Her first mistake
Evan Marc Katz, author of two books, I Can’t Believe I’m Buying This Book – A Commonsense Guide to Successful Internet Dating, and Why You’re Still Single: Things Your Friends Would Tell You If You Promised Not to Get Mad, wrote a Yahoo article, “10 Classic Online Dating Mistakes That Women Make.” He listed this as #10:
Mistake #10: Thinking That Your Great Date Actually Meant Something
Have you ever had a man say how much he likes you, how sexy you are, and how he’s serious about finding a long-term relationship? Ever have an amazing date where the chemistry was great, the conversation flowed, and you hooked up with him afterwards.
Have you ever had a man do all of these things and then NOT call?
No, you’re not crazy or delusional….
Your mistake is thinking that what a man says on a date actually means something. It doesn’t. It means he’s being in the moment. So don’t put too much weight on a great date. The only way you can tell how a man REALLY feels about you is by how quickly he follows up for another date.
Feminists to the Rescue took issue with that:
In short, ladies, your mistake is in expecting men to follow up on their word. Your mistake is to expect more out of men than what they normally give you as a second-class citizen. That’s your mistake, not theirs….
Oi. Hate catchy little lists about what’s so wrong with women that they can’t get a wonderful man to date them. Really hate them.
I can’t believe but can that Katz declared men innocent of exploiting women for sex as simply “being in the moment,” when thousands of years of the same sad story prove there’s usually premeditation involved. He even quoted the classic come-on lines.
And while Feminists caught Katz’s sexism (dare I say, misogyny?), she missed the real mistake women make here that keeps them from getting a “wonderful man.” Did you catch it?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
would it be the hooking up part?
I am guessing the real mistake is sleeping with a guy on the first date. Not a good idea.
I’ll second that.
In short, ladies, your mistake is in expecting men to follow up on their word.
Well, friggin’ DUH!
You slept with him, he apparently has no respect for you for doing so, you apparently have no respect for yourself for doing so, and you get all indignant that “he didn’t follow up on his word.” You, my lady, are an IDIOT.
Do the indiscretions of women excuse men from being panty predators? No. But you should know better by now than to have sex with a man to whom you’re not married. That’s just stupid.
What makes you think that if you sleep with a man he automatically has no respect for you?
What makes you think that if you sleep with a man he automatically has no respect for you?
Because, frankly, you’re not very respectable, now are ya?
So we’re back to the idiotic archaic insistance that sex is only for married people who would be willing to continue a pregnancy.
Because, frankly, you’re not very respectable, now are ya?
Posted by: Jacqueline at August 30, 2007 2:38 PM
**************************
What a completely disgusting attitude and what a contemptible b**** thing to say.
Why?
I’m a little more liberal on the issue, I think sleeping with a guy on the first date is not respectful to anyone, but I think someone in a serious relationship is justified in doing so. They should have established a level of trust before they jump into it, as I like to say. But this also in my opinion shouldn’t be the pathway to abortion, as they both should trust each other enough to take responsibility of what happens.
Note: That wasn’t an attack. It was an answer. “You” didn’t refer to Leah.
So we’re back to the idiotic archaic insistance that sex is only for married people who would be willing to continue a pregnancy.
You got it. Everything else is detrimental to men, women, and children.
What a completely disgusting attitude and what a contemptible b**** thing to say.
I guess we define disgusting differently- I define disgusting as dismembered unborn children and genital warts (which will effect upwards of 60% of sexually-active people), you define disgusting as believing sex is reserved for a loving, committed, healthy relationship.
PIP -
*applauds* Bravo!
Leah -
“What makes you think that if you sleep with a man he automatically has no respect for you?”
Because most men will tell you that they won’t respect you if you do. Of course, he will only be saying that if you 1. have already turned him down for a date but are friends or 2. you already have a steady relationship with him and he tells you that if you had slept with him on the first date he wouldn’t have respected you or called you afterward or 3. he doesn’t want a first date with you.
But this also in my opinion shouldn’t be the pathway to abortion, as they both should trust each other enough to take responsibility of what happens.
I think we agree that “taking responsibility” for what happens is birthing rather than aborting the babies. I guess where we differ here is that a baby born to people in a “serious” relationship but no real, tangible commitment to eachother is an injustice to that child who would likely end up between parents. So for children’s sake, sex belongs to people permanent marital relationships. Even those long-term relationship that last through the baby’s entire childhood still don’t offer hope or stability to the child.
I have talked to tons of guys who say “If she gives it up on the first date, she’s easy.”
I saw something on an episode of Dharma & Greg (I loved that show) that surprised me. The episode was when Dharma’s parents were finally getting married but were about to cancel the wedding at the last minute. Dharma became angry and said something like, “All my life I was told that my parents were together, not because they were married, but because they chose to be together. Everyday they *chose* to be together. Imagine being a child waking up every morning and wondering if today was the day my parents were going to choose not to be together.”
That surprised me.
I have talked to tons of guys who say “If she gives it up on the first date, she’s easy.”
Posted by: Heather at August 30, 2007 4:01 PM
It’s my opinion that any guy that gives it up on the first date is easy.
In short, ladies, your mistake is in expecting men to follow up on their word.
Well, friggin’ DUH!
You slept with him, he apparently has no respect for you for doing so, you apparently have no respect for yourself for doing so, and you get all indignant that “he didn’t follow up on his word.” You, my lady, are an IDIOT.
Do the indiscretions of women excuse men from being panty predators? No. But you should know better by now than to have sex with a man to whom you’re not married. That’s just stupid.
Posted by: Jacqueline at August 30, 2007 1:56 PM
I seriously doubt that I will ever marry again. I’m certainly not giving up sex. Why should I? I certainly don’t want any more kids. Not that marrying before having children was any guarentee that hubby wouldn’t start sleeping around the countryside. Marriage is a guarentee of nothing.
Jacqueline–
I agree that marriage is the best environment for kids. However, I do not want to say that sex during a loving, trusting, and strong long-term relationship is unacceptable, as long as they are not committed to abortion. If they try not to become pregnant they can use methods (i.e. condoms etc) to refrain from doing so.
I also believe that because many of unwanted pregancies happen to unmarried, single, women, we should have services for her to make it easier to carry to term (especially if she plans for higher education). Sure, it is not the best situation to be born to a single mother, or unmarried mother and father, etc, but we can at least create environments that help the mother provide for her child and enable relationships that help create a nurturing environment so he or she can grow up to become a balanced person.
Sally,
Or just horny!
I agree with PIP. I think that its fine for people in serious relationships to sleep with one another. I frown on causal hookups, but why should marriage be the only place where sex is acceptable?
Jacqueline, I disagree. In having an abortion, a woman is taking responsibility for her actions. She is admitting that she can not deal with either the resulting child or the conditions of pregnancy. If this is the case, not getting an abortion would be irresponsible.
Enigma,
Jacqueline, I disagree. In having an abortion, a woman is taking responsibility for her actions.
And this didn’t occur to her before she took her clothes off why? And a child has to die because she thought of it after the horse was out of the barn, why?
Why?
Posted by: Heather at August 30, 2007 3:39 PM
***********
Why is she a contemptible b****? Ask her.
Trying to pretend that a woman doesnt deserve respect and isnt respectable just because she had sex with a man she wasnt married to is archaic idiocy and misogynistic nonsense.
You got it. Everything else is detrimental to men, women, and children.
*************
Frigid idiocy.
I guess we define disgusting differently- I define disgusting as dismembered unborn children and genital warts (which will effect upwards of 60% of sexually-active people), you define disgusting as believing sex is reserved for a loving, committed, healthy relationship.
******************************************
Unborn children is an oxymoron and your attitude towards women is more disgusting than a ‘genital wart’. And while we’re at it, why dont you tell me where you got your ’60%’ figure? And explain why you harbor the delusion that a loving commited healthy relationship can only be within a marriage? Your comment about a woman not being ‘respectable’ was misogynistic idiocy.
Because most men will tell you that they won’t respect you if you do. Of course, he will only be saying that if you 1. have already turned him down for a date but are friends or 2. you already have a steady relationship with him and he tells you that if you had slept with him on the first date he wouldn’t have respected you or called you afterward or 3. he doesn’t want a first date with you.
Posted by: valerie at August 30, 2007 3:54 PM
*************
Then you really hang out with some low lifes.
I think we agree that “taking responsibility” for what happens is birthing rather than aborting the babies. I guess where we differ here is that a baby born to people in a “serious” relationship but no real, tangible commitment to eachother is an injustice to that child who would likely end up between parents. So for children’s sake, sex belongs to people permanent marital relationships. Even those long-term relationship that last through the baby’s entire childhood still don’t offer hope or stability to the child.
Posted by: Jacqueline at August 30, 2007 3:59 PM
************************
what incredibly arrogance – all those rules you fantasize other people ‘should’ follow or they arent ‘respectable’
I have talked to tons of guys who say “If she gives it up on the first date, she’s easy.”
Posted by: Heather at August 30, 2007 4:01 PM
********************************************
Obviously you attract really low quality men.
And this didn’t occur to her before she took her clothes off why? And a child has to die because she thought of it after the horse was out of the barn, why?
Posted by: mk at August 30, 2007 5:56 PM
****************
Back to your rabid frothing attack of the woman pregnant – typical antichoice control freak misogyny – she just shouldnt have had sex if she wasnt going to follow YOUR rules. YOU should be the one telling everyone else how they ‘have to’ live. And by the way, there is no ‘child involved. There is mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure. And agreeing to sex is not agreeing to pregnancy.
TexasRed:
Nope, no lowlife’s in my life. My husband is a great provider, lover and person. And he said the same thing to me (see condition #2). Even my father, who was married to my mother for 39 years before she died agreed. I hang out with honest men who arent’ afraid of admitting their faults and telling the truth.
**************************
As for children being born in married families. I do think that is best, but it is no guarentee that they will stay together. In the age of “no fault” divorces and $250 and your divorce, it is just the same as “I woke up everyday wondering when they will choose not to be together”. I’m Catholic and was raised that way. When I was younger (Jr. High School) Many of my friends parents were getting divorced and that scared me! Until then I didn’t know you could just walk away like that. It didn’t provide me any stability. That is until I asked my Mom if she and Dad would ever divorce and her answer was “I can’t divorce your Father, who would take care of him?” That made me feel better. My Dad was a bit helpless in the domestic department. Let’s put it this way, when Mom died my sisters and I took most of the sharp objects out of the kitchen and any cooking utensil that we knew he had never seen before. (None of us live close to him). We were so happy when he remarried!
I just babbled didn’t I?
Jacqueline–
I agree that marriage is the best environment for kids. However, I do not want to say that sex during a loving, trusting, and strong long-term relationship is unacceptable, as long as they are not committed to abortion. If they try not to become pregnant they can use methods (i.e. condoms etc) to refrain from doing so.
I also believe that because many of unwanted pregancies happen to unmarried, single, women, we should have services for her to make it easier to carry to term (especially if she plans for higher education). Sure, it is not the best situation to be born to a single mother, or unmarried mother and father, etc, but we can at least create environments that help the mother provide for her child and enable relationships that help create a nurturing environment so he or she can grow up to become a balanced person.
Posted by: prettyinpink at August 30, 2007 5:19 PM
I’m so all over the concept of real help for mothers married or unmarried. Having been a military wife living below poverty wages when I became a mother, I know how tough it can be without a support system. But then I chose to continue my pregnancies under such conditions. I couldn’t ask anyone else to do the same if they were not willing.
As for working on an education with a child or children, I’m not sure how we could provide support for a woman with a chronically ill child, one that won’t sleep throught the night……..I doubt if any woman manages an education without surrogate parents for her child.
TexasRed:
“And agreeing to sex is not agreeing to pregnancy. ”
I have a couple biology books that you should read. It may help you out with the “birds and the bees”.
Enigma,
Jacqueline, I disagree. In having an abortion, a woman is taking responsibility for her actions.
And this didn’t occur to her before she took her clothes off why? And a child has to die because she thought of it after the horse was out of the barn, why?
Posted by: mk at August 30, 2007 5:56 PM
MK
I’m pretty sure that a woman knows that taking her clothes off does not cause pregnancy. In this day and age, I would hope that she would know that if her BC fails she may abort. I certainly did. I also know that it takes a lot more than sex to create a child.
I have talked to tons of guys who say “If she gives it up on the first date, she’s easy.”
Posted by: Heather at August 30, 2007 4:01 PM
*********
Heather: If a guy confessed to me that was what he thought of women who have normal, human sex drives, I would dump him. He would have told me exactly what I would need to know to stay away from that man. He would have implicitly paid me the worst insult that he could have possibly have paid me, and shown absolute disrespect to me as a human being: he would have assumed that I should also assume that I shouldn’t have a sex drive like a normal human being. No one could degrade someone to a worse degree than assuming this. I am sorry if you are such a degraded soul as to assume this about women (and about yourself).
Women’s sexuality is NOT something that should be “held out” for the highest bidder! Women are actual players in the game, not trophies or objects–and pretending that it’s RIGHT that men don’t respect women if they have sex with them is just as bad as any man who thinks of women as trophies. If ANY men still think they should consider themselves objects to be held out on the bargaining table until the guy marries them, those men don’t deserve respects OR dates!
I think we agree that “taking responsibility” for what happens is birthing rather than aborting the babies. I guess where we differ here is that a baby born to people in a “serious” relationship but no real, tangible commitment to eachother is an injustice to that child who would likely end up between parents. So for children’s sake, sex belongs to people permanent marital relationships. Even those long-term relationship that last through the baby’s entire childhood still don’t offer hope or stability to the child.
Posted by: Jacqueline at August 30, 2007 3:59 PM
********
No one is responsible for gestating a pregnancy merely because she had sex. This is nonsense to the extreme.
Also, if women are able to support themselves as well as a child financially, I don’t see why they should feel obligated to be married to have children.
TexasRed:
“And agreeing to sex is not agreeing to pregnancy. ”
I have a couple biology books that you should read. It may help you out with the “birds and the bees”.
Posted by: valerie at August 30, 2007 6:24 PM
**********
Please post the titles of biology books that state that women are somehow responsible for gestating unwanted pregnancies because they had sex. I want to see them. I want to know who is going to hold women responsible for gestating unwanted pregnancies–especially since many pregnancies undergo spontaneous abortions. Who is going to hold Mother Nature responsible for this?
“As for working on an education with a child or children, I’m not sure how we could provide support for a woman with a chronically ill child, one that won’t sleep throught the night……..I doubt if any woman manages an education without surrogate parents for her child.”
Sally, I’ve had some ideas in this department. I think for all higher education institutions these services should be implemented:
*free day care run by work study students
*dorm scholarship for single mothers (this includes setting aside dorms for mothers, hopefully collectively-where they can have a support system with someone going through the same thing.)
*This also means RAs that are trained to work with children
*sponsored clubs connecting mothers together–activities for mothers and babies, etc.
*in institutions teaching health care professionals, set up ill children (chronic or otherwise) in the teaching hospitals so they can get free or discounted care while mutually benefiting the university
*A pregnancy resources office, for pregnant mothers to recieve information about their options, support structures, etc
*Just as a side note, I think instead of “freshman orientation” classes they should teach life skills classes, which are full of all sorts of stuff including pregnancy prevention etc
I’m sure there are lots of creative people that want to help ease these problems and have more ideas or practical ways of carrying these out. I’m ready for the movement to begin. As FFL says, women shouldn’t have to choose between education and a child. They deserve better!
“Women are actual players in the game, not trophies or objects”
And babies are actual players in the game, not boobie prizes to be trashed. Talk about treating human beings like objects…..
PIP,
They all sound great except “*in institutions teaching health care professionals, set up ill children (chronic or otherwise) in the teaching hospitals so they can get free or discounted care while mutually benefiting the university”
I don’t like the idea of making a child a guinea pig because he can’t afford something better. My neice had to be in the hospital and it was a teaching hospital. It was horrible, one person would tell the parents one thing and another person would tell them something completely different. They operated twice because they “overlooked” something the first time. Just the way I feel though.
I would definitely offer my own daycare services after my kids are older though, love that idea in fact.
Rosie, you think so?
I’ve been in several teachign hospitals myself, and never had a problem. But I guess it does depend on the kind of hospital and school. I just thought it might be a good idea, because teaching hospitals are usually non-profit, and they are connected with the school so it would be easy to access.
Anna,
“No one is responsible for gestating a pregnancy merely because she had sex. This is nonsense to the extreme.”
Well said.
TexasRed,
“Trying to pretend that a woman doesnt deserve respect and isnt respectable just because she had sex with a man she wasnt married to is archaic idiocy and misogynistic nonsense.”
I completely agree.
Jaqueline,
“You slept with him, he apparently has no respect for you for doing so, you apparently have no respect for yourself for doing so, and you get all indignant that “he didn’t follow up on his word.” You, my lady, are an IDIOT.”
Why does agreeing to sleep with someone mean that a woman has no respect for herself? This is due to an archaic notion that rightfully belongs in a heap with all the other discarded and harmful archaic notions of the world.
“Do the indiscretions of women…”
Last time I checked, an unmarried women having sex was not a crime. If this unmarried women chooses to have sex, she is perfectly entitled to do so. She has every right to live by her rules instead of yours.
“But you should know better by now than to have sex with a man to whom you’re not married. That’s just stupid.”
If this is how you wish to live your life, have fun with it. But its not how everyone chooses to live their lives. Sleeping with a man while being unmarried is not necessarily a poor decision.
“you define disgusting as believing sex is reserved for a loving, committed, healthy relationship.”
Actually that’s not what he said. He said that the view that sex should only occur between married couples was misogynistic and archaic. Marriage is not an instant indicator of a healthy relationship. One can be in a healthy relationship without being married. Or one can be stuck in an unhealthy marital relationship.
__________________________________________________
“So we’re back to the idiotic archaic insistance that sex is only for married people who would be willing to continue a pregnancy.”
“You got it. Everything else is detrimental to men, women, and children.”
Sex between consenting and unmarried adults in no way hurts men, women, or children.
_________________________________________________
MK
“And this didn’t occur to her before she took her clothes off why? And a child has to die because she thought of it after the horse was out of the barn, why?”
A fetus is not a child. Abortion does not harm children.
And yes, sex does come with the risk of pregnancy. That does not mean that a woman who takes precautions to prevent it and yet ends up pregnant anyway should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy.
Anna -
“Please post the titles of biology books that state that women are somehow responsible for gestating unwanted pregnancies because they had sex. I want to see them. I want to know who is going to hold women responsible for gestating unwanted pregnancies–especially since many pregnancies undergo spontaneous abortions. Who is going to hold Mother Nature responsible for this? ”
Okay – here is what you do. Go to the library. Ask for the science and biology area. Pick up any book in that area and read how babies are made. You see, when a male and female (most mammals and many other species of animal) have intercourse the male releases sperm….oh, I will leave the ending for you to read.
Now let me guess. You are the type of person who says that since birth control was used that means you didn’t consent to the pregnancy right? I’ve heard that alot around here. If this is how you feel, then I have a few thoughts for you. If this isn’t how you feel, then I am posting this for the others who do feel this way. (however, if this is not how you feel, please explain to me how procreation is done without sex. and don’t bother with the in vitro BS because we are dealing with unwanted pregnancies here and not wanted. Anyone who doesn’t want babies and goes through in vitro would need to have their head examined.)
Does this mean that if I were speeding on the highway and I have my radar detector on that I don’t consent to the speeding ticket? The radar detector is my protection against getting caught right?
Does this mean that if I want to rob a bank and I have my face covered that I don’t consent to being arrested? The mask is my protection against getting identified right?
Does this mean that if I jump out of an airplane and the parachute doesn’t open up that I don’t consent to falling? The parachute is my protection against falling to fast back to the earth right?
Does this mean that if I assist in X-rays in an Animal hospital and I wear the apron, throid protector and gloves that I don’t consent to getting cancer? The apron, thyroid protector and gloves were my protection against that right?
You see, no matter what protection you may use there may still be consequences to your actions. In all these scenerio’s I knew that there were consequences to my actions. In knowing this I attempted to protect myself. However, the protection failed. Doesn’t this still make me responsible for my actions?
