http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/18/oklahoma.abortion/index.html

This is insane. How long till the bombs under the car of a young woman getting an abortion after rape?


Disgusting invasion of privacy and rights.

Yeah, brings a tear to my eye and makes me proud to be an Okie....not. Oklahoma is called the buckle of the bible belt for a reason.

They're trying to make it sound like they're going to collect the information so as to be better able to counsel the women. In reality, it's a scare tactic in a wrong-headed attempt to force women considering abortion to go ahead and have the kid or face public ridicule.

If you really want an idea of how dumb most people in Oklahoma are, listen to the rantings of Senator Jim Inhoff, this joker believes that the world is making up global warming....he actually believes it. I vote against him and the idiots around here still reelect his dumb a**.

Yup. Cannot wait till the world ends and I no longer have to deal with stupidity of this caliber.

C'mon 2012! I'm waiting.

I constantly amuse my American girlfriend by teasing her that the "land of the free" actually has far more rules and regulations than anywhere in Western Europe, and here is another classis example.

Im off to yank her chain for a bit...

On topic, Absolutely disgusting. Once more the Religious lobby is embarrasing America. I feel sorry for sensible secular Americans like the Mrs who constantly feel the need to apologise for crap like this. Do they put sex offendors and rapists names on a list on the internet? :S

Yes its important to make fun of Oklahoma. I am sure your locales are all suitably enlightened.

I mean Western Europe is much more enlightened, like how Muslim womeon are not allowed to wear headscarves and the BNP is rising, and inversely, Danish playwrights are killed. Yep much more enlightened.

But back to feeling superior. Those wacky Oklahomans...

mattyrm wrote:I constantly amuse my American girlfriend by teasing her that the "land of the free" actually has far more rules and regulations than anywhere in Western Europe, and here is another classis example.

Im off to yank her chain for a bit...

On topic, Absolutely disgusting. Once more the Religious lobby is embarrasing America. I feel sorry for sensible secular Americans like the Mrs who constantly feel the need to apologise for crap like this. Do they put sex offendors and rapists names on a list on the internet? :S

Sadly " Land of the free" is becoming as meaningless a term as " New and improved" and "Supplies are limited",it's more of a "marketing term" and less of an actual state of being.
And yes,this sort of thing is deplorable.

You see women who get abortions are just like pedophiles because...

mattyrm wrote:I constantly amuse my American girlfriend by teasing her that the "land of the free" actually has far more rules and regulations than anywhere in Western Europe, and here is another classis example.

Im off to yank her chain for a bit...

On topic, Absolutely disgusting. Once more the Religious lobby is embarrasing America. I feel sorry for sensible secular Americans like the Mrs who constantly feel the need to apologise for crap like this. Do they put sex offendors and rapists names on a list on the internet? :S

Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets Minarets

I forgot about the minarets controversy.

avantgarde wrote:You see women who get abortions are just like pedophiles because...

Bible thumpers in government get a free ride since the American public is too weak to tell them no?

Do jobs in the abortion industry pay well?

I have proven skills at "origination".

lol @ Shuma.

Yeah, the bloke who thinks the UK is like "V from Vendetta"

I thought you might show up.

You like to make rude and ridiculous (and yes, your statement is entirely ridiculous, ask any of the thousands of Americans who live here) inflammatory statements about the UK (we didnt ban any minarettes)And then spam your wall of minarettes when you get a poke of reality yourself.

Cheers then!

mattyrm wrote:lol @ Shuma.

Yeah, the bloke who thinks the UK is like "V from Vendetta"

I thought you might show up.

You like to make rude and ridiculous (and yes, your statement is entirely ridiculous, ask any of the thousands of Americans who live here) inflammatory statements about the UK (we didnt ban any minarettes)And then spam your wall of minarettes when you get a poke of reality yourself.

Cheers then!

Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state Surveillance state

A witty retort. I think the news story above might give the lie to your wall of text perhaps?

Why? Oklahoma isn't even part of the US.

avantgarde wrote:Why? Oklahoma isn't even part of the US.

Its funny, i spend alot of time with the Oklahoma national guard when i was in "The Gan" and they were such a nice bunch of blokes, i dont think a single one struck me as being a God Pest in all the time i spent with them.

Maybe a lower percentage of the US armed forces are Religious compared to their non serving counterparts?

mattyrm wrote:A witty retort. I think the news story above might give the lie to your wall of text perhaps?

You started it. I'll quote:

I constantly amuse my American girlfriend by teasing her that the "land of the free" actually has far more rules and regulations than anywhere in Western Europe, and here is another classis example.

Besides you can't knock Oklahama. Their cities are so gridlike, the ancient Romans would have been in awe.

avantgarde wrote:Why? Oklahoma isn't even part of the US.

You must be thinking of Texas.

Oklahama is part of the US. It was created to UT fans didn't have a long trip to beat the crap out of an entire state. New Mexico is too hot and Louisiana is even crazier than we are.

Yeah sorry Frazz.. i was just winding our occasionally trollish pal up. I think the clearly obvious point is that we are living in a time where all of the nations on earth are becoming more and more alike, and it isnt a good thing.

Im sure for everytime i poke fun at my missus for the fact they cant drink till they are 21 in CA or they have some sort of Draconian law regarding abortion or some other such instance (Oh yeah an she told me about that Eminent Domain thing?! What the hell is that all about?)We will have similarly irritating laws popping up here in Europe. Its not a cock waggling contest after all, i just couldnt resist myself as Shuma seems to spend a sizeable amount of his time on the internet trying to wind the Limeys up.

If we're having a US vs. western Europe abortion wangfest, can we all remember that the Republic of Ireland is in western Europe.

Have we won yet?

Frazzled wrote:Oklahama is part of the US. It was created to UT fans didn't have a long trip to beat the crap out of an entire state. New Mexico is too hot and Louisiana is even crazier than we are.

Haha ain't that the truth

Oh yea Shuma wins the internet.

I have guns and I'm allowed to carry them on my person almost everywhere I go. That sounds like "land of the free" to me.

Fateweaver wrote:I have guns and I'm allowed to carry them on my person almost everywhere I go. That sounds like "land of the free" to me.

You would love it so much in somalia.

Naw, I like the entire "women go nearly naked in California" freedom.

Somalian women aren't very attractive.

Cane wrote:
Oh yea Shuma wins the internet.

Really?


TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL

^ Pot calling the kettle black?

Back on topic, I always saw Shuma as an equal opportunities aggravator.

Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism. Everyone should go and read the thread about patriotism vs nationalism.

What are you going to read in this post is a joke.
Shuma can't match trolliness of G he is out ultimate troll.

Albatross wrote:

Cane wrote:
Oh yea Shuma wins the internet.

Really?


TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL

Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock Formatting error caps lock

I heard if you start a troll on fire it can't regenerate. Quick, get me some lighter fluid and a match.

Better yet, some napalm.

IvanTih wrote:What are you going to read in this post is a joke.
Shuma can't match trolliness of G he is out ultimate troll.

I'm classier than GBF.

Back on topic, I always saw Shuma as an equal opportunities aggravator.

I goad people out of their ivory towers, or i just write enough text that i climb to the top of it, then my tower is higher.

@Shuma - I bow to your superior trolling techniques, sir .

Albatross wrote:@Shuma - I bow to your superior trolling techniques, sir .

I trained in mongolia for years to attain such levels of sophistication in trolling.

@Shuma - Ah, in a 'Batman Begins' kind of way... Fair enough. It obviously requires great focus and dedication - traits I will never posess, sadly.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Albatross wrote:@Shuma - I bow to your superior trolling techniques, sir .

I trained in mongolia for years to attain such levels of sophistication in trolling.

And have forgotten the basics.

Meh. Putting it simply:

Oklahoma is a terrible, terrible place. Religious nutters run wild like antelope on the plains.

We must purge it with fire and steel!

Kanluwen wrote:Meh. Putting it simply:

Oklahoma is a terrible, terrible place. Religious nutters run wild like antelope on the plains.

We must purge it with fire and steel!

Careful they have more guns than you do, and oil.

That's why I'm recruiting Texas to my cause.

Everyone knows one Texan has more guns than all of Somalia, put together!

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1


Automatically Appended Next Post:
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

+1 +1 +1 +1

Stuff

This is true, although they have us in the RPG department. Thats counterbalanced by our uber dominance in unkillable double dooley pickup trucks. Redneck tanks baby.

Frazzled wrote:
I mean Western Europe is much more enlightened, like how Muslim womeon are not allowed to wear headscarves and the BNP is rising, and inversely, Danish playwrights are killed. Yep much more enlightened.
..

You say that but at least we know when important religious festivals are. I mean I read just the other day that statistically 12/25 Americans don't know its Xmas time !

Stupid question that's dangerously on topic: isn't abortion a medical procedure? I thought all medical records were private under federal law?

Polonius wrote:Stupid question that's dangerously on topic: isn't abortion a medical procedure? I thought all medical records were private under federal law?

I think it's considered under the same vein as cosmetic procedures, which I don't think would be really considered "private".

But yeah. It's ridiculous, and it's Oklahoma. I'm not really surprised.

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Meh. Putting it simply:

Oklahoma is a terrible, terrible place. Religious nutters run wild like antelope on the plains.

We must purge it with fire and steel!

Careful they have more guns than you do, and oil.

They've got Chuck Norris.

This seems well....odd because that type of thing falls under the hypocratic oath and stuff. How is this even legal I mean I could see UTAH doing it but wow.

Hey at least women are allowed to get abortions in Oklahoma. Here in good old Éire they have to go abroad to get it done. Still, it's a bad law.

Meh whadda ya goin to do. Thats life. Sometime people get there way sometimes they dont.

Kanluwen wrote:

Polonius wrote:Stupid question that's dangerously on topic: isn't abortion a medical procedure? I thought all medical records were private under federal law?

I think it's considered under the same vein as cosmetic procedures, which I don't think would be really considered "private".

But yeah. It's ridiculous, and it's Oklahoma. I'm not really surprised.

Of course it's medical, that's why only doctors are allowed to do it.

Cosmetic procedures are medical and private too, assuming it means plastic surgery.

