[QUOTE="nervmeister"]I still stand by my conviction that a woman killing her own unborn baby is self-defense. jeremiah06What? That just so wrong I almost modded it. I refuse with every fiber of my being to believe that you REALLY believe that...The fetus is harming you by sapping away your life, so why not?
Should women have "the right" to end a pregnancy?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
Any right to life is a right. There is no "weak" or "strong" right to life. There is a right, or there isn't.
Also- Sex is consent. Sex is consent because it actively creates the fetus. We all know that sex is for procreation, above all else. That is the end result of the completion of the natural act. To create something IS consent.
hartsickdiscipl
A baby has the same right to life that someone drowning in a river has a right to life. Yes, they have the right to live, but they can't demand or obligate someone to jump in and save them. A baby is in the same condition; Without help (from the mother's body) it would die, but it has no basis to demand or obligate the woman to help it (though that'd be really nice of her). So yeah, it's a right to life, but in its circumstance it's a weak one.
Just because procreation can be a consequence of sex, that doesn't mean that you necessarily consent to consequences. Not to mention procreation is actually an unlikely consequence of sex. Driving on the road has the possible consequence of getting hit by a drunk driver. Does that mean you consent to getting struck? Of course not. Lets say you live in a bad neighbourhood, or even a jungle with wild predators biologically wired to want to eat you. Does leaving your door open at night mean you consent to being robbed, or worse yet eaten by an animal? Of course not. Yeah, leaving your door open is probably a stupid decision but that doesn't mean you're explicitly consenting to the potential consequences. Not to mention that when you have protected sex you are quite explicitly not-consenting by the act of deliberate birth control.
Please stop trying to win this argument, you can't do it logically. It's not even worth it.
A fetus is not equivalent to a person drowing in a river, unless the person drowing in the river was PUT there by someone. Then the person in the river does have the right to life, and the person who put them there must save them from a moral perspective. The fetus was created by 2 people mating and PUTTING that fetus into the womb, or river. Whether they intended to do it or not, they had sex (which IS the biological means of procreation, everyone knows that), and they ARE accountable for the results, whether they intended to get pregnant or not. Tell me how they are not Your logic is well.. nonexistent.
Every time I go to the drag strip with my car, I have to sign a waiver that says that I won't sue the track for and damages to my car, injuries, or loss of life. It also says that I am financially responsible for whatever happens. I choose to race, which is inherently more dangerous to my life and propery than sitting at home playing games. I accept the responsibility and consequences of whatever may happen when I race.
Now compare that to having sex and getting pregnant. I have to sign an agreement to take accountability for damages and injuries while racing, which is not INTENDED to, or DESIGNED for creating injuries and death. However, there is a risk.. so I have to realize what the consequences to me might be. Is there anything unfair about me being responsible for that?
Sex IS designed for procreation.. yet you say that people aren't giving consent and taking responsiblity for the possibility that they might get pregnant and have a child on their hands as a result of doing it? That's absolutely ludicrous. You take responsiblity for things much less directly than sex and pregnancy every day.
I'm sorry you don't understand the metaphors, allow me to explain.
The fetus was not put in the river by the parents. He was given life by the parents. He is in the river by virtue of the fact that his own biology has left him in a helpless state. It's not the mother's fault that a fetus is biologically ill equipped, so she has no obligation to help it.
Intend or design doesn't mean anything. There are actions and consequences. Accepting possible consequences and consenting to consequences are two different things. You can acknowledge and be held responsible for consequences, but that doesn't mean you explicitly consented to them happening. When I go on pub crawls I sign forms saying that I cannot hold the organizers responsible for any theft that may happen. Just because I agreed to be held personally responsible for those consequences, does not mean that I gave anyone the consent to steal from me.
And if a hurricane occurs in Greece due to the poles of the earth getting reversed, a cow from Kalabaka may fall flat on the roof of my apartment in Athens.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
If you keep that gun at home, caressing it for your own pleasure.. and it goes off and blows your kid's head off, you're accountable. It's inherently dangerous because of the purpose for which it was created. When you take that gun into your possession, you're taking responsiblity for whatever might happen while you're handling it. Likewise, sex and pregnancy are even MORE directly connected. Don't try to complicate the basic factors of cause and effect, and the purpose for which sex was OBVIOUSLY created.
Moral of the story- If you play with fire, you might get burned. Take accountability and stop weaselling around trying to find some loophole.
hartsickdiscipl
Your point with this far-fetched scenario?
First of all, I have unloaded my gun. It has no bullets in it. What other scenario can you think of?
So you are implying that because sex can lead to pregnancy then that is what it is meant for. Sorry to break it to you but I cant accept a non-sequitur just because it is what it is "obvious" for you to believe.
Unless you have superpowers and can create a hurricane in Greece, or move the poles of the Earth, you have no accountability for that. There is nothing far-fetched about somebody having a gun accident that kills someone, although they didn't intend to do it. Why would you even say that?
Unloading your gun = Eradication of all sperm/vasectomy prior to intercourse in terms of genitalia and sex. But guess what? If you forgot to take the one out of the chamber, you're still accountabile when you point that gun at someone and shoot them. Just like a man who has a vasectomy is still accountable if he somehow gets someone pregnant. The woman is responsible as well, whether she likes it or not.
Its baffling literally that you are introducing the notion of responsibility into this while it has absolutely nothing to do with what was originally argued.I await for some logical argument as to why sex is meant for reproduction.
