NationStates Jolt Archive

So let me get this straight. I'm going to use you as an example since you are male. That you and either your girlfriend or wife get it on. She gets pregnant. You're really excited about being a dad. You have a good paying job, a nice home, and can care for the child in a descent, loving way.

She decides she doesn't want the unborn child and goes get the abortion without discussing it with you first, you're okay with this idea. :rolleyes:

That is very wrong to take away fatherhood and sounds more like the woman playing God's role. By taking away the rights of the father.

For perhaps the 11 billionth time, if the man wants to have a child so bad then he can get pregnant. But he will never have the right to force the woman to carry a child because he wants it. He can go find another woman to carry his spawn if it's so important to him.

So let me get this straight. I'm going to use you as an example since you are male. That you and either your girlfriend or wife get it on. She gets pregnant. You're really excited about being a dad. You have a good paying job, a nice home, and can care for the child in a descent, loving way.

She decides she doesn't want the unborn child and goes get the abortion without discussing it with you first, you're okay with this idea. :rolleyes:

That is very wrong to take away fatherhood and sounds more like the woman playing God's role. By taking away the rights of the father.

First - this is only even relevent if this 'god' character is more than a figment of the imagination.

I am a man. I have a wife. We are expecting a child soon. I would not have been happy if my wife chose to abort, but I would have supported her choice.

Because it is her body, not mine. I do not own her.

Because I love my wife, and will support her, even when her chocies don't agree with my own.

To my mind - any man that would do otherwise, has no 'wife'... just 'a thing they (think they) own', in the shape of a person.

I am a man. I have a wife. We are expecting a child soon. I would not have been happy if my wife chose to abort, but I would have supported her choice.

Because it is her body, not mine. I do not own her.

Because I love my wife, and will support her, even when her chocies don't agree with my own.

To my mind - any man that would do otherwise, has no 'wife'... just 'a thing they (think they) own', in the shape of a person.

Can I ask a clarification?

1. If the week before the birth she had an abortion without telling or consulting you would you support her in that descision? (assuming it was legal)

2. If she chooses to use her body to have sex with someone else would you support her in that choice and stick with her?

Can I ask a clarification?


You say 'clarification', but then continue on by introducing new concepts. What you have done, in reality, is asked for obfuscation.


1. If the week before the birth she had an abortion without telling or consulting you would you support her in that descision? (assuming it was legal)


Of course I would. I already said I would. Of course - I think it would be pretty strange to 'abort' a baby that was due in a week, anyway.

I think you are inventing some bizarre scenario in an attempt to 'test' the boundaries of my honesty. I can't easily imagine a situation where a woman would want to 'abort' (by which, one must assume we mean something different to just 'deliver early') healthy offspring one week before 'full term'.


2. If she chooses to use her body to have sex with someone else would you support her in that choice and stick with her?

Yes. Again, you seem to be constructing some outlandish scenario to test my honesty. I already said I would support her.

Would I be happy if my wife had aborted our impending-child? No.

Would I be happy if my wife felt she could only find solace in the arms of another man? No.

But then - if she DID have sex with another man, it is up to me to deal with that, isn't it? That part of the equation is all about me, can I deal with it. And, if I can't - maybe I'd leave - but I would still support HER right to make HER choices with HER body... even if I can't deal with the outcome.

On the other hand - if it was another girl, I'd have no such qualms.

Can I ask a clarification?

1. If the week before the birth she had an abortion without telling or consulting you would you support her in that descision? (assuming it was legal)

2. If she chooses to use her body to have sex with someone else would you support her in that choice and stick with her?

1 is irrelevant - it's her body but she would do well to talk to him about it first, and the man has all the right to divorce over this if he so wishes.

2 is something that involves the COUPLE. It's her body, yes, which is why she's not punished, but it's his marriage too, and if he wants to divorce he has the right.

Heck, he could divorce the wife for not carrying the baby to term if he wanted - though it'd be an idiotic choice.

That is very wrong to take away fatherhood and sounds more like the woman playing God's role. By taking away the rights of the father to force her to push a crying thing the size of a ham out of her vagina for the man's pleasure of having a kid.

Fixed.

If men could give birth, or carry the baby to term themselves, no problem at all there. They can't. Woman's call. If the man wants to have a kid so much, there are plenty other women he won't have to reverse-rape (force an object from within to outside her vagina) in order to have a child with them.

Birth Control and Abortion are the result of feminism, Of the idea that women should be above their husbands, should rule, even contradictory to the word of God. God made STDs to punish promiscuity and homosexuality because these things are abhorrent to him. The proper action to take, in response to the rise of STDs, would be to embrace God's authority and stop having promiscuous or homosexual sex. However, at the hands of the Feminist movement, we have instead tried to find a way out of it. Birth control is alike to the getaway car a bank robber might employ to escape the consequences of robbing a bank, and abortion is like the lockpicks that allow that criminal to escape from jail. If you are a woman considering having an abortion, consider that God gave you that child, as a punishment for your promiscuity and sexual carelessness. Who are you to tell God that you will not accept his judgement?

Truly, Abortion and birth control arise from a troubling new ideal in America, the ideal that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you are not caught.

I say that there need to be consequences. If you want to have promiscuous or homosexual sex, then Aids and unwanted children should be the reward you reap for it.

So I first encountered this thread last night and it made me so angry I decided to take my time replying.

To the OP: You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You are exactly the sort of judgemental overzealous pseudo-Christian that gives people ammunition to attack the rest of us.

How can you profess to be a Christian and yet have such a mi serable and defunct understanding of what it means to be a Christian?

Do you not understand that God does *NOT* punish sin in this world precisely because to do so would be to completely invalidate the crucifixion? Do you truly see a baby as a punishment anyway?

What's the matter with you?

For the record: I have children, and the first of them is a son who was conceived out of wedlock, and I suppose what you'd consider a punishment. Here's where your idiocy is revealed. He's 13 now and I love that boy with all my heart and not a day goes by that I don't reflect on how grateful I am for him. I thank God for him. Hardly a punishment.

For those who aren't Christian, or for those who think like the OP and don't understand, allow me to explain what I mean whe I refer to the crucifixion.

Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross as a way of atoning for our sin. He is symbolized as a sacrificial lamb. He did this so that we would not have to suffer damnation for our sin, and thus would be free from it. This is given to us when we commit to following Him and are baptized in His name.

The idea that there are earthly punishments for our sins runs contrary to this. It would mean that Jesus suffered on the cross for nothing. If sin can be paid for here on earth by suffering punishment, then nobody can be damned because the debt would be paid, and thus such a person would get a ticket to Heaven, bought and paid for by their OWN suffering, and not by that of the Lord.

The reason that won't work is because we, as mortals, can't be perfect. We can only do our best and live according to God's will as best we can. Jesus pays the price for us so that we can return to Heaven. Even when we repent of our sins, we still sometimes fall again, in the same way or others, and so the Lord has us covered as long as we do our best to hold to that commitment.

To suggest that a beautiful baby can be a punishment is idiotic at best. To suggest that disease is a direct punichment for individual sin is to make a mockery of the Lord's sacrifice, and anyone who precahes it needs a refresher course.

1 is irrelevant - it's her body but she would do well to talk to him about it first, and the man has all the right to divorce over this if he so wishes.

2 is something that involves the COUPLE. It's her body, yes, which is why she's not punished, but it's his marriage too, and if he wants to divorce he has the right.

And the child/foetus at 9months does not involve the couple?

Both instances involve the couple.


I was asking to determine how far this support would go. But I think we were talking about a different sort of support.

I viewed support as providing a caring and understanding response for her actions, and helping in any way I could.

He seems to view it more as supporting her right to do what she wants with her body and recognising that he does not own her (which I also agree with, but I am not sure 'support' would be the right term)

And the child/foetus at 9months does not involve the couple?

Both instances involve the couple.


I was asking to determine how far this support would go. But I think we were talking about a different sort of support.

I viewed support as providing a caring and understanding response for her actions, and helping in any way I could.

He seems to view it more as supporting her right to do what she wants with her body and recognising that he does not own her (which I also agree with, but I am not sure 'support' would be the right term)

No... I would support her. I would back her decision, offer encouragement if she needed it, attempt to understand why she decided to do the things she decided to do. But, that doesn't mean I'd agree with the things she might choose to do, and the after-effects of any such decisions would be MY problem to deal with.

So I first encountered this thread last night and it made me so angry I decided to take my time replying.

To the OP: You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You are exactly the sort of judgemental overzealous pseudo-Christian that gives people ammunition to attack the rest of us.

How can you profess to be a Christian and yet have such a mi serable and defunct understanding of what it means to be a Christian?

Do you not understand that God does *NOT* punish sin in this world precisely because to do so would be to completely invalidate the crucifixion? Do you truly see a baby as a punishment anyway?

What's the matter with you?

For the record: I have children, and the first of them is a son who was conceived out of wedlock, and I suppose what you'd consider a punishment. Here's where your idiocy is revealed. He's 13 now and I love that boy with all my heart and not a day goes by that I don't reflect on how grateful I am for him. I thank God for him. Hardly a punishment.

For those who aren't Christian, or for those who think like the OP and don't understand, allow me to explain what I mean whe I refer to the crucifixion.

Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross as a way of atoning for our sin. He is symbolized as a sacrificial lamb. He did this so that we would not have to suffer damnation for our sin, and thus would be free from it. This is given to us when we commit to following Him and are baptized in His name.

The idea that there are earthly punishments for our sins runs contrary to this. It would mean that Jesus suffered on the cross for nothing. If sin can be paid for here on earth by suffering punishment, then nobody can be damned because the debt would be paid, and thus such a person would get a ticket to Heaven, bought and paid for by their OWN suffering, and not by that of the Lord.

The reason that won't work is because we, as mortals, can't be perfect. We can only do our best and live according to God's will as best we can. Jesus pays the price for us so that we can return to Heaven. Even when we repent of our sins, we still sometimes fall again, in the same way or others, and so the Lord has us covered as long as we do our best to hold to that commitment.

To suggest that a beautiful baby can be a punishment is idiotic at best. To suggest that disease is a direct punichment for individual sin is to make a mockery of the Lord's sacrifice, and anyone who precahes it needs a refresher course.

Quoted for truth. And I'm not even a Christian.

But you could have said everything you said without dropping the word "fuck" so often, and got your point across without seeming like an idiot.
I don't think the word "fuck" made that poster look idiotic. I think it was an entirely appropriate reaction to the kind of fucking twits who think it's their fucking business to control everybody else's fucking. If they want to fuck with my fucking choices about who I fuck, when I fuck, how I fuck, and whether or not I am punished with childbirth as a result of my fucking choices, and if they're going to do all of this without having the least fucking clue about the fundamental fucking medical realities of fucking and contraception, then why shouldn't I use the appropriate fucking language as I inform them of their fucking stupidity?

So I first encountered this thread last night and it made me so angry I decided to take my time replying.

To the OP: You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You are exactly the sort of judgemental overzealous pseudo-Christian that gives people ammunition to attack the rest of us.

How can you profess to be a Christian and yet have such a mi serable and defunct understanding of what it means to be a Christian?

Do you not understand that God does *NOT* punish sin in this world precisely because to do so would be to completely invalidate the crucifixion? Do you truly see a baby as a punishment anyway?

What's the matter with you?

For the record: I have children, and the first of them is a son who was conceived out of wedlock, and I suppose what you'd consider a punishment. Here's where your idiocy is revealed. He's 13 now and I love that boy with all my heart and not a day goes by that I don't reflect on how grateful I am for him. I thank God for him. Hardly a punishment.

