|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:42 pm
lordstar promised_child lordstar Mein Kulturkampf If you mean giving men a choice as to whther she gets the abortion or not, then absolutely no. That is the woman's choice only. If you mean giving men a choice as to whether they have to pay child support, then yes. However, the defaulkt would be "yes", the man wants to pay child support. The burden would be on the man to find the woman and make clear to her he doesn't want the child, with an exception being if the woman is avoiding the man in an effort to get child support. Once the child is born, whatever the father has chosen he is stuck with. He cannot get a divorce three years later and say "oh, no moar kiddie nao plz"; that's like the mother murdering the three-year-old. That better? Now men have exactly as much choice as women when it comes to babies affecting their life. I was talking about getting a signed document with the default being no The choice over an abortion is for women alone, however, a man should have the choice to not give support. I think it makes more sense to have the default be no so that there is no question about approval. Also with a time frame we can avoid last minute changing of the mind why should the default be no? my father was at the hospital when i was born, then 3 years later he wanted a paternity test. 99.987678998654% chance his kid, then he was ordered to pay 300 in child support. he put himself on welfare. 300 went to 25. we couldnt even afford shoes. if a woman doesnt decide by the 9th month, its usually because she wants the baby. men should be the same way. It doesn't matter if there is any biological mach at all really. Think about property rights. I know I sound rather heartless and very disconnected but that’s how law works. Now think about this. What would happen if a man decided to change their answer from No to Yes? How about Yes to No? Under the proposed system a Yes will always be a Yes, however, there is nothing stopping a man from changing his mind about a No How do you think a new law such as the proposed will effect future decision making on all parties? personally, my husband wants to be a daddy and i want to be a mommy. i think i kinda lucked out. i dont believe in abortion for any cause. what i do believe is that if the baby can be saved, save the baby, but if the woman can be saved, but the baby cant and delivering the baby will kill the woman, it changes the story
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:08 pm
promised_child lordstar promised_child lordstar Mein Kulturkampf If you mean giving men a choice as to whther she gets the abortion or not, then absolutely no. That is the woman's choice only. If you mean giving men a choice as to whether they have to pay child support, then yes. However, the defaulkt would be "yes", the man wants to pay child support. The burden would be on the man to find the woman and make clear to her he doesn't want the child, with an exception being if the woman is avoiding the man in an effort to get child support. Once the child is born, whatever the father has chosen he is stuck with. He cannot get a divorce three years later and say "oh, no moar kiddie nao plz"; that's like the mother murdering the three-year-old. That better? Now men have exactly as much choice as women when it comes to babies affecting their life. I was talking about getting a signed document with the default being no The choice over an abortion is for women alone, however, a man should have the choice to not give support. I think it makes more sense to have the default be no so that there is no question about approval. Also with a time frame we can avoid last minute changing of the mind why should the default be no? my father was at the hospital when i was born, then 3 years later he wanted a paternity test. 99.987678998654% chance his kid, then he was ordered to pay 300 in child support. he put himself on welfare. 300 went to 25. we couldnt even afford shoes. if a woman doesnt decide by the 9th month, its usually because she wants the baby. men should be the same way. It doesn't matter if there is any biological mach at all really. Think about property rights. I know I sound rather heartless and very disconnected but that’s how law works. Now think about this. What would happen if a man decided to change their answer from No to Yes? How about Yes to No? Under the proposed system a Yes will always be a Yes, however, there is nothing stopping a man from changing his mind about a No How do you think a new law such as the proposed will effect future decision making on all parties? personally, my husband wants to be a daddy and i want to be a mommy. i think i kinda lucked out. i dont believe in abortion for any cause. what i do believe is that if the baby can be saved, save the baby, but if the woman can be saved, but the baby cant and delivering the baby will kill the woman, it changes the story get it in writing sister (thats the core to the proposal outlined above) It is your right to belive whatever you want, however, it is not within your rights to hold anyone else to the same ideals as you hold. I'm not for daddy drop outs or anything of the sort personaly but what is not all that uncommon is a practice called trapping. Women who lie or trick their partner into becomeing a father. Same with the other way around. How can we be sure that the rights of all parties are seen to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:43 pm
