|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 9:07 pm
Tyshia2 And one could argue that in rape, the victim was dressing or acting provacatively, which led to their victimization. So they would've put the events in motion in that case as well. But you wouldn't argue that.....right? When people argue that I kick them in the throat, so I hope not.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:43 am
La Veuve Zin But you wouldn't argue that.....right? When people argue that I kick them in the throat, so I hope not. I do agree. No matter how one dresses, there is never an excuse to rape them. But there are always people who will blame the victim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:47 am
Erasmas Huh? Putting on clothes is a passive choice in the context of a rape situation. If it's in a man's heart to rape a woman, I doubt she needs to be in slutty clothing for him to do it. Sex is an active choice. There are choices that lead up to a rape that, had they been made differently, could have prevented the rape (as someone who was sexually abused and raped for four years, I feel that this is something I know). But, you are correct, these choices do not make the victim at fault for the rape, all of the fault goes to the rapist, who made the active choice to harm someone. Consensual sex might be an active choice, but pregnancy is not. The comparison, between rape and an unwanted pregnancy, is that they are both unfortunate occurrences. Rape, however, is far, far less the result of one's actions than pregnancy through consensual sex (I mean, someone might choose to, say, take a shortcut through a dark alley, but it still isn't their fault if they get raped). But unintentional pregnancy isn't a choice (since women can't decide when to ovulate), despite consensual sex and use of contraceptives (or not) being choices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:48 am
divineseraph No, people can collect, hunt, or shoot skeet. For pleasure, not murder. In the respect that it is ALSO designed to be able to kill, but does not have to in all occasions and utilizations, it can be likely compared to sex, which is designed to cause pregnancy but is not always intended to do so. Agreed. In that way, they are alike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:49 pm
By the way:
I lost the post but I was able to calculate that, in comparison, approx. 4,000 women receive Breast Cancer from HPV, an STD, versus the approx. 350 who die to labor complications.
I cannot guarentee it is accurate, since it was working across multiple percentiles, but the argument, if accurate, stands.
Just further food for thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:33 am
kp is dcvi By the way: I lost the post but I was able to calculate that, in comparison, approx. 4,000 women receive Breast Cancer from HPV, an STD, versus the approx. 350 who die to labor complications. I cannot guarentee it is accurate, since it was working across multiple percentiles, but the argument, if accurate, stands. Just further food for thought. Cervical cancer. Human Papilloma Virus causes cervical cancer, not breast cancer. And is that deaths in a year?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:18 am
WatersMoon110 kp is dcvi By the way: I lost the post but I was able to calculate that, in comparison, approx. 4,000 women receive Breast Cancer from HPV, an STD, versus the approx. 350 who die to labor complications. I cannot guarentee it is accurate, since it was working across multiple percentiles, but the argument, if accurate, stands. Just further food for thought. Cervical cancer. Human Papilloma Virus causes cervical cancer, not breast cancer. And is that deaths in a year? Yes, Cervical Cancer. Sorry I screwed that up. I was watching "Mean Girls" and they probably used the word breasts at the time I was writing all that. sweatdrop Deaths in a year for Cervical Cancers (caused by HPV, an STD). Death by labor was harder to calculate... I basically divided the statistic of 1/100,000 into half the population of America, roughly the approx. number of women in this country (which is wrong already because I can tell you that there are more women then men, from what I understand). But the deaths to HPV I believe I was more accurate in. Not only was the deaths per year divided readily... they also provided a statistic for how many people with HPV, died from it. Somewhere, I may have done something mathematically impossible, but if 1/100,000 translates to MORE deaths a year then approx. 4,000 (the most readily provided figure for Cervical Cancer deaths), then and only then would I be wrong. However, it seemed I had enough space to at least make the claim I did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:41 pm
La Veuve Zin Tyshia2 And one could argue that in rape, the victim was dressing or acting provacatively, which led to their victimization. So they would've put the events in motion in that case as well. But you wouldn't argue that.....right? When people argue that I kick them in the throat, so I hope not. Oh, God, of course not.
