pro-life vs pro-choice

[Naomi]

I used to be pro-choice and still am, but the sick behavior of some sluts on the street just inspire such disgust in me. They go all "oh I want to continue being a girl, I'm keeping my options open, so I'm aborting ... but I can't stop having sex! that's impossible! I want all my options and be fashionable! maybe I'll have a kid when I'm forty!" and then go all "it's not fair, it's not fair, nature's unfair to women" when they learn, too late, that at 40 women can't get pregnant regardless of any drugs they get pumped with. Then the sobfest begins, with the little bitches whining to TIME magazine reporters.

I'm sorely tested on my pro-choice position every day. I half wish abortion were punishable by forced impregnation just to screw over the little sluts and whores. I don't give a shit about the fetus or baby rights. The world's too overpopulated anyway.

 

[Arditezza]

Actually, I think that there should be a database of mothers and of those who father those children and proceed with abortion. It can be done by DNA, and encoded by an encrypted algorithm of their social security/social insurance number so they are protected from the zealot pro-lifers from any harm. If the DNA matches a mother that is currently in the system more than once, she is either offered sterilization, or prison time and a fine. If DNA matches the father and he's a repeat offender, he can also be offered the same options.

I took a friend to an abortion clinic once, and there was a 15 year old girl in the waiting room with her mother. She looked happy. Apparently, it was her 4th visit in two years. My friend changed her mind and our kids play together all the time.

I think that women with AIDS, and repeat drug offenders who continue to get pregnant should be sterilized whether or not they have abortions. I think that women who've been convicted of child abuse/neglect should likewise be sterilized. I think that women who are on the Health and Welfare list of people who've repeatedly had STD's should be sterilized. I think that anyone in drug treatment or arrested for drug offenses should, at the very least, get a mandatory shot of depo-provera (it's a type of birth control that lasts for 3 months at a time) and have to come in and be drug tested every three months. If they fail, they get another shot. If they pass the drug test they can go. If they don't show up, they get arrested.

I think that women are far too negligent and way too irresponsible and our society supports that. I think we do need to be tougher on women, because it does take two to create a child. It's their body, yes. They should learn to take better fucking care of it.

 

[cosmictraveler]

WHAT IS "STATUTORY RAPE"?

It is any carnal knowledge of a female under the age of consent, whether or not the female was a willing participant. The age of consent varies from state to state, but is generally from 16 - 18 years of age. Again, some states may include in their definition carnal knowledge of a male under the age of consent in that state

 

[Bells]

Jinoda

However, you cannot lay the blame upon neither pro-lifers or pro-choicers for that.

Because I am pro-life, this doesn't obligate me to do or believe anything else, it's simple really: I'm against abortion. I'm not against helping kids out in other countries or whatever, and being pro-life should not label me as some rich greedy Christian. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Stereotyping is awesome.

You're right. We cannot blame either camp for the death of those children. But by your very admition, you're not a pro-lifer, merely an anti-abortionist. There's a big difference.

My gripe against pro-lifer's is this. Why do they only protest outside abortion clinics and when someone's feeding tube is about to be removed? Why do pro-lifer's never protest in front of their politician's office's to save any life or that of children in 3rd world countries? Where were they when more than 800,000 people were killed in Rwanda? Why were they not standing outside the office's of their politicians with their 'everybody has a right to live' banners to beg them to do something during the massacres in Bosnia or even in Sudan? Why don't they stand and protest outside pharmaceutical companies to lobby them to give AIDS patients in 3rd world countries, many of whom are babies and children, better access to generic drugs? Why don't the pro-lifer's protest outside their politician's office's to protect the right of the children in 3rd world countries to not be forced to become child soldiers or to not be killed by wars or famine? Why don't the pro-lifer's ever protest to their politicians to step in to prevent cases of genocide or to stop children being killed in wars in 3rd world countries? Why are the pro-lifer's and the Christian Right, who protest outside abortion clinics and hospitals where feeding tubes are about to be removed, never seen at any anti-guns protests, especially after school massacres and the like? Could it be that any problems in third world countries are outside their scope of care because, well, they're in the third world and merely poor right? So why should they care? Could it also be that they would never take part in anti-gun rallies because to do so would take away their right to carry arms with which they can kill staff working in abortion clinics? Staff who they label as being murderers. It would be ironic if it weren't so pathetic.

I'm not stereotyping pro-lifers. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of their arguments and frankly their beliefs. If you are pro-life, then you are supposed to fight for all lives. Not just the lives unborn or the comatose.

5 years after he was born, I was. I wasn't given up for adoption, because for some strange reason my mother thought she was a fit parent at the time. I lived with her and her problems until she finally hit rockbottom, and we were homeless. Eventually a family we knew sent her to a rehab and took me in, for which I am grateful. This family is the only reason I am in college now, and the reason why my mother is on the right track.

Yes, but you are one of the lucky few. You were adopted by a family who knew you and your mother. The vast majority of children placed in orphanages or foster care do not have that chance. They instead spend their whole childhood in the system, and many times, the system fails them. In many cases, the child is abandoned by its parent and left to fend for themselves on the street. You were very lucky. The vast majority aren't so lucky and end up not in college but living on the street and worse. Many end up killing themselves.

