why do people get to make a list of
acceptable attributes you must comply with
to be worthy of
life?!?!
amen sista!! You really hit the nail
right in the head.
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3173 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 74
Thanked:104
Posted: 01-11-07 23:06pm
amaria
wrote:
there are many instances
that a "born" person is not a "breathing,
self-conscious, talking, intelligent human
being"! - so is it ok to go kill a
mentally chalenged parpalegic on breathing
tubes? ...And does a person have to be
all of those things, or just one? That
you actually believe this saddens and
sickens me.
Why do people get to make a list of
acceptable attributes you must comply with
to be worthy of
life?!?!
why should people be miserable, so all the
people who want to commit suicide are
happy get a life, people are going to die
why not do something that actually matter
stop the war oh thats right your not
god.
Thing is not everyone is happy and some
people wish they were never born and they
should have a right to end their life as
so pleases
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-11-07 23:29pm
amaria
wrote:
there are many instances
that a "born" person is not a "breathing,
self-conscious, talking, intelligent human
being"! - so is it ok to go kill a
mentally chalenged parpalegic on breathing
tubes?
personally, I think it is, yes. I don't
think you were expecting that answer
though. It depends on how long the person
has been comtose. There is a point of no
return, and at that point it is just plain
mrciful to let them go.
Quote:
...And does a
person have to be all of those things, or
just one? That you actually believe
this saddens and sickens
me.
the issue is viability, and I think you
missed that conversation. You hve a lot
of reading to do, especially on the
pro-choice forum, before you can properly
debate here. Go find out what our beliefs
actually are before accusing us.
Quote:
why do people get
to make a list of acceptable attributes
you must comply with to be worthy of
life?!?!
because a woman is a person, and she is
the person with the fetus inside of her,
the fetus that is entirely dependant on
her body.
Look, I managed to not call it a
parasite...
|
Amaria
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 11 Jan 2007 Posts: 47
Posted: 01-12-07 09:42am
I simply do not comprehend how, when given
a choice between two human beings living
and one dying, so that the other is not
inconvenienced by it's presence, anyone
would choose to kill.
Is it "viable"? - that is not the
question! - the question is, "why when
both can live, should one have to die?".
I'll tell you why, because some women are
self-absorbed, and concieted enough to
think that they are more important than
anyone else's life.
It does not matter what you call the child
within - it still should have the same
right to life.
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3173 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 74
Thanked:104
Posted: 01-12-07 11:14am
amaria
wrote:
i simply do not comprehend
how, when given a choice between two human
beings living and one dying, so that the
other is not inconvenienced by it's
presence, anyone would choose to
kill.
because it happens everyday and its part
of our genetic makeup, war is cruelty but
do you care now cause you only care about
a fetus.
We are capable of killing a law is only
there to control us but it doesnt always
work remeber we are animals
amaria
wrote:
i'll tell you why,
because some women are self-absorbed, and
concieted enough to think that they are
more important than anyone else's
life.
who the"edit by a mod for abusive
language"do you think you are? Our
bodies are more improtant than anyone else
life so yes in a way it can be considered
selfish so going to a dr appt for a pap is
selfish its called looking after
yourself.
If a woman doesnt want a child that is her
choice, the fetus has no right because it
live in the mother reproductive system, if
a fetus could live out side the womb or
some labratory at 12 week then so be it
but ythey cant.
A womans body is never the same after
birth, alot of woman suffer from health
problems so truly in the end they avoiding
a sitiuation that could end up horribly.
amaria
wrote:
it does not matter what you call the child
within - it still should have the same
right to
life.
personhood can only be achieved by being a
neonatal(newborn), and independant being
can achieve personhood I think when a
fetus drains all your energy to live it
should have the right life.
******************************************
*
you talk about kids being the big item
well im gonna put you on the hot seat
"amaria would you put a fetus over your
already born child?[b] im pro-choice and
I have kids
alot of woman I talk to are pro-choice and
they already have kids
|
Amaria
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 11 Jan 2007 Posts: 47
Posted: 01-12-07 11:29am
"our bodies are more improtant than anyone
else life..."
well, you have affirmed what I have
believed all along - you put no value on
life, the only thing you value is
yourself.
diamondsz
wrote:
you talk about kids being the big item
well im gonna put you on the hot seat
"amaria would you put a fetus over your
already born child?[b] im pro-choice and I
have kids
as I said before, I not only believe in
right to live for fetuses (or whatever you
like to call them), I believe that when
both can live - let them.
