Yes, except in cases of rape
and where the mothers life is in danger. I
don't personally think it's right in those
cases but I think it may be the lesser of
two evils.
Then you are most certainly attempting to
make my personal medical decisions for me.
It is easy to dress it up with pretty
phrases like "I think everyone should have
a chance at life" but you are also
advocating for a dictatorship over my
body.
How would that make you feel? Would that
make you feel good? Is that right?
The rape exception shows an emphasis on
pregancy as punishment versus the emphasis
on fetal life. Be consistent in your
prolife beliefs. It's either about the
fetus, or about the method of it's
conception.
No the rape thing isn't pregnancy as
punishment. I think that if someone is
raped then that baby could leave serious
psychological damage on them so much so
that they may harm themselves or the baby
or others. I am
consistent.
You do not disagree that you are
attempting to make my personal medical
decisions for me?
I appreciate your view on rape, and am
glad that you believe a forced pregnancy
from rape could cause serious problems. I
agree. I also believe that a forced
pregancy regardless of the conception can
cause serious problems as well.
I find it inconsistant because you have
now shifted your emphasis from "everyone
should have a chance at life" to "only
fetuses concevied by consensual sex
deserve a chance at life, not the ones
conceived by rape". You have thus decided
that the means of conception is the point
of contention; not the value of the fetus
itself.
In other words, you think women who 'asked
for it' by having consenual sex should be
forced to give birth, but women who were
raped shouldn't be forced to give birth.
It's about the woman, and your personal
ethics, not the baby.
Do you know what I'm saying? I'm not sure
I'm saying it
well.
I know what your saying and I just think
if people are having sex then they should
know the possibilities and that if they
can not handle the responsibility of
carrying a child to term then maybe they
should rethink having sex.
And I really don't see it as making your
personal medical decisions for you because
your making a medical decision against the
baby which is almost the exact same thing
you claim I, as well as other prolife
people, are trying to do to you. I don't
know if I wrote that right but I hope you
understood it.
Either way I'm done with this because I
feel like I'm being attacked (not by you).
So I'm done with this
subject.
Any comments on the fetus/rape thing?
You may not see it as making my personal
medical decisions for me, but that is
exactly what your opinions will do, if
they ever become law. Exactly.
I am having sex (well, not right now. I
wish. ) and I
know exactly what could happen. I
actually even know that I could
responsibly carry a child to term. Should
I rethink having sex?
(I am sorry you feel you are being
attacked.)
|
manuftw82
Supporter
Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 364 Location: Vestal/LI, NY USA
Thanks: 7
Thanked:3
Posted: 02-07-08 13:04pm
poopoopoo
wrote:
manuftw82
wrote:
I don't get why people who
don't want babies have sex. That's what
it is there for.
Right there, I think, is the answer to the
question. Anti-choicers don't understand
sex. They do not understand or approve of
the idea that sex is pleasurable, fun and
delightful for its own sake. Nooooope. Sex
is only for making babies. If you don't
want to be pregnant, why on earth would
you have sex? This especially relates to
women, of course: women should only have
sex for the purpose of procreation. The
idea that women might actually enjoy sex
in all its lovely penetrative, squishy
loveliness is anathema. How horrible that
a woman might want sex instead of only
yearning for a sperm to fertilise her!
Newsflash! I have been wanting and having
and ENJOYING sex for close to 30 years.
And I have never ever once wanted a
baby.
I know I said I'm done but I think you
misunderstood me. I obviously have sex
and I am not looking to have a baby but I
also understand that it is possible and I
also understand what having a baby entails
and I know I could provide for it and care
for it if it happens. I'm not looking to
have a baby but if it ever did happen I
know why it happened, because I had sex.
I wouldn't get rid of a baby because I
wanted one night of fun and it came with a
consequence.
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3216 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 80
Thanked:114
online
Posted: 02-07-08 13:30pm
manuftw82
wrote:
poopoopoo
wrote:
manuftw82
wrote:
I don't get why people who
don't want babies have sex. That's what
it is there for.
Right there, I think, is the answer to the
question. Anti-choicers don't understand
sex. They do not understand or approve of
the idea that sex is pleasurable, fun and
delightful for its own sake. Nooooope. Sex
is only for making babies. If you don't
want to be pregnant, why on earth would
you have sex? This especially relates to
women, of course: women should only have
sex for the purpose of procreation. The
idea that women might actually enjoy sex
in all its lovely penetrative, squishy
loveliness is anathema. How horrible that
a woman might want sex instead of only
yearning for a sperm to fertilise her!
