|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:21 am
kp606 Quote: And time and again we have said there are risks in life, but no one would deny you the right to get into a car, just incase you had an accident and had to have your kidney replaced, thus preventing a person who's kindey is riddled with disease through no fault of their own, from getting said kidney. That didn't make sense at all, please clarify it. Sorry...brain siezing up...I'll try again kp606 It's not about them "asking" to be anything, it's what they're allowing to happen. You have the power to prevent pregnancy, if you so choose to, but by allowing yourself to be sexually active, you're opening the door for the risk. Risk, risk, risk. Everying takes risks, no one is refused treatment for any ailment, even if that ailment is their fault. Someone who drinks themselves stupid is not refused a kidney transplant, even if that kidney could be used in an hour or two for the crash victim that may come in. No one is refused a blood transfusion if they slit their wrists, even if that blood could later be used to save the life of the woman bleeding to death because she was shot in a grocery store robbery. Quote: Sex, people, is about pleasure AND making babies AND getting closer to your partner. How many times does it have to be said before someone understands. Sex is pleasurable, the clitoris has one purpose, to give you pleasure. People do it for pleasure, whether you think this is right or wrong does not matter, the fact still remains that it is pleasurable and makes you fell closer to the person you love. If you say that then what's the point of abortion? You've refuted your own points. It isn't about the pleasure. In order for the male to ejaculate, the muscles respond in a way that's incredibly pleasurable to him. In this sense, it's for the sake of letting out the sperm, but it benefits him. 1) Again, you're ignoring the other purposes of sex. 2) That is not the only thing released when a man reaches climax. There are hormonal responses in the brain that cause a feeling of closeness to the woman, and vice versa. You going to argue that the reason for that is so the couple are more likely to stay together, to bring up the would-be-child in a 2 parent home? Fine, do that. It still does not explain why people have sex when they are infertile, why women have periods rather than just go into heat. We have evolved past the point where sex is only for reproduction; as proven by promiscuous women. Quote: As for the clitoris, what of it? It could have been created/mutated for the purpose of alleviating any pain there is to sex, but if you believe in Intelligent Design i'd have a hard time stomaching your pro-choice stance. Or if you believe in Evolution, it could have been a random mutation, as that does happen. Things exist that are used for different functions apart from the original, if the clitoris could do something in the past, it sure can't now. Who said I believe in Intelligent Design? And why could you not stomach it? Intelligent Design; a master plan behind human evolution. How do you know what that plan is? As for evolution; yes things can mutate at random ((actually that is the very basis of evolutionary theory)), but rarely does that mutation stick around if it serves no good purpose. As for things existing that are used for different functions than the original...erm...well. That's called evolution! Right now, in this moment in time, the clitoris has one purpose only; to provide pleasure. It does nothing else at all, it is simply an area of flesh packed full of sensory cells just waiting to be tickled. If sex was soley fr reproduction we would not need this. Women would go into heat and find a mate. Quote: And you can also call a breakout of conjunctivitus an epidemic, in the same sense, but if you compared Pink Eye and Small Pox with Babys and AIDs, I wonder which two will be considered the real, intended meaning of "Epidemic" and "STI"? What? Quote: Your point is first considering that a pregnancy and an STI are even the same, and they aren't, as I just said. Where in God's Earth is Reproduction a synonym to Sickness, seriously? You won't find it in any medical text, and if you were to ask a professor that didn't realize the premiss was abortion, he's probably say "no". I did not say it was a sickness, but you will find that there are two ways of becoming pregnant; artificial insemmination and sex. Now, whilst pregnancy is not exactly transmitted from the man to the woman, the trigger is. I was drawing a comparison between being allowed to get treatment for an STI and an unwanted pregnancy; both of which are caused by sex. Quote: You're shoving words into my mouth, and I do not like it. I never called pregnant, abortion-seeking women whores, I never said that it's a "punishement", and I never said pregnancy is fates way of telling you anything. I'm not speaking directly of you, just playing with the words I've heard so often from Pro-Lifers. Alright, I'll ask you this too ((goodness knows I've been ignored enough in the ED thread)) Sex is only for reproduction, as you said. So, a couple are completely incapable of reproducing, for whatever reason, COMPLETELY. Should they, under your moral code, be "allowed" to have sex? After all, sex is only for reproduction, and what is the point of having sex if you can't "make babies"?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:12 am
