|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:24 pm
WatersMoon110 xalisae Unborn children do need you to survive though. Heaven forbid someone look at this from someone else's point of view rather than always entirely the mother's. Unborn humans don't have a point of view. A better choice of words would have been "look at the welfare of someone other than the woman". Because unborn humans are not aware that they exist, or that they are going to be born or aborted. Really, the main difference between being Pro-Choice and being Pro-Life is that Pro-Choicers see the woman involved as needing to be protected, and Pro-Lifers see the unborn human involved as needing to be protected. Telling a Pro-Choicer to "think of the unborn human" is like telling a Pro-Lifer to "think of the woman". Not only does it not work, but it is hardly even considered, because it involves the human that the person of that side sees as needing to be protected less. If that makes any sense. No offence hun, but I'm gunna have to call bullshit on that one. Telling a pro-lifer to look at it form the motehrs point of view isnt not goign to be concidered. We concidered it, and we think the choice to electivly abort is not a wise one. e dont feel the woman needs to be protected less, because 8 times out of ten she is only aborting because she dosnt want a kid or because she has been lead to beleive it will ruin her life. Many many pro-lifers will agree that should the pregnancy indanger the owman's life, it may be best to terminate. So please, dont use such an analogy. Its flawed and it dosnt work and its spreading a false message.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:42 pm
Tiger of the Fire WatersMoon110 xalisae Unborn children do need you to survive though. Heaven forbid someone look at this from someone else's point of view rather than always entirely the mother's. Unborn humans don't have a point of view. A better choice of words would have been "look at the welfare of someone other than the woman". Because unborn humans are not aware that they exist, or that they are going to be born or aborted. Really, the main difference between being Pro-Choice and being Pro-Life is that Pro-Choicers see the woman involved as needing to be protected, and Pro-Lifers see the unborn human involved as needing to be protected. Telling a Pro-Choicer to "think of the unborn human" is like telling a Pro-Lifer to "think of the woman". Not only does it not work, but it is hardly even considered, because it involves the human that the person of that side sees as needing to be protected less. If that makes any sense. No offence hun, but I'm gunna have to call bullshit on that one. Telling a pro-lifer to look at it form the motehrs point of view isnt not goign to be concidered. We concidered it, and we think the choice to electivly abort is not a wise one. e dont feel the woman needs to be protected less, because 8 times out of ten she is only aborting because she dosnt want a kid or because she has been lead to beleive it will ruin her life. Many many pro-lifers will agree that should the pregnancy indanger the owman's life, it may be best to terminate. So please, dont use such an analogy. Its flawed and it dosnt work and its spreading a false message.
If you call Waters, jabberwock, rinaqa or any female 'hun' ever again in that tone, I am going to beat the ever loving s**t out of you.
Her analogy is flawed to the very least, but yours is so much more.
pro lifers do indeed mainly take the veiw of the fetus more so then the womans only because they feel it is murder to have an abortion, no matter what the mother may want or feel.
You do not take the point of veiw of another into thought when you deny them the ability to do something of their own choice that affects their only life/health, because it does not fit YOUR ideology, infact that is called 'ignoreing their needs'.
If you were to take the veiw of the mother into thought and that of the fetus in the topic, you'd be called 'politically pro choice, personally pro life', but I don't see that in you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:58 pm
First: You dont knwo us, dont pretend to. You dont know me, or any of the lifers here.
Second: SImple because its not a consideration to the same standards as yours, dosn't mean its not a consideration. Those are YOUR VIEWS, take into accoutn that not every one shares them or agrees with them. Think of what you just said? "YOUR Idealogy." My ideology and your ideaology are completly diffrent. Your ideology is not the only one out there. Your ideaology as well as mine are based purley on our personal opinoins, so neither one is right, and neither one is wrong. I'm saying that your ideology does not out wheigh mine, and can not be used to say mine is untrue. I am the decider of what I think and feel and beleive, not you. You are not, and never will be in a position to tell me that my beliefe on this subject is factualy wrong.
Third: This is your first and only warning. If you ever speak to any one in this forum like that ever again you will be banned. This is a forum for CIVIL discussion, not empty threats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:45 pm
Alright, both of you calm down.
Hun is not alway a derogatory thing, and actually it's something that I say to people all the time as well as am referred to as 'Hun' all the time. It's a personal thing. I take it from your response Trite that you would not appreciate being referred to as 'Hun' and thus we'll all make a note not to. However if Waters has a problem with how Pyro addresses her she can take that up with him.
Please refrain from threatening anyone, whether it's ernest or not it's not acceptable. The point of this subforum is for civil discussion.
Pyro, calm down. She was obviously offended, though threatening is definitely not the way to go we all lash out in anger sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:06 pm
Basic psycology; 'Hun' used by people in disagreement is used as a condensending sexist way to say 'your better then the other person'.
and you used it just in that way, don't even disagree.
Maybe I should call you egotistical sexist b*****d, sounds good to me.
I don't care if I don't know you, I don't even wish to, but if you do something I see deragatory to me or others I know, I will take offense easily.
Cry jabberwock pyro cry jabberwock, because I won't talk to anyone else, lifers inculded in the forum like that, other then you pyro.
ha, be honored that you bring such disgust to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:13 pm
Oh, but I do disagree. Jabber disagrees, and I know waters owuld too. Because oyu are not me, you do not know how or in what way I use words or intend to use them. Your way is not the only way of seeing things.
And mabey I shoudl call you banned. I'm not the egotistical one here. I'm just here to keep discussion civil.
Your views arnt the only views. Jumping to conclusions about what is and is not offensive is aimless.
The point of this forum is civil discussion between lifers and choicers, by joining this guild to enter the discussion you agreed to, no matter what, voice your self in a civil manner. You have shown your self incapable of that. Good bye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:30 pm
Beware the Jabberwock Alright, both of you calm down.
Hun is not alway a derogatory thing, and actually it's something that I say to people all the time as well as am referred to as 'Hun' all the time. It's a personal thing. I take it from your response Trite that you would not appreciate being referred to as 'Hun' and thus we'll all make a note not to. However if Waters has a problem with how Pyro addresses her she can take that up with him.
Please refrain from threatening anyone, whether it's ernest or not it's not acceptable. The point of this subforum is for civil discussion.
Pyro, calm down. She was obviously offended, though threatening is definitely not the way to go we all lash out in anger sometimes. I am calm, I was simply adding infesece (SP?) to my post. Sorry if that came off as me being angry or uncivil hun... sad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:45 pm
Tiger of the Fire WatersMoon110 xalisae Unborn children do need you to survive though. Heaven forbid someone look at this from someone else's point of view rather than always entirely the mother's. Unborn humans don't have a point of view. A better choice of words would have been "look at the welfare of someone other than the woman". Because unborn humans are not aware that they exist, or that they are going to be born or aborted. Really, the main difference between being Pro-Choice and being Pro-Life is that Pro-Choicers see the woman involved as needing to be protected, and Pro-Lifers see the unborn human involved as needing to be protected. Telling a Pro-Choicer to "think of the unborn human" is like telling a Pro-Lifer to "think of the woman". Not only does it not work, but it is hardly even considered, because it involves the human that the person of that side sees as needing to be protected less. If that makes any sense. No offence hun, but I'm gunna have to call bullshit on that one. Telling a pro-lifer to look at it form the motehrs point of view isnt not goign to be concidered. We concidered it, and we think the choice to electivly abort is not a wise one. e dont feel the woman needs to be protected less, because 8 times out of ten she is only aborting because she dosnt want a kid or because she has been lead to beleive it will ruin her life. Many many pro-lifers will agree that should the pregnancy indanger the owman's life, it may be best to terminate. So please, dont use such an analogy. Its flawed and it dosnt work and its spreading a false message. I'm sorry, that post came off as something other than what I intended. What I meant was that people on both sides have already consider the issue of abortion from both sides as they see them. Pro-Choicers came to the conclusion that the woman needs to have her right to bodily integrity protected most. Pro-Lifers came to the conclusion that the unborn human needs to have its right to continue living protected most. Thus telling someone to see the issue from the "other point of view" is silly, because they have (probably) done so, and already come to their conclusions. I didn't mean to make it sound as though Pro-Lifers don't care about pregnant women, as I know that is not the case. I am really sorry that I came off that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:50 pm
Its fine hun. I could have been a little softer though. Just pretend the "bullshit" remakr isnt theire and replace it with "flawed arguemnt." sweatdrop
No hard feelings meant, no harm done. And i have to agree with you. Most likely, most on either side have already tried to see it from the others point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:54 pm
Tiger of the Fire Its fine hun. I could have been a little softer though. Just pretend the "bullshit" remakr isnt theire and replace it with "flawed arguemnt." sweatdrop No hard feelings meant, no harm done. And i have to agree with you. Most likely, most on either side have already tried to see it from the others point of view. No, I agree. It did sound like bullshit to me, reading it back over. What I meant and what I actually said were two very different things. redface
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:56 pm
To ere is human, to forgive is devine.
It happens to all of us, even the best of us at times. No need to feel embarrased. Water under the bridge. You've appologised, corrected what you really mean to say...instead of going off on a tyrade and macking personal attacks when some one reminds you that your views arnt the only ones... stare
Ummm...sorry...that was slightly out of left-middle. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:22 pm
As it turns out, I'm human and often make mistakes. *shrug* That is how we learn after all.
I think any situation that attempts to have civil discourse between two such emotional and opposing view points is going to have a lot of "stepping on toes" as it were. It usually seems to be easier to get really angry and snippy about it that to try to understand where the other person is coming from.
A tantrum now and again can be forgiven, but personal attacks really need to be avoided.
The rule of...spacebar... for Gaia really needs to be, attack someone's opinion, if you must attack, but not their person. That is, that you can disagree all you want with what someone has said, but don't take that disagreement to the person who said it, only their statements.
If you don't flame, you'll never get in trouble or banned for flaming...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:31 pm
MMhmm. i whole heartedly agree hun. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:18 am
xd Waters, your post caught me so offguard until I read your explanation.
Trite, the thing is, a lot of times when women die for their unborn children, it's later in the pregnancy when they don't consider it a potential person. If I saw my premature infant on the road about to get hit by a car, would I try to save it to the point where I'd risk my life? Yes. There is a chance that we both would live, a chance we both would die, and a chance where one of us would live but the other would die. Of course I'd do all I can without putting myself at risk, but if I had to, I would. The same is true if I was pregnant and in danger of dying. It's the same age. Same value to me.
It's not because I don't care that my family would be left without me. It's because there's that chance that we both would live. It's not a question of being a hero or trying to do something noble, it's a question of how much value you place on a a certain human life. I love my fiance so much that I would take a bullet for him. I suspect I'll feel the same way about my children, I don't know, but if I do, then it's about loving someone more than you love yourself. You may see it as a fetus, but to a woman who does this, it's a baby. Not only a baby, it's her baby. An existing baby, just as valuable as a born child. Not moreso, just as. I'm willing to bet a woman who would sacrifice her life for her unborn child would do the same for any of her born children.
Are firefighters selfish? Are police officers selfish? They put their lives at risk every day in order to save other people, even worse, it's people they don't even know or love! It's strangers! How selfish of them. Man, can't get much more selfish than risking your life to save someone else's.
Edit: Gah, sorry. I just realized Trite was banned. Um...well...if you're reading this and want to reply, I can post your reply in here for you, I wish you could reply here yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:14 am
Trite~Elegy Okay you see it as a baby and you love your fiancee more then anything.
But what if you knew that it would kill you, and you didn't know if it would survive or not. (say what ever conditon you have may have affected the fetus in questions and doctors don't even know if will kill it a few minuets after birth or a few days after birth etc.) would you still be willing to give up your life with your fiancee and other children (that you may have) for something that has so many doubts to it's own viablity.
No I don't think firemen or police officers are selfish because they know the risks involved with their jobs but continue to do so.
Plus, they don't know that a situation they may walk into end could be their last, like woman with a blastocyte/zygote/fetus in her uterus may know.
(the women have time to think on it, whereas the firemen/policeofficers don't have the option of thinking or doing anything to save their own life)
lymelady Most of the times, when a woman faces a dangerous pregnancy, it's, you COULD die, not you definitely will. Personally? I wouldn't risk it. I feel a bit guilty, but I wouldn't risk it for a born child either. If I had 4 children, and I could save one but at the cost of my own life, and the other children had no other means of support but me...I wouldn't be able to leave them. If there was a chance that my child and I both would live, I'd take it, but if there was no chance, then no. Some firefighters and police officers do know, though, that they are in very serious danger. For example, the people who went into the twin towers when they were falling. Some surviving firefighters said they were sure they were walking in to their deaths, but they had a duty to save other people. While it's true they don't have the same amount of time that a woman has when the moment comes, they do have time when deciding to make a dangerous career choice. I think some women are being selfish. If you have sex without birth control and you know you'll die if you give birth, I think it's either selfish or it's the woman saying, I made a mistake but I don't want my child to pay for it. Though how in the world someone could make a mistake like that is beyond me. If you end up pregnant and in danger, without knowing until let's say week 28 that you might die and you choose to risk it, I think that's another matter. Trite~Elegy
Okay, so it might be selfish for a woman to have sex without birth control and knowledge that she'd die if she became pregnant.
but what about those who generally don't know that they could die from pregnancy, become pregnant, whether they didn't use birth control or they are trying to become pregnant and then find out late in the pregnancy that they have either the choice to have the child and die or abort and save their life?
Would that still be considered selfish if they choose to save their life and abort?lymelady I don't think it's selfish at all to abort in self defense. Well I mean, in the sense that it's putting themselves first, that's a given, but how is it selfish in a negative way to save your own life? I know there are those that feel that way, but I disagree with them strongly. If someone wants to choose to sacrifice herself for her child, then I think it's selfless, in some cases at least. But I don't think it's selfish to save your own life. If the only way to keep someone from killing me was to shoot the person dead, then I readily admit, I'd save myself, even if the other person wasn't trying to kill me, it was just inevitable. It's not monstrous, it's just survival. I have no obligation to die for anyone, at all. No one does. I think it's pro-baby to say a woman should have to die to save her baby, not pro-life. To me, being pro-life means you value both lives equally, not one over the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
