priorities of a tree-hugger

[honestfool84]

maybe im wrong, but why do i get the prevailing sense that tree-huggers have screwed up priorities?

they say:
"hey! let's go out of our way and save these and these:
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/primary/beaver.jpg

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/tip/2005/may6/trees-web.jpg


but, you know..
we can let all these 'unborn' babies be brutally murdered:
T37xAYf5luM

right. that makes perfect sense.
how the crap did you get your priorities so messed up?

by no means am i saying let the environment go to waste - no, not at all.
im just saying, maybe you should look after your own kind with the same passion and energy you put into making sure we don't 'hurt the trees.'

what makes those more important than an innocent baby (http://www.bibleprobe.com/abortionhorrible.jpg)?
it really sickens me when i see how screwed up your priorities are.


seriously.
you call yourself "pro-choice"?
i can agree with you that you CHOSE to have sex, that you couldn't control yourself.
but now, don't be so irresponsible and learn to take action for your CHOICE.
why don't we let the child have a CHOICE?
what do you think he would CHOOSE? life or death?

how's that for pro-CHOICE?

[honestfool84]

local tree-hugger, correct me where im wrong.

[Creepn]

Babies give off carbon dioxide. Trees give off oxygen.

[PixelPusher]

http://www.patentdocs.net/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/11/straw_man_2.jpg

[ratm1221]

Christians say they are pro-life, but they have killed more people than cancer.

[remingtonbo2001]

Good point Honest.

[Thunder Dan]

abortion has it's place in society, so does helping the environment we all live in

[Findog]

maybe im wrong, but why do i get the prevailing sense that tree-huggers have screwed up priorities?

they say:
"hey! let's go out of our way and save these and these:
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/primary/beaver.jpg

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/tip/2005/may6/trees-web.jpg


but, you know..
we can let all these 'unborn' babies be brutally murdered:
T37xAYf5luM

right. that makes perfect sense.
how the crap did you get your priorities so messed up?

by no means am i saying let the environment go to waste - no, not at all.
im just saying, maybe you should look after your own kind with the same passion and energy you put into making sure we don't 'hurt the trees.'

what makes those more important than an innocent baby (http://www.bibleprobe.com/abortionhorrible.jpg)?
it really sickens me when i see how screwed up your priorities are.


seriously.
you call yourself "pro-choice"?
i can agree with you that you CHOSE to have sex, that you couldn't control yourself.
but now, don't be so irresponsible and learn to take action for your CHOICE.
why don't we let the child have a CHOICE?
what do you think he would CHOOSE? life or death?

how's that for pro-CHOICE?

Are you even old enough to vote?

Abortion has fallen to its lowest level in 30 years under R v. W. Shut the fuck up and get back to the Spurs forum.

[Thunder Dan]

I wonder how Pro Life people would feel if their brother or sister raped them and they were pregnant with the deformed fetus of that action- I know they will probably say "It's life and you should love it" - but assume the baby has some mental capacity when it reaches 16, would you like to know you are a product of an incest rape? wouldn't that really mess you up?

I'm saying this because some people (Sarah Palin included) are against abortion even in situations like this- that is crazy.

[Findog]

I'd have a bit more respect for the pro-life point of view if they didn't support the GOP, which has no interest in these kids once they're born.

[Findog]

Also, the crime rate has fallen dramatically since R v. W because the people aborting kids are the least equipped to take care of them

[I Love Me Some Me]

Also, the crime rate has fallen dramatically since R v. W because the people aborting kids are the least equipped to take care of them

You can prove the corrolation between those two?

[Findog]

You can prove the corrolation between those two?

Read Freakonomics.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Read Freakonomics.

Opinon-based book, not without adverse criticism and counter point.

But, condeding that one equals the other, since abortion rates are at their lowest in 30 years (as you pointed out earlier), should we then see a subsequent increase in crime rates?

[101A]

I wonder how Pro Life people would feel if their brother or sister raped them and they were pregnant with the deformed fetus of that action- I know they will probably say "It's life and you should love it" - but assume the baby has some mental capacity when it reaches 16, would you like to know you are a product of an incest rape? wouldn't that really mess you up?

I'm saying this because some people (Sarah Palin included) are against abortion even in situations like this- that is crazy.

