Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/7/11 10:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The problem is the massive stigma attached to adolescent sex creates a situation where the vast majority of these kids will NEVER talk to their parents.

There ought to be a stigma attached to it. Teenagers have no business having sex.

Yeah, I said it.

My point was that the law acts in a manner as to encourage underage sex while then immediately barring the tools neccesary to practice it safely.

Then maybe the law should be amended to disallow this instead of further encouraging it.

At 2/7/11 11:15 PM, Saen wrote: Thats exactly why I mentioned a SUCCESSFUL tubal ligation.

If it was 100% effective at preventing births, then the statistics would reflect that and support your claim. As it is, they don't, and I'm still right; the only way to successfully prevent a birth 100% of the time is to not have sex.

Doctor's carry malpractice insurance for a reason, by the way.

Nope, that's not what I said at all, but it doesn't surprise me that you interpreted it that way.

"If a couple uses a condom, spermicide, hormonal birth control, copper IUD, and the morning after pill when necessary, the woman will not get pregnant I absolutely guarantee you"

Anyone else catch that? He's recommending the morning after pill as a proactive method of birth control, as in, it should be a standard part of every couple's toolbox to prevent conception.

Question; if the average horny teen he talks about has free access to the morning after pill, why would they bother with anything else? How many horny teens are actually going to take the time with all the rest of that if they can just take a pill the next day?

It's about as realistic an expectation of them to take as you all have of a horny and mindless teen being abstinent.

That's one of the many reasons why I quit working there. Whether legal or company policy, IT STILL PREVENTS A SEXUALLY ACTIVE TEEN FROM GETTING CONDOMS.

I don't care why you quit, just show me the law or shut the fuck up about it.

To simply show how far ahead of us they are. The U.S. is not the only country in the world, unplanned pregnancies are not limited to our country, and birth control is not limited to our country.

And? How does that relate to this topic?

These women went in to deceive these detectives and receive a rape kit so that they could get a free PREGNANCY TEST AND MORNING AFTER PILL, ergo the morning after pill is included in the rape kit.

Where is it stated that it is, or that they were actually given out?

"and requests for rape kits by woman who wish to have pregnancy tests or the MORNING AFTER PILL administered,". You just referenced that, you just fucking referenced that!!

Yeah, it shows they were asked for, not given.

You are either trolling or a Christian die hard that will never be able to be reasoned with.

Package Deal Fallacy.

So one would think that it would be important that she would be able to access birth control without parental permission?

The moral issue of a predatory adult having sex with a minor doesn't bother you, you just want them to have access to free contraception? Really? The idea that you might be encouraging pedophilia doesn't prick your conscious in the slightest?

So how nice is it to butt-fuck Jesus on a daily basis?

And he calls ME the troll. FUNNY.

At 2/8/11 12:01 AM, Proteas wrote: There ought to be a stigma attached to it. Teenagers have no business having sex.

I won't argue this. Teenagers ought not do a lot of things, but has that ever stopped them? All we do by by making the law reflect the stigma is put what is inevitible into a bad position.

Then maybe the law should be amended to disallow this instead of further encouraging it.

Sounds good here. I think they should one step further by allowing teenagers to get their own condoms without the need for parental consent. All this does is serve to support a naive social norm while completely ignoring reality all the while not doing an ounce to make anybody's life better.

At 2/8/11 12:01 AM, Proteas wrote:
There ought to be a stigma attached to it. Teenagers have no business having sex.

Yeah, I said it.

Drugs, alcohol, and sex will change a teenager's life (almost always for the worst). A teenager may take the "just don't do it" approach to any of these, but most likely he/she will come into contact with at least one of these things during his/her teenage years. Sex ruins thousands of teenager's lives. Stating the idea that teenagers have no business having sex isn't as controversial or an outlandish idea you're making it out to be, they really don't. However, the reality is the majority of them are going to have sex and should be properly educated, accessibility to birth control should be increased, and age restrictions decreased. For the ones that do choose to have sex, these actions will reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies.

If it was 100% effective at preventing births, then the statistics would reflect that and support your claim. As it is, they don't, and I'm still right; the only way to successfully prevent a birth 100% of the time is to not have sex.

Failed tubal ligations and vasectomies do lead to unplanned pregnancies. Also, if only one partner has a vasectomy/tubal ligation and the other commits adultery and becomes pregnant or impregnates another, then of course the effectiveness of those procedures isn't 100%. Successful tubal ligations and vasectomies between monogynous couples are 100% effective at preventing unplanned pregnancies, just as I stated in my beginning post.

"If a couple uses a condom, spermicide, hormonal birth control, copper IUD, and the morning after pill when necessary, the woman will not get pregnant I absolutely guarantee you"

Anyone else catch that? He's recommending the morning after pill as a proactive method of birth control, as in, it should be a standard part of every couple's toolbox to prevent conception.

You're absolutely right, I'm recommending the morning after pill to be considered for every couple in their efforts to prevent an unplanned pregnancy. As well it should be.

Question; if the average horny teen he talks about has free access to the morning after pill, why would they bother with anything else? How many horny teens are actually going to take the time with all the rest of that if they can just take a pill the next day?

