| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
12 Mar 2005 04:12:35 PM |
| Object: |
women as breeding stock |
in my opinion ...
those who would deny women their right to terminate a pegnancy at any
time during the pregnancy and for any reason think of women as nothing
more than breeding stock.
and, of course, the same mindset which could deny women this right
could use the same misogynist reasoning to force women to abort
i believe it was during the late 80s or early 90s when i first
expressed this opinion on usenet. i have never heard anything to cause
me to change my views.
.
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 01:35:35 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
In article <hh6_d.8770$oa6.5846@trnddc07>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2b34d250db76e98c338@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <AavZd.5378$b_6.3500@trnddc01>,
says...
Sorry for my sarcasm here, but what a silly notion.
Oh, really? And if you have sex just because you want the jollies, you
are
having it with more than one person
By no means necessarily so.
Many people have sex - lots of it - for 'jollies' as you put it... just
with their partner. There is no requirement to have multiple partners to
have fun, pleasure, satisfaction etc from one's sex life... even if you
*only* have sex 'because you want the jollies'.
Pat, if you are only having it with one person, it is serving one of the
purposes for which it was designed/evolved/whatever. It is keeping you and
that person close, together, and monogamous. It provides something more than
just the 'jollies', or you wouldn't BE keeping to just one person.
You are the one who (wrongly) claimed that if you are having sex just
for 'jollies' you are having sex with more than one person.
It wasn't my claim. It was yours!
She can't count the chevrons? Amazing how math goes out the window for such
dedicated crusaders.
I pointed out that monogamous people also have sex just for the
'jollies'.
I know that from experience -- in seventeen years (so far), Mrs. C and I have
done it for the sheer joy of it more than a few times...and we're about as
monogamous as is possible. Another data point, such as it is, to poke another
hole in Diana's illusions...
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Utah 1 (March 16)
NEXT GAME: Friday, March 18 at Utah, 8:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 03:18:53 PM |
|
|
In article <1FmZd.500$MV3.240@news02.roc.ny>,
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
DianaC wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-84A23F.15105314032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
<snip to>
You seem to have confused what is "okay" with what is legal. Someone who
uses my body without my consent risks a response -- this is true
regardless of what the law may be at any given time.
I submit that when two people engage in consensual sex, the pregnancy that
may result is also consented to. That's the problem with taking an action;
you are choosing not only the action, but the consequences of that action;
ALL of them. It's a little like walking on a cliff with the purpose of
enjoying the view: yeah, the view is great, but the risk of falling off and
going splash is ALSO a consequence that must be considered. You can attempt
to ameliorate the probabilities of that consequence; build walls.
strengthen
the cliff edge...but the point is, only if you approach the edge of the
cliff are you at all likely to fall over it.
Consent denotes approval. Do you approve of falling off the cliff, or
hitting a tree with your car? Unless you're suicidal, of course you don't.
When two people endage in consensual sex, they are approving only the
act of sex, not any after effects. Were they to contract a venereal
disease as a result, is it your position that they should not seek to
remove the disease and should just let it run it's course because they
"consented" to being diseased?
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that is the result of
NON-consensual sex.
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that the woman didn't
want. Becoming pregnant is not dependent upon consent. Sex is.
I find these generalizations are not helpful. Sex is not required to
become pregnant. Vaginal intercouse with ejaculation and a viable ova is.
It always
has been. I expect that it will continue to be this way. Not only do I
think it is okay to kill humans in some situations, in other situations
it almost seems mandatory.
In my view, any person has the right to kill another thing, person,
entity, virus, adult, etc. when they violate that individual's body.
With all due respect, pregnancy as a result of consensual sex is not a
violation. It's an invitation.
I don't really care. If you should use my body without my ongoing
consent and even with an initial invitation, you do put yourself at
risk. That the law, or your interpretation of it might be different is
really irrelevant to me at this juncture.
So...it's ok by you to, say, shoot the guy that has rented your house, but
that you don't have time to evict properly? You want him out, so....kill
him?
He said his body, not his house.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 04:11:54 PM |
|
|
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-B8119C.16185314032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <1FmZd.500$MV3.240@news02.roc.ny>,
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
DianaC wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-84A23F.15105314032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
<snip to>
You seem to have confused what is "okay" with what is legal. Someone
who
uses my body without my consent risks a response -- this is true
regardless of what the law may be at any given time.
