|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:27 pm
Alright, I've made a bit of what I think is a revelation, in my own thinking, today.
So, I was speaking with a user in the Abortion Debate Guild, and she's one out of many Pro-choice people that think that the "artificial womb" situation isnt a solution for the abortion issue, and that women should still have the right to abort, even if it has a) nothing to do with bodily integrity, and b) Nothing to do with health/ safety issues.
Well, I find this pretty sad, myself. When a group of people are faced with a compromise, they complain about how "Well, I don't want my DNA propogated. It's mine. My property."
Well, sorry dear, but it doesn't work that way, I thought.
But see, it does. At least where a pro-choice opinion is concerned.
Because, see, the fetus, like, isn't a person, of course. That was made a precedent in Roe v. Wade and other cases like that. And because it isn't a person, even if the mother doesn't want it, she has that decison to kill it.
Here's what I said:Look in the ADG for who said it Mcphee If you had control over the propogation of your DNA, in the 'artificial womb' situation, wouldn't you theoretically be able to slice up that developing child that is in a seperate location? Technically yes. For the same reasons as above. Because it is not a child. Just like researchers using embryos can destroy what they create. We need to revoke a few poetic licences I think. Zygote, Embryo, Foetus. These are terms you can use to describe a creature during gestation. Child, Baby, Infant. These are not.
And while I was working today, something hit me.
I can NOT, in good conscience, support an idealogy where people condone the killing of children, 'just cause'. If legal abortion sets THIS kind of a precedent for the future, I don't want it to be legal anymore.
So, in the interest of a future compromise in this issue, I will not support abortion anymore. If someone thinks that, well, because there's abortion, they have all the say when it comes to the life and death of their developing child, DESPITE it's location, that's not a decision that I want people to have. That's not the society that I want to live in.
Any Feedback? Questions? Comments?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:05 pm
Hmmm...poetic liecnse? Ummm...uh-uh. Nope, child, baby, off-sprig, youngling, they all are correct forms for the developing human. Zygote, fetus, etc are mearly technicle terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:08 pm
I do not know what's wrong with her.
Well, for one, even if it might not be your style, inform her that it's a child. It's also a baby. And an infant. Wow. Three strikes. She's out.
Also, you should not be able to kill an unborn child anymore than you can kill an alerady born child, especially when artificial wombs are made. It's not her property. Her born son is not her property. Humans are not property. And if she argues with that, inform her that it was learned by me from a quote by Maury. It was also the same episode where the husbands were treating their wives as slaves, an forced them to give them sex, food, a clean house, etc., whenever they wanted.
Actually, I think I already did.
Anyway, yeah. I've always known they just wanted power. whee
It disgusts me how desperate they are to tear apart unborn babies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:10 pm
Pyrotechnic Oracle Hmmm...poetic liecnse? Ummm...uh-uh. Nope, child, baby, off-sprig, youngling, they all are correct forms for the developing human. Zygote, fetus, etc are mearly technicle terms. Don't you just love showing them the definition of the word "baby" or "child" or something? "an unborn or recently born child." "Offspring." The second one is only debateable if you admit that it is not your offspring in your womb and therefore you have no right to kill it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:14 pm
THe thing about DNA rights is ridiculous. That would give the father a right to make a woman abort. It would also give sperm donors a right to make women abort if they used the sperm from that guy to get pregnant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:15 pm
She can thank her own flawed ideas for allowing me to see that the real nobility is in waiting for a compromise in this issue, instead of killing the child.
Really, that was just the last straw for me.
I feel unburdened by, now, protecting life, and trying to show society what the real definition of a 'child' is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:30 pm
Welcome to our side McPhee...umm...completly xp
Or as they woudl call it. The Dark Side twisted Sa'll right though, we have milk and cookies. Lactose intolerent? Soy milk and umm...cookies mad form soy gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:41 pm
Lorysa Also, you should not be able to kill an unborn child anymore than you can kill an alerady born child, especially when artificial wombs are made. It's not her property. Her born son is not her property. Humans are not property. ANd if she argues with that, inform her that it was learned by me from a quote by Maury. It was also the same episode where the husbands were treating their wives as slaves, an forced them to give them sex, food, a clean house, etc., whenever they wanted.
Gah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 8:12 pm
You know, I thin that Pro-lifers are far more pro-choice then the choicers. CHoicers cling to the notion and idea that if there is somthign wrong in the childs life then it shouldn't have to suffer, and aborting it is helping it. Umm...my life is utter hell from 7am to 11pm. I hate the entire human race, and I despise school. Becuase of this, by their beilife, I should have been aborted, but, even though the child may have a rough life, who is to say he/she won't love life all the same?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:12 pm
Akshamala Lorysa Also, you should not be able to kill an unborn child anymore than you can kill an alerady born child, especially when artificial wombs are made. It's not her property. Her born son is not her property. Humans are not property. ANd if she argues with that, inform her that it was learned by me from a quote by Maury. It was also the same episode where the husbands were treating their wives as slaves, an forced them to give them sex, food, a clean house, etc., whenever they wanted.
Gah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:39 pm
Did any of you know that PP has also had its hand in eugenics gonk I'ts beilived they were invovled in the forced steralisation of nearly 20000 mexacin woman who have residents in the US. Yeah,planned parent hood is in full support of a woman's reproductive rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 10:02 pm
Mcphee When a group of people are faced with a compromise, they complain about how "Well, I don't want my DNA propogated. It's mine. My property."
Umm...what? That's an argument for the murder of any child, born or not. A person's DNA isn't their own; it's their parents' DNA. Once that egg gets fertilized, it's has only half the woman's DNA. What if the father doesn't want that baby aborted? Is she going to abort only half the baby? It's his DNA, right? His property? Doesn't he get a say in what happens to it?
That argument makes no sense on any level and the implications of espousing such an argument are completely horrifying.
Mcphee, what was your stance on abortion before this? I'm new and haven't seen you around, so I'm curious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 10:13 pm
Ava R. Mcphee When a group of people are faced with a compromise, they complain about how "Well, I don't want my DNA propogated. It's mine. My property."
Umm...what? That's an argument for the murder of any child, born or not. A person's DNA isn't their own; it's their parents' DNA. Once that egg gets fertilized, it's has only half the woman's DNA. What if the father doesn't want that baby aborted? Is she going to abort only half the baby? It's his DNA, right? His property? Doesn't he get a say in what happens to it?
That argument makes no sense on any level and the implications of espousing such an argument are completely horrifying.
Mcphee, what was your stance on abortion before this? I'm new and haven't seen you around, so I'm curious.The argument they use agianst that is that the baby is inside her and she has to carrey it, so she shoudl have the right to abort it if she wants. The more I think about a bortion and the stupid reasons behind it the sicker I become and the more I can't help but hate those who adementaly support it as a necesaty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:29 pm
Mcphee She can thank her own flawed ideas for allowing me to see that the real nobility is in waiting for a compromise in this issue, instead of killing the child.
Really, that was just the last straw for me.
I feel unburdened by, now, protecting life, and trying to show society what the real definition of a 'child' is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:52 am
Mcphee, have I told you lately that I love you? blaugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
