|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:15 pm
You pro-lifers think that right to life is more important than bodily integrity, or is this only in the case of women and fetuses? How about when a living, breathing, thinking man needs a kidney, isn't his right to live more important that your right to your kidney? Or if the little girl over there need bone marrow from an unwilling donor, shouldn't that person be forced to give it up? Doesn't her right to life super-cede his right to bodily integrity? Or do your pro-life values stop at born humans?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:32 pm
Remember this thread? Yeah, you've done this one before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:00 pm
toxic_lollipop Remember this thread? Yeah, you've done this one before. No, they are similar, but not the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:51 am
Mistress DragonFlame toxic_lollipop Remember this thread? Yeah, you've done this one before. No, they are similar, but not the same. Quote: if I need a kidney, i have no right to demand it from you. I have no right sue you for your kidney(this consept also applies to dead people, basically if i need my dead mother's kidney, presuming it is still usable, but she did not decide to become an organ donor, i cannot have her kidney) ; in essence, I don't have an absolute right to life. Now if no human has the right to life at the expense of another, why would a fetus?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:38 pm
toxic_lollipop Remember this thread? Yeah, you've done this one before. No my question is do you think there sghould be forced kidney and blood donations, just as you support forced pregnancies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 5:29 am
Xanaphia00 You pro-lifers think that right to life is more important than bodily integrity, or is this only in the case of women and fetuses? How about when a living, breathing, thinking man needs a kidney, isn't his right to live more important that your right to your kidney? Or if the little girl over there need bone marrow from an unwilling donor, shouldn't that person be forced to give it up? Doesn't her right to life super-cede his right to bodily integrity? Or do your pro-life values stop at born humans? Did that person cause the man to need a kidney, or the little girl to need bone marrow? But the reason that 'fetus' needs the support in the first place is because the person had sex and got pregnant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 11:13 pm
Asmi-chan Xanaphia00 You pro-lifers think that right to life is more important than bodily integrity, or is this only in the case of women and fetuses? How about when a living, breathing, thinking man needs a kidney, isn't his right to live more important that your right to your kidney? Or if the little girl over there need bone marrow from an unwilling donor, shouldn't that person be forced to give it up? Doesn't her right to life super-cede his right to bodily integrity? Or do your pro-life values stop at born humans? Did that person cause the man to need a kidney, or the little girl to need bone marrow? But the reason that 'fetus' needs the support in the first place is because the person had sex and got pregnant. Even if a person causes the loss of the bodily fuction--say, running a man over in a car and ruining his kidney--you are still not legally obligated to give of your body. Even if it means the person will die. Look up McFall vs. Shimp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:42 pm
Nethilia Asmi-chan Xanaphia00 You pro-lifers think that right to life is more important than bodily integrity, or is this only in the case of women and fetuses? How about when a living, breathing, thinking man needs a kidney, isn't his right to live more important that your right to your kidney? Or if the little girl over there need bone marrow from an unwilling donor, shouldn't that person be forced to give it up? Doesn't her right to life super-cede his right to bodily integrity? Or do your pro-life values stop at born humans? Did that person cause the man to need a kidney, or the little girl to need bone marrow? But the reason that 'fetus' needs the support in the first place is because the person had sex and got pregnant. Even if a person causes the loss of the bodily fuction--say, running a man over in a car and ruining his kidney--you are still not legally obligated to give of your body. Even if it means the person will die. Look up McFall vs. Shimp. But running a man over in a car still has with it the legal punishments or damages when brought forth into a court of law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:09 am
FreeArsenal Nethilia Asmi-chan Xanaphia00 You pro-lifers think that right to life is more important than bodily integrity, or is this only in the case of women and fetuses? How about when a living, breathing, thinking man needs a kidney, isn't his right to live more important that your right to your kidney? Or if the little girl over there need bone marrow from an unwilling donor, shouldn't that person be forced to give it up? Doesn't her right to life super-cede his right to bodily integrity? Or do your pro-life values stop at born humans? Did that person cause the man to need a kidney, or the little girl to need bone marrow? But the reason that 'fetus' needs the support in the first place is because the person had sex and got pregnant. Even if a person causes the loss of the bodily fuction--say, running a man over in a car and ruining his kidney--you are still not legally obligated to give of your body. Even if it means the person will die. Look up McFall vs. Shimp. But running a man over in a car still has with it the legal punishments or damages when brought forth into a court of law. Soo, instead of running over him, maybe I just gave him free alchohol and until he needed dialasis and a transplant. Not liable for anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:52 am
