abortion

[otters]

I guess the point I'm trying to make, ladies, is... have sex with me. If you don't, you're murdering potential babies. When I ask "Hey, what's your number?" and you say "Fuck off.", what you're really aborting is a futurebaby, with jetpacks.

Erm, no, you're still missing the point. What's a sperm going to do if you, instead of having sex with your girlfriend, sit there and watch [some sort of generic TV show]? Nothing. It's not going to slide out of your penis, along the floor, up her leg, and inseminate her, is it? Unlikely. Whereas a fetus—whether you both watch TV or not—is going to be a baby in a few months, and she'll give birth, and it's all your fault for not wearing a condom.

To sum up my point:
Fetus => inactivity => baby
Sperm => inactivity =>

And to sum up my counterargument nicely:

Fetus IN A WOMAN => inactivity => baby
Sperm IN A WOMAN => inactivity => baby

If you shot fetus' out of your dick every time you wanked it, they would not all mature into children.

IN A WOMAN, as relating to sperm, actually counts as activity. Did you fully understand my post? :/

[blue_tetris]

So, now it's not about the potentiality of life. It's about the lack of inactivity needed to produce a child. And so the semantic grind begins. And we could pursue this to the logical end, where your definition of "potential life" evolves and twists to the point where it includes everything that is abortion and nothing that isn't. This is where this argument always goes. It's word-mincing until something completely new crops up, without any linguistic merit.

But to go through the arduous logical process anyhow!:

If we define a potential human life as one which, through inaction, must form; then we have to consider whether a fetus necessarily causes human life and whether non-fetuses (the things that you figure we're allowed to abort) necessarily do not lead to life through inaction. I don't think that you can announce with any degree of certainty whether a specific fetus will necessarily become a baby. Most do, sure. But some don't. Moreover, most sperm cells don't accidentally or through inaction become babies. But some do!--completely by accident.

As the final goal, you need to develop a system which can accurately predict which cells will necessarily lead to a birth. Or, you need to declare which certain likelihood of having potential-life-through-inaction is the necessary likelihood to transform "discarded fingernail clippings" into "successful entrepreneur and loving husband that we don't want to throw out".

Ultimately, there's little sound science to saying that any state of a potential birth isn't "alive". It's all living tissue; sperm, egg, zygote, fetus, math teacher. And the proponents of pro-life want to claim that they are using science and the rigors of logic; while science is willing to say "We don't really have the answers for that, and we're not arrogantly going to make things up instead". Modern science says "There's little evidence which reveals that human life is, at its core, unlike other life".

In truth, the role of Christian Science in the matter of abortion is in figuring out when God inserts a soul into an extracted tonsil, a zygote, a newly acquired fat cell, a newly acquired cancer, a first trimester fetus, or a train conductor. When "science" can figure out which lumps of living tissue contain souls and which don't, then the argument is easily won with "Let's not kill things with souls."

But the Bible never says anything like that. The Bible says "Abortion is wrong. It's a crime. Don't do it. Don't ask about the specifics. You know what the procedure involves. Don't fucking do it." And the pro-lifers want to make up spiritual-science and logical labyrinths to justify and legitimize one simple truth: They want their faith to be the law of the land. Stop pretending. Just, seriously, stop it. If you have conviction that your book should be the law of the land, don't obscure that fact by using a made-up scientific discipline to sell your case. Be the crazed anti-intellectualist that totes rotting infant-husk posters and accept that as your stance on the issue. You annoy the real scientists when you make pretend.

[SlappyMcGee]

IN A WOMAN, as relating to sperm, actually counts as activity. Did you fully understand my post? :/

How does the fetus not count as activity? If a fetus were completely inactive, nothing would happen. As long as it is receiving nutrients, it grows into a child. I think you don't understand my post, as silly as it was.

[Tanner]

To sum up my point:
Fetus => inactivity => baby
Sperm => inactivity =>

Baby => inactivity =>

[otters]

Not to mention my point in my earlier post (which apparently incluye can't read)! Fetuses do require quite a bit of activity in order to become babies.

Like, a woman going through life as usual?

