U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-13-2009, 07:31 AM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,937,867 times
Reputation: 3848

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomDot View Post
Those terms are absolutely used to disparage the the fetus. What better way to make an abortion more palatable than to call it a leech or a parasite. A leech is a annelid worm that lives in water. It attaches itself to a host in order to suck the blood of that host.
A parasite is an organism that attaches itself to a host in order to benefit from that host. If you think that using these words to describe a fetus is perfectly acceptable then you are as dumb as a stump!
Tom, I refer you to the rules of this section of the forum, which prohibit personal attacks. You might want to review them. For my part, I find your comments both unintelligent and deeply uneducated, yet I refrain from attacking you in this manner. I would appreciate it if you grant me, and other posters here, the same courtesy. As for the substance -- you can interpret the terms any way you want, but people who use them are the ones who get to define the context; and they use them in a purely biological sense. A fetus DOES attach itself to a host in order to benefit from that host, whether you like it or not; and the host is entirely within her rights to terminate that attachment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomDot View Post
Like I said it is funny how the state of mind of the woman dictates what it is that is growing inside her.
If she wants it, it is a "precious baby" that is inside her.
If she doesn't want it, it is simply "A pregnancy" or "My reproductive right".
Isn't it funny how a woman's state of mind dictates what kind of sex she's having?
If she wants it, it's "making love".
If she doesn't want it, it's simply "rape" and "my right not to have my body violated".

The nerve on her! I mean, what right does she have to dictate what ought or ought not to happen to her body? Isn't it funny, Tom, isn't it funny? Those women -- they never learn they are merely chattels and breeding beasts for their menfolk. [/end sarcasm] I'd note that involuntary pregnancy is nothing if not a form of rape -- and frequently is a result of rape. Since it is the woman's body that's being used -- not yours, not your friends', not her sexual partner's, not the government's, and not the fetus' -- it makes perfect sense that her state of mind dictates what is growing inside her -- not your state of mind, not your friends', not her sexual partner's, not the government's (I don't mention the fetus here because it doesn't have a state of mind).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-13-2009, 09:02 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,091 posts, read 10,486,058 times
Reputation: 4104
Why does anyone care what a person does with part of their body and their life? Let the people who bear the weight of the decision make it.

People who force others don't seem to realize the gravity of forcing people to make that decision. They have to bear the resources used to care for that child for 18 years and 9 months...the people force the decision just send a check to an organization and if the vote comes, check a box. Talk about a clean and sterile absence of any responsibility for the complications of that arise from it. No one takes the decision lightly, like it's a choice between red and blue wallpaper.

What happens later too, when the child is growing up...do just the people who force the decision bear the responsibility that the parent does not have the resources to take care of a child? How about the fun life a child would have, with a parent that hates and resents a child they were forced to keep...or if the child, due to crushing poverty and anger at their situation, turns to crime...do the people who vote to force a family to keep a child for their reason bear that responsibility of their actions? Plus the crushing load people hoist on environmental resources that each new life would bring?

Last edited by subsound; 05-13-2009 at 09:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2009, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Under a bridge.
3,196 posts, read 4,715,448 times
Reputation: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violett View Post
Isn't it great? Force women to have children they aren't financially or emotionally ready to take care of, and then refuse them social services when they actually have the child.

Pro-Life zealots are so focused on protecting the life of an embryo that they ignore the type of life these unwanted children are forced into. It makes no sense. How about instead of "right to life" we focus on people's right to have a good life, and a fair life, and not just living for the sake of existing?

