In the News

[Redforever86]

1 minute ago, CCB III said:

She charged you that to lick her out on the rag?

 

[manboobs109]

4 minutes ago, CCB III said:

i.) Many epidemiologists suggest that It could be dangerous to others, causing new strains that could mutate to avoid the effects of the vax. You made your own mind up on that, as is your right, despite the possibility you were potentially aiding the development of a new strain. Granted, that doesn't appear to have come to be, but it was certainly a concern you ignored by your best judgement. 
 

ii,) no, abortion isn't murder. It's abortion. That's why it's not called murder, that's why it's called abortion, silly. See, when you murder someone, that's when it's murder, when you abort a pregnancy before term, that's abortion. That's what words mean,  bud. 
 

The second life in equation is better off being born to a mother that doesn't want them? Or in abject poverty and hunger say? Or the child should be born with defects, because the mother has been raped by a family member? The mother should have to carry a rape baby to term? A constant reminder of her assault? 
 

As with most anti abortion people, you fail to consider women as capable human beings able to weigh up, judge, and consider the moral and personal implications of abortion. 
 

 

You've very skilfully avoided my question about when it goes from "abortion" to murder though.

[CCB III]

2 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

A terrible story for sure.

God has given us free will, sadly some people misuse it - rapists and abortionists for example.  But, would you rather be part of a scripted puppet show?

Rape is a very difficult (but thankfully statistically negligible) case, of course. 

Ultimately, logic dictates that adding a murder on top of a rape only makes the situation worse.  Abortion doesn't un-rape a woman, or remove mental or physical injuries.

I do not pretend for a second that carrying the baby of a rapist (to give up for adoption) would be an easy thing, but it is the right thing to do, however difficult.  The baby didn't do anything wrong, s/he is an innocent.

That's the thing about life, its often very difficult, especially if you seek to live a moral life.  That fact is probably one of life's central lessons.

Look at the men on sinking ships like the Titanic.  Being bigger and stronger, they could easily have bullied their way onto the life-boats and left the puny women and children to drown in the freezing water.  (I might be mixed up, but I believe some guy tried it on the Titanic and one of the Ships' Officers shot him).  Instead, they were selfless and they chose to be the ones who drowned, to give the women and children a chance in the lifeboats.  We've all heard the saying "women and children first....".

What has happened to us as a society, to go from that level of natural selflessness, to a society which will happily kill innocents to avoid temporary discomfort (let alone death).  Not a change for the better, I would say.

You know, there were 3 Catholic priests on the Titanic.  In those days, clergymen still carried a modicum of respect and so all of the 3 were offered places on lifeboats - but all 3 chose to drown instead, so that they could give people absolution while the ship was sinking and to make space on the lifeboats for others. 

 

?

 

This is where you lose folk, min. 
 

Your basing your opinion on an ancient moral script. From a time where folk wouldn't wipe their arses, brush their teeth etc etc. A time where a man could kill his wife if he deemed fit. 
 

It's no way to base your opinion. 
 

I respect peoples right to faith, I'm agnostic myself, but organised religion-particularly catholicism- is a sham. 
 

It's certainly not a basis for an opinion on abortion. 

 

 

[maryhilldon]

6 minutes ago, CCB III said:

Are chimpanzees as complex as humans? Or are our brains bigger? So more complex? So more room for grey areas?

?

[CCB III]

1 minute ago, manboobs109 said:

You've very skilfully avoided my question about when it goes from "abortion" to murder though.

Because I truly don't have an answer. 
 

Know why? Cause 1.) Not a doctor. 2.) not a woman, won't ever have to make the decision. It's definitely a moral grey area, I'll say that much. 
 

There is a reason they cut it off after a certain point. 

[CCB III]

Just now, maryhilldon said:

?

Genuinely, are Chimpanzees conscious the way humans are? If they are, then it's a fair comparison. If not, then it's a stupid comparison. 

[CCB III]

10 minutes ago, maryhilldon said:

I've decided I want to be known as Bubbles from now on. 

That's fine by me, man. That's your decision. 
 

Who would I be to tell you that you couldn't do that? 
 

 

[manboobs109]

Just now, CCB III said:

Because I truly don't have an answer. 
 

Know why? Cause 1.) Not a doctor. 2.) not a woman, won't ever have to make the decision. It's definitely a moral grey area, I'll say that much. 
 

There is a reason they cut it off after a certain point. 

That's my point. Why do they do that if it's a woman's choice? Why can't she choose up to the point of birth? Is it a moral thing?

I've had this debate on here and in real life countless times and no one can ever explain it.