[bobaganuesh_2]

But the Bible never says anything like that. The Bible says "Abortion is wrong. It's a crime. Don't do it. Don't ask about the specifics. You know what the procedure involves. Don't fucking do it." And the pro-lifers want to make up spiritual-science and logical labyrinths to justify and legitimize one simple truth: They want their faith to be the law of the land. Stop pretending. Just, seriously, stop it. If you have conviction that your book should be the law of the land, don't obscure that fact by using a made-up scientific discipline to sell your case. Be the crazed anti-intellectualist that totes rotting infant-husk posters and accept that as your stance on the issue. You annoy the real scientists when you make pretend.

The Bible was written 2000 thousand years ago as a guide for hoardes of Jews scrambling about in the desert on how to live. Nowadays some of its instructions are outdated, like this abortion "law", and just plain ridiculous. The new post-modern trend these days is "be yourself!" and "an individual can make the difference!" so now women are realizing that they have a say in the matter and they get to decide whether having this baby will ulitmately make or break their life. On another note, I once heard that the purpose in life for Catholics is to make more Catholics.

[aids]

In truth, the role of Christian Science in the matter of abortion is in figuring out when God inserts a soul into an extracted tonsil, a zygote, a newly acquired fat cell, a newly acquired cancer, a first trimester fetus, or a train conductor. When "science" can figure out which lumps of living tissue contain souls and which don't, then the argument is easily won with "Let's not kill things with souls."

But the Bible never says anything like that. The Bible says "Abortion is wrong. It's a crime. Don't do it. Don't ask about the specifics. You know what the procedure involves. Don't fucking do it." And the pro-lifers want to make up spiritual-science and logical labyrinths to justify and legitimize one simple truth: They want their faith to be the law of the land. Stop pretending. Just, seriously, stop it. If you have conviction that your book should be the law of the land, don't obscure that fact by using a made-up scientific discipline to sell your case. Be the crazed anti-intellectualist that totes rotting infant-husk posters and accept that as your stance on the issue. You annoy the real scientists when you make pretend.

Topic One:
Well, the reason Christians are against abortion is that they believe that God gives a person a soul at the moment of their conception, when the sperm hits the egg (that sounds catchy). Science can't do anything to discover when a person (not just any "lumps of living tissue") gets a soul, because a soul is a spiritual object. Thus, science and religion must be exasperated here, as neither can be provably right.

Dave, you're an idiot. Abortion isn't in the Bible because it wasn't an issue two thousand years ago. But nowadays people only follow what is explicitly stated and rarely bother to connect some dots. If no murdering is in the Sixth Commandment (which I'm sure you all know), and abortion (and similarly euthanasia) is the killing of an unborn and sometimes unwanted fetus, then how is it not murder?

Topic Two:
Someone up there said that it's the mother's choice of if she wants to get an abortion, but she would not've needed to make it if she had chosen to have sex in the first place *(yes, yes, rapes do happen, but unless a guy literally comes to the girl's house, kidnaps her and fucks her, it is not a good enough excuse). Women, if you for any reason feel that the situation you are in might end with you getting knocked up, then take yourself out of it! It's not worth the risk, especially when there's other stuff that you could be doing, such as shopping (because who'd choose getting raped over getting new clothes anyway?).

It's even worse when a guy rapes a woman, gets her pregnant, and then forces her to get an abortion. Guys like that need to have their nuts cut off and force-fed to them, because they obviously don't know how to use them correctly.

[Radium]

Wight always take the right-wing approach. Bad move on the internet, bra.

[otters]

not going on roller coasters

constitute quite a bit more effort than just sitting around doing nothing

"Not drinking alcohol" and "not going on rollercoasters" bear no relevancy whatsoever. The baby will get born even if she does drink. And "not going on rollercoasters" can be included in the subset of "going through life as usual." You treat the situation as if the woman has to work to balloon up to a larger size and vomit in the mornings. She does not. These things will occur with no effort on her part. Likewise, "pumping nutrients into the fetus" is hardly important, since she could eat normally and a lot of the nutrients would end up in the kid anyway.

The fact that some of those processes are involuntary is irrelevant.

Um, why? Doesn't that imply that they will happen no matter what the woman does, so it's similar to a normal lifestyle? (albeit with a few more difficulties).

