Just because you can't feel it move does
not mean a heart has started beating.
Most abortions are performed after a heart
has started
beating.
So what? I think many living animals on
earth have a heart. Having a heart does
not give you the right to control a
woman's body for nine months. If that were
true, I could make you my personal slave,
right now.
|
manuftw82
Supporter
Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 364 Location: Vestal/LI, NY USA
Thanks: 7
Thanked:3
Posted: 02-05-08 00:38am
Well that person CHOSE to have sex. If
they get pregnant then they should have
their bodies "controlled" for nine months.
And btw why does the woman get control
over another being but that thing isn't
allowed to control the woman? How is that
fair? And a mother is not a slave to the
baby. That is not even close to being
equivalent. The baby does not tell the
mother what to do. The mother still
controls the baby when it is in the womb.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-05-08 00:43am
CHOOSING to have sex is NOT CHOOSING to
get pregnant. Get that through your thick
skull.
|
Darkmoon
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 Posts: 414 Location: ,
Thanks: 87
Thanked:51
Posted: 02-05-08 00:57am
manuftw82
wrote:
Well that person CHOSE to
have sex. If they get pregnant then they
should have their bodies "controlled" for
nine months. And btw why does the woman
get control over another being but that
thing isn't allowed to control the woman?
How is that fair? And a mother is not a
slave to the baby. That is not even close
to being equivalent. The baby does not
tell the mother what to do. The mother
still controls the baby when it is in the
womb.
You CHOSE to drive your car. If you
accidentally (or even deliberately) run
over a pedestrian and put them in
intensive care, you cannot be legally
compelled to donate even one DROP of your
blood to save their lives, even if you are
convicted for vehicular manslaughter.
Cereal killers have more rights to bodily
autonomy than you propose for women.
And by the way, if you don't think
pregnancy is enslavement than perhaps you
should educate yourself on the increasing
popularity of making special restrictions
for pregnant women that don't apply for
anyone else; such as legal substances like
alcohol and tobacco. Maybe you should
familiarize yourself with the number of
women who do not get immediate treatment
for medical emergencies because society
holds more importance over the well-being
of a fetus she may or may not be carrying
than her life.
When one is treated as a lesser human
being because of a condition in one's body
and when one is forced to share one's body
or allow it to be used by another against
one's will, it is SLAVERY. Advocating
that it's acceptable to assign lesser
rights to people based on gender is
discrimination, plain and simple. If Jack
doesn't have to share his blood with me to
keep me alive after he accidentally ran me
over with his car then Jill shouldn't have
to share her entire circulatory system and
internal organs with an insentient fetus
because the condom broke.
If you hate the idea of abortion so much
then stand with the prochoicers and fight
to ensure that every woman has access to
affordable birth control and elective
sterilization, without question.
|
Darkmoon
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 Posts: 414 Location: ,
Thanks: 87
Thanked:51
Posted: 02-05-08 01:04am
Oh, and on the subject of people and
things that are given more respect for
bodily autonomy than women, how about
those corpses? Dead people have an
uncontested right to keep their organs all
to themselves even when they're rotting in
the ground or being burned to ash, but
gods forbid women refuse to share their
bodies!
|
Darkmoon
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 Posts: 414 Location: ,
Thanks: 87
Thanked:51
Posted: 02-05-08 03:01am
I've already posted a thread concerning
reducing women to livestock but
considering the denial expressed here that
pregnancy (and the capability to become
pregnant) doesn't affect the quality of
medical care and legal rights that women
receive, I'll link the article here as
well.
http://www.aclu.org/repro
ductiverights/lowincome/12511res20001101.h
tml
Fetuses that don't even exist are given
more consideration than women who are here
and paying for medical treatment! Over
half of the common medications out there
to treat things as simple as allergies are
practically forbidden to anyone of the
female gender because of pregnancy
POTENTIAL. We can't even get equal
medical treatment when we aren't knocked
up because we have the potential to become
knocked up. Before long women won't even
be allowed to take vitamins unless it's
for prenatal care. It's bloody
disgusting.
When your gyn is trying to push folic acid
on you despite a lack of pregnancy and
your expressed refusal to ever bear
children, it's a pretty strong hint that
your personal health means nothing (taking
something like that for 30+ years "just in
case" would be bad for anyone...it's meant
for pregnant women...hello!) and they're
trying to push breeding on you whether you
can or will do it or not. Refusing to tie
your tubes because you haven't "done your
duty" is promoting unwanted or dangerous
pregnancy and therefore abortion, when it
could be avoided by simply respecting
women as intelligent human beings who know
whether or not we are interested in
becoming pregnant in the first place.
