Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 3:09:08 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

One of the issues I had with the law they tried to run through Congress a few years back is that the way it was worded, a woman could be brought up on manslaughter charges if the fetus spontaneously aborted all on it's own.


That particular law was even uglier, hard as that may be to believe.

It is actually rather often that a fetus develops just a little bit, then comes out with the menses.
In those cases, the mother has technically had a spontaneous abortion.
And the only sign of it is a heavy menses.
Possibly a slight delay in it.

My nephandi had one many years ago; we'd messed up the contraception.
The menses were delayed by about a month or so.
Eventually, a solid, thumb-sized mass came out.
She was a bit labile for a while after that.

We were told it was most likely an unviable foetus, that it happens, and this one was just further along.

One of the means by which people voiced their distaste for this law, was that a lot of women started sending their heavier menstrual masses in evidence bags to their local congressmen, so that they could have an idea of the extent of this "crime".

If only one in ten who said they did actually did so, then there would have been thousands of menstrual masses piled up in offices around the country, giving an idea of the resources required to police such a law. The reason for this approach being simply that politicians rarely listen to reason, so putting it as clearly and directly as possible in a manner that cannot avoid showing the magnitude of the error seemed viable to some.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 141
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 3:10:25 PM   
sublimelysensual


Posts: 298
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveluci
 We could debate what "the right state of mind" means for days, I'm sure.  Choosing to partake of an "illegal, addictive substance" as you say is perhaps not the wisest decision one can make.  I wouldn't say that anyone who does is not in their right mind, however.  Are they making what could be one of the worst decisions of their life and one that can and often does lead to disasterous consequences?  Sure.  But people make choices like that everyday involving many things besides drugs.  People enter into relationships and marriages, for instance, that lead to horrible situations.  Do we say they weren't in their right mind because they made very ill-advised choices that led to sorrow?  Not usually.


Actually, that's what I was trying to say, although maybe not as clearly as I could have..that more than likely when they chose to start taking the drug, they were perfectly coherent, and sound. They made the choice, let them face the results. I agree bad judgement isn't equal to not being in their right mind.

quote:

I'm sorry but I don't feel it's up to me to decide who can have children and who cannot.  Doing crack does not necessarily have one thing to do with not having "sense."  It shows very bad decision-making skills and poor judgment, but doesn't mean the person otherwise isn't capable of raising children.  Aside from their addiction - and if it wasn't a part of their life - they may be very sensible people.  It's totally erroneous to assume that all addicts are uneducated, unskilled, incapable people who are "bad" human beings. 
As far as who I do and do not feel should be raising children, boy does that open a can of worms.  I see parents all the time out in public who, based on what I see and hear, should not be raising children.  Or at least it seems to me they aren't raising the ones they have in a healthy manner.  Go to Wal-Mart or McDonald's any day of the week and then get back to me on that...lol...Doesn't necessarily have anything to do with smoking crack, they're just verbally abusive bullies.  Parents who give their tiny children Mt. Dew or Coke to slurp down and fill them full of Happy Meals and candy bars aren't too wise to me either.  Talk about medical bills....juvenile diabetes is bound to follow and be a life long issue for that child.  Paying the expenses of a crack baby is no different to me than paying those of a child who was fed poison (in the form of fat and sugar) until they required medical care at my expense.  But it's so much easier to get indignant and angry at the crackhead mother than it is the one who is lazy and negligent where her child's eating habits are concerned, isn't it?


As much as I may like to think I can control who does and does not have children (laughs) that's way beyond what my opinion can do. No, I don't think people with addictions to illegal substances (which was what we were originally discussing) should have children. Are they the only ones I think that about? No..-laughs..just call me a judgemental slut if you like-.. I don't think parents who are abusive should have children, I don't think parents over a certain age should have children (see the thread about such instead of flaming here please) and I'm sure there's more if I think about it long enough. I'm also not saying all people addicted to crack are stupid, unintelligent,whatever.. but right at that moment, the addiction is a major part of their life, and that does impair any sensibility, cognitive ability, etc..so while they're addicted to the drug, do I think they should be having kids? No. As Aswad pointed out, if they get clean..wonderful, have it reversed.

quote:

Yes, I know what you're saying.  I wasn't making the comparison so much about the people involved.  Those who suffered through the Holocaust and those born with mental illnesses had no choice in the matter that is true.  Someone who chooses to take drugs does have a choice.  My point was more about the methods people would use to make sure that these certain people don't reproduce.  The Jews and those who were mentally retarded weren't considered "fit" to reproduce and thus they were involuntarily sterilized.  The person who would offer a pittance of $50 to a crack addict to be "voluntarily" sterilized is operating, in my opinion, under the same premise - that because this person isn't "fit" to reproduce, let's ensure they can never do so.  And though they would ultimately have a choice in the matter, if they were desperate enough for money and took the $50, they would technically be obligated to go through with the agreement and I don't see that as very "voluntary."  "Here, starving man, I'll give you this sandwich if you'll go get a vasectomy" - that seems about as "voluntary"......luci


  I guess my problem is, I don't think crackheads are fit to reproduce, and while I can see your point about it not being voluntary, to me, they chose to take the drug, so they put themselves in that position.