[QUOTE="PeaceChild90"]
[QUOTE="racer8dan"]
I think it should be the childs CHOICE on whether it wants to live or die.
racer8dan
It's not a child.
Why, Cause its missing certain features? Like a brain capable of human thought...[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]
A baby has the same right to life that someone drowning in a river has a right to life. Yes, they have the right to live, but they can't demand or obligate someone to jump in and save them. A baby is in the same condition; Without help (from the mother's body) it would die, but it has no basis to demand or obligate the woman to help it (though that'd be really nice of her). So yeah, it's a right to life, but in its circumstance it's a weak one.
Just because procreation can be a consequence of sex, that doesn't mean that you necessarily consent to consequences. Not to mention procreation is actually an unlikely consequence of sex. Driving on the road has the possible consequence of getting hit by a drunk driver. Does that mean you consent to getting struck? Of course not. Lets say you live in a bad neighbourhood, or even a jungle with wild predators biologically wired to want to eat you. Does leaving your door open at night mean you consent to being robbed, or worse yet eaten by an animal? Of course not. Yeah, leaving your door open is probably a stupid decision but that doesn't mean you're explicitly consenting to the potential consequences. Not to mention that when you have protected sex you are quite explicitly not-consenting by the act of deliberate birth control.
xscrapzx
Please stop trying to win this argument, you can't do it logically. It's not even worth it.
A fetus is not equivalent to a person drowing in a river, unless the person drowing in the river was PUT there by someone. Then the person in the river does have the right to life, and the person who put them there must save them from a moral perspective. The fetus was created by 2 people mating and PUTTING that fetus into the womb, or river. Whether they intended to do it or not, they had sex (which IS the biological means of procreation, everyone knows that), and they ARE accountable for the results, whether they intended to get pregnant or not. Tell me how they are not Your logic is well.. nonexistent.
Every time I go to the drag strip with my car, I have to sign a waiver that says that I won't sue the track for and damages to my car, injuries, or loss of life. It also says that I am financially responsible for whatever happens. I choose to race, which is inherently more dangerous to my life and propery than sitting at home playing games. I accept the responsibility and consequences of whatever may happen when I race.
Now compare that to having sex and getting pregnant. I have to sign an agreement to take accountability for damages and injuries while racing, which is not INTENDED to, or DESIGNED for creating injuries and death. However, there is a risk.. so I have to realize what the consequences to me might be. Is there anything unfair about me being responsible for that?
Sex IS designed for procreation.. yet you say that people aren't giving consent and taking responsiblity for the possibility that they might get pregnant and have a child on their hands as a result of doing it? That's absolutely ludicrous. You take responsiblity for things much less directly than sex and pregnancy every day.
Where is the contract that I signed stating that if I have sex and a fetus is created that I have to have it? Who states this as fact and may I speak with them?Also comparing a drag strip to the possible results of sex is so far off base its not even funny.
The contract is not the important part. What it says is. It says that if you do something inherently dangerous, you are accountable.
If you don't have a conscience fit thinking about aborting a baby, you're not human in the ways that matter IMO.
Comparing consequences in one arena to consequences in any other area is always applicable. Consequences are consequences. Abortion is just an easy way out of the consequences of screwing someone. Designed for cowards without a sense of accountabilty who think they should be able to have sex without dealing with reproduction.. which is obviously what sex was designed to do. It's so moronic I can barely wrap my head around it. It's like drinking and getting upset that you're drunk.
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
If you keep that gun at home, caressing it for your own pleasure.. and it goes off and blows your kid's head off, you're accountable. It's inherently dangerous because of the purpose for which it was created. When you take that gun into your possession, you're taking responsiblity for whatever might happen while you're handling it. Likewise, sex and pregnancy are even MORE directly connected. Don't try to complicate the basic factors of cause and effect, and the purpose for which sex was OBVIOUSLY created.
Moral of the story- If you play with fire, you might get burned. Take accountability and stop weaselling around trying to find some loophole.
And if a hurricane occurs in Greece due to the poles of the earth getting reversed, a cow from Kalabaka may fall flat on the roof of my apartment in Athens.Your point with this far-fetched scenario?
First of all, I have unloaded my gun. It has no bullets in it. What other scenario can you think of?
So you are implying that because sex can lead to pregnancy then that is what it is meant for. Sorry to break it to you but I cant accept a non-sequitur just because it is what it is "obvious" for you to believe.
Unless you have superpowers and can create a hurricane in Greece, or move the poles of the Earth, you have no accountability for that. There is nothing far-fetched about somebody having a gun accident that kills someone, although they didn't intend to do it. Why would you even say that?
Unloading your gun = Eradication of all sperm/vasectomy prior to intercourse in terms of genitalia and sex. But guess what? If you forgot to take the one out of the chamber, you're still accountabile when you point that gun at someone and shoot them. Just like a man who has a vasectomy is still accountable if he somehow gets someone pregnant. The woman is responsible as well, whether she likes it or not.
Listen comparing all these situations are just rediculous. The bottom line is at the end of the day your ending a process from continuing. If a fetus has rights then that means you have to give them to cats, birds, cows, broomsticks. I mean really at the end of the day it isn't our place to say a damn thing. Why? Well because a women having an abortion has no bearing on the life of others such as a gun does. So please stop trying to compare these different situations and or enviroments to sex is not proving anything on either side.I await for some logical argument as to why sex is meant for reproduction.TeenagedEven if it is; why do we have to abide by that? The fact that I am talking to you lot on the other side of the planet is a testament to humanities rejection of what nature says we can and cannot do. People seem to have no problem rejecting nature with some things, like medicine and heated homes, but consider it unquestionable when it comes to other things like sex.
Why, Cause its missing certain features? Like a brain capable of human thought...Is my dead uncle not a human?[QUOTE="racer8dan"]
[QUOTE="PeaceChild90"]
It's not a child.
htekemerald
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I await for some logical argument as to why sex is meant for reproduction.ADF_GameEven if it is; why do we have to abide by that? The fact that I am talking to you lot on the other side of the planet is a testament to humanities rejection of what nature says we can and cannot do. People seem to have no problem rejecting nature with some things, like medicine and heated homes, but consider it unquestionable when it comes to other things like sex.Thats true, indeed.
I guess I am just hinging on to the fact that I believe it cant be proven. Idk.
Anyway I am done. Have to go to ZZZZZZZZZZ.
Like a brain capable of human thought...Is my dead uncle not a human? He's now the remains (structural) of a human. A body decomposes into seperate elements after death. It's technically an inanimate object now instead of a lifeform.[QUOTE="htekemerald"]
[QUOTE="racer8dan"]Why, Cause its missing certain features?
racer8dan
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]
A baby has the same right to life that someone drowning in a river has a right to life. Yes, they have the right to live, but they can't demand or obligate someone to jump in and save them. A baby is in the same condition; Without help (from the mother's body) it would die, but it has no basis to demand or obligate the woman to help it (though that'd be really nice of her). So yeah, it's a right to life, but in its circumstance it's a weak one.
Just because procreation can be a consequence of sex, that doesn't mean that you necessarily consent to consequences. Not to mention procreation is actually an unlikely consequence of sex. Driving on the road has the possible consequence of getting hit by a drunk driver. Does that mean you consent to getting struck? Of course not. Lets say you live in a bad neighbourhood, or even a jungle with wild predators biologically wired to want to eat you. Does leaving your door open at night mean you consent to being robbed, or worse yet eaten by an animal? Of course not. Yeah, leaving your door open is probably a stupid decision but that doesn't mean you're explicitly consenting to the potential consequences. Not to mention that when you have protected sex you are quite explicitly not-consenting by the act of deliberate birth control.
_BlueDuck_
Please stop trying to win this argument, you can't do it logically. It's not even worth it.
A fetus is not equivalent to a person drowing in a river, unless the person drowing in the river was PUT there by someone. Then the person in the river does have the right to life, and the person who put them there must save them from a moral perspective. The fetus was created by 2 people mating and PUTTING that fetus into the womb, or river. Whether they intended to do it or not, they had sex (which IS the biological means of procreation, everyone knows that), and they ARE accountable for the results, whether they intended to get pregnant or not. Tell me how they are not Your logic is well.. nonexistent.
Every time I go to the drag strip with my car, I have to sign a waiver that says that I won't sue the track for and damages to my car, injuries, or loss of life. It also says that I am financially responsible for whatever happens. I choose to race, which is inherently more dangerous to my life and propery than sitting at home playing games. I accept the responsibility and consequences of whatever may happen when I race.
Now compare that to having sex and getting pregnant. I have to sign an agreement to take accountability for damages and injuries while racing, which is not INTENDED to, or DESIGNED for creating injuries and death. However, there is a risk.. so I have to realize what the consequences to me might be. Is there anything unfair about me being responsible for that?
Sex IS designed for procreation.. yet you say that people aren't giving consent and taking responsiblity for the possibility that they might get pregnant and have a child on their hands as a result of doing it? That's absolutely ludicrous. You take responsiblity for things much less directly than sex and pregnancy every day.
I'm sorry you don't understand the metaphors, allow me to explain.
The fetus was not put in the river by the parents. He was given life by the parents. He is in the river by virtue of the fact that his own biology has left him in a helpless state. It's not the mother's fault that a fetus is biologically ill equipped, so she has no obligation to help it.
Intend or design doesn't mean anything. There are actions and consequences. Accepting possible consequences and consenting to consequences are two different things. You can acknowledge and be held responsible for consequences, but that doesn't mean you explicitly consented to them happening. When I go on pub crawls I sign forms saying that I cannot hold the organizers responsible for any theft that may happen. Just because I agreed to be held personally responsible for those consequences, does not mean that I gave anyone the consent to steal from me.
No, the fetus WAS put in the river by it's parents. It's helpless state was CREATED by the parents who seem to be oblivious to the fact that this might happen if they had sex! They created both the child and its circumstances, they are 100% accountable and obligated to help the creature that they created. What's so hard about the concept of having sex getting people pregnant? What's so hard about the concept that you don't kill off a living creature because you screwed-up?
You want to talk about bad analogies? Somebody stealing from you on a pub crawl versus your wife/GF getting pregnant because you stuck your rod in her and ejaculated? When you have sex, it's just you and the other person. There are no fellow pub-crawlers around to blame for the consequences.. PLEASE..
You're that selfish that you wouldn't "let" an inosent child Your child, flesh and blood, "borrow" your body so that it can one day live a fulfilling life and have a family of its own. If one of your "living" loved ones, husband, mother, sibling, needed to hook a tube to your body (figuratively speaking) for a few months would you say no, even in a life or death situation.
racer8dan
First, the pro-life stance has its own selfish moments.
Second, you've done what many pro-lifers do and it is incorrect. You assume all pro-choice women would have an abortion.
