On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:23:08 -0400, Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>Wyatt wrote:
>
>> How about a game folks? How long do you think it
>> will it take for Santorum to stick his foot in his
>> mouth with another gaffe like he did a few months
>> ago?
>
>I missed where Santorum made a gaffe. Oh, you mean where he offered
>perfectly legitimate opinion on homosexuality and other immoral acts?
>Sorry, but I fail to see the problem there.
>I agree with you that Santorum should be voted out of his office, but I
>don't see why the basis should be one of the few times he's been right.
Sure he can offer an opinion. But where folks differ is just how
legitmate his opinion is.
KByrd
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:50:08 -0400, Paul <just4us@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>Karen Y Byrd wrote:
>
>> You are really looking to start a flame war aren't you?
>
>Only in these groups and in leftist political circles does being honest
>and accurate constitute the beginning of a flame war.
Oh, my, oh my!!
If you had ever read very many of my posts you would have probably
picked up by now that I'm not a leftist. Pretty far from it in fact.
KByrd
in my humble opinion yes. People gay or not should get a room is they
are going to be groping each other in public.
>
> Should we consider hetersexuals who can't keep their hands off each
> other in public(it can really be in your face stuff, imo)
> radical heterosexuals ?
>
> KByrd
In article <3F00D5B3.418D24B2@no-spam>,
Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
> There should be limits on what people are allowed to
> do - as long as those limits are agreed upon by most people, by the lawmakers
> of the land and by common sense, then what's the problem?
The problem is that some things are not and should not be dictated by
the majority. The majority can't decide on limits to speech, to
protesting, to religious observance, etc. Among them should be--and
thanks to the Supreme Court ruling now is--the right of consenting
adults to privacy in the bedroom.
--
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 <e7783ac8.0306300613.29b96e40@no-spam>,
darth_sidious70@no-spam (Senator Palpatine) wrote:
> in my humble opinion yes. People gay or not should get a room is they
> are going to be groping each other in public.
>
>
> >
> > Should we consider hetersexuals who can't keep their hands off each
> > other in public(it can really be in your face stuff, imo)
> > radical heterosexuals ?
> >
> > KByrd
But the issue that Santorum spoke about was a sex act between
consenting adults in private.
In article <srhi-B60D4B.07484601072003@no-spam>,
Me <srhi@no-spam> wrote:
> In article <3F006009.3000701@no-spam>, Paul <just4us@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > Karen Y Byrd wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Sure he can offer an opinion. But where folks differ is just how
> > > legitmate his opinion is.
> >
> > Anyone who thinks his opinion wasn't legitimate need only read the
> > recently handed down SC opinion, especially the dissents...
> >
> > Santorum's comments were validated completely. Anyone who argues
> > otherwise simply isn't being honest.
>
> Not in my book, was Santorum's opinion validated. This is yet another
> example of the great Republican hypocricy. The Republicans campaign on a
> platform of smaller government and allowing adults to make their own
> decisions, but only when it fits with their little world of morality.
> Let an adult excercise his freedom in a way the Republicans feel is
> immoral and they're quick to backtrack on their smaller government
> platform to the point where it is okay for government agents to enter a
> private home without just cause and tell people how they should have sex
> in private. If that is not the most intrusive form of government
> possible, I do not know what is.
Santorum certainly *was* vindicated. He said overturning the laws would
open a Pandora's box, and that's exactly what's going to happen. The
dissenting justices said the same thing that Santorum had said weeks
earlier that got the liberals and their media lapdogs in such a lather.
Unfortunately, the prediction will almost certainly come to pass. How
long do you think it's going to take before a pair of siblings test the
ruling, claiming laws against their marrying violates their "privacy
rights"? I give it two years, max.
The trouble with your argument is, you fail to acknowledge that the way
adults exercise their freedom can have a detrimental effect on other
people and society as a whole. Abortion on demand is a splendid example
of this: For more than 30 years, the United States has had legalized
infanticide to provide "a woman's right to choose." (Ironically,
pro-abortionists are those clamoring the loudest to spare the lives of
murderers, rapists and other assorted death-row scum; but that's another
thread.)
Maybe this whole concept of "morality" is beyond your grasp, though.
Liberals seem to have a problem with the whole idea. The concept
certainly is to liberal icon Bill Clinton, the sleaziest, most corrupt
president in the history of the Republic. Thank God the U.S. Supreme
Court aborted certain Florida politicos' attempted coup de grace, giving
us genuine leadership for the first time in eight years.
In article <look-F601C4.14141601072003@no-spam>,
The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
> Maybe this whole concept of "morality" is beyond your grasp, though.
> Liberals seem to have a problem with the whole idea. The concept
> certainly is to liberal icon Bill Clinton, the sleaziest, most corrupt
> president in the history of the Republic. Thank God the U.S. Supreme
> Court aborted certain Florida politicos' attempted coup de grace, giving
> us genuine leadership for the first time in eight years.
Send us a postcard from Right-Wing Fantasy Island.
--
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)
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:30:20 -0400, Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>Karen Y Byrd wrote:
>
>> Sure he can offer an opinion. But where folks differ is just how legitmate his
>> opinion is.
>
>So you agree that it was not a gaffe? After all, it cannot be a gaffe to merely
>offer an opinion, even if said opinion is not popular with certain powerful
>interest groups.
Of course I can see, from his point of view, that it's not
a gaffe.
My best friend is just as right-wing as they come. We often get into
political verbal tussles. I'm much more of a moderate.
But she should speak her mind as she sees fit and that's
what keeps things lively between us.
