Is it wrong to have sex for fun, knowing it might possibly lead to an abortion?

Well, if Elizabeth Warren is not Indian, then she must be white, no? So what's all the hullaballoo about? If anything, she should be entirely acceptable to all white racists, no?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Click for the thrill.​

And even here, you need to misrepresent your behavior? Okay, then. To the other, you still admit, in mitigating the description of your judgment, that you actually did judge.

No, that's entirely yours.

That's not quite beside the point, but, still: Stop presuming the legitimacy of kitchen-sink racism. That's one of the supremacist behaviors you show that makes the point.

More directly, there is this particular detail, therein:

Lots of people do, which is why the insistent demands of blatant white supremacists make so little sense; it's as if those white Americans suddenly forgot this part of our history. To wit—

—that's what white supremacists say. As you noted, you have family stories. Lots of people did. And this was always a circumstance that only mattered at all because of white supremacism. You and others set that history aside and pretended otherwise for political convenience. It was a very clumsy and racist tack.

Well, there is a white supremacist narrative for us, which makes all manner of points, but try this one:

Basic comprehension is not lockstep. Inasmuch as we wonder about your white supremacist pitch, the point that you're running on fallacy is not insignificant.

Just like at the time, you refuse to acknowledge the arguments presented and want to talk about something else. You posted contradictions for argument when you bothered trying to make any point at all, and even now run on fallacy and projection.

Neither is such fury of incomprehension anything new.

The question remains why you bothered with this pretense of Devil's advocacy in the first place, since it was a change of subject (#282↑). Iceaura (#287↑) was pretty direct on this point; doubling (#292↑) and tripling (#298↑) down wasn't really a good idea, especially if intending retreat to a pretense of Devil's advocacy (#300↑) as mockery justifying your white-supremacist distraction (#311↑). You ask how else to play Devil's Advocate (#305↑), and the thing about the Devil is that he isn't supposed to be stupid; properly playing Devil's Advocate requires some effort, intelligence, and, as strange as it might seem, good faith and appropriate charity in one's characterization of the Devil.

And maybe our neighbor would have gotten to actually arguing open white supremacism on his own, but in the moment it's true, we're discussing your spectacle. It's also true, SA6 has little or no incentive to ever support his association about Joseph not being a Jew; putting up a real argument may have been beside the point of his posturing. Whatever the real thesis is, though, your priority has been putting on a different supremacist spectacle all your own. Which, in turn, reminds another point about playing Devil's Advocate: When one has a habit of voicing particular opinions, claiming Devil's advocacy on a given occasion can become rather quite complicated compared to history, if that devilish pretense accords with history. If we consider, for instance, the question of judging other people's feelings about being sexually molested, once we set aside the obvious—(Really? You're going there?)—the question arises why your present summary, quoted at the start of this post, differs from your argument at the time↗; note that inherent to your standard is judging how those girls are supposed to feel about being sexually molested, and not being safe from such violation in their own homes, but, still, you minimize the molestation in the course of justifying your judgment of the girls' offense. There are diverse important aspects about this behavior, but in our moment we might consider a more general aspect, which is the inherent supremacism of the sex-based subordination your arguments supported. When we consider that beside examples of white supremacism, the point of supremacism itself seems less and less surprising, especially as you persist. More directly, claiming Devil's advocacy ought to be believable. Thus, a straightforward piece of advice on how to play Devil's Advocate is to not reflect your own habits so directly; the idea that you're playing Devil's Advocate just isn't believable, unless of course we wish to backengineer that excuse for application to your history, at which point a rather quite extraordinary question of your priority emerges.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course there is, especially when we allow for your mystical laws of nature that aren’t yet recognized by science.

The term God can be use to designate any conception of a supreme being, which would allow for countless moral attributes to be assigned to the various conceptions. If one God says kill only in defense of ones life, then upholding that standard is a moral killing in the name of that God. If another God says kill everyone that worships the Teletubbies, then following that dictate is a moral killing in the name of God. Morality is what we agree it is, and so are are Gods.

Liz has made a commitment to getting all records pertaining to her ancestry into public view, so please do her a favor and display them here for all to see.

Wow, I had no idea my posts in this backwoods forum could have so much influence on public figures. It gives me goose pimples realizing that Liz took the time to read my posts and follow my advice. Do you think if I asked Trump to resign he would do so? And what’s wrong with these Cherokee tribal members that are OK with Warren’s DNA test, how fucked up is that?

Then why did she apologize for doing so?

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Tuesday that she was sorry that she identified herself as a Native American for almost two decades, reflecting her ongoing struggle to quiet a controversy that continues to haunt her as she prepares to formally announce a presidential bid.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c6f9428c2dde

So me and my white supremacist buddies kidnapped Liz, psychologically conditioned her to follow our instructions, set her free and she then went and contracted for a DNA test. OK.

I think it’s time to go back to your room and take your meds.

The issue among her political opponents wasn’t about the superiority of one race or another, but that she may have been illegitimately claiming a racial makeup in order to take social advantage of a minority status. The issue among some Indian groups was that they perceived that she was unjustifiably claiming some sort of tribal affiliation.

​

No, what matters is that often those family stories are erroneous, and basing one’s public conduct on those erroneous stories can have some potentially negative consequences, especially for someone holding public office where everybody and their mother are trying to turn your mistakes into their gain.

Funny how Liz Warren seems to resemble your conception of a white supremacist.

Behold the mind of the inquisitor. What’s next, you throw me into the moat and pass judgment on whether I float or not?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The contrived and bullshit "issues" racial bigots have do not obligate other people.
If there were fewer of them, a better world, we wouldn't even have to pay attention.

Again: Warren did not do that.
You keep posting stuff that Warren did not do, and demanding she answer for it - why?
- - -

And the cat emerges.
The bag was always transparent, anyway: what "laws of nature" are you assigning to me?

It isn't. English usage.
Killing people for God is less, not more, moral.
- - -

Irrelevant bs, used for attack - not advocacy.

She didn't. Read your link - the quotes from Warren do not match the journalist's interpretation.

And once satisfied that she wasn't, and was sorry to have led anyone to that misinterpretation, that issue was settled.
Meanwhile, the issue those "Indian groups" had with the DNA test - including the underlying racial bigotry involved - remains. Do you plan to address their concerns? They apply to you.

Now you pretend not to know why Warren got her DNA tested.
That pretense of Devil's advocacy didn't hold up, apparently. You're going to need another cover story.

Your posting, right here, is on you.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Don't bother: Click to sizzle the hizzizzle.​

Making an issue of it was the priority of white supremacists, and, such as it goes, you. Yes, family stories are erroneous, and indigenous blood is one of the common ones.

That was kind of desperate. I'd wonder what that means, but since you don't actually know you can't actually tell us.

I would have thought evidence should be sufficient. Still, sure, when a pretense of self-superior mockery is all you have to offer, everything probably does look like a joke.

 

The question obtains:
Why would someone have an abortion?

 

For a lot of reasons.

Selective reduction; reducing a multiple pregnancy to allow the other fetuses a better chance at survival.
Nonviable fetus; aborting a fetus that will not survive past birth.
Economic situation; a woman in an economic situation where she cannot care for a baby, and there are no good alternatives.
Parental situation; a woman who cannot care for a baby because of mental or physical handicaps, again with no good alternatives. (Or who feels they would be a poor mother.)
Religious reasons; a woman may think that giving birth to a baby with father X would result in her (or the baby's) ostracism from that religion.
Result of a rape, with the woman feeling unable to raise that child.

Ultimately every decision is different, with different factors.

 

Varies by individual and situation. Why do you ask?

 

Rape, incest, poverty, career ending?

Why is abortion so controversial? Viability does not begin at conception. 80% of fertilized eggs still get flushed during menstruation. That does not make the female a serial killer.
We do not hold funerals for fetuses, we do not count them on the census. A fetus has no legal standing as a person.

And lastly, it is the host who has control over her body. I have not heard a single woman declare that having an abortion is an easy decision.

Men are the main culprit for causing unwanted pregnancies and on top of that has claimed the authority to decide how a woman shall make decisions about her own body. I believe this presents an issue about individual rights.

It's not in the male domain, males have no standing where it comes to female decisions to continue or end a pregnancy, IMO.

 

Not to mention that - even after conception - between 10% and 25% result in a miscarriage.

 

You mean after implantation, right? The number that don't implant is far higher than 25%.

 

About 80%
Hence my question if that makes a woman who has had more than one period a serial killer?

And what about male sperm? That is part of the "fertilized egg", no.
If a man masturbates is he spilling a bunch of Vinnies and Debbies, or does not every ejaculation deserve a name?

p.s. the above brazenly stolen from George Carlin.

He observed that abortion is a "term limit" imposed by the host mother and is seldom done "cause its fun".

 

What specifically did you find cringe worthy?

 

New post by Capracus,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

....(applause)

 

Haven't gone through this thread, but basically you will find...

A) People will fall back on some vague definition of human or a reptillian interpretation of civil duty, so that the child within the womb is not defined as such and/or it is relegated as some legal nether entity for the sake of making lawyering up (or being a reptile) a more smoother process.

B) People will defy drawing any moral imperative from the natural application of their bodies and associated activities. IOW morality is seen as being housed in the length and breadth of mere human psychology, so there is no perception of error in the notion of "planting seeds if you don't want trees", for as long as "if it feels good, do it" reigns supreme. Its kind of like using an expensive japanese kitchen knife as a screwdriver. If one is so fixated by the task of screwing that they don't have the patience to locate the proper tool for the job, they will just stuff up another tool that costs a hundred times the price. The justification is "but I can use it that way", with minimal regard for utility or design or the future.

Personally I think the issue is but one of numerous maladies that plagues an industrial civilization that is spiritually clueless. Viewing this world as something that only functions and establishes meaning when individuals can exploit it in an enjoying mood brings with it a type of intelligence that struggles to take shelter of any long term vision. The irony is that such a mood actually diminishes the opportunity for enjoyment. So it's the case that we live in a world which is not only fast-tracking moral bankruptcy (of which abortion is but one tiny example), but also ecological, economical, political, social, etc bankruptcy. For the sake of ardently pursuing the immediately desirable in a life of but a few years, we create so many problems, and the solutions we create for those problems are, in themselves, problems.

So as far as trying to establish a popular rejection of abortion in contemporary society at large, its not tenable for as long as people are bereft of spiritual values. Its but a tiny symptom of a bigger problem of a civilization on a trajectory for disintegration.

Political solutions are only forthcoming to the degree that they radically remodel "the means of production" (Marx). It seems the global climate issue could force people's hands to change their economic "means of production" at some stage.... its just a question of "when?" How much force is required to break our addiction to industrial economic models?

tl: dr . Asking people to think about moral issues when they are in the midst of economic systems that take such transgressions as its "bread and butter" is pointless. It is just like trying to discuss the immorality of slavery in the midst of a society that thrives on the economic input of slaves. Until there is some disturbance to the status quo of the prevailing economic model, there is not much opportunity for such discussions. Perhaps global climate will force human society to introduce a new paradigm when the prospect of being "aborted" by the earth planet forces us to not only change the way we view problems in this world (of which, abortion is but one tiny example), but also the way we view our selves.

 

We also cull trees to make room for other trees to thrive. And I am sure no abortion "feels good", so doing it has greater priorities than feeling good.

If you are unable to look beyond "feeling good" you have no standing to judge a woman's decision to have an abortion.

 

The "feeling good" thing was more about "planting seeds" than "avoiding trees", as per the OP title's ".... sex for fun." I don't think any one has suggested people have sex so they can "enjoy" an abortion.

As for your "culling trees", that is derivative of the points I made in A). Currently it is kind of frowned upon to talk about implementing social darwinism and whatnot .... although, who knows, even that may change.