-smiles- I've enjoyed the discourse..agree to disagree and all that...

-a

_____________________________

"To make oneself an object, to make oneself passive, is a very different thing from being a passive object." -Simone De Beauvoir -'The Second Sex'

(in reply to slaveluci)
Profile   Post #: 142
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 3:14:07 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplySubmissive

I addressed both of these. The woman should take responsability for birth control, always. As in, pills, shots, IUD, whatever.



SimplySubmissive has the universal solution to unwanted pregnancies! Put all women of child-bearing age on contraception!

From what age? From the onset of menstruation? Till when? After the menopause, just in case?

What about those that can't tolerate IUDs, the Pill or NuvaRing, or implants and injections? Do you suggest these women simply don't have sexual intercourse, since we can't rely on men?

Good god, and you are a woman!

_____________________________



(in reply to SimplySubmissive)
Profile   Post #: 143
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 3:28:31 PM   
SimplySubmissive


Posts: 216
Joined: 1/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplySubmissive

I addressed both of these. The woman should take responsability for birth control, always. As in, pills, shots, IUD, whatever.



SimplySubmissive has the universal solution to unwanted pregnancies! Put all women of child-bearing age on contraception!

From what age? From the onset of menstruation? Till when? After the menopause, just in case?

What about those that can't tolerate IUDs, the Pill or NuvaRing, or implants and injections? Do you suggest these women simply don't have sexual intercourse, since we can't rely on men?

Good god, and you are a woman!

Unwanted, unplanned pregnancies are traumatic. As are abortions. I just think it's best to avoid them both.
Obviously, you have the only valid opinion, so I will end my contributions to this thread.

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 144
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 3:28:34 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

You are avoiding my point. Abortion is not killing. An embryo is cluster of cells. It's unable to live outside of the womb. It's not yet alive, its nervous system isn't yet formed, and it depends entirely on the mother for development.


I'm not avoiding your point, I'm addressing it.
Please allow me to be a bit more thorough in doing so this time.
A cell is life. An embryo is a life form consisting of cells. Ending life is killing. QED.

Whether abortion constitutes killing a human, however, is an entirely different question.

It depends on where you draw the line between "human" and "not human".
No known organism can live outside its host environment, so that's out.
For any given definition of life, it does fit all the relevant criterion.
A nervous system does not fully develop until about age 35.
One does not always fully develop at all, e.g. mine.
All children and invalids depend on "life support".

To me, that line is looking rather blurry, but I don't distinguish human from non-human, so that's OK to me.
You will need to establish that line, however, or your position is smoke and mirrors.
Will you share the information about where the line is drawn with us?

A more viable line of argumentation I've used in the past is this:
Abortion is equivalent to withdrawing life support from a patient that could recover.

It might be easier to establish an argument around that.
I haven't quite been able to, though.
And not for lack of trying.

The problem comes down to the fact that every approach that can resolve the issue in a clear and unambigous manner will also (at least as far as I have been able to discern by going through the various permutations) end up supporting an "unsupportable" position by its own arguments. And as I'm not looking for "excuses" to do it, but reasons to hold abortion as a valid choice, any such argument must be carried to its logical conclusion, no matter what that conclusion is.

If the logical conclusion is unsupportable, then the argument cannot be seperated from what made it unsupportable in the first place, and then reused in a the context of abortion without reducing the argument to complete arbitrariness, which is also unsupportable, in my view.

Personally, I find the "extended self-defense" argument a lot easier to deal with.

It'd be lovely if you could come up with another argument that holds, though.
As it is, I'm essentially pro-choice, but I'm uncomfortable about it.
Not ethically, but emotionally. And resolving that would be nice.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 145
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 3:35:54 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MellowSir

It's the woman's body so it's the woman's choice


I despise this view. It's inside of a woman's body. It's dependent on the woman's body. It is not part of the woman's body. It's a different life, and a different body.

It's dependent on the woman, and it makes demands on her body and mind. This is to be creditted. Nonetheless, it is not part of the woman's body any more than a driver is part of a car.

