Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Same with birth control. BC doesn't work 100%, it just adds another layer to from pregnancy from happening.
So your logic, again fails dramatically.
So, men who are 65 years of age or older, who wish to continue to have active sex lives, who do not want to get women (or their wife) pregnant at that age, shouldn't be allowed to do so because you say so?
Same for women, who are 60+ who do not wish to get pregnant, but want to continue to have healthy sex lives, shouldn't be allowed to do so, because you say so?
Again, your logic fails dramatically.
No I didn't. It's not our problem that you have a failure in your ability to communicate exactly what you mean.
And you still fail dramatically.
But sex is a natural process. BC isn't. That's the difference.
And no, they shouldn't be allowed to do so because removing consequences from actions is a very dangerous precedent to set. You want people to have sex and not pay the consequences.
Pretty soon, people will question why ANYTHING needs consequences.
Guess what? Illness is also a natural process and anything aside from plant based homeopathic remedies are unnatural. So if you follow that stupid a** non-logic then all medicines and medical care are unnatural and go agasint God's plan for you. So if you ever feel chest pain don't call 911 because it's God's will. If you ever get another headache and can't find a willow bark tree well then you need to suffer because it's God's plan for you. If you ever break a bone skip the ER and let it heal naturally because the Lord is just testing you and He will heal that arm for you if your worthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqua84
But sex is a natural process. BC isn't. That's the difference.
And no, they shouldn't be allowed to do so because removing consequences from actions is a very dangerous precedent to set. You want people to have sex and not pay the consequences.
Pretty soon, people will question why ANYTHING needs consequences.
Now they have more information. In the 70's girls hit the vegetable drawer, then felt shame.
Now they get a vibrator and embrace it.
That shame invariably led to sexuality "issues" down the road. Ironically, these issues are what caused this thread; female shame=boredom in the bedroom= the reason angry, posturing men make threads like this.
That's what the "liberal left" accomplished. I'm sorry you think sex should be missionary position, for procreation, and not discussed. You need to grow up. If you can't adapt to sexuality in the 21st century, maybe it's time you found a culture with ideals more in line with your ideals. Syria, Iran, and even Iraq are all lovely religious havens where masturbation and sexual education are shunned. Sounds like Republican Paradise.
It should be shamed for it is despicable behavior.
Even if people did it in the 70s, at least they felt the guilt that should be associated with such an action and knew it to be wrong.
Now you want to remove right/wrong and just say everything is right!
Saying "this is the 21st century" makes no sense. Right/wrong has never changed and if you want to bring time into this, the US is decaying at a faster time than at any other point in its history, so that only strengthens my point even further.
My mother had her tubes tied after my little sister was born. She almost died during that pregnancy, and was told that if she had any more children she would more than likely die.
Should she be in jail for having her tubes tied so that she could be there for my sisters and me?
Yes, she should be in jail.
She could have just stopped having sex, but she has no self-control, so she had to someone control her.
aqua84 simply does not want to take responsibility for controlling procreation at all. He, she or it wants God to make that decision. God allowed us to create the technology to control reproduction and by doing so made is responsible for the consequences of our actions.
I think teaching kids about sex while they are developing is a good and necessary thing to do. It is far better than letting them find out for themselves the hard way with unwanted pregnancies and sexual transmitted disease. I wish we had this available when I was a kid a long time ago. What my family tried to teach me was so absurd I, thankfully, dismissed it as nonsense. I learned the facts and my companions appreciated that.
What did your family teach you?
And unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases are a good punishment for practicing evil behavior.
Any data available that would confirm this is either common in or specific to Florida?
The whole "Teach them about birth control when they are old enough/ready for sex" argument is getting tired. After all, it's been trying to stand on feet that aren't there! For example, there doesn't seem to be any evidence to suggest that teaching kids about birth control at any early age does any harm whatsoever. Conversely, there is reason to believe that not teaching them may result in unplanned pregnancies or STDs.
So there is no data to support the argument. Let's take a look at the "logic" of it all. First question: How will parents know when their child is "old enough/ready for sex"? Do you think the child typically at any age comes up to the parent and says "Mom. I just started liking boys/girls sexually. It's official: I'm old enough and ready to learn about birth control (though I don't even know what it is because you made sure that no one told me)"?
If not at 10, when and why? I'd be all for joining you in saying "NO! Ten is too young, if you would kindly give me a reason why 10 is different from 11, 11 is different from 12, etc.
Let's play a game of "I'll see you ____ and raise you ____". I'll make it easy and start with a Yahoo! Answers page, which has a handful of people saying age 10 (or younger) is about the age girls start liking boys.
How do you figure? I didn't know you were talking about abortion when you said "deciding not to bear children", because the two simply are not synonyms. You can't blame us for your lack of communication skills...
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqua84
But they are always used in the same way.
It would be like saying lazy and unmotivated are not synonyms.
No they aren't. My neighbor decided not to have children, yet she never had an abortion.
No, I don't. I'm not obliged to entertain your crazed notions about fetuses being children. On the other hand, how many abortions have you reported to the police as murder? I'm pretty sure anyone knowing of someone who killed their child by throwing it into a wall would report it as murder. Since you see abortion as being equivalent to that, surely you're on the phone to the cops reporting all these abortions as murder. Right?
I don't really associate with murderers on a daily basis.
With your logic, I could say, "I'm not obligated to entertain your crazed notion of infants being children."
Guess what? Illness is also a natural process and anything aside from plant based homeopathic remedies are unnatural. So if you follow that stupid a** non-logic then all medicines and medical care are unnatural and go agasint God's plan for you. So if you ever feel chest pain don't call 911 because it's God's will. If you ever get another headache and can't find a willow bark tree well then you need to suffer because it's God's plan for you. If you ever break a bone skip the ER and let it heal naturally because the Lord is just testing you and He will heal that arm for you if your worthy.
I never take medicine for headaches.
People offer it to me when they ask what's wrong if it's a really bad one, but I just say, "I don't use performance enhancing drugs."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
