Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Dogma's claim that rape can be easily proven by the vaginal exam part of a rape kit procedure is absolute nonsense. It has no factual validity at all.

The word that you want is 'relevance'.

Gailbraithe wrote:
What dogma is saying, though he may not realize it, is that rape is always violent. But the opposite is true. Rape is often not violent. Rape often occurs because a woman is too scared to say no and too intimidated to resist. And there won't be evidence of resistance if she does not resist.

No, that isn't what I am saying. Do not put words in my mouth.

If, as you claim, rape is entirely involuntary, then the woman should not self-lubricate on an unwelcome penetration; ie. if it feels bad, then it is bad.

Gailbraithe wrote:
, and she doesn't know if she was raped or not.

Was she?

It is a central question,

Gailbraithe wrote:
It's also why dogma assertion that it's "relatively easy" to prove a rape occurred is ridiculous.

Sure, when 'rape' is basically any sex that isn't demanded by the woman.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Do you have any citations in support of that, because I have researched this stuff pretty thoroughly and never came across anything like that in the literature. Which is why I find the claim highly suspicious.

http://www.secretorgasmtips.com/download/forevermandownload/FM%20Bonuses/Understanding%20The%20G-Spot%20And%20Female%20Sexuality.pdf

Gailbraithe wrote:
No, as I said earlier, the NCVS is a phone poll that randomly samples the population and depends entirely on self-reporting. Its conducted by the Census bureau. I participated in the one they did in the mid-nineties.

This thing you're claiming about rape counseling is made-up, it's completely fictitious. Never happened.

No.

The NCVS uses a stratified cluster sample. That means they attempt to qualify, aesthetically by necessity, and control their results for various social lines.

But hey, keep talking about my lying, I'm sure that it will eventually become a valid argument.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Yeah, well, the stack of criminal law books I read while obtaining my criminal justice degree says otherwise. So there.

Appeal to authority.

Gailbraithe wrote:

It's also important to note that a rape kit is useless after 72, and that's assuming the victim wears the same clothes and does not shower or bathe for those three days. After 72 hours, there is no evidence to collect. I bring that up because we are talking about proving a rape occurred in the context of a rape exclusion for abortion.

Well, itis pretty clear it wouldn't be useful as an allowance for abortion then. What were you guys arguing about?

I want her to be able to go get an abortion, and I don't want her to have to tell anyone why, or provide any proof, or ask anyone's permission. I don't want to compound her trauma by forcing her to revisit it again and again. I don't want her to have to prove to someone, especially some man, that it was rape and not just sex she regrets. And that's why I think a rape exclusion is a bad idea, and that abortion should simply be legal with no questions asked.

So...when, in your opinion, should a baby/fetus have a right to life? Becuase by demanding a 'no questions asked' abortion policy you are going to make it available for everyone who can't be bothered to take the correct precuations or close their legs.

So? What's wrong with that?

If a woman wants an abortion, frankly, she should get one. A teenager's sense of outrage should not be a reason to disallow it.

If you research the abortion laws of western nations you will find the answers to your question.

Back on to the topic of abortion only for rape victims.

1. Why does a child of rape have less right to life than a child of love or of a failure of contraception?

2. How would a rape victim be judged? Do we wait for the result of the court case? What if it is innocent? What if the man involved was never discovered? How do these points affect the woman's rights?

Albatross wrote:So? What's wrong with that?

If a woman wants an abortion, frankly, she should get one. A teenager's sense of outrage should not be a reason to disallow it.

Wow, overreaction? I didn't think I was coming across as outrageous. I just think the abortion issue is a lot more complicated than it being "the womans body, womans choice".

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:So? What's wrong with that?

If a woman wants an abortion, frankly, she should get one. A teenager's sense of outrage should not be a reason to disallow it.

Wow, overreaction? I didn't think I was coming across as outrageous. I just think the abortion issue is a lot more complicated than it being "the womans body, womans choice".

