Abortion Doctor George Tiller Reportedly Killed at Church

[Article 15]

LOL
yeah, sure

if she was willing to do the act, then she should have been willing to accept the results
if she wasnt willing to do the act, then she was raped

Humans don't have sex simply to procreate.

You don't get to decide what consequences other people should be willing to accept.

when you have intercourse, there is ALWAYS a chance of creating a child
even if you take precautions

if your not willing to take that risk, keep your pants on

Sorry, that don't fly with me.

You are trying to dictate what others should or shouldn't do with their bodies and in the bedroom.

 

[DiveCon]

Humans don't have sex simply to procreate.

You don't get to decide what consequences other people should be willing to accept.

when you have intercourse, there is ALWAYS a chance of creating a child
even if you take precautions

if your not willing to take that risk, keep your pants on

Sorry, that don't fly with me.

You are trying to dictate what others should or shouldn't do with their bodies and in the bedroom.

thats not what i'm doing at all
i'm saying take responsibility foir your own actions

 

[Article 15]

LOL
yeah, sure

if she was willing to do the act, then she should have been willing to accept the results
if she wasnt willing to do the act, then she was raped

Humans don't have sex simply to procreate.

You don't get to decide what consequences other people should be willing to accept.

when you have intercourse, there is ALWAYS a chance of creating a child
even if you take precautions

if your not willing to take that risk, keep your pants on

And to further add if you are taking precautions to avoid pregnancy and a pregnancy occurs then the pregnancy is occuring against one's will.

 

[Article 15]

when you have intercourse, there is ALWAYS a chance of creating a child
even if you take precautions

if your not willing to take that risk, keep your pants on

Sorry, that don't fly with me.

You are trying to dictate what others should or shouldn't do with their bodies and in the bedroom.

thats not what i'm doing at all
i'm saying take responsibility foir your own actions

You're telling people not to have sex if they aren't willing to have a child. That square peg doesn't fit in a lot of people's round hole.

 

[Pyrite]

when you have intercourse, there is ALWAYS a chance of creating a child
even if you take precautions

if your not willing to take that risk, keep your pants on

When you ride in a car, there is ALWAUS a chance of getting injured in a crash
even if you take precautions

if your not willing to take that risk, keep on walking

 

[DiveCon]

when you have intercourse, there is ALWAYS a chance of creating a child
even if you take precautions

if your not willing to take that risk, keep your pants on

When you ride in a car, there is ALWAUS a chance of getting injured in a crash
even if you take precautions

if your not willing to take that risk, keep on walking

false analogy

 

[DiveCon]

Sorry, that don't fly with me.

You are trying to dictate what others should or shouldn't do with their bodies and in the bedroom.

thats not what i'm doing at all
i'm saying take responsibility foir your own actions

You're telling people not to have sex if they aren't willing to have a child. That square peg doesn't fit in a lot of people's round hole.

no i'm not
i just saying they should know that no precaution is 100% effective and if they engage in the activity there is a chance that a child will be created
once that happens your choices are made

 

[Pyrite]

false analogy

Please explain the difference between the two situations. Why is my analogy false?

 

[Article 15]

thats not what i'm doing at all
i'm saying take responsibility foir your own actions

You're telling people not to have sex if they aren't willing to have a child. That square peg doesn't fit in a lot of people's round hole.

no i'm not

Yes, you are ...

This is what you said:

if your not willing to take that risk, keep your pants on

That is saying don't have sex if you aren't willing to have a child.

i just saying they should know that no precaution is 100% effective and if they engage in the activity there is a chance that a child will be created
once that happens your choices are made

People are aware that no precaution is 100% effective. It doesn't change the fact that WAY more often than not they are having sex for pleasure. People fuck for fun. There is a clear intent to not get pregnant thus the pregnancy would be "against their will."

And your choices don't end there. At that point the choice can be made to continue the pregnancy or not. And it's their decision to make, not mine nor your's nor the government's.

 

[Ravi]

men are already forced to be
its only the women that have a choice

To a point...once a child is born each parent is equally responsible for its upbringing.

so, if the woman doesnt want the child, but the man does, he has to let her kill his child, but if he doesnt want the child and the woman does, he is forced to be financial support for a child he doesnt even want

nice double standard

Basically...but the women is also responsible for financial support once the child is born. I think what happens after the child is born is a separate issue to discuss. No one ever said life was fair, btw...but there are solutions.

This part of the argument always amuses me because it always boils down to money being the motivating factor and not actually the life of a child as many pretend.

 

[Harry Dresden]

One doesn't have to be raped to become pregnant "against their will."

LOL
yeah, sure

if she was willing to do the act, then she should have been willing to accept the results
if she wasnt willing to do the act, then she was raped

By that logic, if you were willing to step into a car, you should have been willing to accept the results of an accident. And therefore should have no right to be treated for wounds incurred in one.

so by your logic if a woman decides to have unprotected sex,and gets pregnant,it was an accident....

 

[Newby]

By historically I mean since the begging of time.

And of course I do not deny there is an issue...and the issue is that one group wants to force their moral beliefs on everyone else. IMO, that is unacceptable in this country.

I'm unqualified to speak to the beginning of time.

You can't avoid the fact that it is a moral issue and each side is pressing its morals upon the other. Although nobody seems to be making the case very effectively and I'm not an advocate for their side, if your honest belief is that 40,000 murders are being perpetrated in your society every year of innocent people, then it would be immoral to just sit by and say, "It's none of my business."

