RC Church tossing out people that helped a 9 year old...

Sounds like a bunch of excuses to me. We both know damn well that if you're so concerned about these kids, you could AT LEAST take care of a foster kid or two. I know people who do that and make no more money than you- including one who also takes care of an aging relative.

And I've also seen you railing against teenagers using birth control. Seems like you have no interest in preventing unwanted pregnancies... but you ARE pretty keen on controlling those teenagers' genitals.

And that's because, for you, this issue is all about CONTROL. It has little or nothing to do with any concern for fetuses (feti?). And certainly no concern for the women involved.

Look, I'm sorry that you have some severe insecurities when it comes to sex and women. I understand... ain't nobody perfect (though some are closer than others). I'm sure you have your reasons.

But I just think you ought to be honest about WHY this concerns you so much. You already spelled it out earlier... don't know why you're so reluctant to admit it now.

Bighead, you don't have the slightest idea why I don't approve of abortion, nor do you apparently comprehend why I am against an underage girl being able to get birth control behind her parents back. Keep your pinhead psychology to yourself because in this instance you've got your egotistical head firmly implanted in your ass.

As far as control goes, you are obviously under solid control of the feminists. You sound just like them.

And I told you why I can't take on a kid. I am quite aware that numerous factors would prevent me from giving them the proper home. I believe a proper home needs both a mother and a father with time to devote to them, but I'm sure you you'll no doubt call me a liar about that too. How wonderful that I have the all knowing Bighead to tell me what my own thoughts are.

Ratzilla wrote:

Bighead, you don't have the slightest idea why I don't approve of abortion,

control.

Quote :

nor do you apparently comprehend why I am against an underage girl being able to get birth control behind her parents back.

control.

Quote :

Keep your pinhead psychology to yourself because in this instance you've got your egotistical head firmly implanted in your ass.

see? tryin' to control me now

Quote :

As far as control goes, you are obviously under solid control of the feminists. You sound just like them.

I seem to recall some Libertarian sympathies on your part, Ratzilla... and those folks usually claim to be ALL FOR individual rights.

Not sure why you'd exclude women. I wouldn't. Some of my favorite individuals are women.

Don't reckon you'd know much about that.

Quote :

And I told you why I can't take on a kid. I am quite aware that numerous factors would prevent me from giving them the proper home. I believe a proper home needs both a mother and a father with time to devote to them, but I'm sure you you'll no doubt call me a liar about that too.

Never called you a liar... but I did imply hypocrisy. You seem pretty goddamn concerned about those fetuses so long as any actions on YOUR part are limited to telling other folks what to do. But you can't be bothered to do anything for them yourself.

That's because your only real interest here is control. Same goes for MOST anti-abortion folks as far as I can tell.

Quote :

How wonderful that I have the all knowing Bighead to tell me what my own thoughts are.

You're welcome. I knew you'd appreciate my insight.

Ok Bighead. I'll go at this in a different way since you are having difficulty. Or maybe you're just being a prick like mikecc was.

While it is not unknown, we consider a mother cat or dog abnormal if they abandon or eat their offspring. Having seen hundreds of kittens and puppies born over time the vast majority were nursed and cared for by the mothers, therefore I consider that normal behavior. Do you consider it normal behavior to discard your young?

As far as feminists being all for individual rights, they are all for "women" having individual rights. Someone appraently thought they had the right to be born, but they don't share the belief. You are right that there are anti-abortionists and anti-feminists who are just as control minded as their opponents, but that has nothing to do with what I base my thoughts on. I consider abortion abnormal behavior, and with logical reason.

And as to the kids rights issues, you have said you don't like parents monitoring their kids activities, be it cell phones, computers, curfews, and birth control. So let me ask you this. Why is it you think the child should not be controlled the parents? Do you think the average 12 or 13 year old should be making adult decisions? If you have kids please do not move next to me because I don't want them thinking they can come into my yard and do as they please.

And as far as my not adopting kids goes, I have considered it. But I have decided I am not the best choice for a home. I see women, but am a lifelong bachelor with bachelor habits, and I also have respiratory issues that might just kill me off in the near future. But what it comes down to is you really just think your shit doesn't stink and I don't care. I have my reasons for my thoughts and couldn't care less what your "guess" is as to why.

Justoo- I may be opinionated... and I may have a talent for observations that get under peoples' skin. But I've never posted repeated pictures of a purple dildo... nor have I called Ratzilla here ANY names. Can't say the same for him.

So, yeah- it's fun getting a rise out of people, and I won't deny that I have some trollish tendencies. But I imagine that even some of these block-headed Chermans prefer actual discussion over your insipid banter and cutesy witticisms.