I submit that when two people engage in consensual sex, the pregnancy
that
may result is also consented to. That's the problem with taking an
action;
you are choosing not only the action, but the consequences of that
action;
ALL of them. It's a little like walking on a cliff with the purpose of
enjoying the view: yeah, the view is great, but the risk of falling off
and
going splash is ALSO a consequence that must be considered. You can
attempt
to ameliorate the probabilities of that consequence; build walls.
strengthen
the cliff edge...but the point is, only if you approach the edge of the
cliff are you at all likely to fall over it.
Consent denotes approval. Do you approve of falling off the cliff, or
hitting a tree with your car? Unless you're suicidal, of course you
don't.
When two people endage in consensual sex, they are approving only the
act of sex, not any after effects. Were they to contract a venereal
disease as a result, is it your position that they should not seek to
remove the disease and should just let it run it's course because they
"consented" to being diseased?
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that is the result of
NON-consensual sex.
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that the woman didn't
want. Becoming pregnant is not dependent upon consent. Sex is.
I find these generalizations are not helpful. Sex is not required to
become pregnant. Vaginal intercouse with ejaculation and a viable ova is.
Fine.
So if you don't want to be pregnant, indulge in the sort of sex that is NOT
vaginal intercourse with ejaculation and a viable ovum.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 05:16:57 PM |
|
|
In article <K_nZd.5423$mq2.1760@trnddc08>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-B8119C.16185314032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <1FmZd.500$MV3.240@news02.roc.ny>,
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
DianaC wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-84A23F.15105314032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
<snip to>
You seem to have confused what is "okay" with what is legal. Someone
who
uses my body without my consent risks a response -- this is true
regardless of what the law may be at any given time.
I submit that when two people engage in consensual sex, the pregnancy
that
may result is also consented to. That's the problem with taking an
action;
you are choosing not only the action, but the consequences of that
action;
ALL of them. It's a little like walking on a cliff with the purpose of
enjoying the view: yeah, the view is great, but the risk of falling off
and
going splash is ALSO a consequence that must be considered. You can
attempt
to ameliorate the probabilities of that consequence; build walls.
strengthen
the cliff edge...but the point is, only if you approach the edge of the
cliff are you at all likely to fall over it.
Consent denotes approval. Do you approve of falling off the cliff, or
hitting a tree with your car? Unless you're suicidal, of course you
don't.
When two people endage in consensual sex, they are approving only the
act of sex, not any after effects. Were they to contract a venereal
disease as a result, is it your position that they should not seek to
remove the disease and should just let it run it's course because they
"consented" to being diseased?
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that is the result of
NON-consensual sex.
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that the woman didn't
want. Becoming pregnant is not dependent upon consent. Sex is.
I find these generalizations are not helpful. Sex is not required to
become pregnant. Vaginal intercouse with ejaculation and a viable ova is.
Fine.
So if you don't want to be pregnant, indulge in the sort of sex that is NOT
vaginal intercourse with ejaculation and a viable ovum.
That seems like one option. Birth control then, isn't as necessary as
one might think. the question then is why should we be promoting the use
and excessive use of harmful hormones to women when there are other
options available to them. Why should women waste money and jeopardize
their health when with a slight modification to HOW they have sex they
can avoid pregnancy, avoid abortion and enjoy the benefits of intimacy
and bonding with a partner.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 06:42:21 PM |
|
|
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-879D30.18165714032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <K_nZd.5423$mq2.1760@trnddc08>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
So if you don't want to be pregnant, indulge in the sort of sex that is
NOT
vaginal intercourse with ejaculation and a viable ovum.
That seems like one option. Birth control then, isn't as necessary as
one might think.
Except of course that this is one form of birth control.
the question then is why should we be promoting the use
and excessive use of harmful hormones to women when there are other
options available to them. Why should women waste money and jeopardize
their health when with a slight modification to HOW they have sex they
can avoid pregnancy, avoid abortion and enjoy the benefits of intimacy
and bonding with a partner.
Oh, brother. Why are you obsessing about 'the pill'? It's not the only form
of birth control out there, nor is it even one that I, or anyone else here,
has emphasised over another one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 07:08:17 PM |
|
|
In article <NbqZd.2497$Z07.848@trnddc02>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-879D30.18165714032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <K_nZd.5423$mq2.1760@trnddc08>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
So if you don't want to be pregnant, indulge in the sort of sex that is
NOT
vaginal intercourse with ejaculation and a viable ovum.
That seems like one option. Birth control then, isn't as necessary as
one might think.
