Forget Plan A, Let's Go With Plan B

Yes or no for Plan B?

  • Yes! Make Plan B readily available OTC.

    Votes: 23 88.5%
  • No! Let nature take it's course.

    Votes: 3 11.5%

  • Total voters
    26

Syrup Beaver

pants log
Sep 30, 2004
47,775
245
648
50
beneath the soiled underbelly of the 'nev
Visit site
Marklar
₥0
kiwi said:
And I think that's where the controversy over this matter stems from. It's not so much whether having sex whenever and with whomever you want, but if the pill prevents a fertilized egg from progressing and therefore causing it to die, is that murder of an unborn child? It's very similar to the controversy over abortion.
But that's exactly what happens with 'regular' birth control pills, this is just a concentrated dose. :D

Heck, fertilized eggs fail to implant naturally all the time - so by their logic any couple that has unprotected sex is committing murder :p
 

itburnswhenipee

Lonestar
May 25, 2005
8,036
222
498
47
Maryland
Marklar
₥81
ChikkenNoodul said:
But that's exactly what happens with 'regular' birth control pills, this is just a concentrated dose. :D

Heck, fertilized eggs fail to implant naturally all the time - so by their logic any couple that has unprotected sex is committing murder :p

Could it be that you've discovered the ultimate refinement of the argument?
 

water

Flaccid Member
Oct 29, 2004
15,608
67
0
42
AZ
Marklar
₥272
ChikkenNoodul said:
But that's exactly what happens with 'regular' birth control pills, this is just a concentrated dose. :D

Heck, fertilized eggs fail to implant naturally all the time - so by their logic any couple that has unprotected sex is committing murder :p

You've only got part of it; they think masturbation is murder as well.

edit: I'd post the ceiling fly pic if I had it on this PC.
 

fly

omg
Oct 1, 2004
75,928
25,963
1,323
Marklar
₥62,472
Steam
mattressfish
ChikkenNoodul said:
Monitors will have to be installed in every woman's uterus to ensure that no murder is taking place.

And by golly, a massive new branch of law enforcement is born! (ouch)
Hopefully we can replace The War on Drugs with The War on Spankerchiefs
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,396
464
648
45
Austin
Marklar
₥663
kiwi said:
And I think that's where the controversy over this matter stems from. It's not so much whether having sex whenever and with whomever you want, but if the pill prevents a fertilized egg from progressing and therefore causing it to die, is that murder of an unborn child? It's very similar to the controversy over abortion.


First of all, if something is unborn you can't murder it. Contrary to a certain science fiction writer there is no such thing as pre-crime. All semantics aside though, a fertilized egg isn't a self-contained organism so I don't consider it life. It has no biological processes, no functioning organs, etc. I consider it to be something that has the potential for life. That having been said, everytime I have sex or rub one out I kill hundreds of millions of sperm that have a role in the potential for life and I don't weep for them.

edit: beaten by just about everyone it seems.
 

kiwi

Messin’ with Sasquatch
Apr 22, 2005
20,943
8,985
623
Summer
Marklar
₥9,688
Flamer McDickchugger said:
First of all, if something is unborn you can't murder it. Contrary to a certain science fiction writer there is no such thing as pre-crime. All semantics aside though, a fertilized egg isn't a self-contained organism so I don't consider it life. It has no biological processes, no functioning organs, etc. I consider it to be something that has the potential for life. That having been said, everytime I have sex or rub one out I kill hundreds of millions of sperm that have a role in the potential for life and I don't weep for them.

edit: beaten by just about everyone it seems.

Yea, you put your reply into way to many words. :fly:
 

Pandora

Flaccid Member
Oct 19, 2004
7,656
0
0
Atlanta GA!
skewed.textamerica.com
Marklar
₥0
FlamingGlory said:
I wasnt aware you were being willfully ignorant of what I said to Sarcasmo.

For your lack of attention:

People can make descisions any way they please; they can say what the process involved is and hold it up to public scrutiny, or they can just make the descision, and people can make up their minds on if that person deserves to be elected again.

The idea of forcing a person to make decisions "as they should be" made is indefensible. You cannot tell any person what rules or logic they can use when making a decision. Just as they cannot tell you how to think, you cannot tell them how to think. You have the ability and are absolved from all punishment and in other words 'free' to speak against them to try to convince other people that they are not worthy of the power accorded them.

Blame your own failure of persuasion or idleness on what laws are placed on you for it's your own fault. If those laws were truly as heinous as you think they are you would resist them; but you dont.

You are not denied any liberty guaranteed by law from time immemorial. You have restrictions on the exercise of privileges that have been placed in the care of the government.

Dispite your arrogance you don't know everything about me. I'm not as willfully ignorant and complacent as you might like to think. Unlike you who still lives under mommys apron, I have bills so I actually have to work and can't spend 24/7 researching my facts. Regardless, I'm just not falling for your bullshit trolling. You're not trying to debate, you just want to argue and there is no point in that. This is why I respond to you with lama pictures, and why from this point forward I will continue to do so. Grow up child the world doesn't care how big of an asshole you can be or how much you know.


