PDA

View Full Version : Women have a duty to reproduce...



Wind Song
05-25-2012, 09:28 PM
Yes or no?

I say no. Not personally, not socially.

ConHog
05-25-2012, 09:31 PM
Yes or no?

I say no. Not personally, not socially.

Of course no one has a responsibility to reproduce. What is the basis for this thread?

Anton Chigurh
05-25-2012, 09:32 PM
Nonsensical Pablum.

Wind Song
05-25-2012, 09:35 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/republican-lies-womens-bodies_n_1374027.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/republican-lies-womens-bodies_n_1374027.html)

Wind Song
05-25-2012, 09:36 PM
Nonsensical Pablum.

Serial killer.

ConHog
05-25-2012, 09:43 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/republican-lies-womens-bodies_n_1374027.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/republican-lies-womens-bodies_n_1374027.html)

Huffy post is garbage Sky, you do realize that don't you?

Wind Song
05-25-2012, 09:47 PM
Huffy post is garbage Sky, you do realize that don't you?

Not any worse than Fox News. Same thing. Editorials.

ConHog
05-25-2012, 09:56 PM
Not any worse than Fox News. Same thing. Editorials.

Completely wrong. Fox News is predominantly conservaitve , but they also air liberal views.

And more importantly Fox News calls bullshit no matter the political bent of a person if they see it.

Anton Chigurh
05-25-2012, 10:03 PM
Serial killer.Yes, I've killed many in a series of your spoonfed, regurgitated, mindless robotic talking points.

Wind Song
05-25-2012, 10:04 PM
Completely wrong. Fox News is predominantly conservaitve , but they also air liberal views.

And more importantly Fox News calls bullshit no matter the political bent of a person if they see it.

Yes, I understand you view them that way.:lalala:

DragonStryk72
05-25-2012, 11:12 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/republican-lies-womens-bodies_n_1374027.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/republican-lies-womens-bodies_n_1374027.html)

Not a solid lead. She continually, and purposefully, puts words in peoples' mouths. By this same token, I dismiss Ann Coulter, and Michael Moore. Bullshit is bullshit, regardless of who is spewing it.

ConHog
05-25-2012, 11:16 PM
Not a solid lead. She continually, and purposefully, puts words in peoples' mouths. By this same token, I dismiss Ann Coulter, and Michael Moore. Bullshit is bullshit, regardless of who is spewing it.

That's the part that people like WS just don't get. Many conservatives can't stand Coulter, Hannity, or gasp even Rush. Partisan bullshit is partisan bullshit no matter which side you are on.

Wind Song
05-25-2012, 11:25 PM
Not a solid lead. She continually, and purposefully, puts words in peoples' mouths. By this same token, I dismiss Ann Coulter, and Michael Moore. Bullshit is bullshit, regardless of who is spewing it.

Yeah, well opinion is opinion.

DragonStryk72
05-25-2012, 11:26 PM
That's the part that people like WS just don't get. Many conservatives can't stand Coulter, Hannity, or gasp even Rush. Partisan bullshit is partisan bullshit no matter which side you are on.

I find that, as a conservative, I'm actually angrier with the Right Wing extremists like Coulter and Hannity. I think this is likely because I know that when I say I'm conservative, they're the first images that pop into peoples' minds, like those Westboro Baptist Church assholes who are making it harder to be a Christian and get any respect.

Wind Song
05-25-2012, 11:27 PM
That's the part that people like WS just don't get. Many conservatives can't stand Coulter, Hannity, or gasp even Rush. Partisan bullshit is partisan bullshit no matter which side you are on.

I have no problem with partisan stuff. I have a problem with newsources that are not newssources but entertainment
"people like me" huh. That's prejudice speaking

DragonStryk72
05-25-2012, 11:35 PM
I have no problem with partisan stuff. I have a problem with newsources that are not newssources but entertainment
"people like me" huh. That's prejudice speaking

Honestly, we do have trouble with partisan writing, especially when it's our own side doing it. And that wasn't prejudice, it was a judgment, but it was based on what he has learned of you in posting with you over time.

Prejudice is when you immediately jump on someone cause they're a liberal, or a conservative, not when you make a judgment, right or wrong, about a person based on a great length of communication with them. It's still judging, it's just not prejudice.

PostmodernProphet
05-25-2012, 11:37 PM
obviously true....
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/coma/images/issues/201007/xerox-wide.jpg

ConHog
05-25-2012, 11:41 PM
I have no problem with partisan stuff. I have a problem with newsources that are not newssources but entertainment
"people like me" huh. That's prejudice speaking

Look , if YOU can't discern the difference between Fox News's Op Ed shows and their News shows, that is YOUR problem. Watch Neal Cavuto do the news and tell me he is biased at all. Just as an example.

Wind Song
05-25-2012, 11:57 PM
Honestly, we do have trouble with partisan writing, especially when it's our own side doing it. And that wasn't prejudice, it was a judgment, but it was based on what he has learned of you in posting with you over time.

Prejudice is when you immediately jump on someone cause they're a liberal, or a conservative, not when you make a judgment, right or wrong, about a person based on a great length of communication with them. It's still judging, it's just not prejudice.


Try letting CH answer the questions I put to him.

What impresses me most about this forum and the people who post here is that you're all unpindownable in some ways. That makes it interesting.

You've got your perceptions of me. That's judging. You and CH think I'm THAT kind of a person, whatever THAT is.

Then you make me all wrong about everything I post. It's not even my postings, it's more than that. It's that you think you know what kind of a person I am.

You don't.

DragonStryk72
05-26-2012, 12:08 AM
Try letting CH answer the questions I put to him.

What impresses me most about this forum and the people who post here is that you're all unpindownable in some ways. That makes it interesting.

You've got your perceptions of me. That's judging. You and CH think I'm THAT kind of a person, whatever THAT is.

Then you make me all wrong about everything I post. It's not even my postings, it's more than that. It's that you think you know what kind of a person I am.

You don't.

Read what I actually wrote, WS, and come back to me when you understand what the words mean in context. And perhaps if you would ever actually engage the discussion, as opposed to the above sentiments, we might see something happen about people coming over to your way of thinking more, but no, instead it's always this sort of response.

Wind Song
05-26-2012, 12:25 AM
Read what I actually wrote, WS, and come back to me when you understand what the words mean in context. And perhaps if you would ever actually engage the discussion, as opposed to the above sentiments, we might see something happen about people coming over to your way of thinking more, but no, instead it's always this sort of response.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Kathianne
05-26-2012, 12:32 AM
I find that, as a conservative, I'm actually angrier with the Right Wing extremists like Coulter and Hannity. I think this is likely because I know that when I say I'm conservative, they're the first images that pop into peoples' minds, like those Westboro Baptist Church assholes who are making it harder to be a Christian and get any respect.

I've the same problem, sometimes I've been negged for saying the rightwingers can be nutters. Of course those that criticize seem to be blind to the fact that I think that far left nutters are much more dangerous. No, I'm not in denial about 'survivalists' types of groups, then again, they are rarely heard from. Not so the rapists, murderers, thieves, and the property destruction on the left.

Wind Song
05-26-2012, 12:34 AM
Only a RWer would think their nutters LESS dangerous than RW nutters.

Anton Chigurh
05-26-2012, 12:36 AM
Only a RWer would think their nutters LESS dangerous than RW nutters.Only a nutter would make such a completely nonsensical post.

Read it....:lol:

DragonStryk72
05-26-2012, 12:58 AM
I've the same problem, sometimes I've been negged for saying the rightwingers can be nutters. Of course those that criticize seem to be blind to the fact that I think that far left nutters are much more dangerous. No, I'm not in denial about 'survivalists' types of groups, then again, they are rarely heard from. Not so the rapists, murderers, thieves, and the property destruction on the left.

Any form of extremism is of course bad, but I think for their ability to be lessened in the political arena, we need to start calling our own more. I mean, look at the Thrive movie, it's clearly got a conservative libertarian bent to it, and if you look at my political persuasion, it should be right up my alley, but I see it the same way I see "An Inconvenient Truth", as well meaning, but dishonest rhetoric for an agenda that twists or fudges facts in order to make its point.

Anton Chigurh
05-26-2012, 01:05 AM
I see "An Inconvenient Truth", as well meaningYou truly believe the EnviroNazi movement is well meaning?

It MAY have been when it started, but as soon as the USSR collapsed the pro communist/Marxist hard left infiltrated and has now taken over the whole thing.

It's no coincidence we never heard much about global warming until the late 80s-early 90s.

Understand, I am talking about the leadership, not making a blanket statement about the rank and file folks out there whose motive truly is saving the planet.

DragonStryk72
05-26-2012, 01:21 AM
You truly believe the EnviroNazi movement is well meaning?

It MAY have been when it started, but as soon as the USSR collapsed the pro communist/Marxist hard left infiltrated and has now taken over the whole thing.

It's no coincidence we never heard much about global warming until the late 80s-early 90s.

Understand, I am talking about the leadership, not making a blanket statement about the rank and file folks out there whose motive truly is saving the planet.

Meaning well, and doing good are completely different things. Remember "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions". Some leaders are likely playing for their own gain, in power or politics, but really, most are genuinely well meaning. Unfortunately, that does absolutely nothing to change the outcome of their actions.

So, what, plutonium didn't exist until we discovered it, or something? America wasn't real until Europeans started landing here? We've been learning new things about the Earth all the time. The problem that the environmental movement really has is its complete inability to acknowledge the huge strides we have made in this country, continually treating companies at large as Captain Planet villains that are hell bent on destroying the planet.

Kathianne
05-26-2012, 01:25 AM
Any form of extremism is of course bad, but I think for their ability to be lessened in the political arena, we need to start calling our own more. I mean, look at the Thrive movie, it's clearly got a conservative libertarian bent to it, and if you look at my political persuasion, it should be right up my alley, but I see it the same way I see "An Inconvenient Truth", as well meaning, but dishonest rhetoric for an agenda that twists or fudges facts in order to make its point.

I've not seen "Thrive." I've seen "An Inconvenient Truth" more times than I can stand. AIT is only a propaganda movie for the ignorant, the target group of the production.

Anton Chigurh
05-26-2012, 01:30 AM
Meaning well, and doing good are completely different things.No kidding.

SassyLady
05-26-2012, 03:04 AM
I find that, as a conservative, I'm actually angrier with the Right Wing extremists like Coulter and Hannity. I think this is likely because I know that when I say I'm conservative, they're the first images that pop into peoples' minds, like those Westboro Baptist Church assholes who are making it harder to be a Christian and get any respect.

That's OK, DS. When I think of liberal women I immediately equate them with Pelosi and Boxer, two of the most progressive liberal women around.

SassyLady
05-26-2012, 03:05 AM
I have no problem with partisan stuff. I have a problem with newsources that are not newssources but entertainment
"people like me" huh. That's prejudice speaking

What news source do you think is an unbiased source of information these days?

SassyLady
05-26-2012, 03:11 AM
Any form of extremism is of course bad, but I think for their ability to be lessened in the political arena, we need to start calling our own more. I mean, look at the Thrive movie, it's clearly got a conservative libertarian bent to it, and if you look at my political persuasion, it should be right up my alley, but I see it the same way I see "An Inconvenient Truth", as well meaning, but dishonest rhetoric for an agenda that twists or fudges facts in order to make its point.

