|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 7:32 am
I posted this in I.Am's journal and I thought I should post it here so people who don't read his journal can read this.Quote: This is in responce to the choicer arguements, not yours I.Am xp
Life is not dictated by your state of being, but rather by a list of things. I'm quoting myself so I don't have to write it out again;toxic_lollipop Are you arguing that a fetus isn't a 'bundle of cells'? Because unless you are it is alive. Cells are alive or else they do not function. You know something is alive because it needs certain things to sustain life, this varies from thing to thing.
- A living thing is a complex, organized structure, consisting of mostly organic (carbon based) molecules.
- It must aquire and use material and energy from the environment to maintain homeostasis.
- It must grow.
- Reproduce using molecular blueprint called, DNA. (This one can't be applied to everything though, because then people who hadn't hit puberty wouldn't be "alive".)
- Have capacity to evolve.
No I don't have links because I didn't get this from the internet, I got it from Bio class. If you want to check my notes/textbook you'll have to track me down and get them.
It is discrimination to say that a fetus has less rights than a baby. You are discriminating against its age, location, and mental status.
Now you may say, "No. Because it's a person." personhood is nothing but a definition. Personhood can't be proven and it can be changed to fit anyone's definition. PROVE white people are persons, without using your own definition. You can't. So personhood can't be used in an arguement because it's not based on anything beyond straight opinion.
The fetus has come to be as a direct result of the actions of two people. If the mother has the child and keeps is she can force the father to pay child support? Why? Because the courts recognize that it is his responsibility to make sure that child is healthy. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the right to life overrides the right to convience. Or "bodily integrity" as you call it.
Here's a good example of where you can pull out bodily integrity;
A girl is walking around wearing slutty clothes, this does not give random men the right to rape her.
Also a woman who is breastfeeding can't decide to kill her baby one day. The baby is feeding off of her physically, emtionally and financially, wouldn't she have the same rights to kill it then? Remember, you can't use personhood.
Do you also believe that the government should have the right to send refugees to their original country when they KNOW that they will die? A lot of them become parasitical, and use up the countries resources.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:34 am
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
You're my hero. heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:40 am
Heehee. Merci beaucoup, madame.
This is from ED. No one's responded to me yet so I'm not sure if they're going to.toxic_lollipop Sinner toxic_lollipop A fertalized egg has its own [human] DNA, killing it is killing a seperate human entity. 1. Prove that having human DNA is the defining characteristic in determining what is or isn't an entity. 2. Prove that being an entity is relevant. 3. Prove that the DNA within the individual sperm/egg isn't enough to meet the same standard that a fertilized egg meets, and explain why. With logic, please.
2. An entity is relevant because it shows that there is a difference between, say, removing a tooth and having an abortion.
3. Sperm has the potential to become a potential fetus. A fetus is human (Personhood is debated, but hasn't been applied in this debate.) and is alive. Basic biology proves that fact. So it is a potential baby, not a potential human or a potential life as it is already both of those.Quote: toxic_lollipop A fertalized egg left to its own divices will either miscarry or become a baby. That's funny, here I was thinking that a fertilized egg had to be taken care of for nine months by a host female. Thank you for informing me that this is not required, I'm sure the pregnant women around here would be happy to leave their fetuses in the street and wait for them to grow.
You cannot remove a fetus from the mother as that would be removing it from the living conditions it requires in order to sustain life. If you placed me in Alaska by myself at this very moment, I would die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:32 pm
I say you have very good points. Good work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 10:19 am
Toxic, you're an awesome debater. YAY!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:39 pm
Beware the Jabberwock I posted this in I.Am's journal and I thought I should post it here so people who don't read his journal can read this.Quote: This is in responce to the choicer arguements, not yours I.Am xp
Life is not dictated by your state of being, but rather by a list of things. I'm quoting myself so I don't have to write it out again;toxic_lollipop Are you arguing that a fetus isn't a 'bundle of cells'? Because unless you are it is alive. Cells are alive or else they do not function. You know something is alive because it needs certain things to sustain life, this varies from thing to thing.
- A living thing is a complex, organized structure, consisting of mostly organic (carbon based) molecules.
- It must aquire and use material and energy from the environment to maintain homeostasis.
- It must grow.
- Reproduce using molecular blueprint called, DNA. (This one can't be applied to everything though, because then people who hadn't hit puberty wouldn't be "alive".)
- Have capacity to evolve.
No I don't have links because I didn't get this from the internet, I got it from Bio class. If you want to check my notes/textbook you'll have to track me down and get them.
It is discrimination to say that a fetus has less rights than a baby. You are discriminating against its age, location, and mental status.
Now you may say, "No. Because it's a person." personhood is nothing but a definition. Personhood can't be proven and it can be changed to fit anyone's definition. PROVE white people are persons, without using your own definition. You can't. So personhood can't be used in an arguement because it's not based on anything beyond straight opinion.
The fetus has come to be as a direct result of the actions of two people. If the mother has the child and keeps is she can force the father to pay child support? Why? Because the courts recognize that it is his responsibility to make sure that child is healthy. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the right to life overrides the right to convience. Or "bodily integrity" as you call it.
Here's a good example of where you can pull out bodily integrity;
A girl is walking around wearing slutty clothes, this does not give random men the right to rape her.
