Abortion

[Jenda]

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 27 2004, 12:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 27 2004, 12:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Faerie@Oct 27 2004, 12:01 PM

curvette...that or he'll pass those views onto another generation of men...*shudder* lol

That's a sad possibility.

Nothing like talking about someone behind their back (in front of their face).

We really need to focus on the discussion and not on the posters.

Thanks.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Winnie G@Oct 26 2004, 07:22 AM

Winnie

I would legislate change in how the government treats the women who find them self’s in a tight corner.

The term un-wed would be abolished as a term to describe the stats.

What a bunch of hyper-sensitive, politically correct blather.

If someone is called an unwed mother or father, that is because they are unwed. If they don't want to be an unwed parent, then there is a solution: more responsible behavior. And, there is a reason that there is a stigma attached to being an unwed parent. Making it all nice for the unwed doesn't make being unweb (with children) something good. Having compassion on those who are troubled is one thing. That compassion would include keeping your sexual moral judgements to yourself, but pretending that premarital parentage is okay is not okay.

I find it funny that men are so hot under the caroler over this topic.

Since 99.9 % of the workload is carried by the mother and like most men past and present behave like animals spreading their seed and then move on.

You would think they had a stake in all this.

The term “unwed” was and is used to describe the moral character of the women.

This term and others like it coursed decades of women doing dangers things to end pregnancies because of that stigma.

Of course man were called being just boys “Boys will be boys” and “spreading their wild oats”

Like most human community’s the males walk free wile women are the ones held accountable for their actions. {Their Actions}

Women mostly young were shipped off to a distant relative or housed in UN Wed mothers homes for girls or schools were young women could finish their education with out the eyes of so called innocent students seeing her.

No presser on the women, no support system, no love or comfort from parents.

Yup like most systems punishment before thoughtfulness.

The need for abortion will always be there if the human community does not change.

Having compassion on those who are troubled is one thing. That compassion would include keeping your sexual moral judgements to yourself, but pretending that premarital parentage is okay is not okay.

Need I say more.

I understand that men you are used to may be scum. I'm sorry about that. However your description of men does not match the kind of men that are in my family or that I am my family associate with.

Any person or either sex that procreates premaritally, with extraordinarilly few exceptions that I can fathom, is immoral or amoral.

I could care less is a man or woman is unmarried and is sexually active. Procreation is an entirely different deal, it foists your behavior on the child and most usually upon society as well. You may get all hot and bothered that people refer to unwed mothers as unwed mothers (and fathers too) but tough - that's what they are, unwed parents. Bad behavior should results in bad outcomes.

[Snow]

Originally posted by adorablemeo3@Oct 26 2004, 09:22 PM

I have been taught though, that these souls are so close with Heavenly Father that he fulfills their promise to have an earthly body, if only for a mere minute, then they are so rightous that they immediatly return to live with him, without having a chance to sin.

So God blesses his most elect by giving them congenital heart defects and sending them to be born of crack addicted parents?

I don't think so.

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Snow+Oct 27 2004, 07:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Oct 27 2004, 07:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Winnie G@Oct 26 2004, 07:22 AM

Winnie

I would legislate change in how the government treats the women who find them self’s in a tight corner.

The term un-wed would be abolished as a term to describe the stats.

What a bunch of hyper-sensitive, politically correct blather.

If someone is called an unwed mother or father, that is because they are unwed. If they don't want to be an unwed parent, then there is a solution: more responsible behavior. And, there is a reason that there is a stigma attached to being an unwed parent. Making it all nice for the unwed doesn't make being unweb (with children) something good. Having compassion on those who are troubled is one thing. That compassion would include keeping your sexual moral judgements to yourself, but pretending that premarital parentage is okay is not okay.

I find it funny that men are so hot under the caroler over this topic.

Since 99.9 % of the workload is carried by the mother and like most men past and present behave like animals spreading their seed and then move on.

You would think they had a stake in all this.

The term “unwed” was and is used to describe the moral character of the women.