lordstar promised_child lordstar promised_child lordstar Mein Kulturkampf If you mean giving men a choice as to whther she gets the abortion or not, then absolutely no. That is the woman's choice only. If you mean giving men a choice as to whether they have to pay child support, then yes. However, the defaulkt would be "yes", the man wants to pay child support. The burden would be on the man to find the woman and make clear to her he doesn't want the child, with an exception being if the woman is avoiding the man in an effort to get child support. Once the child is born, whatever the father has chosen he is stuck with. He cannot get a divorce three years later and say "oh, no moar kiddie nao plz"; that's like the mother murdering the three-year-old. That better? Now men have exactly as much choice as women when it comes to babies affecting their life. I was talking about getting a signed document with the default being no The choice over an abortion is for women alone, however, a man should have the choice to not give support. I think it makes more sense to have the default be no so that there is no question about approval. Also with a time frame we can avoid last minute changing of the mind why should the default be no? my father was at the hospital when i was born, then 3 years later he wanted a paternity test. 99.987678998654% chance his kid, then he was ordered to pay 300 in child support. he put himself on welfare. 300 went to 25. we couldnt even afford shoes. if a woman doesnt decide by the 9th month, its usually because she wants the baby. men should be the same way. It doesn't matter if there is any biological mach at all really. Think about property rights. I know I sound rather heartless and very disconnected but that’s how law works. Now think about this. What would happen if a man decided to change their answer from No to Yes? How about Yes to No? Under the proposed system a Yes will always be a Yes, however, there is nothing stopping a man from changing his mind about a No How do you think a new law such as the proposed will effect future decision making on all parties? personally, my husband wants to be a daddy and i want to be a mommy. i think i kinda lucked out. i dont believe in abortion for any cause. what i do believe is that if the baby can be saved, save the baby, but if the woman can be saved, but the baby cant and delivering the baby will kill the woman, it changes the story get it in writing sister (thats the core to the proposal outlined above) It is your right to belive whatever you want, however, it is not within your rights to hold anyone else to the same ideals as you hold. I'm not for daddy drop outs or anything of the sort personaly but what is not all that uncommon is a practice called trapping. Women who lie or trick their partner into becomeing a father. Same with the other way around. How can we be sure that the rights of all parties are seen to? some how i dont think the Marines will allow him to be a deadbeat dad, and i dontneed it in writing. when i miscarried, HE named our child BlessEd, there is my proof. as for the rights of all parties, what about my right to grow up with a father? trapping isnt a practice my mother was involved in, she didnt want to trap my dad, tho my stepmother thinks otherwise. she had just had cirvical cancer and had beemn told she wouldnt have more kids. some women try to trap men, but heres the thing about that- what man would allow himself to be trapped by such a woman?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:50 pm
promised_child lordstar promised_child lordstar promised_child why should the default be no? my father was at the hospital when i was born, then 3 years later he wanted a paternity test. 99.987678998654% chance his kid, then he was ordered to pay 300 in child support. he put himself on welfare. 300 went to 25. we couldnt even afford shoes. if a woman doesnt decide by the 9th month, its usually because she wants the baby. men should be the same way. It doesn't matter if there is any biological mach at all really. Think about property rights. I know I sound rather heartless and very disconnected but that’s how law works. Now think about this. What would happen if a man decided to change their answer from No to Yes? How about Yes to No? Under the proposed system a Yes will always be a Yes, however, there is nothing stopping a man from changing his mind about a No How do you think a new law such as the proposed will effect future decision making on all parties? personally, my husband wants to be a daddy and i want to be a mommy. i think i kinda lucked out. i dont believe in abortion for any cause. what