Allowing pharmacists to use their religion
as an excuse to discriminate against
female customers and deny them medication
based on a love for female suffering and
forced pregnancy says to me that the US
nation isn't at all interested in avoiding
the need for abortion but promoting it.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1174 Location: ,
Thanks: 22
Thanked:9
Posted: 02-05-08 07:26am
manuftw82
wrote:
Well that person CHOSE to
have sex.
Yes they did. This does not equate to
choosing to be pregnant.
manuftw82
wrote:
If they get pregnant then
they should have their bodies "controlled"
for nine months.
Hold the horse shoes here. Its ok for me
to have a gun, I am trustable with lethal
weapons but not with my own body? I am
trusted with the lives and well being of
other born people but not my unborn Zef?
Which era are you from?
manuftw82
wrote:
And btw why does the woman
get control over another being but that
thing isn't allowed to control the woman?
Don't you raving PL's ever research
anything? I'll use simple words here.
Be-cause She is the one preg-nant. It is
her bo-dy. M'kay? see not so difficult to
understand.
manuftw82
wrote:
How is that fair?
See above.
manuftw82
wrote:
And a mother is not a slave
to the baby.
Ohh I love you wonder woman super moms I
really do. So the babies well being is
never considered over the womans? No one
has ever denied a pregnant woman a rare
steak, a glass of wine with dinner, going
on a carnival ride, bowling, medication or
any other service beause she is pregnant
then right?
I hope you can prove your foolishness
becuase I have numerous examples of the
opposite in my life.
I've had restraunts refuse to cook me a
rare steak because I was pregnant; I've
been refused shoes at the bowling ally
because I was pregnant; I've been refused
a glass of wine with my dinner "because we
don't serve alcohol to pregnant women" and
even had the contents of my grocery cart
picked apart by nosy jackoffs in the line
because I was pregnant and not on a
vegitarian diet.
Don't tell me about your unsupported
opinion girly show me some proof that
women are not slaves to our feti when
pregnant.
manuftw82
wrote:
That is not even close to
being equivalent.
True. No one tries to control the lives of
men when women are pregnant. That is the
inequality.
manuftw82
wrote:
The baby does not tell the
mother what to do. The mother still
controls the baby when it is in the
womb.
ROFLMAO . You don't know much about the
mechanics of pregnancy do you? Try
sleeping on your stomach sometime when 7
months pregnant; try going out on an air
mat at the lake when you are 8 months
pregnant; I hope you aren't into full
meals because in the latter months of
pregnancy you get major acid indigestion
when you eat..
Get informed a bit before you post such
utter idiocy.
Well that person CHOSE to
have sex. If they get pregnant then they
should have their bodies "controlled" for
nine months. And btw why does the woman
get control over another being but that
thing isn't allowed to control the woman?
How is that fair? And a mother is not a
slave to the baby. That is not even close
to being equivalent. The baby does not
tell the mother what to do. The mother
still controls the baby when it is in the
womb.
Oh...my...God This is shockingly
bad. Pro-life at its worst. You may be
interested in reading my new thread on why
equality can never be achieved in a
pregnancy.
Why does the foetus not control the woman?
Because the woman is not the foetus's to
control! Her bodily organs do
not belong to anybody but her. It
is on this very concept that human rights
are built. This cannot be applied to the
foetus becase it is not independent - it
is parasitic, physically attached to the
mother, and feeding from her. So, as long
as the foetus resides in this state, it is
subject to the mother's bodily autonomy,
which re-inforces the unmitigated, crude
meaning of human rights.
There are two choices: either the mother
controls the foetus, which lives inside
and on her body, or the foetus controls
the mother, inside and from whom it lives.
There is no equality. If you will still
maintain that the foetus should take
precedence, you support slavery. If a
jobless, lazy man lives off his mother
giving him £100 a week, does that give
him the right to control her bank
account? Obviously not. In the same way
the foetus does not have the right to
control its mother's body just because it
uses them as it cannot live alone.
