Sign in to follow this  
kent_island_sailor

Incest and Rape

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, cmilliken said:

That's essentially where I fall on it.

I have some minor push back is when people use 'logic' arguments just because I think they are used to intentionally muddy the waters.   Even if those arguments are well intentioned, It's a womans body.  Men don't get a choice.  Fetuses don't get a choice.  There is no 'equality' in this case.  Biology isn't always fair.  To paraphrase the line - biology doesn't care about your feelings.

 

You'd think the "Fuck your Feelings" crowd would get this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

97 responses stating strong opinions about abortion and only 2 of them from someone (Shorty) who could even theoretically get pregnant.

Until you guys can get pregnant you are not entitled to an opinion on abortion and should all STFU.

Great, can we just lock this thread then? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mad said:

Great, can we just lock this thread then? 

Are you kidding? What’s Tom going to do 5 years even 10 years from now at 3AM when he’s bored and wants to bump a thread everyone’s forgotten about.  Sometimes I think it’s the only thing that keeps him from going postal with his dogballs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lark said:

The other is to just create enough babies the mothers have no reason to go after you for child support because you are already broke.   This seems to be the trailer trash solution in Ohio.   

Your comment does reflect on the trust issue in a relationship.    When do you decide to finally trust her when she says she prefers the natural feeling?   How does she feel about the lack of trust?    

Have you ever pondered the number of women made pregnant by men who "promised" to pull out, or refused to use condoms?

This kind of one sided "women trick men" argument makes me sick quite frankly.

Sure their are some women that "accidentally on purpose" get pregnant.

You want to reflect on the history of women's unwanted pregnancy for a little while.

It's not that long ago that rape in marriage was not even recognized.

You think all men respect womens rights NOT to become pregnant?...you think all women can choose even to take the pill without their partners "consent"?

This whining about "my friend got tricked" is simply childish..Like..Mum..she MADE me do it!!!

 the bottom line is ..look after your own sperms.If you can't trust each other you're in the wrong relationship so you better trust yourself .

 

(and PS, women cant feel a condom:rolleyes:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Abortion introduces a gender inequality.

A woman can end her responsibility for raising an unwanted child with an abortion. Not so for the father, who can be accessed child support obligations  regardless of hie inclinations toward the child. 

Shouldn't the father have the same right to demand an abortion even if the mother wants to keep the child?

 

No

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Swimsailor said:

It's a compelling situation for sure.  However, no one, man or woman, has a right to force a woman to use her body as an incubator against her will.

It was not against her will if the sex was consensual and rape/incest are a tiny fraction of all abortions. No man or woman lives in a consequence free world. If she chooses to risk pregnancy (especially when prevention is so widely available)  I don't see that the innocent baby should have to forfeit its life so the mother can avoid the consequences of her choices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

It was not against her will if the sex was consensual and rape/incest are a tiny fraction of all abortions. No man or woman lives in a consequence free world. If she chooses to risk pregnancy (especially when prevention is so widely available)  I don't see that the innocent baby should have to forfeit its life so the mother can avoid the consequences of her choices. 

It’s a fetus and the consequence of an unplanned pregnancy can be a safe and legal abortion

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Have you ever pondered the number of women made pregnant by men who "promised" to pull out, or refused to use condoms?

This kind of one sided "women trick men" argument makes me sick quite frankly.

Sure their are some women that "accidentally on purpose" get pregnant.

You want to reflect on the history of women's unwanted pregnancy for a little while.

It's not that long ago that rape in marriage was not even recognized.

You think all men respect womens rights NOT to become pregnant?...you think all women can choose even to take the pill without their partners "consent"?

This whining about "my friend got tricked" is simply childish..Like..Mum..she MADE me do it!!!

 the bottom line is ..look after your own sperms.If you can't trust each other you're in the wrong relationship so you better trust yourself .

 

(and PS, women cant feel a condom:rolleyes:)

WHAT!???!!!!

 

All those dollars spent on "ribbed for her pleasure", and French ticklers is just........ Hype!?

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lark said:

But men can be snared in a pregnancy trap.   I know a couple misguided young women that recently tried to stabilize their troubled relationships with pregnancy,    It predictably failed in both cases.    The first assured her man she was safe.   The second guy was careful, so she got them both drunk.    He was busy on his career path but his life goals are ruined by an emotionally unstable now ex girlfriend.   Once he sobered up no longer had a choice.  He will have a kid, a job that requires weekly travel, and a crazy ex junky baby momma with even worse family.   This gender war BS does actually go both ways.