i do believe is that if the baby can be saved, save the baby, but if the woman can be saved, but the baby cant and delivering the baby will kill the woman, it changes the story get it in writing sister (thats the core to the proposal outlined above) It is your right to belive whatever you want, however, it is not within your rights to hold anyone else to the same ideals as you hold. I'm not for daddy drop outs or anything of the sort personaly but what is not all that uncommon is a practice called trapping. Women who lie or trick their partner into becomeing a father. Same with the other way around. How can we be sure that the rights of all parties are seen to? some how i dont think the Marines will allow him to be a deadbeat dad, and i dontneed it in writing. when i miscarried, HE named our child BlessEd, there is my proof. as for the rights of all parties, what about my right to grow up with a father? trapping isnt a practice my mother was involved in, she didnt want to trap my dad, tho my stepmother thinks otherwise. she had just had cirvical cancer and had beemn told she wouldnt have more kids. some women try to trap men, but heres the thing about that- what man would allow himself to be trapped by such a woman? what man would allow himself to be trapped by such a woman? A man who is trusting. Don't you want to be trusted? No need to answer, you're very lucky to have such a partner. Hopefully your stepmother will warm up to the idea. Now for everyone else perhaps getting agreements in writing isn't such a bad idea yes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:25 pm
lordstar promised_child lordstar promised_child lordstar promised_child why should the default be no? my father was at the hospital when i was born, then 3 years later he wanted a paternity test. 99.987678998654% chance his kid, then he was ordered to pay 300 in child support. he put himself on welfare. 300 went to 25. we couldnt even afford shoes. if a woman doesnt decide by the 9th month, its usually because she wants the baby. men should be the same way. It doesn't matter if there is any biological mach at all really. Think about property rights. I know I sound rather heartless and very disconnected but that’s how law works. Now think about this. What would happen if a man decided to change their answer from No to Yes? How about Yes to No? Under the proposed system a Yes will always be a Yes, however, there is nothing stopping a man from changing his mind about a No How do you think a new law such as the proposed will effect future decision making on all parties? personally, my husband wants to be a daddy and i want to be a mommy. i think i kinda lucked out. i dont believe in abortion for any cause. what i do believe is that if the baby can be saved, save the baby, but if the woman can be saved, but the baby cant and delivering the baby will kill the woman, it changes the story get it in writing sister (thats the core to the proposal outlined above) It is your right to belive whatever you want, however, it is not within your rights to hold anyone else to the same ideals as you hold. I'm not for daddy drop outs or anything of the sort personaly but what is not all that uncommon is a practice called trapping. Women who lie or trick their partner into becomeing a father. Same with the other way around. How can we be sure that the rights of all parties are seen to? some how i dont think the Marines will allow him to be a deadbeat dad, and i dontneed it in writing. when i miscarried, HE named our child BlessEd, there is my proof. as for the rights of all parties, what about my right to grow up with a father? trapping isnt a practice my mother was involved in, she didnt want to trap my dad, tho my stepmother thinks otherwise. she had just had cirvical cancer and had beemn told she wouldnt have more kids. some women try to trap men, but heres the thing about that- what man would allow himself to be trapped by such a woman? what man would allow himself to be trapped by such a woman? A man who is trusting. Don't you want to be trusted? No need to answer, you're very lucky to have such a partner. Hopefully your stepmother will warm up to the idea. Now for everyone else perhaps getting agreements in writing isn't such a bad idea yes? my stepmother has had 17 years to warm up to me not being a trap. she has gone from loathing and fearing me to hating and fearing me, it seems like she is moving backwards... any way, geting it in writing isnt a bad idea, but the best form of "in writing" is a marriage liceance before pregnancy. then of course is noterized contract, which would be interesting, if it depended on a pos. paternity test- test not pos. contract terminated, that sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:31 am
lordstar divineseraph But where is the fetus's right to life? All people were once feti, and all feti are people in a stage of development. The fetus was given no choice in it's creation, and is now given no choice even in whether or not it gets to live. A fetus has no rights. Personally I would say we should give full citizenship along with all the rights associated with citizenship to all things. This does not work does it? That would mean a cabbage has the right not to be eaten. So being a bit more selective about what we grant rights to, let’s say only humans get rights. If that is so than an infant would be able to vote and in theory be able to survive without any mandatory help. This doesn’t work does it? What age do US citizens become full citizens? 16, 18, 21? The answer is 25 oddly enough. If anyone cares to disagree try and rent a car...don't work so well. (age discrimination is the most prominent form of discrimination in the US followed by sexual orientation, then sex, then color, then creed [aprox. so just roll with me on this one]) Who has rights, when do they get them, and what are they? This is going to get just a bit hairy really quick here. Feti are human. If we are judging by conciousness, then infants have about as much in the way of thought than a late-term fetus. They are unawar and do not develop actualy functional memory until they are toddlers. Infanticide anyone? But no, a baby is a precious bundle of happy emotional ploy, where as a fetus is clearly an inhuman clump of cells no different from a cabbage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:34 pm
promised_child lordstar promised_child lordstar promised_child personally, my husband wants to be a daddy and i want to be a mommy. i think i kinda lucked out. i dont believe in abortion for any cause. what i do believe is that if the baby can be saved, save the baby, but if the woman can be saved, but the baby cant and delivering the baby will kill the woman, it changes the story get it in writing sister (thats the core to the proposal outlined above) It is your right to belive whatever you want, however, it is not within your rights to hold anyone else to the same ideals as you hold. I'm not for daddy drop outs or anything of the sort personaly but what is not all that uncommon is a practice called trapping. Women who lie or trick their partner into becomeing a father. Same with the other way around. How can we be sure that the rights of all parties are seen to? some how i dont think the Marines will allow him to be a deadbeat dad, and i dontneed it in writing. when i miscarried, HE named our child BlessEd, there is my proof. as for the rights of all parties, what about my right to grow up with a father? trapping isnt a practice my mother was involved in, she didnt want to trap my dad, tho my stepmother thinks otherwise. she had just had cirvical cancer and had beemn told she wouldnt have more kids. some women try to trap men, but heres the thing about that- what man would allow himself to be trapped by such a woman? what man would allow himself to be trapped by such a woman? A man who is trusting. Don't you want to be trusted? No need to answer, you're very lucky to have such a partner. Hopefully your stepmother will warm up to the idea. Now for everyone else perhaps getting agreements in writing isn't such a bad idea yes? my stepmother has had 17 years to warm up to me not being a trap. she has gone from loathing and fearing me to hating and fearing me, it seems like she is moving backwards... any way, geting it in writing isnt a bad idea, but the best form of "in writing" is a marriage liceance before pregnancy. then of course is noterized contract, which would be interesting, if it depended on a pos. paternity test- test not pos. contract terminated, that sort of thing. Even though you and I might not see eye to eye. It's your stepmothers loss if she can't see the lovely person you have become. I'm sure your partner would agree. I've always thought that the strongest bond was that of true companionship, marriage ain't got nothing on it. Some people are married for 60+ years and never find such a bond with their partner. That’s not to say marriage isn't a powerful thing. I just hope my Love will forgive me for making her wait so long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:43 pm
divineseraph lordstar divineseraph But where is the fetus's right to life? All people were once feti, and all feti are people in a stage of development. The fetus was given no choice in it's creation, and is now given no choice even in whether or not it gets to live. A fetus has no rights. Personally I would say we should give full citizenship along with all the rights associated with citizenship to all things. This does not work does it? That would mean a cabbage has the right not to be eaten. So being a bit more selective about what we grant rights to, let’s say only humans get rights. If that is so than an infant would be able to vote and in theory be able to survive without any mandatory help. This doesn’t work does it? What age do US citizens become full citizens? 