| 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: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 07:43:53 PM |
|
|
In article <GJqZd.2508$Z07.1765@trnddc02>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-D5E1A3.18245114032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
<snip to>
Most birth control prevents the creation of an embryo. Those that prevent
implantation are a little harder on the woman...
"MOST!" Birth control also makes the uterine lining inhospitable to any
eggs that might have been fertilized. How can you be so sure that you
are not guilty of manslaughter and even multiple times -- you may be a
serial killer. Unfortunately, without evidence you are likely escaping
the legal system because the evidence of your wrongdoing has likely been
discarded.
The question is do you agree then, that when a woman uses birth control
and an embryo doesn't implant that she is guilty of the crime of
manslaughter. IOW, her intention was not to kill but that was the sum
total of her actions.
Y'know, you really are an ignoramus.
I would find it a mark of courtesy and consideration if you would
respond to the point.
You have declared human life from the point of conception as I recall.
You further have declared that the law has punishments for the loss of
life.
Manslaughter is a crime where I live. It just so happens some women
enjoy the convenience that an embryo is often difficult to detect when
someone women using birth control unintentionally kill their offspring.
Why are you continuing to support a means that allows some women to
escape justice for the unintended killings (manslaughter) of their
children. Maybe it would be different if every zygote was named Connor
at their conception.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 03:28:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:34:21 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:42fcf1f0.1741312344@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:24:12 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
....
And Peterson was not tried and convicted of killing his unborn son,
nope....get a clue. You kill a pregnant woman and you WILL be prosecuted
for
two murders.
Only if you commit (first degree) murder. If the killing is
manslaughter (second degree murder) it can only be charged for the
woman. While "or a fetus" was added to the definition of murder it
was not added to the definition of mansalughter.
California Penal Code 187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a
human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
California Penal Code 192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a
human being without malice.
And Peterson was convicted, in the matter of his son Conner, of second
degree murder,....
My error -- manslaughter is what used to be called third degree
murder. The rest remains valid -- you cannot be convicted of
manslaughter of a fetus in California. Not legally anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 04:30:04 PM |
|
|
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:42fd0315.1745700985@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:34:21 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:42fcf1f0.1741312344@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:24:12 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
....
And Peterson was not tried and convicted of killing his unborn son,
nope....get a clue. You kill a pregnant woman and you WILL be prosecuted
for
two murders.
Only if you commit (first degree) murder. If the killing is
manslaughter (second degree murder) it can only be charged for the
woman. While "or a fetus" was added to the definition of murder it
was not added to the definition of mansalughter.
California Penal Code 187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a
human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
California Penal Code 192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a
human being without malice.
And Peterson was convicted, in the matter of his son Conner, of second
degree murder,....
My error -- manslaughter is what used to be called third degree
murder. The rest remains valid -- you cannot be convicted of
manslaughter of a fetus in California. Not legally anyway.
No. Just murder. So when a fetus (stage of development in a human being) is
killed, you are charged with murder, not manslaughter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 04:49:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:30:04 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
.....
California Penal Code 187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a
human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
California Penal Code 192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a
human being without malice.
And Peterson was convicted, in the matter of his son Conner, of second
degree murder,....
My error -- manslaughter is what used to be called third degree
murder. The rest remains valid -- you cannot be convicted of
manslaughter of a fetus in California. Not legally anyway.
No. Just murder. So when a fetus (stage of development in a human being) is
killed, you are charged with murder, not manslaughter.
No, only if the killing is with malice aforethought. And only because
the fetus was added to the murder statute in addition to human beings.
If the fetus were a human being it would not have had to been added to
the murder statute.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 06:30:36 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:24:12 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d138tf$j92$1@bolt.sonic.net...
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
Excuse me, but there IS a baby involved here. S/he is considered a 'baby',
or rather, a real human being,
An embryo this -> , <- big with no arms, eyes, legs, brain, lungs,
hands, or anything else that would make it recognizably human is a
"baby", and just because you say so.
and a human infant is less than a tenth the size of a human adult, cannot
walk or talk or feed itself.
