Shooting at Colorado clinic

[Rhiannon]

And you talk them.

[Leonard James]

And you talk them.

 

Sounds like a lot of balls, to me!

[Shaker]

Having written the above, abortion clinics are places of death

Medical establishments are like that.

and to increase the numbers of deaths at such places with the use of a gun makes the pro life lobby no better than the abortionists.

It makes them distinctly alien to irony, that's for sure.

[floo]

I doubt many women have abortions lightly and without giving it a lot of thought first!

[Shaker]

I doubt many women have abortions lightly and without giving it a lot of thought first!

While surely true, a woman's right to control her fertility shouldn't be, mustn't be dependent on its presence or absence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

While surely true, a woman's right to control her fertility shouldn't be, mustn't be dependent on its presence or absence.

Yes Floo. Your leader has spoken.

[jeremyp]

True, but we've invented some novel ways to divorce sex and procreation so that you can have the former without the latter.

No contraception is 100% effective. You can't completely divorce sex from procreation.

Even not abstaining is not 100% effective - in fact, it may well be the worst method of not having children, because people do not want to not have sex and even if they do want to abstain, they are frequently incapable of resisting.

I can spot another one. While a small minority of the population are happily and contentedly asexual, most people are not, and it is neither reasonable nor desirable to expect much less demand that anybody should lead a sexless life. Catholicism has been trying that one on for two thousand years, with what I shall generously call markedly poor results.

That's just expanding on the flaw I spotted. Still an idea only needs one flaw to be unworkable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No contraception is 100% effective. You can't completely divorce sex from procreation.

Even not abstaining is not 100% effective, because people do not want to not have sex and even if they do want to abstain, they are frequently incapable of resisting.

I'm like that with Chocolate eclairs ......There you go. another serious topic trivialised......However it takes only one to stuff a 10 incher in and two to have sex.

[Hope]

Even not abstaining is not 100% effective -

Sorry, jeremy, 'abstaining', by the very definition of the word, is 100% effective.

I don't deny that failure to resist means that many who set out to abstain ultimately fail, but that doesn't mean that abstinence is any less effective than anything else.

... it may well be the worst method of not having children, because people do not want to not have sex and even if they do want to abstain, they are frequently incapable of resisting.

That, of course, assumes that everyone does 'not want to not have sex', and I doubt whether there is any evidence to support such an assertion.  A good example is to ask the lads in a school about their sexual experiences.  Having listened to their claims, a quick general knowledge test regarding sexual matters can show that anything up to half the lads have lied.  (I remember being involved in such an experiment in one of my first jobs - when the local health authority tried to gauge the level of sexual activity amongst the 13-18-year old boys in the local schools.) 

To quote yourself:

That's just expanding on the flaw I spotted. Still an idea only needs one flaw to be unworkable.

Your post had two such flaws.