, so you need to smarten up now and start fighting for your rights before you...and we...find ourselves perpetually pregnant/paying child support and told who to marry. Either that, or we're going to have a generation of stupid-ass kids who only got abstinence education, think that babies are brought by the stork and that oral sex isn't actually sex...all of them walking around with various horrible STDs because condoms are 'anti-child'.

And the worst part? Increasing the amount of procreative sex among humans on this planet is probably the single most destructive thing we could possibly do, yet that is precisely what these nutjobs want.

Malthus is rolling in his grave .

And the worst part? Increasing the amount of procreative sex among humans on this planet is probably the single most destructive thing we could possibly do, yet that is precisely what these nutjobs want.
I'd call that potential paranoid conspiracy theory material, but since it's actually completely true... I don't know what to think any more. ;_;

This sounds like good advice. Encouraging people to be healthy is a worthy thing.

Except that many of the noted suggestions for "pre-pregnant" women are actually not at all aimed at their health. For instance, women are encouraged to never ever drink, because they are "pre-pregnant," even though many studies suggest that consuming small amounts of alcohol on a regular basis will improve one's health. The suggestion that women should not own cats because of the potential damage to their breeding capacity is in direct conflict with findings that pet ownership can improve mental and physiological health for many individuals.

And, obviously, the very notion that all women are going to want to be pregnant at some point is a pathetic, dehumanizing, and deeply insulting one. Many women (like many men) have no interest in EVER producing biological offspring. It is revolting that people still assume all women are going to be baby-makers, and that women should sacrifice their own health and pleasure in order to improve the value of their uterus.

Now that I think about it, It seems geared more towards making the women less able to make decisions on her own. Pharmacists refuse to give birth control, but would they refuse to sell a condom? Ive read a story about a pharmacist refusing to give a woman antibiotics after her abortion procedure (which, if she does contract an infection, should be criminal), but would he refuse to sell antibiotics to a male who had a vasecomy?

I'm not so sure that the Christian literalists won't eventually try to outlaw condoms as well. Sure, the literalists will go after birth-control pills and abortions first (they do want to make women second-class citizens, after all), but if they do eliminate the woman's right to choose (whether she can have an abortion, whether she can use birth control, whether she can get a divorce... you know, the works) then they may go after the remaining means of birth control. Perhaps Orwell (yes, that Orwell) said it best...

... It was not merely that the sex instinct created a world of its own that was outside the Party's control and which therefore had to be destroyed if possible. What was more important was that sexual privation induced hysteria, which was desirable because it could be transformed into war fever and leader worship...

Just replace "the Party" with "Christian literalists" and recognize that said literalists often seem to worship their leader (and his interpretation of the Bible) more than Christ, and you can instantly apply this quote to current events.

Yeah basicaly. It's part of the neo-con's plan to bring us back to the fifties...

I'd replace "neo-con's" with "Christian literalists'" and "fifties" with "1910's" or an even earlier decade... remember, in the 1910's, women couldn't vote, most modern methods of birth control didn't exist, and the Scopes "monkey" trial (which made creationism look foolish) hadn't occured yet... and that's just what all too many of the Christian literalists seem to want.

I'd call that potential paranoid conspiracy theory material, but since it's actually completely true... I don't know what to think any more. ;_;
I don't see how it could be "potential paranoid conspiracy theory material." It is a plain and simple fact that the human population of this planet is already dangerously exceeding sustainable levels. It is a plain and simple fact that these organizations flat-out state that they want to increase the number of pregnancies and childbirths (though they don't really seem to give a fuck about the health of any born humans). Nothing secret or paranoid about any of it; these are simple, obvious facts.

I really don't care what people do in the bedroom as long as I dont here about. I'm also against abortion for the fact that the fetus is a human, regardless of how the woman got pregenant. However if she takes birth control pills, and doesn't get pregenant, it doesn't matter because you cannot take away what does not exist.

I really don't care what people do in the bedroom as long as I dont here about. I'm also against abortion for the fact that the fetus is a human, regardless of how the woman got pregenant.
So if women only got abortions in their bedrooms, you'd be ok with that, right?

I really don't care what people do in the bedroom as long as I dont here about. I'm also against abortion for the fact that the fetus is a human, regardless of how the woman got pregenant. However if she takes birth control pills, and doesn't get pregenant, it doesn't matter because you cannot take away what does not exist.

But thats not the point. They think prevention of making a fetus is just as bad as killing an already existing fetus.

A side note: If sex were for purely procreative purposes, every act of [unprotected] intercourse would result in a pregnancy.

So if women only got abortions in their bedrooms, you'd be ok with that, right?

zing.

...It is a plain and simple fact that the human population of this planet is already dangerously exceeding sustainable levels...

Not really, we could do about 10 billion if we were a bit more reasonable about how we use resources.

Not really, we could do about 10 billion if we were a bit more reasonable about how we use resources.
I.E. not as greedy?

But thats not the point. They think prevention of making a fetus is just as bad as killing an already existing fetus.
Hell, they think that a fertilized egg is a fetus. These people don't even understand the words they use. They haven't bothered to learn the most basic mechanisms of human reproduction, yet they believe they should be empowered to control everybody else's reproduction.


A side note: If sex were for purely procreative purposes, every act of [unprotected] intercourse would result in a pregnancy.

Saying that sex is "for" any particular purpose is like trying to claim that there's only one thing you can use your hands for.

If anybody is dumb enough to claim that sex can only be "for" procreation, ask them if they also think that we should ban pianos. After all, hands weren't made for pianos! BAN ALL PIANOS!!!!

(Okay, personal confession: I might be slightly biased because of 12 years of forced piano lessons in my childhood. But still.)


zing.
Hey, wouldn't it be great if the abortion debate could be solved that easily? Just have the ob/gyns make house calls!

I.E. not as greedy?

Yeah, pretty much. First and foremost in the oil problem? Get people to use less.

Not really, we could do about 10 billion if we were a bit more reasonable about how we use resources.
100% false.

If we assume, for argument's sake, that we wish to provide each living human with a quality of life on par with the European middle class, and if we assume that we also want to be consuming resources no faster than the rate at which they are renewed (i.e. not progressively depleting the planet's resources), then we currently have about 3.5 BILLION humans too many.

In other words, even if we were to have maximally efficient harvesting of resources, and maximally egalitarian distribution of resources, we still will need to reduce the population by 3.5 BILLION just to reach a sustainable level of consumption.

Hell, they think that a fertilized egg is a fetus. These people don't even understand the words they use. They haven't bothered to learn the most basic mechanisms of human reproduction, yet they believe they should be empowered to control everybody else's reproduction.

Well, leave it up to the non-biologists to discuss our biology.

Saying that sex is "for" any particular purpose is like trying to claim that there's only one thing you can use your hands for.

If anybody is dumb enough to claim that sex can only be "for" procreation, ask them if they also think that we should ban pianos. After all, hands weren't made for pianos! BAN ALL PIANOS!!!!

