|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:28 pm
Blood donations cant be mandatory because you arnt responcible for the situation of the person who might be gettign your blood rofl
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:39 pm
..Le Chat du Noir.. divineseraph i don't give a ******** what other poeple do. to themselves. throw another human life into the mix, though, and i slam the brakes on that theory. Meh, then let's make Blood Donation MANDATORY! Excusa Mua, but here, I'm not even GOING to bother talking back. Really, I DO NOT want to argue here. I'm not here to debate or ANYTHING, okay? If you Seriously want a debate, then PM me. I only do formal debates, by the way. Um, I respect your desire to not debate in guild... But if you seriously don't want to debate... Don't start one? Abortion: Certain death of a person put in the situation by the mother, through the action of the mother and the abortionist. Not donating blood: Possible death of someone whose situation is not in any way your fault, through the inaction of -every human on the planet.- Eh, maybe it's just me, but they seem like vastly different situations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:46 pm
Abortion just isn't right.'-' I will never understand why we have higher power over those whom havent had the chance to be born yet, to end their life, just because we're older.
Abortion just is not fair.. To end a life of an innocent for your own sake is greedy and disgusting, it is not the unborn's fault this happened, why should we have the right to kill it?
If you can't handle what happens when sex is involved, you just arn't ready.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:05 am
you sound a lot like myself. however, choicers would be quick to tell you, paraphrased,
"*tantrum* BUT I WANT IT I WANT IT I WANT ITTTTT!!!!!! IT'S CUZ YOU HATE MEEEEEE!!!!!! *tantrum* "
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:23 pm
I.Am ..Le Chat du Noir.. divineseraph i don't give a ******** what other poeple do. to themselves. throw another human life into the mix, though, and i slam the brakes on that theory. Meh, then let's make Blood Donation MANDATORY! Excusa Mua, but here, I'm not even GOING to bother talking back. Really, I DO NOT want to argue here. I'm not here to debate or ANYTHING, okay? If you Seriously want a debate, then PM me. I only do formal debates, by the way. Um, I respect your desire to not debate in guild... But if you seriously don't want to debate... Don't start one? Abortion: Certain death of a person put in the situation by the mother, through the action of the mother and the abortionist, in the other case, possible death of someone whose situation is not in any way your fault, through the inaction of -every human on the planet.- Eh, maybe it's just me, but they seem like vastly different situations. Sure, I'll double-check me posts. ....Imagine if there was a law saying that last bit... If so, I'd sue Sassie.Cassie for every papercut I got. I'd be a rich girl then!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:08 pm
..Le Chat du Noir.. I.Am ..Le Chat du Noir.. divineseraph i don't give a ******** what other poeple do. to themselves. throw another human life into the mix, though, and i slam the brakes on that theory. Meh, then let's make Blood Donation MANDATORY! Excusa Mua, but here, I'm not even GOING to bother talking back. Really, I DO NOT want to argue here. I'm not here to debate or ANYTHING, okay? If you Seriously want a debate, then PM me. I only do formal debates, by the way. Um, I respect your desire to not debate in guild... But if you seriously don't want to debate... Don't start one? Abortion: Certain death of a person put in the situation by the mother, through the action of the mother and the abortionist. Not donating blood: Possible death of someone whose situation is not in any way your fault, through the inaction of -every human on the planet.- Eh, maybe it's just me, but they seem like vastly different situations. Sure, I'll double-check me posts. ....Imagine if there was a law saying that last bit... If so, I'd sue Sassie.Cassie for every papercut I got. I'd be a rich girl then! Um... You lost me. ^_^;; What did any of this have to do with papercuts, or lawsuits? (And I edited my post a little, because apparently I was sleepy when I rewrote it the first time and instead of rewriting the whole thing I only rewrote the part about abortion, making the structure look strange. sweatdrop At least to me.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:20 pm
