French Patriot Posted May 6, 2019 Report Share Posted May 6, 2019 21 hours ago, Realitycheck said: Even the ridiculous bible says it is not a human until it is born. No argument, but I would have thrown her own bible quote at her. You showed the nail but did not drive it into her heart where it might have an effect with her own WORD of god. Regards DL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted May 6, 2019 Report Share Posted May 6, 2019 45 minutes ago, French Patriot said: The WORD of god is full of inconvenient truths of what their vile god is. Faith forces the more stupid to argue against the WORD of god. God always has good reasons to do murder to those too blind to see that murder is not mercy. Curing in stead of killing like Jesus did shows should be done proves he is not Yahweh but the blind and stupid theists do not care about that inconvenient truth. Fell sorry for them as they know not what they do. Regards DL Jesus is a myth and I never feel sorry for those who are willfully blind like poor Betsy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
French Patriot Posted May 6, 2019 Report Share Posted May 6, 2019 3 minutes ago, Realitycheck said: Jesus is a myth and I never feel sorry for those who are willfully blind like poor Betsy. That is the thing. To her, who was likely brainwashed as a child, it may not be willful. She may have suffered the indoctrination you see in this link. Don't get me wrong. Her kind must be brought out of their delusions and conditioning as we must continue to fight the evil they produce. Knowing why they do it is all that I am trying to show here. Brain Washing ( Jesus Camp ''Highlights'' ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac Regards DL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted May 6, 2019 Report Share Posted May 6, 2019 7 minutes ago, French Patriot said: That is the thing. To her, who was likely brainwashed as a child, it may not be willful. She may have suffered the indoctrination you see in this link. Don't get me wrong. Her kind must be brought out of their delusions and conditioning as we must continue to fight the evil they produce. Knowing why they do it is all that I am trying to show here. Brain Washing ( Jesus Camp ''Highlights'' ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac Regards DL I have no problem with them having their sad delusions. The problem I have with these ridiculous beliefs is when they try to force their baseless beliefs upon others. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
French Patriot Posted May 6, 2019 Report Share Posted May 6, 2019 6 hours ago, Realitycheck said: I have no problem with them having their sad delusions. The problem I have with these ridiculous beliefs is when they try to force their baseless beliefs upon others. Yes, but Regards DL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted May 6, 2019 Report Share Posted May 6, 2019 3 minutes ago, French Patriot said: Yes, but Regards DL Not wasting time watching a silly music vid. if you have something to say, say it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
French Patriot Posted May 6, 2019 Report Share Posted May 6, 2019 The title says it all and I thought you might like the song. Thanks for the shit attitude. Regards DL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted May 6, 2019 Report Share Posted May 6, 2019 3 minutes ago, French Patriot said: The title says it all and I thought you might like the song. Thanks for the shit attitude. Regards DL De rein. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 16, 2019 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2019 Gotta edit my title here: Abortion is a done deal.....in CANADA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted May 16, 2019 Report Share Posted May 16, 2019 16 minutes ago, betsy said: Gotta edit my title here: Abortion is a done deal.....in CANADA! As it should be everywhere. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goddess Posted May 16, 2019 Report Share Posted May 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Realitycheck said: As it should be everywhere. I'm too old now for it to affect me, but I have given thought to whether I would ever have had an abortion and under what circumstances. It's a decision that is not taken lightly and I believe in my sisters that the vast majority do not take this difficult decision lightly, either. I am very grateful that I have the right to make my own decision, based on my own circumstances, based on my own life. And I would not want to take that right away from anyone else. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted May 16, 2019 Report Share Posted May 16, 2019 I'm pro-life, but let me approach this from a different angle. What causes unwanted pregnancies in the first place? Rape is an obvious one. Other forms of coercion (including paying for sex or offering sex for money, but begging, nagging, pouting, unwanted touching, and threats of suicide with a weapon are others among a much longer list too) are others. Mental-health problems like compulsive sexual behaviours (or what some refer to in layman's terms as sex addiction) are another. Just plain carelessness is yet another. Now, there's not much we can do about simple carelessness, but we might be able to do more about the others. The following is more of a brainstorm than anything worked out in detail. I remember reading somewhere online I believe even though I can't seem to find it anymore, a suggestion that a person could self-exclude from fornication similarly to how a person could self-exclude from gambling. In some US states, a person can self-exclude from gambling in which case he makes it a criminal offence for himself to trespass onto any casino property in that state. Following a similar idea, imagine that a person could self-exclude from fornication and so make it an offense punishable by a heavy fine to fornicate, but also make it an offence for others to encourage him or her to do so lest they be fined for incitement to fornicate. Essentially, a person could make himself or herself legally toxic to any would-be agressor since fornication and incitement to fornicate would be easier to prove than sexual assault or coercion overall. Of course the details would need to be worked out as to how a person would formally inform a partner of his or her status so as to warn them off, but I thought it was an imaginative solution to the dilemma of 'the more sexual freedom the law gives, the harder it is to prove assault, and the easier it is to prove a sexual offence, the less sexual freedom the law can give.' Self-exclusion would allow a person to decide for themselves how much sexual freedom they're willing to trade for more sexual protection and deterrence under the law. Another thing that could help would be for sex ed classes in schools to teach about 'sex addiction', it's causes (usually severe childhood abuse), symptoms (usually compulsive masturbation in the early stages that can escalate into compulsive promiscuity from there), and its remedies (usually therapy, 12-step, groups, and other remedies among others). Make sure they know where to turn for help. The above could reduce the occurrence of sexual coercion and compulsive sexual behavrious. Then there's other addictions. Some researchers have found that gambling addiction can push a person into prostitution. In many jurisdictions in the world outside of North America, you can't get into a casino without scanning your ID card and fingerprint (to deter you from borrowing a friend's ID card), and if you've self-excluded, you're not getting in. This could protect some from turning to prostitution. Similar laws relating to alcohol, nicotine, and other addictive products might help too. Of course none of the above would prevent unwanted pregnancies, but they could greatly reduce the occurrence of such. Perhaps we need to focus on the root causes of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Given the public-health aspects of promiscuity (unwanted pregnancies, abortions, trauma, STI's, broken families, affected children, etc.), it would seem to make sense to more effectively regulate promiscuity in the law. Even religion aside, there would be plenty of scientific and public-health reasons for it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted May 16, 2019 Report Share Posted May 16, 2019 3 minutes ago, Machjo said: I'm pro-life No, you are pro-birth. Like all religious nuts you don't give a damn what happens to that kid once it is born. Fornication is a religious term and since people were having sex long before marriage was invented, we are all products of fornication (sex without marriage). The best thing which could happen is if we managed to rid ourselves of the mental illness called religion. It is nobody's business what a woman does with her body. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
French Patriot Posted May 16, 2019 Report Share Posted May 16, 2019 26 minutes ago, Machjo said: I'm pro-life, Are you willing to pay a rather larger amount of taxes to maintain all the welfare babies that would be around if the right to lifers had their way? Do you see you as having the responsibility to insure the best, non-welfare life and the reduction of the horrible stats that those children produce? Would you force your ilk to pay more taxes directly to those you have forced to have an unwanted child? Would you like to be one of those unwanted children? Regards DL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted May 16, 2019 Report Share Posted May 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Realitycheck said: No, you are pro-birth. Like all religious nuts you don't give a damn what happens to that kid once it is born. Fornication is a religious term and since people were having sex long before marriage was invented, we are all products of fornication (sex without marriage). The best thing which could happen is if we managed to rid ourselves of the mental illness called religion. It is nobody's business what a woman does with her body. Fine. I'll use the more convoluted term 'sex outside of marriage.' No wonder English is a mess. Can't use a 4-syllable term because of some silly connotation. Now though I'm pro-life, let's put that aside for a moment and suppose that I were pro-choice on the matter. Given the whole #metoo movement, the constant complaiints of sexual assault acquittals and sexual assault being so difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and rape shield laws to lower the burden of proof even if it could lead to wrongful convictions, would it not make sense to let a person decide for him or herself how much sexual freedom that person might rather trade in for more sexual deterrence under the law? It would then be up to others to just not sleep with that person. How else do you propose fixing the dilemma between sexual freedom and sexual protection under the law without lowering the burden of proof? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted May 16, 2019 Report Share Posted May 16, 2019 1 hour ago, French Patriot said: Are you willing to pay a rather larger amount of taxes to maintain all the welfare babies that would be around if the right to lifers had their way? Do you see you as having the responsibility to insure the best, non-welfare life and the reduction of the horrible stats that those children produce? Would you force your ilk to pay more taxes directly to those you have forced to have an unwanted child? Would you like to be one of those unwanted children? Regards DL Wouldn't tougher laws against sexual coercion reduce the cost of abortion itself? What? You think abortions are free? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted May 16, 2019 Report Share Posted May 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, Machjo said: Fine. I'll use the more convoluted term 'sex outside of marriage.' No wonder English is a mess. Can't use a 4-syllable term because of some silly connotation. Now though I'm pro-life, let's put that aside for a moment and suppose that I were pro-choice on the matter. Given the whole #metoo movement, the constant complaiints of sexual assault acquittals and sexual assault being so difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and rape shield laws to lower the burden of proof even if it could lead to wrongful convictions, would it not make sense to let a person decide for him or herself how much sexual freedom that person might rather trade in for more sexual deterrence under the law? It would then be up to others to just not sleep with that person. How else do you propose fixing the dilemma between sexual freedom and sexual protection under the law without lowering the burden of proof? Again. you are pro-birth. In any event, in the final analysis it is nobody's business what a woman does with her body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
French Patriot Posted May 16, 2019 Report Share Posted May 16, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Machjo said: Wouldn't tougher laws against sexual coercion reduce the cost of abortion itself? What? You think abortions are free? Not even on the topics and questions I asked you. The child was at issue and not the cost of an abortion. If all you can do is deflect, you show you cannot argue your position coherently. Regards DL Edited May 16, 2019 by French Patriot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
French Patriot Posted May 16, 2019 Report Share Posted May 16, 2019 17 minutes ago, Realitycheck said: Again. you are pro-birth. In any event, in the final analysis it is nobody's business what a woman does with her body. True, but if the taxpayer has to support unwanted children who will cost our courts and jails heavily as well as our social safety net, then it is in all of our best interests to have our feeling known. Did you note how quickly our friend ran from addressing those points? Regards DL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted May 16, 2019 Report Share Posted May 16, 2019 Just now, French Patriot said: True, but if the taxpayer has to support unwanted children who will cost our courts and jails heavily as well as our social safety net, then it is in all of our best interests to have our feeling known. Did you note how quickly our friend ran from addressing those points? Regards DL Yes. Can't deal with anything but the zealot's POV. Reality evades his grasp. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
French Patriot Posted May 16, 2019 Report Share Posted May 16, 2019 26 minutes ago, Realitycheck said: Yes. Can't deal with anything but the zealot's POV. Reality evades his grasp. The states who make abortions hard or impossible are just exporting jobs to other more progressive states. They may even create a shortage of doctors in their states as doctors move away from the morally backward states that trained them. Wait till they see the real social cost of making women slaves to the state. Regards DL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted May 16, 2019 Report Share Posted May 16, 2019 48 minutes ago, French Patriot said: The states who make abortions hard or impossible are just exporting jobs to other more progressive states. They may even create a shortage of doctors in their states as doctors move away from the morally backward states that trained them. Wait till they see the real social cost of making women slaves to the state. Regards DL I don't think you understand the political reality in Canada. Abortion will not be criminalized in the forseeable future. In other words, when I say I'm pro-life, I mean it within the present poltical reality, that we should toughen our sexual-assault laws to deter unwanted pregnancies in the first place. For example, we could consider imposing a heavy fine if it's proved on a balance of probabilities that a person coerced another into sex and beyond reasonable doubt that they had sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted May 16, 2019 Report Share Posted May 16, 2019 (edited) Another point concerns male reproductive rights: 'A total of 43 percent of high school boys and young college men reported they had an unwanted sexual experience and of those, 95 percent said a female acquaintance was the aggressor, according to a study published online in the APA journal Psychology of Men and Masculinity®.' https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/coerced-sex If a man impregnates a woman while she sexually assaults him, he can be held responsible for the child. Given the implications of this and that sexual assault is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, should a man not be allowed to opt for stricter sexual laws to apply to himself and others in relation to him as a way to deter that person from assaulting or otherwise coercing him? Or do reproductive rights apply to women only? Consider too that even today, reules exist to ban certain sexual interactions. For example, you can't have sex with a minor, a physician or psychiatrist can't have sex with a patient, a professor can't have sex with a student, you can't have sex with a person who is too mentally ill to consent, etc. With the above in mind, it wouldn't be that far-fetched for a person to conclude that self-exclusion from fornication could better protect that person from themselves and others, depending on their mental health for example. Then the onus would be on others to determine that person's status. If in doubt, then marry the person. Edited May 16, 2019 by Machjo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goddess Posted May 16, 2019 Report Share Posted May 16, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, French Patriot said: Wait till they see the real social cost of making women slaves to the state. I think they should just go all the way and make child support mandatory from the 6th week of pregnancy, since it's a human already. They should allow 6 week old fetuses to be insured and women should be able to collect if they miscarry. They should not be able to deport anyone pregnant, since it is a US citizen. Who is going to be charged with murder for all those fertilized embryos that get thrown in the garbage after IVF treatments? The couple? The doctor? The lab techs? If you're gonna do it, do it all the way, then. Edited May 16, 2019 by Goddess 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted May 16, 2019 Report Share Posted May 16, 2019 15 minutes ago, Goddess said: I think they should just go all the way and make child support mandatory from the 6th week of pregnancy, since it's a human already. They should allow 6 week old fetuses to be insured and women should be able to collect if they miscarry. They should not be able to deport anyone pregnant, since it is a US citizen. Who is going to be charged with murder for all those fertilized embryos that get thrown in the garbage after IVF treatments? The couple? The doctor? The lab techs? If you're gonna do it, do it all the way, then. That's one route to follow if we do decide to recognize a feotus as a human life at conception. An alternative sotution to criminalizing abortion is to try to reduce the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. For example, stricter gambling rules could help keep a problem gambler out of prostitution. More effective deterrents against sexual assault could help too. For example, what about a heavy fine if a person is found guilty of coercion on a balance of probabilities and fornication beyond reasonable doubt. Let's call it aggravated fornication. If he's innocent, well, he would have slept with her (or she with him) knowing the risks. As a society, we need to stop thinking of sex as a fundamental right: it isn't. For those who believe in science, sex produces babies, can spread STI's, can destry marriages and traumatize children, and other problems. Just look at the stats. Even the stats of female-on-male coercion are much higher than many realize: 'A total of 43 percent of high school boys and young college men reported they had an unwanted sexual experience and of those, 95 percent said a female acquaintance was the aggressor, according to a study published online in the APA journal Psychology of Men and Masculinity®.' https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/coerced-sex The rate for male-on-female coercion is probably comparable and from my understanding, when we break it down, has a higher rate of use of force too. Figures that high reach epidemic proportions in my opinion. Sex is not a plaything and the law should not treat it as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.