Oh great, an abortion thread. We'll have lots of reasoned discussion, everyone will enter with an open mind!

Let's say girl is raped, is found to be pregnant, but THINKS that the child is from her boyfriend/husband, not rapist. The baby is born and it is apparent it is the rapists. (far-reaching hypothetical, I know, but bear with me). In your mind, can she NOW kill that child? You will probably answer "no" .

People who are pro-life see the fetus as you see the child. There is nothing hypocritical about the position. It is consistent. The difference is, simply, when they ascribe humanness to the child - some number of months earlier than other people do.

[Thunder Dan]

Oh great, an abortion thread. We'll have lots of reasoned discussion, everyone will enter with an open mind!

Let's say girl is raped, is found to be pregnant, but THINKS that the child is from her boyfriend/husband, not rapist. The baby is born and it is apparent it is the rapists. (far-reaching hypothetical, I know, but bear with me). In your mind, can she NOW kill that child? You will probably answer "no" .

People who are pro-life see the fetus as you see the child. There is nothing hypocritical about the position. It is consistent. The difference is, simply, when they ascribe humanness to the child - some number of months earlier than other people do.

the problem is that there are cases where abortion is needed, or atleast warranted- and there are case of abuse. The problem is that there is no way to have one without the other. I've always said this is regards to abortion: I'm a male, I will never be pregnant so it's not an issue that I need to get myself knee deep in. I think that if you don't support abortion than you shouldn't have one- your life won't change whether or not someone you don't even know has one. It's their choice and they will have to deal with the consequences

[Findog]

Opinon-based book, not without adverse criticism and counter point.

But, condeding that one equals the other, since abortion rates are at their lowest in 30 years (as you pointed out earlier), should we then see a subsequent increase in crime rates?

Perhaps. I believe the pro-life forces have done a great job of changing attitudes towards abortion. The point being, outlawing the procedure is just going to lead to women bleeding to death in back alleys.

[ratm1221]

Didn't God murder women and children in the old testament? In some cases even ordered the death of entire cities? He even said to kill the animals. That's hardcore. I'm still waiting for the movie. :p:

[101A]

the problem is that there are cases where abortion is needed, or atleast warranted- and there are case of abuse. The problem is that there is no way to have one without the other. I've always said this is regards to abortion: I'm a male, I will never be pregnant so it's not an issue that I need to get myself knee deep in. I think that if you don't support abortion than you shouldn't have one- your life won't change whether or not someone you don't even know has one. It's their choice and they will have to deal with the consequences

Again, most who are anti-abortion are intellectually consistent. The life of the fetus does not trump the life of the mother, or another fetus.

The circumstances of the creation of the fetus, as life, are irrelevant. If you could step away from the cringe factor involved with rape and incest, you would see this as being morally consistent. The other view, frankly, is not; that abortion should be outlawed EXCEPT in the case of.....that is removing the rights of the fetus through no actions of its own; simply circumstance.

[101A]

Didn't God murder women and children in the old testament? In some cases even ordered the death of entire cities? He even said to kill the animals. That's hardcore. I'm still waiting for the movie. :p:

Real Biblical scholar here.

We get it. You don't like Christians.

Bravo for you.

[honestfool84]

Are you even old enough to vote?

Abortion has fallen to its lowest level in 30 years under R v. W. Shut the fuck up and get back to the Spurs forum.




yeah, im old enough to vote.
so because it's dropping a little (20 out of 1000 women got an abortion in 2004 vs 29 out of 1000 in 1980), it's OK to kill all these babies (http://wquercus.com/millions.htm)?


and there is such thing is giving up the baby for adoption.

[ratm1221]

Real Biblical scholar here.

We get it. You don't like Christians.

Bravo for you.

Religion adapts and changes with the times. Or changes for whatever is convenient at the time.

I don't mind Christians at all. I just think they are a little misguided.

Most take the stories in the bible literally instead of metaphorically. The bible has good stories that teach good lessons, but it's closer to poetry than it is to a history book.

[101A]

Religion adapts and changes with the times. Or changes for whatever is convenient at the time.

I don't mind Christians at all. I just think they are a little misguided.

Most take the stories in the bible literally instead of metaphorically. The bible has good stories that teach good lessons, but it's closer to poetry than it is to a history book.