Truth.

Hey, wouldn't it be great if the abortion debate could be solved that easily? Just have the ob/gyns make house calls!

Heh. Send one to Frist's office. I look at him and wish an abortion was made.

100% false.

If we assume, for argument's sake, that we wish to provide each living human with a quality of life on par with the European middle class, and if we assume that we also want to be consuming resources no faster than the rate at which they are renewed (i.e. not progressively depleting the planet's resources), then we currently have about 3.5 BILLION humans too many.

In other words, even if we were to have maximally efficient harvesting of resources, and maximally egalitarian distribution of resources, we still will need to reduce the population by 3.5 BILLION just to reach a sustainable level of consumption.

So...I assume this scenario involves not using any oil and such?

The US likes its 'wars', but I don't think it's come right out and declared this one openly, yet is seems clear that in some circles, this is exactly what it is. First they started with attacks on homosexuality, (a favourite target for many), attacks on gay marriage, and abortion and now the 'war' is against BIRTH CONTROL.

Judie Brown, president of the American Life League: "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion. The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set.... We oppose all forms of contraception."

More and more pharmacists are being allowed to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/29/earlyshow/health/main683753.shtml ).

All women to consider themselves 'pre-pregnant'. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html)

Look, living north of you guys, we tend to get a lot of spill over, and this shit is starting to spread like a disease. We have a new Conservative government that loves licking your asses, so you need to smarten up now and start fighting for your rights before you...and we...find ourselves perpetually pregnant/paying child support and told who to marry. Either that, or we're going to have a generation of stupid-ass kids who only got abstinence education, think that babies are brought by the stork and that oral sex isn't actually sex...all of them walking around with various horrible STDs because condoms are 'anti-child'.
Another slap at Amercia based on your own warped perceptions? You must stay up nights dreaming these things up. :rolleyes:

*snip*

And, obviously, the very notion that all women are going to want to be pregnant at some point is a pathetic, dehumanizing, and deeply insulting one. Many women (like many men) have no interest in EVER producing biological offspring. It is revolting that people still assume all women are going to be baby-makers, and that women should sacrifice their own health and pleasure in order to improve the value of their uterus.
Don't forget that part of the motivation for this is that many pregnancies are accidental, not planned for, and therefore not necessarily happening at the most healthy times of a woman's life.....which would not be such a problem if more people were using contraception...

Another slap at Amercia based on your own warped perceptions? You must stay up nights dreaming these things up. :rolleyes:
Another example (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11055663&postcount=54) of poor reading comprehension, a perverse desire to find my threads and spam them with pithy comments all the while using your beloved smileys?

Don't forget that part of the motivation for this is that many pregnancies are accidental, not planned for, and therefore not necessarily happening at the most healthy times of a woman's life.....which would not be such a problem if more people were using contraception...
Yeah, I love the reasoning:

"Because a great many pregnancies are unplanned, there can be a decrease in the health of such pregnancies. Women who get pregnant unexpectedly may be drinking or smoking or not taking their vitamins from Day 1, so the health of their pregnacy may suffer."

Ok, so far so good...

"Therefore, instead of helping to ensure that all pregnancies are planned and wanted by the women in question, we should just force all women to act as though they are walking incubators at all times."

Um...not so much.

Another example (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11055663&postcount=54) of poor reading comprehension, a perverse desire to find my threads and spam them with pithy comments all the while using your beloved smileys?

You need to mock his use of corny and outdated Internet lingo. It's quite effective.

All women to consider themselves 'pre-pregnant'. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html)

I asked this in the other thread, but never got an answer.

Does anyone actually have a link to the CDC guidelines?


As for the rest of it, *shrug*, there are always those who want to push at the boundaries of infringing on the rights of others. Luckily, there are those of us who will push back.

Another slap at Amercia based on your own warped perceptions? You must stay up nights dreaming these things up. :rolleyes:
What's up with you, Eut? You've always been my favorite cranky old fogey, but this reaction from you is totally nuts...

This issue is significant for anybody who thinks that women are actual human beings. America DESERVES a slap when this kind of bullshit makes it into our mainstream, just like we deserve a slap if we allow racism or homophobia to overwhelm our judgment. Anybody who cares about America, or about American citizens, should be outraged that our government and its agencies are being taken over by people who are determined to hurt us.

America suffers when people let issues like this one slide by. AMERICANS suffer.

And to imply that this is issue is "dreamed up" is, frankly, totally bonkers of you. This issue is significant. If you have ever cared about a female member of the human species, you should be revolted by the implications of this whole "pre-pregnant" thing.

Does anyone actually have a link to the CDC guidelines?

I don't have a link, but I have read a copy.

The CDC guidelines themselves weren't really so bad. It's mostly how those guidelines were presented that sucks. The CDC is pretty benign, all things considered, and mostly just presented factual information...but that information got spun into yet another excuse to keep women from having choices of their own.

Another slap at Amercia based on your own warped perceptions? You must stay up nights dreaming these things up. :rolleyes:

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9666/smileytroutsmack28cg.gif

That should sum things up perfectly... and it's using the enemy's own weapon against him, to boot. :)

Another slap at Amercia based on your own warped perceptions? You must stay up nights dreaming these things up. :rolleyes:

Eut, if I remember correctly, you linked to the same article a while back - and you were just as disgusted by it.

"Therefore, instead of helping to ensure that all pregnancies are planned and wanted by the women in question, we should just force all women to act as though they are walking incubators at all times."

Who said anything about forcing anything? Or walking incubators. The CDC makes recomendations all the time. People choose not to follow them all the time. From what I can tell, the suggestion that women who can get pregnant ensure a certain level of folic acid consumption has been a CDC recomendation for some time now.

The US likes its 'wars', but I don't think it's come right out and declared this one openly, yet is seems clear that in some circles, this is exactly what it is. First they started with attacks on homosexuality, (a favourite target for many), attacks on gay marriage, and abortion and now the 'war' is against BIRTH CONTROL.

Judie Brown, president of the American Life League: "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion. The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set.... We oppose all forms of contraception."

More and more pharmacists are being allowed to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/29/earlyshow/health/main683753.shtml ).

All women to consider themselves 'pre-pregnant'. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html)

Look, living north of you guys, we tend to get a lot of spill over, and this shit is starting to spread like a disease. We have a new Conservative government that loves licking your asses, so you need to smarten up now and start fighting for your rights before you...and we...find ourselves perpetually pregnant/paying child support and told who to marry. Either that, or we're going to have a generation of stupid-ass kids who only got abstinence education, think that babies are brought by the stork and that oral sex isn't actually sex...all of them walking around with various horrible STDs because condoms are 'anti-child'.
As a Roman Catholic myself, I find this kind of government interferance disturbing. Of course, Roman Catholics, by our personal morality, only practice procreative sex. But that is only our personal morality. If someone else wishes to engage in other sexual activities, the government has no place in interfering.

