| 29 Nov 2007 06:09 pm |
you are smart Rep: 50  Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 16,700 OFFLINE | Totalitus wrote:
That argument is flawed. In today’s society vehicular transportation is a must for many people. Sex for the hell of it isn’t. 
So the argument of “If you got yourself pregnant, you shouldn’t have been having sex in the first place” still stands strong.
And collisions don’t happen by chance, unlike pregnancies. They happen when one or more jackasses can’t drive or when you can’t drive. With sex, you just gotta hope you get lucky.
And “in today’s society” casual sex is a common thing. You can’t make exceptions based on social changes for one without acknowledging the change of the other. Back in the day two married people couldn’t even be shown sharing a bed. Also, it’s not a must, it’s a pleasure people like to be able to enjoy freely, like sex.
And that argument still implies it is at the fault of the woman, which in many cases (or most), it’s the opposite.
And what about if one or more jackass doesn’t know how to use proper protection? Or there is a broken condom? That’s a chance, my friend. And just as you take that chance whenever you have sex, people take the same chance when they go out on the street. But it’s not their fault if something happens beyond their control.
 Last edited 29 Nov 2007 06:11 pm by watermelon man | | | | 29 Nov 2007 06:09 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 31 Joined: 23 Nov 2006 Posts: 4,456 OFFLINE | Totalitus wrote:
Nope, unless for reproduction(which is something we really need less of now), it’s unnecessary.
It’s just my opinion Totalius I said sex was more important to me then a car.
I’ll assume what you meant to write was:
“While I value your opinion Treeplanter I would have to disagree with you because I think a car is much more of a necessity then sex, as sex is only meant for reproduction” 
BTW...if this is all about biology “sex only meant for reproduction” why are we not the only animals who have it for fun? (just wondering...)
Click HERE and vote for the SOTW! | | | 29 Nov 2007 06:16 pm |
Pipiru piru piru pipiru pi Rep: 31 Joined: 25 Dec 2006 Posts: 6,772 OFFLINE | Humans aren’t the only beings capable of feeling pleasure.
Sex is meant to feel good to make you want to reproduce. ---
 
MAJOR props to RageOverdose for the sigs. | | | 29 Nov 2007 06:17 pm |
is causing chaos. Rep: 30 Joined: 04 Jul 2006 Posts: 8,152 OFFLINE | Atresac wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
That argument is flawed. In today’s society vehicular transportation is a must for many people. Sex for the hell of it isn’t.
So the argument of “If you got yourself pregnant, you shouldn’t have been having sex in the first place” still stands strong.
And collisions don’t happen by chance, unlike pregnancies. They happen when one or more jackasses can’t drive or when you can’t drive. With sex, you just gotta hope you get lucky.
And “in today’s society” casual sex is a common thing. You can’t make exceptions based on social changes for one without acknowledging the change of the other. Back in the day two married people couldn’t even be shown sharing a bed. Also, it’s not a must, it’s a pleasure people like to be able to enjoy freely, like sex.
And that argument still implies it is at the fault of the woman, which in many cases (or most), it’s the opposite.
And what about if one or more jackass doesn’t know how to use proper protection? Or there is a broken condom? That’s a chance, my friend. And just as you take that chance whenever you have sex, people take the same chance when they go out on the street. But it’s not their fault if something happens beyond their control.
-Common doesn’t mean necessary.
-I’m not saying it’s the woman’s fault. the woman should pay attention to what’s going in her.
-if it happens, it’s the fault of those who had sex. | | | 29 Nov 2007 06:19 pm |
Pipiru piru piru pipiru pi Rep: 31Joined: 25 Dec 2006 Posts: 6,772 OFFLINE | Totalitus wrote:
Atresac wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
That argument is flawed. In today’s society vehicular transportation is a must for many people. Sex for the hell of it isn’t.
So the argument of “If you got yourself pregnant, you shouldn’t have been having sex in the first place” still stands strong.
And collisions don’t happen by chance, unlike pregnancies. They happen when one or more jackasses can’t drive or when you can’t drive. With sex, you just gotta hope you get lucky.
And “in today’s society” casual sex is a common thing. You can’t make exceptions based on social changes for one without acknowledging the change of the other. Back in the day two married people couldn’t even be shown sharing a bed. Also, it’s not a must, it’s a pleasure people like to be able to enjoy freely, like sex.
And that argument still implies it is at the fault of the woman, which in many cases (or most), it’s the opposite.
And what about if one or more jackass doesn’t know how to use proper protection? Or there is a broken condom? That’s a chance, my friend. And just as you take that chance whenever you have sex, people take the same chance when they go out on the street. But it’s not their fault if something happens beyond their control.
-Common doesn’t mean necessary.
-I’m not saying it’s the woman’s fault. the woman should pay attention to what’s going in her.
-if it happens, it’s the fault of those who had sex.
Birth control failing is like Mother Nature’s way of saying “DON’T FUCK WITH ME."
MAJOR props to RageOverdose for the sigs. | | | 29 Nov 2007 06:20 pm |
is causing chaos. Rep: 30Joined: 04 Jul 2006 Posts: 8,152 OFFLINE | treeplanter wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
Nope, unless for reproduction(which is something we really need less of now), it’s unnecessary.
It’s just my opinion Totalius I said sex was more important to me then a car.
I’ll assume what you meant to write was:
“While I value your opinion Treeplanter I would have to disagree with you because I think a car is much more of a necessity then sex, as sex is only meant for reproduction”
BTW...if this is all about biology “sex only meant for reproduction” why are we not the only animals who have it for fun? (just wondering...)
-nope. That is in no way, shape, or form, what I meant to say. What I meant is what I said.
-I dunno. But do other animals get abortions when they get pregnant? Na.... | | | 29 Nov 2007 06:21 pm |
counting blue cars Rep: 53 Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 7,423 | Totalitus wrote:
Atresac wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
That argument is flawed. In today’s society vehicular transportation is a must for many people. Sex for the hell of it isn’t.
So the argument of “If you got yourself pregnant, you shouldn’t have been having sex in the first place” still stands strong.
And collisions don’t happen by chance, unlike pregnancies. They happen when one or more jackasses can’t drive or when you can’t drive. With sex, you just gotta hope you get lucky.
And “in today’s society” casual sex is a common thing. You can’t make exceptions based on social changes for one without acknowledging the change of the other. Back in the day two married people couldn’t even be shown sharing a bed. Also, it’s not a must, it’s a pleasure people like to be able to enjoy freely, like sex.
And that argument still implies it is at the fault of the woman, which in many cases (or most), it’s the opposite.
And what about if one or more jackass doesn’t know how to use proper protection? Or there is a broken condom? That’s a chance, my friend. And just as you take that chance whenever you have sex, people take the same chance when they go out on the street. But it’s not their fault if something happens beyond their control.
-Common doesn’t mean necessary.
-I’m not saying it’s the woman’s fault. the woman should pay attention to what’s going in her.
-if it happens, it’s the fault of those who had sex.
Whether you actually say “it’s the woman’s fault”, your language implies this. It’s always “the woman should be responsible” “the WOMAN should pay attention to what’s going in her”. What about the man? Or is he somehow not present in this at all? Ok well the man can obviously be exempted from “what’s going in”...but why is it only the woman who should pay attention to possible consequences, and be responsible for them?
“No matter where you run, you just end up running into yourself." | | | 29 Nov 2007 06:24 pm |
counting blue cars Rep: 53Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 7,423 | Totalitus wrote:
treeplanter wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
Nope, unless for reproduction(which is something we really need less of now), it’s unnecessary.
It’s just my opinion Totalius I said sex was more important to me then a car.
I’ll assume what you meant to write was:
“While I value your opinion Treeplanter I would have to disagree with you because I think a car is much more of a necessity then sex, as sex is only meant for reproduction”
BTW...if this is all about biology “sex only meant for reproduction” why are we not the only animals who have it for fun? (just wondering...)
-nope. That is in no way, shape, or form, what I meant to say. What I meant is what I said.
-I dunno. But do other animals get abortions when they get pregnant? Na....
Actually that’s not true. There are several animals that can naturally self-induce abortion. Female rabbits, for example, can re-absorb their litters if their living condition is poor or overcrowded.
“No matter where you run, you just end up running into yourself." | | | 29 Nov 2007 06:24 pm |
you are smart Rep: 50Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 16,700 OFFLINE | Totalitus wrote:
-Common doesn’t mean necessary.