You are a cliche.

[Findog]

yeah, im old enough to vote.
so because it's dropping a little (20 out of 1000 women got an abortion in 2004 vs 29 out of 1000 in 1980), it's OK to kill all these babies (http://wquercus.com/millions.htm)?


and there is such thing is giving up the baby for adoption.

It's a pretty dumb criterion to base your vote on. The status quo isn't changing, so you might as well grow up and base your vote on something else.

Abortion will NEVER cease to exist. Right now it's safe, legal and rare. What you're really saying is that you prefer women to bleed to death in back alleys instead of getting proper medical attention in a hospital. I find that uncivilized.

[honestfool84]

It's a pretty dumb criterion to base your vote on. The status quo isn't changing, so you might as well grow up and base your vote on something else.

Abortion will NEVER cease to exist. Right now it's safe, legal and rare. What you're really saying is that you prefer women to bleed to death in back alleys instead of getting proper medical attention in a hospital. I find that uncivilized.



rare?
in the united states alone:
number of abortions per year: 1.37 million (1996)
number of abortions per day: approximately 3700



and don't stick words in my mouth. never did i say what you suggested i said.

when people bring up the rape issue, it is extremely idiotic, considering this:
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).



do a little research before you open your mouth and spew lies you know nothing about.

[baseline bum]

Is Yahweh and Christian God the same person? Cause Yahweh's a prick.

[Findog]

and don't stick words in my mouth. never did i say what you suggested i said.

It's the logical conclusion to outlawing abortion. If you don't want to come across as an idiot, change your arguments or stay silent. There will never come a time when no abortions are performed. The goal is to reduce the # of abortions, right? You don't have to outlaw abortion or overturn R v. W to do that. What it will do is lead to women bleeding to death in back alleys because they will seek abortions out regardless of whether it's legal or not. You support women bleeding to death in back alleys. If you supported a reduced incidence of abortion, you'd be fine with the law the way it is.





do a little research before you open your mouth and spew lies you know nothing about.

Sorry, but opposition to legalized abortion is the result of not thinking through the logical consequences of your position. It's infantile.

Do you support comprehensive sex-ed, or abstinence only education? Should we give condoms to teenagers? Should we put teenagers on birth control? Your answer to this will determine a lot about how seriously to take your position.

[baseline bum]

I'd have a bit more respect for the pro-life point of view if they didn't support the GOP, which has no interest in these kids once they're born.

:lol

The life is sacred until the kid is born. Then, fuck him until he turns 18 and can be sent off to war.

MrXvDXVhqfU

[ratm1221]

You are a cliche.

The bible is full of clichés.

[Findog]

:lol

The life is sacred until the kid is born. Then, fuck him until he turns 18 and can be sent off to war.

MrXvDXVhqfU

May he rest in peace. I wonder if honestfool supports Head Start. If he doesn't, then his anti-abortion jihad is hypocritical and uninformed.

[Shastafarian]

May he rest in peace. I wonder if honestfool supports Head Start. If he doesn't, then his anti-abortion jihad is hypocritical and uninformed.

When things like this would describe him do you really need to ask if he supports it? I'd wager he doesn't even know what it is.

[honestfool84]

It's the logical conclusion to outlawing abortion. If you don't want to come across as an idiot, change your arguments or stay silent. There will never come a time when no abortions are performed. The goal is to reduce the # of abortions, right? You don't have to outlaw abortion or overturn R v. W to do that. What it will do is lead to women bleeding to death in back alleys because they will seek abortions out regardless of whether it's legal or not. You support women bleeding to death in back alleys. If you supported a reduced incidence of abortion, you'd be fine with the law the way it is.






Sorry, but opposition to legalized abortion is the result of not thinking through the logical consequences of your position. It's infantile.

Do you support comprehensive sex-ed, or abstinence only education? Should we give condoms to teenagers? Should we put teenagers on birth control? Your answer to this will determine a lot about how seriously to take your position.





