I have used a question mark after a statement of fact to indicate I am not sure about the information I’ve stated.
I suppose it would be proper to make the statement of fact and follow up in the form of a question.
But, more importantly, we are all on the same team here, give or take some issues and some…errr… outliers. Save our energy for some ass kicking, lib-slaying
But some are. Some are consensual sexual contact that ends up going further than one party expected. Sometimes it’s not clear to the other party. (Sometimes it’s not even communicated to the other party!) And the next day, buyer’s remorse sets in, and it suddenly is called rape.
We have created a sexually charged dating scene. Flirtation that seems more like pole dancing. Boozed-up parties with drunken girls a standard fixture. And come-hither apparel, all mixed with a porn-fueled hook-up culture. And then we shake our fingers when these people suddenly find they’ve sometimes gone way beyond proper boundaries.
Sometimes.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying any particular percentage of rape cases involve this. But nobody should pretend this doesn’t happen.
Yes but it’s completely politically incorrect and now indefensible to distinguish between a guy taking advantage of his drunken date and some predator that singles out a woman alone at night minding her own business for a brutal assault and rape.
Hell, it’s to the point now that if you don’t have written consent prior and a breathalyzer documenting your date wasn’t too drunk to give “legal consent” at the time even if she did in fact consent or was the instigator you can be labeled a rapist and in some jurisdictions convicted of rape even though you did absolutely nothing wrong other than having sex with a willing partner outside of marriage.
When I was around 25 I had an Epiphany when discussing religion and morality with some friends.
Even if you are an avowed atheist, if you take the ten commandments, throw out all of those relating to God or Religion, what you have left is a set of rules for life that if we all adhered to them would eliminate over 90% of the problems in the world.
I support laws that put limits on abortions. I do not support laws that allow abortions without limits.
I also do not support laws that prohibit all abortions. So, we’re back to my original statement:
Abortion laws will not stop abortions.
There must be a compromise between no abortions permitted and all abortions permitted. I think the line should be drawn early in the pregnancy.
I’d rather the woman be under the care of a licensed doctor than a basement butcher. Even with a doctor, in a clinic or hospital, abortions can be quite cruel and inhumane…to the unborn child.
The full impact of the video requires listening to the entire narration. IIRC, there was a doctor that had performed many hundreds of abortions. After watching this (or a similar sonogram video of an abortion), he never performed another one.
I wholeheartedly agree. But, I also think it is a fringe element pushing that narrative. Much like they are pushing many narratives that are counter to the founding principles of this country and our judicial system.
What we see as a result, are people fed up with the constant pushing of the envelope. Legislation like this is a slap in the face, a push back to those who are applauded and supported for being fine with 5 minute before birth abortions. You can only push so much on people before they start to push back.
I had what was supposed to have been a discussion about the current news on the Alabama Abortion Bill with someone on another forum. His response was really stupid and vile:
The problem is that they are no longer just a fringe element, this is the narrative being pushed hard by the majority of democrats and even some republicans.
You will find flamers and idiots in any crowd of a dozen or more people and that percentage seems to go up dramatically on the net where there is no expectation of consequences due to the anonymity of the net.