First they came for the gays
and I did not speak out
because I was not a gay.
Then they came for the women who wanted abortions
and I did not speak out
because I was not a woman who wanted an abortion.
Then they came for the people using birth control
and I did not speak out
because I was not a person using birth control.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

What a bunch of melodramatic crap.

Nobody is loading gays, women who get abortions, or people who use rubbers into gas chambers.

Who said anything about forcing anything? Or walking incubators. The CDC makes recomendations all the time. People choose not to follow them all the time. From what I can tell, the suggestion that women who can get pregnant ensure a certain level of folic acid consumption has been a CDC recomendation for some time now.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I don't think the CDC really was the source of any of this trouble. It's the articles about the guidelines that advance this stupid idea.

The simple fact is that many things which are recommended for pregnant women are NOT recommended for non-pregnant women. The CDC is pretty clear about that; how its findings were presented, on the other hand, totally obscured these facts.

What a bunch of melodramatic crap.

Nobody is loading gays, women who get abortions, or people who use rubbers into gas chambers.

So as long as nobody is doing that, anything else anyone does to them is okay?

What a bunch of melodramatic crap.

Nobody is loading gays, women who get abortions, or people who use rubbers into gas chambers.

...Yet.

What a bunch of melodramatic crap.

Nobody is loading gays, women who get abortions, or people who use rubbers into gas chambers.
Why is it that so many people have so much trouble grasping figurative language?

What a bunch of melodramatic crap.

Nobody is loading gays, women who get abortions, or people who use rubbers into gas chambers.
No, but they do seem to have reeducation camps that some parents send their "queer" children to. Pretty shocking for a democratic republic.

No, but they do seem to have reeducation camps that some parents send their "queer" children to. Pretty shocking for a democratic republic.

Yeah, camps that are ineffective. I wonder when they will get the hint.

So as long as nobody is doing that, anything else anyone does to them is okay?

No, of course not.

But when people start comparing pharmacies not dispensing RU-486 or women being treated as "pre-prgenant" to the atrocities at the Nazi concentration they sound ridiculous.

So as long as nobody is doing that, anything else anyone does to them is okay?
This is the same line of logic that is being employed when people tell American feminists to shut up because Iranian women have it worse.

The idea is that some people get hit once a week, and other people get hit once a day, and so the once-a-week people should shut up and be thankful they aren't getting hit more often. In fact, if they don't shut up, maybe somebody WILL come along and hit them once a day!

Of course, the idea that maybe nobody should be getting hit is not even on the table.

Yeah, camps that are ineffective. I wonder when they will get the hint.Doubt all of them ever will. If it was possible, we wouldn't have neo-nazis.

No, of course not.

But when people start comparing pharmacies not dispensing RU-486 or women being treated as "pre-prgenant" to the atrocities at the Nazi concentration they sound ridiculous.
You are, of course, aware that the Nazi regime was all about compelling women to be constant breeders for the Fatherland, and they were quite aggressive about banning abortion and contraception.

No, but they do seem to have reeducation camps that some parents send their "queer" children to. Pretty shocking for a democratic republic.

Are said children being gassed?

BTW in the U.K. they've started to abort babies with mild genetic defects.

I can't wait to see what happens when people start aborting gay babies.

What will the left do then?

I can't wait to see what happens when people start aborting gay babies.

What will the left do then?
Given that "gay babies" are being aborted right now, I don't expect much change.

No, of course not.

But when people start comparing pharmacies not dispensing RU-486 or women being treated as "pre-prgenant" to the atrocities at the Nazi concentration they sound ridiculous.
Strawman who is bitching about not despensing RU-486? (Well strawman or you are just confused)

Yeah, camps that are ineffective. I wonder when they will get the hint.
That depends on your definition of effective. After all, many of the people who attend those camps end up committing suicide. If you're dead, you can't be gay.

i would think that they would be encouraging birth control of all sorts,

less likely secular peoples will reproduce.

i would think that they would be encouraging birth control of all sorts,

less likely secular peoples will reproduce.
Because secularism is genetic?

Why is it that so many people have so much trouble grasping figurative language?


I don't know about figurative language.

It's absurd analogies that bother me.

Everytime something happens, someone pulls Hitler or the Nazis out of there ass.

...Yet.

:rolleyes:


Why would they need too?

Soon people will be able to abort them.

Everytime something happens, someone pulls Hitler or the Nazis out of there ass.
So that's what started World War Two.

Given that "gay babies" are being aborted right now, I don't expect much change.


Do you have a link?

you would think that if these people were against abortion they would encourage contraception so there would be less abortions.I personally wouldnt have an abortion but there are circumstances where it is unavoidable and I cannot judge other people for doing something I would not-its their choice and personal coice is important.Maybe if more people used contraception properly there would be less need for abortion.
I think its sick the amount of homophobia that spews from these peoples mouths.I have heard instances of people protesting outiside a gay mans funeral telling his mourning parents there son is going to hell because of his sexuality.I thought christians were supposed to judge not lest ye be judged or have they selectivly forgotten thast passage.locve shopuld be celebrated in all its forms, whether between two men, women or 'non procreative sex'

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I don't think the CDC really was the source of any of this trouble. It's the articles about the guidelines that advance this stupid idea.

The simple fact is that many things which are recommended for pregnant women are NOT recommended for non-pregnant women. The CDC is pretty clear about that; how its findings were presented, on the other hand, totally obscured these facts.

Ok, that's what I thought it was, but I really need to find a copy of the actual recommendations. I suspected that all of the frenzy over this was coming more from how the articles presented all of this than from the actual recommendations.

Do you have a link?
I think she means right now fetuses and any theoretical genetic or predispositions are being aborted right now. There more then likely were a few that possibly would have grown up to be gay in the group somewhere.

I think its sick the amount of homophobia that spews from these peoples mouths.I have heard instances of people protesting outiside a gay mans funeral telling his mourning parents there son is going to hell because of his sexuality.

Hell, these days they protest outside the funeral of any soldier - gay or straight - and tell his/her family that he/she is going to hell for defending a country that dares to allow homosexuality.

I'm just curious... Is it considered a sin to protest at a funeral? Would the people protesting at military funerals be going to hell?

Are said children being gassed?

BTW in the U.K. they've started to abort babies with mild genetic defects.

I can't wait to see what happens when people start aborting gay babies.

What will the left do then?
Oh. We on the left are a dying breed of people. We abort constantly and soon there will be no rational people in the world with an iota of common sense.

I think she means right now fetuses and any theoretical genetic or predispositions are being aborted right now. There more then likely were a few that possibly would have grown up to be gay in the group somewhere.

Oh.

What I meant is eventually science will reach a point where homosexuality can be predicted before birth and most people will choose to abort gay babies.

Oh. We on the left are a dying breed of people. We abort constantly and soon there will be no rational people in the world with an iota of common sense.

At least you didn't use a sarcasm tag.

At least you didn't use a sarcasm tag.
That's because I don't care if people don't get it.

Are said children being gassed?

BTW in the U.K. they've started to abort babies with mild genetic defects.

I can't wait to see what happens when people start aborting gay babies.

What will the left do then?Way to miss the point.
http://www.crnano.org/Missed%20target.gif

Oh.

What I meant is eventually science will reach a point where homosexuality can be predicted before birth and most people will choose to abort gay babies.

What makes you think that most people would choose to abort simply because their future child might be gay?

What makes you think that most people would choose to abort simply because their future child might be gay?
Because gay people are part lizard. Blink, Fass! Goddamnit.

That's because I don't care if people don't get it.

Me neither.

I post for my own pleasure.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/05/052806frist.htm

Gay people are yucky, so it's not hard to foment hatred against us. Divert attention from the actual important issues, and depict the fags as out to get you, for some reason. It worked with the Reichstag fire...

i thought they blamed it on the commies.

What makes you think that most people would choose to abort simply because their future child might be gay?


Common sense.

Way to miss the point.
http://www.crnano.org/Missed%20target.gif


How so?

Common sense.
There isn't anything common about that kind of sense.

There isn't anything common about that kind of sense.


So you think most people would be delighted to find out there child was gay?

*grabs popcorn*

Dose it seem like we're having an epidemic here, guys?

So you think most people would be delighted to find out there child was gay?
I think people would be delighted to have a child. As far as into what pants my child wants to get into, I would just want them to be responsible.

I think people would be delighted to have a child. As far as into what pants my child wants to get into, I would just want them to be responsible.
You have been signified. Have a nice day.

I think people would be delighted to have a child. As far as into what pants my child wants to get into, I would just want them to be responsible.

I disagree.

Alot of people have abortions for mere conveinance.

If they'll do it over finishing college or a lazy eye, they'll do it out of sheer homophobia.

In the future, with designer babies, I would think most people would choose a straight baby.

I disagree.

Alot of people have abortions for mere conveinance.

If they'll do it over finishing college or a lazy eye, they'll do it out of sheer homophobia.

In the future, with designer babies, I would think most people would choose a straight baby.
Why? Who's to say in the future that overpopulation won't be a problem and homosexuality will be one of the solutions?

If you mean that people will do it simply because they don't like Homosexuals, that would probably happen but I doubt to any great extent. Further, it would probably be outlawed. It should be, anyway. Wouldn't Christians also be against the idea of designer babies? Manipulating God's work and all that? I don't think it's all quite so simple as what you're imagining.

Why? Who's to say in the future that overpopulation won't be a problem and homosexuality will be one of the solutions?

If you mean that people will do it simply because they don't like Homosexuals, that would probably happen but I doubt to any great extent. Further, it would probably be outlawed. It should be, anyway. Wouldn't Christians also be against the idea of designer babies? Manipulating God's work and all that? I don't think it's all quite so simple as what you're imagining.

Interesting.

The issue of aborting a baby because they're gay turns the traditonal political spectrum upside down.

Would a Pro-life Christian abort there gay baby?

Would a gay in favor of abortion be fine with someone else aborting a baby based on the fact that it is homosexual?

Common sense.

I don't see that as common sense at all.


So you think most people would be delighted to find out there child was gay?

No more or less delighted than they would be to find out their child was not gay.

I'd be delighted to have a child - gay, straight, bi, whatever.

So you think most people would be delighted to find out there child was gay?

What does it matter? Its something they cant control.

Do people really think that the issue of gay marriage and 'refusal on moral grounds' to dispense birth control are completely separate? What I mean is...you'd think that straight non-breeder types would align with teh gays in order to fight this kind of crappola.

Do people really think that the issue of gay marriage and 'refusal on moral grounds' to dispense birth control are completely separate? What I mean is...you'd think that straight non-breeder types would align with teh gays in order to fight this kind of crappola.

Nope, gays are still bad.

It's to set the stage for the new American Theocracy that will never happen because the Fundies are a minority and although very vocal, actually get very little pushed through at the national level. They have, however, been mildly successful in Kansas and other states with low numbers of college educated citizens.

Education is the great Anti-Fundementalist.

Well then I guess you're hooped, because isn't Education state-controlled?

If it were just a few nutjobs preaching from the pulpits, I wouldn't be that worried, but laws are being passed that mirror these views. A few years ago, I would have thought it unthinkeable that the Pill would be denied to women 'on moral grounds' and yet here we are. What is next? I mean that seriously, no slippery slope argument here, I'm just asking...what the hell else is going to be denied to people 'on moral grounds'?

Its a matter of time before they start yammering about women wearing pants in the workplace. The Fundementalist Christian Right, in its bid for an American Theocracy, have already taken the pants away from their own wives (back in skirts and bobby socks for quick and easy sex on the kitchen table I presume?), and will soon you will begin to see them being "offended" by women in pants or slacks in the work place. Expect it. They will boycot businesses that let women wear slacks and it will become a national hoopla with Walmart being the first to put female employees back in skirts. I would say before 2008 you will start to hear this bullshit on the news...

Its a matter of time before they start yammering about women wearing pants in the workplace. The Fundementalist Christian Right, in its bid for an American Theocracy, have already taken the pants away from their own wives (back in skirts and bobby socks for quick and easy sex on the kitchen table I presume?), and will soon you will begin to see them being "offended" by women in pants or slacks in the work place. Expect it. They will boycot businesses that let women wear slacks and it will become a national hoopla with Walmart being the first to put female employees back in skirts. I would say before 2008 you will start to hear this bullshit on the news...
Opiate of the masses?

Opiate of the masses?

You better believe it. *nod*

If only it was a different context.
Perhaps it would be alright then... but really, ordering adults to avoid recreational activities because they might have unanticipated offspring is incredibly stupid.

It's not even just a stay healthy type message, they advocate women keeping from hazardous workplaces as well.

All women to consider themselves 'pre-pregnant'. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html)

I'd like to dispute this, actually - well, frankly I'd like to put it to rest, but there's always room for debate.

Here is the report that hyperbolic article is based on : http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5506a1.htm

Reading it, I see no references to treating all females (both women and girls of reproductive age) as being 'pre-pregnant'. Rather I see recommendations for those planning a pregnancy.

Of course, that's open to interpretation, including the one in the article.

Perhaps it would be alright then... but really, ordering adults to avoid recreational activities because they might have unanticipated offspring is incredibly stupid.

Who said anything about ordering? It is a suggestion, plain and simple. They make suggestions that everyone refrain from smoking as well, but no one orders an adult not to smoke.

It's not even just a stay healthy type message, they advocate women keeping from hazardous workplaces as well.

Staying away from hazardous workplaces, if possible, would certainly help you stay healthy, don't you think?

Who said anything about ordering? It is a suggestion, plain and simple. They make suggestions that everyone refrain from smoking as well, but no one orders an adult not to smoke.



