Military control over soldiers' lives, take II
Paul Ciszek
and intollerable intervention in the private lives of military personell,
now there's this:
U.S. soldiers in Iraq could face courts-martial for getting pregnant
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/21/iraq.us.soldiers.pregnancy/index.html
What I haven't been able to find out is whether or not military personel
have decent access to birth control. The last time I asked a vet about
that, he claimed that the Army did not supply condoms. But that would
have been a while ago for him. I know that wives of servicemen stationed
abroad have complained about problems obtaining birth control through the
military medical system.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Karl Johanson
news:hgpqr0$gc5$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Mr. Loewe thought that the military's attempt to abolish smoking was
> and intollerable intervention in the private lives of military personell,
> now there's this:
>
> U.S. soldiers in Iraq could face courts-martial for getting pregnant
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/21/iraq.us.soldiers.pregnancy/index.html
>
> What I haven't been able to find out is whether or not military personel
> have decent access to birth control. The last time I asked a vet about
> that, he claimed that the Army did not supply condoms.
As a former Canadian medic, I can state that the Canadian forces sometimes
does.
But that would
> have been a while ago for him. I know that wives of servicemen stationed
> abroad have complained about problems obtaining birth control through the
> military medical system.
Karl Johanson
Doug Wickström
Ciszek) wrote:
>Mr. Loewe thought that the military's attempt to abolish smoking was
>and intollerable intervention in the private lives of military personell,
>now there's this:
>
>U.S. soldiers in Iraq could face courts-martial for getting pregnant
>http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/21/iraq.us.soldiers.pregnancy/index.html
>
>What I haven't been able to find out is whether or not military personel
>have decent access to birth control. The last time I asked a vet about
>that, he claimed that the Army did not supply condoms. But that would
>have been a while ago for him. I know that wives of servicemen stationed
>abroad have complained about problems obtaining birth control through the
>military medical system.
Becoming pregnant _while_ _deployed_ is usually prima facie
evidence of adultery. Even if not, it has become a "get out of
Iraq/Afghanistan free" card, and guess which gender can't
participate in the freebie?
Frankly, I would just make them stay in theater, and extend their
stay by the amount of time they are hors de combat, but that
would never wash with Congress.
So let them get court-martialled for incapacitating themselves
for duty. It's the same crime as shooting one's own foot, after
all.
--
Doug Wickström
Keith F. Lynch
> Becoming pregnant _while_ _deployed_ is usually prima facie evidence
> of adultery.
Not if neither participant is married.
> Even if not, it has become a "get out of Iraq/Afghanistan free"
> card, and guess which gender can't participate in the freebie?
How many guesses do we get?
> So let them get court-martialled for incapacitating themselves for
> duty. It's the same crime as shooting one's own foot, after all.
Probably not quite as painful.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Jette Goldie
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 07:00:48 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
> Ciszek) wrote:
>
>> Mr. Loewe thought that the military's attempt to abolish smoking was
>> and intollerable intervention in the private lives of military personell,
>> now there's this:
>>
>> U.S. soldiers in Iraq could face courts-martial for getting pregnant
>> http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/21/iraq.us.soldiers.pregnancy/index.html
>>
>> What I haven't been able to find out is whether or not military personel
>> have decent access to birth control. The last time I asked a vet about
>> that, he claimed that the Army did not supply condoms. But that would
>> have been a while ago for him. I know that wives of servicemen stationed
>> abroad have complained about problems obtaining birth control through the
>> military medical system.
>
> Becoming pregnant _while_ _deployed_ is usually prima facie
> evidence of adultery. Even if not, it has become a "get out of
> Iraq/Afghanistan free" card, and guess which gender can't
> participate in the freebie?
>
maybe they actually conceived while at home on leave? with their
husbands? it takes a few weeks to actually come to a woman's
attention you know.
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Lowell Gilbert
> Doug wrote:
>> Becoming pregnant _while_ _deployed_ is usually prima facie evidence
>> of adultery.
>
> Not if neither participant is married.
Or, more relevantly to the reality of the incident, if they are married
*to each other* and actually live together while deployed. This was the
case for two of the four pregnancies that led to reprimands in Iraq.
Daniel R. Reitman
Ciszek) wrote:
>Mr. Loewe thought that the military's attempt to abolish smoking was
>and intollerable intervention in the private lives of military personell,
>now there's this:
>
>U.S. soldiers in Iraq could face courts-martial for getting pregnant
>http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/21/iraq.us.soldiers.pregnancy/index.html
>
>What I haven't been able to find out is whether or not military personel
>have decent access to birth control. The last time I asked a vet about
>that, he claimed that the Army did not supply condoms. But that would
>have been a while ago for him. I know that wives of servicemen stationed
>abroad have complained about problems obtaining birth control through the
>military medical system.