-I’m not saying it’s the woman’s fault. the woman should pay attention to what’s going in her.
-if it happens, it’s the fault of those who had sex.
-Few things in life are necessary, and even things that are come with risks. When something bad happens because of some trivial risk, people shouldn’t be allowed to try and fix it?
-Like I said, broken condoms are a common form of accidental pregnancy, and in “the heat of the moment”, it’s not exactly easy to think as straight as you should.
-It’s the fault of the people who had sex that someone ended up pregnant despite all the birth control measures they could have taken during the sexual encounter that lead to it? It’s not always so simple as pinning responsibility on someone. Again, a lot of car accidents happen when neither party is 'at fault'.
| | | 29 Nov 2007 06:25 pm |
you are smart Rep: 50Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 16,700 OFFLINE | Etain wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
treeplanter wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
Nope, unless for reproduction(which is something we really need less of now), it’s unnecessary.
It’s just my opinion Totalius I said sex was more important to me then a car.
I’ll assume what you meant to write was:
“While I value your opinion Treeplanter I would have to disagree with you because I think a car is much more of a necessity then sex, as sex is only meant for reproduction”
BTW...if this is all about biology “sex only meant for reproduction” why are we not the only animals who have it for fun? (just wondering...)
-nope. That is in no way, shape, or form, what I meant to say. What I meant is what I said.
-I dunno. But do other animals get abortions when they get pregnant? Na....
Actually that’s not true. There are several animals that can naturally self-induce abortion. Female rabbits, for example, can re-absorb their litters if their living condition is poor or overcrowded.
O-SHIT
NATURE PWN
| | | 29 Nov 2007 06:28 pm |
is causing chaos. Rep: 30Joined: 04 Jul 2006 Posts: 8,152 OFFLINE | Atresac wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
-Common doesn’t mean necessary.
-I’m not saying it’s the woman’s fault. the woman should pay attention to what’s going in her.
-if it happens, it’s the fault of those who had sex.
-Few things in life are necessary, and even things that are come with risks. When something bad happens because of some trivial risk, people shouldn’t be allowed to try and fix it?
-Like I said, broken condoms are a common form of accidental pregnancy, and in “the heat of the moment”, it’s not exactly easy to think as straight as you should.
-It’s the fault of the people who had sex that someone ended up pregnant despite all the birth control measures they could have taken during the sexual encounter that lead to it? It’s not always so simple as pinning responsibility on someone. Again, a lot of car accidents happen when neither party is 'at fault'.
-when it involves killing? Na. That’s like saying...someone saw you steal something...uh oh, better kill him to fix the problem....
-that’s their problem.
-yeah, they got themselves in an unnecessary gamble, remember? | | | 29 Nov 2007 06:29 pm |
is causing chaos. Rep: 30Joined: 04 Jul 2006 Posts: 8,152 OFFLINE | Etain wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
treeplanter wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
Nope, unless for reproduction(which is something we really need less of now), it’s unnecessary.
It’s just my opinion Totalius I said sex was more important to me then a car.
I’ll assume what you meant to write was:
“While I value your opinion Treeplanter I would have to disagree with you because I think a car is much more of a necessity then sex, as sex is only meant for reproduction”
BTW...if this is all about biology “sex only meant for reproduction” why are we not the only animals who have it for fun? (just wondering...)
-nope. That is in no way, shape, or form, what I meant to say. What I meant is what I said.
-I dunno. But do other animals get abortions when they get pregnant? Na....
Actually that’s not true. There are several animals that can naturally self-induce abortion. Female rabbits, for example, can re-absorb their litters if their living condition is poor or overcrowded.
But that’s nature. Humans <> rabbits. Humans can’t just do it. | | | 29 Nov 2007 06:30 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 31Joined: 23 Nov 2006 Posts: 4,456 OFFLINE | That fact that we can have this conversation means that we are different from the rest of the animal kingdom.
But that also means that this is about the values placed on sex and not about biology.