..Le Chat du Noir.. rofl I recall myself muttering in my sleep, "Pro-Choice is just not giving ******** what everyone else does..." Dunno where I got that from, but I probably didn't mean it that way. Heh. I woke up from a dream about arguing about abortion (it was funny, I had two girls and was like 9 months pregnant with another, and I was in this church hiding from monsters or demons and arguing with this woman about why abortion should be legal) saying something like "and that's why I can't make choices for other people". Sort of the same thing. Yeah, being Pro-Choice is about letting other people make their own choices of what to do when they become unexpectedly pregnant and allowing all those possibly choices (abortion, giving birth and raising a child, giving birth and giving a child up for adoption) to be legal. That is how Pro-Choicers see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:11 am
we are the same way. except for the abortion bit, seeing as it kills a child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:09 am
divineseraph we are the same way. except for the abortion bit, seeing as it kills a child. It's that "except for the abortion bit" that makes you not the same way. It would be like me saying: "I'm so with you on that protecting life thing, except for the whole forcing women to remain pregnant thing. That violates their bodily integrity." See, I act like I'm agreeing with you, but really I am just stating the exact opposite of your view point. Not that Pro-Lifers don't respect choice and want others to live their own lives. Just that in that one situation, (most) Pro-Lifers seem to believe that some people should be forced down a certain course of action. So, in that situation, we are not the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:30 pm
and some people believe that in the case of people who want to kill other people that they should be legally forced down one path. damn legislation of morality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:51 pm
WatersMoon110 divineseraph we are the same way. except for the abortion bit, seeing as it kills a child. It's that "except for the abortion bit" that makes you not the same way. It would be like me saying: "I'm so with you on that protecting life thing, except for the whole forcing women to remain pregnant thing. That violates their bodily integrity." See, I act like I'm agreeing with you, but really I am just stating the exact opposite of your view point. Not that Pro-Lifers don't respect choice and want others to live their own lives. Just that in that one situation, (most) Pro-Lifers seem to believe that some people should be forced down a certain course of action. So, in that situation, we are not the same. That's the problem Pro-Lifers would see with the term "Pro-Choice." It implies that Pro-Lifers don't support choice, and Pro-Choicers do. When in fact, it would be absolutely ridiculous for anyone to support, legally, all choices, or for anyone to be against all choices. With Pro-Lifers, yes, it does imply that Pro-Choicers do not support life. You got me there. However, when it says that we are supporting the protection of all human life, and Pro-Choicers are not supporting the protection of all life, it's not untrue. When it comes to things like the death penalty, or supporting certain wars, all reasons I have ever heard from a Pro-Lifer are that they support those things in order to protect other lives. It becomes a question of whose life is more valuable, the killer, or the killed? And, of course, it's an easy answer. Thus, they are not so much exceptions to the rule as they are examples of choosing the lesser evil. But with Pro-Choice, no Pro-Choicer that I know of supports every choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:41 pm
I.Am WatersMoon110 divineseraph we are the same way. except for the abortion bit, seeing as it kills a child. It's that "except for the abortion bit" that makes you not the same way. It would be like me saying: "I'm so with you on that protecting life thing, except for the whole forcing women to remain pregnant thing. That violates their bodily integrity." See, I act like I'm agreeing with you, but really I am just stating the exact opposite of your view point. Not that Pro-Lifers don't respect choice and want others to live their own lives. Just that in that one situation, (most) Pro-Lifers seem to believe that some people should be forced down a certain course of action. So, in that situation, we are not the same. That's the problem Pro-Lifers would see with the term "Pro-Choice." It implies that Pro-Lifers don't support choice, and Pro-Choicers do. When in fact, it would be absolutely ridiculous for anyone to support, legally, all choices, or for anyone to be against all choices. With Pro-Lifers, yes, it does imply that Pro-Choicers do not support life. You got me there. However, when it says that we are supporting the protection of all human life, and Pro-Choicers are not supporting the protection of all life, it's not untrue. When it comes to things like the death penalty, or supporting certain wars, all reasons I have ever heard from a Pro-Lifer are that they support those things in order to protect other lives. It becomes a question of whose life is more valuable, the killer, or the killed? And, of course, it's an easy answer. Thus, they are not so much exceptions to the rule as they are examples of choosing the lesser evil. But with Pro-Choice, no Pro-Choicer that I know of supports every choice. True enough. lol BE VEGAN DAMMIT! scream Get your a** off the couch and DO SOMETHING WITH YOUR LIFE! Trust me, I'm HELPING you! wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:24 pm