KByrd
> Like most Republicans, Santorum is a complete hypocrit. Santorum talks
> about smaller government, but only when smaller government fits his
> little model of morality. Never mind that he has a complete and total
so should we have noam chomsky type government?
> disregard for personal rights and privacy.
oh and the left really champions that too. puh-leeeze.
Santorum has yet to explain
> why the government should be responsible for dictating moral standards.
moral standards are in everybodies best interest unlike the left that
champions things such as needle exchange programs fro example that do
not benefit anyone.
or how about higher taxes? Your buddy Ed Rendell wasnt in office for
long and already proposed higher taxes.
> I do not recall ever reading anything in the Constitution that positions
> the federal government as the authority on morality or having the right
> to pass laws that support any standards of morality.
>
> As far as I am concerned, both Santorum and the President have violated
> their respective oaths of office numerous times and they both ought to
> be impeached. Sadly, unless a politician is a Democrat and lies about
> inconsequenciial sexual activity, no lies a policitian tells matter to
> Republicans.
In article <bdv5lj$75t$1@no-spam>,
Paul <send_it_to@no-spam> wrote:
> D.F. Manno wrote:
>
> > How does what two (or more) people do in the privacy of their bedroom
> > affect you or anybody else?
>
> Well let's just grab a few of the simple ones off the shelf...
>
> What two people do in the privacy of their bedroom can AND DOES lead to
> the spread of disease that threatens the general public's health driving
> up health care costs as a disproportionate amount of resources are
> needed to combat those illnesses.
Alcohol use causes liver disease, heart disease, neurological
disorders, fetal alcohol syndrome and more, all of which drive up
health care costs.
Smoking causes lung cancer, emphysema, respiratory illnesses, heart
disease, birth defects and more, all of which drive up health care
costs.
Overeating leads to heart disease, diabetes, hypertension and other
chronic illnesses, all of which drive up health care costs.
So by your reasoning we should outlaw alcohol, tobacco and junk food.
> It can AND DOES result in unintended
> pregnancy which leaves lives shattered for those not equipped to deal
> with them it and that in turn leads to increased demand on society to
> provide for the needs of those involved.
If the law didn't place obstacles in the way of distributing birth
control or in obtaining abortions, unintended pregnancies would be
less of a problem, and there would be no increased demand on society.
> It can AND DOES result in the
> breaking of legal and social contracts, know to some as marriages, the
> dissolution of families and the myriad costs and burdens to society that
> result from that.
So you would rather force people to live together in a sham marriage
against their will? What about spouses with abusive partners? Are you
saying they should not be allow to escape their abusers? How about
spouses who abandon their marriages? Should the abandoned spouse be
required to live in limbo?
> How are those for starters?
Lousy. Keep trying.
--
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 <bdv4rf$70t$1@no-spam>,
Paul <send_it_to@no-spam> wrote:
> Read the SC decision, including the dissenting opinion. No one there is
> arguing that the laws are sound policy, Scalia even calls them silly.
Apparently, you didn't read the decision. It was _Thomas_ who called
the laws silly, not Scalia.
--
D.F. Manno
dommanno@no-spam
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
In article <vPlLa.2727$Ry3.1764198@no-spam>, root@no-spam wrote:
>In phl.media Ric <riccardo@no-spam> wrote:
>: I understand people have prejudices and other baggage to carry with them
>: through life. As long as they keep these repugnant ideas to themselves, I
>: don't mind. Unfortunately some radical bigots think it shoud be in everyones
>
>: faces, and this is what upsets me.
>
>I found this interesting. Liberals really have no idea why non-liberals
>feel the way they do, and grab for a multitude of possible causes ---
>prejudices, baggage, hate.
>
>The fact is that the core reason for non-liberal values in such things
>is because God says it is wrong, and if you don't believe there is a
>God, such beliefs are unfathomable. Of course, the great multitude of
>people who do believe also must be confusing.
>
So God says that liberal values are wrong?
This presumes that YOU have the better interpretation of God's Word and
opinions, which in my opinion, you do not.
You also seem to think that I am a non-believer, and you are wrong.
Like so many of your stripe, you are so sure of your understanding of God's
Word that anyone who disagrees with you must surely disagree with God. And
you're wrong.
The more I study religions, the more I am convinced
that man has never worshiped anything but himself.
-- Sir Richard Francis Burton
In article <look-F601C4.14141601072003@no-spam>, The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
>
>Maybe this whole concept of "morality" is beyond your grasp, though.
>Liberals seem to have a problem with the whole idea. The concept
>certainly is to liberal icon Bill Clinton, the sleaziest, most corrupt
>president in the history of the Republic. Thank God the U.S. Supreme
>Court aborted certain Florida politicos' attempted coup de grace, giving
>us genuine leadership for the first time in eight years.
Sure, Clinton had his flaws, but let's give an honorable mention to the
Gipper's eight years. And this doesn't even include the Savings and Loan
scandal!
Reagan Era Scandals
By the time Reagan left the White House and the smoke had cleared, a laundry
list of government upper management officials had surfaced. Some of them
include:
James Watt, secretary of the Interior, who resigned after telling an offensive
ethnic and racial joke in 1983. He was indicted on 41 felony charges for
using his HUD connections to help his clients seek federal funds for housing
projects. After 10 years of investigation, he was sentenced to five years
probation and 500 hours of community services for withholding evidence from a
grand jury which was investigating HUD.
Anne Burford, head of the EPA's Superfund, resigned after having bent
environmental regulations for dozens of industrial polluters.
Rita Lavelle, headed EPA's Toxic Waste clean up program. Indicted and served
three months in a federal penitentiary for lying to Congress.