Your example with the other family members indicates I'd have a choice on whether or not I wanted to hook myself up to them. How would a woman be compassionate and unselfish by letting her fetus live if she had no other choice?
Like a brain capable of human thought...Is my dead uncle not a human? No, just like if I take a tree and burn it to the groud its no longer a tree.[QUOTE="htekemerald"]
[QUOTE="racer8dan"]Why, Cause its missing certain features?
racer8dan
The use of abortions as a contraceptive disgusts me, but if some valid form of protection was used -- and subsequently failed -- then I have absolutely nothing against abortion.Dark__LinkThis... I mean, come on, if you accidentally ****ed up and your protection failed on you or something like that, and you really didn't want kids, what are you supposed to do? There are just a couple of things I'd like to say that aren't related to what I quoted: 1.) Women are the owners of their own bodies. If someone is on the land that you own, and you didn't want them there, you get rid of them right? You don't let them stay there if they aren't supposed to be there or you don't want them to be there. 2.) I'm sure a lot of the people who claim that abortion is wrong and immoral and etc. would act much differently if they were in the situation... Sure, it's easy to look down on people when it doesn't affect you, but that's only BECAUSE it doesn't affect you. If you found yourself 16 years old, pregnant, recently raped, and still hoping to finish school successfully, would you REALLY just decide that the thing inside you that isn't yet a human should stay there no matter what?
Why else would we have Reproductive Organs if not for the means of procreation :/ If it wasn't meant for that, why does it exist?The fact that they are called "reproductive organs" and that among other things they help in reproduction doesnt mean that this is their sole purpose of existence (if we use terms such as "purpose").[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
Yes. Just yes. How can you argue this? That's like saying that guns weren't created for hunting. Sure, we use them for target practice too, but they were created for hunting. I'd love to hear your logic.
Teenaged
Among other things they offer pleasure. Therefore, by your mindset they are meant for pleasure.
Why do you "place" child-bearing "above" pleasure?
He never said it was the sole purpose and neither did I.Abortion is just an easy way out of the consequences of screwing someone.hartsickdiscipl
All of your arguments come from the "demand" that impregnation must always result in a child, no one gave you that authority; and they certainly don't care what your imaginary friend has to say about it either.
Who do you think you are?
[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
Please stop trying to win this argument, you can't do it logically. It's not even worth it.
A fetus is not equivalent to a person drowing in a river, unless the person drowing in the river was PUT there by someone. Then the person in the river does have the right to life, and the person who put them there must save them from a moral perspective. The fetus was created by 2 people mating and PUTTING that fetus into the womb, or river. Whether they intended to do it or not, they had sex (which IS the biological means of procreation, everyone knows that), and they ARE accountable for the results, whether they intended to get pregnant or not. Tell me how they are not Your logic is well.. nonexistent.
Every time I go to the drag strip with my car, I have to sign a waiver that says that I won't sue the track for and damages to my car, injuries, or loss of life. It also says that I am financially responsible for whatever happens. I choose to race, which is inherently more dangerous to my life and propery than sitting at home playing games. I accept the responsibility and consequences of whatever may happen when I race.
Now compare that to having sex and getting pregnant. I have to sign an agreement to take accountability for damages and injuries while racing, which is not INTENDED to, or DESIGNED for creating injuries and death. However, there is a risk.. so I have to realize what the consequences to me might be. Is there anything unfair about me being responsible for that?
Sex IS designed for procreation.. yet you say that people aren't giving consent and taking responsiblity for the possibility that they might get pregnant and have a child on their hands as a result of doing it? That's absolutely ludicrous. You take responsiblity for things much less directly than sex and pregnancy every day.
I'm sorry you don't understand the metaphors, allow me to explain.
The fetus was not put in the river by the parents. He was given life by the parents. He is in the river by virtue of the fact that his own biology has left him in a helpless state. It's not the mother's fault that a fetus is biologically ill equipped, so she has no obligation to help it.
Intend or design doesn't mean anything. There are actions and consequences. Accepting possible consequences and consenting to consequences are two different things. You can acknowledge and be held responsible for consequences, but that doesn't mean you explicitly consented to them happening. When I go on pub crawls I sign forms saying that I cannot hold the organizers responsible for any theft that may happen. Just because I agreed to be held personally responsible for those consequences, does not mean that I gave anyone the consent to steal from me.
No, the fetus WAS put in the river by it's parents. It's helpless state was CREATED by the parents who seem to be oblivious to the fact that this might happen if they had sex! They created both the child and its circumstances, they are 100% accountable and obligated to help the creature that they created. What's so hard about the concept of having sex getting people pregnant? What's so hard about the concept that you don't kill off a living creature because you screwed-up?
You want to talk about bad analogies? Somebody stealing from you on a pub crawl versus your wife/GF getting pregnant because you stuck your rod in her and ejaculated? When you have sex, it's just you and the other person. There are no fellow pub-crawlers around to blame for the consequences.. PLEASE..
So the parents can create but they can't destroy? I mean I know that sounds harsh, but if you have the power to create, do you not have the power to do the opposite?Is my dead uncle not a human? No, just like if I take a tree and burn it to the groud its no longer a tree.No, but if I cut the tree down its still a tree right? Not burning, killing.[QUOTE="racer8dan"]
[QUOTE="htekemerald"] Like a brain capable of human thought...
htekemerald
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]And if a hurricane occurs in Greece due to the poles of the earth getting reversed, a cow from Kalabaka may fall flat on the roof of my apartment in Athens.