[maryhilldon]

1 minute ago, CCB III said:

Genuinely, are Chimpanzees conscious the way humans are? If they are, then it's a fair comparison. If not, then it's a stupid comparison. 

It was definitely a stupid comparison, that's why I made it. Go and have a pint mate, it's Friday night.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

59 minutes ago, patrick bateman said:

Rape 

Incest 

Child abuse 

These aren't feckless women.

They are victims, why do you have no Christian sympathy for them ?

 

I agree they are victims, of course.

See my reply to Dons79 - I address this there.

[CCB III]

6 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

That's my point. Why do they do that if it's a woman's choice? Why can't she choose up to the point of birth? Is it a moral thing?

I've had this debate on here and in real life countless times and no one can ever explain it.

I'd imagine because the larger the fetus is, the harder it is to abort the fetus safely. It's more probably a medical thing that anything else. The further down the pregnancy the more complications can arise with the abortion. It's protecting the woman. No good doctor would allow it. 
 

If you're aborting a grape sized lump of cells at 4 weeks, that's likely to do far less damage to you, than aborting a more or less full grown fetus. 

[CCB III]

Just now, Clydeside_Sheep said:

I agree they are victims, of course.

See my reply to Dons79 - I address this there.

You think the woman should have the baby, even if it's a result of her rape? 
 

Honestly, man. That's absolutely sick. 
 

It shows that you don't give a flying fuck about women, that much is clear. 

[CCB III]

3 minutes ago, maryhilldon said:

It was definitely a stupid comparison, that's why I made it. Go and have a pint mate, it's Friday night.

I am! 
 

Billie Eilish on glad to (would)

[CCB III]

4 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

I agree they are victims, of course.

See my reply to Dons79 - I address this there.

You ever been raped? You ever had to live with a constant reminder that you've been raped? 
 

You ever had to make a decision on whether or not to have an abortion? 
 

You ever found out your baby would be born with crippling, life debilitating issues, and had to decide if their quality of life was to be considered? 
 

If the answer to the above is no; 

 

Then what do you think gives you the right to assert what a woman should do with something that you'll never have to experience? 
 

Because if it's your silly little book, then you can fuck off. 

[manboobs109]

Just now, CCB III said:

I'd imagine because the larger the baby is, the harder it is to abort the baby safely. It's more probably a medical thing that anything else. The further down the pregnancy the more complications can arise with the abortion. It's protecting the woman. No good doctor would allow it. 
 

If you're aborting a grape sized lump of cells at 4 weeks, that's likely to do far less damage to you, than aborting a more or less full grown fetus. 

You always go back to the "grape sized" thing. I've seen a 24 week old foetus in the flesh. It's a baby. You can "abort" one in this country and its chucked in the waste and incinerated with no ceremony. 

If you feel that's a good thing and a "right" worth defending I respect that but I'm telling you one last time hold back on the insults for me for not thinking that. If you claim to "respect me" for thinking the way I do then act like it and calm your rhetoric.

[CCB III]

1 minute ago, manboobs109 said:

You always go back to the "grape sized" thing. I've seen a 24 week old foetus in the flesh. It's a baby. You can "abort" one in this country and its chucked in the waste and incinerated with no ceremony. 

If you feel that's a good thing and a "right" worth defending I respect that but I'm telling you one last time hold back on the insults for me for not thinking that. If you claim to "respect me" for thinking the way I do then act like it and calm your rhetoric.

I respect why you think the way you do. 
 

I don't respect you allowing your own personal feelings to trump the rights of women to have autonomy over their bodies. 
 

 It's not a baby. It's a fetus. That's why the terminology is there. 
 

 

[Redforever86]

2 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

You always go back to the "grape sized" thing. I've seen a 24 week old foetus in the flesh. It's a baby. You can "abort" one in this country and its chucked in the waste and incinerated with no ceremony. 

If you feel that's a good thing and a "right" worth defending I respect that but I'm telling you one last time hold back on the insults for me for not thinking that. If you claim to "respect me" for thinking the way I do then act like it and calm your rhetoric.

GAN

[Clydeside_Sheep]

4 hours ago, Ke1t said:

I would like to point out that the whole Roe v Wade thing is less about protecting the sanctity of life and more about religious 'ethics' and forcing women back into a traditional domestic role in society.

Which is why denying women the right to access contraception is also being proposed by SCJ Clarence Thomas.

They WANT women pregnant, they WANT women in a purely child-raising, domestic, secondary role.

The way these people treat fully grown human beings is confirmation that the sanctity of life argument is pure horseshit.