I don't see how you have put me in "the
hot seat" or made any relevant statement.
Amaria, I can understand your point, but I
will always remain pro-choice. A foetus
is
a parasite[/b]. It does not hold any
right to life until it ceases being a
parasite (at birth). A woman's right to
control her body is much more important
than the so-called 'right' to live of an
unborn foetus who is not protected by the
law or the government. Therefore a woman
decides what lives in and feeds from her
body.
Put it like this. If you woke up
connected to another person with tubes
which allowed him/her to use all your
body's resources and basically 'live from
you', how would you feel? What if you
were told that this person needed to use
your body for nine months, at which point
he will be fine and able to live, but you
had the choice to remove these tubes any
time before the nine months, though it
would inevitably result in the other
person's death? I personally think that
removing the tubes (thus ending the other
person's life) is perfectly justified; you
are not obliged to let him/her use your
body, whatever the consequences. The role
of this person can be compared with the
foetus, differences being that a foetus is
not a person, like in the first example, a
foetus lives inside the woman's body, not
just from it, and that with the foetus,
you cannot change your mind at let's say,
eight months into it, just because you
have changed your mind and want to stop
access to your bodily fluids. Therefore,
although the principle is the same, I
think pregnancy is actually worse than
being connected by tubes to another
person.
Kypros.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-12-07 14:29pm
amaria
wrote:
i simply do not comprehend
how, when given a choice between two human
beings living and one dying, so that the
other is not inconvenienced by it's
presence, anyone would choose to
kill.
because we look at the fetus and know it
is not a person. We know it canot think,
or feel pain, or love, or laugh, or smile,
or even breath. We know its body is not
developed enough to do these things.
Thus, we know it is a lesser entity.
Still human yes, but not a person.
Quote:
is it "viable"?
- that is not the question! - the
question is, "why when both can live,
should one have to die?".
because there is always a value on life.
Always always. Wen you kill a spider you
are saying you are worth more than it is.
And it is an issue of viability.
Quote:
i'll tell you
why, because some women are self-absorbed,
and concieted enough to think that they
are more important than anyone else's
life.
please don't insult my mother or i'm going
to have to assume that you are a
cold-hearted bitch like several other
women on this forum. I don't play well
with them either, because they are also
stupid enough to assume that every woman
who aborts does it because they think they
are more important than the fetus. Some
do it out of love, some do it so they
don't die - and they really don't have a
choice. Grow up, girl. I don't care how
old you are, you have the mentality of a
sniveling, greedy, self-rightious
five-year-old who believes everything they
are told, especially lies. You think you
can pass judgement on people when you
can't. You are a loser, just like several
other women on this forum, who have dared
to make the same narrow-minded accusation
you have made.
And if you dare go "well the women in
those situations don't count," then I will
tell you right now that abortion is not
just about the women who abort just
because they didn't use a condom. It is
also about the twelve year old, the woman
carrying a down syndrom fetus, and the
woman who has an ectopic pregnancy. It is
about all of them! You cannot condem one
without condeming them all. Just think
about that.
Quote:
it does not
matter what you call the child within - it
still should have the same right to
life.
we call "the child" the scientifically
correct term: fetus. Calling it anything
else is as silly as calling your vagina a
"meat-taco" or "velvet pouch", or a penis
a "shlong", or a "wee-wee". Why bother?
We are not five, though you act it. We ar
simply asking for your respect to call a
fetus what it is.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3963 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 129
Thanked:12
Posted: 01-12-07 14:37pm
amaria
wrote:
there are many instances
that a "born" person is not a "breathing,
self-conscious, talking, intelligent human
being"! - so is it ok to go kill a
mentally chalenged parpalegic on breathing
tubes? ...And does a person have to be
all of those things, or just one? That
you actually believe this saddens and
sickens me.