Newsflash! I have been wanting and having
and ENJOYING sex for close to 30 years.
And I have never ever once wanted a
baby.
I know I said I'm done but I think you
misunderstood me. I obviously have sex
and I am not looking to have a baby but I
also understand that it is possible and I
also understand what having a baby entails
and I know I could provide for it and care
for it if it happens. I'm not looking to
have a baby but if it ever did happen I
know why it happened, because I had sex.
I wouldn't get rid of a baby because I
wanted one night of fun and it came with a
consequence.
Being married is not a one night on fun
ignorance is bliss. Do you undertsnad
what that means at all?
By giving a z/e/f right to
personhood(person) which they dont have
right now btw is taking away the right to
another person, so how does it make it
right if they are both wrong
manuftw82
wrote:
Kypros
wrote:
manuftw82
wrote:
I care because I believe
every person deserves a chance at
life.
I also believe every person
deserves a chance at life - that's why I'm
pro-choice.
um hi a baby is a person. kthanks
bye.
This kicked right into me....
Quality of life has just as much meaning
to deny that would be for me to deny your
right to live...
A fetus is not a person read a bloody law
dictionary or check out wikipedia or even
mirriam webster if you dont believe me...
Would you want to be a slave??
By giving a z/e/f right you are loosing
yours, being told what you can and cannot
eat, basically you fall into living in
your room and becoming a house wife cause
anything can harm the pregnancy it
ridicoulous. Followed by that woman then
loose our rights, get the caca kicked out
of us, have arranged marriages (which
still exist) are told how many kids we can
have ect....
Pro-choice means choice affects all your
aspects of life...
so anyways sorry for rambling but Ill sum
it up... To deny a person who is able to
survive, able to breathe on its own the
right to quality of life is the same as
having an abortion, just your aborting me
instead in a different way that makes it
okay for you...
alot of pro-life deny the quality of life
instead care more about quantity of life,
effin ridicoulous look at China and how
well that worked...
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4034 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 141
Thanked:13
Posted: 02-07-08 13:49pm
manuftw82
wrote:
poopoopoo
wrote:
manuftw82
wrote:
I don't get why people who
don't want babies have sex. That's what
it is there for.
Right there, I think, is the answer to the
question. Anti-choicers don't understand
sex. They do not understand or approve of
the idea that sex is pleasurable, fun and
delightful for its own sake. Nooooope. Sex
is only for making babies. If you don't
want to be pregnant, why on earth would
you have sex? This especially relates to
women, of course: women should only have
sex for the purpose of procreation. The
idea that women might actually enjoy sex
in all its lovely penetrative, squishy
loveliness is anathema. How horrible that
a woman might want sex instead of only
yearning for a sperm to fertilise her!
Newsflash! I have been wanting and having
and ENJOYING sex for close to 30 years.
And I have never ever once wanted a
baby.
I know I said I'm done but I think you
misunderstood me. I obviously have sex
and I am not looking to have a baby but I
also understand that it is possible and I
also understand what having a baby entails
and I know I could provide for it and care
for it if it happens. I'm not looking to
have a baby but if it ever did happen I
know why it happened, because I had sex.
I wouldn't get rid of a baby because I
wanted one night of fun and it came with a
consequence.
I know you are done but I'm going to
respond in case there are others with the
same thoughts...
Diamondsz hit on it, but I want to
reiterate as well that there seems to be
this huge misconception (no pun intended)
that women are wantonly getting "rid of
babies" because they had a "night of fun".
Many women, including married women, have
abortions. It's not just a bunch of
hookers out there having abortions; it's
women of all demographics.
Sexual intimacy should not be downplayed
by calling it a "night of fun". I have
found that within my own relationship, it
strengthens our bonds and helps us to mold
our own unique relationship.
I am starting to believe that the whole
"don't want kids? don't have sex!"
philosophy just devalues women. They are
not deserving of the pleasures of a sexual
relationship unless they always want to
spawn.
In these days of advanced technology,
there is no reason women should be forced
to give birth.
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3216 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 80
Thanked:114
online
Posted: 02-07-08 21:59pm
Birch
wrote:
[Diamondsz hit on it, but I
want to reiterate as well that there seems
to be this huge misconception (no pun
intended) that women are wantonly getting
"rid of babies" because they had a "night
of fun".
Many women, including married women, have
abortions. It's not just a bunch of
hookers out there having abortions; it's
women of all demographics.
Sexual intimacy should not be downplayed
by calling it a "night of fun". I have
found that within my own relationship, it
strengthens our bonds and helps us to mold
our own unique relationship.