Yet it's metabolically independent of its mother.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 12:05:07 AM |
|
|
In article <d138tf$j92$1@bolt.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
Excuse me, but there IS a baby involved here. S/he is considered a 'baby',
or rather, a real human being,
An embryo this -> , <- big with no arms, eyes, legs, brain, lungs,
hands, or anything else that would make it recognizably human is a
"baby", and just because you say so.
by the law in a couple of different
circumstances
Crap. There are no such laws.
and can be considered such by a simple change in the law.
What a stupid statement. How do you recognize as a human being
something which you cannot even detect?
As a philosophical position, until I sent you this post, you had no idea
that I existed. Does this disqualify me from being human?
Based on your trait association above, a chimpanzee has arms, eyes,
legs, a brain, lungs, hands, etc.
I am wondering how you exclude that which cannot be seen and looks
different and that does look similar and posesses the trait that you
have quantified.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 12:56:47 AM |
|
|
Ron <homo@home.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
Excuse me, but there IS a baby involved here. S/he is considered a 'baby',
or rather, a real human being,
An embryo this -> , <- big with no arms, eyes, legs, brain, lungs,
hands, or anything else that would make it recognizably human is a
"baby", and just because you say so.
by the law in a couple of different
circumstances
Crap. There are no such laws.
and can be considered such by a simple change in the law.
What a stupid statement. How do you recognize as a human being
something which you cannot even detect?
As a philosophical position, until I sent you this post, you had no idea
that I existed. Does this disqualify me from being human?
Are you under the mistaken impression that your question has some
relevance to what I wrote? Are you really that illiterate?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 09:14:10 AM |
|
|
In article <d13cje$n0v$1@bolt.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Ron <homo@home.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
Excuse me, but there IS a baby involved here. S/he is considered a
'baby',
or rather, a real human being,
An embryo this -> , <- big with no arms, eyes, legs, brain, lungs,
hands, or anything else that would make it recognizably human is a
"baby", and just because you say so.
by the law in a couple of different
circumstances
Crap. There are no such laws.
and can be considered such by a simple change in the law.
What a stupid statement. How do you recognize as a human being
something which you cannot even detect?
As a philosophical position, until I sent you this post, you had no idea
that I existed. Does this disqualify me from being human?
Are you under the mistaken impression that your question has some
relevance to what I wrote? Are you really that illiterate?
Abusive people abound...Bye
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 11:17:53 PM |
|
|
In article <Rh5Zd.2147$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$uw6.1278@trnddc06:
<snip to>
Would you see a need to control it if the baby were in a stroller and
she was taking a hammer to it?
certainly. but only those with no legitimate argument against abortion
would misrepresent and claim a baby was involved.
Excuse me, but there IS a baby involved here. S/he is considered a 'baby',
or rather, a real human being, by the law in a couple of different
circumstances, and can be considered such by a simple change in the law.
Certainly science has no, repeat NO way of determining when this fertilyzed
egg has this incredible seachange; here it is a human life and there it
wasn't...except perhaps at the moment of conception, which sorta screws
things up some. All definitions of when that life becomes 'a baby', or
rather a 'human life', (since 'baby' is simply a stage in the development of
a specific human, which begins at conception) are cultural, and thus
changable, then insisting that "only those with no legitimate argument
against abortion would misrepresent and claim a baby was involved' is
begging the question. Big time.
Of course, it is acceptable to kill humans in some situations. It always
has been. I expect that it will continue to be this way. Not only do I
think it is okay to kill humans in some situations, in other situations
it almost seems mandatory.
In my view, any person has the right to kill another thing, person,
entity, virus, adult, etc. when they violate that individual's body.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 10:17:33 AM |
|
|
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-9B8872.00175314032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <Rh5Zd.2147$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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 10:40:11 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
With all due respect, pregnancy as a result of consensual sex is not a
violation. It's an invitation.
Welcome to the warped mind of the pro-abortionist, where embryos attack
women, foetuses use and exploit their mothers **WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT***
and the most helpless are subverted into the most malicious.
It's a sick, twisted world Diana that these people live in, make no
mistake. But I have to inform you that we've been here many, many times
before.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 12:46:13 AM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
DianaC wrote:
With all due respect, pregnancy as a result of consensual sex is not a
violation. It's an invitation.