This is why elective prophylactic prostatectomy is such a great idea!  Deals with possible cancer too! :P Which, if untreated is expensive, so.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Have you ever pondered the number of women made pregnant by men who "promised" to pull out, or refused to use condoms?

This kind of one sided "women trick men" argument makes me sick quite frankly.

Sure their are some women that "accidentally on purpose" get pregnant.

You want to reflect on the history of women's unwanted pregnancy for a little while.

It's not that long ago that rape in marriage was not even recognized.

You think all men respect womens rights NOT to become pregnant?...you think all women can choose even to take the pill without their partners "consent"?

This whining about "my friend got tricked" is simply childish..Like..Mum..she MADE me do it!!!

 the bottom line is ..look after your own sperms.If you can't trust each other you're in the wrong relationship so you better trust yourself .

 

(and PS, women cant feel a condom:rolleyes:)

My previous post you responded to said “This gender war BS does actually go both ways.“    

PS, I won’t argue with a sexy lady who’s in the mood,   If she says she wants to feel it squirt, I do my best to oblige.   Maybe others have stunted nerve endings?   :o

PPS.   If some online Japanese Shaman claims sperm has health promoting qualities, I certainly won’t take a scientific evidence based approach.   :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lark said:

My previous post you responded to said “This gender war BS does actually go both ways.“    

PS, I won’t argue with a sexy lady who’s in the mood,   If she says she wants to feel it squirt, I do my best to oblige.   Maybe others have stunted nerve endings?   :o

PPS.   If some online Japanese Shaman claims sperm has health promoting qualities, I certainly won’t take a scientific evidence based approach.   :P

Demonstrating that living in Ohio may cause severe mental disturbances

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2019 at 6:50 PM, Shortforbob said:

Have you ever pondered the number of women made pregnant by men who "promised" to pull out, or refused to use condoms?

This kind of one sided "women trick men" argument makes me sick quite frankly.

Sure their are some women that "accidentally on purpose" get pregnant.

You want to reflect on the history of women's unwanted pregnancy for a little while.

It's not that long ago that rape in marriage was not even recognized.

You think all men respect womens rights NOT to become pregnant?...you think all women can choose even to take the pill without their partners "consent"?

This whining about "my friend got tricked" is simply childish..Like..Mum..she MADE me do it!!!

 the bottom line is ..look after your own sperms.If you can't trust each other you're in the wrong relationship so you better trust yourself .

 

(and PS, women cant feel a condom:rolleyes:)

If a stork brings the white babies. 

And a crow brings the black babies. 

What brings no babies at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

[snip]

What brings no babies at all?

 

Those goddam homosexualists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Terrorvision said:

Those goddam homosexualists.

One of the oldest jokes in history and you blew (no pun, but a hint) the punch line.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forcing an unwilling woman to participate in the reproductive  process is rape.

It doesn’t matter when she say she wants to stop. To continue after that is rape. 

The fact she has participated previously with someone else does not entitle anyone to ignore her request to stop participating. 

Preventing a woman from exiting from the reproductive process is rape  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

One of the oldest jokes in history and you blew (no pun, but a hint) the punch line.  

Doh, apologies! Didn't know I was spoiling a joke :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer of course is:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Swallows"......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2019 at 6:58 PM, Gouvernail said:

No

+1,000,000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 2:15 PM, Steam Flyer said:

Maybe, maybe not.

Unless you're telepathic, you can't really say unless you're just speculating and sitting judgement.

-DSK

Or you ride the DC Metro and overhear the young ladies behind you discussing their problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Or you ride the DC Metro and overhear the young ladies behind you discussing their problems.

You mean "Spying"?.... Like the F.B.I. does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 4:17 AM, Gouvernail said:

Forcing an unwilling woman to participate in the reproductive  process is rape.

It doesn’t matter when she say she wants to stop. To continue after that is rape. 

The fact she has participated previously with someone else does not entitle anyone to ignore her request to stop participating. 

Preventing a woman from exiting from the reproductive process is rape  

 

 

One big difference in our biology is that men can generally beat up women.

Prevening a woman from reacting to that situation by using a non-lethal tool to defend herself violates that sanctity of Her Body, Her Choice so is also rape.

Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

One big difference in our biology is that men can generally beat up women.

Prevening a woman from reacting to that situation by using a non-lethal tool to defend herself violates that sanctity of Her Body, Her Choice so is also rape.

Right?

Only a few more posts until dogballs enters the discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mad said:

Only a few more posts until dogballs enters the discussion. 

You mean like this one?

On 5/17/2019 at 11:56 AM, kent_island_sailor said:

* (some) life because I think most right-to-lifers end their concerns at birth, love guns, and love the death penalty :rolleyes:


Or this one?

On 5/17/2019 at 2:03 PM, Olsonist said:

Any guy who for whatever reason isn't pro-choice is just an asshole. And unlike some of the local elk population who fashion themselves as some sort of libertarian but still think their endangered 2A rights are more important and so ... Republican, well, fuck them. They're assholes.

This one maybe?

On 5/18/2019 at 6:49 PM, Fakenews said:

Are you kidding? What’s Tom going to do 5 years even 10 years from now at 3AM when he’s bored and wants to bump a thread everyone’s forgotten about.  Sometimes I think it’s the only thing that keeps him from going postal with his dogballs.

Obviously, it's not a problem when someone who is TeamD/grabby brings up that topic. It's just a problem when I point out that self defense is a self ownership issue too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dogballs will be along shortly to remind us that at least we don't have Hillary. Dogballs will be concerned yet optimistic. Dogballs will cite the tail end of his closing argument in Dogballs v The World where he unsuccessfully represented himself against no one in particular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2019 at 9:22 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Alabama did something stupid and might get the whole My Body My Choice thing in front of SCOTUS.

Meanwhile, NYC did something stupid and DID get the whole My Body My Choice thing in front of SCOTUS, where it will be heard this year.


Half a dozen threads on what might happen.

Meanwhile, the Liberal Gun Club appears to have noticed what I also know: the treatment of abortion rights and gun rights are intertwined and you can't respect one without respecting the other.

From the one thread where what will happen is mentioned by me and no one else:

2 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Amicus brief of The Liberal Gun Club submitted.

 

Quote

 

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

New York City’s prohibition on transporting handguns to locations outside the City has directly impacted the Club and its members. Notably, the Club’s New York chapter—which is based out of New York City and includes members living in New Jersey, New York State, and Connecticut—has tried on several occasions to organize shooting and training activities. This has only been possible to a limited extent because the Club’s New York City members cannot bring their handguns to New Jersey or Long Island, and the members who do not live in New York City cannot bring their guns into the City. The transport ban has also prevented members of the Club from bringing their handguns with them when they come to Club events in other locations. So, for example, if a Club member wants to participate in training provided at one of the Club’s meetings, then they need to rent or borrow a gun—which is a plainly inferior alternative to practicing with one’s own gun.

 

They share my interest in being left the fuck alone by grabberz when they want to do some plinking.

From their summary:

Quote

The City’s transportation rule hopelessly fails scrutiny, because every available example of a regulatory alternative is less restrictive. There is absolutely nothing in the record that would support the conclusion that the City achieves any advantage for its citizens by taking this unduly restrictive approach—aside from the apparent “advantage” of making Second Amendment rights that much more difficult to exercise from within the five boroughs. To the contrary, even highly restrictive jurisdictions have not found any reason to take the extreme approach the City of New York has taken here. The City—having engaged in no amount of tailoring and having failed to consider less restrictive alternatives—has adopted a highly restrictive approach that burdens vast amounts of otherwise lawful conduct. This cannot survive any level of heightened scrutiny.

The part I bolded identifies the main problem here, not just an aside. Gungrabbiness is a partisan issue and that means NOTHING can go too far. Just as in places like Alabama, no restriction on abortion can go too far, and the reason is the same, though a mirror image.

If it were possible to go too far, we'd have seen liberal voices questioning the argument made in Caetano's case that technology developed since the Bill of Rights was written is not covered. But we did not and will not see such questioning because TeamD.

