a better society through abortion!

[3chordcharlie]

Why do I feel like I've read this thread before?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why limit ourselves to innocent babies. Why don't we kill all disabled and retarded people too?

Look at the social services they eat up.

Think of how much better we off we'd be! :disgust:

Here's a thought, if you're not married and don't want to have children, don't have sex.

Why limit ourselves to disabled and retarded? What about just people who are just 'slow'? Wouldn't society be better off?

So does this mean get to kill Rip?

Another personal attack against Rip... quoted for posterity.

I am just asking a simple question... I'd said there something seriously wrong with you if you beileve there is some benevolent nice guy in the sky that watchs over us but doesn't want gay marriage, pre-marital sex, abortion, etc etc etc..

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why limit ourselves to innocent babies. Why don't we kill all disabled and retarded people too?

Look at the social services they eat up.

Think of how much better we off we'd be! :disgust:

Here's a thought, if you're not married and don't want to have children, don't have sex.

Here are a couple of thoughts for you...

Birth control measures (other than not having sex) that exist today are very effective, clearly the number of abortions done in this country suggests that a lot of people are having sex and not using birth control.

If people having sex aren't even using birth control, for whatever reason, I don't think they are going to abstain from sex, do you?

So it would seem reasonable to support birth control. I always wondered about that. It seems to me that pro-life people would be the strongest supporters of birth control. Being realistic for a second, people are not going to stop having sex. They aren't. You know it and I know it. So if we don't want abortions, wouldn't birth control be the next best thing?

Sex within marriage > Sex outside of marriage

Things like abortion, disease, improper birth control usage, etc. all come when you try to reverse this inequality.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Sex within marriage > Sex outside of marriage

Value judgement.

Things like abortion, disease, improper birth control usage, etc. all come when you try to reverse this inequality.

No, that happens when you choose not to practice monogamy. The two concepts are similar, but they aren't the same thing.

 

[preCRT]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: preCRT

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why limit ourselves to innocent babies. Why don't we kill all disabled and retarded people too?

Look at the social services they eat up.

Think of how much better we off we'd be! :disgust:

Here's a thought, if you're not married and don't want to have children, don't have sex.

Here are a couple of thoughts for you...

Birth control measures (other than not having sex) that exist today are very effective, clearly the number of abortions done in this country suggests that a lot of people are having sex and not using birth control.

If people having sex aren't even using birth control, for whatever reason, I don't think they are going to abstain from sex, do you?

So it would seem reasonable to support birth control. I always wondered about that. It seems to me that pro-life people would be the strongest supporters of birth control. Being realistic for a second, people are not going to stop having sex. They aren't. You know it and I know it. So if we don't want abortions, wouldn't birth control be the next best thing?

But some of them are against birth control as well, sex is only for procreation. Birth control interferes with G-d's will. Anything that prevents that sperm from hitting that egg is evil. S-E-X is bad bad bad. Just ask any one of those wacko pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. Those pills are the work of the devil, only evil Satanists think about, much less perform sex, for any reason except to go forth and be fruitful & multiple. Well not too fruitful, cuz that's probably Satan's work too.

Just remember, sex is bad bad bad.

And those that don't agree will all be damned to hell...


or worse, they may be condemned to live in Florida.


Save us all :disgust:

But that's exactly my point, we have all these puritanical people who think their duty in life is to enforce their views on everyone else, presumably for the good of society. Yet they combine this with an approach that is destined to failure. It's like the war on drugs, or the drinking age. Because drinking until you're 21 is illegal, and because drugs are illegal, it makes them less safe, not more so. People don't stop drinking or doing drugs, but instead of doing it in a safe and educated manner, they binge drink in dorm rooms and do drugs cut with who knows what that they got from some punk drug dealer.

I don't agree with the whole Republican Sex Patrol thing in any case, but even if you are morally agreed to it, it's still stupid to stick to your guns in the face of overwhelming evidence to suggest your approach isn't working. Fine, Rip and friends think sex is only for after you are married. Unless their only purpose is ranting, I don't think they'll have much luck convincing everyone else of that viewpoint. So since people are going to have sex anyways, why not make it as safe as we can?

The 'anti' folks don't want those who commit 'sin' to be safe, they want the 'sinners' to suffer, maybe even to the extent of death. Not a lot of compassion or caring when all they think about is forcing others to believe and live as THEY see fit.