Also, I have a response to your comment about spontanious abortions. Having had 3 myself in the past 4 1/2 years I think I am more than qualified to reply. Spontanious abortions happen for medical reasons. There is a medical answer and purpose for those spontanious abortions. Sometimes those precise reasons are unknown to us. Kinda like how my father ate correctly his whole life, excercised (he has jogged everyday of my life, and he started before my birth), had regualar check ups and all the right medical tests done but he still had a heart attack. He obviously didn’t consent to that heart attack since he was taking all the precautions but for some medical reason it happened. No reason for it and no one to blame, it just happened. I had sex and got pregnant. I took responsibility for that sex. I lost the baby(s) in a spontanious abortion. There is no one to blame in this scenerio. No one’s actions caused my spontanious abortion. It was natural.
Valerie,
From Leah,
…And our Ignorant Post of the Day winner is Joe!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I think this type of things happens to a lot of women. They meet a guy who thinks the world of them and things are going really great, then they sleep together. Then neither of them can figure out what went wrong. The jaded girl ends up crushed. She never really gets over it, instead she just accepts it as how the world is. Many of them never learn it doesn
Joe,
Joe,
Lesbians everywhere would be insulted by how you think. Heck, I’m insulted for them! Women do not ‘become’ lesbians because they get disillusioned about men and about finding a good man who won’t just use them. Women don’t become lesbians at all. Some women are simply born that way.
Feminists everywhere would also be insulted by yours views. Since I’m a feminist, I’m insulted. My views have nothing to do with being disillusioned and everything to do with how women are viewed in society.
PIP,
She was in “University of Loyola” medical center and her parents were really toying with the idea of moving her to another hospital. But yes, I suppose you are right that it depends on the hospital, staff etc… I think i’ll have to think about this some more:)
Joe:
Okay, first of all: “My guess is that this is how a lot of lesbians and feminists come into being.”
Yeah, because lesbians decide to become attracted to women because some guy was a jerk to them. Hon, that is not the way it works, and I am so sorry if you have such a backwards way of thinking. And feminists, for the record, are people who are for sexual EQUALITY–the women who you see man-bashing are NOT feminists–they are chauvinists. Female chauvinists.
Okay, moving on.
If this is the case, then isn’t the problem the men? I guess my question is why would a woman want to waste her time with a guy who would treat her so horribly? No guys I’ve ever slept with have lost respect for me as a result.
I wouldn’t call sex before true love the root of the problem–but having sex with someone you are in love with is certainly a more incredible experience, I have found. If a guy loses respect for me because if it, he isn’t worth my time.
Leah,
“If a guy loses respect for me because of it, he isn’t worth my time.”
Well said. I like how you think.
Enigma, “Women don’t become lesbians at all.”
And I am supposed to believe you why? Because this is what some overrated sitcom told you? Don’t be such a tool.
ps:
If the woman loses her respectability for having sex, what about the man?
Enigma: Cheers!
Anonymous,
“And I am supposed to believe you why? Because this is what some overrated sitcom told you? Don’t be such a tool.”
Overrated sitcom? I have to admit that I have no idea what show you’re referring to. I don’t actually watch that much TV.
I base that statement (that women don’t choose to become lesbians off two things.)
The first is medical research. They have shown that gay men and lesbians react to pheromones more like women, in the former case, and men, in the later case, then heterosexual individuals of their gender.
The second is simple logic. Would someone really choose to become a member of a minority that’s faced with so much opposition and oppression (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; no gay marriage; ect.)? Does that even make sense? I’m sure that men and women wake up every morning and go “gee, my life isn’t hard enough….I know…I’ll become gay…it’ll be so much better.”
Leah you wrote, “And feminists, for the record, are people who are for sexual EQUALITY”
Feminist are people who are consumed with sexual equality. Why would they be consumed with it if it were not for some man? This stuff is not rocket science. Don’t try to make it more complex than it really is.
Joe
“Feminist are people who are consumed with sexual equality.”
And sexual equality is a bad thing? I don’t think so.
“Why would they be consumed with it if it were not for some man?”
Maybe because they want equal pay for equal work. Maybe because they want to be respected for who they are and not because of how they look. Maybe because they don’t want to be sex objects. Need I go on?
I was anonymous in post at 11:12PM… Sorry.
Joe: I’m actually simplifying it. Feminism has nothing to do with consumption of anything–simply the desire for equality. What’s wrong with that? Why would anyone not support equality?
It’s happened to me more times than I want to remember. Don’t worry about it.
Leah,
“Why would anyone not support equality?”
You know, that’s something that I’ve never been able to answer.
“My guess is that this is how a lot of lesbians and feminists come into being.”
WHAT?!
Joe, the overrated sitcom would be on your end.
“Oh yeah, that chick hated me, so she became a lesbian.”
NO, I’ve never ever seen that in my entire life, and I know a lot of people who are GBLT.
For my prize I would like the coffee cup with the caricature of Margaret Sanger being slapped on the fanny by her hero Adolf Hitler.
Wow. That is… so inappropriate. Not only are you ignorant, but you are offensive. If this is your idea of humor…
PIP: I LOVE the cartoon in your blog!
Well, it’s late and I’m off. Have fun debating and I hope everyone has a good night.
Thanks Leah
Enigma,
Then why are there so many unhappy marriages that end in divorce?
A very dear friend of mine has a theory on this: he believes that people often marry knowing each other only as lovers, when it is important to know each other as friends as well. This way, you know your partner in many aspects–because there are things you discuss with your friends that you would never consider discussing with your lover. If your lover is your friend, you don’t have this problem. My friend believes–evidently–that lack of communication is a huge problem in relationships.
So, my answer really has nothing to do with this debate… which, in a way, sums up my views on marriage–I share those of my friend.
Enigma,
But Joe, wouldn’t the arousal sitution be towards the type of molestation rather than the building?
You are talking about classical conditioning, no? When the bell rings, the dog starts salivating, but he isn’t really doing that for the bell is he? But for the food?
I haven’t ever seen an article, so someone interject here:
CAN you classical condition using pheromones? Have we even isolated and studied many human pheromones? I am not well versed in this aspect of biology, as of yet.
PrettyInPink,
“Oh yeah, that chick hated me, so she became a lesbian.”
I love this… Thanks for stuping.
What does stuping mean?
Also, just throwing your own insults back at ya. You claim that overrated sitcoms are the reasons why we think about something. But I’ve seen a lot of sitcoms where it was the other way around.
Obviously they shouldn’t be taken seriously, as they are said in jest. But for some reason you have focused on them. It’s just…interesting.
Sex is so powerful that if you molested a guy in a hamburger factory every day for a month he would develop an arousal situation when he visits Burger King.
Joe, that is ridiculous and completely nonsensical. Can you back this up with unbiased research?
That’s like saying a woman who is raped in a back alley experiences arousal as she walks through alleys. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
PrettyInPink,
“But Joe, wouldn’t the arousal sitution be towards the type of molestation rather than the building?”
Sex is so powerful I’ll bet it is everything.
I met a divorced woman who’s husband got into pornography. She complained about him buying an expensive flat screen television that he never watched because all he did all day was look at pornography on the computer. He wouldn’t touch her and it caused so many problems that it ended in divorce. Now I am sure this woman had pheromones. At least more available to his senses than a computer screen. But when push came to shove he made his decision. The human mind associates a lot of different things when it comes to sex. If a man is molested it may create an aversion to the molester (As I have heard stories of men becoming homosexual after being molested by their mothers).
A lot of male homosexuality may be able to be explained by infants and toddlers being molested by their mothers who mistakenly think they are just calming them down. But liberals would never bring science to that level. I don
Sorry for the double-post!
“A lot of male homosexuality may be able to be explained by infants and toddlers being molested by their mothers who mistakenly think they are just calming them down. But liberals would never bring science to that level.”
~*~*~*~*~*~*
And I thought I’d seen it all. I really did.
I think I can die now, knowing I’ve met the most STUPID person in the world.
Good grief.
::stabbity::
Rae, I think that the word “stabbity” is probably the cutest way I’ve ever heard anyone express anger.
@Leah: It’s not so much anger as complete, abject…astonishment, really. I’m genuinely gobsmacked at the fact that ANYBODY could possibly come to a conclusion like that.
I…don’t know what to say.
Perhaps it would have been better that I had said nothing anything at all.
Wow.
“Joe, that is ridiculous and completely nonsensical. Can you back this up with unbiased research?”
I don’t really know of any studies. When I said “Sex is so powerful that…” I was going more towards what PIP related to earlier where Pavlov’s dog would salivate after hearing a bell.
The bottom line is sex IS powerful. Maybe not as important to the human person as oxygen or food, but nevertheless it probably has similar properties when we attempt to comprehend it in how it relates to human physiology.
Science has NOT determined the cause of homosexuality. It has looked for the “gay gene” and can’t tell us anything definitive. So we look to the gays to tell us what is going on and the best they can come up with is “we were born this way.” I say that is ridiculous. Who remembers their birth? Much more importantly which one of us remembers when we realized our sexual preference. A good friend of mines wife just “discovered” she was bi-sexual and is moving to Delaware with her new girlfriend. When he told her she should have metioned that before they got married, she said, “Wel.. I didn’t know.” What the heck are any of us to learn from that? Was she born bisexual? Only to find out when she was 25 and married? Or did it have something to do with her father who was locked up for 4 years for possession of child pornography? Science gives me no answers to this. So I am left to speculate.
You may say it is “nonsensical” but it
Psh. I share the sentiment. How could anyone come up with such garbage?
So Leah, how much do you want to bet that Jasper and a few others are going to pop in tomorrow morning and read this guy’s crap and chime in with:
“Right on! You are soooooooo right! Feminists are stupid! Liberals are even more stupid! Christians are the only smart people out there! SCIENCE IS WRONG!”
::stabbity::
Oy vey. I’m almost glad I’ll be on the road all day tomorrow. I mean, I enjoy engaging in debate and everything, but every now and then I get seriously frustrated and I need a break.
Stabbity, indeed.
So… what are you doing up so late?
I’m watching South Park.
I can’t sleep because I’ve been working so many overnights lately, I’m just used to being up all night.
But I think I shall follow your lead and take a few weeks off again as I did before…I recall my mood being vastly improved by *not* being here. I really need to stop being such a masochist.
Cheers to that. Don’t get me wrong (all y’all who are reading this tomorrow morning and all that) it’s nice to engage in debate and all that.
But I am seriously trying very very very hard to eliminate all negativity from my life. Been going through some really hard emotional stuff lately and I feel that the best things I can do for myself are keeping busy and keeping positive. I even tore down all my anti-Bush stuff because of the negativity. No, no, no–I don’t like him. But I feel it’s better to be pro-something than anti-something.
I am up late for no good reason at all and really should go to sleep… but I don’t wanna.
Rae, “SCIENCE IS WRONG!””
I would prefer, “junk science is wrong”.
And as for “”stabbity” is probably the cutest way I’ve ever heard anyone express anger.”
Yeah… Because it is like stabbing someone with a knife? Actually to use a liberal phrase “stabbity” is too extreme to be cute. You should be ashamed.
@Joe: When I say “stabbity” I don’t mean with a knife. For me, “stabbity” means poking somebody with a spork…which makes it funny.
Good grief (again).
You know what? WHY is it that everybody keeps hiding between their idiotic partisan beliefs of either “Liberals are all godless heathens who want to kill ALL THE BABIES IN TEH WORLD!” or “Conservatives are all a bunch of bible thumping fundies who hate women and homos!”
It’s soooooo frustrating to have people throw around “liberal” and “conservative” like they are insults. Grow up people, mocking somebody by calling them “baby-killing liberal” or “racist/sexist conservative” is very childish, immature and definitely not conducive to mature, educated debate and discussion. Partisan politics does nothing but split people up, create division when in reality we need to be united and it gets us no where people!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
“Actually to use a liberal phrase “stabbity” is too extreme to be cute. You should be ashamed.”
Oh please…again, with the pathetic “namecalling”.
Seriously Joe, grow up and act your age (as I’m assuming you are older than 15, correct me if I”m wrong). I’m not ashamed for using a word that I made up on my own, and that you have misinterpreted/assumed incorrectly about. Bravo.
((sings)) All I care about is loooooove! That’s what I’m here for!
Well, I’m off to bed. Nothing else good is on the tube. And I really should get some rest… what with the 5-hour car ride tomorrow. More like 7-hour what with Labor Day traffic. Woot.
Rae: On the subject of sporks (obviously, you are a spork enthusiast… or something). You know how sporks are always plastic? Well, I had such a discussion with my aforementioned dear, dear friend right before he left France (he left about a week before I did), and on the way home he was served food… with a METAL SPORK! And when I saw him the next week, he gave it to me. Best… present… ever!
Don’t worry, Joe. You’re being poked with a normal plastic spork.
Anna -
“Please post the titles of biology books that state that women are somehow responsible for gestating unwanted pregnancies because they had sex. I want to see them. I want to know who is going to hold women responsible for gestating unwanted pregnancies–especially since many pregnancies undergo spontaneous abortions. Who is going to hold Mother Nature responsible for this? ”
Okay – here is what you do. Go to the library. Ask for the science and biology area. Pick up any book in that area and read how babies are made. You see, when a male and female (most mammals and many other species of animal) have intercourse the male releases sperm….oh, I will leave the ending for you to read.
***************
Anna: Valerie, none of the above that you have stated addresses my point. I know how animals are conceived. My point was that merely because a conception has taken place, there is absolutely no obligation on the part of the original host to allow that conceptus to be gestated to term. Your attempt to address my point falls under the logical fallacy of the “strawman”–unable to address your opponent’s argument, you must pretend the opponent is making a statement that is much easier to counter, and pretend that your opponent does not know how animals breed. My point is that, simply, no one is responsible for what ends up in her uterus–she has no moral obligation for it merely because she happens to have a uterus that conceived against her wishes.
*********
Valerie: Now let me guess. You are the type of person who says that since birth control was used that means you didn’t consent to the pregnancy right? I’ve heard that alot around here. If this is how you feel, then I have a few thoughts for you. If this isn’t how you feel, then I am posting this for the others who do feel this way. (however, if this is not how you feel, please explain to me how procreation is done without sex. and don’t bother with the in vitro BS because we are dealing with unwanted pregnancies here and not wanted. Anyone who doesn’t want babies and goes through in vitro would need to have their head examined.)
Does this mean that if I were speeding on the highway and I have my radar detector on that I don’t consent to the speeding ticket? The radar detector is my protection against getting caught right?
Does this mean that if I want to rob a bank and I have my face covered that I don’t consent to being arrested? The mask is my protection against getting identified right?
Does this mean that if I jump out of an airplane and the parachute doesn’t open up that I don’t consent to falling? The parachute is my protection against falling to fast back to the earth right?
Does this mean that if I assist in X-rays in an Animal hospital and I wear the apron, throid protector and gloves that I don’t consent to getting cancer? The apron, thyroid protector and gloves were my protection against that right?
You see, no matter what protection you may use there may still be consequences to your actions. In all these scenerio’s I knew that there were consequences to my actions. In knowing this I attempted to protect myself. However, the protection failed. Doesn’t this still make me responsible for my actions?
*************
Anna: Valerie, you are responsible for your actions as far as they go. When one has sex, one knows that conception CAN occur, just like a traffic ticket, a car accident, a mishap in a lab. The problem is you are not dealing logically with the procedure that can and does follow this immediate cause of the before stated effect: we pay the traffic ticket, and, likewise, we have an abortion if we do not want to gestate the pregnancy. No one is disputing that pregnancy can occur via sex–what IS disputed is whether or not the woman should be held responsible for GESTATING the pregnancy to term merely because she discovers an unwanted pregnancy in her uterus. And the law says no–you are not responsible for NOT treating the cancer that might occur in dangerous lab practices; you are responsible, perhaps, for getting it, but no one would expect you to fail to treat it once gotten; and, similarly, no one (normal) expects a woman not to treat her unwanted pregnancy with abortion.
AS for the fact that women who take BC demonstrate they do not want an unwanted pregnancy beforehand and therefore have given “warning” of their intents to abort after the discovery of any unwanted pregnancy, I hold them no more or less responsible for the pregnancy than the woman who doesn’t take BC and doesn’t want to gestate an unwanted pregnancy: NO ONE is responsible for gestating an unwanted pregnancy. NO ONE is under obligation to support the life another human individual with her internal organs; by this token, no one is under obligation to support the life of a nonviable Z/E/F with her internal organs, REGARDLESS of “how” the the nonviable Z/E/F ended up there. You can pretend all you like that since it happens to end up there, the woman in question should be bound to support it, but this is nonsense on your part and no one’s human life and human body should be forced to bow to your nonsense–no one should be punished on the basis of the presence of an organ in her system; no one should have to gestate an unwanted pregnancy merely because she has a uterus.
************
Also, I have a response to your comment about spontanious abortions. Having had 3 myself in the past 4 1/2 years I think I am more than qualified to reply. Spontanious abortions happen for medical reasons. There is a medical answer and purpose for those spontanious abortions. Sometimes those precise reasons are unknown to us. Kinda like how my father ate correctly his whole life, excercised (he has jogged everyday of my life, and he started before my birth), had regualar check ups and all the right medical tests done but he still had a heart attack. He obviously didn’t consent to that heart attack since he was taking all the precautions but for some medical reason it happened. No reason for it and no one to blame, it just happened. I had sex and got pregnant. I took responsibility for that sex. I lost the baby(s) in a spontanious abortion. There is no one to blame in this scenerio. No one’s actions caused my spontanious abortion. It was natural.
Posted by: valerie at August 30, 2007 9:05 PM
***************
Anna: And, Valerie, I do not think anyone is to blame in the scenario where an abortion is sought out: the women in question are not to blame for the fact that they have uteruses and that there are nonviable fetuses in their uteruses–they are not to blame for being born female in the first place. An abortion for women who do not want to gestate pregnancies IS an act of taking responsibility of the body and the life of the woman who is pregnant: she does not want a fetus in her uterus, and an abortion is the way of getting it out of her uterus. Women who have abortion are burdened by nature with organs that they do not always want to use; they take responsibility for their very lives by refusing to use them to gestate pregnancies. I consider these women responsible indeed–rather than merely letting nature take a destructive course in their lives, they arrest the growth of the nonviable fetus in their uterus by having it removed from the uterus. Similarly, one can say that we cannot control the fact that certain bodies are predisposed to develop cancerous growths; rather than let nature and heredity kill us, we undergo surgery, chemo and radiation to have these growths killed and removed from our bodies. We take responsibility for our lives as thinking things should.
I can’t believe but can that Katz declared men innocent of exploiting women for sex as simply “being in the moment,” when thousands of years of the same sad story prove there’s usually premeditation involved.
Jill, I read that blog, and I’m quite sure that it was sarcasm.
Have a good weekend, all!
Enigma,
One is always responsible for one
Enigma: Then why are there so many unhappy marriages that end in divorce?
Good question. My opinion is that it’s hard to know oneself and one’s prospective partner enough to really be sure, and that people sometimes rush into it, even if that “rushing” takes years.
I agree that it takes committment, but also think there has to be a real basic *rightness* to it. It’s said that you can work at a marriage, but no amount of work can make up for it not being *right* down deep.
Often, things look better beforehand, and the reality of marriage isn’t known yet, and things are felt to go downhill later on. I’d say you really better be sure, because you often don’t know all that’s coming. So if you have doubts before getting married, I’d say that’s one or even two strikes against you.
There are all the obvious things to point to, like one person thinking they will change the other person, or that being married will change them. Playing long odds there….
Waited until I was 41 before I got married, and I’m glad I did.
Doug
MK: I smoke. I will most likely end up with cancer. Everytime I light a cigarette, I am in essence saying that I understand the risks, but for whatever lame brain reason, I am willing to take them. I accept the consequences for my actions. I don’t want cancer. But I realize that if I get it, I have no one to blame but myself. It sucks, but there you have it. This is called being a “grown-up”.
MK, we all do things where we take on risks, but that really is not any necessary agreement to suffer the consequences without seeking remedies.
