Arguments that you hate

[Mera Hei]

I ask you to forgive what I'm about to say because it's currently being debated even in the PCG. However, I do find it to be an arguement worth ranting about while listening to a Finnish polka.
"It has human DNA/cells, so it MUST be a living human!"
No, not exactly.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't viruses enter the cells of humans? And this is where the "A piece of bread is still bread, so a fetus is still a person as it's part of the mother" arguement comes in. The virus is now a part of the cell, so it's a cell, no? Thus, the virus should not be killed.
What does this have to do with the arguement? Well, let's say I get cancer, a deadly mutation of the cells. The cells are a part of me, so they are, in a way, me, correct? Thus, I should not get chemotherapy to kill the cells, as it would be killing me.
So, if cancer is a a part of human DNA, it deserves a right to reproduce inside my body and kill me?

Just a thought. *knows she's gonna regret ever posting this*
EDIT: Finally spellchecked this. Note to self: try to get sleep to prevent misspellings and typos.  

[Akhakhu]

You are absolutely right. The logic that something that has human DNA must be human and therefore constitutionally protected is bunk since, as you say, every cell in my body has human DNA. Therefore, I am committing manslaughter every time I go outside into the sun.

However, I believe this particular take of the argument is only used by the ignorant who have heard the real argument used, thought it was a good argument, and tried to repeat it without really understanding what the argument was.

The real argument is that it has separate human DNA from the woman and is, therefore, a separate individual. The woman would, then, not have the right to abort under the pretext of "it's my body, it's my choice" because it would be a separate person's body involved. Which makes sense in a way. If I am drunk driving and crash my car and get injured, I will be charged for drunk driving. Nothing more. But if, when I crash, I harm someone else, my charge will be quite a bit greater.

However, this fails to consider the donor argument. No person has the right to use my body against my will, even if it's MY fault that the person needs my body in the first place. Going back to our drunk driver analogy, if I am the drunk driver and I hit you, and now you need a new lung and I am a perfect match, you have no legal right to take my spare lung from me. Even though it is MY fault that you need that lung in the first place. Even if my fault is even more direct (for example, I beat you with a baseball bat until you needed my blood in a transfusion), you would still have no right to use any part of my body without consent.

This also involves the "consent to sex is consent to pregnancy" argument. If you need a blood transfusion every day and I am your only possible match, I have the right to refuse - even if I have been donating to you every single day for ten years. Even if it means death to you, it is MY body and I cannot be forced to donate, or continue donating, any part of it against my will. If I remember correctly, even contracts that require the donation of body parts/blood/bone marrow are not legally binding because the donor can retract that donation at any time.

So the argument, really, has nothing to do with whether or not the fetus is a person and whether or not, as a person, the fetus should receive the same rights as the rest of us. The argument is really should a fetus receive MORE rights than any born person simply on the basis of its status as a gestational being.

If you follow my logic and agree with the scientific theory that, presently, only women between the ages of puberty and menopause are capable of pregnancy, the argument carries more with it than may or may not have been intended. Its obvious aim is to afford the fetus more rights than any born person is alotted. But its accompanying result is that women between the ages of puberty and menopause should be afforded FEWER rights than any other person being that their right to Bodily Integrity (which every person on the face of this planet is entitled to according to international law) would not be acknowledged.

If you follow my logic thus far, you would quickly come to the conclusion that being in favor of banning abortion is, in fact, being in favor of subjugating women, whether the people involved intend this consequence or not.  

[[ Z a d i i e ]]

Rabid pro-lifer

morning pill is not an emergency! It is NOT life threatening! And it's the womans fault for deciding to have sex the night before. (Don't even mention rape victims. WHen a woman is raped hormones that are needed to get pregnant are shut down.)Whatever happened to waiting for marrage?ANd how can you say "unwanted child"? You are so sick for muttering those words. And the abortion, it's the mothers fault for not planning. SO they should get a job and find shelter, and learn to take resposibility.

Any argument that includes
a) making up "scientific facts".
b) putting all blame on the woman
c) anything relating to religion (Sorry, when debating politics - religion has absolutely NO place).  

[SterileNeedles]

Let's see...One time my bf was playing the devil's advocate and took the pro-life side for fun and we debated about it. I hated the arguement where he just kept saying, "It's murder, it's murder, it's murder!!!" xP "Nothing can condone the fact that you are murdering a seperate human being blah blah."

I understand where lifers are coming from though when they say that, which is basically what my bf was trying to convey to me. They actually do think it is murder and think that said murderers should be punished for their crimes. His mother used to be pro-choice. She got pregnant way back in her 20s and her boyfriend then just told her to get an abortion so she did thinking it would make everything all better or something. I guess someone showed her what an aborted fetus looks like (not sure if it was propaganda or an actual fetus though) and now she hates herself and thinks that she's a murderer. She eventually broke up with that guy and met the man of her dreams and had two kids with him which is my boyfriend and her younger son.

