In article <look-BBCEFF.16145906072003@no-spam>,
The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
> "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > Those responsible for overturning the sodomy laws are opening the door
> > > to legalized incest.
> >
> > Let's say for argument's sake that that happens. As long as the
> > participants are consenting adults, what's the problem?
>
> Do you really want me to explain "the problem" with a society that
> allows marriage between siblings, or parent and child?
Yes, I do. That's why I asked. I want to see if you have an argument
that doesn't boil down to "God says it's wrong."
> Too bad your question wasn't published in a forum where a significant
> number of people will actually read it. It shows your side's true
> colors, and would have done much to silence this mindless, knee-jerk
> criticism of Santorum.
I said "for argument's sake." That doesn't mean I endorse the idea.
--
D.F. Manno
dommanno@no-spam
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
D.F. Manno wrote:
> Usually when you want to make something illegal, you give reasons for
> doing so. Saying that something should be illegal because it's wrong
> is a tautology.
Really now?
Give me an example of a law that is in place that restricts activity
that isn't ultimately based on someone's moral views and definitions of
right and wrong.
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
In article <3F120E48.A029F8FF@no-spam>,
Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
> "D.F. Manno" wrote:
>
> > I don't believe _anything_ the anti-abortion nuts have to say on
> > the subject. They lie.
>
> Well, there you go, an exemplary view of the open-minded, even-handed
> pro-choice movement. As long as ideologues discount everything from
> the other side, they never have to bother opening their minds and
> considering that they might be wrong.
But I'm not wrong.
I've heard the same arguments, the same lies and distortions, the same
hysterical prophecies of doom from the antis over and over again. The
screeds never change, the zealots never have anything new to add. Why
should I keep listening to repeated loads of the same bullshit?
The anti-abortion nuts are about as open-minded as a block of
concrete. As far as they're concerned, on this issue it's their way or
the highway. So thanks for pointing out the mote in my eye, but I
really think you should do something about the beam in yours.
--
D.F. Manno
dommanno@no-spam
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
In article <TYIRa.21034$J%2.2162416@no-spam>,
"i'm from north of here" <Me@no-spam> wrote:
> "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote
>
> > By what stretch of your obviously limited imagination does consenting
> > to sex mean a woman forfeits the right to choose whether or not to be
> > pregnant?
>
> Sex is the leading cause of pregnancy. Pregnancy can be avoided with
> planning and responsibility. When a woman chooses unprotected sex, she is
> choosing to become pregnant (unless you want to argue that she doesn't know
> where babies come from). How simple do you need this to be?
The sexual revolution is over. You lost. Sex and pregnancy are no
longer inextricably linked, thanks to science and changes in morality.
Sexual intercourse doesn't have to lead to pregnancy, pregnancy no
longer requires sexual intercourse, and pregnancies don't have to be
carried to term.
--
D.F. Manno
dommanno@no-spam
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)