If you get cancer, I’d expect you to fight it, to seek treatment, to try and get rid of the unwanted situation. Same for people with unwanted pregnancies – they often will get abortions. There was a risk, and the unwanted condition occurred.
Doug
Jacqueline: I think we agree that “taking responsibility” for what happens is birthing rather than aborting the babies. I guess where we differ here is that a baby born to people in a “serious” relationship but no real, tangible commitment to each other is an injustice to that child who would likely end up between parents. So for children’s sake, sex belongs to people permanent marital relationships. Even those long-term relationship that last through the baby’s entire childhood still don’t offer hope or stability to the child.
Jacqueline, I disagree on it being the responsibility of the woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy, but I think you are right on about there being injustice to kids when the parents don’t provide stability and hope.
Looking back at my childhood, I think of some of the parents of my friends and fellow students, and it’s like, “Whew…they were messed up…”
Doug
MK, we all do things where we take on risks, but that really is not any necessary agreement to suffer the consequences without seeking remedies.
If you get cancer, I’d expect you to fight it, to seek treatment, to try and get rid of the unwanted situation. Same for people with unwanted pregnancies – they often will get abortions. There was a risk, and the unwanted condition occurred.
Yes, Doug, but a baby is not a cancer, which will kill a woman if not removed (in the vast majority of cases). ‘Treatment’, in this case, would be helping this woman through her pregnancy, giving her adequate medical attention, making sure that her pregnancy is as comfortable as possible, etc. Also, counseling is in order in many cases. This is something that we freely provide for women in these cases.
Treatment in this case would not include removal of the baby, since the baby poses no immediate threat, as cancer does. If the baby does pose an immediate threat, there is no dispute over removing the child. So yes, we agree that a woman who gets pregnant deserves medical treatment, we simply disagree on what “treatment” entails.
P.S. of course, the baby is removed at the appropriate time, and if the mother wants to stop being a mother, she can give the baby up for adoption at that time. That is how she removes the baby, not by abortion.
Think about it this way. How long is cancer treatment? Does it happen in 1 five minute treatment? Can you remove a cancer that quickly?
Likewise, you shouldn’t remove the baby until the appropriate time. It takes time. You wouldn’t expect the doctor to be able to pull your cancer out in 5 minutes time, and you shouldn’t expect to have your baby removed within 5 minutes, then dumped in the disposal like a piece of garbage.
“treatment” takes time, and in this case treatment would take 7-9 months.
Enigma -
“This isn
You can’t pick and choose which consequence you will accept and which one you won’t. This isn’t lala land.
>>
Enigma -
“The first is medical research. They have shown that gay men and lesbians react to pheromones more like women, in the former case, and men, in the later case, then heterosexual individuals of their gender. ”
Be very very very careful with this analogy. We have discussed this before. If reactions to pheromones has nothing to do with control than that means homosexuality could be genetic. If genetic than there could be tests to show if your child has a predisposition to be gay. This means a test can be developed to test this in utero. This means that gays could become the next victim of eugenics through abortion. Just like down syndrome. It is estimated that Down’s children are aborted 90% of the time. We do not want this for the homosexual community.
Joe,
” I guess to simplify people who get divorced lied on their wedding day.”
This statement would be highly offensive to anyone who has gotten divorced. Since I’ve known people who have gotten divorced, I’m offended on their behalf.
People who get divorces did not lie on their wedding day. One cannot tell a lie if one believes it at the time at which it was uttered. Circumstances may change later. Things may happen. People fall out love. People loose their children and find that they can’t cope while still married to their partner. Other people find that they married the wrong person. None of this means that any of them uttered a lie when they said “I do.”
oops, that was ((applause))
Leah,
I agree with views on the importance of being friends before marriage.
Enigma -
(joke!)
“And sexual equality is a bad thing? I don’t think so.”
I don’t understand this. Why would any woman want to be a sexual equal to men. We are better than that!
“Maybe because they want equal pay for equal work….”
Hey! We agree on something!
“Maybe because they want to be respected for who they are and not because of how they look.”
Do you think maybe we should stop showing off the look? Example: Have you ever seen a man go to work in a muscle Tee shirt and short shorts? This is because they wouldn’t be respected if the do. Why then, do women expect to be able to wear low cut shirts and short skirts and then demand a man look at our brains. Remember the pheramone conversation……..
“Maybe because they don’t want to be sex objects. Need I go on? ”
Maybe we should frown upon “the apprentice” star who posed in playboy instead of glorifying her. If we don’t want to be seen as sex objects then we have to stop acting like sex objects. Why are most men not looked upon as sex objects? Because most men don’t act like they are.
Joe,
“Sex is so powerful that if you molested a guy in a hamburger factory every day for a month he would develop an arousal situation when he visits Burger King. Liberals would then conclude that men should be able to marry buildings. Then when I complain about this on line, they would say things like,
“A lot of male homosexuality may be able to be explained by infants and toddlers being molested by their mothers who mistakenly think they are just calming them down. ”
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry for the overuse of punctuation, but I am so shocked and horrified by this claim that I literally have nothing to say.
Leah,
“Why would anyone not support equality?”
You know, that’s something that I’ve never been able to answer.
Posted by: Enigma at August 30, 2007 11:28 PM
**************************
Wouldn’t it depend on the conversation of equality? I mean – equal pay, yes…. being taken seriously, yes….
but do we really want men to treat us as their equals? Have you seen how guys treat their male friends who they consider equal? I don’t want to be treated like that! I want to be treated better than that! I don’t want a man to burp in my face expecting me to start a burping war. I also would not want to be insulted the way men (playfully) insult each other. Need I go on?
I know this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, its just a thought that has been bothering me lately so I thought I would put it out there….
Valerie, I agree…I want to be treated like a LADY! I enjoy being the lady.
Leah -
” he believes that people often marry knowing each other only as lovers, when it is important to know each other as friends as well. ”
shouldn’t this be the very reason why people should wait until marriage to become lovers? This way when you marry you know for sure that it is indeed a strong friendship and has nothing to do with really good sex. I mean, think about it, Really good sex can feel like a really good friendship because how could it be that good if your not very good friends? However, that happens all the time; mistaking sex for love/friendship.
Joe
“Science has NOT determined the cause of homosexuality. It has looked for the “gay gene” and can’t tell us anything definitive. So we look to the gays to tell us what is going on and the best they can come up with is “we were born this way.” I say that is ridiculous. Who remembers their birth?”
It’s not necessary to remember one’s birth in order to be born a certain way. Science may not be able to answer definitively yet but that does not mean that the answer isn’t there.
“When he told her she should have metioned that before they got married, she said, “Wel.. I didn’t know.” What the heck are any of us to learn from that? Was she born bisexual? Only to find out when she was 25 and married? Or did it have something to do with her father who was locked up for 4 years for possession of child pornography?”
It’s very easy to overlook aspects of oneself, especailly when there is as much societal pressure as their is in this culture to be straight.
It’s also quite simply not to know something about oneself. Let’s use an example. I carry the heterozygous combination for Factor 5 Liden. Basically, it puts me at a higher risk for deep vein thrombosis. I didn’t know this until I was 19. Did that mean that I didn’t have it before then? Of course not. It simply meant that I hadn’t realized it yet.
Joe,
“The older ideas about sex is what we suffer from now.”
Oh, you mean that the idea that sex is acceptable between committed partners as well as during marriage is an older idea. I’d like to see something to back up this claim.
“And it always seems to lead to abortion.”
Married people have abortions to. And just because one has sex outside of marriage does not automatically mean that one will obtain an abortion.
Oh, and there’s nothing wrong with abortion.
PIP -
“You are talking about classical conditioning, no? When the bell rings, the dog starts salivating, but he isn’t really doing that for the bell is he? But for the food?”
Classical conditioning can be whatever you want. You can ring a bell but instead of conditioning the dog to salivate, you can condition him to run into the kitchen. This is the very reason why cats come to the sound of the can opener. They don’t salivate, they come to you in an attempt to get the food from the can. You can condition anyone/animal to hate/like/be attracked to a particular place or smell.
“CAN you classical condition using pheromones? Have we even isolated and studied many human pheromones? ”
Yes.
MK,
“Then “one” is not working with a full deck or so deep in denial that the truth can’t penetrate.”
That’s your perception of the truth. Since I argue that truth is self-created, it fails to worry me at all that I don’t allow your “truth” to penetrate. I much prefer my own.
Waiver arguments would carry more weight with me if they weren’t used solely for legal reasons
“Saying that you didn’t consent to pregnancy when you had sex is juvenile. It’s saying I consented to the fun, but I refuse to consent to the consequences.”
Actually, it’s not juvenile in the least. You’re asking me to accept your definition of the consequences and your definition of sex simply because you believe that your views are right. Now who’s being juvenile?
“It’s what small children do. Adults take responsibility for their actions. They understand the notion of “cause and effect”. They accept reality and don’t try to rewrite science to “get away with” certain behavior.
I smoke. I will most likely end up with cancer. Everytime I light a cigarette, I am in essence saying that I understand the risks, but for whatever lame brain reason, I am willing to take them. I accept the consequences for my actions. I don’t want cancer. But I realize that if I get it, I have no one to blame but myself. It sucks, but there you have it. This is called being a “grown-up”.”
Wow. Just wow. So simply because I don’t accept your views of responsibility, consent, and sex I am suddenly acting like a child? I don’t think so.
Leah -
“with a METAL SPORK! And when I saw him the next week, he gave it to me. Best… present… ever!”
I’ve never seen a metal spork! Thats cool…
Who are you, Joe? You intrigue me…
I also believe that because many of unwanted pregancies happen to unmarried, single, women, we should have services for her to make it easier to carry to term (especially if she plans for higher education). Sure, it is not the best situation to be born to a single mother, or unmarried mother and father, etc, but we can at least create environments that help the mother provide for her child and enable relationships that help create a nurturing environment so he or she can grow up to become a balanced person.
Absolutely! But you do recognize that it’s not the best situation. That’s precisely my point. If women and men made better choices, children can just as easily be born into the best situation as they are into lousy ones. I am all for supporting single mothers, but you’ll recognize that there’s always a defcit there that no amount of external support can fill- like a dad that comes home to the family at night. My friends born to single women that had no fathers tell me that what that absence said was “My mother and I weren’t good enough, or my father would have stuck around.”
There are no guarentees. Just because a couple is married doesn’t mean that one or more of the parents might not die, or have a mid-life crisis and take off, etc. But it’s much more of a guarentee for a child when the couple has legally cemented their lifetime commitment than two people in a serious relationship. And by the way, how does one define “serious”? Serious typically implies strongly considering marriage. So why not just wait for marriage?
So it’s poor choices (one night stands) v. better choices (serious relationships) v. ideal choices (marriage). And it’s not situational. Women can always make the ideal choice. And, making anything less than the ideal choice is foolish. Bad, Better and Ideal are on the table and when choose Bad or Better? How is that not stupid?
Bethany,
“Treatment’, in this case, would be helping this woman through her pregnancy, giving her adequate medical attention, making sure that her pregnancy is as comfortable as possible, etc. ”
Adoption is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy. It is a solution to an unwanted child. There is a subtle yet important difference.
“Treatment in this case would not include removal of the baby, since the baby poses no immediate threat, as cancer does. ”
All pregnancies pose risks to the mother. It is unconscionable to force a woman to accept those risks when she did not consent to the pregnancy.
Anna -
I wanted to let you know that I am not ignoring your post. It was well thought out. I do think that what I would say to your comments I have already said Enigma. I don’t want to post my idea’s twice.
“All pregnancies pose risks to the mother. It is unconscionable to force a woman to accept those risks when she did not consent to the pregnancy.”
It’s unconscionable not to…. Your way Enigma results in death, our way results in life.
Ladies- It’s hard to respect yourself when someone can so easily gain entrance to your body. When anyone, without any obligation to you whatsoever, can possibly create a life with you and abandon you to parent alone or convalesce after lying on the abortion table, you’ve made a bad decision. Even those “serious relationships” offer little comfort, because how serious is a man about you if he’s not willing to commit to you publicly, legally, and exclusively (sounds like he’s still wanting an easy way out should he change his mind about you).
The only true obligation in relationships is marriage. Although it’s been reduced to almost nothing, it’s still a legal bind and a public recognition of commitment. Boyfriend, Girlfriend, Fiance, etc. are all BS terms, because anyone can walk away at anytime for any reason. This is not a healthy place to introduce sexual intimacy or create children. It may be better than a one-night stand, but it’s still a crappy situation.
Enigma, I too am repulsed by everything Joe has said so far.
I am considering just ignoring him.
I have seen it happen so often. True story. I was talking to a young, attractive black woman one evening. She was crying. I asked her what was wrong, and she proceeded to complain about a man she’d had sex with, not returning her calls. She kept obsessively calling him in front of me, and he kept hanging up on her. She went on to explain that they’d had sex after “hanging out” for a week. She also explained that she had “feelings for him.” Need I say more?
Valerie,
“TexasRed said: “”And agreeing to sex is not agreeing to pregnancy. ”
No where in there does it say anything about being forced to gestate. My comment was that sex is the cause of pregnancy.”
That is not in dispute. What is indispute is whether or not a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term simply because she agreed to have sex. A biology lecture doesn’t further your argument.
“Exactly how is that an accurate statement?” (Previous comment: Engaging in an action does not mean that one has consented to all of the possible consequences of the action.)
Simple. Just because I have consented to an action does not mean that I have consented to all the possible consequences of the action.
Let’s continue your car example. I’m blissfully speeding down the freeway because I like going fast. The possible consequences of my actions are as follows: A.) I could get into an accident B.) I could get to my destination more quickly C.) I could have more fun behind the wheel or D.) I could get a ticket. While all of these outcomes are possible, I have only consented to two of them.
Are you really trying to tell me that you consent to get sick or die of food poisoning every time you indulge in a snack or a meal?
Now let’s pause for a moment and ponder a woman’s responsibility for engaging in sex. In deciding to have sex, a woman not volunteer to surrender her uterus for nine months. Her bodily autonomy is not revoked because she decided to have sex. Having an abortion is not shirking her responsibility for having sex. Having sex does not compel her to carry a pregnancy. Abortion is another way of taking responsibility for the consequences of ones actions.
“You can’t pick and choose which consequence you will accept and which one you won’t.”
Really? We do this all the time. If one smokes and one gets lung cancer, one gets treatment to thwart the consequences. If one is in a potentially fatal car accident, one gets treatment to thwart the consequences. Need I go on? Why should pregnancy and abortion be any different?
“It is obvious how much you have missed my point.”
I have missed it because I disagree with it. A woman has no responsibility to continue an unwanted pregnancy. That is based on a false notion of what responsibility is and what a woman’s role should be.
“You say that abortion isn’t murder, yet medical science has proven time and time again that the fetus is alive and is human.”
Um, a little more is required for a death to be considered murder. For starters, it has to be considered illegal. Secondly, the circumstances have to be taken into account. Since a woman is entitled to decide whether or not to allow others to use her body, any actions that she takes in this regard (ie. abortion) to defend her bodily autonomy are justified.
“The heart is beating.”
This is not indicative of human life. Organ donors still have beating hearts too. So why is okay to cut them open and remove viable organs?
“There is involuntary movement which suggest that the central nervous system is beginning to mature.”
Involuntary movement is only indicative of the most rudimentary nervous action.
“There is a response to stimulus.”
I need sources, and I need to know the age of the fetus.
“Why should we destroy a developing human being because we don’t want that consequence of our actions? I can’t just kill a human being because they were in my way and wouldn’t let me live my life the way I wanted to. It is a crime for a woman to kill an abusive husband who won’t let a woman live the way she wants (and all the beating will probably affect her organs.) This is because murder is wrong. She has to prove in a court of law that it was self defense. That if she didn’t murder her abusive spouse (or significant other) she would have died. The death rate for dying from complications of being pregnant is .0091% This by know means says that abortion is self defense.”
Emotional appeals have no place in this debate.
“liable to be called on to answer
able to answer for one’s conduct and obligations”
And that is what a woman is doing when she has an abortion.
“I cannot destroy any human life and then say I was being responsible through its destruction because I didn’t think about the consequence.”
Who says that woman who have abortions don’t think about the consequences before they have sex? No one wants to have an abortion. People have abortions because they feel that it is the best option left available to them.
“All you have to do to understand this is watch National Geographics “In the Womb”.”
All you have to do to understand is to realize that a woman has rights to her own body. All you have to do is realize that a woman who has sex does not agree to share her body with another. All you have to understand is that it is a woman’s right to refuse to allow another to use her body.
No individual has the right to use another individual’s body without that individual’s consent. Why should fetuses be any different. You can’t say that they’re human and then try to give them rights that normal humans do not have.
“It show how medical science has proven that the development of a human begins at the moment of conception.”
I don’t think so. The z/e/f has human DNA but this DNA does not make one a living human being deserving to be treated as such.
Bethany: You can’t pick and choose which consequence you will accept and which one you won’t. This isn’t lala land.
Sure you can; women do it all the time in this matter. In no way do they “owe” it to you or anybody else to continue an unwanted pregnancy.
Doug
I have seen it happen so often. True story. I was talking to a young, attractive black woman one evening. She was crying. I asked her what was wrong, and she proceeded to complain about a man she’d had sex with, not returning her calls. She kept obsessively calling him in front of me, and he kept hanging up on her. She went on to explain that they’d had sex after “hanging out” for a week. She also explained that she had “feelings for him.” Need I say more?
Heather, sex need not be a part of it for that to happen. Plenty of people don’t call again, even if they didn’t have sex, and the other person can be just as broken-hearted.
Doug
I’m back for a moment while Caleb is doing his math…
Are you really trying to tell me that you consent to get sick or die of food poisoning every time you indulge in a snack or a meal?
Enigma, if you eat a raw egg, knowing it could very well contain salmonella, you are accepting the risk, and very well might have to throw up and have very painful diarrea for the next few days as a result, if it actually DID contain salmonella. Yes, eating something that you know COULD cause a problem, is accepting that risk, and you do have to suffer consequences of that action.
Emotional appeals have no place in this debate.
Then why do you people always appeal to emotion with the “poor woman” who shouldn’t be forced to do something she doesn’t desire to do? Or the woman who is raped? That isn’t emotional appeal? If emotions aren’t allowed, then a woman’s feelings or emotions regarding her pregnancy don’t matter in this debate, at all.
Who says that woman who have abortions don’t think about the consequences before they have sex? No one wants to have an abortion. People have abortions because they feel that it is the best option left available to them.
See? “they feel”
feeling equals emotion equals “doesn’t belong in this debate” according to you.
I don’t think so. The z/e/f has human DNA but this DNA does not make one a living human being deserving to be treated as such.
It is not only the DNA, Enigma and you know that. The human child in the womb is a member of the human species, is genetically complete, is biologically alive, and even the sex and characteristics are determined from conception forward. The DNA is additional, but not the ONLY thing making the baby so.
If they are not living human beings, what are they? A dead human being? An alien? A chicken?
This is not indicative of human life. Organ donors still have beating hearts too
And guess what? They’re living human beings. Until that heart stops beating, they may be “brain dead” but they are alive, they are human, and they are not anything else. They don’t automatically turn into “non human beings”. That’s ridiculous.
“MK, we all do things where we take on risks, but that really is not any necessary agreement to suffer the consequences without seeking remedies.
If you get cancer, I’d expect you to fight it, to seek treatment, to try and get rid of the unwanted situation. Same for people with unwanted pregnancies – they often will get abortions. There was a risk, and the unwanted condition occurred.”
Bethany: Yes, Doug, but a baby is not a cancer, which will kill a woman if not removed (in the vast majority of cases).
Agreed, but they are both still unwanted situations, and people will seek remedies.
……..
‘Treatment’, in this case, would be helping this woman through her pregnancy, giving her adequate medical attention, making sure that her pregnancy is as comfortable as possible, etc.
Maybe, and maybe not. If she wants to end the pregnancy then “helping her through it” isn’t going to get it.
……..
Also, counseling is in order in many cases. This is something that we freely provide for women in these cases.
