It's probably estimated which means, depending on the source, is probably insanely exaggerated.

No I would think that my country has plenty of nukes, just not 200. Maybe 80.

Well, of course. Because it wasnt her choice, and not her fault.

So how do you distinguish then? If a man lies about having had a vasectomy, has sex with a woman and she gets pregnant, can she have one then, or should she have been more cautious?

She should have been more cautious. Thats not rape, thats stupidity. thats why you ask for proof first, because there are a lot of guys out there that'll say anything to have sex without a condom.

But my question is more general, thats just 1 example. What level of caution needs to be taken before an abortion would be legal. What if the condom broke? Is that enough, or would there need to be more, like if there was the pill and a condom, and both failed, could you have an abortion then?

caution would prevent a baby, is what im saying. regardless if that caution worked or not shouldnt effect the legality of an abortion, because you had sex, you were willing to risk a child, because you knew condoms break, pills arent 100%, but you still had sex.
Your actions have consequances, and you need to deal with them, and not get rid of them just because you dont like them. ;-;

Ok, I understand what you're saying now, I'd misinterpreted it a bit, my bad.

I'd now like to ask a question, what situations would you say an abortion would be legal in then?

Rape, or if the woman would die while giving birth, I havent really thought of any other reasons that would fit.

That seems fair, also, how about if the child was going to be incredibly deformed, live in pain and couldn't survive without aid, like breathing machines? Would that count?

And also, how do you prove a woman was raped. She fucks a drunk guy, he can't remember what they did and she says he raped her? How do you prove that? That's the difficulty, making a law with severe conciseness for breaking (which i'm presuming you think there should be) based on something which a large amount of the time is un-provable is not going to work.

I know she raped him, but lets face it, in that situation if they went to court and she said he raped me, and he said she raped me, there wouldn't me a hope in hell he'd get off, they;d just say "can you remember being raped?" and he'd be like "well no, I was drunk" and they;d go "well she wasn't and she says you raped her, who are we going to believe?" and just convict him.

Living in pain and couldnt survive without aid might be justifiable reasons to me. But you shouldnt kill something just because it's deformed ;-; thats like saying you dont want an ugly child, so off it goes.
And normally, when a womans raped she'd call the police as soon as possible right? or find a solution for help? I feel like if that wasnt the reaction of the woman, and if she waited, oh two weeks, then that might not have been rape.

I meant deformed in terms of unable to live properly.

But thats not what I was asking, how do you tell if someone was raped or not, my question was how do you make a law based on a law that could easily be falsified, the problem with it is you can't make a law based on something that's not definitely true. I know there's the chance with normal laws that the person may not have done it, but the problem is its too hard to make a law like that selective. Thats the thing with laws, you generally have laws based on the definitely did or definitely didn't, its a really tricky one.

Then its decided, based on what is given. Thats why there are Jurys, and judges. To decide whats true and what isnt based on whats given. A law cant cover every single thing, but thats why there are people appointed to decide.

Agreed, but with most laws its easier to prove. With rape its extremely difficult to prove and make a true, unbiased judgement, so basing a law on it would be similar to basing a law on religion, you can't prove it, which is why laws are specifically made to be separate from religion so this kind of thing doesn't happen

Do you mean basing a law on rape and abortion?

Basing it on rape. Abortion is relatively easy to prove, rape is very difficult.

Well, no. I dont see rape as that difficult. I mean, if a woman was actually raped, then would she go to the cops right away? or atleast do something right away?
Women who fake it, is usually not till later time. Well, from what ive seen anyways. Your point does make a lot of sense though.

But you do get a large portion of women who are raped who never tell anyone. Also, a though just occurred, what if a man is raped (I know its uncommon, but it can happen) and the woman becomes pregnant? Can he make her have an abortion because he didn't consent to a child? But then would that be unfair on the woman because its her body? I know that problem also occurs with fully legal abortion, i'm curious now as to what actually happens. I wonder if it ever has happened?

Oh ok, i was just assuming. And to the if the woman raped the man, i guess the ultimate to that would be if the woman wanted to keep it, while the man was the one that got raped, he wouldnt be forced to take care of the child for the 9 months, like a woman would if she got raped. I would say itd be the womans choice, if the man that didnt get raped didnt want it. I cant picture that happening very well though xD

Reached the reply limit, whoops.