I don't believe that at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:45 pm
sachiko_sohma That depends on the woman really, some might have morning sickness as early was two weeks after conception, sometimes a few weeks or a few months into or some may not have morning sickness at all and on rare ocasions, some woman don't know their pregnant until the second or third trimester cause they had no symptoms. Most woman don't have long lasting systems or problems. Usually nothing permenant. I know alot of people that have been pregnant. Some have a difficult pregnany while others didn't but none of them hadn't any pyshical problems after giving birth so it really depends on the woman. Most people can still fallow their dreams and keep their plans. Sure it might be harder and things might change but if you work hard enough alot of people made things work and didn't let pregnancy or children stop them. Why let it stop you from following your dreams? Alot of woman still work or go to school during and after pregnancy (some might take time off but alot of places are willing to let them take time off and work with them). True, it does depend on the woman. Which is why saying that the woman only notices five of the nine months is so silly.
Plenty of women have permanent or long-lasting symptoms. They need not be immediate medical threats to be symptoms. Examples: Stretch marks, scaring , the increased chances of certain other medical conditions due to c-section or other unforseen birthing complications, etcetera.
Sure, some women may be able to make it work. More power to them. But not all women are up to the task, and not all women can deal with it. Even just with being pregnant. Because some people are strong enough to endure certain ordeals does not mean others should have to endure them as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:50 pm
Tiger of the Fire The sperm and the oocyte are considered alive in the sense that they are alive for as long as they remain active cells. The two are incapable of reproducing with out one another, and are there for incapable of producing any progeny on their own. As it stands, it really isn't debated when human life starts. Most biologist, even cytologist, agree that human life starts the moment the sperm meets the female's egg. Before this moment, the life isn't considered human life, its simply (yet complexly XP) cell life. Whether or not it is able to sustain itself is biologicly irrelevant, as considering somthign alive on the ground as to whether it can sustain itself is a philisophacal argument. And like I said before, when it comes to biology, I keep philosophy out, but I do understand what your saying, from a philisophacal view point only though. That aside, its still not a potential life. Left alone all t hose things WILL develop, no question asked. The only real potential is the potential for failure or something to go wrong. Like I said, the comparison isn't perfect, but its pretty close. The nine months in the womb is similar to being on life support for nine months. Thats why I used the comparison, and, in a way, those people are dependent on other humans. They depend on the power company to keep the machine working when its plugged in, the depend on the electricians who check the wiring and make sure nothing gets fried, they depend on the doctors who monitor the machines and they're conditions. Think of it this way. The injured human is the baby, the life support machine the womb, and the doctors and every other person involved, down to the lowliest assembly line worker who wraps and packs the machine, their mother. Is it just the tiniest bit clearer now? A slightly better example would also be a premature baby, in that they were dependent ont he mother, are born a little too early, and now must be placed on life support. In that example, every thing carries over, and they were dependent on another human being in some way before hand. Mm. You're right.
The comparison is not close enough. The person is not self-sustaining, but they are not relying on another person's body for their life.
If the doctors and other people don't want to be involved in keeping this person on life-support, they can remove themselves from the situation without killing the person. That cannot be done with a fetus.
For a premie, if a doctor doesn't want to take care of a premie, another doctor or another hospital can. And none of these are the same as depending on another person's body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:54 pm
Erasmas No, "one" couldn't argue that. Dressing like a slut is a passive action. But if you have sex and get pregnant, you've had an active hand in making that happen. It's not circumstantial. The person actively chose what slutty clothes to wear.
The person is actively dancing/acting/whatever provacatively. They're sending the message that they're open for sexual activity. They didn't mean or choose for it to happen, but they still had a hand in causing it.