The same thing can be said for many women with wanted pregnancies.
……..
Treatment in this case would not include removal of the baby, since the baby poses no immediate threat, as cancer does. If the baby does pose an immediate threat, there is no dispute over removing the child. So yes, we agree that a woman who gets pregnant deserves medical treatment, we simply disagree on what “treatment” entails.
Yes, there is disagreement about that, and I’m not at all saying that babies are “cancer.” But the fact remains that a pregnancy can be unwanted just like a cancer.
Doug
“It show how medical science has proven that the development of a human begins at the moment of conception.”
Enigma: “I don’t think so.”
If human development does not start at conception Enigma, then when does it start?
was this little boy deserve the right to life?:
http://www.prolifetraining.com/AbortionPictures/22-Weeks.htm
…or do think it should still should be legal because he was violating his Mom’s bodily autonomy?
Rae, 1:27a, said: “So Leah, how much do you want to bet that Jasper and a few others are going to pop in tomorrow morning and read this guy’s crap and chime in with: ‘Right on! You are soooooooo right! Feminists are stupid! Liberals are even more stupid! Christians are the only smart people out there! SCIENCE IS WRONG!’”
Ahem. Pop.
Joe, right on! Your comments were excellent, as evidenced by the exaggerated overreaction against them by our pro-abort friends (and our beloved PIP, who still has some learnin’ to do).
Some modern-day feminists/liberals may indeed by stupid, although I’d say some are smart but have been mislead to strangely attempt to make rules for women according to rules for men and rules for men according to rules for women. My, that was profound. I think I’d better stop.
Some modern-day feminists/liberals may indeed by stupid, although I’d say some are smart but have been mislead to strangely attempt to make rules for women according to rules for men and rules for men according to rules for women. My, that was profound. I think I’d better stop.
That was profound! One of countless reasons why Jac loves Jill.
*deflates*
Well, I think I’m going to shove off again. I may or may not be back in a few weeks.
But for the record: I don’t think feminists should try to have women treated like men. There are very distinct differences between the two sexes that needs to be addressed. Men can’t have babies. Women can. ’tis simple and men and women should be treated accordingly for that reason.
Anywho. Adios.
“and our beloved PIP, who still has some learnin’ to do”
About what?
But for the record: I don’t think feminists should try to have women treated like men. There are very distinct differences between the two sexes that needs to be addressed. Men can’t have babies. Women can. ’tis simple and men and women should be treated accordingly for that reason.
Amen! I also think this difference is why she should exercise self-control and discretion in who we choose to have sex with and when.
“and our beloved PIP, who still has some learnin’ to do”
Hey, Jill. That’s a little condascending towards PIP. She’s very intelligent, listens to counter-points and comes to her own conclusions on issues (as evidenced by her willingness to see that she was wrong in being pro-choice). I expect that even if we don’t agree, that I’ll see her rationale and if we never agree on something, I respect her opinions. I don’t pat her on the head when we disagree and say, “Aww, young ‘un. You’ll learn.”
Thank you, Jacqueline.
Speaking of Joe, I am confused why you are actually supporting him. Isn’t it time you call a spade a spade? In this case, Joe being an extremist?
btw, good news! A FFL speaker is scheduled to come to SLU for respect for life week!
PIP, I didn’t read but pieces Joe’s comments. So I’m not supporting him at all…But I am intrigued. I think him a man in his 60′s. I’d love to know if I’m right.
That’s awesome. FFL has some amazing new speakers this year! I can’t wait to see them. I actually have a dream of seeing Sally Winn or Serrin Foster speak. I missed an opportunity in DC last year.
By the way, my membership expired and I can’t afford to renew right now. Double :(.
Yup, we are getting Ann Lworey Forster to speak. I’m so excited!
Hopefully if my thesis for my final paper in Christian Morality is approved, I can use the lecture as a source.
*Lowrey
Jill,
Thanks for the “pop in” comments.
Joe
“In this case, Joe being an extremist?”
And liberals are extreme in their use of the word “extreme”. And also extreme in their use of the word “stability”… And also extreme in he use of the word “spork”.
Because I used the word extreme to describe my “intellectual adversaries” does this give my opinion more weight?
I also think the liberals on this blog are not very open minded.
Valerie,
“Be very very very careful with this analogy. We have discussed this before.”
You may have discussed this before, but I have not.
“If reactions to pheromones has nothing to do with control than that means homosexuality could be genetic. If genetic than there could be tests to show if your child has a predisposition to be gay.”
Correct.
“This means a test can be developed to test this in utero.”
Correct.
“This means that gays could become the next victim of eugenics through abortion.”
So your argument here is that I should not argue that there might be a predisposition to be gay because that might lead to parents aborting their potentially gay fetuses?
You are correct, there is a risk. And people do occasionally abort their fetuses because they have some sort of defect. That does not mean, however, that wide-scale eugenics is practiced through the use of abortion.
Valerie
(Previous quote of mine.)”And sexual equality is a bad thing? I don’t think so.”
This quote refers to the fact that woman are discriminated against on the basis of sex.
“Hey! We agree on something!”
I would hope so.
“Do you think maybe we should stop showing off the look?”
Which is why I do not typically dress in the clothing that you have described. It doesn’t always help. In this society, women are objectified.
“Maybe we should frown upon “the apprentice” star who posed in playboy instead of glorifying her. If we don’t want to be seen as sex objects then we have to stop acting like sex objects.”
I don’t act like a sex object and I don’t glorify those who do. But I am society. I am one person with one opinion.
“Because most men don’t act like they are.”
So it’s our fault that we’re treated like objects? Lovely logic there. Blame the victim.
Valerie
“Wouldn’t it depend on the conversation of equality? I mean – equal pay, yes…. being taken seriously, yes….”
You have a point.
“but do we really want men to treat us as their equals? Have you seen how guys treat their male friends who they consider equal?”
There’s a difference between being on equal footing with someone and viewing them as your equal and treating everyone the exact same way.
For example, I have both male and female friends whom I view as being equals (and they view me the same way). This doesn’t mean that I treat each of my friends in exactly the same way. I can view each person as having equal worth without being forced to ignore their individual traits and attributes that make them who they are.
(Okay, senseless rant first. I apologize. Why won’t the car repariman get here already. I’ve been waiting for almost five hours!!!!!)
Valerie
“shouldn’t this be the very reason why people should wait until marriage to become lovers?”
Actually, that’s a reason in the other direction. For a marriage to work a couple needs to be both friends and lovers. If they work as friends and not as lovers the marriage probably won’t work. How will they know that they work as lovers unless they have sex before marriage?
Jacequeline,
“And by the way, how does one define “serious”? Serious typically implies strongly considering marriage. So why not just wait for marriage?”
Maybe marriage doesn’t fit into the picture. That doesn’t mean that two individuals cannot have a serious, committed relationship.
“So it’s poor choices (one night stands) v. better choices (serious relationships) v. ideal choices (marriage).”
And who defines ideal? What is ideal for you may not be ideal for someone else.
“How is that not stupid?”
It’s not at all stupid to have a different value system than someone else. What’s stupid (to use your term) is when someone else tries to force their beliefs and values onto someone who has their own.
Jasper,
“It unconscionable not to…You way Enigma results in death, our way results in life.”
At what cost? Personally, I think the loss of life (or potential life) is justified by the control that women should have over their bodies. I don’t know about you, but I’d object to being told that the state was forcibly seizing possession of my body in order to help another.
Jacqueline,
“Ladies- It’s hard to respect yourself when someone can so easily gain entrance to your body.”
Why? How do you understand what constitutes self-respect better than the woman who is deciding what self-respect mean to her.
And it isn’t simply a choice between being “easy” and refusing to sleep with a man until marriage. There are may stages in between. Someone who waits years while in a committed relationship to have sex can hardly be said to be easy.
“Even those “serious relationships” offer little comfort, because how serious is a man about you if he’s not willing to commit to you publicly, legally, and exclusively (sounds like he’s still wanting an easy way out should he change his mind about you).”
Maybe marriage doesn’t fit into the picture. Maybe they’ve decided to wait. Why does making something public make it so much more official?
“The only true obligation in relationships is marriage.”
Your opinion. I don’t know about you, but I have obligations towards my friends and towards my boyfriend without marriage being involved.
“Although it’s been reduced to almost nothing, it’s still a legal bind and a public recognition of commitment.”
Why is public recognition needed? Does it make somehow more meaningful? If you think that something needs to be made public to have meaning than I pity you.
Heather
Just because cases like that exist does not mean that it always happens. It does not mean that it’s either that or marriage. All it means is that in the one instance, it happened. Nothing more.
Enigma,
And who defines ideal? What is ideal for you may not be ideal for someone else.
We’re talking about ideal for children. Having two, married parents is the universally accepted ideal situation to raise a child in. Not as a single parent, not as a broken home. Not in some flaky psuedo-family with no legal commitment.
How will they know that they work as lovers unless they have sex before marriage?
Two people that love eachother mind, body and soul don’t divorce because of premature ejaculation or failure to find a g-spot. They work through that. Furthermore, sex to people like that isn’t merely recreational or scratching a carnal itch, but an expression of love and ultimate closeness (the pleasure being a secondary factor). Besides, would you give up someone that you truly loved because he wasn’t quite what you wanted in bed?
I doubt a couple that loves eachother so much they want a lifetime commitment (and waits for sex until the honeymoon) discovers that sex between them doesn’t “work.” (What? It won’t fit?)In fact, all of my friends that waited claim the exact opposite. They take nothing into their marriage bed but eachother and talk about extremely satisfying, intimate (and downright kinky) sex lives.
Maybe marriage doesn’t fit into the picture. That doesn’t mean that two individuals cannot have a serious, committed relationship.
In what jacked-up Jerry Springer scenario can marriage not fit into the picture?
Life has a set of natural rules. You can’t make up your own without dire consequences.
“And liberals are extreme in their use of the word “extreme”. And also extreme in their use of the word “stability”… And also extreme in he use of the word “spork”.”
What?
“Because I used the word extreme to describe my “intellectual adversaries” does this give my opinion more weight?”
No, unless you are right. I would call most of the comments you have said to be extreme in that the majority of even conservatives would have a problem with it. I know plenty of my conservative friends would have problems with it. Like these:
“My guess is that this is how a lot of lesbians and feminists come into being.”
“Feminist are people who are consumed with sexual equality. Why would they be consumed with it if it were not for some man? This stuff is not rocket science. Don’t try to make it more complex than it really is.” (women are simple. They can’t possibly want to be equal to men unless some horrible man jilted them! Not like they would actually want to fight for equality because they think it is the right thing to do!)
“Sex is so powerful that if you molested a guy in a hamburger factory every day for a month he would develop an arousal situation when he visits Burger King. Liberals would then conclude that men should be able to marry buildings. Then when I complain about this on line, they would say things like,
Hasn’t anyone ever heard the expression “I hit it and quit it.” That’s what guys say about an easy lay.
Enigma,
Thanks, but you didn’t answer my 2nd question:
If human development does not start at conception Enigma, then when does it start?
does this little boy deserve the right to life?:
http://www.prolifetraining.com/AbortionPictures/22-Weeks.htm
…or do think it should still should be legal because he was violating his Mom’s bodily autonomy?
I know plenty of women who think they’re “ALL THAT AND A BAG OF CHIPS”…. they tell me about how they make sure their sheets stay afire. Giving up “good sex.”.. Most of the time, these women end up flabbergasted to find out that the bum is cheating. Turns out he met someone who was worth the chase. Men don’t like easy women.
jasper, that picture is awful! What woman could do that??
PIP: “You don’t have to be open minded to intolerance or injustice. The minute it happens one becomes extreme and illegitimate.”
PIP, here is what real injustice is:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/LateTermAbortions/abortedbaby11.html
Jac, 1:10p, said: “Two people that love eachother mind, body and soul don’t divorce because of premature ejaculation or failure to find a g-spot. They work through that. Furthermore, sex to people like that isn’t merely recreational or scratching a carnal itch, but an expression of love and ultimate closeness (the pleasure being a secondary factor). Besides, would you give up someone that you truly loved because he wasn’t quite what you wanted in bed?”
Very well put. I’ve been trying to think of a succinct response to the proposal that one must take another for a sexual test drive before committing. Now I don’t have to.
PIP, I’m sorry, I did condescend to you. For the record, I was referring to your positions on homosexuality and evolution. Am thrilled someone from FFL is coming to your campus. You simply must meet whoever that is (do you know? did I miss it?) and work your way into their organization.
Rae, don’t go.
“jasper, that picture is awful! What woman could do that??”
I know, thats why its important for “pro-choicers” to see the truth.
jasper, I shudder at the thought of those beheaded children. What the hell happened? What kind of a monster could do that?
Nope, no lowlife’s in my life. My husband is a great provider, lover and person. And he said the same thing to me (see condition #2). Even my father, who was married to my mother for 39 years before she died agreed. I hang out with honest men who arent’ afraid of admitting their faults and telling the truth.
*************
A man who has the attitudes towards women which you described is a low life.
Jasper
I know. To keep things in some semblance of order, I respond to the oldest posts first.
Bethany
“Yes, eating something that you know COULD cause a problem, is accepting that risk, and you do have to suffer consequences of that action.”
You completely misunderstand. I’m not referring to someone that you know poses a risk, I’m referring to just normal food. I’ve gotten food poisoning from pasta. Did I consent? Of course not.
I used food as an example because any time someone takes a foreign substance into their body their is risk involved. There could be chlorine in the water. There could be pesticide residue on your fruit. That hamburger could be undercooked and contain tapeworms. Did you consent to any of these calamities simply by eating or drinking? Of course not.
“Then why do you people always appeal to emotion with the “poor woman” who shouldn’t be forced to do something she doesn’t desire to do? Or the woman who is raped? That isn’t emotional appeal?”
Point. I try to avoid arguments based solely on emotion. I don’t trust them. They aren’t logical. They aren’t rational.
“See? “they feel”
feeling equals emotion equals “doesn’t belong in this debate” according to you.”
Okay, in this case I mispoke. I meant “People have abortions because they think that it is the best option left available to them.
“The human child in the womb is a member of the human species, is genetically complete, is biologically alive, and even the sex and characteristics are determined from conception forward. The DNA is additional, but not the ONLY thing making the baby so.”
DNA isn’t the only thing that determines the status of the fetus. You are correct.
“If they are not living human beings, what are they? A dead human being? An alien? A chicken?”
I never said they weren’t alive. I only argued that they have the potential for human life. (I know, it seems a little contradictory, I’ll try to clear that up.) The determining factor in whether or not a human being is alive is whether or not that person has a functioning brain. It’s why organ donation is legal. Even though the bodies are alive, the people are dead. They no longer possess human life.
“Until that heart stops beating, they may be “brain dead” but they are alive, they are human, and they are not anything else.”
Medically untrue. They no longer have the defining characteristics that determine whether or not a body possess human life.
“They don’t automatically turn into “non human beings”.”
Well, technically one is still a human being even when one is dead. One is just no longer a living human being.
Joe used the word “tool”. He must be under 35.
I will determine your indentity, Joe. Oh yes, I will determine your identity.
TexasRed:
“And agreeing to sex is not agreeing to pregnancy. ”
I have a couple biology books that you should read. It may help you out with the “birds and the bees”.
Posted by: valerie at August 30, 2007 6:24 PM
********************************************
Youre obviously not very bright. Biology has nothing to do with my statement and it certainly doesnt negate it. Simply agreeing to sex is NOT agreeing to pregnancy. In fact most heterosexual sex wont lead to pregnancy simply because the woman is fertile only a few days out of the month and she can be sexually active any time. Thats how ‘natural family planning’ is supposed to work.
Jasper,
“It show how medical science has proven that the development of a human begins at the moment of conception.”
Enigma: “I don’t think so.”
“If human development does not start at conception Enigma, then when does it start?”
I apologize. You are correct. I misread that sentence. Human development does indeed begin at conception.
Heather: If a guy confessed to me that was what he thought of women who have normal, human sex drives, I would dump him.
************************************************
VERY well put! that attitude says a great deal more about that particular male than it does about any woman!
And babies are actual players in the game, not boobie prizes to be trashed. Talk about treating human beings like objects…..
Posted by: Ellie at August 30, 2007 8:08 PM
****************************************
What in the world are you gibbering about?
Does this mean that if I were speeding on the highway and I have my radar detector on that I don’t consent to the speeding ticket? The radar detector is my protection against getting caught right?
*********************
Does this mean youre looking like an idiot, trying to defend a really imbecilic assertions? Why yes, yes it does! Agreeing to sex is not agreeing to pregnancy.
Rae and Jacqueline,
“I don’t think feminists should try to have women treated like men. There are very distinct differences between the two sexes that needs to be addressed. Men can’t have babies. Women can. ’tis simple and men and women should be treated accordingly for that reason.”
There are many different types of feminists. Some will argue that woman should be treated just like men. I am not one of them. I recognize that there are differences between the sexes and that these differences should be treated accordingly. But there is a difference between different treatment for different people and worse treatment for different people.
e treated accordingly for that reason.
“Amen! I also think this difference is why she should exercise self-control and discretion in who we choose to have sex with and when.”
I agree that self-control and discretion in sexual matters are important. But I think that they are important, or should be, for both sexes. And I dispute that “self-control and discretion” can only mean marital sex.
He lost all respect for her. I felt so sorry for her.
*********************************
She’s lucky to be rid of a creep like that. It probably hurt her feelings but in the long run she was much much better off without that pig.
Leah,
“If a guy loses respect for me because of it, he isn’t worth my time.”
Well said. I like how you think.
Posted by: Enigma at August 30, 2007 11:11 PM
*******************************************
Yup – I agree.
Joe
“And liberals are extreme in their use of the word “extreme”. And also extreme in their use of the word “stability”… And also extreme in he use of the word “spork”.”
Please, everyone, can we not turn this into a liberal vs. conservative debate? That never ends well for anyone.
“I also think the liberals on this blog are not very open minded.”
I could say the same to you (well, if you change the liberal label).
Besides, the definition of being open minded is not “I’ll blindly conform to your world view.”
My litmus test is the commitment that lasts until death, nothing less.
***********************************************
And youre how old? And have been married for how many years?
A lot of male homosexuality may be able to be explained by infants and toddlers being molested by their mothers who mistakenly think they are just calming them down. But liberals would never bring science to that level. I don
Don’t worry, Joe. You’re being poked with a normal plastic spork.
Posted by: Leah at August 31, 2007 2:09 AM
*********************
Take the plastic spork, bend it a little bit, and then let go – splunk him on the head with it ……
Jacqueline,
“We’re talking about ideal for children.”
And so then the only point of having sex or being married is to have children?
as lovers unless they have sex before marriage?
“Two people that love eachother mind, body and soul don’t divorce because of premature ejaculation or failure to find a g-spot.”
Some people simply aren’t sexually compatible and no amount of love can change that. Some people don’t have compatible sex drives. No amount of love can change that either.
“Furthermore, sex to people like that isn’t merely recreational or scratching a carnal itch, but an expression of love and ultimate closeness (the pleasure being a secondary factor).”
I may not be one of “those people” but I agree. And there is no reason that unmarried people cannot engage in sexual activities for that reason.
“Besides, would you give up someone that you truly loved because he wasn’t quite what you wanted in bed?”
I don’t have enough experience with either love or sex to answer that.
“In what jacked-up Jerry Springer scenario can marriage not fit into the picture?”
Some people don’t want to get married. Others believe that they have found the right person but that its not the right time to get married (think young ppl, high school sweethearts, that sort of thing).
“Life has a set of natural rules. You can’t make up your own without dire consequences.”
Where did you find these rules? I’m not familiar with them.
P.S. Just because you believe that there are rules for life does not mean that they actually exist.
Oy, I’m at work:
“I recognize that there are differences between the sexes and that these differences should be treated accordingly. But there is a difference between different treatment for different people and worse treatment for different people.”
@Enigma: I agree, I don’t mean that one should be treated worse than the other, but institutions like education and the workforce ought to value the contributions women make to society and be more understanding of the fact that yes…women get pregnant and have children.