Ratzilla wrote:

Ok Bighead. I'll go at this in a different way since you are having difficulty. Or maybe you're just being a prick like mikecc was.

While it is not unknown, we consider a mother cat or dog abnormal if they abandon or eat their offspring. Having seen hundreds of kittens and puppies born over time the vast majority were nursed and cared for by the mothers, therefore I consider that normal behavior. Do you consider it normal behavior to discard your young?

As far as feminists being all for individual rights, they are all for "women" having individual rights. Someone appraently thought they had the right to be born, but they don't share the belief. You are right that there are anti-abortionists and anti-feminists who are just as control minded as their opponents, but that has nothing to do with what I base my thoughts on. I consider abortion abnormal behavior, and with logical reason.

And as to the kids rights issues, you have said you don't like parents monitoring their kids activities, be it cell phones, computers, curfews, and birth control. So let me ask you this. Why is it you think the child should not be controlled the parents? Do you think the average 12 or 13 year old should be making adult decisions? If you have kids please do not move next to me because I don't want them thinking they can come into my yard and do as they please.

And as far as my not adopting kids goes, I have considered it. But I have decided I am not the best choice for a home. I see women, but am a lifelong bachelor with bachelor habits, and I also have respiratory issues that might just kill me off in the near future. But what it comes down to is you really just think your shit doesn't stink and I don't care. I have my reasons for my thoughts and couldn't care less what your "guess" is as to why.

Normal?? There's no such thing. And even if there was- you sure as hell don't fit it. We could outlaw any number of behaviors, both harmful and benign, based on some ill-conceived notion of "normal" (a definition that no two people are likely to share... though Hayce Chermans will likely be more homogeneous than most). It's a damn poor standard that INVITES abuse... and we both know damn well that there are LOTS of abnormal behaviors that you have no interest in regulating via legislation.

What you're saying, Ratzilla, is that YOU KNOW BETTER what women ought to do with their own body. Our best minds and self-appointed moral leaders have NEVER come to any agreement as to the point at which a sperm, and egg, a zygote, or a fetus suddenly warrants "rights". Personally, if I were to choose a point in the gestation... it would be around the end of the second trimester- the point at which the fetus has a somewhat developed brain and could be reasonably viable outside the womb. Yeah, it's an arbitrary point; there are PLENTY of arguments to be made against it. Just like ANY point that ANYBODY has come up with (just what point during the gestation do you have in mind, Ratzilla?). But my opinion on this matter has little more merit than that of the Catholic Church (conception or before) or that of traditional Jews (first breath)... or anybody in between for that matter.

It's also worth noting that YOU, as a man, will be largely unaffected should your abritrary (but as yet undefined) notion of 'personhood' be enforced. So, yeah... your opinion on this matter IS worth less than that of any given woman. THEY are the ones that will be affected. THEY are the ones who have experience in carrying a kid, squeezing one out- even losing one. So THEY (those women that you just can't control to your liking) are better equipped than you to have a worthwhile opinion.

So since neither you nor anybody else can make a compelling and clear-cut case as to WHEN a clump of cells suddenly gains rights... that decision ought to be left to those affected. But you apparently see no value in individual freedom... unless YOU are the one affected.

I'll grant that you're probably genuinely concerned about the welfare of those unborn kids. But the fact is that you're not concerned enough to do ANYTHING about it beyond trying to control people who are actually affected by the situation. Therefore, I don't think that the unborn babies are your primary concern. You just want control over those uppity women.

Bighead wrote:

Justoo- I may be opinionated... and I may have a talent for observations that get under peoples' skin. But I've never posted repeated pictures of a purple dildo... nor have I called Ratzilla here ANY names. Can't say the same for him.

You suggested that I was a liar. Far worse than any name you could call me.

Oh dear... did I impugn your honor?

I suggested that you're a hypocrite- not a liar.

But now that you mention it, I reckon you ARE a liar. Nothing personal- I've just never met anybody who ISN'T. And I doubt that you're the exception.

Then you must be a liar. And you're also a hypocrite. As I said, I base my opinion on abortion on what's normal, or natural if you prefer. I had a cat that had a habit of abandoning her kittens. She also would violently attack someone and other cats for no reason. I could be feeding her and she'd run up behind me grab my leg and start biting hard. She was abnormal by my standards, and everyone who knew her, as well as other cats.

I consider abortion an abnormal behavior by natures standards, not mine or any other mans. I see no hypocrisy in that opinion. Why don't you enlighten me as to what I'm hypocritical about.