Staying away from hazardous workplaces, if possible, would certainly help you stay healthy, don't you think?

Here's to hoping Dem's better at this than me. *eats popcorn*

I don't see that as common sense at all.

Either gays are oppressed or they're not.

If they're not then this conversation is pointless.

If they're oppressed then a majority of the population doesn't approve of their behavior and would like to see them "go away".

In an "abort first society" where homosexuality can be predicted the number of homosexuals would be greatly reduced through abortion.


No more or less delighted than they would be to find out their child was not gay.

I'd be delighted to have a child - gay, straight, bi, whatever.


I think most straight people who are pro-abortion would want a straight baby.

Do people really think that the issue of gay marriage and 'refusal on moral grounds' to dispense birth control are completely separate? What I mean is...you'd think that straight non-breeder types would align with teh gays in order to fight this kind of crappola.


Breeder is a dergatory term.

If you're going to start throwing it around, I reserve the right to start using faggot etc.

Reading it, I see no references to treating all females (both women and girls of reproductive age) as being 'pre-pregnant'. Rather I see recommendations for those planning a pregnancy.

Of course, that's open to interpretation, including the one in the article.
The interpretation is the important thing here. This is being used not only to sensationalise news stories, but to whip into a frenzy those already hell-bent (hahahaha) on returning women to their 'breeder first' status. And we're not talking about the National Enquirer here, with this spin...but rather 'reputable' (I used the term loosely) papers.

...but to whip into a frenzy those already hell-bent...

I gotta be honest. Upon reading this part of the sentence, I assumed it meant you trying to whip us into a frenzy with that article.

Either gays are oppressed or they're not.

They are, but not necessarily by the majority of people. And with trends the way we are, by the time any technology to predict sexuality in utero comes along, the vast majority probably will not be oppressive towards homosexuals.

If they're oppressed then a majority of the population doesn't approve of their behavior and would like to see them "go away".

This is not necessarily true. It doesn't take a majority to cause oppression. It simply takes the people in power wishing to oppress.

In an "abort first society" where homosexuality can be predicted the number of homosexuals would be greatly reduced through abortion.

What the heck is an "abort first society"?

I think most straight people who are pro-abortion would want a straight baby.

I don't know, but since the number of people who are actually pro-abortion is miniscule, it would be hard to tell.

Most pro-choice persons I know, regardless of sexuality, don't really care what sexuality someone is. I, for one, wouldn't mind if my child ended up being gay.

Breeder is a dergatory term.

If you're going to start throwing it around, I reserve the right to start using faggot etc.
Go right ahead...you can deal with the consequences. 'Breeder' doesn't offend me, and I happen to be one who has bred twice, thanks. Nor, as a 'breeder' have I been discriminated or persecuted because of the straight sex I (mostly) engage in, so the historical negativity of the term 'faggot' is in no way matched by this term which offends you so.

People arent "pro-abortion" they are pro-choice.

I gotta be honest. Upon reading this part of the sentence, I assumed it meant you trying to whip us into a frenzy with that article.
Hopefully you finished the sentence then. I didn't write the articles.

The interpretation is the important thing here. This is being used not only to sensationalise news stories, but to whip into a frenzy those already hell-bent (hahahaha) on returning women to their 'breeder first' status. And we're not talking about the National Enquirer here, with this spin...but rather 'reputable' (I used the term loosely) papers.

The problem is that every person who gets angry over this, instead of going to the actual recommendations to see what they say, is adding to that frenzy.

Hopefully you finished the sentence then. I didn't write the articles.

I know, but your OP, listing these things seemed to serve as little more than frenzy-whippers as opposed to support for you position...although getting us into a frenzy seems to have gotten you some support.

Huh, this about aborting gay babies now? Wasn't this about pharmacists being allowed refuse contraception on moral grounds a few pages ago?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/2/6/e26ab7b95ca258b21eba6c6bdafeee61.png

The interpretation is the important thing here. This is being used not only to sensationalise news stories, but to whip into a frenzy those already hell-bent (hahahaha) on returning women to their 'breeder first' status. And we're not talking about the National Enquirer here, with this spin...but rather 'reputable' (I used the term loosely) papers.

True, but surely the important thing is the actual published document, rather than the interpretation of this one reporter who seems to have misconstrued the intentions of the report?

Incidentally, are there actually any other articles on this?

Quick check: has a woman given an opinon yet?

I've attemtpted to get through the thread but I see too many flaming opportunities...I decided to start anew...

Quick check: has a woman given an opinon yet?

I've attemtpted to get through the thread but I see too many flaming opportunities...I decided to start anew...
Sinuhue, the OP, is a woman.

I know, but your OP, listing these things seemed to serve as little more than frenzy-whippers as opposed to support for you position...although getting us into a frenzy seems to have gotten you some support.
Then by all means, have a critical mind and look at the issue from a variety of sides...don't rely on my OP to do it for you. There is enormous political impetuous to 'roll us back' in many areas, and if whipping you into a frenzy gets you to take a look, then whip away I shall.

Sinuhue, the OP, is a woman.

*bows*

Thank ye.

Then by all means, have a critical mind and look at the issue from a variety of sides...don't rely on my OP to do it for you. There is enormous political impetuous to 'roll us back' in many areas, and if whipping you into a frenzy gets you to take a look, then whip away I shall.

Oh, don't get me wrong here. I agree with you, I just don't like the method...Feh..Ends, Means...*shrug*

Oh, don't get me wrong here. I agree with you, I just don't like the method...Feh..Ends, Means...*shrug*

Poor Dina.

I refuse to see the logic in doctors making a prescription for someone, and then pharmacists not filling it because THEY find it morally corrupt. Who went to med school folks? Who truly knows best?

That's right. The pharmacists don't have the right to infringe upon the rights of others.

*coughbastardscough*

True, but surely the important thing is the actual published document, rather than the interpretation of this one reporter who seems to have misconstrued the intentions of the report? The document can be read in a number of ways. To a normal person who doesn't have the domination of women on his or her mind, it seems like an attempt to halt the atrocious infant mortality rate in the US, and deal with assorted other health effects that may arise. To a fundy, possibly one in government, having a federal body tell doctors to treat all women capable of childbearing as though they WILL have children, it is a fantastic opportunity to claim support for his or her cause. And that is indeed what this document says. Yes, a reproductive plan is encouraged, but seeing as how many children are conceived 'by accident', the idea is to make sure that women's health is improved so that they have healthy babies. That is the focus. As with all documents, this one will be skewed and interpreted differently by different groups. The original meaning of the document will not save it from being used for political gain...by whomever chooses to do so.

Incidentally, are there actually any other articles on this?I haven't found any by other 'reputable' papers...

Oh, don't get me wrong here. I agree with you, I just don't like the method...Feh..Ends, Means...*shrug*
This is general. Your OP shouldn't be thesis-length. You'll get a chance to develop your ideas as you go.