Except of course that this is one form of birth control.
the question then is why should we be promoting the use
and excessive use of harmful hormones to women when there are other
options available to them. Why should women waste money and jeopardize
their health when with a slight modification to HOW they have sex they
can avoid pregnancy, avoid abortion and enjoy the benefits of intimacy
and bonding with a partner.
Oh, brother. Why are you obsessing about 'the pill'? It's not the only form
of birth control out there, nor is it even one that I, or anyone else here,
has emphasised over another one.
Since you wrote and in caps, "TAKE THE PILL". I am inclined to suggest
that you are being dishonest here.
Same problem regardless of the type of birth control involved. Of
course, women must be savages and be unable to say "no dear, I'm fertile
for the next few days, let's abstain or do something different." Why a
woman would choose to polute her body for decades with hormones and
knowing that they provide health consequences does have me questioning
her mental stability.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 12:19:56 AM |
|
|
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-B029F3.20081714032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <NbqZd.2497$Z07.848@trnddc02>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-879D30.18165714032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <K_nZd.5423$mq2.1760@trnddc08>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
So if you don't want to be pregnant, indulge in the sort of sex that
is
NOT
vaginal intercourse with ejaculation and a viable ovum.
That seems like one option. Birth control then, isn't as necessary as
one might think.
Except of course that this is one form of birth control.
the question then is why should we be promoting the use
and excessive use of harmful hormones to women when there are other
options available to them. Why should women waste money and jeopardize
their health when with a slight modification to HOW they have sex they
can avoid pregnancy, avoid abortion and enjoy the benefits of intimacy
and bonding with a partner.
Oh, brother. Why are you obsessing about 'the pill'? It's not the only
form
of birth control out there, nor is it even one that I, or anyone else
here,
has emphasised over another one.
Since you wrote and in caps, "TAKE THE PILL". I am inclined to suggest
that you are being dishonest here.
I also mentioned condoms and diaphragms and spermicidal creams and jells. I
suggest you stop being disengenuous.
Same problem regardless of the type of birth control involved. Of
course, women must be savages and be unable to say "no dear, I'm fertile
for the next few days, let's abstain or do something different." Why a
woman would choose to polute her body for decades with hormones and
knowing that they provide health consequences does have me questioning
her mental stability.
Well, Vatican Roulette works SOOOOO well................not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 12:56:34 AM |
|
|
In article <g8vZd.5377$b_6.3647@trnddc01>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-B029F3.20081714032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <NbqZd.2497$Z07.848@trnddc02>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-879D30.18165714032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <K_nZd.5423$mq2.1760@trnddc08>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
So if you don't want to be pregnant, indulge in the sort of sex that
is
NOT
vaginal intercourse with ejaculation and a viable ovum.
That seems like one option. Birth control then, isn't as necessary as
one might think.
Except of course that this is one form of birth control.
the question then is why should we be promoting the use
and excessive use of harmful hormones to women when there are other
options available to them. Why should women waste money and jeopardize
their health when with a slight modification to HOW they have sex they
can avoid pregnancy, avoid abortion and enjoy the benefits of intimacy
and bonding with a partner.
Oh, brother. Why are you obsessing about 'the pill'? It's not the only
form
of birth control out there, nor is it even one that I, or anyone else
here,
has emphasised over another one.
Since you wrote and in caps, "TAKE THE PILL". I am inclined to suggest
that you are being dishonest here.
I also mentioned condoms and diaphragms and spermicidal creams and jells. I
suggest you stop being disengenuous.
Okay, so what are the long term effects of insert spermicidal creams and
jellies into a women's system. The area is full of tears and abrasions
(the same route that HIV gets into the system). These are toxins that
are designed to kills cells you are suggesting that women use them
regularly. Sex causes abrasions in the skin even with lubricant.
Spermicide and other products can enter have direct blood contact. What
are the results of carcinomas for women who use these products. What are
the incidence rates of uterine and ovarian cancer for women who
regularly put poisons into their vaginas and uteruses.
Sexual activity causes friction. How many microscopic chemics from
condons can a woman's body withstand before her system experience some
type of reaction. Latex is a type of plastic. How much microscopic bits
of plastic can any women tolerate being rubbed into abrasions and over
time.
Diaphragms are a problem in and of themselves. Tears, perforations and
so on. Of course, a diaphagm only provides for a charge of mansalughter
since it makes the uterus incapable of allowing the FERTILIZED egg to
implant. I would consider that an early and easier abortion.