Your typical posts indicate an anarchist who will defy anything society considers normal even when it's logical in every way. Once again I use my cats as an example. My cats in their mothering will keep a close watch on their kittens and go after them if they stray too far. They will swat them if they get out of line. That is natural behavior yet when it comes to a person, you seem like you feel the child should be in charge. You may think I'm a hypocrite, but I think you are a shade unbalanced.

I've never denied being a liar and a hypocrite... but that doesn't mean much unless you're referring to something specific.

I've already clearly spelled out why you're a hypocrite. You claim concern (and the moral high-ground that comes with it) for those [unborn] kids- yet you WON'T LIFT A FINGER to help them... unless ranting on the Hays board counts. Your only proposed solution is to control those uppity women so that they'll do what YOU define as 'right'... and I reckon this demonstrates exactly where your true concern lies: Control.

That in and of itself would justify the hypocrite label- but you take it a step further. You raise holy hell about teenagers being given access to birth control. So rather than supporting measures that have been empirically shown to REDUCE teen pregnancies (and one would assume, by extension, abortions)- you once again take the side of control. If only everybody would do what RATZILLA wants, then all would be right with the world. You clearly don't want results (like reducing the number of teen pregnancies). You want control.

Now, don't feel TOO bad about this hypocrisy. I've never met anybody (myself included) that wouldn't qualify for the label. But some folks are worse than others.

I'm not going to get into your silly "natures standards" notion except to say that it's a LONG way from "logical". I'm not sure that you understand what "logic" is in any but the vaguest terms... but two basic requirements are that (1) terms and standards should be clearly defined- better yet, agreed upoon. And, (2) logic requires consistency. I'll be really amused to see you try and define "natures standards" and/or "normal", and apply it consistently. So give it a try. It'll be fun.

I'll readily concede a point that I think you're trying to make indirectly: Abortion sucks. It's disgusting, morally wrong (inasmuch as I believe in amorphous notions like 'right', 'wrong', and 'moral'), and occupies an ugly gray area bordered by self-harm and infanticide. I'm not a fan.

But as I've REPEATEDLY pointed out, nobody has come up with a clearly-defined, agreed-upon point at which removing a clump of cells becomes murder. Seeings how you contend that abortion=murder- I reckon it's incumbent upon you to define that point. Go ahead... it'll be fun. Watch me shoot it down. 'Cause we both know that there will be BIG problems with any point that you choose. Oh, and what would be an appropriate sentence for a woman convicted of abortion?

And while you're at it, go ahead and explain to me exactly why YOU are more qualified to define this point than any individual woman who has to carry that fetus to term and will have to live with all the consequences (physical, social, emotional, financial, any other ...-al you can think of) that this entails.

And on a more personal note, I'm sorry that you don't approve of my rather dim view of authority (in general). I'm also sorry that you can't see just how arbitrary our cultural norms ARE, and how fluid the notions of 'right' and 'wrong' become when comparing one given culture with another. I don't blame you for perceiving me as 'unbalanced'. I run across that often enough- invariably by people who are not necessarily bad folks, but simple-minded.

Your statements in a nutshell.

Bighead wrote:

I can't get CONTROL and tell Ratzilla what to think.

C'mon Ratzilla... don't bail out on me just 'cause I've asked you some uncomfortable questions.

Oh I can answer anything. But the answers won't be what you want me to say. Pisses you off you can't control me don't it?

The simple facts are you DO NOT know what my full opinions are or why, but if you'd quit calling me a liar, a hypocrite, and simple minded, I might just give you answers.

I don't think you're in any position to bitch about name-calling.

The questions still stand. You've got no problem deciding what other people ought and ought not do (so long as it doesn't affect YOU). So why not define exactly what you'd outlaw, what the penalty would be, and why YOU are more qualified to make this decision than those who are, by definition, the most experienced and/or directly affected by the issue at hand?

Bighead, this whole thing didn't start because I want new laws against abortion. It started because I said the laws are contradictory, and because I've seen abortion supporters turn around and demand that men who cause the death of the unborn should be charged with homicide. There's where the hypocrisy lies, but you don't seem to care about their hypocrisy. Have I tried to rally the crowd for anti-abortion laws? No, I simply stated I think aborting your own is an unnatural act, and in my opinion wrong, and that abortion supporters and laws contradict themselves.

Now on to the teen birth control. Not once did I say that it should never be allowed. I said the lawmakers forbid underage sex and then contradict themselves by allowing them to obtain birth control. My biggest issue there is that the parents are left in the dark by permission of the same government that says these kids can't legally have sex. Does that not sound stupid?

