What Would Be So Awful About Overturning Roe v. Wade & Saving Unborn Children's Lives?

[Asclepias]

I forgot-----what is the primary purpose of sex?

Depends on who you ask and what era they grew up in.

 

[Richard-H]

What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?

Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.

If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.

Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions

U.S. Abortion Statistics

Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"

https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade

Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t

It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts

It's always men who post shit like this.
You want to control women, then men will have to keep their zippers up, now won't they?
Idiot.

Many of us believe that both men and women, as conscience human beings, should control themselves.

Then control yourself. That doesnt give you the right to control others. Big difference.

However, if it were determined that a fetus/embryo were in fact an individual, then abortion would be the most extreme and vicious control of one human being over another - murder.

I have no right to control others, but I do have, as does the government, a responsibility to protect the basic inalienable rights of other people.

For as long as the courts have determined that a fetus/embryo is not an individual, then we have no right to make abortion illegal. But if the courts ever determined that a fetus/embyro was an individual then we would be obliged to make abortion illegal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sex is not just "recreation." People do it as an expression of their emotional closeness: their, dare I say it, love for each other. This is how basic human sex works.

This is true. In which case, wouldn't that mean it's between two people in a relationship, who are having a life together and thus prepared to deal with the advent of a baby (which, after all, is what eventually happens in the normal course of a relationship, barring physical problems)?

Maybe that's why the majority of women having abortions are NOT in committed relationships where the sex is an expression of love and intimacy.

And before you ask, I make that statement based on numbers from the Guttmacher Institute as to reasons provided by the women themselves for getting an abortion. Noticeably, the Guttmacher Institute stopped doing these types of studies back in 2005, opting instead to simply offer demographic studies and "extrapolate" as to what that means.

 

[Richard-H]

Having sex solely for recreation is very much like having an eating disorder.

The primary purpose for eating is nutrition. It's O.K. to have some junk food now and then, but people who forget that the primary purpose of eating is nuittrition and who eat ONLY junk food have an eating disorder.

Similarly, people who only have sex for recreation and who forget the it's primary purpose is procreation suffer from a sexual disorder.

Besides, for young healthy women, having sex without respect for it's primary purpose, is a LIE.

Birth control and abortion are stop gap measures, eventually these the vast majority women either have babies or become barren.

No having sex is nothing like eating. If you dont have sex you can still live. If you dont eat you die. Sex serves multiple purposes. Having sex for recreation is not a disorder. All we have to do is look to nature to see this.

No sex and eating are not the same thing. No analogy hold true 100%.

But the desire to have sex for recreation is because nature plants a ruse in our brains. It make sex extremely pleasurable so that we will have sex. But the reason why nature does this is to cause us to procreate.

I guess I should have been more specific. No having sex for recreation is not the same as having an eating disorder. Sex for recreation is a natural thing thats also done to relieve tension and exhibit dominance.

I disagree that its only for procreation for the few reasons I stated above.

It is not only for procreation. As I said in my original analogy, eating junk food every now and again is perfectly O.K., but being unaware that the primary purpose of eating is nutrition is a sickness.

In the same way, having sex for recreational or emotional reasons is O.K., but when you forget the primary purpose of sex - you are a pervert.

Having recreational/emotional sex is not analogous to eating junk food. You will fuck up your body eating junk food. Nothing happens to you just from having sex. If anything you make yourself more emotionally stable plus its a workout.

Unwanted pregnancies, social diseases, and sexual addiction are just a few ways that your body can get fucked up by having sex.

(No pun intended).

 

[Richard-H]

Did everyone on this thread skip high school biology class?

 

[Asclepias]

No having sex is nothing like eating. If you dont have sex you can still live. If you dont eat you die. Sex serves multiple purposes. Having sex for recreation is not a disorder. All we have to do is look to nature to see this.

No sex and eating are not the same thing. No analogy hold true 100%.

But the desire to have sex for recreation is because nature plants a ruse in our brains. It make sex extremely pleasurable so that we will have sex. But the reason why nature does this is to cause us to procreate.

I guess I should have been more specific. No having sex for recreation is not the same as having an eating disorder. Sex for recreation is a natural thing thats also done to relieve tension and exhibit dominance.

I disagree that its only for procreation for the few reasons I stated above.

It is not only for procreation. As I said in my original analogy, eating junk food every now and again is perfectly O.K., but being unaware that the primary purpose of eating is nutrition is a sickness.

In the same way, having sex for recreational or emotional reasons is O.K., but when you forget the primary purpose of sex - you are a pervert.

Having recreational/emotional sex is not analogous to eating junk food. You will fuck up your body eating junk food. Nothing happens to you just from having sex. If anything you make yourself more emotionally stable plus its a workout.

Unwanted pregnancies, social diseases, and sexual addiction are just a few ways that your body can get fucked up by having sex.

(No pun intended).

You dont always get pregnant, sexually addicted, or get social diseases just because you have sex. There is no doubt you will fuck up your body if you eat junk food.

 

[Lysistrata]

What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?

Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.

If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.

Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions

U.S. Abortion Statistics

Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"

https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade

Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t

It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts

It's always men who post shit like this.
You want to control women, then men will have to keep their zippers up, now won't they?
Idiot.

Many of us believe that both men and women, as conscience human beings, should control themselves.

So human sex for emotional reasons is not a factor? So only sex to procreate is allowed? No emotion is allowed? No love is allowed? There are no husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends allowed to kiss and cuddle? Who are trying to create such rules??? Just who are these bimbos who think that they rule humanity?

 

[Asclepias]

Did everyone on this thread skip high school biology class?

Youre the one that claims you get pregnant, sexually addicted, or catch a disease everytime you have sex. Were you raised in a very strict religious environment surrounded by ignorance?

 

[Asclepias]

What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?

Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.

If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.

Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions

U.S. Abortion Statistics

Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"

https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade

Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t

It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts

It's always men who post shit like this.
You want to control women, then men will have to keep their zippers up, now won't they?
Idiot.

Many of us believe that both men and women, as conscience human beings, should control themselves.

Then control yourself. That doesnt give you the right to control others. Big difference.

However, if it were determined that a fetus/embryo were in fact an individual, then abortion would be the most extreme and vicious control of one human being over another - murder.

I have no right to control others, but I do have, as does the government, a responsibility to protect the basic inalienable rights of other people.

For as long as the courts have determined that a fetus/embryo is not an individual, then we have no right to make abortion illegal. But if the courts ever determined that a fetus/embyro was an individual then we would be obliged to make abortion illegal.

Abortion would be asserting your rights as an individual to not have another individual leech off your body.

You dont have inalienable rights to anything if you are living inside someone elses body and your life depends on that other persons body. You only have inalienable rights if you can provide for yourself.the ability to breath.

 

[Picaro]

Did everyone on this thread skip high school biology class?

Nor me.

But, you're just a big Doody Head Nazi if you point out the obvious to the assorted deviants and sociopaths, who have decided mindless self-indulgence needs to be encouraged and supported, and no one should be restricted from anything n stuff.

"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained."

Stirling S. Newberry

 

[Richard-H]

Did everyone on this thread skip high school biology class?

Youre the one that claims you get pregnant, sexually addicted, or catch a disease everytime you have sex. Were you raised in a very strict religious environment surrounded by ignorance?

Holy crap are you full of shit! I did not say that at all. Try either learning to read or responding to what I said and not what you'd like to believe I said.

I never said "everytime you have sex". You certainly are twisted, aren't you?

Which brings up another perspective on abortion:

Has anyone done a study on the psychological and emotional effects that abortions have on the women?

Beyond the physical, abortion may leave much deeper scars.

 

[RealDave]

What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?

Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.

If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.

Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions

U.S. Abortion Statistics

Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"

https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade

Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t

It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts

And what happens to these unwaned children? Republicans don't want to take care of the poor now? They keep wanting to cut food stamps, Medicaid, and welfare now.

We know the rich & upper middle class will still get abortions. These unwanted babies will be born the poorer people. Are you wuiklling to comnmiut to increase funding that will help take care of these kids?

If men could get pregnant, Walmart would offer abortions at $59.95.

We are noit talking bsbies, we are talking fetuses. Learn the difference.

1. It's not our responsibility to take care of children once they are born it is the parents .

2. Conservatives give way more to charity then liberals...fact and don't confuse charity with taxes , only a child poster does that

3. Once again you prove yourself anti biology a fetus is a baby, it will never be born a lollipop or a dandilion ..

4. Bullshit on that men could get pregnant thing.. news flash some men have faith in God , read the scripture's , have morals and common decency.

.

1) You are forcing poor women to have babies & now you admit you want to condemn them to a childhood of poor living conditions & hunger. Higher costs thsat you will constantly whine about.

2) Tossing a quarter in the Red Kettle is not enough.

3)
a·by
ˈbābē/
noun
noun: baby; plural noun: babies

1. 1.
   a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
   "his wife's just had a baby"
   synonyms: infant, newborn, child, tot, little one; More

fe·tus
ˈfēdəs/
noun
noun: fetus; plural noun: fetuses; noun: foetus; plural noun: foetuses

1. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

4) Men make the abortion laws. You know I am right. Since men contribute to these pregnancies, how about we implant a balloon in their guy & fill it with water in the same way a fetus grows.