Why do people get to make a list of
acceptable attributes you must comply with
to be worthy of
life?!?!
i think you will be hard pressed to find
someone who support's womens' choices as
someone who thinks there is a list of
acceptable attributes you must fullfill to
be 'worthy of life'.
Most likely, you will find a prochoicer to
say, "that is not my decision to make, and
although I do not agree with it (or do
agree with it), I will support your
decision".
Me, personally, I do not support late term
abortions. However, since they happen so
rarely and for serious reasons I do not
think I am in a position to judge, or make
a decision for someone in that
situation.
I am a prochoicer who recognizes that a
fetus is a human life, but also see the
necessity for abortion.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3963 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 129
Thanked:12
Posted: 01-12-07 14:49pm
amaria
wrote:
i'll tell you why, because
some women are self-absorbed, and
concieted enough to think that they are
more important than anyone else's
life.
the human race, in general, is a selfish
one, amaria. I hope you are making
changes to society so women will not feel
as if abortion is their only choice.
It sounds like you have a very 'shut mind'
about why women would obtain abortions,
and have already passed judgment on them.
I hope you read more about this. There
are situations that may help you to
understand why women make this choice.
[eiri, *meat taco* ha ha ha ha ha!!!!]
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-12-07 16:48pm
birch
wrote:
[eiri, *meat taco* ha ha ha ha
ha!!!!]
glad you liked that, lol.
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3173 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 74
Thanked:104
Posted: 01-13-07 06:18am
amaria
wrote:
"our bodies are more
improtant than anyone else life..."
well, you have affirmed what I have
believed all along - you put no value on
life, the only thing you value is
yourself.
nope I value life, my kids life aso yes im
selfish for living but my kids need me, so
if I do get cancer ill be getting it
removed so my kids have their mother
selfish but not so selfish. Like someone
said we are a selfish race and people have
kids for selfish reasons.
diamondsz
wrote:
"amaria would you put a fetus over your
already born child?[b] im pro-choice and I
have kids
amaria
wrote:
"
as I said before, I not only believe in
right to live for fetuses (or whatever you
like to call them), I believe that when
both can live - let
them.
you value a fetus over a living child,
children deserve so much more and so you
wonder why people get an abortion you just
said it without realizing it. A fetus is
not a child, if people choose to carry
their pregnancys so be it but honestly if
they dont want to thats their choice.
On another note you said there was a
shitload of homes available to kids
waiting for adoption, in ontario there is
a waiting list, some kids are waiting
years before they meet parent who love, I
wouldnt want to bring a child into that
world. Everyone wants to adopt from
china babe, it has gotteb so bad kids are
being moved foster home to foster home
every few months just so they can have
someone. Can you imagine not being loved
and what it feels like?
Id rather have an abortion then bringing
this child to a world of no love and dont
caca thats how it is especially when you
lived it.;/
|
Amaria
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 11 Jan 2007 Posts: 47
Posted: 01-13-07 12:06pm
I do not put more value on the fetus, I
put the same value on it. I agree where
women will die if they remain pregnant,
then, of course, they should get an
abortion.
Also, I think that the adoption process
needs to change drastically. It is not
only the children who are put on waiting
list, but the people looking to adopt!
It is easier to go through china, so, of
course, they take the fastest route to
getting a child.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3963 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 129
Thanked:12
Posted: 01-13-07 12:13pm
amaria
wrote:
i do not put more value on
the fetus, I put the same value on it.
I agree where women will die if they
remain pregnant, then, of course, they
should get an abortion.
Also, I think that the adoption process
needs to change drastically. It is not
only the children who are put on waiting
list, but the people looking to adopt!
It is easier to go through china, so, of
course, they take the fastest route to
getting a
child.
off the subject, but, there are changes on
the way for adopting a child from china.
Soon, you will have to: be married (m-f
marriages), 30-50 in age, not obese, have
a net worth of 80k, less then four
children already, and not be taking
anxiety or depression medications.
|
Amaria
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 11 Jan 2007 Posts: 47
Posted: 01-13-07 13:40pm
birch
wrote:
off the subject, but, there are changes on
the way for adopting a child from china.
