Sex Used As A Weapon

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And humans have also judged some humans as more or less important than others. Hiroshima anyone? [/quote]

Do you understand how many lives were SPARED because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[/quote]

keep it mind it depends on how you look at it. YES it did save thousands of our soldiers lives. but it also killed millions of innocent civilians, and the carnage spread down even after the nukes went off, through radiation posoining and what not.[/quote]

There would have been no Japan if we had to invade.

It saved tens of millions of Japanese.

Seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall[/quote]

your talking hypothetical though…you don’t know what would have happened if we had invade[/quote]

Bullshit.

Plenty of statistics from other Japanese held islands.

You think they would have fought less on their homeland?

“While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan’s leaders believed they could make the cost of conquering Japan too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat.”

We’re still using the Purple Hearts stamped out for Operation Olympic. They made 500,000 based on statistical analysis,

60 YEARS later. After Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf Wars, Iraq, Afghanistan… 120,000 still left

122

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And humans have also judged some humans as more or less important than others. Hiroshima anyone? [/quote]

Do you understand how many lives were SPARED because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[/quote]

keep it mind it depends on how you look at it. YES it did save thousands of our soldiers lives. but it also killed millions of innocent civilians, and the carnage spread down even after the nukes went off, through radiation posoining and what not.[/quote]

There would have been no Japan if we had to invade.

It saved tens of millions of Japanese.

Seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall[/quote]

your talking hypothetical though…you don’t know what would have happened if we had invade[/quote]

Bullshit.

Plenty of statistics from other Japanese held islands.

You think they would have fought less on their homeland?

“While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan’s leaders believed they could make the cost of conquering Japan too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat.”

We’re still using the Purple Hearts stamped out for Operation Olympic. They made 500,000 based on statistical analysis,

60 YEARS later. After Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf Wars, Iraq, Afghanistan… 120,000 still left[/quote]

A statistics is just a statistic, it didn’t actually happen so you can’t honestly say it would have happened that way. Yesa the odds may have been very high that it would have gone down that way, but since it didn’t actually happen you can’t say that it would have for sure gone that one direction.

123

Being able to end the life of people around me who are an inconvenience to me is the most important right I can have"

124

[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:

Being able to end the life of people around me who are an inconvenience to me is the most important right I can have"[/quote]

AMEN HALLELUJAH! hahaha

125

And back to the op, there not trying to ban abortion , just abortion after 20 weeks your telling me that after 5 months of being pregnant and you haven’t made the choice already it should still be an option up until you give birth.

126

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I am very close to a rape victim, and I still believe it is wrong to kill a baby because of how it came about. That is punishing the baby for something someone else did to their mother.

I believe the better option would be to give the baby up for adoption, and of course should she choose to keep it, it should go without saying that the father gets no parental rights. Sadly and disgustingly, I’ve been privy to cases where he DID get visitation rights, and that disturbs me on many levels.
[/quote]
So we know what you’ll do if you get raped and are impregnated. [/quote]

Obviously, if you are pro-choice, I don’t expect you to agree with me on this period. [/quote]
It’s not that; it’s that you have a bunch of men posting on an issue that affects women. You have the OP who probably never kissed a female that wasn’t a relative talking about what women should do. You have an undercurrent of misogyny that disguises itself as “anti-feminism.” [/quote]

The gender of people discussing the issue doesn’t change the morality of it. The points made are either valid or not valid, regardless of the person posting them.

[quote]
On the specific issue of rape and abortion: a woman is forced, sometimes via extreme violence, to have sex with a man, i.e., she had no choice. She is impregnated, again, not by choice. Now the male of the species is going to tell her she has no choice but to have the child. You don’t see the irony there? The same people who have a problem with the government controlling their guns and their speech have no problems with the government controlling a woman’s body. A man can set into motion the events that result in a child’s death and he’s a hero. A teen rape victim has an abortion and she’s the devil. [/quote]

You are essentially calling us all the rapist. We are not. I would go so far as to say that nobody in this thread has raped anybody, so lumping all men into that same category is misleading. So by that logic, women should have no say in male circumcision, right? Do you agree or disagree with that premise? And what you call “controlling a woman’s body” is what I call “protecting a child’s life”. As horrible as rape is, it does NOT justify ending a human life. Us owning guns doesn’t directly kill innocent people. Us having free speech isn’t inherently harmful. Us allowing abortion directly kills children. That is all it is. Calling those things nigh unto equal is way off the mark. And what are you talking about with [quote]A man can set into motion the events that result in a child’s death and he’s a hero[/quote]?