The word is 'outraged', not 'outrageous' - and it wasn't just directed at you. It was directed at the other people who made 'can't keep their legs closed'-type statements (some of whom are undoubtedly virgins, interestingly enough).

Now, I don't think abortion is SuperFunTime!!!! or anything, don't get me wrong. My ex and I nearly aborted our son, and let me tell you, it's not a decision one takes lightly. It's fething grim. We didn't go through with it and I'm glad, but if we had have done I would have no regrets. A foetus is not a baby, it's a foetus. If a woman decides to abort her foetus, then that should be her decision, as she will have to live with that for the rest of her life - don't make the mistake of thinking it's an easy decision to make.

Emperors Faithful wrote:So...when, in your opinion, should a baby/fetus have a right to life? Becuase by demanding a 'no questions asked' abortion policy you are going to make it available for everyone who can't be bothered to take the correct precuations or close their legs.

18 months after birth. It's when humans are capable of demonstrating self-awareness via the mirror test.

I don't believe that any significant number of women use abortion in lieu of birth control. In my experience, there are some women who are sexually licentious, irresponsible, and consequently have multiple abortions over the course of their life, but I have never met such a woman who wasn't also the victim of serious sexual trauma, addicted to drugs, and generally extremely unfit to be a mother (though most of them were).

And again, forcing someone to have children because they behaved irresponsibly is never an appropriate punishment. Any argument that is predicated on a desire to punish the mother for sexual licentiousness and irresponsibility is a fundamentally misogynistic attitude, arising not out of a concern for the rights of the child, but out of a generalized hatred for women.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:No, that isn't what I am saying. Do not put words in my mouth.

It's the implication of many of your comments, which are all quite disturbing.

If, as you claim, rape is entirely involuntary, then the woman should not self-lubricate on an unwelcome penetration; ie. if it feels bad, then it is bad.

What? I never said rape was involuntary. The response to sexual stimulation is involuntary. That's why some women lubricate and orgasm when raped, regardless of whether the penetration is welcome or not. Just as some women do not lubricate or orgasm no matter how welcome the penetration is.

Sure, when 'rape' is basically any sex that isn't demanded by the woman.

That is exactly what rape is, dogma. Rape is non-consensual sex.

Gailbraithe wrote:Do you have any citations in support of that, because I have researched this stuff pretty thoroughly and never came across anything like that in the literature. Which is why I find the claim highly suspicious.

http://www.secretorgasmtips.com/download/forevermandownload/FM%20Bonuses/Understanding%20The%20G-Spot%20And%20Female%20Sexuality.pdf

So that's a no? I'm not sure what a document about the g-spot is supposed to demonstrate. There is no mention of vaginal clenching anywhere in that document according to a search for the term. Am I supposed to read the whole thing? Because I don't really see how a document about helping women achieve earth-shattering orgasms is really relevant to this discussion at all.

Gailbraithe wrote:
No, as I said earlier, the NCVS is a phone poll that randomly samples the population and depends entirely on self-reporting. Its conducted by the Census bureau. I participated in the one they did in the mid-nineties.

This thing you're claiming about rape counseling is made-up, it's completely fictitious. Never happened.

No.

Um, dogma? That's not the NCVS. That the NVAWS. And once again, the link doesn't substantiate what you're claiming at all.

The NCVS uses a stratified cluster sample. That means they attempt to qualify, aesthetically by necessity, and control their results for various social lines.

'kay. Never said it didn't. The rape counseling thing still has jack to do with the NCVS. Or the NVAWS either, as that is also a telephone based poll that uses self-reporting.

But hey, keep talking about my lying, I'm sure that it will eventually become a valid argument.

I'm not saying you're lying. I'm saying that the things you are claiming as facts have no basis in reality.

Gailbraithe wrote:Yeah, well, the stack of criminal law books I read while obtaining my criminal justice degree says otherwise. So there.