The morning after pill costs fifty fucking dollars, that's why hardly any teens use it.

And? How does that relate to this topic?

...the topic is birth control, therefore, countries which lead the world in birth control variety and access should be set as the standard.

These women went in to deceive these detectives and receive a rape kit so that they could get a free PREGNANCY TEST AND MORNING AFTER PILL, ergo the morning after pill is included in the rape kit.

Where is it stated that it is, or that they were actually given out?

"and requests for rape kits by woman who wish to have pregnancy tests or the MORNING AFTER PILL administered,". You just referenced that, you just fucking referenced that!!

Yeah, it shows they were asked for, not given.

I've said enough on this. An orange was presented and you've interpreted it as an apple.

The moral issue of a predatory adult having sex with a minor doesn't bother you, you just want them to have access to free contraception? Really? The idea that you might be encouraging pedophilia doesn't prick your conscious in the slightest?

Let me make this clear, the fact that a 16 year old is allowed to have sex with a 23 year old legally disgustes me. To prevent a terrible situation like this from getting any worse, that 16 year old girl should have the individual right to access multiple forms of birth control. The 16 year old girl isn't the pedophile, the 23 year old should be. Therefore increasing her access to birth control doesn't encourage pedophilia, it protects her.

And he calls ME the troll. FUNNY.

It's called bait and I'm very relieved that you didn't take it. I cannot have a conversation about birth control, evolution, or anything that a ultra-conservative Christian doesn't accept morally or to be true. They think what they think and no one will change their minds, except for Pat Robertson.

At 2/8/11 12:43 AM, Saen wrote: Successful tubal ligations and vasectomies between monogynous couples are 100% effective at preventing unplanned pregnancies, just as I stated in my beginning post.

Which brings me back to what I said previously; if you want to opine and not have people respond to you, go somewhere else. This non-sequiter reverse psychology bullshit is getting really old really fast.

The morning after pill costs fifty fucking dollars, that's why hardly any teens use it.

And the incidence of them using it would go up if you allow them free access to it, as you have been arguing. That's irresponsible on your part, is it not?

I've said enough on this. An orange was presented and you've interpreted it as an apple.

Prove me wrong then. Don't sit there and run your mouth, do your research.

Therefore increasing her access to birth control doesn't encourage pedophilia, it protects her.

You're only solution to the situation is to offer contraception, it takes no action towards actually doing anything about the act that is taking place. Your inaction in effect condones the act, and you are no friend of mine for doing so.

It's called bait and I'm very relieved that you didn't take it.

Ah, so you're a moron and a troll. You and I done here.

At 2/7/11 12:09 PM, Saen wrote: Abstinence is entirely related to this argument, because surprisingly people actually consider it a form of birth control. Yes, of course their are physically or mentally handicapped people incapable of having sex. Now answer this question for me. Are people incapable of having sex at risk of becoming pregnant or impregnating someone? No, bringing up the sexually incapable persons was the non-sequitor part of this argument.

No, it really is not. Since you charged that sex is an unavoidable part of life. I refuted that point by bringing up there are people incapable of sex. Which defeats the charge that sex is a fact of life for everyone. Where's the non-sequitor again?

If you want to talk about rape, how it can be prevented, and the mental side effects find/create another thread. Throwing birth control at your attacker will likely fail to shoo him away, you both are absolutely correct.

Then why bring up something non-sequitor to the point he was making? If you have nothing to say other then "what you are saying is right" then why keep the point in your rebuttal and make some non-sequitor point seemingly in rebuttal? Why not just discard that point from your overall reply and rebuttal? Doesn't that seem to make more sense?

Of course, but the idea is a couple shouldn't limit themselves to condoms in order to prevent a pregnancy.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. The problem is that you've miscategorized and misrepresented the availability of "birth control". So again, you haven't really responded to the charge there...because you can't...yet here you are trying.

Once again..birth control isn't limited to condoms.

Nor is it limited to medically prescribed birth control. Which is all you seem to want to continually reference. Which is why I'm accusing you of basing your argument on omitting other over the counter forms of birth control.

I believe the age-restriction on condoms may be 16, but it most likely varies from state to state.

Yeah, I'm sure it does, because age of consent varies from state to state.

I'm not developing an argument against condoms or any form of birth control (excluding abstinence). Condoms, spermicide, and the morning after pill are the only forms of birth control that don't require a prescription. I'm far from ignoring those. My argument is that if a couple uses the 5 methods of birth control I listed, then the chance of contraception is reduced ultimately to 0%. This is far from theory, but it seems so outlandish, because very few people use more than two forms of birth-control at a time.

Because it's not true. There is no "0% chance" other then no sex. Even with all these forms of birth control all you're doing is reducing the risk to microscopic levels. Is this good? Yes sir, it absolutely is if you don't want a baby. But to say it goes to 0 is just plain wrong.

Yes, you may double up on condoms and spermicide and yes doing that will be cheaper, but it that going to make it 100% effective in preventing pregnancy? No, of course not.

Right, only abstinence can do that. All doubling, tripling, or even using all 5 as you stated will do is lower the risk factor to almost 0. But it will never hit 0 if you are engaging in vaginal intercourse.