I should think this proposed law would get overruled as unconstitutional as soon as someone takes it to a higher court.

Yeah back on topic i think its shocking and disgusting.

At the end of the day, in any Western Democracy, you can be religious, that is absolutely fine. But temper it with the knowledge of the day. The whole abortion thing is steeped in Religion and nothing else.

No society that claims it is "free" can demand that women do as WE tell them. Im not even particualrly pro abortion myself. I think its a bad thing generally, and i hate these sluts who get knocked up and have several abortions, its terrible, morally wrong, and irresponsible, but a woman has the RIGHT to choose. Thats the rule. Maybe we dont agree with it, but its their body, their ovaries, and their decision. This whole thing is disgraceful, and I think that Ireland not allowing it at all is terrible as well.

At the end of the day, if you absolutely force a woman to have a baby she doesnt want just because of your personal religious beliefs, wont she just throw it in a dumpster or in the local river? Or mutilate her genitals with a knitting needle? Me Grannie tells me that gak used to go on all the time! Surely killing a live baby by shotting it in a river is worse than killing some cells in a womb?

I dont want to get sidetracked by a massive religion debate, but lets be honest, thats all this boils down to.

mattyrm wrote:
...Do they put sex offendors and rapists names on a list on the internet? :S

Yeah. Most states have such registries.

Why does my Google toolbar think this page is in Norwegian?!

Frazzled wrote:Oklahama is part of the US. It was created to UT fans didn't have a long trip to beat the crap out of an entire state. New Mexico is too hot and Louisiana is even crazier than we are.

Ouch, sir that was uncalled for. Just for that I'm going to go dam the red river and drown you out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:This is true, although they have us in the RPG department. Thats counterbalanced by our uber dominance in unkillable double dooley pickup trucks. Redneck tanks baby.

And you beat us in the number of drive through liquor stores too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Polonius wrote:Stupid question that's dangerously on topic: isn't abortion a medical procedure? I thought all medical records were private under federal law?

I think it's considered under the same vein as cosmetic procedures, which I don't think would be really considered "private".

But yeah. It's ridiculous, and it's Oklahoma. I'm not really surprised.

Of course it's medical, that's why only doctors are allowed to do it.

Cosmetic procedures are medical and private too, assuming it means plastic surgery.

I should think this proposed law would get overruled as unconstitutional as soon as someone takes it to a higher court.

It's currently being challenged on that premise.

Polonius wrote:Stupid question that's dangerously on topic: isn't abortion a medical procedure? I thought all medical records were private under federal law?

You're proceeding from the assumption you have any privacy. If I have sufficient money I can know every medical procedure you ever had.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Oklahama is part of the US. It was created to UT fans didn't have a long trip to beat the crap out of an entire state. New Mexico is too hot and Louisiana is even crazier than we are.

Ouch, sir that was uncalled for. Just for that I'm going to go dam the red river and drown you out.

Thats ok. At best you'll take out Dallas. As a Houstonian, go for it!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:This is true, although they have us in the RPG department. Thats counterbalanced by our uber dominance in unkillable double dooley pickup trucks. Redneck tanks baby.

And you beat us in the number of drive through liquor stores too.

Sorry you're thinking of Louisiana, which is just another reason no one but God messes with Louisiana. They are crazy. My Mom is from there, I know. Oh I know...I guess that makes me half crazy?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Polonius wrote:Stupid question that's dangerously on topic: isn't abortion a medical procedure? I thought all medical records were private under federal law?

I think it's considered under the same vein as cosmetic procedures, which I don't think would be really considered "private".

But yeah. It's ridiculous, and it's Oklahoma. I'm not really surprised.

Of course it's medical, that's why only doctors are allowed to do it.

Cosmetic procedures are medical and private too, assuming it means plastic surgery.

I should think this proposed law would get overruled as unconstitutional as soon as someone takes it to a higher court.

It's currently being challenged on that premise.

Given sufficient motive, and resources, I could also lurk in your vicinity on a daily basis.

As with most similar things, privacy is real to the extent that it is accepted as veracious.

dogma wrote:Given sufficient motive, and resources, I could also lurk in your vicinity on a daily basis.

As with most similar things, privacy is real to the extent that it is accepted as veracious.

And you would be capped and left in a ditch but thats a separate issue.

I'm saying your medical records are not really private. I do not think this is a good thing.

No one's anything has ever been private by that definition. Even in the Dark Ages privacy could be eliminated through a judicious application of resources. So long as one is aware of a thing, one can expend energy to learn more about that thing.

Privacy has always been an illusion of aesthetics.

True, privacy isn't what people think it is, but there is a difference between being able to dig through records and pay off people to find out information and having the state post the info online.

Re-reading the article, it appears that the names of the women wouldn't go online, just the answers to a 37 question, 10 page form. Of course, critics argue, that can make it very easy to guess.

If I were to bet money on the outcome of this trial, it won't be about rights or privacy or any of that, but a simple supremacy clause issue. The state can't force doctors to violate federal law.

Polonius wrote:True, privacy isn't what people think it is, but there is a difference between being able to dig through records and pay off people to find out information and having the state post the info online.

Yeah, no doubt. Privacy is still a thing, its just not a thing in the sense that a thing is an absolute barrier. If we want something to be private, then we want it to be relatively difficult to access.

mattyrm wrote:I dont want to get sidetracked by a massive religion debate........

Sure you do mattyrm.... that's why every other post of yours attacks religion in one way or the other. I can tell you I'm getting tired of it, and the gloves are getting ready to come off. I think I have been really restrained when it comes to your bigoted anti religious posts but it seems like Gwar! is back in a new form or something.

GG

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:Yup. Cannot wait till the world ends and I no longer have to deal with stupidity of this caliber.

C'mon 2012! I'm waiting.

Exactly,at least then we'll have fun killing zombies instead of listening to stupid politicians :S

GeneralGrog wrote:seems like Gwar! is back in a new form

Err...Im pretty sure Gwar! Is Jewish.

Mattyrm wrote:mutilate her genitals with a knitting needle?

I've seen a video on the Internet of a man cutting off his balls. Does that count?

GG-I think Mattyrm achually has a valid point (this time), its silly that someone's religious beliefs could effect the life of someone else they have never met.

Ethnically Jewish, but an atheist.

I miss Gwar.

He will be back soon enough, about two weeks left of his ban, I think.

He claims he won't be back. Frankly can't blame the guy.

@GeneralGrog - You're a christian, aren't you? Forgive him then.

The gloves are getting ready to come off?

You just called me a bigot. I never called you any names.

Please, take the gloves off, smite me with your holy wrath so to speak. Im literally dying to hear what you have to say that will crush me so resoundingly.

I have had several PM chats with many of the believers on here, i dont think that anything i have to say is "bigoted" because i am a libertarian. I am happy with people doing whatever they want. As long as it doesnt affect me.

I wouldnt even say im a real Atheist. More like a agnostic with atheistic tendancies. I even have a healthy respect for the Church of England, with its progressive policies and pleasant, more subtle Religious ways. Female clergy for instance, a fine idea. Very fair.

I was baptised as a kid, i am not the kinda bloke to go and demand it gets "reversed" and i will happily attend a church for a wedding or such like, i even happily eat with the family at Christmas and buy my nephew a present.

But you and any your ilk should not be able to tell people you do not know and have never met, how they should live their lives, or that they have to live by any "rules" that your clergy decide upon.

Im happy for religious people to be religious, as long as it doesnt not affect my life. I dont mind one bit. If you want to praise Jesus all day, that is fine by me, if it doesnt have any affect on my life, then im all for it.

If you want to hate gays irrationally in the privacy of your own home, or demand that your own family members dont use contraceptives or get abortions, then that is absolutely fine too. If a family member wants to be given an overdose of a painkiller because they exist in unspeakable pain, and you want to tell them "sorry, its against God" then thats fine as well. Crack on.

But you guys are never happy with it are you? You have to come a knocking on my fething door and tell me what you think. You have to tell me that i am "evil" because i disagree with you. Have i ever knocked on anyones door and told them i think it is unlikely we have a supervisory authority? No.

I have no issue at all with most of the believers on here, because they arent militant with it. They believe what they want, and they dont try and force me to follow. It is fine.

I am happy for you to disagree with abortion, contraception, assisted suicide, whatever blows your metaphorical skirt up. AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT AFFECT ME.

How often do religious sorts say "We think" or "Perhaps"

And we are the bigotted ones?

Getting called a bigot by you is like every single pot in the universe calling every kettle in existence black.

Please, remove the gloves, do it via PM if you really want to get down to business. Im all ears.

generalgrog wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I dont want to get sidetracked by a massive religion debate........

Sure you do mattyrm.... that's why every other post of yours attacks religion in one way or the other. I can tell you I'm getting tired of it, and the gloves are getting ready to come off. I think I have been really restrained when it comes to your bigoted anti religious posts but it seems like Gwar! is back in a new form or something.

GG

I do have to agree with GG here. Dakka has a really nasty streak of people that really enjoy ragging on religion pretty much every chance they get. It's neither noble nor useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Mattrym: the problem you have is that you forget that there are other reasons other than religious to, as you put it, tell other people what to do. Likewise, if libretarianism were your only motivating factor, then we'd expect a bit more variety in your screeds: taxes, governmental regulations, etc.

When you make a statement that pro life thought boils down entirely to religion, you paint a very complex issue with a very large brush. I'm not sure I'd call it bigoted, and you aren't the worst offender out here, but it wasn't the most astute comment.

As i said, i dont try to rag on "religion" i rag on religious people that try and force their opinions onto other people.

You can think that X is wrong, but you cant force everyone else to think it too.

I think that is a sizeable difference.

I genuinelly like many of the Relgious people on here because i know they are believers but they dont try to ram it home all day. My problem is with people telling me what is right and what is wrong, and as i explained in the whole "assisted suicide" thing. I feel very strongly about it for obvious reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pol, i am aware of course that there are other factors, but (especially in the USA) you have to concede that at least 90% of it is down to religious belief. Sure its a ballpark figure, but I am pretty certain i am correct here, how many aggressive pro lifers (Scott Roeder for example who murdered Doctor George Tiller) are "agnostic"?