I.Am WatersMoon110 divineseraph we are the same way. except for the abortion bit, seeing as it kills a child. It's that "except for the abortion bit" that makes you not the same way. It would be like me saying: "I'm so with you on that protecting life thing, except for the whole forcing women to remain pregnant thing. That violates their bodily integrity." See, I act like I'm agreeing with you, but really I am just stating the exact opposite of your view point. Not that Pro-Lifers don't respect choice and want others to live their own lives. Just that in that one situation, (most) Pro-Lifers seem to believe that some people should be forced down a certain course of action. So, in that situation, we are not the same. That's the problem Pro-Lifers would see with the term "Pro-Choice." It implies that Pro-Lifers don't support choice, and Pro-Choicers do. When in fact, it would be absolutely ridiculous for anyone to support, legally, all choices, or for anyone to be against all choices. With Pro-Lifers, yes, it does imply that Pro-Choicers do not support life. You got me there. However, when it says that we are supporting the protection of all human life, and Pro-Choicers are not supporting the protection of all life, it's not untrue. When it comes to things like the death penalty, or supporting certain wars, all reasons I have ever heard from a Pro-Lifer are that they support those things in order to protect other lives. It becomes a question of whose life is more valuable, the killer, or the killed? And, of course, it's an easy answer. Thus, they are not so much exceptions to the rule as they are examples of choosing the lesser evil. But with Pro-Choice, no Pro-Choicer that I know of supports every choice. So, "Pro-Life" is acceptible because Pro-Choicers don't support the protection of unborn humans' lives, but "Pro-Choice" is not okay even though Pro-Lifers don't support the choice of the woman to (exercise her bodily integrity and) abort?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:08 am
WatersMoon110 I.Am WatersMoon110 divineseraph we are the same way. except for the abortion bit, seeing as it kills a child. It's that "except for the abortion bit" that makes you not the same way. It would be like me saying: "I'm so with you on that protecting life thing, except for the whole forcing women to remain pregnant thing. That violates their bodily integrity." See, I act like I'm agreeing with you, but really I am just stating the exact opposite of your view point. Not that Pro-Lifers don't respect choice and want others to live their own lives. Just that in that one situation, (most) Pro-Lifers seem to believe that some people should be forced down a certain course of action. So, in that situation, we are not the same. That's the problem Pro-Lifers would see with the term "Pro-Choice." It implies that Pro-Lifers don't support choice, and Pro-Choicers do. When in fact, it would be absolutely ridiculous for anyone to support, legally, all choices, or for anyone to be against all choices. With Pro-Lifers, yes, it does imply that Pro-Choicers do not support life. You got me there. However, when it says that we are supporting the protection of all human life, and Pro-Choicers are not supporting the protection of all life, it's not untrue. When it comes to things like the death penalty, or supporting certain wars, all reasons I have ever heard from a Pro-Lifer are that they support those things in order to protect other lives. It becomes a question of whose life is more valuable, the killer, or the killed? And, of course, it's an easy answer. Thus, they are not so much exceptions to the rule as they are examples of choosing the lesser evil. But with Pro-Choice, no Pro-Choicer that I know of supports every choice. So, "Pro-Life" is acceptible because Pro-Choicers don't support the protection of unborn humans' lives, but "Pro-Choice" is not okay even though Pro-Lifers don't support the choice of the woman to (exercise her bodily integrity and) abort? That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that's what others say. Also, you either mistook what I said or completely ignored it. As I said, no one is "Pro-Choice" about -everything.