READING COMPREHENSION 101 - FAILED.


go back and read the first post.
i said it's stupid the priorities that are in place, saving trees and animals but allowing the murder of babies.

i didn't say, "hey, let's try to stop abortion"

[Findog]

READING COMPREHENSION 101 - FAILED.


go back and read the first post.
i said it's stupid the priorities that are in place, saving trees and animals but allowing the murder of babies.

i didn't say, "hey, let's try to stop abortion"

Who the fuck are you to come in here and suggest that people who disagree with you on this issue care more about animals and vegetation than the complex issues involved with abortion? It's not a black and white issue. Fuck you and your strawman.

[Shastafarian]

READING COMPREHENSION 101 - FAILED.


go back and read the first post.
i said it's stupid the priorities that are in place, saving trees and animals but allowing the murder of babies.

i didn't say, "hey, let's try to stop abortion"

Then what does "allowing the murder of babies" mean in the context of your post? Just a helpful, unbiased contrast?

[honestfool84]

Then what does "allowing the murder of babies" mean in the context of your post? Just a helpful, unbiased contrast?



it means just that.

the same people who say "lets save the trees and animals" are the ones that "allow the brutal murdering of babies" - and it goes back to my main point: their priorities are screwed up.

since when are animals and trees more important than humans?

[Findog]

it means just that.

the same people who say "lets save the trees and animals" are the ones that "allow the brutal murdering of babies" - and it goes back to my main point: their priorities are screwed up.

since when are animals and trees more important than humans?

You're dumber than Sarah Palin.

[Shastafarian]

since when are animals and trees more important than humans?

Good question. Why don't you answer it for me and tell me where anyone has those priorities in that order.

[remingtonbo2001]

You're dumber than Sarah Palin.

What does that make you?

I don't see you running a town, or a state for that matter.

Do you even run a business? A household?

[Findog]

What does that make you?

I don't see you running a town, or a state for that matter.

Do you even run a business? A household?

Considering she came into office as Mayor of Wasilla with a budget surplus and left it with a budget deficit, I think I could do better. She "ran" those entities poorly.

I also think I could get through an interview with Katie Couric or Charlie Gibson without coming across as developmentally disabled.

I'm not running for VP. Do you deny that she's unqualified for the office she seeks?

[honestfool84]

Good question. Why don't you answer it for me and tell me where anyone has those priorities in that order.



ask any hippie tree-hugger if they support abortion.
that'll find more than a few, for you.

[Findog]

ask any hippie tree-hugger if they support abortion.
that'll find more than a few, for you.

You're dumber than Sarah Palin.

[honestfool84]

You're dumber than Sarah Palin.



palin has nothing to do with this.
i mean, if you want to throw out her name, we can.

sarah palin is hotter than your mom.
happy? enough sarah palin?

how about we get back to the point at hand.

[Findog]

palin has nothing to do with this.
i mean, if you want to throw out her name, we can.

sarah palin is hotter than your mom.
happy? enough sarah palin?

how about we get back to the point at hand.

My mom is smarter than Sarah Palin.

The point at hand is that you threw up a ridiculous strawman argument and you're getting called on it.

[Shastafarian]

ask any hippie tree-hugger if they support abortion.
that'll find more than a few, for you.

Maybe they don't view abortion as "murdering babies" like some people do. You disagree. Congratulations.

[honestfool84]

Maybe they don't view abortion as "murdering babies" like some people do. You disagree. Congratulations.



whatever they view abortion as, it doesn't matter.

y'all are dancing around the topic and avoiding the prevailing question:

the question still remains, which is the point of the original post - how can they view trees and animals more importantly than humans?

[honestfool84]

My mom is smarter than Sarah Palin.

The point at hand is that you threw up a ridiculous strawman argument and you're getting called on it.


it's a question, which you have failed to address.

[Findog]

it's a question, which you have failed to address.

I'm sorry, what was the question?

What is a "tree-hugger?" You might be taken a lot more seriously if you didn't use pejoratives to describe people who believe that climate change is real and think we should do something about it...or if you didn't insist that it's impossible to be in favor of doing something about climate change and be opposed to abortion.

Your argument is a pejorative strawman, and you are dumber than Sarah Palin.

[Findog]

the question still remains, which is the point of the original post - how can they view trees and animals more importantly than humans?

Who is "they?" Who says "they" view animals and trees as "more important" than humans?

Fuck off with your strawman bullshit.

It's like asking somebody "When did you stop beating your wife?"

