Bored Druid ThreadFollow

Military nerds... Oh my.

Military nerds complete with muscles, chest hair and glasses? OMFG.

High schoolers?

I like how you're blaming Kali because it was me who typed both of those posts.

And Mazra once posted a pic of him standing in a doorway while really drunk and looking quite gay. I honestly can't remember what thread that was in though.

I remember that thread, well not the exact thread but the pic. Dig would of loved it.

Most of the military mentality when people think of 'military' are low ranked kids. When you start to meet people that are Staff Sargent, marines rankings as that is what I know best, or higher aren't gibbering morons exclusively focused on beer and tail.

The reckless military folks tend to be around the Lance Corporal rank as they have money, youth, a love for getting crunk and no real responsibility.

edit: spellin

Edited, Jun 4th 2011 12:04am by Horsemouth

You was assimilated?

Why come?

Pro tip: an orgy is more than three people. Three people would be a threesome.

Do eeet!

@ Horse, it's not just that mentality that bugs me, although that is part of it. I know not everyone in the military is like this, but the thought process of following orders for the sake of following orders and being trained to not think for yourself and just shut up and do what you told, really bothers me. Plus it seems like the majority of military people are conservative, and I don't think I could ever date a conservative. I can be friends with them, as long as they aren't the crazy kind, but I couldn't date one. For one, I have a very strict rule that I will not sleep with anyone who is not pro-choice.

I believe he was wearing a scarf. XD I THINK it was in the warlock pics thread, but I might be wrong.

You aren't really making a good argument, imo.

For one thing, let's examine specifically what we are talking about. Pigtails, the woman, requires that the men be pro-choice before she sleeps with them (with, I assume, birth control).

So, there are four possible case scenarios.
1. No pregnancy occurs.
2. A pregnancy occurs and is carried to term.
3. A pregnancy occurs but naturally fails.
4. A pregnancy occurs but is aborted.

A man who is not pro choice is facing a situation in which only 1-3 apply. Which is fine, if both parties agree.

Pigtails is requiring that her lovers endorse option number 4 as well. This could be because she actively intends to abort unwanted pregnancies, or because she requires there to be the option for her, or even just because she refuses to sleep with such a man on principle (even if she intends to never abort her own pregnancies).

The man who is pro-choice accepts that 4 is a possibility. And as it is the woman who needs to go through the biological hardships (which include way more health risks than people realize), it makes perfect sense for the choice to be hers *at least when the topic was discussed.*

This doesn't mean the man CANNOT request a pregnancy be carried to term, but the fact remains that he's not facing any biological problems in doing so. If men could carry fetuses, this would be a different situation.

Of course, I'd hold that the law should be equal when it comes to father vs. mother rights after the birth. On the one hand, you actively choose to engage in sex. I'm not of the mind to allow either party to decide, after the fact, that they don't need to support that child (without both legally severing their rights to him/her through adoption).

If the woman decides to carry it to term, both need to be responsible for it. The only exception to this is if it was explicitly understood before the sex that either (or both) parties wouldn't be. For example, a single woman who wants a baby, and wants to use a sperm from a close friend. Or the couple that decide to abort any pregnancies, or carry any pregnancies so as to put the children up for adoption. If one of the two decide to take a new path (like keep the baby), the other shouldn't be held responsible.

But ultimate choice needs to be with the woman, as she is the one that has to face a year of horrible discomfort, health risks, psychological trauma, etc.

What Pigtails means by pro-choice, I assume, is that a man must know that she is, herself, pro-choice and that it is ultimately her decision what she does with her body. And she's requiring him to agree to that before he gets to use her body for his pleasure. Seems perfectly fair to me. It isn't like she's being a tyrant by ticking guys into sex so that she can watch their faces with pleasure as she aborts their children...

There's a movement trying to classifying everything "human" as a person, which would give full rights to simple embryos even before they've attached to the uterus. Which would make surgery to remove an embryo that attached to a fallopian tube potential murder. It would give zygotes inheritance benefits, etc.

But it's just stupid. There's nothing about having human DNA that makes you a person. Until you have rational power and intelligence, there's just no reason (beyond pure species-ism) to believe so.

Plus, about half of all fertilized embryos never even attach. So half of persons would fail to ever really exist.

It would also make a TON of medical procedures illegal.

The funniest part, to me, is that it makes an even better argument against abortion. If we consider them persons, legally, then we have no reason to make the claim that a mother is required to carry them to term (for the same reason you aren't legally required to give anyone a blood transfusion, even if it would save their life).

@Andrew

How you doin'?

<Andrew> I want to put my ***** in his *****.