:clap:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DragonStryk72 again



I am the same DS. I have a pretty good BS sensor, whether it is radical left or radical right. That's why I always test just a tad to the right of center. Problem is ... I used to test a tad bit to the left, but the center has changed over the years.

jimnyc
05-26-2012, 06:26 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/republican-lies-womens-bodies_n_1374027.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/republican-lies-womens-bodies_n_1374027.html)

Extremely horrible article. Take one person and apply it to the entire right of politics. Take something out of context and apply it to the entire right of politics. If someone should read the above article, and truly believe that point by point speaks for the entire "right" and their political positions, then that person is very, very naive. There might be a 'little' truth in there, but the majority is crap. And it would be no different than me posting a Rush Limbaugh or Coulter article, one of their more extreme positions, and applying it to the entire left.

Let me ask you this, Wind.... Do you believe Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Boxer... or worse, left wing pundits - do you think they are indicative of the majority of those who lean left politically?

fj1200
05-26-2012, 06:29 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/republican-lies-womens-bodies_n_1374027.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/republican-lies-womens-bodies_n_1374027.html)

Silly. What does that have to do with the OP?

Wind Song
05-26-2012, 09:13 AM
Extremely horrible article. Take one person and apply it to the entire right of politics. Take something out of context and apply it to the entire right of politics. If someone should read the above article, and truly believe that point by point speaks for the entire "right" and their political positions, then that person is very, very naive. There might be a 'little' truth in there, but the majority is crap. And it would be no different than me posting a Rush Limbaugh or Coulter article, one of their more extreme positions, and applying it to the entire left.

Let me ask you this, Wind.... Do you believe Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Boxer... or worse, left wing pundits - do you think they are indicative of the majority of those who lean left politically?

I don't like any of the politicians you mention; Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer.

I admit to a bias toward Rachel Maddow. I will watch her if I'm traveling and staying in a motel. I like Colbert and Jon Stewart.

DragonStryk72
05-26-2012, 10:14 AM
:clap:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DragonStryk72 again



I am the same DS. I have a pretty good BS sensor, whether it is radical left or radical right. That's why I always test just a tad to the right of center. Problem is ... I used to test a tad bit to the left, but the center has changed over the years.

Calling out the fanatics on the left by those of us on the right tends to only cause those on the left to rally, and the reverse is certainly true. By calling out the extremists on our own side of the line, it shows greater growth and maturity.

Nell's Room
05-27-2012, 02:53 AM
Yes or no?

I say no. Not personally, not socially.

I also say no. If women have a duty to reproduce, then the same must also be said for men, as no reproduction can take place unless both sexes are involved.

Trigg
05-27-2012, 08:41 AM
Yes or no?

I say no. Not personally, not socially.

Your source has nothing to do with this question.

1. Birth Control Causes Prostate Cancer _ False. But the pill can cause blood clots

Kathianne
05-27-2012, 09:15 AM
Your source has nothing to do with this question.

1. Birth Control Causes Prostate Cancer _ False. But the pill can cause blood clots

Also an increase in both breast and cervical cancers. Opposite though on ovarian cancers.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives

and lest anyone forgets, .gov is strongly in favor of oral contraceptives.

cadet
05-27-2012, 09:58 AM
Yes or no?

I say no. Not personally, not socially.

For the entire species of humanity, DUH. unless you want us all to die out. This is like saying men have to be fathers. people have to work for food. Now, i know you don't HAVE to, but think of the pros!
food=life,
being a father=teaching a kid your morals and having someone to look up to you,
having a kid=having a kid! babies are awesome! plus you get all these benefits when your prego! people help you more, maternity leave, etc.

And i don't know about you, but this is for guys as well, do you honestly want to grow up to be an old man with no one who loves you? no children to care for you? no reason to live anymore, cause your spouse died off, and with them your entire family.

Now, i know you don't HAVE to have kids, and there's plenty of people who SHOULDN'T have kids, but it's stupid not to. What is the point of life without having a child to teach, nurture, and play with?

Besides, when you have a kid, you get to act like one, play with dolls, ride roller coasters, play hid n' seek, and blow stuff up!

Abbey
05-27-2012, 10:04 AM
I find that, as a conservative, I'm actually angrier with the Right Wing extremists like Coulter and Hannity. I think this is likely because I know that when I say I'm conservative, they're the first images that pop into peoples' minds, like those Westboro Baptist Church assholes who are making it harder to be a Christian and get any respect.

Why would you say that the existence of a fringe hate-filled congregation makes it harder to get respect as a Christian? I have no problem separating the two, and anyone without a Christianphobic agenda can easily do so as well.

DragonStryk72
05-27-2012, 11:10 AM
Why would you say that the existence of a fringe hate-filled congregation makes it harder to get respect as a Christian? I have no problem separating the two, and anyone without a Christianphobic agenda can easily do so as well.

Because, unfortunately, people see that idiocy, and they tend to lump Christians together. I didn't say it was fair, but that's how people think in general. More than once, I've had to remind my friends that I am indeed Catholic.

DragonStryk72
05-27-2012, 11:14 AM
For the entire species of humanity, DUH. unless you want us all to die out. This is like saying men have to be fathers. people have to work for food. Now, i know you don't HAVE to, but think of the pros!
food=life,
being a father=teaching a kid your morals and having someone to look up to you,
having a kid=having a kid! babies are awesome! plus you get all these benefits when your prego! people help you more, maternity leave, etc.

And i don't know about you, but this is for guys as well, do you honestly want to grow up to be an old man with no one who loves you? no children to care for you? no reason to live anymore, cause your spouse died off, and with them your entire family.

Now, i know you don't HAVE to have kids, and there's plenty of people who SHOULDN'T have kids, but it's stupid not to. What is the point of life without having a child to teach, nurture, and play with?