Appeal to authority.

Yes, that's right. I am appealing to the authority of my education in criminal law on a question of the law. Appeals to authority are only a fallacy when the authority being appealed to is irrelevant to the question being asked.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:So...when, in your opinion, should a baby/fetus have a right to life? Becuase by demanding a 'no questions asked' abortion policy you are going to make it available for everyone who can't be bothered to take the correct precuations or close their legs.

18 months after birth. It's when humans are capable of demonstrating self-awareness via the mirror test.

Wait did you just say it should be ok to murder children up to 18 months old? I've known kids who could talk at that point.
I am not going to say that statement is insane. I will say that that qualifies the doctor for the needle.

Frazzled wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:So...when, in your opinion, should a baby/fetus have a right to life? Becuase by demanding a 'no questions asked' abortion policy you are going to make it available for everyone who can't be bothered to take the correct precuations or close their legs.

18 months after birth. It's when humans are capable of demonstrating self-awareness via the mirror test.

Wait did you just say it should be ok to murder children up to 18 months old? I've known kids who could talk at that point.
I am not going to say that statement is insane. I will say that that qualifies the doctor for the needle.

Would I be remiss in saying that someone who actually thinks this way(18 months? You're fething sick in the head.) doesn't have a soul, and shouldn't really be considered a human being at all?

Albatross wrote:The word is 'outraged', not 'outrageous'

Truly outrageous.

I think that the "keep your legs closed" crowd could do with a bit more tact, but I think that the point they are trying to make is that it's not all that hard to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

@Monster Rain

Exactly.

Frazzled wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:So...when, in your opinion, should a baby/fetus have a right to life? Becuase by demanding a 'no questions asked' abortion policy you are going to make it available for everyone who can't be bothered to take the correct precuations or close their legs.

18 months after birth. It's when humans are capable of demonstrating self-awareness via the mirror test.

Wait did you just say it should be ok to murder children up to 18 months old? I've known kids who could talk at that point.
I am not going to say that statement is insane. I will say that that qualifies the doctor for the needle.

I'm not saying its okay to murder children up to 18 months old. I'm saying that an infant doesn't have rights. Or more accurately, shouldn't be treated as a rights bearing individual. Much like animals under the current law. For example, a dog has no right to life under US law. But that doesn't mean its legal to kill dogs all willy-nilly. A veterinarian or animal shelter may euthanize dogs, but you can't go down to the pound, buy a dog, take it home and then beat it to death with a stick. You'll go to jail. But not because a dog has rights, but because the law says that you can't beat dogs to death in your backyard.

So just because an infant doesn't have rights doesn't mean it's acceptable to kill it. There are plenty of people who can't have children who would like children, and once a child is born I would argue that the desire of those people to have a child trumps any desire of the biological parents to not have a child, and thus a transfer of guardianship should occur. While that desire for children is insufficient to compel a woman to bear a child a term against her will, once the child is born there is really no way to justify killing it if its healthy so long as there are other people who would want the child.

But let's say that a mother gives birth to a child, and due to a lack of access to prenatal care (perhaps she lives in the third world), it is only discovered after birth that the child has some horrific birth defect that ensures it will live a short and painful life, never maturing into adulthood. Perhaps it's life expectancy is measured in weeks. Is it murder to euthanize such a child? I don't think so. I don't see any value in preserving a doomed life that will experience nothing but suffering, and I see no reason to force parents to endure the agony of watching a child slowly deteriorate and die when euthanasia would clearly be more merciful.

Gailbraithe wrote:
It's the implication of many of your comments, which are all quite disturbing.

Give an example, and show how my words imply what you're claiming.

I'm inclined to think that you're simply making inferences regarding my comments, as it is highly unlikely that a series of comments, even related ones, can imply the same thing.

Gailbraithe wrote:
What? I never said rape was involuntary. The response to sexual stimulation is involuntary. That's why some women lubricate and orgasm when raped, regardless of whether the penetration is welcome or not. Just as some women do not lubricate or orgasm no matter how welcome the penetration is.