Richard Allen, National Security advisor, who resigned amid controversy over a
$1,000 honorariumn after arranging an interview with Nancy Reagan
James Beggs, chief administrator at NASA, who was indicted for defrauding the
government while an executive at General Dynamics
Guy Flake, Deputy Secretary of Commerce, who resigned after allegations of a
conflict ofinterest in contract negotiations
Louis Glutfrida, director of Federal Emergency Management Agency, who resigned
amid allegations of misuse of government property
Edwin Gray, chairman of Federal Home Loan Bank, who was charged with illegally
repaying himself and his wife $26,000 in travel costs
Max Hugel, CIA chief of covert operations, who resigned after allegations of
fraudulent financial dealings
Carlos Campbell, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, who resigned after charges
of awarding grants to his friends' firms.
Raymond Donovan, Secretary of Labor, who was indicted for defrauding the New
York City Transit Authority of $7.4 million
John Fedders, chief of enforcement for the Securities and Exchange Commission,
who resigned after charges of wife beating
Arthur Hayes, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, who resigned
after being under investigation for illegal travel reimbursements
J. Lynn Helms, chief of the Federal Aviation Administration, who resigned
after a grand jury investigated illegal business activities
Marjory Mecklenburg, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health
and Human Resources, resigned after allegations of irregularities on their
travel vouchers
Edwin Meese, Attorney General, was under investigation by a special prosecutor
for his role in helping Wedtech Corporation
Robert Nimmo, head of the Veterans Administration, who resigned when a report
criticized him for improper use of government funds
Lyn Nofziger, White House aide, who was under investigation for his role in
helping Wedtech Corporation
J. William Petro, a United States attorney, who was fired and fined for
tipping off an acquaintance about a forthcoming grand jury indictment
Thomas C. Reed, White House counselor and National Security Council advisor,
who resigned and paid a $427,000 fine for stock market insider trade
information
Emanuel Savas, Assistant Secretary of HUD, who resigned after he had assigned
staff members to work on a book he was writing
Peter Voss, Postal Service governor, who pleaded guilty to charges of expense
account fraud and to accepting kickbacks
Charles Wick, director of the United States Information Agency (USIA), who was
accused of taping conversations with public officials without their approval.
In addition, charges were brought against several high level officials in
regard to Iran-contra. Those included:
National Security Council advisors Robert McFarlane and John Poindexter
Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger
Deputy Secretary of State Elliot Abrams
Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council
Major Richard Secord of the National Security Council
Deputy Assistant to the President Jonathan Miller
CIA officials Albert Fiers, and Thomas Clines. (CIA Chief William Casey died
before he was indicted.)
Clair George
Richard Miller
Albert Hakim
Carl Channel
It is easier to fight for one's principles than
to live up to them.
-- Alfred Adler
In article <bdvhg1$a5t$1@no-spam>,
Paul <send_it_to@no-spam> wrote:
> D.F. Manno wrote:
>
>
> > Alcohol use causes liver disease, heart disease, neurological
> > disorders, fetal alcohol syndrome and more, all of which drive up
> > health care costs.
> >
> > Smoking causes lung cancer, emphysema, respiratory illnesses, heart
> > disease, birth defects and more, all of which drive up health care
> > costs.
> >
> > Overeating leads to heart disease, diabetes, hypertension and other
> > chronic illnesses, all of which drive up health care costs.
> >
> > So by your reasoning we should outlaw alcohol, tobacco and junk food.
>
> Isn't that precisely what the party of abortion and trial lawyers is
> shooting for?
No. First off, there is no "party of abortion and trial lawyers." Oddly
enough, Michael Smirconish, one of Philadelphia's most well known trial
lawyers, is conservative, a Republican, and a conservative mouthpiece in
the local and national news media.
The Democratic party, supposedly has a reputation for supporting
corporate resopnsibility as much as personal responsibility. Frankly, I
think that reputation is somewhat unearned because even in the
Democratic party, there is too much corporate influence, but far less so
than in the Republican party.
In article <srhi-D8D15E.11102204072003@no-spam>,
Me <srhi@no-spam> wrote:
> In article <VR2Na.5530$aD6.4929@no-spam>,
> riccardo@no-spam (Ric) wrote:
>
> > In article <look-F601C4.14141601072003@no-spam>, The Expatriate
> > <look@no-spam> wrote:
> > >In article <srhi-B60D4B.07484601072003@no-spam>,
> >
> > >Santorum certainly *was* vindicated. He said overturning the laws would
> > >open a Pandora's box, and that's exactly what's going to happen. The
> >
> > What Santorum said was to state a simple forecast of the obvious course of
> > events which would follow. No special wisdom or insight was required for
> > this. Sorry.
>
> Obvious course of events? What you fail to recognize is that Santorum
> also begrudges the rights of consenting adults to engage in activities
> between themselves in private without government interferance. How does
> it harm you, me, or anyone else if two men agree to have oral sex in the
> privacy of one of their own homes? The fact is, their behavior has no
> impact upon you in any way, shape, or form. As a result, its none of
> your business, and it is certainly none of the government's business.
Have you actually read what Santorum said? His point was, if the U.S.
Supreme Court were to overturn Texas' sodomy law on so-called privacy
issues, then that same argument would be used for advocates of bigamy,
incest and other practices that even liberals find offensive. Or are you
really prepared to argue that incest between consenting adults is nobody
else's business?