I think an argument about the “necessity” of sex takes the discussion away from the issue on the ground and into a more theoretical realm. Which is fine, but if you’re using these types of arguments to support things like abortion laws have real life consequences. ---
Click HERE and vote for the SOTW! | | | 29 Nov 2007 06:30 pm |
is causing chaos. Rep: 30Joined: 04 Jul 2006 Posts: 8,152 OFFLINE | Etain wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
Atresac wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
That argument is flawed. In today’s society vehicular transportation is a must for many people. Sex for the hell of it isn’t.
So the argument of “If you got yourself pregnant, you shouldn’t have been having sex in the first place” still stands strong.
And collisions don’t happen by chance, unlike pregnancies. They happen when one or more jackasses can’t drive or when you can’t drive. With sex, you just gotta hope you get lucky.
And “in today’s society” casual sex is a common thing. You can’t make exceptions based on social changes for one without acknowledging the change of the other. Back in the day two married people couldn’t even be shown sharing a bed. Also, it’s not a must, it’s a pleasure people like to be able to enjoy freely, like sex.
And that argument still implies it is at the fault of the woman, which in many cases (or most), it’s the opposite.
And what about if one or more jackass doesn’t know how to use proper protection? Or there is a broken condom? That’s a chance, my friend. And just as you take that chance whenever you have sex, people take the same chance when they go out on the street. But it’s not their fault if something happens beyond their control.
-Common doesn’t mean necessary.
-I’m not saying it’s the woman’s fault. the woman should pay attention to what’s going in her.
-if it happens, it’s the fault of those who had sex.
Whether you actually say “it’s the woman’s fault”, your language implies this. It’s always “the woman should be responsible” “the WOMAN should pay attention to what’s going in her”. What about the man? Or is he somehow not present in this at all? Ok well the man can obviously be exempted from “what’s going in”...but why is it only the woman who should pay attention to possible consequences, and be responsible for them?
I’m implying that the woman should be more....attentive...since she’s the one getting pregnant. | | | 29 Nov 2007 06:31 pm |
counting blue cars Rep: 53Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 7,423 | Totalitus wrote:
Etain wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
treeplanter wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
Nope, unless for reproduction(which is something we really need less of now), it’s unnecessary.
It’s just my opinion Totalius I said sex was more important to me then a car.
I’ll assume what you meant to write was:
“While I value your opinion Treeplanter I would have to disagree with you because I think a car is much more of a necessity then sex, as sex is only meant for reproduction”
BTW...if this is all about biology “sex only meant for reproduction” why are we not the only animals who have it for fun? (just wondering...)
-nope. That is in no way, shape, or form, what I meant to say. What I meant is what I said.
-I dunno. But do other animals get abortions when they get pregnant? Na....
Actually that’s not true. There are several animals that can naturally self-induce abortion. Female rabbits, for example, can re-absorb their litters if their living condition is poor or overcrowded.
But that’s nature. Humans <> rabbits. Humans can’t just do it.
...So? you were arguing that animals can’t 
“No matter where you run, you just end up running into yourself." | | | 29 Nov 2007 06:32 pm |
is causing chaos. Rep: 30Joined: 04 Jul 2006 Posts: 8,152 OFFLINE | Etain wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
Etain wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
treeplanter wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
Nope, unless for reproduction(which is something we really need less of now), it’s unnecessary.
It’s just my opinion Totalius I said sex was more important to me then a car.
I’ll assume what you meant to write was:
“While I value your opinion Treeplanter I would have to disagree with you because I think a car is much more of a necessity then sex, as sex is only meant for reproduction”
BTW...if this is all about biology “sex only meant for reproduction” why are we not the only animals who have it for fun? (just wondering...)
-nope. That is in no way, shape, or form, what I meant to say. What I meant is what I said.
-I dunno. But do other animals get abortions when they get pregnant? Na....
Actually that’s not true. There are several animals that can naturally self-induce abortion. Female rabbits, for example, can re-absorb their litters if their living condition is poor or overcrowded.
But that’s nature. Humans <> rabbits. Humans can’t just do it.
...So? you were arguing that animals can’t
I didn’t know rabbits could. But tell me...are they actual rabbits getting reabsorbed...or mere clumps of cells. | | | 29 Nov 2007 06:38 pm |
you are smart Rep: 50Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 16,700 OFFLINE | Totalitus wrote:
-when it involves killing? Na. That’s like saying...someone saw you steal something...uh oh, better kill him to fix the problem....
-that’s their problem.
