By not making Plan B available young women are seeking stranger solutions. In Wisconsin there are concerns that cow drugs are being used to induce abortion. If we are so concerned about our daughters let’s give them some healthy options.

I fail to understand why the conservative Christians don’t see that their only protection is a government which may not take sides in the culture wars.
Now that we, the sane, responsible and reasonable people are back in charge (a judge appointed by Ronnie Rayguns is not in danger of being accused of judicial activism) it is up to us to undo the enormous damage the conservative Christians did to the the Constitution and so very many government organs.
Personally, I would prefer people not engage in risky sexual behavior – Aids is still a major threat, especially among heterosexuals, enormously for young women. But this is far preferable to an abortion.

==By not making Plan B available young women are seeking stranger solutions.==
That’s their choice.
== In Wisconsin there are concerns that cow drugs are being used to induce abortion.==
Women have the Right to choose, no?
== If we are so concerned about our daughters let’s give them some healthy options.==
But not options that enable them to do the immoral without consequence.

Just as the death penalty does not deter criminal behavior, putting restrictions on access to contraception does not deter risky sexual behavior. I currently work with victims of rape and in catholic or state-run (red state) hospitals, we are not allowed to even mention Plan B to them. When conservatives talk about women being forced to take Plan B, it’s a lie. We are not even allowed to offer it to the women who might really need and want it.

==Just as the death penalty does not deter criminal behavior…==
Not even ONE criminal???
==… putting restrictions on access to contraception does not deter risky sexual behavior.==
Not even ONE???
==I currently work with victims of rape and in catholic or state-run (red state) hospitals, we are not allowed to even mention Plan B to them.==
Good.
==We are not even allowed to offer it to the women who might really need and want it.==
That’s good cuz you people won’t be encouraging and enabling women to be promiscuous.

This is a ridiculous debate. The government has no place policing anyone’s chastity, that of teens or adults. It has no place interfering in anyone’s bedroom unless there is a right being abused. If there is any legitimate reason to legally restrict teen’s access to Plan B, it is NOT that it might promote sexual behavior.

You’re a shrinking minority Mr. Incredible. Learn to love being irrelevant.

“If we are so concerned about our daughters let’s give them some healthy options.”
We need to look somewhere other than Plan B if this is the main concern. I’m not sure how much more dangerous ‘cow drugs’ can be than the aforementioned synthetic.

PS I’m the 2nd ‘Your Name’ and am becoming rather comfortable with my irrelevent status. Keep me away from sharp objects

Could anyone point me to some actual research that the “Family” “Research” Council has ever done? (N.B. Opinionating on other people’s rights and freedoms does not count as research.)

quote from Mr. Incredible:
That’s good cuz you people won’t be encouraging and enabling women to be promiscuous.
end quote
Pardon me, but your statement implies women are neither free agents nor capable of domain over their own bodies.
Such a position is hardly in line with Christian belief or human rights or, really, any just culture of which I know.
Now, I do think we all have a responsibility towards children and it disturbs me greatly to see teen-age girls confronting STDs and pregnancy, especially as both can easily be prevented through education and providing condoms. Even tho’ I am not prepared to recognize a child under 18 as fully responsible for their actions and thus a free agent in all senses of the word, I firmly believe that it is up to every woman who is sexually mature to decide for herself whether to have sex or not. Personally, I think one should wait until one has a firm partnership and is emotionally and biologically mature enough to engage in sex. But that is my position as a man, and a gay man at that.
I can not know how a teen age girl truly feels, so I must grant her the freedom of self-determination. That is not the same as ‘enabling’ her to be promiscuous as Mr. Incredible states, merely acknowledging her value as a human being.

Mark,
Your language indicates your strong support of Barak Obama and disdain for George Bush. I am fond of quoting the late Se. Daniel Patrick Moynihan who used to say, “You’re entitled to your own opinion. You’re not entitled to your own set of facts.”
That Bush was pro-life is not exactly a State Secret. That his decision to support research on the existing cell lines derived from human embryos while declining to fund the further destruction of embryos gave everyone something, but not enough for anyone. That pro-lifers excoriated him for selling out the principle, and pro-ESC folks felt it was not enough is indicative of a pragmatic, and not ideological decision.
The text of the Bush address to the nation is linked below. Hardly a pro-life screed.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/bush.transcript/
In his signing statement, President Obama stated:
“our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values.”
In a base sense, one can do ‘sound’ science apart from moral values. In this Obama is technically correct. I, as a molecular biologist can do all manner of research. I could extract cells forcibly from prisoners (let’s say those detained at Guantanamo) and perform meticulously detailed, methodologically sound experiments on them. If need be, we could ‘sacrifice’ or ‘euthanize’ those prisoners for their spinal cord cells.
Are we faced with a “false choice between sound science and moral values” in my scenario? Not according to Obama.
Pro-life scientists such as myself understand the embryo, as a newly developing human organism, to be worthy of the same rights as human organisms in any stage of development-even those at Guantanamo. The soundness of scientific research MUST include moral values, such as the rights of the experimental subject against coercive force, as well as the right to informed consent.
The human in the embryonic stage of development has no more capacity to give informed consent to its destruction than the human in the fetal, infant, toddler, childhood, or geriatric senescent stages of development. Parents and guardians lack the moral authority to consent to such destructive research as children and senescent adults are autonomous beings and not chattel.
Americans are fiercely divided on the identity and status of the human embryo and fetus. The abortion debate is far from over after 36 years. Judge Korman, Reagan appointment notwithstanding, misses the mark by dismissing as “ideological” the grave moral concerns of a significant percentage of the citizens who fear that human beings in their earliest stages of development are killed by this drug.. The judge’s use of “ideological” is not a respectful usage one might apply to a philosophical school of thought, but a derogatory usage implying mere ‘opinion’.
The pro-life movement brings great application of major philosophers and philosophy as well as science to the table. It is crude to dismiss all of that with the wave of a hand.
As for your assertion that:
“But there’s no question that the Bushies ran roughshod over longstanding FDA policies and procedures in order to limit Plan B’s availability. And that they had no legal right to do so.”
You miss some of the key objections that the administration had. This drug is a 24-hour regimen of high dose hormone. Sexually active adolescent girls could take this medication repeatedly over the course of a single month without parental or medical supervision. That single month could then stretch into several months. Such high dose hormone taken repeatedly could have devastating effects on the girl’s body, on her continued reproductive development, etc.
We’ll be hearing the horror stories, in due course, of unrestricted access to such high dose hormonal therapy for adolescent girls. When that comes to pass, as it surely will, I hope the Obama apologists and Bush detractors continue to bray as loudly in favor of our children’s “right” to do with their bodies as they please, sans adult supervision or consent, with nothing more than a freshman high school level of biology under their belts.
I, and the other “usual suspects” will be vindicated, but at a terrible price.