Santorum and virtually all Republicans don't favor outlawing gay sex
(or, for that matter, oral sex between straight couples). They _are_
saying, however, that discarding sodomy laws completely is throwing out
the baby with the bathwater. Protecting the rights of gay couples could
have been done without opening the door to the legalization of every
sexual abomination possible.
I hope that clears things up for you.
In article <3F05C927.BB451742@no-spam>,
Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
> "D.F. Manno" wrote:
>
> > Alcohol use causes liver disease, heart disease, neurological disorders,
> > fetal alcohol syndrome and more, all of which drive up health care costs.
>
> Which is why we have some rules to restrict its abuse.
What restrictions? Aside from banning its sale to and use by minors,
and aside from a few states circumscribing its sale, there are no
rules restricting alcohol abuse.
> > Smoking causes lung cancer, emphysema, respiratory illnesses, heart disease,
> > birth defects and more, all of which drive up health care costs.
>
> Which is why we have some rules to restrict it.
Again, what restrictions? There are even fewer restrictions on the
sale of tobacco than on alcohol.
> > So by your reasoning we should outlaw alcohol, tobacco
>
> So by common sense we should restrict immoral sexual behaviors the same we
> restrict other immoral behaviors that drive up health care costs.
I note that you carefully edited out my argument about overeating and
junk food. You had no comeback to that, did you?
> > If the law didn't place obstacles in the way of distributing birth control
> > or in obtaining abortions
>
> So to solve the problem of births out of wedlock, we should practice
> infanticide
It's only infanticide to the fanatics who want to outlaw it for
religious reasons.
> instead of simply trying to cut back on the behaviors that lead to
> births out of wedlock. What a silly solution. We should strive to prevent a
> problem from existing, not address it after it exists by using a solution that
> creates worse problems.
There's a difference between trying to discourage behaviors that cause
health problems and banning them by law.
--
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 <look-BC578C.13050204072003@no-spam>,
The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
> Santorum and virtually all Republicans don't favor outlawing gay sex
> (or, for that matter, oral sex between straight couples). They _are_
> saying, however, that discarding sodomy laws completely is throwing out
> the baby with the bathwater. Protecting the rights of gay couples could
> have been done without opening the door to the legalization of every
> sexual abomination possible.
>
> I hope that clears things up for you.
No, because it's gibberish. If you oppose discarding sodomy laws, then
you are in favor of outlawing gay sex and oral/anal sex between
straights. You can't have it both ways.
--
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 <srhi-D8D15E.11102204072003@no-spam>, Me <srhi@no-spam> wrote:
>In article <VR2Na.5530$aD6.4929@no-spam>,
> riccardo@no-spam (Ric) wrote:
>
>> In article <look-F601C4.14141601072003@no-spam>, The Expatriate
>> <look@no-spam> wrote:
>> >In article <srhi-B60D4B.07484601072003@no-spam>,
>>
>> >Santorum certainly *was* vindicated. He said overturning the laws would
>> >open a Pandora's box, and that's exactly what's going to happen. The
>>
>> What Santorum said was to state a simple forecast of the obvious course of
>> events which would follow. No special wisdom or insight was required for
>> this. Sorry.
>
>Obvious course of events? What you fail to recognize is that Santorum
>also begrudges the rights of consenting adults to engage in activities
>between themselves in private without government interferance. How does
>it harm you, me, or anyone else if two men agree to have oral sex in the
>privacy of one of their own homes? The fact is, their behavior has no
>impact upon you in any way, shape, or form. As a result, its none of
>your business, and it is certainly none of the government's business.
Read it again. I made no comment at all regarding private conduct in the
bedroom. What I did say was that it took no special insight on Santorum's
part to guess that once sodomy laws are struck down, that same sex marriages
would be the next issue.
In article <3F05CF40.9C85F84F@no-spam>, Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>"D.F. Manno" wrote:
>
>> > Just as pursuing immoral behaviors pollutes the culture >by refusing to
> draw a
>> line between right and wrong.
>>
>> How does what two (or more) people do in the privacy of their bedroom affect
> you
>> or anybody else?
>
>I find this "in the privacy of their home/bedroom/whatever" logic to be one of
> the
>strangest concepts to come around in some time.
>If someone decided to keep slaves in the privacy of the house, is this okay.
>If your neighbor decides to open a house of prostition, I guess this doesn't
> affect
>anyone else in your neighborhood.
>If your neighbor decides to test dangerous chemical combinations in the privacy
> of
>his house, that's fine, huh?
>If your neighbor decides to torture puppies in the privacy of his house, I
> guess
>that's alright?
>If your neighbor runs an arms smuggling business from the privacy of his house,
>that's fine because it's his house, damnit, so he can do what he wants.
>If your neigbhor decides never to clean his house and it becomes a breeding
> ground
>for ants, termites and other pests, by golly, that's his right.
>If your neighbor decides to drunk to excess and beat his wife in the privacy of
>house, I'm not that thrilled you'll support his right to do what he wants.
>
>Face it - just being in the "privacy of your house" entitles you to no special
>benefits. We are all parts of society and cannot just cut ourselves off from
> the
>rest. No man is an island, as John Donne wrote.
>
This reasoning is flat out rediculous. There are all sorts of private
activities that are appropriate when done in the privacy of your own home but
not in public view. You can't compare intimate relations with torturing
puppies. Well, at least I wouldn't.
This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.
-- Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague
In article <dommanno-8888C2.15201804072003@no-spam>,
"D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
> In article <look-BC578C.13050204072003@no-spam>,
> The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > Santorum and virtually all Republicans don't favor outlawing gay sex
> > (or, for that matter, oral sex between straight couples). They _are_
> > saying, however, that discarding sodomy laws completely is throwing out
> > the baby with the bathwater. Protecting the rights of gay couples could
> > have been done without opening the door to the legalization of every
> > sexual abomination possible.