cactuar tamer FreeArsenal Nethilia Asmi-chan Xanaphia00 You pro-lifers think that right to life is more important than bodily integrity, or is this only in the case of women and fetuses? How about when a living, breathing, thinking man needs a kidney, isn't his right to live more important that your right to your kidney? Or if the little girl over there need bone marrow from an unwilling donor, shouldn't that person be forced to give it up? Doesn't her right to life super-cede his right to bodily integrity? Or do your pro-life values stop at born humans? Did that person cause the man to need a kidney, or the little girl to need bone marrow? But the reason that 'fetus' needs the support in the first place is because the person had sex and got pregnant. Even if a person causes the loss of the bodily fuction--say, running a man over in a car and ruining his kidney--you are still not legally obligated to give of your body. Even if it means the person will die. Look up McFall vs. Shimp. But running a man over in a car still has with it the legal punishments or damages when brought forth into a court of law. Soo, instead of running over him, maybe I just gave him free alchohol and until he needed dialasis and a transplant. Not liable for anything. In this case, if he's dumb enough to drink the alcohol then of course you're not liable for anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:20 am
FreeArsenal cactuar tamer FreeArsenal Nethilia Asmi-chan Xanaphia00 You pro-lifers think that right to life is more important than bodily integrity, or is this only in the case of women and fetuses? How about when a living, breathing, thinking man needs a kidney, isn't his right to live more important that your right to your kidney? Or if the little girl over there need bone marrow from an unwilling donor, shouldn't that person be forced to give it up? Doesn't her right to life super-cede his right to bodily integrity? Or do your pro-life values stop at born humans? Did that person cause the man to need a kidney, or the little girl to need bone marrow? But the reason that 'fetus' needs the support in the first place is because the person had sex and got pregnant. Even if a person causes the loss of the bodily fuction--say, running a man over in a car and ruining his kidney--you are still not legally obligated to give of your body. Even if it means the person will die. Look up McFall vs. Shimp. But running a man over in a car still has with it the legal punishments or damages when brought forth into a court of law. Soo, instead of running over him, maybe I just gave him free alchohol and until he needed dialasis and a transplant. Not liable for anything. In this case, if he's dumb enough to drink the alcohol then of course you're not liable for anything. But pregnancy is not the 100% likely outcome of sex. And it is only able to be influenced in likewise non-100% ways. So conception represents the man's "choice" in this reality, something I (the one offering the conditions in which the choice will occur) have no control over, only influence. It's not the fetus's choice of course, maybe it's nature's choice. But not taking the uncertainty into consideration is like saying "You KNEW for certain you were going to get pregnant and you still had sex" In this instance, pregnancy is less like shooting someone who will need your organ and more like offering the alchohol. I can offer him the alchohol. He might take it, he might not. I can suggest that he take it, or suggest that he not, but I can't have any way to be certain of what he will do. All I have done is create a situation which may go either way. If woman had true volition in conception we could choose when, how, and what gender. We really have little control over the inner workings of our biology. Of course, all this assumes that sex is a normal part of life, which I am not expected to abstain from forever because I don't want to be pregnant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:39 pm
cactuar tamer But pregnancy is not the 100% likely outcome of sex. And it is only able to be influenced in likewise non-100% ways. So conception represents the man's "choice" in this reality, something I (the one offering the conditions in which the choice will occur) have no control over, only influence. It's not the fetus's choice of course, maybe it's nature's choice. But not taking the uncertainty into consideration is like saying "You KNEW for certain you were going to get pregnant and you still had sex" In this instance, pregnancy is less like shooting someone who will need your organ and more like offering the alchohol. I can offer him the alchohol. He might take it, he might not. I can suggest that he take it, or suggest that he not, but I can't have any way to be certain of what he will do. All I have done is create a situation which may go either way. If woman had true volition in conception we could choose when, how, and what gender. We really have little control over the inner workings of our biology. Of course, all this assumes that sex is a normal part of life, which I am not expected to abstain from forever because I don't want to be pregnant. If you want to use the offering of alcohol as an analogy consider this: Alcohol does not always mean you will do something stupid to get yourself killed. And if you chose to take the offer of alcohol, as you chose to have sex, then