Same problem regardless of the type of birth control involved. Of
course, women must be savages and be unable to say "no dear, I'm fertile
for the next few days, let's abstain or do something different." Why a
woman would choose to polute her body for decades with hormones and
knowing that they provide health consequences does have me questioning
her mental stability.
Well, Vatican Roulette works SOOOOO well................not.
Huh? How is avoiding sex on a fertile day roulette? Are you saying that
you are incapable of controlling your sexual impulses? While someone
women are unpredictable in their cycles, plenty of women are quite
regular and able to safely know their fertile days. Your one solution
for all approach puts many women at risk. Further, for those women who
are un certain there are ways of medically verifying that a woman is
fertile at any given time. I appreciate that some are lazy and might not
want to do that, but then again, birth control is not always necessary.
Further, you failed to address the issue of how one has sex. All of thes
"solutions" are only require for vaginal intercourse. Clearly, there ARE
other options that rules out any unwanted pregnancy and any need for
contraception.
One solution might be to limit vaginal intercourse to times where one is
attempting to become pregnant and using other forms of sex at other
times. See -- no abortion, no unwnated children, no birth control, etc.
Clearly, your position is advocating harm for all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 03:11:44 PM |
|
|
In article <homo-6EF535.01563415032005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
homo@home.com says...
Well, Vatican Roulette works SOOOOO well................not.
Huh? How is avoiding sex on a fertile day roulette?
It can't be done with certainty. It is *possible* to conceive at any
tiome of the month - even during the menstrual time. here are times for
the more regular women when conception is less likely, but no times when
it is impossible, since you can never be sure whether or not an ovum has
just been or is just about to be released, and sperm can live inside the
woman for some days.
It is also a totally useless method for any woman whose periods are at
all irregular - for instance in the early years of fertility before the
cyles have properly settled down to maturity, and during the last few
years of fertility when the cycle is getting erratic. Some women never
have settled cycles for the whole of their lives.
Then there are general everyday glitches that can disrupt the cycle too,
such as weight gain/loss, some medications, mental health (such as
stress etc) and also the periods of hormonal adjustment as use of a
contraceptive method is discontinued or started.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 01:46:31 AM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2b16ba77425ce98c337@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <homo-6EF535.01563415032005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
homo@home.com says...
Well, Vatican Roulette works SOOOOO well................not.
Huh? How is avoiding sex on a fertile day roulette?
It can't be done with certainty. It is *possible* to conceive at any
tiome of the month - even during the menstrual time. here are times for
the more regular women when conception is less likely, but no times when
it is impossible, since you can never be sure whether or not an ovum has
just been or is just about to be released, and sperm can live inside the
woman for some days.
It is also a totally useless method for any woman whose periods are at
all irregular - for instance in the early years of fertility before the
cyles have properly settled down to maturity, and during the last few
years of fertility when the cycle is getting erratic. Some women never
have settled cycles for the whole of their lives.
Then there are general everyday glitches that can disrupt the cycle too,
such as weight gain/loss, some medications, mental health (such as
stress etc) and also the periods of hormonal adjustment as use of a
contraceptive method is discontinued or started.
Not to mention that it is entirely possible, not even all that unusual, for
a woman to ovulate twice before a period.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 11:55:17 AM |
|
|
In article <rBa_d.5773$b_6.2778@trnddc01>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2b16ba77425ce98c337@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <homo-6EF535.01563415032005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
homo@home.com says...
Well, Vatican Roulette works SOOOOO well................not.
Huh? How is avoiding sex on a fertile day roulette?
It can't be done with certainty. It is *possible* to conceive at any
tiome of the month - even during the menstrual time. here are times for
the more regular women when conception is less likely, but no times when
it is impossible, since you can never be sure whether or not an ovum has
just been or is just about to be released, and sperm can live inside the
woman for some days.
It is also a totally useless method for any woman whose periods are at
all irregular - for instance in the early years of fertility before the
cyles have properly settled down to maturity, and during the last few
years of fertility when the cycle is getting erratic. Some women never
have settled cycles for the whole of their lives.
Then there are general everyday glitches that can disrupt the cycle too,
such as weight gain/loss, some medications, mental health (such as
stress etc) and also the periods of hormonal adjustment as use of a
contraceptive method is discontinued or started.
Not to mention that it is entirely possible, not even all that unusual, for
a woman to ovulate twice before a period.
Indeed... a woman can even be fertile during menstruation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 03:03:53 PM |
|
|
In article <g8vZd.5377$b_6.3647@trnddc01>,
says...