> >
> > I hope that clears things up for you.
>
> No, because it's gibberish. If you oppose discarding sodomy laws, then
> you are in favor of outlawing gay sex and oral/anal sex between
> straights. You can't have it both ways.
Well, yes, you can, just as oral sex between straight couples is no
longer considered sodomy. But acknowledging that fact would be
inconvenient for gay activists, for whom sodomy laws provide a big, easy
target to kick around. The fact that legitimizing sodomy opens the door
to bigamy, incest, etc. doesn't concern them, as it does responsible
legislators like Sen. Santorum.
Those responsible for overturning the sodomy laws are opening the door
to legalized incest. I can't make it simpler for you than that.
In article <look-7E3EFE.12061005072003@no-spam>,
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?
--
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 <look-BBCEFF.16145906072003@no-spam>,
The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
> In article <dommanno-21136A.23182605072003@no-spam>,
> "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > In article <look-7E3EFE.12061005072003@no-spam>,
> > 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?
>
> 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.
And here we see the basic problem with Republicans. They think anybody
who disagrees is representative of an entire group of people.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
In article <look-3D534A.02574407072003@no-spam>, The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
>In article <bbernardini-AF8266.16530606072003@no-spam>,
> Brian Bernardini <bbernardini@no-spam> wrote:
>
>If not, then have the backbone to say so. That is, if dissention with
>the liberal ranks is permitted. Liberals' failure to denounce such
>scenarios as Manno's only proves that Santorum and I are right.
I for one will speak up against incestous marriages. If these marriages
produce any children, they will probably grow up to be republican. I just had
a look at the well-known 2000 election "red states/blue states" map, and all
of the states I associate with incest marriages (WV, TN, KY, NC, etc) all
voted for Bush.
In article <dommanno-EE5D7D.10090307072003@no-spam>,
"D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
> In article <look-C305E5.03074007072003@no-spam>,
> The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
> > > 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."
> >
> > How about this: It's sick and gross.
>
> IOW, you don't have an argument.
This isn't a high school debate class. I don't have to prove an axiom.
Few people these days deny the right of gay couples the right to sleep
with whom they please, but I don't notice a big rush to defend
incestuous couples. Society realizes it's taboo, and no one, with the
exception of you, is willing to waste time and energy trying to prove
incest is just another "lifestyle choice."
> > If this isn't an adequate enough justification, then you and your
> > liberal pals are welcome to go on the record as disputing that position,
> > or rationalizing incest as a "personal choice" or some such garbage.
> >
> > Go ahead. I dare you.
>
> I asked you first.
_Now_ who doesn't have an argument?
> "Sick and gross" is not a position, it's an emotional reaction. It's
> not sufficient reason to make something illegal. You'll have to do
> better than that.
No I don't. And as I said before, those who don't agree are more than
welcome to go on record as disagreeing with me.
In article <look-C305E5.03074007072003@no-spam>,
The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
>In article <dommanno-C9590A.17153106072003@no-spam>,
> "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
>
>> 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."
>
>How about this: It's sick and gross.
Yeah, it is. But that's not an adequate reason to outlaw something.
>If this isn't an adequate enough justification, then you and your
>liberal pals are welcome to go on the record as disputing that position,
>or rationalizing incest as a "personal choice" or some such garbage.
>
>Go ahead. I dare you.
I'm not even a liberal. But if an adult brother and sister want to
fuck in the privacy of their own home, I see no reason to jail them
for it.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@no-spam
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
In article <ytlOa.40562$JY1.11206@no-spam>,
Ric <riccardo@no-spam> wrote:
>In article <Fe2dnfIFKr7MBZSiXTWc-w@no-spam>, russotto@no-spam (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>I'm not even a liberal. But if an adult brother and sister want to
>>fuck in the privacy of their own home, I see no reason to jail them
>>for it.
>
>It makes me wonder whether the State of Texas (whose anti-sodomy law started
>this whole thing) is as diligent about preventing and prosecuting sodomy in
>their own prisons.
Are you kidding? The authorities love prison sodomy -- it keeps the
rest of us in line.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@no-spam
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
In article <bdv42k$6rp$1@no-spam>,
Paul <send_it_to@no-spam> wrote:
> Mark Jason Dominus wrote:
> > In article <3F021A11.84E72B28@no-spam>,
> > Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>[Someone else] wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Dumping toxic waste in your back yard would more
> >>>than likely cause harm to other individuals because the chemicals
> >>
> >>>from the waste would run off into other areas that do not belong to you.
> >>
> >>Just as pursuing immoral behaviors pollutes the culture by refusing
> >>to draw a line between right and wrong.
> >
> >
> > That is a very peculiar use of the phrase "just as". Surely you can
> > see that the connection between these two things is only metaphoric?
> > It is not "just as".
>
> One would think that simply looking around and seeing the rates of
> violent crime, homicide, rape, the rampant spread of STDs, tens of
> millions of unplanned pregnancies, abortions, chronic substance abuse
> problems etc. etc. etc. anyone could see that there's nothing metaphoric
> about it. Just as we'd demand laws to prevent the harm resulting from
> dumping of toxic waste in someone's backyard, failing to draw
> distinctions between right and wrong, good and bad behavior leads to
> exactly the same result...
But the rates of violent crime, homicide, rape, etc. are all falling.
So too is the abortion rate and the number of children who give birth.
This trend started several years ago.