Your point with this far-fetched scenario?
First of all, I have unloaded my gun. It has no bullets in it. What other scenario can you think of?
So you are implying that because sex can lead to pregnancy then that is what it is meant for. Sorry to break it to you but I cant accept a non-sequitur just because it is what it is "obvious" for you to believe.
xscrapzx
Unless you have superpowers and can create a hurricane in Greece, or move the poles of the Earth, you have no accountability for that. There is nothing far-fetched about somebody having a gun accident that kills someone, although they didn't intend to do it. Why would you even say that?
Unloading your gun = Eradication of all sperm/vasectomy prior to intercourse in terms of genitalia and sex. But guess what? If you forgot to take the one out of the chamber, you're still accountabile when you point that gun at someone and shoot them. Just like a man who has a vasectomy is still accountable if he somehow gets someone pregnant. The woman is responsible as well, whether she likes it or not.
Listen comparing all these situations are just rediculous. The bottom line is at the end of the day your ending a process from continuing. If a fetus has rights then that means you have to give them to cats, birds, cows, broomsticks. I mean really at the end of the day it isn't our place to say a damn thing. Why? Well because a women having an abortion has no bearing on the life of others such as a gun does. So please stop trying to compare these different situations and or enviroments to sex is not proving anything on either side.Well guess what? I disagree. The basic issues at the heart of the whole discussion are-
-Accountability for direct action taken. If anybody's stupid enough to think that they haven't given "consent" for a fetus to form inside their sex partner by sleeping with them, please submit yourself for immediate sterilization and lobotomy.
-That a fetus is life. If you believe that a tree is alive, you must also accept that fetus is alive. The fact that it isn't done developing makes no difference. It was created by a human egg, and a human sperm. It is human life.
If you disagree on either of these points, I consider you immoral and unqualified to engage in the reproductive act. However, you'll probably do really well in this world since it's full of people who just don't care.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]you intend to end anothers life before it is even started. mourninguser1How can you end something that hasn't started yet what the **** am I reading.
The dictionary does decide whether or not a word is being used properly in conversation. We're not in a court of law here, we're having a discussion. My use of the term is correct since I assume the right to call abortion murder, being both inhuman and barbarous IMO.hartsickdisciplBut it's not being used properly ifoasfhsaoifafhiooihhiosafiohsafohifoia **** this, I'm going to bathe in baby blood and call it a night. You have the intent of ending that childs life. Whether you think at that point it's a child or not. You still intend to end it's existence.
It isn't attacking you. You are a parasite to your parents, you eat their food, use their resources, but if they killed you wouldn't it be considered murder? I'm using the biological term for a parasite. Not the loose metaphorical one. Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species. It's a human.[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="nervmeister"]But that thing inside you is stealing raw nutrients from your body for itself. It's fundamentally a parasitic act now matter how you look at it. One that is indisputably harmful and potentially deadly to the mother. Therefore, aborting it can rather easily be considered self-defense.nervmeister
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]Abortion is just an easy way out of the consequences of screwing someone.ADF_Game
All of your arguments come from the "demand" that impregnation must always result in a child, no one gave you that authority; and they certainly don't care what your imaginary friend has to say about it either.
Who do you think you are?
The type of person that gives a damn.
No, just like if I take a tree and burn it to the groud its no longer a tree.No, but if I cut the tree down its still a tree right? Not burning, killing. Do you have an actual argument? Arguing sematics is quite dull.[QUOTE="htekemerald"]
[QUOTE="racer8dan"]Is my dead uncle not a human?
racer8dan
And no without roots I would not call it a tree.
It isn't attacking you. You are a parasite to your parents, you eat their food, use their resources, but if they killed you wouldn't it be considered murder?Snipes_2I'm using the biological term for a parasite. Not the loose metaphorical one. Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species. It's a human. Or just human-like....
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]The fact that they are called "reproductive organs" and that among other things they help in reproduction doesnt mean that this is their sole purpose of existence (if we use terms such as "purpose").[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Why else would we have Reproductive Organs if not for the means of procreation :/ If it wasn't meant for that, why does it exist?Snipes_2
Among other things they offer pleasure. Therefore, by your mindset they are meant for pleasure.
Why do you "place" child-bearing "above" pleasure?
He never said it was the sole purpose and neither did I. He specifically said "meant for" if I remember correctly in some of his other posts. So did you in the post of yours that I quoted.Besides when one uses phrases like: "were created for" what else could they mean?
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"][QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]
I'm sorry you don't understand the metaphors, allow me to explain.
The fetus was not put in the river by the parents. He was given life by the parents. He is in the river by virtue of the fact that his own biology has left him in a helpless state. It's not the mother's fault that a fetus is biologically ill equipped, so she has no obligation to help it.
Intend or design doesn't mean anything. There are actions and consequences. Accepting possible consequences and consenting to consequences are two different things. You can acknowledge and be held responsible for consequences, but that doesn't mean you explicitly consented to them happening. When I go on pub crawls I sign forms saying that I cannot hold the organizers responsible for any theft that may happen. Just because I agreed to be held personally responsible for those consequences, does not mean that I gave anyone the consent to steal from me.
xscrapzx
No, the fetus WAS put in the river by it's parents. It's helpless state was CREATED by the parents who seem to be oblivious to the fact that this might happen if they had sex! They created both the child and its circumstances, they are 100% accountable and obligated to help the creature that they created. What's so hard about the concept of having sex getting people pregnant? What's so hard about the concept that you don't kill off a living creature because you screwed-up?