This vast oversimplification leads you, immediately, to an errorenous conclusion. So easy to just look the other way, giving a token justification for something you don't have to touch yourself.


quote:

ORIGINAL: MellowSir

I don't agree with abortion once it's a fetus rather than an embryo, the brain and soul are present by that time. Certainly a woman should abort if her life is at risk , there is deformity, or it's a product of rape.....


A "soul"? Don't pull religion into this either. Then it's just a "my God says this!" and "my God says that!" pissing contest.


Another's life has no immediate value to us if it's removed. As humans, we do something utterly strange, though reasonable for our ends, in granting value to human lives. We give this as convention. Should we deny value to a human life, we defy convention and, consquently, demean our lives and the basis of morality for society.

(in reply to MellowSir)
Profile   Post #: 146
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 3:38:55 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline 		(Well, that's a relief. In a way.)

_____________________________



(in reply to SimplySubmissive)
Profile   Post #: 147
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 3:45:52 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

It's dependent on the woman, and it makes demands on her body and mind. This is to be creditted. Nonetheless, it is not part of the woman's body any more than a driver is part of a car.



Lord, the use of that metaphore is utterly despicable. That you would compare a woman to a car, and an embryo to its driver, speaks to me about a person with an utter lack of empathy. It's also downright offensive, as you make the woman a mere vessel to that which gives her direction.

Aswad, I am musing over your (very good) points.



_____________________________



(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 148
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 3:50:05 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sublimelysensual

I guess my problem is, I don't think crackheads are fit to reproduce, and while I can see your point about it not being voluntary, to me, they chose to take the drug, so they put themselves in that position.


That is a problem, yes.

It's been beaten to death elsewhere that (a) it isn't fully voluntary, and (b) it doesn't impair that badly.

I've known "crackheads", as you call them, who were decent and intelligent people.

And the difference between snorting cocaine in Hollywood, and smoking it as crack elsewhere, is social status. If you choose to be a bit more statistics-minded about it, it's called "substance abuse" or "cocaine addiction" when white people do it, and "being a crackhead" when black people do it ... which is silly, as it's the same drug.

A lot of people taking cocaine, in whatever form, should definitely reproduce. Whether it's Sigmund Freud, or the financial world's "movers and shakers", or good actors. These are genes that are socially appealing, and passing them on would be good.

Of course, the mothers in question should keep it out of their system from conception to birth.

Don't get me wrong, cocaine has very few legitimate uses outside cranial surgery and dopamine binding assays, and it would be great if we could cut down on the addiction levels, for instance by allowing the pharma companies to come up with a better alternative that is safe and non-teratogenic. Lots of solutions.

But the generalization that "crackheads" shouldn't reproduce, doesn't quite hold, IMO.
Just keep them clean until the baby is out.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to sublimelysensual)
Profile   Post #: 149
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 3:54:27 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplySubmissive

Unwanted, unplanned pregnancies are traumatic. As are abortions. I just think it's best to avoid them both.


I don't dispute that.
I'm just curious as to what option could avoid all unwanted pregnancies.

quote:


Obviously, you have the only valid opinion, so I will end my contributions to this thread.


I can't remember there being a consensus on that.
And backing out of the thread without sharing your position is kind of frustrating.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to SimplySubmissive)
Profile   Post #: 150
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 3:56:13 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline 		General Argument

An individual creature acts as it will at its own pleasure. Early society may have started associating values to some lives. Modern society has taken up the general working assumption that all lives have value; hence, the foundation for laws against murder and torture.

We have assigned lives as instinctually having value. Lives, in this sense, are things in which we can empathize with as similar to ourselves. The question of what has value as, "What do we recongize ourselves in?"

The answer to this question has changed with time. As our written history of this culture is often superior, we may consider the European ancestors from which many Americans claim descendence. In short, we'll look back at our own history.

White men of high social standing are valuable lives. At least, this is what it was at the time of founding of our country. White women and black people were all second-class citizens. Poor people were second-class citizens. People of certain religious stances were second-class citizens. And, honestly- how many white men do you believe were tried for murder against blacks in the American South?

In short, white men of high social standing held power in early America. These men recongized themselves in, or empathized with, other white men of high social standing most strongly. Thus, they alloted their apparent kin such ellevated rights while failing to even perceive such rights in others.

Since then, various movements from such groups have demanded recognition. These "civil rights movements" were numerous and eventually effective. White women, black men, and- yes, even them- black women started acquiring equal rights. You no longer have to be rich to take a rich man to court. Granted, a rich man is likely to receive better representation- but he's not immune to the law any longer.

"Justice" under the sentiment of all life is valuable and equal has no yet reached society as a whole. Still, it is a growing theme amongst us in history, and it is something we will likely continue to aspire to as increasing "anti-hate" movements come about and "injustices" are continually brought to light.

Among the violations are those against the unborn. They fall under the definition of rights in that we might empathize with them. Still, as the powerful white men before, many can not empathize with the unborn, seeing themselves as far different and removed. One must come to empathize with a victim to feel injustice for it, and many seem incapable of simply realizing that they, too, were once alive and in such a condition. Or, perhaps, some are unable to realize this. This often leads to the, "I'm for pro-choice, but I still find abortion distasteful" sentiment.

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 151
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 3:58:49 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

It's dependent on the woman, and it makes demands on her body and mind. This is to be creditted. Nonetheless, it is not part of the woman's body any more than a driver is part of a car.



Lord, the use of that metaphore is utterly despicable. That you would compare a woman to a car, and an embryo to its driver, speaks to me about a person with an utter lack of empathy. It's also downright offensive, as you make the woman a mere vessel to that which gives her direction.


Talk about overly emotional and taking a metaphor outside of its bounds! If I said the sun was round, like a ball, would you then tell me my metaphor was wrong since the sun is hot, massive, and constantly under nuclear reactions, where a typical ball.. isn't?

Save your calls for empathy if you would claim your rights so great to a child's. It's disgusting. (So long as you want to have emotional rants. ;))

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 152
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 4:07:44 PM   
CrimsonMoan


Posts: 2652
Joined: 10/31/2006
From: Portland, Me via Las Vegas Nv
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Though I believe it is now available over the counter, isn't it?


Yes it is for those over 18 under needs parental consent but you know someone's luck they will get that overly christian or catholic pharmastic(sp) who will REFUSE to fill the order. I hadthis happen to my sister in law when we were in Rite-aid and she had to fill her pill perscription. Needless to say the guy got the ass chewing of a life time from both of us. A manager or two later and a sincere apology my sister took all of the family's business elsewhere.

And for SS i have this to say BC is EVERYBODY'S responsibility in a hetrosexual relationship not just women. comments like that just give gguys an excuse not to have a damn condom in their possession. Next you'll be saying if they don't want to do it chemically, go and get their tubes tied. <buzzer sound> What if they don't want kids right then and there but later down the line? That mean another surgery to TRY and successfulyl reverse the tubal ligation; doesn't always work. Or let me guess maybe they shouldn't have sex then? I am all for listening to other's opinions but when those opinions include broad measures that don't work for everyone or are invasive personally and physically then i have an issue.

as for abortions i made my stance clear on another board pro choice and anti old white men telling me what to do with MY uterus. 

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 153
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 4:09:22 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline 		To add a point.

It's often said, "Abortion is a solution to unwanted pregnancy." This is entirely true; it is! Also, nuclear weapons are a solution to overpopulation. Murdering your spouse is a solution to an unwanted marriage. Murdering your kids is a solution to unwanted fees and grief.

Murder is a damn convinient solution. There's no contest to that, outside of the argument that such solutions are in violation of identity through contradiction of founding definitions.

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 154
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 4:16:21 PM   
SlND3R3LLA


Posts: 118
Joined: 6/19/2007
Status: offline 		The womans body is the vessel for the baby until it is born.  There really wasn't anything offensive in that, be you for or against abortion.  It's what gives the baby food, shelter, basically life until it's ready to live outside of it.

There are a lot of people that are pro-life that help in society.  We volunteer, give money...just lend helping hands when we are asked.  Just because we can't afford to support someones child for the rest of it's life doesn't mean we have to shut up about the way we think, or feel.  There is some responsibility in opening ones legs and laying down with someone (not talking about rape), and it's on both sides (man and woman). 

People have bad things happen, unplanned things, but you find a way to work through those and make things better.  I don't hate anyone, I don't hate those that have abortions, I just get sickened when it's used for birth control, when a stupid box of condoms is $4 at wal-mart. 

~sin

_____________________________

And in that moment, everything I knew to be true about myself up until then was gone. I was acting like another woman, yet I was more myself than ever before. ~F

To hell with diamonds, lube is a girls best friend ;)

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 155
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 4:17:08 PM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline 		What about...

And what about...

And what about...

You can come up with all the scenarios you wish but the overwhelming number of abortions are purely for the convenience of the parents or parent. The parents or parent do not want to deal with a life they created so the kill it.

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 156
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 4:21:04 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

You are avoiding my point. Abortion is not killing. An embryo is cluster of cells. It's unable to live outside of the womb. It's not yet alive, its nervous system isn't yet formed, and it depends entirely on the mother for development.