Furthermore, if foetuses and women were
both granted autonomy (which would be
ridiculous anyway since foetuses are not
independent an therefore worthy of
autonomy), there is an immediate clash: if
the woman feels the foetus's presence
violates her autonomy, she should then
theoretically be able to have it removed,
but this, in turn, violates the foetus's
autonomy. It's a lose-lose situation
because equality is impossible. This is
why the law favours the individual over
the parasite. It favours the owner over
the occupier. This is why the law is
pro-choice. Because science is pro-choice.
Th truth is pro-choice. I am pro-choice.
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2131 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 02-05-08 07:45am
Eiri.. CHOOSING to have sex is NOT
CHOOSING to get pregnant.
More verbal attack instead
of just being adult and stating what you
want to say.
Eiri.. CHOOSING to have sex is NOT
CHOOSING to get pregnant. Get that through
your thick skull.
Jinks..Get informed a bit before you post
such utter idiocy.
They are really uncalled
for..
I think Jincks made some good points, but
I will agree with you on verbal attacks.
However it can be very frustrating
when anti-choicers don't know the
difference between choosing to have sex
and choosing to get pregnant.
|
Jules
Moderator
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 Posts: 3790 Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 87
Thanked:69
Posted: 02-05-08 08:02am
I agree Blonde.
Can we please keep it civil?
|
Snug
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 151 Location: In the jacuzzi, silly.
Thanks: 21
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-05-08 08:03am
manuftw82
wrote:
Lilly Ivy
wrote:
I believe everyone should
have a chance to live, but only if the
mother wants it to. IMO, the 'baby' is
part of the mother until it is born, THEN
it is another human being. Obviously
according to the law, no one exists unless
it's on paper, so how can you consider it
a human being if you can't interact with
it? and ultrasounds don't count, it's like
saying you interact with people over the
internet via pictures, it doesn't work
that way. AND most abortions happen before
you can even feel it move.
Again, you still haven't given me another
point other than that
one.
Just because you can't feel it move does
not mean a heart has started beating.
Most abortions are performed after a heart
has started
beating.
So are you saying you don't object to
abortions that occur before a heart starts
beating?
|
manuftw82
Supporter
Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 364 Location: Vestal/LI, NY USA
Thanks: 7
Thanked:3
Posted: 02-05-08 09:35am
manuftw82
wrote:
And btw why does the woman
get control over another being but that
thing isn't allowed to control the woman?
Don't you raving PL's ever research
anything? I'll use simple words here.
Be-cause She is the one preg-nant. It is
her bo-dy. M'kay? see not so difficult to
understand.
manuftw82
wrote:
How is that fair?
See above.
[/quote]
This is the only thing of yours I will
respond to because it's the only thing I
read, after all I'm educated and I have a
class to attend. I'm not really sure what
you do but it clearly isn't that.
It is the mother's body...duh she has
control over it BUT SHE DOESN'T HAVE
CONTROL OVER THE BABIES BODY. Attached to
the mother it may be but she has no right
to kill it. If I was a conjoined twin I
wouldn't kill my other twin just cause
it's an inconvenience. And even that is
permanent. Pregnancy is extremely
temporary so how about YOU go do your
research. I believe I'm the one who just
wrote a 10 page paper on this. You
obviously are pulling 'facts' out your
ass.
This is the only thing of yours I will
respond to because it's the only thing I
read, after all I'm educated and I have a
class to attend. I'm not really sure what
you do but it clearly isn't that.
It is the mother's body...duh she has
control over it BUT SHE DOESN'T HAVE
CONTROL OVER THE BABIES BODY. Attached to
the mother it may be but she has no right
to kill it. If I was a conjoined twin I
wouldn't kill my other twin just cause
it's an inconvenience. And even that is
permanent. Pregnancy is extremely
temporary so how about YOU go do your
research. I believe I'm the one who just
wrote a 10 page paper on this. You
obviously are pulling 'facts' out your
ass.
A ten-page paper? I absolutely dread to
imagine what you wrote.
It seems you have overlooked my post a bit
further up and my new thread regarding the
biological inequality of woman and foetus.
Quite convenient for you to ignore, isn't
it?
I will say it again: you cannot
say that a woman has the right to control
her body a the foetus has the right to
control its and expected to be taken
seriously. The foetus's hyporthetical
right to autonomy does not
include occupying the woman's body and
usurping any rights the woman has to
control that body (which is hers and hers
only). To suggest that both the female and
the foetus can exact bodily autonomy
within the same body is ignorant
and dense.