@Jill: I’ll probably be back, no worries, this is my last message. I’m just getting too frustrated/angry again, ’tis time for a break (again…already).
“All pregnancies pose risks to the mother. It is unconscionable to force a woman to accept those risks when she did not consent to the pregnancy.”
It’s unconscionable not to…. Your way Enigma results in death, our way results in life.
Posted by: jasper at August 31, 2007 9:29 AM
*********************************************
YOUR way doesnt mean a thing if YOURE not the one pregnant. Its unconscionable to harbor the delusion that youre in a better position to make this decision than the woman who is going to be dealing with the demands of the pregnancy.
How is the destruction of human development being responsible? Why can I not apply your logic to any other aspect in my life? I cannot destroy any human life and then say I was being responsible through its destruction because I didn’t think about the consequence.
***************************************
There is nothing ‘responsible’ about having a child you dont want and cannot take care of. Whining about ‘other’ aspects of your life is idiotic. There is no parallell between ‘other’ aspects of your life and being pregnant.
PIP, “Your sexist, homophobic and just plain messed up comments are what makes me think you are extreme. ”
My post was to illustrate how the buzz words you use are weak. For example. You say I am homophobic because I am critical of the homosexual lifestyle. I say liberals homophobic because they are afraid of what homosexuals will do if they are critical of the homosexual lifestyle.
So… In a nutshell… You are homophobic and close-minded. Because to you… Homosexual activity is above reproach. Which is not only irresponsible, but very illogical and unscientific.
Life has a set of natural rules. You can’t make up your own without dire consequences.
Posted by: Jacqueline at August 31, 2007 1:19 PM
******************************************
And what does marriage have to do with ‘natural rules’?
I have seen it happen so often. True story. I was talking to a young, attractive black woman one evening. She was crying. I asked her what was wrong, and she proceeded to complain about a man she’d had sex with, not returning her calls. She kept obsessively calling him in front of me, and he kept hanging up on her. She went on to explain that they’d had sex after “hanging out” for a week. She also explained that she had “feelings for him.” Need I say more?
********************************************
That woman had a LOT more problems than just having sex with someone.
Hasn’t anyone ever heard the expression “I hit it and quit it.” That’s what guys say about an easy lay.
Posted by: Heather at August 31, 2007 1:26 PM
********************************************
As I pointed out, the guys youre hanging out with are scum.
I know plenty of women who think they’re “ALL THAT AND A BAG OF CHIPS”…. they tell me about how they make sure their sheets stay afire. Giving up “good sex.”.. Most of the time, these women end up flabbergasted to find out that the bum is cheating. Turns out he met someone who was worth the chase. Men don’t like easy women.
Posted by: Heather at August 31, 2007 1:32 PM
*********************************************
Sounds like a great deal of resentment and jealousy on your part and a whole lot of wishful thinking – wanting to pretend that only bad things will happen to these women.
PIP, here is what real injustice is:
*****************
Anyone who thinks PriestsForLife is a credible site cannot expect to be taken seriously.
Hi TexasRed. I think what Jacqueline is talking about is the natural law, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law . Although it isn’t related to marriage directly, I think a lot of the principles that she was saying were pertinent inside of marriage fall under the natural law, although I could just be putting words in her mouth. Check it out, its some really good stuff. God love you, Tex.
Texas Red, I think you have it backwards. I talk to business men, doctors, musicians, and lawyers. So, if that’s scum…… well, what can I say? Did you think I was hanging out at the Jerry Springer show to meet guys like this?
Texas Red, the fact that you make all of these false accusations against me, it makes you look like a real fool. Why are you ranting and raving like a juvenile?
I know, thats why its important for “pro-choicers” to see the truth.
Posted by: jasper at August 31, 2007 1:40 PM
**********************
What ‘truth’? Do you know the picture IS the truth? Do you know its a fetus and not a rubber model or a manipulated picture? Do you know when it was taken? where? who took it? If it is a picture of an aborted fetus, do you know the name hospital or the clinic? do you know why the procedure was performed? No, you dont know anything. You just found a picture on a web page and you cant prove its real and you dont care if its a lie or not. Its something you want to believe so you present it and whine you want ‘everyone to know the truth’ – and if its NOT the truth you couldnt care less.
Texas Red, if you landed your hubby on a one night stand, I’ll bet he’s a real winner. @@
Tex, “Absolutely amazing that anyone could really be this stupid ………. ”
Homosexuals are a perplexing bunch. Some of them support NAMBLA a pedophile organization. Others frequent public bathrooms for sex which spreads all sorts of very dangerous STDs. Some absolutely detest women to the point they can’t be around them. These queer maladies need to be studied, but as soon as someone tries, they are labeled homophobe and discredited.
So… Science fails us here… We need to draw some conclusions on our own. I say homosexuality is a DISORDER. In light of the issues above I would even be so bold as to say and EXTREME DISORDER. You can disagree with me all you like, but no matter how many times you use the words, stupid, extreme, homophobe, it won’t take away from the relevance of my statements.
Texas Red, I think you have it backwards. I talk to business men, doctors, musicians, and lawyers. So, if that’s scum…… well, what can I say? Did you think I was hanging out at the Jerry Springer show to meet guys like this?
Posted by: Heather at August 31, 2007 2:30 PM
*****************************************
Given the attitudes you say these men have towards women, they are misogynistic pigs and they are scum.
Hi TexasRed. I think what Jacqueline is talking about is the natural law, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law . Although it isn’t related to marriage directly, I think a lot of the principles that she was saying were pertinent inside of marriage fall under the natural law, although I could just be putting words in her mouth. Check it out, its some really good stuff. God love you, Tex.
**********************************************
I know what ‘natural law’ is. Marriage is a human construct. Life long pair bonds occur sometimes in nature, but rarely. Marriage is not part of ‘natural law’.
Hi Texas. Well, if you don’t believe the picture is real, just google 16 week old fetus and look for an image of one that you trust. Then check out http://abort73.com/HTML/I-A-3-techniques.html which describes abortion techniques. If you don’t believe this site, they have links to abortion providers sites which describe the procedure. So one can find objective facts about how an abortion is performed and also real pictures of the developing human at any week. You can use your imagination to think about what it would look like to have an abortion performed. And it looks like a very small, bloody, ripped-apart person. So i don’t see too much reason to doubt the picture. God love you, Texasred.
Texas Red, the fact that you make all of these false accusations against me, it makes you look like a real fool. Why are you ranting and raving like a juvenile?
Posted by: Heather at August 31, 2007 2:33 PM
*******************************************
What ‘false accusations’? Youre the one making all these misogynistic assertions regarding ‘what men think’ and ‘how men feel’. How do you fantasize you can speak for men? If anyone looks like a juvenile its you. The attitude YOU SAY men hold is very juvenile. If the men you spend time with actually hold those attitudes then they are immature and they are misogynistic swine.
I disagree. They are just being honest. A misogynist would lie about such things.
DING BAT Texas Red, I talked TO them!!! Pay attention.
Texas Red, if you landed your hubby on a one night stand, I’ll bet he’s a real winner. @@
Posted by: Heather at August 31, 2007 2:35 PM
********************************
ROFL! Talk about looking like a juvenile! in fact thats something that would be immature and idiotic for someone in Jr High to come up with.
“Marriage is not part of ‘natural law’.”
Correct, but I think Jacqueline was saying that other things that were being argued above are part of the natural law. I don’t think she was saying the concept of marriage is found in the natural law.
How I think men feel? What??
okay. I’m out. Have a wonderful life Red.
So i don’t see too much reason to doubt the picture
****************
of course you wouldnt – thats the point – you dont care if its the truth or not – you dont have a reason to doubt it because you need to pretend that its the truth and you dont care if it really IS or not
We need to draw some conclusions on our own
**************
Joe, basing your conclusions on ignorance and stupidity really isnt that impressive.
I disagree. They are just being honest. A misogynist would lie about such things.
Posted by: Heather at August 31, 2007 2:46 PM
***************************************
If they hold those attitudes then they are misogynists. You really have a problem with reading comprehension, dont you?
DING BAT Texas Red, I talked TO them!!! Pay attention.
Posted by: Heather at August 31, 2007 2:48 PM
*****************************
ROFL – thats what youre SAYING at any rate. To be honest, I dont believe you. I think your ugly attitude towards women is showing up in your day dreams about what you want to PRETEND men think. I’ve talked to one whole heck of a lot of men in my life and very few of them have the attitudes you try to pretend ‘all men’ have. Men who have the attitudes you describe are scum and misogynistic pigs and fortunately make up only a tiny percentage of the male population, from what I’ve seen.
Hey Red. Actually, I do care very much if it’s the truth. I’m not afraid of the truth. I’ll read anything by pro-life or pro-choicers. I’m not afraid. I’m just putting 2 and 2 together, though. Like I said above, if you rip the limbs off of a human or even a mammal in general, it will result in a bloody mess. Of course, if the fetus isn’t a human being, than who cares if it ends up being a bloody mess or not? Its a bloody tumor, or cells or whatever. We have no reason to lie. God love you, Red.
It seems like we’re the only ones on this thread now, Tex. Do you live in Texas? My Aunt lives there, so I’ve been there a few times. I can’t stand the humidity, though. Good thing I live in a state that has full-fledged winters (New Hampshire). But I guess I’m a weirdo like that.
TexasRed,
maybe you can explain to me what an aborted 22 week-old unborn baby looks like? can you?
It seems like we’re the only ones on this thread now, Tex. Do you live in Texas? My Aunt lives there, so I’ve been there a few times. I can’t stand the humidity, though. Good thing I live in a state that has full-fledged winters (New Hampshire). But I guess I’m a weirdo like that.
*************
Im a native although I’ve lived all over the US. Texas humidity doesnt hold a candle to Alabama, Mississippi, or even New york. I moved back home in 89 and I do admit I miss having a real winter though.
TexasRed,
maybe you can explain to me what an aborted 22 week-old unborn baby looks like? can you?
Posted by: jasper at August 31, 2007 3:11 PM
***************************************
Jasper, it would be a fetus. And if YOU want to provide a picture that you can prove really IS a picture of an aborted fetus, and you can tell us all how the picture was obtained, where the picture came from, who took it, when it was taken, where it was taken, and why the abortion was performed then YOU can present it as THE TRUTH. But if all youre doing is copying pictures from a web page then you dont have the foggiest notion if those pictures are the truth or not, and youve made it abundantly clear that you dont care.
I’ve never been to Alabama, but I would think it would be more humid. Yeah, I can’t imagine not having a real winter, if for no other reason, cause I like wearing sweaters! Otherwise, one never gets to mix up their wardrobe. Ah well.
Hey Red. Actually, I do care very much if it’s the truth. I’m not afraid of the truth. I’ll read anything by pro-life or pro-choicers. I’m not afraid. I’m just putting 2 and 2 together, though. Like I said above, if you rip the limbs off of a human or even a mammal in general, it will result in a bloody mess. Of course, if the fetus isn’t a human being, than who cares if it ends up being a bloody mess or not? Its a bloody tumor, or cells or whatever. We have no reason to lie. God love you, Red.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 31, 2007 2:57 PM
*******************************
Antichoicers have every reason to lie. They cant admit that over 60% of abortions are performed by 8 weeks, with that percentage growing or that over 90% are performed in the first trimester, and show honest pictures of the results of these abortions. They cant admit that 97% of abortions are performed by suction curettage which results in nothing thats distinguishable. They cant be honest about the size of the product of abortion. Thats why pictures have to be enlarged to ridiculous sizes. Thats why they obsess over pictures taken later in gestation, which make up only a tiny percentage of abortions in the US, and dont make any effort to be honest about WHY these abortions occurred, and they’re not honest about the number of pictures of later term abortions which come from China and India. They cant be honest that what is involved in a typical abortion is mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure. This is biological fact, not opinion. They have to use words like baby and infant and child and innocent and helpless and victim not because the words are honest and truthful but because of the emotional impact. If the truth suited the antichoice agenda then you could TELL the truth. But you dont.
Did you move back for work?
I’ve never been to Alabama, but I would think it would be more humid. Yeah, I can’t imagine not having a real winter, if for no other reason, cause I like wearing sweaters! Otherwise, one never gets to mix up their wardrobe. Ah well.
**************************
Ive been to New Orleans and Seattle – lived in Mississippi and Alabama and New York (as well as South Dakota and Colorado). Texas humidity doesnt come close unless youre living down on the coast – Im up close to the Oklahoma border. We get cold days here, just nothing compared to New York or Colorado.
Did you move back for work?
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 31, 2007 3:36 PM
*************************
We lived all over because of the work my husband did.
The website I sent you admits that 90% of abortions are first trimester. I always quote that statistic. Again, there is no reason to want to hide that fact. Also, the fact that biology says that what is involved in an abortion is (sometimes) nonviable tissue and cell structure is not to the exclusion of its humanity. I mean, you and I are tissue and cell structure, but we are much more than that. Look at all these quotes http://www.clinicquotes.com/killing.html from those involved in abortion. God love you Texas.
Man, I have so much living to do. I’ve only lived here and Michigan.
“We lived all over because of the work my husband did.”
If you don’t mind me asking, what kind of work does he do?
“PIP, here is what real injustice is”
I agree it is an injustice. That is why we don’t accept it. Right?
“PIP, I’m sorry, I did condescend to you. For the record, I was referring to your positions on homosexuality and evolution.”
Forgiven. But while I can understand you think that my views on homosexuality are wrong…evolution? Not believing in evolution is just silly!
“You simply must meet whoever that is (do you know? did I miss it?)”
Yup, her name is Ann Lowrey Forster. I think she was a former pro-choicer too! Hopefully I will get to interview her for my paper.
“”I recognize that there are differences between the sexes and that these differences should be treated accordingly. But there is a difference between different treatment for different people and worse treatment for different people.””
EXACTLY. VERY Well put.
“My post was to illustrate how the buzz words you use are weak. For example. You say I am homophobic because I am critical of the homosexual lifestyle.”
One can be critical. There are people here who are respectful of homosexuals but disagree with their lifestyles. I wholeheartedly disagree about their views concerning homosexual marriage. But I don’t call them homophobic. However there is a great difference here. You are completely disrespectful, trivializing homosexuals as either nothing more than a product of a jilted lover or the consequence of sexual abuse. It leads me to believe you know nothing about the homosexual condition. You can keep clinging to that raft if you want to. I can’t stop you but I can call you on it.
“I say liberals homophobic because they are afraid of what homosexuals will do if they are critical of the homosexual lifestyle.”
Er…that makes no sense. If people genuinely agree that homosexuals can’t help it and want to help them gain rights, it’s not fear. But again, by the definition of homophobic what you are saying is completely baseless. (If they become homophobic they are not truly homophobic but when they help them in their cause they are actually homophobic? Do you hear yourself?)
“So… In a nutshell… You are homophobic and close-minded. Because to you… Homosexual activity is above reproach. Which is not only irresponsible, but very illogical and unscientific.”
Let’s take this a little at a time.
1. I think homosexuals have the right to marriage (or as I’ve stated many a time here, my ideas of national civil unions), so I am homophobic? Again you are running circles around yourself to make a (nonexistant) point. I call people homophobic when they have a lack of respect for the people involved. Period.
2. Again already addressed close minded. I have an open mind for people opinions, as long as it doesn’t involve hate or injustice. So sure you can call me close-minded if you want, but I call it being human. People should fight against injustice. Instead of trying to contribute to this fight you get caught up in semantics. Wake up!
3. Illogical and unscientific. From someone who said “Science hasn’t found a gay gene yet.” Then you said, ” I say homosexuality is a DISORDER. In light of the issues above I would even be so bold as to say and EXTREME DISORDER.” Well, who is unscientific here. You are the one challenging science!
Also, I think you should look at your own comments before you call my arguments illogical. Hey Mr. Pot, have you met Kettle?
Enigma -
“That is not in dispute. What is indispute is whether or not a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term simply because she agreed to have sex. A biology lecture doesn’t further your argument. ”
AAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!! I’m bald now from pulling out my hair! I’m not very attractive being bald and it is all your fault!!!!!
A biology lecture does further my argument. Sex isn’t for procreation. However, procreation is because of sex. My point is that when you have sex, you know that procreation might happen. Now, if I didn’t know biology…… Anywho, since you know this, and you know that your are creating a human which is at the beginning of the development process – This means you are now responsible for that life wheather you wanted it or not because it was you who had sex knowing the consequences. This has nothing to do with bodily autonomy at this point because we are dealing with a developing, living, human being. This human being didn’t demand to be put there, this human being didn’t force its way in. This human being became in excistance because of your actions. You are now responsible for this life. (FYI – You is the general “you” not you you.)
“Are you really trying to tell me that you consent to get sick or die of food poisoning every time you indulge in a snack or a meal? ”
More hair is gone now. No I dont’ consent to it, but I have no choice but to go through all the pain of stomach cramps, vomiting and diareah. It was MY actions that caused the food poisoning wheather I like it or not. It is now my responsiblity to live with it. (remember, we are talking food poisoning and not cancer so don’t even go there.)
“Why should pregnancy and abortion be any different? ”
Because one deals with the destruction of a developing human being.
“Um, a little more is required for a death to be considered murder. For starters, it has to be considered illegal.”
huh? The willful distruction of life isn’t murder? In history many things were not illegal but were immoral and wrong. I’ve put the list up before….but you seem intelligent enough to understand this.
“This is not indicative of human life. Organ donors still have beating hearts too. So why is okay to cut them open and remove viable organs?”
You’re kidding me right? The organ donor is on life support which means that the heart is not beating because of the persons body. It means that outside forces are beating the heart. A fetus has a heartbeat that is controlled completely by the fetus and not an outside source. HUGE difference here.
“Involuntary movement is only indicative of the most rudimentary nervous action. ”
Which is the beginning of human development is it not?
“I need sources, and I need to know the age of the fetus.”
That information is in “In the Womb”.
“Emotional appeals have no place in this debate.”
What emotional appeal? If what I said was an emotional appeal and not an example I would have said something like “what about the helpless woman who has not choice but to kill her husband before he kills her. Now she has to go through the horrors of proving in the court of law that it was self defense……”
I have many more comments to you…but I need to save what is left of my hair for now….
They cant be honest about the size of the product of abortion. Thats why pictures have to be enlarged to ridiculous sizes.
Actually, most abortion first-trimester abortion pictures have fingers/coins/pencils so that the viewer can gauge size.
Not that it matters- a skinner human or a fat human, a tall human or a short human- they’re all equally human- no matter the size.
By the way, living and aborted embryos have little faces, eyes, and hand stubs. And you say nothing is distinguishable?
Furthermore, if I were ripped to pieces by a suction machine and was unidentifiable, does that somehow excuse my murder?
Let’s open another can of worms:
This is not indicative of human life. Organ donors still have beating hearts too. So why is okay to cut them open and remove viable organs?”
It’s absolutely NOT okay.
You’re kidding me right? The organ donor is on life support which means that the heart is not beating because of the persons body. It means that outside forces are beating the heart.
That’s not true. Unless the patient is on a bypass, there are no machines to artificially beat the heart (like there are machines to artificially breathe).
So essentially, you are killing a living person to procure their organs. You are cutting them open, alive, and killing them by removing their vital organs. This is not okay.
“TexasRed,
maybe you can explain to me what an aborted 22 week-old unborn baby looks like? can you?
Texas: Jasper, it would be a fetus. And if YOU want to provide a picture that you can prove really IS a picture of an aborted fetus, and you can tell us all how the picture was obtained, where the picture came from, who took it, when it was taken, where it was taken, and why the abortion was performed then YOU can present it as THE TRUTH. But if all youre doing is copying pictures from a web page then you dont have the foggiest notion if those pictures are the truth or not, and youve made it abundantly clear that you dont care.”
But texas, please explain how the picture of the aborted 22 week-old “fetus” is different from the one I posted? Because you seem confident the one I posted is fake. I want to know the truth. Please explain.
OOPs — Enigma – I do feel I have to respond to this…
“So your argument here is that I should not argue that there might be a predisposition to be gay because that might lead to parents aborting their potentially gay fetuses? ”
No, I’m saying be careful in that argument. I’m saying that I would rather not know if homosexuality is genetic. Don’t you think the homosexual community is discriminated enough. Now with medical science people can discriminate before birth. How horrible is that thought!