You are dumber than Sarah Palin.

[Shastafarian]

whatever they view abortion as, it doesn't matter.

y'all are dancing around the topic and avoiding the prevailing question:

the question still remains, which is the point of the original post - how can they view trees and animals more importantly than humans?

I'm pretty sure I did answer the question. "They don't view abortion as 'murdering babies' like some do". Think about it.

[honestfool84]

Who is "they?" Who says "they" view animals and trees as "more important" than humans?

Fuck off with your strawman bullshit.

It's like asking somebody "When did you stop beating your wife?"

You are dumber than Sarah Palin.


i am dumber than sarah palin, i will not argue with that.
with that out of the way, you can stop bringing it up.

and strawman? wtf?

ask 10 'environmentalists' on their view of abortion, and you'll see that i am right.

they go hand in hand.

[honestfool84]

I'm pretty sure I did answer the question. "They don't view abortion as 'murdering babies' like some do". Think about it.


so what do you view it as?


'disposing of babies' ?

[Shastafarian]

so what do you view it as?


'disposing of babies' ?

I view it as a woman choosing to end the development of an fetus or embryo. Maybe you can say with certainty that life begins at conception but I don't presume to know for sure. Do you favor capital punishment?

[Findog]

and strawman? wtf?

A strawman argument if I ever saw one.


ask 10 'environmentalists' on their view of abortion, and you'll see that i am right.

they go hand in hand.


What is an "environmentalist?" I bet if you asked 10 people who think climate change is real and man is contributing to it what their position is on reproductive rights, you'd get very different answers about their attitudes on abortion. This kind of two-dimensional thinking of yours is infantile and asinine. Keep dividing the world into "us" and "them."

[honestfool84]

I view it as a woman choosing to end the development of an fetus or embryo. Maybe you can say with certainty that life begins at conception but I don't presume to know for sure. Do you favor capital punishment?


i believe that life begins with conception, yes.
i believe that they had a choice, to have sex, and not use a condom - irresponsibility. (you say what about the rape and incest? just 1% of abortions were a result of either of those, in 2007)

and yeah, i favor capital punishment.
i believe that man should be held accountable for their actions (a man and woman decide to have sex, they should be held accountable for their actions, not end the development of a fetus or embryo).

[Shastafarian]

and yeah, i favor capital punishment.
i believe that man should be held accountable for their actions (a man and woman decide to have sex, they should be held accountable for their actions, not end the development of a fetus or embryo).

So how do you feel about the alarming rate of false imprisonment and the estimates about how many innocent people we execute? Just a small inconvenience for those of us who are too holy to allow people to have the right of choice?

[honestfool84]

So how do you feel about the alarming rate of false imprisonment and the estimates about how many innocent people we execute? Just a small inconvenience for those of us who are too holy to allow people to have the right of choice?



why do you continue to avoid this particular topic?
you want to talk about that, start a new topic.
i didn't start this topic to argue about anything and everything y'all have against christians.

[Findog]

honestfool, do you believe in abstinence-only or comprehensive sex-ed? Do you believe we should give teenagers condoms and put teenage girls on birth control?

I already asked you this once and you failed to respond.

[honestfool84]

A strawman argument if I ever saw one.



What is an "environmentalist?" I bet if you asked 10 people who think climate change is real and man is contributing to it what their position is on reproductive rights, you'd get very different answers about their attitudes on abortion. This kind of two-dimensional thinking of yours is infantile and asinine. Keep dividing the world into "us" and "them."


alright.
well, since you're so almighty, and know everything, you win.
obviously no one but you is right, and you can never be wrong.
there is no point in arguing, right?
no matter what i say, "im wrong, you're right".

congratulations.
you won.

[Findog]

i didn't start this topic to argue about anything and everything y'all have against christians.

Nobody has said anything pejorative in this thread about Christians, although you strike me as a "Conservative Christian," which is a person that is neither conservative or christian.

[Findog]

alright.
well, since you're so almighty, and know everything, you win.
obviously no one but you is right, and you can never be wrong.
there is no point in arguing, right?
no matter what i say, "im wrong, you're right".

congratulations.
you won.

I win this argument because you put up a strawman. When you're interested in having a discussion, you're welcome to come back.

Do you support abstinence-only or comprehensive sex-ed? Should we distribute contraceptives to teenagers?

Answer the fucking question.

[honestfool84]

honestfool, do you believe in abstinence-only or comprehensive sex-ed? Do you believe we should give teenagers condoms and put teenage girls on birth control?

I already asked you this once and you failed to respond.


im sorry i didn't respond.
i had to leave the house, and when i came back, there were other comments i had to reply to.




no.
i do not think we should give teenagers condoms.
so yeah, i believe in abstinence.
do we give teenagers drugs and say "we're just making them available. we're not making any value judgement, it's your decision."
of course, not, that's stupid.

again, would we make guns available? no, cause guns and drugs are dangerous.

don't tell me guns and drugs are dangerous, and it's not the same, because it's a perfect parallel.

you don't make potentially harmful things, drugs or guns, available to kids.

why?
they're dangerous. but when you make condoms available to kids your telling them there's nothing dangerous about them or inappropriate in their use.

[Findog]

I can't take your pro-life position seriously if you don't believe in comprehensive sex-ed.

Abstinence-only sex-ed is a failure. If you want fewer pregnancies and abortions, then you have to be willing to distribute contraceptives to teenagers. It's that simple.

[clambake]

im sorry i didn't respond.
i had to leave the house, and when i came back, there were other comments i had to reply to.




no.
i do not think we should give teenagers condoms.
so yeah, i believe in abstinence.
do we give teenagers drugs and say "we're just making them available. we're not making any value judgement, it's your decision."
of course, not, that's stupid.

again, would we make guns available? no, cause guns and drugs are dangerous.

don't tell me guns and drugs are dangerous, and it's not the same, because it's a perfect parallel.

you don't make potentially harmful things, drugs or guns, available to kids.

why?
they're dangerous. but when you make condoms available to kids your telling them there's nothing dangerous about them or inappropriate in their use.


wow. thats pretty stupid. teenagers aren't horny with a little "christian" counseling. and "a gun" is never mentioned in the good book. :lmao

[ratm1221]

im sorry i didn't respond.
i had to leave the house, and when i came back, there were other comments i had to reply to.




no.
i do not think we should give teenagers condoms.
so yeah, i believe in abstinence.
do we give teenagers drugs and say "we're just making them available. we're not making any value judgement, it's your decision."
of course, not, that's stupid.

again, would we make guns available? no, cause guns and drugs are dangerous.

don't tell me guns and drugs are dangerous, and it's not the same, because it's a perfect parallel.

you don't make potentially harmful things, drugs or guns, available to kids.

why?
they're dangerous. but when you make condoms available to kids your telling them there's nothing dangerous about them or inappropriate in their use.

Condoms are dangerous? Shit...

[honestfool84]

I can't take your pro-life position seriously if you don't believe in comprehensive sex-ed.

Abstinence-only sex-ed is a failure. If you want fewer pregnancies and abortions, then you have to be willing to distribute contraceptives to teenagers. It's that simple.



sadly, this is an imperfect world, and sin and death is going to happen, no matter what.

abstinence-only sex-ed explains the side affects of pre-marital sex.

when you have that pre-marital sex, there are consequences that you don't need, but if you believe that you're mature enough to have sex, then you should be mature enough to accept those consequences.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

alright.
well, since you're so almighty, and know everything, you win.
obviously no one but you is right, and you can never be wrong.
there is no point in arguing, right?
no matter what i say, "im wrong, you're right".

congratulations.
you won.
http://www.golfsmith.com/images/248240.jpg

[honestfool84]

what's up with just dallas maverick fans ganging up on me?
is it that dallas is that liberal? :lol

[clambake]

what's up with just dallas maverick fans ganging up on me?
is it that dallas is that liberal? :lol

if you could hear how you sound to the rest of the world you would see it has nothing to do with party affiliation.

[Findog]

sadly, this is an imperfect world, and sin and death is going to happen, no matter what.

abstinence-only sex-ed explains the side affects of pre-marital sex.

when you have that pre-marital sex, there are consequences that you don't need, but if you believe that you're mature enough to have sex, then you should be mature enough to accept those consequences.

It's not a moral argument. It's about the best way to reduce unplanned pregnancies. Comprehensive sex-ed is the best way to do that.

