The Kids are Doing Alright: The Culture War is Over
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Now you seem to be suggesting that the main reason women get abortions, is because they are uninformed!!
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I had to ask.
Not really.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
you're right....I have agreed to be a hypocrite to save the lives of 47 million children you want to kill.....so, I'm a hypocrite, you're a fucking killer....I suck less than you do........ by the way, you have misstated what Ice posted.....he posted, correctly, the percentage of abortions involve rape.....
apple0154
MEOW
Now you seem to be suggesting that the main reason women get abortions, is because they are uninformed!!
My goodness you have difficulty with comprehension.
Did you not notice I mentioned smoking and drinking and driving? People were aware of the dangers of smoking and the dangers of drinking and driving long before those TV ADS ran. The ADS brought the issues front and center. It resulted in a culture change, for lack of a better term.
That approach is needed regarding sex. Constant reminders to pick up condoms on the next shopping trip and, most important, to use them.
We can change things. We did regarding smoking and drinking and driving. Today, it is responsible to have a designated driver. Such an idea would have been laughed at years ago. Folks used to have a drink for the road!
Now do you understand?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Like I suggested; you're making the implication that women have abortions, because they haven't been informed or they're stupid.
So you're also suggesting that people shouldn't drive, if they recently had sex??
I am not talking about anything people usually consider miscarriages, idiot. A high percentage of fertilized eggs never implant.
Because, that is what happens. They fertilize the egg outside the body creating, in your absurd world, a baby. Then they put it into the woman's body and hope that implants. Many do not. They die.
I am not talking about eggs that are left over.
Of course an acorn will not grow into an oak tree if "left alone" either....it must have use of the earth, water, light, etc....
and a rock thrown into the air will not fall back to earth either it "left alone"...it must have gravity act on it and overcome its inertia, etc.....
Does this demonstrate how stupid your analogy is RSpeckerhead ?
Great! We are not talking about dirt, water and light. We are talking about a human being. A fully developed one. Not a potential one.
That's not the analogy. You willfully dropped context and if Damo is doing the same, then he is wrong too.
But, what if she dressed like a filthy whore? Case closed.
But yours is logical, his is sick and disgusting. Your cutoff is based on proven viability and attaining certain qualities (sentience). His is based on whether the mother should be punished because she chose sex or if the "baby" should be punished because the father raped the mother.
Further, his would have to require the mother to come forward and prove the rape, in some way. She should not have to and imagine if she could not.
Quit being such dishonest coward, claiming it is virtue and blaming the ugly realities that your policy would create on others. It's unbelievable how much of a spineless worm you are.
ditzyliberal
What does reading the words have to do with it? Yes, I read your post. Your inability to use the quotes makes it hard to respond in context, so I will just do it in one comment. I am tired of fixing your mess.
BS, you did argue that my claims, that many of those would divorce and some were lying, was supposition and conjecture. You repeated it several times. The point of that was that the number of children in two parents homes throughout childhood was not as high as you implied. It never had anything to do with two homosexuals having sex and producing offspring. There is absolutely no connection between the two, dumbfuck.
I may have confused articles. I tried to find the original source and had difficulty. Who cares. 63% or 67%. The census does corroborate the Rutgers study. 4% is gotta be pretty close to the margin of error on either. But we can use 67%, because +/-4% who fucking cares! Some dumb fuck playing gotcha games because his arguments are worthless, that's who.
Hey mastermind, water is wet. That proves my argument and you can't contradict my logic. That proves gays should be able to marry.
That's to what your argument on homosexual procreation amounts. It is as if you were trying to prove OJ guilty and said, "he played for the Bills... prove me wrong!" Why?
What is the difference between a medical problem and a biological impossibility? That matters to marriage, how?
There is no proof that homosexuals cannot raise kids or that heterosexual children suffer under them. That's just nonsense.