The whole "these are involuntary" thing means that, yeah, actually, the fetus will graslalsdkfj lawjerisdjpgosierpgoipu I HATE SEMANTICS DEBATES

[SlappyMcGee]

not going on roller coasters

constitute quite a bit more effort than just sitting around doing nothing

"Not drinking alcohol" and "not going on rollercoasters" bear no relevancy whatsoever. The baby will get born even if she does drink. And "not going on rollercoasters" can be included in the subset of "going through life as usual." You treat the situation as if the woman has to work to balloon up to a larger size and vomit in the mornings. She does not. These things will occur with no effort on her part. Likewise, "pumping nutrients into the fetus" is hardly important, since she could eat normally and a lot of the nutrients would end up in the kid anyway.

The fact that some of those processes are involuntary is irrelevant.

Um, why? Doesn't that imply that they will happen no matter what the woman does, so it's similar to a normal lifestyle? (albeit with a few more difficulties).

The whole "these are involuntary" thing means that, yeah, actually, the fetus will graslalsdkfj lawjerisdjpgosierpgoipu I HATE SEMANTICS DEBATES

What the fuck does any of this mean?

If a woman is not supplying nutrients to the fetus, the fetus will die.

Your argument was that sperm, left alone, would not produce a child. The exact same thing can be said about a fetus.

A person literally has to do nothing with sperm for it to turn into a child. A woman can be going about her daily routine while having something that shoots sperm into her crotch and then a fetus might be born.

Besides which, the actions taken, whether voluntary or involuntary, do not determine the progress of the child.


And finally, what the hell? Do you honestly think that a pregnant woman does not have a gigantic change in lifestyle? Do you not understand what pregnancy is?

It's frustrating to me that we have to debate about something as trivial as this, and you won't just stand up and say why you don't believe in something. If it's the fucking Bible, so be it. We'll try and disprove that. If it's the weak stance that "fetus' are children because if you leave a fetus alone it will become a child." then I question not only your argument, but your very reasoning. Whether something will eventually become a child is largely irrelevant to an argument about abortion, because it doesn't take into account the idea that even if it was a child, these people's lives are going to be ruined. You would literally ruin a conscious life in order to preserve a possible one.


Your argument is almost cyclical, too, because whether or not a sperm and a fetus are similar is rather irrelevant to the debate and could only be used to justify to yourself your stance.

[Radium]

ad hoc definitions! Wahahahahaha!

edit; i thought that was a very nice way to put it, demonz.

[Atilla]

(yes, yes, rapes do happen, but unless a guy literally comes to the girl's house, kidnaps her and fucks her, it is not a good enough excuse). Women, if you for any reason feel that the situation you are in might end with you getting knocked up, then take yourself out of it! It's not worth the risk, especially when there's other stuff that you could be doing, such as shopping (because who'd choose getting raped over getting new clothes anyway?).

No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not even going to comment on the "shopping for clothes" stereotype because I'm too busy seething at your apparent belief that if a woman gets raped it's her own fault for not locking herself in a cupboard.

[aids]

Just so you know Atilla, one of my best friends was raped twice this summer, by two different guys. On both occasions she had gone to a party, got wasted or high, and was very vulnerable. It was completely the guy's fault for violating her, but what about her bad choices? Should she be able to put herself in these situations without any criticism just because she was raped? Responsibility should be directed at both the rapist and the victim.

Now, if she had been in full control of her actions and was still raped, then she would've been wholly innocent. But that wasn't (and rarely is) the case.

[Atilla]

Just so you know Atilla, one of my best friends was raped twice this summer, by two different guys. On both occasions she had gone to a party, got wasted or high, and was very vulnerable. It was completely the guy's fault for violating her, but what about her bad choices? Should she be able to put herself in these situations without any criticism just because she was raped? Responsibility should be directed at both the rapist and the victim.

Now, if she had been in full control of her actions and was still raped, then she would've been wholly innocent. But that wasn't (and rarely is) the case.

It's strange that you should say that because, you know what? I hang out with guys who get wasted regularly, and would estimate that, ooh, at least 50% of men aged 20 - 30 get trashed on a fairly regular basis. And yet I don't see anyone telling them they shouldn't drink because it makes them vulnerable to rape. For that matter, I also hang out with girls who get wasted, and so far as I know none of them have been raped at a party and they mostly have a good time. Why shouldn't they be able to do that? I mean, personally I don't really approve of people getting trashed, but it's their decision and they should be able to do so if they want. Nobody is asking you to approve of girls getting drunk or wearing skimpy clothing or whatever. However, it's ridiculous to claim that they are somehow responsible for the crime (and let me point out that the opposite to "wholly innocent" is "guilty"), and even more ridiculous to deny them access to abortions on such grounds. That's like denying someone medical treatment for stab wounds after they've been assaulted, because they shouldn't have walked down that dark alley, or worn an expensive suit, or got drunk, or whatever other excuse you want to make up to convince yourself that the victim is a bad person who doesn't deserve care and support.