They go into the history of decisions about how laws that burden protected rights must be tailored and get to this:
 

Quote

 

This Court’s relatively recent decision in McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014), shows the ongoing importance of the narrow tailoring considerations. There, the Court declined to apply strict scrutiny to a Massachusetts law that created a 35 foot perimeter around the entrances of clinics performing abortions because the restriction was content-neutral. Seeid. at 478-85. But even though strict scrutiny did not apply, and the government thus did not need to use the “‘least restrictive or least intrusive means of’ serving the government’s interests,” the restriction still needed to be “narrowly tailored.” Id. at 486 (quotingWard v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 798 (1989)). And specifically, the requirement of narrow tailoring meant that the law could not “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.” Id. (quotingWard, 491 U.S. at 799). The decision in McCullen is also instructive for how it answered the narrow tailoring question. To determine whether the law went too far, the Court looked first to the scheme that had previously been in place and compared the extent that either approach impacted both individuals’ rights (free expression) and the governmental interests (public safety and access to healthcare). See id. at 487-90.

The Court then considered other states’ laws, finding it significant that “no other State [had] a law that creates fixed buffer zones around abortion clinics,” although there were some localities that did. See id. at 490 & n.6. The Court next looked at other Massachusetts laws, as well as federal laws and some local laws, to find additional regulatory alternatives. See id. at 490-93. Notably, New York City’s restriction was both smaller (15 feet) and more circumscribed in that it prohibited “follow[ing] and harass[ing]” within the perimeter, not just “standing.” See id. at 491 (quoting N.Y.C.ADMIN.CODE §8-803(a)(3)). All of this led to the conclusion that the 35 foot buffer was unconstitutional because it “burden[ed] substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests.” Id. at 490.

We thus see that in the framework of means-end scrutiny, the question of tailoring—whether the government’s action, otherwise justifiable, goes further than necessary—is literally half of the analysis. Indeed, this Court has imposed narrow drawing and tailoring requirements since well before it began requiring “important” and “compelling” governmental interests. Yet, the court below, as well as several other Courts of Appeals, have utterly failed to consider it when the Second Amendment was at issue.

 

So they understand that the way one right is treated affects how others will be treated. Presumably, they're Favre fans.

Summarizing the general disrespect that several appeals courts have shown for this one part of the Bill of Rights, they say:

Quote

in many of the Courts of Appeals, including the court below, this is just about exactly how things have worked out: Courts have used a framework of scrutiny that begins and ends with the question of whether a burden appears to have some connection to public safety, without any consideration of whether it is tailored or unduly restrictive, and without the required consideration of alternative means. This untailored approach results in the rubber-stamp approval of virtually any and every restriction on guns. The court below, for example, had little difficulty concluding that the transport ban “seeks to protect public safety and prevent crime, and ‘New York has substantial, indeed compelling, governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention.’” Pet. App. 25-26 (quoting Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 97 (2d Cir. 2012)). Anecdotal supposition about road rage and “stressful situations” was a sufficient public harm. See id. at 26. The transport ban served the City’s interest in “regulating and minimizing the instances of unlicensed transport of firearms on city streets.” Id. at 28. And was it narrowly tailored? Quoting Second Circuit precedent, the court below expressly rejected that requirement, holding, “we need not ensure that the statute is narrowly tailored or the least restrictive available means to serve the stated governmental interest.”

A shorter summary leads to the same end: any burden is good because TeamD. Being the Liberal Gun Club, they don't want to put it as bluntly as I did, but that's the problem in the gun debate. No matter how far grabbers go in restricting the types of guns we can own and what we can do with them, it's never far enough because you can never punish gun owners enough for their likelihood of voting TeamR. Or worse, TeamL.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the value of this thread is the exposing of posters .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mid said:

the value of this thread is the exposing of posters .

The gossip represents the value of almost every thread here, doesn't it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSO6YaAFrNfaXScVxWPeSX

Kinmount.  It's a lovely little town.  Drove through on the weekend.  Really, I don't know what all the fuss is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2019 at 6:39 AM, SloopJonB said:

97 responses stating strong opinions about abortion and only 2 of them from someone (Shorty) who could even theoretically get pregnant.

Until you guys can get pregnant you are not entitled to an opinion on abortion and should all STFU.

what do you mean..Theoretically get pregnant?:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bacq2bacq said:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSO6YaAFrNfaXScVxWPeSX

Kinmount.  It's a lovely little town.  Drove through on the weekend.  Really, I don't know what all the fuss is about.

You're not kin to Bruce Jenner are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not for nothing , 

A woman has a unwanted baby, so then who's responsible for that person?

The mother , can she leave it in the hospital ?

The father

The courts 

the government ( state that forced her to have the person)

The churches 

the republican party 

any thoughts 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this