The Dwarf Regin wrote:
Rather, I hate much of what he did. I even read somewhere that the thing of which he is most proud is his support of abortion.
What is wrong with abortion?
The Dwarf Regin wrote:
Rather, I hate much of what he did. I even read somewhere that the thing of which he is most proud is his support of abortion.
What is wrong with abortion?
That devil was banging Barbi Benton when she was 18 and he was over 40.
If he was poor, he would be a weird gross creeper. If he was your creepy uncle, everyone would make fun of him behind his back and avoid him. But since he made a lot of money off of being a weird gross creeper, he's a hero.
HardLoper wrote:
Good riddance
Care to back this up with an explanation of why you feel this way?
The Dwarf Regin wrote:
RightBarry wrote:He recognized a market, did his thing and made money. I don't think he was a bad person just someone doing an exploitive activity that was going to be done by someone? It helped that the country had a somewhat backward attitude compared to the Western World but that's what he must have been grateful for.
By "somewhat backward attitude compared to the Western World," do you mean somewhat resistant to accepting divorce, direct abortion, sexual promiscuity, an increase in out-of-wedlock births, unmarried cohabitation, STDs and adultery?
Very good arguments could be made that that the majority of those (divorce, direct abortion, out of wedlock births, STDs, adultery) could be drastically reduced if we were more open as a society about sex and birth control.
klodo wrote:
The Dwarf Regin wrote:Rather, I hate much of what he did. I even read somewhere that the thing of which he is most proud is his support of abortion.
What is wrong with abortion?
Well, you could ask Kate Michelman, former head of NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League). Even she said abortion is a "bad" thing.
He's not asking her, he's asking you.
no YOURE hilarious wrote:
The Dwarf Regin wrote:By "somewhat backward attitude compared to the Western World," do you mean somewhat resistant to accepting divorce, direct abortion, sexual promiscuity, an increase in out-of-wedlock births, unmarried cohabitation, STDs and adultery?
Very good arguments could be made that that the majority of those (divorce, direct abortion, out of wedlock births, STDs, adultery) could be drastically reduced if we were more open as a society about sex and birth control.
That's very much what advocates for artificial birth control said in the 1960s.
The 1960s champions of artificial birth control fobbed off as "health care" drugs designed to induce a diseased state – prolonged infertility – by poisoning women and devices or interventions which monkey-wrench the human reproductive works, usually in women. They declared that these lifestyle drugs, devices and interventions would prevent out-of-wedlock births, abortion, child abuse, divorce, adultery and more. The 1960s were a time of moonshots, psychedelia and great hope in technology and medicine.
The data are in. After decades of widespread use of these artificial methods, the reported rates of out-of-wedlock births, abortion, child abuse, and divorce have not fallen but have moon rocketed (as have the rates of transmission of sexual diseases). Not groovy. While rates of adultery are difficult to obtain, you may suspect as I do that they have increased. In the USA, unmarried women procure more than 80% of abortions; of the remaining less than 20% of abortions (those procured by married women), a significant percentage may be by women impregnated by men to whom they are not married: abortion in the USA is overwhelmingly a consequence of sex between people unmarried to each other. Further, the majority of women having abortions in the USA were using a "contraceptive" drug or device when they conceived the child they aborted (many so called "contraceptives," besides failing to prevent conception, may also cause a very early abortion); a greater majority were experienced "contraceptive" users but some abandoned these drugs or devices, often because of their side effects which frequently include depression, weight gain and decreased sex drive, for just three examples. How ironic. Should we be surprised by such unintended effects when the intended effect is to produce a diseased state? Might these effects – intended (infertility) and unintended (depression, weight gain and decreased sex drive) - have something to do with adultery and divorce?
The sexual revolution has not so much been tried on an enormous scale and found wanting as it has been tried on an enormous scale and found disastrous. While economic and other factors contributed, that revolution has been fueled largely by the use of artificial “contraceptives.†How much worse must things get before those still clinging to great hopes for these lifestyle drugs, devices and interventions rid the moonbeams from their eyes and shake the psychedelic dust from their bell bottoms?
gross
Bet ole Hef is finding out how hot the women in Hell are!
LOL. Some of you are hilarious. Men like to look at naked women. He provided a medium for that. Divorce and abortion would have still existed. Women would still dig dudes with money over looks and personality. Go back to church and stay off the internet if you think he's some devil.
stfu JS wrote:
He's not asking her, he's asking you.
In that case: he was not replying to you.
The hateful responses in this thread just reinforce why I think most runners are socially awkward bible toters.
It's quite clear to me, that the USA has a lot of very strange people with very weird ideas ( are they all religious nutters?)
BTW, is "seeing women as sex objects", the same as "women being the object of men's sexual desires"?
Ugh... wrote:
The hateful responses in this thread just reinforce why I think most runners are socially awkward bible toters.
These days are marked by a very low threshold for declaring hate. It seems that many, upon encountering others with a different opinion, declare them, with utmost facility, haters.
klodo wrote:
The Dwarf Regin wrote:Rather, I hate much of what he did. I even read somewhere that the thing of which he is most proud is his support of abortion.
What is wrong with abortion?
Abortion is:
- a risk factor for infertility
- a risk factor for ectopic (tubal) pregnancy
- a risk factor for cerebral palsy in babies conceived later
- a suspected risk factor for breast cancer
- deliberately fatal to the fetus targeted by the abortion, for a few examples.
montana wrote:
LOL. Some of you are hilarious. Men like to look at naked women. He provided a medium for that. Divorce and abortion would have still existed. Women would still dig dudes with money over looks and personality. Go back to church and stay off the internet if you think he's some devil.
Why stop there? Just go nudist, everyone! Why do we even bother with clothes in comfy climates? Saving the upholstery is such a lame excuse.
portsea7 wrote:
It's quite clear to me, that the USA has a lot of very strange people with very weird ideas ( are they all religious nutters?)
BTW, is "seeing women as sex objects", the same as "women being the object of men's sexual desires"?
Are you, portsea7, a porn nutter?
portsea7 wrote:
It's quite clear to me, that the USA has a lot of very strange people with very weird ideas ( are they all religious nutters?)
The real nutters are all those pasty-faced British cops and social workers who turned a blind eye to the ongoing rape of underaged English schoolgirls by muslim gangs.
Nobody in there right mind would call Playboy porn!
Are you crackers!
Or one of those, very dangerous - and very stupid -religious nutters