Albatross wrote:@GeneralGrog - You're a christian, aren't you? Forgive him then.

Of course I forgive. IN fact I have the love of Christ for mattyrm, however sometimes love needs to be tough. You wouldn't let a child get away with certain things, because you love them, otherwise they get spoiled. Similarly I feel compelled to "correct" mattyrm with his bad behavior when it comes to his attempts at mocking religion. Thats what I meant by gloves coming off.

The Bible says Be ye angry and sin not. It's not a sin to offer correction, or to be righteously indignant.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:The gloves are getting ready to come off?

They are officially off.... :-)

mattyrm wrote:
You just called me a bigot. I never called you any names.

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

They didn't include religion but the principle is the same. You sir, are an intolerant "anti religious" bigot.

mattyrm wrote:
Please, remove the gloves, do it via PM if you really want to get down to business. Im all ears.

The time for pm is over. This needs to be taken care of in public forum so mods can intervene. Otherwise you will continue to spew your rhetoric without mercy.
The problem is that you don't seem to understand that your irrational rants are offensive to people of faith, and that just because you hide behind the "NO offense intended" card doesn't excuse it.

I've got to run..apologies for the rushed responce.
GG

Frazzled wrote:This is true, although they have us in the RPG department.

I think they take the LARP thing too far, though

mattyrm wrote:Pol, i am aware of course that there are other factors, but (especially in the USA) you have to concede that at least 90% of it is down to religious belief. Sure its a ballpark figure, but I am pretty certain i am correct here, how many aggressive pro lifers (Scott Roeder for example who murdered Doctor George Tiller) are "agnostic"?

First off, it's hard to contend that you're arguing in good faith when you use an insane murderer as your example of a aggressive pro lifer. Yes, it's likely that the actions of pro life groups made Dr. Tiller a target that a clearly troubled guy fixated on, calling their tactics into question, but murder is several standard deviations away from even "aggressive" pro life activism.

As for the role of religion, I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Religious principles might be the explanation for why a person is pro-life, but the reason I think is more political: desire to maintain the patriarchy. The two are conflated, to be sure, but I think the pro life movement is more motivated by anti-feminism than pure religious zeal.

Polonius wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Pol, i am aware of course that there are other factors, but (especially in the USA) you have to concede that at least 90% of it is down to religious belief. Sure its a ballpark figure, but I am pretty certain i am correct here, how many aggressive pro lifers (Scott Roeder for example who murdered Doctor George Tiller) are "agnostic"?

First off, it's hard to contend that you're arguing in good faith when you use an insane murderer as your example of a aggressive pro lifer. Yes, it's likely that the actions of pro life groups made Dr. Tiller a target that a clearly troubled guy fixated on, calling their tactics into question, but murder is several standard deviations away from even "aggressive" pro life activism.

As for the role of religion, I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Religious principles might be the explanation for why a person is pro-life, but the reason I think is more political: desire to maintain the patriarchy. The two are conflated, to be sure, but I think the pro life movement is more motivated by anti-feminism than pure religious zeal.

I can tell you with some authority that if it's about Oklahoma, then there's something about "strong christian values" involved and, yes, it's about religion. I was born here, I grew up here, I ran to Asia to get away from here, and like an idiot, I came back.

There's a church on every corner and they build new ones to stop someone from opening a bar, nightclub or other "unsavory" business (law states you can't have a "sin" business within a certain distance of a school or church). Spend any amount of time in Oklahoma and you'll ask, "why is there a church on every corner?"; it's not a joke, it's reality. I'm not saying religion is a bad thing, but in Oklahoma, religion is life for many people. Oh and there's a hug difference between a catholic and a hellfire and brimstone southern baptist, a huge HUGE difference.

Did I mention the giant shrine to christianity that's going to be planted on the lawn of the state capital? A 10 commandments statue; yes, here in the great land of Oklahoma, you can forget about separation between church and state.

GG. Define in what way my opinions are irrational?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:

First off, it's hard to contend that you're arguing in good faith when you use an insane murderer as your example of a aggressive pro lifer.

Pol, the point i am making here is exactly that. I dont believe for a second that Dr Tillers murderer WAS insane.

mattyrm wrote:GG. Define in what way my opinions are irrational?

Calling people "God pests" is an irrational insult.
Calling someone who believes in creationism as being "slowed" is irrational.

To me a rational person may in fact disagree with a position that someone takes. When you take it to the level of insult and mockery like you do, you become irrational.

Why is it so hard for you to just accept the fact that people believe differently than you do and........WALK AWAY.......... take the low road.............. or whatever other cliche' you want to hang on it.

It helps no one to constantly harang a group of people because they believe or think differently than you do.

GG

A "Pest" is someone that bothers you, for example a fly can be a pest. If someone is knocking on my door when i dont expect it and is trying to force their opinions onto me and it happens to be about God, then i think they are a pest, ergo, a God pest. Whats irrational about that?

Lets not even get into Creationism. Needless to say i feel it has no evidence supporting it at all and it is a truly ridiculous subject, again, i dont see this as irrational..

Anyway, i concede, i may come across as a tad aggresive, but i think it is because people seem to afford this particular topic too much respect. As i said, i am by no means "militant" and i still write "C of E" when i fill out a form at work.

I will of course apologise if i have upset you. I do think the word "bigot" is a tad strong for me though, you obviously havent met some of the more aggresive chaps that frequent forums!

Back on topic. I think the law is very unfair.

No one is right, everyone is wrong.

mattyrm wrote: you obviously havent met some of the more aggresive chaps that frequent forums!

No I have, the internets are full of that kind of stuff. That's why I like dakka because that kind of thing is generally kept out of here.

thanks for your understanding.

GG

Orkeosaurus wrote:No one is right, everyone is wrong.

*Everyone starts shouting and fighting instantly*

Anyway, i concede, i may come across as a tad aggresive, but i think it is because people seem to afford this particular topic too much respect.

Thats not aggressive, at best it's arrogant or conceited, more realistically it's just somewhat tactless. Aggressive is when you tell people that they're wrong or press them on their opinions, not just make uninterupted snarky comments then stand behind the veil of an "enlightened" opinion on the subject.

I do think the word "bigot" is a tad strong for me though, you obviously havent met some of the more aggresive chaps that frequent forums!

big⋅ot  [big-uht] Show IPA
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Actually you do seem somewhat bigoted in terms of most religious discussions you enter, but then there are many varying levels of bigot as the definition doesn't really give the specific amount of intolerance that crosses the line into bigotry, nor is intolerance particularly well defined itself. I would say that you're pretty bigoted on the subject, but only insofar as you rarely support yourself when tearing down religion. You tend to classify all religions and religions through the lens of extremists or religious political agents, when such movements are more realistically a-political populist movements for underclass social wellbeing.

mattyrm wrote:
Pol, i am aware of course that there are other factors, but (especially in the USA) you have to concede that at least 90% of it is down to religious belief.

No I don't. In fact, I won't. The fact that a given set of beliefs are enshrined in faith does not imply that the faith itself is the motivational element. You can generalize the matter as one of religion, but then you're simply being inattentive.

To put it another way: removing Christianity from the equation is unlikely to alter the moral structure of the United States. No religion functions by literal divine mandate. Instead, the morality being advocated is proven through earthly experience. Any discussion of divinity is little more than phrase given to that function.

I can tell you that when I was an atheist(yes I used to be a dawkinsesque hardcore atheist) I was generrally opposed to abortion if the father was against it. I thought it was wrong for the woman to deny the baby if the father wanted it. That mentality was not one of religion.

Now that I am a Christian I believe it is the taking of a a life, and that belief is due to my understanding of the Bible.

So in short, I think mattyrm is partly correct, however he should have qualified his statement to make it a generality instead of so dogmatic.

GG

edit..I wanted to add that I don't agree with the shooting of abortion providers either.
edit..Also don't agree with "naming names" when it comes to women who do have an abortion.

I thought this forum had rules.

G

Tangents seem to be the way of the internet...

Green Blow Fly wrote:I thought this forum had rules.

G

BTW congrats on your tourney win.

GG

Thanks bro. It was very nice to finally meet you. By the way I am a Zen Buddhist. Try it you might like it. I am surrounded by Scientologists here in Florida. They exist so that the movie stars can have a tax break.

G

dogma wrote:

No I don't. In fact, I won't. The fact that a given set of beliefs are enshrined in faith does not imply that the faith itself is the motivational element. You can generalize the matter as one of religion, but then you're simply being inattentive.

Faith IS the motivational element. Not the only one, but the main one. I have never met a single person who is disinterested in Religion who is as aggresively anti abortion as some religious groups are, and by extension, their followers. Many dont really agree with it, but none have the distaste for it that some people of faith do.

I do not think abortion is a good thing. I think that people should be responsible enough to use preventative measures, gak, im even up for making it harder and shortening the legal time it may be carried out (lets say 16 weeks)

But absolutely DEMANDING that the pregnant women is not given a say on the matter? You wont find many secularists who think like that. Even if they are Anti Abortion.

dogma wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
Pol, i am aware of course that there are other factors, but (especially in the USA) you have to concede that at least 90% of it is down to religious belief.

No I don't. In fact, I won't. The fact that a given set of beliefs are enshrined in faith does not imply that the faith itself is the motivational element. You can generalize the matter as one of religion, but then you're simply being inattentive.

To put it another way: removing Christianity from the equation is unlikely to alter the moral structure of the United States. No religion functions by literal divine mandate. Instead, the morality being advocated is proven through earthly experience. Any discussion of divinity is little more than phrase given to that function.

Strongly disagree here. Remove Judeo-Christian values from the US and you have very little moral structure remaining. Even the secular-humanist concept of a "universal morality" is rooted in Judeo-Christian principles and traditions (though they really don't like to see it that way). Fundamentally, the concept of self-interest is anathema to organized society without a well defined moral structure and for the last 1500 years or so, that morality has come from the Judeo-Christian tradition for Western civilization.

Other religions also provide a moral framework similar in various important respects to Judaeo-Christianity.

So does Humanism.