You still have not proven anything, except that you are fucking stupid. I know and have known that water is wet, OJ played for the Bills and two people of the same sex can't produce offspring. I just don't see how any of those points matter one iota to the topic of gay marriage or families. Until you make a case for the points relevance you have nothing.
What does reading the words have to do with it? Yes, I read your post. Your inability to use the quotes makes it hard to respond in context, so I will just do it in one comment. I am tired of fixing your mess.
BS, you did argue that my claims, that many of those would divorce and some were lying, was supposition and conjecture. You repeated it several times. The point of that was that the number of children in two parents homes throughout childhood was not as high as you implied. It never had anything to do with two homosexuals having sex and producing offspring. There is absolutely no connection between the two, dumbfuck.
I may have confused articles. I tried to find the original source and had difficulty. Who cares. 63% or 67%. The census does corroborate the Rutgers study. 4% is gotta be pretty close to the margin of error on either. But we can use 67%, because +/-4% who fucking cares! Some dumb fuck playing gotcha games because his arguments are worthless, that's who.
Hey mastermind, water is wet. That proves my argument and you can't contradict my logic. That proves gays should be able to marry.
That's to what your argument on homosexual procreation amounts. It is as if you were trying to prove OJ guilty and said, "he played for the Bills... prove me wrong!" Why?
What is the difference between a medical problem and a biological impossibility? That matters to marriage, how?
There is no proof that homosexuals cannot raise kids or that heterosexual children suffer under them. That's just nonsense.
You still have not proven anything, except that you are fucking stupid. I know and have known that water is wet, OJ played for the Bills and two people of the same sex can't produce offspring. I just don't see how any of those points matter one iota to the topic of gay marriage or families. Until you make a case for the points relevance you have nothing.
Last edited:
Give it a rest. Your lack of backbone is not virtue. You simply ignore the problems.
You also ignore apple's point that many forced to term will live a short and miserable life and then die.
You have played dumb on in vitro when it creates life that it knows will very likely be killed in the process. Here are the live birth success rates per ivf cycle.
* 30 to 35% for women under age 35
* 25% for women ages 35 to 37
* 15 to 20% for women ages 38 to 40
* 6 to 10% for women ages over 40
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/infertility/ivf.html
Let's take 35% hell let's make it 40% so the math is easier. That's not 40% of fertilized eggs that's 40% success per cycle. The same site recommends no more than 4 embryo's per cycle. So we have 10 cycles at 4 embryos per cycle resulting in 4 babies. 10 embryos to the baby. Or 9 deaths for every birth.
Should these killing factories be legal? Why don't you go shoot a fertility doctor? No, let me guess, you will let it go to save the others.
Next up, what about women with a partial hysterectomy. Are they allowed to have sex or should the death trap be closed?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
let's consider an parallel which will demonstrate your obvious error......
every day, ten's of thousands of eighty year old men die......this, under no circumstances, justifies intentionally killing one of them..........
'nuff said?..........
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
??...but I don't want her killing her children if she is a filthy whore or if she's wearing a pair of those angel wings you can get at Victoria's Secret.....so the case is closed on your silly attempts to sidetrack the issue.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
lol....you accuse me of dishonesty yet claim superior morals for insisting on killing children....what a fuckup you are.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
double post
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
please, you shouldn't encourage the fuckwad......even though a rational person wouldn't put any weight in the opinion of someone like you, if the little twit gets any encouragement he'll have to go through months of additional therapy before he gives up his delusions.....
how stupid are you?....it is NOT necessary to kill the unused embryos....to do so is equally immoral as having an abortion.....
wtf are you going on about.....do you have no comprehension of reproductive biology?......are you one of those fools incapable of distinguishing between a sperm an embryo?......
this is an argument about abortion....the intentional act of terminating a life which is known to have commenced....
if the concept is beyond you, admit it and leave the thread......if it isn't, keep the discussion to relevant matters.....
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
You keep misisng the entire point. Regardless of the policy, there is never a need to dehumanize the baby or distort reproductive biology and the facts of life.