In article <bdv5lj$75t$1@no-spam>,
Paul <send_it_to@no-spam> wrote:
> D.F. Manno wrote:
>
> > In article <3F021A11.84E72B28@no-spam>,
> > Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Just as pursuing immoral behaviors pollutes the culture by refusing to draw
> >>a
> >>line between right and wrong.
> >
> >
> > How does what two (or more) people do in the privacy of their bedroom
> > affect you or anybody else?
>
> Well let's just grab a few of the simple ones off the shelf...
>
> What two people do in the privacy of their bedroom can AND DOES lead to
> the spread of disease that threatens the general public's health driving
> up health care costs as a disproportionate amount of resources are
> needed to combat those illnesses. It can AND DOES result in unintended
> pregnancy which leaves lives shattered for those not equipped to deal
> with them it and that in turn leads to increased demand on society to
> provide for the needs of those involved. It can AND DOES result in the
> breaking of legal and social contracts, know to some as marriages, the
> dissolution of families and the myriad costs and burdens to society that
> result from that.
>
> How are those for starters?
Do you have any data to support your conclusion? Was this argument made
before the Supreme Court in the hearing for this case? By the way, how
exactly does two men having sex in the privacy of their own home reult
in unintended pregnancies? Maybe I missed it in my human anatomy
courses, but last I heard, men can't get pregnant.
Evidently, you do not have any genuine reasons for how consenting
adults' private sex acts are a threat to society in general.
In article <3F05C927.BB451742@no-spam>,
Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
> "D.F. Manno" wrote:
>
> > Alcohol use causes liver disease, heart disease, neurological disorders,
> > fetal alcohol syndrome and more, all of which drive up health care costs.
>
> Which is why we have some rules to restrict its abuse.
>
> > Smoking causes lung cancer, emphysema, respiratory illnesses, heart disease,
> > birth defects and more, all of which drive up health care costs.
>
> Which is why we have some rules to restrict it.
>
> > So by your reasoning we should outlaw alcohol, tobacco
>
> So by common sense we should restrict immoral sexual behaviors the same we
> restrict other immoral behaviors that drive up health care costs.
Rules restricting abuse of alcohol involve use of it in public places
and age restrictions. There are age restrictions on who can consent to
engaging in a sex act too. Having a rule for one class of people, but not
for another is wrong. Its like saying that only whites can drink vodka,
but not blacks or hispanics. The Texas law banned sodomy only between
people of the same sex, which is the big problem the SCOTUS had and it
was a law that the Texas autorities failed to justify in their arguments
before the Supreme Court.
> > If the law didn't place obstacles in the way of distributing birth control
> > or in obtaining abortions
>
> So to solve the problem of births out of wedlock, we should practice
> infanticide instead of simply trying to cut back on the behaviors that lead to
> births out of wedlock. What a silly solution. We should strive to prevent a
> problem from existing, not address it after it exists by using a solution that
> creates worse problems.
Of course not, but I don't see anyone banning heterosexual sex simply
because so many unwanted pregnancies arise as a result of it. There is
no threat to society of two consenting adults conduct an act of sodomy
in the privacy of their own home. There cannot possibly be an unwanted
birth as a result of a sodomy act and the likelihood of getting an SDT
through sodomy is probably not greater than any other form of sex,
including those that the government "approves" of.
In article <3F0F2A58.7C1DF7FE@no-spam>,
Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
> Again, you concede that the privacy of the home is not enough to provide
> sanction for any activity someone desires.
I concede nothing. I've said all along that the government has no
right to control what _consenting_ adults do in the privacy of their
own home.
--
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:
> In article <ben9po$ls2$1@no-spam>,
> Paul <annoy_someone_else@no-spam> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> This is the fifth screen name you've used in the last two weeks.
> What's the matter, don't you like being killfiled?
Multiple computers, new OS and browser installs...
And why would I care about killfiles? I realized a long time ago that
most of the people I argue with can't deal with the truth and would
rather wallow in their ignorance... that's their problem not mine.
Paul S. Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
"D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote in message
news:dommanno-078FFC.23432211072003@no-spam
> In article <look-8BBF72.22520711072003@no-spam>,
> The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't believe _anything_ the anti-abortion nuts have to say on the
> > > subject. They lie.
> >
> > So _that's_ how you rationalize your support of infanticide.
>
> See, that the first lie. I don't support infanticide, because the
> fetus is not an infant.
Hmm. This is my problem with this. I'm not exactly anti abortion type, but i
have a really, really hard time reconciling statements like the one you just
made. A fetus is not an infant in much the same way a child is not an
adult. So whats the difference? The cell count? The differentiation of the
cells? I also can't understand the concept of charging , say, a drunk driver
with the death of a fetus, while not applying the same to the exact same act
of abortion. I'd at least like consistency.
"D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote in message
news:dommanno-350507.00333213072003@no-spam
> In article <WZ3Qa.18030$J%2.1539040@no-spam>,
> "i'm from north of here" <Me@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote
> >
> > > See, that the first lie. I don't support infanticide, because the
> > > fetus is not an infant.
> >
> > Hmm. This is my problem with this. I'm not exactly anti abortion type,
but i
> > have a really, really hard time reconciling statements like the one you
just
> > made. A fetus is not an infant in much the same way a child is not an
> > adult. So whats the difference? The cell count? The differentiation of
the
> > cells?
>
> The inability of the fetus to live independent of the mother.
Eventually, medical science will create an artificial womb. Then a fetus
will be able to live independtly of its mother. What will your standard then
be? I think you need to do a lot better.
You know what the funny thing is? I'm not anti-abortion. I'm not pro either.
I honestly don't know which side is right. I can see both points of view.
>
> > I also can't understand the concept of charging , say, a drunk driver
> > with the death of a fetus, while not applying the same to the exact same
act
> > of abortion. I'd at least like consistency.
>
> So would I. I'd like to see laws like the one you cite repealed.
> --
> 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 <3F0A30B5.7681EFAF@no-spam>,
Tiger <Lana_sands@no-spam> wrote:
> Me wrote:
>
> > You missed the point as clearly as Santorum has. The point is that the
> > government has no business interfering in the private decisions that we
> > make. Do you want the government telling you what you can do with a
> > consenting adult in your bedroom and literally watching you do it, as
> > was the case in Texas? That's the problem, not Santorum's objection to
> > a homosexual lifestyle.
>
> Hmmmmm, world of no rules??? Sounds like anarchy to me.
In which case, you do not understand what anarchy is. I am not proposing
a world of no rules any way, only rules that do not restrict the
behavior between two consenting adults on private property where no one
else is involved in any way.
In article <look-8BBF72.22520711072003@no-spam>,
The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
> In article <dommanno-E694D2.19012411072003@no-spam>,
> "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > In article <3F0F32D2.D9523B0E@no-spam>,
> > Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > Paul wrote:
> > >
> > > > To the pro infanticide camp Mischa, they're like black Republicans,
> > > > they
> > > > hope if they don't acknowledge their existence they'll disappear.
> > >
> > > Oh, like claiming that it's a womens' issue when women are pro-life than
> > > men
> > > are. I just love when it's pro-abortion groups that admit the truth, like
> > > the recent study by the Center for the Advancement of Women that found
> > > that
> > > only 30% of women want abortion to be generally available.
> > >
> > > Or like your claims that pro-life Democrats don't exist.
> >
> > I don't believe _anything_ the anti-abortion nuts have to say on the
> > subject. They lie.
>
> So _that's_ how you rationalize your support of infanticide. Thanks for
> the insight into the pro-abortionist mind-set.
Abortion is not infanticide. That claim is yet one of the many lies that
pro-liar, anti-abortionists make all the time. You can continue to repeat
that lie, but it does not make it true. Abortion, quite simply, ends
a pregnancy. If you do not support abortion, more power to you, but
others have the right to feel differently in this country and we should
always have that right.
In article <WZ3Qa.18030$J%2.1539040@no-spam>,
"i'm from north of here" <Me@no-spam> wrote:
> "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:dommanno-078FFC.23432211072003@no-spam
> > In article <look-8BBF72.22520711072003@no-spam>,
> > The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't believe _anything_ the anti-abortion nuts have to say on the
> > > > subject. They lie.
> > >
> > > So _that's_ how you rationalize your support of infanticide.
> >
> > See, that the first lie. I don't support infanticide, because the
> > fetus is not an infant.
>
> Hmm. This is my problem with this. I'm not exactly anti abortion type, but i
> have a really, really hard time reconciling statements like the one you just
> made. A fetus is not an infant in much the same way a child is not an
> adult. So whats the difference? The cell count? The differentiation of the
> cells? I also can't understand the concept of charging , say, a drunk driver
> with the death of a fetus, while not applying the same to the exact same act
> of abortion. I'd at least like consistency.
There are many biological differences. The most significant of which is
that a fetus depends entirely on its host for its existence, just as any
other organ in the body does. There's also the issue of the fetus
needing to be carried to term and pregnancy posing a significant medical
health risk to many women.
Further, no fetus (even if you could show proof that it is an infant
with legal rights) has the right to exist in its mother's body without
that mother's consent. To say otherwise is to support involuntary
servitude, which was outlawed years ago.
In article <look-33542C.03035013072003@no-spam>,
The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
> In article <dommanno-350507.00333213072003@no-spam>,
> "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > In article <WZ3Qa.18030$J%2.1539040@no-spam>,
> > "i'm from north of here" <Me@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote
> > >
> > > > See, that the first lie. I don't support infanticide, because the
> > > > fetus is not an infant.
> > >
> > > Hmm. This is my problem with this. I'm not exactly anti abortion type,
> > > but i
> > > have a really, really hard time reconciling statements like the one you
> > > just
> > > made. A fetus is not an infant in much the same way a child is not an
> > > adult. So whats the difference? The cell count? The differentiation of
> > > the
> > > cells?
> >
> > The inability of the fetus to live independent of the mother.
>
> Neither can a newborn.
Huh? On which planet? Which species? A newborn human being can certainly
live and thrive without its mother. You've apparantly never heard of
women passing away during birth, have you. Anyone who cares and has the
resources can sustain the life of a baby, but only the woman who carries
a fetus can sustain that fetus and carry it to term.
> > > I also can't understand the concept of charging , say, a drunk driver
> > > with the death of a fetus, while not applying the same to the exact same
> > > act
> > > of abortion. I'd at least like consistency.
> >
> > So would I. I'd like to see laws like the one you cite repealed.
>
> I'm sure you would. Well, you just keep spouting your indignation. The
> more that people like you talk, the more that people of conscience who
> were otherwise leaning toward a pro-abortion stance will realize that
> position's hypocrisy and insidious evil.
>
> Only a cold-hearted monster would believe that Laci Peterson's killer
> deserves to face only one murder charge.
That's for a court to decide. The distinction in Laci Peterson's
situation her right to carry her fetus to term was denied her. At most,
the thug who took Laci Peterson's life will be convicted on a much
lessor charge than murder for ending Laci's pregnancy without her
consent since no law in the United States grants the same legal status
to a fetus that it does to those who have been born. Those of us who are
pro-choice abhore anyone who denies women free choice, esp. when those
people support having the government deny women their right to choose.