16, 18, 21? The answer is 25 oddly enough. If anyone cares to disagree try and rent a car...don't work so well. (age discrimination is the most prominent form of discrimination in the US followed by sexual orientation, then sex, then color, then creed [aprox. so just roll with me on this one]) Who has rights, when do they get them, and what are they? This is going to get just a bit hairy really quick here. Feti are human. If we are judging by conciousness, then infants have about as much in the way of thought than a late-term fetus. They are unawar and do not develop actualy functional memory until they are toddlers. Infanticide anyone? But no, a baby is a precious bundle of happy emotional ploy, where as a fetus is clearly an inhuman clump of cells no different from a cabbage. I would agree with your last statement, although, I'm not sure that a fetus would taste all that great. When does a fetus first make it's own investment in life? (right from the start...that’s just silly) If a woman could just simply reach in and pull it out and hand it to someone else that would be fine, otherwise the rights of the woman are being violated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:53 pm
lordstar promised_child lordstar promised_child lordstar promised_child personally, my husband wants to be a daddy and i want to be a mommy. i think i kinda lucked out. i dont believe in abortion for any cause. what i do believe is that if the baby can be saved, save the baby, but if the woman can be saved, but the baby cant and delivering the baby will kill the woman, it changes the story get it in writing sister (thats the core to the proposal outlined above) It is your right to belive whatever you want, however, it is not within your rights to hold anyone else to the same ideals as you hold. I'm not for daddy drop outs or anything of the sort personaly but what is not all that uncommon is a practice called trapping. Women who lie or trick their partner into becomeing a father. Same with the other way around. How can we be sure that the rights of all parties are seen to? some how i dont think the Marines will allow him to be a deadbeat dad, and i dontneed it in writing. when i miscarried, HE named our child BlessEd, there is my proof. as for the rights of all parties, what about my right to grow up with a father? trapping isnt a practice my mother was involved in, she didnt want to trap my dad, tho my stepmother thinks otherwise. she had just had cirvical cancer and had beemn told she wouldnt have more kids. some women try to trap men, but heres the thing about that- what man would allow himself to be trapped by such a woman? what man would allow himself to be trapped by such a woman? A man who is trusting. Don't you want to be trusted? No need to answer, you're very lucky to have such a partner. Hopefully your stepmother will warm up to the idea. Now for everyone else perhaps getting agreements in writing isn't such a bad idea yes? my stepmother has had 17 years to warm up to me not being a trap. she has gone from loathing and fearing me to hating and fearing me, it seems like she is moving backwards... any way, geting it in writing isnt a bad idea, but the best form of "in writing" is a marriage liceance before pregnancy. then of course is noterized contract, which would be interesting, if it depended on a pos. paternity test- test not pos. contract terminated, that sort of thing. Even though you and I might not see eye to eye. It's your stepmothers loss if she can't see the lovely person you have become. I'm sure your partner would agree. I've always thought that the strongest bond was that of true companionship, marriage ain't got nothing on it. Some people are married for 60+ years and never find such a bond with their partner. That’s not to say marriage isn't a powerful thing. I just hope my Love will forgive me for making her wait so long. im sure she will. if you love her, why are you making her wait????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:57 pm
lordstar divineseraph lordstar divineseraph But where is the fetus's right to life? All people were once feti, and all feti are people in a stage of development. The fetus was given no choice in it's creation, and is now given no choice even in whether or not it gets to live. A fetus has no rights. Personally I would say we should give full citizenship along with all the rights associated with citizenship to all things. This does not work does it? That would mean a cabbage has the right not to be eaten. So being a bit more selective about what we grant rights to, let’s say only humans get rights. If that is so than an infant would be able to vote and in theory be able to survive without any mandatory help. This doesn’t work does it? What age do US citizens become full citizens? 16, 18, 21? The answer is 25 oddly enough. If anyone cares to disagree try and rent a car...don't work so well. (age discrimination is the most prominent form of discrimination in the US followed by sexual orientation, then sex, then color, then creed [aprox. so just roll with me on this one]) Who has rights, when do they get them, and what are they? This is going to get just a bit hairy really quick here. Feti are human. If we are judging by conciousness, then infants have about as much in the way of thought than a late-term fetus. They are unawar and do not develop actualy functional memory until they are toddlers. Infanticide anyone? But no, a baby is a precious bundle of happy emotional ploy, where as a fetus is clearly an inhuman clump of cells no different from a cabbage. I would agree with your last statement, although, I'm not sure that a fetus would taste all that great. When does a fetus first make it's own investment in life? (right from the start...that’s just silly) If a woman could just simply reach in and pull it out and hand it to someone else that would be fine, otherwise the rights of the woman are being violated. personally, cotraception begins before pregnancy. if a woman doesnt want to have "her rights violated" but still have sex, the pill+condom= very less likely to get pregnate. and if she doesnt want to take chances... abstinance. in the case of rape- by whomever- the morning after pill is available, but i think it should be policed a bit more. too many women are using it as contraception... misuse is bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:04 am
promised_child lordstar promised_child lordstar promised_child some how i dont think the Marines will allow him to be a deadbeat dad, and i dontneed it in writing. when i miscarried, HE named our child BlessEd, there is my proof. as for the rights of all parties, what about my right to grow up with a father? trapping isnt a practice my mother was involved in, she didnt want to trap my dad, tho my stepmother thinks otherwise. she had just had cirvical cancer and had beemn told she wouldnt have more kids. some women try to trap men, but heres the thing about that- what man would allow himself to be trapped by such a woman? what man would allow himself to be trapped by such a woman? A man who is trusting. Don't you want to be trusted? No need to answer, you're very lucky to have such a partner. Hopefully your stepmother will warm up to the idea. Now for everyone else perhaps getting agreements in writing isn't such a bad idea yes? my stepmother has had 17 years to warm up to me not being a trap. she has gone from loathing and fearing me to hating and fearing me, it seems like she is moving backwards... any way, geting it in writing isnt a bad idea, but the best form of "in writing" is a marriage liceance before pregnancy. then of course is noterized contract, which would be interesting, if it depended on a pos. paternity test- test not pos. contract terminated, that sort of thing. Even though you and I might not see eye to eye. It's your stepmothers loss if she can't see the lovely person you have become. I'm sure your partner would agree. I've always thought that the strongest bond was that of true companionship, marriage ain't got nothing on it. Some people are married for 60+ years and never find such a bond with their partner. That’s not to say marriage isn't a powerful thing. I just hope my Love will forgive me for making her wait so long. im sure she will. if you love her, why are you making her wait???? We are both finishing college no less than 800 miles apart and I have a lot more time left [the difference between our degrees is about 5 years easy] Crazy story how we met I was a peer tutor in middle school and the gal I was tutoring introduced us...and then we dated for 7 years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:16 am
promised_child lordstar divineseraph lordstar divineseraph But where is the fetus's right to life? All people were once feti, and all feti are people in a stage of development. The fetus was given no choice in it's creation, and is now given no choice even in whether or not it gets to live. A fetus has no rights. Personally I would say we should give full citizenship along with all the rights associated with citizenship to all things. This does not work does it? That would mean a cabbage has the right not to be eaten. So being a bit more selective about what we grant rights to, let’s say only humans get rights. If that is so than an infant would be able to vote and in theory be able to survive without any mandatory help. This doesn’t work does it? What age do US citizens become full citizens? 16, 18, 21? The answer is 25 oddly enough. If anyone cares to disagree try and rent a car...don't work so well. (age discrimination is the most prominent form of discrimination in the US followed by sexual orientation, then sex, then color, then creed [aprox. so just roll with me on this one]) Who has rights, when do they get them, and what are they? This is going to get just a bit hairy really quick here. Feti are human. If we are judging by conciousness, then infants have about as much in the way of thought than a late-term fetus. They are unawar and do not develop actualy functional memory until they are toddlers. Infanticide anyone? But no, a baby is a precious bundle of happy emotional ploy, where as a fetus is clearly an inhuman clump of cells no different from a cabbage. I would agree with your last statement, although, I'm not sure that a fetus would taste all that great. When does a fetus first make it's own investment