Perkele

The way I see this; its society’s burden while it is her body.
But to be a cheap harlot who can’t cross her legs to save her life complaining about how it’s her body and her decision. Bullshit says I.
If it’s the woman’s body, the woman’s child and the woman’s choice... then it’s my fucking property crammed inside her. If that’s the way you feel you can call me the repo man.

Interesting. How is it society's burden if it's in her body? To say so would mean that her body belongs to society, hmmm? Tell me something Perky, does your body belong to society? To say yes would make you a harlot, non? Tell me this also Perky. How is the child I'm carrying society's burden or your property? Society did not impregnate me, nor did you. My other half did. It's not society's child and it's not your child. So where did that concept come from? Neither you or society pays for my medical bills during the pregnancy. My other half and I do. So how is it society's burden? What right do you have to claim proprietory rights over my uterus and what it contains or the uterus of any other woman on this planet? Neither society or you are paying for the things we're buying for when the child is born. Again, how is it society's burden or your property what I carry in my uterus? If each unborn child (aside from that you fathered) was society's burden or your property, you and society would be charged with abandonment and compensation would be sought when each child was born because you and society did fuck all to bring that child into the world and care for it afterwards.

As to the cheap harlot who can't keep her legs crossed and then demands that it's her body and her decision.... Again, what right to YOU have over her body? Does society own your little penis and the scrotum containing your sperm? Does society dictate what adult woman you're allowed to impregnate? It's your decision who you have sex with, right? It's your decision who you drop your pants for, right? It's your decision who or what you spill your sperm into, right? Or are you one of those people who view all women as harlots, thereby absolving yourself of any responsibility? Are all women harlots Perky? What about the woman who's married with 3 kids and the condom breaks and she realises that she and her husband can't afford to care for another child so she decides to have an abortion. Is she a harlot for spreading her legs Perky? Perky, if the women you sleep with have abortions, it doesn't make them harlots. It just means that they've come to the realisation that the genes they've mixed theirs with is inferior and therefore the product of those genes must be destroyed. You really shouldn't take it personally.

It becomes your choice the minute you failed to practice birth control.
In my opinion women should be able to abort their children, after they are born. That would be a sufficient obstacle to climb over in means of showing commitment to the cause.
If abortion becomes too subtle and kind, it creates associations between acts and consequences that differ drastically from the self-evident and concrete realities. Without society’s warm cuddle and blindfolds things would present themselves as they truly are -brutal and unbearable to the pregnantee - but that’s not going to happen.

That's right. The minute that condom breaks or there's no condom or contraceptive pill involved, and conception occurs, it is the woman's choice. Here I thought you did not understand... Also, you fail to realise that contraception is not solely the woman's role. Men also have equal responsibility in that regard.

As for abortion being an easy option. It's not. It's invasive and can be painful and in some cases, have permanent repercussions. It's also expensive. The reason why many women do have abortions is because society is not warm and cuddly to the pregnantee.

“It’s my business!” argument is plain bullshit. It’s the society’s business, we are exterminating and restricting populations left and right in order to manage the environment- yet when it comes to humans, or rather concerns the human individual- every little prickster has a seizure.
“I gots to have the right to… choose!” Yeah sure… but the reality is that you’ve already chosen, so shut the fuck up.

Again, interesting line of thought. So my uterus and its contents are society's business? How so? Your scrotum and sperm aren't society's business. Why are women's bodies society's business? Maybe it's time you stopped rubbing those two stones together and left the cage because what every individual does with their body is their own business, not society's and not yours. And yes I do have the right to choose, so do other women and yes we do choose. What's your problem with that? After all, you choose who you dump your sperm into, why shouldn't women be allowed to choose whether they get rid of the result of your little deposits?

If one truly wishes to produce offspring, care for it and commit to it, then abortion is a truly selfish act. With mindsets like “these are my years of hedonism, I cant have a little rug rat running around here… yet.”, you have decided to add context to your life via this ‘necessity’ of life and therefore shouldn’t contradict yourself if you want to be taken seriously – by me.

So it's only the women who should not have the choice to not enjoy their years of "hedonism"? The men get off scot free? Why is that? Why is it that the guys get to dump their load and go and enjoy those wonderous years of "hedonism", but the woman can't do the same? Why does the guy have the right to choose when they wish to be parents but not the woman? Give me a break. If you wish to be taken seriously, stop sounding like a prat.

And what about the women who are pregnant, with aids?
Well… Why are women with AIDS having sex? Sick fucking bitches they are if that’s what they’re into in their condition, parasites sucking their life juices out are a sufficient penalty.

What about the woman who's healthy and has sex with her partner who's been cheating on her and has AIDS and doesn't tell her and a pregnancy results and she then finds out she has AIDS. Is she a "sick fucking bitch" for getting an abortion or for having had sex? Or is he a bastard for having put her into that position in the first place?

And by the way, a man who rapes and impregnates a woman does surely benefit the society more when compared to the lady’s limb dick vacuum cleaner salesman husband impregnating her. We need more gene pools like these: People with decisive and authorative stances, people who take initiative and stand behind their beliefs!

So if one day you have a daughter and she's raped and finds herself pregnant as a result of that rape, you'll be telling her that she should be proud and happy it happened to her because she'll be sharing her genes with the rapist whom you think comes from a great gene pool? Do you think it's fine to rape women Perky? Is that how you plan to father children Perky, through rape? Is that how you're going to stand behind your belief?

Naomi

I used to be pro-choice and still am, but the sick behavior of some sluts on the street just inspire such disgust in me. They go all "oh I want to continue being a girl, I'm keeping my options open, so I'm aborting ... but I can't stop having sex! that's impossible! I want all my options and be fashionable! maybe I'll have a kid when I'm forty!" and then go all "it's not fair, it's not fair, nature's unfair to women" when they learn, too late, that at 40 women can't get pregnant regardless of any drugs they get pumped with. Then the sobfest begins, with the little bitches whining to TIME magazine reporters.

I'm sorry, but why are you concerned about what "sluts" do with their bodies? Does it affect YOU in any way? Does a woman aborting her feotus affect your way of life or your body in any way, shape or form? You're not the one having the abortion, so why do you care what another woman does with her body? If a woman wishes to be fashionable, why is that your concern? If a woman has abortions when she's younger and then can't have children later on in life, how does that affect you or concern you? If they wish to whine about it, no one forces you to listen or buy the TIME magazines they complain to. It's not your body that is being pumped full of hormones or going through the fertility treatments to allow these women to have children, so why exactly are you complaining? No offence here but I'm simply curious.

 

[Perfect]

Her body resides in society, unless you lead a life that has no effect on your fellow citizens, you’re right. But your thinking is too simple, Balls.
When I function in my society, affecting, influencing and adding to the society I reside in, I become a part of it. This infrastructure does restrict and control you no matter how rebellious or out-of-the-box you might seem to be.

You become a component to a larger machine. You think, you act, you contribute, you practice self-improvement, you construct a life – but you still belong to your society.
Now, quit your job and stop paying bills, refuse every aid your government offers you and divide yourself and your family from the modern structure and come back saying that reproduction is your own business, then you’re right on, Balls.

China is by the way restricting population… you know, by controlling your body, your choices and your fucking uterus.

And your other half is a part of the society. Therefore to say “my other half impregnated me” is to say: society impregnated me. And I do fucking pay your medical bills alongside with society, therefore I reserve the right to despise those little copies of yourself (and fat people.. and extreme athletes.. etc) draining resources. And as I live in this planet – with you – I reserve the right to raise opinions about your uterus and I don’t give a fuck if you don’t like it. It’s not going to accomplish anything nor change anything, but I do feel a lot better knowing that you know that I think that your pointless little “I’m special, I’m an individual!” attitude is laughed upon.

Society is not about who buys things for you, Balls. It’s about functioning in an infrastructure filled with layers, ideas, views, individuals and pregnant holier-than-thou bitches.

And the society that I reside in will actually be charged with abandonment, for our population is decreasing. We are trying to compensate via taking in foreigners, and all this because of the unborn children.

Don’t talk just to justify your lifestyle, balls.

When I live in a country, I live by that country’s laws and rules. If I impregnate a woman and we decide that taking care of the little brat is not suitable for us – it becomes society’s property.

And you fail to see… anything.
It is my decision whom I have sex with. It is my choice whom I impregnate. But that was not what I was talking about, Balls. When you have made your ‘choices’ and ‘decisions’ and you find that your petty little reversals are not quite what you expected, you turn to society (and only then, because we know –for you told us- that you and your family are external factors unlike the rest of us) like a bitter little cunt that you are.

I am for the right to abort, but it is disgusting how shortsighted harlots practice it. Someone else commits an act for you, an act that is covered with hugs. There should be fucking gore involved in order to preserve behavioural concepts that are associated with loss.

And pro-lifers can slip into oblivion for all I care, uninteresting punch… akin to religious people.


‘It’s my choice because… I fucked up my every other choice. I deserve changes! It is my fucking R I G H T to abuse collective resources – for I am an arbitrary bitch!’


And a woman with three children should really knock it up a notch with her birth control, but I wouldn’t oppose to her getting an abortion.


Bellz: “That's right. The minute that condom breaks or there's no condom or contraceptive pill involved, and conception occurs, it is the woman's choice. Here I thought you did not understand... Also, you fail to realise that contraception is not solely the woman's role. Men also have equal responsibility in that regard.”

Yeah, I said that. What the fuck are you repeating my words for? Is your brain hurting or are you just high on hormones?

You resemble a man who wants to commit suicide, so he wraps 50kg’s of dynamite to his waist and blows himself up… in a bus. It’s his choice, it’s his body.

And read that thought I articulated about women with AIDS again; try to grasp it this time, silly.

And the rape conflict was an analogy (rather, I am modifying it to one… from provocation, cuz I’m great) about how seemingly exulting it is to add context to ones own existence trough producing offspring. Though, everyone’s view is that this must be accomplished trough calculative construct of independence.
To me, it seems vague to possess beliefs and plans for life only to cast them aside when occurrences that are morally dubious take place, eventhough the conclusion is the same.


And I will never even consider having children, so I’m wont neither try and empathize, nor will I try and relate to your beautiful self-perseverance-trough-offspring phase.

 

[Perfect]

And by the way, that “you think all women are harlots *cries*!” drivel is plain bullshit.
Men are fucking labour and women are progressing past that, which is why the stance they (most) take on abortion irritates me.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat - Get Irie Now

Since I can't order people to toke up and chill out, perhaps we could see a caffeine reduction. That would be helpful.

Oh, well. At least my hat is green.

 

[Bells]

Her body resides in society, unless you lead a life that has no effect on your fellow citizens, you’re right. But your thinking is too simple, Balls.
When I function in my society, affecting, influencing and adding to the society I reside in, I become a part of it. This infrastructure does restrict and control you no matter how rebellious or out-of-the-box you might seem to be.

So my uterus belongs to you and your balls belong to me, is that it? Interesting concept. Here I thought every individual had a right to self-autonomy. We may live in a society but we own ourselves. I put myself before society. Makes me selfish and frankly I do not care. If I wish to have no children, society has no say in the matter. If I wish to have 20 children, my society has no say in the matter. While we may all become a part of our society's, we belong to ourselves before we belong to anything or anyone else. If you think your body belongs to society before it belongs to you, then so be it. Throw yourself a parade.

You become a component to a larger machine. You think, you act, you contribute, you practice self-improvement, you construct a life – but you still belong to your society.
Now, quit your job and stop paying bills, refuse every aid your government offers you and divide yourself and your family from the modern structure and come back saying that reproduction is your own business, then you’re right on, Balls.

So because I belong to and participate in a society, that society now owns my body, eggs and womb? Lets reverse that equation Perky. Does society own your dick and your balls? I visit any town hall or musuem and your dick and balls aren't there on display. After all, if it were to be owned by society, society would decide what you do with it. Society would decide how many times you wank in the privacy of your toilet while drooling over a Playboy magazine. Yet society does not do that. I wonder why? Could it be because it's not society's business what you do with your dick and your balls? Hell if you wished to cut them off and become a woman, society wouldn't interfere. If you can afford it, go for it.

China is by the way restricting population… you know, by controlling your body, your choices and your fucking uterus.

I'm sorry, but I don't live in China. So how is China affect my "fucking uterus"? And in case you weren't aware Perky, China's population control is on the way to being deemed a failure because there aren't enough girls being allowed to live by their parents and they are looking at a future where there won't be enough people to populate the country because of men will end up out-numbering women by such a large amount.

And your other half is a part of the society. Therefore to say “my other half impregnated me” is to say: society impregnated me. And I do fucking pay your medical bills alongside with society, therefore I reserve the right to despise those little copies of yourself (and fat people.. and extreme athletes.. etc) draining resources. And as I live in this planet – with you – I reserve the right to raise opinions about your uterus and I don’t give a fuck if you don’t like it. It’s not going to accomplish anything nor change anything, but I do feel a lot better knowing that you know that I think that your pointless little “I’m special, I’m an individual!” attitude is laughed upon.

That's rich. So by having sex with my other half, I'm having sex with every other human being in my society? HEH! That's hilarious... really.. Society did not impregnate me. My other half did. The other half I wake up to every morning. When I wake up, I don't see society, I see him. So unless you're on some weird arsed trip where you see everyone as being one, then you're beyond delusional. You don't pay my medical bills. Neither does society. My other half do and I, out of our own pocket. Last I checked, my employer was not some dickhead with his head up his arse. We are privately employed. Sure we live and work in society, but does not mean that society pays each time I visit my obstetrician, have a blood test or have an ultra-sound. We didn't opt to go public. So if you're the type of arsehole who goes around and points the finger at public servants claiming that you pay their wages, you aren't pointing at me or my other half. We aren't public servants. Do you understand now? Does your myopic brain comprehend that point?

You can raise whatever opinion you wish about my uterus. But it's just that... an opinion. You have no control over it. You have no rights over it. Just as I nor any other member of society have a right over your penis, scrotum or sperm. We can have an opinion over your little appendages, but we have no right or control over what you do with them. And I never claimed I was special. I claimed that I was an individual. I understand that you have issues as seeing yourself and others as being individuals, but that's the way it is little man.

Society is not about who buys things for you, Balls. It’s about functioning in an infrastructure filled with layers, ideas, views, individuals and pregnant holier-than-thou bitches.

Ah Perky, you claimed that our bodies and what our bodies contain is society's burden. Therefore, society has to care for us. But I don't live on welfare. So in that regard, I and my uterus are not burdens on society. I may function in that society, I may partake in running that society, but I'm not a burden on that society. I pay my way and dues. I buy what I need from society and society sells me what I need. Think of it as supply and demand if you will.

When I live in a country, I live by that country’s laws and rules. If I impregnate a woman and we decide that taking care of the little brat is not suitable for us – it becomes society’s property.

I too live by my country's rules and laws. Therefore, under the rules and laws of my country, I have that right to choose. If I decide to not have an abortion, my little brat is my responsibility and my property until it is old enough to take care of itself and pay its own way and dues in society. You see Perky, my other half and I are having this child if all goes well and we're not going to decide that it's not suitable for us later on. Had it not been suitable for us and primarily for me, I'd have had an abortion by now. If you choose to be a welfare bum and think that society owns you and therefore must take care of you, then knock yourself out. But not all of us think that way. Most of us prefer to be our own property and to pay our own way in life and not be a burden on society via the welfare system.

When you have made your ‘choices’ and ‘decisions’ and you find that your petty little reversals are not quite what you expected, you turn to society (and only then, because we know –for you told us- that you and your family are external factors unlike the rest of us) like a bitter little cunt that you are.

Aren't you charming. I'm betting your mother wished for that bucket of water by her bedside when you popped out. Hell, I'm sure society was wishing for it as well, when one sees what you turned out to be... but as they say.. it's always easier in hindsight. Anywho, I made my choice and decision and I'm still not turning to the system and being a burden to society. So what's your point? There is a point to your argument isn't there?

I am for the right to abort, but it is disgusting how shortsighted harlots practice it. Someone else commits an act for you, an act that is covered with hugs. There should be fucking gore involved in order to preserve behavioural concepts that are associated with loss.

I agree, an abortion should never be a method of contraception. It should be an act of the last resort. As for the gore... well there's a lot of gore involved and most women find it a difficult thing to go through. But she should be given that right to do so. That is the whole aspect of this argument and thread you've failed to grasp so far. When society deems that she does not have that right, then society is acting on the behalf of the pro-lifer's you deem to detest just as much.

‘It’s my choice because… I fucked up my every other choice. I deserve changes! It is my fucking R I G H T to abuse collective resources – for I am an arbitrary bitch!’

In the majority of cases, abortions are paid for by the woman seeking to get said abortion. It's not a drain or an abuse on the collective resources of society. By having the right to choose, we're ensuring that these women do not become a drain on society. Because in the days of backyard abortions via the use of a coathanger, many of these women became a drain on society and it's collective resources when they had to be cared for in mostly public hospitals at public expense to repair the damage the coathanger did to her.

You resemble a man who wants to commit suicide, so he wraps 50kg’s of dynamite to his waist and blows himself up… in a bus. It’s his choice, it’s his body.

You know, I've actually heard a religious rightwing zealot pro-lifer use that very argument long ago. Says a lot about your scope on things in regards to this argument doesn't it?

And I will never even consider having children, so I’m wont neither try and empathize, nor will I try and relate to your beautiful self-perseverance-trough-offspring phase.

As a member of society, I thank you for preserving society by not inflicting your genes upon the coming generations.

 

[okinrus]

Your decision doesn't protect anything but your own belief system. You just want a pregnant woman to carry out a pregnancy because you are uncomfortable with the idea of an abortion.

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of killling millions of one-year-olds. I don't think you've proven anything here.

You don't seem to care about what this woman thinks. You are only thinking about your own good here. You are not going to take care of this unborn child when it is born or of all the other ones that are unwanted for whatever reason.

You're assuming stuff here. Yes, if someone came to me, I could probably scrape toegether enough money to pay the first four months. Of course, the mother would have to really want to keep the baby, instead of giving the baby up for adoption.

You are trying to enforce your beliefs on someone else. Someone who doesn't agree with you at all.

It's not a valid argument you're using here. Are the prochoicers trying to force their beliefs on me? Yes.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Ahh, do you maybe wanna stop talking about his "dick and balls"?

I'd wager you were one of those girl's who spent art classes sculpting penii and giggling maniacally.

 

[Jinoda]

...But by your very admition, you're not a pro-lifer, merely an anti-abortionist. There's a big difference...

That's fine, I'm not trying to find out what I am, I am merely trying to give a name to help discussion run smoothly. Maybe I should have said I was "anti-abortion" from the start, but I honestly didn't think there was much difference.

So: I am only against abortion then. I am all for sterilization, tubal ligation, vasectomies, adoption (be it by gay or straight couples--that makes no difference to me, regardless of what I am "supposed" to believe according to my religion), or whatever.

 

[okinrus]

Bells, I don't see how the fetus is your body. You, yourself, said the fetus was parasite, which by definition is outside of your body, in a certain sense. It may be within your body, but it's not your body. Back to my point. Society can control your body; it has been doing to others for centuries. I can't go around swinging my fist at other's faces, can I? Your issue is not whether society controls you but how society controls you. Usually, however, if human life is at risk, society can control you. I don't see where you and other are going with this argument.

 

[BeHereNow]

"It may be within your body, but it's not your body."

This is bizarre!

 

[Bells]

I'd wager you were one of those girl's who spent art classes sculpting penii and giggling maniacally.

Actually, it was more a case of eye strain and squinting trying to see it. The model that we had was not well endowed. And one does not giggle maniacally when men are that small. One merely shows pity. But I'm sure you're one of those guys who knows exactly what kind of pity I'm talking about Lou. As for sculpting... was never into sculpture. I'm more into water colours if you must know.

Bells, I don't see how the fetus is your body. You, yourself, said the fetus was parasite, which by definition is outside of your body, in a certain sense. It may be within your body, but it's not your body.

Yes the feotus is a parasite. It strips the body of everything to ensure it's survival and growth. However it is for the moment a part of my body. It is attached to me in ways that defy description. By merely residing inside my body, it is mine. I have control over it and I have a right over it... for the mere fact that it is inside my body. Lets say for example you're given a kidney. Your body will treat that kidney as a parasite because it is not your kidney. However, you're put on a cocktail of drugs to reduce the risk of rejection. Now, once that kidney has been placed inside your body, does it become a part of your body? Do you own it? Or does society or Perky over there own it? Who has proprietary ownership of that kidney when it's in your body? You or society as a whole? Do you understand now what I meant okinrus? While that kidney is not of your body, it is in your body and while it's in there, it's yours and no one else's.

Back to my point. Society can control your body; it has been doing to others for centuries. I can't go around swinging my fist at other's faces, can I? Your issue is not whether society controls you but how society controls you. Usually, however, if human life is at risk, society can control you. I don't see where you and other are going with this argument.

Society can't control YOUR body. It can only control your body in the sense that whatever you do to your own body is your business so long as you don't harm others in the process. Therefore the example you gave of taking a swing at another with your fist... society disallows that because you are infringing on another body by doing so. If you wish to take a swing at yourself, you're free to do so because you're hitting your own body. But when you hit another person, you are deemed to be infringing on their right. As for when human life is at risk... no society can't really control your body. For example, if you have a DNR in a living will, even if your heart stops, a doctor or other medical personnel can't do anything to restart your heart. If they do, they can be sued and can lose their licence. Because you have stated that you do not wish to be resuscitated. Therefore, by doing so, you've taken away the right for society to step in and save you or control your body. If you express a wish to not be tampered with after you've passed away, no one can remove your organs. Society cannot force you to be medicated no matter what your illness is without your consent or the consent of your legal guardian. Lets take me for example. If the complications get worse and the risk to me increases and I'm told that I must terminate the pregnancy to ensure my survival, society can't force me to do so. I can refuse to give consent and take death as an option. If another human life is at risk, then society can impinge on your right to continue causing that other person harm. For example, I can slash my own wrists but would be criminally liable if I slashed the wrists of another. I can shave my own head but could be charged with assault if I shave the head of another person without their permission.

 

[Xev]

Bells:

Society can't control YOUR body.

Well, yes it does. It can fine you, imprison you or even kill you if you don't act right.

 

[okinrus]

Yes the feotus is a parasite. It strips the body of everything to ensure it's survival and growth. However it is for the moment a part of my body. It is attached to me in ways that defy description. By merely residing inside my body, it is mine. I have control over it and I have a right over it... for the mere fact that it is inside my body. Lets say for example you're given a kidney. Your body will treat that kidney as a parasite because it is not your kidney. However, you're put on a cocktail of drugs to reduce the risk of rejection. Now, once that kidney has been placed inside your body, does it become a part of your body? Do you own it? Or does society or Perky over there own it? Who has proprietary ownership of that kidney when it's in your body? You or society as a whole? Do you understand now what I meant okinrus? While that kidney is not of your body, it is in your body and while it's in there, it's yours and no one else's.

Bells, your not really showing anything here. Sure, in a certain sense, a certain definition of body, you could say the fetus is your body. But to say so begs the question of what you mean by body. Take a drawing. You draw two circles, one contained in the other, and fill them with the same color. Do you consider the drawing as two circles or just one? A matter of spatial location and color. Depending on your viewpoint they could be one circle, they could be two circles, perhaps infinite circles. Likewise, you could consider all of humanity, all of the world even, as one single body. They are all connected, right? Now with that said, there are standard definitions. Scientists view the fetus as a different organism than the mother. Whether their definition relates to law or not remains to be seen, but it's proof that your view isn't the only one. Now you raise the issue of the kidney. Often doctors remove one's kidney to replace another's kidney. Does the kidney automatically become the part of the another's body just because of spatial location? Depends entirely on your view.

Who has proprietary ownership of that kidney when it's in your body? You or society as a whole? Do you understand now what I meant okinrus? While that kidney is not of your body, it is in your body and while it's in there, it's yours and no one else's.

I have no need for so-called ownship. After all, God owns everything, and what we call ownership is just to preserve law and order. But I'll try to show the problems with this concept. You own your own eyes, right? But if a guy takes away your eyesight, you don't have the right to take away his eye. No, his punishment is in prison. If another pregnant women causes you to miscariage, you don't have right to cause her to miscarriage, do you? But another problem lurks. What do you mean by ownership? Sure, if I'm given ownership of a house, I have certain rights to the property. I can build a fence, cut a lawn, etc. But I don't have exclusive rights to do everything. I can't turn our house into a target practice zone. I don't own everything in our house, too. Your analogy, therefore, is flawed. God forbid, if I should go to Jewley store and swallow a gold trinket, I don't own it; it's inside of me, but I haven't paid for it. Of course, I'll say that a man's kidney should be protected--not for his ownship of the kidney, but for his need of it.

society can't control YOUR body. It can only control your body in the sense that whatever you do to your own body is your business so long as you don't harm others in the process.

Well, this "as long as it doesn't harm others" is only a guideline and really skirts the issue, because the fetus is a "other" to me. Of course, you don't have to consider the fetus as someone deserving rights, I'll admit. But to do so really rejects human rights because he fetus is a biological human being.

Therefore the example you gave of taking a swing at another with your fist... society disallows that because you are infringing on another body by doing so. If you wish to take a swing at yourself, you're free to do so because you're hitting your own body.

It's a principle, true, but not really practical. If everyone took swings at themselves,each going to the hospital, everyone would have to pay for each other's mistakes. So too, harm yourself harm others. A guy who commits suicide harms other family members worst than if he was murdered. A drug addict has escaped from the normal facets of commucation, therefore, harming others.

Because you have stated that you do not wish to be resuscitated. Therefore, by doing so, you've taken away the right for society to step in and save you or control your body. If you express a wish to not be tampered with after you've passed away, no one can remove your organs. Society cannot force you to be medicated no matter what your illness is without your consent or the consent of your legal guardian.

None of these situations are well defined. Society can force people to be medicated. Notice, too, we call those who don't want to medicated insane, and we then force them. We might understand their reasons. They might believe voices they hear, or they may be unbearable pain.

 

[Bells]

Well, yes it does. It can fine you, imprison you or even kill you if you don't act right.

Yes, but only if your body infringes on the rights of others or their property. For example, society can't fine you or imprison you if you cut off your own finger. But if you damage the limb or appendages of another individual, then society can punish you. Society can't stop you from doing something to yourself. Society does not watch you 24 hours a day. Society becomes involved after the fact. In that sense, society does not control your body. If I wish to take an overdose of any drug, society can't stop me. I can walk into a supermarket and over the period of a couple of days, purchase 10 packs of paracetemol. I can then go home and consume every single one of those tablets in one sitting. Society can't prevent me from doing that to myself. In that sense, society has no control over my body. I can end my own life if I wish at any time. Society can't prevent me from doing so because it does not have that amount of control over my body. If I kill another, then I can be imprisoned but if I attempt to kill myself, I'd be recommended for counselling but would not be imprisoned or fined. Society prevents us from doing harm to others through the notion of punishment after the fact, but that does not apply to what we do to our own bodies.

If you are seen to be sane of mind, you can do pretty much what you wish to your body, as long as you don't hurt or infringe on any other person or their property. I can take a long metal spike and ram it through my nose and society can't stop me. If I do it to someone else, then I'd be punished for those actions because I've committed assault on another. It is in that sense that society does not control your body or what actions you take upon your own body. Society controls what you do to the body of others, but not really to your own. Hence why assisted suicide is seen to be a crime. I can sit there and watch someone kill themselves, so long as I don't participate in any way, shape or form. I can't provide the means for that suicide to take place but I'm not really under any legal obligation to stop them from doing so either, and that stance has been supported in the case of Nancy Crick here in Queensland (Australia), where 21 family, friends and supporters were present at her suicide and no charges were laid against those people present. Frankly, I can do whatever I wish to myself, so long as I don't infringe on the rights of others, their person or their property. In that sense, society has absolutely no control over me, my body and what I do with said body.

 

[Tiassa]

For example, society can't fine you or imprison you if you cut off your own finger.

A minor technicality, and you know I hate to bring it up, but yes, society can imprison you if you cut off your own finger. If, that is, you do it in a manner that results in the authorities finding out or being involved, whereupon you might be remanded to psychiatric custody for evaluation.

As you mentioned, "sane of mind". Perhaps it's a different presumption in Australia, but every few years we Americans look for ways to make it easier to throw one another into bedlam:

The BECCA bill expanded parents’ authority to commit and require their children to remain in locked mental health/substance abuse facilities. A recent state supreme court decision has struck down some or all of those particular provisions of the BECCA bill. At the writing of this report there was conflicting information from Washington State Officials on the overall implications of the court case. Some sources indicated that parents could still do voluntary commitments on older youth against the wishes of the child. All sources from Washington State agreed, however, that the court case struck down the mental health section of the BECCA bill which required children to remain against their will in locked mental health facilities without a court hearing, because it violated due process requirements.

Iowa Dept. of Education

Of course, the lunatics are running the asylum.

 

[Bells]

Bells, your not really showing anything here. Sure, in a certain sense, a certain definition of body, you could say the fetus is your body. But to say so begs the question of what you mean by body. Take a drawing. You draw two circles, one contained in the other, and fill them with the same color. Do you consider the drawing as two circles or just one? A matter of spatial location and color. Depending on your viewpoint they could be one circle, they could be two circles, perhaps infinite circles. Likewise, you could consider all of humanity, all of the world even, as one single body. They are all connected, right? Now with that said, there are standard definitions. Scientists view the fetus as a different organism than the mother. Whether their definition relates to law or not remains to be seen, but it's proof that your view isn't the only one. Now you raise the issue of the kidney. Often doctors remove one's kidney to replace another's kidney. Does the kidney automatically become the part of the another's body just because of spatial location? Depends entirely on your view.

I did not say that the foetus is my body. I said that it is inside my body. Therefore I'm the one that has control over it, not society. If I wish to starve myself, I'm free to do so. If I wish to consume alcohol or tobacco while the foetus is inside my body, I'm free to do so, regardless of the fact that it would cause harm to the foetus itself. Society can't stop me from doing so. You approach this argument from a Christian stand point. While the foetus is a different organism to me... it can't survive outside my body until it becomes viable (ie. it's organs are able to support it outside of the womb). And while it is in my womb, I can do whatever I wish to it through my own body. If I wish to abort it, I am able to do so. Why? Because at the moment, it can't support itself outside of my body. It can't breath on its own. That's why in most countries, abortion laws set the limit for abortions at the point in time where the foetus would be viable. Now do you understand?

I have no need for so-called ownship. After all, God owns everything, and what we call ownership is just to preserve law and order. But I'll try to show the problems with this concept. You own your own eyes, right? But if a guy takes away your eyesight, you don't have the right to take away his eye. No, his punishment is in prison. If another pregnant women causes you to miscariage, you don't have right to cause her to miscarriage, do you? But another problem lurks. What do you mean by ownership? Sure, if I'm given ownership of a house, I have certain rights to the property. I can build a fence, cut a lawn, etc. But I don't have exclusive rights to do everything. I can't turn our house into a target practice zone. I don't own everything in our house, too. Your analogy, therefore, is flawed. God forbid, if I should go to Jewley store and swallow a gold trinket, I don't own it; it's inside of me, but I haven't paid for it. Of course, I'll say that a man's kidney should be protected--not for his ownship of the kidney, but for his need of it.

This is like the Twilight Zone. Okinrus, you view everything through a Christian standpoint... a fact made clear by your claim that God owns everything. I don't see it that way. Your example about the eyes and miscarriage apply to some form of revenge or an eye for an eye. I can't take someone's eyesight because I'd be infringing on the body of another. But lets say I have eye cancer and am told that to prevent blindness, I must wear protective sunglasses. No one can force me to wear those glasses to save my own eyesight. I can choose not to wear them and go blind. But if someone prevents me from wearing those glasses, then that becomes an offence and society steps in. Get it?

If you go into a jewellery store and swallow a gold trinket without having paid for it, it's not yours regardless of whether it's in your body or not. Would you like to know why? Because the trinket belongs to someone else and unless they consented to your swallowing it and keeping it, it's not yours. By swallowing it without having purchased it or without the consent of the owner, you've infringed on the proprietary right that the owner had over that item. If you wish to use your house as a target zone, you can do so, so long as you don't infringe or disturb any of your neighbours. If you live on 100 hectares and you have a target zone in the middle of your property, away from anyone else bordering your property and you're not disturbing or harming your neighbours and their property, you're free to do so.

I can't believe this is so hard for people to grasp... *Sighs*...

Well, this "as long as it doesn't harm others" is only a guideline and really skirts the issue, because the fetus is a "other" to me. Of course, you don't have to consider the fetus as someone deserving rights, I'll admit. But to do so really rejects human rights because he fetus is a biological human being.

The "to me" speaks volumes. Again, you're applying your personal views and beliefs to facts of law and finding it wanting... as do most pro-lifer's with your system of beliefs. Scientifically, the foetus does not become "a other" until it is outside of the mother's womb and in a position that it is or would have been viable. I don't consider it to have any rights because it's not yet living.

 

[Bells]

A minor technicality, and you know I hate to bring it up, but yes, society can imprison you if you cut off your own finger. If, that is, you do it in a manner that results in the authorities finding out or being involved, whereupon you might be remanded to psychiatric custody for evaluation.

If that were the case, then most people who've amputated a limb or appendage would be fined or imprisoned if they are using an item that has been known to cause such an injury. Lets say I'm using a chainsaw. They're known for causing amputation. I cut off my finger with the full knowledge that other's have done so before me and the authorities find out. The point is, they find out after the fact. They could not prevent me from committing that act. No one could. If you are sane of mind, you can't be held without your consent. In Queensland under the Mental Health Act 2000, an assessment or request for assessment can only be made after having observed or examined the individual in or for the preceding 3 days. So if I chopped off my finger 4 days before and by the next day I appear to be quite sane and claim it is an accident and give no indication that it was done deliberately, such a request can't really be substantiated. There are many ways around being taken into custody for psychiatric evaluation. It's never something that is taken or done lightly because of the legal repercussions involved. If someone appears to be mentally unstable and can cause harm to others or themselves, such a request or recommendation for assessment can be made, however the provisions in the law that govern this are quite strict and the time limits imposed are also severe so as not to infringe on the rights of the individual.