Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "...except in the case of rape or incest."
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 301 (295195)
03-14-2006 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tal
03-14-2006 10:55 AM


The real issue is killing an innocent life in the name of convenience
Lord knows, an invasive medical procedure that leaves you sick as a dog, hormonally all over the place, and experiencing the joys of a month-long period is incredibly convenient. Especially if you get the fun of a bunch of dickweeds screaming at you as you approach the clinic.
Gosh, abortions are such a walk in the park. That's why they're used for convenience's sake all the time.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 10:55 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 2:56 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 301 (295304)
03-14-2006 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Tal
03-14-2006 2:56 PM


All the more reason not to have them wouldn't you say?
Only if you assume that if something's difficult, it must be unnecessary.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 2:56 PM Tal has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 301 (295311)
03-14-2006 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tal
03-14-2006 3:33 PM


You play you pay.
Got it. If people have sex, you want to punish them.
There are plenty of couples out there that can't have kids of their own that would jump at the chance of adopting.
Yes, I hear orphanages are just begging for more children, because they can't meet the public's demand for adoption.
I didn't rely on the government to tell me how to make my decisions or what the consequences would be.
You're absolutely right. The government has no absolutely business deciding for you.
That's pretty much what being pro-choice is all about.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 3:33 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Tal, posted 03-15-2006 1:21 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 301 (295545)
03-15-2006 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by LudoRephaim
03-14-2006 11:16 PM


One way to settle the issue is to give the child in question to a couple wanting one when it is born and (here is the catch) make them pay up front in cash for the little tike!!
Unfortunately, our hippie leftist society frowns upon the idea of purchasing humans.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-14-2006 11:16 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 301 (295568)
03-15-2006 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Tal
03-15-2006 1:21 PM


Except when it comes to killing other people.
When there is actually another person involved who can be killed, you're absolutely right.
Of course, now I don't really see the relevance of the whole "I don't support the government doing anything relating to sex" thing.
The government DOES have the ability to decide that that is unacceptable behavior in society and can place penalties on that act.
Only if you can show that it is, in fact, unacceptable behavior.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Tal, posted 03-15-2006 1:21 PM Tal has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 301 (295575)
03-15-2006 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by LudoRephaim
03-15-2006 1:40 PM


Plus I could hit er up with a good guy.
Women don't need to decide what they do with their bodies... they just need a good man to take care of them!
Or find a couple that would want the child if she didn't.
I hear this is much like asking someone to help you move. Sure it's a bit much to ask, but if you offer to buy them dinner or something, they'll usually be happy to raise a child for eighteen years.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-15-2006 1:40 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-15-2006 1:53 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 301 (295578)
03-15-2006 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by LudoRephaim
03-15-2006 1:53 PM


No, they a good paycheck. But extra income couldn't hurt.
See, that's just it. You're putting arbitrary restrictions on their choices that necessitate an extra income.
In other words, whether you intend to or not, you're saying, "You don't need that choice, you just need a man."
You didn't debunk my "sending the infant off to scientific experiments done to it" argument.
*shrugs*
If it results in a race of genetically engineered super-mutants, I'm all for it.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-15-2006 1:53 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-15-2006 2:11 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 301 (295591)
03-15-2006 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by LudoRephaim
03-15-2006 2:11 PM


You're saying, "you dont need that choice,you just need a man."
Well I know what you are, but what am I?
Women can make it on their own just like a man can. They are not inferior.
Who said anything about inferiority? Nobody, man or woman, can easily raise a child solo.
The difference is that women actually bear children, and will be far more likely to get stuck in a shitty, if not impossible, situation by the arbitrary restrictions you want to impose on them.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-15-2006 2:11 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-15-2006 6:09 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 301 (295891)
03-16-2006 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by LudoRephaim
03-15-2006 6:09 PM


Sorry for that.
No prob.
What I want to impose on them? I dont want to impose. They have that choice, whether legal or not. I'm against it, and I think that It should not be legal, but I myself wont force her to keep her kid.
You do realize you contradict yourself here, right? You don't want to impose, you just want it made illegal so she won't have a choice, but you won't force her?
Help me out here, guy. Which is it?

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-15-2006 6:09 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-16-2006 9:55 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 301 (295992)
03-16-2006 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by LudoRephaim
03-16-2006 9:55 AM


Let me clear up some things. If I know a girl who is going to get an abortion, I would try to talk her out of it, but I cant force her to do one thing or the other. I cant physically restrain her to keep from doing an abortion. She has to make that decision. Now when it comes to making abortion illegal, I am for it.
See, continuing to contradict yourself doesn't clear things up.
By voting to make abortion illegal, you are attempting to remove the choice, as surely as if you physically restrained the person.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-16-2006 9:55 AM LudoRephaim has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 301 (296003)
03-16-2006 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by LudoRephaim
03-16-2006 3:01 PM


Re: NO Forgiveness?
Unless Crashfrog thinks that atheists are perfect
When you've been here longer than twenty minutes or so, you'll see that Crash does not, in fact, think this. In several years, I've never once seen him claim that atheists are incapable of doing bad things.
However, your comparison still sucks. The acts to which Crash points were done in the name of Christ. In other words, the people doing them were stating that it was because of their Christianity that they did these things.
If you can find a comparable example where the bad thing is done because of atheism, we'd all be interested to hear it.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-16-2006 3:01 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 301 (296007)
03-16-2006 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by LudoRephaim
03-16-2006 3:13 PM


Re: NO Forgiveness?
both atheists and Christians have butchered and murdered people in history. Nobody is perfect.
Well, on behalf of all of us, thank you for answering a question nobody asked, and arguing a point nobody was contesting.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-16-2006 3:13 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-16-2006 3:18 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 301 (296030)
03-16-2006 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by New Cat's Eye
03-16-2006 4:50 PM


And if you accendentally buy a couch
I'd like to stress at this time that metaphors are a privilege... not a right.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-16-2006 4:50 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by ringo, posted 03-16-2006 5:30 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 301 (296033)
03-16-2006 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by LudoRephaim
03-16-2006 4:51 PM


As for rape: No, I dont think that abortion should be allowed there. After all, even with that you can still choose to love the child unconditionally, even though it was concieved in a dispicable way
I like the idea that you can choose to love something. Almost as much as I like the idea that you can choose to love a living reminder of the person who held you down, and penetrated you against your will with enough force to rip your genitals up into shreds.
These whining rape victims just need to hush up and choose a little love.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-16-2006 4:51 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 301 (296803)
03-20-2006 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2006 1:06 PM


Re: ringo goes off half-cocked
I would agree with this, like I’ve type before, if a woman is pregnant and an anti-abortion law becomes effective. But, if the law is in place already and she knew before she got pregnant that if she did she would not be allowed to have an abortion, then the responsibility is removed from the society and placed on the mother.
So if society limits the available options for women, the only thing it has to do to avoid dealing with the reprecussions is say "hey, we told you we were limiting your options?"
Wow, that's handy.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2006 1:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2006 1:39 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024