Yes, that was an error of speech on my part.

In any case, I'm not claiming a perfect causal relationship between rape and self-lubrication. I'm claiming a high incidence of correlation; producing individual incidences of alternate conditions does not disprove correlation.

Gailbraithe wrote:
That is exactly what rape is, dogma. Rape is non-consensual sex.

That's not what I said. There is a difference between that which is not demanded and that which is not consensual. Consent can be given without demanding.

Also, I should correct myself. Gender has no bearing on rape. Rape occurs whenever one of the participants does not consent.

Gailbraithe wrote:
So that's a no? I'm not sure what a document about the g-spot is supposed to demonstrate. There is no mention of vaginal clenching anywhere in that document according to a search for the term. Am I supposed to read the whole thing? Because I don't really see how a document about helping women achieve earth-shattering orgasms is really relevant to this discussion at all.

Honestly, I just wanted to see if you would read it. But it does, particularly in regards to the respondent section, indicate a role of psychological choice regarding the response to sex.

Real source.

If you can't access it I'll dig around and see if I can find it in another archive.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Um, dogma? That's not the NCVS. That the NVAWS. And once again, the link doesn't substantiate what you're claiming at all.

Yes, I'm aware that it isn't the NCVS. It does, however, use the same methodology as the NCVS, and since methodology is what we're talking, and this survey is more usefully presented, it seemed better to use it. The bit that substantiates my claim does so obliquely, but it is support none the less; in particular I am referring to the discussion of sample construction.

Gailbraithe wrote:
'kay. Never said it didn't. The rape counseling thing still has jack to do with the NCVS. Or the NVAWS either, as that is also a telephone based poll that uses self-reporting.

NCVS uses multiple modes of interview, including computer assisted phone interview, face-to-face interview, and nominal phone interview. The NVAWS is entirely phone based, but the clusters created in order to perform the phone interviews are defined by census regions, chosen in accordance with rape reporting by police and counseling centers. This is a common criticism of the survey's methodology, and it stems from the fact that randomization did not enter the methodological picture until the consideration of 100-banks.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Yes, that's right. I am appealing to the authority of my education in criminal law on a question of the law. Appeals to authority are only a fallacy when the authority being appealed to is irrelevant to the question being asked.

No, appeals to authority are always fallacious. They're formal fallacies because you aren't establishing the truth of your claim, you're establishing the truth of what someone else says about your claim. You aren't even doing it particularly well, because no one here knows anything about your criminal law books.

There would be no fallacy were you to argue that the assertion of an auority is true; eg. you can defend the position of an authority. It is a fallacy when, as you have here, you use the authority as a shield to exempt your argument from criticism.

Albatross wrote:A foetus is not a baby, it's a foetus. If a woman decides to abort her foetus, then that should be her decision, as she will have to live with that for the rest of her life - don't make the mistake of thinking it's an easy decision to make.

And therein lies the core of the arguement. I'm not entirely convinced that this is true. Truth be told I don't know what to think, but then there's this...

Gailbraithe wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:So...when, in your opinion, should a baby/fetus have a right to life? Becuase by demanding a 'no questions asked' abortion policy you are going to make it available for everyone who can't be bothered to take the correct precuations or close their legs.

18 months after birth. It's when humans are capable of demonstrating self-awareness via the mirror test.

...

I don't believe that any significant number of women use abortion in lieu of birth control. In my experience, there are some women who are sexually licentious, irresponsible, and consequently have multiple abortions over the course of their life, but I have never met such a woman who wasn't also the victim of serious sexual trauma, addicted to drugs, and generally extremely unfit to be a mother (though most of them were).

I doubt many (if any) use abortion in lieu of birth control rather than just as a fallback from birth control.