I'm not looking through every health insurances' finely printed clauses and exceptions. Show me one health insurance company that covers the cost of birth control (pills, shots, IUD, etc.) 100% and I will suck the dingle-berries clean off your thick, black ass hairs.

It's not up to me to show you the proof. I'm charging your arguing from ignorance because you're saying that because you personally don't know of an insurance company that does, it's safe for you to say no insurance company does. That is an argument from ignorance or personal conviction. Just because YOU don't know of one that does, doesn't mean there isn't one. It also doesn't mean there is. By that first sentence you confirm your argument is based around the idea that you personally never found an insurance company that covers it.

As for me and most hormonally charged teenagers, the opportunity to have sex outweighs the future consequences.

Boo hoo. You make the choice at the end of the day. Anything else is just a damn excuse. I was a hormonally charged teenager too and I didn't fuck everything that moved and I'm sure I have no children out there. It's all about personal choices.

If given the opportunity to have honest, loving, and passionate sex with his partner, nearly every guy would gladly do so.

But that's his and his partner's choice. Pure and simple. They make that choice, they live with the consequence and know the consequences.

The problem is when a couple finally reaches that point very few are prepared. I bought condoms and spermicide long before I even knew the first girl I had sex with. I didn't buy them expecting to have sex, but to be prepared for it. Oral sex was the first thing to happen of course, but oral sex very frequently progresses into pussy loving and we were both prepared when that time came.

Good for you man. You made a good personal choice there.

Long story short, I even though we were using condoms, she was on the pill, and I always pulled out, I still worried that it wasn't enough, because I was educated. I urged her to get an IUD as well, but she didn't think it was necessary. Many of her friends didn't even use condoms nor were they on birth control, the guys just pulled out, and they weren't worried at all. That's how the stage is set for a teenage girl to get pregnant.

Indeed it is. What's the solution then? Do you think? Because me, I don't see one that would work as a blanket idea. Because end of the day we're talking about personal choices. We're talking about a situation where you can hand people all the information in the world they will ever need, you can even hand them options like what Planned Parenthood tries to do. But in the end, if they choose not to avail themselves of those options, there's really nothing to be done about it. Some people are going to be responsible, some people are not.

This brings up another issue. Nearly all forms of birth control are only for women. Currently, there isn't a pill a guy can take in order to prevent pregnancy or a shot.

Oh, there's something a guy can do...

All we have are condoms;

Lies or ignorance, you can have a visectomy. That is an option and a very good one if you don't want children.

yes they are cheap and easy to get, but they don't provide enough protection against a pregnancy.

Damn near a hundred percent if properly used and they don't break.

I'm sure they are methods being researched for us right now and may already be available in Denmark or the Netherlands.

I'm sure there's methods being researched as well...how about actually looking them up so you can stop arguing based off of your own ignorance hmmm?

At 2/6/11 01:31 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: What about the right to determine my own future based on my own morality rather than someone else's imposed ethics and, in many cases, about decisisions and sitatuions they never had to make?

Gotcha. So if you want sex with someone who doesn't want it, that's cool.

At 2/7/11 12:16 PM, Saen wrote: Now if the pill is only effective ~72 after intercourse was first taken place, and it takes ~7 days for the sperm to reach and fertilize the egg, how is the morning after pill preventing the egg from implanting into the uterus? Like I said, the morning after pill prevents the egg from becoming fertilized. End of discussion.

Except that's NOT how the pill works. As I showed above with sources. Just stupidly claiming the pill works differently than the people who made it claim it works makes you an imbecile. I mean, your own source takes "responses" on how long it takes to reach the egg, which range from 30 minutes to 8 days.

NO ONE claims that the morning after pill can stop fertilization, cause it can't. It can prevent release or implantation, but not fertilization. You're simply wrong, and you have nothing to back you up.

Abortion will never become "extinct" and nor should it. There are a large number of reasons why a woman needs or wants an abortion and it is their human right to get such a procedure. It's none of your business anyway, so piss off.

At 2/6/11 08:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

By discipline don't you mean lonliness and an uncanny ability to strike out with the other sex?

no. by discipline, i mean the uncanny ability to not fuck like jackrabbits just because there is someone of the opposite sex nearby.

problem is today men have grown to expect sex out of any woman they date, and the women have been brainwashed by today's entertainment industry that they must give sex to men in order to keep them.

course, if a man will dump you because you won't spread em for him.... do you really want that kind of selfishness in your life? I wouldn't.

I'm single, but not because I can't find a woman. I'm single because I prefer to live free and not be bound to another person.

At 2/9/11 01:09 AM, Korriken wrote: problem is today men have grown to expect sex out of any woman they date, and the women have been brainwashed by today's entertainment industry that they must give sex to men in order to keep them.

Ummm... Men have been sex crazy for thousands of years. You don't think people married younger in the 50s because they felt like ruining their early adulthood, do you?

At 2/9/11 01:09 AM, Korriken wrote: I'm single, but not because I can't find a woman. I'm single because I prefer to live free and not be bound to another person.

right

But to reiterate. So long as condoms and other methods of birth control are not absolutely and exactly 100 percent effective, and so long as humans do dumb things and get themselves or their partner's pregnant without intending to, abortion will remain important and necessary.