Quote: Risk, risk, risk. Everying takes risks, no one is refused treatment for any ailment, even if that ailment is their fault. Someone who drinks themselves stupid is not refused a kidney transplant, even if that kidney could be used in an hour or two for the crash victim that may come in. No one is refused a blood transfusion if they slit their wrists, even if that blood could later be used to save the life of the woman bleeding to death because she was shot in a grocery store robbery. Now you're simply re-affirming that sex is a risk-taker. In ED I would see countless times this: consenting to sex =/= consenting to pregnacny. I am trying to prove the above is false, nothing to do with risk. If you've already admitted the above is false, then there is nothing else to say. Quote: 1) Again, you're ignoring the other purposes of sex. No I didn't. I said the pleasurable functions of sex are that for a reason, thus saying, sex isn't pleasurable just to be pleasurable. Quote: 2) That is not the only thing released when a man reaches climax. There are hormonal responses in the brain that cause a feeling of closeness to the woman, and vice versa. True. But by the same measure I can also say "they're chemicals in the brain that allow a mother to feel close to her child," thus villifying abortion. Many kinds of stimulants are put into the brain at any time for different reasons, likely, I have a chemical attracting me to debating abortion right now. And using your exact words, a feeling of closeness is different from a feeling of pleasure. Love does not always feel good. Quote: You going to argue that the reason for that is so the couple are more likely to stay together, to bring up the would-be-child in a 2 parent home? Fine, do that. It still does not explain why people have sex when they are infertile, why women have periods rather than just go into heat. I never said a couple doesn't enjoy the fact sex is pleasurable, what I'm arguing, at least for one gender, sex is only pleasurable by the anatomical make. Sex is healthy to a marriage, many people know that (even though I can't say I am in aggreance with what is most likely Freud's theory...) so family in mind or not people will have sex for the pleasure. That does not, however, mean that's its purpose. Quote: We have evolved past the point where sex is only for reproduction; as proven by promiscuous women. I would like to argue promiscuity is a flaw, not an evolution of any sort. Quote: As for evolution; yes things can mutate at random ((actually that is the very basis of evolutionary theory)), but rarely does that mutation stick around if it serves no good purpose. One word: the appendix. Quote: As for things existing that are used for different functions than the original...erm...well. That's called evolution! Right now, in this moment in time, the clitoris has one purpose only; to provide pleasure. It does nothing else at all, it is simply an area of flesh packed full of sensory cells just waiting to be tickled. If sex was soley fr reproduction we would not need this. Women would go into heat and find a mate. If we for a second play by your rules we can say, if sex must be for pleasure, because of the clitoris, it MUST be for reproduction to because the uterus is just waiting to be fertilized, is that correct? Quote: Sex is only for reproduction, as you said. So, a couple are completely incapable of reproducing, for whatever reason, COMPLETELY. Should they, under your moral code, be "allowed" to have sex? After all, sex is only for reproduction, and what is the point of having sex if you can't "make babies"? For the pleasure. I said that wasn't the main purpose, I never said you can't benefit from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:51 am
kp606 Now you're simply re-affirming that sex is a risk-taker. In ED I would see countless times this: consenting to sex =/= consenting to pregnacny. I am trying to prove the above is false, nothing to do with risk. If you've already admitted the above is false, then there is nothing else to say. OK, so ignoring the risk part. I don't know how else to put it across other than, you only consent to pregnancy when you say "lets try to get me pregnant" or "I'm pregnant, well I'm keeping it". Having sex is about as close to consenting to pregnancy as getting in a car is consenting to a crash. Quote: No I didn't. I said the pleasurable functions of sex are that for a reason, thus saying, sex isn't pleasurable just to be pleasurable. As you said, ((or was that me?)) organc have