Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Debate Hall' started by mamboking053, May 17, 2019.
And what exactly is broken about a womans reproduction organs reproducing?
If there is something happening inside those organs the woman does not want to be happening they are not working as SHE intends them to and should be given the right to correct that if she chooses. It is not currently nature forcing women to unwillingly carry pregnancies to term but the laws of man. To say it's essentially 'gods or natures will' for something to happen and we have no personal choice in the matter we would all be dead by 40 with our bodies having worked just as they were intended to without our or our doctors and scientists say so. We certainly wouldn't have viagra enabling 70 odd year old men to 'naturally' inseminate someone. Developing cancer was an intended act of a persons body against their will and they are more than allowed to try and eradicate this perceived invasion of their body, even if they gave it to themselves with risky behaviors. You made the argument of pregnancy being a deserved action based on risky behavior and shouldn't be allowed to be corrected if the person choses, I made the argument that virtually every other result of risky behavior is allowed to be corrected medically if we are able so why would this be any different?
No I said there's consequence of action because the child has as much a right to live as the mother had a right to reproduce.
If it were something that didn't infringe on anyone elses well being or rights then I'd be right with you that it's the mothers business what they do. But it does infringe on someones wellbeing. That's the difference between removing a cancer and aborting a child.
You can still be charged with manslaughter / murder if you pick up a gun and it misfires
Children don't live inside women's bodies. Were talking about embryos, the potential for life. So you are either raising embryos up to a status above women or lower women's lives beneath those of a potential life. If we can all easily accept a full fledged person has gone brain dead and now only exists as a body, not a living person despite a machine keeping it's heart beating why can we not accept that embryos also at a stage of development they would classify as brain dead https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/the-ethical-brain.html are also not a living person?
The difference being embryos have a potential to become a living person, the brain dead former person will never be so again. It is that potential for life people are so focused on but the well being of the supposed should never take president over the wellbeing of the indisputable.
A person who had a heart attack has the 'potential' to live with the proper care (namely resuscitation and a jolt or two), which is why it is illegal and considered murder to stab someone in the chest even if they have just suffered a heart attack but are not officially declared dead yet. A person who has or is currently suffering a heart attack is not capable of defending themselves, and neither is a 'fetus'.
I have a challenge (of sorts) for anyone willing to accept it. Below is an image of a "fetus/non-viable embryo" that is 12 weeks along. In your own words tell how you would explain to first-grade student or any other child that can see this picture how that this is not a baby yet, it is simply a clump of cells that has the potential for life and that, even though this clump of cells can feel itself being ripped apart, it is not killing anything but cells. How would you explain that while showing this picture?
It took about 2 seconds on an online search to realize this picture depicts a model of a 12 week embryo. Clearly made to look more like a fully developed baby with the physical characteristics of a birthed baby. Try this misguided challenge again with an actual picture of an embryo at 12 weeks.
And not to mention that your heart attack scenario is erred as well. A person who has had a heart attack does not have the potential to live, they are presumably still alive unless they have coded, at which time they have the opportunity to be revived with medical attention. Revived because they possessed a previously viable life.
From the article:
And no one is trying to take away from this experience or the feelings involved. Miscarriage is not an easy thing. Just as no one would rationally tell this woman not to feel the way she does regarding her pregnancy or to treat it such as she chose to do. Equally all women should be given the freedom to make that choice for themselves... and this picture, albeit with a story attached, or any picture depicting any embryo still highlights the fact that we are discussing something that is non viable when not inside a womans body.
The fundamental problem is that in today's world, sex is viewed as a recreational activity, not a procreative one. Because of birth control, instead of people having sex to procreate, people now have sex for almost every reason except procreation. Leave morality aside, even dogs and cats know sex is for procreation. Sure it feels good, to ensure we'll do it, because birthing babies hurts and raising children is a hassle.
This is why every culture, since the beginning of time, has promoted sex inside marriage, has prized virginity, and demanded fidelity, especially from it's women. Everyone knew, sex created children and men wanted to know the children they were raising, paying to raise, and would inherit their name and property, were theirs. Genetically theirs. Sex was for procreation and was built around a stable family unit.
Straying from this standard has always marked the beginning of a culture's decline and if not righted, it's eventual destruction. We now have a culture that promotes sex for recreation and has women filling their bodies with drugs to 'turn-off' their natural procreative functions, in order to recreate. When all else fails, or we're just too lazy, horny, drunk, drugged, or just don't want to, there's always the morning after pill, or Planned Parenthood. When the drugs or whatever fails, we tell women to kill so they can get back to recreating, and back to work.
There was a time that most women valued themselves so highly, that if a man wanted access to her sexually, he had to commit to her sexually for life, sight unseen. Now we can just swipe right, text our address, and invite our buds to stop by. Tomorrow, we can do it all again with another woman, for less than the price of a cup of Joe. (Which reminds me, I need to invite Joe too.)