For those who aren't Christian, or for those who think like the OP and don't understand, allow me to explain what I mean whe I refer to the crucifixion.

Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross as a way of atoning for our sin. He is symbolized as a sacrificial lamb. He did this so that we would not have to suffer damnation for our sin, and thus would be free from it. This is given to us when we commit to following Him and are baptized in His name.

The idea that there are earthly punishments for our sins runs contrary to this. It would mean that Jesus suffered on the cross for nothing. If sin can be paid for here on earth by suffering punishment, then nobody can be damned because the debt would be paid, and thus such a person would get a ticket to Heaven, bought and paid for by their OWN suffering, and not by that of the Lord.

The reason that won't work is because we, as mortals, can't be perfect. We can only do our best and live according to God's will as best we can. Jesus pays the price for us so that we can return to Heaven. Even when we repent of our sins, we still sometimes fall again, in the same way or others, and so the Lord has us covered as long as we do our best to hold to that commitment.

To suggest that a beautiful baby can be a punishment is idiotic at best. To suggest that disease is a direct punichment for individual sin is to make a mockery of the Lord's sacrifice, and anyone who precahes it needs a refresher course.

Say you don't believe in the egocentric "if you don't believe me you BURN" God and I'll quote you for truth. :)

Birth Control and Abortion are the result of feminism,

umm... birth control and abortion have been around a lot longer in history than feminism...

In fact, if we want to trade Bible lessons, the first mention of birth control in the Bible has it being practiced by a man.

You remember Onan?

Would you like consequences like that to be in effect?

So I first encountered this thread last night and it made me so angry I decided to take my time replying.

To the OP: You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You are exactly the sort of judgemental overzealous pseudo-Christian that gives people ammunition to attack the rest of us.

How can you profess to be a Christian and yet have such a mi serable and defunct understanding of what it means to be a Christian?

Do you not understand that God does *NOT* punish sin in this world precisely because to do so would be to completely invalidate the crucifixion? Do you truly see a baby as a punishment anyway?

What's the matter with you?

For the record: I have children, and the first of them is a son who was conceived out of wedlock, and I suppose what you'd consider a punishment. Here's where your idiocy is revealed. He's 13 now and I love that boy with all my heart and not a day goes by that I don't reflect on how grateful I am for him. I thank God for him. Hardly a punishment.

For those who aren't Christian, or for those who think like the OP and don't understand, allow me to explain what I mean whe I refer to the crucifixion.

Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross as a way of atoning for our sin. He is symbolized as a sacrificial lamb. He did this so that we would not have to suffer damnation for our sin, and thus would be free from it. This is given to us when we commit to following Him and are baptized in His name.

The idea that there are earthly punishments for our sins runs contrary to this. It would mean that Jesus suffered on the cross for nothing. If sin can be paid for here on earth by suffering punishment, then nobody can be damned because the debt would be paid, and thus such a person would get a ticket to Heaven, bought and paid for by their OWN suffering, and not by that of the Lord.

The reason that won't work is because we, as mortals, can't be perfect. We can only do our best and live according to God's will as best we can. Jesus pays the price for us so that we can return to Heaven. Even when we repent of our sins, we still sometimes fall again, in the same way or others, and so the Lord has us covered as long as we do our best to hold to that commitment.

To suggest that a beautiful baby can be a punishment is idiotic at best. To suggest that disease is a direct punichment for individual sin is to make a mockery of the Lord's sacrifice, and anyone who precahes it needs a refresher course.


Very well said.

I don't think the word "fuck" made that poster look idiotic. I think it was an entirely appropriate reaction to the kind of fucking twits who think it's their fucking business to control everybody else's fucking. If they want to fuck with my fucking choices about who I fuck, when I fuck, how I fuck, and whether or not I am punished with childbirth as a result of my fucking choices, and if they're going to do all of this without having the least fucking clue about the fundamental fucking medical realities of fucking and contraception, then why shouldn't I use the appropriate fucking language as I inform them of their fucking stupidity?

Fucking Quoted For Fucking Fuck, Fuck!

:D

umm... birth control and abortion have been around a lot longer in history than feminism...

In fact, if we want to trade Bible lessons, the first mention of birth control in the Bible has it being practiced by a man.

You remember Onan?

Would you like consequences like that to be in effect?

There were no consequences for 'that'. Onan was punished for disobedience, not because he made the floor sticky.

I don't think the word "fuck" made that poster look idiotic. I think it was an entirely appropriate reaction to the kind of fucking twits who think it's their fucking business to control everybody else's fucking. If they want to fuck with my fucking choices about who I fuck, when I fuck, how I fuck, and whether or not I am punished with childbirth as a result of my fucking choices, and if they're going to do all of this without having the least fucking clue about the fundamental fucking medical realities of fucking and contraception, then why shouldn't I use the appropriate fucking language as I inform them of their fucking stupidity?

Isn't this a scene from "Boondock Saints"?

Onan was punished for disobedience...
Yet another example of the Bible sounding a lot like an S&M manual.

I'm a naughty bad sinner! I'm so disobedient! Punish me, oh lord!

Yet another example of the Bible sounding a lot like an S&M manual.

I'm a naughty bad sinner! I'm so disobedient! Punish me, oh lord!

WIN!!! :D

Yet another example of the Bible sounding a lot like an S&M manual.

I'm a naughty bad sinner! I'm so disobedient! Punish me, oh lord!

Perhaps the Bible is actually based on the Monty Python 'peril' scenario from "Holy Grail"...?

Yet another example of the Bible sounding a lot like an S&M manual.

I'm a naughty bad sinner! I'm so disobedient! Punish me, oh lord!

Well there are definitely those within various religious organisations who believe it is a sin to go too far into punishment...they recognise that doing penance can actually provide pleasure, contrary to the intent of the act...it was one of the main arguments against the flagellants if I recall correctly.

There were no consequences for 'that'. Onan was punished for disobedience, not because he made the floor sticky.

Ah, but his act of "birth control" was the "disobedience". Or so say many churches.

I'm trying to point out how silly it is to demand "consequences", especially in an Old Testament sense.

It's also ridiculous to assert that somehow, birth control and abortion are new ideas, and invented in America.

Ah, but his act of "birth control" was the "disobedience". Or so say many churches.

I'm trying to point out how silly it is to demand "consequences", especially in an Old Testament sense.

It's also ridiculous to assert that somehow, birth control and abortion are new ideas, and invented in America.

His act of 'birth control' was his disobedience... but it was being disobedient that was the cause for punishment, not the nature of the disobedience.

Many churches have tied Onan to the 'sin' of masturbation, but punishing your primate isn't actually condemned at any point.

All I'll say is that both a man and woman are needed to have a child. It is "calloused" (for lack of a better word) to deny any involvement of the man in the decision of having an abortion or carrying a child to term.

However, in response to abortions, I believe it to be murder. That is my belief but I have found that some aspects of our (the American) legal system support this. (Follow my reasoning... :) )
- We use DNA tests in court to establish the guilt or innocence of criminals
- These tests identify a unique person (apart from any other human being)
- If we were to perform the same DNA tests on an embryo, we would find this "thing" to be a unique person (apart from any other human being)

Okay, so the DNA thing addresses it...but here's another quirk I find...
- A man stabs a woman on the way to an abortion clinic.
- This attacker does not kill the woman but kills the fetus
- The attacker can (and usually is in other cases) charged with assault and first-degree murder of the child
- How is it murder for the attacker but, in the abortion, this is not a "person."

So, last point...and please discuss...
In cases of rape, it is terrible and traumatic, but, in choosing and abortion, are we not PUNISHING the wrong person? It wasn't the child/fetus/embryo that raped the woman. Why then is "it" paying the penalty?

Well, that's it for me... Have a great day! :D

I still think the OP is way too far off in the parking lot outside of the stadium. I mean, abortion is as old as human civilization.

His act of 'birth control' was his disobedience... but it was being disobedient that was the cause for punishment, not the nature of the disobedience.

Many churches have tied Onan to the 'sin' of masturbation, but punishing your primate isn't actually condemned at any point.

exactly.

but punishing your primate

It took me three reads to get it, if you can believe it:D

It took me three reads to get it, if you can believe it:D

Shaking hands with John Thomas? Whacking your tallywhacker? Playing with your meat and potatoes? Pumping your pud?

Perhaps the Bible is actually based on the Monty Python 'peril' scenario from "Holy Grail"...?
It does seem to be a recurring theme.

Seriously, though, the mentality of the Bible really seems a lot like BDSM relationships I've encountered. There are all these really icky-ticky rules that pretty much only exist to ensure that the sub is ALWAYS breaking one rule or another, and thus the sub is always in need of "punishment" of one type or another. The sub, of course, is delighted with this state of affairs, and routinely expounds on the many reasons why he/she is a bad, bad boy/girl.

Have you ever listened to a True Believer explain sin and Hellfire before? They are positively pornographic in their vivid descriptions of sins, and their equally vivid descriptions of the punishments that will follow.

This also relates to the closet culture that you see among the anti-gay Believers, because you can tell that what they get off on is the forbidden sin angle. They want to make sure homosexuality isn't accepted in the mainstream because if it's accepted then they can no longer enjoy the feeling of being a dirty boy sneaking forbidden pleasures.

Shaking hands with John Thomas? Whacking your tallywhacker? Playing with your meat and potatoes? Pumping your pud?

No, just the play on 'spanking your monkey'.

It took me three reads to get it, if you can believe it:D

My other option was "Chastising the Chimp", but I prefer the primate one. :D

Shaking hands with John Thomas? Whacking your tallywhacker? Playing with your meat and potatoes? Pumping your pud?
Which now makes me want to start a "euphemisms for masturbation" thread.

Which now makes me want to start a "euphemisms for masturbation" thread.

Please do :D

Which now makes me want to start a "euphemisms for masturbation" thread.

Well, what about the euphemisms for female masturbation?

Well, what about the euphemisms for female masturbation?
What, you mean like:

Buffin' the muffin', Clubbin' the nubbin', Feeding the bearded clam, Five knuckle gusset shuffle, Giving the fuzzy bunny a carrot, Hitchhiking to Heaven, Itching the scratch, Doing the merry widow waltz, Nuzzle your fuzz, Polishing the pearl, Playing with Mrs. Palmer's five daughters, Slapping the south mouth, Tiptoe through the twolips, Womanipulation, X-boxing....

It does seem to be a recurring theme.

Seriously, though, the mentality of the Bible really seems a lot like BDSM relationships I've encountered. There are all these really icky-ticky rules that pretty much only exist to ensure that the sub is ALWAYS breaking one rule or another, and thus the sub is always in need of "punishment" of one type or another. The sub, of course, is delighted with this state of affairs, and routinely expounds on the many reasons why he/she is a bad, bad boy/girl.

Have you ever listened to a True Believer explain sin and Hellfire before? They are positively pornographic in their vivid descriptions of sins, and their equally vivid descriptions of the punishments that will follow.

This also relates to the closet culture that you see among the anti-gay Believers, because you can tell that what they get off on is the forbidden sin angle. They want to make sure homosexuality isn't accepted in the mainstream because if it's accepted then they can no longer enjoy the feeling of being a dirty boy sneaking forbidden pleasures.

It's likely no coincidence that 'priest-and-novice' or 'priest-and-altarboy' (or 'politician-and-underage-Washington-page', I guess) is such a favourite of the fantasy scene.