multiple functions, as can actions. Higher level animals need pleasurable stimuli to remain happy/content. Sexual pleasure could easily have evolved as a way to combat depression. After all, humans and apes masturbate; especially when bored... Hmmm, I'm liking this discussion. Quote: True. But by the same measure I can also say "they're chemicals in the brain that allow a mother to feel close to her child," thus villifying abortion. Many kinds of stimulants are put into the brain at any time for different reasons, likely, I have a chemical attracting me to debating abortion right now. Interesting, is that feeling of closeness to the partner just a side effect? Or is there a dual purpose? Also, would the chemicals not have to be present at the time when the woman discovers the pregnancy; conception is quite a while after climax, realisation even longer after. Quote: I never said a couple doesn't enjoy the fact sex is pleasurable, what I'm arguing, at least for one gender, sex is only pleasurable by the anatomical make. One gender? What about the woman then? Also, things only evolve for a reason. Now, I can easily see why sex became pleasurable for humans in the first place. But it has moved beyond that, see above. Quote: I would like to argue promiscuity is a flaw, not an evolution of any sort. Evolution, by it's very nature, does not allow flaws to remain. Yet, there it is, a flaw in your eyes. Does that not mean we have moved past evolution? Or does it mean that promiscuity is not a flaw but an advantage? I don't see it as either...((I'm making only a modicum of sense aren't I?)) Again, proof we have moved beyond evolution? Also, if it were not for modern medicine the appendix would become a rare thing, or begin to serve another purpose. Quote: If we for a second play by your rules we can say, if sex must be for pleasure, because of the clitoris, it MUST be for reproduction to because the uterus is just waiting to be fertilized, is that correct? I never said otherwise. In fact you quoted me as saying sex was for pleasure and reproduction. Quote: For the pleasure. I said that wasn't the main purpose, I never said you can't benefit from it. Then sex has several purposes, yes? Just that reproduction may be its formost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:36 pm
MipsyKitten My Conscience MipsyKitten My Conscience 46% didn''t use birth control when they got pregnant. If the women really didn''t want a child then she would have taken higher procausons. Such as ECPs. They prevent 90% of all pregnacy''s. With the use of a comdom and ECPs, people shouldn''t have to worry about abortions icon_3nodding.gif Why did you only mention the sterilization of males? Why not sterilization of females? icon_sweatdrop.gif Are you feminist or something? It is sexist to say all should be removed from earth >.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:14 am
MipsyKitten My Conscience MipsyKitten My Conscience 46% didn''t use birth control when they got pregnant. If the women really didn''t want a child then she would have taken higher procausons. Such as ECPs. They prevent 90% of all pregnacy''s. With the use of a comdom and ECPs, people shouldn''t have to worry about abortions 3nodding Why did you only mention the sterilization of males? Why not sterilization of females? sweatdrop Are you feminist or something? It is sexist to say all should be removed from earth >.> I'd just like to add something here. Gotta be quick before my boss gets back. Female FULL sterilization is much more intrusive and dangerous than male FULL Sterilization. I say full because leaving tissue behind and simply tying tubes can still lead to pregnancy, in women it can lead to ectopic ((where the fertilized egg attaches to the wall of the falopian tubes and not the uterus)). These are fatal for both woman and ZEF if not removed in the first 2 months. And of course you have the chance that they may also have to remove cervix, making sex much less enjoyable, and making it much harder to reach climax for a lot of women. Remember a woman's reproductive organs are deep inside, a man's are nice and free on the outside. 2nd. Fully removing all vital parts of the female reproductive organs leads to disease later on in life. Osteoperisis, osteoarthritis etc... The woman will likely need to be put on HRT for a long time, if not the rest of her life. For a man? Well, he isn't able to put on muscle quite as easily, may gain weight easier than before. His bones may become more supple and some report osterporisis. *tries to think up more* I should probably link you to a page...but I don't have time right now. So, it's just easier, less costly. [EDIT] Web Pages are fun... Glossary of TermsQuote: orchiectomy (or-kee-EK-toe-mee): the surgical removal of the testes, the major source of male hormones. Quote: Many men will notice decreased sexual desire following the procedure, and some will observe breast tenderness and/or growth over time. Other men may temporarily