Ahh, as I said, I was a bit unclear on it.

I may be being a bit stupid here, its quite late and i'm a bit tired, but can you just spell it out as clearly as possible.

If a woman is raped, what can she do (in terms of abortions etc and what does the man have to do)?

If a man is raped, what can he do (in terms of abortions etc and what does the woman have to do)?

I'm still not sure what your saying on that, If the woman didn't give consent for a baby, she wouldn't have to keep it, thats the whole woman getting raped bit.

But if a man didn't give his consent for a child, why is it still her decision and why should he have to look after it. Also, why should the woman be allowed the child if in the opposite case its the victims choice, why is it not this time as well?

I know its an unlikely situation, but its still plausible.

The man wouldnt be forced to take care of the child like a woman would if she were raped. Thats why i feel like the woman gets a choice in the rape situation, and not the man. Because he shouldnt be forced to deal with the child if he didnt want it, and it was forced upon him like rape

Youre getting me mixed up. I never said the man had to care for it, im comparing him to how a woman WOULD still have to care of it if she was raped, and a man wouldnt.

wouldnt 100%* thinking to fast for my fingers

Sorry, I don't know what you're trying to say. There are people living in Gaza and the West Bank. Fact. We call those people Palestinians. Ergo, Palestinians exist. If you don't want to call them Palestinians for some asinine reason, call them Arabs or whatsits or whatever name pleases you. That doesn't change anything.

Palestinians are Arabs. That's the name used for the Arabs living in the territories.

my point is, there's no such thing as palestinians.

Sorry, I don't know what you're trying to say. There are people living in Gaza and the West Bank. Fact. We call those people Palestinians. Ergo, Palestinians exist. If you don't want to call them Palestinians for some asinine reason, call them Arabs or whatsits or whatever name pleases you. That doesn't change anything.

Jerusalem was built my Arabs, destroyed by the Byzantine empire, rebuilt by the Byzantine empire, taken back by Arabs and then the crusades happened. I'm sure you know the rest.

The Jews built Jerusalem... and the first temple.

Im sorry i made a mistake. *Jordanian refugee.

Palestinians are simply people that lived for a long time the British Mandate for Palestine (and before that Egypt.) that now want to be identified as a people and want freedom.

As Americans, we just sorta made ourselves up didn't we? Came here for new life, technically British citizens. Revolted, kicked the crown out and called ourselves Americans, did we not?

History about Palestine? no
History about Israel? yes

just goddamn what do you learn from Israel school? I heard Israel school brainwashed their kids with false information so they can defend their country at all cost even if that's wrong. Look up the real world and learn, nigga

Palestine has no history because... It's never existed... I don't know what you were taught.

Palestinians are simply people that lived for a long time the British Mandate for Palestine (and before that Egypt.) that now want to be identified as a people and want freedom.

As Americans, we just sorta made ourselves up didn't we? Came here for new life, technically British citizens. Revolted, kicked the crown out and called ourselves Americans, did we not?

They were told to give up all their belongings, including their home, to travel to some place where they didn't even want to be. They had that choice, or they could become a part of a officially Jewish state. They didn't have a choice.

^my point exactly, I'm not anti-semitic, i'm just against the UN's desicsions

There's also a great difference between Zionism and being a Jew. It's like saying you hate all Muslims, because of some extremists or say you hate all Christians, because of WBC. There's just a lot of Zionists compared to other extremists.

Israel offered citizenship, but the price wasn't to accept Israel as a state, but as their own state. The Palestinian people, or what you would like to call them, was caught between two scenarios; either they accepted Israel as their government or they supported the Arab League in denying Israel to exist all together. But, as you've already said, the Arab League lost and abandoned the Palestinians when they sought refugee at their borders. There was no "good guys" in control after the war. Only scrupulous politicians in both Israel and in the Arab League who both wanted more land. That's the way I see it.

but why should the arabs living there have to be under a jewish state and flag when the native population was not a Jewish majority? It is now, because all the jewish europeans immigrated to Israel

They didnt have to, hello? it was originally going to be a 2 state solution, but thea rabs rejected it and declared war.

