|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:31 pm
Mcphee I really don't have any idea what pride there is in abortion.
You're deciding to opt out of a pregnancy, because you feel like you deserve to fit your clothes more than someone deserves to live.
What a sad worldview. Honestly. gonk Yah that is pretty said but some did have abortions cause of that reason. They are more about looks then others lifes. I can understand if they got it done cause of a medical emergency (life and death situations) but if they don't want or can take care of it then that's what adoption is for, at least then they have a chance and people could help fix the system as well.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:21 pm
Beware the Jabberwock You're still a virgin because you hold the same beliefs/morals as your parents. However this is a discussion of Nature vs. Nurture, which really is not going to be solved between you and I.
However; you assume citizens will donate? You hope they'll donate. Well that's great, for the people who do. Unfortunitally time and time again society has proven to be completely self serving. To quote 'Hotel Rwanda'; "I think that people will watch this on TV and say 'that's horrible' and then go back to eating their dinners."
You think private organizations should help, and yet you give them no way to sustain themselves except the HOPE that people will donate money. Well what makes you think that people are going to donate them money if they're unwilling to do so now, through their taxes? Yes some organizations will be able to sustain themselves but more will flounder and fail. You're probably right. But just because they likely won't do it by themselves, we should force them to? It's the ethics of the thing. People shouldn't be forced to pay for this kind of thing. Quote: Part of being in a society, a communitee, is helping out one another. It's not all about looking out for #1 and the others can hope that someone else takes care of them. That's true. But that's not part of what a government is about. The government is about protecting the people, that's all. It's not about helping everyone live the perfect life. It's not about feeding and clothing everyone, unless it's Communism. Our fundamental views on government are different, Miranda. If I'm not mistaken, you're a bit more towards the Socialism sside of things? Socialism basically says what you're saying: The government should give free health care, free transportation, lots of free stuff. Libertarianism says almost the exact opposite. It's not the government's job to make sure that your life goes smoothly. That's your job. The government just protects your freedom to do so. Quote: I never said that you don't love and support women; I know you so I know differently. But what are you doing to show them that? You're fighting against some of their options, because some of them CAN'T afford contraception. Through doing this you're simply telling them that they shouldn't be having sex at all, which truthfully isn't the message that they need. The message that they need is, "We are here for you - no matter what." Because someone has to be and if it isn't us, than who is it? The abortion clinics. I am here for them, the government isn't. Gah, the whole problem is what we both see the government's job as. From what you've said the problem is that people don't see other people as supporting them. Okay. What the hell does that have to do with contraception? Do you think that, with free contraception, that parents will start supporting their children's decisions more? That society will see pregnancy and motherhood as a good thing? No. It won't change anything, except it might make pregnancies less common. But then again, look at PP. They are the ones giving away free condoms currently, no? Has it changed anything?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:26 pm
WatersMoon110 Tiger of the Fire WatersMoon110 Beware the Jabberwock kp606 Hot sweat, slippery rubber...
why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? I say, find a way to do your crack WHILE having sex and you've got it made.Crack is a rock. Cocaine is a powder. If you are going to insult Pro-Choicers and call us all crack-whores, at least you can get the drug right. You're insulting the crack-whore by comparaing them to choicers lol How about not assuming things and mackign your self look like an a** and instede see her comments for what they are, pure humor. An exageration purposfuly drawn out to one of the most extensive extremes rolleyes So I'm not allowed to joke in here? Even when others are joking? You didn't sound like you were joking; You sounded angry. I appologize. @Freearsenal: Yes, but you can keep your hands off. stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:02 pm
I.Am @Freearsenal: Yes, but you can keep your hands off. stare b*****d... Oh well. ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:16 pm
refering to the first page, as of "women need abortionz cuz they culd die dunt u car3 about the l1ves ov womun?!"