In article <XxqQa.18814$J%2.1659519@no-spam>,
"i'm from north of here" <Me@no-spam> wrote:
> "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:dommanno-350507.00333213072003@no-spam
> > In article <WZ3Qa.18030$J%2.1539040@no-spam>,
> > "i'm from north of here" <Me@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote
> > >
> > > > See, that the first lie. I don't support infanticide, because the
> > > > fetus is not an infant.
> > >
> > > Hmm. This is my problem with this. I'm not exactly anti abortion type,
> but i
> > > have a really, really hard time reconciling statements like the one you
> just
> > > made. A fetus is not an infant in much the same way a child is not an
> > > adult. So whats the difference? The cell count? The differentiation of
> the
> > > cells?
> >
> > The inability of the fetus to live independent of the mother.
>
> Eventually, medical science will create an artificial womb. Then a fetus
> will be able to live independtly of its mother. What will your standard then
> be? I think you need to do a lot better.
Why should advances in medical science with regard to fetal care change
this issue? Are you willing to adopt someone's unwanted child? Adoption
agencies have no trouble finding homes for healthy white males, but
that's not the case for other children. Do you support research into
human cloning? What about stem cell research? Even now, it is not
uncommon for a pregnancy to be induced early and the newborn put in an
incubator if it needs help. That does not give the government the
authority to make medical choices and life-changing choices for women.
"Me" <srhi@no-spam> wrote in message
news:srhi-F1367A.07541516072003@no-spam
> In article <WZ3Qa.18030$J%2.1539040@no-spam>,
> "i'm from north of here" <Me@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:dommanno-078FFC.23432211072003@no-spam
> > > In article <look-8BBF72.22520711072003@no-spam>,
> > > The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I don't believe _anything_ the anti-abortion nuts have to say on
the
> > > > > subject. They lie.
> > > >
> > > > So _that's_ how you rationalize your support of infanticide.
> > >
> > > See, that the first lie. I don't support infanticide, because the
> > > fetus is not an infant.
> >
> > Hmm. This is my problem with this. I'm not exactly anti abortion type,
but i
> > have a really, really hard time reconciling statements like the one you
just
> > made. A fetus is not an infant in much the same way a child is not an
> > adult. So whats the difference? The cell count? The differentiation of
the
> > cells? I also can't understand the concept of charging , say, a drunk
driver
> > with the death of a fetus, while not applying the same to the exact same
act
> > of abortion. I'd at least like consistency.
>
> There are many biological differences. The most significant of which is
> that a fetus depends entirely on its host for its existence, just as any
> other organ in the body does. There's also the issue of the fetus
> needing to be carried to term and pregnancy posing a significant medical
> health risk to many women.
>
> Further, no fetus (even if you could show proof that it is an infant
> with legal rights) has the right to exist in its mother's body without
> that mother's consent. To say otherwise is to support involuntary
> servitude, which was outlawed years ago.
She consented when she got laid. Now if you want to talk rape, thats could
be a different thing...
"D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote in message
news:dommanno-DCEA34.19403416072003@no-spam
> In article <3f15d363$0$80500$4d5ecec7@no-spam>,
> "I'm from north of here" <nospam> wrote:
>
> > She consented when she got laid. Now if you want to talk rape, thats
could
> > be a different thing...
>
> Consented to what and to whom?
Duh. Consented to what? Sex.. To whom? Whatever guy she had unprotected sex
with. You do know that's where babies come from, don't you? This a bit
embarrassing, but if you need me to explain "the birds and bees" to you,
I'll try in private.
"D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote in message
news:dommanno-AA7AA5.15155617072003@no-spam
> In article <look-68E016.02253917072003@no-spam>,
> The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > In article <dommanno-6C2E73.00110917072003@no-spam>,
> > "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > By what stretch of your obviously limited imagination does consenting
> > > to sex mean a woman forfeits the right to choose whether or not to be
> > > pregnant?
> >
> > That would almost make sense -- if abortion were the only method of
> > "birth control" on the planet.
>
> Condoms break. Babies have been born clutching an IUD in their fists.
> Some women can't take the pill for medical reasons.
>
> Even the best birth control method, correctly used, has a non-zero
> failure rate.
Uncommon and stretching the point. Still, sex implies children. If you don't
want one, don't do sex. If you don't mind playing the chances, go for it.
You can reduce the chances, but not make them zero. I've know that all my
life and have prepared myself accordingly. If you don't want children, you
either get yourself sterilized or you don't have sex. Its called personal
responsibility,, a concept that "liberals" don't seem to grasp.
"D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote in message
news:dommanno-6C2E73.00110917072003@no-spam
> In article <Y5pRa.20295$J%2.2035256@no-spam>,
> "i'm from north of here" <Me@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote
> >
> > > "I'm from north of here" <nospam> wrote:
> > >
> > > > She consented when she got laid. Now if you want to talk rape, thats
> > > > could be a different thing...
> > >
> > > Consented to what and to whom?
> >
> > Duh. Consented to what? Sex.. To whom? Whatever guy she had unprotected
sex
> > with.
>
> 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?
"D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote in message
news:dommanno-9CE329.17381018072003@no-spam
> 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.
My goodness. This is like talking to a retard. Sex causes babies. If you
don't want a baby, either dont' have sex or use birth control. Abortion is
not birth control or at least it shouldn't for any moral person.