==quote from Mr. Incredible:
That’s good cuz you people won’t be encouraging and enabling women to be promiscuous.
end quote
Pardon me…==
I thought you were ignoring me.
Anywho…
==… but your statement implies women are neither free agents nor capable of domain over their own bodies.==
No, you infer, and I’m not responsible for your conclusions.
I was answering the post, “We are not even allowed to offer it to the women who might really need and want it.”
In other words, I said that it is good cuz these “counsellors” wouldn’t be encouraging/enabling women to do the “act” first, asking questions later and depending on us to dig them outta their consequence hole, thus relieving them of responsibility.
==Such a position is hardly in line with Christian belief…==
Really? Where?
==… or human rights or, really, any just culture of which I know.==
You mean, I should should let immorality run loose whithout so much as saying something???
==Now, I do think we all have a responsibility towards children and it disturbs me greatly to see teen-age girls confronting STDs and pregnancy…==
Me, too.
==… especially as both can easily be prevented through education…==
Telling them the consequences and explaining to them that it involves more than just them.
==… and providing condoms.==
Providing the means diminishes the responsibility. They feel more free to do the “thang” cuz there won’t be consequences. If they have the probability of consequences facing them, they will think twice. They should be afraid of what will happen.
== Even tho’ I am not prepared to recognize a child under 18 as fully responsible for their actions and thus a free agent in all senses of the word, I firmly believe that it is up to every woman who is sexually mature to decide for herself whether to have sex or not.==
And to accept the resonsibility, and not to pressure everybody else to relieve her of the responsibility.
== Personally, I think one should wait until one has a firm partnership and is emotionally and biologically mature enough to engage in sex. But that is my position as a man…==
They don’t cuz they are not getting the correct education in Morals.
==I can not know how a teen age girl truly feels…==
So what? It doesn’t take that to know that she is jeopardizing her future and the comfort of others by having the morals of a cat.
==… so I must grant her the freedom of self-determination.==
You “grant” her that????
== That is not the same as ‘enabling’ her to be promiscuous as Mr. Incredible states, merely acknowledging her value as a human being.==
Giving her the means to do what is otherwise damaging to her life, her Morals and the lives of others and sets an immoral standard for others allows her to act free of consequences. That’s enablement.

==You’re a shrinking minority Mr. Incredible.==
If you mean that the Word of God is correct in anticipating a world gone to Hell, that I am part of a shrinking minority saying, “We told you so!” you’re correct.
== Learn to love being irrelevant.==
Irrelevant to men. Relevant for Christ! What a deal!
As long as I’m on the correct side and I have done what God, through His Word, told me to do by telling the world that it’s going in the wrong direction, I’m happy. What YOU call “irrelevant” doesn’t impact MY Salvation.

For the sake of argument, Gerard, let me concede all your points. The fact remains that the Bush administration violated FDA procedures. If you wish to justify their actions on the grounds of higher principle, OK. But I think the proper course of public decision-making is for people in charge to undertake to change the policies and procedures, rather than impose their own politics/ideology/moral principles by stealth. If they can’t effect those changes, then they are obliged to follow the rules. I suspect you would not want the Obama folks to violate rules and, say, publicly fund abortions. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

quote:
So what? It doesn’t take that to know that she is jeopardizing her future and the comfort of others by having the morals of a cat.
end quote
This is beyond belief! Comparing a teenager, really a child, to an animal because she is not making the decisions Mr. Incredible feels are the ones she should take?
Pardona mea, what sort of mentality would demean a human in such a manner???
It is the responsibility of all of us to properly educate and, yes, inculcate the a sense of self in our children that they may not seek such premature sexual relationships.
When, however, a child has gotten into such a mess, then we have to help, not pass judgment.
Morals of a cat? That is one tiny step removed from the hate speech of the Nazis towards the Jews, Roma and Homosexuals.
How on earth can a Christian make such statements?

Gerard,
I was about to put forth the argument that the FDA must restrict itself to purely scientific analysis and not the antics we saw over the last eight years. I share your concerns vis à vis hormones and unsupervised use.
But thanks to the our-way-or-no-way mentality of the conservative Christians at the FDA, no possible discourse with those of us who wanted to see supervision came to pass, nor shall it.
The last eight years brought us food and drug scandals unseen since the early 20th century, all because of the Republicans and the christianists.
I am still too furious at girls being spoken of in the language of the Nazis to even consider a discussion.
This mentality is precisely what has driven and drives people away from Christ.