FlamingGlory said:
TALKING TO FLAMINGGLORY RULES

RULE 1. You are not smarter than FlamingGlory
...
RULE 4. What you know about the United States, or what you think you know, is nowhere near what FlamingGlory knows, because of RULE 1.

The very fact that you post this kinda crap shows just how little you actually understand. Get some medication or find another forum for your egos amusement.
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,396
464
648
45
Austin
Marklar
₥663
FlamingGlory said:
I wasnt aware you were being willfully ignorant of what I said to Sarcasmo.

For your lack of attention:

People can make descisions any way they please; they can say what the process involved is and hold it up to public scrutiny, or they can just make the descision, and people can make up their minds on if that person deserves to be elected again.

The idea of forcing a person to make decisions "as they should be" made is indefensible. You cannot tell any person what rules or logic they can use when making a decision. Just as they cannot tell you how to think, you cannot tell them how to think. You have the ability and are absolved from all punishment and in other words 'free' to speak against them to try to convince other people that they are not worthy of the power accorded them.

Blame your own failure of persuasion or idleness on what laws are placed on you for it's your own fault. If those laws were truly as heinous as you think they are you would resist them; but you dont.

You are not denied any liberty guaranteed by law from time immemorial. You have restrictions on the exercise of privileges that have been placed in the care of the government.

Now that I can bring myself to consider your statement again I'm going to try another reply, albeit a lot shorter of one than yesterday's which got lost in the database crash.

Freedom as it is defined in the dictionary is not the same as freedom as it is defined by the U.S. Code. However, in America we have an obligation to preserve the rights of the minority. It's not a majority rule, or at least it shouldn't and wasn't intended to be.

Under no circumstances should legislators or people in positions of power make decisions based on their own spiritual beliefs. And yet virtually no one is capable of that separation. And that is what I meant by making decisions "as they should be made". There IS a right and a wrong in America concerning decision making and the enacting of policies. We are NOT free to do as we please and let those who have problems with it attempt to change things by becoming active in the process. That isn't how it works in this country. No amount of contemporary fact checking or case law research will reveal that subtle but vital discrepancy. There should never be majority rule in America. It is our responsibility and obligation to do exactly the opposite of what you describe, but we fail to do so on a daily basis.

That's not to say that I don't understand why, though. It is the majority which elects a political candidate to office, and it is the majority which must be appeased in order for them to stay in office, and indeed that is the goal of every politician and their supporting party. And yet those candidates are moved by discourse and philosophy to uphold the minority. It's the great catch 22 of American Society. And I can't say that it has ever worked in the history of our nation.

As far as our nation being one of intertwined politics and religion, it is very true. I will again attempt to quote Tocqueville as an illustration of what I'm talking about.

Alexis de Tocqueville said:
"By the side of every religion is to be found a political opinion, which is connected with it by affinity. If the human mind be left to follow its own bent, it will regulate the temporal and spiritual institutions of society in a uniform manner, and man will endeavor, if I may so speak, to harmonize earth with heaven.

The greatest part of British America was peopled by men who, after having shaken off the authority of the Pope, acknowledged no other religious supremacy: they brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion. This contributed powerfully to the establishment of a republic and a democracy in public affairs; and from the beginning, politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved."

Another man whose opinions on this and other matters I greatly respect is Jeffrey Rosen, a brilliant law professor at George Washington University. He has written extensively on the matter, and tends to treat it as another result of identity politics.
 
Last edited:

wanko80

Erect Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,492
0
41
42
McKinney,TX
Marklar
₥5
FlamingGlory said:
Which part of the government? New Hampshire had a requirement that every holder of office was of the protestant religion until 1877. Mass. had a STATE CHURCH until 1833. Technically it is possible for a state to sanction religion.

Also in general, replacing one morality with another could end you up in far worse circumstances than you know. Right now, we have some people in the south who vote with their bible, not a huge problem, they are a minority. If some other religion/morality/flavour of the week were to replace them you face an unknown enemy, of unknown strength, with some greater level of willpower. The situation, as it is, is far more desirable to myself through what I know than a danger I'm ignorant of. If you think that the situation I outlined is unlikely you do not know the power of e.g., a convincing nihilist to the ears of those ignorant to the philosophy.

Just because we've done it in the past and continue to do so today doesn't make it the right way. Case law about something back in the 1800's is great and all, but what bearing does it have on present day? There's shitloads of stupid laws and if we tried to live by them, our lives would be much different.

Also, you seemed to miss one of my main points. God does not care how governments are run. Why must we try to shoehorn God into it?
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,196
1,514
573
<3
Marklar
₥3,815
wonko80 said:
Just because we've done it in the past and continue to do so today doesn't make it the right way. Case law about something back in the 1800's is great and all, but what bearing does it have on present day? There's shitloads of stupid laws and if we tried to live by them, our lives would be much different.

Also, you seemed to miss one of my main points. God does not care how governments are run. Why must we try to shoehorn God into it?
I wasnt arguing against you. I was merely going down one path of it. There will always be some abstract ideology in the minds of people that they make their decisions on and usually a part of that ideology is that they introduce as many people to it as possible.