This is general. Your OP shouldn't be thesis-length. You'll get a chance to develop your ideas as you go.

...I was talking about that? Things are confusing around here...

The document can be read in a number of ways. To a normal person who doesn't have the domination of women on his or her mind, it seems like an attempt to halt the atrocious infant mortality rate in the US, and deal with assorted other health effects that may arise. To a fundy, possibly one in government, having a federal body tell doctors to treat all women capable of childbearing as though they WILL have children, it is a fantastic opportunity to claim support for his or her cause. And that is indeed what this document says. Yes, a reproductive plan is encouraged, but seeing as how many children are conceived 'by accident', the idea is to make sure that women's health is improved so that they have healthy babies. That is the focus. As with all documents, this one will be skewed and interpreted differently by different groups. The original meaning of the document will not save it from being used for political gain...by whomever chooses to do so.

Hmm, an interesting point, certainly. But... even if it is commonly interpreted in this fashion, surely such an interpretation enacted as policy would be, well, illegal or something?

I haven't found any by other 'reputable' papers...

If there are no other reputable papers, any disreputable ones? All I've seen on this viewpoint is that single article.

To be quite honest, I'm hoping that there aren't really any other reports with this viewpoint, whether reputable or disreputable.


EDIT: Amended to include your post, as you've posted again since.

...I was talking about that? Things are confusing around here...

*nods*

And the worst part? Increasing the amount of procreative sex among humans on this planet is probably the single most destructive thing we could possibly do, yet that is precisely what these nutjobs want.
In one sense, yes, but we need to be breeding the taxpayers of the future now. Without them there will be nobody to fund the health and social welfare services. The other option is to kill the old, but I don't think that anyone will accept that.

This is general. Your OP shouldn't be thesis-length. You'll get a chance to develop your ideas as you go.
And if it was too long nobody would read it.

In one sense, yes, but we need to be breeding the taxpayers of the future now. Without them there will be nobody to fund the health and social welfare services. The other option is to kill the old, but I don't think that anyone will accept that.

Indeed, Grandmama pays the bills...

The states should do what Harper is doing, and PAYING people to have children. Heck, the Pope should look into it too..

Hmm, an interesting point, certainly. But... even if it is commonly interpreted in this fashion, surely such an interpretation enacted as policy would be, well, illegal or something?
Until it's made legal...not that I think that would actually happen. Instead, what I see happening is certain medical professionals using this paper as ammunition, and delving a little too deeply into their patients lives, and counseling them to make medical choices based on the doctor's own morality. It's as easy as skirting the issue of contraception, or giving little information to a patient, and going on instead about proper nutrition, healthy living and so on or highlighting abstinence, regardless of the patient's wishes. A doctor's views on things can really affect the kind of advice they give you. I never would have thought a pharmacists would be allowed to use their morality to not do their job...who is next I wonder?

In any case, it's not so much the paper alone, but taken in the wider context that makes it alarming. Why now? Why this focus right now? I have no doubt the people involved in developing these guidelines have health at heart...but why suddenly have they been funded and pushed to produce this? It's always political.


If there are no other reputable papers, any disreputable ones? All I've seen on this viewpoint is that single article.

To be quite honest, I'm hoping that there aren't really any other reports with this viewpoint, whether reputable or disreputable.

EDIT: Amended to include your post, as you've posted again since.Here (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/05/all_women_are_pre-pregnant/)

Here, scroll to the middle of the page to find it (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/01/earlyshow/health/main1562003.shtml)

And here (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20060516-10123900-bc-us-prenatal.xml)

A refutation (http://rosettastone.wordpress.com/2006/05/16/forever-pregnant-alarmist-inaccurate/)

Reputable sources except for the first one, which I've never heard of...various takes on the same document.

Not really, we could do about 10 billion if we were a bit more reasonable about how we use resources.
It would take seven more earths' worth of resources to fuel a European standard of living for everyone on earth.

Because secularism is genetic?
Behaviour is mostly governed by culture, not genetics. In secular cultures people tend to reproduce less.

If they'll do it over finishing college or a lazy eye, they'll do it out of sheer homophobia.

In the future, with designer babies, I would think most people would choose a straight baby.
Homophobia doesn't make sense, but I expect you would be right. I don't think that most parents would go in for the hardcore baby design but most would choose a straight baby so they "won't get discriminated against".

Indeed, Grandmama pays the bills...

The states should do what Harper is doing, and PAYING people to have children. Heck, the Pope should look into it too..
In my country all parents get a monthly child allowance cheque from the government.

In my country all parents get a monthly child allowance cheque from the government.

*nods* I suspect that stems from religion somewhere...but I'm not going there...

It would take seven more earths' worth of resources to fuel a European standard of living for everyone on earth.

And...this one is all about oil, or no oil at all?

In my country all parents get a monthly child allowance cheque from the government.
That's the case in some countries, and in others, they don't want you to have any more kids.

I'm sorry to go back to birth control...but uh...what about women taking birth control for medical reasons? *I* do. So would it be morally correct for a pharmacist to withhold my drugs? Because, you know, death could ensue if I don't...

I think most straight people who are pro-abortion would want a straight baby.

So true, and vice versa. These are 2 seperate issues with 2 very different types of supporters.

So true, and vice versa. These are 2 seperate issues with 2 very different types of supporters.
So you think most gay people who are anti-abortion would want a gay baby? Just to clarify.

I'm sorry to go back to birth control...but uh...what about women taking birth control for medical reasons? *I* do. So would it be morally correct for a pharmacist to withhold my drugs? Because, you know, death could ensue if I don't...

One of the more recent cases involved a pharmacist who refused *antibiotics* to a woman because the particular run of antibiotics involved is often prescribed after an abortion - and was in her case. The abortion had already been carried out, and the pharmacist was willing to let the woman die of any infection that occurred as a result rather than give her the antibiotics she needed.

As such, I would think that, should you run into one of these pharmacists who see the possibility of the birth control pill interfering with implantation as "abortion" might just refuse your medication.

In other cases, pharmacists have asked women if they are using the pill as contraceptives, if they are sexually active, and if they are married (none of these are the pharmacist's business) and then decided not to fill the prescription. With one of them, you might be ok.

So true, and vice versa. These are 2 seperate issues with 2 very different types of supporters.

They are two separate issues, but the same people seem to take opposing sides. Fundamentalists tend to be homophobic, anti-choice, and often even anti-birth control and anti-sex education. The issues seem to run together, because they are often tied to certain interpretations of religion.

The vast majority of those I have met who are pro-choice are also in favor of access to birth control, in favor of comprehensive sex education, and don't care about any given person's sexuality.

In any case, it's not so much the paper alone, but taken in the wider context that makes it alarming. Why now? Why this focus right now? I have no doubt the people involved in developing these guidelines have health at heart...but why suddenly have they been funded and pushed to produce this? It's always political.