[quote]
I’m not saying I’m for or against abortion. Unlike most everyone who posts here I’m neither too young nor too old so I don’t believe I have the answers to everything. Fundamentalism comes in many forms and most are bad. What I am saying is that maybe, just maybe, before someone forms an opinion on a subject like this, they just might want to consider how the other 50% of the population thinks. Maybe, if we are talking specifically about rape, we should ask a man how he would feel about his wife giving birth to a rapist’s baby? Or how a father would feel about his 13 year old daughter doing the same? The answers are easy when you are neither a father nor a husband. The answers are easy when you aren’t a woman. The answers are easy when you are a fundamentalist. [/quote]

I’m a year older than you (assuming you were born in 1989 as your name indicates), and considering I am both a husband and a father, I think I have a pretty good grasp on the topic, in addition to a relevant experience I won’t share here. If my wife was pregnant due to rape, I have no moral qualms with killing the rapist, but I will not extend that hatred to the child. I also don’t see why you’re so insistent on throwing around the term “fundamentalist”…who is it exactly that you think of as one, and why?

127

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I guess I am a feminist because I feel until the fetus has ability to survive on it’s own, it life is at the discretion of the mother. It could further be argued that the said fetus could be evicted at moms whim as well , at any time . The state that has draconian laws could pay for life support if they wish[/quote]

You honestly believe that without the ability to take care of oneself, one is not a person?

That rules out infants, old individuals, the mentally challenged, most in the ICU, and many other categories out as people. We can just let them die, and have no moral obligation to assist them, is that right? [/quote]

this comment is probably going to piss alot of people off, but fuck it.
Yes that is absolutely right, you realize that humans are the only species on this planet that do everything to keep the lame, the sick, and the elderly alive as long as possible. But in the same breathe we constantly complain about how overpopulated the planet is, how we don’t have enough resources to sustain our continually growing population. Yet it becomes head line news when we find out a doctor is committing mercy killings at a patients request, so we throw that doctor in jail. Now I’m not saying that it’s ok to go around clubbing newborns like baby seals or anything, I’m simply pointing out that while yes, an unborn child is still a child and it SHOULD have a right to choose its fate, sometimes the world isn’t fair. You don’t get to choose what happens to you, whether you conscious or not. Do you think people choose to be born mentally handicapped, or missing limbs, or with horribly debilitating diseases that prevent them from operating independently for their entire lives? You say that those unborn children should have a right to live, well the mother has the right to decide what she wants. And those who want to say she can’t are ignorant. [/quote]

First off, what do mercy killings aka assisted suicide have to do with abortion? One is someone saying “I’m done with living on life support/paralyzed/without any limbs/etc”, the other is killing a person against their will. Personally, I tend to lean towards assisted suicide being legal, though I haven’t entirely made up my mind on the subject. Don’t see any connection between the two subjects, aside from them both involving death, which isn’t much of a connection.

Using “The world isn’t fair” as justification to let children be killed is ridiculous. You have a right to decide what you want, sure. But if I wake up one morning and decide I don’t want my 6 month-old son anymore, does that mean it’s morally acceptable for me to just stop feeding him? I want to have more money, does that mean it;s morally acceptable to rob people to get that? You have a right to pursue your desires insofar as it doesn’t deprive others of their fundamental rights, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Killing a baby deprives them of all of their rights, therefore it is an immoral path to take in pursuit of one’s own comfort.