 

[Richard-H]

What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?

Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.

If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.

Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions

U.S. Abortion Statistics

Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"

https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade

Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t

It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts

It's always men who post shit like this.
You want to control women, then men will have to keep their zippers up, now won't they?
Idiot.

Many of us believe that both men and women, as conscience human beings, should control themselves.

Then control yourself. That doesnt give you the right to control others. Big difference.

However, if it were determined that a fetus/embryo were in fact an individual, then abortion would be the most extreme and vicious control of one human being over another - murder.

I have no right to control others, but I do have, as does the government, a responsibility to protect the basic inalienable rights of other people.

For as long as the courts have determined that a fetus/embryo is not an individual, then we have no right to make abortion illegal. But if the courts ever determined that a fetus/embyro was an individual then we would be obliged to make abortion illegal.

Abortion would be asserting your rights as an individual to not have another individual leech off your body.

You dont have inalienable rights to anything if you are living inside someone elses body and your life depends on that other persons body. You only have inalienable rights if you can provide for yourself.the ability to breath.

You just make it up as you go along, don't you!

When you are responsible for creating that individual, then you are responsible for protecting and respecting that individual's inalienable and Constitutional rights. Only when you had no choice in the creation of that individual or when that individual is a threat to your life could it be argued that your body should not be used for that individual's survival.

Any emotionally healthy woman considers the well being of her unborn child to be precious beyond all else. Only sick, perverse women that think that the pursuit of muscle spasms is all that matters would view their unborn child to be parasitic as you do.

 

[Asclepias]

Did everyone on this thread skip high school biology class?

Youre the one that claims you get pregnant, sexually addicted, or catch a disease everytime you have sex. Were you raised in a very strict religious environment surrounded by ignorance?

Holy crap are you full of shit! I did not say that at all. Try either learning to read or responding to what I said and not what you'd like to believe I said.

I never said "everytime you have sex". You certainly are twisted, aren't you?

Which brings up another perspective on abortion:

Has anyone done a study on the psychological and emotional effects that abortions have on the women?

Beyond the physical, abortion may leave much deeper scars.

You compared it to eating junk food. Everytime you eat junk food you fuck up your body.

 

[Asclepias]

It's always men who post shit like this.
You want to control women, then men will have to keep their zippers up, now won't they?
Idiot.

Many of us believe that both men and women, as conscience human beings, should control themselves.

Then control yourself. That doesnt give you the right to control others. Big difference.

However, if it were determined that a fetus/embryo were in fact an individual, then abortion would be the most extreme and vicious control of one human being over another - murder.

I have no right to control others, but I do have, as does the government, a responsibility to protect the basic inalienable rights of other people.

For as long as the courts have determined that a fetus/embryo is not an individual, then we have no right to make abortion illegal. But if the courts ever determined that a fetus/embyro was an individual then we would be obliged to make abortion illegal.

Abortion would be asserting your rights as an individual to not have another individual leech off your body.

You dont have inalienable rights to anything if you are living inside someone elses body and your life depends on that other persons body. You only have inalienable rights if you can provide for yourself.the ability to breath.

You just make it up as you go along, don't you!

When you are responsible for creating that individual, then you are responsible for protecting and respecting that individual's inalienable and Constitutional rights. Only when you had no choice in the creation of that individual or when that individual is a threat to your life could it be argued that your body should not be used for that individual's survival.

Any emotionally healthy woman considers the well being of her unborn child to be precious beyond all else. Only sick, perverse women that think that the pursuit of muscle spasms is all that matters would view their unborn child to be parasitic as you do.

Fetuses dont have rights over the mother.

Your assertion that an emotionally healthy woman consists of one that thinks an unborn child is precious beyond all else is nothing but a silly opinion.

 

[Picaro]

What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?

Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.

If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.

Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions

U.S. Abortion Statistics

Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"

https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade

Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t

It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts

And what happens to these unwaned children? Republicans don't want to take care of the poor now? They keep wanting to cut food stamps, Medicaid, and welfare now.

We know the rich & upper middle class will still get abortions. These unwanted babies will be born the poorer people. Are you wuiklling to comnmiut to increase funding that will help take care of these kids?

If men could get pregnant, Walmart would offer abortions at $59.95.

We are noit talking bsbies, we are talking fetuses. Learn the difference.

1. It's not our responsibility to take care of children once they are born it is the parents .

2. Conservatives give way more to charity then liberals...fact and don't confuse charity with taxes , only a child poster does that

3. Once again you prove yourself anti biology a fetus is a baby, it will never be born a lollipop or a dandilion ..

4. Bullshit on that men could get pregnant thing.. news flash some men have faith in God , read the scripture's , have morals and common decency.

.

1) You are forcing poor women to have babies & now you admit you want to condemn them to a childhood of poor living conditions & hunger. Higher costs thsat you will constantly whine about.

2) Tossing a quarter in the Red Kettle is not enough.

3)
a·by
ˈbābē/
noun
noun: baby; plural noun: babies

1. 1.
   a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
   "his wife's just had a baby"
   synonyms: infant, newborn, child, tot, little one; More

fe·tus
ˈfēdəs/
noun
noun: fetus; plural noun: fetuses; noun: foetus; plural noun: foetuses

1. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

4) Men make the abortion laws. You know I am right. Since men contribute to these pregnancies, how about we implant a balloon in their guy & fill it with water in the same way a fetus grows.

Lying inane rubbish. Where are the Evul White Hordes forcing poor women to get knocked up? Why doesn''t the network news have any footage of these mobs racing around impregnating poor women?

 

[Richard-H]

Did everyone on this thread skip high school biology class?

Youre the one that claims you get pregnant, sexually addicted, or catch a disease everytime you have sex. Were you raised in a very strict religious environment surrounded by ignorance?

Holy crap are you full of shit! I did not say that at all. Try either learning to read or responding to what I said and not what you'd like to believe I said.

I never said "everytime you have sex". You certainly are twisted, aren't you?

Which brings up another perspective on abortion:

Has anyone done a study on the psychological and emotional effects that abortions have on the women?

Beyond the physical, abortion may leave much deeper scars.

You compared it to eating junk food. Everytime you eat junk food you fuck up your body.

You do not fuck up your body everytime you eat junk food. It's only when you eat too much junk food and/or do not eat a substantial amount of nutritionous food that you fuck up your body. Must you twist everything?

 

[Richard-H]

Many of us believe that both men and women, as conscience human beings, should control themselves.

Then control yourself. That doesnt give you the right to control others. Big difference.

However, if it were determined that a fetus/embryo were in fact an individual, then abortion would be the most extreme and vicious control of one human being over another - murder.

I have no right to control others, but I do have, as does the government, a responsibility to protect the basic inalienable rights of other people.

For as long as the courts have determined that a fetus/embryo is not an individual, then we have no right to make abortion illegal. But if the courts ever determined that a fetus/embyro was an individual then we would be obliged to make abortion illegal.

Abortion would be asserting your rights as an individual to not have another individual leech off your body.

You dont have inalienable rights to anything if you are living inside someone elses body and your life depends on that other persons body. You only have inalienable rights if you can provide for yourself.the ability to breath.

You just make it up as you go along, don't you!

When you are responsible for creating that individual, then you are responsible for protecting and respecting that individual's inalienable and Constitutional rights. Only when you had no choice in the creation of that individual or when that individual is a threat to your life could it be argued that your body should not be used for that individual's survival.

Any emotionally healthy woman considers the well being of her unborn child to be precious beyond all else. Only sick, perverse women that think that the pursuit of muscle spasms is all that matters would view their unborn child to be parasitic as you do.

Fetuses dont have rights over the mother.

Your assertion that an emotionally healthy woman consists of one that thinks an unborn child is precious beyond all else is nothing but a silly opinion.

If the courts determined that a fetus was and individual, then the mother would not have unlimited rights over the fetus - and certainly not the right to kill it.

You apparently have no idea of how an emotionally healthy woman thinks.

 

[Picaro]

Some people seem to be pretending that putting a woman's choice about her reproduction above the state's right to decide for her is "leftist".
Ridiculous.

Some people avidly avoid admitting throwing her legs open and getting knocked up is the reproductive choice, and refuse to acknowledge that abortion is just murdering the kid after the choice, not 'reproductive choice'.

Since having sex is also a recreation you sound like an idiot.

Since there is more than one way to express sexual interaction, you sound like an idiot faggot who doesn't know how women get pregnant.

 

[Picaro]

Picaro: what are you resisting? A serious conversation among adults?.

Do you know any? Doesn't appear you do know any adults. Why do you think women are too incapable of self-control?

You are full of shit by thinking that human sexuality may be reduced to "self control." "Self contol" among husbands and wives??? Boyfriends and girlfriends?

Please be aware that heterosexual humans engage in intercourse for reasons unrelated to procreation.

Please be aware that female people have eggs inside them and that male people have sperm inside of them that may penetrate the female egg and cause a pregnancy.

Lol you're just an idiot with no rebuttal. we already knew that. Are you the local gang bang Queen or something, just can' say no, ever??? Sex is just uncontrollable and requires just one type of sexual act? Please be aware nobody takes your stupid claim seriously.