Well, I'm not aware that they have been 'funded and pushed to produce this'. The document states that: The material in this report originated in the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, José F. Cordero, MD, Director; and the Office of Program Development, Hani K. Atrash, MD, Associate Director; and the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Janet Collins, PhD, Director, and the Division of Reproductive Health, John Lehnherr, Director.

So without evidence to the contrary, I'd choose to believe that this research developed from concern about the birth rate and birth defects, rather than some some fundamentalist view on 'the women's place'.

Call me an optimist, perhaps, although I think of myself more as a cynic.


Here (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/05/all_women_are_pre-pregnant/)

Here, scroll to the middle of the page to find it (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/01/earlyshow/health/main1562003.shtml)

And here (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20060516-10123900-bc-us-prenatal.xml)

A refutation (http://rosettastone.wordpress.com/2006/05/16/forever-pregnant-alarmist-inaccurate/)

Reputable sources except for the first one, which I've never heard of...various takes on the same document.

Depressing, I must admit. The first one certainly borrows extensively from the Washington Post article, and the third certainly echoes the arguement. Interestingly though, the second specifies 'if your life plan includes having children'.

The rebuttal, frankly, says everything that needs to be said on the matter, I feel.

Thanks for the links.

*nods* I suspect that stems from religion somewhere...but I'm not going there...
It's quite possible. My country's Constitution (http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/publications/297.htm) places the family at utmost importance in Irish society. That position was likely influenced by Catholicism. Though either way it doesn't matter to me.

They are two separate issues, but the same people seem to take opposing sides. Fundamentalists tend to be homophobic, anti-choice, and often even anti-birth control and anti-sex education.
The latter two positions are not all that radical really. Still wrong, though. Contraception of all kinds was illegal until 1992 in Ireland. Sex education is still bad.

Go right ahead...you can deal with the consequence'Breeder' doesn't offend me, and I happen to be one who has bred twice, thanks. Nor, as a 'breeder' have I been discriminated or persecuted because of the straight sex I (mostly) engage in, so the historical negativity of the term 'faggot' is in no way matched by this term which offends you so.

What a bunch of garbage.

The term breed and breeder are primarily used for animals.

It is meant to offend, like ****** or faggot.

The fact that someone who has children uses the word breed and breeder when describing humans, doesn't make it okay.

It does however smack of self hate.

All women to consider themselves 'pre-pregnant'. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html)

Actually what is presented in the Washington Post article is very good and healthy advice (if followed would lead to improved health for women and, if a woman become pregnant and wants to have a baby, a potentially healthier child).

Don't lump good medical advice and sound science into the blabbering of ideologues and crazies who want to take the country back to the days before the sexual revolution/womens movement.

I'm sorry to go back to birth control...but uh...what about women taking birth control for medical reasons? *I* do. So would it be morally correct for a pharmacist to withhold my drugs? Because, you know, death could ensue if I don't...
Yeah I have friends that take them to regulate their period ... without them they get masive and debilitating stomach cramps after a month or so

But the stupid fucktards wont see that ... She has been refused before thank god she lives in town rather then out in the sticks in minnesota could be a hr or two drive otherwise and with a (planed) kid she does not have much time nor money right now

I'm keeping my eye on these people. My hope is that their plans will be delayed by a McCain presidency.

However, if that totally un-American FMA passes, I am renouncing my citizenship. I'll probably move to Israel.

I disagree.

Alot of people have abortions for mere conveinance.

I assume you have actual statistics to back up this claim, and not just unmerited bias used to tarr an entire group with one brush, correct?

Because, and this is just my so called 'common' sense speaking, but I can't see many women undergoing messy, gorey, painful, psychologically traumatic, expensive, hatred-and-abuse-inspiring MINOR SURGERY for 'mere convienience'. I'd also like to know how 'not having to undergo a physical event that would lead to life-long physical changes of the body (have you read up on the effects of childbirth? Do vaginal tears, permenantly weakened bladder, back and next problems, not to mention possible mental and emotional issues arising if the birth is 'forced' or the heart issues associated with epidural anaesthetics sound familiar to you at all?), not to even mention the fact that some people consider bringing a child into the world when they cannot provide for it totally and utterly reprehensible = 'abortion for mere convienience' in your eyes.

Maybe it's just an easy stance to take when it's not YOUR body that you're discussing, eh mate?

If they'll do it over finishing college or a lazy eye, they'll do it out of sheer homophobia.

In the future, with designer babies, I would think most people would choose a straight baby.

... Not going to disagree with this. Luckily for me, I'm pro-choice. That means people can make the choice for whatever reason they want. If they don't want a child with a lazy eye, why should I be allowed to FORCE them to have one? Why should I be able to force them to do anything?

On the plus side for this stance (at least, from where I'm standing), I seriously, seriously doubt that sexual orientation will EVER be able to be detected before the end of the second trimester. I personally believe orientation is much more than 'just' genetic. So it's easy for me to say that people 'can' abort gay fetuses - I don't think they'll ever have the chance to make that judgement.

Interesting.

The issue of aborting a baby because they're gay turns the traditonal political spectrum upside down.

Would a Pro-life Christian abort there gay baby?

... would it matter? My money is on yes, only because if the fetus is going straight to hell anyway, why would they hesitate to help it along a little faster. You'd be simply <i>amazed</i> what some people can rationalize, especially with easy-to-re-interprete 'moral' structures to appeal to.

Would a gay in favor of abortion be fine with someone else aborting a baby based on the fact that it is homosexual?

Well, I'm not gay, but I'm usually fairly up in arms when it comes to defending them and their rights... personally, as long as the abortion occurs within current legal rights (before the brain is fully formed or functional), I don't see how it could be considered worth getting up in arms about.

But then, I'm still struggling to understand the existence of the pro-life faction when it comes to this, so maybe my world view isn't as wide spread as I would hope...

I assume you have actual statistics to back up this claim, and not just unmerited bias used to tarr an entire group with one brush, correct?

Because, and this is just my so called 'common' sense speaking, but I can't see many women undergoing messy, gorey, painful, psychologically traumatic, expensive, hatred-and-abuse-inspiring MINOR SURGERY for 'mere convienience'. I'd also like to know how 'not having to undergo a physical event that would lead to life-long physical changes of the body (have you read up on the effects of childbirth? Do vaginal tears, permenantly weakened bladder, back and next problems, not to mention possible mental and emotional issues arising if the birth is 'forced' or the heart issues associated with epidural anaesthetics sound familiar to you at all?), not to even mention the fact that some people consider bringing a child into the world when they cannot provide for it totally and utterly reprehensible = 'abortion for mere convienience' in your eyes.

Maybe it's just an easy stance to take when it's not YOUR body that you're discussing, eh mate?



... Not going to disagree with this. Luckily for me, I'm pro-choice. That means people can make the choice for whatever reason they want. If they don't want a child with a lazy eye, why should I be allowed to FORCE them to have one? Why should I be able to force them to do anything?