“That does not mean, however, that wide-scale eugenics is practiced through the use of abortion.”
Did you not read that it is estimated, by scientist- not pro-lifers, that 90% of down’s babies are aborted? Do you really think all these babies would have been aborted if they didn’t have Down Sydrome? They are aborted because they are not perfect. They are aborted because people say they just can’t handle a child with disabilities. They are aborted because they are considered imperfect. Is this not eugenics?
So Jacqueline you are against organ donation even if someone volunteers themselves for it?
Hi Jacqueline. I hate to go around trying to interpret what people are saying, but I was under the impression that the first quote you gave from TexasRed could be answered using the principle of totality, which says that “A part of the body exists for the good of the whole, and therefore limbs, for example, may be amputated if it is necessary to protect the rest of the body.” This concept gives a sound philosophical reasoning for why we cut people open and such. Does that answer your objection, Texas? God love you, Jacqueline and Texas.
Enigma -
I just can’t stop…
“So it’s our fault that we’re treated like objects? Lovely logic there. Blame the victim.”
I have no idea where you got that…. maybe you should re-read what I wrote. I wasn’t saying the YOU act this way. I was saying that WE do not do or say anything when women do this. Look at TV shows that tell our children it is fine to dress like I described and then lie to them and say they will get the high powered position while dressed like that. I wasn’t by no means blaming the victim… I was saying that this society needs to stop catering to everyone and be honest. Should women be able to dress anyway they want and still be professional and in a good job. Yes. Is this reality? No. Will it ever be reality? I don’t see how. As many here have stated time and time and time again; we are sexual beings. And in today’s society it is considered okay to act on our sexual wants and desires with limited self-control or excuses when there is no self-control.
I just went on a tagent didn’t I? did I at least stay on the subject at hand? I forgot to take my adderall today so I’m beginning to lose my thoughts…..
Joe -
“Homosexuals are a perplexing bunch. Some of them support NAMBLA a pedophile organization. Others frequent public bathrooms for sex which spreads all sorts of very dangerous STDs. Some absolutely detest women to the point they can’t be around them.”
The people you just described are deviants. They are by no means the norm. They do not represent the homosexual community in any way at all. Trust me – I’ve been to enough “fag parties” (my gay friends words, not mine) to know this. also…There are many deviants in the heterosexual community too.
Yay Valerie! *applauds*
For PIP.
http://tinyurl.com/35gm9n
For Joe:
http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?coll=news_articles&sernum=2005/08/01/2&page=1
So Jacqueline you are against organ donation even if someone volunteers themselves for it?
Donated kidneys, partial livers and other organs that don’t kill the donor are morally fine (and morally exceptional sacrifices). But I couldn’t kill myself to offer you my heart and lungs, because our lives are of equal worth. Even if I suffer massive head trauma and can no longer communicate, my life retains its worth and no one can kill me by going in and removing my heart, liver, lungs, etc.
I oppose vital organ donation because you have kill someone to do it. Vital organs can only be removed from living people (while they’re alive). That is why the thousands of people that die naturally everyday take their organs to the grave. People don’t die and then their organs are harvested- they suffer a brain injury and are killed during the harvesting. In fact, that is why the definition of “brain death” was invented- because new medical technologies existed to transplant organs, but there needed to be some way to get these organs. So they invented a fake version of death.
Furthermore, harvesting is done without anesthesia. If you talk to people that recovered from coma, persistent vegetative states and other brain injuries, you’ll find that many were cognizant, only non-communicative. They claim that they felt pain. So that means many of these organs donors are cut apart while alive (and they feel this).
Brain injured and brain damaged people retain rights to their organs.
(for the newbie) Enigma:
you keep insisting that the use of the word ‘child’ is NOT appropriate … that ‘fetus’ is a better term and PL should use this medical term. A bnig part of the problem with the use of this word is that it is used to indicate a period of gestation for ALL SPECIES. In this context then a newborn (of any species including humans) is called a ‘neonate’.
Not very specific. Humans with to call young ones of their species by several words: children, infants, babies, child … etc. This is species-specific and not period specific. ”Tis weird because when humans denote period-terms, they always imply species as well …. like ‘teen’, ‘senior’. Therefore the use of the words ‘child’ or ‘baby’ is a much more accuratye term for the lady of ouir species carrying a human-baby … this is the main reason we have a ‘baby shower’ and not a ‘fetus shower’!
Leah and Enigma,
The word ‘equal’ when applied to humans is fairly recent. It started with a French mathematician/philosopher in the 16th century, called R
“TexasRed,
maybe you can explain to me what an aborted 22 week-old unborn baby looks like? can you?
Texas: Jasper, it would be a fetus. And if YOU want to provide a picture that you can prove really IS a picture of an aborted fetus, and you can tell us all how the picture was obtained, where the picture came from, who took it, when it was taken, where it was taken, and why the abortion was performed then YOU can present it as THE TRUTH. But if all youre doing is copying pictures from a web page then you dont have the foggiest notion if those pictures are the truth or not, and youve made it abundantly clear that you dont care.”
But texas, please explain how the picture of the aborted 22 week-old “fetus” is different from the one I posted? Because you seem confident the one I posted is fake. I want to know the truth. Please explain.
Posted by: jasper at August 31, 2007 4:02 PM
***************************
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. You insisted the picture you provided was ‘the truth’. The fact of the matter is you didnt know if it was the truth or not and you dont really care. Youre proving that – and proving my point. You dont have any problem lying if it serves your purpose.
The website I sent you admits that 90% of abortions are first trimester. I always quote that statistic. Again, there is no reason to want to hide that fact. Also, the fact that biology says that what is involved in an abortion is (sometimes) nonviable tissue and cell structure is not to the exclusion of its humanity. I mean, you and I are tissue and cell structure, but we are much more than that. Look at all these quotes http://www.clinicquotes.com/killing.html from those involved in abortion. God love you Texas.
**********
Im not mindless, Im not insensate and Im most obviously viable. Comparing a person to an embryo or fetus is absurd. As for your ‘quotes’ – again, you have no way at all of knowing if those ‘quotes’ are the truth or not – and you dont care. If they are just inventions made up by some antichoicer so what – they suit your purpose and if they arent the truth it doesnt matter.
There are many deviants in the heterosexual community too.
***********************************
Back on AOL several years ago I was in a political chat room and a fellow IMd me and walked to talk about shoes – buying them, trying them on, wearing them – in detail …. hoooooooooo boy!
They cant be honest about the size of the product of abortion. Thats why pictures have to be enlarged to ridiculous sizes.
Actually, most abortion first-trimester abortion pictures have fingers/coins/pencils so that the viewer can gauge size.
Not that it matters- a skinner human or a fat human, a tall human or a short human- they’re all equally human- no matter the size.
By the way, living and aborted embryos have little faces, eyes, and hand stubs. And you say nothing is distinguishable?
Furthermore, if I were ripped to pieces by a suction machine and was unidentifiable, does that somehow excuse my murder?
Posted by: Jacqueline at August 31, 2007 3:52 PM
******************************************
The pictures are enlarged to a ridiculous rate. Sticking a quarter by it doesnt change that. YOU may be no more significant than a mindless insensate nonviable oblivious collection of tissue and cell structure but that doesnt mean everyone else has to see themselves as being that inconsequential. And in a suction curettage abortion nothing is distinguishable. You have a really severe problem with reading comprehension dont you? And gibbering about YOU being ripped apart by a suction machine just makes you look idiotic – but it proves my point about antichoicers resorting to hysterical melodramatic idiocy when they cant cope with the discussion. By the way, abortion isnt murder.
A biology lecture does further my argument. Sex isn’t for procreation. However, procreation is because of sex. My point is that when you have sex, you know that procreation might happen. Now, if I didn’t know biology…… Anywho, since you know this, and you know that your are creating a human which is at the beginning of the development process – This means you are now responsible for that life wheather you wanted it or not because it was you who had sex knowing the consequences. This has nothing to do with bodily autonomy at this point because we are dealing with a developing, living, human being. This human being didn’t demand to be put there, this human being didn’t force its way in. This human being became in excistance because of your actions. You are now responsible for this life. (FYI – You is the general “you” not you you.)
*********************************
Agreeing to sex is not agreeing to pregnancy any more than going swimming is agreeing to drown or driving is agreeing to have a car wreck. And no, I do not agree that oblivious nonviable mindless tissue and cell structure is ‘a human’ or ‘a human being’. And its certainly not on an equal level with a thinking feeling reasoning person who knows a great deal more about HER situation than you do.
Brain injured and brain damaged people retain rights to their organs.
Posted by: Jacqueline at August 31, 2007 5:00 PM
***********************************
If they turn off the machines then the person dies. Youre also going to have brain damage which shows that ‘who’ that person was is already dead. I’m an organ donor. If Im brain dead and my organs are only functional because of machines then Id like to be able to help someone else whose in need. But you’d stop that. Again – control freak mentality -
May the Lord give me strength.
Earlier today I agreed with something Enigma said. and now I have to agree with TexasRed’s 8:16 post.
Does this mean we need to get the minions in Hell some winter jackets?
Anywho…. I do disagree with TexasRed (yea…the pigs don’t need flyer permits yet!) about the “fetus” being just a blob…or whatever it was that was said. I wish I had a scanner that worked! I’m trying to get the ultra sound pictures of my daughter on the computer. It was when she was 8 weeks in gestation. You can see her hand, head, back, legs, foot…toes..fingers… She was just movin’ and shaken, it was difficult for the nurse to get the pictures… The reason I had the ultra sound so early was because my son was born 9 weeks early and I had 3 miscarriages after that so they kept a close eye on everything. I also have her birth certificate showing when she was born and that I am her biological mother; and the ultra sound pictures have the date on them with my name and location. This is proof this is her and proof she was only 8 weeks.
Also, when I was having complications in my pregnancy with my son it was amazing the attitude he had. He either hated, or liked to play with the monitor used to listen to his heart beat and other stats… They would put the monitor on my belly and then use a strap to keep it in place. He would just kick and punch that thing like it was a punching bag! The nurse had to keep adjusting the location and he would kick it out of place. and yes, he does still have that attitude.
No reason for that last story other than I think it is a cute story. I’m tired and I like to babble when I’m tired….
Going to bed now…
Good night!
TexasRed:
“Back on AOL several years ago I was in a political chat room and a fellow IMd me and walked to talk about shoes – buying them, trying them on, wearing them – in detail …. hoooooooooo boy! ”
EWW… I met this guy that creeped me out while in college. He kept trying to feel my feet. It was just weird. Later, he got arrested because he was hiding in the cloths rack in the women’s department and he was sniffing everyone’s feet while they looked through the cloths…
oops… cloths… clothes…there is a difference isn’t there?
EWW… I met this guy that creeped me out while in college. He kept trying to feel my feet. It was just weird. Later, he got arrested because he was hiding in the cloths rack in the women’s department and he was sniffing everyone’s feet while they looked through the cloths…
Creepy!
Valerie, it wasn’t this guy, was it?
Man with foot fetish licks woman’s foot in parking lot
That was last year, do you remember hearing about that?
Okay, honestly, this is my last comment of the day for awhile (I promise not to pull a Danny!)…
@Valerie: The comments about hell freezing over…that very well could be the case. It has been chillier than normal here in Minnesota, and considering that we are a blue-state, we are fueled and heated by the fires of Hell (*joke!*). It’s often surprising who we find we agree with and on what we agree with. Since I’m takin’ a break, feel free to email me (I forgot your email address! Which is why I haven’t emailed you in awhile! Sorry Valerie!!!).
Anyvay, I’ll be back posting in a couple weeks, and I’ll make sure to post up photos of my new apartment.
Have a good early-September folks!
Be back soon, Rae! I am looking forward to seeing pictures!
Oh and this is for you, Rae:
Valerie, Texas Red
I also am in favor of organ donation. If the person is only being kept alive by machinery it should be their choice what to do.
I’m reading a book for my Christian Morality health care class. It’s called “First Do No Harm.” Its about an Ethics committee in a Houston hospital and the sort of cases they are lookign through and all the different perspectives and difficult questions they pose. Most of them are life issues, DNRs, etc. A lot of their decisions are based on the patients wishes (granted they are deemed competant enough to make them).
I highly recommend it and find it hard to put down, honestly.
Others on the list of books I”m going to read for my class:
-Hot Lights, Cold Steel: Life, Death, and Sleepless Nights in a Surgeon’s First Years
-Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical complicity, and the War on Terror
-The Cracker Factory
-Wit
I’ll let you know how they are.
Btw everyone, I absolutely love my teacher so far. He’s a Jesuit priest but so radically liberal its hilarious. I think every class he tells us to go see Sicko (which is brilliant btw). And he lets his political views slip out (The other day he said George W. Moron) but then says, “I’m not going to be political.” Every class! God love him.
PIP, Rae,
Good-luck with school…I hope it goes well for you.
btw: PIP, get I the name of that Jesuit? …they have led so many Catholics astray by their false (heretical) teachings…Also, maybe Michael Moore should ask Castro why he left his own country to get medical treatment…
oh, I’m a lousy typer
*btw: PIP, Can I get the name of that Jesuit?*
…it’s OK if you don’t want to give it.
PIP – Thanks for sending me the post to gay-dot-com. But I was wondering what I was supposed to learn from it. Perhaps you could explain it to me.
My post showed a prominent homosexual turned straight, then condemned the homosexual lifestyle. Doesn
Jasper,
what?! You are telling me the largest Catholic order int he world is heretical?
The group that spreads the word of Jesus in countries so politically unstable that they are often killed because they aren’t allowed?
The group focused on education, not in brainwashing, encouraging people to think for themselves?
The group steadfastly concerned with social injustice?
The group that helped Jews escape the holocaust?
The collective colleges they run that are some of the best in the country (Boston College the largest, Georgetown the oldest, SLU the second oldest)?
The ones who call themselves the company of Jesus?
Are you saying that because some of them are more liberal than others they are heretical?
Did you read it? It was an ex-gay that turned against his own creation after his best friend COMMITTED SUICIDE after trying out the program. Since then he has condemned the ex-gay lifestyle, saying it does more harm than good.
My articles is just as valid in terms of “who says what”.
*grr article
“what?! You are telling me the largest Catholic order int he world is heretical?”
Not all Jesuits PIP, but yes, many are.
“The collective colleges they run that are some of the best in the country (Boston College the largest, Georgetown the oldest, SLU the second oldest)?”
These are not “Catholic” colleges anymore PIP. any Catholic college that allows the “Vagina Molologues” performance is not Catholic.
http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/LoveResponsibilityProject/OverviewoftheCampusCulture/tabid/138/Default.aspx
Texas Red *poor thing* She’s been fighting a losing battle for 5-6 years now. You would never convince me. Don’t tell me that I am a woman hater. That’s your scummy title. Off to bed.
Doug,
MK, we all do things where we take on risks, but that really is not any necessary agreement to suffer the consequences without seeking remedies.
If you get cancer, I’d expect you to fight it, to seek treatment, to try and get rid of the unwanted situation. Same for people with unwanted pregnancies – they often will get abortions. There was a risk, and the unwanted condition occurred.
If you got pregnant, I would expect you take responsibility and let the child live.
And that point wasn’t “getting rid of” the problem, the point was that every time I light a cigarette, I consent to the risk.
Bobby Bambino, I don’t know who you are, but you are awesome!
PIP,
Certainly the Jesuits have contributed GREATLY to the Church, but Jasper is right. At some point they took a turn for the worse. They are know as the scholars and teachers and some of them, actually, many of them, got really caught up in the “knowledge” craze of the enlightenment. They stopped worshiping God and started worshiping knowledge. This led them away from the true Church, and because they were teachers, they led others with them…Read Malachi Martin’s books ” The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church” and
“The Keys of This Blood: The Struggle for World Dominion between Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev, and the Capitalist West”.
Sad but true.
“These are not “Catholic” colleges anymore PIP. any Catholic college that allows the “Vagina Molologues” performance is not Catholic.”
No offense jasper, but that comment is really stupid.
Just because a campus is Catholic doesn’t mean they should suppress free speech. In fact, that is what I like about the Jesuits. At SLU, they teach Christianity, but they don’t force you to attend mass. They have a large Campus Ministry and subsequent Christian opportunities and activities and you are required to take theology courses. It doesn’t mean they should force people with other religions to attend their services or do the activities. SLU welcomes diversity, and I never heard of any Catholic doctrine that recommends people forcing others to attend mass. In fact I would never attend any college that would force people to do that. Encouragement is different than force. And I believe that is a value the Church should be proud of.
They allow people to express opinions. Just because they let a play go on that is “against church teaching” (god forbid someone tells us vaginas are beautiful and to be proud of being a woman–but I doubt you have even seen a performance) does not mean they have to agree with what they are saying. Perhaps you are missing the point of college–learning to think for yourselves? Again, God forbid they teach people to think. If it leads others to a different conclusion, they are “worshipping knowledge.”
Basically, MK and jasper, I just simply disagree. I don’t think that heresy is the same as education. I have never heard a jesuit (and many of our teachers are) say anything remotely heretical. Furthermore our classes generally have religious undertones anyway. I was shocked to learn that in physics class, the teacher prays the Our Father before the lecture. My Christian Morality classes always start off with a prayer. They have always supported vigils for people on death row, protests against the School of Americas, and other fights against social injustice.
I think they are simply living God’s word. I just don’t believe that education should ever be heresy. It’s wrong.
“Why can’t you decide for yourselves what is right?”
@PiP,
before you get too wrapped-up in Jesuits … it might help you to understand that the Christian calling is NOT simple, nor easily undertaken. People often confuse comfort/success as ‘proof-of-success’. Jesus did not sweat-blood for nothing!
The whole scene with ALL the apostles (including Peter and John) running away from Jesus’ death makes us all uneasy. These guys saw Jesus first hand … He even (just the night before) called them His friends!
Too often people like to split …. and to spit … at faith-problems. I too have mine … and I do not think my response would be much better than the apostles. We all retain much fear even if Christian … and even if Jesus Himself said: “Be not afraid!” – it’s very, very hard.
PIP,
I don’t want to get into a huge debate about the Jesuits. It’s one of those things that it would really take a lot of researching to understand…Certainly, not all Jesuits are heretical. Heck, Father Mitch Pacwa is one of the most conservative Catholic Priests around and he’s a Jesuit. But he’d also be the first to tell you that are problems in the Jesuit community.
Yes, they do great works in the social area. That is one of the complaints. They make phenomenal social workers, but that doesn’t translate into phenomenal priests. Many of them don’t believe in the True Presence, or confession, ad infinitum.
Seriously, research it yourself. I’m really sorry if I (or Jasper) upset you. But Jasper and I have been immersed in the Catholic Church now for years and you’ll just have to trust us that there is stuff that goes on that ain’t kosher.
Regardless, it isn’t right of us to blast priests in public for any reason and I’m just going to shut up now before I find myself in a bad place.
Continue to love your teachers. Learn from them.
But always be aware that there are Catholics in every part of the church that are not “really” Catholic…and the way to check if something is accurate or not is the Catechism. That’s why it’s there, so that it’s not Jasper says, or MK says or the priest says…the Catechism is our “check” book. If you ever have any doubts, just look there.
“MK, we all do things where we take on risks, but that really is not any necessary agreement to suffer the consequences without seeking remedies.
If you get cancer, I’d expect you to fight it, to seek treatment, to try and get rid of the unwanted situation. Same for people with unwanted pregnancies – they often will get abortions. There was a risk, and the unwanted condition occurred.”
MK: If you got pregnant, I would expect you take responsibility and let the child live.
Well that’s just it – you’re stating your desire, there, not any responsibility on my part. If pregnant, I’m the one responsible, not you, and I can continue or end the pregnancy.
……..
And that point wasn’t “getting rid of” the problem, the point was that every time I light a cigarette, I consent to the risk.
I understand that, but that is acknowledging risk of the appearance of the condition, not consent to continuing it, same as for being pregnant.