[honestfool84]

It's not a moral argument. It's about the best way to reduce unplanned pregnancies. Comprehensive sex-ed is the best way to do that.


the best way to reduce unplanned pregnancies is to hand out condoms.
so the best way to reduce killings is to hand out guns?

[Findog]

the best way to reduce unplanned pregnancies is to hand out condoms.
so the best way to reduce killings is to hand out guns?

The best way to reduce gun violence is to take a gun-safety course. The best way to reduce unplanned pregnancies is comprehensive sex-ed. They're the exact same damn approach.

[ratm1221]

the best way to reduce unplanned pregnancies is to hand out condoms.
so the best way to reduce killings is to hand out guns?

You're definitely 15 years old. You have a lot to learn little one.

[Findog]

And btw, here's some cognitive dissonance for you: I'm a strong supporter of both abortion rights AND the second amendment. I support Obama despite his weak record on the 2nd Amendment. I thought I was supposed to be a lemming that tailors all of my positions to the Democratic Party platform.

What gives?

[baseline bum]

no.
i do not think we should give teenagers condoms.
so yeah, i believe in abstinence.
do we give teenagers drugs and say "we're just making them available. we're not making any value judgement, it's your decision."
of course, not, that's stupid.

again, would we make guns available? no, cause guns and drugs are dangerous.

don't tell me guns and drugs are dangerous, and it's not the same, because it's a perfect parallel.

you don't make potentially harmful things, drugs or guns, available to kids.

why?
they're dangerous. but when you make condoms available to kids your telling them there's nothing dangerous about them or inappropriate in their use.

Sex is a great thing, and teenagers can see through your religious propaganda from a mile away. Humans are wired to want sex after they hit puberty, and no one nor no bible is going to convince any majority of free thinkers that something they do by instinct is wrong. Telling teenagers not to want sex is the same as telling spiders not to spin webs. It's like PETA trying to tell people they should only eat a vegan diet. People see through it because it's bullshit and goes against how we evolved as a species.

All you do by teaching this abstinence curriculum is get kids thinking condom failure is inevitable even with proper training, when its failure rate has been demonstrated by the World Health Organization to be 3% with respect to pregnancy over a full year of sex when used properly. If you keep filling teenagers' minds with lies about how dangerous condoms are, all you do is lead them to having sex unprotected. Then you have tons of people who have no chance of being ready to be decent parents with unwanted kids who end up in an environment of poverty.

Your argument might as well be made of swiss cheese.

[honestfool84]

The best way to reduce gun violence is to take a gun-safety course. The best way to reduce unplanned pregnancies is comprehensive sex-ed. They're the exact same damn approach.


a gun safety course will not stop the pervertedness and madness of a murder, just the same way any sex-ed, be it comprehensive or abstinence, will not stop horny teenagers.

which leads me to what i said, this is a fallen world, we can't accept perfection.

i don't have time to continue this little debate.
i just threw it out there so i can get a question answered.
but that seems a little to difficult.


i will not be replying to this thread anymore.

[Findog]

i will not be replying to this thread anymore.

I lost the argument

[baseline bum]

:yield

[baseline bum]

Well Findog, I guess that's /thread

Abstinence education and prevention of abortions are incompatible ideologies.

[Findog]

Well Findog, I guess that's /thread

Abstinence education and prevention of abortions are incompatible ideologies.

You can't lead a horse to water I guess.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

honestfool84,
read yonivore's sig. have a coke, and a smile.

[baseline bum]

honestfool84,
read yonivore's sig. have a coke, and a smile.

You're the master of the one line post; kind of the right wing equivalent to cool hand. Thank you for never polluting our board with the warped logic that must run through your pea-brain.

[Shastafarian]

why do you continue to avoid this particular topic?
you want to talk about that, start a new topic.
i didn't start this topic to argue about anything and everything y'all have against christians.

Because you're a huge hypocrite if you support the flawed judicial system that executes innocent people but continue to harp on the right of a fetus. Where are YOUR priorities?


Awww damn you raised the white flag. Oh well.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

You're the master of the one line post; kind of the right wing equivalent to cool hand. Thank you for never polluting our board with the warped logic that must run through your pea-brain.
well played :tu