|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 5, 2018 7:22:51 GMT
Are you kidding me Goz? Your eggs lie safe? Your eggs are only in danger when you are ovulating! and the only one who knows when that happens it's your responsibility to NOT have sex when you are ovulating if you don't want to get pregnant. They even sell kits now to check if you are ovulating. Are you Catholic? Rhythm method anyone? Do you take your ovulating kit out on your dates? She isn't a Catholic. Trust me on this, Goz. Being from a predominantly Catholic country does not make one a Catholic.  |
|
|
|
Post by islandmur on Nov 5, 2018 10:36:41 GMT
Are you kidding me Goz? Your eggs lie safe? Your eggs are only in danger when you are ovulating! and the only one who knows when that happens it's your responsibility to NOT have sex when you are ovulating if you don't want to get pregnant. They even sell kits now to check if you are ovulating. Are you Catholic? Rhythm method anyone? Do you take your ovulating kit out on your dates? Now you are just playing dumb Goz, an ovulating kit tells you when you are ovulating it's not something you do "right before a date" and ovulation does last more then one day or night... and then there are those female condoms that you can put in and let them stay in for 24 hours! How about that? protect them eggs wear a female condom. I'm not catholic. |
|
|
|
Post by nausea on Nov 5, 2018 10:51:03 GMT
supporting lgbt doesn't mean bending ovr backwards to plese them
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Nov 5, 2018 10:52:38 GMT
Meh... I don't think it's fabulous. It's silly.
If two people have unprotected sex that results in pregnancy, both are responsible.
|
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 5, 2018 11:46:33 GMT
goz So you have no responsibility at all? Only one of us needs to. It is biology. You're insane. |
|
|
|
Post by puvo on Nov 5, 2018 12:04:20 GMT
Only one of us needs to. It is biology. You're insane. As big of a waste of time as Arlon. |
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Nov 5, 2018 15:34:09 GMT
I agree with Karl. Both share equal responsibility. That a woman cannot get pregnant without a man's sperm is indisputable, but she has control over her body, presumably, and can say no. By saying it is his responsibility alone, you are taking away a woman's freedom of her own body. Perhaps she should learn abstinence if she doesn't want the dilemma of having kids and doesn't want to use contraception.Agreed only Yet there is NO need for BOTH. One is sufficient and it should be the man who is the initiating one with the whole erection and penetration thing. Since HE has the active sperm, perhaps he should either wear a condom or say no. Your words: Illogical and again, taking away the woman's responsibility for her own actions, choices and body. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 5, 2018 16:18:33 GMT
Agreed only Yet there is NO need for BOTH. One is sufficient and it should be the man who is the initiating one with the whole erection and penetration thing. Since HE has the active sperm, perhaps he should either wear a condom or say no. Your words: Illogical and again, taking away the woman's responsibility for her own actions, choices and body. "My body, my choice, your responsibility" |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 5, 2018 21:49:48 GMT
Meh... I don't think it's fabulous. It's silly. If two people have unprotected sex that results in pregnancy, both are responsible. Why? It only takes one to wear protection and it won't happen (not into a discussion about the sexism of types of protection though it is totally relevant because the male wearing a condom is cheap, safe, non-invasive and accessible and reasonably effective) |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 5, 2018 21:53:47 GMT
Agreed only Yet there is NO need for BOTH. One is sufficient and it should be the man who is the initiating one with the whole erection and penetration thing. Since HE has the active sperm, perhaps he should either wear a condom or say no. Your words: Illogical and again, taking away the woman's responsibility for her own actions, choices and body. It is totally logical. The woman has the choice to NOT have sex if the man is not wearing a condom properly. IF SHE wants sex, she insists that he does. It may take two to tango butt it only takes one to use protection and the tango will not lead to an unwanted pregnancy. It is beautifully simple not to mention healthy and cost effective. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 5, 2018 21:56:10 GMT
Your words: Illogical and again, taking away the woman's responsibility for her own actions, choices and body. "My body, my choice, your responsibility" She is fully in control and taking responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 5, 2018 23:19:38 GMT
"My body, my choice, your responsibility" She is fully in control and taking responsibility. Goz, you have literally said it is the blokes responsibility, thus you are absolving the woman of responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 5, 2018 23:24:00 GMT
For once I agree with you cool Cool!  It is easy to make a joke of it, butt for me it highlights the general lack of responsibility shown my some men and then the hypocrisy of some other men who might prohibit abortion on religious grounds. I absolutely love taking arguments to their end point or 'logical' conclusion, and in this case it might be that men would be prohibited from sexual intercourse unless they and their partner were specifically trying to have a baby. They could apply for an exemption and earn a 'sex licence' ( like a car licence ) if they had undertaken a course in safe sex and passed their exam and had a character reference and no previous sexual offences. A licence to root responsibly. Women who trusted their menfolk could go off the pill and stop screwing with their hormones. An exemption could also be granted for men willing to go on trials for a male contraceptive pill, so that they too could have a turn screwing with their hormones. I like it. Suppose more men became priests? As long as you're not opposed to higher rates of homosexuality and paedophilia. I'm okay with the former, but I don't we should be promoting circumstances apt to lead to an uptick in the latter. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 5, 2018 23:39:14 GMT
She is fully in control and taking responsibility. Goz, you have literally said it is the blokes responsibility, thus you are absolving the woman of responsibility. No, it is his responsibility to wear a condom. She then has the choice whether to have sex or not dependant on that. Only in that sense is she taking responsibility, her body her choice once the condom is on. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 6, 2018 0:43:57 GMT
Suppose more men became priests? As long as you're not opposed to higher rates of homosexuality and paedophilia. I'm okay with the former, but I don't we should be promoting circumstances apt to lead to an uptick in the latter. What you think you know and what you actually know are very different things. It is not more likely that Catholic clergy will commit sexual abuse. It is just that they make more news when they do. Since you are not able to figure things out on your own I will explain. Many people including Catholics themselves feel terrible about the sacrifices Catholic clergy impose on themselves and in efforts to get them to be more lenient make use reports of abuse as an argument. That can mean the number of reports is higher than would otherwise be the case, and yet it is still not exceptionally high. The vast majority of people are driven more by emotion than actual numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 6, 2018 0:58:18 GMT
As long as you're not opposed to higher rates of homosexuality and paedophilia. I'm okay with the former, but I don't we should be promoting circumstances apt to lead to an uptick in the latter. What you think you know and what you actually know are very different things. It is not more likely that Catholic clergy will commit sexual abuse. It is just that they make more news when they do. Since you are not able to figure things out on your own I will explain. Many people including Catholics themselves feel terrible about the sacrifices Catholic clergy impose on themselves and in efforts to get them to be more lenient make use reports of abuse as an argument. That can mean the number of reports is higher than would otherwise be the case, and yet it is still not exceptionally high. The vast majority of people are driven more by emotion than actual numbers. You HAVE t be kidding right? Catholic priests commit sexual crime for centuries and are not prosecuted because they are protected by a corrupt system, and you feel sorry for them because of "terrible about the sacrifices Catholic clergy impose on themselves"  ? WTF? |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 6, 2018 1:11:23 GMT
What you think you know and what you actually know are very different things. It is not more likely that Catholic clergy will commit sexual abuse. It is just that they make more news when they do. Since you are not able to figure things out on your own I will explain. Many people including Catholics themselves feel terrible about the sacrifices Catholic clergy impose on themselves and in efforts to get them to be more lenient make use reports of abuse as an argument. That can mean the number of reports is higher than would otherwise be the case, and yet it is still not exceptionally high. The vast majority of people are driven more by emotion than actual numbers. You HAVE t be kidding right? Catholic priests commit sexual crime for centuries and are not prosecuted because they are protected by a corrupt system, and you feel sorry for them because of "terrible about the sacrifices Catholic clergy impose on themselves" ? WTF? As much as you claim to be governed by numbers and science you are not. You are governed by emotions. Good luck with that anyway. Maybe you will get things to change. Rabbis do not appear, according to you (plural) anyway, to be as much trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 6, 2018 1:16:20 GMT
You HAVE t be kidding right? Catholic priests commit sexual crime for centuries and are not prosecuted because they are protected by a corrupt system, and you feel sorry for them because of "terrible about the sacrifices Catholic clergy impose on themselves" ? WTF? As much as you claim to be governed by numbers and science you are not. You are governed by emotions. Good luck with that anyway. Maybe you will get things to change. Rabbis do not appear, according to you (plural) anyway, to be as much trouble. Planet Arlon. The relative statistics (numbers and science  ) are not particularly relevant in this case due to the overwhelming EVIDENCE of the problem with sexual indiscretions ( I am being polite they were in fact criminals in the Catholic Church) of the priests over centuries as it was an endemic problem. If emotionally you are not appalled by this behaviour of Catholic priests, then you are delusional. BTW Other religions tend to have married officiants. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 6, 2018 1:29:43 GMT
As much as you claim to be governed by numbers and science you are not. You are governed by emotions. Good luck with that anyway. Maybe you will get things to change. Rabbis do not appear, according to you (plural) anyway, to be as much trouble. Planet Arlon. The relative statistics (numbers and science ) are not particularly relevant in this case due to the overwhelming EVIDENCE of the problem with sexual indiscretions ( I am being polite they were in fact criminals in the Catholic Church) of the priests over centuries as it was an endemic problem. If emotionally you are not appalled by this behaviour of Catholic priests, then you are delusional. BTW Other religions tend to have married officiants. I would remind you that I did go to school for these things. It is one thing for people who understand what they are doing when they manipulate the news. It is quite another for people to be so stupid they believe their own propaganda. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 6, 2018 1:46:13 GMT
Planet Arlon. The relative statistics (numbers and science ) are not particularly relevant in this case due to the overwhelming EVIDENCE of the problem with sexual indiscretions ( I am being polite they were in fact criminals in the Catholic Church) of the priests over centuries as it was an endemic problem. If emotionally you are not appalled by this behaviour of Catholic priests, then you are delusional. BTW Other religions tend to have married officiants. I would remind you that I did go to school for these things. It is one thing for people who understand what they are doing when they manipulate the news. It is quite another for people to be so stupid they believe their own propaganda. Planet Arlon. I believe you went to school. That it was a long time ago and I wont hold that against you. HOWEVER I am not understanding the rest of your post, if you are implying that the crimes of priests in the Catholic Church which went unreported and untried for centuries, is either manipulation of news or worse propaganda. |
|