The policy was overruled at the next level up today.
Dan, ad nauseam
Keith F. Lynch
> The policy was overruled at the next level up today.
Which policy? Providing birth control to active duty military? Or
court-martialing active duty military who get pregnant? Thanks.
Marty Helgesen
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 07:00:48 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
>
> Ciszek) wrote:
> >Mr. Loewe thought that the military's attempt to abolish smoking was
> >and intollerable intervention in the private lives of military personell,
> >now there's this:
>
> >U.S. soldiers in Iraq could face courts-martial for getting pregnant
> >http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/21/iraq.us.soldiers.pregnancy/index.html
>
> >What I haven't been able to find out is whether or not military personel
> >have decent access to birth control. The last time I asked a vet about
> >that, he claimed that the Army did not supply condoms. But that would
> >have been a while ago for him. I know that wives of servicemen stationed
> >abroad have complained about problems obtaining birth control through the
> >military medical system.
>
> Becoming pregnant _while_ _deployed_ is usually prima facie
> evidence of adultery.
Only if the person who becomes pregnant is married to someone other
than the father.
>Even if not, it has become a "get out of
> Iraq/Afghanistan free" card, and guess which gender can't
> participate in the freebie?
>
> Frankly, I would just make them stay in theater, and extend their
> stay by the amount of time they are hors de combat, but that
> would never wash with Congress.
>
> So let them get court-martialled for incapacitating themselves
> for duty. It's the same crime as shooting one's own foot, after
> all.
Shooting one's own foot is a deliberate act. It would be difficult to
prove that someone deliberately got pregnant to get transferred out of
the country, even more difficult to prove that the man had intercourse
with the woman to help her get pregnant so she could get transferred
out.
Since I believe that all sexual intercourse outside of marriage is
morally wrong I am not condoning that actions that result in
pregnancies. I'm just discussing the policy.
-----
Marty Helgesen
Mygmailuseridis mnhccatcunyvm
Support the Emergency Committee to Defend the Third Amendment!
Karl Johanson
On Dec 23, 10:46 pm, Doug Wickstr�m <nimshu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Becoming pregnant _while_ _deployed_ is usually prima facie
>> evidence of adultery.
>Only if the person who becomes pregnant is married to someone other
>than the father.
On the topic; if someone rapes someone that they aren't married to, is that
an example of adultery on the part of them or their victim?
>Since I believe that all sexual intercourse outside of marriage is
>morally wrong I am not condoning that actions that result in
>pregnancies. I'm just discussing the policy.
I think that believing that all sex outside of marriage is morally wrong,
makes one a poo poo head. I'm not condoning all sex outside of marriage. I'm
just discussing your poo poo headedness.
Karl Johanson
David Friedman
Doug Wickstr�m <nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Becoming pregnant while deployed is usually prima facie
> evidence of adultery.
Only if the woman is married, and hasn't seen her husband in the
relevant time frame. I would have guessed that a majority of active duty
women were single, but I don't actually know.
> So let them get court-martialled for incapacitating themselves
> for duty. It's the same crime as shooting one's own foot, after
> all.
Not quite the same. Shooting oneself in the foot is done in order to get
out. Getting pregnant is sometimes done for other reasons.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_
Marty Helgesen
> "Marty Helgesen" <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote
>
> >> Becoming pregnant _while_ _deployed_ is usually prima facie
> >> evidence of adultery.
> >Only if the person who becomes pregnant is married to someone other
> >than the father.
>
> On the topic; if someone rapes someone that they aren't married to, is that
> an example of adultery on the part of them or their victim?
Yes, it seems that it would be adultery, but the rape is far more
serious an evil.
>
> >Since I believe that all sexual intercourse outside of marriage is
> >morally wrong I am not condoning that actions that result in
> >pregnancies. I'm just discussing the policy.
>
> I think that believing that all sex outside of marriage is morally wrong,
> makes one a poo poo head. I'm not condoning all sex outside of marriage. I'm
> just discussing your poo poo headedness.
Yes, you would think something like that.
Karl Johanson
On Dec 24, 11:22 pm, "Karl Johanson" <karljohan...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> "Marty Helgesen" <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote
>
>> >> Becoming pregnant _while_ _deployed_ is usually prima facie
>> >> evidence of adultery.
>> >Only if the person who becomes pregnant is married to someone other
>> >than the father.
>
>> On the topic; if someone rapes someone that they aren't married to, is
>> that
>> an example of adultery on the part of them or their victim?
>Yes, it seems that it would be adultery, but the rape is far more
>serious an evil.
I'll ask for clarification, as my question above covered more than one part.
Are you saying it's adultery on the part of just the rapist, or on the part
of both the rapist and the victim?
I agree that rape is far more serious than adultery... but why do *you*
think that it is? The Christian Bible is clear that if you commit one sin,
you're guilty of all of them*. Committing adultery makes you guilty of rape
and blasphemy and showing favouritism and wearing mixed fibres, etc.
regardless if you actually do anything other than the adultery. I think
that's gibberish, but the Bible is clear and unambiguous on that point.
*James 2:10 (NIV) "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just
one point is guilty of breaking all of it."
(KJV) "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,
he is guilty of all." (Chapter and verse listed for context.)
Karl Johanson
David Friedman
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> I agree that rape is far more serious than adultery... but why do *you*
> think that it is? The Christian Bible is clear that if you commit one sin,
> you're guilty of all of them*. Committing adultery makes you guilty of rape
> and blasphemy and showing favouritism and wearing mixed fibres, etc.
> regardless if you actually do anything other than the adultery. I think
> that's gibberish, but the Bible is clear and unambiguous on that point.
I believe that most Christian sects are clear and unambiguous on the
fact that the Old Testament rules don't apply any more. Mixed fibres,
for instance.
Robert Sneddon
<ddfr-BFC7BD.1...@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com>, David
Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>I believe that most Christian sects are clear and unambiguous on the
>fact that the Old Testament rules don't apply any more. Mixed fibres,
>for instance.
So why are many Christian sects down on homosexuality? It is not, to my
knowledge, mentioned disparagingly in the New Testament, only the Old
Testament. Jesus, who notably never married hung around with a bunch of
hunky well-muscled fishermen for several years and never said a bad word
about same-sex love. Indeed his primary commandment to his followers was
that they should love one another. Why is the Old Testament proscription
on homosexuality still valid while the mixed-fibres thing isn't?
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
David Friedman
Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <ddfr-BFC7BD.1...@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com>, David
> Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>
> >I believe that most Christian sects are clear and unambiguous on the
> >fact that the Old Testament rules don't apply any more. Mixed fibres,
> >for instance.
>
> So why are many Christian sects down on homosexuality?
In most cases, probably, because it feels icky and wrong to them.
> It is not, to my
> knowledge, mentioned disparagingly in the New Testament, only the Old
> Testament.
That's apparently not the case. Boswell, who is the historian most
responsible for arguing that Christian hostility to homosexuality is for
the most part poorly based, spends a good deal of effort in his book
trying to explain away a reference in the New Testament, I think by Paul
which appears to condemn homosexuality.
...
Keith F. Lynch
> Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> So why are many Christian sects down on homosexuality?
> .... Boswell, who is the historian most responsible for arguing that
> Christian hostility to homosexuality is for the most part poorly
> based, spends a good deal of effort in his book trying to explain
> away a reference in the New Testament, I think by Paul which appears
> to condemn homosexuality.
There are several apparent condemnations of homosexuality in
the New Testament. For cites, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality
It's true that Jesus apparently had nothing to say about it.
Robert Sneddon
<ddfr-838DF3.1...@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com>, David
Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>That's apparently not the case. Boswell, who is the historian most
>responsible for arguing that Christian hostility to homosexuality is for
>the most part poorly based, spends a good deal of effort in his book
>trying to explain away a reference in the New Testament, I think by Paul
>which appears to condemn homosexuality.
In the New Testament Jesus said "Love one another as yourself" (rough
translation plus a lot of verbal hand-me-downs, but the idea is taken as
canon). There's no record of Jesus saying anything bad about same-sex
love and given the fact he lived in an all-male commune for several
years plus the distinct lack of a wife (something pretty much required
of a Jewish holy man of the time) one has to assume that even He himself
was not doing the deed his disciples were.
As for Paul... the kindest thing I can say about him was that he had
severe psychological problems, especially when it came to sex. I've not
read the bible in some time -- did Jesus ever actually meet Paul, talk
to him, give him instruction as he did the other disciples? I always had
the idea he hijacked the cult and started the "Jews killed Jesus" libel
because he wanted to get in good with the Romans.
Keith F. Lynch
> ... did Jesus ever actually meet Paul, talk to him, give him
> instruction as he did the other disciples?
Paul claimed he did so posthumously. They certainly didn't meet
before (or during) the crucifixion.
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Why is the Old Testament proscription
> on homosexuality still valid while the mixed-fibres thing isn't?
I wonder how much of the Old Testament was ignored by Jesus' time,
like the prohibition against man-made altars (Exodus 20:25).
This raises another question: what is the largest religious sect
today whose adherents follow the complete unabridged moral code given
in their scripture?
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - email: kgae...@tx.rr.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
Karl Johanson
news:rE5n2oEi...@nospam.demon.co.uk...
> In message
> <ddfr-BFC7BD.1...@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com>, David
> Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>
>>I believe that most Christian sects are clear and unambiguous on the
>>fact that the Old Testament rules don't apply any more. Mixed fibres,
>>for instance.
>
> So why are many Christian sects down on homosexuality? It is not, to my
> knowledge, mentioned disparagingly in the New Testament, only the Old
> Testament.
A common misconception. The Christian New Testament is bigoted towards
homosexuals, just as is the Christian Old Testament (AKA Jewish Bible).
A quote attributed to Jesus can be interpreted as saying the old laws are in
effect, or that the old laws are done with as they've been fulfilled. Some
Christians take it one way, some the other. Most likely don't even know the
quote.
Matthew 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto
you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all be fulfilled."
If the quote means that the old laws are in place (and assuming Jesus said
it), then that's Jesus endorsing the anti-homosexuality of the Old
Testament.
For clearer examples from the NT, there is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality which keith
already posted, which includes:
"In the New Testament St. Paul writes about homosexual behaviour in his
letter to the Romans (RSV):
Rom.1,24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to
impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom.1,25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and
worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed
for ever! Amen.
Rom.1,26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.
Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
Rom.1,27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and
were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts
with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Rom.1,28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave
them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
Rom.1,29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil,
covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they
are gossips,
Rom.1,30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful,
inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom.1,31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Rom.1,32 Though they know God's decree that those who do such things
deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.
St. Paul also talks about homosexuals in his first letter to the Corinthians
(RSV):
1Cor.6,9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor sexual perverts (NIV: nor male prostitutes nor homosexual
offenders, NJB: the self-indulgent, sodomites),
1Cor.6,10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Finally, St. Paul talks about homosexuals in his first letter to Timothy
(RSV):
1Tim.1,8 Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully,
1Tim.1,9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just
but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the
unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for
manslayers,
1Tim.1,10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and
whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
1Tim.1,11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God
with which I have been entrusted."
The Bible is a mean book.
> Jesus, who notably never married hung around with a bunch of
> hunky well-muscled fishermen for several years and never said a bad word
> about same-sex love. Indeed his primary commandment to his followers was
> that they should love one another. Why is the Old Testament proscription
> on homosexuality still valid while the mixed-fibres thing isn't?
Lots of reasons likely.
Some say that it's because homosexual sex would have to be "adultery." The
Catholic Catechisms disagree though:
Catechism section 2380 "Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two
partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual
relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery."
As Catholics think that people of the same sex can't marry, then homosexual
sex is by Catholic definitions not adultery, thus not a violation of the '10
Commandments,' which the Catholics claim are in force. If the Catholics
allowed homosexual marriage, then adultery among such married people would
be a violation of the Commandment against adultery.
Karl Johanson
David Friedman
Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> Robert Sneddon wrote:
> >
> > Why is the Old Testament proscription
> > on homosexuality still valid while the mixed-fibres thing isn't?
>
> I wonder how much of the Old Testament was ignored by Jesus' time,
> like the prohibition against man-made altars (Exodus 20:25).
By Jesus' time, Jewish law included quite a lot of implausible
"interpretation" of Torah. The theory was that it was based on the "oral
Torah," information that God told Moses on Mt Sinai and he passed on
down.
I think by then they had invented the prossbul, a form of debt that
didn't vanish in the seventh year.
Tim McDaniel
>the part of both the rapist and the victim?
The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911 implied that it was a sin on the
part of both parties: "Whenever it is certain that the offspring is
illegitimate, and when the adulterer has employed violence to make the
woman sin, ..." <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm>
I don't know whether the Catholic Church still believes it.
I'll also note that it states "Finally, it is to be observed that in
case only one of the parties to adultery is married, a more heinous
sin is committed when the married person is the woman than when she is
the unmarried agent. For in the former instance the due process of
generation is not infrequently interfered with, to the injury of the
lawful husband; moreover, uncertainty of parentage may result, and
even a false heir may be imposed upon the family."
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Tim McDaniel
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>By Jesus' time, Jewish law included quite a lot of implausible
>"interpretation" of Torah. The theory was that it was based on the "oral
>Torah," information that God told Moses on Mt Sinai and he passed on
>down.
>
>I think by then they had invented the prossbul, a form of debt that
>didn't vanish in the seventh year.
Googling and Wikipedia suggest that "Prosbul" is the more common
Englishing.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Tim McDaniel
Er, I wrote too soon. "Prosbul" and "prozbul" are both about as
common.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Keith F. Lynch
> The Christian New Testament is bigoted towards homosexuals, ...
Really? I thought it was bigoted *against* homosexuals. Someone
tell those disgraced Catholic priests. :-)
> As Catholics think that people of the same sex can't marry, then
> homosexual sex is by Catholic definitions not adultery, thus not a
> violation of the '10 Commandments,' which the Catholics claim are
> in force.
You've never heard of someone married to someone of the opposite sex
who sometimes has sex with someone of the same sex?
Daniel R. Reitman
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>> The policy was overruled at the next level up today.
>
>Which policy? Providing birth control to active duty military? Or
>court-martialing active duty military who get pregnant? Thanks.
Discipline for pregnancy.
Dan, ad nauseam
Paul Ciszek
In article <mitqj5pm5tt7qelm4...@4ax.com>,
Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 03:12:48 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
><k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>>Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>>> The policy was overruled at the next level up today.
>>
>>Which policy? Providing birth control to active duty military? Or
>>court-martialing active duty military who get pregnant? Thanks.
>
>Discipline for pregnancy.
I am still curious as to how much access servicepeople have to effective
birth control.
("effective" = not abstinance or rythm method)
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 03:12:48 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
>><k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>>>> The policy was overruled at the next level up today.
>>>
>>>Which policy? Providing birth control to active duty military? Or
>>>court-martialing active duty military who get pregnant? Thanks.
>>
>>Discipline for pregnancy.
>
>I am still curious as to how much access servicepeople have to effective
>birth control.
>
>("effective" = not abstinance or rythm method)
Abstinence works every time it is actually followed...
I do not have first hand knowledge, but scuttlebutt had it that condoms
were passed out to sailors going on liberty at Subic Bay.
--
"I want to know what became of the changes
We waited for love to bring.
Were they only the fitful dreams
Of some greater awakening?"
Clyde J. Browne
Paul Ciszek
In article <47esj59562t6bmsso...@4ax.com>,
David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>Abstinence works every time it is actually followed...
Only if you consider rape victims to have "failed to follow abstinence".
Konrad Gaertner
>
> In article <47esj59562t6bmsso...@4ax.com>,
> David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >Abstinence works every time it is actually followed...
>
> Only if you consider rape victims to have "failed to follow abstinence".
Abstinence works every time it is actually followed by both parties.
Paul Ciszek
In article <4B3E52DD...@tx.rr.com>,
Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>
>> In article <47esj59562t6bmsso...@4ax.com>,
>> David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >Abstinence works every time it is actually followed...
>>
>> Only if you consider rape victims to have "failed to follow abstinence".
>
>Abstinence works every time it is actually followed by both parties.
Well, "don't get raped" isn't always an option for American servicewomen,
since sometimes those who rape them outrank them.
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <4B3E52DD...@tx.rr.com>,
> Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> >Paul Ciszek wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <47esj59562t6bmsso...@4ax.com>,
> >> David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Abstinence works every time it is actually followed...
> >>
> >> Only if you consider rape victims to have "failed to follow abstinence".
> >
> >Abstinence works every time it is actually followed by both parties.
>
> Well, "don't get raped" isn't always an option for American servicewomen,
> since sometimes those who rape them outrank them.
If you can't follow a policy you don't follow it. That doesn't refute
"works if followed."
Kip Williams
> In article<47esj59562t6bmsso...@4ax.com>,
> David V. Loewe, Jr<dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> Abstinence works every time it is actually followed...
>
> Only if you consider rape victims to have "failed to follow abstinence".
Similarly, if your sub sinks to the bottom and water comes in, 'quickly
evolving gills' works every time it is actually followed.
Kip W
Kip Williams
> I am still curious as to how much access servicepeople have to effective
> birth control.
Well there's always
> ("effective" = not abstinance or rythm method)
...aw, shoot. I was going to say 'Rhythm in the Ranks."
Kip W
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>Paul Ciszek wrote:
>> David V. Loewe, Jr<dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Abstinence works every time it is actually followed...
>>
>> Only if you consider rape victims to have "failed to follow abstinence".
>
>Similarly, if your sub sinks to the bottom and water comes in, 'quickly
>evolving gills' works every time it is actually followed.
You're delusional if you think those two things are in the same league,
Kip.
--
"Nursing does not diminish the beauty of a woman's breasts;
it enhances their charm by making them look lived in and
happy"
-Lazarus Long
Karl Johanson
There's also choosing the method that the military doesn't ask about &
doesn't want you tell them about.
Karl Johanson
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:08:22 -0500, Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Paul Ciszek wrote:
> >> David V. Loewe, Jr<dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Abstinence works every time it is actually followed...
> >>
> >> Only if you consider rape victims to have "failed to follow abstinence".
> >
> >Similarly, if your sub sinks to the bottom and water comes in, 'quickly
> >evolving gills' works every time it is actually followed.
>
> You're delusional if you think those two things are in the same league,
> Kip.
The question of whether the two things "are in the same league" is
irrelevant. Kip is making a correct point about the meaning of words.
The statement "X works every time it is done" isn't inconsistent with
"sometimes there is no way of doing X."
David V. Loewe, Jr
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:08:22 -0500, Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>> >Paul Ciszek wrote:
>> >> David V. Loewe, Jr<dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Abstinence works every time it is actually followed...
>> >>
>> >> Only if you consider rape victims to have "failed to follow abstinence".
>> >
>> >Similarly, if your sub sinks to the bottom and water comes in, 'quickly
>> >evolving gills' works every time it is actually followed.
>>
>> You're delusional if you think those two things are in the same league,
>> Kip.
>
>The question of whether the two things "are in the same league" is
>irrelevant. Kip is making a correct point about the meaning of words.
>The statement "X works every time it is done" isn't inconsistent with
>"sometimes there is no way of doing X."
And once again, editing removes all context and perfection is the enemy
of "works good enough."
Paul asked for "effective" contraception measures. One assumes he
wanted to know the availability of condoms and birth control pills (IUDs
and sterilizations presumably being beyond the Pale). Neither condoms
or birth control pills are 100% effective either. That abstinence can
be circumvented by rape does not mean, *in the context of this
discussion*, that it is not effective.
--
"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population
to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people."
Paul Ehrlich 1969
Kevin J. Maroney
<fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> As for Paul... the kindest thing I can say about him was that he had
>severe psychological problems, especially when it came to sex. I've not
>read the bible in some time -- did Jesus ever actually meet Paul, talk
>to him, give him instruction as he did the other disciples?
Saul did not (canonically) meet Jesus while Jesus was alive, although
A. N. Wilson hypothesized that Saul might have been a temple guard
during Jesus's abduction and execution.
>I always had
>the idea he hijacked the cult and started the "Jews killed Jesus" libel
>because he wanted to get in good with the Romans.
That idea comes out of other writers (John, Matthew) much more than
out of Paul.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com | www.maroney.org
Games are my entire waking life.
Seth
>wrote:
>>Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>> David V. Loewe, Jr<dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Abstinence works every time it is actually followed...
>>>
>>> Only if you consider rape victims to have "failed to follow abstinence".
>>
>>Similarly, if your sub sinks to the bottom and water comes in, 'quickly
>>evolving gills' works every time it is actually followed.
>
>You're delusional if you think those two things are in the same league,
>Kip.
Both of them are (at least sometimes) in the "I would have followed it
if I could have" league.
Seth
David V. Loewe, Jr
One is possible. The other is not.
--
"It is a consolation to the wretched to have companions in misery."
- Publius Syrus
Keith F. Lynch
> Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Are you saying it's adultery on the part of just the rapist, or on
>> the part of both the rapist and the victim?
> The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911 implied that it was a sin on the
> part of both parties: "Whenever it is certain that the offspring is
> illegitimate, and when the adulterer has employed violence to make
> the woman sin, ..." <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm>
> I don't know whether the Catholic Church still believes it.
Interesting. On the one hand, they believe we are capable of sin only
because we have free will. On the other hand they also believe we are
guilty of sins that have nothing to do with the sinner's free will.
Original Sin, of course, which I don't see how it can be the fault of
anyone not yet born at the time. That bit about seven generations.
And now this.