-
Posted on 09/27/2014 9:32:47 PM PDT by KingofZion
For letting down her family's honor, a 12-year-old girl in China was killed and cut into pieces by her father, who then took the grisly pieces across the street to a public bathroom and dumped them in a public bathroom, police said.
The dad in Wenzhou City said he strangled his daughter because she was doing poorly at school, according to authorities, Britain's Daily Mirror reported.
"Neighbors we spoke to said he hadn't bothered to look for her and seemed quite happy she was gone," a police spokesman said.
Zhang Li, 46, said the girl, Sutain, had let down her family by failing to be a good daughter, the paper said.
He reported her missing under pressure from his wife, police said.
"We were suspicious because he seemed more angry than upset,' the spokesman said.
Three days later, a maintenance worker reported to police he had found a severed hand in a public toilet.
The father now faces life in prison.
“...why do so many threads that have nothing to do with abortion evolve into lectures about them?”
I believe that there is a corollary to Godwin’s Law that addresses this phenomena.
-
Well, what’s intercourse for?
Considering the behavior of humans ever since humanity existed, I would say that the biological function of intercourse is the last thing on people's minds when they engage in that behavior. Since the evidence is that people will engage in intercourse no matter what--even if doing so can earn them a death sentence as is the case in Islamic countries--I'm perfectly okay with them taking precautions so as not to get pregnant. The way I see it, killing a baby is a far greater sin than engaging in conjugal relations with one's husband or fiance while using contraceptives.
I went to the WWII museum in New Orleans with a Chinese woman. I'm no historian (hate history, actually), but I ended up explaining a whole lot of WWII history to her. She had no idea, for example, of why we had to drop the atomic bombs on Japan, of the Japanese culture that dictates that suicide is preferable to defeat.
If implantation does not occur, there is no pregnancy. And there is absolutely no way that you will ever convince me that *preventing* life is equivalent to *taking* life. I am not capable of that kind of mental gymnastics. Furthermore, I think that equating the two is extremely counterproductive--after all, the majority of abortion clients are convinced that there is no difference, and believe that no baby exists until birth.
That's a weird idea, that somehow using birth control devalues marriage. Take a look at any couple married for decades, with two or three children. Do you seriously think that most of those decades were spent in a platonic relationship? Naw--they used contraceptives.
This is why it is currently impossible to deal with abortion
Be logical Just for a second
People have their personal favorite birth control method and that is what is counted when it’s use is depicted as having a percentage of effectiveness or failure
Condoms are what let’s say 98% effective for the sake of the argument. I know they are not 100% effective
There is only one birth control method that is 100% effective, and it is not discussed as birth control at all. But factually that’s what it is
Condoms, when they work, are effective. But they can fail. Then there are the times when the couple who states they use condoms don’t use them.
What happens then? A welcoming of new life?
Considering the behavior of humans since time began?
If you want to pretend that people have been acting this way since time began, you are in a fantasy world
For the past 50 years since birth control became socially acceptable we have a massive breakdown of marriage, family, gender, economics, virtue, morality and society
And we, like toddlers, pretend all of that is just coincidental
People in this case confuse desire with behavior.
And technological progress as progress of civilization. But it’s not
Until this time, women of a basic societal stature have not given men the time of day, who were not temperate gentlemen, who had no means of support, and would not have sex before marriage, and if so, on the sly, and in that case would consider what to do in case of pregnancy, including, and limited to, marriage. So they engaged in premarital sex
They call what women do now premarital sex. And people like you say of course you’re going to have sex whether you’re married or not people have always done it. It’s what sex is for
And that’s what people want to hear
From people who have no idea what it is they’re talking about
Chemical abortifacients prevent implantation. Sometimes. Sometimes they render the implanted embryo nonviable. And yes, you have used birth control and therefore it is Good. And my alcoholic nephew says his lifestyle id Good. Everybody does it so I do it so it must be Good. It must be in the Bible, somewhere.
I cannot visit the link...it’s too horrible to contemplate. How anyone can do such things is way beyond my comprehension.
You said birth control is abortion. That means you said condoms are abortion. Retract that or support it but don’t change the subject
Sutain,..Chopped Sutain?
Cite that and I’ll respond.
The mindset of birth control certainly does lead to abortion.
What does one do when the birth control fails?
The birth control mentality is the abortive mentality. The burden would be on you if you want to argue, to prove how it is not so
If you were to, just for an example of the mentality, which pretends all is fine because they would never have an abortion, ask a random sample of men how many of them did not have sex with women other than their wives you’d get a high percentage.
Then ask them how many took perfect care of birth control 100% of those times. Then ask how many are certain their sex partners did not have an abortion
Then ask, yourself, more than them, as you’ll be quite far from any truth at this juncture, how many have cared enough about it to have a clear conscience, or to stop using birth control and just welcome life
They don’t care. Birth control works for them and when it doesn’t, there’s abortion
Separate the two.
Same with women they have the control. They can say, what are you crazy? You want to be the father of my kids and not get married, live the life of a seventeen year old with no job ? No
Instead they say, o great he’s cute. I’ll take care of the birth control and if it fails, as it does occasionally, I’ll have an abortion.
Then there’s sex within a healthy marriage which welcomes life and there’s no birth control, no ‘I like you but not THAT much, kids are okay but not THAT great’ and abortion has nothing to do with that nor does birth control
Then there’s natural family planning, which when done correctly, enables the woman to know just what is going on, something that is always discouraged in medicine and in society, and which is 98% effective. More effective than the pill. The couple has to be married to use it and there is no room for abortion. Couples who use it have a 1% divorce rate versus the sky high general divorce rate
You’re making an unsupportable leap of logic. Does a failure of the rhythm method lead to abortion? If not how can you claim that a conddom failure leads to abortion. You need to brush up on your logic.
You’ve made an irrational extravagant claim. The burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders. Still a bit fuzzy on that logic thing aren’t you.
Shades of Peter Singer.
Fuzzy ? No. The theologians think this way. Educate yourself. Read humane vitae
Brush up ? No
People who are ignorant always claim natural family planning is rhythm. They know nothing about either one
Anyone who is invested in natural family planning is doing do in order to either have children or to not, and, if not, under the guidance of a caring individual. Likely a priest
No one goes to NFP class unmarried. They know that intercourse was created by God for procreation They’re not animals The procedure itself is a commitment. No one unwilling to commit to a spouse or potential spouse goes to this class
Any child conceived in the 2% chance that is the case, is welcomed into a marriage
Your observation that "we are the only ones since the year 3500 BC who separate sex form birth, and marriage from sex" strikes me as, well, not entirely accurate. Perhaps the more precise term for it would be disingenuous.
Do you really imagine that those of the current generation "are the only ones since the year 3500 BC" to have sexual relations outside of marriage? Or to have sexual relations for reasons other than a desire to reproduce?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.