And again, forcing someone to have children because they behaved irresponsibly is never an appropriate punishment. Any argument that is predicated on a desire to punish the mother for sexual licentiousness and irresponsibility is a fundamentally misogynistic attitude, arising not out of a concern for the rights of the child, but out of a generalized hatred for women.

I never said having children should be a punishment, by all means take the child away from an irresponsible mother and put it up for adoption. It's incredibly hard to adopt here in Australia at the moment, there are hundreds of couple waiting for the chance to adopt. I'm not arguing that women should be punished, I'm arguing that the child should have a shot at life. Which is exactly what abortion denies them.

I'm not saying its okay to murder children up to 18 months old. I'm saying that an infant doesn't have rights. Or more accurately, shouldn't be treated as a rights bearing individual. Much like animals under the current law. For example, a dog has no right to life under US law. But that doesn't mean its legal to kill dogs all willy-nilly. A veterinarian or animal shelter may euthanize dogs, but you can't go down to the pound, buy a dog, take it home and then beat it to death with a stick. You'll go to jail. But not because a dog has rights, but because the law says that you can't beat dogs to death in your backyard.

So it's not immoral to beat a dog to death in your backyard, it's just that the law says you can't. (BTW, dogs and other domestic pets do have a degree of rights. At least here in QLD)

So just because an infant doesn't have rights doesn't mean it's acceptable to kill it. There are plenty of people who can't have children who would like children, and once a child is born I would argue that the desire of those people to have a child trumps any desire of the biological parents to not have a child, and thus a transfer of guardianship should occur. While that desire for children is insufficient to compel a woman to bear a child a term against her will, once the child is born there is really no way to justify killing it if its healthy so long as there are other people who would want the child.

And you haven't even considered the child's basic right to life...oh that's right. According to you it doesn't exist.

But let's say that a mother gives birth to a child, and due to a lack of access to prenatal care (perhaps she lives in the third world), it is only discovered after birth that the child has some horrific birth defect that ensures it will live a short and painful life, never maturing into adulthood. Perhaps it's life expectancy is measured in weeks. Is it murder to euthanize such a child? I don't think so. I don't see any value in preserving a doomed life that will experience nothing but suffering, and I see no reason to force parents to endure the agony of watching a child slowly deteriorate and die when euthanasia would clearly be more merciful.

Nice. Now please...

dogma wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:[That rape is always violent] is the implication of many of your comments, which are all quite disturbing.

Give an example, and show how my words imply what you're claiming.

"Anyway, rape is easy to prove because the violence associated with non-consent produces..."

The obvious implication of this statement is that rape is inherently violent.

Gailbraithe wrote:In any case, I'm not claiming a perfect causal relationship between rape and self-lubrication. I'm claiming a high incidence of correlation; producing individual incidences of alternate conditions does not disprove correlation.

You're right, but that's not the point. The point is that correlation (which you haven't proven) is not proof. The point is that you can't prove a rape has occurred by this means.

Gailbraithe wrote:That's not what I said. There is a difference between that which is not demanded and that which is not consensual. Consent can be given without demanding.

This is an example of the sort of thing I would call a disturbing comment. A failure to say no is not consent. Consent can never be assumed, and if you are operating under the assumption that consent can be assumed without being expressed, then there exists the possibility that you have raped someone by assuming consent where it was not given. This sort of comment is disturbing because if one acts on this maxim, then one will do harm.

But I don't believe you've raped anyone. That would imply you've had sex.

Gailbraithe wrote:So that's a no? I'm not sure what a document about the g-spot is supposed to demonstrate. There is no mention of vaginal clenching anywhere in that document according to a search for the term. Am I supposed to read the whole thing? Because I don't really see how a document about helping women achieve earth-shattering orgasms is really relevant to this discussion at all.

Honestly, I just wanted to see if you would read it. But it does, particularly in regards to the respondent section, indicate a role of psychological choice regarding the response to sex.

Real source.

If you can't access it I'll dig around and see if I can find it in another archive.