Welcome to the warped mind of the pro-abortionist, where embryos attack
women, foetuses use and exploit their mothers **WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT***
and the most helpless are subverted into the most malicious.
STUDY REPORTS RISE IN CHILDBIRTH DEATHS
San Jose Mercury News (SJ) - Tuesday, June 11, 1996
By: New York Times
UNITED NATIONS In the first comprehensive survey in a decade to look at
maternal deaths worldwide, UNICEF reported Monday that about 585,000 women die
each year during pregnancy and childbirth, many needlessly.
Millions more, perhaps as many as 18 million women, suffer debilitating
illnesses or injuries that often disable them.
The figures are nearly one-fifth higher than previous estimates of about
500,000 deaths, according to the report by UNICEF, the United Nations Childrens
Fund, which compiled the new data with the World Health Organization and Johns
Hopkins University.
Much of the tragedy is preventable, the study says.
"For the most part, these are the deaths not of the ill, or the very old,
or the very young, but of healthy women in the prime of their lives," says the
report, the Progress of Nations 1996.
Data from the report indicate that one in 13 women in sub-Saharan Africa
and one in 35 in South Asia dies of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth,
according to UNICEF officials, compared with one in 3,200 in Europe, one in
3,300 in the United States, and one in 7,300 in Canada.
The survey faults the shortage of obstetric care in many nations. It calls
for the proper medical training of more midwives who would be better qualified
than traditional birth attendants to assist mothers before, during and after
delivery.
About 75,000 women die annually of botched abortions and another 75,000 of
brain and kidney damage in eclampsia, a disorder that can cause high blood
pressure and convulsions late in pregnancy. At least 100,000 die of blood
poisoning and 40,000 of obstructed labor.
The report on maternal risks, prepared under UNICEF's director, Carol
Bellamy, a former New York City Council president and director of the Peace
Corps who took over the agency last year, is notably stronger in its language
and imagery than many U.N. publications.
The new figures produced in the UNICEF report raised some questions among
experts, who say that getting accurate information on maternal mortality is
notoriously difficult. At Harvard University, Lincoln Chen, professor of
international health and head of the Center for Population and Development
Studies, said that the difference between 500,000 maternal deaths, the
previously accepted figure, and 585,000 or 600,000 may fall within a margin of
error, since all such numbers were "insecure."
More information at http://www.unicef.org/pon96/contents.htm
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 02:10:53 PM |
|
|
In article <xOiZd.4149$GI6.1181@trnddc05>,
"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, (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.
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.
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 02:28:46 PM |
|
|
"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.
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that is the result of
NON-consensual sex.
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?
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 02:40:29 PM |
|
|
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.
And if you do, are you entitled to medical care to repair the damage, or
should you be required to simply lie there and die because you took that
risk?
The only pregnancy that is uninvited is the one that is the result of
NON-consensual sex.
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?
--
--sexkitten--
In Loving Memory of Jim Addison
9/18/71 - 12/30/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 03:59:38 PM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39mb6mF62ihuhU2@individual.net...
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.
And if you do, are you entitled to medical care to repair the damage, or
should you be required to simply lie there and die because you took that
risk?
You should be responsible for your actions. In the case of pregnancy, that
action resulted in the creation of another human life who should also be
considered.
The solution is to be very, very careful to prevent pregnancy, but realize
that since sex can result in forming a new human life (which is what it's
FOR..) then if, in spite of all precautions, you actually form that life,
you are responsible to it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 05:13:01 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39mb6mF62ihuhU2@individual.net...
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.
And if you do, are you entitled to medical care to repair the damage, or
should you be required to simply lie there and die because you took that
risk?
You should be responsible for your actions.
Which is what abortion is.
In the case of pregnancy, that
action resulted in the creation of another human life who should also be
considered.
Considered, but should not override the wishes or body of the woman.
The solution is to be very, very careful to prevent pregnancy, but realize
that since sex can result in forming a new human life (which is what it's
FOR..) then if, in spite of all precautions, you actually form that life,
you are responsible to it.
--
--sexkitten--
In Loving Memory of Jim Addison
9/18/71 - 12/30/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 06:38:05 PM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39mk4qF60rvn0U1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39mb6mF62ihuhU2@individual.net...
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.
And if you do, are you entitled to medical care to repair the damage, or
should you be required to simply lie there and die because you took that
risk?
You should be responsible for your actions.
Which is what abortion is.
Abortion is the ending of a human life. this is not something that I,
personally, would put under 'responsible behavior' in any list.
"Responsible behavior" would have been making certain that you did
everything that you possibly could to PREVENT pregnancy, and if, after
everything you did, you still got pregnant, dealing with the fact that you
are now responsible for another human being.
The thing is, using birth control consistantly and responsibly would almost
eliminate abortion; making it the tragic necessity that it should be
considered, not some blase' back up birth control method.
In the case of pregnancy, that
action resulted in the creation of another human life who should also be
considered.
Considered, but should not override the wishes or body of the woman.
I think that having this be considered would be a giant step in the right
direction. Too often, it's not considered at all. Do you really think that,
if women really stopped and thought that they were actually ending a human
life when they had an abortion, that they might be more careful about birth
control in the first place? I do. I hope they would, anyway,.
The solution is to be very, very careful to prevent pregnancy, but
realize that since sex can result in forming a new human life (which is
what it's FOR..) then if, in spite of all precautions, you actually form
that life, you are responsible to it.
--
--sexkitten--
In Loving Memory of Jim Addison
9/18/71 - 12/30/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 07:14:20 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39mk4qF60rvn0U1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39mb6mF62ihuhU2@individual.net...
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.
And if you do, are you entitled to medical care to repair the damage, or
should you be required to simply lie there and die because you took that
risk?
You should be responsible for your actions.
Which is what abortion is.
Abortion is the ending of a human life.
Abortion is the termination of an unwanted pregnancy; i.e. taking
responsibility for your "consequences" and doing something to fix it.
this is not something that I,
personally, would put under 'responsible behavior' in any list.
Actually, I can think of several circumstances where I would consider
this as responsible behavior. All of them having to do with bodily
violation.
"Responsible behavior" would have been making certain that you did
everything that you possibly could to PREVENT pregnancy, and if, after
everything you did, you still got pregnant, dealing with the fact that you
are now responsible for another human being.
The thing is, using birth control consistantly and responsibly would almost
eliminate abortion; making it the tragic necessity that it should be
considered, not some blase' back up birth control method.
True. Make a cheap, easy to use, safe, completely reliable
contraceptive; then make it cheap and readily available. Then teach
people about it and how to use it. And give it to them. Then we'll talk.
In the case of pregnancy, that
action resulted in the creation of another human life who should also be
considered.
Considered, but should not override the wishes or body of the woman.
I think that having this be considered would be a giant step in the right
direction. Too often, it's not considered at all. Do you really think that,
if women really stopped and thought that they were actually ending a human
life when they had an abortion, that they might be more careful about birth
control in the first place?
No. Did the little warning on cigarettes stop all smoking? This has been
a hot-seat issue for decades; you can't possibly be telling yourself
that women don't know what's in there. The difference lies in the fact
that not everyone sees that eight week fetus as a baby. That's a
personal viewpoint, not a fact.
--
--sexkitten--
In Loving Memory of Jim Addison
9/18/71 - 12/30/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 12:18:22 AM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39mqs9F63na8sU1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
<snip to>
The thing is, using birth control consistantly and responsibly would
almost eliminate abortion; making it the tragic necessity that it should
be considered, not some blase' back up birth control method.
True. Make a cheap, easy to use, safe, completely reliable contraceptive;
then make it cheap and readily available. Then teach people about it and
how to use it. And give it to them. Then we'll talk.
I think that this is already HERE. So talk already.
In the case of pregnancy, that
action resulted in the creation of another human life who should also be
considered.
Considered, but should not override the wishes or body of the woman.
I think that having this be considered would be a giant step in the right
direction. Too often, it's not considered at all. Do you really think
that, if women really stopped and thought that they were actually ending
a human life when they had an abortion, that they might be more careful
about birth control in the first place?
No. Did the little warning on cigarettes stop all smoking?
Smoking is incredibly physically addictive. Worse than drugs. THIS doesn't
demand that you cease having sex, simply asking you to deal with the
possibility of pregnancy before you have it.
This has been a hot-seat issue for decades; you can't possibly be telling
yourself that women don't know what's in there. The difference lies in the
fact that not everyone sees that eight week fetus as a baby. That's a
personal viewpoint, not a fact.
It is a scientific FACT that there is a specific human life in there.
Whether or not it is a 'person' is a cultural construct. That doesn't
elevate that cultural perception to the level of fact, and it is changable.
It should be changed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 04:19:22 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:O6vZd.5376$b_6.4445@trnddc01:
It is a scientific FACT that there is a specific human life in there.
i don't believe aznyone ever argued that there was not. would you believe
that there are those so empty of argument thazt they construck strawmen?
Whether or not it is a 'person' is a cultural construct.
only a fool makes the failed personhood argument in the abortion debate. it
is of no consequence.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 10:07:15 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39mqs9F63na8sU1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
<snip to>
The thing is, using birth control consistantly and responsibly would
almost eliminate abortion; making it the tragic necessity that it should
be considered, not some blase' back up birth control method.
True. Make a cheap, easy to use, safe, completely reliable contraceptive;
then make it cheap and readily available. Then teach people about it and
how to use it. And give it to them. Then we'll talk.
I think that this is already HERE. So talk already.
If it were already here and being done, this debate wouldn't be happening.
In the case of pregnancy, that
action resulted in the creation of another human life who should also be
considered.
Considered, but should not override the wishes or body of the woman.
I think that having this be considered would be a giant step in the right
direction. Too often, it's not considered at all. Do you really think
that, if women really stopped and thought that they were actually ending
a human life when they had an abortion, that they might be more careful
about birth control in the first place?
No. Did the little warning on cigarettes stop all smoking?
Smoking is incredibly physically addictive. Worse than drugs.
And sex is the second most powerful drive the body has.
THIS doesn't
demand that you cease having sex, simply asking you to deal with the
possibility of pregnancy before you have it.
This has been a hot-seat issue for decades; you can't possibly be telling
yourself that women don't know what's in there. The difference lies in the
fact that not everyone sees that eight week fetus as a baby. That's a
personal viewpoint, not a fact.
It is a scientific FACT that there is a specific human life in there.
As there is carrying it. That doesn't make it a baby.
Whether or not it is a 'person' is a cultural construct. That doesn't
elevate that cultural perception to the level of fact, and it is changable.
It should be changed.
Either the woman is a person and therefore important, or the fetus is.
You can't have it both ways, it's one or the other. Why shouls we change
that focus from a living adult woman to an unformed embryo?
--
--sexkitten--
In Loving Memory of Jim Addison
9/18/71 - 12/30/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 10:32:05 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
DianaC wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39mqs9F63na8sU1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
<snip to>
The thing is, using birth control consistantly and responsibly would
almost eliminate abortion; making it the tragic necessity that it
should be considered, not some blase' back up birth control method.
True. Make a cheap, easy to use, safe, completely reliable
contraceptive; then make it cheap and readily available. Then teach
people about it and how to use it. And give it to them. Then we'll talk.
I think that this is already HERE. So talk already.
If it were already here and being done, this debate wouldn't be happening.
Nope.
In the case of pregnancy, that
action resulted in the creation of another human life who should
also be considered.
Considered, but should not override the wishes or body of the woman.
I think that having this be considered would be a giant step in the
right direction. Too often, it's not considered at all. Do you
really think that, if women really stopped and thought that they
were actually ending a human life when they had an abortion, that
they might be more careful about birth control in the first place?
No. Did the little warning on cigarettes stop all smoking?
Smoking is incredibly physically addictive. Worse than drugs.
And sex is the second most powerful drive the body has.
Is it? And if it was, so what?
THIS doesn't
demand that you cease having sex, simply asking you to deal with the
possibility of pregnancy before you have it.
This has been a hot-seat issue for decades; you can't possibly be
telling yourself that women don't know what's in there. The
difference lies in the fact that not everyone sees that eight week
fetus as a baby. That's a personal viewpoint, not a fact.
It is a scientific FACT that there is a specific human life in there.
As there is carrying it. That doesn't make it a baby.
A person then. A foetus.