Isn't that what we accuse the German people of in WW II. I understand you don't view it that way, but the people in the Pro-life movement do. They cannot distinguish themselves from the Germans that knew of the death camps, but did nothing to stop them. At least in that regime, they can comfort themselves that they probably would have been killed for opposing the government. Not so in this country.

None of that justifies violence, but I hope it helps you see that morally, they are compelled to act and not sit by and MYOB.

One side is not pressing its morals on the other. One side believes each person should be allowed to follow their own moral code.

Unless it's a Mom and a 12-13 year old boy deciding how to treat his illness apparently.

 

[Nik]

LOL
yeah, sure

if she was willing to do the act, then she should have been willing to accept the results
if she wasnt willing to do the act, then she was raped

By that logic, if you were willing to step into a car, you should have been willing to accept the results of an accident. And therefore should have no right to be treated for wounds incurred in one.

so by your logic if a woman decides to have unprotected sex,and gets pregnant,it was an accident....

If she didn't want it, yes.

 

[Nik]

I'm unqualified to speak to the beginning of time.

You can't avoid the fact that it is a moral issue and each side is pressing its morals upon the other. Although nobody seems to be making the case very effectively and I'm not an advocate for their side, if your honest belief is that 40,000 murders are being perpetrated in your society every year of innocent people, then it would be immoral to just sit by and say, "It's none of my business."

Isn't that what we accuse the German people of in WW II. I understand you don't view it that way, but the people in the Pro-life movement do. They cannot distinguish themselves from the Germans that knew of the death camps, but did nothing to stop them. At least in that regime, they can comfort themselves that they probably would have been killed for opposing the government. Not so in this country.

None of that justifies violence, but I hope it helps you see that morally, they are compelled to act and not sit by and MYOB.

One side is not pressing its morals on the other. One side believes each person should be allowed to follow their own moral code.

Unless it's a Mom and a 12-13 year old boy deciding how to treat his illness apparently.

You mean a Mom and a 12-13 year old deciding whether to needlessly let the kid die or not.

 

[Newby]

Forcing women to give birth deprives someone of their civil rights, in fact in makes the woman in question into a slave (which is unconstitutional).

By that logic, forcing women to feed, clothe, and shelter children they already give birth to makes the woman in question a slave.

If they are forced into childbirth by the state, yes. If you wish to concede that a woman cannot be constitutionally forced to give birth then we can discuss if men can be constitutionally forced to be fathers.

I'm okay with the state paying for what the state forces.

They are already forced to be fathers. It's up to the woman to decide whether or not she wants the baby, not the father, he has no say. And when she chooses the have the baby, the father is legally on the financial hook for 18+ years whether he wants to be a father or not. Someone like you would scream that he lost his rights to not be a father whenever he chose to have sex, but the rules are somehow different for women. That's called hypocrisy.

 

[Ravi]

By that logic, forcing women to feed, clothe, and shelter children they already give birth to makes the woman in question a slave.

If they are forced into childbirth by the state, yes. If you wish to concede that a woman cannot be constitutionally forced to give birth then we can discuss if men can be constitutionally forced to be fathers.

I'm okay with the state paying for what the state forces.

They are already forced to be fathers. It's up to the woman to decide whether or not she wants the baby, not the father, he has no say. And when she chooses the have the baby, the father is legally on the financial hook for 18+ years whether he wants to be a father or not. Someone like you would scream that he lost his rights to not be a father whenever he chose to have sex, but the rules are somehow different for women. That's called hypocrisy.

Thanks once again for telling me what I think. There's really no point in talking to someone that makes so many assumptions.

 

[Newby]

One side is not pressing its morals on the other. One side believes each person should be allowed to follow their own moral code.

Unless it's a Mom and a 12-13 year old boy deciding how to treat his illness apparently.

You mean a Mom and a 12-13 year old deciding whether to needlessly let the kid die or not.

Doesn't matter how you label it, you're pushing your morals on them.

 

[Newby]

If they are forced into childbirth by the state, yes. If you wish to concede that a woman cannot be constitutionally forced to give birth then we can discuss if men can be constitutionally forced to be fathers.

I'm okay with the state paying for what the state forces.

They are already forced to be fathers. It's up to the woman to decide whether or not she wants the baby, not the father, he has no say. And when she chooses the have the baby, the father is legally on the financial hook for 18+ years whether he wants to be a father or not. Someone like you would scream that he lost his rights to not be a father whenever he chose to have sex, but the rules are somehow different for women. That's called hypocrisy.

Thanks once again for telling me what I think. There's really no point in talking to someone that makes so many assumptions.

I've read enough of your posts, and you're right, most of the time you don't think. My mistake.

 

[Nik]

Unless it's a Mom and a 12-13 year old boy deciding how to treat his illness apparently.

You mean a Mom and a 12-13 year old deciding whether to needlessly let the kid die or not.

Doesn't matter how you label it, you're pushing your morals on them.

Yeah...my morals that we shouldn't kill 12 year olds. Wow...what a divisive and crazy concept that is so controversial that we can't have a law about.

 

[Newby]

You mean a Mom and a 12-13 year old deciding whether to needlessly let the kid die or not.

Doesn't matter how you label it, you're pushing your morals on them.

Yeah...my morals that we shouldn't kill 12 year olds. Wow...what a divisive and crazy concept that is so controversial that we can't have a law about.

Your morals aren't any better than anyone else's.