- At least, no one sane. Unless, that is, you adjust the meaning of "choice," to mean "legal choice." In which case, everyone is Pro-Choice, they just have different ideas about what should be legal and what shouldn't. What I'm trying to say is, when you say, "Pro-Lifers are Pro-Choice in everything except a woman's choice to abort," you are mistaken. Pro-Choicers do not believe that abortion should be a woman's legal choice, thus, it is not a choice by the adjusted second definition. By the first definition, there are dozens of other things which we are also not Pro-Choice in, but which even Pro-Choicers aren't Pro-Choice in like murder or rape. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Either everyone is absolutely Pro-Choice or no one is absolutely Pro-Choice depending on your definition of the word choice. It's not a debate argument, it's mostly just idle speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:18 am
I.Am WatersMoon110 I.Am WatersMoon110 divineseraph we are the same way. except for the abortion bit, seeing as it kills a child. It's that "except for the abortion bit" that makes you not the same way. It would be like me saying: "I'm so with you on that protecting life thing, except for the whole forcing women to remain pregnant thing. That violates their bodily integrity." See, I act like I'm agreeing with you, but really I am just stating the exact opposite of your view point. Not that Pro-Lifers don't respect choice and want others to live their own lives. Just that in that one situation, (most) Pro-Lifers seem to believe that some people should be forced down a certain course of action. So, in that situation, we are not the same. That's the problem Pro-Lifers would see with the term "Pro-Choice." It implies that Pro-Lifers don't support choice, and Pro-Choicers do. When in fact, it would be absolutely ridiculous for anyone to support, legally, all choices, or for anyone to be against all choices. With Pro-Lifers, yes, it does imply that Pro-Choicers do not support life. You got me there. However, when it says that we are supporting the protection of all human life, and Pro-Choicers are not supporting the protection of all life, it's not untrue. When it comes to things like the death penalty, or supporting certain wars, all reasons I have ever heard from a Pro-Lifer are that they support those things in order to protect other lives. It becomes a question of whose life is more valuable, the killer, or the killed? And, of course, it's an easy answer. Thus, they are not so much exceptions to the rule as they are examples of choosing the lesser evil. But with Pro-Choice, no Pro-Choicer that I know of supports every choice. So, "Pro-Life" is acceptible because Pro-Choicers don't support the protection of unborn humans' lives, but "Pro-Choice" is not okay even though Pro-Lifers don't support the choice of the woman to (exercise her bodily integrity and) abort? That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that's what others say. Also, you either mistook what I said or completely ignored it. As I said, no one is "Pro-Choice" about -everything.- At least, no one sane. Unless, that is, you adjust the meaning of "choice," to mean "legal choice." In which case, everyone is Pro-Choice, they just have different ideas about what should be legal and what shouldn't. What I'm trying to say is, when you say, "Pro-Lifers are Pro-Choice in everything except a woman's choice to abort," you are mistaken. Pro-Choicers do not believe that abortion should be a woman's legal choice, thus, it is not a choice by the adjusted second definition. By the first definition, there are dozens of other things which we are also not Pro-Choice in, but which even Pro-Choicers aren't Pro-Choice in like murder or rape. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Either everyone is absolutely Pro-Choice or no one is absolutely Pro-Choice depending on your definition of the word choice. It's not a debate argument, it's mostly just idle speculation. I have no clue what you are attempting to get at, I don't see how what you just said built upon what you previously said, and I'm not entirely sure where you are getting "Pro-Lifers are Pro-Choice in everything except a woman's choice to abort," from anything I've previously said, let alone said in the post you origionally quoted. Actually, I didn't use any definition of either Pro-Choice or Pro-Life in the post you origionally quoted. I said that Pro-Lifers "respection choice" and I said that Pro-Lifers believe that people should be forced to take a particular action in a certain situation. I'm not sure why that prompted you to tell me why Pro-Lifers might object to the term "Pro-Choice"...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