==quote:
So what? It doesn’t take that to know that she is jeopardizing her future and the comfort of others by having the morals of a cat.
end quote
This is beyond belief!==
Especially for those who choose not to believe it.
== Comparing a teenager, really a child, to an animal…==
Don’t you people look to the animals to be our behavior guides in sexuality???
==… because she is not making the decisions Mr. Incredible feels are the ones she should take?==
Of course, you need to twist what I wrote so that it sounds as though you have an argument, though you don’t.
I didn’t compare her to an animal cuz she doesn’t decide the way I decide.
Animal act on impulse. People act on impulse, too, and in this case, it gets them into trouble, and they expect US to relieve them of the responsibility. Animals at least don’t expect us to get them outt a trouble. They got no Moral sense. Come to think of it, too many humans today have no Moral sense.
==Pardona mea, what sort of mentality would demean a human in such a manner???==
I dunno. I didn’t.
==It is the responsibility of all of us to properly educate and, yes, inculcate the a sense of self in our children that they may not seek such premature sexual relationships.==
So far, it’s not working.
We have been telling you people what works, if an individual is willing. You people reject it.
==When, however, a child has gotten into such a mess, then we have to help, not pass judgment.==
We can help in a way that doesn’t enable and empower that person to do it again. Unfortunately, programs today enable and empower them to go out and do it again cuz these people have no sense of consequence and responsibility for it. They want the rest of us to absorb the consequences, and THAT’s what enables them.
==Morals of a cat?==
Yes. Cats act outta impulse, not Morals. They feel it; they do it. They, among others, have no Moral sense. That’s cuz God made no Covenant with animals.
==That is one tiny step removed from the hate speech of the Nazis towards the Jews, Roma and Homosexuals.==
I can’t help the way you choose to see it and frame it wrongly.
==How on earth can a Christian make such statements?==
You mean, like, comparing humans to animals cuz of the similarity of loose Morals where loose Morals is evident?

==This mentality is precisely what has driven and drives people away from Christ.==
Nobody is “driven” from Christ. They choose to run from Him.
No one is drawn to the Father accept that the Father draw them through Christ. I cannot make anybody come to Christ. Whether to come to Faith, or stay in Faith, or backslide, is a personal decision, not a decision that’s made by somebody else, like me.
I’m not driving anybody away from Christ who hasn’t entertained the Devil’s suggestion and been driven away already by their own ignorance, a la Adam and Eve.
Maybe the Father isn’t drawing them. Maybe the Father is shooing them away for some disobedience. He blinds the willful disobedient.
The people you say I am driving away are responsible for getting rid of the spiritual mountains that they say they perceive obstruct their view of and their listening to the Truth. THEY let the perception mountains get in the way of Knowledge and Understanding. THEY keep circling the mountain.
If there is a mountain in their way of seeing and hearing the Truth, Christ says that they can, in belief, pray that obstacle, that hindrance, away, so they can see and hear the Truth with Which the person is blessing them. That they pay attention more to the obstacle than the Truth — that they let the hindrance deter them — means that they have chosen to be hindered. You can’t blame me when you are told to pray the spiritual mountains away so you can see and hear the Truth. I don’t have any control over their thinking. I have no control over them. To say that I am hindering them and chasing them away is to say that I have control over people. I’m not hindering them because I am reporting to them the Truth of the Word of God.
Do they say that they have changed their minds against their Will? No. Have you change your mind? No. Then, you can’t say that I have control over people and chased them away.
People have to take repsonbility for their own thinking and actions.

== Comparing a teenager, really a child, to an animal…==
It is those who claim to be homosexual, their activists and supporters who say that we should take the cue from animals, and, as they claim — though it isn’t true, of course — that there’s — and here’s the completely ridiculous part — homosexuality in the animal world. So, it is THEY who compre us to animals and want us to act like animals. Well, some people do. THAT’s the agenda we’re fighting.

Actually, properly conducted studies have shown that both the big cats (Panthera leo, Panthera pardus, et al) and the smaller cats (Felis sylvestris, Felis sylvestris sylvestris, and several others) do possess and exercise the ability to learn, reason and consider – even to make decisions contingent upon future occurrences involving more than three projected non-binary steps.
We have no evidence whatsoever that God has no covenant with animals, nor have we conclusive evidence that they do not possess souls.
To return to the hate speech,
quote:
We can help in a way that doesn’t enable and empower that person to do it again.
end quote from Mr. Incredible
OK, even in the annals of hate speech here, that one has a special place, all to itself. How shall we accomplish this goal? The Nazis prevented Jews and those whom they considered to be sub-human from reproducing through sterilization. That would certainly not enable the child to make another mistake in the future, no wouldn’t it….
This is totally unacceptable. How on earth shall we, the gays, the transgendered, the women who desire dominion over their own bodies ever find common ground with such people?