Doug
Very, VERY well said, MK.
“and the way to check if something is accurate or not is the Catechism. ”
Thats exactly the advice that I was going to give. God love you, MK and PIP.
Please Doug,
Don’t insult me by comparing getting rid of cancer to getting rid of a child…while that might be your valuation, it ain’t mine. I’d do better to get rid of the cigarettes!
Thank you Bobby,
I didn’t realize you were a fellow Catholic.
By the way, welcome to the site. You are a wonderful addition!
MK,
I agree that we shouldn’t debate about it. I tend to be defensive about them because I am somewhat partial toward the way they do things. They are more conservative than I on many issues, but they value education and choice-the use of one of God’s greatest gifts.
I just have to say though, that social justice should not ever be considered a criticism. SLU for example has trained many priests that go to my parish in Oklahoma and I always considered them very good at what they do. I also think faith without works is dead. Jesus said, “By their fruit you will recognize them…every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit…Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
I can’t imagine the tolerance of injustice to be the will of the Father. So Jesuits are not only worshipping God and spreading the Truth, they are actually carrying out the example of Jesus Christ.
Again I agree we shouldn’t get into it as I have a lot to learn about the different religious groups, but I think this needed saying.
PIP,
Sorry if you misunderstood me. Social work per se is WONDERFUL…just look at Mother Theresa! The problem is when you do the social work in your own name instead of in the name of Jesus. Never did I mean to imply that social work or education was bad. Just that you have to remember who you’re working for. Does that make sense? I’m sorry I said anything negative. Like I said, I haven’t met every Jesuit and I’m very uncomfortable bad mouthing a priest for any reason…peace. You have the right idea…faith without works IS dead.
God bless…
@Doug,
When confronted with a situation, a priliminary ‘valuation’ takes place … is it good or bad?’ Then a secondary ‘valuation’ takes place … based on – ‘what to do about it, now?’ The ‘morality’ of this situation is not based on the ‘valuation’ but on selecting which option is taken. One of principle problems with your analysis is: there is no secondary ‘valuation’ list because IMO, one option is to change the initial valuation … from negative to positive.
Texas Red, you have an answer for everything, yet nothing makes sense. Why would you say that, that girl had issues? Yes. She had issues alright. She slept with a guy too soon. You are a misogynist. You don’t offer up one ounce of sympathy for that woman. You talk in circles, Iva.
MK: Don’t insult me by comparing getting rid of cancer to getting rid of a child…while that might be your valuation, it ain’t mine. I’d do better to get rid of the cigarettes!
They can be compared, but that is not saying they are “equal” in all respects. I am just noting that both can be unwanted situations. That’s not my valuation, that’s just fact.
Another analogy would be somebody telling a cancer patient to just accept it, since it’s “God’s will,” etc. There indeed are people with such beliefs, but of course they may well not apply to the patient themself.
Doug
John: When confronted with a situation, a priliminary ‘valuation’ takes place … is it good or bad?’
Well of course, and it depends on what is desired. A pregnancy can be a source of great joy or great dread, etc.
……..
Then a secondary ‘valuation’ takes place … based on – ‘what to do about it, now?’ The ‘morality’ of this situation is not based on the ‘valuation’ but on selecting which option is taken.
Nope, I disagree. The “what to do” is going to come from what is wanted and what is unwanted. Once we identify the desire, the course of action is often clear. Many women will continue pregnancies. Many will have abortions. Many will just think about it for a while. For some, their morality makes it exceedingly unlikely they would end the pregnancy. For others, that in no way applies.
……..
One of principle problems with your analysis is: there is no secondary ‘valuation’ list because IMO, one option is to change the initial valuation … from negative to positive.
I don’t know why you would even say that, John. If a women ends up deciding to keep a pregnancy, that’s fine with me. Likewise, some women first choose to continue along, then end up deciding to have abortions. No argument that the first feelings may change – I am for leaving it up to the woman.
Doug
“No offense jasper, but that comment is really stupid.”
LOL!!!
Hi PIP, I agree with MK. …..you’re an intelligent young lady. God-Bless…
John,
Valerie,
@Enigma
“This is also why I favor legislation that makes it illegal for anyone but the mother to kill the fetus. She has that right because she is in a unique position. The fetus is inside her body and dependent upon that body. Since she owns that body, she has the right to decide whether or not to grant another individual access to that body.”
It is weird that you assert this because it is so easy to apply the Shylock-principle [The Merchant of Venice" W. Shakespeare] here!
(*1)All medical helpers are not qualified to assist, because they too are NOT the pregnant woman. (*2) The whole concept of body autonomy is the human aspect of will. Because it is immaterial it must remain so (by law). So the power of body-autonomy means that by will alone … a woman aborts; changes her mind from unwanted to wanted; options to adopt, or, uses ALL her own volition to become ‘un-pregnant’ (that’s akin to using will-power to overcome depression).
you did not do enough thinking about uniqueness and ‘equality’. These are mutually exclusive terms because ‘equals’ is a term of comparison. These cannot (nor should not) co-exist.
“Then why not use the term
@Doug,
As I keep insisting, you – Doug – are very important segment about whether a pregnancy is continued. If a woman detects an environment that is hostile to her remaining pregnant … she will often choose abortion. It is not is free but a coerced decision. And “I am for leaving it up to the woman.” is not affirming … in fact such coolness/fence-sitting is really hostile.
Before TexasRed pipes in, tell me honestly if the powers of decision that seem critical to you have made TR a freer human? [Her vehemence speaks volumes? I would not wish her aloofness on anyone.]
So you mean that you won
Bethany,
John,
@Enigma,
“Will the paternalistic undertones of this society ever go away?’
Sure hope not …. the ‘rights’ in the American Constitution can easily be characterized as paternalistic. Aren’t the Founders (all men) who found you equal? [somebody here figured 'equal' meant white, rich, men.] Isn’t that paternalistic?
My debate with you is to show you that humans function as a team/collective/together/in solidarity … if this offends you, get over it! ‘Tis strange you employ a right to screw with another’s existence and feign desperation when someone just talks to you (calling this paternalism)!
Poor-bonding is one of the major complications arising from abortion. My father was an alcoholic … I can hardly explain just how dysfunctional it made all my sibs. [ME, well I'm perfect! ... a paternalist too.] In much the same way … a pro-abortion/pro-choice stance is a basic message that a child’s existence was may be just a whim/fancy of his mother …. you know the lady who cannot decide which hat to wear.
Shylock was the main character in this Shakespearean play. He insisted on carving out his pound of flesh from a person with a debt in arrears. The defense said “Fine, but not a single drop of blood is your due. So, you are welcome to the pound of flesh but you cannot have any blood.” In your fight for abortion … any kind of assist is forfeit, because these are NOT a woman’s body. In the same way pure will amounts to nothing … gather 100, 1000 or 10,000 people and ask them to will a piece of paper to rise (if it even moves at all) that would make the tv news!
Doug,
They can be compared, but that is not saying they are “equal” in all respects. I am just noting that both can be unwanted situations. That’s not my valuation, that’s just fact.
Sorry babe, but is my valuation that it IS your valuation and it is not my valuation that it is fact. And the fact that you think it is fact is just your valuation, because that is my valuation.
Capiche?
John, the Founding Fathers did mean white men, landowners really. Women weren’t allowed to vote, etc.
For poor bonding, maybe and maybe not. If one’s parents are pro-choice, one knows they were really wanted, rather than the pregnancy being continued because the mom was following the party line, so to speak. I realize it doesn’t have to be that way, but anecdotal stuff isn’t much good proof, often.
Doug
John: As I keep insisting, you – Doug – are very important segment about whether a pregnancy is continued. If a woman detects an environment that is hostile to her remaining pregnant … she will often choose abortion. It is not is free but a coerced decision. And “I am for leaving it up to the woman.” is not affirming … in fact such coolness/fence-sitting is really hostile.
John I just have to disagree. In no way is it hostile to want a woman to be free to make her own best choice.
If there is implied hostility towards women, it most usually comes from religious extremists.
Doug
“They can be compared, but that is not saying they are “equal” in all respects. I am just noting that both can be unwanted situations. That’s not my valuation, that’s just fact.”
MK: Sorry babe, but is my valuation that it IS your valuation and it is not my valuation that it is fact. And the fact that you think it is fact is just your valuation, because that is my valuation. Capiche?
No, I don’t really get why you follow a line of reasoning that is obviously incorrect. Both cancer and pregnancies can be unwanted.
Doug
John: Before TexasRed pipes in, tell me honestly if the powers of decision that seem critical to you have made TR a freer human? [Her vehemence speaks volumes? I would not wish her aloofness on anyone.]
John – “aloof”? Just which TR are you thinking of? Iva may be more “in your face” than some would like, but yes – she was certainly freer due to abortion being legal than what she would have been had it been illegal. I say that because I think she had kids during the years after Roe, and like any woman was pregnant she was freer, by many definitions of the word “free.”
I know you sometimes have interesting alternate takes on things, but here she was not subject to dogma from other people, she wasn’t fettered by “shoulds” or “should nots” from others, etc. She was left to make her own free choice.
And that’s what Pro-Choicers want – women to retain the freedom they now have in this matter.
Doug
John:
Doug,
I don’t expect you to “get” why I refuse to compare cancer and a baby…you’re not capable of understanding it. It’s not that I have a problem with the idea of both things being unwanted and you know it…it’s the next leap that you take that I cannot accept. Not wanting cancer? fine. Not wishing to be pregnant? fine. Eliminating the cancer because it’s unwanted? fine. Eliminating a human being because it’s unwanted? Not going to go there.
Don’t expect you to understand.
I think Doug, and I’m not quite sure how to say this without sounding condescending…that on the ladder of philosophy, morals, and reasoning, while your mind might be brilliant, you are stuck on the first rung. In order to argue like you, I would have to climb way down that ladder, and I won’t do it. I believe you valuation outlook is barely above the level of animals. Sorry. That’s my valuation. You may have a way with words, but all you use it for is arguments that quite literally let you “get away with murder”.
I’m sure you’re response will be that I have just given up, and therefore you have won, and that’s fine, believe that along with all of your other skewed views.
It doesn’t matter how well you use words, or turn phrases, or present a perfectly reasonable line of thought because the bottom line is that these are little tiny human people. Not semantics. Not ideas. Not theories. But people. And until you see that, our arguments are going to stay on a very low rung. I feel like they are a waste of time. Our premises are not the same and therefore our arguments are flawed from the get go. You’ll have to find someone else for the time being. You’ve exhausted me. No matter what turn these discussions take, they always come back to one thing. The children. And they are children, Doug.
Truthfully, I find you to be a very scary individual. If you can think this about the unborn, I wonder what else you are capable of rationalizing.
Maybe one day you’ll come to realize that what you “see” is the illusion, Doug, and that which is unseen is real. As I used to say to my son Danny, there is “Danny’s World” and there is the “real world”…I prefer the real one. Where Teri Schiavo is allowed to live til her natural death, where babies are allowed to take their first breath and not called cancers, and uterine goo, and medical conditions and feti…I prefer my babies to be referred to as Mary and Elizabeth and Joseph and Steve. I prefer a world where a double pink line on a stick doesn’t mean a death sentence. Where seeing a pregnant woman doesn’t make me wonder whether that tiny life will every see it’s mother. Where people don’t sit around discussing human beings like objects. Where desire and valuation is not the order of the day. I want a world where angels are real, where God knows my name, where women aren’t afraid to be women and mean aren’t afraid to be men. Where I can believe in a Supreme Being without being told I believe in fairy tales and myths. A world where babies aren’t put down garbage disposals in the name of bodily autonomy. A world where raindrops and mullets can still make me stop in awe…
You want a world where you can do anything you want as long as it furthers your agenda and you don’t get caught. You want a world where “valuation” is just another way of saying “I want, I want and I shall have, at any cost…”
There are two kinds of people in this world Doug.
Givers and takers. I want to hang with the givers. You go across the street and hang with your crowd for now. But for the time being, I need a rest, because quite frankly after our “discussions” and the things I have heard come out of yours and Lauras and Tex’s and Enigmas mouth, I feel dirty. I need a hot shower and a nap…
God be with you. Maybe in a day or two I’ll be refreshed and ready to do battle again, but for now, I plead the fifth.
JOhn,
Exasperation, not desperation.
“In much the same way … a pro-abortion/pro-choice stance is a basic message that a child’s existence was may be just a whim/fancy of his mother …. you know the lady who cannot decide which hat to wear.”
Not at all. It’s a message about respect for women and about their rights to decide what happens to their bodies.
mornin’ Doug,
“John, the Founding Fathers did mean white men, landowners really. Women weren’t allowed to vote, etc.”
Well Doug if this is the case was the extension of equality to a so-called ‘minority’, a Trojan-horse? Were American women, blacks, native folk duped by all that fanfare for what truly was (and still is bs).
Your repetition that choice = freeing …. puts me in mind that this may not sink-into you directly. The following example is to help you discover the community nature of human life: So, if your wife commits suicide (the action of an isolate) … will you assess the situation as ‘her choice’ … her choice makes you free … because she’s dead!
John, you are a genius. You really are.
John, I agree with Bethany!!
Mk – that’s cool, a rest can do us all good, once in a while.
I see your argument as heaviliy depending on putting what you desire “above” or “higher on the ladder” than what other people want, as well as by pretending that your dislike of abortion makes it “murder.”
I will agree with you that the unborn are “human beings” – my words there. I submit that you do not really need a given woman to end her pregnancy, though, not as much as that woman may need to end her pregnancy. On the “giving and taking” – having one less human life is not taking as much from you or from anybody as would be taken from the woman by having her lose her freedom.
You may want a world where angels are real, but that’s not a good enough reason IMO to take away the freedom that women have in this matter.
Doug
Doug, these women have had WAAAYYY too much freedom for the last 34 years!! They are reproductive slobs! How about the woman I know who has had 7 abortions? She was using the abortion clinic as her birth control! Don’t hand me this “Please don’t take away her right to choose.”……After abortion # 5, shouldn’t she have a clue?
“John, the Founding Fathers did mean white men, landowners really. Women weren’t allowed to vote, etc.”
John: Well Doug if this is the case was the extension of equality to a so-called ‘minority’, a Trojan-horse? Were American women, blacks, native folk duped by all that fanfare for what truly was (and still is bs).
No, it wasn’t a Trojan-horse. Women and minorities were later granted more rights. That does not change what the Founding Fathers meant. Their intent was to basically thumb their nose at England, and get a better deal for themselves. This is not to say that women had zero rights, but it was “men” that were created “equal,” and were deemed to have the right to vote, for example, versus women, and the right-to-life, for example, versus slaves.
……..
Your repetition that choice = freeing …. puts me in mind that this may not sink-into you directly. The following example is to help you discover the community nature of human life: So, if your wife commits suicide (the action of an isolate) … will you assess the situation as ‘her choice’ … her choice makes you free … because she’s dead!
Ahem – you are talking about my reaction to the choice of another. The freedom or not here is on the part of the pregnant woman, or, in your example, for my wife.
I don’t want my wife to kill herself. Yes, it would be her choice. Hers is the analogous freedom or not, not mine.
The “community of human life” does not need more people on earth to the extent that we take away the freedom that women currently have in the matter of abortion.
Doug
Heather: Doug, these women have had WAAAYYY too much freedom for the last 34 years!!
I don’t think so. I don’t think you have any real *need* for them to do anything, here, or not do anything. You are almost never aware if a given woman has an abortion, be in across town or across the world. I know you don’t like the idea of abortion, but I do not see how it hurts you, other than as an idea in your mind – it’s something you admittedly hate.
If I’m a pregnant woman, I am going to want that freedom much more than I’m going to want you “satisfied” because some of all of my freedom, there, gets taken away. I don’t “owe you a baby.”
……..
They are reproductive slobs! How about the woman I know who has had 7 abortions? She was using the abortion clinic as her birth control! Don’t hand me this “Please don’t take away her right to choose.”……After abortion # 5, shouldn’t she have a clue?
Abortion *is* birth control, by definition. I can see many reasons why it would be preferable (in my opinion) to have less or no abortions at all. I don’t “like” abortion – heck, it’s bloody, etc., there’s a “yuck” factor for me as with many surgical procedures. But do we, as a society, really have a demonstrable *need* for less women to have abortions? I do not think so.
Doug
“But do we, as a society, really have a demonstrable *need* for less women to have abortions?”
49,000,000 people dead who could have been contributing to SS and you don’t think we have a demonstrable need? Maybe you’ll notice it later.
if your wife commits suicide (the action of an isolate) … will you assess the situation as ‘her choice’ … her choice makes you free … because she’s dead!
John – a little more on this. If my wife were gone, then yes, I’d be more free. Same as a woman who doesn’t have kids is freer, in general, than one who does. This is not at all to say I want my wife to kill herself. Nor is it saying that the mother wants that freedom more than she wants her life with her kids.
I don’t think that very many people really want to be “free of their kids.” Some do, but IMO not too high a percentage overall – they value their kids and accept the way it is, having them.
There was an interesting Ann Landers poll – I think from the 1970s, where the question was, “If you had it to do over again – would you have children?”
Over 10,000 people responded, and 70% said, “No, if I had it to do over again, I would not have children.”
(And Bethany – I know that idea must seem crazy to you.) ((Hug))
Not the same as getting rid of kids they already have, but going back in time and never having any in the first place.
Amazing to me – I’d never have thought such a high percentage would feel that way. And perhaps, even with 10,000+ people, it was somehow a skewed result. 50% would still be amazingly high to me. Or 30%. Heck, even 20%.
It sure shows you how different people can feel, though.
Best,
Doug
“But do we, as a society, really have a demonstrable *need* for less women to have abortions?”
Rosie: 49,000,000 people dead who could have been contributing to SS and you don’t think we have a demonstrable need? Maybe you’ll notice it later.
Rosie, if it’s such a “pyramid scheme” then it’s toast in the long run, anyway. Some of those 49,000,000 would not be contributing, and some would have already been drawing from SS.
This argument has come up on other boards, and once the numbers are crunched, all those extra people would have a positive effect, but it’s only delaying the “collapse” – if we pinpoint one now – by a year or two. Is that worth it to me to deny women tghe choice they now have?
Also, if we simply want more contributors, then I say immigration is the way to go. Focus on highly-educated, highly-motivated people from around the world.
Doug
Doug,
The following comments are from Valerie:
One can breath; one can’t
One has a conscience; one can’t think
One can feel pain; one cannot
One can move independently; one cannot
One has a central nervous system; one does not
One has a heart beat; one does not
One can suck it’s thumb, because this one has a thumb; one cannot suck anything because this one doesn’t even have a mouth
One is the development of life; one is the destruction of life
One is caused by a known specific action; one is caused by unknown factors
Doug,’
And in anticiaption of your answers she will respond…
He’ll say one can’t breathe. I’ll say that science has proven one breaths amniotic fluid – watch “the abyss” it’s explained there.
He’ll say the “baby” does not have consciousness. I’ll say prove it. According to “In The Womb” they do.
He’ll say the “baby” cannot feel pain. Correction: Once cannot perceive pain (go to planned parenthood website, and you’ll see they never say feel – only perceive). This does not mean one cannot feel pain.
He’ll say the “baby” does not move voluntarily. I’ll say watch “In the Womb”
He’ll say the central nervous system isn’t developed. I’ll tell him to study sensory studies in fetus and infants. (My sister has info on this…)
He’ll say a heart beat does not make it a person. Only brain waves and independent “thought” (what he calls sentience even tho I keep telling him he means salience) If a heart isn’t beating, you don’t have life. You can have “life” without brain waves, but you can’t without a heartbeat.
He’ll say sucking it’s thumb is an involuntary action. Does cancer have involuntary actions? nope? okay then.
He’ll say both are taking life…one physically and one by taking the mothers rights. A mother’s right has nothing to do with a beating heart and “life”. It is a concept that has just been developed in recent years.
He’ll say it doesn’t matter what causes it. A woman has the right to get rid of it. Why?