I've debated with her about it before and she says, "How can you kill something that is so full of life? I remember when I was pregnant with Conor and I'd turn on the radio and I could feel him kicking me inside. It was so beautiful and it was the most wonderful feeling I ever had."

But then of course I argued back with a story about my aunt. My aunt got raped when she was about 18. She got pregnant and couldn't go through with having a child at that time, especially one from her rapist. She told me that she could not have that child because she knew that every time it kicked her inside she would probably get closer and closer to killing herself because all she could think about was the horrible things that happened to her.

I wish though that his mom would actually tell me herself that she got an abortion and all that so that I can point out to her that if she didn't get that abortion she never would have met the man of her dreams and wouldn't have the two beautiful children that she does today. (she didn't tell me, my bf did to explain why she was so ridiculously pro-life. She makes no exceptions either, not for rape or for medical reasons.) Sorry it's kind of long so I shrank the text. ^^;

I don't agree with what lifers are saying but I understand how they feel. However my favorite comeback to my least favorite arguement of "It's murder because it is a seperate human being." is of course, "If it is it's own human being then it has no right to leech off of the mother's body and use it for survival because no seperate human being has the right to use another person's body for their own survival. i.e. They cannot force someone to donate a kidney or bone marrow to save the life of another." 3nodding  

[GreenSouthpaw]

"It's not your body; it's the baby's".

Aside from the fact that it's not a baby , it is the woman's body it requires to remain alive. If there was a way that a woman's bodily integrity didn't have to be compromised by carrying a life she'd rather didn't exist - not because she "chose to have sex i.e., it's her fault and no one else's that she's pregnant", but because she's unable to support a child and has no intention of becoming a mother - then by all means, take that baby that she doesn't want, and put it in your own belly. But she doesn't want it, and she oughtn't be forced to carry it, because it is her body, not that of its father's, not that of the fetus's. It's the woman's body and it should be treated with the same respect as a man's - or an unborn fetus's.

 

[oODigital GlowOo]

Pro-life "If she got pregnat she is a whore, and deserves what happned to her!"

....uh....hello *waves hand* I had sex with one person before I got pregant. But yeah I'm a whore right? Alright, sure...but if I'm the whore...man..i would hate to see what you call the phyco nun an dyour pimpin 70 year old preist..who not once, but TWICE, got sister knocked up because "condoms are unholy" I guess and they got an abortion....I would love to hear what you call them ^_^

PL "There are 2 million couples waiting to adopt in the US. You don't want your baby give it to someone who will love it more then you!"

....right...well...ya see...there are close to 2 mill couples looking to adopt, however, in the US ALONE there are over 3 mill children who need homes. Couples you are talking about want BABIES! And not just any baby, no, they want their meat popcial with placenta on it and in their skin tone. Basicly, they want it young and not of a diferent race, so it is less work on them.

There are children who need love. Who's parents had them and where never fit to raise or care for a child.

You want the two million couples to have a child to love. FINE! They want a kid to love so bad, go tell the white christain Jones down the street to take in the poor 13 year old asian boy whos dad abuse dhim and his mother ran off. Tell the black familt to take in the 10 year old white girl who's mother and dad have a drug problem so bad, their family wants nothign to do with them or their kid.

Sorry, but if a person can't honestly give love to a child who isn't theirs just because their not a buddle of cooing and dirrty dipers, or not the same colored skin, I don't see why anyone would give them a child in the first place.  

[Spicey Cognac]

Freedom Fire

I once read on a Bible website that even if a pregnancy puts a woman in danger, she shouldn't have an abortion because "God will take care of her." rolleyes

You'd think they'd apply that to the fetus or something...

Everyone's covered what I wanted to say, but probably the two I REALLY hate are these:

"Just use contraception!"
Contraceptions fail, dumbass! Didn't you read the little warning on the box that says it's not 100% effective? Only abstinence is 100% effective against pregnancy.

"She should just use birth control pills."
Personally, I think the birth control pill should be banned, but then again all perscription drugs (even over-the-counter drugs although it depends more on usage) carry the side effect of killing you. The side effects are not worth it. Women on the pill can get very sick just from usage, and you can still get pregnant with birth control; you'll just likely have a miscarriage. I hate people who say that with the ignorance that stroke is a side effect to birth control, or who say it despite the side effect. Not only that, but it seems contradictive to say, "Avoid the pregnancy, but if it happens you have to go through with it." I don't see a monumental difference between an egg and a fertilized egg.  

[Prinsesse Maggie]

Faith Burns

"She should just use birth control."
Personally, I think birth control should be banned, but then again all perscription drugs (even over-the-counter drugs although it depends more on usage) carry the side effect of killing you. The side effects are not worth it. Women on the pill can get very sick just from usage, and you can still get pregnant with birth control; you'll just likely have a miscarriage.

I'm assuming that you are using "birth control" to mean the pill specifically, rather than the numerous types of birth control available.

Are you saying that the pill should be banned because it has side effects that include sickness and death? Why would this not be a decision between the woman and her doctor? A lot of women are very happy on the pill, and it is my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) that risk of death is not any greater unless you are a smoker or have a medical condition that could be aggravated.  

[Spicey Cognac]

adabyron

Faith Burns

"She should just use birth control."
Personally, I think birth control should be banned, but then again all perscription drugs (even over-the-counter drugs although it depends more on usage) carry the side effect of killing you. The side effects are not worth it. Women on the pill can get very sick just from usage, and you can still get pregnant with birth control; you'll just likely have a miscarriage.

I'm assuming that you are using "birth control" to mean the pill specifically, rather than the numerous types of birth control available.

Are you saying that the pill should be banned because it has side effects that include sickness and death? Why would this not be a decision between the woman and her doctor? A lot of women are very happy on the pill, and it is my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) that risk of death is not any greater unless you are a smoker or have a medical condition that could be aggravated.

I bolded the word pill in case you didn't catch it.

Obviously it's the woman's choice if she wants to use the birth control pill. I know many women use it to regulate their periods, especially if they have painful cramps... but ugh...

FAQs About Hormonal Birth Control

Less Common Serious Health Complications

* Blood clots in legs, lungs, heart or brain
* Stroke
* Liver tumors (rare)
* Heart attacks
* Gallstones (rare)
* Jaundice (rare)
* Possibly cervical cancer

I don't think it's worth it. I have a few friends who use it, but I personally never would, even though I have very irregular periods (up to six months between cycles). I just hate it when people say, "Just use the pill," like there are no serious health risks.  

[Prinsesse Maggie]

Faith Burns

I bolded the word pill in case you didn't catch it.

I saw it. I also saw you using "birth control" as if it were synonymous, which was confusing.

Faith Burns

Obviously it's the woman's choice if she wants to use the birth control pill.

It is not obvious that you believe that when you also say

Faith Burns

Personally, I think birth control should be banned

I'm glad we agree.  

[Akhakhu]

Faith Burns

Obviously it's the woman's choice if she wants to use the birth control pill. I know many women use it to regulate their periods, especially if they have painful cramps... but ugh...

What "side-effects"? I've been on the pill for about five years now. I've never been sick from it. I've never died. I am perfectly fine. There is a slight increase in risk for things like blood clots and blood pressure, but the risks are fairly small. And the pill is MORE effective at preventing pregnancy than condoms, FIY.

What medication I take is between me and my doctor, thank you very much.

Faith Burns

I don't think it's worth it. I have a few friends who use it, but I personally never would, even though I have very irregular periods (up to six months between cycles). I just hate it when people say, "Just use the pill," like there are no serious health risks.

Do you have any idea how LOW the chances of those risks are? You are more likely to get hit by a car if you leave your home than to experience any of those. Is going outside "not worth the risks"?  

[Spicey Cognac]

adabyron

Faith Burns

Obviously it's the woman's choice if she wants to use the birth control pill.

It is not obvious that you believe that when you also say

Faith Burns

Personally, I think birth control should be banned

I fixed it to make it less confusing. In my area, "birth control" automatically means the pill, so sometimes I forget.

Kukushka

What "side-effects"? I've been on the pill for about five years now. I've never been sick from it. I've never died. I am perfectly fine. There is a slight increase in risk for things like blood clots and blood pressure, but the risks are fairly small. And the pill is MORE effective at preventing pregnancy than condoms, FIY.

What medication I take is between me and my doctor, thank you very much.

The serious side affects are stated above. I'm not asking what your doctor perscribes you.

The pill made my mother sick. She got pregnant twice on the pill (and never with condoms) and had two miscarriages because she was on the pill while she got pregnant. She had to quick because of how ill it made her feel. People react differently to different drugs, as humans are very idiosyncratic; you may feel fine and another woman may not.

Kukushka

Do you have any idea how LOW the chances of those risks are? You are more likely to get hit by a car if you leave your home than to experience any of those. Is going outside "not worth the risks"?

They're high enough for me not to take them. I choose not to; that's my choice. You choose to; that's your choice. Condoms have never failed me, so I find those a lot easier and safer overall. If they do fail, I can have an abortion, remember? I'm not attacking your choice. I merely think birth control pills are an unnecessary risk as opposed to condoms and diaphragms and other methods of birth control that don't have hormonal and serious health risks.  

[Akhakhu]

Faith Burns

The pill made my mother sick.

Some people react badly to it, yes. That's why doctors ask that you come in for a physical before you start taking it, and then again after you've been taking it a couple months. If she was one of the people who reacted badly with it, she should have stopped taking it.

Faith Burns

She got pregnant twice on the pill (and never with condoms) and had two miscarriages because she was on the pill while she got pregnant.

Was she taking the pill regularly every day (at the same time of day)? Was she taking antibiotics while on it? There are some things, such as these, that can reduce the effectiveness. And honestly, if it was making her sick, why did she wait for TWO pregnancies before she tried a different method of birth control?

Faith Burns

She had to quick because of how ill it made her feel.

Good. I'm surprised she waited as long. When I was on anti-depressants (which, by the way, also make many people very sick but also save lives), I waited a full week before I went back and asked to try a different brand. It gave me headaches. If you react badly, don't stay on it.

Faith Burns

People react differently to different drugs, as humans are very idiosyncratic; you may feel fine and another woman may not.

Right. So if you react badly, don't take it. But just because a minority of women react badly does NOT mean that it should be banned. ALL medication comes with a risk of side-effects. If we banned everything that might make some people feel sick or not work on some people, we'd all be dying from the plague or infections or the flu.

Faith Burns

They're high enough for me not to take them. I choose not to; that's my choice.

Please quote for me where I said that you should have to take them.

Thank you.

Now I will remind you that you said that they should be BANNED because you feel that the risks are too high. You are trying to take away MY choice to take them (and I'm sorry, but I am very happy with them).

Faith Burns

Condoms have never failed me, so I find those a lot easier and safer overall.

I use both. I don't like to take chances.

Faith Burns

I'm not attacking your choice.

You said they should be banned. That's attacking my choice.

Faith Burns

I merely think birth control pills are an unnecessary risk as opposed to condoms and diaphragms and other methods of birth control that don't have hormonal and serious health risks.

You need to get yourself informed. Condoms DO carry serious health risks for people who react badly to them - same as the pill. People with latex allergies (not very uncommon) may react VERY badly to condoms. However, they are fine for most people, therefore we shouldn't ban them. Same as the pill. Many people are perfectly fine using the pill and it is not your say to force them to choose a different birth control method simply because you choose not to use them yourself.  

[Spicey Cognac]

Kukushka, I'm informing you right now if you continue to respond to sentences or fragments of, I will completely ignore any post you have for the rest of the duration I will be on Gaia. That is not how you debate. You react to what someone is saying in whole, not pick apart every little sentence and twist it into what you want it to be. My original quote was:

Quote:

Personally, I think the birth control pill should be banned, but then again all prescription drugs (even over-the-counter drugs although it depends more on usage) carry the side effect of killing you.

I would hope this would tell you that I'm not overtly passionate on the subject as the sentence is followed by a statement that is nonchalant about the topic. If someone says, "I beat the crap out of a puppy, but it was an actually a stuffed animal," you can't take their first statement and persecute them for it unless you're responding the entire idea. You're taking it too far for a sentence that was not carried out with an iron will nor was addressed in a ground-breaking manner by myself.

My mother is a nurse--well aware of all things following taking birth control pills, and for the record, states birth control pills are not as effective at preventing pregnancy as condoms and diaphragms--and I personally am not comfortable going into the details of why she was on the pill, for how long, and other unnecessary facts. I think having an allergic reaction to something is less severe than the ongoing chance of a heart attack or stroke, although doctors did stop using latex gloves for this reason so obviously it should be met with caution. Like I said, all prescription drugs carry the side effect of death because of how they change and manipulate human bodies, and as someone who works in the medical field with her family, I see the effects of those drugs more often than an average person. However it should be obvious I am not on a crusade to rid the world of prescription drugs; I stated that I understood the reasons why women take the pill and made it clear why I think birth control pills are unnecessary. Considering the nature of my original statement, I don't think it's necessary to go any further into the topic. You have my opinion, and there's no more reason to discuss it. In the future, I will be happy to repond to your posts when your arguments address the entirety of the post and a basic understanding between both parties can be made, but until then I have no interest in continuing.  

[SKJC]

Faith Burns

My mother is a nurse--well aware of all things following taking birth control pills, and for the record, states birth control pills are not as effective at preventing pregnancy as condoms and diaphragms

Safety and all other factors not withstanding, the majority of the medical profession says your mother is wrong.

Edited to add: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/effectiveness.htm

I don't really care your personal opinion on prescription drugs - I take a ******** of them and they improve my life a LOT more than the side effects suck. I suck down a dozen pills a day prescribed by a gyno, a psychiatrist, and a GP and I'd be a mess without them, so I think your opinion is a load of s**t, but you're welcome to it as much as anyone else - but I just hate it when someone's argument is "Well, my mom/dad is an *insert profession*..." My father's a loadmaster on cargo planes, but if I tried to do weights and balances, some flights would fall out of the sky.