Is this another test to see if I'll actually click the link? Because that doesn't support your claim either.

Yes, I'm aware that it isn't the NCVS. It does, however, use the same methodology as the NCVS, and since methodology is what we're talking, and this survey is more usefully presented, it seemed better to use it. The bit that substantiates my claim does so obliquely, but it is support none the less; in particular I am referring to the discussion of sample construction.

You're evading.

Evidence in support of your claim that the NCVS data used as the basis of DoJ crime statistics is collected by observing the number of persons seeking rape counseling. You have presented nothing that supports this claim (or any of your claims), and are attempting to shift the goal posts here.

Either provide evidence that the DoJ monitors patient intakes for rape counseling or retract the claim.

Gailbraithe wrote:'kay. Never said it didn't. The rape counseling thing still has jack to do with the NCVS. Or the NVAWS either, as that is also a telephone based poll that uses self-reporting.

NCVS uses multiple modes of interview, including computer assisted phone interview, face-to-face interview, and nominal phone interview. The NVAWS is entirely phone based, but the clusters created in order to perform the phone interviews are defined by census regions, chosen in accordance with rape reporting by police and counseling centers. This is a common criticism of the survey's methodology, and it stems from the fact that randomization did not enter the methodological picture until the consideration of 100-banks.

That is a very different claim than your original claim.

Gailbraithe wrote:Yes, that's right. I am appealing to the authority of my education in criminal law on a question of the law. Appeals to authority are only a fallacy when the authority being appealed to is irrelevant to the question being asked.

No, appeals to authority are always fallacious. They're formal fallacies because you aren't establishing the truth of your claim, you're establishing the truth of what someone else says about your claim. You aren't even doing it particularly well, because no one here knows anything about your criminal law books.

There would be no fallacy were you to argue that the assertion of an auority is true; eg. you can defend the position of an authority. It is a fallacy when, as you have here, you use the authority as a shield to exempt your argument from criticism.

Gailbraithe wrote:
This is an example of the sort of thing I would call a disturbing comment.

Wow. Coming from you?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
This is an example of the sort of thing I would call a disturbing comment.

Wow. Coming from you?

Oh snap.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:A foetus is not a baby, it's a foetus. If a woman decides to abort her foetus, then that should be her decision, as she will have to live with that for the rest of her life - don't make the mistake of thinking it's an easy decision to make.

And therein lies the core of the arguement. I'm not entirely convinced that this is true.

Based on what exactly? Your massive amount of life experience? Know a lot of girls who've had abortions do you? And they're what, fine with it?

How old are you? Because it sounds like you (and others) take the position of 'oh, it's just a substitute for contraception, why can't they just keep their legs closed?' so you can sound macho with a touch of world-weariness. You're a child. A child trying to display manly opinions.

But all you're really displaying is childish ignorance. Do you actually KNOW what an abortion entails?

Amaya wrote:@Monster Rain

Exactly.

What the feth do you mean 'exactly'? You can't just piggy-back Monster Rain because he knows how to discuss such a delicate topic with the appropriate level of tact. You had the chance to use your 'big boy voice' and you blew it.




Before you all start, I am perfectly calm.

Edit: Misread the post.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
This is an example of the sort of thing I would call a disturbing comment.

Wow. Coming from you?

Yes, I find it disturbing when people make arguments that provide justification for raping women.

Don't you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:Yes, you are calm. That is why you are throwing out insults.

But hey, I'll throw something into this little ring of fire.

You feel bad about aborting your son and you are now simply trying to justify it.

Wow.

Wow, dude.

Ignoring the fact that Albatross didn't abort his son, that is the most tasteless thing I've seen anyone say on this forum.

True class.

Yes, it's almost as tasteless as killing babes because you don't have the fething brains to get snipped.

Amaya wrote:Yes, you are calm. That is why you are throwing out insults.

But hey, I'll throw something into this little ring of fire.