And when all else fails, he’ll say “that’s your valuation!” Prove I’m wrong. I’ve used scientific studies and unbiased sources for my information. What have you used?
also from Val…
They are/can be unwanted. But when you have cancer, there is a 100% chance of death to the “host” if not terminated therefore it must be removed in order to save a life. When you are pregnant there is a .0091% chance of the “host” dying. Ending the pregnancy would not be self defense as it is with ending the cancer. There is your difference. Treating the cancer can cause other health issues. Treating the pregnancy can cause other health issues. That is the only place where they are the same. In the treatment of the two.
Doug,
I just don’t get how you can pretend it’s not a living human being and that by taking it’s life you aren’t committing murder. You may think I pretend that God exists, but since we’re both living in fantasy worlds, I prefer mine. Less blood, more joy, fewer deceptions and I have something to look forward to. Yours is like a dark cave, dank, cold, lonely and filled with the stench of selfishness and death. Thank God you are only pretending to believe these things, because if they were true you’d lead a very empty life.
Viva la fantasy!
@Doug,
Please elucidate for me what freedom means in the case of suicide: a wanting to end this life (a choice) …. to (1) enter another life … which means a belief in the after-life or, (2) enter zip … death has no meaning … a BELIEF. So, either way death is about belief …. and choice is about belief … what you call valuation is choosing beliefs. Choosing abortion is choosing a belief that can be anywhere from a whim to a planned assessment …. same set of beliefs for Doug because your fundamental belief is death is the END.
Death really is an end (for you) … mk and now I too will not answer you …. you have lost big ’cause my time = my friendship [It seems you wish to not-grow to friendship, but to win! like Napoleon, will you crown yourself emperor? …. your-choice/my-choice does it really matter?
John,
It’s hard isn’t it? I know Doug thinks that we are being extemely condescending, but he simply cannot/will not understand what we are saying. Sadly, it will be his loss, not ours. Truth is what it is. It is NOT a matter of valuation, it is a matter of recognition. Recognition that we are not gods, we are spiritual/physical beings that answer to THE GOD.
Here is what my book on angels and demons has to say…
Demons hate nature (since it is God’s creation and reflects his will) and love to pervert the natural order whenever they can. So they love to tempt us to “unnatural acts” -the more unnatural, the more they like it.
and
Physical emotions are moved by chemicals, nerve endings, weather, digestion, hormones, and a thousand other things in the body or the physical world. Animals cannot love without physical emotion. Angels cannot love with physical emotion. We can love with or without physical emotion. We have two kind of love: animal (physical) love and angel (spiritual) love. If we couldn’t love with physical emotion, we would be angels. If we couldn’t love with out physical emotion, we would be animals.
But as Doug says (and you as well) it all comes down to choice…some people just choose to love as animals I guess.
“Also, if we simply want more contributors, then I say immigration is the way to go. Focus on highly-educated, highly-motivated people from around the world.”
Instead of who???hmmm….
Bethany, John, Lauren, Val, etal,
These were the readings at mass today…I’d like to share them with you because I think we could all use a spiritual “boost”!
From the book of Sirach:
My child, conduct your affairs with humility, and you will be loved more than a giver of gifts. Humble yourself the more, the greater you are, and you find favor with God.
What is too sublime for you, seek not, into things beyond your strength search not.
The mind of a sage appreciates proverbs, and an attentive ear is the joy of the wise.
AND FROM HEBREWS: (I love this one)
Brothers and Sisters: You have not approached that which could be touched and a blazing fire and gloomy darkness and storm and trumpet blast and a voice speaking words such that those who heard begged that no message be further addressed to them. (If only Doug and Enigma and the rest could grasp that)
No, you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering, and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect, and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood that speaks more eloquently than that of Abel.
And the Gospel according to Luke:
“When you hold a lunch or a dinner, do not invit your friends or your brothers or your relatives or your wealthy neighbors, in case they may invite you back and you have repayment. Rather, when you hold a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind; blessed indeed will you be because of their inability to repay you. For ryou will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous…
Peace my fellow warriors…if we were doing this for the perks, we’d have quit a long time ago…
also from Val…
“I am going to want that freedom much more than I’m going to want you “satisfied” because some of all of my freedom, there, gets taken away.”
*************MY freedom is more important than anything and anyone. Even if it is just a fraction of freedom taken away, MY freedom is more important.
“This argument has come up on other boards, and once the numbers are crunched, all those extra people would have a positive effect, but it’s only delaying the “collapse” – if we pinpoint one now – by a year or two. Is that worth it to me to deny women the choice they now have? ”
*************MY freedom is more important that an entire society having a better life for two years.
“I know you don’t like the idea of abortion, but I do not see how it hurts you,”
***********MY choice doesn’t hurt you directly so who cares. Just like if I murder my mother who needs constant care, it doesn’t hurt you so it doesn’t matter as long as I have my freedom.
“I will agree with you that the unborn are “human beings”….. I submit that you do not really need a given woman to end her pregnancy, though, not as much as that woman may need to end her pregnancy.”
*****************MY freedom is more important than another human beings life. As long as I am not inconvienced then the termination of a human’s life is okay.
“I see your argument as heaviliy depending on putting what you desire “above” or “higher on the ladder” than what other people want, as well as by pretending that your dislike of abortion makes it “murder.” ”
***********It doesn’t matter what YOU want. It matters what I want. I am more important than you and you don’t matter. YOU may want my mother to live because she is your friend, but it is my freedom that is being invaded, so YOU don’t matter. All that matter is ME.
He isn’t saying that the womans freedom is being taken away because of her pregnancy, because no FREEDOM is taken away then. Having a natural occurrence that does not cause ongoing pain or death happening in your body is not the elimination of freedom. It is natural. The only FREEDOM that is taken away is when the baby is born. No other freedoms are taken away at pregnancy. She can still eat, sleep, have sex. She can still party, listen to music, go to work. She can still talk on the phone, go shopping and visit relatives. What freedoms are taken away during pregnancy. The woman won’t even notice her “organs” being used by this natural occurrence. Is HER prevention of morning sickness more important than a human life? Is HER prevention of having gas or heart burn more important than a human life? Morning sickness, heartburn ….this is NOT freedom being taken away. Is the doctor telling her to eat right and stop smoking eliminating her freedom…no. Because she can still eat horribly and still smoke. She can still drink….. No freedoms are violated……
MK:The following comments are from Valerie: One can breath; one can’t. One has a conscience; one can’t think. One can feel pain; one cannot. One can move independently; one cannot. One has a central nervous system; one does not. One has a heart beat; one does not. One can suck it’s thumb, because this one has a thumb; one cannot suck anything because this one doesn’t even have a mouth One is the development of life; one is the destruction of life One is caused by a known specific action; one is caused by unknown factors
What are we even talking about here?
Doug
MK: He’ll say one can’t breathe. I’ll say that science has proven one breaths amniotic fluid – watch “the abyss” it’s explained there.
This has come up before. Depends on if breathing air is necessarily part of it. I can see the argument either way.
…….
He’ll say the “baby” does not have consciousness. I’ll say prove it. According to “In The Womb” they do.
Does “In The Womb” say they have it at 20 weeks or before? It’s also not a matter of proving the negative. You assert that consciousness is there – the burden of proof is on you.
…….
He’ll say the “baby” cannot feel pain. Correction: Once cannot perceive pain (go to planned parenthood website, and you’ll see they never say feel – only perceive). This does not mean one cannot feel pain.
The deal is consciously being aware of it or not. There is not the brain nor nervous system function at 20 weeks and before for it to occur.
………
He’ll say the “baby” does not move voluntarily. I’ll say watch “In the Womb”
Again, I suspect refelxive movement is trying to be passed off as intentional. What does it say?
……
He’ll say the central nervous system isn’t developed. I’ll tell him to study sensory studies in fetus and infants. (My sister has info on this…)
Again -consciousness or not is the deal. Mental awareness of sensations.
…….
He’ll say a heart beat does not make it a person. Only brain waves and independent “thought” (what he calls sentience even tho I keep telling him he means salience) If a heart isn’t beating, you don’t have life. You can have “life” without brain waves, but you can’t without a heartbeat.
None of that really matters – personhood is a societal construct, and that is the type of personhood at stake in part of the abortion debate, and it is the lack of personhood on the part of the unborn that has you dissatisfied with the current situation.
……..
He’ll say sucking it’s thumb is an involuntary action. Does cancer have involuntary actions? nope? okay then.
What in the world does that mean? Yes, thumb-sucking can be a reflexive action.
……..
He’ll say both are taking life…one physically and one by taking the mothers rights. A mother’s right has nothing to do with a beating heart and “life”. It is a concept that has just been developed in recent years.
You’re just making up silly stuff now. No wonder you don’t want to quote what I really say.
……..
He’ll say it doesn’t matter what causes it. A woman has the right to get rid of it. Why?
Actually, that’s not what I say. Sheesh.
……..
And when all else fails, he’ll say “that’s your valuation!” Prove I’m wrong. I’ve used scientific studies and unbiased sources for my information. What have you used?
You have yet to face the argument honestly, MK. All you’re doing is misstating my position and lamely trying to put words in my mouth. IMO you’re a little bit out of control.
Yes, some things are matters of valuation. but not all are. Physical reality is not. Logic and statistics are not, etc.
I do not pretend that my desire/opinion/moral position is “external.” Let me state it again: “We all have our preferences, but when it comes to taking away the freedom that women have in the matter, then I think there really should be something provable as far as reasoning and motivation – something we all or pretty much all can agree upon, me included.”
I see no need for every pregnancy to be continued, just because YOU want it that way. It is fact that most pregnancies in the US are already willingly continued. It is fact that not all pregnant women want to continue their pregnancies. I do not think what you and others say is a good enough reason to take away the freedom that women currently have in this matter.
Dolug
MK: They are/can be unwanted. But when you have cancer, there is a 100% chance of death to the “host” if not terminated therefore it must be removed in order to save a life. When you are pregnant there is a .0091% chance of the “host” dying. Ending the pregnancy would not be self defense as it is with ending the cancer. There is your difference. Treating the cancer can cause other health issues. Treating the pregnancy can cause other health issues. That is the only place where they are the same. In the treatment of the two.
Oh, okay, MK – I see now. You and Val are comparing cancer to the unborn.
Of course cancer is almost always unwanted – and of course I never said anything differently.
And yes – of course the mortality figures are vastly, vastly different. No argument there, but again – what I said was that they both can be unwanted.
I am well aware of the differences between cancer and the unborn, but you brought up cancer and there is the comparison I made, despite other areas where they are not similar.
On it’s own, cancer is almost always going to be unwanted. If there is no will to live, then it might not be – but no big deal, you get the idea.
Pregnancies are much different, since in the US anyway, most are wanted.
Nevertheless, what I said remains true – they can both be unwanted. A pregnancy can be a situation that is valued negatively, where a remedy is sought.
Doug
MK: I just don’t get how you can pretend it’s not a living human being and that by taking it’s life you aren’t committing murder. You may think I pretend that God exists, but since we’re both living in fantasy worlds, I prefer mine. Less blood, more joy, fewer deceptions and I have something to look forward to. Yours is like a dark cave, dank, cold, lonely and filled with the stench of selfishness and death. Thank God you are only pretending to believe these things, because if they were true you’d lead a very empty life. Viva la fantasy!
MK, I gather you are tired and exasperated from arguing with me.
I suggest then that you don’t waste time putting words in my mouth.
You and Valerie named numerous ways in which the unborn and cancer are different. All fine and good, but I never said those differences don’t exist. Things can be analogous and still be very different in many other ways.
A flat tire and cancer are very different in many ways. However, they too can both be unwanted (and in practice usually are). Anchovies on pizza too. Not saying that the little fishies are “like tires” or “like cancer” or “like the unborn” across the board. Yet – there can be similarities.
I DO think that “living human being” applies to the unborn. The unborn are not legal human beings in all aspects of the term, though in some they are, especially later in gestation. But I am fine with saying “human being” for the unborn – so why waste time saying you don’t get how I can pretend “it’s not a human being”?
Murder is a legal term, not one tied to your or other people’s dislike of abortion. I am not saying it is impossible that abortion would even be deemed murder. It could be – it’s a matter of the law. But as of now it is not.
I accept that you believe as you say you do. Yet you have no proof of the god you mention. I submit that it is fact that some women want to end pregnancies. When I am giving my opinion, I want something that makes sense to me if we’re going to take away sommebody’s freedom and subvert their will. One’s brand of religion isn’t good enough, IMO.
It’s an arguable question as to who leads the “emptier” life – those who have religious beliefs such as yours or those who do not. I’d say it’s obvious that within both groups are many people who feel “empty” and otherwise.
Doug
“Also, if we simply want more contributors, then I say immigration is the way to go. Focus on highly-educated, highly-motivated people from around the world.”
Rosie: Instead of who???hmmm….
Instead of more babies born in the US. There, years would have to go by, in the first place, before any contributions would be made. Also, many pregnancies are unwanted because the mother would be a single parent, poor parent, etc., factors which decrease the amount of contributions the group would be expected to make.
And, we’re not denying the desire of pregnant women by having the immigrants enter our system to contribute.
Doug
John: Please elucidate for me what freedom means in the case of suicide: a wanting to end this life (a choice) …. to (1) enter another life … which means a belief in the after-life or, (2) enter zip … death has no meaning … a BELIEF. So, either way death is about belief …. and choice is about belief … what you call valuation is choosing beliefs.
John, several things – yes, one’s beliefs could influence a choice, for example, of suicide. Let’s say the suffering is of an extent where the person is thinking about suicide. If they are right on the edge, 50/50, then the belief in an afterlife or not may tip that balance. Yes – of course some people belief in an afterlife and some do not.
The freedom as far as suicide is being allowed to do it or not, is being physically restrained from it or not. There may be beliefs about death, but I wouldn’t say that “death is about belief.” Yes – choice can be about beliefs – it’s certainly about desire, but valuation isn’t choosing beliefs, valuation is deeming worth according to one’s desires and beliefs (which could include a god or gods, etc.)
So, as far as elucidation, I’d say it’s quite basic – are we free to kill ourselves or not? While the law most places frowns on it (I think), in reality we are free to do it, to the extent of our abilities, short of being physically restrained from it.
…….
Choosing abortion is choosing a belief that can be anywhere from a whim to a planned assessment …. same set of beliefs for Doug because your fundamental belief is death is the END.
John, that’s simply not necessarily true. You are right that I think death is the end, but in no way would that necessarily apply to a woman choosing abortion. She may believe that the unborn have souls, and that the unborn “go to a better place,” or perhaps certainly a better place than the world she sees for her potential child.
……..
Death really is an end (for you) … mk and now I too will not answer you …. you have lost big ’cause my time = my friendship [It seems you wish to not-grow to friendship, but to win! like Napoleon, will you crown yourself emperor? …. your-choice/my-choice does it really matter?
Our beliefs about death are not provable, either way. Just what have I “done to you” to “lose your friendship”? Everything we say here is our choice. If friendship to you means accepting things you say that cannot be proven, contrary to how the other person feels, then you’re the one missing out, not other people.
There are arguments that can be “won” – things based on shared assumptions, matters of logic, debates where there is an external physical reality that’s provable, etc. The abortion argument really is not that way. I don’t claim external “rightness,” while some do.
Again, distilling it down, here is how I feel – we all have our preferences, but when it comes to taking away the freedom that women have in the matter, then I think there really should be something provable as far as reasoning and motivation – something we all or pretty much all can agree upon, me included.
Doug
MK: I know Doug thinks that we are being extemely condescending, but he simply cannot/will not understand what we are saying. Sadly, it will be his loss, not ours. Truth is what it is. It is NOT a matter of valuation, it is a matter of recognition. Recognition that we are not gods, we are spiritual/physical beings that answer to THE GOD.
I don’t think you’re being condescending. I think you expect other people to accept what you say without proof. I do understand what you are saying.
If I’m a pregnant woman, and you tell me not to end the pregnancy based on your beliefs, maybe I will share them and maybe I will not. If I share them, then you likely don’t have an argument with me. If I don’t, then why should I do what you say? Somebody could tell pregnant women with wanted pregnancies that they should end them, based on what they believe is “Truth,” and what they “recognize” as absolutes, etc. Same deal – why should they follow what that somebody says?
Doug
MY freedom is more important than anything and anyone. Even if it is just a fraction of freedom taken away, MY freedom is more important.
No – the freedom of pregnant women is more important, IMO, than your desire for somebody else to continue a pregnancy. I know you wish they would, but you are not the one pregnant, and I don’t think what you say should trump what they say.
……..
“This argument has come up on other boards, and once the numbers are crunched, all those extra people would have a positive effect, but it’s only delaying the “collapse” – if we pinpoint one now – by a year or two. Is that worth it to me to deny women the choice they now have? ”
MY freedom is more important that an entire society having a better life for two years.
Nope – there’s no guarantee that a given woman would give birth to a contributor to SS, in the first place. She might give birth to somebody that was a net negative for the system, or even somebody that just draws off it most or all their life. Moreover, the number-crunching that I saw was fairly liberal in estimating contributions. If a little less, there wouldn’t be any “better life” in the first place.
You do have somewhat of an argument, though – an interesting question how far we’d restrict someone’s autonomy for the “greater good” in such a situation.
……..
“I know you don’t like the idea of abortion, but I do not see how it hurts you,”
MY choice doesn’t hurt you directly so who cares. Just like if I murder my mother who needs constant care, it doesn’t hurt you so it doesn’t matter as long as I have my freedom.
No, that very well might not hurt me, but society is clear on the matter – and society isn’t saying you should be free to do that. Society is thinking, feeling, people, just as I presume your mother is.
…….
“I will agree with you that the unborn are “human beings”….. I submit that you do not really need a given woman to end her pregnancy, though, not as much as that woman may need to end her pregnancy.”
MY freedom is more important than another human beings life. As long as I am not inconvienced then the termination of a human’s life is okay.
Nope, not “another human being” in such an unqualified way.
……..
“I see your argument as heaviliy depending on putting what you desire “above” or “higher on the ladder” than what other people want, as well as by pretending that your dislike of abortion makes it “murder.” ”
It doesn’t matter what YOU want. It matters what I want.
No – what the pregnant woman wants matters more than what you want. She is the one pregnant, not you. If you’re the one pregnant, then it’s up to you.
……..
I am more important than you and you don’t matter.
That’s ridiculous. I’ve never said anything to that effect. I say that your opinion should not trump the opinion of pregnant women, not without a darn good reason. Same for owning slaves — your opinion should not trump theirs, IMO. Their will need not be subverted to yours, and neither does that of pregnant women.
…….
YOU may want my mother to live because she is your friend, but it is my freedom that is being invaded, so YOU don’t matter. All that matter is ME.
If you really have a problem with born people having right-to-life, you can argue that. I suggest that you know that almost nobody will support you there.
……..
He isn’t saying that the womans freedom is being taken away because of her pregnancy, because no FREEDOM is taken away then. Having a natural occurrence that does not cause ongoing pain or death happening in your body is not the elimination of freedom. It is natural. The only FREEDOM that is taken away is when the baby is born. No other freedoms are taken away at pregnancy. She can still eat, sleep, have sex. She can still party, listen to music, go to work. She can still talk on the phone, go shopping and visit relatives. What freedoms are taken away during pregnancy. The woman won’t even notice her “organs” being used by this natural occurrence. Is HER prevention of morning sickness more important than a human life? Is HER prevention of having gas or heart burn more important than a human life? Morning sickness, heartburn ….this is NOT freedom being taken away. Is the doctor telling her to eat right and stop smoking eliminating her freedom…no. Because she can still eat horribly and still smoke. She can still drink….. No freedoms are violated……
Wrong – as of now women are free to end pregnancies, to a point in gestation. You advocate that freedom being taken away.
Doug
Their first big mistake was when their parents gave them to the government school system to raise them and instill their values in them for 13-14 years or more.
You can’t just undo all the bad programming that comes from a publick skool education over that time period with a few good talks about dating and sex. Parents are the ones who put their vulnerable children into environments that help them destroy their lives when they become adults (which is when they turn 18? 22? 24? 30?).
Moving everthing to the “new poll” post!