All the arguments, the talk of zygotes, and fetuses, and viability, all the blah, blah, blah, are the lies we need to tell ourselves to avoid the fact that we've been misusing our bodies in a way not intended by either nature or by God. Sex is now just a relief from boredom, and now we're even bored with sex, so we chase perversions. When we get bored with those ones, we'll invent more, or cool new technology to help with them. This is not progress. Not at all.
Viability is a measure of whether an unborn child or fetus can survive outside the womb. In effect, viability is a measure of our medical/technological sophistication to help the prenatal child to live if born prematurely. Viability does *not* determine whether or not the fetus is human. Being human depends on whether a creature is an individual entity belonging to the biological species of human, making an unborn fetus a human being whether viable or not.
A cluster of skin cells is a cluster of skin cells, not a human being. The cell from the very moment of conception is the first stage of a new individual human being. Other subsequent changes are baby, toddler, child, teen, then adult. Simple biology. A fetus is not a 'potential human being', it is a human being that has the potential to mature. Even the very first cell has all the information needed and will have a certain color hair, eye color, etc. Btw, unlike a brain dead person as metioned earlier, fetuses do have brain activity.
This is something that I came across that I thought was really interesting and insightful : You are running into a fertility clinic that is on fire. You are able to get into a room and you see a 5 year old child cowering in the corner, next to a freezer that contains 10,000 human embryos. You can save one and only one. The child or the embryos. Which do you save?
You seem to have posted in the wrong thread. I'm sure you meant to post in the 'Misogyny: a beginner's guide'
Nice catch 22 situation, but what does that have to do with the topic at hand? You needing to grasp at increasingly absurd moral conundrums shows how bankrupt your position is. You want the convenience of avoiding consequences should your irresponsibility catch up with you.
Indeed it does, which begs the question, "Since you can regulate men's reproductive abilities already, why are you letting men put sperm into your body?" Hold yourselves to a higher standard and you won't have to kill babies you don't want.
Well Mensa Mamma, you'll have to explain how biology is Misogyny. "Oh look boy and girls, we's about to learn a big fancy new term." You're on.
Classic dodge. Can't refute the argument, so let's just label it and call people names with it. Yeah, that'll trick 'em. Sorry. Not fooled. I know the scam.
If you find this to be a catch 22, that would be concerning. As this clearly acknowledges the value of the embryos, they do not have the same value as a living person. That should be the take away.
Which is why I wouldn't play and why your argument is bankrupt. To think that snatching a child out of a fire and opening your legs so a baby can be sucked out is in any way morally equivalent and a 'take away' just shows how deluded you've become. Nothing matters as long as you get your fun. It's a sickness.
@Razorback, you accuse me of "labeling" and calling "names" I would be curious to know how you would categorize your statements about women in this thread. And I still had not the slightest inclination to "name call" or "label" you. That would have been had I used the word misogynistic in reference to you, I refrained... but that hasn't stopped you from making assumptions about me. I want the convenience of avoiding consequences should my irresponsibility catch up to me? How do you know I'm irresponsible? What if I practice safe sex, use contraceptives? Better yet what if I'm sexually abstinent? Unable to have children, even? Maybe I, personally, would not get an abortion. Maybe I've had one, maybe I haven't. It's all irrelevant, I do not get to dictate another womans choice. But I can empower her and lift her up.
I believe that abortions should be available up to a certain point but I also believe that people need to get over their ridiculously conservative views about sex and educate their kids. And I mean a proper education with detailed desciptions about what happens to a womans body when she has sex and becomes pregnant and the consequences after she gives birth.
For those of you talking about adoption, yes it is an option and for those of you who have had a successful journey through it and got adopted by a loving family, great for you but the facts are there are more kids in the system then there are parents wanting to become some random kids parent. There are also a lot of people who foster just for the money and don't give a crap about the kid.More couples turn to IVF and surrogacy first before even thinking of adopting.
Most of the kids in the system don't get a chance at a loving family, they get over looked and then tossed aside when they turn 18. Yeah, maybe they get a little help getting a job and finding a place to stay if they're lucky but what does that matter in the grand scheme of things when they went through most if not their whole lives being unloved and unwanted. I'd rather have that fetus that was aborted because of rape be in the loving arms of god in heaven then down on earth suffering a physical existence.
I've not called you any names, I've simply pointed out how ridiculous your arguments have become, and the common dodge of throwing a label onto an argument you can't argue against, then using that name to dismiss the argument.
Just like your thread quoted above, you don't addressed anything I've said, you just throw out more absurd hypotheticals. What if, what if, what if? Now you're all, "Waaah, you're name calling." Then you use the other classic dodge, "I'm not arguing for me, I'm arguing for others, I'd never kill my baby, I'm just on here defending other women's right to kill their babies. It's not for my convenience, I'm not irresponsible." Look I get it, you fight for the back door because, "What if?"
Then you want to try to make it about your selflessness, so saintly, "Who am I to dictate?" Easy, the same way we dictate that murder and rape are wrong. You understand the morality of it, you draw a line and take a stand. My position is, "Abortion is wrong." Your's is, "Yeah, but what if?"
You fell for the lie. I did too ... but only for a while.