you are putting yourself at risk both ways. This analogy simply does not work to your benefit, because either way you are putting yourself at risk. The one difference is that with alcohol, if you drive you stand a chance of killing someone, if you're not ready for a child, you also stand a chance and killing someone. Did the driver on the road have a choice to whether or not you drove drunk? I think not, that's fate, and fate in itself is part of nature. Sex in itself is a part of life, but should be done responsibly in the concept that when you do it, you should be able to take the risk of pregnancy. Whether or not you'd like to admit, it's not a biological need to have sex to live on with your life, it's a biological drive. If sex is a normal part of life, so is pregnancy, and if it's normal for humans to come into existence from sex, then it's abnormal to kill them before giving them a chance to live.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:54 pm
FreeArsenal Whether or not you'd like to admit, it's not a biological need to have sex to live on with your life, it's a biological drive. If sex is a normal part of life, so is pregnancy, and if it's normal for humans to come into existence from sex, then it's abnormal to kill them before giving them a chance to live. Why? Where is your reasoning here? You're just stating an opinion. Just because one is normal does not automaticly make the other abnormal. Like saying being right handed is normal and left handed abnormal, being white is normal and being black is abnormal, being Republican is normal and Democrat abnormal, being man is normal and being female is abnormal, having blonde hair is normal and having black is abnormal. Secondly, if sex is a normal part of life then it does not stand to reason that pregnancy is. Pregnancy happens only occasionally for some women, maybe not at all, whether or not they use contraceptives. Are you thus saying that all women who are unable to have children are abnormal? And of course lets not go into gey sex, or oral sex, or a**l sex... Or are you using the term abnormal as in "not common"? Rather than "something not to be done" or "twisted"? And even if pregnancy is not something difficult for women that does not make it normal. Most women will have 2 maybe 3 kids in the 30 years that they are able to reproduce, and 75 years of their life in total. Pregnancy is not normal for me, I don't wake up in the morning and feel strange if I'm not pregnant; my normal state of being is not pregnant, but my normal life includes sex. But then for some people not having sex is normal. That's the problem you have right there. You're assuming that all people feel the same way about sex as everyone else. I have friends who don't care much for sex at all. And I have friends who can't go 24 hours with masturbating ((men...*sigh*)). I'm rambling ((typing out notes I made on Roman tombs in Naples 4 weeks ago...brain hurts...my handwriting sucks))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:53 pm
Shard Aerliss FreeArsenal Whether or not you'd like to admit, it's not a biological need to have sex to live on with your life, it's a biological drive. If sex is a normal part of life, so is pregnancy, and if it's normal for humans to come into existence from sex, then it's abnormal to kill them before giving them a chance to live. Why? Where is your reasoning here? You're just stating an opinion. Just because one is normal does not automaticly make the other abnormal. Like saying being right handed is normal and left handed abnormal, being white is normal and being black is abnormal, being Republican is normal and Democrat abnormal, being man is normal and being female is abnormal, having blonde hair is normal and having black is abnormal. Secondly, if sex is a normal part of life then it does not stand to reason that pregnancy is. Pregnancy happens only occasionally for some women, maybe not at all, whether or not they use contraceptives. Are you thus saying that all women who are unable to have children are abnormal? And of course lets not go into gey sex, or oral sex, or a**l sex... Or are you using the term abnormal as in "not common"? Rather than "something not to be done" or "twisted"? And even if pregnancy is not something difficult for women that does not make it normal. Most women will have 2 maybe 3 kids in the 30 years that they are able to reproduce, and 75 years of their life in total. Pregnancy is not normal for me, I don't wake up in the morning and feel strange if I'm not pregnant; my normal state of being is not pregnant, but my normal life includes sex. But then for some people not having sex is normal. That's the problem you have right there. You're assuming that all people feel the same way about sex as everyone else. I have friends who don't care much for sex at all. And I have friends who can't go 24 hours with masturbating ((men...*sigh*)). I'm rambling ((typing out notes I made on Roman tombs in Naples 4 weeks ago...brain hurts...my handwriting sucks)) Sex leads to pregnancy. It's the only thing that can get a woman pregnant. If it's normal, then so is it's follow up. I suppose I went overboard with the killing, but still, if sex is normal, then so is it's follow up. You can't say one thing is normal, and it's follow up is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:56 pm
Sorry for I lack time to write a decent argument.
It's like saying you can have sex, and it's normal to have sex. Let's assume having sex is normal.
Sex from a man and woman = chance of pregnancy.
Now these are bare bone facts; so tell me, is this chance of pregnancy normal or abnormal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