I had a friend who ran a 'novelty' store, and I was surprised to find nurse uniforms only the second most popular, with nuns being top.

So - yes - I suspect there often is a 'fetish' element to religion... especially Catholicism, which actually creates a number of true 'fetishes' (in the form of the crucifix and the rosary, both of which are 'fetish' objects inn the truest sense). People like a frisson of danger or risk, and what gives a greater 'risk' than trying to hide from god?

Unfortunately, in my neck-of-the-woods, I have to deal with those people who 'perv' over hellfire and damnation on an almost daily basis. You are right.. it's pretty creepy watching them... the lowered eyelids, the slight shortness of breath, the colour to the cheeks - it is an actual 'sexual' thrill.

What, you mean like:

Buffin' the muffin', Clubbin' the nubbin', Feeding the bearded clam, Five knuckle gusset shuffle, Giving the fuzzy bunny a carrot, Hitchhiking to Heaven, Itching the scratch, Doing the merry widow waltz, Nuzzle your fuzz, Polishing the pearl, Playing with Mrs. Palmer's five daughters, Slapping the south mouth, Tiptoe through the twolips, Womanipulation, X-boxing....

Bottle wins the universe.

Bottle wins the universe.
Doing the Beaver Bop, Bisecting the triangle, Groping the grotto, Cleaving it to Beaver, Fiddling the bean, Jillin' off, Lovin' your oven, Playing the clitar...

Doing the Beaver Bop, Bisecting the triangle, Groping the grotto, Cleaving it to Beaver, Fiddling the bean, Jillin' off, Lovin' your oven, Playing the clitar...

I'd say you have spent way too much time on this... but I'm not sure I can bring myself to suggest such a thing is possible...

I'd say you have spent way too much time on this... but I'm not sure I can bring myself to suggest such a thing is possible...

I was refraining from comment myself...

I'd say you have spent way too much time on this... but I'm not sure I can bring myself to suggest such a thing is possible... Undergarment typing, Tugging the vertical smile, Grooving the groove, Mistressbation...

All I'll say is that both a man and woman are needed to have a child. It is "calloused" (for lack of a better word) to deny any involvement of the man in the decision of having an abortion or carrying a child to term.I'll deny that the man is unable to avoid any involvement in carrying a child to term.

However, in response to abortions, I believe it to be murder. That is my belief but I have found that some aspects of our (the American) legal system support this. (Follow my reasoning... :) )
- We use DNA tests in court to establish the guilt or innocence of criminals
- These tests identify a unique person (apart from any other human being)
- If we were to perform the same DNA tests on an embryo, we would find this "thing" to be a unique person (apart from any other human being)So, technically, identical twins are one person. Would this mean it's ok to murder one of them, since the person's DNA is still around in a living organism?

Okay, so the DNA thing addresses it...but here's another quirk I find...
- A man stabs a woman on the way to an abortion clinic.
- This attacker does not kill the woman but kills the fetus
- The attacker can (and usually is in other cases) charged with assault and first-degree murder of the child
- How is it murder for the attacker but, in the abortion, this is not a "person."You know, in some countries, that would not be considered murder legally.

So, last point...and please discuss...
In cases of rape, it is terrible and traumatic, but, in choosing and abortion, are we not PUNISHING the wrong person? It wasn't the child/fetus/embryo that raped the woman. Why then is "it" paying the penalty?

Well, that's it for me... Have a great day! :DWe're not punishing a person.

Undergarment typing, Tugging the vertical smile, Grooving the groove, Mistressbation...

Probing the depths, petting the clam, yes, yes we acknowledge your superiority in this...

Probing the depths, petting the clam, yes, yes we acknowledge your superiority in this...
Oh, it's not about superiority in the least! I thought we were all coming together (har har) to celebrate the wonderous diversity of language that can be used to express this most joyful of activities!

Though, now that you mention it, I really should be awarded some kind of trophy. Perhaps some kind of golden cucumber...?

What, you mean like:

Buffin' the muffin', Clubbin' the nubbin', Feeding the bearded clam, Five knuckle gusset shuffle, Giving the fuzzy bunny a carrot, Hitchhiking to Heaven, Itching the scratch, Doing the merry widow waltz, Nuzzle your fuzz, Polishing the pearl, Playing with Mrs. Palmer's five daughters, Slapping the south mouth, Tiptoe through the twolips, Womanipulation, X-boxing, Doing the Beaver Bop, Bisecting the triangle, Groping the grotto, Cleaving it to Beaver, Fiddling the bean, Jillin' off, Lovin' your oven, Playing the clitar...
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/drool.gif

Oh, it's not about superiority in the least! I thought we were all coming together (har har) to celebrate the wonderous diversity of language that can be used to express this most joyful of activities!

Though, now that you mention it, I really should be awarded some kind of trophy. Perhaps some kind of golden cucumber...?

Well, you certainly win the award for putting delight in an otherwise droll thread.

Yes, a golden cucumber, or perhaps a golden zucchini would do nicely. So would an empty bottle of Dom Perignon...

Well, you certainly win the award for putting delight in an otherwise droll thread.

Wow, that's just about the highest compliment I could earn around here. :D


Yes, a golden cucumber, or perhaps a golden zucchini would do nicely. So would an empty bottle of Dom Perignon...
Why must everybody insist upon putting Bottles to such pornographic purposes?! It's exhausting, I tell you!

So, technically, identical twins are one person. Would this mean it's ok to murder one of them, since the person's DNA is still around in a living organism?



Actually, identical twins don't share identical DNA. I'm not a scientist so I can't really say with authority WHEN the DNA strand changes but it does (most certainly by the time you're born). Just one of those quirks of the human being I guess...

Actually, identical twins don't share identical DNA. I'm not a scientist so I can't really say with authority WHEN the DNA strand changes but it does (most certainly by the time you're born). Just one of those quirks of the human being I guess...
I don't quite know what you're refering to here.

The DNA "strand" doesn't magically change at some stage of development to make the twins distinct at the genetic level. Identical twins have identical DNA, but differing environmental influences throughout their lives will affect which genes are switched on or off. This is called "epigenetic modification."

It is also true that different individuals will accumulate different small mutations over time, so it is theoretically possible for two identical twins to have point mutations and so forth that aren't identical, but then again those mutations will make their OWN cells just as different from one another.

In other words, let's say Twin A goes sunbathing while Twin B does not. Twin A experiences several mutations in the DNA of her skin cells, which Twin B does not experience. The cells in Twin A's skin which have experienced these mutations are now as genetically distinct from HER OWN unmutated skin cells as they are from her twin's unmutated skin cells.

That's impressive - holding forth on genetics while plunging a champagne bottle in and out of....

Actually, identical twins don't share identical DNA. I'm not a scientist so I can't really say with authority WHEN the DNA strand changes but it does (most certainly by the time you're born). Just one of those quirks of the human being I guess...
Actually, they do. Otherwise they wouldn't be identical twins.
And since you're not a scientist - don't even try to refute those scientific facts.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mtwinsdna.html

Read, learn, and reconsider.

That's impressive - holding forth on genetics while plunging a champagne bottle in and out of....
...the ice in the cooler!!!!!

Actually, identical twins don't share identical DNA. I'm not a scientist so I can't really say with authority WHEN the DNA strand changes but it does (most certainly by the time you're born). Just one of those quirks of the human being I guess...No, actually they do. They can be subject to change because all genes are subject to change through environmental influences such as UV radation, but you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between two identical twins simply from a blood sample.

So your suggestion is to force (in essence, rape again) the woman to go through the labor of the child of a rapist in order not to punish something that's not alive? Sounds... stupid.

I don't quite know what you're refering to here.



Fair enough...my bad. Assumption on my part.

Well, things brings up another point. So, yeah, the DNA of identical twins is identical. That DOESN'T mean that killing one of the twins is okay...just that DNA can't prove that they are different folks.

So, um...how does this negate the "fetus is different than the parent" thing? Not beleaguering the point but, as the idea of DNA being the only factor making it "okay" to kill one of the twins, still doesn't make it right.

Cheers!

Actually, they do. Otherwise they wouldn't be identical twins.
And since you're not a scientist - don't even try to refute those scientific facts.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mtwinsdna.html

Read, learn, and reconsider.


...the ice in the cooler!!!!!

Wow...so angry..."my bad"... I looked it up on my own, thank you. Geesh! But, really, the point here is not the "science"...it's what's right or wrong. :headbang:

I don't think the word "fuck" made that poster look idiotic. I think it was an entirely appropriate reaction to the kind of fucking twits who think it's their fucking business to control everybody else's fucking. If they want to fuck with my fucking choices about who I fuck, when I fuck, how I fuck, and whether or not I am punished with childbirth as a result of my fucking choices, and if they're going to do all of this without having the least fucking clue about the fundamental fucking medical realities of fucking and contraception, then why shouldn't I use the appropriate fucking language as I inform them of their fucking stupidity?

I get it. You don't care either. No idea what came after your first sentence, though.

Fair enough...my bad. Assumption on my part.

No problem. I'm always happy to talk nerdy to people. :D


Well, things brings up another point. So, yeah, the DNA of identical twins is identical. That DOESN'T mean that killing one of the twins is okay...just that DNA can't prove that they are different folks.

This is true. I don't believe that DNA alone defines individual personhood. However, anti-choicers often claim that an embryo/fetus has individual rights because it has a particular set of DNA, so this is why we end up going down this tangent.


So, um...how does this negate the "fetus is different than the parent" thing? Not beleaguering the point but, as the idea of DNA being the only factor making it "okay" to kill one of the twins, still doesn't make it right.

If the right to choose were founded on the fact that a fetus has different DNA from the woman carrying it, you'd be right.

Happily, there's no such problem with the actual pro-choice arguments. The DNA of the fetus has precisely zero to do with the woman's right to end her body's participation in pregnancy.

Fair enough...my bad. Assumption on my part.

Well, things brings up another point. So, yeah, the DNA of identical twins is identical. That DOESN'T mean that killing one of the twins is okay...just that DNA can't prove that they are different folks.Of course not. DNA just isn't a viable basis for determining this.

So, um...how does this negate the "fetus is different than the parent" thing? Not beleaguering the point but, as the idea of DNA being the only factor making it "okay" to kill one of the twins, still doesn't make it right.It means that using DNA to identify individuals and use it as a definition of a person is incorrect. Since you were going under the premise that DNA makes us individuals and this was why feti shouldn't be aborted, your argument is invalid, since it would allow for murder without any moral consequences.

So your suggestion is to force (in essence, rape again) the woman to go through the labor of the child of a rapist in order not to punish something that's not alive? Sounds... stupid.

Alive? Okay...go with what you feel...but, regardless, the "person" or "thing" that deserves a righteous A$$-whooping is the degenerate that performed the rape.

And, yes, the woman should carry the child to term. It's TOTALLY unfair to the woman...which is why rapists should be SEVERELY punished! (i.e. life in prison, death-pentaly...I'm not opposed to either of those.) :D

Of course not. DNA just isn't a viable basis for determining this.

It means that using DNA to identify individuals and use it as a definition of a person is incorrect. Since you were going under the premise that DNA makes us individuals and this was why feti shouldn't be aborted, your argument is invalid, since it would allow for murder without any moral consequences.

Well, the premise was that the American Legal System relies on DNA to establish individuality in some cases...it was a "real-world" example...not the foudation of the argument.