Same problem regardless of the type of birth control involved. Of
course, women must be savages and be unable to say "no dear, I'm fertile
for the next few days, let's abstain or do something different." Why a
woman would choose to polute her body for decades with hormones and
knowing that they provide health consequences does have me questioning
her mental stability.
Well, Vatican Roulette works SOOOOO well................not.
ROFL... about the only thing I've agreed with you on, Diana! ;-))
The doctors laughingly define women who use 'rhythm' methods of
contraception as... 'mothers'! ;-))
I know there are a variety of such methods, but none is terribly useful
for most women... since most women don't have the perfectly regular
cycles on which such methods depend. They are more useful when trying to
conceive than when trying not to conceive.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 03:40:10 PM |
|
|
Ron wrote:
In article <1FmZd.500$MV3.240@news02.roc.ny>,
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
DianaC wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-84A23F.15105314032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
<snip to>
You seem to have confused what is "okay" with what is legal. Someone who
uses my body without my consent risks a response -- this is true
regardless of what the law may be at any given time.
I submit that when two people engage in consensual sex, the pregnancy that
may result is also consented to. That's the problem with taking an action;
you are choosing not only the action, but the consequences of that action;
ALL of them. It's a little like walking on a cliff with the purpose of
enjoying the view: yeah, the view is great, but the risk of falling off and
going splash is ALSO a consequence that must be considered. You can attempt
to ameliorate the probabilities of that consequence; build walls.
strengthen
the cliff edge...but the point is, only if you approach the edge of the
cliff are you at all likely to fall over it.
Consent denotes approval. Do you approve of falling off the cliff, or
hitting a tree with your car? Unless you're suicidal, of course you don't.
When two people endage in consensual sex, they are approving only the
act of sex, not any after effects. Were they to contract a venereal
disease as a result, is it your position that they should not seek to
remove the disease and should just let it run it's course because they
"consented" to being diseased?
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that is the result of
NON-consensual sex.
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that the woman didn't
want. Becoming pregnant is not dependent upon consent. Sex is.
I find these generalizations are not helpful. Sex is not required to
become pregnant.
I would never claim otherwise.
Vaginal intercouse with ejaculation and a viable ova is.
Artificial insemination works as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 04:12:31 PM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:_wnZd.533$hg.437@news01.roc.ny...
Ron wrote:
In article <1FmZd.500$MV3.240@news02.roc.ny>,
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
DianaC wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-84A23F.15105314032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
<snip to>
You seem to have confused what is "okay" with what is legal. Someone
who
uses my body without my consent risks a response -- this is true
regardless of what the law may be at any given time.
I submit that when two people engage in consensual sex, the pregnancy
that may result is also consented to. That's the problem with taking an
action; you are choosing not only the action, but the consequences of
that action; ALL of them. It's a little like walking on a cliff with the
purpose of enjoying the view: yeah, the view is great, but the risk of
falling off and going splash is ALSO a consequence that must be
considered. You can attempt to ameliorate the probabilities of that
consequence; build walls. strengthen the cliff edge...but the point is,
only if you approach the edge of the cliff are you at all likely to fall
over it.
Consent denotes approval. Do you approve of falling off the cliff, or
hitting a tree with your car? Unless you're suicidal, of course you
don't.
When two people endage in consensual sex, they are approving only the act
of sex, not any after effects. Were they to contract a venereal disease
as a result, is it your position that they should not seek to remove the
disease and should just let it run it's course because they "consented"
to being diseased?
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that is the result of
NON-consensual sex.
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that the woman didn't
want. Becoming pregnant is not dependent upon consent. Sex is.
I find these generalizations are not helpful. Sex is not required to
become pregnant.
I would never claim otherwise.
Vaginal intercouse with ejaculation and a viable ova is.
Artificial insemination works as well.
Indeed. However, in that case we KNOW that the pregnancy is specifically
invited, don't we?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 05:21:35 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:_wnZd.533$hg.437@news01.roc.ny...
Ron wrote:
In article <1FmZd.500$MV3.240@news02.roc.ny>,
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
DianaC wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-84A23F.15105314032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
<snip to>
You seem to have confused what is "okay" with what is legal. Someone
who
uses my body without my consent risks a response -- this is true
regardless of what the law may be at any given time.
I submit that when two people engage in consensual sex, the pregnancy
that may result is also consented to. That's the problem with taking an
action; you are choosing not only the action, but the consequences of
that action; ALL of them. It's a little like walking on a cliff with the
purpose of enjoying the view: yeah, the view is great, but the risk of
falling off and going splash is ALSO a consequence that must be
considered. You can attempt to ameliorate the probabilities of that
consequence; build walls. strengthen the cliff edge...but the point is,
only if you approach the edge of the cliff are you at all likely to fall
over it.
