Blaze Duskdreamer
Member
I draw the line of sanctioning murder of innocents. Which has nothing to do with religion. Why do people assume you must be religious to be against such a horrible, immoral thing? I'm atheist.
Social and cultural upheaval
- Thread starter boliverchadsworth
- Start date
Blaze Duskdreamer
Member
Yes, but use a condom, get sterilized or you know abstain. I realize in marriage one isn't going to abstain. I do believe in abstaining outside of a committed relationship where you are true to each other. (Not necessarially marriage but preferrably so.) One horrible side effect of birth control has been promiscuity. Maybe if people - men and women - did not feel free to be such big old loosey-goosies instead of controlling themselves like mature adults instead of being controlled by their urges, there would be less murdered babies.
Blaze Duskdreamer
Member
I agree here. I'm an adamant believer that a woman should be able to take care of herself and anyone else that comes along, by which I mean children. However, that responsibility can be insisting he use a condom. Frankly, that's all I've ever used and all I would. It works without side effects. I only have the one child I wanted to make.
Not willing to? You and I will just both move along to the next. We are not compatable. Though I've never run into a guy who refused to use one to get some but maybe that's because I'm not loosey-goosie and there's only been a handful given the privilege. Still, in any case, demand he wear a condom and if he doesn't well don't sleep with him.
No, condom's aren't 100%. Nothing is except abstitence. Condoms are the only thing that also prevent disease. Again nothing is 100% except abstituence. Even now that I'm post-menopausal, I would insist on one for the disease prevention factor. Well, if I were interested in romance. I'm not anymore. But if some guy comes along and perks up my interest, ain't sleeping with him unless he uses one.
Why would I sleep with a man I didn't trust? Why woud I sleep with a man who isn't willing enough to take responsiblity? If he isn't for that, he sure isn't going to stick around and take responsibility for the baby either and I do believe the burden of meeting that baby's needs is on both parents. (A woman should just be prepared to herself because all too often daddy disappears into the wild blue yonder or, heck, even if he's Mr. Wonderful he could get hit by a truck tomorrow.)
I do point out that we won't curl up and die if we're celibate. I've been celibate throughout much of my life and I don't regret it. I'm choosy af and that often entails being celibate. Frankly, you think more clearly when you are, are less influenced by someone else's opinions.
Not willing to? You and I will just both move along to the next. We are not compatable. Though I've never run into a guy who refused to use one to get some but maybe that's because I'm not loosey-goosie and there's only been a handful given the privilege. Still, in any case, demand he wear a condom and if he doesn't well don't sleep with him.
No, condom's aren't 100%. Nothing is except abstitence. Condoms are the only thing that also prevent disease. Again nothing is 100% except abstituence. Even now that I'm post-menopausal, I would insist on one for the disease prevention factor. Well, if I were interested in romance. I'm not anymore. But if some guy comes along and perks up my interest, ain't sleeping with him unless he uses one.
Why would I sleep with a man I didn't trust? Why woud I sleep with a man who isn't willing enough to take responsiblity? If he isn't for that, he sure isn't going to stick around and take responsibility for the baby either and I do believe the burden of meeting that baby's needs is on both parents. (A woman should just be prepared to herself because all too often daddy disappears into the wild blue yonder or, heck, even if he's Mr. Wonderful he could get hit by a truck tomorrow.)
I do point out that we won't curl up and die if we're celibate. I've been celibate throughout much of my life and I don't regret it. I'm choosy af and that often entails being celibate. Frankly, you think more clearly when you are, are less influenced by someone else's opinions.
Blaze Duskdreamer
Member
I have the one child I wanted. That's all I've ever wanted is one. But why this snotty remark? One should only have as much children as they desire. Frankly the man or woman who is honest enough with themselves to admit they don't want to parent and then prevent that from happening by preventing conception is far more admirable than those who have children they don't want because they trusted God or Mother Nature to determine that instead of being responsible adults.
Blaze Duskdreamer
Member
None of my quotes were picked up. SIgh. Well, I'm not going back and fixing all that and maybe insert quotes still not working. This forum does have some tech flaws. I am used to post reply automatically quoting. I'll have to be more mindful before I actually post it to see that it actually picked up the quote. Sigh. You're all intelligent people. You can figure out what I quoted.
Teacher Terry
Well-known Member
People that only see the world in black and white and miss the shades of gray usually aren’t very bright and also lack empathy for others.
Many people that are against abortion will be the first ones to complain about their tax dollars being spent on any social services to help feed, clothe or take care of them. They will rant that people shouldn’t have kids they can’t afford and are irresponsible.
These same people want babies born at any cost even the mother’s life but don’t want to spend a dime once they are born. The hypocrisy is enough to make one’s head explode!!!
Many people that are against abortion will be the first ones to complain about their tax dollars being spent on any social services to help feed, clothe or take care of them. They will rant that people shouldn’t have kids they can’t afford and are irresponsible.