And, yes, the woman should carry the child to term. It's TOTALLY unfair to the woman...which is why rapists should be SEVERELY punished! (i.e. life in prison, death-pentaly...I'm not opposed to either of those.) :D
Ah, so you admit that it's totally unfair to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes, yet you feel she should just take one for the team or something?

Let me guess: you're a member of the sex that will never actually have to carry a pregnancy, right?

No problem. I'm always happy to talk nerdy to people. :D


This is true. I don't believe that DNA alone defines individual personhood. However, anti-choicers often claim that an embryo/fetus has individual rights because it has a particular set of DNA, so this is why we end up going down this tangent.


If the right to choose were founded on the fact that a fetus has different DNA from the woman carrying it, you'd be right.

Happily, there's no such problem with the actual pro-choice arguments. The DNA of the fetus has precisely zero to do with the woman's right to end her body's participation in pregnancy.

Look at this way...the woman's "rights" (in terms of pregnancy) are encumbent upon her DECISION to engage in intercourse. Like old Barabara Bush said, "Just say 'no.'" (Not like her campaign really worked...but I thought it was kinda funny!) :)

Ah, so you admit that it's totally unfair to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes, yet you feel she should just take one for the team or something?

Let me guess: you're a member of the sex that will never actually have to carry a pregnancy, right?

Someone getting killed by a drunk-driver isn't fair either...

It is unfair that she was forced into the situation by another human being (a man). But, in terms of fair and unfair, IF the fetus is a child (for argument's sake), what's the MOST unfair thing...the death penalty for no reason at all... It is most noble to care and carry a burden that is not yours for the sake of what is right.

Ah, so you admit that it's totally unfair to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes, yet you feel she should just take one for the team or something?

Let me guess: you're a member of the sex that will never actually have to carry a pregnancy, right?

Here's an interesting hypothetical:

Now, in our current society, men who impregnate women are obligated to support the child financially should the pregnancy be brought to term.

It isn't farfetched to imagine a technological solution that would allow for a fetus to be removed from a woman at any stage past conception, and placed in an artificial creche to be brought to term. Thus sparing the woman the horror of carrying a child within her body against her will.

Sure, the man and woman involved would not be obligated to "keep" this child. But, would they then, by dint of the precedence established for men, both be financially responsible?

Look at this way...the woman's "rights" (in terms of pregnancy) are encumbent upon her DECISION to engage in intercourse. Like old Barabara Bush said, "Just say 'no.'" (Not like her campaign really worked...but I thought it was kinda funny!) :)
Right, just like how a person's "rights" to get medical care are encumbent upon their DECISION to engage in driving a car. If they choose to get behind the wheel, and they end up in a car accident, then they don't get to escape the consequences of their actions by choosing to get medical care.

Someone getting killed by a drunk-driver isn't fair either...
Which is why drunk driving is illegal. We don't make it illegal to get medical care after a drunk driver hits you. We don't pass laws that take the rights away from people who are hit by drunk drivers.

Someone getting killed by a drunk-driver isn't fair either...

It is unfair that she was forced into the situation by another human being (a man). But, in terms of fair and unfair, IF the fetus is a child (for argument's sake), what's the MOST unfair thing...the death penalty for no reason at all... It is most noble to care and carry a burden that is not yours for the sake of what is right.

Yet you don't deny the victim of the accident medical care either

Right, just like how a person's "rights" to get medical care are encumbent upon their DECISION to engage in driving a car. If they choose to get behind the wheel, and they end up in a car accident, then they don't get to escape the consequences of their actions by choosing to get medical care.

Ummm...not a great analogy... Think of it more like this...a smoker who chooses to continue smoking, knowing full-well that they have a TREMENDOUS RISK of cancer (and death), shouldn't have any right to sue to cigarette company...you made the choice and accepted the risk.

Yet you don't deny the victim of the accident medical care either
Honestly, I don't see where the disconnect is with these people.

Sex does not result in childbirth. Sex sometimes (though actually not all that often) results in PREGNANCY. You know, that nine-month-long process during which a woman's body makes a baby? Sex alone results in the production of exactly zero babies. PREGNANCY makes babies.

So we all can agree, sex may result in pregnancy. Whether or not pregnancy results in a baby is an entirely different matter.

Whether or not pregnancy results in a baby is an entirely different matter.

Isn't that kinda the whole point of this thread??? ;)

Ummm...not a great analogy... Think of it more like this...a smoker who chooses to continue smoking, knowing full-well that they have a TREMENDOUS RISK of cancer (and death), shouldn't have any right to sue to cigarette company...you made the choice and accepted the risk.

The proper analogy would be the smoker who chooses to continue smoking, knowing full-well that they have a TREMENDOUS RISK of cancer, shouldn't have any right to seek medical treatment for said cancer, as it was his choice and he accepted the risk when smoking.

Ummm...not a great analogy...

You picked the analogy.


Think of it more like this...a smoker who chooses to continue smoking, knowing full-well that they have a TREMENDOUS RISK of cancer (and death), shouldn't have any right to sue to cigarette company...you made the choice and accepted the risk.
But the smoker still has the right to get medical care if they get cancer. They don't get to sue the person who helped get them pregnant (provided the intercourse was consentual etc), but they do retain the right to get medical care if they want it.

Isn't that kinda the whole point of this thread??? ;)
You'd think so, but a lot of people (yourself included) appear to be under the delusion that a baby exists at the moment the man deposits his "seed," and that the "consequence" of receiving said deposit is that a woman MUST eventually give birth to a child.

You picked the analogy.


But the smoker still has the right to get medical care if they get cancer. They don't get to sue the person who helped get them pregnant (provided the intercourse was consentual etc), but they do retain the right to get medical care if they want it.

Well, the analogy to which I was referring was the "get medical care if you want to drive" thing...not my initial one...

Just clarifying... :)

Alive? Okay...go with what you feel...but, regardless, the "person" or "thing" that deserves a righteous A$$-whooping is the degenerate that performed the rape.

And, yes, the woman should carry the child to term. It's TOTALLY unfair to the woman...which is why rapists should be SEVERELY punished! (i.e. life in prison, death-pentaly...I'm not opposed to either of those.) :D

So you favor generating an unhappy kid fruit of an unwanted pregnancy and violating the woman FURTHER just as long as the rapist gets... killed?

That's pro-life. Further, let's say the woman was, instead, a malpractice victim - a mistake in the papers led the doctors to believe her appendicectomy was actually an artificial insemination. The doctors would be subject to death penalty or you would like to violate the woman again?

It is most noble to care and carry a burden that is not yours for the sake of what is right.

It is most vile to FORCE someone to carry such a burden for WHATEVER REASON!

You'd think so, but a lot of people (yourself included) appear to be under the delusion that a baby exists at the moment the man deposits his "seed," and that the "consequence" of receiving said deposit is that a woman MUST eventually give birth to a child.

It's not a delusion...it's just that two pillars of our society cannot agree.

Religion says, "yes, as soon as the sperm and egg combine, you have a child."

Science says, "we haven't defined this in any particular term...as of yet..."

Society goes somewhere in the middle..."well, certainly after it's born, yeah...but before then...well...umm...it's kinda up in the air."

Fair enough?

It is most vile to FORCE someone to carry such a burden for WHATEVER REASON!

I didn't say "force" when I talked about being noble. Just as you don't force a marine to dive on a grenade to save his friends. It's just noble.

I guess the basis is, it's unfortunate that most people in the world think first (and almost only) of themselves.

So, another question, do you think this whole "issue" is exaggerated by the video game thing? (I'm not off-topic, really!) In video games, you don't like what you did, go back to the last save point. So, do you think we're all just hoping to make "save points" in our real lives now???

So, another question, do you think this whole "issue" is exaggerated by the video game thing? (I'm not off-topic, really!) In video games, you don't like what you did, go back to the last save point. So, do you think we're all just hoping to make "save points" in our real lives now???

No. Abortions existed a little bit (thousand of years) before Pong was invented.

Further, in this one case, it's "what the rapist did".

However, if you're not for FORCING the woman to carry it to term, you're good.

No. Abortions existed a little bit (thousand of years) before Pong was invented.

Further, in this one case, it's "what the rapist did".

However, if you're not for FORCING the woman to carry it to term, you're good.

I was kinda moving beyond just abortions...but it's a life-altering event so I thought it fit better than others. And, I don't think PONG had save points...so maybe it's only the Nintendo generation that suffers from this! ;)

But, no, forcing would be "uncomfortable"... I try to strike a balance between people having "free-will" (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and all that) and doing what's "right."

So, yeah...forcing = bad ... but abortion = just-as-bad (for me)... Hence the "uncomfortable" thing...

I'd probably just give the woman a very sad, disappointed look...

Okay, so give me your feedback on this. In the case of a "couple" getting pregnant...shouldn't the man have as much say in the fate of the "child" (or fetus or whatever...that's not the important thing here) as the woman? I mean, they both chose to have sex...and it's half his genetics and half hers... You'd think they made a joint decision about sex...shouldn't they have a joint decision about the abortion?

Wow...so angry..."my bad"... I looked it up on my own, thank you. Geesh! But, really, the point here is not the "science"...it's what's right or wrong. :headbang:
If I came across too angry for your liking - sorry you feel that way. You ain't seen me angry yet. Besides... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12005100&postcount=89)

You might also want to consider this (http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/warninglabel.jpg).

And grow a thicker skin or NSG will give you ulcers in less than a week. ;)

As for the science not being the point - don't try to use it as an argument, then. :p

If it's about what's right or wrong - I say it's completely up to the woman to decide about her body, and that does include the fetus which during pregnancy is part of her body.
You either support that people have a claim over their whole body - or that they don't, in which case everybody's in trouble.

I was kinda moving beyond just abortions...but it's a life-altering event so I thought it fit better than others. And, I don't think PONG had save points...so maybe it's only the Nintendo generation that suffers from this! ;)

But, no, forcing would be "uncomfortable"... I try to strike a balance between people having "free-will" (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and all that) and doing what's "right."

So, yeah...forcing = bad ... but abortion = just-as-bad (for me)... Hence the "uncomfortable" thing...

I'd probably just give the woman a very sad, disappointed look...

Okay, so give me your feedback on this. In the case of a "couple" getting pregnant...shouldn't the man have as much say in the fate of the "child" (or fetus or whatever...that's not the important thing here) as the woman? I mean, they both chose to have sex...and it's half his genetics and half hers... You'd think they made a joint decision about sex...shouldn't they have a joint decision about the abortion?

Meh. You're good in my book then. And the joint decision is the ideal, but it would ONLY be fair if the woman could share with the man the discomfort, pain and trauma (as in half for each) of carrying it to term if she didn't want it OR abort it if she did want it. As it stands, the man can't have the say simply because it's the woman's body, not the man's, that the baby is inhabiting and will (painfully) leave - and an abortion is also a traumatic thing.

If I came across too angry for your liking - sorry you feel that way. You ain't seen me angry yet. Besides... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12005100&postcount=89)

You might also want to consider this (http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/warninglabel.jpg).

And grow a thicker skin or NSG will give you ulcers in less than a week. ;)

As for the science not being the point - don't try to use it as an argument, then. :p

If it's about what's right or wrong - I say it's completely up to the woman to decide about her body, and that does include the fetus which during pregnancy is part of her body.
You either support that people have a claim over their whole body - or that they don't, in which case everybody's in trouble.

Thanks! :) Glad you weren't angry. My skins kinda thick...but tender...I'm just "complicated" like that. <ha-ha>

Anyhow, I just thought the irony of the American court system was intriguing. That's how the whole DNA thing got started.

Fundamentally, though, it all comes down to right or wrong. And, people can choose to do the wrong thing...but that doesn't mean the rest of society should help them do that.

So...if we have claim over our whole bodies, why then is suicide looked down upon so greatly?

Meh. You're good in my book then. And the joint decision is the ideal, but it would ONLY be fair if the woman could share with the man the discomfort, pain and trauma (as in half for each) of carrying it to term if she didn't want it. As it stands, the man can't have the say simply because it's the woman's body, not the man's, that the baby is inhabiting and will (painfully) leave.

Well, I guess that's where it's up to guys to be as caring as attentive as possible...because of the "noble" act of being a mom and putting up with pain, trauma, discomfort, morning-sickness, stretch-marks, etc...for nine months.

Although, if you say the man "can't have the say" simply because it's the woman's body, that's pretty cold. Doesn't she, in a way, waive exclusive rights to what happens to her body when she consents to sex? I mean, she (and, hopefully, he) know what could happen - pregnancy...and then...well, back to the joint decision thing. It's kinda like owning up to what you've chosen.

Birth Control and Abortion are the result of feminism, Of the idea that women should be above their husbands, should rule, even contradictory to the word of God. God made STDs to punish promiscuity and homosexuality because these things are abhorrent to him. The proper action to take, in response to the rise of STDs, would be to embrace God's authority and stop having promiscuous or homosexual sex. However, at the hands of the Feminist movement, we have instead tried to find a way out of it. Birth control is alike to the getaway car a bank robber might employ to escape the consequences of robbing a bank, and abortion is like the lockpicks that allow that criminal to escape from jail. If you are a woman considering having an abortion, consider that God gave you that child, as a punishment for your promiscuity and sexual carelessness. Who are you to tell God that you will not accept his judgement?

Truly, Abortion and birth control arise from a troubling new ideal in America, the ideal that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you are not caught.

I say that there need to be consequences. If you want to have promiscuous or homosexual sex, then Aids and unwanted children should be the reward you reap for it.

Wow it is true. Ignorance and religion do go hand in hand.

Thanks! :) Glad you weren't angry. My skins kinda thick...but tender...I'm just "complicated" like that. <ha-ha>
Yes, complicated sounds familiar...
So...if we have claim over our whole bodies, why then is suicide looked down upon so greatly?
My guess: Because after you commit suicide your dead body usually becomes a rotting burden for others.

Well, I guess that's where it's up to guys to be as caring as attentive as possible...because of the "noble" act of being a mom and putting up with pain, trauma, discomfort, morning-sickness, stretch-marks, etc...for nine months.

Although, if you say the man "can't have the say" simply because it's the woman's body, that's pretty cold. Doesn't she, in a way, waive exclusive rights to what happens to her body when she consents to sex? I mean, she (and, hopefully, he) know what could happen - pregnancy...and then...well, back to the joint decision thing. It's kinda like owning up to what you've chosen.

It boils down, again, to the issue of "it's her body" - because forcing a woman to abort a child the father doesn't want would be absurd as well, even though "the father should have this say". In this one case, again, woman's prerogative. Even because I don't see it as likely that a man would be able to "make up" for the child she didn't have on his account.

Although, if you say the man "can't have the say" simply because it's the woman's body, that's pretty cold. Doesn't she, in a way, waive exclusive rights to what happens to her body when she consents to sex? I mean, she (and, hopefully, he) know what could happen - pregnancy...and then...well, back to the joint decision thing. It's kinda like owning up to what you've chosen.

Absolutely not. Do I waive exclusive rights to the ownership of my house if I let you visit me? Do I waive exclusive rights to the ownership of my car if I give you a lift to work in it? One's right to one's own body is significantly more inalienable than either of those. There's a word for the practice of allowing one person control over another person's body: it's called "slavery," and it's not generally smiled upon.

Yes, complicated sounds familiar...

My guess: Because after you commit suicide your dead body usually becomes a rotting burden for others.

lol

I like that one! :)

Absolutely not. Do I waive exclusive rights to the ownership of my house if I let you visit me? Do I waive exclusive rights to the ownership of my car if I give you a lift to work in it? One's right to one's own body is significantly more inalienable than either of those. There's a word for the practice of allowing one person control over another person's body: it's called "slavery," and it's not generally smiled upon.

Not "slavery"... Heavens! :)

But you do accept responsiblity for the person's safety if you give them a lift in your car. I mean, it's your insurance that covers them in the event of an accident.

You waive some "rights" by allowing someone into your home...or, perhaps it would be better said that you accept certain "responsibilities."

Is that a little more clear?

Not "slavery"... Heavens! :)

But you do accept responsiblity for the person's safety if you give them a lift in your car. I mean, it's your insurance that covers them in the event of an accident.

You waive some "rights" by allowing someone into your home...or, perhaps it would be better said that you accept certain "responsibilities."

Is that a little more clear?

It was clear the first time. By consenting to sex, you consent to...sex. Not pregnancy. By consenting to give you a ride to work in my car, I consent to giving you a ride to work in my car, not letting your friend Steve borrow my car for nine months. My agreement to let you ride in my car does not mean I somehow owe you anything more than that ride to work, and were you, in the course of the ride to work, to pick up Steve and invite him to sleep in my backseat for the next several months, I would be entirely within my rights to say, "Um, no. Outta the car, Steve-o." Make sense? :)

Hey everybody!

Thanks for the lively chat! It was my first time on the forums...pretty fun! :)

So, catch y'all around...be sure to check out my nation, "Dei Iure"!

Cheers!
~Doug

It was clear the first time. By consenting to sex, you consent to...sex. Not pregnancy. By consenting to give you a ride to work in my car, I consent to giving you a ride to work in my car, not letting your friend Steve borrow my car for nine months. My agreement to let you ride in my car does not mean I somehow owe you anything more than that ride to work, and were you, in the course of the ride to work, to pick up Steve and invite him to sleep in my backseat for the next several months, I would be entirely within my rights to say, "Um, no. Outta the car, Steve-o." Make sense? :)

Okay...one more response before work. :)

Here's the catch...pregnancy is a likely risk of sex. So it's not as if somehow you're just unlucky if you get pregnant. Sex is HOW you get pregnant. So it doesn't just end with the orgasm. The decision carries onward.

But, I think the phrasing "assuming additional responsibilities" is the most accurate. You can certainly tell Steve-o to "hit the road." It is your car and "I" can't tell you whom you should invite along for the ride...but if YOU invite someone, you're assuming some responsiblity for their safety.

So, if you choose to have sex, you assume some responsibility for the possibility that you will get pregnant. And, as you've made this choice jointly with another person, the responsiblity (and, as such, the decision about the final determination) is also a joint decision. One will should not TRUMP the other. It was a joint decision...as should be decisions relating to the outcome.

Okay...truly, truly need to get to work... Thanks for chatting! :)

Okay...one more response before work. :)

Here's the catch...pregnancy is a likely risk of sex. So it's not as if somehow you're just unlucky if you get pregnant. Sex is HOW you get pregnant. So it doesn't just end with the orgasm. The decision carries onward.

Actually, no. Statistically, pregnancy is unlikely.

No problem. I'm always happy to talk nerdy to people. :D

Talk nerdy to me, baby....

=)

It's not a delusion...it's just that two pillars of our society cannot agree.

Religion says, "yes, as soon as the sperm and egg combine, you have a child."

What religion says this? There are some religious people who say this, but very few religions actually have that as a set part of their doctrine. In fact, if we were to go by the Biblical view, you have a human child 8-16 days after birth. If we go by Biblical-times to fairly recent views on the subject, abortion was only seen as wrong (and generally illegal) after the "quickening" - the point at which the mother began to feel movement.

Although, if you say the man "can't have the say" simply because it's the woman's body, that's pretty cold.

Is it? Suppose the two disagree. One has to take precedence over the other. If we say it is the man, we are allowing him to use her body for nine months against her will - pretty much the definition of slavery. That seems a bit colder than allowing an individual to determine what their own bodies will and will not be used for.

Doesn't she, in a way, waive exclusive rights to what happens to her body when she consents to sex?

No, absolutely not.

I mean, she (and, hopefully, he) know what could happen - pregnancy...and then...well, back to the joint decision thing. It's kinda like owning up to what you've chosen.

I think most of us can agree that a woman *should* consult the father in her decision-making. In fact, I think most of us can agree that what to do in the event of an unplanned pregnancy should be discussed before sex occurs. However, this is not the same thing as the man having an actual final say in the process. He cannot. If they both want an abortion, great. If they both want her to continue the pregnancy, great. If they both want different things, one or the other must take precedence. Since the woman's body is ht one involved, her opinion takes precedence. The final decision is hers.

Birth Control and Abortion are the result of feminism, Of the idea that women should be above their husbands, should rule, even contradictory to the word of God. God made STDs to punish promiscuity and homosexuality because these things are abhorrent to him. The proper action to take, in response to the rise of STDs, would be to embrace God's authority and stop having promiscuous or homosexual sex. However, at the hands of the Feminist movement, we have instead tried to find a way out of it. Birth control is alike to the getaway car a bank robber might employ to escape the consequences of robbing a bank, and abortion is like the lockpicks that allow that criminal to escape from jail. If you are a woman considering having an abortion, consider that God gave you that child, as a punishment for your promiscuity and sexual carelessness. Who are you to tell God that you will not accept his judgement?

Truly, Abortion and birth control arise from a troubling new ideal in America, the ideal that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you are not caught.

I say that there need to be consequences. If you want to have promiscuous or homosexual sex, then Aids and unwanted children should be the reward you reap for it.


Fuck off and go play with your Jesus doll.

;) Of course he'll 'play' with his Jesus doll. It's his secret way of indulging his homosexuals desires.

;) Of course he'll 'play' with his Jesus doll. It's his secret way of indulging his homosexuals desires.

Heh heh.

Roflmao. He's so deep in the closet he's seeing Christmans presents from 1953. After all, being harsh to gays is a only a way of hiding latent homosexuality. I bet Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell are gay as well.

No... I would support her. I would back her decision, offer encouragement if she needed it, attempt to understand why she decided to do the things she decided to do. But, that doesn't mean I'd agree with the things she might choose to do, and the after-effects of any such decisions would be MY problem to deal with.

I am assuming that this is only in reference to the Abortion issue rather than the infidelity situation.

Personally if I was with someone and they made a decision of that size at that stage without telling me I would have serious questions about exactly how they viewed our relationship - I can't see someone who viewed their partner as remotely equal taking a decision of such a size that greatly affects both parties in the couple. If I was with someone who came to that decision, came to me - told me their reasons and gave me a chance to say my piece/try to persuade otherwise then that would be different - unless they came and said something like "I don't give a shit what you think, this is what i'm doing" - in which case again I'd have to really question what a person thought about a relationship if they act with no regard for the other party in it.

If you WERE including the infidelity issue (missed your response before - if you think infidelity is an outlandish scenario then I don't know what land you are in - it is not exactly unheard of...) then I really don't know what to say to someone who would back their partners decision and offer encouragement in that case... Unless they don't believe in fidelity or the like in general...

Heh heh.

Roflmao. He's so deep in the closet he's seeing Christmans presents from 1953. After all, being harsh to gays is a only a way of hiding latent homosexuality. I bet Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell are gay as well.
You think? Those who take the most offense are likely those hiding their homosexual leanings.

I found that my boyfriend, who I can tease about being gay doesn't care and actually pokes fun at himself, has no problem with his sexuality. Whereas a person I no longer associate with, would practically explode into a self-righteous tirade if anyone suggested he was gay.

Is it? Suppose the two disagree. One has to take precedence over the other. If we say it is the man, we are allowing him to use her body for nine months against her will - pretty much the definition of slavery. That seems a bit colder than allowing an individual to determine what their own bodies will and will not be used for.


I think the man should have a say, in so much as if he does not want her to have an abortion he should be allowed to ask her for her reasons for wanting to have one, and should be able to try talk her out of it if he does not agree with the reasons - but ultimately the choice should rest with the woman.

Saying the man should have no say in it implies that the man should not even have the right to put forward his case to the woman and try to persuade her otherwise.

I think the man should have a say, in so much as if he does not want her to have an abortion he should be allowed to ask her for her reasons for wanting to have one, and should be able to try talk her out of it if he does not agree with the reasons - but ultimately the choice should rest with the woman.

Saying the man should have no say in it implies that the man should not even have the right to put forward his case to the woman and try to persuade her otherwise.

Not really. It simply implies that he has no power to enforce his wishes in the matter. If the ultimate choice rests with the woman, the result is that the man has no say. He can express his opinions. He can give advice. He can try his damnedest to convince her that what he thinks she should do is right. But, when it comes down to it, the decision is hers. She will decide what weight his wishes have, whether or not to take his advice, and what the right thing for her to do is. That is what "has no say" implies.

My mother has no say in where I live. She had no say in who I dated and she has no say in whether or not I get married. I am an adult and these decisions are mine to make. However, that does not mean I do not consult her, ask her opinions, and consider her advice and wishes. But the "say" here is all mine. I have chosen to include her in my decision making. I have chosen to consider what she says. And I ultimately made my choice on what to do.

You think? Those who take the most offense are likely those hiding their homosexual leanings.

I found that my boyfriend, who I can tease about being gay doesn't care and actually pokes fun at himself, has no problem with his sexuality. Whereas a person I no longer associate with, would practically explode into a self-righteous tirade if anyone suggested he was gay.

Kryo, I was commiting a thread hijack. If you want to see what it was going to change to, highlight this whole box.

Gay jokes about Redemption Army

MTAE is really having a productive day in the brainstorm department eh folks?

P.S. Red States are the most "godly." Red States also have the highest teenage pregnancy rates and STDs.

P.S. Red States are the most "godly." Red States also have the highest teenage pregnancy rates and STDs.Only because the damn Blue Staters have figured out how to evade the Lord's righteous wrath. Now, either God doesn't punish people for having promiscuous lifestyles if they use proper protection, or he's too weak to do it.

Kryo, I was commiting a thread hijack. If you want to see what it was going to change to, highlight this whole box.

Gay jokes about Redemption Army


So? It's a thread hijack. Do you really think that'll stop me? Nyah! :p

I'm assuming that the OP is also against the Heimlich Maneuver because choking to death is God's Punishment for talking and chewing your food at the same time. :p

... a troubling new ideal in America, the ideal that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you are not caught.


But truly, when you really take a good look at it, if you don't get caught, it really doesn't matter what you do (at least in America).


Redemtion Army, i get this strong feeling that you are male. Don't know why.

I think you should know that there are lots and lots of women out there, who are not feminists, but still believe that a woman's body is her own. And if you should ever be walking through the streets of... lets say... Manhatten, you could possibly get your teeth knocked right out of your head for saying somehting so gosh-darned close minded.

It's not a delusion...it's just that two pillars of our society cannot agree.

Religion says, "yes, as soon as the sperm and egg combine, you have a child."

Science says, "we haven't defined this in any particular term...as of yet..."

Society goes somewhere in the middle..."well, certainly after it's born, yeah...but before then...well...umm...it's kinda up in the air."

Fair enough?

Actually - religion says no such thing.

Some people, in ONE religion, say such a thing. On the other hand, many Christians have argued for mroe than a thousand years, that 'life' begins when the baby takes it's first breath...

Birth Control and Abortion are the result of feminism, Of the idea that women should be above their husbands, should rule, even contradictory to the word of God. God made STDs to punish promiscuity and homosexuality because these things are abhorrent to him. The proper action to take, in response to the rise of STDs, would be to embrace God's authority and stop having promiscuous or homosexual sex. However, at the hands of the Feminist movement, we have instead tried to find a way out of it. Birth control is alike to the getaway car a bank robber might employ to escape the consequences of robbing a bank, and abortion is like the lockpicks that allow that criminal to escape from jail. If you are a woman considering having an abortion, consider that God gave you that child, as a punishment for your promiscuity and sexual carelessness. Who are you to tell God that you will not accept his judgement?

Truly, Abortion and birth control arise from a troubling new ideal in America, the ideal that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you are not caught.

I say that there need to be consequences. If you want to have promiscuous or homosexual sex, then Aids and unwanted children should be the reward you reap for it.




... wait... are you blaming this on a group of strong minded women?

I am assuming that this is only in reference to the Abortion issue rather than the infidelity situation.

Personally if I was with someone and they made a decision of that size at that stage without telling me I would have serious questions about exactly how they viewed our relationship - I can't see someone who viewed their partner as remotely equal taking a decision of such a size that greatly affects both parties in the couple. If I was with someone who came to that decision, came to me - told me their reasons and gave me a chance to say my piece/try to persuade otherwise then that would be different - unless they came and said something like "I don't give a shit what you think, this is what i'm doing" - in which case again I'd have to really question what a person thought about a relationship if they act with no regard for the other party in it.


It may affect me... but only remotely. By which, I don't mean it is insignificant, I mean I am only remotely connected. If my wife chose to abort, it is HER body, and she gets to decide what goes on in it.

Yes - it is a big decision. Yes, I would hope we'd talk about it. Yes, I would hope she'd take my thoughts on board.

But, ultimately, the one of us who is being asked to push something the size of a melon, through a hole the size of a lemon, should get to chosse.


If you WERE including the infidelity issue (missed your response before - if you think infidelity is an outlandish scenario then I don't know what land you are in - it is not exactly unheard of...) then I really don't know what to say to someone who would back their partners decision and offer encouragement in that case... Unless they don't believe in fidelity or the like in general...

I believe in fidelity. For me. I don't own anyone else, so I don't get to decide what they do.

Why would I encourage my wife to have a relationship with another woman? Simple - another woman can do something, can be something, that I cannot ever be, for her. If she needs that, then it is my duty as a caring partner, to support her.

But, if she wanted a relationship with another man, I have to decide how much that impacts me... obviously... but my personal ability to 'handle it' isn't the casting vote on whether she does it.

abortion and birth control are ancient practices. they werent invented by the godless liberals in 1973.

actually they have been around since that dawn of time. Woman in ancient times used several methods the most common was drinking a tea made with simi - toxic plants that would induce labor or they just ate the plant, these same teas could also prevent conception. condoms have been around for almost as long and were usually made from sheep bladders

Do you mean that it should be taken as medicine, like hormone therapy? Then she should be able to take it, but should absolutely abstain from sex until and unless her condition allows her to stop the birth control and conceive a child.

first all birth control is a lot of hormone, BC is a form of hormone therapy that can treat many many different maladies in woman.

second, what if this woman is married? why should she abstain from pleasuring her husband as she is commanded to in the bible?

1 Corinthians 7
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control

...even contradictory to the word of God.

God made STDs to punish promiscuity and homosexuality because these things are abhorrent to him.

consider that God gave you that child, as a punishment for your promiscuity and sexual carelessness.

Prove any of the above statements.

... wait... are you blaming this on a group of strong minded women?

You'll get used to seeing that. :p

So? It's a thread hijack. Do you really think that'll stop me? Nyah! :p

Remeber, dudes, Redemption's just in heat from the kinky gay sex he just had. Right, TRA?

Take that, you self-righteous anal-retentive moron! (I'm talking to Redemption)

means to avoid the consequences of your actions.

Actually, no.
Its a means to prevent a chaotic future.

Birth Control and Abortion are the result of feminism, Of the idea that women should be above their husbands, should rule, even contradictory to the word of God. God made STDs to punish promiscuity and homosexuality because these things are abhorrent to him. The proper action to take, in response to the rise of STDs, would be to embrace God's authority and stop having promiscuous or homosexual sex. However, at the hands of the Feminist movement, we have instead tried to find a way out of it. Birth control is alike to the getaway car a bank robber might employ to escape the consequences of robbing a bank, and abortion is like the lockpicks that allow that criminal to escape from jail. If you are a woman considering having an abortion, consider that God gave you that child, as a punishment for your promiscuity and sexual carelessness. Who are you to tell God that you will not accept his judgement?

Truly, Abortion and birth control arise from a troubling new ideal in America, the ideal that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you are not caught.

I say that there need to be consequences. If you want to have promiscuous or homosexual sex, then Aids and unwanted children should be the reward you reap for it.
Oh for the love of flying spaghetti...

Analogy time! Perhaps this shall strike a chord with the Republicanness in TRA.
You get attacked by terrorists. What do you do? Actually try to combat terrorism, or whimper, hide in the corner and try not to annoy the terrorists? Because that seems to be what you're figuratively suggesting.

Oh for the love of flying spaghetti...

Analogy time! Perhaps this shall strike a chord with the Republicanness in TRA.
You get attacked by terrorists. What do you do? Actually try to combat terrorism, or whimper, hide in the corner and try not to annoy the terrorists? Because that seems to be what you're figuratively suggesting.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand who the terrorists are in your Analogy.

Birth Control and Abortion are the result of feminism, Yay Feminism!

I'm sorry, but I don't understand who the terrorists are in your Analogy.
Me too.

Those of you who think God is against permiscuity(with the use of condoms) and homosexaulity: Why?
God has to have a reason. I don't respect anyone who can't come up with a reason for their opinions.

Ah freedom. This redemption guy can bitch and whine about birth control, the bible belt, abortion and not having sex for pleasure....but
Abortion will continue, legal or not.
Birth control methods are an ingenious invention. And I'm pretty sure sex feels good for a reason.

It may affect me... but only remotely. By which, I don't mean it is insignificant, I mean I am only remotely connected. If my wife chose to abort, it is HER body, and she gets to decide what goes on in it.
Yes - it is a big decision. Yes, I would hope we'd talk about it. Yes, I would hope she'd take my thoughts on board.
But, ultimately, the one of us who is being asked to push something the size of a melon, through a hole the size of a lemon, should get to chosse.
This is kinda what I said.



I believe in fidelity. For me. I don't own anyone else, so I don't get to decide what they do.
Of course you don't get to decide what they do, however they do not get to decide that you have to stick with them dispite their actions. You may, or you may not.


Why would I encourage my wife to have a relationship with another woman? Simple - another woman can do something, can be something, that I cannot ever be, for her. If she needs that, then it is my duty as a caring partner, to support her.
But, if she wanted a relationship with another man, I have to decide how much that impacts me... obviously... but my personal ability to 'handle it' isn't the casting vote on whether she does it.
It's strange - infidelity (assuming condoms are used and the relationship is purely physical) affects the other person (in practical terms) much more remotely than having an abortion of a planned pregnancy.

How can you say another man cannot give her something that you can't? Just because two men have penises does not mean they are capeable of giving the same experience to a woman (or man).

I find it very odd that you would view it as your duty to support her in the scenario - it is your right to choose to support her, but not something you HAVE to do. It is equally your right to. You view it as your duty as a caring partner to support her, however you don't seem to view it as her duty as a caring partner to respect your wish for fidelity - to emotionally support you?

Personally I would be fine with my missus getting it on with another woman, not because I feel it is my duty to support her but because I like the idea. This is not the case with men. If however she knew I did not want her to sleep with another woman then she is free to go do it, but she would know that I would not be there when she got back.
The support we give each other is based on mutual respect and understanding - both of us know that if we do something to demean that respect then the support that was based on it goes out the window. She knows that if she sleeps with some guy then I won't be there when she comes back, just as I know that if I get it on with some girl not to expect her to stick about. Love is no more a reason to tolerate emotional abuse than it is a reason to tolerate physical abuse - and I personally would view such an action as an act of emotional abuse.

I also find it strange that you get to decide how much that affects you - to me I have as much ability to decide how my emotions react to emotional stimuli as I have to decide how my nerves react to physical stimuli. I can override them both to an extent, but I have no control over the pain (or joy) that either can cause or the damage they can do. If I pick up a burning coal I do not get to decide that it does not burn me any more than I get to choose how an emotional blow affects me. In this vein I would find it as difficult to believe that someone who delibrately choose to cause unneeded emotional pain (without consent) loves the person they are with as much as I would find it difficult to believe that someone who caused physical pain (without consent) loves their partner. In the UK the police back this up too - spousal emotional abuse is viewed as domestic violence in the same way as physical abuse.

This is what I like about NSG - you get insights into so many different lifestyles.

Your are obviously happy in your relationship, and it seems ot work for you - but I just find it a real eye opener into how people choose to live.

Birth Control and Abortion are the result of feminism, Of the idea that women should be above their husbands, should rule, even contradictory to the word of God. God made STDs to punish promiscuity and homosexuality because these things are abhorrent to him. The proper action to take, in response to the rise of STDs, would be to embrace God's authority and stop having promiscuous or homosexual sex. However, at the hands of the Feminist movement, we have instead tried to find a way out of it. Birth control is alike to the getaway car a bank robber might employ to escape the consequences of robbing a bank, and abortion is like the lockpicks that allow that criminal to escape from jail. If you are a woman considering having an abortion, consider that God gave you that child, as a punishment for your promiscuity and sexual carelessness. Who are you to tell God that you will not accept his judgement?

Truly, Abortion and birth control arise from a troubling new ideal in America, the ideal that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you are not caught.

I say that there need to be consequences. If you want to have promiscuous or homosexual sex, then Aids and unwanted children should be the reward you reap for it.
God gives children as punishment? Somehow I don't think we worship the same God. Life is sacred, a child is a blessing, not a punishment. I am vehemtly against abortition (except in rape, incest, or life of the mother cases)(on a side note, I also do not think that it is the governments job to codify my personal beliefs. I am (for the most part) against anti-abortion legislature)(I like parenthesis) yet I think that children as a punishment is a despicable and detestiable idea. My best friend had pre-marital sex. She did not have an abortion. Was the child a punishment to her? No. It was one of the greatest blessings she has ever recieved.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand who the terrorists are in your Analogy.

And considering the autopsy you're suffering in this thread, you might not want to keep posting here. Claiming to speak for God, I see. That's sacrilege. Plain and simple. So, before you push your beliefs on others and try to allow your religion to invade government, you might want to, y'know, FOLLOW your religion.

FFS, stop feeding this troll.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand who the terrorists are in your Analogy.
The terrorists are irrelevant. What is relevant is that if you are going along, minding your own business (and sex is something humans naturally do... it's required for the practical survival of the human race...) and you suffer unforseen consequences for it, there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to counter those consequences.

in response to the outburst of redemption army::

look dear, i'm not one to promote abortion any day, but the way you've gone about it seems a bit overdramatic. yes, it is an ugly thing to see children die. yes, it is SOMETIMES caused by the idiocy of people, but not always. we work in a world where extremes and absolutes get you yelled at or beaten, so try not to aggravate the angry masses...i do believe they're fit to kill the next person who yells at them about their personal lives. secondly, God does not abhor contraceptives. in the old testament, it is true that the "waste of the seed" is a sin, however, if you believe in the new testament as well, you know that the old laws don't always apply. for instance, in the old testament, eating shellfish was also a sin, but i do believe i've seen a mighty fair amount of Christians eating shellfish, even at weddings. so let's not get carried away with our assumptions, alright dear? children are blessings, it is true, and it is a pity that they die. however, abortion didn't rise out of feminism. abortion has been around since the sin of adultery,my dear, so don't put the blame on feminist shoulders. the egyptians used an herb to expel the young fetus, the koreans had a drink made of some bitter paste, the romans left their children on steps to die...it has been a long tradition, the murder of children...a long sad tradition, but the blame is upon the choices people make, not by the ideals one group holds. though it seems the same thing, the nuances of it all rarely are. well, that's my bit. hopefully i've said something for you to think on. farewell dear, try not to get too lost in the shadows.

in response to the outburst of redemption army::

look dear, i'm not one to promote abortion any day, but the way you've gone about it seems a bit overdramatic. yes, it is an ugly thing to see children die. yes, it is SOMETIMES caused by the idiocy of people, but not always. we work in a world where extremes and absolutes get you yelled at or beaten, so try not to aggravate the angry masses...i do believe they're fit to kill the next person who yells at them about their personal lives. secondly, God does not abhor contraceptives. in the old testament, it is true that the "waste of the seed" is a sin, however, if you believe in the new testament as well, you know that the old laws don't always apply. for instance, in the old testament, eating shellfish was also a sin, but i do believe i've seen a mighty fair amount of Christians eating shellfish, even at weddings. so let's not get carried away with our assumptions, alright dear? children are blessings, it is true, and it is a pity that they die. however, abortion didn't rise out of feminism. abortion has been around since the sin of adultery,my dear, so don't put the blame on feminist shoulders. the egyptians used an herb to expel the young fetus, the koreans had a drink made of some bitter paste, the romans left their children on steps to die...it has been a long tradition, the murder of children...a long sad tradition, but the blame is upon the choices people make, not by the ideals one group holds. though it seems the same thing, the nuances of it all rarely are. well, that's my bit. hopefully i've said something for you to think on. farewell dear, try not to get too lost in the shadows.

this is a great first post and i really like it but i just wish that the poster had bothered with basic english you know capitalisation and punctuation and that other sorta stuff i dont understand cuz that wouldve been really cool u know cuz that sorta stuff helps me understand what the fuck ppl are saying dear

this is a great first post and i really like it but i just wish that the poster had bothered with basic english you know capitalisation and punctuation and that other sorta stuff i dont understand cuz that wouldve been really cool u know cuz that sorta stuff helps me understand what the fuck ppl are saying

i blame freedom.

If you are a woman considering having an abortion, consider that God gave you that child, as a punishment for your promiscuity and sexual carelessness.

No. Your promiscuity and sexual carelessness gave you that child.
A new life is the greates gift, as most anti-abortionists claim.
Hence, whatever gave you a kid, gave you the greatest gift.
So promiscuity and sexual carelessness should be OK for anti-abortionists.

Hahahaha.

It's fun to mess with their minds.

If a child is punishment, then why would people want one in the first place? :D

Birth Control and Abortion are the result of feminism, Of the idea that women should be above their husbands, should rule, even contradictory to the word of God. God made STDs to punish promiscuity and homosexuality because these things are abhorrent to him. The proper action to take, in response to the rise of STDs, would be to embrace God's authority and stop having promiscuous or homosexual sex. However, at the hands of the Feminist movement, we have instead tried to find a way out of it. Birth control is alike to the getaway car a bank robber might employ to escape the consequences of robbing a bank, and abortion is like the lockpicks that allow that criminal to escape from jail. If you are a woman considering having an abortion, consider that God gave you that child, as a punishment for your promiscuity and sexual carelessness. Who are you to tell God that you will not accept his judgement?

Truly, Abortion and birth control arise from a troubling new ideal in America, the ideal that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you are not caught.

I say that there need to be consequences. If you want to have promiscuous or homosexual sex, then Aids and unwanted children should be the reward you reap for it.


Hahahah hahahah hahahahahahahha hhhahhahahhahahha hahhhahhahhhahhhahhahhahhah !


Ohhh dear me. Thanks.

i blame freedom.

i blame bill clinton (and ee cummings)

i blame freedom.

i blame bill clinton (and ee cummings)

Blame Canada.

If a child is punishment, then why would people want one in the first place? :D

Masochism?

i blame bill clinton (and ee cummings)

*Beavis and Butthead impression*

Huh huh.

He said cumming.

Huh huh.

Masochism?
For that, you get The Official Weasel Seal of Approval/ You also win this thread, and any other thread of your choosing.

The terrorists are irrelevant. What is relevant is that if you are going along, minding your own business (and sex is something humans naturally do... it's required for the practical survival of the human race...) and you suffer unforseen consequences for it, there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to counter those consequences.

that's just it. not only is sex for any purpose but to create children completely unnatural, but STDs and pregnancy can hardly be "unforseen." And when those consequences are set forth by God, it is wrong to try and avoid them.

For that, you get The Official Weasel Seal of Approval/ You also win this thread, and any other thread of your choosing.

Woot!


not only is sex for any purpose but to create children completely unnatural,

Not only is this a silly statement based on...well...reality, but it is completely anti-Biblical as well. Where exactly are you coming from?

And when those consequences are set forth by God, it is wrong to try and avoid them.

God made it so that going to work could mean I end up with the flu. Is it wrong for me to get a flu shot?

that's just it. not only is sex for any purpose but to create children completely unnatural, but STDs and pregnancy can hardly be "unforseen." And when those consequences are set forth by God, it is wrong to try and avoid them.

It exists in nature ... by definition it is natural. You must learn to use this thing called a dictionary

And you fail at showing any evidence that god had anything to do with it

that's just it. not only is sex for any purpose but to create children completely unnatural,

Bullshit. This has been disproven not only in humans, but in other primates, dolphins and all sorts of other mammals. Unless you propose that animals are somehow "unnatural" themselves. Given your idiotic perception of reality that wouldn't surprise me.

that's just it. not only is sex for any purpose but to create children completely unnatural, but STDs and pregnancy can hardly be "unforseen." And when those consequences are set forth by God, it is wrong to try and avoid them.In the vain hope that you'll actually respond to this: What basis did you infer the "natural" purpose of sex from?

Oh for the love of flying spaghetti...

Analogy time! Perhaps this shall strike a chord with the Republicanness in TRA.
You get attacked by terrorists. What do you do? Actually try to combat terrorism, or whimper, hide in the corner and try not to annoy the terrorists? Because that seems to be what you're figuratively suggesting.

So...babies are analogous with terrorists?

Or maybe terrorists really have nothing to do with abortion?

Those of you who think God is against permiscuity(with the use of condoms) and homosexaulity: Why?
God has to have a reason. I don't respect anyone who can't come up with a reason for their opinions.

In the early Middle Ages and prior, the early Church compiled numerous decretals, laws, etc. that have a foundation in Biblical texts but are also the interpretation of significant church leaders of the era. The most significant of these is a compilation by a man named Gratian, who brought together the largest and most widely accepted compilation under the Decretum of Gratian.

The idea that God opposes birth control as a means to facilitate sexual promiscuity comes from several similar interpretations of Biblical verses. Of these, the most prominent is the belief in the "one flesh" concept as described by the apostle Paul, of two bodies, male and female, united through sexual consummation. The idea that children should not be excluded as a possibility derives from the teachings and writings of St. Augustine, which identifies the three essential elements of marriage as procreation, fidelity and lifelong unity.

As for homosexuality, there are several Biblical verses, Romans has a few, that imply God's opposition to homosexuality.

In the vain hope that you'll actually respond to this: What basis did you infer the "natural" purpose of sex from?

Early canonical teachings. St. Augustine, I believe, first laid out that the purpose of sex, to consummate marriage and facilitate the "one flesh" doctrine, thus falls subject to the three essential elements of marriage: one of these being procreation.

Early canonical teachings. St. Augustine, I believe, first laid out that the purpose of sex, to consummate marriage and facilitate the "one flesh" doctrine, thus falls subject to the three essential elements of marriage: one of these being procreation.That has nothing to do with natural. That's a social construct by humans.

That has nothing to do with natural. That's a social construct by humans.

Well, if we discard all social constructs, including civilization, then I can attempt to procreate with any and all women that I can physically subdue.

That has nothing to do with natural. That's a social construct by humans.

Not to mention that it says procreation is one of the purposes, not the sole purpose.

That has nothing to do with natural. That's a social construct by humans.

It is natural in the sense that is thus interpreted as "natural" for humans--which, by canonical definition, are not explicitly natural as a deer or a rock, for example. Thus natural definitions in this context refer to what is considered appropriate for humanity, which will of course be different than the otherwise natural world.

Not to mention that it says procreation is one of the purposes, not the sole purpose.

Procreation is not a purpose. It is an element, intrinsic to the doctrinal belief of marriage. The other two (of which procreation is one such element) are fidelity and lifelong unity.

that's just it. not only is sex for any purpose but to create children completely unnatural, but STDs and pregnancy can hardly be "unforseen." And when those consequences are set forth by God, it is wrong to try and avoid them.

So God is perfectly willing to punish the CHILD (in having unwilling parents), as well as to create a disease that affects innocent people that get blood transfusions or simply get involved in an accident in which their blood touches other one's blood in order to satisfy HIS need for a revenge? Your god is the epithome of all evil, and I would gladly side with most entities against him! And we would win, TRUE GOD willing!

It is natural in the sense that is thus interpreted as "natural" for humans--which, by canonical definition, are not explicitly natural as a deer or a rock, for example. Thus natural definitions in this context refer to what is considered appropriate for humanity, which will of course be different than the otherwise natural world.Of course. This would only apply to Christians though, and not humanity.

Of course. This would only apply to Christians though, and not humanity.

Well, naturally. ;)

Of course, at the time this was laid out, Christians considered their mores to be universal...which is why so many tribal customs were considered "barbaric" and "inhuman."

But yes, if you don't subscribe to Christian doctrine, this does not apply to you as it cannot be enforced.

Birth Control and Abortion are the result of feminism, Of the idea that women should be above their husbands, should rule, even contradictory to the word of God. God made STDs to punish promiscuity and homosexuality because these things are abhorrent to him. The proper action to take, in response to the rise of STDs, would be to embrace God's authority and stop having promiscuous or homosexual sex. However, at the hands of the Feminist movement, we have instead tried to find a way out of it. Birth control is alike to the getaway car a bank robber might employ to escape the consequences of robbing a bank, and abortion is like the lockpicks that allow that criminal to escape from jail. If you are a woman considering having an abortion, consider that God gave you that child, as a punishment for your promiscuity and sexual carelessness. Who are you to tell God that you will not accept his judgement?

Truly, Abortion and birth control arise from a troubling new ideal in America, the ideal that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you are not caught.

I say that there need to be consequences. If you want to have promiscuous or homosexual sex, then Aids and unwanted children should be the reward you reap for it.

http://home.maine.rr.com/waassaap/Forum%20Pictures/donttalkshit.jpg

Procreation is not a purpose. It is an element, intrinsic to the doctrinal belief of marriage. The other two (of which procreation is one such element) are fidelity and lifelong unity.

Then you disagree that sex for the sole purpose of procreation is the only form of "natural" sex for human beings?

Well, if you really want to cut back on abortion, and you really want to punish someone for it, here's the solution.

If a woman gets an abortion, and the state finds out, she must name the man who impregnated her.

Now, that's enough proof for us - she just has to name a guy.

Then we rip his balls off in public with a belt sander.

I'm sure that would also cut down on the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Well, if you really want to cut back on abortion, and you really want to punish someone for it, here's the solution.

If a woman gets an abortion, and the state finds out, she must name the man who impregnated her.

Now, that's enough proof for us - she just has to name a guy.

Then we rip his balls off in public with a belt sander.

I'm sure that would also cut down on the number of unwanted pregnancies.

We get some strange people posting on these here boards.

Well, if you really want to cut back on abortion, and you really want to punish someone for it, here's the solution.

If a woman gets an abortion, and the state finds out, she must name the man who impregnated her.

Now, that's enough proof for us - she just has to name a guy.

Then we rip his balls off in public with a belt sander.

I'm sure that would also cut down on the number of unwanted pregnancies.

We get some strange people posting on these here boards.

Man-hating lesbian by any chance?:p

Man-hating lesbian by any chance?:p

Nah, just been cheated on methinks ;)

Nah, just been cheated on methinks ;)

*makes note to self.....hide all proof and deny all knowledge*

Billie Jean is not my lover....the kid is not my son etc etc.:p :D

We get some strange people posting on these here boards.

It's an interesting idea though, I for one think that it would work rather well.

Well, if you really want to cut back on abortion, and you really want to punish someone for it, here's the solution.

If a woman gets an abortion, and the state finds out, she must name the man who impregnated her.

Now, that's enough proof for us - she just has to name a guy.

Then we rip his balls off in public with a belt sander.

I'm sure that would also cut down on the number of unwanted pregnancies.

So, if a woman wants to take revenge on a guy - ANY guy - she can just get some artificial insemination, an abortion and have the state tear off his balls?

What's wrong with being promiscuous or gay?:confused:

Last time I checked, a little thing called civilsed, tolerent reason was used....

It's an interesting idea though, I for one think that it would work rather well.
*avoids Manchester for LIFE*

So, if a woman wants to take revenge on a guy - ANY guy - she can just get some artificial insemination, an abortion and have the state tear off his balls?

Yes, and that's a good thing. It would teach men to behave with politeness and respect to women. They wouldn't want to offend one if the consequence is getting their balls removed. :p

This is the thread maker.
:p :sniper:
The guy with the gun? Someone a smart person hired.
We can respect the fact that you believe those things, just respect we have our own beliefs and just LEAVE US ALONE AND STOP TRYING TO IMPOSE THAT STUFF ON US! GOODNESS!!!!!!!! :upyours:

*avoids Manchester for LIFE*

That's okay, I know your name and that's all I need to implicate you if this new law comes to pass. :)

That's okay, I know your name and that's all I need to implicate you if this new law comes to pass. :)

Uh-oh!

*moves to outer Mongolia*
:D

Birth Control and Abortion are the result of feminism, Of the idea that women should be above their husbands, should rule, even contradictory to the word of God.

Since when did feminists believe female superiority? All we want is gender equality and an end to absurd sex roles.

God made STDs to punish promiscuity and homosexuality because these things are abhorrent to him. The proper action to take, in response to the rise of STDs, would be to embrace God's authority and stop having promiscuous or homosexual sex.

Huh, I was under the impression that your God loved his creations. Its not particularly loving to sic a bout of gonnoreic syphlis on someone for saying "It's my body, damnit!"

However, at the hands of the Feminist movement, we have instead tried to find a way out of it. Birth control is alike to the getaway car a bank robber might employ to escape the consequences of robbing a bank, and abortion is like the lockpicks that allow that criminal to escape from jail. If you are a woman considering having an abortion, consider that God gave you that child, as a punishment for your promiscuity and sexual carelessness. Who are you to tell God that you will not accept his judgement?

So he gave the "gift" of life in punishment for acting no different than any man would? Your God is a prick. I would be inclined to think that the God you worship is different than the God most Christians worship, because most of them would never spew this bile.

Truly, Abortion and birth control arise from a troubling new ideal in America, the ideal that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you are not caught.

Troubling? New? Birth Control and abortion have been around since the beginning of civlization. It is not new, nor is it troubling to most people.

I say that there need to be consequences. If you want to have promiscuous or homosexual sex, then Aids and unwanted children should be the reward you reap for it.

Since when do people choose homosexuality? And how is chastity a solution to some easily avoidable diseases & and somewhat avoidalbe pregnancy?

that's just it. not only is sex for any purpose but to create children completely unnatural, but STDs and pregnancy can hardly be "unforseen." And when those consequences are set forth by God, it is wrong to try and avoid them.

As the "unnatural" part of your post has already been addressed, I'll focus on the next clause. Of course both STDs and pregnancy can be "unforseen." Before anyone had ever heard of AIDS, people could not very well predict getting it. Nowadays, if you are a monogamous married woman, you probably won't predict that you'll get AIDS from your partner - and yet monogamous married women are the fastest growing demographic affected by AIDS. In such cases, STDs are clearly "unforseen." Likewise, people don't tend to predict getting raped, or having condoms break, or having other birth control methods fail. It happens, and those pregnancies are unquestionably "unforseen." There are plenty of other circumstances in which STDs and pregnancies can be difficult or impossible to predict, but I think I've listed enough to render your statement demonstrably absurd. :)

Birth Control and Abortion are the result of feminism, Of the idea that women should be above their husbands, should rule, even contradictory to the word of God. God made STDs to punish promiscuity and homosexuality because these things are abhorrent to him. The proper action to take, in response to the rise of STDs, would be to embrace God's authority and stop having promiscuous or homosexual sex. However, at the hands of the Feminist movement, we have instead tried to find a way out of it. Birth control is alike to the getaway car a bank robber might employ to escape the consequences of robbing a bank, and abortion is like the lockpicks that allow that criminal to escape from jail. If you are a woman considering having an abortion, consider that God gave you that child, as a punishment for your promiscuity and sexual carelessness. Who are you to tell God that you will not accept his judgement?

Truly, Abortion and birth control arise from a troubling new ideal in America, the ideal that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you are not caught.

I say that there need to be consequences. If you want to have promiscuous or homosexual sex, then Aids and unwanted children should be the reward you reap for it.

This is the worst thing I have ever heard. Pregnancy and childbirth is a choice. Do you think that the Lord really wants unwanted and unplanned babies? Why? The Lord gave us a brain to plan with.

When I read what you wrote it makes me want to vomit. I think babies should be planned. I think babies are not a punishment but a blessing. I think birth control is smart. If a man or a woman do not want a baby they should be able to abort it or in the father's case sign a document that waives all his all rights and duties including child support to that child. So many people want to adopt anyway.

Your post was sooo icky.

I am a vehement opponent of homosexuality and feminism and even I found the Redemption Army's original post to be offensive.

This is the worst thing I have ever heard. Pregnancy and childbirth is a choice. Do you think that the Lord really wants unwanted and unplanned babies? Why? The Lord gave us a brain to plan with.

When I read what you wrote it makes me want to vomit. I think babies should be planned. I think babies are not a punishment but a blessing. I think birth control is smart. If a man or a woman do not want a baby they should be able to abort it or in the father's case sign a document that waives all his all rights and duties including child support to that child. So many people want to adopt anyway.

Your post was sooo icky.
After all, if babies were a punishment for sin, why would 'decent' folk want them? Why would someone want a kid if it was a punishment for some unseen action?