On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:33:27 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> in news message
<3v5kglF13litjU1@individual.net> wrote:

"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:pi4ro1pedolr8fl4hpm23q2b5t1c9th5tp@4ax.com...

Ideally couples choose when they want a child to be a consequence of
their love making, and there are many reliable ways to prevent
conception when it is not chosen. So a child is not the compulsory
result of, as you so quaintly phrased, fucking. Most of the time, the
result of sexual activity is mutual enjoyment and pair bonding without
any desire to produce a child. I see nothing wrong with this type of
"fucking". Do you?

Only kind I have, thankyouverymuch. Has to do with the reproductive years
being over and all that ;)

Should I not be enjoying myself? D'oh! :)

Yes, dear, you should. With abandon.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:33:27 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> in news message
<3v5kglF13litjU1@individual.net> wrote:

"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:pi4ro1pedolr8fl4hpm23q2b5t1c9th5tp@4ax.com...

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:27:23 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> in news message
<fDbjf.10578$aA2.7506@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> wrote:

Liz wrote:

On 29 Nov 2005 16:02:44 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> in
news message <1133308964.939357.40780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
wrote:

skyeyes wrote:

S. Maizlich wrote:

The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.

Yes. <Tapping foot impatiently> What's your point?

Sometimes you don't get what you'd like.

And sometimes you do.

What 'consequences' would you recommend for fucking? IMO, an orgasm
is always a welcome consequence.

Sometimes, a baby is the consequence. A human baby.

That's true . . . sometimes, but it isn't a consequence nor should it
be a consequence every time that a couple chooses to make love. And
to act as if that is the ONLY consequence or that is an inevitable
consequence is ignoring reality.

Ideally couples choose when they want a child to be a consequence of
their love making, and there are many reliable ways to prevent
conception when it is not chosen. So a child is not the compulsory
result of, as you so quaintly phrased, fucking. Most of the time, the
result of sexual activity is mutual enjoyment and pair bonding without
any desire to produce a child. I see nothing wrong with this type of
"fucking". Do you?

Only kind I have, thankyouverymuch. Has to do with the reproductive years
being over and all that ;)

Should I not be enjoying myself? D'oh! :)

Yes, dear, you should. With abandon.

Liz wrote:

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:27:23 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizl...@hertzburgh.eduu> in news message
<fDbjf.10578$aA2.7...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> wrote:

Liz wrote:

S. Maizlich wrote:

[----]

The *real* goal of the pro-abortion crowd
is consequence-free fucking.

What 'consequences' would you recommend for fucking? IMO, an orgasm
is always a welcome consequence.

Sometimes, a baby is the consequence. A human baby.

That's true . . . sometimes, but it isn't a consequence nor should it
be a consequence every time that a couple chooses to make love.

We're talking only about those times when conception of
a new human life *IS* the consequence of fucking.

No, we are not.

Don't use euphemisms like "make love", Liz. This is
not about love; it's about fucking.

Maybe for you it is about fucking.

People want to
***** because it feels good,

Yes it does. Do you have something against pleasure? Are people
supposed to feel bad?

and as a result of the
wretched collapse of social mores in the 1960s, people
want to ***** and feel good without having to worry
about consequences for their "lifestyle".

Morality changes. Society hasn't collapsed.

It may be not to your
liking, but morally hasn't changed all that much from the 1950s. In
many ways, it is better. Abortion isn't something that just came in
vouge. It was practiced before the 1960s. People just didn't openly
talk about it.

And to act as if that is the ONLY consequence or that is an inevitable
consequence is ignoring reality.

It's also a strawman, Liz, because I haven't done that.
I am only concerned with those instances where it
*IS* a consequence. When it is, killing a developing
new human being is a heinous act.

No, your premise was about "consequence-free fucking".

You write as if sex itself was a heinous act.

I've had long conversations with people who insist that sex cause AIDS.

Ideally couples choose when they want a child to be a consequence of
their love making, and there are many reliable ways to prevent
conception when it is not chosen.

That's what's so baffling about this entire debate.
The unbridled hedonists have got their way on EVERY
aspect of sexuality: huge and hugely expensive
"comprehensive" sex education in schools;

Unfortunately, what is being taught in schools these days for the most
part (promoted by the policies of our current President) is the
Abstinance Only programs, which are totally ineffective.

widely and cheaply available birth control; and yet the number
of unwanted pregnancies skyrocketed (fortunately, coming
down a bit). Note that births to unwed teenage mothers
*also* skyrocketed.

The real problem here is that many people or their families are
religiously opposed to birth control so they are completely reluctant
to use it or even discuss it with their partners. High school girls
especially think it takes the romance and the spontaneity out of sex if
they must discuss or use birth control.

However, teens are not the only people who have abortions. Many poor
people do not have access to either health insurance or birth control,
which means more abortions and more unhealthy children if an abortion
is not performed. If every woman had the knowledge and the affordable
access to prevent pregnancy, the abortion rate would drop. It will
never go away.

So a child is not the compulsory
result of, as you so quaintly phrased, fucking.

I'd say that your embarrassed use of "make love" is
what is quaint, Liz.

I'm certainly not embarrassed to use coarse words, *****, but I write
what I mean and I am not writing for the effect of trying to shock
people. And as I said, you ought to try making love instead of just
fucking. It might change your whole outlook.

I have tried in this post to write in the more earthy style of the
street with which you seem most comfortable. I'm quite a linguist and
can even translate from Fundy to English the writings of those who have
Bibles strapped to their faces.

Fucking is all it is. It's pure,
self-absorbed hedonism.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I don't know how old you are
or if you remember the 1960s motto "if it feels good,
do it", but that's what we're talking about: a
collapse of social mores that led people to abandon the
extremely worthwhile and civilization-building concept
of deferred gratification, and simply yield to whatever
hedonistic impulse strikes them.

I'm old enough. Those people in bellbottoms in the '60s are now the
investors, businessmen and women, homeowners, and politicians of today.
Amazing how society is still functioning.

Most of the time, the
result of sexual activity is mutual enjoyment and pair bonding without
any desire to produce a child. I see nothing wrong with this type of
"fucking". Do you?

It's irrelevant whether or not I see something wrong
with the complete abandonment of self restraint and a
descent into purely hedonistic self absorption.

Why do you worry about hedonism?

Hedonistic acts don't cause abortion.

If you would concentrate merely on abortion rather than trying to make
everyone act in accordance with your prissy little morals,

What I'm concerned with is how people handle the
consequences of it.

I can lecture someone until I'm
blue in the face about why it is bad and wrong to live
a hedonistic, depraved "lifestyle", but I fully
recognize that I have no legal or moral right to stop
them.

Nor is it really any of your business who fucks whom or how they decide
to *****.

However, society *does* have the right, even a
duty, not to let them handle the consequences of their
choices in a way that impinges on the rights of others.

How do two strangers fucking impinge upon your rights?

Human beings have rights that do *not* originate with
government,

I agree. The government is there to enforce what the people are
willing to support as rights. One of those rights which they are
willing to support is the right to control their reproduction.

and there is NO rational conception of them
that says the fetus shouldn't enjoy them every bit as
much as a day-old baby.

There are rational reasons why personhood does not acquire until birth.