It all comes down to your interpretation of The Golden Rule:

is it:

All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

or something closer to this:

What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman.

or this:

No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.

or this?

Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.

Basically, either you believe that it is your duty to shove and impose your beliefs onto others, whether they agree or not

or

you believe that you should not interfere in your neighbors' beliefs and they shouldn't impose their beliefs on you.

 

[impeachbush]

We could all become homosexuals, and not worry about the whole pesky abortion issue! As far as killing the elderly and retarded, why not? Aren't we already cleansing the earth of the 'less desirables' in Iraq? Now if only Bush was more inteliigent, he'd use the Iraqis as fuel, kinda like coal, and solve two problems at once! Hooray!

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Sex within marriage > Sex outside of marriage

Value judgement.

Indeed.

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Things like abortion, disease, improper birth control usage, etc. all come when you try to reverse this inequality.

No, that happens when you choose not to practice monogamy. The two concepts are similar, but they aren't the same thing.

This is true. But if you commit to a truly monogamous relationship then I don't see it as being any different than being married. Unless by "monogomous relationship" you mean one that is only monogomous for a month, or a year or two and then falls apart.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
This is true. But if you commit to a truly monogamous relationship then I don't see it as being any different than being married. Unless by "monogomous relationship" you mean one that is only monogomous for a month, or a year or two and then falls apart.

Well, I don't really mean it as any more 'serial monogamous' than marriage in general has become. For myself, I wouldn't have sex with someone if I could forsee not being with them at some point in the future. But that doesn't mean at some point the relationship, like a marriage, won't end.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Yeah, what am I thinking. Expect teenagers to exhibit self-control?

It probably won't happen as long as society keeps glorifying sexual promiscuity.

I've been lurking for quite awhile around here. I've noticed that you'd fit in well with Orwell's "Junior Anti-Sex League." Did you get castrated prior to puberty? Not a flame, really!

It just seems like you have no concept of sexual attraction or desire beyond what is taught in your bible.

Bahahahahaha :thumbsup:

 

[Infohawk]

Didn't some people look at the relationship between abortion being legalized and declining crime rates?

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why limit ourselves to innocent babies. Why don't we kill all disabled and retarded people too?

Look at the social services they eat up.

Think of how much better we off we'd be! :disgust:

Here's a thought, if you're not married and don't want to have children, don't have sex.

Why limit ourselves to disabled and retarded? What about just people who are just 'slow'? Wouldn't society be better off?

So does this mean get to kill Rip?

Another personal attack against Rip... quoted for posterity.

I am just asking a simple question... I'd said there something seriously wrong with you if you beileve there is some benevolent nice guy in the sky that watchs over us but doesn't want gay marriage, pre-marital sex, abortion, etc etc etc..

You asked if it was OK to kill another member.. I guess thats now acceptable in these forums. I don't see how that has anything to do with your opinion on this topic.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why limit ourselves to innocent babies. Why don't we kill all disabled and retarded people too?

Look at the social services they eat up.

Think of how much better we off we'd be! :disgust:

Here's a thought, if you're not married and don't want to have children, don't have sex.

Why limit ourselves to disabled and retarded? What about just people who are just 'slow'? Wouldn't society be better off?

So does this mean get to kill Rip?

Another personal attack against Rip... quoted for posterity.

I am just asking a simple question... I'd said there something seriously wrong with you if you beileve there is some benevolent nice guy in the sky that watchs over us but doesn't want gay marriage, pre-marital sex, abortion, etc etc etc..

You asked if it was OK to kill another member.. I guess thats now acceptable in these forums. I don't see how that has anything to do with your opinion on this topic.

You're "slow" if you don't get the fact that the bible is a work of FICTION.

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: Tabb

You're "slow" if you don't get the fact that the bible is a work of FICTION.

Maybe you should read what you quoted, Tabb.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
abortion allows women to change their birthing period to line up better with when they are ready, financially, mentally, and emotionally, to be a parent. that is, women tend to abort when they are young, poor, and single, so that they may bear children when they are mature, comparatively wealthy, and married. this, in turn, allows them to more fully care for the child during its formative years, rather than trying to raise a child (or several) on a very limited income and working two jobs to keep her fed. poverty, of course, breeds crime. it is also a vicious cycle that is hard to break. so, the chance of the child becoming a criminal or a burden to society is much lower if the woman can choose when to bear the child.

in addition, the reduction in population allows social services aimed at children, particularly schools, to function better. if schools function better, children can learn better, and become better members of society for it.

all this, in turn, leads to happier children, happier parents, and a better society.