Whether or not it is a 'person' is a cultural construct. That doesn't
elevate that cultural perception to the level of fact, and it is
changable. It should be changed.
Either the woman is a person and therefore important, or the fetus is.
You can't have it both ways, it's one or the other. Why shouls we change
that focus from a living adult woman to an unformed embryo?
You present the false dichotomy. What if the foetus is a girl?
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 01:14:07 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
DianaC wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39mqs9F63na8sU1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
<snip to>
The thing is, using birth control consistantly and responsibly
would almost eliminate abortion; making it the tragic necessity
that it should be considered, not some blase' back up birth control
method.
True. Make a cheap, easy to use, safe, completely reliable
contraceptive; then make it cheap and readily available. Then teach
people about it and how to use it. And give it to them. Then we'll
talk.
I think that this is already HERE. So talk already.
If it were already here and being done, this debate wouldn't be
happening.
Nope.
Glad we agree on one thing anyway.
In the case of pregnancy, that
action resulted in the creation of another human life who should
also be considered.
Considered, but should not override the wishes or body of the woman.
I think that having this be considered would be a giant step in the
right direction. Too often, it's not considered at all. Do you
really think that, if women really stopped and thought that they
were actually ending a human life when they had an abortion, that
they might be more careful about birth control in the first place?
No. Did the little warning on cigarettes stop all smoking?
Smoking is incredibly physically addictive. Worse than drugs.
And sex is the second most powerful drive the body has.
Is it?
Yes, second only to the survival instinct.
And if it was, so what?
The idea of just-say-no is unrealistic. Sex, while not technically
physically addictive, is a function that the body is going to demand.
THIS doesn't
demand that you cease having sex, simply asking you to deal with the
possibility of pregnancy before you have it.
This has been a hot-seat issue for decades; you can't possibly be
telling yourself that women don't know what's in there. The
difference lies in the fact that not everyone sees that eight week
fetus as a baby. That's a personal viewpoint, not a fact.
It is a scientific FACT that there is a specific human life in there.
As there is carrying it. That doesn't make it a baby.
A person then. A foetus.
A person carrying a fetus.
Whether or not it is a 'person' is a cultural construct. That doesn't
elevate that cultural perception to the level of fact, and it is
changable. It should be changed.
Either the woman is a person and therefore important, or the fetus is.
You can't have it both ways, it's one or the other. Why shouls we
change that focus from a living adult woman to an unformed embryo?
You present the false dichotomy. What if the foetus is a girl?
Gender makes no difference. The fact that it's inside a living adult
woman whose rights and wishes take priority remains.
If you want to insist that the fetus is a person, look at it this way.
If I am being raped, do you think it would make a big difference to me
if it was a man or a woman? Given the opportunity, I'd still do whatever
it took to make the violation stop, up to and including killing them.
Are you of the opinion that their rights should take priority over mine
in that situation as well?
--
--sexkitten--
In Loving Memory of Jim Addison
9/18/71 - 12/30/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 01:19:47 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Michael Calwell wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
DianaC wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39mqs9F63na8sU1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
<snip to>
The thing is, using birth control consistantly and responsibly
would almost eliminate abortion; making it the tragic necessity
that it should be considered, not some blase' back up birth
control method.
True. Make a cheap, easy to use, safe, completely reliable
contraceptive; then make it cheap and readily available. Then teach
people about it and how to use it. And give it to them. Then we'll
talk.
I think that this is already HERE. So talk already.
If it were already here and being done, this debate wouldn't be
happening.
Nope.
Glad we agree on one thing anyway.
In the case of pregnancy, that
action resulted in the creation of another human life who should
also be considered.
Considered, but should not override the wishes or body of the woman.
I think that having this be considered would be a giant step in
the right direction. Too often, it's not considered at all. Do you
really think that, if women really stopped and thought that they
were actually ending a human life when they had an abortion, that
they might be more careful about birth control in the first place?
No. Did the little warning on cigarettes stop all smoking?
Smoking is incredibly physically addictive. Worse than drugs.
And sex is the second most powerful drive the body has.
Is it?
Yes, second only to the survival instinct.
And if it was, so what?
The idea of just-say-no is unrealistic. Sex, while not technically
physically addictive, is a function that the body is going to demand.
What's this got to do with abortion?
THIS doesn't
demand that you cease having sex, simply asking you to deal with the
possibility of pregnancy before you have it.
This has been a hot-seat issue for decades; you can't possibly be
telling yourself that women don't know what's in there. The
difference lies in the fact that not everyone sees that eight week
fetus as a baby. That's a personal viewpoint, not a fact.
It is a scientific FACT that there is a specific human life in there.
As there is carrying it. That doesn't make it a baby.
A person then. A foetus.
A person carrying a fetus.
No, it is unlikely that your foetus will be pregnant.
Whether or not it is a 'person' is a cultural construct. That
doesn't elevate that cultural perception to the level of fact, and
it is changable. It should be changed.
Either the woman is a person and therefore important, or the fetus
is. You can't have it both ways, it's one or the other. Why shouls we
change that focus from a living adult woman to an unformed embryo?
You present the false dichotomy. What if the foetus is a girl?
Gender makes no difference. The fact that it's inside a living adult
woman whose rights and wishes take priority remains.
Even if that means someone dies? Because you /want/ to end a pregnancy?
If you want to insist that the fetus is a person, look at it this way.
If I am being raped, do you think it would make a big difference to me
if it was a man or a woman? Given the opportunity, I'd still do whatever
it took to make the violation stop, up to and including killing them.
Are you of the opinion that their rights should take priority over mine
in that situation as well?
No. Are you equating falling pregnant of your own accord with being
raped against your will? Jeez...
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 01:40:33 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Michael Calwell wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
DianaC wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39mqs9F63na8sU1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
<snip to>
The thing is, using birth control consistantly and responsibly
would almost eliminate abortion; making it the tragic necessity
that it should be considered, not some blase' back up birth
control method.
True. Make a cheap, easy to use, safe, completely reliable
contraceptive; then make it cheap and readily available. Then
teach people about it and how to use it. And give it to them. Then
we'll talk.
I think that this is already HERE. So talk already.
If it were already here and being done, this debate wouldn't be
happening.
Nope.
Glad we agree on one thing anyway.
In the case of pregnancy, that
action resulted in the creation of another human life who
should also be considered.
Considered, but should not override the wishes or body of the
woman.
I think that having this be considered would be a giant step in
the right direction. Too often, it's not considered at all. Do
you really think that, if women really stopped and thought that
they were actually ending a human life when they had an abortion,
that they might be more careful about birth control in the first
place?
No. Did the little warning on cigarettes stop all smoking?
Smoking is incredibly physically addictive. Worse than drugs.
And sex is the second most powerful drive the body has.
Is it?
Yes, second only to the survival instinct.
And if it was, so what?
The idea of just-say-no is unrealistic. Sex, while not technically
physically addictive, is a function that the body is going to demand.
What's this got to do with abortion?
I was responding to a point Diana made, who was responding to a point I
made, I believe the topic at hand was that she thought women needed to
be more informed before abortions. Hence the comment about the warning
labels on cigarettes.
THIS doesn't
demand that you cease having sex, simply asking you to deal with
the possibility of pregnancy before you have it.
This has been a hot-seat issue for decades; you can't possibly be
telling yourself that women don't know what's in there. The
difference lies in the fact that not everyone sees that eight week
fetus as a baby. That's a personal viewpoint, not a fact.
It is a scientific FACT that there is a specific human life in there.
As there is carrying it. That doesn't make it a baby.
A person then. A foetus.
A person carrying a fetus.
No, it is unlikely that your foetus will be pregnant.
Which still leaves you with a person carrying a fetus. Don't play dumb.
Whether or not it is a 'person' is a cultural construct. That
doesn't elevate that cultural perception to the level of fact, and
it is changable. It should be changed.
Either the woman is a person and therefore important, or the fetus
is. You can't have it both ways, it's one or the other. Why shouls
we change that focus from a living adult woman to an unformed embryo?
You present the false dichotomy. What if the foetus is a girl?
Gender makes no difference. The fact that it's inside a living adult
woman whose rights and wishes take priority remains.
Even if that means someone dies? Because you /want/ to end a pregnancy?
Nobody is going to die because of that. Me, possibly, if the abortion
gets botched somehow.
If you want to insist that the fetus is a person, look at it this way.
If I am being raped, do you think it would make a big difference to me
if it was a man or a woman? Given the opportunity, I'd still do
whatever it took to make the violation stop, up to and including
killing them. Are you of the opinion that their rights should take
priority over mine in that situation as well?
No. Are you equating falling pregnant of your own accord with being
raped against your will? Jeez...
If I was pregnant of my own accord I wouldn't be seeking an abortion,
now would I? So no. I am equating an UNWANTED pregnancy with being raped
against my will. Both are physical violations against my will.
--
--sexkitten--
In Loving Memory of Jim Addison
9/18/71 - 12/30/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 02:05:02 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Michael Calwell wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Michael Calwell wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
DianaC wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39mqs9F63na8sU1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
<snip to>
The thing is, using birth control consistantly and responsibly
would almost eliminate abortion; making it the tragic necessity
that it should be considered, not some blase' back up birth
control method.
True. Make a cheap, easy to use, safe, completely reliable
contraceptive; then make it cheap and readily available. Then
teach people about it and how to use it. And give it to them.
Then we'll talk.
I think that this is already HERE. So talk already.
If it were already here and being done, this debate wouldn't be
happening.
Nope.
Glad we agree on one thing anyway.
In the case of pregnancy, that
action resulted in the creation of another human life who
should also be considered.
Considered, but should not override the wishes or body of the
woman.
I think that having this be considered would be a giant step in
the right direction. Too often, it's not considered at all. Do
you really think that, if women really stopped and thought that
they were actually ending a human life when they had an
abortion, that they might be more careful about birth control in
the first place?
No. Did the little warning on cigarettes stop all smoking?
Smoking is incredibly physically addictive. Worse than drugs.
And sex is the second most powerful drive the body has.
Is it?
Yes, second only to the survival instinct.
And if it was, so what?
The idea of just-say-no is unrealistic. Sex, while not technically
physically addictive, is a function that the body is going to demand.
What's this got to do with abortion?
I was responding to a point Diana made, who was responding to a point I
made, I believe the topic at hand was that she thought women needed to
be more informed before abortions. Hence the comment about the warning
labels on cigarettes.
I thought for a moment there that you were driving at suggesting that
because sex is a powerful force abortion miust be somehow legitimate.
THIS doesn't
demand that you cease having sex, simply asking you to deal with
the possibility of pregnancy before you have it.
This has been a hot-seat issue for decades; you can't possibly be
telling yourself that women don't know what's in there. The
difference lies in the fact that not everyone sees that eight
week fetus as a baby. That's a personal viewpoint, not a fact.
It is a scientific FACT that there is a specific human life in there.
As there is carrying it. That doesn't make it a baby.
A person then. A foetus.
A person carrying a fetus.
No, it is unlikely that your foetus will be pregnant.
Which still leaves you with a person carrying a fetus. Don't play dumb.
Whether or not it is a 'person' is a cultural construct. That
doesn't elevate that cultural perception to the level of fact, and
it is changable. It should be changed.
Either the woman is a person and therefore important, or the fetus
is. You can't have it both ways, it's one or the other. Why shouls
we change that focus from a living adult woman to an unformed embryo?
You present the false dichotomy. What if the foetus is a girl?
Gender makes no difference. The fact that it's inside a living adult
woman whose rights and wishes take priority remains.
Even if that means someone dies? Because you /want/ to end a pregnancy?
Nobody is going to die because of that. Me, possibly, if the abortion
gets botched somehow.
I was referring the unborn child that's killed in every abortion.
If you want to insist that the fetus is a person, look at it this
way. If I am being raped, do you think it would make a big difference
to me if it was a man or a woman? Given the opportunity, I'd still do
whatever it took to make the violation stop, up to and including
killing them. Are you of the opinion that their rights should take
priority over mine in that situation as well?
No. Are you equating falling pregnant of your own accord with being
raped against your will? Jeez...
If I was pregnant of my own accord I wouldn't be seeking an abortion,
now would I? So no.
So you're just talking about pregnancy as a result of rape then?
I am equating an UNWANTED pregnancy with being raped
against my will. Both are physical violations against my will.
.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