==We have no evidence whatsoever that God has no covenant with animals…==
Except, of course, God’s Own Word.
==… nor have we conclusive evidence that they do not possess souls.==
Except, of course, God’s Own Word.

==This is totally unacceptable.==
We understand what your absolutes are.
== How on earth shall we, the gays, the transgendered, the women who desire dominion over their own bodies ever find common ground with such people?==
First, do what God says to do and not to do.

==quote:
We can help in a way that doesn’t enable and empower that person to do it again.
end quote from Mr. Incredible
How shall we accomplish this goal?==
The Word of God is a good Place to start. Of course, you people won’t accept that, and THAT’s part of the problem.

==We have no evidence whatsoever that God has no covenant with animals, nor have we conclusive evidence that they do not possess souls.==
Cute attempt to confuse, but not so cute that I can’t straighten it out.
Stand back, boys! I’ll handle this!
The statement in that quote above says,
“We have evidence that God has Covenant with animals…”
Where?
“…and we have conclusive evidence that animals have souls.”
Where? Who gave them souls cuz God says nothing about it.

Sayeth Mr. Incredible
” ==I currently work with victims of rape and in catholic or state-run (red state) hospitals, we are not allowed to even mention Plan B to them.==
Good.
==We are not even allowed to offer it to the women who might really need and want it.==
That’s good cuz you people won’t be encouraging and enabling women to be promiscuous. ”
Are you saying rape victims are promiscuous? And they shouldn’t be allowed to choose whether or not to use emergency contraception (which IS NOT an abortifacient; check Medline)?
Boy howdy, you really do live up to your screen name!

Good Evening Panthera and Mark,
I agree with both of you. Sauce for the Goose is indeed sauce for the gander. Yes, as a scientist I would prefer that FDA be free of the taint of partisan politics, regardless of whose ox gets gored, the science must be allowed to speak above the political din.
If we are honest with ourselves gentlemen, Plan B is a political football on both sides of the aisle. Sure the Bush folk had anti-abortive motives in suppressing it. But the Obama folk have just as craven a need to have no restrictions in any venue, consequences be damned.
Putting aside my pro-life beliefs, I see a genuine issue with making high dose hormones available over the counter for anyone, especially young girls. Yes, Plan B is prescription only for those under 17, but how hard is it to get from an older friend or sibling? While clinical trials may indicate the relative safety of the drug, there are no clinical trials to approximate the abuse that is sure to follow. How then does a Republican administration deal with this without appearing to be manipulating the rules for other purposes?
Young girls are going to do serious damage to themselves through unrestricted access to this drug, and this leads to my biggest problem with the pro-choice folk.
Eleven and twelve year old girls may go for a major surgical abortion procedure without their parents’ notification or consent. Why? If incest (less than 1% in this age group) is involved, a court-appointed guardian could be appointed. The majority of young girls place their lives in danger, and parents don’t even know the need to monitor for hemorrhage, infection, depression, etc.
http://www.rxlist.com/plan-b-drug.htm
From the link:
“Ectopic Pregnancy
Ectopic pregnancies account for approximately 2% of reported pregnancies (19.7 per 1,000 reported pregnancies). Up to 10% of pregnancies reported in clinical studies of routine use of progestin-only contraceptives are ectopic. A history of ectopic pregnancy need not be considered a contraindication to use of this emergency contraceptive method. Health providers, however, should be alert to the possibility of an ectopic pregnancy in women who become pregnant or complain of lower abdominal pain after taking Plan B®.”
In light of the real dangers to teens, can anyone explain, apart from abortion polemics, why this pill shouldn’t be prescription only?