The majority of abortions are performed on the lowest income sector in our country. These same people havent got out of that income bracket.

I think your idea is silly.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Tabb

You're "slow" if you don't get the fact that the bible is a work of FICTION.

Maybe you should read what you quoted, Tabb.

The bible is a work of Fiction. I am not getting something?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Tabb

You're "slow" if you don't get the fact that the bible is a work of FICTION.

Maybe you should read what you quoted, Tabb.

The bible is a work of Fiction. I am not getting something?

This why archeologists bring bibles with them when digging around Israel?

kk

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Tabb

You're "slow" if you don't get the fact that the bible is a work of FICTION.

Maybe you should read what you quoted, Tabb.

The bible is a work of Fiction. I am not getting something?

I assumed you had made a mistake by quoting an argument over whether somebody was trolling, and then adding a sentence about the Bible that had nothing to do with it at all.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Tabb

You're "slow" if you don't get the fact that the bible is a work of FICTION.

Maybe you should read what you quoted, Tabb.

The bible is a work of Fiction. I am not getting something?

This why archeologists bring bibles with them when digging around Israel?

kk

They're reiligous and have faith.

 

[artikk]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Tabb

You're "slow" if you don't get the fact that the bible is a work of FICTION.

Maybe you should read what you quoted, Tabb.

The bible is a work of Fiction. I am not getting something?

This why archeologists bring bibles with them when digging around Israel?

kk

They're reiligous and have faith.

Riiiiiight.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Tabb

You're "slow" if you don't get the fact that the bible is a work of FICTION.

Maybe you should read what you quoted, Tabb.

The bible is a work of Fiction. I am not getting something?

I assumed you had made a mistake by quoting an argument over whether somebody was trolling, and then adding a sentence about the Bible that had nothing to do with it at all.

Rip from what I've read follows the bible literally, that's just plain stupid. If you can't grasp that fact that falliable men created the bible you're "slow". Crimson advocated that we should kill slow people. I'd say Rip would be prime example of that.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: russianpower

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Tabb

You're "slow" if you don't get the fact that the bible is a work of FICTION.

Maybe you should read what you quoted, Tabb.

The bible is a work of Fiction. I am not getting something?

This why archeologists bring bibles with them when digging around Israel?

kk

They're reiligous and have faith.

Riiiiiight.

Maybe there going to compare it the texts the dig up? Thats another educated guess.

 

[artikk]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Rip from what I've read follows the bible literally, that's just plain stupid. If you can't grasp that fact that falliable men created the bible you're "slow". Crimson advocated that we should kill slow people. I'd say Rip would be prime example of that.

Bible was administered and written/created by God while the people wrote down the information.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
This is true. But if you commit to a truly monogamous relationship then I don't see it as being any different than being married. Unless by "monogomous relationship" you mean one that is only monogomous for a month, or a year or two and then falls apart.

Well, I don't really mean it as any more 'serial monogamous' than marriage in general has become. For myself, I wouldn't have sex with someone if I could forsee not being with them at some point in the future. But that doesn't mean at some point the relationship, like a marriage, won't end.

True, marriages do end. But the Christian view is that divorce is a tragedy and the breaking of a comittment, so its a very serious thing.

Obviously, getting married just so you can have sex is not what Christians are teaching as the right way to go about it. It's just that marriage is viewed a committment between two people and God, and its meant to last for the lifetime of the couple.

 

[artikk]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Maybe there going to compare it the texts the dig up? Thats another educated guess.

Yes, but not because they're religious. Archaeologists want to prove to the world and to themselves if the Bible is accurate or not when compared to the other biblical texts of the time.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: russianpower

Originally posted by: Tabb
Rip from what I've read follows the bible literally, that's just plain stupid. If you can't grasp that fact that falliable men created the bible you're "slow". Crimson advocated that we should kill slow people. I'd say Rip would be prime example of that.

Bible was administered and written/created by God while the people wrote down the information.

For starters you're going to have to convince me that "God" does infact exsist. Then we'll discuss if he's a Christian God...