(I think we have different definitions of an active and passive action. Please define?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:00 pm
kp is dcvi Deaths in a year for Cervical Cancers (caused by HPV, an STD). Death by labor was harder to calculate... I basically divided the statistic of 1/100,000 into half the population of America, roughly the approx. number of women in this country (which is wrong already because I can tell you that there are more women then men, from what I understand). But the deaths to HPV I believe I was more accurate in. Not only was the deaths per year divided readily... they also provided a statistic for how many people with HPV, died from it. Problems: 1. HPV may never cause cervical cancer, in fact, it usually doesn't. 2. Except for Caesarian sections (and abortions/miscarriages), pregnancy always results in labour. 3. Women may be more susceptible to cancer, and they may be unable to get pregnant. Women may be half the population, but those are not all women able to get pregnant. 4. There are more ways of preventing pregnancy than preventing the contraction of an STD, especially HPV, which is transmittable through non-sexual contact. Accidental pregnancy is only possible through vaginal intercourse. 5. That said, not all men are able to get a woman pregnant. Any man can have HPV. 6. Finally, even if labour were never deadly, there would still be "justification" for legal abortion. Childbirth and pregnancy aren't always happy fun times. 6a. Though they might be for some women, while no one likes having cancer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:31 pm
Tyshia2 Tiger of the Fire The sperm and the oocyte are considered alive in the sense that they are alive for as long as they remain active cells. The two are incapable of reproducing with out one another, and are there for incapable of producing any progeny on their own. As it stands, it really isn't debated when human life starts. Most biologist, even cytologist, agree that human life starts the moment the sperm meets the female's egg. Before this moment, the life isn't considered human life, its simply (yet complexly XP) cell life. Whether or not it is able to sustain itself is biologicly irrelevant, as considering somthign alive on the ground as to whether it can sustain itself is a philisophacal argument. And like I said before, when it comes to biology, I keep philosophy out, but I do understand what your saying, from a philisophacal view point only though. That aside, its still not a potential life. Left alone all t hose things WILL develop, no question asked. The only real potential is the potential for failure or something to go wrong. Like I said, the comparison isn't perfect, but its pretty close. The nine months in the womb is similar to being on life support for nine months. Thats why I used the comparison, and, in a way, those people are dependent on other humans. They depend on the power company to keep the machine working when its plugged in, the depend on the electricians who check the wiring and make sure nothing gets fried, they depend on the doctors who monitor the machines and they're conditions. Think of it this way. The injured human is the baby, the life support machine the womb, and the doctors and every other person involved, down to the lowliest assembly line worker who wraps and packs the machine, their mother. Is it just the tiniest bit clearer now? A slightly better example would also be a premature baby, in that they were dependent ont he mother, are born a little too early, and now must be placed on life support. In that example, every thing carries over, and they were dependent on another human being in some way before hand. Mm. You're right.
The comparison is not close enough. The person is not self-sustaining, but they are not relying on another person's body for their life.
If the doctors and other people don't want to be involved in keeping this person on life-support, they can remove themselves from the situation without killing the person. That cannot be done with a fetus.
For a premie, if a doctor doesn't want to take care of a premie, another doctor or another hospital can. And none of these are the same as depending on another person's body. Not directly, but they still are dependeint in some way on another human being. I suppose I shoudl just stop. You either dont get it or dont want to get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:29 am
Tiger of the Fire Not directly, but they still are dependeint in some way on another human being. I suppose I shoudl just stop. You either dont get it or dont want to get it. What is funny is that I bet she's thinking about the same thing about you. *wink* I think I can see the comparison you are making, and the reasoning behind it (at least a bit of it). For you, it is just as unethical to remove someone from life support as to abort an unborn human, because both are dependent on others to keep them alive. Is that close? But, what I think Tyshia is trying to say is that someone on life support can be taken care of at any hospital, they can be moved (if it is done quickly), different nurses and doctors can check on them and give them the IV food and liquids and other things they might need. But an unborn human can only be cared for by the pregnant women (until viability, at this point in time). Any attempt (until then) to move the unborn human will result in its demise. From a Pro-Choice perspective, there is a difference between being socially dependent on people to keep one a alive, and being physically dependent on someone's body to keep one alive. Also, I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but you did imply, just a tad, that a pregnant women is most valued as a life support system for her unborn human(s). With the statement: "the life support machine the womb, and the doctors and every other person involved, down to the lowliest assembly line worker who wraps and packs the machine, their mother." For me, it is hard not to see a pregnant woman as a fellow person first, and the carrier of an unborn human second. Maybe that is what causes me to see that statement as a little bit offensive? As I said before, I really don't think you intended it to be offensive, but I interpreted it that way, just a little. Also: your signature came up with "Tiger of the Fire invented Pong" and that made me laugh. I just wanted you to know that. *smile*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
