Abortion Ban In South Dakota!

[TragicMonkey]

Whoops! He's back to swearing.

 

[Jas]

......why is that a problem?

So you admit that you have difficulties reading?

Come on: Oral sex is an offense? How can people possibly argue that (unless they are sexual prudes and bigots)?

Does that spell "enlightened" to you?

Where did anyone say that the US was a 'Hotbed of Enlightenment'?

 

[Thanz]

I don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ what you believe. I addressed something else. Whether you like it or not is none of my concern.

Well, the only posts above your first post about joining the 21st century are about the abortion law, and about what the SCOTUS might do to it.

If you weren't addressing the abortion debate, what were you addressing?

 

[Manny]

Get a blowjob in Arkansas and get back to me.

Aw, you're such a sweetie to offer. But, no. That said, I could get a blowjob in Arkansas, even from another man, and it would be completely legal.

Wow. Asking questions is making people liars, if you so deem.

Context, poopikins.

I don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ what you believe. I addressed something else. Whether you like it or not is none of my concern.

Based on literally every single post prior to yours, the only other thing you could possibly have been addressing was Cylons.

Hehehe....no. It didn't. Read it again.

Whatever, boss. I C&P'd it.

Prove it.

No. Why would I want to do that for someone who has already said he is not interested in the subject after being informed that he knew very little about it?

No argument, just name-calling. I never expected anything else from you.

A missionary was travelling through the jungle, and his guide was telling him about the might foo bird...

 

[Mark]

And the roaches creep out from the woodwork....

 

[HarryKeogh]

Get a blowjob in Arkansas and get back to me
.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that sodomy laws are unconstitutional on June 26, 2003.

 

[Art Vandelay]

"Why?" You really don't know why preventing the killing of an innocent person is a moral imperative?

You seem to have a problem of conflating completely different positions.

What I questioned was "If a person believes that a murder is being committed then it would be quite appropriate to try and stop that murder."

Now you're saying that what I'm questioning is "preventing the killing of an innocent person is a moral imperative".

Those are completely different propositions, and we will make little progress if you keep switching between different statements.

I already have. Slavery. Homicide. Child abuse.

What I meant was "can you think of a case in which someone has discussed choice with respect to abortion, and there was no reason for it?" A "case" as in "a specific example".

Why?

You don't understand why a moral system which consists of nothing but "don't commit murder" is incomplete?

You are missing my point.

Then, perhaps you should post it, rather than asking a bunch of rhetorical questions.

You are getting there Art. Bear with me a bit longer. Using THIS logic how is abortion like or different from slavery?

Allowing someone to enslave someone else means giving them a choice at the cost of someone else's freedom. Allowing someone to abort gives them a choice without costing anyone else's freedom. And I think I know where you're going with this. Yes, this argument requires that abortion not be considered to not be murder. But while that is necessary, it is not sufficient.

"Choice" is a morally ambigious position.

I think you mean "neutral", not ambiguous.

It is ok for some people but not others.

But that is irrelevant. Just because there are cases where there are things more important than choice doesn't mean that choice isn't important.

1.) Either abortion is killing a viable human or it is not.

Exactly. You keep linking the issue of whether abortion is permissable to whether people think the fetus is a human being. But that's irrelevant. What matters is whether it is, not whether people believe it is.

NO I'M NOT!

You were.

Non sequitur. No one said anything about "extra rights".

Yes, you did. Forcing people not to have abortions is an extra right.

What right are you talking about? The right to murder?

No, the right to force people not to abort, or not kill cows, etc.

1.) Murder (kiling innocent human beings) is wrong.
2.) Whether you subscribe to it or not has no bearing on the morality of murder.

I don't see how that is a response to my point.

Figure out if abortion is or is not murder. If it is not murder argue that it is not murder. Don't argue a morally ambiguous postions.

How is it a morally ambiguous position?

Wrong. For the state to prevent abortion it must be demonstrated that it is murder.

That's simply idiotic. There are plenty of things other than murder that are illegal. Moreover, that does not address my statement at all.

1.) There is a constitutional right to free speech.
2.) There is no constitution right to kill human beings.

You are completely ignoring what I'm saying. I'm getting rather frsutrated how you keep finding ways to avoid addressing my questions.

Is "Other people have the right to the opinion that criticizing the government is wrong, but they don't have the right to make it illegal" "morally ambiguous"? Yes, or, no? I'm not asking about the constitutionality or anything else. Is it "morally ambiguous" or not?

That is by defintion irrational.

Really? Can you tell me which dictionary has this listed under "irrational"?

It is not CONSISTENT.

You have failed to show how it is inconsistent, and furthermore being inconsistent is not the same as being irrational.

Perhaps you should look at the definition.

Perhaps you should, then explain how it fits.

A morally ambiguous postion.

Maybe you should also look up "ambiguous". I really don't think it means what you think it means.

Why not fight for the right to have abortion?

They are. You are simply engaging in semantic quibbling. "...the right to have an abortion" and "...the choice to have an abortion" mean the same thing.