 

Re bold: Griswold v Connecticut dealt with the anti-contraception law of one particular state.  Is it really the case that many states have anti-contraception laws which would suddenly kick in if the Court said there was no constitutional right to contraception?  I would be genuinely surprised if there was (maybe in the past, but surely not now?). 

Contraception is bad in that people do not accept the reality that it will sometimes let them down.  Then they demand to kill the unborn as a "get out of jail" card, and that is just not acceptable in a civilised society.

I do not think Griswold is mentioned due to targeting contraception, but because it formed the basis of precedent for subsequent erroneous cases such as Roe-Wade, as well as the erroneous notions of a "right" to commit homosexual acts (anyone capable of reason should know that error has no rights) and a "right" to homosexual marriage (of course homosexual couples are not analogous to a marriage).

I think Thomas is just sabre rattling, but it would be good to strike down the nonsense of "gay marriage" (just as a Japanese court did, the other day).  The idea is a nonsense and it is not healthy for societies to equate homosexual acts with human sexuality - and especially not when western societies are already suffering a demographic winter.

Usually I am peaceable and do not care to "rake up old graves", but the gay marriage crowd were such cunts over it - hounding people through courts over making cakes etc - that I would be glad to see the court strike it down, just for the badness of it.

Edit - the business of carrying and raising children is in no way "secondary".  it is misogynistic of you to suggest that.  it is the foundation stone of human progress, and there is nothing nobler.

[CCB III]

That's me done with the abortion chat. 
 

I feel strongly about it, so I'll defend the right of women to choose if they want to have a baby or not, for as long as I can. 
 

@manboobs109 it's clear your own personal experiences are influencing your position on this, so I apologise for not being sensitive to that, but I encourage you to empathise with women on it. Imagine being told you couldn't make a decision about your own body, because the government said so. That would piss you off. 
 

@Clydeside_Sheep

 

I respect your religious freedoms but your opinion on the topic is based in your faith. That's irrational. That can't be tolerated by a civilised society. You carry on believing the things you do, I'll just say I'm happy there's not a Catholic fundamentalist in no.10. 
 

Not had a ding dong like that in a while. 
 

Yeeha ?

[Dad]

Thank fuck for the Wildlife thread

[manboobs109]

4 minutes ago, CCB III said:

I respect why you think the way you do. 
 

I don't respect you allowing your own personal feelings to trump the rights of women to have autonomy over their bodies. 
 

 It's not a baby. It's a fetus. That's why the terminology is there. 
 

 

It's nothing to do with my feelings. That is completely irrelevant. I've seen a foetus with my own eyes that is legal to "abort" I've seen it breathe and struggle for life.

If you tell me that it isn't a baby I'll tell you you are badly mistaken. 

Again I ask you if it's a woman's "right to choose" why is there a legal limit? It's not true it's for the mother's safety, it's easier and safer to deliver a baby closer to term so why does the legal limit exist?

[Clydeside_Sheep]

11 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

You always go back to the "grape sized" thing. I've seen a 24 week old foetus in the flesh. It's a baby. You can "abort" one in this country and its chucked in the waste and incinerated with no ceremony. 

If you feel that's a good thing and a "right" worth defending I respect that

I do not respect that.

it is worthy only of contempt.

[manboobs109]

2 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

I do not respect that.

it is worthy only of contempt.

Actually I agree with you I was trying to pointlessly show respect to an opposing viewpoint but a similar respect hasn't been shown.

[CCB III]

5 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

Re bold: Griswold v Connecticut dealt with the anti-contraception law of one particular state.  Is it really the case that many states have anti-contraception laws which would suddenly kick in if the Court said there was no constitutional right to contraception?  I would be genuinely surprised if there was (maybe in the past, but surely not now?). 

Contraception is bad in that people do not accept the reality that it will sometimes let them down.  Then they demand to kill the unborn as a "get out of jail" card, and that is just not acceptable in a civilised society.

I do not think Griswold is mentioned due to targeting contraception, but because it formed the basis of precedent for subsequent erroneous cases such as Roe-Wade, as well as the erroneous notions of a "right" to commit homosexual acts (anyone capable of reason should know that error has no rights) and a "right" to homosexual marriage (of course homosexual couples are not analogous to a marriage).

I think Thomas is just sabre rattling, but it would be good to strike down the nonsense of "gay marriage" (just as a Japanese court did, the other day).  The idea is a nonsense and it is not healthy for societies to equate homosexual acts with human sexuality - and especially not when western societies are already suffering a demographic winter.

Usually I am peaceable and do not care to "rake up old graves", but the gay marriage crowd were such cunts over it - hounding people through courts over making cakes etc - that I would be glad to see the court strike it down, just for the badness of it.

Edit - the business of carrying and raising children is in no way "secondary".  it is misogynistic of you to suggest that.  it is the foundation stone of human progress, and there is nothing nobler.

Last one; 

 

It's also misogynist to apply your own moral standards to a woman who has a baby of rape in her womb. 
 

You're effectively saying 'yeah but I don't care what you think or how you feel, you're having that baby no matter how bad it might be for you' 

 

 

[Guest Grays Babylon 1875]

12 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

It's nothing to do with my feelings. That is completely irrelevant. I've seen a foetus with my own eyes that is legal to "abort" I've seen it breathe and struggle for life.

 

For fucks sake. 

You've some strange hobbies man. 

[patrick bateman]

31 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

I agree they are victims, of course.

See my reply to Dons79 - I address this there.

But is it not feckless women who need abortions?

These are clearly not that.

You advocate for imposing forced birth on these victims.

Some of whom will be children, already violated by man, and you will do further damage to their fragile, still growing bodies by forcing them through pregnancy and childbirth on not fully formed wombs, cervixes and birth canals.

But you see no harm in that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CCB III]

9 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

It's nothing to do with my feelings. That is completely irrelevant. I've seen a foetus with my own eyes that is legal to "abort" I've seen it breathe and struggle for life.

If you tell me that it isn't a baby I'll tell you you are badly mistaken. 

Again I ask you if it's a woman's "right to choose" why is there a legal limit? It's not true it's for the mother's safety, it's easier and safer to deliver a baby closer to term so why does the legal limit exist?

It's a woman's right to chose so long as it isn't going to kill her. In most instances if someone is going to do something that's going to end up in their death, people stop them. That's standard. Not new. 
 

1.) So it is to do with your feelings, because you experienced something awful, saw something awful, and now you personally can't understand why it's allowed. Thats ok big man. That's cool. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. 
 

What you can't do with your feelings, is assert that someone can't have autonomy over something growing inside their own body. You can think what they do is wrong, have an opinion on it, but you can't assert that they can't do it. It's not for you to decide. 
 

That's the long and short of it. 

[patrick bateman]

27 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

You always go back to the "grape sized" thing. I've seen a 24 week old foetus in the flesh. It's a baby. You can "abort" one in this country and its chucked in the waste and incinerated with no ceremony. 

If you feel that's a good thing and a "right" worth defending I respect that but I'm telling you one last time hold back on the insults for me for not thinking that. If you claim to "respect me" for thinking the way I do then act like it and calm your rhetoric.

You keep saying you don't like it.

We get it someone aborted your jizz and it scarred you.

Seek help.

Do not damage others in anger and resentment.

Be a man.

 

[CCB III]

19 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

Re bold: Griswold v Connecticut dealt with the anti-contraception law of one particular state.  Is it really the case that many states have anti-contraception laws which would suddenly kick in if the Court said there was no constitutional right to contraception?  I would be genuinely surprised if there was (maybe in the past, but surely not now?). 

Contraception is bad in that people do not accept the reality that it will sometimes let them down.  Then they demand to kill the unborn as a "get out of jail" card, and that is just not acceptable in a civilised society.

I do not think Griswold is mentioned due to targeting contraception, but because it formed the basis of precedent for subsequent erroneous cases such as Roe-Wade, as well as the erroneous notions of a "right" to commit homosexual acts (anyone capable of reason should know that error has no rights) and a "right" to homosexual marriage (of course homosexual couples are not analogous to a marriage).

I think Thomas is just sabre rattling, but it would be good to strike down the nonsense of "gay marriage" (just as a Japanese court did, the other day).  The idea is a nonsense and it is not healthy for societies to equate homosexual acts with human sexuality - and especially not when western societies are already suffering a demographic winter.

Usually I am peaceable and do not care to "rake up old graves", but the gay marriage crowd were such cunts over it - hounding people through courts over making cakes etc - that I would be glad to see the court strike it down, just for the badness of it.

Edit - the business of carrying and raising children is in no way "secondary".  it is misogynistic of you to suggest that.  it is the foundation stone of human progress, and there is nothing nobler.

Hey bud. Gay people exist. They always have. They always will. 
 

Hey bud, women will get abortions, they will continue to do so. 
 

No amount of religious principle you apply to your thinking, to any scenario being discussed, will make these things change. 
 

Laws should reflect what people are going to do; not what pointless religious principle you want them to unrealistically abide by. 

 

All you're doing is judging people for the crime of being human beings. 
 

It makes you seem like a cunt. 
 

 

[CCB III]

17 minutes ago, Sooper-hanz said:

For a young man Consi has absolutely wiped the floor with some of you cunts. 

Finally, a reasonable man