This term and others like it coursed decades of women doing dangers things to end pregnancies because of that stigma.

Of course man were called being just boys “Boys will be boys” and “spreading their wild oats”

Like most human community’s the males walk free wile women are the ones held accountable for their actions. {Their Actions}

Women mostly young were shipped off to a distant relative or housed in UN Wed mothers homes for girls or schools were young women could finish their education with out the eyes of so called innocent students seeing her.

No presser on the women, no support system, no love or comfort from parents.

Yup like most systems punishment before thoughtfulness.

The need for abortion will always be there if the human community does not change.

Having compassion on those who are troubled is one thing. That compassion would include keeping your sexual moral judgements to yourself, but pretending that premarital parentage is okay is not okay.

Need I say more.

I understand that men you are used to may be scum. I'm sorry about that. However your description of men does not match the kind of men that are in my family or that I am my family associate with.

Any person or either sex that procreates premaritally, with extraordinarilly few exceptions that I can fathom, is immoral or amoral.

I could care less is a man or woman is unmarried and is sexually active. Procreation is an entirely different deal, it foists your behavior on the child and most usually upon society as well. You may get all hot and bothered that people refer to unwed mothers as unwed mothers (and fathers too) but tough - that's what they are, unwed parents. Bad behavior should results in bad outcomes.

Was the virgin Mary married? If not, what does that make Mary, and what does that make Jesus?

[john doe]

I find it funny that men are so hot under the caroler over this topic.

I normally don't like to get into these type of discussions because nothing ever gets resolved, but I just want to say that the only time I get hot under the "caroler" is when my wife is laying on top of me singing christmas songs. Now, I don't know what that has to do with abortion, but you did bring it up, Winnie.

Since 99.9 % of the workload is carried by the mother and like most men past and present behave like animals spreading their seed and then move on.

Do you have documented proof of this number, Winnie? 99.9% of the workload, and by this I assume you mean the job of child-rearing, is quite a high number, and would probably be disputed by most, if not all, researchers on the subject. I would estimate that for most families, and by that I mean families with a committed father, the child-rearing workload number would be closer to 70-75%, especially if the father is the sole bread-winner and the mother stays home. Maybe you see there numbers a little different with military families, but those may not be reflective of society as a whole.

Now, if you're talking about a woman who, to paraphrase Dr. Laura, will spread her legs for just about any man who gives her the time of day, if she then gets a guilt-pang and decides to care for the child by herself and refuses to get the father to even pay child-support, then maybe she does carry a workload in the 90 percentile range, but I think most women are not in that category.

It still usually takes two people to get pregnant, and the sad fact is that many women who want to "have fun" usually don't think about the consequences of it until it is too late. Some men are pigs, but some women think they are invincible and that pregnancy won't happen to them when they have unprotected sex. And then they want to look good for guys like Disruptive, and so they make regrettable choices which will usually haunt them for the rest of their lives.

[DisRuptive1]

From my experience, more women are "selfish" than men are pigs. More women bring a child into this world who's father doesn't want them.

And why should a woman who makes a mistake, like forgetting birth control, make another mistake as to bringing an unloved child into the world? Sure you women might call it love, but then again, when you were little girls you loved your "dollies." That's all you want, a free "dollie" who isn't a toy.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by bat@Oct 27 2004, 09:20 PM

Was the virgin Mary married? If not, what does that make Mary, and what does that make Jesus?

It makes Mary a virgin, and Jesus the son of God.

[Winnie G]

“unwed” mothers still is and always will be a stigma you can say there are unwed fathers all you want but you don’t see them myelin for generations dragged out in the town square and in the past stoned.

As fare as the 99.9 % goes, I will recall that statement when you push a bowling ball out the end of you plumbing.

Yes I have been married to cads but out side the church and large percentage of the world men work to bring home the bacon but once they reach that door of their home they drag there knuckles to the couch and take up the feed me poster and turn on ESPN.

You don’t get to my age and not see the bigger view. My wonderful husband can tell you the same thing.