have hot flashes, similar to those experienced by women during menopause. Finally, orchiectomy results in impotence. This is a side effect that men will experience, and it can be very upsetting for the patient and his significant other. However About.comQuote: Orchiectomy Orchiectomy is surgical removal of the testicles. It is the single most effective method of reducing androgen hormones, but it is considered an extreme procedure. The operation can be done on an outpatient basis, through a tiny incision in the scrotum, and is relatively pain-free. Sexual Effects. Many men can still achieve erection after orchiectomy, but there is almost always a decline in sexual drive. Men who cannot achieve erection may be candidates for a penile implant. Patients do not experience a reversal of sex characteristics: the voice does not change and body hair is not affected. Quality of Life. Interestingly, patients who choose this option report significantly higher quality of life afterward than those who opt for hormonal treatment, particularly total androgen ablation. Although the operation impairs sexuality, it causes less fatigue, physical dysfunction, and psychological distress than other treatments for advanced cancer, excluding no treatment at all. These studies, however, did not compare orchiectomy to intermittent hormonal therapy, which may prove to have psychological benefits. Osteoporosis. Like all androgen deprivation therapies, orchiectomy increases the risk for osteoporosis, a loss of bone density that increases the risk for fracture. In fact, the risk for osteoporosis may be higher with surgery than hormonal drugs. OK, so now nummy facts sheets on hystorectomies HystorectomyLots of info there. The different types, the problems, the good things... Complete list of side effects!!! Scary stuffDid I help any? God that list is is almost as scary as Moniquill's pregnancy side effects list...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:48 am
Shard Aerliss OK, so ignoring the risk part. I don't know how else to put it across other than, you only consent to pregnancy when you say "lets try to get me pregnant" or "I'm pregnant, well I'm keeping it". Having sex is about as close to consenting to pregnancy as getting in a car is consenting to a crash. Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ConsentGives a defintion that basically requires you to look up assent: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=AssentYou have "agreed" to the pregnancy when you chose to have sex, thus allowing you to become pregnant. It doesn't not matter what you choose to do with that after, you have opened yourself up to pregnancy to begin with no matter what the conclusion of it is. Saying you do not consent to pregnancy because you choose to abort is like saying you did not consent to having a child if you have a miscarriage. It's just simply inccorect. Quote: As you said, ((or was that me?)) organc have multiple functions, as can actions. Higher level animals need pleasurable stimuli to remain happy/content. Sexual pleasure could easily have evolved as a way to combat depression. After all, humans and apes masturbate; especially when bored... What you do to pass the time doesn't nessecarily mean an anti-depressant... Either way, it sounds like you're writing out a thesis right in front of me, so until you start citing sources, and publishing in science literature, I still hold by to what I said: sex is only pleasurable because that is how it functions, that isn't it's whole intent. If you're going to take the example of animals, that means sex will often be forced, spontaenous, instictive (to a point of little to no judgement or partners, time, etc.), and sometimes painful. There would be no abortion, infanticide can be deemed accidental, or intentional. And a parent would loose all connections with their children. Are you willing to say all of this by comparing us to animals? Quote: One gender? What about the woman then? I said it before, the clitoris is just a strange organ (is it an organ?). Quote: Also, things only evolve for a reason. Now, I can easily see why sex became pleasurable for humans in the first place. But it has moved beyond that, see above If you believe that was did evolve, if we were able to do it as animals, why not just keep it that way? Quote: Evolution, by it's very nature, does not allow flaws to remain. Yet, there it is, a flaw in your eyes. Does that not mean we have moved past evolution? Or does it mean that promiscuity is not a flaw but an advantage? I don't see it as either...((I'm making only a modicum of sense aren't I?)) You're going in circles, i'm afraid I don't understand. Quote: I never said otherwise. In fact you quoted me as saying sex was for pleasure and reproduction. Well I thought you did, hence the "if we [...] play by your rules" Quote: Then sex has several purposes, yes? Just that reproduction may be its formost. Then that nulls abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:08 am
