Artful Dodger: Yeah, it's lucky that 12 year old had a gun, cuz if that guy got in and raped her, many would want her to keep the rapists baby

The Col: Not funny.

Artful Dodger: No one died that day, and no one else will die later because no one was raped. But maybe the guy who broke into her home respects women, and made it a point to bring a condom just in case the opportunity presented itself. Oh well, I guess we will never know what could have happended...

Iamon lyme: Dude.. your reply was for the Col...

Hypothetically, if the girl was raped and became pregnant.. stated she did not want it, her parents backed her in her decision...

.. in your world you'd make her have it.

(V): Yes, they would fight tooth and nail for her to keep the rapists baby, it kinda blows your mind actually. Literally it goes from "shoot that SOB " to
" you must keep his baby"

The Col: A death row inmate gets the chance to appeal.

(V): much more than the unborn will get

(V): [ Dude.. your reply was for the Col... ]

No Dude, it wasn't.. I replied to AD. The reply included The Co's obvious concern over whether a 12 year old girl might have been raped or not. He chose to reply in his usual respectful manner and is simply demonstrating his profound respect for all women... of all ages. Show me in the rules where I'm not allowed to include a reply from anyone else on the same topic.

But since the girl was NOT raped, and there was no mention of that possibility in the story, then there really is no reason to speculate about it or to be throwing cold water on anyones speculation about an abortion that could have happened later. We must respect The Co as well, because he is entitled to his opinion whether anyone agrees with it or not.

Iamon lyme: For once it'd be nice if you lived to what you expect and give an honest answer to a question.

I'll take it as "It's a catch 22 question for my ideology" .. I'm damned by women if I say I'd force the girl to have a baby.. I'm damned if I say I'd let her abort.

.. that's why the decision is not in your hands, or should be in the states hand, or in the churches' hand.

(V): [ .. in your world you'd make her have it. ]

You're world is inhabited by straw men who say whatever you want them to say.

Iamon lyme: uh uh.. your world. N' I know Your playing avoidance games.

Best we can expect from you, leading by example is no longer a great Christian tradition I guess!!

Iamon lyme: I meant to say "Your world", not "You're world". At the last second I decided to moderate myself and edited the post before sending, or it would have (not might have) been moderated for me.

(V): "Show me in the rules where I'm not allowed to include a reply from anyone else on the same topic."

I shouldn't have to quote myself and say that again. But I will, and I did... and you will avoid it again.

(V): Well she can't exactly turn around and kill the real badguy: the rapist. That would be a crime. But the innocent unborn child can be killed. We just think there's something wrong with that picture.

Iamon lyme: It's such a cheap shot comment. No one, including myself wants a 12 year old girl to be forced to have a baby of their rapist. That's not the pro-life position. The Pro Life position is all about the unborn and protecting their right to life. That is a noble position.

Artful Dodger: No it isn't the pro life position, but it is a consequence of the pro life position being law. Just like when you state that God created everything.. you have to include those nasty bugs such as Ebola.

"Well she can't exactly turn around and kill the real badguy: the rapist."

Actually I think with the clarification now done in the UK.. ok, our laws on defending yourself... she could, at the time of the crime being committed. I think our UK laws would even allow for her to kill him after, later on in life if she saw him.. she might face manslaughter, but more likely to be given care via a section under the mental health act.

" But the innocent unborn child can be killed. We just think there's something wrong with that picture."

I think we all think that, but it's not a black and white position. Bit like the decision I was taught at school was behind the use of the Atomic bombs on Japan.

.. "Millions will die defending Japan if we 'land'.. 10's of 1000's of American troops will die taking Japan.

.... we have a bomb that just might break them, but it'll kill 10's of 1000's in the process and slowly kill many 1000's more"

>>>>> What's nice about either option?

(V): And the consequence of abortion is a human being, innocent of any wrong doing, is killed.

Artful Dodger: ... And the girl is not innocent or a human being?

Sometimes there is no 'good' answer.

Would you sign the order to make the girl have the baby against her will?

.. not from an office, but to her face.

(V): Don't you mean to her parent's face? She is 12 years old.

(V): Of course she's a human being. That's what makes scenarios like this one so difficult. But so are situations difficult that involve separating parents from children, which happens in societies. Even children in difficult home situations have a strong bond toward the parents. The larger question has to do with what is right vrs what is clearly wrong. It's clearly wrong to kill an innocent human being. The most vulnerable deserve our protection. That fact is weighed against a woman carrying to term a child she does not want. The greater good is served by allowing the innocent unborn child to live to birth and beyond. There are thousands of loving homes waiting for a child should the woman not want to raise the child herself. We can't escape the fact that we have obligations and responsibilities to each other that sometimes require sacrifice of self interests (parents do this all the time!) for the good of the other.

Artful Dodger: 9 long months of being reminded that the woman was raped, What about the women? hmm

Women can Not be forced to have a baby if they were raped, that is messed up and It would mess up the woman's head. My God!! Each day being reminded that the woman was brutally RAPED.

What about the women?

Oh we are just baby makers to you men??

Sad.

(V): The crime happened in the real world. There was no rape. No rape, no baby. No baby, no abortion. And no one will be able to run an end play around the mother to make the girl do anything, one way or the other.