-yeah, they got themselves in an unnecessary gamble, remember?
-Killing what? What you just described as a “clump of cells”? People argue that it’s living but we kill lots of things that are living. Plants for no reason at all, for example. And even bacteria. And there’s no other way to fix pregnancy, while with stealing you could say “hey kid put that back”
-That answers nothing and is pretty much just a lame-ass way of saying “I can’t think of anything to really counter this”. It’s “their problem”? Then why are you so against them dealing with “their problem” with their way?
-And again, people will do that all the time and get help. Pregnancy is no different.
| | | 29 Nov 2007 06:43 pm |
counting blue cars Rep: 53Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 7,423 | Totalitus wrote:
Etain wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
Etain wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
treeplanter wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
Nope, unless for reproduction(which is something we really need less of now), it’s unnecessary.
It’s just my opinion Totalius I said sex was more important to me then a car.
I’ll assume what you meant to write was:
“While I value your opinion Treeplanter I would have to disagree with you because I think a car is much more of a necessity then sex, as sex is only meant for reproduction”
BTW...if this is all about biology “sex only meant for reproduction” why are we not the only animals who have it for fun? (just wondering...)
-nope. That is in no way, shape, or form, what I meant to say. What I meant is what I said.
-I dunno. But do other animals get abortions when they get pregnant? Na....
Actually that’s not true. There are several animals that can naturally self-induce abortion. Female rabbits, for example, can re-absorb their litters if their living condition is poor or overcrowded.
But that’s nature. Humans <> rabbits. Humans can’t just do it.
...So? you were arguing that animals can’t
I didn’t know rabbits could. But tell me...are they actual rabbits getting reabsorbed...or mere clumps of cells.
It’s in the early stages of pregnancy. They are considered to be embryos at the time. I don’t know if that answers your question. You can just do an image search on “rabbit embryo” to judge for yourself. Personally, I would say in the embryonic state life is beyond “mere clumps of cells”. After the early stages, however, a female cannot re-absorb. Also rats and pigs can reabsorb their litters.
“No matter where you run, you just end up running into yourself." | | | 29 Nov 2007 06:45 pm |
is causing chaos. Rep: 30Joined: 04 Jul 2006 Posts: 8,152 OFFLINE | Atresac wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
-when it involves killing? Na. That’s like saying...someone saw you steal something...uh oh, better kill him to fix the problem....
-that’s their problem.
-yeah, they got themselves in an unnecessary gamble, remember?
-Killing what? What you just described as a “clump of cells”? People argue that it’s living but we kill lots of things that are living. Plants for no reason at all, for example. And even bacteria. And there’s no other way to fix pregnancy, while with stealing you could say “hey kid put that back”
-That answers nothing and is pretty much just a lame-ass way of saying “I can’t think of anything to really counter this”. It’s “their problem”? Then why are you so against them dealing with “their problem” with their way?
-And again, people will do that all the time and get help. Pregnancy is no different.
Did I forget to mention I have no real qualms against abortion if it’s done while there’s nothing more than a lump of cells? I guess I did  | | | 29 Nov 2007 06:45 pm |
Pipiru piru piru pipiru pi Rep: 31Joined: 25 Dec 2006 Posts: 6,772 OFFLINE | Atresac wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
-when it involves killing? Na. That’s like saying...someone saw you steal something...uh oh, better kill him to fix the problem....
-that’s their problem.
-yeah, they got themselves in an unnecessary gamble, remember?
-Killing what? What you just described as a “clump of cells”? People argue that it’s living but we kill lots of things that are living. Plants for no reason at all, for example. And even bacteria. And there’s no other way to fix pregnancy, while with stealing you could say “hey kid put that back”
-That answers nothing and is pretty much just a lame-ass way of saying “I can’t think of anything to really counter this”. It’s “their problem”? Then why are you so against them dealing with “their problem” with their way?
-And again, people will do that all the time and get help. Pregnancy is no different.
The problem with abortion that I find is that we say killing another human is murder.
The unborn baby is alive. It’s human. How is it not murder?
I fail to see a difference.
MAJOR props to RageOverdose for the sigs. | | |
|
Previous Page - Post Reply - Next Page |
Moderated by: Admins, Superusers |
»
On-Topic
» Abortion...Murder or a mothers right?