Interestingly, one of your comments one of
the major pillars behind the pro-choice
movement: "Attached to the mother it may
be but she has no right to kill it". The
very fact that it is attached to the
mother and feeding off her, in other
words, that it is a parasite,
means that the foetus is not an
individual, and it is on the basis of
individuality that rights and protection
are formed. Without individuality and the
fact that it is subject to the wishes of
the hostess to whom it is attached the
foetus therefore has no rights
and is not protected from death.
Until you understand why and for whom
righs are made, you are not in a fair
position to criticise them.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4038 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 142
Thanked:13
Responses to manuftw82... Posted: 02-05-08 11:01am
I certainly don't want to you think I am
attacking you, so please know ahead of
time that is not my intent as I respond to
your posts.
manuftw82
wrote:
How do those opinions make you feel raped?
That makes NO sense to me at all. And no
that doesn't make me understand the view
of a prochoicer...Sex is to reproduce.
There are other ways of pleasure. that do
not induce pregnancies that are also
gratifying.
To clarify further, your prolife
opinions---> that you should have
prefential decision making in my personal,
medical decisions---> makes me feel
extremely violated. Over and over again.
Like I am being raped. It is a
comparison. Your opinions=me violated.
I just want you to know that's why I have
a strong reaction to prolife advocates.
You are free to express your opinions and
hold them, of course, but it's when you
want to apply it to me and other women you
have never known that I feel raped.
Additionally, I also feel violated that
you would have the gall to suggest how I
should manage my intimate affairs.
manuftw82
wrote:
Oh and I never bashed
homosexuality so thanks for making
assumptions about something I didn't
do.
Just so you know for future reference,
this comment:
manuftw82
wrote:
Well don't flame me for this
but from what I've been taught and from
experience I think that Homosexuality is a
psychological disorder.
...can easily be perceived as "bashing"
homosexuality due to the culture we live
in. And inaccurate. "Homosexuality" was
removed from the DSM in 1974 because it is
not a psychological disorder. Assuming
you were educated after 1974, you were
taught incorrectly, I am sorry.
|
o0Heather
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 04 Jan 2008 Posts: 27 Location: ,
Thanks: 1
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-05-08 13:25pm
manuftw82
wrote:
Well that person CHOSE to
have sex. If they get pregnant then they
should have their bodies "controlled" for
nine months. And btw why does the woman
get control over another being but that
thing isn't allowed to control the woman?
How is that fair? And a mother is not a
slave to the baby. That is not even close
to being equivalent. The baby does not
tell the mother what to do. The mother
still controls the baby when it is in the
womb.
I completly understand what your saying
They PC will never get it until they grow
in life some and get some spiritual
enlightenment.
I wish it wasnt so hard to communicate our
feelings on this, if you could only see
things through our eyes for a minute or
feel how we feel you would understand. And
no I dont think seeing things through a PC
eyes would change my mind a bit. I have
been through pregnancies and its a
blessing. How you could feel any different
is beyond me. This is such a difficult
subject. I wish everyone would be prolife
in there hearts but they are not therefore
I am still glad there is a way for
prochoicers to not have children. Its
probably for the best.
People who wish there were no abortion
feel a connection to the life inside Im
sorry you are unable to feel this
prochoicers.
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2131 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 02-05-08 13:27pm
Kypros
wrote:
meblonde01
wrote:
More verbal attack instead
of just being adult and stating what you
want to say.
Eiri.. CHOOSING to have sex is NOT
CHOOSING to get pregnant. Get that through
your thick skull.
Jinks..Get informed a bit before you post
such utter idiocy.
They are really uncalled
for..
I think Jincks made some good points, but
I will agree with you on verbal attacks.
However it can be very frustrating
when anti-choicers don't know the
difference between choosing to have sex
and choosing to get
pregnant.
I know kypros, it gets frustrating to
everyone. But I still think no matter what
the topic, everyone needs to stay civil.
|
Lilly Ivy
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Aug 2007 Posts: 1601 Location: Newell, WV
Thanks: 58
Thanked:93
Posted: 02-05-08 13:35pm
Kypros
wrote:
manuftw82
wrote:
This is the only thing of yours I will
respond to because it's the only thing I
read, after all I'm educated and I have a
class to attend. I'm not really sure what
you do but it clearly isn't that.
It is the mother's body...duh she has
control over it BUT SHE DOESN'T HAVE
CONTROL OVER THE BABIES BODY. Attached to
the mother it may be but she has no right
to kill it. If I was a conjoined twin I
wouldn't kill my other twin just cause
it's an inconvenience. And even that is
permanent. Pregnancy is extremely
temporary so how about YOU go do your
research. I believe I'm the one who just
wrote a 10 page paper on this. You
obviously are pulling 'facts' out your
ass.
A ten-page paper? I absolutely dread to
imagine what you wrote.
It seems you have overlooked my post a bit
further up and my new thread regarding the
biological inequality of woman and foetus.
Quite convenient for you to ignore, isn't
it?
I will say it again: you cannot
say that a woman has the right to control
her body a the foetus has the right to
control its and expected to be taken
seriously. The foetus's hyporthetical
right to autonomy does not
include occupying the woman's body and
usurping any rights the woman has to
control that body (which is hers and hers
only). To suggest that both the female and
the foetus can exact bodily autonomy
within the same body is ignorant
and dense.
Interestingly, one of your comments one of
the major pillars behind the pro-choice
movement: "Attached to the mother it may
be but she has no right to kill it". The
very fact that it is attached to the
mother and feeding off her, in other
words, that it is a parasite,
means that the foetus is not an
individual, and it is on the basis of
individuality that rights and protection
are formed. Without individuality and the
fact that it is subject to the wishes of
the hostess to whom it is attached the
foetus therefore has no rights
and is not protected from death.
Until you understand why and for whom
righs are made, you are not in a fair
position to criticise
them.
Any other parasite you would be glad to be
removed. Why not let that tape worm grow
up and get bigger? it's a living thing. We
kill things all the time. Ever slap that
mosquito feeding off of you? maybe not
exactly the same, but it had a beating
heart. Why not let it live and procreate?
Unless you are a vegetarian, half of your
diet once had a beating heart.
|
manuftw82
Supporter
Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 364 Location: Vestal/LI, NY USA
Thanks: 7
Thanked:3
Posted: 02-05-08 13:38pm
Kypros
wrote:
manuftw82
wrote:
This is the only thing of yours I will
respond to because it's the only thing I
read, after all I'm educated and I have a
class to attend. I'm not really sure what
you do but it clearly isn't that.
It is the mother's body...duh she has
control over it BUT SHE DOESN'T HAVE
CONTROL OVER THE BABIES BODY. Attached to
the mother it may be but she has no right
to kill it. If I was a conjoined twin I
wouldn't kill my other twin just cause
it's an inconvenience. And even that is
permanent. Pregnancy is extremely
temporary so how about YOU go do your
research. I believe I'm the one who just
wrote a 10 page paper on this. You
obviously are pulling 'facts' out your
ass.
A ten-page paper? I absolutely dread to
imagine what you wrote.
It seems you have overlooked my post a bit
further up and my new thread regarding the
biological inequality of woman and foetus.
Quite convenient for you to ignore, isn't
it?
I will say it again: you cannot
say that a woman has the right to control
her body a the foetus has the right to
control its and expected to be taken
seriously. The foetus's hyporthetical
right to autonomy does not
include occupying the woman's body and
usurping any rights the woman has to
control that body (which is hers and hers
only). To suggest that both the female and
the foetus can exact bodily autonomy
within the same body is ignorant
and dense.
Interestingly, one of your comments one of
the major pillars behind the pro-choice
movement: "Attached to the mother it may
be but she has no right to kill it". The
very fact that it is attached to the
mother and feeding off her, in other
words, that it is a parasite,
means that the foetus is not an
individual, and it is on the basis of
individuality that rights and protection
are formed. Without individuality and the
fact that it is subject to the wishes of
the hostess to whom it is attached the
foetus therefore has no rights
and is not protected from death.
Until you understand why and for whom
righs are made, you are not in a fair
position to criticise
them.
Actually I got a 100 on it soooooo..
and I refuse to read what you write until
you put it in Laymen's terms. I am not an
English major..I hate English and I refuse
to read something that I will likely
misunderstand.
|
manuftw82
Supporter
Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 364 Location: Vestal/LI, NY USA
Thanks: 7
Thanked:3
Posted: 02-05-08 16:09pm
And about the violated thing..I'm sorry
you feel that way but I feel for the
people who have no voice. You are
violating the people who cannot speak for
themselves. So why is it okay for you to
do to someone what you don't want done to
yourself?
This is shockingly
bad. Pro-life at its worst. You may be
interested in reading my new thread on why
equality can never be achieved in a
pregnancy.