I'm not avoiding your point, I'm addressing it.
Please allow me to be a bit more thorough in doing so this time.
A cell is life. An embryo is a life form consisting of cells. Ending life is killing. QED.

Whether abortion constitutes killing a human, however, is an entirely different question.



Okay: killing can be taken as actively ending a life. It can mean crushing a few plant cells, stamping on an ant (something I try to avoid at all times), or indeed, ending the life of an embryo. I objected to your use of that verb because to me, it smacked of english countryside hunting, where they send their hounds out for the kill, but with your clarification, I accept your term.

quote:



It depends on where you draw the line between "human" and "not human".
No known organism can live outside its host environment, so that's out.



So we agree.

quote:



For any given definition of life, it does fit all the relevant criterion.
A nervous system does not fully develop until about age 35.
One does not always fully develop at all, e.g. mine.
All children and invalids depend on "life support".

To me, that line is looking rather blurry, but I don't distinguish human from non-human, so that's OK to me.
You will need to establish that line, however, or your position is smoke and mirrors.
Will you share the information about where the line is drawn with us?



I missed your point here: were you asking me whether I establish a line between human embryos and non-human ones (ie. those of mice)? Otherwise, to me, a human embryo is just that. And it makes it all the more difficult to me to argue in favour of choice.

quote:



[...]

The problem comes down to the fact that every approach that can resolve the issue in a clear and unambigous manner will also (at least as far as I have been able to discern by going through the various permutations) end up supporting an "unsupportable" position by its own arguments. And as I'm not looking for "excuses" to do it, but reasons to hold abortion as a valid choice, any such argument must be carried to its logical conclusion, no matter what that conclusion is.

If the logical conclusion is unsupportable, then the argument cannot be seperated from what made it unsupportable in the first place, and then reused in a the context of abortion without reducing the argument to complete arbitrariness, which is also unsupportable, in my view.



Of course the logical conclusion is 'insupportable' (in French in the text)! Of course it's an unbearable thing to do. There is no way anybody can be 'pro-abortion'. I speak from knowledge, and it saddens me terribly that I do. Alas, human life cannot be reduced to a succession of logical conclusions.

quote:



Personally, I find the "extended self-defense" argument a lot easier to deal with.

It'd be lovely if you could come up with another argument that holds, though.
As it is, I'm essentially pro-choice, but I'm uncomfortable about it.
Not ethically, but emotionally. And resolving that would be nice.



You already know I cannot do this. It's painfully obvious that it's beyond my realm to make being pro-choice a comfortable option. But I believe it's the only choice in an imperfect world.

_____________________________



(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 157
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 4:23:55 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline 		That's true.

I often find disgust in the, "If you can't fix it, don't argue with our fix" sort of argument. After all, we could solve world hunger. And it'd only cost about ten million dollars! A million dollars, this is, for all the bullets, and about nine million for the wages for soldiers and transportation. After all, world hunger doesn't have another readily-available, easy solution- so why argue with this one?

(in reply to SlND3R3LLA)
Profile   Post #: 158
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 4:26:47 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

It's dependent on the woman, and it makes demands on her body and mind. This is to be creditted. Nonetheless, it is not part of the woman's body any more than a driver is part of a car.



Lord, the use of that metaphore is utterly despicable. That you would compare a woman to a car, and an embryo to its driver, speaks to me about a person with an utter lack of empathy. It's also downright offensive, as you make the woman a mere vessel to that which gives her direction.


Talk about overly emotional and taking a metaphor outside of its bounds! If I said the sun was round, like a ball, would you then tell me my metaphor was wrong since the sun is hot, massive, and constantly under nuclear reactions, where a typical ball.. isn't?

Save your calls for empathy if you would claim your rights so great to a child's. It's disgusting. (So long as you want to have emotional rants. ;))



I only wish you put your bright mind to literature, aesthetics and ethics.

_____________________________



(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 159
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 6/19/2007 4:33:12 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

I only wish you put your bright mind to literature, aesthetics and ethics.


I certainly hope this wasn't sarcasm, as I'd gladly run you into the ground over the insult.

This is to say, if you meant this as one might say to a woman, "I only wish you apply your obvious talents to the kitchen, now back to cooking my meal!", it would be rather insulting. Literature, aestetics, and ethics are paramount, in the intellectual world, the kitchen- preparing delicious yet relatively inconsquental things. I'm hoping you were unaware of your insult.

Should this have been meant in earnest, no; literature and aesthetics are inconsquential, and ethics are only a matter so far as they concern the practical functionings of life.

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 160
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141