Subject:
|
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2000 21:04:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
842 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> > > There are known methods of having sex and not having it result in
> > > pregnancy which can be used.
> >
> > I have found it uncommon for Republicans to advocate anal sex. But
> > remember it's not 100% in a heterosexual couple.
>
> I was not advocating anal sex. I was referring to contraceptives, condoms,
> and other forms of protection.
Oh, I thought you meant a way that was sure to avoid conception. The pill and
other female-based chemical methods are pretty reliable. The condom is less
so, but still pretty good. From there it's down hill. I'm not actually sure
where anal sex fits in, but I bet it's near the top. OTOH, most women aren't
willing to only have anal sex, so the point is moot.
> I do not advocate anal sex.
Why not? It avoids pregnancy and abortion, right?
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