100% agree on the importance of morality and other religions. Hinduism has a complex morality system that defines how the better part of South Asia operates. A mix of Taoism and Confuciansim, coupled with Buddhism, help define South-West Asia, China and Japan. All of them are completely viable morality systems. But I don't think any of them would easily or effectively fill the morality void in the US if you removed the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Humanism, on the other hand, I do not think would exist without Judeo-Christian tradition. The Western concept of equality is deeply rooted in the traditions of the early Church. Humanism itself originated completely inside the Judeo-Christian context and its ultimate goal of human flourishing, and the means advocated to achieve it, are rooted in Judeo-Christian values and principals. I'm not demeaning it, but I think its an attempt to have Judeo-Christian ethics without the Judeo-Christian God and that it can't be seperated out as a seperate morality system.

This would be true if Judeo-Christian was around from the year dot. What about Ancient Greece, the Egyptians, Celts, Ancient Roman? Didn't they have laws in place that would of been similar to those promoted by Judeo-Christian? The laws laid down by Judeo-Christian would of not been known by the rest of the world until "Christianity" started spreading out across the world, so the rest of the world would off had something in place before them. Isn't that how civilisations arise?

@ Wolfstan: I'm missing your point apparently. My point is that the United States is built on a Judeo-Christian tradition and that if you removed that tradition, including its off-shots like humanism, then you would have a moral void. Anicent civilizations certainly had their own ways of defining morality and they absolutely worked for them. I never claimed that Judeo-Christian tradition is the foundation of all civilization. I said that for the last 1500 years, it has defined Western Civilization (so from about 500 A.D. onwards).

Ooops, sorry, my bad!

PanzerLeader wrote:My point is that the United States is built on a Judeo-Christian tradition and that if you removed that tradition, including its off-shots like humanism, then you would have a moral void.

That is both highly doubtful and unknowable. If you removed Judeo-Christian tradition you would not create a moral void, you would just have something different that would be either somewhat similiar or radically different. As already pointed out there were morals and ethics before Christianity, during the formation, and in places without it. Western Civilization would be different, but the idea that it would not suddenly lose morals because an outside influence isn't introduced seems a bit specious.

Ahtman wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:My point is that the United States is built on a Judeo-Christian tradition and that if you removed that tradition, including its off-shots like humanism, then you would have a moral void.

That is both highly doubtful and unknowable. If you removed Judeo-Christian tradition you would not create a moral void, you would just have something different that would be either somewhat similiar or radically different. As already pointed out there were morals and ethics before Christianity, during the formation, and in places without it. Western Civilization would be different, but the idea that it would not suddenly lose morals because an outside influence isn't introduced seems a bit specious.

Unknowable? Probably. But you are now making the assumption of an alternative social evolution. I can accept that logically in the development of western civilization, if Jesus' movement had died with him then Western civilization would be fundamentally different. No issues there. However, if you removed the Judeo-Christian values from the contemporary United States, there would absolutely be a moral void. The entire country is steeped in the Judeo-Christian ethic, from the Golden Rule to the Ten Commandments to our sometimes absurd rules governing bedroom behavior (even my tiny homestate of N.H. has a $1,200 fine for commiting adultery). If you were to suddenly invalidate the Judeo-Christian tradition and declare all its tangible products (i.e. codes of law, philosophies, etc.) null and void, I can say with fair certainty that there would be a moral void that would not be easily filled.

@ PAnzer leader: I think dogma's point was that the tradition is far more ingrained than the theology. The point being, we could all stop going to church or believing in the divinity of jesus, but it wouldn't much change the moral structure of the US.

Polonius wrote:@ PAnzer leader: I think dogma's point was that the tradition is far more ingrained than the theology. The point being, we could all stop going to church or believing in the divinity of jesus, but it wouldn't much change the moral structure of the US.

In that case, I agree with him.

This thread title and the article contents are radically different. Waste of money? Yes. Invasion of privacy? As much as a census survey.

Speaking of Oklahoma, who's actually been there and seen the tree?

Deadshane1 wrote:Speaking of Oklahoma, who's actually been there and seen the tree?

Which tree?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/18/oklahoma.abortion/index.html

This is insane. How long till the bombs under the car of a young woman getting an abortion after rape?

Disgusting invasion of privacy and rights.

I'm no fan of abortion and even I find this ridiculous.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:This thread title and the article contents are radically different. Waste of money? Yes. Invasion of privacy? As much as a census survey.

You are, I believe, the first person that's actually realized that and posted it.

The problem is that the questions are so specific as to make Identification trivially easy in some cases. While it would probably not be an "undue burden" under Casey v. Planned Parenthood, it might still violate medical privacy laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_v_Planned_Parenthood

Polonius wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:This thread title and the article contents are radically different. Waste of money? Yes. Invasion of privacy? As much as a census survey.

You are, I believe, the first person that's actually realized that and posted it.

The problem is that the questions are so specific as to make Identification trivially easy in some cases. While it would probably not be an "undue burden" under Casey v. Planned Parenthood, it might still violate medical privacy laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_v_Planned_Parenthood

I hate sensationalizing things. Once it's gone through the cycle a few times it gets a little ridiculous. If I made a thread based off this thread based off the article probably based off another article based off a possible law, it would likely read "Oklahoma to destroy women's right forevar!!111" I can see the parallel, but I think it's a little different still. On top of that, the data might be a little useful (though I'd guess not enough to waste the money). Maybe they could learn to tell people to have safe sex in PSAs or some other piece of common sense

FAIL XD.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:This thread title and the article contents are radically different. Waste of money? Yes. Invasion of privacy? As much as a census survey.

Not so.

A census survey seeks to cover everyone. This specifically seeks to cover only women who want an abortion. It's blatantly sexist discrimination right at that point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is perfectly obvious that whatever flim-flammery the proponents of this idea might wish to use to disguise it, the core intent is to frighten women off having an abortion.

A 35-page form? America is supposed to be a country which hates government and interference in private lives.

This proposal fails on three different legal grounds and people should be ashamed for the waste of tax-payers money involved in promoting it.

Kilkrazy wrote:A 35-page form? America is supposed to be a country which hates government and interference in private lives.

Yeah, we're not that good at it...

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:A 35-page form? America is supposed to be a country which hates government and interference in private lives.

Yeah, we're not that good at it...

The one thing to always keep in mind with Abortion and privacy rights is that it's really only private if you completely discount the fetus as worthy of state notice. Meaning, you can't beat your wife in private, and you can't kill your children in private. Abortion is only considered private because we don't consider the fetus as a party. That still only goes so far, and we realize that there still are some state interests in the fetus.

It's very, very complex.

Frazzled wrote:Yes its important to make fun of Oklahoma. I am sure your locales are all suitably enlightened.

I mean Western Europe is much more enlightened, like how Muslim womeon are not allowed to wear headscarves and the BNP is rising, and inversely, Danish playwrights are killed. Yep much more enlightened.

But back to feeling superior. Those wacky Oklahomans...

Well... Europe was ok until they let the <....> in...

yeah... nice flamebait.... quit it.

Polonius wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:A 35-page form? America is supposed to be a country which hates government and interference in private lives.

Yeah, we're not that good at it...

The one thing to always keep in mind with Abortion and privacy rights is that it's really only private if you completely discount the fetus as worthy of state notice. Meaning, you can't beat your wife in private, and you can't kill your children in private. Abortion is only considered private because we don't consider the fetus as a party. That still only goes so far, and we realize that there still are some state interests in the fetus.

It's very, very complex.

Especially since even if the state isn't directly interested it may have to mediate between the rights of the mother and the father.

But I'm not sure this extensive questioning is really helping out the fetus. It seems like more of a hamfisted attempt to scare people away.

Well, not to sound like a jackass, but wouldn't scaring people away from abortions help out the fetus?

Alright, that's fair.

I suppose I should have said it was less helpful to the fetus than many other things they could be doing, or not nearly helpful enough to justify the harm it may cause the mother. Relying on fear of the medical procedure to reduce the number of abortions really isn't the way to go, after all.

Howlingmoon wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Yes its important to make fun of Oklahoma. I am sure your locales are all suitably enlightened.

I mean Western Europe is much more enlightened, like how Muslim womeon are not allowed to wear headscarves and the BNP is rising, and inversely, Danish playwrights are killed. Yep much more enlightened.

But back to feeling superior. Those wacky Oklahomans...

Well... Europe was ok until they let the <....> in...

yeah... nice flamebait.... quit it.

Make me.

Polonius wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:A 35-page form? America is supposed to be a country which hates government and interference in private lives.

Yeah, we're not that good at it...

The one thing to always keep in mind with Abortion and privacy rights is that it's really only private if you completely discount the fetus as worthy of state notice. Meaning, you can't beat your wife in private, and you can't kill your children in private. Abortion is only considered private because we don't consider the fetus as a party. That still only goes so far, and we realize that there still are some state interests in the fetus.

It's very, very complex.

As the law stands the foetus and the father do not have rights. The form can't have any value in informing the state's role in adjudicating rights if none exist.

The state only has an interest when abortion is proposed after the legal time limit, to ensure that it is done legally (e.g. for genuine medical necessity.) That system has been operating without a serious hitch for 35 years, which suggests that it doesn't really need modification.

If the state wants to take notice of something it currently has no jurisdiction over, it should first seek to establish a basis for getting jurisdiction.

This brings us back to the realisation that the point of the form is to scare women off abortion.

Thats not accurate in the US. The state has compelling interest in protecting the life of the fetus at viability. Thats been old English Common Law and current US judge made law (via SCOTUS). The tricky part is defining viability. With increasing technology that gets shifted further and further back.

Yeah, can't just go around offing potential tax payers...

I sense a lock coming.

Frazzled wrote:Thats not accurate in the US. The state has compelling interest in protecting the life of the fetus at viability. Thats been old English Common Law and current US judge made law (via SCOTUS). The tricky part is defining viability. With increasing technology that gets shifted further and further back.

The records of care of premature babies show that the absolute limit of viability stands at about 21 weeks. Premature babies born at that age need extensive, prolonged medical intervention and frequently suffer ill effects in later life. It has taken about 40 years of medical advance to get from 24 weeks down to 21. Younger babies simply are not viable, without some kind of artificial womb being invented.