in life? (right from the start...that’s just silly) If a woman could just simply reach in and pull it out and hand it to someone else that would be fine, otherwise the rights of the woman are being violated. personally, cotraception begins before pregnancy. if a woman doesnt want to have "her rights violated" but still have sex, the pill+condom= very less likely to get pregnate. and if she doesnt want to take chances... abstinance. in the case of rape- by whomever- the morning after pill is available, but i think it should be policed a bit more. too many women are using it as contraception... misuse is bad. I agree, however, the pill reacts wierd to many medications. I would suggest the shot but of corse only after consulting with a doctor. tri-protection is idiot proof so just think how well it will work for any normal person. If you like history you might want to look up Margeret Sanger and birth controll. there are many social factors in the equation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:50 pm
lordstar divineseraph lordstar divineseraph But where is the fetus's right to life? All people were once feti, and all feti are people in a stage of development. The fetus was given no choice in it's creation, and is now given no choice even in whether or not it gets to live. A fetus has no rights. Personally I would say we should give full citizenship along with all the rights associated with citizenship to all things. This does not work does it? That would mean a cabbage has the right not to be eaten. So being a bit more selective about what we grant rights to, let’s say only humans get rights. If that is so than an infant would be able to vote and in theory be able to survive without any mandatory help. This doesn’t work does it? What age do US citizens become full citizens? 16, 18, 21? The answer is 25 oddly enough. If anyone cares to disagree try and rent a car...don't work so well. (age discrimination is the most prominent form of discrimination in the US followed by sexual orientation, then sex, then color, then creed [aprox. so just roll with me on this one]) Who has rights, when do they get them, and what are they? This is going to get just a bit hairy really quick here. Feti are human. If we are judging by conciousness, then infants have about as much in the way of thought than a late-term fetus. They are unawar and do not develop actualy functional memory until they are toddlers. Infanticide anyone? But no, a baby is a precious bundle of happy emotional ploy, where as a fetus is clearly an inhuman clump of cells no different from a cabbage. I would agree with your last statement, although, I'm not sure that a fetus would taste all that great. When does a fetus first make it's own investment in life? (right from the start...that’s just silly) If a woman could just simply reach in and pull it out and hand it to someone else that would be fine, otherwise the rights of the woman are being violated. When do they what with the what? If you mean will to survive, during an abortion feti will kick and struggle. they have an inherent will to live, or else they would have never began multiplying as cells. The fetus is simply unable to attend to itself in a meaningful way since it is in a weak stage of development. Those who are handicapped need special consideration... lest they be a burden to others. If they are a burden, if I have a handicapped child or friend, may I kill them to keep them from bothering me or inconveniencing me? how about a sleeping person? No logical thought process, incapacitated in a time of weakness... Just because something cannot defend itself does not mean it is acceptable to kill it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:26 pm
lordstar promised_child lordstar divineseraph lordstar divineseraph But where is the fetus's right to life? All people were once feti, and all feti are people in a stage of development. The fetus was given no choice in it's creation, and is now given no choice even in whether or not it gets to live. A fetus has no rights. Personally I would say we should give full citizenship along with all the rights associated with citizenship to all things. This does not work does it? That would mean a cabbage has the right not to be eaten. So being a bit more selective about what we grant rights to, let’s say only humans get rights. If that is so than an infant would be able to vote and in theory be able to survive without any mandatory help. This doesn’t work does it? What age do US citizens become full citizens? 