kp606 You have "agreed" to the pregnancy when you chose to have sex, thus allowing you to become pregnant. It doesn't not matter what you choose to do with that after, you have opened yourself up to pregnancy to begin with no matter what the conclusion of it is. Saying you do not consent to pregnancy because you choose to abort is like saying you did not consent to having a child if you have a miscarriage. It's just simply inccorect. No, you have agreed to sex. "Hey honey, want to have sex tonight." "Love to dear." "What about trying for a pregnancy?" "Not a chance, boy." I agree to eat eggs, but not to get salmonella. I agree to ride my bike, but not get hit by a car. I agree to climb cliffs, but not to fall of. However, I do accept that I may get salmonella, may get hit by a car and may fall off a cliff. So I cook my eggs well, wear a crash helmet, use a guide rope. And if, by chance one fo the above happens, I do what I can to remedy it. The same goes for pregnancy. Yes I have read your dictionary definitions. There was nothing there to indicate women agree to get pregnanct every time they have sex. Quote: What you do to pass the time doesn't nessecarily mean an anti-depressant... Not an anti-depressent. A preventative measure. What I do in my spare time ((read, write, have sex)) prevents me from getting bored. Boredom breeds ill health and depression in domesticated animals. Quote: Either way, it sounds like you're writing out a thesis right in front of me, so until you start citing sources, and publishing in science literature, I still hold by to what I said: sex is only pleasurable because that is how it functions, that isn't it's whole intent. And you are not? Nothing you have said has been backed up by sources. There is very little research out there that could be deemed anywheer near conclusive either way. We are both of us theorising. After all, evelotion is still itself just a theory...but here are some things to chew on... Quote: Why are women’s breasts obvious all the time? This is not the normal mammalian pattern. If you see a mammal with obvious mammary glands you can deduce one of three things:- 1] The mammal in question is pregnant or lactating 2] The mammal is old and has lactated before, possibly several times or 3] The mammal has been subject to selection by man The third one explains women’s breasts as well as the bloated udders of dairy animals. Breasts are a sexually selected sign of health, fertility and sexual maturity. As breasts do not fossilize well it is impossible to say for certain when they evolved, no theory can be proved, here for what it is worth is my theory, a re-telling of a well known tale, with a twist or two of my own. Quote: The drive to have a compatible partner may be more important in human psychology than the drive to have biological offspring. And I say again; no, sex is not PURELY for pleasure. Or else it would not lead to pregnancy... Quote: If you're going to take the example of animals, that means sex will often be forced, spontaenous, instictive (to a point of little to no judgement or partners, time, etc.), and sometimes painful. There would be no abortion, infanticide can be deemed accidental, or intentional. And a parent would loose all connections with their children. Are you willing to say all of this by comparing us to animals? Making sweeping statements about the animal kingdom does not help your cause ((as you are claiming sex is only for reproduction and pregnancy is natural, abortion is not)). 1) Sex may be forced, but not in all species. Bee's, birds where the male is picked by the female. 2) Sex may be spontaneous, but not in all species. See above. 3) Instinct drives all animals, including humans. Although we have the ability to surpress it. Which is why people choose not to breed. 4) Sex is painful ins some species, but few. 5) Animals are incapable of the forsight needed for an abortion. However, spontaneous abortion happens. Infanticide IS considered accidental or intentional...we just happen to have laws against it. 6) Parent's would not always loose all connections with their offspring. Lions much? Quote: If you believe that was did evolve, if we were able to do it as animals, why not just keep it that way? And there you have it; because sex is more than just "making babies" in humans and several animal species. Quote: You're going in circles, i'm afraid I don't understand. Simple. If promiscuity is a flaw then how is it still about? Quote: I never said otherwise. In fact you quoted me as saying sex was for pleasure and reproduction. Well I thought you did, hence the "if we [...] play by your rules" That was simply for the sake of argument. My actual thoughts are that sex has several functions. Quote: Then sex has several purposes, yes? Just that reproduction may be its formost. Then that nulls abortion. How? Please explain further, rather than just giving me a throw away statement. Finally Quote: I said it before, the clitoris is just a strange organ (is it an organ?). How can you possibly comment and preach on sex and the pleasures of sex if you do not even know about the clitoris? It is an important part of a woman's anatomy ((though sorely overlooked by many men)). The Temple of the Clitorisand to quote... "Despite almost a century of universal education the average Western Male is still totally ignorant about the clitoris. He neither knows what it is, where it is or what to do with it if he accidentally stumbles across one late at night in the dark " Fascinating little page for you, which backs you up somewhat ((look I'm doing your research for you)). However, it does not claim that sex is ONLY for reproduction, anymore than eating is only to prevent starvation. Also "it's just strange" is a really, really bad argument... Until you only eat when you are hungry, only wear clothes when you are cold, do not use electricity for anything, live in a field, eat only fruits and drink only stream water you have no foot to stand on claiming that we should only have sex for making babies ((ignoring the whole "it has other purposes" issue)). And here was me enjoying this debate and mutual theorising...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 8:51 am
kp606 You have "agreed" to the pregnancy when you chose to have sex, thus allowing you to become pregnant. It doesn't not matter what you choose to do with that after, you have opened yourself up to pregnancy to begin with no matter what the conclusion of it is. Saying you do not consent to pregnancy because you choose to abort is like saying you did not consent to having a child if you have a miscarriage. It's just simply inccorect.
People don't subconciously give consent for everything bad to happen as the result of an action. I didn't give consent for my computer to blow up and send glass flying into my face, simply because I pressed the 'on' button.
The only way a woman would give consent to pregnancy, is if she wanted to get pregnant. However, even if she did give consent, she might not get pregnant, because our bodies could care less about what we want. Our bodies do all of their work on their own. I don't need to think about my heart beating to stay alive. I don't need to tell my stomach to digest my food. I don't need to think to breathe in every few seconds.
People can't give consent to their bodies. When someone makes a little control panel so we can control our bodies via switches and nobs, THEN a woman can give consent to pregnancy directly. Untill then, unwanted pregnancies are accidents and can't be helped, even with the use of 3 forms of birth control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 5:57 pm
Quote: "Hey honey, want to have sex tonight." "Love to dear." "What about trying for a pregnancy?" "Not a chance, boy Hmm, sounds like something communicated after the VMAs.... Quote: However, I do accept that I may get salmonella, may get hit by a car and may fall off a cliff. So I cook my eggs well, wear a crash helmet, use a guide rope. And if, by chance one fo the above happens, I do what I can to remedy it. And as of said before, the remedy has nothing to do with it. Therefore, you've consented to the risk. Allowing, and accepting are two different things. In this case, I'm talking about the former. You're allowing pregnancy. If you do not agree to this then you're not being open to simple logic here. Quote: And you are not? Nothing you have said has been backed up by sources. Likewise. But I take back my statement, it's a fairly arguable point of what sex is for, so a source isn't really going to help the situation in any specific way. They don't fossilize? Fascinating. The part about "selected sign of health, fertility, and sexual maturity,", if you're trying to use this as a source as to why sex is pleasurable, it doesn't work. The ladder 2 are pretty much the same, and can pretty much be said to alert an organism if the mate is ready to reproduce. The former is ambiguous, but it's a well known fact, breast size is no sign of health (it would have to be size reduction or enlargement that would be a sign of something.) Quote: 1) Sex may be forced, but not in all species. Bee's, birds where the male is picked by the female. 2) Sex may be spontaneous, but not in all species. See above. 3) Instinct drives all animals, including humans. Although we have the ability to surpress it. Which is why people choose not to breed. 4) Sex is painful ins some species, but few. 5) Animals are incapable of the forsight needed for an abortion. However, spontaneous abortion happens. Infanticide IS considered accidental or intentional...we just happen to have laws against it. 6) Parent's would not always loose all connections with their offspring. Lions much? Going Quickly: The physical effects are a sweeping generalization, but one to bring to mention anyway. This is the reality of the animal kingdom, it isn't all about controlled, pleasurable, motivated sex. Alot of it is very animalistic. But the number one point to make here is actually number six: even if they love or don't love their offspring, they still have it reguardless. Any act of infantocide is one that lacks the normal human quality of logical judgement. Even if they kill the child for its own good, it's not as though it benefits them, it's literally for the child's own good, which often means they themselves are in a dangerous situation. And if they happen to eat them, as you well know, cannibalism isn't something to model after... Quote: Simple. If promiscuity is a flaw then how is it still about? Because Evolution is flawed. Natural selection doesn't remove things in one large wave, it would have to be tested to the point of destruction, then it's gone. Quote: Well I thought you did, hence the "if we [...] play by your rules" That was simply for the sake of argument. My actual thoughts are that sex has several functions. I switch between debating your point, and making them flawed from the inside out. If it looks like I switched ideas, it's because I'm doing the ladder. Quote: How? Please explain further, rather than just giving me a throw away statement. If you have sex for pleasure and reproduction, if you abort, that nulls the second person, thus nulling the purpose of sex in the first place. Therefore, if you agree that sex is for reproduction, abortion isn't a question. Onto Mipsy: Quote: So basically you're saying, no matter what you do you give consent for all the bad things that could happen as a result of that action? So if an 18 year old girl agrees to go out on a date she gives consent to get date-raped. If a man goes out jogging he gives consent to get mugged. If a woman goes out to the bank she gives consent to get robbed. A man drives his family to the zoo, but is in a 15 car pile up which he unconciously asked for. The 6 months pregnant woman miscarries when she trips over her 2 year old's toy and falls down the stairs. She went down the stairs in her home. She consented to a miscarriage. She knew the risks of being out of bed! They consent to the risk, and yes they do. Quote: People don't subconciously give consent for everything bad to happen as the result of an action. I didn't give consent for my computer to blow up and send glass flying into my face, simply because I pressed the 'on' button. You don't because that never happens. What you do consent to evertime you sign on is... very little. Rather, if you surf every corner of Google you know you're handling websites with numerous spyware, possibly even viruses, and you consent to them to be on your computer, otherwise you wouldn't even go to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 2:11 am
kp606 And as of said before, the remedy has nothing to do with it. Therefore, you've consented to the risk. Allowing, and accepting are two different things. In this case, I'm talking about the former. You're allowing pregnancy. If you do not agree to this then you're not being open to simple logic here. Allowing and accepting are two different things. And you are wrong. Is insuring your house against a break in accepting the possibility or allowing a person to break in? Is using BC accepting the possibility of pregnancy or allowing yourself/your partner to become pregnant? If a person does not lock the house does that mean every Tom d**k and Harry should break in and no one can stop them? If a person does not use BC does that mean they cannot then terminate? Quote: If you have sex for pleasure and reproduction, if you abort, that nulls the second person, thus nulling the purpose of sex in the first place. Therefore, if you agree that sex is for reproduction, abortion isn't a question. How does it null the second person? If you have sex for pleasure but not pregnancy ((and sooo many peopel do)) how does that null anything? Sex has several purposes, we have agreed on this at one point. You don't have to have sex for all the reasons, just one of them. Having sex for both reproduction and pleasure, then later aborting, does NOT mean the reason you had sex was null and void. You had sex to get pregnant, you achieved this, you did reproduce. HOwever, circumstances have arose that mean you cannot carry a foetus to term; money, situation, health. Quote: They consent to the risk, and yes they do.
She consented to to her own rape!
Judge Western, residing over the gruesome case of the rape of Natalie Windfield today passed his judgement over the offender; Nathan Bells.
"She consented to go out with this man, she knew that he might require sex with her. She knew there were risks. She consented to sex because she consented to go to the cinema with Mr Bells, and knew that he might want sex afterwards. Therefore I cannot sentence this man to time in jail. Rape, by its very definition is an act against the body of one person, without their consent. However, Miss Windfield knew the risks she was taking and clearly consented to them; therefore it was not rape. Mr Bells had her consent."
Women's rights supporters and many charities that aid women who have been raped were mortified by the judgement.Hmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:26 pm
Quote: Allowing and accepting are two different things. And you are wrong. Is insuring your house against a break in accepting the possibility or allowing a person to break in? Yes, they are. And yes you are allowing them. How are you trying to STOP them praytell? You're just taking an initiative by insuring the house. Quote: Is using BC accepting the possibility of pregnancy or allowing yourself/your partner to become pregnant? Yessiree. Quote: If a person does not lock the house does that mean every Tom d**k and Harry should break in and no one can stop them? If a person does not use BC does that mean they cannot then terminate? Uh no, people can stop stop, as in to be able to stop them. But they do allow for people to break in. Why? Because they didn't lock the door. Now they suffer the consequence. Not using BC is a mistake on your own part. Not only does abortion cost more, you also open yourself to STDs and numerous other problems. Quote: How does it null the second person? Sex is for reproduction and pleasure, you said that. If you abort, how are you reproducing? Quote: Sex has several purposes, we have agreed on this at one point. You don't have to have sex for all the reasons, just one of them. Yes. But I believe you should acknowledge multiple things can arise from sex. Quote: Having sex for both reproduction and pleasure, then later aborting, does NOT mean the reason you had sex was null and void. You had sex to get pregnant, you achieved this, you did reproduce. HOwever, circ**stances have arose that mean you cannot carry a foetus to term; money, situation, health. I'm sorry, but unless you live in a world where being pregnant, and actually reproducing (as in, a crawling, breathing child) then you are just logically incorrect here. A child in the womb isn't a whole other contributor to society. It's still confined in the womb. When a species reproduces it does so to have the species continue. How is your species living if it's in the womb? Quote: New York Times She consented to to her own rape! Judge Western, residing over the gruesome case of the rape of Natalie Windfield today passed his judgement over the offender; Nathan Bells. "She consented to go out with this man, she knew that he might require sex with her. She knew there were risks. She consented to sex because she consented to go to the cinema with Mr Bells, and knew that he might want sex afterwards. Therefore I cannot sentence this man to time in jail. Rape, by its very definition is an act against the body of one person, without their consent. However, Miss Windfield knew the risks she was taking and clearly consented to them; therefore it was not rape. Mr Bells had her consent." Women's rights supporters and many charities that aid women who have been raped were mortified by the judgement. She did though. True or false, she could have avoided this all by not going out with him. True. She didn't consent to rape. She consented to the risk of it. The actual act of raping she did not want, but she was content enough that this man wouldn't lay a finger on her. You consent to all risks; just not the conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 9:57 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:06 pm
Wow. Okay, so I lurk in this guild quite a lot, reading through the posts, and this one actually got me to want to throw in my two cents, for once.
For myself, the statement that the topic-starter has made that I should never have sex because sex is only for reproduction? That's such a load of hooey. The reason I am pro-choice is because having had cancer 3 times, a host of rare disorders, and being on a shitton of medication daily to keep me alive, my doctors have said that pregnancy would not only be a great detriment to the fetus (my medications have shown to cause birth defects), but the pregnancy would likely kill me as well.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to spend my entire life not having sex because of that. I'm on VERY strong birth control (also for more diseases, yay), so my chance is very slim, but I know if it DID occur that I got pregnant there would be no pause in my mind of what needed to be done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:55 pm
Reinna Astarel So miscarriages are now considered manslaughter? Wow. eek By the way, I think bonobos also have sex for pleasure. *random fact* I wouldn't concider miscarriages as manslaughter seeing it's just something that happens at times, one of my moms friends had one cause she tripped down the stairs. So sometimes accidencts can happen or your body rejected it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:02 pm
sachiko_sohma Reinna Astarel So miscarriages are now considered manslaughter? Wow. eek By the way, I think bonobos also have sex for pleasure. *random fact* I wouldn't concider miscarriages as manslaughter seeing it's just something that happens at times, one of my moms friends had one cause she tripped down the stairs. So sometimes accidencts can happen or your body rejected it. i couldtn agree more 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
