shawndavid
Are you wanting making fuck berserker?
itburnswhenipee said:More importantly, people need to realize that you cannot legislate morality.
Bill Maher stated it more appropriately: you can't legislate taste.
itburnswhenipee said:More importantly, people need to realize that you cannot legislate morality.
But that's exactly what happens with 'regular' birth control pills, this is just a concentrated dose.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.
ChikkenNoodul said:Heck, fertilized eggs fail to implant naturally all the time - so by their logic any couple that has unprotected sex is committing murder
ChikkenNoodul said:But that's exactly what happens with 'regular' birth control pills, this is just a concentrated dose.
Heck, fertilized eggs fail to implant naturally all the time - so by their logic any couple that has unprotected sex is committing murder
ChikkenNoodul said:But that's exactly what happens with 'regular' birth control pills, this is just a concentrated dose.
Heck, fertilized eggs fail to implant naturally all the time - so by their logic any couple that has unprotected sex is committing murder
KNYTE said:You've only got part of it; they think masturbation is murder as well.
Hopefully we can replace The War on Drugs with The War on SpankerchiefsChikkenNoodul 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)
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.
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.
ChikkenNoodul said:hey, move to MA Pandora
Two women can marry, I can buy booze on Sundays, and I hear there's plenty of 'massage' places in Chinatown
That would piss so many people off...Pandora said:Sweet! I'll pack my bags tonight!
There's actually a Libertarian movement to form "a state of our own" in New Hampshire. I've actually thought about joining....
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.
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.
ceiling fly said:That would piss so many people off...
Pandora said:Why? Because of the 'invasion' or because it actually might work?
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.
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."
itburnswhenipee said:Didn't you Southerners learn your lesson last time? How many more cities must we burn?
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.
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.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?