[quote]Grneyes wrote:<<< LOL…no. And I know you’re being facetious. >>>[/quote]no I wasn’t. I thought I read you saying that. Maybe the three cats were girls. Lotsa posts here.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:<<< LOL…no. And I know you’re being facetious. >>>[/quote]no I wasn’t. I thought I read you saying that. Maybe the three cats were girls. Lotsa posts here.
[/quote]
Oh okay. They are female cats, so maybe that’s why.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No. Being female is not a birth defect.
That’s just it, in China, it is. Why do you get to make the judgment on what a defect is and the value of a life is, and the Chinese people don’t?
Why do you get to decide what are acceptable odds. A good parent would sacrifice themselves for a 1% chance to save their kid’s life.
But, on what authority is your evaluation of a life the right one?[/quote]
Yeah, china, middle east, north africa, women are pretty much cum dumpsters who better shut the fuck up and clean the cave. Being female should not be considered a birth defect, but in some cultures, sadly it is.
That’s one of those lovely eggs moral relativists usually choke on. “No it ain’t right, but uh, um, I mean, like, kinda…”
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No. Being female is not a birth defect.
That’s just it, in China, it is. Why do you get to make the judgment on what a defect is and the value of a life is, and the Chinese people don’t?
Why do you get to decide what are acceptable odds. A good parent would sacrifice themselves for a 1% chance to save their kid’s life.
But, on what authority is your evaluation of a life the right one?[/quote]
Yeah, china, middle east, north africa, women are pretty much cum dumpsters who better shut the fuck up and clean the cave. Being female should not be considered a birth defect, but in some cultures, sadly it is.
That’s one of those lovely eggs moral relativists usually choke on. “No it ain’t right, but uh, um, I mean, like, kinda…”[/quote]
And yet you care so much for women that you’d take them into protective custody [in a roundabout way] rather than let women decide for themselves what to do with a pregnancy.
Open question: So it is ok to use abortion as birth control?
I don’t understand the “I’m pro-choice, but I don’t like the practice of aborting females for being females.” Aborting what females? I thought no human life was present?
It’s not surprising the sick and twisted paths we are forced down once the God of our roots is abandoned. We have become a world where death by self inflicted peacetime civilian genocide is celebrated as a “right”.
In the latest affront to women’s rights, the U.S. ally has announced that it has the right to cover women’s eyes, ‘especially the tempting ones.’
With fools like Romney and Santorum running for president you might very well get your wish for an american theocracy.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I was going to make a joke about this because I didn’t think it was actually happening, but I was wrong.
http://library.adoption.com/articles/the-colors-of-adoption-black-vs.-white.html[/quote]
That’s bullshit. There are too many kids without a home to be picky about culture. I doubt the child is going to be more happy having their culture than having a home that loves them and meets their emotional needs. I think that the person who said that it’s impossible to teach a culture unless you’re in it is probably right, but that doesn’t matter in this case.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I was going to make a joke about this because I didn’t think it was actually happening, but I was wrong.
http://library.adoption.com/articles/the-colors-of-adoption-black-vs.-white.html[/quote]
Wow. (a pathetic wow)
"At the opposite end of this debate is David Watts, a biracial social worker in New York who was raised by an adoptive white family. “It’s a bad idea to put a black child in a white home… I think it’s impossible for someone of one culture to teach another culture,” he says. “You have to live it in order to absorb it.”
"Those who believe that ethnic identity support race matching and pride can be best preserved if, for example, an African American child grows up in an African American family. Since 1972, the influential National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) has taken this stance, suggesting that interracial adoption is a form of “genocide” and that “black children in white homes are cut off from the healthy development of themselves as black people.”
…[/quote]
Perhaps Mr Watts is making reference to the current denizen of the Oval Office?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
In the latest affront to women’s rights, the U.S. ally has announced that it has the right to cover women’s eyes, ‘especially the tempting ones.’
With fools like Romney and Santorum running for president you might very well get your wish for an american theocracy.
[/quote]
“US ally.”
OMG, what a pathetic attempt to portray the US as supportive of this bullshit.[/quote]
Saudi-Arabia is a US ally and make no mistake, again, with fools like Santorum who believes pregnancies caused by rape are a gift of god: Video News - CNN you’re nearly there!
Just imagine: females who can’t move around, work or vote without a males consent must be a christian’s wet dream. Silent baby factories who keep you warm at night and cook you your food. And when they’re snippy you have every right to “caution” them.
I have no doubt you can find something in your holy book to back that up, and guess what? If it’s god’s will then who are you to argue?
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Just imagine: females who can’t move around, work or vote without a males consent must be a christian’s wet dream. Silent baby factories who keep you warm at night and cook you your food. And when they’re snippy you have every right to “caution” them.
I have no doubt you can find something in your holy book to back that up, and guess what? If it’s god’s will then who are you to argue?
[/quote]You woefully mischaracterize the gloriously high view of women taught in the New Testament. The standard just isn’t your perverse notion of equality and your outrageous implication that physical abuse is somehow part of the gospel is either a symptom of ignorance or a plain lie, but in either case you are wholly unqualified to utter so much as a syllable in that regard. You’re not usually cheap like this Eph. Drinkin tonight?
It’s early morning here and I’m working actually, well just being present really.
This whole notion of putting women on a pedestal, “the gloriously high view” as you call it, is simply a way to make women subservient to a set of morals men do not need to follow.
Men such as you, and men such as those in Saudi-Arabia or many other religiously fundamentalist countries, are twofaced hypocrites who claim to highly respect women but as soon as they don’t conform to your rules they’re “fallen” women.
Let’s paint a picture here T; Romney supports abstinence-only programs and ignores evidence that proves these programs don’t work. Both Romney and Santorum [even Paul] want to abolish abortion in all cases.
The republican push to remove birth control from healthcare, “it’s only a few dollars anyway”, is another blow to the advances the women’s rights movement made over the past 50 years.
This isn’t about respect for women and life, this is about being able to control women and their reproductive abilities without condemnation, and you’re using religion to get there.
I find that disgusting.
It’s about legitimatizing immorality and I don’t know who you’re talkin to. I have said over and over and over again that coercion cannot ever accomplish what I want. When this nation operated largely within Christian morals we did not have these issues. At least not even approaching the level at which we have them now. Women have been transformed into whores over the last 50 years. Not advanced in anything. That is your perverse notion of equality. It’s not progress it’s damnable whoredom which you love and which is why you didn’t like my post to Oleena. No legislation can solve either that or all the destruction of our society that it is spectacularly bringing about.
I forgot you were in Holland for a second. Drinkin this morning =]
[quote]ephrem wrote:
This isn’t about respect for women and life, this is about being able to control women and their reproductive abilities without condemnation, and you’re using religion to get there.
[/quote]
People have a hard time separating religious values when it comes to making decisions that affect the state. Any argument they make that starts out with logic eventually progresses to a religious belief when they run out of other ways to back it up.