==Are you saying rape victims are promiscuous?==
Oh, I see what you’re doing. You’re trying to prove me wrong in all cases by using just one scenario as an example.
Rape victims are not necessarily promiscuous. They are not necessarily not accomplices.
== And they shouldn’t be allowed to choose whether or not to use emergency contraception (which IS NOT an abortifacient; check Medline)? ==
When they go out, do they expect to be raped?

quote:
Rape victims are not necessarily promiscuous. They are not necessarily not accomplices.
== And they shouldn’t be allowed to choose whether or not to use emergency contraception (which IS NOT an abortifacient; check Medline)? ==
When they go out, do they expect to be raped?
end quote from Mr. Incredible March 25, 2009 11:04 PM
“They are not necessarily not accomplices”???!!!
Mr. Incredible, either, in your desire to play word games you have genuinely inserted a contra-positive before a negative statement, or, you are genuinely asserting complicity of a woman in her rape.
Is that your position, that women who are raped are culpable for this capital crime?

Gerard,
I may be wrong – my knowledge of human reproduction is limited – but ectopic pregnancy is to this day a genuine danger to women, especially younger girls who become pregnant, as well as those taking certain hormones.
In this we are in agreement.
My problem with the manner in which Bush and the conservative Christians abused their power at the FDA is, however, not mitigated by this serious and very genuine concern. Their behavior was directed against the free flow of scientific knowledge and the manner in which those in the medical community were abused and whose careers were side railed or destroyed is appalling.
The problems you raise, are, however, to a large degree neither exclusive nor unusually appertaining to Plan B. I live in a country in which aspirin must be purchased at a pharmacy, from a pharmacist and even 90 year olds get the obligatory lecture on not giving it to young children, etc. So for you to object to Plan B being OTC is, in and of itself, not invalid (now, that was the proper use of a contra positive).
If Bush and the conservative Christians had not abused science and their authority, had they sought a discourse with the medical community, it should have been possible to provide the education and oversight to minimize the risk of overuse by the physically immature.
An oversight at the same level as is given to selling alcohol or cigarettes or spray paint or airplane glue or driving cars…
Please, Gerard, don’t try to defend this one in this way. The risks, relative to all the other things conservative Christians permit young girls (such as eating peanut butter), are too limited and the manner in which Bush and the conservative Christians abused their authority too great.
Had the FDA truly done their job, the attendant risks would have been weighed, considered and settled one way or the other many, many, many years ago. This was purely a case of abuse.
By the by, and again, I confess to only limited knowledge, but if I understand correctly, the risk of Plan B acting as an abortifacient is statistically so low as to be a red herring? Have not those countries with experience in the drug found that to be so?

Good Morning Panthera,
“By the by, and again, I confess to only limited knowledge, but if I understand correctly, the risk of Plan B acting as an abortifacient is statistically so low as to be a red herring? Have not those countries with experience in the drug found that to be so?”
This is an interesting can of worms you have opened:the political correcting of science. If you can find an OB/GYN textbook from fifteen or twenty years ago, pregnancy was defined as the fertilization of the egg by the sperm.
Woops! Can’t have that AND justify the use of the pill, especially the progestins, which prevent implantation. What to do?
Redefine pregnancy!
Now pregnancy is defined as an event that begins at implantation. So technically, according to the politically corrected version of biological reality, Plan B does not act as an abortifacient. But this is nonsense.
Abortifacient in the popular perception means that which kills a living human organism in its nascent stages of development. The tortured version of that truth is that abortifacients end pregnancies, which means detaching the baby from the mother. It’s a lie, but a convenient one that most implicitly accept to avoid the endless loop of semantics.
The truth is that abortifacients kill new human organisms, whether they have implanted or not. The unpleasant truth o the pro-choice crowd is that the human identity and status (dignity) of the human embryo and fetus does not depend on the mother’s whim or body. Only its continued development depends on these. That’s why abortion rises to the level of offense that by its very commission causes one to be excommunicated: It is the act of a mother turning on the defenseless child of her womb and murdering it. And absent those medical cases where the Church recognizes that the baby is doomed no matter what and that the life of the mother must prevail, 99.99% of the 50+ million abortions in this country have been without justification.
Hope you’re doing well.
God Bless!

