K
katie_tully
Guest
I never said it was intended for the Christians. Personally I care nothing for brainless zombies. It was there for the interest of people with an iota of intelligence.
- Homosexuality is wrongpantha-princess said:They are against homosexulity because they believe it's not the way that God created man (or woman) to be. But in saying that, people also weren't created to lie or steal either. So, Christians aren't against the PEOPLE they're against the ACTION. Christian's are called to love everyone, whether homosexual or hetrosexual.
I'm a Christian.
who are you to say what god did or didn't do. you can't just say all the things you don't like weren't created by god, that would be putting yourself above godpantha-princess said:They are against homosexulity because they believe it's not the way that God created man (or woman) to be. But in saying that, people also weren't created to lie or steal either. So, Christians aren't against the PEOPLE they're against the ACTION. Christian's are called to love everyone, whether homosexual or hetrosexual.
whats that word that means attack the argument not the speaker? you are showing your own flawed character if you feel that that accusing me of being patriarchal and ignorant is going to refute my argument. I am more than happy for you to point out mistakes in my arguement or points where you do not agree and i will try and help clarify...Generator said:*shakes head*
Making a statement in bold achieves nothing, and in this case it only serves to strengthen the suggestion that you are nothing more than a patriarchal prick who is unable to even comprehend the complexities of the current issue and that of women's reproductive rights in general.
Edit: Sorry about the language, Moonlight.
spell check here must not have seen my posts because i allready said that i agree that the woman should be allowed to abort the baby if there is a legitimate medical reason.as we are both in agreeance here, i dont think it should be used as an arguement anymore.spell check said:you don't think that argument should be used because it is too relevant?
what if the woman dies during childbirth, or has some injury that makes it impossible for her to have children again
how will we offset her for that under your grand scheme?
katie_tully said:I hope to god you never locate your penis. I'm not a religious person, but I think I'd pray for the girl and child involved.
Please. Don't ever procreate.
You have missed the point entirely. There is no such thing as 100% effective contraception, unless you count abstinence. Nothing guarantees 100%. You can take every precaution in the world - you would have to be extremely unlucky, but it happens.
Being ready for sex, and being ready for the consequences are two different things. You're such a twit. You keep going on about the rights of the unborn child. Why should a child be born into an unloving or unstable family? What quality of life is it going to have? Especially with you as a father. Making the girl have a child is only going to create problems. There will always be one parent who didn't want the child, obviously a relationship with you would be strained - thus effecting the child.
Think about the whole picture, not just between your skewed lines.
here lets see if u can write a reply like youkatie_tully said:Don't try and make yourself out to sound rational. Your argument before was disgusting, crude and unnesessary. I stand by my comment about you being a twit.
Thank you for enhancing it.
Wouldn't it be a great world if the male was the one at risk of pregancy after sex.Serius said:here lets see if u can write a reply like you
Your arguements lack depth and logic. You think that the death of an unwanted baby is completely normal. You sicken and disgust me. You are a fool and you symbolise of the kind of femminist [read: sexist]bullshit that i stand against.
Dont try and make a stand against the truth because your lack of education comes through clearly
For example the above is an illogical argument of yours.An Abortion should not be seen as a last line of defence for an unwanted baby. It should be seen as an important life saving operation for when a woman has complications [ or possibly a deformed baby but i sit on the line for this one
edit: you edited! cheater. Yeah i would prefer not to use the word sacred but yeah every life is important. Perhaps we have a different idea about deformed. I was thinking about the fucked up baby my mum deleivered the other day which had some of its internal organs on the outside. It died shortly after. But i agree with you in that they should still be able to have a stab at life. Hence the sitting on the fence in that whole new can of wormsSerius said:haha the funny thing about that is that i posted my reply before reading your post.
I dont think women are inferior. In many respects i think they have become more powerful than men in certain legal issues[ ironic that they were fighing for equality and now they are more powerful then men and keep going... they really should switch sides and get men back into just as much power to balance it out]
Although i would class myself as a Christian i do not beleive in many of the typical Christian ideals and it has next to no effect on my position.
Women have plenty of say in this topic so it has nothing to do with stripping them of power with children. Its about making sure that an equal say is given by both the man and the woman in anything regarding children. A man should never have total say as in what has happened in the past and still happens in third world countries... yet i also dont think that just because the woman carries the baby she should have the sole say in the issues. Fuck, if i could i would willingly strap your uterus on me and share in the carrying of the child.
I dont think that the flagship argument of the pro abortion debate [the woman carries the baby] should be brought into this debate anymore. We all know this and we all share different ideas on what this means to the issues at hand that arent going to change. I for one am not going to bring up this issue again unless brought up by another or addressed to me personally that i feel must deal with.
As of now we shouldnt use the old " the woman carries the baby" argument anymore :d
I was being facetious on purpose.Damage Inc. said:Why is every potential life sacred? Why is it disgraceful?