That's not to say it can't happen. In some places adults not related to a child are legally able to influence and make decisions for that child without a parents knowledge or permission. This means an adult outside the family (not related to the child) could legally have a right traditionally reserved only for the parents, and at the same time not be held responsible for the child or anything the child does. At the same time, and in spite of parental rights slowly eroding away, a parent nevertheless continues to be held fully responsible for their child.

In our country it has not been conservatives who work to run end plays around parents and attempt to gain access to their children. The people who are doing this is the same group of people who attempt to gain access to other peoples money.
In our country, we call them liberals.

Iamon lyme: Exactly.

"In our country it has not been conservatives who work to run end plays around parents and attempt to gain access to their children. The people who are doing this is the same group of people who attempt to gain access to other peoples money.
In our country, we call them liberals."

At the moment you and Art are saying you want access to their children, under a law you want.

Are you a liberal?

(V): [ At the moment you and Art are saying you want access to their children, under a law you want. Are you a liberal? ]

Okay (V), ya got me... I am really a liberal posing as a conservative and saying what I think a conservative would say. I managed to fool everyone else, but not you. What tipped you off?

(V): Well played! My straw men salute your straw men.

Iamon lyme: I've seen that one before. It so cracks me up (no pun intended)

Artful Dodger: I've suddenly lost my appetite for pumpkin pie.

Iamon lyme:That's Wicker man... get it right!!

Have you seen either of the two films?

(V): The worlds oldest dad is not made of wicker. He is a flesh and blood human being, and his wife and two sons are real people too. Can you imagine what might happen if this family lived in the US (or in the UK) and the media got wind of this story?

Iamon lyme: Noooooo the oldest dad is non flesh!!

"Can you imagine what might happen if this family lived in the US (or in the UK) and the media got wind of this story?"

Yes, they'd be comparing him to Mr Charlie Chaplin. ... I think his last one was in his 90's .. or late 80's

(V): [ Noooooo the oldest dad is non flesh!! ]

I was talking about the world's oldest (currently known) human dad. God can only be our father if we so choose. Jesus made that clear when he told some religious leaders that Satan was their father. Do you need for me to show you where in the Bible it says that?

Iamon lyme: Satan.... You mean our animal nature, or some strange man made construct adopted from various inputs... ya know, Greek/Roman/Zoroastrian/etc?

"Do you need for me to show you where in the Bible it says that?"

Do I need to show you what I mean?

(V): [ Yes, they'd be comparing him to Mr Charlie Chaplin ]

Maybe, but I have no doubt that Social Service agencies would investigate to determine whether or not the children should become wards of the state or given to a younger couple.

In India they are being honored. But if they lived in the US, they would undoubtedly be criticised by the same people who try running end plays around parents to gain control of their children. How do I know this? Because I've seen it happen to real people, in real time, and not on some internet page. And in spite of your clever *cough* attempt to make what I say appear to mean something else, the same group of people who attempt to gain access to other people's money are the ones most actively involved in disrupting other people homes and families.

Iamon lyme: But you want control of the Children.

"And in spite of your clever *cough* attempt to make what I say appear to mean something else, the same group of people who attempt to gain access to other people's money are the ones most actively involved in disrupting other people homes and families."

The Banks.. I can agree with that. Nice to know you've seen the light somewhat

(V): Still trying to run end plays around what I say. Mindset and methodology... most revealing.

Iamon lyme: Not around... through. Some of it relates to your certificate.

Don't worry, everyone in the civilised world has one. It doesn't make you special!!

(V): [ Not around... through. Some of it relates to your certificate. Don't worry, everyone in the civilised world has one. It doesn't make you special!! ]

say what?

[ The Banks.. I can agree with that. ]

Me wasn't talking about "The Banks". You no know what me say?

[ Satan.... You mean our animal nature, or some strange man made construct...]

No, me no mean what you say me say, me mean say what me say me say. You no know what me say by the way? What you know me not say and what you say me say is no same as me say what me say. No, me not buy that... me say you know me not say same as you say me say... so there.

Iamon lyme: Obama was a jerk at the debates tonight. What a lying scum bag of a prez.

Artful Dodger: I managed to see most of the debate this time. Romney did better, Obama about the same as last time. I appreciated the fact that in this debate it didn't look as much like a free for all, with the moderator and Obama on one side and Romney on the other. The first two debates were a joke, but tonight's debate looked more like a real debate.

I've become so used to hearing the president lie that it doesn't bother me anymore... I was more interested in hearing what Romney had to say, and watching the expression on Obama's face as Romney was talking.

Iamon lyme: Obama is such a liar. I wonder if he believes his own nonsense.

Artful Dodger: I wonder the same thing. I think he does believe that no one really builds up his own business, because he personally has been propped up and helped along the way. His choice of ideology, party affiliation, church, the city he chose to live in and what state he represented, what he wanted people to think of him when writing his books, etc etc ... even going back to when he first got a social securty card so he could apply for his first job... it shows a clear pattern of how he was able to get things done for himself.

Anyway, the whole truth will eventually come out, but not before his presidency is far enough behind him for it to be too great of an embarassment for the Democratic party. Like say, oh, maybe a hundred years from now?

Iamon lyme: Correction, I meant to say:

"...is far enough behind him for it to NOT be too great of an embarrassment..."

Iamon lyme: They definitely want to suppress the truth about the ONE. Even the ONE wants to do that. Hence all the stonewalling etc.

Iamon lyme: And we shall call you Bruno... "know what I mean Harry"