I actually would support teens going to their parents and asking for help in this issue, but rather than approaching it that way, our government and the media has made it look like mom and dad are to be excluded. Did you know that in Denmark kids that age go to their parents to get contaception and safe sex info? That's the way it should be, not dividing parent and child at such a crucial time.

Natural verses normal.... Natural does not always equate to what man has decided to accept as normal. I never said it did. But you cannot tell me that aborting your young is either the normal, or natural thing to do. Oh I agree they want it to be the norm, but it's a sickening reflection on our society.

My opinion is that if someone is of legal age to consent they should either use contraception, stay abstinant, or accept responsibility for their actions. I'm not going to debate when life begins because it's admittedly difficult to decide, but my point in this whole thing was that the state of KS allows abortions after the point that a person can be charged with homicide for causing the death of the unborn. You want to talk of hypocrisy, point it where it belongs as I have attempted to do.

After seeing what abortion involves in that the baby is torn apart and suctioned out , or given saline injections burning it and poisoning to death, or the method of induced contractions in which the drug cause such violent contractions that the baby is crushed to death by the contractions. I cannot support it in most cases. In a situation of rape of a child like the 9 yr old mentioned in this thread, or a true threat to the life of the mother or a severe deformity of the baby I think it has it's place. But for purposes of convenience I think it is wrong. As a society we have found too many ways to avoid responsibility of our actions and IMHO, I think that has created a lot of the problems we as a nation are experiencing.

If a woman gets pregnant because of a promiscuous lifestyle I think that the baby should have the right to be born and adopted. As I saw the abortion videos it made me wonder how many babys the were aborted that could have become the next Einstein, Mozart, President, or some other person of greatness that never had the chance because of an abortion. There are many couples that are unable to have their own children that would love to adopt and raise a baby as their own. Maybe some of these kids should be given the chance to live just like the rest of us.

Ratzilla wrote:

Bighead, this whole thing didn't start because I want new laws against abortion. It started because I said the laws are contradictory, and because I've seen abortion supporters turn around and demand that men who cause the death of the unborn should be charged with homicide. There's where the hypocrisy lies, but you don't seem to care about their hypocrisy. Have I tried to rally the crowd for anti-abortion laws? No, I simply stated I think aborting your own is an unnatural act, and in my opinion wrong, and that abortion supporters and laws contradict themselves.

I'll admit that I may have been A LITTLE hard on you, as I don't recall you directly saying that abortions ought to be outlawed. But you've come pretty damn close, and it rubbed me the wrong way. So keep your chin up, put on your big-girl britches, and deal with it.

I kinda agree with you on this point... thing is, I don't have a good solution to the problem (I know... that's never kept me from ranting on several other topics). And seeings how I don't drive drunk, it isn't an issue that's close to my black little heart.

I suppose, to be consistent, they could come up with an entirely unique charge... but this gets into issues of intent. And I never have really understood how a drunk driver can be charged with murder when the INTENT isn't there. 'Cause his intent was no different than any other drunk driver... he just happened to crash. I think I've read somewhere that the act of driving drunk is reckless... and is tantamount to intent (somebody correct me if I'm wrong here). If that's the case... then why wouldn't ANY drunk driver be charged with attempted murder?

So yeah, I agree that this, along with dozens... hundreds... maybe thousands of other laws is inconsistent. I just don't care a whole lot at this point. It isn't a battle that you're gonna win.

Quote :

Now on to the teen birth control. Not once did I say that it should never be allowed. I said the lawmakers forbid underage sex and then contradict themselves by allowing them to obtain birth control. My biggest issue there is that the parents are left in the dark by permission of the same government that says these kids can't legally have sex. Does that not sound stupid?

I actually would support teens going to their parents and asking for help in this issue, but rather than approaching it that way, our government and the media has made it look like mom and dad are to be excluded. Did you know that in Denmark kids that age go to their parents to get contaception and safe sex info? That's the way it should be, not dividing parent and child at such a crucial time.

Again- I won't defend our legal system. It's CHOCK FULL of inconsistency- some folks would call it 'necessary compromise'. I don't disagree with your legal point, but my concern in the matter is preventing teen pregnancy.

I know from experience just how idiotic and ineffective your average red-blooded Christian American parent is- and I don't give a rat's ass if they get their panties in a wad. If a kid is responsible enough to seek out and and use birth control, then I think they should be fully supported. I don't CARE if kids fuck. I don't CARE if it's illegal. If a parent is ineffective enough that a kid is sexually active at too young an age... then removing easy access to birth control (which would be the net effect of what you propose) would only make the problem worse.

But that's because my primary concern here is preventing teen pregnancy- not control.