To draw a parallel, let's say that you and your wife of five years suggests a little light bondage to spice up your lovelife, and you let her tie you to the bed. She then cuts off your genitalia and shoves them down your throat. Are we to conclude that you were to blame for trusting your wife and making yourself vulnerable? Or maybe, just maybe, should people actually be able to expect others not to do horrible shit as soon as they can't fight back? And before you jump in with "Oh but it wasn't her boyfriend or anything", understand that the majority of rapes are not performed by strangers or some guy you met at a party, but by relatives or lovers. Are women never supposed to trust their husband or boyfriend at all, in case he rapes them? Whoops, I've injured my back and can't get out of bed, better not tell my boyfriend 'cos that's making myself vulnerable and he'll rape me!

I'm going to quote one of the above links, because I'm not sure if you've read them all:

A woman can cover from head to toe, always leave her home with a male figure, never step out after dark and still be a victim.

Other facts that escape most men and woman is that most reported sexual crimes are inflicted by acquaintances, friends, relatives, intimate partners (boyfriend/husband), with a smaller percentage leaning towards complete strangers. I mention this just to bring to light how nonsensical it is for a woman to have single responsibility of protecting herself at all times and why victim blaming is highly uncalled for because in reality, there is NO "right" way to be safe if we are going to play the victim blaming game.

...

I find it absolutely infuriating that women are told to dress a certain way, act a certain way, go to certain places amongst other hundreds of do’s and don’ts because it’s HER fuckin’ responsibility to keep herself tucked away from helplessly and sexually frustrated, out of control horny Billy. All the while there’s a great negligence in teaching males that a woman is never theirs to have no matter how drunk she is at that bar, how scantly she’s dressed or how alone she is on her way home. She is NEVER yours to have and you have no right, no fuckin’ right in hell to touch her. Ever. PERIOD.

Like the quote says, it's utterly ridiculous to expect that women protect themselves from ever being in any situation where they might be raped. The only way to do that would be to march off and found their own all-female country, and even then there would be female-against-female rape. Perhaps they should all seal themselves in airtight boxes when they hit 16. Moreover, women have the right to go for walks and get drunk without some idiot assaulting them. It's not their responsibility to cloister themselves because guys apparently can't keep their cock in their collective pants for five minutes straight. It's certainly not their responsibility to spend nine months of their life harboring a parasite which was implanted in them against their will and without their consent.

[blue_tetris]

Dave, you're an idiot. Abortion isn't in the Bible because it wasn't an issue two thousand years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

This is why it's important to do at least 10 seconds (actual figure) of research before calling people doo-doo-heads. Abortion was an issue over 3000 years ago, and certainly during the time when the New Testament was written.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... n_abortion

In the early AD, Christian scholars already started figuring they wanted to outlaw abortion even where the Bible didn't (while it was still happening). And that's fine. The core of my argument is there. If you hate abortion because of the traditions of your religion, don't make up science behind when people get souls. There's no real science that indicates when a soul is created. And there's nothing in the Bible, where Christianity should be getting all its facts, that indicates when certain cells acquire humanity. So don't make up a specific point when life becomes human life, and sell it as though God or science proves it.

But nowadays people only follow what is explicitly stated and rarely bother to connect some dots. If no murdering is in the Sixth Commandment (which I'm sure you all know), and abortion (and similarly euthanasia) is the killing of an unborn and sometimes unwanted fetus, then how is it not murder?

"Connecting the dots" also requires describing when certain cells become human cells and are capable of being murdered. You can't "murder" a cancerous tumor that grows on you. You can't "murder" your unborn sperm cells. What makes a fetus something you can murder, but an egg cell something that you can kill without it being called murder? That's what we're talking about. Stop sending us backwards in the conversation.

Women, if you for any reason feel that the situation you are in might end with you getting knocked up, then take yourself out of it! It's not worth the risk, especially when there's other stuff that you could be doing, such as shopping (because who'd choose getting raped over getting new clothes anyway?).