You feel bad about aborting your son and you are now simply trying to justify it.

Reading failures aside, why would I attempt to justify something I felt bad about? Why would I support abortion if I had aborted a child and felt terrible about it? Surely I would be warning people off abortion, no?

All you're doing by saying stuff like that showing is that I hurt your feelings, man. You're an amateur at this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Amaya - Just read your other post. Yep, touched a nerve.

Lesson: You haven't got the temprament for flaming. The idea is to make the OTHER person mad, not yourself. I'm laughing as I type this, therefore you lose.

Albatross wrote:What the feth do you mean 'exactly'? You can't just piggy-back Monster Rain because he knows how to discuss such a delicate topic with the appropriate level of tact. You had the chance to use your 'big boy voice' and you blew it.

Meh.

Not exactly necessary.

These are my big boy shoes.

Before you all start, I am perfectly calm.

Like 3 pints calm? Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with a few drinks.

I'm confused, how do I lose?

Or do you really expect me to care what someone who actually considered killing his son thinks?

Maybe you should take him aside and be like, "Hey, boy, me and your selfish mother considered killing you because we have no self discipline."

3 pints?! On the SABBBATH??!!

Take that back.

Albatross wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:A foetus is not a baby, it's a foetus. If a woman decides to abort her foetus, then that should be her decision, as she will have to live with that for the rest of her life - don't make the mistake of thinking it's an easy decision to make.

And therein lies the core of the arguement. I'm not entirely convinced that this is true.

Based on what exactly? Your massive amount of life experience? Know a lot of girls who've had abortions do you? And they're what, fine with it?

How old are you? Because it sounds like you (and others) take the position of 'oh, it's just a substitute for contraception, why can't they just keep their legs closed?' so you can sound macho with a touch of world-weariness. You're a child. A child trying to display manly opinions.

But all you're really displaying is childish ignorance. Do you actually KNOW what an abortion entails?

I never said it was a substitute for contraception. Most women who get abortions are very likely to have good reasons, but some don't and there's no denying that to some an abortion is the answer to the 'worst case scenario'. I do know a girl whose mum was in favour of getting a later term abortion procedure, and she's never forgiven her for that. So I know a child of someone who wanted an abortion, but no I don't know anyone who has actually had an abortion.

And I don't know where you're getting this "world-weariness" stuff from.

Before you all start, I am perfectly calm.

I retract my statement and reject the notion entirely...

6 pints.

Amaya wrote:I'm confused, how do I lose?

Or do you really expect me to care what someone who actually considered killing his son thinks?

Maybe you should take him aside and be like, "Hey, boy, me and your selfish mother considered killing you because we have no self discipline."

Hey Amaya, not having sex because no woman would touch you with a ten foot pole isn't exercising self-discipline. Just thought I should clear that up.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
This is an example of the sort of thing I would call a disturbing comment.

Wow. Coming from you?

Yes, I find it disturbing when people make arguments that provide justification for raping women.

Don't you?

I find it disturbing when someone says that a child of 18 months has no rights and is technically not human.

Amaya wrote:I'm confused, how do I lose?

You lost because you got angry. But keep on ploughing ahead, I'm sure you can pull it back.

Or do you really expect me to care what someone who actually considered killing his son thinks?

Maybe you should take him aside and be like, "Hey, boy, me and your selfish mother considered killing you because we have no self discipline."

You realise you are a mouse-click away from probably getting banned, yeah? That's why you lose. You over-reached in your attempts to make me mad.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Amaya wrote:I'm confused, how do I lose?

Or do you really expect me to care what someone who actually considered killing his son thinks?

Maybe you should take him aside and be like, "Hey, boy, me and your selfish mother considered killing you because we have no self discipline."

Hey Amaya, not having sex because no woman would touch you with a ten foot pole isn't exercising self-discipline. Just thought I should clear that up.

Real mature. Where are you posting from? A primary school?