They were told to give up all their belongings, including their home, to travel to some place where they didn't even want to be. They had that choice, or they could become a part of a officially Jewish state. They didn't have a choice.

^my point exactly, I'm not anti-semitic, i'm just against the UN's desicsions

There's also a great difference between Zionism and being a Jew. It's like saying you hate all Muslims, because of some extremists or say you hate all Christians, because of WBC. There's just a lot of Zionists compared to other extremists.

>implying there weren't Arabs living in the region before the creation of Israel
>implying there aren't currently Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank, with whom Israel is in conflict

arabs are not palestinians.

Palestinians are Arabs. That's the name used for the Arabs living in the territories.

my point is, there's no such thing as palestinians.

Sorry, I don't know what you're trying to say. There are people living in Gaza and the West Bank. Fact. We call those people Palestinians. Ergo, Palestinians exist. If you don't want to call them Palestinians for some asinine reason, call them Arabs or whatsits or whatever name pleases you. That doesn't change anything.

I'm sorry, are you sure you're not a lebanese refugee abandoned by his country to create a political sit storm? Oh wait, you are? That's a shame.

Im sorry i made a mistake. *Jordanian refugee.

> imaginary people

I see you try defending your country. I don't have any smart arguments right now so I'm not going to argument with your Israeli though.

Look at the history. Theyre made up.

History about Palestine? no
History about Israel? yes

just goddamn what do you learn from Israel school? I heard Israel school brainwashed their kids with false information so they can defend their country at all cost even if that's wrong. Look up the real world and learn, nigga

Palestine has no history because... It's never existed... I don't know what you were taught.

Palestinians are simply people that lived for a long time the British Mandate for Palestine (and before that Egypt.) that now want to be identified as a people and want freedom.

As Americans, we just sorta made ourselves up didn't we? Came here for new life, technically British citizens. Revolted, kicked the crown out and called ourselves Americans, did we not?

I just google'd it to be sure: it's been called Palestine since 1150 BCE by Egypt.
It's one of the oldest named regions in the world.

The majority of Israel was desert, until jewish settlers turned it into this beautiful country we see today.. And Guess who built Jerusalem? the Jewish kingdom! yay!.

Jerusalem was built my Arabs, destroyed by the Byzantine empire, rebuilt by the Byzantine empire, taken back by Arabs and then the crusades happened. I'm sure you know the rest.

The Jews built Jerusalem... and the first temple.

Partly true. Palestine (the region) was under the Ottoman empire until its collapse in 1920 and it was under British rule after that, but there lived a million people in that "desert" in 1931 and only 17% of them was Jews. Granted, that's a very small population when compared to the land, but it's still a lot of people. There's 10 million people living in that same area now. 1.6 million of these live in the little green strip at the south-west corner of the map to the far right above this thread. I won't even bring up the conditions these people live under.

Everyone who lived in that region was granted citizenship by Israel when it was founded, but they all refused because they did not recognize Israel's right to exist, and were PROMISED by the surrounding arab nations that they would be part of an arab state once israel and the jews were completely destroyed. That obviously didn't happen, and the arabs broke their promise, and now we have the 'refugee' problem. The west bank issue is a completely different one altogether. The people who used to live in the west bank were told the same thing by lebanon.

Israel offered citizenship, but the price wasn't to accept Israel as a state, but as their own state. The Palestinian people, or what you would like to call them, was caught between two scenarios; either they accepted Israel as their government or they supported the Arab League in denying Israel to exist all together. But, as you've already said, the Arab League lost and abandoned the Palestinians when they sought refugee at their borders. There was no "good guys" in control after the war. Only scrupulous politicians in both Israel and in the Arab League who both wanted more land. That's the way I see it.

but why should the arabs living there have to be under a jewish state and flag when the native population was not a Jewish majority? It is now, because all the jewish europeans immigrated to Israel

They didnt have to, hello? it was originally going to be a 2 state solution, but thea rabs rejected it and declared war.

They were told to give up all their belongings, including their home, to travel to some place where they didn't even want to be. They had that choice, or they could become a part of a officially Jewish state. They didn't have a choice.