You want to talk about bad analogies? Somebody stealing from you on a pub crawl versus your wife/GF getting pregnant because you stuck your rod in her and ejaculated? When you have sex, it's just you and the other person. There are no fellow pub-crawlers around to blame for the consequences.. PLEASE..
So the parents can create but they can't destroy? I mean I know that sounds harsh, but if you have the power to create, do you not have the power to do the opposite?You're right, it does sound harsh. So harsh that it can't be right. Oh hell.. why not? All parents should be able to kill their offspring, that sounds about right.. I think everyone will be ok with that. Unreal.
He never said it was the sole purpose and neither did I. He specifically said "meant for" if I remember correctly in some of his other posts.[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]The fact that they are called "reproductive organs" and that among other things they help in reproduction doesnt mean that this is their sole purpose of existence (if we use terms such as "purpose").
Among other things they offer pleasure. Therefore, by your mindset they are meant for pleasure.
Why do you "place" child-bearing "above" pleasure?
Teenaged
Besides when one uses phrases like: "were created for" what else could they mean?
Let me ask you this-- Do you believe in God? Do you believe in Evolution? If you believe in the Christian God, then the Bible makes it pretty clear that the reproductive organs are for just that purpose. If you're an atheist and/or believe in evolution, does not evolution follow a practical path? Would those organs have evolved as they did for the purpose of "having fun?" No.. they would've evolved for procreation, for their utility.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="nervmeister"] I'm using the biological term for a parasite. Not the loose metaphorical one.Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species. It's a human. Or just human-like....nervmeister
Apparently so "human-like" that it will develop into a full-fledged human 100% of the time it doesn't die from some defect, or you don't kill it.
He never said it was the sole purpose and neither did I. He specifically said "meant for" if I remember correctly in some of his other posts. So did you in the post of yours that I quoted.[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]The fact that they are called "reproductive organs" and that among other things they help in reproduction doesnt mean that this is their sole purpose of existence (if we use terms such as "purpose").
Among other things they offer pleasure. Therefore, by your mindset they are meant for pleasure.
Why do you "place" child-bearing "above" pleasure?
Teenaged
Besides when one uses phrases like: "were created for" what else could they mean?
That they were created for that Purpose. Doesn't mean it's the sole reason for creation. Although, I do believe it is.He specifically said "meant for" if I remember correctly in some of his other posts.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] He never said it was the sole purpose and neither did I. hartsickdiscipl
Besides when one uses phrases like: "were created for" what else could they mean?
Let me ask you this-- Do you believe in God? Do you believe in Evolution? If you believe in the Christian God, then the Bible makes it pretty clear that the reproductive organs are for just that purpose. If you're an atheist and/or believe in evolution, does not evolution follow a practical path? Would those organs have evolved as they did for the purpose of "having fun?" No.. they would've evolved for procreation, for their utility.
Yeah, I was just going to point that out.No, but if I cut the tree down its still a tree right? Not burning, killing. Do you have an actual argument? Arguing sematics is quite dull.[QUOTE="racer8dan"]
[QUOTE="htekemerald"] No, just like if I take a tree and burn it to the groud its no longer a tree.
htekemerald
And no without roots I would not call it a tree.
Did you just actually forget about the argument? You said a fetus wasn't a child because it lack a brain/thought. But in reality, it is a human child, its just missing certain features of an adult human, the same goes for a one year old who is missing certain features. If a tree falls over, I would still call it a tree BTW.[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
No, the fetus WAS put in the river by it's parents. It's helpless state was CREATED by the parents who seem to be oblivious to the fact that this might happen if they had sex! They created both the child and its circumstances, they are 100% accountable and obligated to help the creature that they created. What's so hard about the concept of having sex getting people pregnant? What's so hard about the concept that you don't kill off a living creature because you screwed-up?
You want to talk about bad analogies? Somebody stealing from you on a pub crawl versus your wife/GF getting pregnant because you stuck your rod in her and ejaculated? When you have sex, it's just you and the other person. There are no fellow pub-crawlers around to blame for the consequences.. PLEASE..
So the parents can create but they can't destroy? I mean I know that sounds harsh, but if you have the power to create, do you not have the power to do the opposite?You're right, it does sound harsh. So harsh that it can't be right. Oh hell.. why not? All parents should be able to kill their offspring, that sounds about right.. I think everyone will be ok with that. Unreal.
Have you spoke to a fetus before? Has one ever in the history of human beings ever communicated to anyone or make any of kind notion that it wanted to live or die? Do they vote? Do they work and contribute to society? The answer to all of them are no? Why? Because they can't, it is a stage of pregnancy and because you know what the end result is after 9 months you think its not right. You are comparing a living breathing child to a cell. Have you ever killed a spider or any leaving creature in your entire life?[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
Please stop trying to win this argument, you can't do it logically. It's not even worth it.
A fetus is not equivalent to a person drowing in a river, unless the person drowing in the river was PUT there by someone. Then the person in the river does have the right to life, and the person who put them there must save them from a moral perspective. The fetus was created by 2 people mating and PUTTING that fetus into the womb, or river. Whether they intended to do it or not, they had sex (which IS the biological means of procreation, everyone knows that), and they ARE accountable for the results, whether they intended to get pregnant or not. Tell me how they are not Your logic is well.. nonexistent.