These same people want babies born at any cost even the mother’s life but don’t want to spend a dime once they are born. The hypocrisy is enough to make one’s head explode!!!
oldaunt
professional hermit
Your post sounds pretty black and white to me. I guess only you are allowed to judge?
That explains a lot.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
I'm sorry we disagree. I'll try to explain as best I can.
A string of DNA is not a human. It's a helix made of sugar-phosphate. From what I can figure out, you believe it's a person once the egg fertilizes? I don't agree with that. It's a chemical reaction that has the potential to be a human being. It's not like claiming an infant isn't a human being at all. A healthy infant can live if nurtured (fed, kept clean and warm). An early stage embryo cannot. It has no legs, arms, heart, or brain. It has no concept of what it is, and what it will be. It's of human origin, it has the potential to be a human, but it isn't at that time.
Well, this is an emotive one. You don't seem - and I could be wrong - to have a very good grasp of the psychological trauma of such an incident. When a woman is the victim of a sexual predator, that event will be with them until the day they die. It never, ever, goes away. You can get counseling that enables sufficient repair to be made that life once again seems worth living, but it's not a cure.
Same with childbirth. Bringing a child to full term isn't simply the passing of time. It's huge hormonal change, it causes physical and psychological change to the mother. We like to pretend that child birth is this wonderful event, and hey! a new life has been brought into the world. But if you were the victim of a sexual assault, and you were forced to go through 9 months of such changes, do you not feel it could be devastating?
You also glibly throw out "the mother doesn't even have to but can give it up for adoption without even looking at it." It? The mother doesn't even have to look at it? I suggest it might be a good idea for you to speak to some mothers about what pregnancy and birth means, and does, to them. They're not machines kicking out a child after nine months. Few mothers can simply give away their child without any heart-wrenching moments.
I suggest you read this as a starting point:
Daisy’s Law’: New research commissioned by Centre for Women’s Justice demonstrates why children born from rape should be recognised as ‘victims’ in law — Centre for Women's Justice
I'm reminded of a topic mentioned elsewhere regarding trigger words. Trigger words are words used because they carry an emotive power within us. Usually they're words used in every day language so we can piggy back off the more common usage. You're doing this here by using the word "murder". For me, as stated in paragraph one of this response, at the earlier stages of pregnancy, it's not a human. Not a person. And therefore, using an inflammatory term such as murder is only used for effect. For example, we don't murder cancer, we cure it. But that involves killing off the cells that are dividing. It's a slight of hand using language, and I believe is mostly used to cut off debate.
As such, there's no "innocence" about it. It's a bunch of cells. It's neither innocent, nor guilty. It just is. In the case I've outlined, it's not a matter of punishing the rapist. It's about protecting the victim of the assault. About trying to correct an abomination perpetrated against an innocent person - the woman.
Ironically, I am against the death penalty, and you are for it. That's a turn up for the books! One mistaken "accidental" execution is too many, and I believe a society cheapens itself, both in real terms and spiritually, by allowing it to happen in their name. The only countries with more executions than the US says it all: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Eqypt. It's not a proud list.
Well, it doesn't matter to you, and perhaps others. But I'm sure it matters at least a little to the victim. A victim that, in your thinking, should not only have the trauma of the event to come to terms with, but must also suffer for 9 months, and have their bodies and minds altered forever. Personally, I say the victim shouldn't have to suffer this additional trauma. I think it should be their choice, not mine. I'm male, and I like to think I care for the victim. Some cell-division isn't a person, and isn't guilty or innocent, they're a consequence of sexual trauma.
I'll end by saying, in the circumstances we're discussing, for you to throw out "Babies should not be murdered because the pregnancy is inconvenient to the mother" is utterly shocking. You talk about the 9 month sentence for a sexual assault as simply being "inconvenient". Yikes. I guess I just can't get my head around the idea that one person's innocence is trumped by that of a multi-cell organism.
The victim in this case seems to be a second class citizen. It's a little baffling to me. You care more for cells, than you do an actual human being who has been assaulted in the worst possible way, and seem to be presenting it as the righteous thing to do. It's such thinking that convinces me that organized religion is ultimately not a cause for good.
Earlier I stated this: I am pro-life, which is why, ultimately, I am pro-choice.
Other than that, apologies if I upset you, but you and I think very differently about this. As it stands I'm not seeing much we agree on, other than a sense that we both wish things weren't as they are. I hope you don't confuse my views with the idea that I want women to have terminations. That's not the case. I simply accept that it's their choice, and that there are circumstances where it's understandable.
Peace!
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
Does the percentage truly matter? I don't believe there's a single person pro-abortion. What there are, are people who believe that in 2023, women should have a choice. Not that they should do it, but they can choose to. By highlighting an extreme, we can better isolate the real topics at hand.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
Because it echoes religious teachings. God, apparently, sent his son down in order to be put to death, for the sins of other people. It's a really strange story. What kind of father would do such a thing? Was that truly the best way to make whatever point he intended? Was it just? Was it right?
I don't want to offend those of faith here, I'm okay with it for others. But it's stories like that which I find truly troubling.
Does it actually say in the bible Jesus died for our sins? I'm pretty sure it was an afterthought that people cling to in order to give oneself a sense of peace on the matter. I don't believe Jesus or the original apostles said it. If it were Saul the used cart salesman, he just made up stuff.
oldaunt
professional hermit
Actually, the first division of cells means its a life. That division cannot happen without life.
oldaunt
professional hermit
Not really. It just makes the argument appear unintelligent.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
This goes down as user error.
First you must click on the QUOTE link at the bottom right of the post you want to quote. Then you click the REPLY link.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
This is why we should define words in such conversations. In a biological setting, the term "life" may well apply. In the context it is being used here, I don't believe it does. Multi-cell division does not define whether an embryo is viable. As @Teacher Terry pointed out, I'm not sure where this myth of support groups to help these children comes from. One wonders why 11 million children are living in poverty, what with all this help. It's almost as though it happens only in isolated regions.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
Depends on your perspective. I think it shows that some are more interested in scoring cheap points, and want to denigrate an opposing idea rather than speak about it in an intelligent way. Language is forever changing, and words have multiple meanings in different contexts. I'm a little surprised you've not come across the concept before. Oh well.
oldaunt
professional hermit
ANY time someone leans on the extreme to try and prove their argument, they have already lost to the facts.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
Well, we'll agree to disagree. That strikes me as an absurd statement, but sometimes you can't find a middle ground, and you must accept never the twain.....
gruntlabor
Well-known Member
- Location
- Last Frontier, Age 83
Purity is easily degraded because it is degraded by the minutest speck of contamination.
Last edited:
gruntlabor
Well-known Member
- Location
- Last Frontier, Age 83
It is the Chinese philosophy of life always to follow the mean, the middle of the road. The biggest problem with that is that we may be falsely instructed as to where the middle is.
Blaze Duskdreamer
Member
Wow, but your reply here is the very hyprocisy you're accusing others of. Putting aside the tiny, tiny fraction that are forced sex, one takes the risk of getting pregnant by willingly having intercourse. No matter what protection you use or birth control you're on, it is still a risk. You took the chance, you support your child or give it up for adoption. You don't get to pick my pocket for your irresponsible behavior. Even if you are in the tiny fraction who were forced to have sex, they still have the option to give it up for adoption. If they choose to keep the child instead, they are responsible for its needs not me. There is utterly no hypocrisy in not wanting to support other people's bad choices.
Blaze Duskdreamer
Member
That you think there's something wrong with a woman for being discerning and not spreading her legs too quickly explains a lot about you. Yeah, I'll give this: I'm very judgmental of both women and men who are loose. It's frankly disgusting how much of our society is centered around this one facet of life. If you tried being celibate for two seconds, you might discover how much else life has to offer besides getting off physically. But, hey, overall I'm the side of the path many great philosophers and all have practiced; you've got who? The Marquis de Sade? That sick bastard.
Blaze Duskdreamer
Member
That "string of cells" as you dehumanize a growing human to is also a victim. Again - for the zillionith time - the number of abortions that are the result of that crime is a tiny, tiny fraction, less than one percent of them so it doesn't really have them. I've been both raped and given birth which is apparently more than you can say so I think I speak more from experience than you do though the child was not the result of the rape.
The baby I gave birth too was 9lb.14.5 oz, 22 inches, I was in labor five days and had to have a blood transfusion becuase i lost so much blood. It's a good thing I had her in the hospital or I might not have survived it. Since they had to give me four units of blood in 1983 when they weren't testing the blood yet, I am just fortunate that I didn't get AIDS from it.
All I'm saying is her furthr trauma does not justify murdering an innocent baby. You can lie to yourself all you want, call it a trigger word all you want but I'm honest and I call what ending a human life - yes, that string of DNA is human and growing - murder.
You think a list of countries that are horrible to live in are going to convince me to be against the death penalty? No, I happen to think the Ted Bundies and Jack the Rippers of this world should be exterminated like the dangerous vermin they are. Killng them, saves human lives they'd take in the future even in prison. Or are you naive enough to think that given life instead suddenly stops their killing? It doesn't.
Not to mention, that did turn out to be a slippery slope of ever increasing leniency. Murders now often serve 10 years or less and get out to kill again. This defies all logic.
I'm sorry that you don't have the intellect to see the difference between murderers, rapists, child molesters and innocent unborn humans.
Blaze Duskdreamer
Member
The real topic at hand is a conceived growing human having the life snuffed out of them because it'd be hard on the mother. Yes, I know you're snobby enough to dismiss everything I say as emotive (yep, I'm emotional about killing innocent babies; rather proud that I care about human lives; you should be ashamed that you dont').