^my point exactly, I'm not anti-semitic, i'm just against the UN's desicsions

There's also a great difference between Zionism and being a Jew. It's like saying you hate all Muslims, because of some extremists or say you hate all Christians, because of WBC. There's just a lot of Zionists compared to other extremists.

OP doesn't hate Jews or the people of Israel. OP hates the Israeli government. It is hardly a conspiracy theory. It is more like the blinding of the truth by leaving out one side of the argument entirely and passing it off as the whole truth. It is called propaganda. It is called brainwashing. And America, and most other countries have perfected it.

exactly all western countries have perfected propaganda through the news and other media and know exactly how to turn and stir the wests emotions and views for their own zionism needs

The western media hates Israel though... so your theory doesnt make any sense.

it is still a defined space of land with borders, country or not it is called palestine

are you referring to the so-called story of the jews fleeing from egypt into the 'holy land' and settling in israel?

then who was there before jews moved in,,,,where are the records of them

What do you suppose we do about the several million people who live(d) there and call themselves Palestinians then? Continue to deny them their own country and then calling them terrorists for opposing an invasion of their home?

Please recheck what you are saying. Nobody identified themselves as palestinians until 1967. In fact, Israel was mostly an unpopulated desert before Jews startled settling En masse to join the other jews who had been living there throughout the occupations of different empires.

The majority of Israel was desert, until jewish settlers turned it into this beautiful country we see today.. And Guess who built Jerusalem? the Jewish kingdom! yay!.

Jerusalem was built my Arabs, destroyed by the Byzantine empire, rebuilt by the Byzantine empire, taken back by Arabs and then the crusades happened. I'm sure you know the rest.

The Jews built Jerusalem... and the first temple.

Partly true. Palestine (the region) was under the Ottoman empire until its collapse in 1920 and it was under British rule after that, but there lived a million people in that "desert" in 1931 and only 17% of them was Jews. Granted, that's a very small population when compared to the land, but it's still a lot of people. There's 10 million people living in that same area now. 1.6 million of these live in the little green strip at the south-west corner of the map to the far right above this thread. I won't even bring up the conditions these people live under.

Everyone who lived in that region was granted citizenship by Israel when it was founded, but they all refused because they did not recognize Israel's right to exist, and were PROMISED by the surrounding arab nations that they would be part of an arab state once israel and the jews were completely destroyed. That obviously didn't happen, and the arabs broke their promise, and now we have the 'refugee' problem. The west bank issue is a completely different one altogether. The people who used to live in the west bank were told the same thing by lebanon.

Israel offered citizenship, but the price wasn't to accept Israel as a state, but as their own state. The Palestinian people, or what you would like to call them, was caught between two scenarios; either they accepted Israel as their government or they supported the Arab League in denying Israel to exist all together. But, as you've already said, the Arab League lost and abandoned the Palestinians when they sought refugee at their borders. There was no "good guys" in control after the war. Only scrupulous politicians in both Israel and in the Arab League who both wanted more land. That's the way I see it.

but why should the arabs living there have to be under a jewish state and flag when the native population was not a Jewish majority? It is now, because all the jewish europeans immigrated to Israel

They didnt have to, hello? it was originally going to be a 2 state solution, but thea rabs rejected it and declared war.

They were told to give up all their belongings, including their home, to travel to some place where they didn't even want to be. They had that choice, or they could become a part of a officially Jewish state. They didn't have a choice.

^my point exactly, I'm not anti-semitic, i'm just against the UN's desicsions

There's also a great difference between Zionism and being a Jew. It's like saying you hate all Muslims, because of some extremists or say you hate all Christians, because of WBC. There's just a lot of Zionists compared to other extremists.

And there actually is something called Palestine. It's just not a country, but a region.

Once again, it was never called palestine except by one people. The only reason why people call it palestine today is because that is what the romans called it.

I just google'd it to be sure: it's been called Palestine since 1150 BCE by Egypt.
It's one of the oldest named regions in the world.

right, then so youre going to just blame the jewish army for all the atrocities committed against palestine...thats not the general feeling of jewish people at large is it

You talk about palestine like it exists. It does not.

it is still a defined space of land with borders, country or not it is called palestine