Every time I go to the drag strip with my car, I have to sign a waiver that says that I won't sue the track for and damages to my car, injuries, or loss of life. It also says that I am financially responsible for whatever happens. I choose to race, which is inherently more dangerous to my life and propery than sitting at home playing games. I accept the responsibility and consequences of whatever may happen when I race.
Now compare that to having sex and getting pregnant. I have to sign an agreement to take accountability for damages and injuries while racing, which is not INTENDED to, or DESIGNED for creating injuries and death. However, there is a risk.. so I have to realize what the consequences to me might be. Is there anything unfair about me being responsible for that?
Sex IS designed for procreation.. yet you say that people aren't giving consent and taking responsiblity for the possibility that they might get pregnant and have a child on their hands as a result of doing it? That's absolutely ludicrous. You take responsiblity for things much less directly than sex and pregnancy every day.
hartsickdiscipl
I'm sorry you don't understand the metaphors, allow me to explain.
The fetus was not put in the river by the parents. He was given life by the parents. He is in the river by virtue of the fact that his own biology has left him in a helpless state. It's not the mother's fault that a fetus is biologically ill equipped, so she has no obligation to help it.
Intend or design doesn't mean anything. There are actions and consequences. Accepting possible consequences and consenting to consequences are two different things. You can acknowledge and be held responsible for consequences, but that doesn't mean you explicitly consented to them happening. When I go on pub crawls I sign forms saying that I cannot hold the organizers responsible for any theft that may happen. Just because I agreed to be held personally responsible for those consequences, does not mean that I gave anyone the consent to steal from me.
No, the fetus WAS put in the river by it's parents. It's helpless state was CREATED by the parents who seem to be oblivious to the fact that this might happen if they had sex! They created both the child and its circumstances, they are 100% accountable and obligated to help the creature that they created. What's so hard about the concept of having sex getting people pregnant? What's so hard about the concept that you don't kill off a living creature because you screwed-up?
You want to talk about bad analogies? Somebody stealing from you on a pub crawl versus your wife/GF getting pregnant because you stuck your rod in her and ejaculated? When you have sex, it's just you and the other person. There are no fellow pub-crawlers around to blame for the consequences.. PLEASE..
No, its helpless state was created because fetus aren't very well biologically equipped. If we could create fetus that could survive out of the womb right off the bat there wouldn't be a problem. But the woman has no say in that. Fetus's aren't helpless by consequences or mistakes, they are helpless because that's the way they are, no blame to the parents.
Also, you seem to think that the consequence of sex is giving birth to a child. The consequence of sex is potentially a zygote. And people will have to deal with that and accept responsibility, whether that means abortion, giving birth, adoption, etc. Lastly you should note that producing a zygote isn't even a likely consequence of sex, it's well below 50% chance, and even lower if protection is being used.
And I'm not sure what to make of your second point. My analogy has nothing to do with blame. It's simply showing that engaging in an activity with potential consequences, and even agreeing to those consequences does not mean implicit consent. And without consent, the baby has no right to the woman's body.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="nervmeister"] I'm using the biological term for a parasite. Not the loose metaphorical one.Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species. It's a human. Or just human-like.... It is a Human though, what else could it be.nervmeister
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"] So the parents can create but they can't destroy? I mean I know that sounds harsh, but if you have the power to create, do you not have the power to do the opposite?xscrapzx
You're right, it does sound harsh. So harsh that it can't be right. Oh hell.. why not? All parents should be able to kill their offspring, that sounds about right.. I think everyone will be ok with that. Unreal.
Have you spoke to a fetus before? Has one ever in the history of human beings ever communicated to anyone or make any of kind notion that it wanted to live or die? Do they vote? Do they work and contribute to society? The answer to all of them are no? Why? Because they can't, it is a stage of pregnancy and because you know what the end result is after 9 months you think its not right. You are comparing a living breathing child to a cell. Have you ever killed a spider or any leaving creature in your entire life?Did you know that children sometimes remember songs that their mother sang to them while they were in the womb? They're more aware than you think.
He specifically said "meant for" if I remember correctly in some of his other posts.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] He never said it was the sole purpose and neither did I. hartsickdiscipl
Besides when one uses phrases like: "were created for" what else could they mean?
Let me ask you this-- Do you believe in God? Do you believe in Evolution? If you believe in the Christian God, then the Bible makes it pretty clear that the reproductive organs are for just that purpose. If you're an atheist and/or believe in evolution, does not evolution follow a practical path? Would those organs have evolved as they did for the purpose of "having fun?" No.. they would've evolved for procreation, for their utility.
No I dont take the Bible literally nor do I believe it is inerrant. But that is hardly how are discussion started. You are back-pedalling to religious arguments.The fact that I believe evolution works like that doesnt mean I place restrictions on my actions in order to "help" it out. It definitely doesnt indicate what the reproductive organs were meant for. When you bring up evolution there is no "meant for".
[QUOTE="htekemerald"]
[QUOTE="racer8dan"]No, but if I cut the tree down its still a tree right? Not burning, killing.
Do you have an actual argument? Arguing sematics is quite dull.And no without roots I would not call it a tree.
Did you just actually forget about the argument? You said a fetus wasn't a child because it lack a brain/thought. But in reality, it is a human child, its just missing certain features of an adult human, the same goes for a one year old who is missing certain features. If a tree falls over, I would still call it a tree BTW. Does a fetus have a social security number when a women finds out she has one? Is my cat a lion? I mean it does have similar features to that of the ones that are in Africa, you see how rediculous that sounds.[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"] So the parents can create but they can't destroy? I mean I know that sounds harsh, but if you have the power to create, do you not have the power to do the opposite?xscrapzx
You're right, it does sound harsh. So harsh that it can't be right. Oh hell.. why not? All parents should be able to kill their offspring, that sounds about right.. I think everyone will be ok with that. Unreal.
