Ha Ha!

[Zappo]

BIG BROTHER IS ALWAYS WATCHING...

You should read the subsequent two.

:lol:

[the underlørd]

You are good and merciful.

right back at cha! :)

[RAzOR]

Hey Razor.. i just read your last Pm..

I don't think that would be a good idea.

Maybe so, but I still think official "Volvospeed" logo packaged condoms would be the new pegs.

...well, at least go on new pegs.

[resa850]

Nice Zap. I suspect you are the reason Roe v Wade is in effect.

Responsibility is the responsibility of the individual ultimately.

Condoms simply mean reducing the odds of pregnancy (or infection for that matter). It does not eliminate it by any means.

And you mean to say that people can't get their own condoms and dental dams?

And as far as teaching responsibility, that is the domain of the parent and secondarily the "system".

And FINALLY, what is more responsible, setting up a high-powered campaign pushing hard for abstinance, sexual responsibility and consequences or handing out rubbers?

so are you saying that reducing the odds of pregnancy and/or infection is not responsible?

i agree, it is important for schools and parents to teach the responsibilities of sex, but if someone wants to do it, they will. people should have access to what planned parenthood has to offer.

Obviously we feel differently about sex. I think if someone wants to do it, they should have access to what they need to be safe and responsible about it.

Yes abstinence is a good campaign, but you can't say that planned parenthood isnt

[RAzOR]

so are you saying that reducing the odds of pregnancy and/or infection is not responsible?

i agree, it is important for schools and parents to teach the responsibilities of sex, but if someone wants to do it, they will. people should have access to what planned parenthood has to offer.

Obviously we feel differently about sex. I think if someone wants to do it, they should have access to what they need to be safe and responsible about it.

Yes abstinence is a good campaign, but you can't say that planned parenthood isnt

Personally, I think if kids are too young to afford contraception, or too immature to use it, or just too dumb to know what it is, they should not be having sex. Sex is, of course, great and largely free for most of us (save myself) but if the participants aren't old enough to vote, drive, or drink, maybe they shouldn't be rolling the bones (ah, hah) in the baby game.

Planned Parenthood has been very effective in becoming the "go to" for contraception. They should lead the campaign for abstinance and responsible sexual conduct. From what I know of them, they do not consider abstinance realistic and hence they largely ignore it.

Contraception is fine with me as long as those who engage in sex understand the consequences of it. I am one to talk. I had a very active (but not promiscuous) single life. I waltzed through a pregnancy minefield, literally, but that's for the "Only Post Here When Yer Drunk" forum.

The factor that bothers me is that the vast majority of abortions today are after-the-fact contraception. Abortion is used far to casually for what it is. After that heart starts to beat, it sucks no matter how you look at it.

Before that, ehh...

[resa850]

i see your point, but its not really our decision to tell other people what to do with their bodies.

i always thought planned parenthood advocated abstinence, while also providing alternatives. i guess i'll have to look into that

[RAzOR]

i see your point, but its not really our decision to tell other people what to do with their bodies.

i always thought planned parenthood advocated abstinence, while also providing alternatives. i guess i'll have to look into that

So that means you are in favor of removing all restrictions on drinking, drug use, prostitution and suicide?

Edited March 29, 2006 by RAzOR

[zimmy77]

So that means you are in favor of removing all restrictions on drinking, drug use, prostitution and suicide?

as long as restrictions are also removed on the public use of deadly force to protect themselves. ie: Old Wild West style society. Yeee Haaa!!!

[Zappo]

I find it interesting that Republicans are anti abortion because it is "killing people", yet they are all for capital punishment.

[Deltablade]

I find it interesting that Republicans are anti abortion because it is "killing people", yet they are all for capital punishment.

Its probably because they feel that killing a murderer/criminal is slightly more justifiable than killing an innocent fetus.

Keep in mind that this statement isn't fully supported by me, just shedding some light on the subject I guess.

[RAzOR]

Its probably because they feel that killing a murderer/criminal is slightly more justifiable than killing an innocent fetus.

Keep in mind that this statement isn't fully supported by me, just shedding some light on the subject I guess.

FoS. You can't equate the termination of a multiple murderer and an unborn baby.

And Zappo, notice your statement. One of the most common and effective tactics of activists (I'm not saying you are necessarily an activist) is to "frame" their opponents position. Note how you said "Anti-Abortion" which implies that all Republicans are opposed to ALL ABORTION. Which is largely wrong. More cleverly, it leads other readers to infer Republicans are extremeists. Which is wrong. But it just makes the issue black and white, hot and cold one or the other, when in fact a good solution may lie in the middle. But since activists are usually not moderates, and they are usually the only ones heard, the issue remains stalled as neither of ther vocal, visible sides want to end up "in the middle" and the moderate middle of the roader (you and I) end up never getting a solution.

Edited March 30, 2006 by RAzOR

[Zappo]

:lol: It was worded that way to see how people would respond.

A better term would be conservative. It is the extremes from either side that tend to be the most vocal.

[resa850]

So that means you are in favor of removing all restrictions on drinking, drug use, prostitution and suicide?

for the most part that statement doesn't really apply, legalization of drugs and prostitution would affect society and thus going beyond an issue for yourself. if it weren't for STDs i guess prostitution wouldn't be so bad

i dont know how you can put restrictions on suicide because once you're dead, you're dead, but if someone is that miserable, you should let them die... look at million dollar baby that poor girl wanted to die, can you blame her?

and drinking.... well you saw what happened in prohibition.

edit. not in prohibition, during prohibition

[RAzOR]

for the most part that statement doesn't really apply, legalization of drugs and prostitution would affect society and thus going beyond an issue for yourself. if it weren't for STDs i guess prostitution wouldn't be so bad

i dont know how you can put restrictions on suicide because once you're dead, you're dead, but if someone is that miserable, you should let them die... look at million dollar baby that poor girl wanted to die, can you blame her?

and drinking.... well you saw what happened in prohibition.

edit. not in prohibition, during prohibition

One can argue that the cancellation of millions of new babies surely affects society, just as would legalizing drug use, or child drinking or prostitution.

So when you said earlier "should be able to do what they want with their body" and then later but "wouldn't affect society" it seems that those are two conditions that are not necessarily easily reconciled. Which trumps the other? Where is the line drawn? It is not so simple when examined.

Someone using drugs only hurts themselves physically, but hurts others emotionally, financially, etc.

Prostitution hurts no one person really, only the morals and dignity of a society which can be construed to affect all in the society as a whole, their quality of life.

Edited March 30, 2006 by RAzOR

[resa850]

One can argue that the cancellation of millions of new babies surely affects society, just as would legalizing drug use, or child drinking or prostitution.

So when you said earlier "should be able to do what they want with their body" and then later but "wouldn't affect society" it seems that those are two conditions that are not necessarily easily reconciled. Which trumps the other? Where is the line drawn? It is not so simple when examined.

Someone using drugs only hurts themselves physically, but hurts others emotionally, financially, etc.

Prostitution hurts no one person really, only the morals and dignity of a society which can be construed to affect all in the society as a whole, their quality of life.

i had a feeling you'd say that and you're right. it would affect society, but this is one of those things where the impact on society is not as bad as drug legalization and alcohol consumption for minors. its like you said, it depends on where people draw the line, however i think a lot more people are in favor of abortions and birth control than child drinking, and drug legalization (aside from pot).