The world's gayest nation

[salivor]

I could give you another long drawn out response that would waste more of my time. I can't believe I'd devoted such a large portion of my day to arguing with you in the first place. Instead I think your last paragraph summed you up brilliantly. Short of tattooing my point on your forehead theres no other method I can think of to get you to read my posts. Ignorance is bliss goangod.

 

[brook]

To answer your question, I will use quote from lesbian acitivist Camille Paglia (and yes, I see thr irony)

Quote:
"Homosexuality is not ‘normal.’ On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm…Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction…No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous…homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait."

The problem with that is - she is wrong

being a homosexual does not give you any greater insight into human behaviour than the rest of us

homosexuality is not 'normal' when normal means the majority - and it never will be

however it is 'normal' if normal means 'natural', it is seen across the animal kingdom and in many species (penguins being one although i do not know all) it is common for a certain percentage of each 'flock' (does anyone know what a group of penguins is called??) to form lifelong homosexual pairs.

 

[ozcrusader]

On this thread, I have proven:

• A link between homosexuality and pedophilia

  surely humanity and pedophilia can be linked also

  
  lol - Millers you are the last person who should be refuting this.
  Your whole case on the link between Islam and terrorism is that Muslims are overrepresented in terrorism statistics.
  
  And yet, when homosexuals have the same degree of overrepresentation, you refuse to see the link?
  
  Surely terrorism is a humanity problem Millers, and not an Islamic one :lol:
  
  
  

  That once you dispense with the moral injunctions against homosexuality, you end up accepting other behaviours such as polygamy, bestiality etc

  
  you have not proved this at all

  
  
  Actually I have - what possible basis do you have for now denying polygamists or people engaged in incest the right to marry? Go on Millers -name one reason why these people shouldnt be entitled to full rights.
  
  
  

  The parallels between the social acceptance of homosexuality and the social acceptance of pedophilia

  
  once again not proven

  
  The parallels are remarkably similar - however, I can understand if you disagree.
  
  

  That just because you consent to something, does not make the act morally right

  
  morality is different for all of us

  
  No, actually, its not.
  How is it Millers, that nearly every religion and every culture have come up with prohibitions against muder? Against stealing? Against incest?
  
  I agree that there are definitely variations in morality between cultures - but there are also universals that transcend cultural and religious boundaries. The prohibition against homosexuality is one of them.
  
  

  That there is no biological, genetic or other evidence that people are born homosexual

  
  there is plenty of phsycological evidence though as it is a phsycological condition

  
  Motherhood statement - Prove it.
  
  

  That those who follow homosexual lifestyle have a significantly lower life expectancy than those who dont and are significantly more risk of STIs including AIDs

but this is their risk the same as an african who chooses to be sexually active

Perhaps I have state this slowly for everyone.

If as a heterosexual, I engage in heterosexual sex, there is a chance I can contract a disease - lets say AIDs.

But if as a homosexual, I engage in homosexual sex, the chance of me contracting AIDs is 5000 times higher.

You talk about moral equivocation all time millers - how is than an equivalent risk?

 

[Anonymous]

Joe, a man (priest) having sex with a 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 yr old male child is homosexual sex. It is still abuse yes - and there is no consent - I fully agree with you on that- but this is still homosexual sex.

Let me ask you this, right now the age of consent for gays in NSW is 16.
So if a priest were to have sex with a 16 year old without his consent, that would be pedophilia? But if he had his consent, that would be homosexuality???

I think not - it would classify as abuse - but its still homosexual.

You should read about one of the most prominent cases - Rev Paul Shanley who is said to have molested more than a hundred boys. He was also a prominent member of the gay catholic community, managed a gay hotel and was a speaker at NAMBLA, Dignity and other homosexual groups.

Oh I get it...
Paedophilia is a homosexual perversion.
Clergyman abusing children (a 13 year old is a child... no two ways about it) is not neccesarily paedophilia as much as it is homer-sexual. 8-[
Congratluations... you managed to cover all your bases and still blame it on the gay community.

A reverend who abuses 100 boys is a paedophile first and foremost - the same applies if he abused young girls. Its a tragedy for the victims and a problem with the individual... not a whole community.

 

[ozcrusader]

I could give you another long drawn out response that would waste more of my time. I can't believe I'd devoted such a large portion of my day to arguing with you in the first place. Instead I think your last paragraph summed you up brilliantly. Short of tattooing my point on your forehead theres no other method I can think of to get you to read my posts. Ignorance is bliss goangod.

Salivor - you are doing yourself a disservice. i cant believe I've devoted so much of my time to this either - but it has been a good discussion (for me anyway)

And same to you about tattooing my points on your forehead.

 

[ozcrusader]

Oh I get it...
Paedophilia is a homosexual perversion.
Clergyman abusing children (a 13 year old is a child... no two ways about it) is not neccesarily paedophilia as much as it is homer-sexual. 8-[
Congratluations... you managed to cover all your bases and still blame it on the gay community.

13 years old is a child?
Why then Willow, do many countries have an age of consent law of 12?

(I happen to fully agree with you though)

A reverend who abuses 100 boys is a paedophile first and foremost - the same applies if he abused young girls. Its a tragedy for the victims and a problem with the individual... not a whole community.

I'm not saying he's not a pedophile - becase he did also abuse children. But the epidemic of abuse within the church is largely directed at boys in their early teens - thats right - the same boys that homosexuals want to have sex with by lowering/repealing the age of consent laws.

 

[ozcrusader]

however it is 'normal' if normal means 'natural', it is seen across the animal kingdom and in many species (penguins being one although i do not know all) it is common for a certain percentage of each 'flock' (does anyone know what a group of penguins is called??) to form lifelong homosexual pairs.

Brook - some animals roll around in their own excrement, kill their partners after mating and eat their young.

Therefore, this behaviour should be considered 'normal' for humans too?

 

[millersnose]

lol - Millers you are the last person who should be refuting this.
Your whole case on the link between Islam and terrorism is that Muslims are overrepresented in terrorism statistics.

And yet, when homosexuals have the same degree of overrepresentation, you refuse to see the link?

islam is a dogma
homosexuality is a behaviour

Actually I have - what possible basis do you have for now denying polygamists or people engaged in incest the right to marry? Go on Millers -name one reason why these people shouldnt be entitled to full rights.

the law

No, actually, its not.
How is it Millers, that nearly every religion and every culture have come up with prohibitions against muder? Against stealing? Against incest?

I agree that there are definitely variations in morality between cultures - but there are also universals that transcend cultural and religious boundaries. The prohibition against homosexuality is one of them.

natural human aversion to something unfamiliar - different - fear of the unknown

Motherhood statement - Prove it.

we are discussing a phenomenon that exists
i dont understand how you want me to prove it?

Perhaps I have state this slowly for everyone.

If as a heterosexual, I engage in heterosexual sex, there is a chance I can contract a disease - lets say AIDs.

But if as a homosexual, I engage in homosexual sex, the chance of me contracting AIDs is 5000 times higher.

You talk about moral equivocation all time millers - how is than an equivalent risk?

it isnt

i never said it was

bubonic plague was transmitted by less than sex and killed more of the earths population than aids - but so what?

 

[brook]

however it is 'normal' if normal means 'natural', it is seen across the animal kingdom and in many species (penguins being one although i do not know all) it is common for a certain percentage of each 'flock' (does anyone know what a group of penguins is called??) to form lifelong homosexual pairs.

Brook - some animals roll around in their own excrement, kill their partners after mating and eat their young.

Therefore, this behaviour should be considered 'normal' for humans too?

Normal no?

but thats twisting the argument

If you (or anyone else) is going to state that someone could not possibly be born homosexual because it defys 'natural law' then their is a duty to prove that it DOES defy natural law - and it is common in the animal kingdom and therefore 'natural'

if on the other hand you wanted to argue that people can be born attracted to the opposite sex but they SHOULDN'T act on this that would be a different matter entirely

I'd still disagree with you but the argument would have more cred.

 

[ozcrusader]

islam is a dogma
homosexuality is a behaviour

So?
The outcome is still the same. An overrepresentation of Muslims in terrorism statistics prompts you to engage in a prolonged campaign to expose the flaw of Islam and educate people about its dangers

Ditto for me and homosexuality.

Actually I have - what possible basis do you have for now denying polygamists or people engaged in incest the right to marry? Go on Millers -name one reason why these people shouldnt be entitled to full rights.

the law

You're going to have to do better than that my friend.
The 'law' also says that homosexual marriage is illegal- yet we are changing it because it 'discriminates' on the basis of sexual preference.

Th current law also discriminates on the same grounds against polgamy and incest - i ask again - give me one reason why we shouldnt change it?

No, actually, its not.
How is it Millers, that nearly every religion and every culture have come up with prohibitions against muder? Against stealing? Against incest?

natural human aversion to something unfamiliar - different - fear of the unknown [/quote]

So the fact that nearly every religion and culture prohibits murder, you put down to 'fear of the unknown'.

Uh huh. :roll:

we are discussing a phenomenon that exists
i dont understand how you want me to prove it?

Please give me a source quoting psychological evidence that homosexuals are born gay.

it isnt

i never said it was

Really?

[quote = Millersnose]but this is their risk the same as an african who chooses to be sexually active [/quote]

The risk of contracting STIs inluding AIDs is much higher through homosexual sex than heterso sexual sex. Therefore homosexual sex is not a valid healthy alternative lifestyle choice.

 

[salivor]

I could give you another long drawn out response that would waste more of my time. I can't believe I'd devoted such a large portion of my day to arguing with you in the first place. Instead I think your last paragraph summed you up brilliantly. Short of tattooing my point on your forehead theres no other method I can think of to get you to read my posts. Ignorance is bliss goangod.

Salivor - you are doing yourself a disservice. i cant believe I've devoted so much of my time to this either - but it has been a good discussion (for me anyway)

And same to you about tattooing my points on your forehead.

Goangod - I like to think I know when I'm banging my head up against a brick wall. I think we both have to accept to agree to disagree. We are never going to change each others opinions. Yours is formed I feel mainly on your religious beliefs and the morals you take from that and mine is formed from my own set of morals that differ somewhat to those of Christianity and other mainstream religions.

I don't normally get riled up over things written on internet message boards despite the perception I give at times but this discussions has angered me because the attitude of the church in particular on this subject has angered me for a long time. I guess we have to accept that there will always be intolerant sections of society.

What angers me most is that you've constantly tried to twist my words throughout this debate to make it seem as if I am in support of paedophilia, incest and bestiality despite my strong stance against all of them.

 

[ozcrusader]

Normal no?

but thats twisting the argument

If you (or anyone else) is going to state that someone could not possibly be born homosexual because it defys 'natural law' then their is a duty to prove that it DOES defy natural law - and it is common in the animal kingdom and therefore 'natural'

Brook, this is how I view your argument.

Premise: Homosexuality is observable in the animal kingdom
Conclusion: It is natural behaviour and its natural for humans also

How is that different from this?

Premise: Cannibalism/Rolling round in excrement/etc etc is observable in the animal kingdom
Conclusion: It is natural behaviour and its natural for humans also

if on the other hand you wanted to argue that people can be born attracted to the opposite sex but they SHOULDN'T act on this that would be a different matter entirely

I'd still disagree with you but the argument would have more cred.

That's Catholic doctrine 101 8)
I dont have a firm opinion either way to tell you truth - I just dont see any evidence - none whatstoever - that people are born gay.

 

[ozcrusader]

Goangod - I like to think I know when I'm banging my head up against a brick wall. I think we both have to accept to agree to disagree. We are never going to change each others opinions.

Agreed.

Yours is formed I feel mainly on your religious beliefs and the morals you take from that and mine is formed from my own set of morals that differ somewhat to those of Christianity and other mainstream religions.

Actually, mine is formed on the basis of natural law.

I don't normally get riled up over things written on internet message boards despite the perception I give at times but this discussions has angered me because the attitude of the church in particular on this subject has angered me for a long time. I guess we have to accept that there will always be intolerant sections of society.

That is intolerance in your view. If pedophilia is legalised Salivor, then I shall certainly continue my 'intolerance' against them too.

What angers me most is that you've constantly tried to twist my words throughout this debate to make it seem as if I am in support of paedophilia, incest and bestiality despite my strong stance against all of them.

No - I really havent.
All I have been trying to say - and perhaps not very well - is this :
If you remove the moral injunctions for prohibiting homosexuality because they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation - then we must also accept pedophilia, incest and bestiality as valid forms of sexual expression, because the moral injunctions against them are exactly the same.

 

[millersnose]

So?
The outcome is still the same. An overrepresentation of Muslims in terrorism statistics prompts you to engage in a prolonged campaign to expose the flaw of Islam and educate people about its dangers

Ditto for me and homosexuality.

pedophilia is roundly condemned by everyone and it is a recognised crime and threat

there is no equivalence here

Actually I have - what possible basis do you have for now denying polygamists or people engaged in incest the right to marry? Go on Millers -name one reason why these people shouldnt be entitled to full rights.

the law

You're going to have to do better than that my friend.
The 'law' also says that homosexual marriage is illegal- yet we are changing it because it 'discriminates' on the basis of sexual preference.

Th current law also discriminates on the same grounds against polgamy and incest - i ask again - give me one reason why we shouldnt change it?

the law represents the wishes of the population

No, actually, its not.
How is it Millers, that nearly every religion and every culture have come up with prohibitions against muder? Against stealing? Against incest?

natural human aversion to something unfamiliar - different - fear of the unknown

So the fact that nearly every religion and culture prohibits murder, you put down to 'fear of the unknown'.

Uh huh. :roll: [/quote]
i was referring to specifically homosexuality

we are discussing a phenomenon that exists
i dont understand how you want me to prove it?

Please give me a source quoting psychological evidence that homosexuals are born gay.

http://www.avert.org/hsexu2.htm

i think for everyone that quote you will quote a contrary one such is the science of phsycology

look GG

gays exist - do you really think they would put themselves through the hell of a gay lifestyle and the stigma that brings if they can help it?

it isnt

i never said it was

Really?

[quote = Millersnose]but this is their risk the same as an african who chooses to be sexually active

The risk of contracting STIs inluding AIDs is much higher through homosexual sex than heterso sexual sex. Therefore homosexual sex is not a valid healthy alternative lifestyle choice.

the point i was making was that hetero sex in africa can be as dangerous as gay sex here

 

[salivor]

I can feel myself slipping back into this debate.

Actually, mine is formed on the basis of natural law.

There are a lot of things that we all do that aren't natural goangod I hate to tell you. Do you have a tan? Have you ever sunbathed in your life? If you have answered yes I hate to tell you but a tan is not natural and quite unhealthy. The whiter the skin, the healthier the skin.

That is intolerance in your view. If pedophilia is legalised Salivor, then I shall certainly continue my 'intolerance' against them too.

In all honesty, I had a line on the end of the quote saying I can see the irony but it somehow got lost in copying and pasting between word and the this window.

No - I really havent.
All I have been trying to say - and perhaps not very well - is this :
If you remove the moral injunctions for prohibiting homosexuality because they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation - then we must also accept pedophilia, incest and bestiality as valid forms of sexual expression, because the moral injunctions against them are exactly the same.

We've already been over this point a thousand times but what’s one more? Paedophilia is illegal as the child is not at a mature age to consent. Therefore even if the person is born with those feelings towards children I don't agree that they should be allowed to act them out. They should only be discriminated against when they do step across the line between legal and illegal activities.
Bestiality I don't agree with because of the fact I feel its animal abuse. We have no way of communicating with most animals for them to consent. Not only that I feel it is unnatural. Now before you jump down my neck about homosexuality being unnatural, this is a different case because we are talking about different species.
Finally incest. Actually one which I don't think I've shared my actual view on. My main objection to incest is the risks involved with it such as birth defects. Now I know you want to bring up the aids statistics but only the two individuals are harmed and heterosexuals take the same risks when choosing to have sex. With incest we are talking about potentially bringing into the world an innocent human being that could be born with birth defects.

 

[eloquentEEL]

wow... this thread sure has taken a bit of reading, and now is as good a time as any to enter the debate... starting with some of the key points as summarised below:

islam is a dogma
homosexuality is a behaviour

So?
The outcome is still the same. An overrepresentation of Muslims in terrorism statistics prompts you to engage in a prolonged campaign to expose the flaw of Islam and educate people about its dangers

Ditto for me and homosexuality.

i disagree with both of you. enough said about this point.

Actually I have - what possible basis do you have for now denying polygamists or people engaged in incest the right to marry? Go on Millers -name one reason why these people shouldnt be entitled to full rights.

the law

You're going to have to do better than that my friend.
The 'law' also says that homosexual marriage is illegal- yet we are changing it because it 'discriminates' on the basis of sexual preference.

Th current law also discriminates on the same grounds against polgamy and incest - i ask again - give me one reason why we shouldnt change it?

yeah, millers, you should no better than using the law as reasoning in a debate about ethics and truth. after all, women and blacks had laws against them too. but i know that's not good enough for goangod.

so i ask you goangod, to consider this. my parents (who are possibly around your age) watched their Soviet classmates being forced to use their right hands because it was believed that being left handed was a choice and was evil. it is not so clear cut with homosexuality because apart from being born with a homosexual preference, heterosexuals, bisexuals and trisexuals (they'll "try" anything) choose to engage in homosexual acts as well.

but anyway, goangod, here is my explanation about polygamy and incest.

polygamy, in my view, can be ok (i might not engage in it myself, but who am i to stop others?). on the other hand, even though the adults in polygamy may appear to be consenting, they may be suffering from whatever it is that makes people join doomsday cults and I suggest this is why it is illegal. one difference between polygamy and homosexuality is that polygomy is always a choice whereas for homosexuals, they are homosexual even though they might prefer not to be.

incest between parents (grandparents) and children is wrong because the child relies on their parents to teach them what is right or wrong and can be influenced into consenting incest (even when they reach adulthood) even though they don't really want to. similar story for brothers/sisters, etc. another issue with incest is that it has medically been proven that inbreeding causes birth defects.

No, actually, its not.
How is it Millers, that nearly every religion and every culture have come up with prohibitions against muder? Against stealing? Against incest?

gut feeling. general consensus. they can often be right, but not under every circumstance. majority rule also has a large part to play.

just as a point of interest, there are very few values that are universal to all religions and cultures. the only one that does appear to be there across the board (satanism excepted) is the golden rule... treat others how you would like to be treated yourself. i think the rule needs a little modification, but it seems to work pretty well as a default.

in terms of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia, you have not proven any causal relationship. you have just provided circumstantial evidence (always wanted to say that). the only place you have tried to establish a causal link was when you said something about homosexuals having a preference for younger partners. if this is correct, does that mean that the younger partner in a homosexual relationship is generally a loser because they didn't get what they wanted?

in terms of the title of this thread, I think something along the lines of "the world's most tolerant nation" would be more appropriate.

the only debate that i think this thread has merited is the one about age of consent, which seems to have been glossed over in favour of "easier" topics to have an opinion on. [/rant]

 

[Mad Dogg]

Your refusal to see anything wrong with an overrepresentation of homosexuals in abuse statistics defies belief.

Your refusal to see anything wrong with an overrepresentation of males in rape statistics and aboriginal/maoris in crime statistics defies belief.

How is that statement any different? In both yours and my own statement we see a group of people (homosexuals in yours; males, aboriginal and maoris in mine) that are a higher risk of commiting a crime than the average person. Does that mean we should say that being homosexual is wrong, that being male is wrong, that being aboriginal or maori is wrong, and that all these things should be persecuted?

 

[ozcrusader]

pedophilia is roundly condemned by everyone and it is a recognised crime and threat
there is no equivalence here

Millers, you point to the prevalence of Islamic terrorists in terrorist statistics and from that, conclude that Islam is conducive to terrorism.

I have shown the same for homosexuality and pedophilia.

End of story.

the law represents the wishes of the population

Millers, I think you're way out of your depth here- but please answer the question: The current law also discriminates on the same grounds against polgamy and incest - i ask again - give me one reason why we shouldnt change it?

i was referring to specifically homosexuality

Weak.

we are discussing a phenomenon that exists
i dont understand how you want me to prove it?

look GG

gays exist - do you really think they would put themselves through the hell of a gay lifestyle and the stigma that brings if they can help it?

I understand what you are saying Millers, but the same goes for pedophiles? Why on earth would you put yourself through that lifestyle and stigma?

the point i was making was that hetero sex in africa can be as dangerous as gay sex here

But doesnt that just prove my point Millers? You have to go the absolute worst place on earth for heterosexual sex (in terms of conditions, diseases and healthcare) to make a comparison with normal homosexual sex.

 

[ozcrusader]

I can feel myself slipping back into this debate.

lol - so can I.
Sigh.

There are a lot of things that we all do that aren't natural goangod I hate to tell you. Do you have a tan? Have you ever sunbathed in your life? If you have answered yes I hate to tell you but a tan is not natural and quite unhealthy. The whiter the skin, the healthier the skin.

No -that's not what I mean - and thats not what natural law means either.
Here's a definition:

Natural Law Theory proposes that moral laws are discernible in nature and that moral beliefs have a rational foundation in the way that the world is.

The world has some order to it that allows us to discern what kinds of actions are prohibited and what we are obliged to do.
Human beings can know what is right or wrong by understanding the function of human beings and other morally significant entities.
From Mackinnon, "the essence of natural law theory is that we ought to further the inherent ends of human nature and not do what frustrates human fulfillment or flourishing" (p. 78).

Paedophilia is illegal as the child is not at a mature age to consent. Therefore even if the person is born with those feelings towards children I don't agree that they should be allowed to act them out. They should only be discriminated against when they do step across the line between legal and illegal activities.

Yes I understand your point about consent.
But this is essentially a moral viewpoint is it not? For example, in other cultures, many children were married off (and still are) as children.

Also - does collecting child pornography qualify as illegal? Because technically, if they are just looking, then they havent done anything wrong.

Bestiality I don't agree with because of the fact I feel its animal abuse. We have no way of communicating with most animals for them to consent. Not only that I feel it is unnatural. Now before you jump down my neck about homosexuality being unnatural, this is a different case because we are talking about different species.

I understand this point too - & accept your point about the animals consent (lol). But why do you find it unnatural?
Why is sex between different species unnatural?

Finally incest. Actually one which I don't think I've shared my actual view on. My main objection to incest is the risks involved with it such as birth defects.

Agreed. But they can just have abortions cant they? Or use birth control? Wont this solve that problem?

Now I know you want to bring up the aids statistics but only the two individuals are harmed and heterosexuals take the same risks when choosing to have sex. With incest we are talking about potentially bringing into the world an innocent human being that could be born with birth defects.

lol - good point - I wouldnt have thought of that. But again - just use contraception or get an abortion - no problems.

 

[salivor]

No -that's not what I mean - and thats not what natural law means either.
Here's a definition:

Natural Law Theory proposes that moral laws are discernible in nature and that moral beliefs have a rational foundation in the way that the world is.

The world has some order to it that allows us to discern what kinds of actions are prohibited and what we are obliged to do.
Human beings can know what is right or wrong by understanding the function of human beings and other morally significant entities.
From Mackinnon, "the essence of natural law theory is that we ought to further the inherent ends of human nature and not do what frustrates human fulfillment or flourishing" (p. 7.

I know about the natural law but thanks for the definition nonetheless. My point was more in reference to earlier claims specifically saying that homosexuality is unnatural. It was an example that we do many things that are unnatural. Another example is certain people dying their hair but obviously sexuality is on a much more important scale.

Yes I understand your point about consent.
But this is essentially a moral viewpoint is it not? For example, in other cultures, many children were married off (and still are) as children.

Also - does collecting child pornography qualify as illegal? Because technically, if they are just looking, then they havent done anything wrong.

Yes it is essentially a moral viewpoint.
On child pornography. Its an interesting take on things. Technically I don't think the viewing of child pornography isn't wrong. I do feel though that it should be illegal because as long as there is demand there will be a supplier. The problem here is to create child pornography is to violate the rules of children, even if they consent as because as we have discussed they don't have the maturity to do so. I feel the main problem is with the creaters of child pornography rather than with the view. I do think both should be held accountable under the law in an attempt to wipe out the industry.

I understand this point too - & accept your point about the animals consent (lol). But why do you find it unnatural?
Why is sex between different species unnatural?

I know the animal consent comment sounded warped lol. Anyway why do I find it unnatural? Well as before, its a moral viewpoint. As with paedophiles, I don't think people born with a desire to have sex should be discriminated against. Its when they cross the line and commit animal abuse by acting out on their urges that I have a problem.

Agreed. But they can just have abortions cant they? Or use birth control? Wont this solve that problem?
lol - good point - I wouldnt have thought of that. But again - just use contraception or get an abortion - no problems.

Ok I've grouped these two together because they ask the same question. The problem is that contraception is not 100% safe. Accidents still happen with people using contraception.
On abortion, I don't think I shared my opinions on the abortion thread a while back but I will briefly here. I am pro-abortion but only before life begins which I believe is when independant thought begins and not at conception. Anyway back to the point, I feel abortion should always be an option but not to be taken lightly and played around with. I don't accept comments like they can just have an abortion as if it isn't a serious matter. It should be avoided if possible.