[Spencer]

I have NO idea what you just said....

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Jenda+Oct 28 2004, 06:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Oct 28 2004, 06:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bat@Oct 27 2004, 09:20 PM

Was the virgin Mary married?  If not, what does that make Mary, and what does that make Jesus?

It makes Mary a virgin, and Jesus the son of God.

So was the hymen still in tact when she gave birth? Or was there some sort of divine teleporter that delivered the baby?

[john doe]

Originally posted by Spencer@Oct 28 2004, 10:49 AM

I have NO idea what you just said....

That makes three of us, me, you, and Winnie. But it is fun to play these games with her.

[Snow]

I think she is saying that most of the men in her life are little better than apes - to which I say, I'm sorry you surround yourself with those you consider to be unfit.

[Winnie G]

OK most men in the age I grow up were still trying to shake off the confusion of the sixty’s were free love was the example and the 50’s moral code and “Me man Bread winner” example of their fathers. You’ll never get it! Have you tried to time warp in to the time frame? You’ll understand were I am coming from.

I give up

[john doe]

I don't think it's a time frame thing, but rather an environmental thing. I was raised in a time when people were trying to do what you describe, but I was also taught right from wrong. I was taught about taking personal responsibility for my actions as well. It was part of growing up to be a man.

I think Snow may be on to something. I was never taught that a real man acts in the ways you described. Maybe the guys you were around were never taught how to act like men, but that isn't the norm nor should it be accepted as such.

[DisRuptive1]

The man also shouldn't have to to change himself either. If a man has unnattractive qualities (like disrespecting you or other stuff) it is not in your position to ask him to change. Nor should he change "because he loves you." You chose him, and you need to deal with it. If you don't like it, then go get another man that does have want you want. Women that nag their men to change are too lazy to go find another. Sorry if this got too off topic.

Oh yeah, PBA's are wrong.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by bat+Oct 28 2004, 04:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Oct 28 2004, 04:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Oct 28 2004, 06:41 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--bat@Oct 27 2004, 09:20 PM

Was the virgin Mary married?  If not, what does that make Mary, and what does that make Jesus?

It makes Mary a virgin, and Jesus the son of God.

So was the hymen still in tact when she gave birth? Or was there some sort of divine teleporter that delivered the baby?

I am not sure where this question is leading, but as Mary was a virgin, the hymen should have been intact.

Are you asking that if the hymen was intact, does that mean she couldn't deliver the baby? The hymen is only a thin membrane and the minute the baby's head came through the birth canal, it would be ruptured.

Did I guess right, or did you have another motive for your question?

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Jenda+Oct 28 2004, 10:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Oct 28 2004, 10:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -bat@Oct 28 2004, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Oct 28 2004, 06:41 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--bat@Oct 27 2004, 09:20 PM

Was the virgin Mary married?  If not, what does that make Mary, and what does that make Jesus?

It makes Mary a virgin, and Jesus the son of God.

So was the hymen still in tact when she gave birth? Or was there some sort of divine teleporter that delivered the baby?

I am not sure where this question is leading, but as Mary was a virgin, the hymen should have been intact.

Are you asking that if the hymen was intact, does that mean she couldn't deliver the baby? The hymen is only a thin membrane and the minute the baby's head came through the birth canal, it would be ruptured.

Did I guess right, or did you have another motive for your question?

So you are saying that The Virgin Mary was deflowered by The Baby Jesus. Right?

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Jenda+Oct 28 2004, 10:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Oct 28 2004, 10:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -bat@Oct 28 2004, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Oct 28 2004, 06:41 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--bat@Oct 27 2004, 09:20 PM

Was the virgin Mary married?  If not, what does that make Mary, and what does that make Jesus?

It makes Mary a virgin, and Jesus the son of God.

So was the hymen still in tact when she gave birth? Or was there some sort of divine teleporter that delivered the baby?

I am not sure where this question is leading, but as Mary was a virgin, the hymen should have been intact.