Consent denotes approval. Do you approve of falling off the cliff, or
hitting a tree with your car? Unless you're suicidal, of course you
don't.
When two people endage in consensual sex, they are approving only the act
of sex, not any after effects. Were they to contract a venereal disease
as a result, is it your position that they should not seek to remove the
disease and should just let it run it's course because they "consented"
to being diseased?
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that is the result of
NON-consensual sex.
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that the woman didn't
want. Becoming pregnant is not dependent upon consent. Sex is.
I find these generalizations are not helpful. Sex is not required to
become pregnant.
I would never claim otherwise.
Vaginal intercouse with ejaculation and a viable ova is.
Artificial insemination works as well.
Indeed. However, in that case we KNOW that the pregnancy is specifically
invited, don't we?
Absolutely.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 05:16:57 PM |
|
|
In article <j%nZd.5424$mq2.3243@trnddc08>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:_wnZd.533$hg.437@news01.roc.ny...
Ron wrote:
In article <1FmZd.500$MV3.240@news02.roc.ny>,
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
DianaC wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-84A23F.15105314032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
<snip to>
You seem to have confused what is "okay" with what is legal. Someone
who
uses my body without my consent risks a response -- this is true
regardless of what the law may be at any given time.
I submit that when two people engage in consensual sex, the pregnancy
that may result is also consented to. That's the problem with taking an
action; you are choosing not only the action, but the consequences of
that action; ALL of them. It's a little like walking on a cliff with the
purpose of enjoying the view: yeah, the view is great, but the risk of
falling off and going splash is ALSO a consequence that must be
considered. You can attempt to ameliorate the probabilities of that
consequence; build walls. strengthen the cliff edge...but the point is,
only if you approach the edge of the cliff are you at all likely to fall
over it.
Consent denotes approval. Do you approve of falling off the cliff, or
hitting a tree with your car? Unless you're suicidal, of course you
don't.
When two people endage in consensual sex, they are approving only the act
of sex, not any after effects. Were they to contract a venereal disease
as a result, is it your position that they should not seek to remove the
disease and should just let it run it's course because they "consented"
to being diseased?
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that is the result of
NON-consensual sex.
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that the woman didn't
want. Becoming pregnant is not dependent upon consent. Sex is.
I find these generalizations are not helpful. Sex is not required to
become pregnant.
I would never claim otherwise.
Vaginal intercouse with ejaculation and a viable ova is.
Artificial insemination works as well.
Indeed. However, in that case we KNOW that the pregnancy is specifically
invited, don't we?
I know. If I am walking to work and I decide to stop and go left to the
coffee shop first, I can't. I am now forever locked into that original
choice. I cannot make another decision.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 06:40:21 PM |
|
|
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-9432F8.18165714032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <j%nZd.5424$mq2.3243@trnddc08>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
Indeed. However, in that case we KNOW that the pregnancy is specifically
invited, don't we?
I know. If I am walking to work and I decide to stop and go left to the
coffee shop first, I can't. I am now forever locked into that original
choice. I cannot make another decision.
We aren't talking about mocha lattes. We are talking about human lives. Real
ones.
And it's a lot more like getting on the plane and taking off; changing your
mind before you actually land at your destination is a little harder to do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 07:02:26 PM |
|
|
In article <V9qZd.2496$Z07.1269@trnddc02>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-9432F8.18165714032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <j%nZd.5424$mq2.3243@trnddc08>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
Indeed. However, in that case we KNOW that the pregnancy is specifically
invited, don't we?
I know. If I am walking to work and I decide to stop and go left to the
coffee shop first, I can't. I am now forever locked into that original
choice. I cannot make another decision.
We aren't talking about mocha lattes. We are talking about human lives. Real
ones.
Might as well be mocha lattes. A single cell is a single cell. I kill
millions of those any time I have an infection. Tissues, organs, etc.
get hacked out of people's bodies pretty much daily. The embryo is
pretty much the same to me. Maybe you could try another tact, but if
this is the best argument that you can offer. I need to inform you that
abortion continues to receive my full support as an option.
And it's a lot more like getting on the plane and taking off; changing your
mind before you actually land at your destination is a little harder to do.