16, 18, 21? The answer is 25 oddly enough. If anyone cares to disagree try and rent a car...don't work so well. (age discrimination is the most prominent form of discrimination in the US followed by sexual orientation, then sex, then color, then creed [aprox. so just roll with me on this one]) Who has rights, when do they get them, and what are they? This is going to get just a bit hairy really quick here. Feti are human. If we are judging by conciousness, then infants have about as much in the way of thought than a late-term fetus. They are unawar and do not develop actualy functional memory until they are toddlers. Infanticide anyone? But no, a baby is a precious bundle of happy emotional ploy, where as a fetus is clearly an inhuman clump of cells no different from a cabbage. I would agree with your last statement, although, I'm not sure that a fetus would taste all that great. When does a fetus first make it's own investment in life? (right from the start...that’s just silly) If a woman could just simply reach in and pull it out and hand it to someone else that would be fine, otherwise the rights of the woman are being violated. personally, cotraception begins before pregnancy. if a woman doesnt want to have "her rights violated" but still have sex, the pill+condom= very less likely to get pregnate. and if she doesnt want to take chances... abstinance. in the case of rape- by whomever- the morning after pill is available, but i think it should be policed a bit more. too many women are using it as contraception... misuse is bad. I agree, however, the pill reacts wierd to many medications. I would suggest the shot but of corse only after consulting with a doctor. tri-protection is idiot proof so just think how well it will work for any normal person. If you like history you might want to look up Margeret Sanger and birth controll. there are many social factors in the equation. how bout looking up the truth behind planned parenthood. a woman from planned parenthood told my friend who was pregnate and happens to be black that the organization reccomends abortion to all african american women so as not to burden the welfare system. my friend said what are my other options the woman said none really. my friend almost punched her, kept the baby and has an adorable little girl who is about 5 now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:27 pm
divineseraph lordstar divineseraph lordstar divineseraph But where is the fetus's right to life? All people were once feti, and all feti are people in a stage of development. The fetus was given no choice in it's creation, and is now given no choice even in whether or not it gets to live. A fetus has no rights. Personally I would say we should give full citizenship along with all the rights associated with citizenship to all things. This does not work does it? That would mean a cabbage has the right not to be eaten. So being a bit more selective about what we grant rights to, let’s say only humans get rights. If that is so than an infant would be able to vote and in theory be able to survive without any mandatory help. This doesn’t work does it? What age do US citizens become full citizens? 16, 18, 21? The answer is 25 oddly enough. If anyone cares to disagree try and rent a car...don't work so well. (age discrimination is the most prominent form of discrimination in the US followed by sexual orientation, then sex, then color, then creed [aprox. so just roll with me on this one]) Who has rights, when do they get them, and what are they? This is going to get just a bit hairy really quick here. Feti are human. If we are judging by conciousness, then infants have about as much in the way of thought than a late-term fetus. They are unawar and do not develop actualy functional memory until they are toddlers. Infanticide anyone? But no, a baby is a precious bundle of happy emotional ploy, where as a fetus is clearly an inhuman clump of cells no different from a cabbage. I would agree with your last statement, although, I'm not sure that a fetus would taste all that great. When does a fetus first make it's own investment in life? (right from the start...that’s just silly) If a woman could just simply reach in and pull it out and hand it to someone else that would be fine, otherwise the rights of the woman are being violated. When do they what with the what? If you mean will to survive, during an abortion feti will kick and struggle. they have an inherent will to live, or else they would have never began multiplying as cells. The fetus is simply unable to attend to itself in a meaningful way since it is in a weak stage of development. Those who are handicapped need special consideration... lest they be a burden to others. If they are a burden, if I have a handicapped child or friend, may I kill them to keep them from bothering me or inconveniencing me? how about a sleeping person? No logical thought process, incapacitated in a time of weakness... Just because something cannot defend itself does not mean it is acceptable to kill it. I have already made concessions for your argument. The movement of feti during an abortion is purely mechanical and has nothing to do with a will to live. Same goes for multiplying cells. I said that once a person has made a personal investment in life that they would be excluded from consideration regardless of the potential burden also, we were not talking about your rights and in this case your rights would be secondary to those you have considered worthy of death think before you respond next time please
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