Yes, women. It's your fault for getting raped, because you wear those sexy shoes that you buy and you prance around, with your sensuous curves on display. Because there are men in the world, you need to wear a certain type of clothes and you are only allowed to go to certain places. Because you just might get raped. Listen, KS, in the future: When you see an attractive girl and you can't suppress the urge to have sex with her, it's still not okay to rape her. Even if you're in a situation where you think you might get away with raping her. It's still not okay. And, hey, feel free to dress however you like and go wherever you want, because people aren't allowed to rape you just because you show up.

I agree with Atilla on this one. And KS's moronic response warrants this irony, which leads to stream-of-consciousness:

One of my best friends is a girl, who is also gay, who is also black, who got raped, so I'm allowed to say what I want to about her situation.

So, trust me, I know that this bulldyke niggerbitch had it coming. She wore pretty clothes and went to a good party. Whenever you act in a certain way, it's entirely your fault for getting murdered or having your things stolen from you. Forgot to lock your door this morning? The person who robbed you is just doing what any sane person would do. You're the real criminal here. And when you look attractive, get drunk, and get raped... the guy couldn't help himself! He's not a bad person! He's the real victim here. A victim of his urges, bro.

KS, you're ridiculous and highly unethical. And I hope you carry this line of yours around with you and see how others respond to it: "Responsibility should be directed at both the rapist and the victim." Like, seriously, fly that by your folks or your friends.

Don't blame the victim. That makes you creepy, weird, and--later in life--excusatory of your own unethical actions. In the court of law, you can't convince a judge that someone "has rape coming". And, for that matter, no one has murder coming. You never deserve a crime happening to you. That's why it's a crime. Please internalize some of this: It's unethical to think that people have violence coming to them, because they go to certain places or dress certain ways. I fear how this might make you justify crimes you see in the future, KS. Never blame the victim. It is inherently wrong.

If she really is equally responsible and consensual for the sex she had, then it wasn't rape at all. She made it happen and knew that she did. And so did he. And someone is lying to call this consensual sex "rape". Maybe she regretted the sex that she had or makes generally bad choices. If it was a choice that the two of them made, then it's not rape. And when you confuse terminology like that now, in the future you'll see news stories or hear about crimes related to rape and figure that the victim is equally to blame. People shouldn't have to worry that they will get raped just because they put themselves in a situation. That never excuses the rapist.

I don't want to distract the conversation to victim-blaming and I didn't mean to take some much time pounding this point in. But when I see someone who internalizes this kind of amoral behavior, I can't help but make some attempt to fix it.

[jinxed_07]

The Bible was written 2000 thousand years ago as a guide for hoardes of Jews scrambling about in the desert on how to live. Nowadays some of its instructions are outdated, like this abortion "law", and just plain ridiculous. The new post-modern trend these days is "be yourself!" and "an individual can make the difference!" so now women are realizing that they have a say in the matter and they get to decide whether having this baby will ulitmately make or break their life. On another note, I once heard that the purpose in life for Catholics is to make more Catholics.

According to your theology, your saying that in 2000 years the bill of rights will also become 'aboslete' and that most people that think like you will say that it only applied to americans who lived back then.
Bobaga, laws and rules don't 'expire' and the bible was written as a guide for every human.

On another note, I don't think of Catholics as true christians. They prey to mother mary. That's breaking one of the commandments. But that's another debate, that doesn't belong here.

[Kablizzy]

As an aside, it's poor form to call the guys who debate professionally idiots. We've already been down this road a few times, and we already know that no matter what Dave and I say, we're right and you're wrong.

Also, logic is a tricky thing for stupid people. Because you're stupid, people. I need to rape some of you and then blame you for being "Luscious, Nubile little man-boys." After all, it's your own fault for being Luscious, Nubile little man-boys.

[SlappyMcGee]

First, obsolete.

Second of all, jinxed, I think that boba was taking the approach that the Bible is a good guide for morality and life, but that since it has been two millennium since it was written, it's not very relevant. The idea that it should be held as fact because it's what you believe is patently false, because even the most staunch religious person who is at least realistic/logical realizes that they might be wrong about this whole Christ thing. Therefore, the only other parallel you could build that would warrant the use of the Bible is that it is, generally speaking, a good however irrelevant guide to morality. (Most of the time.)

Third of all, KS, I'm under the impression that the girls you are talking about probably fall closer to statutory rape or something like that. You know, got to drunk, agreed to fuck somebody, changed their mind later and screamed about how they were raped? Because I would say that that kind of rape is entirely these bitches faults; they agreed to fuck dudes and then changed their minds when they had a clear head. The only reason this is considered rape is because they changed their minds, and are stupid fucking cunts. So, let's clarify:

- Rape is when you force somebody to have sex with you without consent. What state of mind you were in when you gave consent is nearly irrelevant.

- One of the things you were saying is that these girls don't deserve abortions because it was their responsibility, right? Well, I think the complete opposite. I think these girls lost control of their bodies, for whatever reason, and made a mistake.

- Ergo, what you consider rape in this situation, is going to force these girls to live with a child for the rest of their lives.

[blue_tetris]

- Rape is when you force somebody to have sex with you without consent. What state of mind you were in when you gave consent is nearly irrelevant.

Devil's advocate response:

So, a drunk victim is fair play for criminals? I'mma go down some alleys and stab some wasted hobos. The worst thing it will be is assisted suicide, if I can suggest consent.

What state of mind your victim is in when you knowingly rape them is nearly irrelevant. The aspects of the crime involve intent and subsequent action.

[SlappyMcGee]

- Rape is when you force somebody to have sex with you without consent. What state of mind you were in when you gave consent is nearly irrelevant.

Devil's advocate response:

So, a drunk victim is fair play for criminals? I'mma go down some alleys and stab some wasted hobos. The worst thing it will be is assisted suicide, if I can suggest consent.

What state of mind your victim is in when you knowingly rape them is nearly irrelevant. The aspects of the crime involve intent and subsequent action.

Exactly. And what makes this a crime with intent and action is that the person did or did not give consent. If Jimmy asks Donna to fuck him, even though Jimmy knows Donna has the herpes, but Jimmy was drunk, it's not rape for Donna to fuck him. It's consensual sex with a person who is fucked up. I think that might be a different crime.

[SkyPanda]

According to your theology, your saying that in 2000 years the bill of rights will also become 'aboslete' and that most people that think like you will say that it only applied to americans who lived back then.
Bobaga, laws and rules don't 'expire' and the bible was written as a guide for every human.

A bill of rights is a list of rights considered important enough that government should not have the power to legislate on them. A bill of rights applies only to the nation which created it- the American Bill of Rights applies only to American people. It is not unreasonable to say that a Bill of Rights may one day be obsolete, especially in the '2000 years' figure given. Remember that laws change over time, in response to changes in society, values, technology, etc. This is why we have institutions such as Parliament and the courts to create, change, and remove laws.

Rape is when you force somebody to have sex with you without consent. What state of mind you were in when you gave consent is nearly irrelevant.

I agree, provided that you didn't put the person in a particular state (drunk, drugged, hypnotised) without their knowledge.

[blue_tetris]

Sometimes, you can get women drunk and then have sex with them. While they're really drunk. Mostly unconscious.

How much of their senses do they need to have to consent legally? A 6-year-old might consent to an activity, and not be old enough to do so wittingly or with good knowledge. A vegetable will never say "no". If you don't have the capacity to say "no" or "yes", certainly you can't consent. But what if you have the capacity to say "yes", but not the capacity to understand the circumstances or consequences? Uninformed or misinformed buyers are protected by contract laws. If you get drunk and someone preys upon you with fraud, you're safe.

There's surely a fuzzy border between knowledgeable consent and accidental consent. And when a doctor says to his comatose patient: "Do you really want me not to pull the plug on your feeding tube? I'M NOT HEARING A NO! :DDD", there's, legally, a form of consent. That's why you can't fuck coma patients, sleeping people, and children. So, when you're drunk, it's a different sort of inability to not make decisions? Why.

[capt_weasle]

My speech teacher dragged our entire class into a debate (if debate= everyone yelling at each other) about rape. She essentially believes that if two people have had anything to drink (three sips counts) they should not have sex, because that would be rape, and it automatically means the guy is at fault. Even if the chick was a total whore and came on to him. That gave me a complete case of whatthefucks.

[blue_tetris]

The law is very confused on the issue of "consent". Ultimately, it just makes everyone more afraid of sex. And there's already enough to fear about it.

[origami_alligator]

Remember when you could get pregnant from kissing? Those were the days.