At 2/8/11 05:51 AM, WolvenBear wrote: At 2/6/11 01:31 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: What about the right to determine my own future based on my own morality rather than someone else's imposed ethics and, in many cases, about decisisions and sitatuions they never had to make?

Gotcha. So if you want sex with someone who doesn't want it, that's cool.

...What?

The point is that not everyone can afford the scale of contraception being mentioned here and that, like it or not, some women work in the sex industry. Not neccesarily by choice, either. Some women are raped and sexualy abused and you expect them to not only have this happen to them but to have to carry the burden of a child they never wanted's life around with them?

Fuck that, like it or not it's not anyone's decision but theirs. We haven't experienced what they have, they get to chose. Actualy, they get to chose anyway because it's their body and you don't get a say in it!

I got this to say: Abstinence works, but comprehensive is better. Also, abortion can kiss my ass. It's a women's choice, people. People should be responsible for carrying contraceptives, and it should be available to everyone.

Abstinence worked for me I stayed a virgin until I was married but then again I'm not a weak-willed pussy (so to speak) when it comes to the pink unlike most other guys.

Wait...you stayed a virgin until you were married?!! That takes some serious dedication right there. I know I'm not waiting that long; screw that!

At 2/9/11 01:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Ummm... Men have been sex crazy for thousands of years.

duh.

You don't think people married younger in the 50s because they felt like ruining their early adulthood, do you?

of course not. they got married earlier because they already managed to ruin it. That and it was more or less expected back then when you get out of high school to find a woman and a job and work your ass off and do good. at one point in time there was a stigma attached to being a loose woman. today its something of a virtue, according to the all knowing information giver, the TV.

At 2/7/11 12:20 PM, Saen wrote:

At 2/6/11 06:22 AM, The-universe wrote:
Rape kits acquire evidence, they do nothing if the woman is pregnant.

Ergo, abortion is still a valid possibility in this situation.

Depending on the time the woman was raped a morning after pill will be offered along with the rape kit to the victim free of charge.

And tell me how many places offer it.

Although you're right, shortly after you've been raped the first thought that's going to be barrelling through your mind is "oh gosh, I might be preggers. Best get some morning after pills", and not "oh gosh, I've been fucking drugged, kidnapped and raped!" for several days until the shock wears off.

At 2/7/11 08:37 AM, MatthewF wrote: Abstinence worked for me I stayed a virgin until I was married but then again I'm not a weak-willed pussy (so to speak) when it comes to the pink unlike most other guys.

I'm not a weak-willed pussy because I've had premarital sex. I chose to do it of my own free will.

At 2/9/11 04:03 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: ...What?

It wasn't hard to understand.

The point is that not everyone can afford the scale of contraception being mentioned here and that, like it or not, some women work in the sex industry. Not neccesarily by choice, either. Some women are raped and sexualy abused and you expect them to not only have this happen to them but to have to carry the burden of a child they never wanted's life around with them?

That wasn't the point at all. You said "Let me make choices I think are moral."

No.

You may not have liked the counter, but both are morally repugnant. Raping a girl who said no, and killing a child because it isn't cheap to raise are both morally wrong. Ignoring the whole range of options to mothers who get pregnant (many of which would leave her in a better financial situation than before), the moral issue remains unchanged.

Contraception is so cheap that anyone can afford it. Kids in my grade school bought it on their allowance. Condoms are so cheap that the homeless could buy them if they wanted.

Fuck that, like it or not it's not anyone's decision but theirs. We haven't experienced what they have, they get to chose. Actualy, they get to chose anyway because it's their body and you don't get a say in it!

Um, you must be stupid if you believe that society doesn't get to have a say in what you do with your body. Tens of thousands of people get arrested every day for doing things the government doesn't approve of with their body. Even if you had a point, and you obviously don't, your assertion that no one but her gets to choose is moronic on it's face. And it can only be said by someone with no grasp of what the real world is like.

At 2/12/11 04:54 AM, WolvenBear wrote: killing a child because it isn't cheap to raise are both morally wrong.

How's about you take that 'baby' out when you want to protect it. Tell us how much of a baby that little chunks of cells really is...

At 2/12/11 04:54 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

It wasn't hard to understand.

Hmm, doubting your ability to understand another's perspective already! It evidently was!

That wasn't the point at all. You said "Let me make choices I think are moral."

Well, everyone, but yes.

No.

No? Only make choices you agree with? I didn't think you'd ever say something so self important as that?

</sarcasm>

You may not have liked the counter, but both are morally repugnant. Raping a girl who said no

Whoah! When did I ever say rape is o.k? You need to learn to read!

and killing a child because it isn't cheap to raise are both morally wrong. Ignoring the whole range of options to mothers who get pregnant (many of which would leave her in a better financial situation than before), the moral issue remains unchanged.

