Welcome to Gaia! ::

A pro lifer beleives in protecting a human's life. When you abort, you are killing a human life. A human as in something that is developing into a human being, and a life as in something that meets all biological and perhaps subjectively ethical standards for living. If a pro lifer however mentions their ethics are the reason why they're pro life, rest assured they are more than likely going to be bombarded with the question:

"Since when does the pro lifers ethics need to determine the fate of someone else's life?"

Isn't the REAL question: Since when does a pro choicer's personal beleifs give them the right to determine someone else's life?

"Oh but I don't consider a blob a person"

Well, gosh darnit I do. I guess the fact you don't is subjective. As many pro choice supporters around me get more and more arrogant towards their own point of veiw, they fail to realize that what they support and beleive in is foundated on things that are subjective too. That a baby is not a person, that it is not alive. Subjective subjective subjective. But its so annoying how pro lifers are always facing the brunt of this double standard.

I'm fed up with the hypocrisy. We're whined at for our ethics, our religion and such to be a foundation for our desire to preserve what we feel is human life, but they could not even stop to think that a baby not being an actual "person" or the theories of evolution backing them up can be perceived just as subjective.

Another question:

What right do you have to deny a woman the pleasure of sex?

I also do not beleive sex is meant for pleasure. Sorry guys and girls. The p***s is a bannana shape that fits like a key does a lock ONLY from the back or "doggy style" sex. The clitoris is located above the v****a, so naturally, a male's p***s IMO, isn't supposed to touch the clitoris, let alone give it an orgasm.

Pro choicers tell me that if humans were only supposed to have sex for having children, why do they desire sex when they do not ovulate? Its in my mindset, that what the woman desires is not "sex" itself, but the secretion of oxytocin. Oxytocin affects mood, it affects many things in a woman's body. If your hormones fluxuate too much like say right before or after your period... or maybe you are depresed.... oxytocin is what your body should secrete. An "orgasm" is what secretes it in large doses. But again doggy style sex is how the p***s fits in the v****a like a key to a lock. It can go through the other way but the v****a based on how it is designed seems to fit the p***s' shape when it is from the back. when in the back you don't get an orgasm, as when its from the back the front where the clitoris is...isn't touched. However, a man can slide his p***s the front way and suddenly he has touched the clitoris and pleased his spouse.

Sex "evolves" into a situation where a guy no longer goes through the back but he goes through the front, and women therefore associate how to get their orgasms with "sex". So to me, women associate orgasm with sex, even though because the p***s fits the back way where it cannot touch the clitoris, I would feel that implies to some degree that the clitoris is meant to be stimulated by the woman herself.

Pro choicers also tell me that men and women grow a bond after sex.

Oxytocin affects maternal behavior. Virgin rats have mothered pups after being given oxytocin. What the woman's behavior reflects through her affectionate behavior is a maternal love for her male spouse which is actually supposed to be for her child.

Oxytocin is released before a baby is born, and oxytocin signals milk to fill a mother's breasts. It is indeed something to promote being "motherly." Men and women notice it improves their relationships by the woman being maternal to her spouse. Sex is thereby promoted again so that the couple can be closer.

My thing is, to secrete oxytocin doesn't require the exchange of bodily fluids to be secreted. stimulation of the breasts and clitoris, and simple affections like hugging can actually cause an orgasm. You need sex to do none of the above if the maternal love is that in need for the relationship.

We know affectionate methods outside of sex are not the wrong way to go in secreting oxytocin because only one outcome is expected, secreting oxytocin. When you have sex, you can get pregnant, your body is designed for that baby and therefore a man and woman can expect a baby ontop of secretion, which makes more contraversy on what sex's purpose is.

Well, not if they realized that you were Pagan. wink I want to be there sometime when someone assumes you are Christian just because you are Pro-Life...

Ha! lol

Considering she referred to our ethics as our foundation for being pro-life I don't think she was referring to it as our ethics. And if she was she still needs to rephrase.


Haha. I would LOVE that. I would laugh so hard, and then print it off, frame it and put it on my wall. Well actually I probably wouldn't frame it, seeing as how it's like $10 for a frame and I wouldn't care THAT much, but I would still put it on my wall.

Well again, what I meant was that ethics of a pro lifer and I didn't want to seperate religion too much because they tie very well with some pro lifer's ethics, and I didn't want to exclude a serious ammount of people who do not beleive in an abortion for religious reasons, Christian or not. To be frank the pemise was basically to sum up every pro lifer who argues based on their ethics/religion (if they have one no matter what it is). Yes I know, I had the feeling sometime after I read it over that wasn't probably the best way of wording it. That's my mistake. I think the biggest fault on my end was not to add that s to religion like I did ethics (which I would've wanted to do if I had proofread better (remember folks, the more time you take to proofread stuff, the less likely misatkes like this happen u_u). I think that is sort of what made even I think there was a problem.

I've actually had that at work. We were arguing about the death penalty and abortion and I was against both. One argument was "If you had the chance to kill Hitler, would you have?" and I said "If we had him under imprisonment, no. If he was threatening to kill someone at the moment, yes. I'd much rather try to reform the guy or keep him alive and rotting in prison as an example to others that killing is wrong." Either way, whole different argument for a different topic...

Basically, my views were basically viewed as such that one of my coworkers chimed in and said:
"Well, you're a Christian, right?"
to which I replied
"No. I'm a theist - I believe that there is an almighty power of some sort in the universe, but I don't follow any religions because I don't agree with the practices of any of them."

I kind of got a few shocked faces. And one person even tried to argue that I had to be a satanist by saying:
"So you're an atheist since you don't believe in [the Christian] God?"

Gah! People are so ignorant these days. >_<;;