Are you asking that if the hymen was intact, does that mean she couldn't deliver the baby? The hymen is only a thin membrane and the minute the baby's head came through the birth canal, it would be ruptured.

Did I guess right, or did you have another motive for your question?

Well if you had approved my post instead of editing your own, you'd know the answer.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by bat+Oct 29 2004, 04:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Oct 29 2004, 04:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Oct 28 2004, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by -bat@Oct 28 2004, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Oct 28 2004, 06:41 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--bat@Oct 27 2004, 09:20 PM

Was the virgin Mary married?  If not, what does that make Mary, and what does that make Jesus?

It makes Mary a virgin, and Jesus the son of God.

So was the hymen still in tact when she gave birth? Or was there some sort of divine teleporter that delivered the baby?

I am not sure where this question is leading, but as Mary was a virgin, the hymen should have been intact.

Are you asking that if the hymen was intact, does that mean she couldn't deliver the baby? The hymen is only a thin membrane and the minute the baby's head came through the birth canal, it would be ruptured.

Did I guess right, or did you have another motive for your question?

Well if you had approved my post instead of editing your own, you'd know the answer.

Huh???

If I hadn't approved your post, I wouldn't have been able to respond to it.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by bat+Oct 29 2004, 12:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Oct 29 2004, 12:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Oct 28 2004, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by -bat@Oct 28 2004, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Oct 28 2004, 06:41 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--bat@Oct 27 2004, 09:20 PM

Was the virgin Mary married?  If not, what does that make Mary, and what does that make Jesus?

It makes Mary a virgin, and Jesus the son of God.

So was the hymen still in tact when she gave birth? Or was there some sort of divine teleporter that delivered the baby?

I am not sure where this question is leading, but as Mary was a virgin, the hymen should have been intact.

Are you asking that if the hymen was intact, does that mean she couldn't deliver the baby? The hymen is only a thin membrane and the minute the baby's head came through the birth canal, it would be ruptured.

Did I guess right, or did you have another motive for your question?

So you are saying that The Virgin Mary was deflowered by The Baby Jesus. Right?

Please define "deflowered".

Thanks.

[Guest bat]

Please define the word "define" so that I can tell you something that you are know the answer to, but choose semantics and obfuscation instead.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by bat@Oct 29 2004, 06:40 PM

Please define the word "define" so that I can tell you something that you are know the answer to, but choose semantics and obfuscation instead.

You obviously want to redefine the word "deflower" to mean something it doesn't, so I am giving you the chance.

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Jenda+Oct 29 2004, 07:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Oct 29 2004, 07:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bat@Oct 29 2004, 06:40 PM

Please define the word "define" so that I can tell you something that you are know the answer to, but choose semantics and obfuscation instead.

You obviously want to redefine the word "deflower" to mean something it doesn't, so I am giving you the chance.

Is there a rule that in order to be a mormon, you have to engage in semantics and word redefining in conversations? I've noticed that the FAIR kids do this a lot too. Maybe it's one of the ten commandments and I just never heard about it.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by bat+Oct 30 2004, 12:27 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Oct 30 2004, 12:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Oct 29 2004, 07:35 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--bat@Oct 29 2004, 06:40 PM

Please define the word "define" so that I can tell you something that you are know the answer to, but choose semantics and obfuscation instead.

You obviously want to redefine the word "deflower" to mean something it doesn't, so I am giving you the chance.

Is there a rule that in order to be a mormon, you have to engage in semantics and word redefining in conversations? I've noticed that the FAIR kids do this a lot too. Maybe it's one of the ten commandments and I just never heard about it.

I am not Mormon, and it wasn't me who wanted to redefine the word, it was you. Maybe that is the problem. You want to redefine words and others take exception to it.

Just a theory, though.

[Guest enlightenme]

it's amazing how a simple answer from someone is soooo hard...

Of course that isn't new here....

And wasn't this a thread about abortion??? How did it all of a sudden become a thread about the word "deflower" .....

This place is sooooo strange..... no consistancy...