No, actualy, they do change. You see the whole range of adoptions is kill it, keep it and give it away. But if the childbirth and 9 months of pregnancy is the issue then your little black and white moralist vision of the universe suddenly collapses because all of a sudden it's the pregnancy that's the issue, not the life of the would-be child. It's a pretty psychologicaly intense experience, sometimes the woman can't bear it. Women have been raped or had some huge event happen and kept the child only to become so depressed that they drown themselves and the infant, pregnant women have been known to do the same. Some women can be so physically weak that child birth would kill them.

But that's not the issue, is it? It's about killing babies.

So what if the child is doomed to still birth? What if the child is going to be born with no brain? This does happen, by the way, genetic defects can be crazy.

"NUH UH I DURNT LIEK AB0RSHINS U CNT DO DAT!!!111"

Contraception is so cheap that anyone can afford it. Kids in my grade school bought it on their allowance. Condoms are so cheap that the homeless could buy them if they wanted.

Allowance is not a government allocated fund. I knew kids who went to 3 big concerts a year, I knew kids who went hungry for lunch at school. Not everyone can afford your fucking PS3, not everyone is given money for contraception. Not every country gives people access to contraception!

Also? Condoms are great - they do help prevent STI's and pregnancy. But that doesn't change the fact that a woman whose health is at risk from a birth can't be risked so you can fucking snuggle your bible at night and dream of unicorns and rainbows.

Um, you must be stupid if you believe that society doesn't get to have a say in what you do with your body. Tens of thousands of people get arrested every day for doing things the government doesn't approve of with their body.

Is this the classical "It's a law so it's a moral/it can never happen" rhetoric? People get back alley abortions - they're actualy very common in countries where abortion is illegal. And guess what? The mother often dies too! And these abortions can be very late into a pregnancy - sometimes it is just killing a baby. With legal abortions it can be done early and cleanly. No one has to suffer more than they have to. Anything you make illegal is simply just driven underground and that's been shown with the sex industry, drugs, prohibition etc. Your moral rhetoric is simply rendered as "Out of sight, out of mind".

Incidentaly, don't assume that because I'm pro-choice that I'd be comfortable with my girlfreind getting an abortion 6 months in. But for medical reasons it can be neccesary but largely it shouldn't be allowed. We can't be so polar in our options as you seem to think. It should be regulated, but this blanket ban stuff is absolutely ridiculous!

Even if you had a point, and you obviously don't, your assertion that no one but her gets to choose is moronic on it's face. And it can only be said by someone with no grasp of what the real world is like.

"Moronic on it's face" is possibly the best insult I've ever gotten. It also doesn't substantiate your little good vs. evil tirade.

So where am I lacking in points again? Or is it just points you don't like hearing?

Wow, this post was a big bowl of fail. But I'll try to respond intelligently to...this.

At 2/12/11 03:00 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: Hmm, doubting your ability to understand another's perspective already! It evidently was!

Just because I understand, doesn't mean I agree. I can get your point completely and still think you're wrong. I mean, most of your dreck below is unintelligible, but I get some of it. Bad arguments are bad arguments, whether people get them or not. I've heard people defend raping their girlfriend, putting their kid in an oven, running over their neighbor in a car...etc. I fully understand all their arguments. But it doesn't make their sickness ok. Moving on...

Whoah! When did I ever say rape is o.k? You need to learn to read!

You said more than once to let people live their lives as they see fit. That includes rape. Next?

No, actualy, they do change. You see the whole range of adoptions is kill it, keep it and give it away. But if the childbirth and 9 months of pregnancy is the issue then your little black and white moralist vision of the universe suddenly collapses because all of a sudden it's the pregnancy that's the issue, not the life of the would-be child. It's a pretty psychologicaly intense experience, sometimes the woman can't bear it. Women have been raped or had some huge event happen and kept the child only to become so depressed that they drown themselves and the infant, pregnant women have been known to do the same. Some women can be so physically weak that child birth would kill them.

Not that any of that matters, but what the hell, let's address it. A guy loses his job. He feels sad that he can't provide for his family. So he goes home and kills them. So, what do we do? He was under stress! He couldn't take care of the family that depended on him! So he just did a really late abortion.

See how that works?

So what if the child is doomed to still birth? What if the child is going to be born with no brain? This does happen, by the way, genetic defects can be crazy.

What if it's born as a never ending buffet that will end world hunger? What if it will be a martian than will enslave mankind?!?

I mean, both of those are more likely than a baby being born without a brain. But whatever.

"NUH UH I DURNT LIEK AB0RSHINS U CNT DO DAT!!!111"

Holy crap, I almost responded. I mean, it was almost as intelligent as your other arguments, so I got confused for a second. Whew. Please forgive my understandable mistake.

Allowance is not a government allocated fund. I knew kids who went to 3 big concerts a year, I knew kids who went hungry for lunch at school. Not everyone can afford your fucking PS3, not everyone is given money for contraception. Not every country gives people access to contraception!

Comparing something that costs less than a dollar to something that is over 300 dollars is moronic on it's face. I can't even pretend this argument wasn't idiotic. That's like saying that, because I can't afford the most expensive car on the market, I can't buy ramen to feed myself. Nonsense.

Also? Condoms are great - they do help prevent STI's and pregnancy. But that doesn't change the fact that a woman whose health is at risk from a birth can't be risked so you can fucking snuggle your bible at night and dream of unicorns and rainbows.

What? You just get stupider as this goes on. Abortion has never been illegal for medical necessity. What a fool.

Is this the classical "It's a law so it's a moral/it can never happen" rhetoric? People get back alley abortions - they're actualy very common in countries where abortion is illegal. And guess what? The mother often dies too! And these abortions can be very late into a pregnancy - sometimes it is just killing a baby. With legal abortions it can be done early and cleanly. No one has to suffer more than they have to. Anything you make illegal is simply just driven underground and that's been shown with the sex industry, drugs, prohibition etc. Your moral rhetoric is simply rendered as "Out of sight, out of mind".

Gotcha. So, you make a dumb comment that is completely at odds with reality, then someone points out the facts, and you go off on a rant?

Ignoring that EVERY part of the above is wrong, should I feel bad that someone died trying to kill someone else? I mean, really. If someone tried to murder you and died in the process, cause you killed them, should I feel bad for them? Sorry, I don't.

Incidentaly, don't assume that because I'm pro-choice that I'd be comfortable with my girlfreind getting an abortion 6 months in. But for medical reasons it can be neccesary but largely it shouldn't be allowed. We can't be so polar in our options as you seem to think. It should be regulated, but this blanket ban stuff is absolutely ridiculous!

No one has ever proposed a blanket ban. And there has never been a time in US history that a woman couldn't get an abortion if the pregnancy threatened her life.

"Moronic on it's face" is possibly the best insult I've ever gotten. It also doesn't substantiate your little good vs. evil tirade.

So where am I lacking in points again? Or is it just points you don't like hearing?

Um, everywhere. Simply writing something off as a "good vs evil tirade" doesn't make it incorrect. There's not a single thing you were correct on factually. And that doesn't even touch the moral issues.

At 2/12/11 10:58 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

You said more than once to let people live their lives as they see fit. That includes rape. Next?

Determining what they do with their own bodies and doing whatever you feel like are two different things. Government law should protect its living citizens from each other. However for the first months a pregnant women isn't really holding anything more than a cluster of cells. So her action cause no suffering. And since this general period of time can be handled by chemical abortion it's generaly not too traumatic for the woman, either.

Not that any of that matters, but what the hell, let's address it. A guy loses his job. He feels sad that he can't provide for his family. So he goes home and kills them. So, what do we do? He was under stress! He couldn't take care of the family that depended on him! So he just did a really late abortion.

See how that works?

Yes, rather than responding to my answer you gave me an anecdote that didn't really make any sense. You don't seem to have any actual understanding that an undeveloped foetus and a baby are two different things.

And apparantly this should make me look or feel stupid, thus making you right.

What if it's born as a never ending buffet that will end world hunger? What if it will be a martian than will enslave mankind?!?

I mean, both of those are more likely than a baby being born without a brain. But whatever.

Again, more nonsense. But I'm glad you weren't too lazy to even wiki it. Not like it'd just be easier to not make any sense.

Comparing something that costs less than a dollar to something that is over 300 dollars is moronic on it's face. I can't even pretend this argument wasn't idiotic. That's like saying that, because I can't afford the most expensive car on the market, I can't buy ramen to feed myself. Nonsense.

That on it's face thing again. Heh.

Analogy, analogy, analogy. Contraception isn't that cheap everywhere or even that readily availible. Yes, some colleges and schools distribute them, but generaly these are stored for long periods and condoms deteriorate over time. Simple things like static build up or exposure to heat can ruin condoms. Or how about in Africa where they're being told condoms make you MORE likely to get HIV by the church? Oh I guess I'm just being silly!

What? You just get stupider as this goes on. Abortion has never been illegal for medical necessity. What a fool.

It is in my country, actualy. You're allowed leave the country to have an abortion but you can never a legal abortion in Ireland.

Gotcha. So, you make a dumb comment that is completely at odds with reality, then someone points out the facts, and you go off on a rant?

The irony is incredible. I talk about the nature of outlawing anything merely just deregulating it and rather than actualy discuss the issue you just sidestep it. I'm seeing a pattern here.

Ignoring that EVERY part of the above is wrong, should I feel bad that someone died trying to kill someone else? I mean, really. If someone tried to murder you and died in the process, cause you killed them, should I feel bad for them? Sorry, I don't.

Abortion = murder. God = real. America = greatest country in the world. Why are you entering a debate in which you don't feel there are ANY variables or any issues you'd want to actualy discuss? You're not looking to get informed, clearly. There is a difference between abortion and murder. There is a difference between a woman enslaved by the sex industry dying during a back alley abortion and a robber getting shot with his own gun. Learn to learn.

Anecdotes and analagies are not substantial arguements, please say something or fuck off.

No one has ever proposed a blanket ban.

Yes they have!

And there has never been a time in US history that a woman couldn't get an abortion if the pregnancy threatened her life.

Again! You're assuming we all live in America. Put the law aside for a second and look at it properly: what SHOULD the legislation on abortion be? Anywhere! Not relative to current law, not held down by constitution of your country (which isn't everyone's country). What should it be?

Um, everywhere. Simply writing something off as a "good vs evil tirade" doesn't make it incorrect. There's not a single thing you were correct on factually. And that doesn't even touch the moral issues.

Examples, please? Disprove some of it, plox? The only things you had a counterarguement for where saying "IN AMERICA". You are still being a moralist and you're inability to deal with the points I made sort of just diminishes your arguement. All you have are anecdotes, ad absurdums and little to no insight into what the actual issues are.

Your solution is for women to use a bunch of different birth control methods simultaneously?

Good luck finding a doctor competent enough to advise on the use of even three of these methods simultaneously. You won't. Most doctors lack the competence necessary to advise on taking even one of these.

Do you know how many side effects most of these methods have for most women? It's not like tylenol where one in a million people have an adverse reaction. Birth control produces extremely undesirable side effects in the majority of women who use them.

So the onus is entirely on the woman to avoid pregnancy and she needs to suffer just how much?

I love that you didn't mention the guy getting his tubes tied.

You are true trash.

At 2/14/11 01:31 PM, sharpnova wrote: So the onus is entirely on the woman to avoid pregnancy

Seriously, them womenz should stop beeng so dern sexy!

At 2/13/11 08:22 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: Determining what they do with their own bodies and doing whatever you feel like are two different things. Government law should protect its living citizens from each other. However for the first months a pregnant women isn't really holding anything more than a cluster of cells. So her action cause no suffering. And since this general period of time can be handled by chemical abortion it's generaly not too traumatic for the woman, either.

That wasn't what you said. And even abortion, which deals with another human being, sidesteps this.

But hey, you know, live and let live man.

Yes, rather than responding to my answer you gave me an anecdote that didn't really make any sense. You don't seem to have any actual understanding that an undeveloped foetus and a baby are two different things.

No, they actually aren't. Much as a 10 year old and a 15 year old aren't really different.

Just claiming that things are different doesn't make them so.

And apparantly this should make me look or feel stupid, thus making you right.

Well, no. It's an example of what you have demanded. Realistically, you have no real way to differenciate between the two other than simply saying "they're different!".

Again, more nonsense. But I'm glad you weren't too lazy to even wiki it. Not like it'd just be easier to not make any sense.

No, that's not how this works. You made a moronic claim that babies are born without brains, a claim that anyone who has ever taken a basic class on science knows is impossible. While some babies have been born with only brain stems, and usually die immediately, they still have something there. Even if you had been right, it's on you to make the case, i.e. to provide links. It's not on your opponents to do the research for you.

Analogy, analogy, analogy. Contraception isn't that cheap everywhere or even that readily availible. Yes, some colleges and schools distribute them, but generaly these are stored for long periods and condoms deteriorate over time. Simple things like static build up or exposure to heat can ruin condoms. Or how about in Africa where they're being told condoms make you MORE likely to get HIV by the church? Oh I guess I'm just being silly!

Contraception is available EVERYWHERE. It costs less than a dollar to buy.

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/prevent ingpregnancy/malecondom.html

According to that link, the most expensive condom is 50 cents. I've seen higher, but still, condoms are affordable.

And Africa is irrelevant. Things are different there.

It is in my country, actualy. You're allowed leave the country to have an abortion but you can never a legal abortion in Ireland.

Interesting. Factually incorrect, but interesting.

http://www.ifpa.ie/eng/Hot-Topics/Aborti on/Abortion-in-Ireland-Legal-Timeline
http://safeandlegal.blogspot.com/2009/01 /northern-irelands-record-abortion.html

If having the baby will kill her, Ireland permits an abortion. Hmmm....

The irony is incredible. I talk about the nature of outlawing anything merely just deregulating it and rather than actualy discuss the issue you just sidestep it. I'm seeing a pattern here.

There's no sidestepping. I addressed and dismissed you. You may dislike how curt I am, but it's not like I'm dancing around the issue. Or, like above, it's not like I'm saying that abortion is always illegal in Ireland when it isn't. Hmmm...

Abortion = murder. God = real. America = greatest country in the world. Why are you entering a debate in which you don't feel there are ANY variables or any issues you'd want to actualy discuss? You're not looking to get informed, clearly. There is a difference between abortion and murder. There is a difference between a woman enslaved by the sex industry dying during a back alley abortion and a robber getting shot with his own gun. Learn to learn.

Your argument is just "there's a difference because I say so!" Well, no there isn't. Abortion is the killing of a human being. As such, it is NOT different than murdering a baby. It's the same. Unfortunately, for medical reasons, abortion is rarely necessary to preserve the mother's health. But it's rare. And that's called triage. Simply demanding that I agree with you is silly.

Yes they have!

Where? When? Who?

Even in Ireland there isn't a blanket ban. NO ONE has ever proposed a ban on medically necessary abortions. Which is why, even in Ireland, medical abortions take place.

You're wrong. End of story.

Again! You're assuming we all live in America. Put the law aside for a second and look at it properly: what SHOULD the legislation on abortion be? Anywhere! Not relative to current law, not held down by constitution of your country (which isn't everyone's country). What should it be?

The abortion laws should be like Ireland. You are ONLY allowed an abortion if having the baby will kill or harm you.