No, it would be called "pro-right-to-abortion".

Are you even reading what I'm posting? How can you possibly claim that everyone in favor of abortion rights is also in favor of legalizing marijuana?

Why not simply call it what it is. Abortion rights. It IS abortion rights, is it not?

Because "pro-abortion-rights" is a mouthful.

Look, if we were arguing the right to kill 1 year olds would we couch it in terms of "choice"?

Dude, look up the phrase "denying the antecedent".

What part of "this [whether it is murder] is an issue" do you not understand?

Honestly Art, the whole "choice" thing is propaganda. It works so fine, use it. But have the honesty to admit that it is propaganda.

"Propaganda" is itself propaganda. It's simply a deragatory term people use for political positions they don't like.

This does not represent my postion.

Yes, it does. If whether it is murder is the only issue for whether it should be legal, then all acts other than murder should be legal. That, or all acts other than murder should be illegal.

The basis for allowing abortion is that people ought to be able to do with their bodies what they want.

In other words, they ought to be able to choose what to do.

A woman ought to be able to have an abortion for the obvious reasons so long as she is not killing another human being.

So whether it is murder is not the only issue. The "obvious reasons" are also issues.

 

[ceo_esq]

I asked if all of them were untrue. I didn't say you claimed they were.

Am I a liar for asking you a question? Just yes or no, please.

That's the second time this has happened in this thread. Claus, as I already explained, if you formulate a question by placing a question mark at the end of what would otherwise be a declarative sentence, rather than formulating it as an interrogative sentence, it conveys the strong impression that you are expressing disbelief in the declarative sentence as though someone had just stated it. Call it a subtlety of the English language, but you are formulating questions in a way that native English speakers usually reserve for this purpose. It's no wonder that people are accusing you of misrepresenting their statements with your questions. Try changing the way you formulate them and I can almost guarantee the problem will largely go away.

 

[CFLarsen]

If there is a fire I hope you do.

And if there isn't? You can't. There you go.

I don't think you can threaten to kill anyone.

There you go.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that sodomy laws are unconstitutional on June 26, 2003.

Ex-Cop Found Not Guilty Of Sodomy Charges (2006)

Now, can you - anyone - explain how someone can be charged with sodomy, if such laws are unconstitutional?

Is the United States of America a banana republic?

So you admit that you have difficulties reading?

No. Asking for clarification does not mean that I have difficulties reading. It could also be because the poster wasn't clear enough.

You do acknowledge that this is a possibility?

Because if you don't, then I think you will find that most people here have difficulties reading.

Have you ever asked for clarification of something? Or do you simply understand everything?

Where did anyone say that the US was a 'Hotbed of Enlightenment'?

I asked you a question: How can people even argue that oral sex is sodomy?

No. Why would I want to do that for someone who has already said he is not interested in the subject after being informed that he knew very little about it?

Why? To back up your claim with evidence?

But, alas, you can't.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Ex-Cop Found Not Guilty Of Sodomy Charges (2006)

Now, can you - anyone - explain how someone can be charged with sodomy, if such laws are unconstitutional?

Is the United States of America a banana republic?

ok, let's see what he was really charged with: A Bullitt County jury has found an ex-cop not guilty of two counts of sodomy with a 6-year-old girl.

Two consenting adults can do whatever they want in the bedroom. Throw a 6 year old girl in the picture and yes...arrests will be made.

Is that the best example you could find, Claus?

 

[CFLarsen]

ok, let's see what he was really charged with: A Bullitt County jury has found an ex-cop not guilty of two counts of sodomy with a 6-year-old girl.

Two consenting adults can do whatever they want in the bedroom. Throw a 6 year old girl in the picture and yes...arrests will be made.

Is that the best example you could find, Claus?

The point is that he was charged of breaking a sodomy law.

Address that.

 

[HarryKeogh]

The point is that he was charged of breaking a sodomy law.

Address that.

he was charged with sodomizing a 6 year old girl.

If the girl was of legal consenting age and a willing partner he would not have been charged with anything as the SCOTUS has judged sodomy laws to be unconstitutional.

Can you have oral or anal sex with a child in Denmark?

Can you have oral or anal sex with a consenting adult in Denmark?

The answers to both questions are the same in the United States.

Saying this man was arrested for merely breaking a sodomy law is like saying a rapist was arrested for having sex. It is completely disingenuous.

So when you said "try getting a blowjob in Arkansas" you were implying that it was illegal. Between consenting adults it is not. Nor in any state.

And to try and use a case of child molestation to show our sex laws are out of touch is pathetic and disgusting.

 

[CFLarsen]

he was charged with sodomizing a 6 year old girl.

If the girl was of legal consenting age and a willing partner he would not have been charged with anything as the SCOTUS has judged sodomy laws to be unconstitutional.

But he was charged with breaking a sodomy law, yes or no?

Can you have oral or anal sex with a child in Denmark?

No.

Can you have oral or anal sex with a consenting adult in Denmark?

Yes.

The answers to both questions are the same in the United States.

Prove it.