But since that isn't the case and a woman isn't going to crash to earth
from height of 34,000 feet, I say, go for the abortion. It's a
reasonable solution to the problem of an unwanted pregnancy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 02:58:02 PM |
|
|
In article <V9qZd.2496$Z07.1269@trnddc02>,
says...
I know. If I am walking to work and I decide to stop and go left to the
coffee shop first, I can't. I am now forever locked into that original
choice. I cannot make another decision.
We aren't talking about mocha lattes. We are talking about human lives. Real
ones.
The only people involved are the man and the woman.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 08:17:45 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2ae34f4c2151598c335@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <V9qZd.2496$Z07.1269@trnddc02>,
says...
I know. If I am walking to work and I decide to stop and go left to the
coffee shop first, I can't. I am now forever locked into that original
choice. I cannot make another decision.
We aren't talking about mocha lattes. We are talking about human lives.
Real
ones.
The only people involved are the man and the woman.
Which is begging the question. "Person" is a legal concept which can, and
has quite often, been changed. The idea is, that concept should be changed
again to include a fetus, for at least some rights.
You will notice that I haven't used the term 'person' or 'human being'. Even
you cannot deny that a fetus is human, and alive, and an organism that is
not the same as either one of the parents; a different human life, even
though it may be dependent upon one of them for the gestational period.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 11:26:21 AM |
|
|
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
The only people involved are the man and the woman.
Which is begging the question. "Person" is a legal concept which can, and
has quite often, been changed.
Not often but on occasion.
The idea is, that concept should be changed
again to include a fetus, for at least some rights.
Why should it be changed? That's the question YOU keep ignoring.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 12:17:13 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d1cejs$60j$1@bolt.sonic.net...
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
The only people involved are the man and the woman.
Which is begging the question. "Person" is a legal concept which can, and
has quite often, been changed.
Not often but on occasion.
The idea is, that concept should be changed
again to include a fetus, for at least some rights.
Why should it be changed? That's the question YOU keep ignoring.
It should be changed to reflect the scientific evidence that the fetus isn't
a changling piece of inanimate protaplasm that suddenly gets magically
exchanged for a living human being at the moment of birth, but is simply a
stage of development in the life of a human being, one that reaches from
conception to death (hopefully of old age after a long and fruitful life)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 08:49:07 PM |
|
|
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d1cejs$60j$1@bolt.sonic.net...
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
The only people involved are the man and the woman.
Which is begging the question. "Person" is a legal concept which can, and
has quite often, been changed.
Not often but on occasion.
The idea is, that concept should be changed
again to include a fetus, for at least some rights.
Why should it be changed? That's the question YOU keep ignoring.
It should be changed to reflect the scientific evidence that the fetus isn't
a changling piece of inanimate protaplasm that suddenly gets magically
exchanged for a living human being at the moment of birth, but is simply a
stage of development in the life of a human being, one that reaches from
conception to death (hopefully of old age after a long and fruitful life)
There is no scientific evidence that a fetus is a human being.
Your rant is no justification for changing the meaning of "person".
In fact you only reveal your obstinate ignorance of law and tradition.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 12:58:21 PM |
|
|
In article <JQj_d.5861$b_6.974@trnddc01>,
says...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d1cejs$60j$1@bolt.sonic.net...
DianaC < > wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
The only people involved are the man and the woman.
Which is begging the question. "Person" is a legal concept which can, and
has quite often, been changed.
Not often but on occasion.
The idea is, that concept should be changed
again to include a fetus, for at least some rights.
Why should it be changed? That's the question YOU keep ignoring.
It should be changed to reflect the scientific evidence that the fetus isn't
a changling piece of inanimate protaplasm that suddenly gets magically
exchanged for a living human being at the moment of birth, but is simply a
stage of development in the life of a human being, one that reaches from
conception to death (hopefully of old age after a long and fruitful life)
Your statements about the foetus above applies just as much to the sperm
or ovum (except for the time frame being a little longer). So should we
make sperm and ova legal persons as well? You seem to be claiming so!
;-))
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 02:47:38 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3e3a5d2dc4e9398c362@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <JQj_d.5861$b_6.974@trnddc01>,
says...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d1cejs$60j$1@bolt.sonic.net...
DianaC < > wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
The only people involved are the man and the woman.
Which is begging the question. "Person" is a legal concept which can,
and
has quite often, been changed.
Not often but on occasion.
The idea is, that concept should be changed
again to include a fetus, for at least some rights.
Why should it be changed? That's the question YOU keep ignoring.