Actually Im adding on as well
I was married and was actually thinking
about cause I thought I was pregnant, now
the thing is I value my breathing living
children over a potential.
If I had to pick between my kids suffering
and a potential I would definatly
(DEFINATLY) put my kids over that.
By having another kid I would be denying
another child the right to a home or even
foster care or honestly if I kept I would
live on welfare because the potential of
people who make BIG money (for adoption)
is rather small.
Adoptions prices ranges anywhere from
2000(interfamily guardian ship/legal
costs) to 75 000$ Outside adoption or
even in country adoption.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2595 Location: ,
Thanks: 16
Thanked:13
Posted: 02-07-08 22:01pm
poopoopoo
wrote:
manuftw82
wrote:
I don't get why people who
don't want babies have sex. That's what
it is there for.
Right there, I think, is the answer to the
question. Anti-choicers don't understand
sex. They do not understand or approve of
the idea that sex is pleasurable, fun and
delightful for its own sake. Nooooope. Sex
is only for making babies. If you don't
want to be pregnant, why on earth would
you have sex? This especially relates to
women, of course: women should only have
sex for the purpose of procreation. The
idea that women might actually enjoy sex
in all its lovely penetrative, squishy
loveliness is anathema. How horrible that
a woman might want sex instead of only
yearning for a sperm to fertilise her!
Newsflash! I have been wanting and having
and ENJOYING sex for close to 30 years.
And I have never ever once wanted a
baby.
I understand very well sex. I understand
that sex is very pleasurable. But I also
understand that there is appropiate ages
and cirscumtance for it because as
pleasurable as it is, it comes up with
consequences for which a degree of
maturity is required. And you know well
those that are. So stop exageratting. We
all know here what sex is about.
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3216 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 80
Thanked:114
online
Posted: 02-07-08 22:18pm
nightangel73
wrote:
I understand very well sex. I understand
that sex is very pleasurable. But I also
understand that there is appropiate ages
and cirscumtance for it because as
pleasurable as it is, it comes up with
consequences for which a degree of
maturity is required. And you know well
those that are. So stop exageratting. We
all know here what sex is
about.
Two uses of sex
Recreational and procreational
Deem it as you please for yourself but
people are entitled to one or even both if
they so choose you should never have
control over someone else sex life.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-07-08 22:48pm
killbill
wrote:
I think there should be a
language shift from pro-life to
anti-choice. Everyone should be pro-life.
People should be pro-life and it is a
word that has a lot of positive
connotations on the surface. I think it
confuses some people. I am pro-life in
the sense that I believe that little life
has a right to live and have a chance. I
don't believe in killing it for
convenience's sake. Having said that, I
don't think it is something we can
legistlate. I don't believe the state
should make that decision for a woman. I
personally, think it's wrong but I also
think it is wrong to take the decision
away from the mother because then you take
away her right to autonomy over her body.
There is no black and white here unless
you choose to take the position that
unborn fetuses are not human and have no
rights. It is a murky issue and people
will always disagree on it. Like freedom
of speech, I believe in it, but I believe
it should not be used to harm others, but
it will be used that way regardless. What
frightens me is when people start using
parasite to describe a human life. It
reminds me of the holocaust. The nazis
described the jews that way so they could
feel better about killing them. The truth
is, there are a million situations and
reasons why a million different women will
choose to abort and until you are standing
in that woman's shoes you can't make that
decision for her. My heart aches for
those unborn babies who are unwanted by
the one who would give them life, but
there are plenty of children already born
who are unwanted who could use some of the
attention for their plight. I see a young
girl on this forum who may not have the
perspective that others have on the
situation and who may benefit from some
information. She even seems like she
would maybe have a change of heart if
given the chance to see how complicated an
issue it is. You just have to retract the
claws long enough to educate rather than
attack. Give people a chance to save face
and they just might see things from a new
perspective.
**APPLAUDS!!**
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1174 Location: ,
Thanks: 22
Thanked:9
Posted: 02-08-08 07:05am
NA.. there are many benefits to sex like
the health benefits
of sex and the Psychological
benefits of sex so lets stop
pretending its all about procreation and
maturity shall we?
Yes .. NOW we all know what sex is about.
|
oopoopoop
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Mar 2004 Posts: 1356 Location: ,
Thanks: 57
Thanked:3
Posted: 02-08-08 10:02am
manuftw82
wrote:
I don't get why people who
don't want babies have sex. That's what
it is there for.
I just love this quote. Let's all say it
together: "I don't get why people who
don't want babies have sex. That's what
it is there for."
Hee hee.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-08-08 10:28am
killbill
wrote:
Everyone should be
pro-life.
I agree: pro-life adjective
supporting the belief that it is immoral
for a pregnant woman to have the freedom
to choose to have an abortion (= an
operation to end a pregnancy) if she does
not want to have a baby http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi
ne.asp?key=prolife*1+0&dict=A
killbill
wrote:
I am pro-life in the sense
that I believe that little life has a
right to live and have a chance. I don't
believe in killing it for convenience's
sake.
Nice, but that's not what pro-life means.
killbill
wrote:
Having said that, I don't
think it is something we can legistlate.
I don't believe the state should make that
decision for a woman.
But it's okay for the state to take away
the decision of a gang of teenagers to do
drive by shootings? You want them to take
away some decisions, but not others, even
though they all may involve the taking of
innocent human life? Why discriminate
against unborn human life?
killbill
wrote:
There is no black and white
here unless you choose to take the
position that unborn fetuses are not human
Which is a rather odd position to take,
isn't it? What else could they be?
killbill
wrote:
Like freedom of speech, I
believe in it, but I believe it should not
be used to harm others,
So, the freedom to control your body
should not be used to harm babies, right?
killbill
wrote:
The truth is, there are a
million situations and reasons why a
million different women will choose to
abort and until you are standing in that
woman's shoes you can't make that decision
for her.
The truth is, there are a million
situations and reasons why a teenager
might want to do a drive by shooting, and
until you are standing in that teenager's
shoes you can't make that decision for
him... can you?
killbill
wrote:
My heart aches for those
unborn babies who are unwanted by the one
who would give them life, but there are
plenty of children already born who are
unwanted who could use some of the
attention for their plight.
.
Unborn babies don't need "attention", they
just need not to be electively killed.
How do you come to the conclusion that the
terrible situations faced by many born
kids justifies the elective killing of
unborn kids?
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-08-08 10:31am
Eiri
wrote:
BUT - I realise that I do not have the
right to tell someone else what to do with
their body or the things inside of it,
even if those things are
alive.
And even if what they do "with their body"
causes the death of the "living (human)
thing" inside their body? Doesn't that
forever remove all rights from that
(inside) living human being?
|
Snug
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 151 Location: In the jacuzzi, silly.
Thanks: 21
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-08-08 11:01am
yodavater
wrote:
Doesn't that forever remove all rights
from that (inside) living human
being?
Fetuses don't have rights.
|
manuftw82
Supporter
Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 364 Location: Vestal/LI, NY USA
Thanks: 7
Thanked:3
Posted: 02-08-08 11:26am
Birch
wrote:
manuftw82
wrote:
poopoopoo
wrote:
manuftw82
wrote:
I don't get why people who
don't want babies have sex. That's what
it is there for.
Right there, I think, is the answer to the
question. Anti-choicers don't understand
sex. They do not understand or approve of
the idea that sex is pleasurable, fun and
delightful for its own sake. Nooooope. Sex
is only for making babies. If you don't
want to be pregnant, why on earth would
you have sex? This especially relates to
women, of course: women should only have
sex for the purpose of procreation. The
idea that women might actually enjoy sex
in all its lovely penetrative, squishy
loveliness is anathema. How horrible that
a woman might want sex instead of only
yearning for a sperm to fertilise her!
Newsflash! I have been wanting and having
and ENJOYING sex for close to 30 years.
And I have never ever once wanted a
baby.
I know I said I'm done but I think you
misunderstood me. I obviously have sex
and I am not looking to have a baby but I
also understand that it is possible and I
also understand what having a baby entails
and I know I could provide for it and care
for it if it happens. I'm not looking to
have a baby but if it ever did happen I
know why it happened, because I had sex.
I wouldn't get rid of a baby because I
wanted one night of fun and it came with a
consequence.
I know you are done but I'm going to
respond in case there are others with the
same thoughts...
Diamondsz hit on it, but I want to
reiterate as well that there seems to be
this huge misconception (no pun intended)
that women are wantonly getting "rid of
babies" because they had a "night of fun".
Many women, including married women, have
abortions. It's not just a bunch of
hookers out there having abortions; it's
women of all demographics.
Sexual intimacy should not be downplayed
by calling it a "night of fun". I have
found that within my own relationship, it
strengthens our bonds and helps us to mold
our own unique relationship.
I am starting to believe that the whole
"don't want kids? don't have sex!"
philosophy just devalues women. They are
not deserving of the pleasures of a sexual
relationship unless they always want to
spawn.