Examples, please? Disprove some of it, plox? The only things you had a counterarguement for where saying "IN AMERICA". You are still being a moralist and you're inability to deal with the points I made sort of just diminishes your arguement. All you have are anecdotes, ad absurdums and little to no insight into what the actual issues are.

You didn't make a point. Hell, even your tirade about Ireland proved to be false as EVERY link I came across said that abortion is legal in Ireland for health of the mother. Hell, if you can't even get that right, why should I take you seriously on ANYTHING?

At 2/15/11 12:10 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

No, they actually aren't. Much as a 10 year old and a 15 year old aren't really different.

Just claiming that things are different doesn't make them so.

Right, much like 99 percent of the fetuses that are aborted, a baby isn't able to feel, sense pain or pleasure, or able to exist outside of its mother. Oh wait

At 2/15/11 01:03 AM, The-General-Public wrote: Right, much like 99 percent of the fetuses that are aborted, a baby isn't able to feel, sense pain or pleasure, or able to exist outside of its mother. Oh wait

Let's assume the 99% thing is true, for the sheer sake of argument.

What difference does that make?

The argument is "is this human or not?" As a human being does it have rights?

Realistically, most of these questions are as applicable after birth. While a baby can feel pain and pleasure, the centers of the brain that retain that information aren't formed, so it doesn't remember. It cannot survive without someone taking care of it. While it can technically survive on it's own, it will quickly die without someone taking care of it. So what does that matter?

The question for me is: Is it a human being with God granted rights?. Science says yes. So, we can split hairs about when it feels or thinks or spits or speaks or remembers or forgets or anything else, but the driving issue remains the same. It's human. And the instant we use flawed logic to take away its right to life, we will use other flawed logic to get rid of the infirm and the elderly and the sick and the stupid and the "unfit" and all other manner of "worthless" people who we can define their rights away.

At 2/15/11 03:03 AM, WolvenBear wrote: The question for me is: Is it a human being with God granted rights?. Science says yes.

Source it to me, and from multiple sources. Any course that has ANY religious affiliation is automatically invalid. Give me real science, not faux-science.

So, we can split hairs about when it feels or thinks or spits or speaks or remembers or forgets or anything else, but the driving issue remains the same. It's human.

It's human the same way a severed hand is. Just because its components are the same and makeup similar does not make it human.

And the instant we use flawed logic to take away its right to life, we will use other flawed logic to get rid of the infirm and the elderly and the sick and the stupid and the "unfit" and all other manner of "worthless" people who we can define their rights away.

We have had abortion legal for 39 years now, and I have yet to see ANY effort to push for the elimination of these groups. Massive political movements have formed and dissolved, yet the slippery slope you speak of has yet to release us from the friction of reality.

At 2/15/11 11:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Source it to me, and from multiple sources. Any course that has ANY religious affiliation is automatically invalid. Give me real science, not faux-science.

Um, real science says that human life begins at conception. Biblical science says life being when "the blood flows through it".

I'm sorry, but this simply isn't arguable. A unique human embryo with unique DNA is created when the sperm and the egg join. It then implants and begins to grow. Birth science 101. If you have a legitimate source that says otherwize, GREAT! If not, we'll go with what every scientist on the face of the planet agrees to.

It's human the same way a severed hand is. Just because its components are the same and makeup similar does not make it human.

A human hand is part of a human. It will never turn into another human if severed.

You clearly have no idea about anything biology related....

We have had abortion legal for 39 years now, and I have yet to see ANY effort to push for the elimination of these groups. Massive political movements have formed and dissolved, yet the slippery slope you speak of has yet to release us from the friction of reality.

The slippery slope I speak of was present in America from the time of FDR onwards. Forced Sterilizations were present. The killing of Baby Doe backs me up.

I mean, if you don't understand the difference between a hand and a fetus, you're not really gonna go far in this debate.

At 2/16/11 02:27 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Um, real science says that human life begins at conception. Biblical science says life being when "the blood flows through it".

Source it up. Really. Source it up or admit failure.

I'm sorry, but this simply isn't arguable. A unique human embryo with unique DNA is created when the sperm and the egg join. It then implants and begins to grow. Birth science 101. If you have a legitimate source that says otherwize, GREAT! If not, we'll go with what every scientist on the face of the planet agrees to.

EVERYTHING in science is arguable until proven. So prove it to me. Source it up.

A human hand is part of a human. It will never turn into another human if severed.

Just like a pre-third term baby will never turn into another human when severed from its mother.

You clearly have no idea about anything biology related....

Then teach me, oh master. How does a zygote constitute a human? What about a fetus that is no more than an appendage of the mother and cannot live on its own?

The slippery slope I speak of was present in America from the time of FDR onwards. Forced Sterilizations were present. The killing of Baby Doe backs me up.

Yeah, um. Prove it again. We have not had eugenics inthis country for a long time, and when we did it was adark time, but guess what? We moved on. And in the near 40 years since Roe v. Wade we have not slid into eugenics on any sort.

I mean, if you don't understand the difference between a hand and a fetus, you're not really gonna go far in this debate.

If you don't understand the correlation, you have already failed the debate.