Quote :

Natural verses normal.... Natural does not always equate to what man has decided to accept as normal. I never said it did. But you cannot tell me that aborting your young is either the normal, or natural thing to do. Oh I agree they want it to be the norm, but it's a sickening reflection on our society.

Never said that abortion was normal, desirable, or anything of the kind. My point is that "normal" is a damn poor standard to judge ANYTHING by- let alone legalities. If you can't see that, then you really need to get out of Hays now and then.

BTW- who are "they"? And why do you reckon "they" want abortion to be "the norm"? That's ridiculous.

Just because something is abnormal, undesirable, etc., etc... that's not necessarily a valid reason to outlaw it. People nowadays would make the same argument about (currently) illegal drugs... look how well that War on Drugs is going. Several decades ago, people made much the same argument for outlawing alcohol- yeah, that went well. Don't forget interracial marriage- outlawed at one time using much the same argument.

I don't like the fact that some women will ALWAYS have abortions (and I frankly don't care a whole lot about the distinction between an abortion that some gal 'wants' and one that she 'needs'). If these gals are going to have abortions (and women DO- all over the world. It's a simple fact), then they ought to be made safe- that REQUIRES legality. I'm interested in protecting peoples' individual rights and their safety. Not control.

Quote :

My opinion is that if someone is of legal age to consent they should either use contraception, stay abstinant, or accept responsibility for their actions. I'm not going to debate when life begins because it's admittedly difficult to decide, but my point in this whole thing was that the state of KS allows abortions after the point that a person can be charged with homicide for causing the death of the unborn. You want to talk of hypocrisy, point it where it belongs as I have attempted to do.

Again, I technically agree with your legal point- I just don't care much. But it does seem like kindof a cop-out to rant about abortion and yet refuse to define exactly WHEN it should be illegal and WHAT the punishment should be.

Kinda like some nihilistic (yet ruggedly handsome) hillbilly ranting about how all cops oughtta be tarred & feathered & run out of town... but proposing no reasonable alternative for maintaining order.

You are missing some points here. My point is not about abortion laws I want. My point, or points are that some women and men also, who want abortion legal are also pushing for the laws to send someone up on homicide charges if they cause the death of the unborn. I don't like abortion for convenience, but it's that two faced crap that this particular rant was about.

And as I said, I'm not entirely against minors obtaining the pill. But if it's going to be given I think that first, the minor should be "strongly" encouraged to consider all the options, and the parents should be notified as to what they are dealing with. This crap about Planned Parenthood hiding criminal activity, and that attitude of go ahead and screw because if you do get a disease or become pregnant we your good friends at Planned Parenthood will gladly give you meds and abort the brat without mom and dad ever having to know. I am very seriously against a kid being given abortions without parental consent and that damn well should be illegal.

As far as the normal/natural thing goes, I think it's very applicable here. And when I say "they" want abortion to be the norm I'm referring to pro-abortionists who want society to accept abortion as the quick and easy way to get rid of an unwanted kid. I wasn't suggesting that "they" would want all babies aborted. Well, mikecc might want all black babies aborted but that's another story.

Life begins before conception since both sperm and eggs are "alive". Therefore menstration and blowjobs should also be considered murder. Furthermore, anyone who either directly or indirectly causes the death of another human should not only be charged for that persons murder, but that of any potential offspring they may have produced completely to the end of the conceivable bloodline. A simple DOS program could be used to calculate this to detremine the number of life sentences the convicted should have to serve.

The machines are coming to turn us into batteries.......

I guess my G/F is an accomplice to murder since it ended up in her hair

Nitro, havn't you heard that line some folks desperate to avoid being over the hill use about life beginning at 40? That means if someone is still under 40 you could legally inject them with saline and chemicals and rip them up with a giant vacuum. So how old is your ex?

Ratzilla wrote:

Nitro, havn't you heard that line some folks desperate to avoid being over the hill use about life beginning at 40? That means if someone is still under 40 you could legally inject them with saline and chemicals and rip them up with a giant vacuum. So how old is your ex?

34

I figured that thought might brighten your day nitro.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Life begins before conception since both sperm and eggs are "alive". Therefore menstration and blowjobs should also be considered murder. Furthermore, anyone who either directly or indirectly causes the death of another human should not only be charged for that persons murder, but that of any potential offspring they may have produced completely to the end of the conceivable bloodline. A simple DOS program could be used to calculate this to detremine the number of life sentences the convicted should have to serve.

The machines are coming to turn us into batteries.......

If thats true, theres one hell of a lot of people in big trouble, all with multiple counts

**puts on gloves**

Let's see if I can piss off both Ratzilla and Bighead...