On the plus side for this stance (at least, from where I'm standing), I seriously, seriously doubt that sexual orientation will EVER be able to be detected before the end of the second trimester. I personally believe orientation is much more than 'just' genetic. So it's easy for me to say that people 'can' abort gay fetuses - I don't think they'll ever have the chance to make that judgement.



... would it matter? My money is on yes, only because if the fetus is going straight to hell anyway, why would they hesitate to help it along a little faster. You'd be simply <i>amazed</i> what some people can rationalize, especially with easy-to-re-interprete 'moral' structures to appeal to.



Well, I'm not gay, but I'm usually fairly up in arms when it comes to defending them and their rights... personally, as long as the abortion occurs within current legal rights (before the brain is fully formed or functional), I don't see how it could be considered worth getting up in arms about.

But then, I'm still struggling to understand the existence of the pro-life faction when it comes to this, so maybe my world view isn't as wide spread as I would hope...

Whatever Shaed says, is right. Because she's Shaed. End of Story.

Good points, well made... and probably with a lot more patience than mine would have been. Thank you, Shaed, for making the post I was about to make... only more politely than I would... :)

It's just insane.
An american thing I assume and hope.
Antichild mindset?
I do think familie values in the extreme are oppressive
and of course I don't want children.
So they are right but do they think they can force people to have children
by banning birth control?

Not until I am at least 30 and have nothing to loose
or possible if I drop dead in love.
They are right I want sex and don't want children or relations
that in anyway makes up like an unit in a conservative society or any society.
And if I got a family it wouldn't be mine and not any cummunity and not belong to politics or be something I would base my entire life around.
You know Children do grow up.

I think this remembers me about the stories from middle ages
where women killed people becouse they believed they where cursed
not to have children or becouse they imagined magical beings where doing things with their children.

Women can be so terrifingly insane when it comes to children
that they blame thin air or anyone.
That's my only explaination.

First they came for the gays
and I did not speak out
because I was not a gay.
Then they came for the women who wanted abortions
and I did not speak out
because I was not a woman who wanted an abortion.
Then they came for the people using birth control
and I did not speak out
because I was not a person using birth control.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Apt use of a beautifully sad poem. I like what you did.

What a bunch of garbage.

The term breed and breeder are primarily used for animals.

It is meant to offend, like ****** or faggot.

The fact that someone who has children uses the word breed and breeder when describing humans, doesn't make it okay.

It does however smack of self hate.
:rolleyes:
Poor oppressed you.

Apt use of a beautifully sad poem. I like what you did.
You'd be the only one...everyone else took it to mean I was tossing the word 'nazi' around...

It's a good point. Sit down while 'others' are having their rights stripped, and soon enough, you'll be on your own when it's your turn.

*falls asleep*

What'd you get hit on the head, or something?

"The US likes its wars" I dont like wars and I'm in the US. No one I know here "likes its wars". And I know a few people here in the US.

First "they" started with attacks- you make it sound like the US is attacking it.
Clarify who "they" is before the legions of pimpled malcontents jumps on this rickety bandwagon.

Come on, you can't think of a few 'wars'? The war on racism. The war on poverty. The war on drugs. Etc. Not saying they're all bad things, but we do have a mentality that it's all out or nothing. Oddly, the only one of those we're really trying with is the war on drugs.

And yes, THEY attacked the gays. Clinton, Bush, Bush Sr, Reagan. There are many in the government that want to tell people what they can do in their private lives.

Sin, I know it seems bleak right now, but I'm glad this guys have stop doing it secretly and slowly and have declared an all-out war. It used to be that they snuck a right away every once in a while to keep us from noticing. But when half the country is pressing forward laws that violate equal rights and are trying to legislate what people who aren't hurting anybody EVEN themselves can do in the privacy of their home people like us are starting become a little less patient. They're forcing our hand and galvanizing us. We've been warning people for years that this was happening but nobody really wanted to look around. These days though who can deny that there is a very dangerous trend occurring. The backlash is coming, Sin. These guys have hiding behind morality while behaving in a way that would make the Marquis De Sade blush and I can't imagine the American public is going to tolerate it much longer.

You'd be the only one...everyone else took it to mean I was tossing the word 'nazi' around...

It's a good point. Sit down while 'others' are having their rights stripped, and soon enough, you'll be on your own when it's your turn.

Yes. That's the point of the poem. It's about standing up for one another because an attack on freedom of one is an attack on freedom of all. It happens to be about WWII, but it is NOT about Nazis in any fashion. You've seen me use it several times for the same exact reason.

Either gays are oppressed or they're not.

If they're not then this conversation is pointless.

If they're oppressed then a majority of the population doesn't approve of their behavior and would like to see them "go away".

In an "abort first society" where homosexuality can be predicted the number of homosexuals would be greatly reduced through abortion.





I think most straight people who are pro-abortion would want a straight baby.

When did whether or not someone is pro-choice (the 'pro-abortion' crowd is nearly non-existent) equate to a eugenist? I'm straight, pro-choice and I would absolutely not support eugenics. In fact, I'm not sure I know anyone who would. You equate them like it's a given that they are equal.

Sin, I know it seems bleak right now, but I'm glad this guys have stop doing it secretly and slowly and have declared an all-out war. It used to be that they snuck a right away every once in a while to keep us from noticing. But when half the country is pressing forward laws that violate equal rights and are trying to legislate what people who aren't hurting anybody EVEN themselves can do in the privacy of their home people like us are starting become a little less patient. They're forcing our hand and galvanizing us. We've been warning people for years that this was happening but nobody really wanted to look around. These days though who can deny that there is a very dangerous trend occurring. The backlash is coming, Sin. These guys have hiding behind morality while behaving in a way that would make the Marquis De Sade blush and I can't imagine the American public is going to tolerate it much longer.
As usual, I hope you're right, but fear you're wrong.

I don't know how tollerant people will really be when we're all forced to lay our cards on the table.

As usual, I hope you're right, but fear you're wrong.

I don't know how tollerant people will really be when we're all forced to lay our cards on the table.
People tend to ignore the policies that don't directly affect them. More and more people are being directly affected by these particular policies...hopefully that will add up into increased resistance...but those that aren't directly affected YET need to show their support as well.

People tend to ignore the policies that don't directly affect them. More and more people are being directly affected by these particular policies...hopefully that will add up into increased resistance...but those that aren't directly affected YET need to show their support as well.

That's exactly the problem. However, they are very much making it so the majority of Americans are adversely or potentially adversely affected by such policy with no indication that the current efforts will abate without us stopping them. Smell the air. There's a storm coming.

May it be a shitstorm of magnificent proportions....

May it be a shitstorm of magnificent proportions....

With lots of brilliant aboriginal lawyers stirring.

Sidenote: My girlfriend read the LGBTS site yesterday and found you very intimidating. Not because you're agressive, but because you're so well-'spoken'.