To: k2blader
You're welcome.
I'm curious on one point, though: Would you not agree that a woman whose sexual function serves only as a means of pleasure for a man is a whore?
As for children being corpses, this applies only to the ones who are physically killed by the use of artificial contraception and/or abortion.
Thanks!
132 posted on
02/07/2005 1:47:43 PM PST by
B-Chan
(Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
To: B-Chan
I'm curious on one point, though: Would you not agree that a woman whose sexual function serves only as a means of pleasure for a man is a whore? How about if her sexual function also serves as a means of pleasure for her? It seems remarkably sexist to reduce sex to whether or not it provides sexual pleasure for the man.
138 posted on
02/07/2005 1:55:02 PM PST by
Modernman
(What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
To: B-Chan
Would you not agree that a woman whose sexual function serves only as a means of pleasure for a man is a whore? No, I would not agree.
As for children being corpses, this applies only to the ones who are physically killed by the use of artificial contraception and/or abortion.
You do understand birth control doesn't kill anyone?
143 posted on
02/07/2005 2:00:01 PM PST by
k2blader
(It is neither compassionate nor conservative to support the expansion of socialism.)
To: B-Chan
I'm curious on one point, though: Would you not agree that a woman whose sexual function serves only as a means of pleasure for a man is a whore?That makes me wonder about something. Is the unitive purpose of sex really about nothing more than physical sensations?
160 posted on
02/07/2005 4:00:58 PM PST by
A.J.Armitage
(http://calvinist-libertarians.blogspot.com/)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson