|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:59 pm
WatersMoon110 I disagree, I find that it is often amazing if you are with someone who knows what they are doing. But that is just my personal experience, and of course your's has differed. Really it is a matter of opinion, genetics, and partner(s), I would say. Oral sex, yes. Vaginal sex, I'd rather just use a nice d***o and avoid the possibility of unwanted sperm up there. I'm sure guys would disagree, but that's tough. 3nodding
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:00 pm
FreeArsenal WatersMoon110 Almost all human actions have either physical or emotional pleasure as a goal. Making another happy/safe/full/etc. does often bring about emotional satifaction. And really, any and all weight you put on any given action is just a matter of your personal opinion. To say that one action is by nature "better" than another is making a judgement call which means that it is relative to you. And so others most likely would rate these options differently. By nature huh? You really think you can make the call of the difference between opinion and what you really feel? There is no difference between one's opinion and how one feels on a matter. If that is what you were saying. I was attempting to say that someone's opinion that a certain action is "better" (or "worse") that another certain action is not a universal truth, and there are likely people who would state such actions in an opposite way. I don't think that was any clearer though. I can't seem to express this in any less complex way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:06 pm
WatersMoon110 There is no difference between one's opinion and how one feels on a matter. If that is what you were saying. I was attempting to say that someone's opinion that a certain action is "better" (or "worse") that another certain action is not a universal truth, and there are likely people who would state such actions in an opposite way. I don't think that was any clearer though. I can't seem to express this in any less complex way. There is a difference between what we say and what we feel, no matter how we try to phrase it. A difference upon actions, one being better than another... try thinking of exactly what you're saying, that every interpretation of an action is nothing more than an opinion, well that may not be what you mean, but that's what I'm seeing. An action is an action, good or bad, it's still an action. Compare actions, are those "self-serving" actions harming anyone? For those who don't believe that the developing cells within the womb is human, it's no harm. But really think of the implications here... it's only not harming anyone else because of the fact it is "said" not to be human. A simple belief, in disregard to biological factors... states it is not human. Meh... nevermind, disregard my last paragraph, I really don't have time to drag this out right now, perhaps in a few months.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:06 pm
FreeArsenal La Veuve Zin Yes, and basically, the reason you can't argue whether consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy is because with abortion as an option, it isn't, and without that option, it is. So it's really a moot point in this whole debate. What about the consent to the possibility to actually create another being? Or to the creation of a unique DNA that tries to thrive? Ah, I see your point. That's true, it's a possibility, and your only options from there are to kill it or let it live, but that still isn't really a reason why killing a fetus is wrong. Sort of like if you move out to the country you might get deer eating your plants, but just because it was your choice to move there doesn't make shooting those deer wrong. Where I live, in the suburbs you get a lot of people complaining about deer in their yards. Hey retard, you knew the deer were there, and you chose to move, so stfu. rolleyes /tangent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:08 pm
La Veuve Zin Ah, I see your point. That's true, it's a possibility, and your only options from there are to kill it or let it live, but that still isn't really a reason why killing a fetus is wrong. I always find people claiming the fetus isn't human, or isn't a person. I can never understand why... Well... I guess I'll never know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:12 pm
FreeArsenal La Veuve Zin Ah, I see your point. That's true, it's a possibility, and your only options from there are to kill it or let it live, but that still isn't really a reason why killing a fetus is wrong. I always find people claiming the fetus isn't human, or isn't a person. I can never understand why... Well... I guess I'll never know. Anyone who claims that a fetus isn't human is very mistaken. Which is a (small) part of the reason I have started using "unborn human" instead. But "person" can mean more, or less than just "human" and an unborn human doesn't fit into all of the definitions of this term. For me, something must be able to hold an intelligent converstation with me to fit into my personal definition for the term "person" and an unborn human cannot. But since just about everyone has a different definition for this term, it's hard to claim that an unborn human should always (or never) be considered a person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:18 pm
FreeArsenal WatersMoon110 There is no difference between one's opinion and how one feels on a matter. If that is what you were saying. I was attempting to say that someone's opinion that a certain action is "better" (or "worse") that another certain action is not a universal truth, and there are likely people who would state such actions in an opposite way. I don't think that was any clearer though. I can't seem to express this in any less complex way. There is a difference between what we say and what we feel, no matter how we try to phrase it. A difference upon actions, one being better than another... try thinking of exactly what you're saying, that every interpretation of an action is nothing more than an opinion, well that may not be what you mean, but that's what I'm seeing. An action is an action, good or bad, it's still an action. Compare actions, are those "self-serving" actions harming anyone? For those who don't believe that the developing cells within the womb is human, it's no harm. But really think of the implications here... it's only not harming anyone else because of the fact it is "said" not to be human. A simple belief, in disregard to biological factors... states it is not human. Meh... nevermind, disregard my last paragraph, I really don't have time to drag this out right now, perhaps in a few months. If we could communicate our feelings more precisely, things would be drastically different. *smile* Well yes, one could state that an action which harms no humans is in and of itself "better" than an action which harms a human. But it's still a personal opinion. Another might state differently, and from their point of view, they would be correct. When it comes to anything (action, movie, person, political party, color) being "better" than anything else, all views on this matter are relative. I think that if you believe that abortion is always or often or sometimes or never "wrong" and "bad" then it is for you. But I don't believe that this can be stated to be always true for everyone, as it is an opinion on the matter. Did that make any more sense? I'm not trying to say that you are wrong. I'm trying (in my little muddled way) to say that while your opinion is perfectly valid for you, everyone won't and doesn't always agree with it, especially when it comes to matters of "better" or "worse".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:26 pm
WatersMoon110 Tiger of the Fire WatersMoon110 That isn't true. That human might not have been able to control how it came to be using the woman's body, but obviously if she were consenting to it being there, she wouldn't be (think of) getting an abortion (unless it was for health reasons which is really a different matter all together). In other words, the child had no controle over the mothers having sex and then its comig to being. The mother did not consent to the child's existence but did consent to the act that brought about it's existence. Unless the woman was raped, you just made an "I consented to sex, but not pregnancy" argument. The second argument I used was pointing out the commonnly ajoining argument that many choicers try to throw out there right after mackign the consent to sex argument. I never said you actualy made that argument. Sorry that went over your head. Mabye if I had pointed it out you wouldn't have your self all in a knot over it. You see, that is where our opinoins differ. As far as I'm concerned, consenting to sex IS consenting to pregency (which i already stated and you eithe rmissed or ignored) since one thing leads to another in a coarse of events. Conseinting to sex is consenting to pregnency. Obtainign an abortion after finding your self to be pregnant is, as far as I'm concerned, nothing short of irrisponcibility and inhumanity. Simply beacuse you ar ein an unwanted state of being, dosn't necesarily mean you didn't consent to it. Beyond your second post about personhood (which i did answer) you asked no questions, only made statements. I didn't say you didn't answer my (non-existant) questions. I said that your post in no way answered my post. And even if consent to sex is consent to pregnancy (or at least, as I would hold, the possibility of pregnancy) that isn't direct consent of the unborn human living in the woman's body, which is still the only thing that I challanged. You can't say that the woman consented to have an unborn human live inside her, because she didn't. I have not said anything about this consent, or lack of consent, abling the woman to get, or not get, any sort of medical procedure. I have not said anything about personhood (in this line of responses). All I have said is that the woman did not consent to having an unborn human inside her. And I will continue to state this. An unwantedly pregnant woman, that is any woman who is pregnant and doesn't wish to be, has not agreed (or consented) to have an unborn human inside her. If she had consented, she would not be UNWANTEDLY pregnant. As i said, that is all nothign more then opinion. State it for as long and as hard as oyu wish. She consented to sex, which is as far as I'm concerned consenting to the outcomes, be they good or bad, wanted or unwanted. She may not agree with them, but by consenting to sex she indirectly consented to them. She may not want to be pregnant, but she participated in an act that brought about the creation of another human being. The only act known to man that can actualy naturaly create a human being and sustain it's existence. I'll say it again, whether or not she wants to keep this human as her own is irrilevent. Wether or not she wants to be pregnant is irrelevent. She concented to the sex, so she consented to what sex can creat. Beyond this, denighing pregnency because oyu wanted your one good dicking, is nothign short of irrisponsibility. You looked at an act that you knew had certain outcomes and participate din the act and then refused to take responsibility when these acts came to frutation. Simply saying that the child dosn't have the right to be there, when it's creation could hardley come about any other way any hwere else, when this is how humans come to be and grow and enter the world we know, when this is an act of nature that occures only form the act of sex (Unless your a amoeba or somethign similer), simply becuase she dosn't want him there is irrelevent. Her "bodily integrity" does not trump the life of the unbron child. It is discriminating against a human being simply because YOU don't see them as persons, it is tackgin a life simply because YOU say they don't have a right to live where they are now when in fact they have every human right to exist because their creation and where it happens is a time proven act of nature. Their existence and growth of deleopment (at this point in time) can come about in no other place other then woman's uterous. Her right to comfertability, her "bodily integerity" was forfeited the moment she agreed to allow a d**k to slid inside her. Process of actions. One thing leads to another. Sex leads to pregnency, wanted or unwanted. "Bodily Integrity" is comprimised th emoment she spread sher legs and lets who ever is ontop of her (behind, what ever)in. I'm tired of debating choicers in the lifer guild. I cant ban you. I would have long before now if I could, i can how ever ask that you not post in my threads form now on any where on gaia. If Mcphee or the other mods have problem with it i ask they discuss it with me in PMs. I'm just so ******** tired of having to defend my self in my own home, and tired of seeing my hom mates challanged in their home. I've stood by and took about as much as I can. i can't do it any more. I have nothign personle agianst waters or chat beyond the fact the support and condone the genocide of millions of humans and discriminate against these humans simply because they don't share thier intelligence. The probelm I have is the princible of the subject. We have CHOICERS in the pro-life guild. If oyu want to debate with us, we have a debate guild. If oyu want to get to know us, we have an allience guild. There is no point for any of you to be here. And now I'm going on a long over due hiatus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:55 am
WatersMoon110 FreeArsenal La Veuve Zin Ah, I see your point. That's true, it's a possibility, and your only options from there are to kill it or let it live, but that still isn't really a reason why killing a fetus is wrong. I always find people claiming the fetus isn't human, or isn't a person. I can never understand why... Well... I guess I'll never know. Anyone who claims that a fetus isn't human is very mistaken. Which is a (small) part of the reason I have started using "unborn human" instead. But "person" can mean more, or less than just "human" and an unborn human doesn't fit into all of the definitions of this term. For me, something must be able to hold an intelligent converstation with me to fit into my personal definition for the term "person" and an unborn human cannot. But since just about everyone has a different definition for this term, it's hard to claim that an unborn human should always (or never) be considered a person. In your own words alone you have prooved how "personhood" is a tool of discrimination. The unborn are humans to you, but not people. Why? They don't fit your requriments that merit personhood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:55 am
WatersMoon110 For me, something must be able to hold an intelligent converstation with me to fit into my personal definition for the term "person" and an unborn human cannot. But since just about everyone has a different definition for this term, it's hard to claim that an unborn human should always (or never) be considered a person. The disabled, the mentally retarded, the babies, children, and the comatose can't give intelligent conversation either, does this mean they are also not people? I can say that intelligent conversation could mean many things, so please elaborate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:16 am
FreeArsenal La Veuve Zin Ah, I see your point. That's true, it's a possibility, and your only options from there are to kill it or let it live, but that still isn't really a reason why killing a fetus is wrong. I always find people claiming the fetus isn't human, or isn't a person. I can never understand why... Well... I guess I'll never know. Human, obviously. It grows into a human, so it's human. That's not a matter of opinion. Personhood, though, is. Whether fetuses, children, humans with brown skin, humans with low IQs or humans who've lost the ability to maintain homeostasis without medical intervention are considered people is up to the government that grants them rights based on their personhood. If it were legal to kill adult persons, it wouldn't matter whether a fetus was a person or not, because granting them personhood would be meaningless in that respect. Not sure how easy that was to follow... sweatdrop Thing is, until a certain point, fetuses aren't sentient, can't feel pain and must be attached to another human being to survive. So it's really not ludicrous to classify them as not persons yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:59 am
La Veuve Zin Human, obviously. It grows into a human, so it's human. That's not a matter of opinion. Personhood, though, is. Whether fetuses, children, humans with brown skin, humans with low IQs or humans who've lost the ability to maintain homeostasis without medical intervention are considered people is up to the government that grants them rights based on their personhood. If it were legal to kill adult persons, it wouldn't matter whether a fetus was a person or not, because granting them personhood would be meaningless in that respect. Not sure how easy that was to follow... sweatdrop Thing is, until a certain point, fetuses aren't sentient, can't feel pain and must be attached to another human being to survive. So it's really not ludicrous to classify them as not persons yet. Personhood... though... as it is a definition. I feel there are too many gray areas if you define it like that... because there are people who may be setient but can't stand up and communicate, like a person with stroke, the brain works, but you can't see any sign of intelligence because he or she can't move. Or a comatose... Even if a fetus must rely on another human, so do babies... As for the fetus being setient... how can we really say what is setient and what isn't? Do we then say that newborns can't feel because they do not know what feelings is? Just elaborate on where you draw your lines, maybe I'll understand what you mean. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 3:56 pm
Oh I get it. Let's tell every woman who's ever lost a child to miscarriage or premature birth that she lost nothing but tissue. She didn't have a baby and instead of being upset she should get over it, because really, she didn't lose anything except an optional burden. That's such bullshit. Quote: acknowledging that these babies have been born alive, and having to register the births, causes unnecessary suffering to mothers who wanted an abortion. It will say that babies born below 22 weeks are “pre-viable” and not capable of life. Oh ******** wow. I'm with Miranda. If they feel guilty about it because others treat these humans like people and not like throwaway tissue, then they freaking should have never had an abortion because they obviously aren't comfortable with the idea of an abortion that late. If this is what happens, then you damn well better believe I will not hold back from telling every person who agrees with this and has an abortion, "Oh, that's nice, you killed your child," because hey, if they're allowed to force THEIR views of personhood on other people, then I'm sure as hell forcing my views on them. They can't be content to say, we both have different views on this. Let these parents choose to honor their unborn as a child and let us choose to call it tissue. No, no, no, because then they might feel freaking GUILTY. Well too. ********. Bad. If you feel guilty about aborting at 22 weeks because someone else decides to call it a child, you aren't feeling guilty because of the other person's beliefs. You're feeling guilty because you believe it too. It's not like someone's saying, you killed your child, it's like someone's saying, my child died, and that fetus happened to be the same age as the one you aborted. <******** grow up and respect other people's beliefs, and if you can't do that, don't expect other people to give you the courtesy of letting you decide what your own choices mean to you. If you can't respect choice, then don't ******** wear the banner Pro-Choice, because you aren't. You're Pro-MyChoice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:06 am
lymelady Oh I get it. Let's tell every woman who's ever lost a child to miscarriage or premature birth that she lost nothing but tissue. She didn't have a baby and instead of being upset she should get over it, because really, she didn't lose anything except an optional burden. That's such bullshit. Quote: acknowledging that these babies have been born alive, and having to register the births, causes unnecessary suffering to mothers who wanted an abortion. It will say that babies born below 22 weeks are “pre-viable” and not capable of life. Oh ******** wow. I'm with Miranda. If they feel guilty about it because others treat these humans like people and not like throwaway tissue, then they freaking should have never had an abortion because they obviously aren't comfortable with the idea of an abortion that late. If this is what happens, then you damn well better believe I will not hold back from telling every person who agrees with this and has an abortion, "Oh, that's nice, you killed your child," because hey, if they're allowed to force THEIR views of personhood on other people, then I'm sure as hell forcing my views on them. They can't be content to say, we both have different views on this. Let these parents choose to honor their unborn as a child and let us choose to call it tissue. No, no, no, because then they might feel freaking GUILTY. Well too. ********. Bad. If you feel guilty about aborting at 22 weeks because someone else decides to call it a child, you aren't feeling guilty because of the other person's beliefs. You're feeling guilty because you believe it too. It's not like someone's saying, you killed your child, it's like someone's saying, my child died, and that fetus happened to be the same age as the one you aborted. <******** grow up and respect other people's beliefs, and if you can't do that, don't expect other people to give you the courtesy of letting you decide what your own choices mean to you. If you can't respect choice, then don't ******** wear the banner Pro-Choice, because you aren't. You're Pro-MyChoice. Hey, calm down. Who says they'll feel guilty?Maybe it's sick, or wrong, or whatever, but maybe there are some people who grieve easier without having their foetus officially identified as a person. If it makes someone feel a bit better, I say: by all means. If someone doesn't want a birth certificate for their miscarried child, fair dos. Saying that, they shouldn't say they can't have a birth certificate for a child before 22 weeks. If someone really wants a certificate, why not let them have one? Anyway, I don't see why everyone's jumped on this so much. It's only a suggestion from a University, isn't it? It's very, very unlikely that it will be made a law. It's only a suggestion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:19 pm
I'm not going to calm down.
If someone said, "We're not going to call your mother a person, even though you believe she is, because then people who euthenized their disabled mothers might feel guilty," how would you feel? "Oh sure, my mother's not a person, don't count her as one because then someone else might feel guilty."
I hope not.
If my baby was born and died at 20 weeks, I would want a birth certificate. If I miscarried at 20 weeks, I would want to have people not say to me, "Well get over it because it's not a person." Screw that. I am not calming down. It is insane to say, "No birth certificates because it might make other women feel bad."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
