What I said is that if my mother had
aborted me it would not have been a loss
becuase I would not have existed. The
truth is that my parents would have been
better off to have had the option to abort
and to have taken it. Those are simply
statements of the truth.
Why do you jump to the conclusion that I
have done nothing with my life? Or that I
am a sad person? Or that I have nothing
for people to remember me for after I
die?
You are such a angry little person. The
fact is that if I had been aborted my
parents may have had lives worth living
instead of the angry unhappy ones they
did. And once agin very slowly IF I HAD
NOT BEEN BORN BECUASE MY MOTHER WAS ABLE
TO ABORT I WOULD NOT HAVE EXISTED SO IT
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A LOSS. JUST AS IF MY
MOM HAD NOT GOT PREGNANT WITH ME IN THE
FIRST PLACE IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A
LOSS.
"if my mom had birth me with sacrifice oh
boy then with more reason I would have
make the best of it and I would had made
my mom proud."
(I'm going to answer this even though it
takes some translation)
Again with the assumptions. Why do you
assume my mother is not proud of me? Why
do you assume I have not made the best of
my life? neither of which has any bearing
on the fact that if my mom had had the
opportunity to abort me I would not have
existed this life would not have existed
and my parents may have actually had
better lives.
I have always said that the vast majority
of prolifers choose to speak for zefs
becuase the zefs cannot contradict them.
You seem to be a case in point. You
cannot even tolerate the idea that a
former zef from a unwanted pregnancy
disagrees with you.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2461 Location: ,
Thanks: 14
Thanked:7
Posted: 02-24-08 23:10pm
sistersister
wrote:
IF I HAD NOT BEEN BORN
BECUASE MY MOTHER WAS ABLE TO ABORT I
WOULD NOT HAVE EXISTED SO IT WOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN A LOSS. JUST AS IF MY MOM HAD
NOT GOT PREGNANT WITH ME IN THE FIRST
PLACE IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A LOSS.
Yes it wouldn't been a loss because you
don't think your life has been of value
here. Me in the other hand if my mom would
have aborted me it would have been a loss
because I think I am of big value to this
world. Remember once you were conceived
before aborted you are already EXISTING.
You exist until you are aborted, then you
exist no more. And now can you tell me
what have you done in your life to make
the lives of the people on the world
better?
Your parents were unhappy because of their
choice. Having an unwanted pregnancy is
unhappiness only if you let it be that
way. You say I assume but you are the one
with ridiculous assumptions because even
if you were aborted there is NO guarantee
that your parents life would have been any
better. My husbands parents are divorced.
They had 3 wanted children yet their
marriage was a total failure and both had
misserable life for over 20 years. They
lost everything, including all their
retirement money for the lawyers which
they now are struggling to recover.
Whether they aborted their children it
wouldn't have made any difference to their
failure. So don't blame that because your
parents choose to have miserable lives it
was all because you. That's BS. They
choose to be miserable and not do anything
about it.
|
sistersister
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Sep 2007 Posts: 145 Location: ,
Posted: 02-25-08 09:20am
You still don't get it. Once agin If my
mother had aborted me then I would not
have existed there would not have bee
either value or no value becuase something
that never happened does not have value or
no value.
I may have existed once concieved but not
as anything but a potential human life. I
was not an independent life, I had no
sentience and was no more in existance as
a human being than my mothers big toe.
Lets see as a teen I was pulled intothe
civil rights movement in the sixties which
was my first introduction to protess and
marches. (I should add it was the first
time I saw how ugly the religious right
could be although at the time I just saw
them as the members of our church). I
married a batterer who beat me and
finially rapd me and nearly beat me to
death. I was through the kindness and
sacrifice of my landlady able to abort the
thing he had ramed into my body and to
escape with my two actual children alive.
I finially was able to go back to school I
have a digree in Anthropology (Bachelors)
and a Associates degree in Black Studies
with an emphasis on African History along
with completeting my nursing program. I
have lived all over the states and in
Greece for two years. I was married to a
very wonderful older man from Ghana for
many years we divorced very amicacally
and remain friends. I worked as a nurse
for twenty years until I finally burned
out and went to work building 747s for
Boeing. I run an animal sanctuary,
curently we have about 300 animals in
residence. I live on a small farm, we
choose to live simply, wood heat ect. I
split the wood, I bake my own bread I
raise goats and make our cheese. I also
raise shetland sheep becuase I spin and I
weave. I am an imformation junkie read
constantly to say othing of spending way
to much time on the internet. I draw and
paint. I can cook but prefer to bake. I
sew. I am beginning to write a book based
on some of my experiences. I along with
my daughter care for my parents (my father
is in a nursing home with Alziemers) My
mom lives alone out of her choice and
recounts all her life disapointments. I
also as I have since I came back from
Greece work for womens rights. I write
letters to the editor, I raise and donate
money and I work for Womens Health Care
Services. I work with the patients spend
hours with them so I hear their stories
and I get to know their families and their
stories. I absolutely love my job, I
admire and like my Boss and I have the
best co workers on the planet. I have
good relationships with my older Daughter
and Daughter in law and my six
Grandchildren (the first of which
graduates from High School this may).
And if I had been aborted and never
existed then these things would have been
done by someone else. I would never have
existed and the world would have gone on
just fine. None of theis would have
mattered becuase none of it would have
existed.
"having an unwanted pregnancy is
unhappiness only if you let it be that
way"
It complete disregards the fact that each
person and their circumstances is
different and that for many an unwanted
pregnancy can be devastating. For a woman
attempting to leave a batterer it can be
life threatening. (and before you say that
is rare remember that one out of four
women in this country will be in an
abusive relationship they must flee. Many
abusers deliberatly impregnate their
victim as a means to bind her to him and
so that he can still conrol her. A woman
that is on the edge of financial collaspe
and already raising kids that depend on
her can be completely devastated by an
unplanned pregnancy. A woman raped (such
as I ) who would rather kill herself then
have to carry the product of the rape to
term ( and believe me that was my plan and
I can tell you with out hesitation I would
have killed myself and my existing
children before I would have carried to
term that thing).
My being aborted may not have "guarantee"
my parents would have had better lives but
It is a sure bet tht my Father would not
have ended up married to my manic
depressive mom but in all probability to
his long time girlfriend and that he would
have had a much better chance at life
married to a normal woman. He probably
would have gone on to have other children
made friends and been able to enjoy his
life. I do not think that is a ridiculus
assumption. (and by the way I did not say
you were making ridiculus assumptions, I
said you were making assumptions. which
not only you made but which were wrong.)
At any rate how my parents lives would
have turned out or not, yur parents
divorce and all the other crap does not
matter. If either of us had been aborted
then neither of us would have existed and
the world would of gone along just fine.
Something that has never existed can have
no impact on the world or the cosmos so
its absence is not loss.
You could look at the reverse side of the
argument. Take some gross figure of
history like hitler. One could argue that
if one could have prevented hitler from
being born then the world would have been
better off becuase eleven million people
would not have died in the concentration
camps. Again that is simplistic. If
hitler had never existed then another
would have filled the role. The climate
and the contributing factors that led to
the eleven million dead in the camps would
not have changed and the movement would
simply have found another charismatic
leader to whip up the already willing. If
hitler had been aborted than he would
never have existed but he circumstances
for his impact on the world (of humans)
would have proceded without him.
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1066 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:110
Re: abortion is not right Posted: 02-25-08 10:23am
fallingangel04
wrote:
i know people who want a
baby so bad and they don't care that its
not perfect the would love it no matter
what, one of my friends has been pregnant
2 times but miscarries everytime, she
would love to have a baby, with so many
out there like her why kill a life.
It is not anyone elses responsibility to
have children for other women. Yes it is
sad that there are people who would love
to conceive but can't but that doesn't
affect the woman with an unwanted
pregnancy. Some women choose adoption,
some women choose abortion, some women
choose parenting - it's the woman's choice
end of story.
fallingangel04
wrote:
anyone who has sex should be
able to except full responsibility for it
ABortion may well be taking
responsibility
fallingangel04
wrote:
but if your not having any
life threatening complications, honestly
tell me, why
abort?
Many reasons, for me I was at uni and
wanted to continue with that amongst many
other reasons. Sometimes it really is as
simple as not wanting a child. The list
is endless
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Posted: 02-25-08 12:39pm
sistersister
wrote:
Dol
There are many "natural process"s. And as
humans progress and are better able to
correct the results of those processes
there are means to treat them. An
infection is anatual process wherein a
pathogen gains access to someones body
that can be treated by antibiotics and
other medical interventions. A unwanted
pregnancy can be treated by abortion eithr
medical or sugical. The fact hat you
choose to believe prenatal life is more
than potential human life certianly no
basis to deny that abortion can be the
cure for an unwanted pregnancy.
If I have a tumor growing in my uterus it
will have a genetic link to me. if that
tumor is on a ovary and results from a
cancerous growth from one of my eggs then
it has resulted in a biological event in
my reproductive system. I have the right
to correct both of these unwanted
conditions just as I have the right to
correct the presence of an unwanted
pregnancy. Abortion is the cure for an
unwanted pregnancy. Women are not forced
to carry unwanted pregnancies that can be
removed any more than they are forced to
keep tumors growing or infections blooming
in their bodies.
"the sacrificial provision from the mother
to the unborn child is a biological event
due to reproduction..." Only if the woman
is made to sacrifice by being forced to
gestate to term aginst her will. It is
not a biological event it is the forcing
of others will on her to prevent her from
aborting a unwanted pregnancy. So the
sacrificial provision would be the
sacrificing of the womans atonamy over her
own body, the subjugation of her rights to
the potential life by others. It would
certianly be a legal mandate that caused
the
sacrifice.
My previous comment was about your error
in basic logic. Instead of conceding your
error, you evade the point and go into
something else. Even that, you are wrong.
Be realistic, sister. Why do you feel the
need to put down prenatal human life as a
pathogenic infection to make your cause
justifiable? The unborn life has been
called many things, such as parasite,
leech, tapeworm, etc... But, such name
calling tactic won't make your cause any
holier. An unwanted pregnancy is not an
infection. An infection by a pathogen is
never wanted that you’ll go for regular
check up to make sure the pathogen is
developing fine and healthy.
If you have tumor, that tumor contains all
the 46 chromosomes that are your very own.
The cells that compose your body and those
that become cancerous are somatic cells.
Somatic cells are diploid cells that
contain 46 chromosomes that compose your
body.
If you have an ovarian cancer, there are
three types: the epithelial cancer, the
stromal cancer and the germ cell cancer.
The first two types are somatic cells.
They contain the same 46 chromosomes as
your other tissue cells. The third type
contains germ cells. Germ cells are
destined to form eggs within your ovaries.
Through meiotic process, they contain half
the number of chromosomes (23 chromosomes)
of your somatic cells (46 chromosomes) and
therefore are known as haploid cells.
Similarly, a sperm is also a haploid cell.
Therefore, sperms and unfertilized eggs
are genetically of the parental hosts and
are not human beings because human beings
do not have 23 chromosomes in their
somatic cells which form the body tissues
and organs except germ cells in the
gonads. Therefore, a sperm or an
unfertilized egg by itself in non-union
situation will never become and develop
into a human being.
A zygote is formed from the union of a
sperm and an egg. Therefore, it is a
diploid cell and has 2 sets (46) of
chromosomes from both parents but
genetically distinct from them. Also, the
union of sperm and egg creates a single
totipotent cell which has the capacity to
form an entire organism.through its
formation of pluripotent and multipotent
cells in which specialized cells are
produced. Therefore, a totipotent cell is
the beginning of the new human being in a
nutshell. It is the singularity where the
totality of this new human existence, as
contained in the blueprint of the
inherited genes, is expressed as a single
point in time at the very beginning of
his/her existence. It is an undeniable
biological fact that human being exists in
the form of a single totipotent cell at
the moment of conception. To expect
otherwise is ridiculous.
A prenatal life is like a newborn baby
with potential to become an adult in
future time. Just because they have the
potential to develop into full adult
doesn't mean that an unborn or a newborn,
for that matter, isn't a human being but
merely an abstract potential. You cannot
perform a fetal surgery if it is just a
potential with no real physical
existence.
Demanding that you take responsibility for
your act and not to resort to homicide is
not forcing you to gestate. it is your own
doing and nobody else. After all, unless
you're being raped. you have a choice to
engage in sexual activities knowing such
act may cause you to get pregnant.
sistersister
wrote:
I'm not clear by sanguinous
resources are you refering to the fact
that the zef is dependent for what ever
pretense of life it exhibits on the fact
hat it functions becuase it is attached to
and feeding off of the womans blood supply
or or you suggesting that in the car
accident someone who caused the accident
is forced to donate blood to save the life
of those tht were injured.
Of course no one can be forced to be
hooked up to and tranfuse another against
their will. And no woman should ever be
forced to have a zef feed off of her
against her
will.
You are never clear because you refused to
understand that the provision of resources
to prenatal life from mother to child is a
natural event by procreation and not
mandated by law. In an accident, the
person who caused the accident and the
victim don’t just collide and formed
conjoined twins by an act of nature.
Forcing someone who caused the accident to
donate blood is an act of mandate while
pregnancy occurs by nature due to sexual
reproductive event.
If you want to insist on the car accident
analogy, at least be valid and consistent
with the comparison. The only valid and
consistent point I can see in this analogy
is that in abortion you kill the prenatal
life of the accidental pregnancy.
Therefore, in order for your analogy to be
valid and consistent, the person who
caused the car accident should also kill
the car accident victim. Hence, you can
see that abortion is like someone who
caused a car accident and then resort to
killing the victim of the car accident to
solve the problem and to get away from
bearing responsibility instead of helping
the victim.
Therefore, mandating that the person
causing the car accident to donate blood
to the victim for the period of nine
months for the healing isn’t that worst
a scenario as compared to killing the
victim to get away from responsibility.
After all, shouldn’t a moral and just
person voluntarily give blood to the
victim without even being asked if both
are the only person to have the rare blood
type that the victim can’t get from
anywhere else? Of course, to expect people
with egocentric thinking and entitlement
complex to sacrifice a little bit is just
asking too much, don’t you think?
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3939 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Posted: 02-25-08 14:02pm
Forgive me, but didn't you veer away from
the original analogy a bit?
Having sex may equal pregnancy.
Driving a car may equal accident.
Both individuals are deserving of
treatment however they may see fit.
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Posted: 02-25-08 14:52pm
In both equations there is a perpetrator
and a victim. The perpetrator is the one
whose act causes the accident (an
accidental pregnancy and a car accident).
The victims are the victims of the
accidents.
Your so-called treatment in accidental
pregnancy is abortion, which is killing of
the prenatal victim. Therefore:
Having sex -> accidental pregnancy
Driving a car --> car accident.
Solution/”treatment”:
Abortive woman in abortion --> choice
to kill unborn human life
Reckless driver who caused car accident
--> choice to kill injured accident
victim
If by your “treatment” was meant
treatment for the victims, then of course
the unborn would like to have the
treatment of being nourished for nine
months as intended by nature until his
birth. That’s however he sees fit unless
he quits by miscarriage.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3939 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Posted: 02-25-08 15:51pm
dolphinocean
wrote:
In both equations there is a
perpetrator and a victim. The perpetrator
is the one whose act causes the accident
(an accidental pregnancy and a car
accident). The victims are the victims of
the accidents.
Your so-called treatment in accidental
pregnancy is abortion, which is killing of
the prenatal victim. Therefore:
Having sex -> accidental pregnancy
Driving a car --> car accident.
Solution/”treatment”:
Abortive woman in abortion --> choice
to kill unborn human life
Reckless driver who caused car accident
--> choice to kill injured accident
victim
If by your “treatment” was meant
treatment for the victims, then of course
the unborn would like to have the
treatment of being nourished for nine
months as intended by nature until his
birth. That’s however he sees fit unless
he quits by
miscarriage.
It is interesting that you equate the
woman who may have an unwanted pregnancy
with the reckless driver.
In this analogy, women with an unwanted
pregnancy --->the car accident victim.
And both are deserving of whatever
treatment they choose, since neither
submitted to their fate.
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Posted: 02-25-08 16:29pm
What's so interesting when it is what it
is? I didn't make up stuff to equate
anything that was not already made up by
the person making up the analogy.
How can the woman be the car accident
victim if the car accident victim is the
one needing blood transfusion from the
reckless driver. The reckless driver is to
be the provider of the blood transfusion,
not the other way around. According to
this analogy, the reckless driver, for
causing the car accident, was mandated to
provide his blood for transfusion to the
car accident victim
In pregnancy, is the women the abortable
victim receiving nutrient transfusion from
the unborn child? Certainly not.
The only interesting thing here is that
you are trying hard to portray the
abortive woman as victim whereas in fact
the true victim is the unborn child.
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Posted: 02-25-08 16:47pm
Here is the original analogy made by
Darkmoon:
Darkmoon
wrote:
Having a car accident is a
possible consequence of driving but nobody
is forcing the person at fault to donate a
drop of blood to the person they run into
or run over, are they? After all, the
person at fault directly caused the person
they ran into to need a blood transfusion
so by the logic of "she spread her legs so
she must share her body as a result",
people who cause accidents and match the
blood type or tissue type of those they
harm should also be legally mandated to
share their bodies.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3939 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Posted: 02-25-08 16:58pm
dolphinocean
wrote:
What's so interesting when
it is what it is? I didn't make up stuff
to equate anything that was not already
made up by the person making up the
analogy.
How can the woman be the car accident
victim if the car accident victim is the
one needing blood transfusion from the
reckless driver. The reckless driver is to
be the provider of the blood transfusion,
not the other way around. According to
this analogy, the reckless driver, for
causing the car accident, was mandated to
provide his blood for transfusion to the
car accident victim
In pregnancy, is the women the abortable
victim receiving nutrient transfusion from
the unborn child? Certainly not.
The only interesting thing here is that
you are trying hard to portray the
abortive woman as victim whereas in fact
the true victim is the unborn
child.
The pregnant woman can be a victim. I'm
sorry you cannot empathize. I hope you
read some abortion stories.
|
sistersister
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Sep 2007 Posts: 145 Location: ,
Posted: 02-25-08 21:22pm
First I think you need to go back and read
both mine and Birchs posts as it would
appear you ar combining them.
I will answer one of your questions.
"why do you feel the need to put down
prenatal life as pathogenic?"
I did not say prenatal life is pathogenic'
What I said was a pathogen that gains
access to the body and become an
infecition is also a natural process just
like your line about the pregnancy being a
natural process. What I was saying is
that just becuase one thing muight be the
natural outcome of a process in medicine
their are interventions available Just as
the woman can get treated for the unwanted
infection she can also be treated for an
unwanted pregnancy.
That is not a put down of "prenatal life"
It is a statement of fact. For women that
do not want to continue a pregnancy
abortion is a cure just as antibiotics are
a cure for an infection.
Abortion is not about the zef it is about
the woman and her body and her right to
terminate an unwanted attachment wether
tht attachment is microbes feeding off of
her cells or a zef doing the same.
Not glorifying the zef or "prenatal life"
to the level of godhood is not a put down
it is using reason. You brought up
natural process and I gave an example.
"A prenatal life is like a newborn baby
with potential to become an adult in
future time."
wrong a zef is not like a newborn baby or
neonate. Its symblance of life is that it
is attached to the woman dependent on her
body for oxygen and nutrients. It has no
life of its own unattached to the womans
body. It has the potential to become a
neonate but is not the same as one. If it
were we could simply cut the attachments
slam it into a incubator and it would
continue to develop. It is incomplete and
underdeveloped with a total dependence on
the womans body.
"just becuase they have the potential to
develope into full adult dosn't mean that
an unborn or a newborn, for that matter
isn't a human being but merely an abstract
potential."
I am not sure what you are trying to say
here so I will give it my best guess. Does
this translate to becuase the only have
the potential to develop into a full
adult they are still human and not just a
potential human?
If so... No one says they are not human,
that is why when we are talking about the
abortion debate we all know we are talking
about human females human with human
pregnancies that support human embryos and
fetuses. The womans' big toe is human too
and just like the zef neither can have
independent life outside of what they
derive from their attachment to and
feeding off othe rest of the womans body.
"You cannot preform a fetal surgery if it
is just a potential with no real physical
existance"
Yes you can preform surgery on anything
that is part of the womans body. No one
has said it is not in existence
physically. the fact that it has a
physical body does not in any way negate
the fact that it is non independent life
that its life is that of the womans and
that it is attached to and feeding off of
her body and if detached will not longer
show any signs of life. You do understand
that the critical aspect of fetal surgery
is that it is only sucsessful if the
attachment to the woman remains. Other
wise they could simply remove it
altogether to do the surgery.
"Demanding you take responsibility for
your act..." Sweetie for some women
abortion is taking responsibility and to
go on with that statement abortion is not
homicide it is legal, forcieing any woman
continue a pregnancy against her will is
forcing her to gestate. ( you know
gestation is the process of carrying a
pregnancy so making her carry a pregnancy
she does not want to carry is forcing her
to gestate.)
Finally something you say I can agree
with
" The provision of resources to prenatal
life from mother to child is a natural
event by procreation and not mandated by
law."
Yes this is why abortion is legal on
demand through the fisrt trimester. A
woman in this country is not forced to
provide resources to the unwanted outcome
of a natural event.
Seriously once again. SEX IS NOT JUST
FOR PROCREATION IT SERVES OTHER FUNCTIONS.
hAVING SEX IS NOT AGREEMENT TO GESTATE.
NATURAL EVENTS THAT HAVE UNWANTED OUTCOMES
CAN BE CORRECTED.
"Of course to expect people with
egocentric thinking and entitlement
complex ..." (you must mean those folk who
think what they believe to be moral is the
only truth and so they have the right to
invade a womans most intimate decision
based not on hard facts but thier own
private beliefs).
Off topic: please tell me your not what I
expect you are some teenage homeschooler
with the life experience of a single caged
hamster? Or a catholic school boy virgin.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2461 Location: ,
Thanks: 14
Thanked:7
Posted: 02-25-08 22:28pm
sistersister
wrote:
Something that has never existed can have
no impact on the world or the cosmos so
its absence is not loss.
You could look at the reverse side of the
argument. Take some gross figure of
history like hitler. One could argue that
if one could have prevented hitler from
being born then the world would have been
better off becuase eleven million people
would not have died in the concentration
camps. Again that is simplistic. If
hitler had never existed then another
would have filled the role. The climate
and the contributing factors that led to
the eleven million dead in the camps would
not have changed and the movement would
simply have found another charismatic
leader to whip up the already willing. If
hitler had been aborted than he would
never have existed but he circumstances
for his impact on the world (of humans)
would have proceded without
him.
See sister the more I live the more I see
how unique each of us. We are completetly
unique, there is by no means two people
the same ever. And that is amazing. And
yes there is many lives all over the
world who make an impact to the world in
many different ways. Can you imagine if
Brad Pitt was aborted. Oh boy what a loss!
hahaha but seriously you can see there is
many people who make a difference. Big or
small there is a difference and no one can
replace because like I said we are
unique!!
And by end I tell you that I'm prolife but
I'm okay with abortion being legal. I
would never go picketing on abortion
clinics. My hopes are not based on changes
to the law but by god changing the hearts
of people. Sorry to hear you were raped
and you unfortunatetly married a batterer.
That's very sad. I commend you for the
working with sick and pulling your life
together. As you had an abortion due to
rape I can understand your position. That
is a tough call for sure.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2461 Location: ,
Thanks: 14
Thanked:7
Posted: 02-25-08 22:30pm
sistersister
wrote:
Seriously once again. SEX IS NOT JUST
FOR PROCREATION IT SERVES OTHER FUNCTIONS.
hAVING SEX IS NOT AGREEMENT TO GESTATE.
NATURAL EVENTS THAT HAVE UNWANTED OUTCOMES
CAN BE CORRECTED.
And this correction is killing right? How
nice.
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Posted: 02-26-08 00:06am
nightangel73
wrote:
I did not say prenatal life
is pathogenic' What I said was a pathogen
that gains access to the body and become
an infecition is also a natural process
just like your line about the pregnancy
being a natural process. What I was saying
is that just becuase one thing muight be
the natural outcome of a process in
medicine their are interventions available
Just as the woman can get treated for the
unwanted infection she can also be treated
for an unwanted pregnancy.
That was quite a stretch, sister. Just
because every biological process is
natural doesn’t mean they all are
equivalent and are treated the same.
Treating a pathological infection is not
the same as dealing with unwanted
pregnancy. For one thing, you don’t
treat unwanted pregnancy, you treat the
mental dysfunction of the way abortive
women think. Then you deal with unwanted
pregnancy by arranging adoption of the
baby by wanting adoptive parents who are
waiting in line to adopt those babies.
nightangel73
wrote:
Abortion is not about the
zef it is about the woman and her body and
her right to terminate an unwanted
attachment wether tht attachment is
microbes feeding off of her cells or a zef
doing the same.
Of course not. To those abortive women, a
zef is just a parasite. Abortion is all
about what abortive women want. It’s
time to tell the bigger parasite to stop
creating one if she doesn’t want a
microbes feeding off her so that she
won’t be doing the same again and
again.
nightangel73
wrote:
Yes you can preform surgery
on anything that is part of the womans
body. No one has said it is not in
existence physically. the fact that it has
a physical body does not in any way negate
the fact that it is non independent life
that its life is that of the womans and
that it is attached to and feeding off of
her body and if detached will not longer
show any signs of life. You do understand
that the critical aspect of fetal surgery
is that it is only sucsessful if the
attachment to the woman remains. Other
wise they could simply remove it
altogether to do the surgery.
A prenatal life is not a part of her body.
So, desist in your lie. Dependency does
not give you the reason to kill. If a
woman doesn’t want a dependent life,
then she should simply refrain from having
sex. Attachment to the mother for
nutrition support is by nature a
procreative design. It is homicide to
willfully detach the unborn from the womb
and leave the fetus out in the cold to
die.
nightangel73
wrote:
..." Sweetie for some women
abortion is taking responsibility and to
go on with that statement abortion is not
homicide it is legal, forcieing any woman
continue a pregnancy against her will is
forcing her to gestate. ( you know
gestation is the process of carrying a
pregnancy so making her carry a pregnancy
she does not want to carry is forcing her
to gestate.)
Abortion is taking responsibility? You
might as well say a cold blooded homicide
is also taking responsibility if that
makes sense to you. Pleading legality is
not going to work since abortion was
illegal prior to Roe v Wade. Nobody is
forcing woman anything she didn’t want
since she did that all unto herself. If
you don’t want to gestate, simply
refrain from having sex. It’s so simple.
You like sex, yet don’t want to gestate,
it doesn’t work that way.
nightangel73
wrote:
Yes this is why abortion is
legal on demand through the fisrt
trimester. A woman in this country is not
forced to provide resources to the
unwanted outcome of a natural
event.
You mean to tell me abortion is only legal
for the first three month? And you are
fine with abortion being illegal for the
remainder double longer period of six
months? So, what are you going to tell the
ladies who want abortion after the first
trimester? Are you going to say, “Sorry
ma’am, next time make sure you refrain
from having sex if you don’t like to
gestate for the next six months?”
nightangel73
wrote:
Seriously once again. SEX
IS NOT JUST FOR PROCREATION IT SERVES
OTHER FUNCTIONS. hAVING SEX IS NOT
AGREEMENT TO GESTATE. NATURAL EVENTS THAT
HAVE UNWANTED OUTCOMES CAN BE
CORRECTED.
Nobody says sex is only for procreation. I
said if you don’t want to procreate and
gestate then don’t have sex. You can
have fun but be responsible for the
outcome whether you agree to gestate or
not, it doesn’t matter. The only
correction you can make is to keep the
child as your own or you can let somebody
else adopt the child. Another thing that
can be corrected is to seriously learn how
to respect and cherish life.
|
sistersister
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Sep 2007 Posts: 145 Location: ,
Posted: 02-26-08 09:06am
Actually in nature all natural processes
are equvilent it is human that rate them
an put a negative or positive conatation
on them.
For the womans body the advent of a
microbe attaching or a zygote attaching
are a bout the same. In fact the womans
body in some cases will respond to both by
building up antibodies to the invasion.
.
A Woman who knows her situation and what
she needs at that point in her life is not
a"mental dysfunctional". She is simply a
woman that has a unwanted pregnancy that
she has choosen to terminate due to her
knowledge of her own very personal
situation, health status and
circumstances. Your bias and prejudice is
the only basis for this claim that I can
see. Do you have a study that shows that
all women that abort are metally
dysfunctional? If so please state it
(mommy and daddy and your priest don't
count as a source).
Your next quote is atributed to
nightangel, how ever that is wrong it is
mine. Your responce is more of your bias
and prejudice anginst women that choose
abortion again simply your personal
oppinion, does not really make a point
that fits in with the debate and in the
end says more about you and your state of
mind than it does about abortion one way
or another.
Nor is adoption always the answer and in
cases only adds to the injury of the
woman. Women are not and never should be
brood stock for other women unless it is
they (the woman ) who desires this.
Adoption like abortion or forced gestation
is something that should never be forced
on a woman against her will especially by
those who do not have to live with the
consequences. Those "parents waiting in
line" do have children available to adopt
they may just not get the baby they want
but is not a child a child after it is
born and why don;t they adopt those older
kids?
It looks like you are going to credit my
quotes to nightangel all the way through.
I don't think she will appreciate that.
You should be more careful and perhaps
read the material so you can be clear to
its source.
If the "prenatal life" is not part of the
womans body then simply cut it lose and
let it continue on its own. Again the zef
is attached to and shares a system of
blood vessels with the womans body. It is
the womans body that provides its
nutrients to keep the cells in the zef
functioning. It is the womans kidneys and
lymph system that filterout the waste
produts from those cells and on and on and
on. So other than the fact that you do not
want to except a biological reality
becuase it does not suit you show me a
source that refutes this. The rest of the
paragraph is again more of your bias and
prejudice about women, sex and
"procretion". The last sentence is wrong
abortion is not homicide it is legal.
abortion was not illegal before roe v wade
(read some history on it) Each state had
its own laws and standards. What roe v
wade changed was it took the decision out
of the hands of polititions and turned it
over to the patient and her attending
Doctor. And it made abortion on demand in
the first trimester (half of all abortion
preformed in this country happen befor
eight weeks gestation over eighty perscent
of them before 12 weeks) legal and federal
law.
As to yur responce none of which in any
way shows haw forcing a woman to carry to
term is not forceing her to gestate (which
is what you are supposeably responding to)
As with most of your post it is again
simply a rehash of your own personal bias
and prejudice against women, sex and
abortion with not actual facts or sources.
The fact that people like sex and do not
want to gestate actually does work for
most people. That is why there are
contraceptives and abortion and even the
rhythm system fr those who choose it.
"you mean to tell me abortion is only
legal for the first three months"
No go back and read the statement your
quoted (and angain gave credit to the
wrong person) What I said is Yes this is
why abortion is legal ON DEMAND throught
he first trimester. If you actually took
the time to research abortion and the
abortion laws you would be aware that
after the first trimester the states are
allowed to put restrictions on how and
when an abortion can take place. These
restriction have to take into
consideration the womans life and health.
She must meet a criteria in order to
procure an abortion and that has to be
documented and sent into the state board
of health. So yes if a woman presents at
the clinic and does not meet the criteria
for an abortion she is not seen. Not
having your bias against sex we do not
tell her not to have sex, we simply tell
her she does not meet the criteria and we
give her referals for other forms of
help.
I am really surprised at how little you
really seem to know about abortion in this
country. Even if you oppose something
should you not at least have the basics
down?
And once again another quote with the
wrong aknowedgement for source. Your
personal oppinion is that an unwanted
pregnancy can only be corrected by keeping
the infant or adoption. Wrong as is
clear, an unwanted pregnancy can be
electively terminated in the first
trimester in this country and that is a
legal choice. If and when you become
pregnant (and since I think you are a male
so that will not happen) you can choose to
keep an unwanted pregnancy and later to
keep the infant or give it up for adoption
ohers can choose to do the same or to
abort.
One thing you may want to work on is your
lack of respect for women that make
decisions you disagree with. There is no
one on this board that does not respect
and cherish life we simply respect and
cherish the lives of women above the
potential life of the zef.
Off topic: you did not answer my question,
home school boy or catholic schoolboy?
|
sistersister
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Sep 2007 Posts: 145 Location: ,
Posted: 02-26-08 09:30am
nightangel
yes we are all unique. And once we are
here It is hoped we will all make a
difference. However there is no one that
is critical to the existance and workings
of the universe. If anyone is not born and
has not existed then there is no loss.
I am glad to see that your posistion on
abortion is actually quite rational. I
have no fight with those who oppose
abortion for themselves. (forced
abortionis every bit as foul as forced
gestation) It is only those that would
force their decision on other women. ( it
has not been so long ago in this country
that there were forced abortions for
certian classes of people in this coutry
along with forceing some women to place
their infants up for adoptionagainst their
will.)
The time to prevent an abortion is not at
the clinic gate in most cases. It is when
a girl is small teaching her to have self
confidence and satisfaction with herself.
It is teaching her the fact about sex and
relationships and giveing her the ability
to make good choices and good
relationships. The other big way to
prevent abortions is to work for afordable
daycare for working mothers along with
getting women into jobs that pay a living
wage that enables them to provide for
their kids.
Another thing I have read about recently
is a program of mentoring for new mothers
a support system to aide them in copeing
with a new born. I have been thinking
wouldn't it be a good idea if that could
be translated into some sort of support
for single working mothers on their own
and faced with a pregnancy they cnnot
afford in money or time. Foster grannys
to help out during the pregnancy and after
the birth and perhaps some sortof finacial
assistance to cover time missed from work
and daycare once the women has to return
to work.
At any rate I am rambling, again.
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Posted: 02-26-08 20:27pm
sistersister
wrote:
Actually in nature all
natural processes are equvilent it is
human that rate them an put a negative or
positive conatation on them.
For the womans body the advent of a
microbe attaching or a zygote attaching
are a bout the same. In fact the womans
body in some cases will respond to both by
building up antibodies to the invasion. .
A Woman who knows her situation and what
she needs at that point in her life is not
a"mental dysfunctional". She is simply a
woman that has a unwanted pregnancy that
she has choosen to terminate due to her
knowledge of her own very personal
situation, health status and
circumstances. Your bias and prejudice is
the only basis for this claim that I can
see. Do you have a study that shows that
all women that abort are metally
dysfunctional? If so please state it
(mommy and daddy and your priest don't
count as a source).
Yes, it is mentally dysfunctional for well
educated people to defy all facts and to
deny at all cost well established
principles to feed a cause. Human
knowledge and progress in science is
possible only because we know how to
distinguish between what is beneficiary
and what is detrimental to our survival.
If all natural processes are equivalent
with no negative or positive connotation,
why would Louis Pasteur’s breakthrough
in pasteurization process that led to
sterilization techniques in medical field
be of significance to mankind?
If as you said, in nature all natural
processes are equivalent, then why not
just let nature takes its course and carry
to term rather than abort by artificial
means if in fact there is no difference?
Why would your so-called “unwanted
pregnancy” be any different from
“wanted pregnancy” if both natural
processes are equivalent? You complaint
that it is human that rates them and put a
negative or positive connotation, but
aren’t you people doing the same by
putting down the fetus as parasite and
calling the woman’s abortion as her
choice? Obviously, your self-contradiction
is what is so wrong with the mentality of
your willful attempt to justify your cause
at all cost however illogical it may be.
sistersister
wrote:
Your next quote is atributed
to nightangel, how ever that is wrong it
is mine.
I realize that and my apology to
nightangel for my mistake.
sistersister
wrote:
Your responce is more of
your bias and prejudice anginst women that
choose abortion again simply your personal
oppinion, does not really make a point
that fits in with the debate and in the
end says more about you and your state of
mind than it does about abortion one way
or another.
Did you see the news on TV yesterday about
a nanny abusing twin babies charged under
her care? It was all caught on hidden
camera. She was reckless and rough handled
the babies as if they were drag dolls or
bags of potatoes. The babies were abruptly
yanked from point A to point B like a pile
of dirty laundry and brushed aside to
their tumbling fall while she sat on the
cough watching the TV and searching the
channels.
The news commentators were so angry that
they commented that they felt like rushing
to the aide of the infants and kill the
nanny with their own hands if they could
just get hold of her for abusing such
voiceless and defenseless babies. Such
response is expected for people who care
about innocent victims and would jump in
to defend them against big bully who pick
on the least of these helpless innocence
who are charge under her care and she then
victimize them simply because they are
weaker, voiceless, defenseless, and also
because of their insignificant size. Sound
familiar? That's exactly how abortion
supporters view the tiny little thing in
the womb. And that’s exactly how I feel
about abortion.
Do you deem the response of the news
commentators as nothing more of their bias
and prejudice against women that choose to
abuse innocent voiceless and defenseless
babies? You can see why your misdirected
comment has no meaningful effect on my
speaking out against supporters of
abortion's brutish and ruffian cause.
sistersister
wrote:
Nor is adoption always the
answer and in cases only adds to the
injury of the woman. Women are not and
never should be brood stock for other
women unless it is they (the woman ) who
desires this. Adoption like abortion or
forced gestation is something that should
never be forced on a woman against her
will especially by those who do not have
to live with the consequences. Those
"parents waiting in line" do have children
available to adopt they may just not get
the baby they want but is not a child a
child after it is born and why don;t they
adopt those older kids?
Your take on adoption is just arsenic. Of
course it may not be the answer for you
but at least it would save a life which is
far better than taking an innocent human
life. Again, nobody is forcing women
against their will for the pregnancy they
did unto themselves. Would you blame
people for your broken neck if you insist
on taking the risk of bungee jumping?
That’s the reason I said such
tenaciously twisted reasoning is a mental
dysfunction.
sistersister
wrote:
It looks like you are going
to credit my quotes to nightangel all the
way through. I don't think she will
appreciate that. You should be more
careful and perhaps read the material so
you can be clear to its source.
Again, I apologize. It’s just an
innocent mistake, nobody is perfect.
Before you cast your stones, please follow
your own advice and "be more careful" with
your spelling errors.
sistersister
wrote:
If the "prenatal life" is
not part of the womans body then simply
cut it lose and let it continue on its
own. Again the zef is attached to and
shares a system of blood vessels with the
womans body. It is the womans body that
provides its nutrients to keep the cells
in the zef functioning. It is the womans
kidneys and lymph system that filterout
the waste produts from those cells and on
and on and on. So other than the fact that
you do not want to except a biological
reality becuase it does not suit you show
me a source that refutes this. The rest of
the paragraph is again more of your bias
and prejudice about women, sex and
"procretion". The last sentence is wrong
abortion is not homicide it is legal.
No, the unborn human being is not part of
the woman’s body. You are so wrong in
your biological fact to state that the
fetus “shares a system of blood vessels
with the womans (sic) body”. I leave it
up to you to brush up on your basic
biology.
Just because the unborn human life is
dependent on the mother for nutritional
resources and disposal of metabolic waste
doesn’t mean that he/she is part of the
mother’s body. The dependency of
offspring on the mother is simply a
natural event of reproduction in
procreation that every mammals born into
this world go through. To terminate a
pregnancy that ends a human life is
certainly homicide whether legal or not.
sistersister
wrote:
abortion was not illegal
before roe v wade (read some history on
it) Each state had its own laws and
standards. What roe v wade changed was it
took the decision out of the hands of
polititions and turned it over to the
patient and her attending Doctor.
For most states, it was illegal. Killing
another human being without just cause
shouldn’t be allowed, let alone a
decision to be handed over to any person.
sistersister
wrote:
And it made abortion on
demand in the first trimester (half of all
abortion preformed in this country happen
befor eight weeks gestation over eighty
perscent of them before 12 weeks) legal
and federal
law.
So, what are you trying to argue here? Are
you trying to tell me that after the first
trimester your previous assertion that the
"prenatal life" is part of the womans body
no longer applies now? Didn’t you argue
that “the zef is attached to and shares
a system of blood vessels with the womans
body”? Didn’t you insisted that it is
“the womans body that provides its
nutrients to keep the cells in the zef
functioning” Didn’t you proclaime that
it is “the womans kidneys and lymph
system that filterout the waste produts
from those cells and on and on and on"?
So, all these claims you made do not apply
in the second and third trimester?
sistersister
wrote:
As to yur responce none of
which in any way shows haw forcing a woman
to carry to term is not forceing her to
gestate (which is what you are supposeably
responding to) As with most of your post
it is again simply a rehash of your own
personal bias and prejudice against women,
sex and abortion with not actual facts or
sources. The fact that people like sex and
do not want to gestate actually does work
for most people. That is why there are
contraceptives and abortion and even the
rhythm system fr those who choose it.
Nobody is forcing a woman anything she
hasn’t done unto herself. We just tell
her not to kill. How she got herself
pregnant is not our fault. To blame others
of her own doing is just a twist of
reality. That’s the problem I’m
talking about regarding dysfunctional
thinking.
sistersister
wrote:
"you mean to tell me
abortion is only legal for the first three
months"
No go back and read the statement your
quoted (and angain gave credit to the
wrong person) What I said is Yes this is
why abortion is legal ON DEMAND throught
he first trimester. If you actually took
the time to research abortion and the
abortion laws you would be aware that
after the first trimester the states are
allowed to put restrictions on how and
when an abortion can take place. These
restriction have to take into
consideration the womans life and health.
She must meet a criteria in order to
procure an abortion and that has to be
documented and sent into the state board
of health. So yes if a woman presents at
the clinic and does not meet the criteria
for an abortion she is not seen. Not
having your bias against sex we do not
tell her not to have sex, we simply tell
her she does not meet the criteria and we
give her referals for other forms of help.
If the unborn is a parasite that can be
treated like you treat pathogenic
infection, and if it is part of the
woman’s body that she can do whatever
she wants, then why the need for any
restriction? Do doctors set a restriction
on the treatment on pathogenic infection
after the infection has been brewing in
your body for a number of days?
To acknowledge the restriction on abortion
after the first trimester only contradicts
all your argument about woman’s right to
her own body.
sistersister
wrote:
Your personal oppinion is
that an unwanted pregnancy can only be
corrected by keeping the infant or
adoption. Wrong as is clear, an unwanted
pregnancy can be electively terminated in
the first trimester in this country and
that is a legal choice. If and when you
become pregnant (and since I think you are
a male so that will not happen) you can
choose to keep an unwanted pregnancy and
later to keep the infant or give it up for
adoption ohers can choose to do the same
or to abort.
Like you said, sister, it is human that
rates pregnancies as “unwanted” and
put a negative connotation on them.
Therefore, there is no such thing as
wanted or unwanted pregnancy. Like you
said, all natural processes are
equivalent.
sistersister
wrote:
One thing you may want to
work on is your lack of respect for women
that make decisions you disagree with.
There is no one on this board that does
not respect and cherish life we simply
respect and cherish the lives of women
above the potential life of the zef.
Those aren’t true, sister. You cannot
respect people who kill another human
beings and then call it choice, can you?
sistersister
wrote:
Off topic: you did not
answer my question, home school boy or
catholic
schoolboy?
Ad hominen attack has no value in debate,
sister.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2461 Location: ,
Thanks: 14
Thanked:7
Posted: 02-26-08 21:14pm
dolphinocean
wrote:
sistersister
wrote:
It looks like you are going
to credit my quotes to nightangel all the
way through. I don't think she will
appreciate that. You should be more
careful and perhaps read the material so
you can be clear to its source.
Again, I apologize. It’s just an
innocent mistake, nobody is perfect.
Before you cast your stones, please follow
your own advice and "be more careful" with
your spelling errors.
No need for apologies dolphin. Everybody
here knows me and they know that those
words could not possibly come from me. It
is very evident it was just a inocent
mistake.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3939 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Posted: 02-26-08 22:23pm
dolphinocean
wrote:
Yes, it is mentally dysfunctional for well
educated people to defy all facts and to
deny at all cost well established
principles to feed a cause. Human
knowledge and progress in science is
possible only because we know how to
distinguish between what is beneficiary
and what is detrimental to our survival.
If all natural processes are equivalent
with no negative or positive connotation,
why would Louis Pasteur’s breakthrough
in pasteurization process that led to
sterilization techniques in medical field
be of significance to mankind?
"Mental dysfunction" is being thrown
around as an insultive phrase which is
immensely insensitive and ignorant of
mental illness.
dolphinocean
wrote:
You can see why your
misdirected comment has no meaningful
effect on my speaking out against
supporters of abortion's brutish and
ruffian
cause.
Brutish and ruffian? Supporting women's
autonomy, their intelligence, and their
choices?
dolphinocean
wrote:
Your take on adoption is
just arsenic. Of course it may not be the
answer for you but at least it would save
a life which is far better than taking an
innocent human life. Again, nobody is
forcing women against their will for the
pregnancy they did unto themselves. Would
you blame people for your broken neck if
you insist on taking the risk of bungee
jumping? That’s the reason I said such
tenaciously twisted reasoning is a mental
dysfunction.
Do people who injure themselves bungee
jumping deserve treatment? Did they "do
unto themselves" therefore they must be
forced to follow through in a way which
some believe is the most moral?
I consent to sex; not pregnancy. Thank
whicheverdeityyoudlike abortion is
available.