It should be changed to reflect the scientific evidence that the fetus
isn't
a changling piece of inanimate protaplasm that suddenly gets magically
exchanged for a living human being at the moment of birth, but is simply
a
stage of development in the life of a human being, one that reaches from
conception to death (hopefully of old age after a long and fruitful life)
Your statements about the foetus above applies just as much to the sperm
or ovum (except for the time frame being a little longer).
No. It doesn't. This claim is as irritating for its disengenous nature as
about any argument can be. Consider; any human sperm can combine with any
human ovum: one sperm has an immense number of different possible
combinations available, but in order to realize any of them, it must FIRST
combine with a human ovum. Before it does, it only carries half a set of
genetic material. In no way can a sperm, all by itself, grow to be a human
adult.
The same is true of an ovum.
Combine them, however, and only THEN do you have a complete set of genes,
the complete map of a whole human. Nothing else needs to be done except feed
it and let it grow. Unless IT dies, it will become an adult human.
And if you can't see the difference there, you are denser than the rocks you
are referring to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 03:40:30 PM |
|
|
In article <K1m_d.7348$mq2.3372@trnddc08>,
says...
It should be changed to reflect the scientific evidence that the fetus
isn't
a changling piece of inanimate protaplasm that suddenly gets magically
exchanged for a living human being at the moment of birth, but is simply
a
stage of development in the life of a human being, one that reaches from
conception to death (hopefully of old age after a long and fruitful life)
Your statements about the foetus above applies just as much to the sperm
or ovum (except for the time frame being a little longer).
No. It doesn't.
Yes it does. The sperm or ovum *also* 'isn't just a changling piece of
inanimate protoplasm that suddently gets magically exchanged etc,
etc....'. The sperm and ovum are *also* stages of human development,
though like the embryo and foetus are not themselves human beings.
What you wrote above applies just as much to sperm and ova as it does to
embryos and foetuses.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 07:31:09 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:47:38 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
....
No. It doesn't. This claim is as irritating for its disengenous nature as
about any argument can be. Consider; any human sperm can combine with any
human ovum: one sperm has an immense number of different possible
combinations available, but in order to realize any of them, it must FIRST
combine with a human ovum. Before it does, it only carries half a set of
genetic material. In no way can a sperm, all by itself, grow to be a human
adult.
The same is true of an ovum.
Combine them, however, and only THEN do you have a complete set of genes,
the complete map of a whole human. Nothing else needs to be done except feed
it and let it grow. Unless IT dies, it will become an adult human.
....
Totally false. *IF* this were true then we could simply stop by the
IVF clinic, have them put the sperm and ovum together, and then take
it home to feed it and let it grow into a child.
Why do you lie about Human Biology?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 07:27:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:17:13 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
.....
The idea is, that concept should be changed
again to include a fetus, for at least some rights.
Why should it be changed? That's the question YOU keep ignoring.
It should be changed to reflect the scientific evidence that the fetus isn't
a changling piece of inanimate protaplasm that suddenly gets magically
exchanged for a living human being at the moment of birth
No one with any sort of education in the subject has ever suggested
that the fetus is "a changling piece of inanimate protaplasm that
suddenly gets magically exchanged for a living human being at the
moment of birth." That the fetus is living and gradually develops
into a human being is has been known for thousands of years.
but is simply a
stage of development in the life of a human being, one that reaches from
conception to death (hopefully of old age after a long and fruitful life)
You claim that a human being exists from the moment of conception?
This makes it difficult to accept that you even took a college Human
Biology course, let alone got an "A" in it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 10:59:10 AM |
|
|
In article <dN5_d.8759$oa6.898@trnddc07>,
says...
We aren't talking about mocha lattes. We are talking about human lives.
Real
ones.
The only people involved are the man and the woman.
Which is begging the question.
No it's not.
You keep pretending that the embryo/foetus is a person.
It isn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 12:14:42 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3c7b51732c90298c34d@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <dN5_d.8759$oa6.898@trnddc07>,
says...
We aren't talking about mocha lattes. We are talking about human
lives.
Real
ones.
The only people involved are the man and the woman.
Which is begging the question.
No it's not.
You keep pretending that the embryo/foetus is a person.
It isn't.
And THAT, my dear, is begging the question. The only reason the
embryo/foetus isn't a 'person' is because the law hasn't given it that
designation. Since the position of those who want to change the law is that
this designation should be changed, then telling them that they can't change
it 'because the fetus isn't a person' is not only stupid, it's CLASSIC
illogic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
