Abortion is about the worship of sex.

Wardogg can't be expected to answer every point. He's not your answer monkey. You guys are as bad as the angry RE noobs.

Since he held the opposing viewpoint, my responses relied on his. I didn't plan on pestering him to answer.

For what it's worth, I'm sorry if you feel I have ruined this thread for you with this line of inquiry. It was only intended to give me a better understanding of Wilmore's position. 

I'm not into the parasite debate Singy. [...] I would be more than willing to discuss any other points you would like.

Excellent. I'm going to recycle some unanswered questions starting on page 3.

1. How would your current explanation of "sex worship" cause homosexuals to lean pro-choice? Reproduction doesn't threaten their sex lives, so I don't see any motive.

Quote from: Blanko on February 14, 2012, 06:46:50 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on February 14, 2012, 06:39:11 AM

My personal belief is that sex is something very special, very intimate, that is shared between a man and his wife.  Anything outside of that is sexual deviance and a detriment to our society.

Uh huh. And why exactly is the freedom of sex detrimental to society?

I would say one of the reasons being because it fosters an environment of genocide.

2. How do homosexuals foster an environment of genocide by having sex?

If you are referring to abortions:
2a. How are they relevant to homosexual couples?
2b. What homicidal/genocidal tendencies are inspired abortions?

Apparently I have to be.  When like minded people come to help out they get accused by Densoro of sleeping with me or getting naked on top of me and really, who wants to be associated with that?

Only when their arguments revolve around slinging mud on the people you were also slinging mud at. If you guys would just play the logic game for a second rather than going on and on about how we eat babies and how everything we say that contradicts you is somehow irrelevant (but making careful note not to explain how), I might be a little more respectful. Intellectual dishonesty just rubs me the wrong way.

No just you.  I don't like you.

Oh, trust me, I noticed Considering that you think of me as a sex-worshiping predator who would gladly kill small children and all.

Apparently I have to be.  When like minded people come to help out they get accused by Densoro of sleeping with me or getting naked on top of me and really, who wants to be associated with that?

Oh take me now and ravish me, Wardogg.

I'm not into the parasite debate Singy.  All though if the rest of you would like to have at it here is some more to discuss.   Apparently killing parasites creates a crime scene.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/plumbers-fetus-discovery-in-a-sewer-pipe-leads-to-philly-police-investigation/

I think the crime is likely to be one of three things:
1.) Incorrect disposal of medical waste
2.) Performing unlicensed unsafe and illegal operations.
3.) The fetus was older than the cut-off point, at which point it is rightly infanticide.

I'm sorry I was snippy with you Singy 

You have posed some very good questions regarding homosexuality and this notion that it fosters an environment of genocide.

But why would defining a human be irrelevant to an abortion debate? I mean person/human, tomato/tomato. You're not changing the discussion only be super pedantic.

All I was attempting to do was to point out that saying abortions are okay because a foetus is a parasite (or in some respects similar to a parasite) is a baloney argument. It just doesn't work, because it's not a principle that pro-choicers actually apply consistently (e.g. children). It's a bad way to go about it, because it can only be justified using lots of exceptions and semantic distinctions which are no more valid than those used to distinguish between a foetus and a parasite.


However, I am going to leave this particular argument alone, as it is apparently irritating some. If something else of interest pops up. You know, as opposed to Warddogg's obvious double-standards and moral inconsistencies.

The only thing that was irritating me was the derailment of the thread into another fetus discussion. Oh, and your attempt to make us follow your argument into absurdity. We're not all studying philosophy in college, you know.

We have our very own Christian conservative willing to answer questions (sometimes) and I think trying to understand why he thinks and believes the things he does is interesting. There are so many people in our society who have the same views. I agree that they are sometimes morally inconsistent. For instance, they act like pat downs at the airport are a huge unconstitutional invasion of privacy, but they don't have a problem with forcing a woman to have her vagina probed needlessly in order to obtain an abortion. It's this huge disconnect that I'd like Wardogg to help us understand, if he can.

The only thing that was irritating me was the derailment of the thread into another fetus discussion. Oh, and your attempt to make us follow your argument into absurdity. We're not all studying philosophy in college, you know.

They're not my arguments, and the absurdity is inherent. Like people, stupid arguments always end up looking stupid if you ask them difficult questions. And I never criticise anyone for not studying philosophy, or point it out, or raise the issue in debates. I find it odd that some people here seem to hold it against me.
 

We have our very own Christian conservative willing to answer questions (sometimes) and I think trying to understand why he thinks and believes the things he does is interesting. There are so many people in our society who have the same views. I agree that they are sometimes morally inconsistent. For instance, they act like pat downs at the airport are a huge unconstitutional invasion of privacy, but they don't have a problem with forcing a woman to have her vagina probed needlessly in order to obtain an abortion. It's this huge disconnect that I'd like Wardogg to help us understand, if he can.

Okay, but the thing is, this isn't exactly a fresh topic either. There have been a lot more 'Wardogg vs The World' threads than there have been abortion threads, and in my experience they always end the same way - with Wardogg either dodging the argument or making absurd analogies/points that nobody wants/is able to call him on. I like Wardogg, but debates with him don't go anywhere, because his starting assumption is unshakable: namely that his cultural/religious views are broadly correct.


However, when people make poor arguments against his position, I occasionally step in, because whatever I may think about his views, he is for the most part outnumbered here. I can't argue with Wardogg, but I can argue against some of the rather poor objections that are raised.

I don't hold it against you, honestly, I think you are very smart and I enjoy smart people... but sometimes it only takes one poorly worded argument to derail a topic. Such as the fetus = parasite argument.

It's not the Wardogg vs The World nature of the thread that makes it fresh (or not fresh). It's fresh because it's about the social attitudes towards sex that allows for abortion in our society. It's this attitude that people like Wardogg think they can turn the clock back on, they long for the "good old days".

Everyone gets irritated with Wardogg because he has these views, sometimes I do to, but his views are not so different from my mother's or any number of others I know in real life. It's easier to argue with him about these things than rl people.

I like to derail derailments too.

I don't want to dwell on this point any longer, but the "parasite" argument isn't just one about wording. I have seen it used by people as a fully-fledged defence of abortion, and that's certainly what rooster appeared to be doing. I mean, it really is used a lot, and that's all I was objecting to. For example Singy and I weren't just having a pedantic discussion about its definition, but about its validity as a moral comparison. Anyway, I will leave it at that.


And I'm not trying to stop anyone talking to Wardogg about his beliefs and views. I just wanted to explain why I prefer contesting the bad arguments made against him than the bad arguments made by him. It's a lot more interesting, and fairer than Wardogg defending himself against everyone else in the thread.

LOOK PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT ME!!    

We have our very own Christian conservative willing to answer questions

Like a zoo exhibit.     I see how it is. 

Oh take me now and ravish me, Wardogg.

Gross, but considering you have me sig'd I shall now sig you.  We have sigged.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on February 21, 2012, 05:37:08 PM

I'm not into the parasite debate Singy. [...] I would be more than willing to discuss any other points you would like.

Excellent. I'm going to recycle some unanswered questions starting on page 3.

1. How would your current explanation of "sex worship" cause homosexuals to lean pro-choice? Reproduction doesn't threaten their sex lives, so I don't see any motive.

I think I am only going to address this one question.  Your follow on questions are similar and not really the point I was trying to make with the OP.  Except for 2b, so these two.

These are all opinions mind you.  I actually only personally know one homosexual.  Its that they are trying to remove the taboo surrounding their sexual choices.  And you can all roll your eyes at the slippery slope discussion but it really does start here.  NAMBLA is prime example of a group of people just waiting in the wings to claim that they are made this way and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.  So who are we to repress anyone's sexual desires?  Why because some children might get hurt?  What is the age a child can have sex with an adult?  SCG pointed out here, her grandmother was married at 13 IIRC.  Should we allow consenting 13 yr olds to have sex with adults?  Who draws the line.  I feel that homosexual sex is part of the problem of blurring that line into obscurity. 

2b. What homicidal/genocidal tendencies are inspired abortions?

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0101.pdf

Look at the numbers here and tell me there isn't a genocide going on.    Bottom chart.

NAMBLA is prime example of a group of people just waiting in the wings to claim that they are made this way and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.  So who are we to repress anyone's sexual desires?  Why because some children might get hurt?  What is the age a child can have sex with an adult?  SCG pointed out here, her grandmother was married at 13 IIRC.  Should we allow consenting 13 yr olds to have sex with adults?  Who draws the line.  I feel that homosexual sex is part of the problem of blurring that line into obscurity. 

Wait. So what exactly is the connection between homosexuals and pedophiles again? They don't advertise pedophilia any more than heterosexuals promote pedophilia, ie they don't.

My great grandmother was 12 and my great grandfather was 17. Their marriage wasn't outside the social norms of the time, especially for country people. They didn't know they'd live to their late 80's.


There is no intent to destroy an entire race or nationality, Wardogg. You can't call abortion genocide.

Wait. So what exactly is the connection between homosexuals and pedophiles again? They don't advertise pedophilia any more than heterosexuals promote pedophilia, ie they don't.

There is no direct connection.  Does that answer your question?

My great grandmother was 12 and my great grandfather was 17. Their marriage wasn't outside the social norms of the time, especially for country people. They didn't know they'd live to their late 80's.


There is no intent to destroy an entire race or nationality, Wardogg. You can't call abortion genocide.

I am not saying there is a direct intent.  By allowing it though, is not an entire race being destroyed?  Or at least decimated?

^ Not really. Blacks, whites, Asians, Native Americans, etc etc etc -- nobody's population in particular is being thinned by abortion. We actually just broke 7 billion worldwide.

You didn't look at the chart did you?  Tsk Tsk.

Do you mean black people? Their entire race isn't being decimated or destroyed. There are 48 abortions per 1,000 women, and there are 68 births per 1,000 women. Births outnumber abortions. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/black_health.htm

You know what else I noticed about that chart? The rates of abortions have decreased quite a bit over the past 20 years for all groups.

I'm sorry I was snippy with you Singy 

You have posed some very good questions regarding homosexuality and this notion that it fosters an environment of genocide.

Thanks; I'm glad to hear I am in your good graces again. 

Quote

1. How would your current explanation of "sex worship" cause homosexuals to lean pro-choice? Reproduction doesn't threaten their sex lives, so I don't see any motive.

Its that they are trying to remove the taboo surrounding their sexual choices.

1. How does advocating pro-choice remove any taboo affiliations of homosexual sex?

And you can all roll your eyes at the slippery slope discussion but it really does start here.  NAMBLA is prime example of a group of people just waiting in the wings to claim that they are made this way and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.  So who are we to repress anyone's sexual desires?  Why because some children might get hurt?

Children are assumed to be incapable of consenting to sex, hence the term statutory rape.
2. Do you believe there is anyone hurt by the actual act of consenting homosexual couples engaging in intercourse?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 21, 2012, 08:58:43 PM

What homicidal/genocidal tendencies are inspired abortions?

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0101.pdf

Look at the numbers here and tell me there isn't a genocide going on.    Bottom chart.

It appears I've misunderstood you. I thought you meant abortion encourages genocide.

In response to your challenge, I believe there must be a victim for an act to qualify as murder or genocide. Destroying any part of the human body isn't an act of murder... unless the mind dies.

You know what else I noticed about that chart? The rates of abortions have decreased quite a bit over the past 20 years for all groups.

Interesting. That seems rather counter-intuitive. I wonder what driving variables would cause that.

These are all opinions mind you.  I actually only personally know one homosexual.  Its that they are trying to remove the taboo surrounding their sexual choices.  And you can all roll your eyes at the slippery slope discussion but it really does start here.  NAMBLA is prime example of a group of people just waiting in the wings to claim that they are made this way and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.  So who are we to repress anyone's sexual desires?  Why because some children might get hurt?  What is the age a child can have sex with an adult?  SCG pointed out here, her grandmother was married at 13 IIRC.  Should we allow consenting 13 yr olds to have sex with adults?  Who draws the line.  I feel that homosexual sex is part of the problem of blurring that line into obscurity. 

They said the same thing about interracial marriage. Hell, maybe they were even right. I'm sure people back then never conceived of the idea that gay rights would be a serious movement in 2012, outside of nightmares. But the possibility of a slippery slope isn't a good enough reason to deny people their rights, and if anything we seem to be moving farther away from kiddie sex as we move closer to having giant orgies in Westminster Abbey.

1. How does advocating pro-choice remove any taboo affiliations of homosexual sex?

It's not that they are pro-choice that removes that taboo.  It's that they are trying to normalize, what I see as, their sexual deviancy.

 

Do you believe there is anyone hurt by the actual act of consenting homosexual couples engaging in intercourse?

The actual act?  Except for the participants?   No.

It appears I've misunderstood you. I thought you meant abortion encourages genocide.

In response to your challenge, I believe there must be a victim for an act to qualify as murder or genocide. Destroying any part of the human body isn't an act of murder... unless the mind dies.

And this is why we will always be on the opposite side of this chasm. 

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on February 22, 2012, 03:57:26 PM

You know what else I noticed about that chart? The rates of abortions have decreased quite a bit over the past 20 years for all groups.

Interesting. That seems rather counter-intuitive. I wonder what driving variables would cause that.

I didn't notice this until SCG pointed it out.  It is interesting.

It's not that they are pro-choice that removes that taboo.  It's that they are trying to normalize, what I see as, their sexual deviancy.

Imagine people wanting society to accept them as fellow human beings with the same rights and priveleges as everybody else. The monsters...

Quote

It's not that they are pro-choice that removes that taboo.  It's that they are trying to normalize, what I see as, their sexual deviancy.

Imagine people wanting society to accept them as fellow human beings with the same rights and priveleges as everybody else. The monsters...

It's not a civil rights issue.

No, it's an acceptance issue, going deeper than simply being allowed to live yuor life legally, it is the human feeling we all have to be accepted and welcomed by the people who live around you.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 22, 2012, 05:51:12 PM

1. How does advocating pro-choice remove any taboo affiliations of homosexual sex?

It's not that they are pro-choice that removes that taboo.  It's that they are trying to normalize, what I see as, their sexual deviancy.

 

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 22, 2012, 05:51:12 PM

Do you believe there is anyone hurt by the actual act of consenting homosexual couples engaging in intercourse?

The actual act?  Except for the participants?   No.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 22, 2012, 05:51:12 PM

It appears I've misunderstood you. I thought you meant abortion encourages genocide.

In response to your challenge, I believe there must be a victim for an act to qualify as murder or genocide. Destroying any part of the human body isn't an act of murder... unless the mind dies.

And this is why we will always be on the opposite side of this chasm. 

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 22, 2012, 05:51:12 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on February 22, 2012, 03:57:26 PM

You know what else I noticed about that chart? The rates of abortions have decreased quite a bit over the past 20 years for all groups.

Interesting. That seems rather counter-intuitive. I wonder what driving variables would cause that.

I didn't notice this until SCG pointed it out.  It is interesting.

the theory is, (at least in freakonomics) that we eliminated a major source of abortions by allowing them.  It is a similar reason as to why crime has begun to drop off.  Say you have a poor woman who gets an abortion.  her child would have statistically been the most likely to get an abortion or to go on a crime spree, but now that person was never born.

You can watch the opposite happen in Romania, crime goes up about 20 years after abortion is made illegal.  Abortion rates are lower only because it was made illegal.

It pains me to say it, but statistically speaking abortions alleviate many of the "problem" members of society, besides wall street assholes and sociopaths.

I think another factor in the equation would be the acceptance of birth control methods, like the pill, by society. Women really don't want to have abortions, they'd rather prevent pregnancy in the first place, until they are ready to have a family. 

I am disturbed by certain people in the US political arena coming out against birth control. Rick Santorum, a Catholic, has become popular lately. We've recently had a congressional panel (whatever it's called) of all men discussing birth control. HOLD AN ASPIRIN BETWEEN YOUR KNEES, yeah that's going to work.

HOLD AN ASPIRIN BETWEEN YOUR KNEES, yeah that's going to work.

It wouldn't work any less than current birth control methods that nobody is using.

Here is where the problem starts folks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8D9mqqkgH-0#t=0s

This girl is so starving for attention she completely opens herself up on a world stage for opinions on her looks. When she doesn't find the attention given to her is what she is looking for, what do you think the first thing she is going to do given the opportunity?  Where do you think she will go to confirm whether or not she is attractive.  So instead of trying to help guide her in the early years of her life not to be so self centered and starving for attention you people would rather just throw condoms, the pill, the morning after pill or whatever the current flavor of the day contraception at her.  This is where my main concerns are.  This is the kind of thing that we need to change in our society. 

If she is looking for sex, she is going to have sex. I agree, these values you have are good, however what if she doesn't want to conform to them? She shouldn't use birth control? She should have a baby at 16 or 17 or 18 or whatever? This is reality, and people have sex, whether or not Wardogg likes it.

Here is where the problem starts folks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8D9mqqkgH-0#t=0s

This girl is so starving for attention she completely opens herself up on a world stage for opinions on her looks. When she doesn't find the attention given to her is what she is looking for, what do you think the first thing she is going to do given the opportunity?  Where do you think she will go to confirm whether or not she is attractive.  So instead of trying to help guide her in the early years of her life not to be so self centered and starving for attention you people would rather just throw condoms, the pill, the morning after pill or whatever the current flavor of the day contraception at her.  This is where my main concerns are.  This is the kind of thing that we need to change in our society.

That video is not where the problem started.

How can we be expected to help guide her in her early years? If she makes it to adulthood, then yes, she should have access to condoms and birth control pills, or whatever new birth control methods are available.  Do you want someone so insecure to have babies? We can't be her parents.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on February 24, 2012, 05:30:03 AM

Here is where the problem starts folks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8D9mqqkgH-0#t=0s

This girl is so starving for attention she completely opens herself up on a world stage for opinions on her looks. When she doesn't find the attention given to her is what she is looking for, what do you think the first thing she is going to do given the opportunity?  Where do you think she will go to confirm whether or not she is attractive.  So instead of trying to help guide her in the early years of her life not to be so self centered and starving for attention you people would rather just throw condoms, the pill, the morning after pill or whatever the current flavor of the day contraception at her.  This is where my main concerns are.  This is the kind of thing that we need to change in our society.

That video is not where the problem started.

How can we be expected to help guide her in her early years? If she makes it to adulthood, then yes, she should have access to condoms and birth control pills, or whatever new birth control methods are available.  Do you want someone so insecure to have babies? We can't be her parents.

Do you mean that minor-age should not have access to birth control methods?