Have you spoke to a fetus before? Has one ever in the history of human beings ever communicated to anyone or make any of kind notion that it wanted to live or die? Do they vote? Do they work and contribute to society? The answer to all of them are no? Why? Because they can't, it is a stage of pregnancy and because you know what the end result is after 9 months you think its not right. You are comparing a living breathing child to a cell. Have you ever killed a spider or any leaving creature in your entire life?does a 2 year old do any of that?He specifically said "meant for" if I remember correctly in some of his other posts. So did you in the post of yours that I quoted.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] He never said it was the sole purpose and neither did I. Snipes_2
Besides when one uses phrases like: "were created for" what else could they mean?
That they were created for that Purpose. Doesn't mean it's the sole reason for creation. Although, I do believe it is.Um no.That is what he said:
We all know that sex is for procreation, above all else.
Clearly he was distinguishing that purpose as the most important. Little difference does it make. My point still stands. Whether he meant "sole" or "most important", he cant support it without resorting to religion.
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
You're right, it does sound harsh. So harsh that it can't be right. Oh hell.. why not? All parents should be able to kill their offspring, that sounds about right.. I think everyone will be ok with that. Unreal.
Have you spoke to a fetus before? Has one ever in the history of human beings ever communicated to anyone or make any of kind notion that it wanted to live or die? Do they vote? Do they work and contribute to society? The answer to all of them are no? Why? Because they can't, it is a stage of pregnancy and because you know what the end result is after 9 months you think its not right. You are comparing a living breathing child to a cell. Have you ever killed a spider or any leaving creature in your entire life?Did you know that children sometimes remember songs that their mother sang to them while they were in the womb? They're more aware than you think.
You have proof that a mother sang a song during pregnancy and only during pregnancy because if she sang it while it was a living breathing human being out of the womb then that would negate that a fetus remembered that song.[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
You're right, it does sound harsh. So harsh that it can't be right. Oh hell.. why not? All parents should be able to kill their offspring, that sounds about right.. I think everyone will be ok with that. Unreal.
Have you spoke to a fetus before? Has one ever in the history of human beings ever communicated to anyone or make any of kind notion that it wanted to live or die? Do they vote? Do they work and contribute to society? The answer to all of them are no? Why? Because they can't, it is a stage of pregnancy and because you know what the end result is after 9 months you think its not right. You are comparing a living breathing child to a cell. Have you ever killed a spider or any leaving creature in your entire life?does a 2 year old do any of that? No a 2 year old does not do that, but they sure as heck comunicate back to you when they are happy, sad, or hungry.....That they were created for that Purpose. Doesn't mean it's the sole reason for creation. Although, I do believe it is.Um no.[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]He specifically said "meant for" if I remember correctly in some of his other posts. So did you in the post of yours that I quoted.
Besides when one uses phrases like: "were created for" what else could they mean?
Teenaged
That is what he said:
We all know that sex is for procreation, above all else.
Clearly he was distinguishing that purpose as the most important. Little difference does it make. My point still stands. Whether he meant "sole" or "most important", he cant support it without resorting to religion.
Why would they be called Reproductive if that was not their purpose? Why would evolution create a seemingly useless part of the body.Or just human-like.... It is a Human though, what else could it be. Something that isn't quite human yet?[QUOTE="nervmeister"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species. It's a human. Snipes_2
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]It is a Human though, what else could it be. Something that isn't quite human yet? It has all the cells that compose a human. If it even had a slim possibility of being human, wouldn't it constitute at killing/murder?[QUOTE="nervmeister"]Or just human-like....nervmeister
Not for the purposes of post- contraception. I agree that a women should have the right if her life is in danger, or if she is in the service and won't have anyone to watch her child while she's deployed or if it's rape or if it's a pre-teen mother (which falls under rape still) but not because someone was too stupid to wear a condom or if the mom isn't on birth control. And then wait past the actual post-contraception like Plan B.
Post comment Q&A:
Q: But what if the condom broke and it was a complete accident?
A: There are consequences in our lives for everything we do. This is one of them. I'm not an advocate for abstinence but if you're not ready to take care of a child then you shouldn't be having intercourse/ casual intercourse.
Q: That's not fare! What if the guy leaves you after he finds out you're pregnant and you have to bear the weight alone.
A: most of the first Answer covers this but you should really know the guy you're having intercourse with
Q: So, you're telling me you don't have casual intercourse?
A: Of course I do, the differences it that I take precautions that guarantee that pregnancy won't be an issue.
Q: Like what?
A: Adding more than one line of birth control is always a much better way of controlling pregnancy.
Q: So, someone and their child should pay the rest of their lives for wanting to experience intercourse?
A: No, there are many adoption programs set up for people that get pregnant and don't want a child. While they might not be much better in the child care system then they would be with their biological mother but at least they're alive.
Q: What are you, some religious nut or some pro-life conservative?
A: No. I'm a very liberal agnosticbi curious guy. This just happens to be the one issue that most democrats believe Pro-choice and I believe "make better decisions".
An animal doesn't have a right to live, a human does, a fetus is a human.Anyone sitting here claiming that a fetus has a right to live. I want one of you who isclaiming this to tell me why a spider does not have that same right, or a cow even.
xscrapzx
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment