| 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: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 11:50:49 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:57pZd.520$6j4.25@news02.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
The idea, for me, is to drastically reduce, if not eliminate, all need
for
abortion.
NOW we get to the meat of the issue...
Why do you wish to eliminate the need for abortion? Is it because abortion
results in the death of a fetus?
Yes. And because it's not good for the woman, either physically or
emotionally. MUCH better to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
The thing is, once this human life is begun...well, it's begun. We started
it. We should have more respect for ourselves as a species, as future
parents, as people, to think of it as garbage, or some inconvenient bit of
flotsam that will do nothing but mess up the figure; no matter how much some
may want to deny this, once that human life is conceived, it's, well...a
human life. We should think more of it than we do.
(shrug) Men produce billions of sperm cells that will never fertylize an
ovum. they are simply bits of him...something pretty remarkable must happen,
a specific event, for any one of them to combine with other DNA to become an
individual that is different from the man. Women produce hundreds of ova;
indeed, she does so while she herself is in her mother's womb. However, only
a very, very small percentage of those ova will be fertilyzed by a sperm
cell; again, that one very positive, definite event MUST happen before the
combination of the two becomes a human life unique to itself, different from
mother and father. It is that instant that we have something special, a new
human life. After that, unless it dies, it WILL become a human adult with
all the rights Mom and Dad have.
Do you see the difference here? Sperm and ova will NOT become human adults
unless something specific happens to them. Two people must actively
participate in an action that gets 'em together. Once conception has
occurred, however, the genetic map is set...and the new human is there; all
it has to do is grow according to plan.
Seems to me that with everything else that fertilyzed egg has to deal with
before the nine months of gestation are up, the least we can do, after
making it in the first place, is refrain from killing it.
While it would be better for those who don't a child to not get pregnant
in the first place, it's not a realistic goal. We can't legislate away
unwanted pregnancies, or sex, nor will imposing a moral code upon people
eliminate them.
Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal to Roe v Wade filed by
Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe). They dismissed it "without comment", which
effectively means that they considered the appeal to be without merit.
Given that unwanted pregnancies can not be eliminated, and that the
Supreme Court will not even consider an appeal to Roe v Wade, would it
not be time much better spent for the pro-life faction to proclaim their
support for research into scientific advances allowing for the continued
survival and development of a fetus outside of it's original host?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 12:02:56 AM |
|
|
In article <ZIuZd.546$vD4.26@news02.roc.ny>,
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
DianaC wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:57pZd.520$6j4.25@news02.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
The idea, for me, is to drastically reduce, if not eliminate, all need
for
abortion.
NOW we get to the meat of the issue...
Why do you wish to eliminate the need for abortion? Is it because abortion
results in the death of a fetus?
Yes. And because it's not good for the woman, either physically or
emotionally. MUCH better to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
The thing is, once this human life is begun...well, it's begun. We started
it. We should have more respect for ourselves as a species, as future
parents, as people, to think of it as garbage, or some inconvenient bit of
flotsam that will do nothing but mess up the figure; no matter how much
some
may want to deny this, once that human life is conceived, it's, well...a
human life. We should think more of it than we do.
(shrug) Men produce billions of sperm cells that will never fertylize an
ovum. they are simply bits of him...something pretty remarkable must
happen,
a specific event, for any one of them to combine with other DNA to become
an
individual that is different from the man. Women produce hundreds of ova;
indeed, she does so while she herself is in her mother's womb. However,
only
a very, very small percentage of those ova will be fertilyzed by a sperm
cell; again, that one very positive, definite event MUST happen before the
combination of the two becomes a human life unique to itself, different
from
mother and father. It is that instant that we have something special, a new
human life. After that, unless it dies, it WILL become a human adult with
all the rights Mom and Dad have.
Do you see the difference here? Sperm and ova will NOT become human adults
unless something specific happens to them. Two people must actively
participate in an action that gets 'em together. Once conception has
occurred, however, the genetic map is set...and the new human is there; all
it has to do is grow according to plan.
Seems to me that with everything else that fertilyzed egg has to deal with
before the nine months of gestation are up, the least we can do, after
making it in the first place, is refrain from killing it.
While it would be better for those who don't a child to not get pregnant
in the first place, it's not a realistic goal. We can't legislate away
unwanted pregnancies, or sex, nor will imposing a moral code upon people
eliminate them.
Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal to Roe v Wade filed by
Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe). They dismissed it "without comment", which
effectively means that they considered the appeal to be without merit.
Given that unwanted pregnancies can not be eliminated, and that the
Supreme Court will not even consider an appeal to Roe v Wade, would it
not be time much better spent for the pro-life faction to proclaim their
support for research into scientific advances allowing for the continued
survival and development of a fetus outside of it's original host?
No. That would require that women not be punished for engaging in sex.
Prolife on the whole objects to the notion. The religious notion of
punishment for sex is fairly entrenched.
I like the idea of "tanking" children. Leaving women to lead productive
lives unfettered by the biological realities of pregnancy. They can
still work, care for families, contribute to the community all while
leaving the gestation to a well controlled and moderated environment. I
think we could save considerable resources and lives by not exposing
women to the dangers associated with pregnancy.
Of course, we don't need ot limit this to cases to avoid abortion. An
embryonic transfer for most pregnancies is likely to work well.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 07:37:23 PM |
|
|
In article <%HqZd.2506$Z07.1063@trnddc02>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:57pZd.520$6j4.25@news02.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
The idea, for me, is to drastically reduce, if not eliminate, all need
for
abortion.
NOW we get to the meat of the issue...
Why do you wish to eliminate the need for abortion? Is it because abortion
results in the death of a fetus?
Yes. And because it's not good for the woman, either physically or
emotionally. MUCH better to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
The thing is, once this human life is begun...well, it's begun. We started
it. We should have more respect for ourselves as a species, as future
parents, as people, to think of it as garbage, or some inconvenient bit of
flotsam that will do nothing but mess up the figure; no matter how much some
may want to deny this, once that human life is conceived, it's, well...a
human life. We should think more of it than we do.
What kind of sexual compulsives or obsessives are these women on birth
control. Surely, a woman can exercise a little control over her body for
a day to two during fertile times 12 times a year.
(shrug) Men produce billions of sperm cells that will never fertylize an
ovum. they are simply bits of him...something pretty remarkable must happen,
a specific event, for any one of them to combine with other DNA to become an
individual that is different from the man. Women produce hundreds of ova;
indeed, she does so while she herself is in her mother's womb. However, only
a very, very small percentage of those ova will be fertilyzed by a sperm
cell; again, that one very positive, definite event MUST happen before the
combination of the two becomes a human life unique to itself, different from
mother and father. It is that instant that we have something special, a new
human life. After that, unless it dies, it WILL become a human adult with
all the rights Mom and Dad have.
Do you see the difference here? Sperm and ova will NOT become human adults
unless something specific happens to them. Two people must actively
participate in an action that gets 'em together. Once conception has
occurred, however, the genetic map is set...and the new human is there; all
it has to do is grow according to plan.
Seems to me that with everything else that fertilyzed egg has to deal with
before the nine months of gestation are up, the least we can do, after
making it in the first place, is refrain from killing it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 03:34:30 PM |
|
|
In article <homo-C1E7EF.20372314032005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
homo@home.com says...
What kind of sexual compulsives or obsessives are these women on birth
control. Surely, a woman can exercise a little control over her body for
a day to two during fertile times 12 times a year.
Of course they can - but that doesn't automatically stop a pregnancy
occurring on other days!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 07:23:22 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:34:30 -0000, Pat Winstanley
<boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
In article <homo-C1E7EF.20372314032005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
homo@home.com says...
What kind of sexual compulsives or obsessives are these women on birth
control. Surely, a woman can exercise a little control over her body for
a day to two during fertile times 12 times a year.
Of course they can - but that doesn't automatically stop a pregnancy
occurring on other days!
http://www.fertilinet.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm can live up to six days... typically only lives about three
days. The ovum can live up to 24 hours but typically only lives up to
6-12 hours. If you are trying to conceive, you are most likely to get
pregnant 3 days prior to ovulation and up to 6 hours after.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most likely is if you *want* to become pregnant. If you are seeking
to avoid pregnancy you need to avoid *all* chance of a live sperm
meeting a live ovum -- six days prior and one day after ovulation.
And unless your menstral cycle is rock steady you need to fudge the
before cutoff by a couple of more days. If you are depending on NFP
to avoid pregnancy you need to abstain about a third of the time --
about ten days a month rather than "a day or two."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 03:25:48 PM |
|
|
In article <wboZd.5425$mq2.4692@trnddc08>,
says...
Indeed. The analogy IS off. When you get into a car, you are 'inviting'
getting to your destination. The accident is an abrogation of that
expectation. Since pregnancy is the result of combining sperm and ova, and
until science came to the aid of those that can't GET pregnant the
traditional way, the only way to do that was to have sex, then pregnacy is
analogous to actually reaching the destination, and NOT getting pregnant
would be.........hitting the tree.
Nahh... most of the time the 'aim' of people who are having sex together
is to enjoy having sex together. Any other (additional) result is purely
a side-effect - which may or may not be a *wanted* side-effect.
A pregnancy can be just as unwanted a side-effect of sex for pleasure as
an STD.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 08:56:12 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2b4b8467bed2798c33a@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <wboZd.5425$mq2.4692@trnddc08>,
says...
Indeed. The analogy IS off. When you get into a car, you are 'inviting'
getting to your destination. The accident is an abrogation of that
expectation. Since pregnancy is the result of combining sperm and ova,
and
until science came to the aid of those that can't GET pregnant the
traditional way, the only way to do that was to have sex, then pregnacy
is
analogous to actually reaching the destination, and NOT getting pregnant
would be.........hitting the tree.
Nahh... most of the time the 'aim' of people who are having sex together
is to enjoy having sex together. Any other (additional) result is purely
a side-effect - which may or may not be a *wanted* side-effect.
A pregnancy can be just as unwanted a side-effect of sex for pleasure as
an STD.
Well, losing the lottery every week is an unwanted side effect of buying
tickets, too; but a reasonable person is quite aware that it is the most
likely side effect.
And any reasonable person (who doesn't have his head in some story about
cabbages and storks) is aware that pregnancy is one of the expected products
of having sex, and indeed, since having pregnancy is the ONLY WAY you can
get pregnant outside of a laboratory or a turkey baster, it shouldn't
surprise anybody with an IQ over 30 that it can happen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 09:10:45 PM |
|
|
In article <gl6_d.8772$oa6.4275@trnddc07>,
"DianaC" <> wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2b4b8467bed2798c33a@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <wboZd.5425$mq2.4692@trnddc08>,
says...
Indeed. The analogy IS off. When you get into a car, you are 'inviting'
getting to your destination. The accident is an abrogation of that
expectation. Since pregnancy is the result of combining sperm and ova,
and
until science came to the aid of those that can't GET pregnant the
traditional way, the only way to do that was to have sex, then pregnacy
is
analogous to actually reaching the destination, and NOT getting pregnant
would be.........hitting the tree.
Nahh... most of the time the 'aim' of people who are having sex together
is to enjoy having sex together. Any other (additional) result is purely
a side-effect - which may or may not be a *wanted* side-effect.
A pregnancy can be just as unwanted a side-effect of sex for pleasure as
an STD.
Well, losing the lottery every week is an unwanted side effect of buying
tickets, too; but a reasonable person is quite aware that it is the most
likely side effect.
And any reasonable person (who doesn't have his head in some story about
cabbages and storks) is aware that pregnancy is one of the expected products
of having sex, and indeed, since having pregnancy is the ONLY WAY you can
get pregnant outside of a laboratory or a turkey baster, it shouldn't
surprise anybody with an IQ over 30 that it can happen.
Products? That is a very interesting take to have.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 11:04:03 AM |
|
|
In article <gl6_d.8772$oa6.4275@trnddc07>,
says...
Nahh... most of the time the 'aim' of people who are having sex together
is to enjoy having sex together. Any other (additional) result is purely
a side-effect - which may or may not be a *wanted* side-effect.
A pregnancy can be just as unwanted a side-effect of sex for pleasure as
an STD.
Well, losing the lottery every week is an unwanted side effect of buying
tickets, too; but a reasonable person is quite aware that it is the most
likely side effect.
Since when did probability equate to desire?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 12:24:19 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3c8de8e20120698c350@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <gl6_d.8772$oa6.4275@trnddc07>,
says...
Nahh... most of the time the 'aim' of people who are having sex
together
is to enjoy having sex together. Any other (additional) result is
purely
a side-effect - which may or may not be a *wanted* side-effect.
A pregnancy can be just as unwanted a side-effect of sex for pleasure
as
an STD.
Well, losing the lottery every week is an unwanted side effect of buying
tickets, too; but a reasonable person is quite aware that it is the most
likely side effect.
Since when did probability equate to desire?
Since when did desire equate to reality? One can DESIRE not to lose one's
licence if one is caught driving drunk. However, if one is caught driving
drunk, desire or not, you will lose your license in most states.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 01:04:59 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
Since when did probability equate to desire?
Since when did desire equate to reality? One can DESIRE not to lose one's
licence if one is caught driving drunk. However, if one is caught driving
drunk, desire or not, you will lose your license in most states.
Diana, you make so much sense, but you are talking to people who can
understand and who should understand, but cannot admit the truth to
themselves, because to do so would undermine their entire world view.
Good luck, but I feel that your efforts would be better expended on
those who want to change.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 02:57:30 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4239d4db$0$32608$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
DianaC wrote:
Since when did probability equate to desire?
Since when did desire equate to reality? One can DESIRE not to lose one's
licence if one is caught driving drunk. However, if one is caught driving
drunk, desire or not, you will lose your license in most states.
Diana, you make so much sense, but you are talking to people who can
understand and who should understand, but cannot admit the truth to
themselves, because to do so would undermine their entire world view. Good
luck, but I feel that your efforts would be better expended on those who
want to change.
You have a point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 01:00:52 PM |
|
|
In article <nXj_d.5865$b_6.3503@trnddc01>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3c8de8e20120698c350@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <gl6_d.8772$oa6.4275@trnddc07>,
says...
Nahh... most of the time the 'aim' of people who are having sex
together
is to enjoy having sex together. Any other (additional) result is
purely
a side-effect - which may or may not be a *wanted* side-effect.
A pregnancy can be just as unwanted a side-effect of sex for pleasure
as
an STD.
Well, losing the lottery every week is an unwanted side effect of buying
tickets, too; but a reasonable person is quite aware that it is the most
likely side effect.
Since when did probability equate to desire?
Since when did desire equate to reality?
Who said it did?
I certainly said no such thing!
You, on the other hand, appear to be claiming that probablility equates
to desire.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 02:56:39 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3e443deda3d1698c364@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <nXj_d.5865$b_6.3503@trnddc01>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca3c8de8e20120698c350@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <gl6_d.8772$oa6.4275@trnddc07>,
says...
Nahh... most of the time the 'aim' of people who are having sex
together
is to enjoy having sex together. Any other (additional) result is
purely
a side-effect - which may or may not be a *wanted* side-effect.
A pregnancy can be just as unwanted a side-effect of sex for
pleasure
as
an STD.
Well, losing the lottery every week is an unwanted side effect of
buying
tickets, too; but a reasonable person is quite aware that it is the
most
likely side effect.
Since when did probability equate to desire?
Since when did desire equate to reality?
Who said it did?
I certainly said no such thing!
You, on the other hand, appear to be claiming that probablility equates
to desire.
No. I am saying that desire is irrelevent to probability. IT doesn't matter
what you WANT to happen, what happens is what happens, and if the
probability is there, one should realize it and take responsibility for it.
After all, if you pick up a gun and shoot at a target, and hit the guy
standing in front of it, you don't get to whine about how you didn't want to
hit the guy because you were aiming at the target, do you?
And taking responsibility for pregnancy does NOT mean "Oh, I'm growing a
kid, better kill it". It means 'look what I started, now I have to take care
of it" and nobody considers that the proper care and feeding of humans
includes killing them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 03:43:52 PM |
|
|
In article <bam_d.7354$mq2.4545@trnddc08>,
says...
No. I am saying that desire is irrelevent to probability. IT doesn't matter
what you WANT to happen, what happens is what happens, and if the
probability is there, one should realize it and take responsibility for it.
Again you are now changing from what you said before (though maintaining
you haven't), having failed to get others to go along with your attempts
to move the goalposts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 12:36:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 02:56:12 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
......
And any reasonable person (who doesn't have his head in some story about
cabbages and storks) is aware that pregnancy is one of the expected products
of having sex,....
www.mw-com: expect:
to look forward
to consider probable or certain
If the woman is considering abortion it is obvious she was not looking
forward to becoming pregnant. Pregnancy is neither a probable nor
certain result of havin g sex.
The claim that "pregnancy is one of the expected products of having
sex" is false.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 04:46:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:25:32 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote, akin to the neighing and
braying of farmyard animals:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:qitb31tcvsnk71uglhmbb0t2q6q19fogp1@4ax.com...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:28:46 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote, akin to the neighing and
braying of farmyard animals:
"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.
No, you are not. You are not 'consenting' to be in a major car
accident every time you get into a car. Your analogy is flawed, at
best.
Indeed. The analogy IS off. When you get into a car, you are 'inviting'
getting to your destination. The accident is an abrogation of that
expectation. Since pregnancy is the result of combining sperm and ova, and
until science came to the aid of those that can't GET pregnant the
traditional way, the only way to do that was to have sex, then pregnacy is
analogous to actually reaching the destination, and NOT getting pregnant
would be.........hitting the tree.
Again, faulty. The 'natural' outcome of intercourse (as in, that which
occurs the vast majority of the time) is no pregnancy. Getting
pregnant is the accident.
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.
But falling off the cliff is not 'consented to' by the act of walking
near it.
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.
That is not consent.
It's reality.
But it's not consent.
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that is the result of
NON-consensual sex.
Incorrect, actually. I know of several pregnancies that were not
invited. It's sheer arrogance on your part to say that consensual sex
is consent to be pregnant.
If you stand at your front door and wave at your neighbor, watch as she
comes to the door, offers her cookies and milk and a chair at your table, is
it utterly beyond comprehension that you have actually INVITED HER IN YOUR
HOUSE?
Was an invitation extended or not?
In any case, invitations are easily rescinded.
You have sex, consensually. You KNOW that the whole idea behind sex is
procreation;
That is actually untrue.
You understand completely that if you get pregnant and have the
baby, that's a real, honest to goodness HUMAN BEING you have created, and
knowing all this, you participate in the act. This is an invitation.
Nope, it's not. You may think it is, but it isn't an invitation. It's
a circumstance.
If you want to avoid pregnancy, the only fool proof method is abstinence.
However, that's not an option for everybody, and certainly not desirable in
a good relationship. Then, birth control works really, really well; two
forms of birth control used together work pretty much 100% of the time.
There is really no excuse for an unplanned pregnancy. Therefore, no excuse
for abortion as a form of birth control.
The idea, for me, is to drastically reduce, if not eliminate, all need for
abortion. The best way to do that is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the
first place.
Well, yes. If the crowd of anti-sex-ed folks would get behind better
education than "Don't do it", that might just be possible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 07:06:14 PM |
|
|
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:tr4c31l9a5vq1ed52q4rv3keu4prl423l5@4ax.com...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:25:32 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote, akin to the neighing and
braying of farmyard animals:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:qitb31tcvsnk71uglhmbb0t2q6q19fogp1@4ax.com...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:28:46 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote, akin to the neighing and
braying of farmyard animals:
"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.
No, you are not. You are not 'consenting' to be in a major car
accident every time you get into a car. Your analogy is flawed, at
best.
Indeed. The analogy IS off. When you get into a car, you are 'inviting'
getting to your destination. The accident is an abrogation of that
expectation. Since pregnancy is the result of combining sperm and ova, and
until science came to the aid of those that can't GET pregnant the
traditional way, the only way to do that was to have sex, then pregnacy is
analogous to actually reaching the destination, and NOT getting pregnant
would be.........hitting the tree.
Again, faulty. The 'natural' outcome of intercourse (as in, that which
occurs the vast majority of the time) is no pregnancy. Getting
pregnant is the accident.
Except of course that there is no other way to get pregnant. (absent modern
science, of course) Therefore, logically, if A is the only way you can get
B, and all the other things that A results in help ensure B and the
wellbeing of B, then it is not at all illogical to assume that B is the
intended result.
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.
But falling off the cliff is not 'consented to' by the act of walking
near it.
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.
That is not consent.
It's reality.
But it's not consent.
Actually, it is. if you really, truely, do not consent to the possibility of
this, you wouldn't walk on the edge of the cliff. This isn't something that
depends upon someone else making a choice, y'know. It's the result of
biology (and in the case of the cliff, geology and gravity) at work. Laws of
nature aren't going to change THEIR minds, so, understanding that, if you
are going to do something you know might result in a certain consequence,
you are consenting to that consequence. You can attempt to prevent it, but
if it happens anyway..........well, you can't say you didn't know it could
happen.
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that is the result of
NON-consensual sex.
Incorrect, actually. I know of several pregnancies that were not
invited. It's sheer arrogance on your part to say that consensual sex
is consent to be pregnant.
If you stand at your front door and wave at your neighbor, watch as she
comes to the door, offers her cookies and milk and a chair at your table,
is
it utterly beyond comprehension that you have actually INVITED HER IN YOUR
HOUSE?
Was an invitation extended or not?
In any case, invitations are easily rescinded.
Not if the rescinding of it includes ending a life. If you think so, try
pulling a shotgun on your neighbor in the kitchen and see what happens to
YOU. Not her, YOU.
And in the case of pregnancy, you didn't just invite a neighbor in, you went
and arranged the furniture, redid the whole house and created the
inhabitant, which will die if you boot him/her out too early. Seems to me
that this should be considered.
You have sex, consensually. You KNOW that the whole idea behind sex is
procreation;
That is actually untrue.
No, that is actually true. Even those acts of sex that do not result in
pregnancy are all about procreation. That is, when they are not
perverted...sex is about relationships and bonding so that when a baby does
show up, there are two people there to care for him/her.
You understand completely that if you get pregnant and have the
baby, that's a real, honest to goodness HUMAN BEING you have created, and
knowing all this, you participate in the act. This is an invitation.
Nope, it's not. You may think it is, but it isn't an invitation. It's
a circumstance.
A 'circumstance' is getting hit on the head by a meteorite. A pregnancy is
the result of deliberate acts, and a pregnancy between consenting adults is
the result of deliberate acts by people who know damn well that a human life
could well be created by that act. Babies are not the result of eating
watermelon seeds, no matter what you may have heard in the second grade.
If you want to avoid pregnancy, the only fool proof method is abstinence.
However, that's not an option for everybody, and certainly not desirable
in
a good relationship. Then, birth control works really, really well; two
forms of birth control used together work pretty much 100% of the time.
There is really no excuse for an unplanned pregnancy. Therefore, no excuse
for abortion as a form of birth control.
The idea, for me, is to drastically reduce, if not eliminate, all need for
abortion. The best way to do that is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in
the
first place.
Well, yes. If the crowd of anti-sex-ed folks would get behind better
education than "Don't do it", that might just be possible.
That's the idea.
The problem with making a law against abortion is this: so many people
really do not think that it's a human life in there, and then they also
don't like being told what to do. What *I* personally feel about it is moot;
it's what the women who actually make the choice think that will eliminate,
hopefully, the need for abortion. I don't want women to be pregnant when
they don't wish to be, but I honestly believe that the best way to do that
is good birth control. Abortion....is almost always avoidable, and almost
always the wrong choice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 07:33:48 PM |
|
|
In article <ayqZd.2505$Z07.1589@trnddc02>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:tr4c31l9a5vq1ed52q4rv3keu4prl423l5@4ax.com...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:25:32 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote, akin to the neighing and
braying of farmyard animals:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:qitb31tcvsnk71uglhmbb0t2q6q19fogp1@4ax.com...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:28:46 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote, akin to the neighing and
braying of farmyard animals:
"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.
No, you are not. You are not 'consenting' to be in a major car
accident every time you get into a car. Your analogy is flawed, at
best.
Indeed. The analogy IS off. When you get into a car, you are 'inviting'
getting to your destination. The accident is an abrogation of that
expectation. Since pregnancy is the result of combining sperm and ova, and
until science came to the aid of those that can't GET pregnant the
traditional way, the only way to do that was to have sex, then pregnacy is
analogous to actually reaching the destination, and NOT getting pregnant
would be.........hitting the tree.
Again, faulty. The 'natural' outcome of intercourse (as in, that which
occurs the vast majority of the time) is no pregnancy. Getting
pregnant is the accident.
Except of course that there is no other way to get pregnant. (absent modern
science, of course) Therefore, logically, if A is the only way you can get
B, and all the other things that A results in help ensure B and the
wellbeing of B, then it is not at all illogical to assume that B is the
intended result.
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.
But falling off the cliff is not 'consented to' by the act of walking
near it.
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.
That is not consent.
It's reality.
But it's not consent.
Actually, it is. if you really, truely, do not consent to the possibility of
this, you wouldn't walk on the edge of the cliff. This isn't something that
depends upon someone else making a choice, y'know. It's the result of
biology (and in the case of the cliff, geology and gravity) at work. Laws of
nature aren't going to change THEIR minds, so, understanding that, if you
are going to do something you know might result in a certain consequence,
you are consenting to that consequence. You can attempt to prevent it, but
if it happens anyway..........well, you can't say you didn't know it could
happen.
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that is the result of
NON-consensual sex.
Incorrect, actually. I know of several pregnancies that were not
invited. It's sheer arrogance on your part to say that consensual sex
is consent to be pregnant.
If you stand at your front door and wave at your neighbor, watch as she
comes to the door, offers her cookies and milk and a chair at your table,
is
it utterly beyond comprehension that you have actually INVITED HER IN YOUR
HOUSE?
Was an invitation extended or not?
In any case, invitations are easily rescinded.
Not if the rescinding of it includes ending a life. If you think so, try
pulling a shotgun on your neighbor in the kitchen and see what happens to
YOU. Not her, YOU.
And in the case of pregnancy, you didn't just invite a neighbor in, you went
and arranged the furniture, redid the whole house and created the
inhabitant, which will die if you boot him/her out too early. Seems to me
that this should be considered.
You have sex, consensually. You KNOW that the whole idea behind sex is
procreation;
That is actually untrue.
No, that is actually true. Even those acts of sex that do not result in
pregnancy are all about procreation. That is, when they are not
perverted...sex is about relationships and bonding so that when a baby does
show up, there are two people there to care for him/her.
You understand completely that if you get pregnant and have the
baby, that's a real, honest to goodness HUMAN BEING you have created, and
knowing all this, you participate in the act. This is an invitation.
Nope, it's not. You may think it is, but it isn't an invitation. It's
a circumstance.
A 'circumstance' is getting hit on the head by a meteorite. A pregnancy is
the result of deliberate acts, and a pregnancy between consenting adults is
the result of deliberate acts by people who know damn well that a human life
could well be created by that act. Babies are not the result of eating
watermelon seeds, no matter what you may have heard in the second grade.
If you want to avoid pregnancy, the only fool proof method is abstinence.
However, that's not an option for everybody, and certainly not desirable
in
a good relationship. Then, birth control works really, really well; two
forms of birth control used together work pretty much 100% of the time.
There is really no excuse for an unplanned pregnancy. Therefore, no excuse
for abortion as a form of birth control.
The idea, for me, is to drastically reduce, if not eliminate, all need for
abortion. The best way to do that is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in
the
first place.
Well, yes. If the crowd of anti-sex-ed folks would get behind better
education than "Don't do it", that might just be possible.
That's the idea.
The problem with making a law against abortion is this: so many people
really do not think that it's a human life in there, and then they also
don't like being told what to do. What *I* personally feel about it is moot;
it's what the women who actually make the choice think that will eliminate,
hopefully, the need for abortion. I don't want women to be pregnant when
they don't wish to be, but I honestly believe that the best way to do that
is good birth control. Abortion....is almost always avoidable, and almost
always the wrong choice.
Please stop suggesting that women should hurt themselves with these
concoctions. Birth control is almost always avoidable. Birth control is
the wrong choice.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 03:32:59 PM |
|
|
In article <ayqZd.2505$Z07.1589@trnddc02>,
says...
Again, faulty. The 'natural' outcome of intercourse (as in, that which
occurs the vast majority of the time) is no pregnancy. Getting
pregnant is the accident.
Except of course that there is no other way to get pregnant. (absent modern
science, of course)
However it is more likely that a particular sexual interlude will NOT
result in pregnancy than it will result in pregnancy. The 'accident'
(least likely result) is pregnancy.
Just because there is no other way a pregnancy can (naturally) happen,
doesn't mean it is likely to happen.
I can only win the lottery if I buy a ticket. It would be far more
likely for the ticket to NOT win than for it to win. Winning would be
'accidental' - an unexpected result, even though it could only happen if
a ticket was purchased in the first place.
What do you think the odds are on a pregnancy resulting from a single
act of sexual intercourse (no contraception)? What do you think the odds
are on no pregnancy resulting from that act?
Remember there is a big difference between 'possibility' and
'probability'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 10:56:48 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2b664dd928e2a98c33b@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <ayqZd.2505$Z07.1589@trnddc02>,
says...
Again, faulty. The 'natural' outcome of intercourse (as in, that which
occurs the vast majority of the time) is no pregnancy. Getting
pregnant is the accident.
Except of course that there is no other way to get pregnant. (absent
modern
science, of course)
However it is more likely that a particular sexual interlude will NOT
result in pregnancy than it will result in pregnancy. The 'accident'
(least likely result) is pregnancy.
Just because there is no other way a pregnancy can (naturally) happen,
doesn't mean it is likely to happen.
I can only win the lottery if I buy a ticket. It would be far more
likely for the ticket to NOT win than for it to win. Winning would be
'accidental' - an unexpected result, even though it could only happen if
a ticket was purchased in the first place.
What do you think the odds are on a pregnancy resulting from a single
act of sexual intercourse (no contraception)? What do you think the odds
are on no pregnancy resulting from that act?
Actually, the odds of getting pregnant from a single act of sex are a lot
higher than people thought; according to one study in England, there is
something about the period of ovulation that makes women, well, horny. It
has been thought that the odds of getting pregnant from one act of
unprotected sex was about 12-15%. Turns out it's more like 20-25%, because
people tend to want sex more around the time of her ovulation, whether or
not they know that she is.
One in ten, one in five, one in four chances.....dang, those are odds that
should tell a couple that pregnancy is a VERY likely result, wouldn't you
say?
Remember there is a big difference between 'possibility' and
'probability'.
One in ten to one in four. Those are probabilities more than one person has
bet the farm on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 07:57:26 AM |
|
|
In article <k68_d.5922$wL6.3341@trnddc03>,
"DianaC" <> wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2b664dd928e2a98c33b@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <ayqZd.2505$Z07.1589@trnddc02>,
says...
Again, faulty. The 'natural' outcome of intercourse (as in, that which
occurs the vast majority of the time) is no pregnancy. Getting
pregnant is the accident.
Except of course that there is no other way to get pregnant. (absent
modern
science, of course)
However it is more likely that a particular sexual interlude will NOT
result in pregnancy than it will result in pregnancy. The 'accident'
(least likely result) is pregnancy.
Just because there is no other way a pregnancy can (naturally) happen,
doesn't mean it is likely to happen.
I can only win the lottery if I buy a ticket. It would be far more
likely for the ticket to NOT win than for it to win. Winning would be
'accidental' - an unexpected result, even though it could only happen if
a ticket was purchased in the first place.
What do you think the odds are on a pregnancy resulting from a single
act of sexual intercourse (no contraception)? What do you think the odds
are on no pregnancy resulting from that act?
Actually, the odds of getting pregnant from a single act of sex are a lot
higher than people thought; according to one study in England, there is
something about the period of ovulation that makes women, well, horny. It
has been thought that the odds of getting pregnant from one act of
unprotected sex was about 12-15%. Turns out it's more like 20-25%, because
people tend to want sex more around the time of her ovulation, whether or
not they know that she is.
Skewed statistics. Can you provide the study for review here.
One again, women are unable and unwilling to control a little "horny"
feeling.
One in ten, one in five, one in four chances.....dang, those are odds that
should tell a couple that pregnancy is a VERY likely result, wouldn't you
say?
Remember there is a big difference between 'possibility' and
'probability'.
One in ten to one in four. Those are probabilities more than one person has
bet the farm on.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 11:53:56 AM |
|
|
In article <k68_d.5922$wL6.3341@trnddc03>,
says...
What do you think the odds are on a pregnancy resulting from a single
act of sexual intercourse (no contraception)? What do you think the odds
are on no pregnancy resulting from that act?
Actually, the odds of getting pregnant from a single act of sex are a lot
higher than people thought
The issue is a random act... not one only or mainly at a particular
time.
Remember also that a partner may well have sex when they aren't
particularly in the mood simply because their partner *is* particularly
in the mood. And no, I'm not talking about rape!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 06:29:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:17:33 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-9B8872.00175314032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <Rh5Zd.2147$uw6.916@trnddc06>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96185FD77F935keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:DEPYd.2040$uw6.1278@trnddc06:
<snip to>
Would you see a need to control it if the baby were in a stroller and
she was taking a hammer to it?
certainly. but only those with no legitimate argument against abortion
would misrepresent and claim a baby was involved.
Excuse me, but there IS a baby involved here. S/he is considered a
'baby',
or rather, a real human being, by the law in a couple of different
circumstances, and can be considered such by a simple change in the law.
Certainly science has no, repeat NO way of determining when this
fertilyzed
egg has this incredible seachange; here it is a human life and there it
wasn't...except perhaps at the moment of conception, which sorta screws
things up some. All definitions of when that life becomes 'a baby', or
rather a 'human life', (since 'baby' is simply a stage in the development
of
a specific human, which begins at conception) are cultural, and thus
changable, then insisting that "only those with no legitimate argument
against abortion would misrepresent and claim a baby was involved' is
begging the question. Big time.
Of course, it is acceptable to kill humans in some situations.
Yes. Self defense...legal executions. However, it has never been acceptable
to kill a human being that is not intentionally attacking one,
Human beings don't exist inutero.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 08:03:02 PM |
|
|
in article xOiZd.4149$GI6.1181@trnddc05, DianaC at
dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net wrote on 3/14/05 11:17 AM:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-9B8872.00175314032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <Rh5Zd.2147$uw6.916@trnddc06>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96185FD77F935keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:DEPYd.2040$uw6.1278@trnddc06:
<snip to>
Would you see a need to control it if the baby were in a stroller and
she was taking a hammer to it?
certainly. but only those with no legitimate argument against abortion
would misrepresent and claim a baby was involved.
Excuse me, but there IS a baby involved here. S/he is considered a
'baby',
or rather, a real human being, by the law in a couple of different
circumstances, and can be considered such by a simple change in the law.
Certainly science has no, repeat NO way of determining when this
fertilyzed
egg has this incredible seachange; here it is a human life and there it
wasn't...except perhaps at the moment of conception, which sorta screws
things up some. All definitions of when that life becomes 'a baby', or
rather a 'human life', (since 'baby' is simply a stage in the development
of
a specific human, which begins at conception) are cultural, and thus
changable, then insisting that "only those with no legitimate argument
against abortion would misrepresent and claim a baby was involved' is
begging the question. Big time.
Of course, it is acceptable to kill humans in some situations.
Yes. Self defense...legal executions. However, it has never been acceptable
to kill a human being that is not intentionally attacking one, (and believe
you me, if you live in California and shoot an unarmed burgler in your house
(or even an armed one if he's not actually coming at you) YOU are going to
jail, he isn't). When the 'attacker' was invited in, it's even more
problematic.
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.
One that no man has accepted from Diana...
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 12:26:08 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:17:53 -0500, Ron <homo@home.com> wrote:
Of course, it is acceptable to kill humans in some situations. 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.
IMO, killing is never mandatory, never acceptable. It can be
justifible or excusable. AFAIK, the law agrees with me.
In my view, any person has the right to kill another thing, person,
entity, virus, adult, etc. when they violate that individual's body.
In my view there is no right to kill anything. Killing is justifible
or excusable only if there is no other reasonable course of action.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 08:22:40 AM |
|
|
In article <423529f3.1009760669@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
(Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:17:53 -0500, Ron <homo@home.com> wrote:
Of course, it is acceptable to kill humans in some situations. 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.
IMO, killing is never mandatory, never acceptable. It can be
justifible or excusable. AFAIK, the law agrees with me.
That's a convenient use of language.
In my view, any person has the right to kill another thing, person,
entity, virus, adult, etc. when they violate that individual's body.
In my view there is no right to kill anything. Killing is justifible
or excusable only if there is no other reasonable course of action.
Will your comment be the same when you are death's door due to an
infection that can easily be killed with an antibiotic. I am quite happy
to eat antibiotics and wipe out entire colonies of bacteria should they
be inhabiting my body. That would make me a mass murderer of a bacteria.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 11:03:18 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:22:40 -0500, Ron <homo@home.com> wrote:
In article <423529f3.1009760669@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:17:53 -0500, Ron <homo@home.com> wrote:
Of course, it is acceptable to kill humans in some situations. 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.
IMO, killing is never mandatory, never acceptable. It can be
justifible or excusable. AFAIK, the law agrees with me.
That's a convenient use of language.
Words mean things. If you are incapable of understanding the
differences between words that is not my problem.
In my view, any person has the right to kill another thing, person,
entity, virus, adult, etc. when they violate that individual's body.
In my view there is no right to kill anything. Killing is justifible
or excusable only if there is no other reasonable course of action.
Will your comment be the same when you are death's door due to an
infection that can easily be killed with an antibiotic.
That is a justifible killing. They are in my body and I have the
right to removed them -- even if that removal requires their death.
I am quite happy
to eat antibiotics and wipe out entire colonies of bacteria should they
be inhabiting my body. That would make me a mass murderer of a bacteria.
*SIGH* Murder is the crime of killing a human being.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 03:34:25 PM |
|
|
In article <42fcbaa2.1727153855@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
(Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:22:40 -0500, Ron <homo@home.com> wrote:
In article <423529f3.1009760669@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
(Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:17:53 -0500, Ron <homo@home.com> wrote:
Of course, it is acceptable to kill humans in some situations. 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.
IMO, killing is never mandatory, never acceptable. It can be
justifible or excusable. AFAIK, the law agrees with me.
That's a convenient use of language.
Words mean things. If you are incapable of understanding the
differences between words that is not my problem.
As I stated, the choice of language becomes a choice and convenient.
In my view, any person has the right to kill another thing, person,
entity, virus, adult, etc. when they violate that individual's body.
In my view there is no right to kill anything. Killing is justifible
or excusable only if there is no other reasonable course of action.
Will your comment be the same when you are death's door due to an
infection that can easily be killed with an antibiotic.
That is a justifible killing. They are in my body and I have the
right to removed them -- even if that removal requires their death.
I am quite happy
to eat antibiotics and wipe out entire colonies of bacteria should they
be inhabiting my body. That would make me a mass murderer of a bacteria.
*SIGH* Murder is the crime of killing a human being.
Sorry. I'll be more specific. It was stated that I don't have a right to
kill *anything*. Yet, I kill bacteria when I have an infection. I am
then clearly doing something that I don't have a right to do. It seems
to me the discussion was about what I had a right or no right to do
versus what was legal or illegal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 04:54:05 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:34:25 -0500, Ron <homo@home.com> wrote:
In article <42fcbaa2.1727153855@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:22:40 -0500, Ron <homo@home.com> wrote:
In article <423529f3.1009760669@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:17:53 -0500, Ron <homo@home.com> wrote:
Of course, it is acceptable to kill humans in some situations. 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.
IMO, killing is never mandatory, never acceptable. It can be
justifible or excusable. AFAIK, the law agrees with me.
That's a convenient use of language.
Words mean things. If you are incapable of understanding the
differences between words that is not my problem.
As I stated, the choice of language becomes a choice and convenient.
In my view, any person has the right to kill another thing, person,
entity, virus, adult, etc. when they violate that individual's body.
In my view there is no right to kill anything. Killing is justifible
or excusable only if there is no other reasonable course of action.
Will your comment be the same when you are death's door due to an
infection that can easily be killed with an antibiotic.
That is a justifible killing. They are in my body and I have the
right to removed them -- even if that removal requires their death.
I am quite happy
to eat antibiotics and wipe out entire colonies of bacteria should they
be inhabiting my body. That would make me a mass murderer of a bacteria.
*SIGH* Murder is the crime of killing a human being.
Sorry. I'll be more specific. It was stated that I don't have a right to
kill *anything*. Yet, I kill bacteria when I have an infection.
Do you not bother to read what is written, or are you incapable of
understanding: Repeat:
In my view there is no right to kill anything. Killing is justifible
or excusable only if there is no other reasonable course of action.
I am
then clearly doing something that I don't have a right to do. It seems
to me the discussion was about what I had a right or no right to do
versus what was legal or illegal.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