i would like to say, why base the rule on the exception? i say fine, life or death is a good excuse. let the woman abort if she will die. but what does this have to do with the 1.2 million others per year who just decided to skimp on birth control?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:35 am
Beware the Jabberwock [ You're still a virgin because you hold the same beliefs/morals as your parents.I'm don't. To be honest, I'm a virgin, and I don't feel it's necessary to be penetrated. It's not even a moral issue. Even if premarital sex were okay with everyone it's not a need, let alone something big enough to make me risk motherhood when I'm not ready for it. I'm not going to die without it like I would if I were deprived of food and water. I understand many people want to have sex but there are: *abused people who need shelters *women kicked out of their homes at 16 for being pregnant *orphanages *a family huddling together on a cold night to stay warm on the sidewalk, hoping what scraps they do have, and what chump change they managed to scratch together isn't stolen by the morning. ...and our government should fund of all things, contraceptives? They're not necessary and it's not necessary for people to have sex anymore than it's not necessary for me to entertain myself through going to a movie or ammusment park if I lack the cash. I can understand funding places for women that would encourage them to keep their babies (like for instance a woman's shelter), but they don't have to have sex. They can wait to get some money elsewhere, and if they're not getting a lot of income then sex should be the LAST thing on their agenda, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:57 am
which is why i'm only going to do oral if she wants it. i'm keeping my pants on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:29 am
Lady__Miko Beware the Jabberwock [ You're still a virgin because you hold the same beliefs/morals as your parents.I'm don't. To be honest, I'm a virgin, and I don't feel it's necessary to be penetrated. It's not even a moral issue. Even if premarital sex were okay with everyone it's not a need, let alone something big enough to make me risk motherhood when I'm not ready for it. I'm not going to die without it like I would if I were deprived of food and water. I understand many people want to have sex but there are: *abused people who need shelters *women kicked out of their homes at 16 for being pregnant *orphanages *a family huddling together on a cold night to stay warm on the sidewalk, hoping what scraps they do have, and what chump change they managed to scratch together isn't stolen by the morning. ...and our government should fund of all things, contraceptives? They're not necessary and it's not necessary for people to have sex anymore than it's not necessary for me to entertain myself through going to a movie or ammusment park if I lack the cash. I can understand funding places for women that would encourage them to keep their babies (like for instance a woman's shelter), but they don't have to have sex. They can wait to get some money elsewhere, and if they're not getting a lot of income then sex should be the LAST thing on their agenda, anyway.
Meaning that arguing that point was useless because it's a huge debate which even leading sociologist and psychologist have not been able to determine.
AKA there was no need to continue along that path.
Secondly, yes those are all things that I'd like to see funded by the government. HOWEVER I like that you pointed out the pregnant 16 year old who gets kicked out of her house by her parents. That's EXACTLY the point I'm trying to make.
You're all for supporting this girl and her choices now that she IS pregnant. Someone could argue that the pregnancy is her choice, that she doesn't NEED to be pregnant so we shouldn't support her. Someone could argue that GETTING pregnant was her choice, she didn't need to have sex so we shouldn't support her. However they're looked down upon because if we did that she'd be much more likely to turn to abortion.
But WHY are you caring for her and her decisions only now that she's pregnant? And WHY is she that way? It's obvious that she had sex, was she on birth control? Chances are no. Why wasn't she on birth control? Because she couldn't afford it maybe. "Well then she shouldn't have been having sex." Well guess what. SHE ******** DID. They ******** do. They have sex, and sitting here and saying "well they shouldn't have" isn't going to stop it.
And NOW THAT SHE'S PREGNANT you've decided that it's okay for the government to help her. Now you've decided that the government should pay for her upkeep, and pay for the childs upkeep. How is this less cost effective than giving money to organizations that help PREVENT this sort of thing from happening?
Yes, there are more important things to fund than birth control. However birth control helps prevent the NEED to fund some of those things. That's like saying that the government shouldn't fund programs to teach young women to love themselves and how to get out of abusive relationships, because we should only worry about the ones who are already in the predicament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:44 am
I.Am From what you've said the problem is that people don't see other people as supporting them. Okay. What the hell does that have to do with contraception? Do you think that, with free contraception, that parents will start supporting their children's decisions more? That society will see pregnancy and motherhood as a good thing? No. It won't change anything, except it might make pregnancies less common. But then again, look at PP. They are the ones giving away free condoms currently, no? Has it changed anything?
Great sentiment and all, however by making that statement it's not supporting them, or their decisions. You may not like or condone all of their decisions but you should at least be able to support the person. I know your intentions are the best, however do you really think that that teen is going to feel supported when she can't find anywhere that she can obtain birth control? Or if the only place that she can obtain birth control easily, and cheaply, is say PP, what do you think is likely to happen if she DOES get pregnant? Do you really think she's then going to go, "You know, PP has been wrong this whole time I'm pregnant with a child, not a blob of tissue."
And lastly, yes PP does give out condoms however firstly, they give out REALLY shitty condoms. Condoms don't work as well as BC and much more can go wrong with them. Some people are allergic to latex and PP only gives out male condoms. People going to PP and picking up condoms are already there for another reason, STD testing, birth control, a PAP smear or an abortion. Either way they're already sexually active.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:48 am
Lady__Miko Beware the Jabberwock [ You're still a virgin because you hold the same beliefs/morals as your parents.To be honest, I'm a virgin, Are you hot? wink (I'm really acting stupid this time around aren't I? ) xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:11 am
Here's the thing, to me.
Either we don't hand out contraceptions, and people don't have them ready when they want to have sex, and get pregnant, and abort, and that's another dead child...
OR, we can HAVE them available, prevent an unwanted pregnancy, and prevent an unwanted (to us lifers) abortion.
Guys, why is this so hard? We're POTENTIALLY preventing abortion. Contraception is good because little miss down the road who's ******** someone on the side won't get pregnant, and have to abort to hide it from her husband.
The way I see it, we're preventing death by making contraception readily available.
I know sex isn't a human need. It's nice, but if you look at it MORE contraception=less abortions.
That's one thing I can readily concur with choicers about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:16 am
WatersMoon110 I.Am First of all, they weren't comparing Pro-Choicers to crack whores. As you've said, not all Pro-Choicers get abortions. Second of all, even then, they have a valid point. Why do women get abortions? Because they get pregnant when they can't afford to, or merely don't want to. What causes pregnancy? Well you've said yourself that couples frequently have to actually work at it to get pregnant, so, logically, most women who get an abortion, and certainly women who get multiple abortions, are highly sexually active. So, they have abortions because they can't stand to just not have sex during the times when they are most fertile. I can understand your objections, and I would say that Pyro's comments about comparing crack whores and Pro-Choicers is out of line, as it is not very tasteful, but it's not exactly against the rules. And crack, as in the rock, is a form of cocaine, just like the powder is. Perhaps it is used in a different way, and the chemical makeup is slightly different, but they are both cocaine. (I heart Wikipedia) 1. I was joking. It was, is, and continues to be a joke. I figured, since everyone else was joking, it would be assumed that I was simply joining in. 2. Crack is a way of preparing cocaine, which involves cutting it with something (usually baking soda) and "cooking" it to make it into a rock. So "white powder" would refer to cocaine while "rock" is a reference to crack. 3. The joking changed from Pro-Choicers being sex addicts to Pro-Choicers being sex addicts who use crack (who could also be considered "crack whores") when Beware the Jabberwock made mention of using crack while having sex. 4. Perhaps I should not try to joke, even when others are?
Joke all you want hon, It was just misinterpreted by a few people.
No harm, no foul.
heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:25 am
Mcphee Here's the thing, to me.
Either we don't hand out contraceptions, and people don't have them ready when they want to have sex, and get pregnant, and abort, and that's another dead child...
OR, we can HAVE them available, prevent an unwanted pregnancy, and prevent an unwanted (to us lifers) abortion.
Guys, why is this so hard? We're POTENTIALLY preventing abortion. Contraception is good because little miss down the road who's ******** someone on the side won't get pregnant, and have to abort to hide it from her husband.
The way I see it, we're preventing death by making contraception readily available.
I know sex isn't a human need. It's nice, but if you look at it MORE contraception=less abortions.
That's one thing I can readily concur with choicers about. I only agree if lubricant is considered a contraceptive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:31 am
FreeArsenal Mcphee Here's the thing, to me.
Either we don't hand out contraceptions, and people don't have them ready when they want to have sex, and get pregnant, and abort, and that's another dead child...
OR, we can HAVE them available, prevent an unwanted pregnancy, and prevent an unwanted (to us lifers) abortion.
Guys, why is this so hard? We're POTENTIALLY preventing abortion. Contraception is good because little miss down the road who's ******** someone on the side won't get pregnant, and have to abort to hide it from her husband.
The way I see it, we're preventing death by making contraception readily available.
I know sex isn't a human need. It's nice, but if you look at it MORE contraception=less abortions.
That's one thing I can readily concur with choicers about. I only agree if lubricant is considered a contraceptive.
Not the MOST effective one, but it's better when used with other methods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:33 am
Mcphee FreeArsenal I only agree if lubricant is considered a contraceptive.
Not the MOST effective one, but it's better when used with other methods.Other methods?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