Also a woman who is breastfeeding can't decide to kill her baby one day. The baby is feeding off of her physically, emtionally and financially, wouldn't she have the same rights to kill it then? Remember, you can't use personhood.
Do you also believe that the government should have the right to send refugees to their original country when they KNOW that they will die? A lot of them become parasitical, and use up the countries resources. oh my God... i know this is an old one, but seriously, this is the best thing i have ever read. ever. in my life. especially the part about discrimination against age, location and mental status. heart heart heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:57 pm
which brings to mind another thought- the choicers would likely think of sentience as an excuse- here is how that is quashed- say one goes into a coma, however, the doctors have a cure for whatever caused the coma, or there is a high recovery rate and the person will be back within a week. now, this person, at this time, has brain waves but no concious control of their actions, much like a fetus. could this person, a "leech", if you will, to the family that must pay for each day kept on life support, be killed? i mean, they are not sentient at that time and are thus devoid of personhood- they are also leeching off of another, messing with their "bodily integrity", and even though they will be sentient in a week, they are still, at the time, insentient. as we all know, according to pro-choice, we can only judge things by their current condition, not what they will be. so, by all accounts, that person- no, wait, lifeless clump of cells- could be killed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 2:42 pm
Wow. Everything you say is completely true, I can't think of any way a Pro-choicer could argue against it, or even object. ^ ^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:50 pm
Quote: That's funny, here I was thinking that a fertilized egg had to be taken care of for nine months by a host female. They really like to zone in on what inconveniences them in life don't they? I feel like my energy is being sapped....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:59 pm
kp606 Quote: That's funny, here I was thinking that a fertilized egg had to be taken care of for nine months by a host female. They really like to zone in on what inconveniences them in life don't they? I feel like my energy is being sapped.... I know what you mean. They're so negative. What they say can be summed up in one line. "It's a burdon unless we say otherwise."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:57 pm
Not completely on the subject, but I was just accepted to the Pro-Choice guild, and I have been reading through the pages. It came to me in a long rant about how our side is based off of emotion and is riddled with shallow thought and observations.
Well not exactly blut to say, but do they really know why we are fighting the fight, or do they think we are a bunch of idiots who cannot possibly be capable of intelligence?
They fight to keep the right for women to have an abortion (the right to ones body), while we fight to ensure that a life will prevail (the childs).
I'm not sure what I'm missing here, but who is not trying to see the other sides thoughts here?
Please read, I need some recognition crying .
Oh and hi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:00 pm
Pyrotechnic Oracle kp606 Quote: That's funny, here I was thinking that a fertilized egg had to be taken care of for nine months by a host female. They really like to zone in on what inconveniences them in life don't they? I feel like my energy is being sapped.... I know what you mean. They're so negative. What they say can be summed up in one line. "It's a burdon unless we say otherwise." Obviously when you have a child, you can't make more than $30,000 a year, have a stable and good paying job, get an education, and be able to have a life. I mean sheesh, children should be killed, because all they do is waste my time rolleyes .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:17 pm
Thereare some who can't have all of that, but are stil abel to have a life. Perhaps not the one they wanted for themselves, btu thats where the selfishness comes in. How ever, much of the pro-choicers I have met argue that her life will be utterly ruined.
He, Brooel, was your life uterly ruined?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:25 pm
Master Kaiser Not completely on the subject, but I was just accepted to the Pro-Choice guild, and I have been reading through the pages. It came to me in a long rant about how our side is based off of emotion and is riddled with shallow thought and observations. Well not exactly blut to say, but do they really know why we are fighting the fight, or do they think we are a bunch of idiots who cannot possibly be capable of intelligence? They fight to keep the right for women to have an abortion (the right to ones body), while we fight to ensure that a life will prevail (the childs). I'm not sure what I'm missing here, but who is not trying to see the other sides thoughts here? Please read, I need some recognition crying . Oh and hi. They argue for her rights. But what rights exactly? The rights they argue for is a woman's ability to eand a human life, one she is responcible for creating, whether directly or indirectly. Rape I can under stand. The trauma, the stress, but that could be reduced if so many peopel didn;t look down on a pregnancy from rape. I've met three women who carried to term a pregancy they got form a rape, and instead of help form the people they though were friends, and those who said they woudl be ther for them, what they basicly got was "abort, abort, abort. Its a monster and oyu shoudl abort!" These people didn't even consider what the mother wanted. A woman who was raped gets all the love and atentions she wants and needs, untill she finds out she's pregnant, and then the presure is on. Basicly, what they argue for is not just any right, but the right to terminate a human life, a life that's only crime is existing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:22 am
Master Kaiser Pyrotechnic Oracle kp606 Quote: That's funny, here I was thinking that a fertilized egg had to be taken care of for nine months by a host female. They really like to zone in on what inconveniences them in life don't they? I feel like my energy is being sapped.... I know what you mean. They're so negative. What they say can be summed up in one line. "It's a burdon unless we say otherwise." Obviously when you have a child, you can't make more than $30,000 a year, have a stable and good paying job, get an education, and be able to have a life. I mean sheesh, children should be killed, because all they do is waste my time rolleyes . Tch, I so forgot! In fact, lemme go kill a few to liberate and free some poor spirits out there, 'scuse me...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![]Kaiser['s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/45/d1/499e0b0716d145_flip.png?t=1230584771_6.00_00)