As mentioned earlier, about 98% of abortions take place before 24 weeks, and over 80% in the first 12 weeks.

If i was a woman and they tried to force me into having a baby i would have it and then smash my local senators car window and leave it in the bastards back seat.

agnosto wrote:Yeah, can't just go around offing potential tax payers...

WIN!

Really though, the "questionaire" is stupid. I don't think abortion should be abused as a form of birth control, but at the same time, some couples and/or potential mothers simply aren't ready or capable of raising a family. It's stupid to guilt women into motherhood when they have the perfectly legal option of an abortion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quoted from the article:

"Naturally, the abortion industry wants to block this, because they know the more information the mom has, the less likely she is to abort her baby,"

What is this shadowy "abortion industry?" Like, is there a council of execs who sit around thinking up new ways to promote the abortion lifestyle? This sounds a little scare-tact-ular to me. Abortion should never be taken lightly, I've been through a couple with my significant other and it is hell. I don't see any sign of an "industry" trying to push people into abortions. The pro-choice lobby simply has to be as crazy and zealous as the pro-lifers in order to stand a chance.

If abortion is legal, then Oklahoma only needs to gather information to find out if abortions are increasing / decreasing / staying static, education (are certain social groups more prone?) and say, age (similar reason to education). Name & address opens it all up to abuse by the nutters.

Kilkrazy wrote:
As mentioned earlier, about 98% of abortions take place before 24 weeks, and over 80% in the first 12 weeks.

Here ya go....pictures of 23 nd 12 week old babies. Have fun!

http://www.aboutabortions.com/EmbFetal.htm
edit: found some more http://www.babycenter.com/100_fetal-development_5214615.bc

You can't look at those pictures and tell me you really believe abortion is not murder.



GG

generalgrog wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
As mentioned earlier, about 98% of abortions take place before 24 weeks, and over 80% in the first 12 weeks.

Here ya go....pictures of 23 nd 12 week old babies. Have fun!

http://www.aboutabortions.com/EmbFetal.htm
edit: found some more http://www.babycenter.com/100_fetal-development_5214615.bc

You can't look at those pictures and tell me you really believe abortion is not murder.

GG

Well done, thanks for that (not that I wanted to look, having seen something along these lines years ago). Your point was what? As far as I'm aware the post is about woman's name being gathered on a list that then is open to the public, not a debate on whether you agree with abortion or not? Given that there are members of your religious communities that see it's their "God given" duty to murder people connected with abortions, then this isn't the best idea on the planet is it?!

GG as i said, i think that they should lower the time you are allowed one, but from looking at the pictures, i can safely say that terminating say, an 8-12 week pregnancy is not even remotely like murder. Probably alot longer, though i dont know the biology behind it and i admit that the pictures stir some sort of.. primal feelings of protection over the foetus. But lets be realistic, that little ball cannot feel pain or actually be aware of its existence. Hence, i dont think that you can say it is more important than its walking talking mother.

As i have said, i dont really support abortion, women shouldnt be so fething ignorant and irresponsible.

But take away their rights to choose?

That i would never ever do.

IHow on earth can we (random men) force them (random women) to do what we want because we decide it for them?

How can you not grasp the concept? Im not saying i like abortion, but im saying i cant in good conscience say that we should be able to demand what other people do to their bodies.

@ wolfstan the responce was directed at KK who seemed to feel that abortion at 24 weeks was justified. This thread has been off subject forever, don't think that I took it off the tracks.

@ matty. I agree that abortion under a certain time frame stirs up less emotions since the fetus hasn't developed into a humanoid shape yet. It's at this point that it gets less cut and dried. IMO

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
As mentioned earlier, about 98% of abortions take place before 24 weeks, and over 80% in the first 12 weeks.

Here ya go....pictures of 23 nd 12 week old babies. Have fun!

http://www.aboutabortions.com/EmbFetal.htm
edit: found some more http://www.babycenter.com/100_fetal-development_5214615.bc

You can't look at those pictures and tell me you really believe abortion is not murder.



GG

I did three years medical school so I've seen and touched some pretty nasty stuff.

An appeal to emotion shouldn't be dismissed, but you have to look at all sides of the issue not just one.

the irony of this is that the people who would welcome this are the same ones carring placards with 'obama is a nazi, cos nazi germany had a national health care system'.

whatever happened to the freedom that the US was founded on and still fight for. its not freedom for all where your beliefs (usually religious) are worth more than anothers, maybe pro-lifers should allow better teaching of sex ed so that the need for abortion becomes lower.

Hence the beauty of abstinence only education. No sex, no babies. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that.

Bookwrack wrote:Hence the beauty of abstinence only education. No sex, no babies. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that.

I maybe doing the math wrong here, but that comment seems to insinuate that the women having abortions are all under age? If that's the case, perhaps the education authorities should accept that we are bascially animals, and that we are driven by our hormones, especially in the teens. With this in mind they can perhaps stop running scared from "sex" and impliment proper sex education.

According to information presented here

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

20% of US abortions are for teenage girls.

I guess I don't see sex education as helping to lessen teen pregnancy. I had a very good and thorough sex education in grades 6-12 and there were still 2 girls pregnant at the HS graduation.

The problem I see is that you cannot educate those that don't want to learn or don't care. Every teen out there knows that having sex unprotected can and most likely will lead to them getting pregnant. For God's sake their are enough teen drama shows on T.V where that thing is common.

My neighbors adopted daughter turns 18 in the spring and she has 2 kids already, one is 3; the other is about 8 months. I'm pretty sure that she knew when she had unsafe sex with them (yes, 2 different fathers) that it would probably get her pregnant.

The biggest problem, and it's joked on here quite a bit, is that sex is pushed more and more every year on people. On here and on Warseer, on tv and in movies sex is presented as something everyone should do; not out of purely trying to keep a families generation going but to just mindless procreate and enjoy ones self.

Sure it's not pushed that unsafe sex is cool, just the opposite but it's the fact that sex in general is prevalent, and in a lot of ways praised as something grander thatn it is, contributes a lot to the problem of teens and young adults having kids they don't want or can't afford to raise.

Maybe if sex was seen less as entertainment and a form or recreational activity and more a necessary evil to keep the species going (less skimpy teen and preteen clothes, less sex and talk of sex on teen shows and movies) it might draw away some of the appeal.

Watch some of the teen dramas on TV like Hannah Montana or iCarly or other shows aimed at 12-14yo girls. They talk more openly about adult matters than we discussed in sex education in HS.

Fateweaver wrote:Watch some of the teen dramas on TV like Hannah Montana or iCarly or other shows aimed at 12-14yo girls. They talk more openly about adult matters than we discussed in sex education in HS.

I remember that very special episode in which Carly's friend buys an off brand Astroglide and gets a rash. We were all moved.

Fateweaver wrote:I guess I don't see sex education as helping to lessen teen pregnancy. I had a very good and thorough sex education in grades 6-12 and there were still 2 girls pregnant at the HS graduation.
...
...

Results of sex education in the Netherlands show clearly that the start of teenage sexual activity is made later and the pregnancy rate is reduced.

Fateweaver wrote:I guess I don't see sex education as helping to lessen teen pregnancy. I had a very good and thorough sex education in grades 6-12 and there were still 2 girls pregnant at the HS graduation.

I assume you are being slightly facetious. 'Not helping at all', is completely different from achieving it's main goals effectively. If that number were dozens of young women, you might have a problem. The school I went to, had close to 3,000 students, and there was a total of maybe five pregnancies a year. I would not be surprised if it were much lower than that.

The problem I see is that you cannot educate those that don't want to learn or don't care. Every teen out there knows that having sex unprotected can and most likely will lead to them getting pregnant. For God's sake their are enough teen drama shows on T.V where that thing is common.

My neighbors adopted daughter turns 18 in the spring and she has 2 kids already, one is 3; the other is about 8 months. I'm pretty sure that she knew when she had unsafe sex with them (yes, 2 different fathers) that it would probably get her pregnant.

Amongst the many, many other young adults, those few that choose to be stupid or are dragged down into bad situations; well, I suppose they are not the ones that get the information they need. I also know plenty of young mothers, who besides being stressed, manage to be mothers quite well. It is not exactly a death sentence, but 2 kids is an awful lot to deal with.

Maybe if sex was seen less as entertainment and a form or recreational activity and more a necessary evil to keep the species going (less skimpy teen and preteen clothes, less sex and talk of sex on teen shows and movies) it might draw away some of the appeal.

What happened to doing what you love to do? I can understand how many people see a real problem with young women expressing their sexuality. For me, it honestly just makes me uncomfortable seeing all that nonsense. There is a commodity in sex, and the way it is tossed around through the media is a bit disappointing, but it is not like I would let any daughter of mine take part in that gak-pit. That is the extent of what can, and should be done really. If any of that stuff makes you sick, and you have children, it is well within your 'power' to guide your children as you see fit.

Watch some of the teen dramas...

Going to straight up stop you there, and just say no. JUST SAY NO TO HANNAH MONTANA KIDS!!!

Ahtman wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Watch some of the teen dramas on TV like Hannah Montana or iCarly or other shows aimed at 12-14yo girls. They talk more openly about adult matters than we discussed in sex education in HS.

I remember that very special episode in which Carly's friend buys an off brand Astroglide and gets a rash. We were all moved.

Well Ahtman, love the snarky comment but I've seen enough iCarly and Hannah Montana to know that for being a show aimed at 12-14yo girls they could cut back on the innuendos. It might not have had any impact on you but you don't seem to me to be a teen anything, especially not a teen girl. If you are I apologize; if not I don't as anyone with 1/2 a brain knows media is a big influence on kids.

If you don't think teens are learning all the wrong things about sex........well, see the paragraph immediately above this one, especially the last sentence.

Fateweaver wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Watch some of the teen dramas on TV like Hannah Montana or iCarly or other shows aimed at 12-14yo girls. They talk more openly about adult matters than we discussed in sex education in HS.

I remember that very special episode in which Carly's friend buys an off brand Astroglide and gets a rash. We were all moved.