First, in cases of rape, incest and severe malformation/deformation that result in a threat to the mother or "child" abortion is a peachy-keen idea.

Second, "a woman's right to choose" is horse-shit. It takes two to tango and If some "lady" wants an abortion out of convenience or whatever half-cocked justification she boils up she should have to deal with it like a modern custody battle. The "child" is not so easily just given to mommy dearest these days. The father should have a say in what happens to his seed just as well as the mother. In most cases of abortion this would probably be a non-point but the "lady" sure didn't mind relinquishing a bit of control over her body at conception. It should be discussed and legally approved by both parents.

Third, Morality shouldn't even be a factor. I could give a shit when "they" consider it a "child". It's none of "their" fucking business. What I do think is that they can pay for it. Every damned bit of it. For abortion to be used as a form of contrception pisses me off because it is a medical service that is often paid for by public tax funded dollars. I would rather help pay for the condoms that also prevent the spread of disease than to foot the bill for some dumbass' Saturday night fling.

BigBadBeast wrote:

**puts on gloves**

Let's see if I can piss off both Ratzilla and Bighead...

First, in cases of rape, incest and severe malformation/deformation that result in a threat to the mother or "child" abortion is a peachy-keen idea.

Second, "a woman's right to choose" is horse-shit. It takes two to tango and If some "lady" wants an abortion out of convenience or whatever half-cocked justification she boils up she should have to deal with it like a modern custody battle. The "child" is not so easily just given to mommy dearest these days. The father should have a say in what happens to his seed just as well as the mother. In most cases of abortion this would probably be a non-point but the "lady" sure didn't mind relinquishing a bit of control over her body at conception. It should be discussed and legally approved by both parents.

Third, Morality shouldn't even be a factor. I could give a shit when "they" consider it a "child". It's none of "their" fucking business. What I do think is that they can pay for it. Every damned bit of it. For abortion to be used as a form of contrception pisses me off because it is a medical service that is often paid for by public tax funded dollars. I would rather help pay for the condoms that also prevent the spread of disease than to foot the bill for some dumbass' Saturday night fling.

If I didn't know better, I would have guessed Rat wrote this

Yeah Luke, it does sound familiar. It sure doesn't piss me off triple B. I have long tired of the lack of personal responsibility that abortion promotes. This so called matter of "choice" that's always brought up always forgets to mention the choices of abstinence or birth control to prevent the third "choice".

I have one more suggestion. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't want to use birth control, and don't want the man you spread your legs for to have any right to an opinion, there is one more choice. Find a dyke and paste a mustache on her (unless she already has one) and give her a strap-on.

Ratzilla wrote:

Yeah Luke, it does sound familiar. It sure doesn't piss me off triple B. I have long tired of the lack of personal responsibility that abortion promotes. This so called matter of "choice" that's always brought up always forgets to mention the choices of abstinence or birth control to prevent the third "choice".

I have one more suggestion. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't want to use birth control, and don't want the man you spread your legs for to have any right to an opinion, there is one more choice. Find a dyke and paste a mustache on her (unless she already has one) and give her a strap-on.

There is another option. I won't say it here because certain people might not be able to steal time from their employer by accessing this site while they're supposed to be working, but the answer lies within the following riddle:

Q: If bluebirds have blue babies and blackbirds have black babies, what kind of birds don'r have babies?

A: Swallows.

The Other One wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

Yeah Luke, it does sound familiar. It sure doesn't piss me off triple B. I have long tired of the lack of personal responsibility that abortion promotes. This so called matter of "choice" that's always brought up always forgets to mention the choices of abstinence or birth control to prevent the third "choice".

I have one more suggestion. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't want to use birth control, and don't want the man you spread your legs for to have any right to an opinion, there is one more choice. Find a dyke and paste a mustache on her (unless she already has one) and give her a strap-on.

There is another option. I won't say it here because certain people might not be able to steal time from their employer by accessing this site while they're supposed to be working, but the answer lies within the following riddle:

Q: If bluebirds have blue babies and blackbirds have black babies, what kind of birds don'r have babies?

A: Swallows.

you mean the clinton thing don't you?

Yep, there's a good choice. But I got a feeling the strict feminists are ones whose teeth I prefer not to be that close to.

Hell around here you have to watch out for some of these women especially the ones from The Home that have herpes on their lips.

BigBadBeast wrote:

**puts on gloves**

Let's see if I can piss off both Ratzilla and Bighead...

First, in cases of rape, incest and severe malformation/deformation that result in a threat to the mother or "child" abortion is a peachy-keen idea.