Attacking the message rather than the messenger? The manner in which a message is expressed cannot be ignored, and I can see no point in refuting an argument of little to no substance, and that lack of substance is more than illustrated by your attempt to 'rationalise' the dismissal of the central notion that a woman should retain control of her reproductive rights.Serius said:whats that word that means attack the argument not the speaker? you are showing your own flawed character if you feel that that accusing me of being patriarchal and ignorant is going to refute my argument. I am more than happy for you to point out mistakes in my arguement or points where you do not agree and i will try and help clarify...
Beaten to the punch, it seems. Oh well.katie_tully said:Don't try and make yourself out to sound rational. Your argument before was disgusting, crude and unnesessary. I stand by my comment about you being a twit.
Thank you for enhancing it.
erawamai said:I was being facetious on purpose.
---------------------------------------------------
@ Serius. The issue is that some women will not want the baby. They will resent the baby being inside them for 9 months. They may not be emotionally ready to have a baby and know it. Do you think that is a good thing?
She may not have the family support to have the baby.
She may not have the money to be able to raise the child.
The father may not want to be a part of it. Like most boys he will run to Queensland.
The boy may not want to pay child support for a mother and child for the rest of his life.
The mother may not want to make a person who she had an accidental MISTAKEN night with pay for the rest of his life.
The mother may not want to be assoicated with the father ever again.
Numerous reasons. The world and economy which we live in today does not accomodate unplanned pregnancies.
-------------------------
@Serius again. I assume you support abortions for rape victims?
the first 2 of your scenarios can be resolved in that if she votes for an abortion and the father votes to keep the baby, then he is give nresonsability so she does not have to have the family or money to support the baby...infact she does not have to have anything to do with the child after birth.Serius said:yeah ive sort of got an idea of how to approach abortions in regards to both the mans and the womans rights. Both man and woman should get a vote to go ahead with the abortion or not. If one partner decided not to then the abortion cannot go through. it is effectively vettoed but certain responsabilites must be taken if one of the two wants the baby.
ok bob and jane have sex... 2 months later Jane decides to tell bob she is pregnant. one of them doesnt want the child[ if both wanted it she would just have it so no abortion issue here]
scenario 1
Jane wants the baby. Bob does not.
here what should happen: Bob offers to pay half of the cost of the abortion for jane to pay for the unwanted baby[ half only seen as they are both equally responsible for the baby] Jane tells him no, she wants the baby. As she has decided to take on the responsability for the baby... if Bob so wants he can opt out of responsability for this child as he wanted the abortion. Bob has no contact or rights with the child[unless Jane lets him] But on the upside he doesnt have to make childcare payments as Jane by refusing to abort has taken on responsability for the child.
Jane raises the child alone
scenario 2
Bob wants the baby. Jane does not.
Jane wants to get an abortion. As this would be effectively killing Bobs child he wants the baby. Jane must carry the baby to term. She is compsenated[ either by Bob or by the government i havent decided which yet... By the government makes sense if they want less abortions though] for the time she is inconvenienced [ iam not a specialist on pregnancies but iam guessing maybe 6 months? iam going off this because i know a girl who was still working who was 3 months pregnant and she looked fine] Upon birth, custody of the child is given to Bob. Jane if she so chooses can decide not to have any responsability for the child as above.
I think this basically works pretty well. The only hitch i came accross was the actual time of the pregnancy itself so i thought up compsenating the woman for her time.
This ofcourse assumes that the womans life is not at risk by the pregnancy and that the sexual encounter that produced the child was legal[ i.e rapists have no rights]
what do u guys think?
To apply your own logic.Serius said:so iam going to assume that rape victims would be allowed to abort if they wish[ father getting no say as he is a criminal]
No, you are assuming that they are a human to be murdered.erawamai said:To apply your own logic.
Why should rape victims get to choose to have an abortion? Would that not be murder? Killing an unborn foetus because the mother didn't consent to the sex? Killing a potential life for the conscience of the women? Why does the unborn child have to be punished?
I cannot see how you can hold a stance whereby killing an unborn foetus for other reasons should be illegal or is wrong but that in the case of rape she should be allowed to terminate? Isn't it murder all the same?
-----------
I'm not going to respond to the rest because it is barely readable.
And we all know how that turned out ......Phanatical said:This is what happens with a lack of discipline and a school system encouraging students to practice "safe sex" instead of "no sex".
From the thread in light/offbeat news. Restrictive to Ohio I know, but it really annoys me when people keep preaching abstinence as the only way to be safe from pregnancy. Der, everybody knows that the only way to not become pregnant is to not have sex. It's not a feasible option.katie_tully said:Ohio received $8,086,793 in federal funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs
Ohio does not require schools to teach sexuality education. However, the board of education of each school district must establish a health curriculum for “all schools under their control,” that includes information regarding STDs (Sexually Transmitted diseases) and HIV/AIDS. This information must emphasize that “abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is one hundred per cent effective against unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, and the sexual transmission of a virus that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.”