I think that all the Pro-Lifers should pool their money and pay for the babies that the impoverished can't provide for. Since life is so important to them and all, let them financially support it.
I always ask pro-lifers how many unwanted children have they adopted. I point out that there is always someone around to adopt a baby--but what about those unwanted 4, 5, 6, etc year-olds? Force a woman to have a baby, and most will try to care for it for a few years. Many will fail...THEN where are the pro-lifers? They sit around in their nice comfortable homes and deride those who are in poverty, refusing to help with the condition they've created.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 02:39 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
285 posts, read 458,215 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Danielle* View Post
Again,,,a baby does not need to be leeched on to a uterus to live. It can survive outside of the womb. A baby can.
If you take a pacemaker away from someone who needs it they won't survive. How does dependence on something outside of the person, devalue the person?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 06:32 AM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,937,867 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by basketballakev View Post
If you take a pacemaker away from someone who needs it they won't survive. How does dependence on something outside of the person, devalue the person?
A woman isn't "something" -- she is someone. A uterus isn't a pacemaker -- it is an organ that's part of a body of another human being. A fetus needs to parasitize (technical term) a human body in order to survive. A more apt analogy is if someone needs your kidney to survive; would it be okay to dig into your body and give that person your kidney over your protest?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 07:34 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,523,609 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
I'd note that involuntary pregnancy is nothing if not a form of rape -- and frequently is a result of rape.
Although "frequently" is not an absolute term, I would caution you to use it in a way that does not militate against your own credibility. Of all abortions performed in the USA, less than one percent of the women list "Rape or Incest" as their reason for aborting.

Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

Last edited by jtur88; 05-15-2009 at 07:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,523,609 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by basketballakev View Post
If you take a pacemaker away from someone who needs it they won't survive. How does dependence on something outside of the person, devalue the person?
If you take water away from someone, they won't survive either. But neither water nor a pacemaker is another human being. It is not the devaluing of the fetus that is being addressed, it is the devaluing of the human being who is re-assigned to the non-human role of pacemaker or water source for another another "person" who depends on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 08:03 AM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,937,867 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Although "frequently" is not an absolute term, I would caution you to use it in a way that does not militate against your own credibility. Of all abortions performed in the USA, less than one percent of the women list "Rape or Incest" as their reason for aborting.
On the other hand, it is noteworthy that the study concerned itself with main reasons given for seeking an abortion, not how many pregnancies resulted from rape. Those two things aren't the same at all. If 5 out of 100 women who get an abortion state that the main reason was rape, that doesn't meant only 5 out of those 100 women got pregnant as a result of rape. A rape victim may cite another reason as as the dispositive factor -- such as her health (if she is extremely young, for example), or fetal malformations or genetic disorders (particularly likely in cases of rape by close relatives), or economic inability to go through with the pregnancy and motherhood (likely in cases where a very young rape victim is disowned by her family), or her youth, or her parents' desire that she have an abortion, or the desire to conceal the rape.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,523,609 times
Reputation: 35864
I provided you with several statistical tables. If you wish to refute them, provide me with your own credible statistical tables supporting your representation that so-and-so number of pregnancies are the result of rape.

My link shows that your "if 5 out of 100" is wildly off the mark as a starting point, the actual number is less than 1 out of 100, and you have a steep uphill battle to show that unwanted pregnancies "frequently" result from rape.

Note also that the second, more recent (2004) chart does exactly what you surmise---it enumerates ALL the reasons given for choosing to abort. Rape and incest are still less than 1%.

Let me remind you that the thread about rape has been closed by the moderastor, and I doubt if the intent of that closure was to inspire you to move your rape fixation over to this abortion thread. I have said what I have to say about your rape comment, and I will not respond again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 08:25 AM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,937,867 times
Reputation: 3848
Let me remind you that Great Debates is about discussing issues, not each other. It is obvious that you have a personal animus towards me, and your injection of that animus into a substantive thread is totally inappropriate. In the future, I suggest that you use DM to vent any frustration over what you believe are my "fixations" and other mental deficiencies that you have accused me of. Further, if you believe my posts don't belong in Great Debates, I suggest you report them; I am sure the moderators will appreciate it very much. Yet another option you have, since everything I post seems to greatly upset you, is to put me on "ignore". I will be more than happy to address your personal complaints against me in private. In public, kindly try to control your personal hostilities and leave me alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I provided you with several statistical tables. If you wish to refute them, provide me with your own credible statistical tables supporting your representation that so-and-so number of pregnancies are the result of rape.
See, Holmes, Resnick, Kilpatrick and Best, "Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women", American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, August 1996.

Last edited by Redisca; 05-15-2009 at 08:55 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top