Saying this man was arrested for merely breaking a sodomy law is like saying a rapist was arrested for having sex. It is completely disingenuous.

Your answer is no? He was not charged with breaking a sodomy law?

So when you said "try getting a blowjob in Arkansas" you were implying that it was illegal. Between consenting adults it is not. Nor in any state.

And to try and use a case of child molestation to show our sex laws are out of touch is pathetic and disgusting.

Spare your misplaced disgust - you will not succeed in diverting attention from the fact that sodomy laws exist in the US and people are being charged with breaking them.

Deal with it.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Claus, is it illegal for you to receive oral sex in Arkansas?

SCOTUS says it is not illegal. What do you think?

 

[Manny]

Spare your misplaced disgust - you will not succeed in diverting attention from the fact that sodomy laws exist in the US and people are being charged with breaking them.

Deal with it.

And you will not succeed in diverting attention from the fact that Kentucky's first degree sodomy law, the one Mr. Wheeler was accused of breaking, specifically and indisputably refers to non-consensual "deviate sexual intercourse." A very brief internet search would have confirmed that for you before you made an ass of yourself.

510.070 Sodomy in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of sodomy in the first degree when:
(a) He engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person by forcible compulsion; or
(b) He engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person who is incapable of consent because he:
1. Is physically helpless; or
2. Is less than twelve (12) years old.
(2) Sodomy in the first degree is a Class B felony unless the victim is under twelve (12) years old or receives a serious physical injury in which case it is a Class A felony.


So congratulations, killer. In addition to your other illustrious achievements you have now equated consensual homosex with child rape. I call on you to repudiate that disgusting and immoral stance.

 

[Thanz]

But he was charged with breaking a sodomy law, yes or no?

He was charged with having sex with a six year old. I have no problem with laws that make sodomy with a six year old a crime. Do you, Claus?

Spare your misplaced disgust - you will not succeed in diverting attention from the fact that sodomy laws exist in the US and people are being charged with breaking them.

Deal with it.

I can deal with it. I am all for laws that outlaw sodomy with six year olds. Do you have any evidence that this law is anything but that?

Simply ignoring the age factor is the height of intellectual dishonesty. And I am still waiting to hear what you were referring to in your first post of this thread if it was not the abortion law debate.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Now, can you - anyone - explain how someone can be charged with sodomy, if such laws are unconstitutional?

Is the United States of America a banana republic?

Because laws against CONSENSUAL sodomy are unconstitutional. What he was charged with was the sodomizing of a child, which is non-consensual by definition. It is effectively the same thing as being charged with rape.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

The point is that he was charged of breaking a sodomy law.

Address that.

I am appalled and disgusted that you are arguing that we are a backward country because SOMEONE WAS SENT TO JAIL FOR RAPING A LITTLE GIRL!

Yep, we send child molesters to prison, that makes us a bunch of barbarians. If we were truly enlightened, people could rape six year olds at will.

 

[ceo_esq]

Because laws against CONSENSUAL sodomy are unconstitutional.

This is true.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, is it illegal for you to receive oral sex in Arkansas?

SCOTUS says it is not illegal. What do you think?

And you will not succeed in diverting attention from the fact that Kentucky's first degree sodomy law, the one Mr. Wheeler was accused of breaking, specifically and indisputably refers to non-consensual "deviate sexual intercourse." A very brief internet search would have confirmed that for you before you made an ass of yourself.

510.070 Sodomy in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of sodomy in the first degree when:
(a) He engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person by forcible compulsion; or
(b) He engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person who is incapable of consent because he:
1. Is physically helpless; or
2. Is less than twelve (12) years old.
(2) Sodomy in the first degree is a Class B felony unless the victim is under twelve (12) years old or receives a serious physical injury in which case it is a Class A felony.


So congratulations, killer. In addition to your other illustrious achievements you have now equated consensual homosex with child rape. I call on you to repudiate that disgusting and immoral stance.

He was charged with having sex with a six year old. I have no problem with laws that make sodomy with a six year old a crime. Do you, Claus?

I can deal with it. I am all for laws that outlaw sodomy with six year olds. Do you have any evidence that this law is anything but that?

Simply ignoring the age factor is the height of intellectual dishonesty. And I am still waiting to hear what you were referring to in your first post of this thread if it was not the abortion law debate.

Because laws against CONSENSUAL sodomy are unconstitutional. What he was charged with was the sodomizing of a child, which is non-consensual by definition. It is effectively the same thing as being charged with rape.

Was he charged with breaking a sodomy law? Yes or no?

Sodomy laws exist and are used - despite what SCOTUS says. Correct?

I am appalled and disgusted that you are arguing that we are a backward country because SOMEONE WAS SENT TO JAIL FOR RAPING A LITTLE GIRL!

Yep, we send child molesters to prison, that makes us a bunch of barbarians. If we were truly enlightened, people could rape six year olds at will.

I'm not arguing that you are a backward country because someone was sent to jail for raping a little girl. I am pointing out that sodomy laws exist - despite what SCOTUS says.