Well Ahtman, love the snarky comment but I've seen enough iCarly and Hannah Montana to know that for being a show aimed at 12-14yo girls they could cut back on the innuendos. It might not have had any impact on you but you don't seem to me to be a teen anything, especially not a teen girl. If you are I apologize; if not I don't as anyone with 1/2 a brain knows media is a big influence on kids.

If you don't think teens are learning all the wrong things about sex........well, see the paragraph immediately above this one, especially the last sentence.

I've never watched the show, or anything on Disney Channel (do I give the impression of being a 13 year old girl?) and I still have no doubt that they are sending the wrong messages on just about everything. Really I just wanted to work 'astroglide' into a thread.

I'm not saying sex is bad but it also doesn't need to be flaunted as blatantly as it is. Parents can make a choice to not let their 12yo daughter where skirts short enough to make a porn star blush but perhaps tops, bras and panties designed to look like something Tera Patrick would wear on set should not even be legal to make for a 14yo girl.

Most of teen pregnancy and young adult pregnancy is due to lack of parenting. I was raised during a time when parenting came 1st, job 2nd and going out and partying came 3rd and I was a good kid, good in the sense I never spent even a single day in Juvenile and only got detention once in school. Now though it's job 1st, kids second (or perhaps 3rd even).

You gotta ask yourself where the parents are when you see a 14yo girl dressed as a streetwalker walking the mall alone and with no adult guardian in site chatting away or texting away on her cellphone. If parents aren't present to see their little girl dressed as a whore they sure as hell aren't going to help to reinforce the education of sex and all it's responsibilities.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:I guess I don't see sex education as helping to lessen teen pregnancy. I had a very good and thorough sex education in grades 6-12 and there were still 2 girls pregnant at the HS graduation.
...
...

Results of sex education in the Netherlands show clearly that the start of teenage sexual activity is made later and the pregnancy rate is reduced.

Not just sex education just education in general. There are statistics from India and the subcontinent that show that where there is a higher level of education for women the rate of pregnancy reduces. Going from no choice to more choices.

There is probably more complacency in the west and 1st world we have many more options available to us.

Slightly more OT I wonder whether this subject is being overly politicised? I mean Is it just a list of what drove the women into abortions and I know reading the linked article some of the questioning is limited and 'biased'? Can individuals really be tracked with the data given and an women opt out of giving the info?
Is this truly going to be public domain stuff or is it for a medical statistical study with limited data available to the public?

Seems that this subject is being publicised to pursue many different agendas.

Perhaps then the sex education should be more geared towards giving kids the tools to deal with not going down that road? Or if they feel that they can get contraception without being lynched, then that would help.

Fateweaver wrote:I'm not saying sex is bad but it also doesn't need to be flaunted as blatantly as it is. Parents can make a choice to not let their 12yo daughter where skirts short enough to make a porn star blush but perhaps tops, bras and panties designed to look like something Tera Patrick would wear on set should not even be legal to make for a 14yo girl.

Most of teen pregnancy and young adult pregnancy is due to lack of parenting. I was raised during a time when parenting came 1st, job 2nd and going out and partying came 3rd and I was a good kid, good in the sense I never spent even a single day in Juvenile and only got detention once in school. Now though it's job 1st, kids second (or perhaps 3rd even).

You gotta ask yourself where the parents are when you see a 14yo girl dressed as a streetwalker walking the mall alone and with no adult guardian in site chatting away or texting away on her cellphone. If parents aren't present to see their little girl dressed as a whore they sure as hell aren't going to help to reinforce the education of sex and all it's responsibilities.

@Fateweaver: Are..are you something like 80 years old? I mean...that whole post was basically a "Kid's these days..." rant.


Some teens rebel against even the most well mannered family. The whole thing about bad parenting raises some interesting questions concerning Nature vs Nurture.

I'm 34 and I'm pointing out that allowing young girls to dress like porn stars is not healthy and is not necessary.

Yes, I do consider it bad parenting when 14yo Amber can dress like Jenna Jameson and the parents don't care or are present when she picks the clothes off the shelves (and yes those clothes do exist outside of Victorias Secret).

Kids should not be overprotected but young girls should not be allowed to dress in a manner that most college girls would find too disgusting or revealing.

Lots of schools are cutting sex education out as a way to save money and as a lesson to parents that kids should learn SOME values at home. If kids don't get that from school and the parents don't sit down and have that "talk" with them they will learn it from tv, movies and friends and with the exception of the tv shows most teens won't watch because they are aimed at adults, teen dramas like "The OC" or just about anything on MTV and even some Disney Channel shows are not doing anything to show the bad sides of sex, unsafe at that.

So yeah it's a rant but it's one based on experience and education and research. Any parent not seeing a problem with a 12 or 14yo girl dressing in clothing skimpy enough to make a street walker blush is not a good parent. End of.

Teen pregnancy has been steadily declining since 1990. There was a spike in 2006, but we won't know if that was an anomaly, or if it marks the start of a new trend until more data is available. This seems to indicate that, if the amount of sexual discussion in the media has increased since 1990, that it is not the primary force behind teen pregnancy.

Mr. Burning wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:[
Results of sex education in the Netherlands show clearly that the start of teenage sexual activity is made later and the pregnancy rate is reduced.

Not just sex education just education in general. There are statistics from India and the subcontinent that show that where there is a higher level of education for women the rate of pregnancy reduces. Going from no choice to more choices

´Tis true. I´m from the Netherlands, and teen and other unwanted pregnancies here are so rare it´s basically a non-issue. At least to the best of my knowledge, this is true even among the lower educated people in the country. Of course, education has to be coupled with readily availabe contraceptive methods.

Mr. Burning wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:I guess I don't see sex education as helping to lessen teen pregnancy. I had a very good and thorough sex education in grades 6-12 and there were still 2 girls pregnant at the HS graduation.
...
...

Results of sex education in the Netherlands show clearly that the start of teenage sexual activity is made later and the pregnancy rate is reduced.

Not just sex education just education in general. There are statistics from India and the subcontinent that show that where there is a higher level of education for women the rate of pregnancy reduces. Going from no choice to more choices.

There is probably more complacency in the west and 1st world we have many more options available to us.

Slightly more OT I wonder whether this subject is being overly politicised? I mean Is it just a list of what drove the women into abortions and I know reading the linked article some of the questioning is limited and 'biased'? Can individuals really be tracked with the data given and an women opt out of giving the info?
Is this truly going to be public domain stuff or is it for a medical statistical study with limited data available to the public?

Seems that this subject is being publicised to pursue many different agendas.

The issue is highly politicised in the USA, much less so in western Europe, Japan, India and China.

It's funny. Sex Ed is one of those hot topic issues.

Hell, the sex ed we had at my HS was nonexistent. The only real, truly good advice we got?

Don't put it in her pooper, unless she's expecting it.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats not accurate in the US. The state has compelling interest in protecting the life of the fetus at viability. Thats been old English Common Law and current US judge made law (via SCOTUS). The tricky part is defining viability. With increasing technology that gets shifted further and further back.

The records of care of premature babies show that the absolute limit of viability stands at about 21 weeks. Premature babies born at that age need extensive, prolonged medical intervention and frequently suffer ill effects in later life. It has taken about 40 years of medical advance to get from 24 weeks down to 21. Younger babies simply are not viable, without some kind of artificial womb being invented.

As mentioned earlier, about 98% of abortions take place before 24 weeks, and over 80% in the first 12 weeks.

That will change over time and technology. Artificial wombs are a when, not an if. Then the situation gets dicey indeed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:I'm 34 and I'm pointing out that allowing young girls to dress like porn stars is not healthy and is not necessary.

Yes, I do consider it bad parenting when 14yo Amber can dress like Jenna Jameson and the parents don't care or are present when she picks the clothes off the shelves (and yes those clothes do exist outside of Victorias Secret).

Kids should not be overprotected but young girls should not be allowed to dress in a manner that most college girls would find too disgusting or revealing.

Lots of schools are cutting sex education out as a way to save money and as a lesson to parents that kids should learn SOME values at home. If kids don't get that from school and the parents don't sit down and have that "talk" with them they will learn it from tv, movies and friends and with the exception of the tv shows most teens won't watch because they are aimed at adults, teen dramas like "The OC" or just about anything on MTV and even some Disney Channel shows are not doing anything to show the bad sides of sex, unsafe at that.

So yeah it's a rant but it's one based on experience and education and research. Any parent not seeing a problem with a 12 or 14yo girl dressing in clothing skimpy enough to make a street walker blush is not a good parent. End of.

This is true and its not just 14 year olds. Go into the 10-12 year old clothing and swimsuit sections. As a parent you will be shocked.

Well, artificial vaginas exist so why not artificial wombs.

Also, don't get me wrong. I don't blame solely the media on teen pregnancy. I think as a show producer you should have the right to air anything you want so long as it's not a snuff film or shows/movies glorifying hate crimes (still hate the word hate crime as that's just another stupid reason for courts to imprison people).

It just doesn't help as a society that teen girls and young adult girls are more or less told everyday by peers and teen shows/movies and friends that sex is okay and sex is normal and that if you are still a virgin when you graduate HS that there is something wrong with you. Also a lot of teens and young mothers being lured into thinking that babies are cute and that it's normal to have babies. Sad truth is for every 10 who know that the baby will soon be a teen and then an adult there are probably 2 or 3 that realize 2 months in that they made a mistake and can't handle responsibility and realize that the little bundle of joy will become a terrible 2, a frightening 5 and then an donkey-cave/bitchy teen and mom and dad sign the consent form and 13yo suzy has an abortion or she tries to do it herself and it ends up killing her.

For all the ads on tv dealing with birth control there are 10x's as many shows glorifying sex. Even if the show preaches safe sex it's the fact that sex is mentioned 10x more often than abstinence says something about society as a whole.

It just doesn't help as a society that teen girls and young adult girls are more or less told everyday by peers and teen shows/movies and friends that sex is okay and sex is normal and that if you are still a virgin when you graduate HS that there is something wrong with you.

Actually thats more of an instinctual thing. Average age of child rearing was much younger in earlier societies in history. Not that that has particular relevance on the issue.

For all the ads on tv dealing with birth control there are 10x's as many shows glorifying sex. Even if the show preaches safe sex it's the fact that sex is mentioned 10x more often than abstinence says something about society as a whole.

Thats a pretty fake number you just threw out.

Fateweaver wrote:
For all the ads on tv dealing with birth control there are 10x's as many shows glorifying sex. Even if the show preaches safe sex it's the fact that sex is mentioned 10x more often than abstinence says something about society as a whole.

Disregarding the arbitrary nature of your 'statistic', teen pregnancy was at a 30-year low in 2005. In 2006 it increased by 4% (which correlates nicely with the surge in abstinence-only sex education), and I don't think data is currently available for later years. The notion that the presence of greater degrees of sex in popular culture draws girls into pregnancy is absolutely ridiculous, and doesn't really square with way sex is discussed in the rest of the developed world vis a vis their, far lower, teen pregnancy rates.

Kids aren't as stupid as many people make them out to be. They know that the media is based on dramatization, and are far more likely to listen to people that are supposed to be providing legitimate information if they're going to listen to anyone.

Whatever. Again, sex is glorified more than it needs to be. As Frazz and I pointed out take a look next time you walk past the 10-12 year old section of swimsuits or lingerie at the store (don't gawk as that might be weird). Girls that young don't need clothes like that and it only leads to the wrong message being conveyed.

Not sure how we got so far off track but I guess teen pregnancy correlates with abortion discussion.

Whatever. Again, sex is glorified more than it needs to be. As Frazz and I pointed out take a look next time you walk past the 10-12 year old section of swimsuits or lingerie at the store (don't gawk as that might be weird). Girls that young don't need clothes like that and it only leads to the wrong message being conveyed.

So is violence. How do you determine how much something needs to be glorified?

I didn't mention violence because it's not relevant to abortion (well maybe in the case of rape).

There is far more sex on tv than their is violence. Movies it seems the exact opposite (I see less sex scenes in most non-XXX films than scenes of violence).

I guess I don't get what you are trying to say Shuma. It appears to me you don't think clothes designed to fit a 12yo girl but reveal as much as clothes a 24yo stripper/hooker wears is that big of a problem. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems as if you are saying that since violence is glorified that it should be okay for girls to wear clothes that are not befitting of age?

I'm not against discussion of sex or sexual subject matter in shows designed around that or aimed at adults. It's too much when shows like Hannah Montana or iCarly or other teen shows elude to it or downright talk about it.

Teens should not get sex education lessons from the Disney Channel, they should get it from home and/or at school.

Fateweaver wrote:Whatever. Again, sex is glorified more than it needs to be. As Frazz and I pointed out take a look next time you walk past the 10-12 year old section of swimsuits or lingerie at the store (don't gawk as that might be weird). Girls that young don't need clothes like that and it only leads to the wrong message being conveyed.

Not sure how we got so far off track but I guess teen pregnancy correlates with abortion discussion.

Our sex obsession is true, however, on both extremes. In addition to what you've been describing above, the conservative/religious demographic is far, far too fixated on abstinence above all else.

Forget that your child is a selfish, bratty, ignorant, pretentious drunk - as long as they haven't rubbed genitals, they're golden!

There is far more sex on tv than their is violence.

We clearly aren't watching the same television.

guess I don't get what you are trying to say Shuma.

You don't have a point and make things up.

t appears to me you don't think clothes designed to fit a 12yo girl but reveal as much as clothes a 24yo stripper/hooker wears is that big of a problem.

I don't want to see the catalogues you're looking at. They would probably get me arrested.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems as if you are saying that since violence is glorified that it should be okay for girls to wear clothes that are not befitting of age?

Well firstly I posted what? Three sentences? Mostly just trying to separate the idea of early sex education or information and a moralistic value on appropriate ages for viewing such things. You're the one who took this into the weird land of me somehow thinking nipple stickers are great for 8 year olds. Secondly you're hyperbolically describing a world that doesn't exist just to prove a point that you haven't really stated. If teen pregnancies have been decreasing for years (as dogma pointed out until the bush years abstinence in schools thing failed) then I don't really see how your point is at all valid. How is a level of clothing directly correlated to teen pregnancy or objectification? Standards for the level of revealing attire are almost in their entirety set by the society, and not based on any sort of scientific review of how much is too much more not enough (Muslim Hijabs being the extreme on the opposite end from more tribalistic "free" attires).

I'm not against discussion of sex or sexual subject matter in shows designed around that or aimed at adults. It's too much when shows like Hannah Montana or iCarly or other teen shows elude to it or downright talk about it.

Well Hanna Montannas intended age group is roughly 13 year olds. Dawning teens. Around this time sex education is introduced in schools, and children start to genuinely deal with such things. Would you prefer to just hide it from them? Because you know what happens then?

In 2006 it increased by 4% (which correlates nicely with the surge in abstinence-only sex education)

Thats what. You don't defeat something like teen pregnancy by sheltering children. It doesn't work.

Teens should not get sex education lessons from the Disney Channel, they should get it from home and/or at school.

And what reason do you have for saying that? From a purely logical point of view they are hardly glorifying it on disney like you seem to think (seriously, are you high? Or are you just saying all this to somehow try and make a slippery slope argument based on your fantasy terror-world?), and a more integrated and less haphazard approach to teaching kids moral values attached to sex is logically a good thing. You just don't seem to have any basis for your views or opinions. Ever.

Fateweaver wrote:
Watch some of the teen dramas on TV like Hannah Montana or iCarly or other shows aimed at 12-14yo girls. They talk more openly about adult matters than we discussed in sex education in HS.

I actively leave those shows on while painting and they avoid sex like the plague in any episode I've seen. They talk about kissing and not much else. Maybe I'm missing something or you mean Degrassi, 90210, Gossip girl and the like?

Edit: I feel the need to clarify, they stay on in the background because I don't have to watch them to follow them and occasionally there's a good laugh. I'm not a Hannah Montana "fan" per se.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
Watch some of the teen dramas on TV like Hannah Montana or iCarly or other shows aimed at 12-14yo girls. They talk more openly about adult matters than we discussed in sex education in HS.

I actively leave those shows on while painting and they avoid sex like the plague in any episode I've seen. They talk about kissing and not much else. Maybe I'm missing something or you mean Degrassi, 90210, Gossip girl and the like?

No, fateweaver just lives in a fantasy world, totally different from the real one.

Wow...

Next thing you know, anyone who doesn't believe in God is a terrorist, and should obviously be shot.

Still, what do you expect. When you play the God card, this is what happens...

I have nothing against FW's views, I would just make sure you quote your sources properly because it sort of discredits anything else you say. Womenz, 'specially young womenz, are often slutty nowadays.

You don't have to look at kiddie porn mags to see what kinds of clothes are out their for 10-12 year old girls.

FFS Shuma, Frazz himself pointed it out and Frazz has a teen daughter so I'm sure he knows. Walk past or through the young misses section at Walmart or Target.

Don't disagree and insinuate something I'm not (and that comment was borderline calling me a child molester but I'll let it slide for now). Risque lingerie =/= equal nipple covers/pasties and crotchless panties. It doesn't take a magazine from "Child Molester World" to see that clothes for teens are not appropriate attire for a girl that age.

I think the one living in a fantasy land is you Shuma. To you the grass is greener on EVERY side, not just the OTHER side but you are an obvious Liberal so I'll let it slide.

So yeah, 12yo girls can go to Walmart or Target and buy clothes that only Madonna would wear; sex is overexposed; parents are too goddamn lazy to teach their kids that sex when you are 12 years old is not only not necessary but can be risky (and we aren't just talking pregnancy); young adults (18-24) also need better education and to stop being vilified for choosing to do things with their body that they want to.

I'm pro-choice so go ahead and keep thinking I'm a right-wing nutjob because right-wing nutters are pro-abortion.

Fateweaver wrote:
So yeah, 12yo girls can go to Walmart or Target and buy clothes that only Madonna would wear; sex is overexposed; parents are too goddamn lazy to teach their kids that sex when you are 12 years old is not only not necessary but can be risky (and we aren't just talking pregnancy);

The massive drop in the rate of teen pregnancy seems to disagree with your conclusion. The percentage of young people (male, and female) who are sexually active before age 15 also declined between 1995 and 2002. I can't find any data which covers more a more recent interval, but I haven't looked very hard either.

FFS Shuma, Frazz himself pointed it out and Frazz has a teen daughter so I'm sure he knows. Walk past or through the young misses section at Walmart or Target.

I just walked through a sears, didn't notice too much.

Don't disagree and insinuate something I'm not (and that comment was borderline calling me a child molester but I'll let it slide for now).

So it's only ok when you do it? Noted.

I think the one living in a fantasy land is you Shuma. To you the grass is greener on EVERY side, not just the OTHER side but you are an obvious Liberal so I'll let it slide.

You don't know gak. You never argue from a basis of reality, statistic, or citations. You constantly make things up (you just said Gore is making billions on the green agenda like a half hour ago). Don't tell me I live in the fantasy world when you refuse to do anything but somehow try and tear down a new strawman every post.

So yeah, 12yo girls can go to Walmart or Target and buy clothes that only Madonna would wear; sex is overexposed; parents are too goddamn lazy to teach their kids that sex when you are 12 years old is not only not necessary but can be risky (and we aren't just talking pregnancy); young adults (18-24) also need better education and to stop being vilified for choosing to do things with their body that they want to.

Sure they can. We should also worry about them learning how to field strip automatics from their nintendos.

I'm pro-choice so go ahead and keep thinking I'm a right-wing nutjob because right-wing nutters are pro-abortion.

No, I think that you're a right wing nutjob because You are a right wing nutjob. Not because you're pro choice.

Don't ever recall calling you racist or hinted you might be a child molestor so I don't know where you are getting that idea from. If it makes you feel better I could call you much worst but then I'd be stooping to your level and if I wanted to stoop low enough to stick my face in gak I'd go out to the barn.

When all is said and done Gore will probably make billions off his "global warming ponzi scheme" but I guess only the here and now matter, like when people defend the HCR Bill. It doesn't matter it will bankrupt our country into death; it only matters that people next year that don't have medical coverage will get it.