In these days of advanced technology,
there is no reason women should be forced
to give
birth.
No guys again you misunderstood me I was
talking about my OWN "one night of fun"
Not that I'm a hooker or sleep with people
I don't know but no I don't have a
boyfriend and yes I have someone that is
just there for that. So that's what I was
referring to.
|
manuftw82
Supporter
Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 364 Location: Vestal/LI, NY USA
Thanks: 7
Thanked:3
Posted: 02-08-08 11:30am
killbill
wrote:
I think there should be a
language shift from pro-life to
anti-choice. Everyone should be pro-life.
People should be pro-life and it is a
word that has a lot of positive
connotations on the surface. I think it
confuses some people. I am pro-life in
the sense that I believe that little life
has a right to live and have a chance. I
don't believe in killing it for
convenience's sake. Having said that, I
don't think it is something we can
legistlate. I don't believe the state
should make that decision for a woman. I
personally, think it's wrong but I also
think it is wrong to take the decision
away from the mother because then you take
away her right to autonomy over her body.
There is no black and white here unless
you choose to take the position that
unborn fetuses are not human and have no
rights. It is a murky issue and people
will always disagree on it. Like freedom
of speech, I believe in it, but I believe
it should not be used to harm others, but
it will be used that way regardless. What
frightens me is when people start using
parasite to describe a human life. It
reminds me of the holocaust. The nazis
described the jews that way so they could
feel better about killing them. The truth
is, there are a million situations and
reasons why a million different women will
choose to abort and until you are standing
in that woman's shoes you can't make that
decision for her. My heart aches for
those unborn babies who are unwanted by
the one who would give them life, but
there are plenty of children already born
who are unwanted who could use some of the
attention for their plight. I see a young
girl on this forum who may not have the
perspective that others have on the
situation and who may benefit from some
information. She even seems like she
would maybe have a change of heart if
given the chance to see how complicated an
issue it is. You just have to retract the
claws long enough to educate rather than
attack. Give people a chance to save face
and they just might see things from a new
perspective.
If you're talking about me then you should
not because you don't know anything about
me. If you had you would know that I have
been in that situation before and still
can not see it their way.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4034 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 141
Thanked:13
Posted: 02-08-08 13:15pm
Sorry manulft82, alot of prolife advocates
use the rhetoric that women facing
unwanted pregnancies are irresponsible and
deserve to be forced to give birth because
they had a night of fun.
I got from your last comment to killbill
that you have been in this situation. Is
that right? If so, what did you do?
Just a side note, yodavater, I saw that
you incorrectly stated that "unborn babies
don't need "attention"." I am quite sure
that you don't literally mean that, or you
are not educated on prenatal/prematernal
care and I don't believe that's the case.
Are you attempting to belittle pregnancy
as a method of justifying your prolife
views?
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-08-08 14:51pm
Snug
wrote:
Fetuses don't have
rights.
I know, but if not killed, they would soon
enough. Doesn't it matter that killing
them takes away all "future rights",
forever?
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-08-08 14:54pm
Birch
wrote:
Just a side note, yodavater, I saw that
you incorrectly stated that "unborn babies
don't need "attention"." I am quite sure
that you don't literally mean that,
They don't need attention in the same
sense that born children do. If left
alone, a healthy unborn baby with a
healthy mother will usually do quite well.
They have been doing so for thousands,
maybe millions of years, without doctors,
nurses, or hospitals.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-08-08 15:20pm
yodavater
wrote:
Snug
wrote:
Fetuses don't have
rights.
I know, but if not killed, they would soon
enough. Doesn't it matter that killing
them takes away all "future rights",
forever?
Just because I COULD learn to be a doctor
doesn't mean I have all of the rights of a
doctor right now. That would be silly,
wouldn't it?
I think it's just as silly to assign
rights to a thing that can't even see or
breath or feel, and make it more worthy of
its own rights than the mother carrying
it.
|
Snug
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 151 Location: In the jacuzzi, silly.
Thanks: 21
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-08-08 15:35pm
yodavater
wrote:
Snug
wrote:
Fetuses don't have
rights.
I know, but if not killed, they would soon
enough. Doesn't it matter that killing
them takes away all "future rights",
forever?
Not to me. I would consider giving
fetuses rights to be an enormous step
backwards for society.
But that isn't really what you were
asking, is it? You were asking why it's
okay to kill something that will have
rights somewhere down the road. The
answer is, because women have no
obligation to incubate a fetus to protect
its "future rights."
) and I
know exactly what could happen. I
actually even know that I could
responsibly carry a child to term. Should
I rethink having sex?