Gerard,
My sense is that one of the real problems here is that, NARAL notwithstanding, this is a morally asymmetrical war. That is, if the pro-life community (define it as you wish) were prepared to be satisfied with the kinds of limits on young girls’ access to Plan B that you suggest, I think it would be possible to get some real agreement out of the pro-choice community. But the latter understand that the former will never be satisfied, that each particular fight is just one more skirmish in the big war against abortion rights. And this makes the pro-choicers far less willing to compromise than they would otherwise be.

Gerard,
I think that is a problem, not just of semantics, but of perception.
I guess my thought is the ancient “quickening” and not the 19th century position of any one cell which has a full complement of chromosomes is human.
That being the case, the area of our agreement stretches from roughly the 12th week of pregnancy to birth, the area of our disagreement prior to this. I apologize for not having explicitly stated this earlier. To me the matter is so elementary, it never occurred to me that we should have a definition.
So, given our agreement on all but those first 12 weeks, how may we work together to minimize abortion?
Mr. Silk certainly touches upon (tho’ far more gently than I should have, surprise, surprise, these paws don’t velvet very well) the very serious problem those of us who are pro-choice face in dealing with the anti-abortion side. The lies, the false witness, the manipulation and abuse of government agencies, the murder of doctors, bombing of clinics, the denial of our Christianity, the oppression of womens’ human and civil rights have in toto, make it hard to treat with your side.
You are an exception in that i firmly believe you capable of the concept pacta servanta sunt. After the last eight years (and the Obama administration has only just begun to release information!), trust in your side is going to be understandably limited.
Hope you are well and enjoying your day as much as I.
Panthera

==”They are not necessarily not accomplices”???!!!
Mr. Incredible, either, in your desire to play word games…==
I don’t play word games. I use the the English Language in a way that most accurately reflects my position.
==… you have genuinely inserted a contra-positive before a negative statement, or, you are genuinely asserting complicity of a woman in her rape.==
I wrote what I wrote. I didn’t write what I didn’t write.
==Is that your position, that women who are raped are culpable for this capital crime?==
You’re asking me whether ALL women who are raped are culpable for this “capital” crime.
First of all, rape is not a capital crime. First-degree murder is a capital crime. Rape does not rise to that.
Second, not ALL women are accomplices.

Mr. Incredible,
First of all, in MY country, raping anyone IS a capital crime, if you live in some sort of benighted realm where rapists are permitted to go free, then that is your problem. There is more to this world than your little village of Deep Denial.
Second, your assertion that some women are culpable for their rape is the most uncharitable thing I have ever read from anyone here.
That is saying something.
How, pray, do you you defend such a statement? Don’t you dare try to retreat into word games on this one, you have stated that rape is a woman’s fault.
No woman (or man for that matter, or, given the level of discussion around here, I guess I shall have to add animal to that list) is ever culpable of their own rape. Per definitionem.
Your hatred towards women seems to even exceed your hatred towards gays.
Explain yourself, sir!

==… in MY country, raping anyone IS a capital crime…==
In this country, it is not. In this country, we don’t take a life if one hasn’t been taken.
==… if you live in some sort of benighted realm where rapists are permitted to go free, then that is your problem.==
It’s called justice, if they cannot be convicted.
== Don’t you dare try to retreat into word games on this one, you have stated that rape is a woman’s fault.==
No, I haven’t.
==Your hatred towards women…==
I love women.
==… seems to even exceed your hatred towards gays.==
I have only God’s love for everyone, including those who claim to be homosexual.
This means that I am unselfishly concern for their Salvation.
==Explain yourself, sir!==
Already done.

unselfishly concern —-> unselfishly concerned