It is so plainly clear to me now.

If I'm a right wing nutjob than you are a leftist nutjob. Ah feth political affiliation. You are just a nutjob in general.

Fateweaver wrote:Don't ever recall calling you racist or hinted you might be a child molestor so I don't know where you are getting that idea from.

I don't recall anyone claiming you did, recently.

It is pretty amazing how much wrong and made-up garbage comes out of FW's keyboard. I just marvel at it. He's like an object lesson in the sheer depth of ignorance and misinformed opinion out there, debasing and crippling our nation's ability to have reasonable discussions about issues of import.

Fateweaver wrote:When all is said and done Gore will probably make billions off his "global warming ponzi scheme" but I guess only the here and now matter, like when people defend the HCR Bill. It doesn't matter it will bankrupt our country into death; it only matters that people next year that don't have medical coverage will get it.

I half agree with you there. Gore WON'T make billions off Global Warming. Many people seem to be against going green(I'm sure you know what happened with Electric Cars).


Health>Money

You can have all the currency in the world, but if you're dead/comatose you won't be able to do anything with it.

Wow... this thread has... well... my popcorn is talking to me now...



It is telling me to wear skimpy bathing suits, and get pregnant at any chance I have... Why in the feth am I listening to a piece of popcorn?

...seriously.

Because it's funny to watch Fateweaver caper for our amusement?

You can have all the currency in the world, but if you're dead/comatose you won't be able to do anything with it.

Yeah, but by the time you realize you can't take t with you, you're too dead to care.

Wrexasaur wrote:Wow... this thread has... well... my popcorn is talking to me now...



It is telling me to wear skimpy bathing suits, and get pregnant at any chance I have... Why in the feth am I listening to a piece of popcorn?

...seriously.

Because it is tasty, so therefore right.

Electric cars failed because they didn't have the range and convenience of gasoline cars. If they work out the battery issues and make them affordable, they'll certainly be popular.

It's the same reason that cell phones really didn't get that much market penetration when you had a handset the size of a baneblade, and the battery was a seperate brick you carried around in a dedicated shoulderbag.

However, once they became pocket sized, with a developing support network that made them feasible to use across the nation, and continued advances made them even more attractive, they became ubiquitous.

Bookwrack wrote:It's the same reason that cell phones really didn't get that much market penetration when you had a handset the size of a baneblade, and the battery was a seperate brick you carried around in a dedicated shoulderbag.

However, once they became pocket sized, with a developing support network that made them feasible to use across the nation, and continued advances made them even more attractive, they became ubiquitous.

It also didn't help that only very few areas had anything like reception, and that the phones were thousands of dollars. The size in fact was likely the last concern, since they were primarily car phones at that point.

The networks were the main issue... as you can see now with many, many phone companies with feth-all for coverage. Not that I could do any better myself, but I dunno, most phone companies just suck?

I don't really see a strong parallel between electric cars and cell phones, mainly because the first car WAS ELECTRIC. So it would kind of be like like if cell phones were around before house phones... or something.

As battery and solar technology become more efficient, the market will begin to accept them as normal. Just like home entertainment systems will eventually be focused into giant versions of Ipods at some point. Feth all of these cords, and random ass crap; get an Ihouse! , or something along those lines.

In the next 5 years or so, Tesla Motors is hopefully going to be offering medium mileage electric cars (150+ miles), at relatively affordable prices. I would guess that a standard electric sports car will end up running you like 40-50k. I would buy one if I had the money, they sound sweet.

Fateweaver wrote:You don't have to look at kiddie porn mags to see what kinds of clothes are out their for 10-12 year old girls.

FFS Shuma, Frazz himself pointed it out and Frazz has a teen daughter so I'm sure he knows. Walk past or through the young misses section at Walmart or Target.

Don't disagree and insinuate something I'm not (and that comment was borderline calling me a child molester but I'll let it slide for now). Risque lingerie =/= equal nipple covers/pasties and crotchless panties. It doesn't take a magazine from "Child Molester World" to see that clothes for teens are not appropriate attire for a girl that age.

I think the one living in a fantasy land is you Shuma. To you the grass is greener on EVERY side, not just the OTHER side but you are an obvious Liberal so I'll let it slide.

So yeah, 12yo girls can go to Walmart or Target and buy clothes that only Madonna would wear; sex is overexposed; parents are too goddamn lazy to teach their kids that sex when you are 12 years old is not only not necessary but can be risky (and we aren't just talking pregnancy); young adults (18-24) also need better education and to stop being vilified for choosing to do things with their body that they want to.

I'm pro-choice so go ahead and keep thinking I'm a right-wing nutjob because right-wing nutters are pro-abortion.

Tween actually-which is even more the pity. GC had to go t several stores just to find a decent one piece as she was not comfortable with the bikinis being foisted upon her.

Its less the immediate shows she watches, but there are a slew of TV shows and music that are targeted at teens that are way way out there. As importantly, but tangentially, much of the mags and other media portray teen girls as wafer thin unrealistic bodies. Tghats just as damaging becuase it sets them up for poor expectations and body image crap that falls into other things.

Fateweaver's approach and outlook is hardcore, but as a parent of tween daughter, and DAWG of a girl scout troop, it really is out there like a bad wave. Just look at rap and how it depicts women and you want to lock and load on anyone involved in that industry.

Fateweaver's approach and outlook is hardcore, but as a parent of tween daughter, and DAWG of a girl scout troop, it really is out there like a bad wave. Just look at rap and how it depicts women and you want to lock and load on anyone involved in that industry.

Yeah, but fateweaver is treating it like it's somehow new, when it's been like this for my entire life (NWA pre dates me). As for the one pieces, yeah those have fallen out of style, but two pieces are only embarrassing and revealing if you've taught your daughter that they are. The amount of skin shown has no true moralistic value, and I don't bat an eyelash at kids that wear bikinis. Hell, in the 1800's boys would just go in the buff before swim fashion really caught on. The world changes a lot in a century, don't get too caught up in the change or else you'll end up being torn apart by it.

It is really only as bad as you make it for yourself. That is basically what most of the 'thong culture' is based on; self destruction. You can split it different ways, but it really boils down to an image based on a lack of your own image. To not conform is to be bad... or something. Super weak-sauce mind control lameness. No jedi mind trick need phase you, as long as you have your fly-swatter handy.

One thing that, though not surprising, is very saddening; is the fact that people seem to soak this stuff up en masse. The important part to realize though, is that the whole idea that fuels the industry, is simply a tangent of our larger culture. Excess, and lots of it.

Nothing wrong with pampering yourself, but it can become a bad thing over time. Honestly though, figuring out how to plain old ignore all of it, is really not that hard.

...OOH! A BUTTERFLY! WHEEEEE!!!

Wrexasaur wrote:No jedi mind trick need phase you, as long as you have your fly-swatter handy.

The trick is that the fly-swatter is a thing called personal identity, and acquiring it means being willing to try new things. Even, and sometimes especially, if they happen to be mainstream.

Anyway, don't tease Fateweaver.

Yes, instead put him on ignore like I did.

If we all did it he could scream flamebaiting hyperbole into the cold vacum of space forever whilst the rest of us have grownup talk.

Mutual win.

Well, say what you want about Fateweaver (although the mods may still deck ya) but the guy certainly stands his ground. Some call it stubborn, but Fateweaver wouldn't be the only person to be called that here on Dakka.

I just wish that he (or you, as you may be reading this) wouldn't post it in such a flamatory way.

And yes, some people can't really talk themselves...

As with all these things, there has been drift on the actual topic. My principal outrage is that via this test, it is going to be possible to identify women who've had abortions.

That is a breach of medical confidentiality and would be unthinkable in the UK. One of the most personal, sensitive operations a woman can undergo is to be made public, I cannot stress just how much I believe this to be wrong.

The rights of medical confidentiality must remain intact in a modern, free thinking Western nation.


...Also, could someone explain for the record how difficult it would be for an Oklahoma woman to cross the state line and get the operation? I guess it would become much like the situation in Ireland, where women travel over on the ferry to the UK to have the abortion, in that case.

Well as for the state travel:
Your neighbors see you pregnant, (it's noticeable enough) you travel interstate and come back not pregnant and no baby. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

What irks me is that this is such an obvious attempt to intimidate the women, while not actually doing so much as making it illegal. I'm sorta pro-life (havn't got my act together) but this is just disgusting.

I was just thinking, everyone is 'Pro Life'.

It's a dreadful term, as though anyone who believes in the right of a woman to make a choice is 'Anti-Life'.

Pro-choice does make a hell of a lot more sense. In all fairness, Pro-lifers, should be called Anti-choicers. We all know why they don't call themselves that though... vice versa I guess? Maybe?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I was just thinking, everyone is 'Pro Life'.

It's a dreadful term, as though anyone who believes in the right of a woman to make a choice is 'Anti-Life'.

It is one reason why the argument will never end. One side is arguing that the government shouldn't interfere with these family decisions and the other that killing is wrong (unless it is an adult usually). They aren't arguing the same point: governmental limits vs morality. It is why it makes for a great wedge issue when it comes time to raise election funds. It is why it is also presented as a simple problem when it is actually a very complex issue.

Given the separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, I don't understand why this is even being allowed to happen.

This is the paradox of the US that I can't get my head around. You sing the praises of your constitution and fight to protect it, but the first one in the list says to basically keep religion out of politics, yet you have all those right wing / centre religious groups trying to control the laws of your country.

Hmmm...

It's fairly evident, from my visits to the US, that the average American is far more religious than the average Brit.

Given that and the fact that religions have preset moral guidelines on how to live and interact with others, the mix between politics and religion in the US is perfectly understandable.

The First Amendment is geared to prevention of religious leaders becoming politicial leaders, or that was my understanding of it's intention. If #% of a democracy have a certain belief or outlook, that belief or outlook will hold an equal % of political weight.

It's been an eventful , if uneven and perhaps DUI, ride but this thread, alas, appears to have been done to death and is going to all manner of places..places , perhaps, as yet unbrowsed by man or beast...

..err...anyway..thread locking in 3..2..1...