Second, "a woman's right to choose" is horse-shit. It takes two to tango and If some "lady" wants an abortion out of convenience or whatever half-cocked justification she boils up she should have to deal with it like a modern custody battle. The "child" is not so easily just given to mommy dearest these days. The father should have a say in what happens to his seed just as well as the mother. In most cases of abortion this would probably be a non-point but the "lady" sure didn't mind relinquishing a bit of control over her body at conception. It should be discussed and legally approved by both parents.

Third, Morality shouldn't even be a factor. I could give a shit when "they" consider it a "child". It's none of "their" fucking business. What I do think is that they can pay for it. Every damned bit of it. For abortion to be used as a form of contrception pisses me off because it is a medical service that is often paid for by public tax funded dollars. I would rather help pay for the condoms that also prevent the spread of disease than to foot the bill for some dumbass' Saturday night fling.

You're gonna have to try harder than that to piss me off.

I gotta commend you for your lack of childish moral concern. I think that shows maturity and insight on your part.

I've considered an outlook similar to yours more than once, but I keep running into problems... and I don't think it's a workable idea:

What if the guy wants the fetus sucked out, but the gal doesn't? Who decides?

Could circumstances arise that require a gal to have an abortion that she doesn't want? If not... then does the father REALLY have an equal say in the matter?

One possible solution would be to terminate the father's parental rights & duties. But if you do that... then does that also terminate any requirement for child support? And if so... then would not MOST baby-daddys who don't want to marry the gal use this as a strategery to get out of child support?

What if the gal wants the fetus sucked out, gut the guy doesn't? Who decides?

Are you gonna require the gal to carry the kid to term just because some guy doesn't want his sperm wasted? I have real doubts about this- a woman OBVIOUSLY has a much bigger stake in the pregnancy. That fetus will be essentially part of her body for the gestation- and I'd prefer to err on the side of giving individuals control over their own bodies... you know- seeings how I have no real interest in controlling these gals.


On a more general note- not directed specifically at BBB, I'd just like to point out that I don't think it's any of ya'll's business if a gal wants to be slutty. As a straight male who happens to LIKE sluts- I'm not really sure what your problem is. Whenever folks use the phrase "personal responsibility", I think they generally mean "I'd like to see people suffer consequences for behavior that I don't like". In other words- it's all about control.

Not that that's gonna surprise anybody.

Ratzilla wrote:

Yep, there's a good choice. But I got a feeling the strict feminists are ones whose teeth I prefer not to be that close to.

I doubt you'll be faced with that situation any time soon.

Well Bighead I now see why you call your woman "The Supreme Commandress".

You also demonstrate hypocrisy in it's purest form. You want so much for women to have the right to abortion, and for kids to run wild as they see fit, that even a differing opinion on the matter seems intolerable to you to the point that you "attempt" to label your debate opponent as a liar, a hypocrite, a right wing moralist nut, a control freak, and now childish. Your biggest problem with me is that I'm refusing to allow you to CONTROL me.

Degeneration X wrote:

Hell around here you have to watch out for some of these women especially the ones from The Home that have herpes on their lips.

you mean to tell me that loose women hang out at The Home??

Ratzilla wrote:

Well Bighead I now see why you call your woman "The Supreme Commandress".

You also demonstrate hypocrisy in it's purest form. You want so much for women to have the right to abortion, and for kids to run wild as they see fit, that even a differing opinion on the matter seems intolerable to you to the point that you "attempt" to label your debate opponent as a liar, a hypocrite, a right wing moralist nut, a control freak, and now childish. Your biggest problem with me is that I'm refusing to allow you to CONTROL me.

How about instead of whining like a little girl, you buck up and demonstrate where and why I'm wrong?

The only thing you are right about is that I think parents have the right to control the activities of their kids just as parents of every species of animal have done for millions of years. If you think for a second that I'm going to say it's right for women to abort for convienence you're insane.

So maybe you should quit whining before your commandress has to spank you.

Is that commandress or dominatrix??

I agree that parents should keep control of their kids. But I don't reckon that said control needs to be absolute, and I reckon that things like sex and pregnancy are particularly personal matter. And (you ain't gonna like this) I don't reckon that parents CAN or SHOULD have absolute control over such matters. The kid will necessarily have to make decisions on these matters, and I'd prefer to give them the freedom to do so... to a point.

That's because I'm not obsessed with control.

And I'd also like to address a common concern that you, Ratzilla, and others have brought up. I'm no fan of having abortion used as birth-control... I know of at least one gal from the Hays area who has done that multiple times. But allowing trashy deeds by trashy people is the prices we pay for ALL KINDS of freedom.