Soon, you will have to: be married (m-f
marriages), 30-50 in age, not obese, have
a net worth of 80k, less then four
children already, and not be taking
anxiety or depression
medications.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-13-07 20:48pm
amaria
wrote:
birch
wrote:
off the subject, but, there are changes on
the way for adopting a child from china.
Soon, you will have to: be married (m-f
marriages), 30-50 in age, not obese, have
a net worth of 80k, less then four
children already, and not be taking
anxiety or depression
medications.
gee, sounds like they want to make sure
that the chinese babies are going to
stable homes with sane, experinced
parents, in a family that isn't too big.
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 01-13-07 21:05pm
amaria
wrote:
i do not put more value on
the fetus, I put the same value on it.
I agree where women will die if they
remain pregnant, then, of course, they
should get an abortion.
Also, I think that the adoption process
needs to change drastically. It is not
only the children who are put on waiting
list, but the people looking to adopt!
It is easier to go through china, so, of
course, they take the fastest route to
getting a
child.
i get so tired of the
misconceptions about adoption, which
almost rival those regarding abortion.
One of the most important misconceptions
is that it is "easier" to adopt out of
country. For gay couples, this is true,
however, for straights it's not. Local
foster and adoption networks and companies
will, quite literally, bend over backwards
to help you adopt a child locally. There
are roughly 250,000 children waiting for
adoption within the united states. The
requirements to adopt these children are
.N.O.T that stringent. You
do not have to make nearly as much money a
year as some other nations require, you do
not have to be married (this may vary in
some states), and you only
have to go through about six weeks of
interviews and home visits.
The problem with domestic adoption, other
than the misconceptions about it, are that
the children available for adoption are
not seen as legitimately as children from
other nations. Most of the children
available for adoption here are an ethnic
minority and are no longer infants.
Because of this, they are seen by many as
"unadoptable." however, there is nothing wrong with
them that would preclude them from
adoption if people willing to adopt were
not so racist/ethnocentric and refusing to
accept anything other than an
infant.
the actual problem with
domestic adoption are the people looking
to adopt. They make claims that they
only want to be parents and that they
"only want a child to love and to complete
our family" but that's not true. If it
were true, than any of the 250,000 children
waiting for homes would be adopted.
Instead, they only want an infant,
specifically a white, healthy, infant.
So they wait on waiting lists or turn to
expensive "adoption agencies" because
while they are willing to adopt, their
willingness and acceptance only goes so
far.
When we legally adopted our niece, it was
only a matter of filing the proper
paperwork. There were two "home visits"
that took our overworked case worker 15
minutes to complete and that was it.
Going through the county, as opposed to
going through an "adoption agency," we
were even able to have any fees or fines
waived. It was insanely easy. (of
course, the fact that she was already
living wit us full time helped with that
but even if she hadn't, it still would not
have been that difficult).
I don't make a lot of money, in fact my
husband and I are still students. But we
legally adopted my niece and were not
turned down.
Going overseas to adopt, for straight
couples, is basically the new trend or
fad. It's not that it's easier or
cheaper, it's just what a lot of other
rich people are doing and thus, it became
the next status symbol. When you adopt
overseas, for straight couples, it is
obvious that you had enough money to
travel over there over the course of
several months, paid that countries
government a lump sum, and then brought
your child back. It used to be expensive
cars, then gated neighborhoods, then
little dogs in handbags, and now ethnic
children. I'm not saying that these
people don't love these kids, over time,
but love is not often their motivating
factor.
In fact, I think it's instructive to point
something important out about this
process. Let's say a (straight) couple
decides to adopt a child internationally
for whatever reason. Most couples choose
a country like romania, china, or bolivia.
You don't see a massive number of
couples adopting from africa or iraq
(which, thanks to the war now has a
massive number of orphans and handicapped
orphans). Now, a couple adopting from
romania could, possibly, pass the child
off as their own. But not from china or
bolivia (with rare exceptions, I am
aware). But, what makes a poor child in
romania, china, or bolivia any more
valuable or 'adoptable' than a child from
africa (where thanks to the aids epidemic,
there are .T.O.N.S more orphaned and
homeless children than anywhere else in
the world) or iraq, or hell - from here in
the states?
Race and ethnicity are still very powerful
determinents of many things in our
society.
I'm from a suburb of .Houston called .The
.Woodlands. In .The .Woodlands, there is
a massive concentration of wealth and with
it, status symbols. Back in the mid-90s,
I knew several families who decided to
travel to china in order to bring back a
"smart, .Asian child." once one family on
the block had done it, several more
followed suit. Would any of
them have done so had it not suddenly
become the "popular" thing to do?
Knowing these people first hand, I can
safely say that without exception, if it
hadn't been "popular" at the time, they
would not have gone to all of that expense
and hassle.
Bottom line, if all you want is a child to
love or to complete your family or even to
have a cheap housekeeper (a reality,
unfortunately), then look here at home
before you go abroad. There are children
right in your own neighborhood who need a
permanent home and it's not hard, at all,
to be approved to take custody of them.
If you just want a white, healthy infant,
at least be honest about that fact. I
get so tired of meeting people who "just
want a child" and then who turn away
.Actual children who are not under the age
of 2. And, I have no sympathy for people
who will only take a white, healthy
infant. If you have limits and
requirements for your love, then you can
pay out the nose to a private "adoption
agency."
and, most of the above post does not apply
to gay couples seeking to adopt. That is
a different discussion entirely.
|
Amaria
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 11 Jan 2007 Posts: 47
Posted: 01-14-07 00:23am
Jenn, I am happy to hear that you had no
problems in adopting your niece. It is
easiest when it is a family member.
While I agree that adopting from another
country is a "fad", I do not agree about
how easy it is to adopt in this country.
My family has actively supported adoption
for three generations (all within this
country), and it has never been easy or
quick.
----------
eiri, my sad face was because while it
will (hopefully) have the effect of making
people adopt out of their own country...
That means there will be a whole lot less
children adopted (in china).
Yes, it will make sure that adoptive
parents are stable and wealthy parents,
but there are many more families that
would love and care for a child just as
much, that the bar will be set to high
for, now.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3963 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 129
Thanked:12
Posted: 01-14-07 11:46am
eiri
wrote:
amaria
wrote:
birch
wrote:
off the subject, but, there are changes on
the way for adopting a child from china.
Soon, you will have to: be married (m-f
marriages), 30-50 in age, not obese, have
a net worth of 80k, less then four
children already, and not be taking
anxiety or depression
medications.
gee, sounds like they want to make sure
that the chinese babies are going to
stable homes with sane, experinced
parents, in a family that isn't too
big.
yes, because we all know that single
people and gay couples aren't stable, kids
are better off in orphanages than with
people younger than 30 and older than 50,
people who make 60k a year can't
reasonably support a child, and no one
ever recovers from depression.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-14-07 12:45pm
birch
wrote:
eiri
wrote:
amaria
wrote:
birch
wrote:
off the subject, but, there are changes on
the way for adopting a child from china.
Soon, you will have to: be married
(m-f marriages), 30-50 in age, not obese,
have a net worth of 80k, less then four
children already, and not be taking
anxiety or depression
medications.
gee, sounds like they want to make sure
that the chinese babies are going to
stable homes with sane, experinced
parents, in a family that isn't too
big.
yes, because we all know that single
people and gay couples aren't stable, kids
are better off in orphanages than with
people younger than 30 and older than 50,
people who make 60k a year can't
reasonably support a child, and no one
ever recovers from depression.
well besides the m-f thing (i missed that,
and I dissaprove of it) the idea of
this law is in the right place; to make
sure these kids aren't going to slums in
nyc, to parents who are just using the kis
for money. That's what I read in all
this. Sure, I can read into it another
way... And see just what you did. But
which interpretation is right? Neither,
and both.
Oh yeah and another thing... It's a "net
worth" of 90k, not making 90k a year.
This means any money they have in the bank
and any material items including their
house and cars count in that. It's not
just their wage, it's how much they
already have too.