Besides, when you have a kid, you get to act like one, play with dolls, ride roller coasters, play hid n' seek, and blow stuff up!

Okay, in defense of the OP, it was that women are perceiving as having a duty to reproduce, that they're somehow a failure if they're not popping out babies. It was an incorrect view of women based off of a Huffington Post op-ed piece.

However, yes, kids are awesome. They are also a brilliant excuse to go back to Chuck E. Cheese.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 11:25 AM
If you examine Catholic doctrine on marriage, it does appear that having children is considered the reason to marry. Consider the Churches position on birth control.


Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

Kathianne
05-27-2012, 11:35 AM
If you examine Catholic doctrine on marriage, it does appear that having children is considered the reason to marry. Consider the Churches position on birth control.


Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

Go learn more about Buddhism, you really need to know more. Stop bashing the Church you were raised in and now hate. Yep, strong words are allowed. Go for it Sky, go with the hate. Feeling better?

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 11:36 AM
I have every right to talk about the Church I was raised in.

Kathianne
05-27-2012, 11:37 AM
I have every right to talk about the Church I was raised in.

and no one said differently. My implication was you know little of what you keep harping about. That's just nuts.

Shadow
05-27-2012, 11:38 AM
Okay, in defense of the OP, it was that women are perceiving as having a duty to reproduce, that they're somehow a failure if they're not popping out babies. It was an incorrect view of women based off of a Huffington Post op-ed piece.

However, yes, kids are awesome. They are also a brilliant excuse to go back to Chuck E. Cheese.

And animated movies. Of course my kids are getting to old and won't go anymore. Boo.


If you examine Catholic doctrine on marriage, it does appear that having children is considered the reason to marry. Consider the Churches position on birth control.


Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

Which of course activist feminists such as yourself hate,since your agenda is to tear down the male role in the family and remove all bonds with men.
:rolleyes:

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 11:39 AM
and no one said differently. My implication was you know little of what you keep harping about. That's just nuts.


I know a lot about the Catholic Church. My family is many generations Irish Catholic.

jimnyc
05-27-2012, 11:40 AM
I know a lot about the Catholic Church.

Your posting history on the Catholic Church SCREAMS otherwise.

Kathianne
05-27-2012, 11:40 AM
I know a lot about the Catholic Church. My family is many generations Irish Catholic.

Buddhism girl, Buddhism. You are a nutter in preaching that which you don't understand.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 11:41 AM
And animated movies. Of course my kids are getting to old and won't go anymore. Boo.



Which of course activist feminists such as yourself hate,since your agenda is t otear down the male role in the family and remove all bonds with men.
:rolleyes:

I point out that the Catholic Church considers procreation the main reason for a married couple to have sex, and further considers sex without the motivation to conceive to be perverse.

Consider the theme of the OP. Women have a duty to reproduce. According to Catholic doctrine, married women and men have a duty to reproduce. Do you think the Catholic Church tears down the male role?

Stay on topic please.

Shadow
05-27-2012, 11:45 AM
I point out that the Catholic Church considers procreation the main reason for a married couple to have sex, and further considers sex without the motivation to conceive to be perverse.

Consider the theme of the OP. Women have a duty to reproduce. According to Catholic doctrine, married women and men have a duty to reproduce. Do you think the Catholic Church tears down the male role?

Stay on topic please.

All of your topics are the same. Women are oppressed by men blah blah blah. Just because you mix up the form of the attack...doesn't mean the agenda is not there.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 11:47 AM
All of your topics are the same. Women are oppressed by men blah blah blah. Just because you mix up the form of the attack...doesn't mean the agenda is not there.

Women have a duty to reproduce is the topic. I argue they don't. The RCC says otherwise.

Dilloduck
05-27-2012, 11:50 AM
Women have a duty to reproduce is the topic. I argue they don't. The RCC says otherwise.

If you see survival of the human race as important, women have a duty to reproduce. If animals are more important than humans it doesn't matter.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 11:51 AM
OK that's at least two of you who think it's a woman's duty to reproduce. Does a woman's life have value other than her uterus?

Shadow
05-27-2012, 11:52 AM
Women have a duty to reproduce is the topic. I argue they don't. The RCC says otherwise.

Of course you don't. You are trying to deminish the mens role in relationships. The idea behind the churches views on reproduction and sex would stregthen the bond of men and women as a unit. Can't have that. :laugh:

Dilloduck
05-27-2012, 11:52 AM
OK that's at least two of you who think it's a woman's duty to reproduce. Does a woman's life have value other than her uterus?

Her breasts rank way up there too.

Kathianne
05-27-2012, 11:53 AM
Women have a duty to reproduce is the topic. I argue they don't. The RCC says otherwise.

Not true. The RCC has no problem with women not getting married.

Shadow
05-27-2012, 11:53 AM
OK that's at least two of you who think it's a woman's duty to reproduce. Does a woman's life have value other than her uterus?

So...you think the role of a mother is useless?

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 11:53 AM
Not true. The RCC has no problem with women not getting married.]
The RCC considers it the duty of married men and women to procreate.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 11:54 AM
So...you think the role of a mother is useless?

This is a logical fallacy. I never said any such thing.

jimnyc
05-27-2012, 11:55 AM
So...you think the role of a mother is useless?

Probably a lot more 'useless' when you're a lesbian. Becoming a Mom is a little more difficult when you make such life decisions.

Dilloduck
05-27-2012, 11:55 AM
was buddha opposed to families ?

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 11:55 AM
Of course you don't. You are trying to deminish the mens role in relationships. The idea behind the churches views on reproduction and sex would stregthen the bond of men and women as a unit. Can't have that. :laugh:
The RCC considers it a duty for married couples to reproduce. You seem to agree. Yes or no?

Shadow
05-27-2012, 11:57 AM
This is a logical fallacy. I never said any such thing.

Sure you did. You don't like it that "the church" (ie men) place too much value on the woman's "uterus".

Kathianne
05-27-2012, 11:58 AM
]
The RCC considers it the duty of married men and women to procreate.

Quite different than your chosen title, no? The church does not advocate divorce when one partner cannot procreate. Quite the contrary.

Church indeed supports orphans and adoptions. Has centuries of experience on just this thing.

Shadow
05-27-2012, 12:05 PM
Probably a lot more 'useless' when you're a lesbian. Becoming a Mom is a little more difficult when you make such life decisions.

Which would be why people like WS try to deminish that role also...as they spew their "breeder" labels at them.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 12:06 PM
Sure you did. You don't like it that "the church" (ie men) place too much value on the woman's "uterus".


I don't care if Catholics want to breed like bunnies. I'm more interested in seeing women ordain as priests. I'm more interested in seeing the RCC take responsibility for the many decades of policy that allowed Catholic children to be victims of child sexual abuse by priests.

Those two issues are much closer to my heart.

I have a different view of what it means that a woman has a womb, than the obvious. I'm more interested in the spiritual significance of a womb.

Kathianne
05-27-2012, 12:10 PM
I don't care if Catholics want to breed like bunnies. I'm more interested in seeing women ordain as priests. I'm more interested in seeing the RCC take responsibility for the many decades of policy that allowed Catholic children to be victims of child sexual abuse by priests.

Those two issues are much closer to my heart.

I have a different view of what it means that a woman has a womb, than the obvious. I'm more interested in the spiritual significance of a womb.

I'm going to be blunt here, Sky, you're not nearly as deep as you imagine. You may be damaged, but seriously that isn't clear. What is clear, you have an over inflated image of yourself as both victim and savior of others.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 12:12 PM
Which would be why people like WS try to deminish that role also...as they spew their "breeder" labels at them.


"people like WS". What kind of people would those be?

I appreciate mothers completely. All beings have once been our kind mothers.

I am raising a question about whether it is the duty of a woman to have children.

Dilloduck
05-27-2012, 12:12 PM
I don't care if Catholics want to breed like bunnies. I'm more interested in seeing women ordain as priests. I'm more interested in seeing the RCC take responsibility for the many decades of policy that allowed Catholic children to be victims of child sexual abuse by priests.

Those two issues are much closer to my heart.

I have a different view of what it means that a woman has a womb, than the obvious. I'm more interested in the spiritual significance of a womb.

I think you should rewrite the Bible.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 12:13 PM
I'm going to be blunt here, Sky, you're not nearly as deep as you imagine. You may be damaged, but seriously that isn't clear. What is clear, you have an over inflated image of yourself as both victim and savior of others.


I won't comment on this because it's off topic.

DragonStryk72
05-27-2012, 12:15 PM
If you examine Catholic doctrine on marriage, it does appear that having children is considered the reason to marry. Consider the Churches position on birth control.


Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

And this has to do what with the Republican party? They also say tattoos are bad (Leviticus 19:28), but it doesn't mean you're going to hell for it, and I've known a few priests who have ink on them.

The view, in actuality, is that procreation is the natural point of sex, and that getting caught up in sex for pleasure is unnatural, and thus, denying God's gift. This is as true for males as it is for females, from the church's perspective, so again, this is not an admonition against women. Course, no one actually follows that view in the real world, so it's kinda become a moot point.

DragonStryk72
05-27-2012, 12:18 PM
OK that's at least two of you who think it's a woman's duty to reproduce. Does a woman's life have value other than her uterus?

Actually, that's two people who said women have a biological imperative to have children, and that if all women stopped having kids, then we would die out. That's actually scientific fact. You are twisting what they say to mean something it doesn't.

Shadow
05-27-2012, 12:19 PM
I don't care if Catholics want to breed like bunnies. I'm more interested in seeing women ordain as priests. I'm more interested in seeing the RCC take responsibility for the many decades of policy that allowed Catholic children to be victims of child sexual abuse by priests.

Those two issues are much closer to my heart.

I have a different view of what it means that a woman has a womb, than the obvious. I'm more interested in the spiritual significance of a womb.

So,basically it's okay if you now turn this discussion (which we are not allowed to get off topic on)...into christian bashing. Not surpising. At any rate the "Idea" behind the spirituality of the "womb" is not just a "female" concept.

Some references even include the story of the "ark"...Which is considered a vessel that was given the job of protecting the "seeds" of future generations.

The female can't just create the seeds by herself you know.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 12:19 PM
And this has to do what with the Republican party? They also say tattoos are bad (Leviticus 19:28), but it doesn't mean you're going to hell for it, and I've known a few priests who have ink on them.

The view, in actuality, is that procreation is the natural point of sex, and that getting caught up in sex for pleasure is unnatural, and thus, denying God's gift. This is as true for males as it is for females, from the church's perspective, so again, this is not an admonition against women. Course, no one actually follows that view in the real world, so it's kinda become a moot point.

I'm not talking about the GOP in this thread. Thank you for recognizing that official RCC policy is that married women and men have a duty to procreate.

It's true that few Catholics actually practice that doctrine.

I'm thinking just the last few generations of Catholics. My great grandmother had ten living children, my grandmother had seven, and my aunt had five. Her children have 2 each.

Dilloduck
05-27-2012, 12:19 PM
I won't comment on this because it's off topic.

Whew.

DragonStryk72
05-27-2012, 12:20 PM
I won't comment on this because it's off topic.

You went off-topic first, Song.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 12:21 PM
Actually, that's two people who said women have a biological imperative to have children, and that if all women stopped having kids, then we would die out. That's actually scientific fact. You are twisting what they say to mean something it doesn't.

I didn't say anything about a biological imperative. I am addressing the idea of "duty" in having children.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 12:26 PM
Many governments have introduced legislation to encourage people to have children, or rather, to encourage the right people to have children. Rome’s first Emperor, Augustus, induced the Senate to pass the Lex Julia, which made adultery illegal, and which penalised those who failed to marry and reproduce.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/05/14/do-we-have-a-duty-to-have-children/

Dilloduck
05-27-2012, 12:26 PM
Yes or no?

I say no. Not personally, not socially.

according to who ? Us as individuals or some universal rule ?

DragonStryk72
05-27-2012, 12:27 PM
I'm not talking about the GOP in this thread. Thank you for recognizing that official RCC policy is that married women and men have a duty to procreate.

It's true that few Catholics actually practice that doctrine.

I'm thinking just the last few generations of Catholics. My great grandmother had ten living children, my grandmother had seven, and my aunt had five. Her children have 2 each.

FIrst off, the GOP is not the Republican Party, nor is it the Right Wing, but a small sub-section of those things.

There are other reasons that people had larger numbers of children back then, having nothing to do with the Church. It was simple statistics, since there used to be a far greater chance that at least some of your kids weren't going to make it to adulthood, and so you had greater numbers in order to "hedge your bet". More kids also meant more people pulling in income later, thus improving the station of the family, and helping to secure their financial future.

Dilloduck
05-27-2012, 12:27 PM
Many governments have introduced legislation to encourage people to have children, or rather, to encourage the right people to have children. Rome’s first Emperor, Augustus, induced the Senate to pass the Lex Julia, which made adultery illegal, and which penalised those who failed to marry and reproduce.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/05/14/do-we-have-a-duty-to-have-children/

then according to him is was a duty-----problem solved.

DragonStryk72
05-27-2012, 12:28 PM
I didn't say anything about a biological imperative. I am addressing the idea of "duty" in having children.

Yes, and they were speaking of the biological imperative, metioning nothing of duty. You, however, twisted their words to mean that.

Dilloduck
05-27-2012, 12:29 PM
Do your duty, Sky. Have babies.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 12:29 PM
Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt said that having children amounted to a national duty and was crucial for the economic and social success of the UK.

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

DragonStryk72
05-27-2012, 12:30 PM
Many governments have introduced legislation to encourage people to have children, or rather, to encourage the right people to have children. Rome’s first Emperor, Augustus, induced the Senate to pass the Lex Julia, which made adultery illegal, and which penalised those who failed to marry and reproduce.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/05/14/do-we-have-a-duty-to-have-children/

Name one nowadays. Actually, China itself is actually limiting the number of children people can have, in order to bring the numbers down, since they are vastly overpopulated.

Shadow
05-27-2012, 12:31 PM
I'm not talking about the GOP in this thread. Thank you for recognizing that official RCC policy is that married women and men have a duty to procreate.

It's true that few Catholics actually practice that doctrine.

I'm thinking just the last few generations of Catholics. My great grandmother had ten living children, my grandmother had seven, and my aunt had five. Her children have 2 each.

My great great grandmother had at least seven (not a catholic). Some of which died coming across the country in covered wagons. Do you have a point?

DragonStryk72
05-27-2012, 12:33 PM
Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt said that having children amounted to a national duty and was crucial for the economic and social success of the UK.

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

I wouldn't really use her as a good source, given that she was removed from office.

Kathianne
05-27-2012, 12:34 PM
I won't comment on this because it's off topic.

and I will respond to your neg. I gave back and I'm not going to double down as I usually do for negs. For the simple reason I do think you are simple.

Shadow
05-27-2012, 12:35 PM
Do your duty, Sky. Have babies.


No no...I think the rest of us are supposed to come to our senses and rebel against the MAN. :thumb:

Dilloduck
05-27-2012, 12:37 PM
No no...I think the rest of us are supposed to come to our senses and rebel against the MAN. :thumb:

I hate this voice in my head that keeps telling me to make babies.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 01:32 PM
Some Catholic bishops for one. Let me find the link.

This isn't the link I intend to show you but it does address the topic.

The Catholic Church (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Catholic_Church) is opposed to artificial contraception and orgasmic acts outside of the context of marital intercourse.[2] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-1) This belief dates back to the first centuries of Christianity.[3] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-2) Such acts are considered intrinsically disordered because of the belief that all licit sexual acts must be both unitive (express love), and procreative (open to procreation (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Procreation)). The only form of birth control permitted is abstinence. Modern scientific methods of "periodic abstinence" such as natural family planning (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Natural_family_planning) (NFP) were counted as a form of abstinence by Pope Paul VI (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Pope_Paul_VI) in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Humanae_Vitae).[4] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-pope1-3) The following is the condemnation of contraception:

Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_birth_control

jimnyc
05-27-2012, 01:34 PM
Some Catholic bishops for one. Let me find the link.

And I can find tons of links showing the nuts and fucking cuckoos that practice Buddhism. Then again, no link is really needed...

jimnyc
05-27-2012, 01:37 PM
In Buddhism, there is no established doctrine about contraception (http://contraception.about.com/od/contraceptionoverview/g/glossary.htm). Traditional Buddhist teaching favors fertility over birth control, so some are reluctant to tamper with the natural development of life. A Buddhist may accept all contraceptive methods (http://contraception.about.com/od/contraceptionoverview/p/methods.htm) but with different degrees of hesitation. The worst of all is abortion (http://contraception.about.com/od/contraceptionfailure/a/aboutabortion.htm) or ‘killing a human to be.’

Hmmmm.... WS, you may want to teach other Buddhists that it's the woman's right to her own fetus and it's not the "worst"

Kathianne
05-27-2012, 01:37 PM
I'm not talking about the GOP in this thread. Thank you for recognizing that official RCC policy is that married women and men have a duty to procreate.

It's true that few Catholics actually practice that doctrine.

I'm thinking just the last few generations of Catholics. My great grandmother had ten living children, my grandmother had seven, and my aunt had five. Her children have 2 each.

and those numbers of offspring differ from the general population how? Say, protestants?

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 01:38 PM
Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna believes the small but growing number of faithful Catholic families in Europe can win the continent back to the Christian faith. “I see our young, believing families with four or five or six or more children and how they live in the midst of this society – they are really the New Evangelization not through words, but through the fact of living the happiness of a believing family,” he told CNA May 14 in Rome.
“We are now a minority – the baptized Christians in Austria are 70 percent but practicing Catholics are 10 percent -- but if these 10 percent are convincing and convinced, they can change the country, just as happened in the Roman Empire.”

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-schonborn-a-faithful-catholic-minority-can-re-convert-europe/

jimnyc
05-27-2012, 01:40 PM
Birth control is the practice of preventing birth from taking place. There are two ways this can be done – by preventing conception from happening or by destroying the foetus at some stage before it is born. Buddhism teaches that life (http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=227) begins at or shortly after conception and thus considers abortion (http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=3) to be a type of killing (M.I,265). To prevent conception from happening, either by using condoms, contraceptive pills, cervical devices or spermicides does not involve killing, and is thus morally neutral. The ancient Indians practised douching to prevent conception and also made condoms out of animals’ intestines.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 01:45 PM
And I can find tons of links showing the nuts and fucking cuckoos that practice Buddhism. Then again, no link is really needed...
Buddhism is off topic.

If you'd like me to find what the Buddhist view is of women having children I'll see what I can find, but it's actually off the topic. I cannot mention
Buddhism without one of you having a fit about it.


The questions is whether child bearing is a woman's duty to her religion or society. I say she is not required to have children as a duty.

jimnyc
05-27-2012, 01:48 PM
Buddhism is off topic.

If you'd like me to find what the Buddhist view is of women having children I'll see what I can find, but it's actually off the topic.

The questions is whether child bearing is a woman's duty to her religion or society.

I really don't care what you think is off or on topic. I WILL point out hypocrisy where and when I feel like it. You're all about women's rights. You're all about abortion being a woman's choice. You go on and on and on about Buddhism and trash Catholics whenever you can. I'm merely pointing out that even Buddhism has a problem with abortion and considers it killing, contrary to your own beliefs. So basically, you disagree with what your own faith teaches.

Kathianne
05-27-2012, 01:48 PM
Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna believes the small but growing number of faithful Catholic families in Europe can win the continent back to the Christian faith. “I see our young, believing families with four or five or six or more children and how they live in the midst of this society – they are really the New Evangelization not through words, but through the fact of living the happiness of a believing family,” he told CNA May 14 in Rome.
“We are now a minority – the baptized Christians in Austria are 70 percent but practicing Catholics are 10 percent -- but if these 10 percent are convincing and convinced, they can change the country, just as happened in the Roman Empire.”

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-schonborn-a-faithful-catholic-minority-can-re-convert-europe/

He's trying to cheerlead Europe's decision, including Catholics to fall below replacement level. Go ahead and cheer Sky, it will not end well.

Kathianne
05-27-2012, 01:51 PM
Buddhism is off topic.

If you'd like me to find what the Buddhist view is of women having children I'll see what I can find, but it's actually off the topic. I cannot mention
Buddhism without one of you having a fit about it.


The questions is whether child bearing is a woman's duty to her religion or society. I say she is not required to have children as a duty.

The bolded is your opinion only. The rest of the board, staff included, has the right to answer as they deem.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 01:52 PM
One of the European Bishops was worried that Europe would become predominantly Muslim populated. He called for Christians to have more children. That sounds like having children is a national or regional duty.

jimnyc
05-27-2012, 01:52 PM
One of the European Bishops was worried that Europe would become predominantly Muslim populated. He called for Christians to have more children.

And Buddhism calls for women to not have abortions and KILL.

Kathianne
05-27-2012, 01:53 PM
One of the European Bishops was worried that Europe would become predominantly Muslim populated. He called for Christians to have more children. That sounds like having children is a national or regional duty.

He's on the right track there.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 01:54 PM
The bolded is your opinion only. The rest of the board, staff included, has the right to answer as they deem.

Correct. We all have the right to answer as we choose.

jimnyc
05-27-2012, 01:55 PM
Correct. We all have the right to answer as we choose.

Good, then stop being repetitive and telling everyone they are off topic. If you don't like their post, move along, but stop with your little demands.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 02:10 PM
And Buddhism calls for women to not have abortions and KILL.


Buddhism isn't morally absolute. We've discussed this before. Not killing is a Buddhist precept.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 02:11 PM
Good, then stop being repetitive and telling everyone they are off topic. If you don't like their post, move along, but stop with your little demands.

OK, I won't say that anyone is off topic, I will merely address whatever posts are on topic.

DragonStryk72
05-27-2012, 02:25 PM
Buddhism isn't morally absolute. We've discussed this before. Not killing is a Buddhist precept.

And what you are throwing around are catholic precepts, as well. Your point?

fj1200
05-27-2012, 02:46 PM
If you examine Catholic doctrine on marriage...

Don't be Catholic, problem solved. And no, women do not have a societal duty to reproduce but thankfully women and men do reproduce.

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 02:48 PM
Don't be Catholic, problem solved. And no, women do not have a societal duty to reproduce but thankfully women and men do reproduce.


I personally took care of this in two ways, by being a lesbian and leaving the RCC.

fj1200
05-27-2012, 02:49 PM
This is a logical fallacy.

I see you've been taking debate lessons from DMP. :laugh:

Wind Song
05-27-2012, 02:51 PM
I see you've been taking debate lessons from DMP. :laugh:


No, I won't be able to take debate lessons. I wouldn't take them from dmp, I'd rather take them from you.

DragonStryk72
05-27-2012, 02:52 PM
I personally took care of this in two ways, by being a lesbian and leaving the RCC.

Lesbians can still reproduce, and if you really went over to women just to avoid childbrith, then you're not actually a lesbian. Women become lesbians because you want to be with women, and not men. You become gay if you are man who only wants to be with men, and you're bi if you enjoy sex with either gender. These are objective terms, not subjective.

Dilloduck
05-27-2012, 02:58 PM
I personally took care of this in two ways, by being a lesbian and leaving the RCC.

You chose to be a lesbian ?

fj1200
05-27-2012, 03:01 PM
I personally took care of this in two ways, by being a lesbian and leaving the RCC.

You can't swing a dead cat in my neighborhood without hitting a lesbian couple with kids... But I think your thread has run its course. Do women have a duty? Some people say yes and some people say no but there is no force making you do so... beyond tax incentives that is.

Aeryn Sun
05-27-2012, 03:13 PM
Yes, women have a duty to reproduce.

You will burn in hell if you do not marry and submit to your husband whenever he requires which should be at least twice a week.

If you cannot reproduce, your husband has a responsibility to find a woman who can and you must take care of her needs since you cannot bear him a child.

DragonStryk72
05-27-2012, 03:20 PM
Yes, women have a duty to reproduce.

You will burn in hell if you do not marry and submit to your husband whenever he requires which should be at least twice a week.

If you cannot reproduce, your husband has a responsibility to find a woman who can and you must take care of her needs since you cannot bear him a child.

Oh no, you have to flag it as sarcasm, Aeryn. She never gets sarcasm on here otherwise.

ConHog
05-27-2012, 03:25 PM
Oh no, you have to flag it as sarcasm, Aeryn. She never gets sarcasm on here otherwise.

Hell man, she can't correctly interpret ANY post, let alone one posted in sarcasm.

SassyLady
05-28-2012, 06:03 AM
I point out that the Catholic Church considers procreation the main reason for a married couple to have sex, and further considers sex without the motivation to conceive to be perverse.

So what? If you don't agree with them, then don't associate with them. Why must you always think that your way is better. Obviously, there are millions, upon millions of people who disagree with your premise.




Consider the theme of the OP. Women have a duty to reproduce. According to Catholic doctrine, married women and men have a duty to reproduce. Do you think the Catholic Church tears down the male role?

Stay on topic please.

Once again, why do you care what the Catholic Church preaches? You have said that you are a Buddhist. Go practice Buddhism and leave the Catholics alone.

Personally, I'm not religious because I don't like being told how to live my life, but I don't attack other's religion.

SassyLady
05-28-2012, 06:06 AM
Women have a duty to reproduce is the topic. I argue they don't. The RCC says otherwise.

Topic: women have a duty to reproduce.

RCC: men and women have a duty to reproduce.

WS: women do not have a duty to reproduce.



End of story. Nothing left to debate. People either disagree with you or agree with you.

SassyLady
05-28-2012, 06:11 AM
]
The RCC considers it the duty of married men and women to procreate.

I believe it is a privilege to procreate. I created one of the most stunningly beautiful and intelligent women I know. She has created three brilliant children that might one day grow up and be the leader of the free world, or a scientist that discovers another Earth-like planet and how to get there.

Why is it so wrong, WS, to believe having children is good for mankind? You reduce everything to your own little worldview without thinking of the big picture. Survival of mankind hinges upon procreating. If there is one religion, the RCC, that considers it a duty and not a privilege, then I'm OK with it.

SassyLady
05-28-2012, 06:13 AM
"people like WS". What kind of people would those be?

I appreciate mothers completely. All beings have once been our kind mothers.

I am raising a question about whether it is the duty of a woman to have children.

Well, if it is not the duty of a woman, then who's duty is it? Build them in a lab?

SassyLady
05-28-2012, 06:20 AM
One of the European Bishops was worried that Europe would become predominantly Muslim populated. He called for Christians to have more children. That sounds like having children is a national or regional duty.

My husband felt it was his duty to protect and serve his country by being willing to give his life. I would think that a woman having a baby is along the same lines. Do you not think you have a duty to continue mankind or to help serve your country is asked?

Kathianne
05-28-2012, 08:02 AM
If there was a qualifier that "healthy women, in relationships that would be mutually beneficial to child and relationship, should feel a duty to procreate" I'm with that sentiment.

I don't think that folks that take can't take care of themselves should have children. Obviously that includes most baby mommas. It also includes those that would abuse their children. Sadly it includes those capable in income, education; but too selfish to want to share. It's their right to choose not to, but yes, the country and themselves are worse off for it.

OCA
06-02-2012, 10:20 PM
Holy hell! Mother of all people and things fucked up!

Wind Song, honey, not sure if you are still posting because from reading you've quit the board and kept posting more times than Wilt Chamberlain had girlfriends.....................YOU ARE FUCKED UP IN THE HEAD! It all stems from your lifestyle choice, until you get that cleared up and fixed you will never be content in your life, you will always have issues with everything because you are not right in your soul.

Oh and BTW...God bless the people of the great state of North Carolina, another one for the correct side.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
06-02-2012, 10:45 PM
I will say that when it comes to practicing on the procreation part women are the only option.
No union of two men or two women ever produced a baby. Now my wife and I have a five year old son and we do not intend to have any more children but we certainly arent going to stop "practicing"...
They say practice makes perfect and I'm going for perfection!-:laugh:--Tyr