Ukraine K-1 initial denial - next steps to fix

[slim 1,525]

You are correct about being able to please a woman in that way. If they are not "speaking Russian" in bed, you got big trouble.

If you're not doing "man job" then you're not going to be the man for very long. You may still be "a" man but you're not going to be "the" man.

there is a lack of use of forms of contraception besides "pulling out" and "hope,"

Always worked for me.

selfish enough to end a life

(This excludes sexual abuse cases of course)

So it's OK to be selfish in those cases?

My experience is that FSU women are far more likely to offer samples of the "goods" for many reasons,

Are you saying they have more abortions because they have more sex?

[SMR 368]

If you're not doing "man job" then you're not going to be the man for very long. You may still be "a" man but you're not going to be "the" man.

Always worked for me.

Somehow, I'm not surprised that you have never gotten pregnant. You lack certain prerequisites.

But if you really did have as many escapades as you sometimes imply but are certain that you have never gotten anyone pregnant I would get that checked out. For evolutionary reasons, sex should lead to pregnancy with a reasonably high degree of success.

So it's OK to be selfish in those cases?

This is a great point that I think gets overlooked or ignored too often. I am against abortion and think it is wrong in all cases. Really, the only consistent moral positions are that it's okay to kill your kids at any point if they inconvenience you or that it's wrong to kill them under any circumstances. Anything else and you're doing a compromise-to-keep-everyone-happy, politically convenient dance that has no reasonable moral basis.

If it's wrong to kill a child that you conceived through consensual sexual activity, it's wrong to kill a child that was conceived through rape, incest, sexual abuse, or any other process. The basis for saying it's wrong, after all, is that the child is a child and murder is murder.

Some people try to bring in a puritanical idea that you have to face the consequences of your actions and thus you can't abort the child blah, blah, blah. While I'm all for accountability, the preservation of human life issue here takes precedence. The idea that we need to punish people for having sex by not allowing abortions is an incredibly punitive, illogical, and typically hypocritical position. We shouldn't allow abortion because it's murder. And the circumstances of conception don't figure into that at all.

[baron555 934]

a child that was conceived through rape, incest, sexual abuse, or any other process.

We shouldn't allow abortion because it's murder.

Then what do we do to men who perpetrate these crimes against women, saddling them for life with a child they did not want?

More practice for sharpshooters? No trial, just immediate justice for the woman.

[slim 1,525]

sex should lead to pregnancy with a reasonably high degree of success.

Not when you pull and pray.

The basis for saying it's wrong, after all, is that the child is a child and murder is murder.

Exactly. Either it's murder or it's not. Don't pick and choose when it's wrong and when "well, I guess in this instance it's OK." Either it's wrong or it's OK.

Yet for some reason, some people here in the US seem to claim the moral high ground on this issue. Typically it's the same divorced or had kids out of wedlock "gays are bad" folks. "Well, what I'm doing is OK but what you're doing is not." Sorry folks, if you're going to claim one set of rules you can't pick and choose which ones you want to follow.

Then what do we do to men who perpetrate these crimes against women, saddling them for life with a child they did not want?

Who says the woman has to keep the child?

More practice for sharpshooters? No trial, just immediate justice for the woman.

I'm opposed to no trial. There should always be a trial.

[baron555 934]

Who says the woman has to keep the child?

But what about retribution to the woman who had to bear and give birth to the child? That does take a toll on her being and life.

I'm opposed to no trial. There should always be a trial.

Not necessarily. You shoot below the hip, you pay the ultimate consequence. Very nice deterrant.

[slim 1,525]

Like I asked, why does she have to keep the child?

Shooting below the hip is still punishment (maybe even cruel and unusual!) without trial. Trial has to come before sentencing.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Somehow, I'm not surprised that you have never gotten pregnant. You lack certain prerequisites.

But if you really did have as many escapades as you sometimes imply but are certain that you have never gotten anyone pregnant I would get that checked out. For evolutionary reasons, sex should lead to pregnancy with a reasonably high degree of success.

This is a great point that I think gets overlooked or ignored too often. I am against abortion and think it is wrong in all cases. Really, the only consistent moral positions are that it's okay to kill your kids at any point if they inconvenience you or that it's wrong to kill them under any circumstances. Anything else and you're doing a compromise-to-keep-everyone-happy, politically convenient dance that has no reasonable moral basis.

If it's wrong to kill a child that you conceived through consensual sexual activity, it's wrong to kill a child that was conceived through rape, incest, sexual abuse, or any other process. The basis for saying it's wrong, after all, is that the child is a child and murder is murder.

Some people try to bring in a puritanical idea that you have to face the consequences of your actions and thus you can't abort the child blah, blah, blah. While I'm all for accountability, the preservation of human life issue here takes precedence. The idea that we need to punish people for having sex by not allowing abortions is an incredibly punitive, illogical, and typically hypocritical position. We shouldn't allow abortion because it's murder. And the circumstances of conception don't figure into that at all.

Then I presume you are against the death penalty in ALL cases and against the right of someone to kill someone that is in the process of raping his wife. Call the police instead, right? and then FORCE your wife to bear and raise the child feloniously implanted in her while you dialed 911. Give me just half a break today, PUH LEEEEEEEEEESE! And if YOU can make exceptions, the so can I, or so can Slim or so can Eekee. It is simple, even more simpe that your chil analogy. Either you allow murder under certain circumstances or you do not allow it at all for ANY reason. If you allow it for ONE reason, then other reasons enter into the debate.

Your failing is that you project your belief on others. There is no requirement to be logical or moral in making LAWS which differ from MORALS by being FORCED on someone by someone else. Is it logical to say you can kill a fetus and not a 3 year old? No. Does it need to be? No.

Your contention that intercourse should have a resanable chance of resulting in conception is frightening. People have sex many times per week, if lucky, several times a day...how many babies are we supposed to have? Sheesh. Good ol' FSU pull-and-point has worked well for us so far. If it doesn't it looks like we will have another child to feed and raise, because while neither I nor Alla would want to have an abortion we do not thrust OUR belief on someone else or even want to.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Then what do we do to men who perpetrate these crimes against women, saddling them for life with a child they did not want?

More practice for sharpshooters? No trial, just immediate justice for the woman.

No, Phil. Can't you read? MURDER is wrong in all circumstances. If you catch someone in the process of raping your wife, you have to call 911 and wait for the police to arrive. Then they will try to apprehend the ALLEDGED rapist and if they do they will attempt to convict the alledged rapist and sentence him to a few years of eating and sleeping in the hotel we pay for. If your brutalized wife is pregnant, well, too bad, she will just have to have that child and that child will have to share in the benefits of the family that your other children enjoy and you will have to take him to baseball practice...it isn't his fault.

Now, while I have no desire for my wife to have an abortion, I would not dial 911 and I would shoot the ####### repeatedly in vital areas with the .45 I keep with me all the times and then console my wife long enough to make sure rigormortise had set in before coming to my senses and calling the morgue.

I am not "pro-life" in such circumstances and freely admit it.

[slim 1,525]

if YOU can make exceptions, the so can I, or so can Slim or so can Eekee.

Exceptions are not allowed in my house.

For the record, I don't think SMR was arguing either side... I think he was just arguing.

I am not "pro-life" in such circumstances and freely admit it.

Surprising how many "pro-life" folks are for the death penalty.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Surprising how many "pro-life" folks are for the death penalty.

we like to call it a very late term abortion.

[slim 1,525]

we like to call it a very late term abortion.

No, you can't call it that because abortion is never allowed. Never, never, never. Except in cases of rape or incest.

I like how there are people who say, "well, I'm OK with it as long as it's in the XXXX week or sooner. I'm against late term abortions." Those are the same people who are against hunting but eat cheeseburgers.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

No, you can't call it that because abortion is never allowed. Never, never, never. Except in cases of rape or incest.

I like how there are people who say, "well, I'm OK with it as long as it's in the XXXX week or sooner. I'm against late term abortions." Those are the same people who are against hunting but eat cheeseburgers.

SMR says it is not allowed for rape or incest either.

This is the whole problem with trying to apply "morals" to LAWS and forcing them on everyone. Who's morals? Mine? Slim's? Christian? Which Christian? This is all nonsense. NON SENSE!

Anyone that wants the government to FORCE someone else's morals on them by LAW is an idiot.

"Pro-life" people are rarely "pro-life", they are anit-abortion. Say so. I once had a debate with an animal rights activist on the use of bait for bear hunting. I asked if they favored hunting bears WITHOUT bait? No. Hunting deer? No. Hunting quail? No. So they are aginst ALL hunting? YES. Then SAY SO! Stop trying to be reasonable when you are not reasonable. At least be HONEST.

"Pro life" people usually support...

Right to kill someone rapng your wife

Death penalty

So much for pro-life.

I am PRO-choice....I am also ANTI-Abortion. Which means I am REALLY Pro-choice. I would never want or seek to have my wife have an abortion (except for rape and after I shot the ####### full of large caliber holes if I had the chance) BUT I do not seek to have the government apply MY choices to YOU.

Everyone is free to have their religious beliefs and live by whatever codes or laws or rules they want to apply to themselves...just keep it to yourself and leave me out of it.

[Henykat 16]

SMR says it is not allowed for rape or incest either.

This is the whole problem with trying to apply "morals" to LAWS and forcing them on everyone. Who's morals? Mine? Slim's? Christian? Which Christian? This is all nonsense. NON SENSE!

Anyone that wants the government to FORCE someone else's morals on them by LAW is an idiot.

"Pro-life" people are rarely "pro-life", they are anit-abortion. Say so. I once had a debate with an animal rights activist on the use of bait for bear hunting. I asked if they favored hunting bears WITHOUT bait? No. Hunting deer? No. Hunting quail? No. So they are aginst ALL hunting? YES. Then SAY SO! Stop trying to be reasonable when you are not reasonable. At least be HONEST.

"Pro life" people usually support...

Right to kill someone rapng your wife

Death penalty

So much for pro-life.

I am PRO-choice....I am also ANTI-Abortion. Which means I am REALLY Pro-choice. I would never want or seek to have my wife have an abortion (except for rape and after I shot the ####### full of large caliber holes if I had the chance) BUT I do not seek to have the government apply MY choices to YOU.

Everyone is free to have their religious beliefs and live by whatever codes or laws or rules they want to apply to themselves...just keep it to yourself and leave me out of it.

To say that laws aren't based on any morals is really absurd. There is an argument to be made concerning when the rights of a person begin that has nothing to do with religion and well within a Libertarian philosophy. The reason a person can not legally bash your skull in and take your stuff is based on a moral concept whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

[Martyshk 137]

The law that allows abortion exists, so why don't we all stfu on the morals, because it exists specifically so individuals can choose whether they want to do it or not.

I have zig-zag line belief system, for example: pro guns, pro-choice (not pro-abortion, that's what the nuts in this country are for), etc.

[SMR 368]

Then I presume you are against the death penalty in ALL cases and against the right of someone to kill someone that is in the process of raping his wife. Call the police instead, right? and then FORCE your wife to bear and raise the child feloniously implanted in her while you dialed 911. Give me just half a break today, PUH LEEEEEEEEEESE! And if YOU can make exceptions, the so can I, or so can Slim or so can Eekee. It is simple, even more simpe that your chil analogy. Either you allow murder under certain circumstances or you do not allow it at all for ANY reason. If you allow it for ONE reason, then other reasons enter into the debate.

Your failing is that you project your belief on others. There is no requirement to be logical or moral in making LAWS which differ from MORALS by being FORCED on someone by someone else. Is it logical to say you can kill a fetus and not a 3 year old? No. Does it need to be? No.

Your contention that intercourse should have a resanable chance of resulting in conception is frightening. People have sex many times per week, if lucky, several times a day...how many babies are we supposed to have? Sheesh. Good ol' FSU pull-and-point has worked well for us so far. If it doesn't it looks like we will have another child to feed and raise, because while neither I nor Alla would want to have an abortion we do not thrust OUR belief on someone else or even want to.

Gary, you've put some words into my mouth by saying that I said murder was wrong in all instances. I never said that. Let me clarify.

I'm not pro-life. I am anti-murder of innocents. Admittedly, how innocents is defined is subjective. And I suppose that if you think that babies conceived in rape are guilty little bastards, then you have an argument, albeit a twisted one.

But if you look at everything I've said in the light of anti-murder of innocents, it's all very consistent. I support killing of rapists caught in the act (they're not innocent). I don't have a problem with the death penalty so long as I have confidence in the court (so I know that no innocents are being killed, in practice, I don't think the death penalty is worth while given the horrible state of our courts, both in terms of efficiency and in terms of justice). I am against the killing of unborn children since I consider them all to be innocent regardless of the circumstances of conception.

Anyone who is against the injection of morality into law is either a complete anarchist or has simply deluded themselves into thinking that law has a meaning outside of morality. All laws in existence are the projection of someone's morals onto society. Some of these are very basic moral ideals that are almost universal such as the basic ideas of life, property, choice, and justice. Some laws go deeper into the idea that you can't take certain actions that inherently force risk onto others (like speeding, certain types of financial trading, or how you store hazardous materials). Disputes often arise when these ideas interfere. But in the end, take away morality and these are an arbitrary set of rules.

You may argue that this arbitrary set of rules is designed for the good/benefit of society. But exactly what the benefit of society is, is a subjective moral judgment. Hitler thought that killing all the Jews was the benefit of society. Or to the discussion at hand, some people think that not killing babies benefits societies while others think that giving choice benefits society.

The decision to not force your morals onto others is in fact a moral judgment. And by expecting or advocating that others do so, you are pushing your morality onto other people.