I think that sort of behavior is best addressed by promoting birth control. But denying a whole class of people their rights based on the actions of a trashy few... I don't cotton to that.

But then again... I'm not looking to control said class of people.

LukeTHr wrote:

Is that commandress or dominatrix??

Depends on her mood and her whim.

Other than parental control, I'm not looking for control either. And I'm not saying a 16 year old shouldn't have some say in their sex life, but should a 13 year old be able to get the pill or an abortion without parental notice?

Other than that, I'm just stating my opinions, not seeking to control.

Ratzilla wrote:

Other than parental control, I'm not looking for control either. And I'm not saying a 16 year old shouldn't have some say in their sex life, but should a 13 year old be able to get the pill or an abortion without parental notice?

Other than that, I'm just stating my opinions, not seeking to control.

Hell yes they should- and I've already explained why. But I'll do it again.

I don't think it's a good idea for ANY 13 year old to be fucking anybody at that age... for several obvious reasons. But IF a parent doesn't have the sense to prevent it, AND the kid is responsible enough to take steps to prevent pregnancy (and subsequent abortions?), then hell yes they oughtta get the pill (and some rubbers). You know as well as I do that a requirement for parental notification would prevent MOST teenagers from seeking birth control- and they're gonna end up pregnant. I'd prefer to prevent that and I really don't care if it pisses parents off- it's more important that the kid avoids pregnancy.


Tell me this, Ratzilla... do you reckon that our difference in opinion lies in our faith (or lack thereof) in parents and/or authority in general?

Our lack of faith is why the discussion is interesting. Nothing is based on the big black book of fairy tales. Which brings me to my point. I stated that in Denmark a kid approaches their parent for safe sex and birth control info. If our society wasn't controlled so deeply by the church our kids could have that important bond with the parents.

While I understand what you are saying I think that the secret Planned Parenthood activities and even handing condoms and the pill out to kids as young as 12 in some schools only serves to cause further alienation between parent and child.

Ratzilla wrote:

Our lack of faith is why the discussion is interesting. Nothing is based on the big black book of fairy tales.

Yeah, that does make it more interesting. And I'm surprised that we haven't heard more from christians on this topic... lots of them are downright obsessed.

Quote :

Which brings me to my point. I stated that in Denmark a kid approaches their parent for safe sex and birth control info. If our society wasn't controlled so deeply by the church our kids could have that important bond with the parents.

I'd have to know more about this to comment on it- got a link? Or at least a source?

How well do you reckon that would work here in the U.S.? I don't think it'd work AT ALL. I think it's safe to say that our attitudes about sex are VASTLY different from those of your average Dane. Like it or not, our society is deeply controlled by the church and will be for the foreseeable future. The Denmark model (if it actually exists as you describe it- I'm always suspicious of such a simple and universal description) is a nice idea and all- but will never be feasible as long as the vast majority of parents worship a bronze-age goat-herder god and believe that there's something inherently bad and/or dirty about sex.

Quote :

While I understand what you are saying I think that the secret Planned Parenthood activities and even handing condoms and the pill out to kids as young as 12 in some schools only serves to cause further alienation between parent and child.

IMO, that alienation already exists and is already deeply ingrained into our culture. My preferred approach works around it. The approach you advocate wouldn't do anything about the alienation- but it would allow said alienation to prevent the kid from getting proper birth control.

I don't have a link to the article because I read about the study in a magazine that was done some years back. Denmark has always been a more open society on such things. Not sure if they still do, but at one time schools in Denmark took 6th graders to the sex museum on field trips to give them a chance to see what it's all about under adult supervision. Yet at that time teen promiscuity was no worse than here and they were far better prepared because the parents were approachable.

As far as this country goes, I think if the schools, government, and the media started working with parents instead of shutting them out things could change. Even church going parents are having to face it that alot they never thought of as kids is happening with theirs. It just needs to be approached in the right way.

I had no idea that your position was a precursor to social engineering.

Not saying I entirely disagree with you. I like the idea- I just don't think it can ever happen.

Here's an interesting link Bighead. The US has the worlds highest teen pregnancy rate. Much higher than more open nations like Denmark and the Netherlands. Even male dominated Japan with all it's perversion has a very low rate. Doesn't look like Planned Parenthood is the answer.

Link here

Ratzilla wrote:

Here's an interesting link Bighead. The US has the worlds highest teen pregnancy rate. Much higher than more open nations like Denmark and the Netherlands. Even male dominated Japan with all it's perversion has a very low rate. Doesn't look like Planned Parenthood is the answer.

Link here

Non sequitur.

In what way?