The Conservative Contradiction

First you say it's 100%, then you say it's 'effectively 100%'.


Make up your mind.

And I want you to prove the last statement.

You want me to check every pregnant woman to see if she is a virgin or not?

Can I get a grant for the study? I imagine this study will cost $700 Million a year plus costs such as travel, food and lodging and will need to run for at least 20 years to be certain not to miss any potential pregnant virgins.

You get Congress to approve the grant and I will get started on this right away. :lol:

Immie
 
First you say it's 100%, then you say it's 'effectively 100%'.


Make up your mind.

And I want you to prove the last statement.

You want me to check every pregnant woman to see if she is a virgin or not?

Actually, I want you to check every woman on Earth and show that ever single virgin will never become pregnant whilst still a virgin.

Or stop making such idiotic statements as you always make.
 
First you say it's 100%, then you say it's 'effectively 100%'.


Make up your mind.

And I want you to prove the last statement.

You want me to check every pregnant woman to see if she is a virgin or not?

Actually, I want you to check every woman on Earth and show that ever single virgin will never become pregnant whilst still a virgin.

Or stop making such idiotic statements as you always make.

Well, you and I will just have to disagree and I will continue to state that abstinence is the only effective means of birth control.

Sorry, you'll just have to come to terms with that.

Immie
 
I think the pro-life movement should take some credit for that. They encourage women to carry their pregnancies to term.

I see it as a positive sign.

Back in the days when abortion was illegal getting pregnant out of wedlock was a fate worse than death.

Now women have more choices and they increasingly choose to continue their pregnancies. Single parenthood doesn't have the stigma it once did.

If it were that simple the teen pregnancy rate should have plummeted right after abortion was legalized.

Funny thing about facts, they don't support anyone's theories about teen pregnancies.

Hard to compare one era to another. I think teens today are more sexually active than they were 40 years ago. But teens are still teens and they think they are bulletproof..."It can't happen to me"
Did abortion laws make teens more promiscuous? I doubt and teen goes into sex saying "If I get pregnant...I can abort" What they do is think the rules of probability don't apply to them
What has really changed is movies, TV, the internet and peer pressure all saying sex is ok. There is also little stigma with a teen pregnancy...some use it as a way to draw attention to themselves

First you say teens 40 years ago were different than teens today, and then you claim teens are teens. Not quite sure how that works, but I can live with it if you can. :razz:

I can't speak to 40 years ago, but 30 years ago my graduation after party had a room were the couples took turns using the bed. I also remember my older brother sitting me down for the sex talk a few years before that, so I am pretty sure he had sex just as much as I did.

Anyway, I don't believe access to abortion made teens more promiscuous, I was just pointing out that it has had a negligible effect on teen pregnancy rates, as someone had tried to argue that outlawing abortion would drive up those rates. Most people don't realize it, but abortion was legal before Roe, and even where it was illegal it was available. Those back alley abortion clinics pro abortionists like to spout off about are mostly urban legend.
 
Killing innocent men, women, and children does not warrant a pension.

Serving in the military does not equal killing anyone


The purpose of the armed forces is to kill.

The purpose of the armed forces is to defend. I wouldn't expect someone who thinks that the military trains people to kill to understand the difference between what the military does and what a killer does, but I do think you would be smart enough not to make a fool of yourself like this.
 
Serving in the military does not equal killing anyone


The purpose of the armed forces is to kill.

The purpose of the armed forces is to defend. I wouldn't expect someone who thinks that the military trains people to kill to understand the difference between what the military does and what a killer does, but I do think you would be smart enough not to make a fool of yourself like this.


The purpose of the United States armed forces is to defend.

By invading a nation that never attacked us?

By invading a nation that wanted to break it's colonial rule?

By invading Central American countries that had resources American businesses could use to make money?

By invading a third-world nation that was embroiled in civil war?

How was Haiti a threat?

How was the war between the croats and serbs a threat to us?


The military doesn't train people to kill?

Then what, exactly are MACP and marksmanship training for?

Why do they enter combat zones with rifles?

Why do snipers speak of 'one shot, one kill'?
 
The purpose of the armed forces is to kill.

The purpose of the armed forces is to defend. I wouldn't expect someone who thinks that the military trains people to kill to understand the difference between what the military does and what a killer does, but I do think you would be smart enough not to make a fool of yourself like this.


The purpose of the United States armed forces is to defend.

By invading a nation that never attacked us?

By invading a nation that wanted to break it's colonial rule?

By invading Central American countries that had resources American businesses could use to make money?

By invading a third-world nation that was embroiled in civil war?

How was Haiti a threat?

How was the war between the croats and serbs a threat to us?


The military doesn't train people to kill?

Then what, exactly are MACP and marksmanship training for?

Why do they enter combat zones with rifles?

Why do snipers speak of 'one shot, one kill'?

See, I knew you wouldn't understand.

Marksmanship training exists so that the military knows who can shoot. The Marines are the only branch that requires everyone who joins to qualify. and I can testify that marksmanship training is not even part of basic training in the Navy.

MACP is designed to train Army personnel in battlefield techniques, and to make them the best combat force possible, and thus reducing their need to fight. At least that is my understanding, but you will have to ask someone that went through it how it actually works.

Combat zones are areas where people are intent on killing anyone who disagrees with them. The military enters those zones with rifles, and body armor, so that they can come out the other side with the fewest possible casualties. The ROE they operate under require them to make sure they shoot only at those who are shooting at them, another reason for marksmanship training. If the were simply there to kill they would simply nuke the combat zone and not risk any soldiers.

Snipers are a different breed, but they are still there to protect people, not kill them. They understand that death is something that is part of life, and that killing saves lives. It is the same principle doctors use when they give you an antibiotic, which ends millions of lives to protect your life, and the billions of lives you carry around.
 

Forum List

Back
Top