128

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
Babies feel pain during abortion and in some cases even try to fight back.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/06/07/scientists-know-unborn-babies-feel-pain-in-abortions-will-congress-listen/[/quote]

and a lobster feels pain and tries to fight back when you drop it in a pot of boiling water, are you saying that that is murder and it shouldn’t be allowed? or are you saying that because humans have deemed themselves a higher class of being than something as simple as a lobster that things like that doesn’t matter, but an unwanting mother opting to abort her unborn child is wrong…the flaw in that logic in so apparent it laughable[/quote]

Good grief, Pitttttbulllllll has a grandson. The blatant, farcical stupidity displayed here is staggering.[/quote]

I keep forgetting that I need to put him on ignore. Getting to that now.

129

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And humans have also judged some humans as more or less important than others. Hiroshima anyone? [/quote]

Do you understand how many lives were SPARED because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[/quote]

keep it mind it depends on how you look at it. YES it did save thousands of our soldiers lives. but it also killed millions of innocent civilians, and the carnage spread down even after the nukes went off, through radiation posoining and what not.[/quote]

There would have been no Japan if we had to invade.

It saved tens of millions of Japanese.

Seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall[/quote]

your talking hypothetical though…you don’t know what would have happened if we had invade[/quote]

Bullshit.

Plenty of statistics from other Japanese held islands.

You think they would have fought less on their homeland?

“While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan’s leaders believed they could make the cost of conquering Japan too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat.”

We’re still using the Purple Hearts stamped out for Operation Olympic. They made 500,000 based on statistical analysis,

60 YEARS later. After Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf Wars, Iraq, Afghanistan… 120,000 still left[/quote]

A statistics is just a statistic, it didn’t actually happen so you can’t honestly say it would have happened that way. Yesa the odds may have been very high that it would have gone down that way, but since it didn’t actually happen you can’t say that it would have for sure gone that one direction. [/quote]

By this logic, nobody should have insurance, since it’s “just” based on statistics. You haven’t actually had your home flooded yet, so apparently nobody can justify having flood insurance, right?

You apparently are ignorant as to Japanese culture, especially during the time period when Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened. The Japanese were arming their citizens with farm tools, swords, knives, or nothing at all, and their plan was, through sheer numbers, to make Japan too much of a pain in the ass to conquer. They were ready to fight down to the last man, not soldier, but all their citizens. Firebombing all their other major cities, and then nuking those two cities, actually prevented a LOT more lives than it took.

That is entirely irrelevant to the subject of abortion.

130

[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
And back to the op, there not trying to ban abortion , just abortion after 20 weeks your telling me that after 5 months of being pregnant and you haven’t made the choice already it should still be an option up until you give birth.[/quote]

This too. 5 months is a LONG freaking time.

131

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
Babies feel pain during abortion and in some cases even try to fight back.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/06/07/scientists-know-unborn-babies-feel-pain-in-abortions-will-congress-listen/[/quote]

and a lobster feels pain and tries to fight back when you drop it in a pot of boiling water, are you saying that that is murder and it shouldn’t be allowed? or are you saying that because humans have deemed themselves a higher class of being than something as simple as a lobster that things like that doesn’t matter, but an unwanting mother opting to abort her unborn child is wrong…the flaw in that logic in so apparent it laughable[/quote]

Good grief, Pitttttbulllllll has a grandson. The blatant, farcical stupidity displayed here is staggering.[/quote]

I keep forgetting that I need to put him on ignore. Getting to that now. [/quote]
Pitbull

133

[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:

Being able to end the life of people around me who are an inconvenience to me is the most important right I can have"[/quote]

Our foreign policy in a nutshell.

135

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And humans have also judged some humans as more or less important than others. Hiroshima anyone? [/quote]

Do you understand how many lives were SPARED because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[/quote]

keep it mind it depends on how you look at it. YES it did save thousands of our soldiers lives. but it also killed millions of innocent civilians, and the carnage spread down even after the nukes went off, through radiation posoining and what not.[/quote]

There would have been no Japan if we had to invade.

It saved tens of millions of Japanese.

Seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall[/quote]

your talking hypothetical though…you don’t know what would have happened if we had invade[/quote]

Bullshit.

Plenty of statistics from other Japanese held islands.

You think they would have fought less on their homeland?

“While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan’s leaders believed they could make the cost of conquering Japan too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat.”

We’re still using the Purple Hearts stamped out for Operation Olympic. They made 500,000 based on statistical analysis,

60 YEARS later. After Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf Wars, Iraq, Afghanistan… 120,000 still left[/quote]

A statistics is just a statistic, it didn’t actually happen so you can’t honestly say it would have happened that way. Yesa the odds may have been very high that it would have gone down that way, but since it didn’t actually happen you can’t say that it would have for sure gone that one direction. [/quote]

I’ve talked to many Pacific campaign Vets.

Yes. I honestly think it would have gone that way.

137

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Your cynicism is (still) unchecked. While I deplore much of our foreign policy especially under the nuthouse Obama Admin I don’t think the USA runs 'round deliberately ending the lives of people who are an inconvenience. If so we could be doing a much better job than we are.[/quote]

I spend paragraphs presenting the pro-life argument in practically irrefutable terms, essentially abandoning the argument that you and I grappled over for pages and pages on that thread years ago, and THIS is what you comment on? A throwaway backhanded snipe at US foreign policy? Ha!

On the contrary: my cynicism is well-checked. It’s my sarcasm and skepticism that I allow free rein.

138

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And humans have also judged some humans as more or less important than others. Hiroshima anyone? [/quote]

Do you understand how many lives were SPARED because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[/quote]

keep it mind it depends on how you look at it. YES it did save thousands of our soldiers lives. but it also killed millions of innocent civilians, and the carnage spread down even after the nukes went off, through radiation posoining and what not.[/quote]

There would have been no Japan if we had to invade.

It saved tens of millions of Japanese.

Seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall[/quote]

your talking hypothetical though…you don’t know what would have happened if we had invade[/quote]

Bullshit.

Plenty of statistics from other Japanese held islands.

You think they would have fought less on their homeland?

“While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan’s leaders believed they could make the cost of conquering Japan too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat.”

We’re still using the Purple Hearts stamped out for Operation Olympic. They made 500,000 based on statistical analysis,

60 YEARS later. After Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf Wars, Iraq, Afghanistan… 120,000 still left[/quote]

A statistics is just a statistic, it didn’t actually happen so you can’t honestly say it would have happened that way. Yesa the odds may have been very high that it would have gone down that way, but since it didn’t actually happen you can’t say that it would have for sure gone that one direction. [/quote]

Asinine halfwit.

139

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If the child is medically viable than it is the state’s fault [/quote]

You called it a child. All children are viable at any point during gestation.[/quote]

Noun

The process of carrying or being carried in the womb between conception and birth.
The duration of such a process.

I think you mean conception and if you do I disagree as do many others [/quote]

You said it was a child. I child is a human, killing a child is killing a human. Simple. You either agree or disagree that killing a child is ok, that’s the only question on the table really.[/quote]

I agree that once it is living on it’s own then it is it’s own . If it’s life is dependent on Mom and mom decides to evict the child than it is Mom’s prerogative . No one would relish killing a child but I can understand how some mothers deem it , not the right time to bring another human into their life .

140

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]stokes1989 wrote:

[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
Babies feel pain during abortion and in some cases even try to fight back.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/06/07/scientists-know-unborn-babies-feel-pain-in-abortions-will-congress-listen/[/quote]

and a lobster feels pain and tries to fight back when you drop it in a pot of boiling water, are you saying that that is murder and it shouldn’t be allowed? or are you saying that because humans have deemed themselves a higher class of being than something as simple as a lobster that things like that doesn’t matter, but an unwanting mother opting to abort her unborn child is wrong…the flaw in that logic in so apparent it laughable[/quote]

Good grief, Pitttttbulllllll has a grandson. The blatant, farcical stupidity displayed here is staggering.[/quote]

I have 2 grandsons :slight_smile: