Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Actually, wouldn't it be more effective and on-point if the people in question were themselves forced to view these pictures you speak of? :huh:
One would assume they would see them when showing them in an attempt to ban the vaccine surely.
But let's go in complete reverse if you don't like that idea. Perhaps those that want to ban the vaccine "because it may encourage sexual activity" should be forced to show people enjoying sex....after all they are trying to prevent people seeing that;)
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
But let's go in complete reverse if you don't like that idea. Perhaps those that want to ban the vaccine "because it may encourage sexual activity" should be forced to show people enjoying sex....after all they are trying to prevent people seeing that;)
Watching people enjoying sex, I can do that, gissa job.
For anyone who doesnt understand that reference, it relates to "Boys from the Black Stuff", in which one of the characters (Yosser Hughes) says similar in relation to just about any job. e.g. "Bricklaying, I can do that, gissa job". The story, amongst other things, details his spiral into despair, caused by unemployment and his fight to keep his children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/3...er_bbc_150.jpg
It is a powerful indictment of Thatcherite Britain.
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Actually, wouldn't it be more effective and on-point if the people in question were themselves forced to view these pictures you speak of? :huh:
One would assume they would see them when showing them in an attempt to ban the vaccine surely.
But let's go in complete reverse if you don't like that idea. Perhaps those that want to ban the vaccine "because it may encourage sexual activity" should be forced to show people enjoying sex....after all they are trying to prevent people seeing that;)
Okay, sure.
We'd have each group offering (for voluntary consumption, of course) that which they believe would influence a desired outcome:
One shows two graphic examples (an ultra-sound photo and film of an abortion procedure) in the hope that fewer pregnant women will choose abortion, knowing that the result will be successful .
Another shows, in an effort (ostensibly) to boost consumption of a cancer vaccine, cinematic displays of people having enjoyable sex (call it soft-core porn), knowing the result will have no effect other than to stimulate sexual activity, have nothing to do with cervical cancer, and provide more pregnant women to perpetuate the "need" for abortion.
Yes, I can't see what you mean.
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Another shows, in an effort (ostensibly) to boost consumption of a cancer vaccine, cinematic displays of people having enjoyable sex (call it soft-core porn), knowing the result will have no effect other than to stimulate sexual activity, have nothing to do with cervical cancer, and provide more pregnant women to perpetuate the "need" for abortion.
Yes, I can't see what you mean.
You have it the wrong way round. The group that wants to ban the vaccine has to show the enjoyable sex movie, just to show what it will lead to :dry:
Either way the idea of compulsory viewing of images is unacceptable.
The decision to have an abortion or not is a private one, between the doctor and patient...............and it's nobody elses business. Not mine, yours the feds or the states.
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
The decision to have an abortion or not is a private one, between the doctor and patient...............and it's nobody elses business. Not mine, yours the feds or the states.
I think the baby should have some rights. Even tho' he or she is unable to claim them.
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Another shows, in an effort (ostensibly) to boost consumption of a cancer vaccine, cinematic displays of people having enjoyable sex (call it soft-core porn), knowing the result will have no effect other than to stimulate sexual activity, have nothing to do with cervical cancer, and provide more pregnant women to perpetuate the "need" for abortion.
Yes, I can't see what you mean.
You have it the wrong way round. The group that wants to ban the vaccine has to show the enjoyable sex movie, just to show what it will lead to :dry:
That makes utterly no sense. You began by saying they ought to show cancer victims; stick with that.
Either way the idea of
compulsory viewing of images is unacceptable.
Who said "compulsory"?
Besides, which, if you state it is not my business, who are you to say what is or is not acceptable?
You may subscribe to whatever sense of propriety you like; you may not choose mine.
The decision to have an abortion or not is a private one, between the doctor and patient...............and it's
nobody elses business. Not mine, yours the feds or the states.
Then surely you must agree (for all the same reasons) that a man should have co-equal decision-making power as to whether or not he desires to participate financially in the child's rearing?
Perhaps you'd prefer he be allowed to consult a physician on the question?
Do you think the exercise of such a right would have the effect of further increasing the number of abortions?
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Another shows, in an effort (ostensibly) to boost consumption of a cancer vaccine, cinematic displays of people having enjoyable sex (call it soft-core porn), knowing the result will have no effect other than to stimulate sexual activity, have nothing to do with cervical cancer, and provide more pregnant women to perpetuate the "need" for abortion.
Yes, I can't see what you mean.
You have it the wrong way round. The group that wants to ban the vaccine has to show the enjoyable sex movie, just to show what it will lead to :dry:
So then what does it matter who shows the film?
Either way the idea of
compulsory viewing of images is unacceptable.
Who said compulsory?
No one in this whole equation has exclusive ability to claim what is or is not acceptable.
I think you'll find every set of debate rules states neither side can unilaterally declare anything unacceptable.
The decision to have an abortion or not is a private one, between the doctor and patient...............and it's
nobody elses business. Not mine, yours the feds or the states.
With all due respect, that is bullshit.
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
That makes utterly no sense. You began by saying they ought to show cancer victims; stick with that.
Why? you want to show abortions and graphic images in clinics in the hope the woman will run out crying and still carrying...... so if they want to ban vaccines they should show the "evil sex".
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Besides, which, if you state it is not my business, who are you to say what is or is not acceptable?
You may subscribe to whatever sense of propriety you like; you may not choose mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
and it's nobody elses business. Not mine, yours the feds or the states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Then surely you must agree (for all the same reasons) that a man should have co-equal decision-making power as to whether or not he desires to participate financially in the child's rearing?
The man made his choice by not wearing a condom. I appreciate it take two to tango but there it is. If the woman decides not to have the baby then by your example the man is released is he not?. If she decides, as you would like, to have it then the two take equal responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Perhaps you'd prefer he be allowed to consult a physician on the question?
Do you think the exercise of such a right would have the effect of further increasing the number of abortions?
compulsory abortions at the behest of the male huh ? not going to fly. Of course if men feel they want to have sex and not have children they can always have the snip............. do you think he should ask a woman or the state for permission to do that?
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
With all due respect, that is bullshit.
Why?
Why should someone you don't know have to seek your approval to do anything that doesn't affect you?:dry:
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
With all due respect, that is bullshit.
Why?
Why should someone you don't know have to seek your approval to do anything that doesn't affect you?:dry:
Fair point, let people go about their business, if it doesn't affect you personally.
I'm a middle class, white person, living in the UK, with a good standard of living and disposable income. So long as it doesn't affect me everyone else can do what they want.
Wait a minute. vidcc = republican. :blink:
