First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Pregnant Mother’s are Hermaphrodites
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 10/15/09

DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:

Lol, no, doesn't work like that, if you were face to face with a very pissed off bear, you can try to out think him / her all you want, but in theend, you still get at the very least horrible maimed. Agressive direct confrontation is kill or be killed, a mentality like you have is a golden first class ticket to get yourself killed.

You cannot solve violence with peace lol, that will never happen, you can only solve solve violence with even more violence, the only way to bring about peace is to forcefully bring about peace, In a battle of peace vs violence, peace gets stripped, bent over, raped, raped again, then it gets shot in it's face, then gets raped again.

Thats just how the universe works lol, nature is absolute, so no matter how much you resist, survival of the fittest >(^50) peaceful hippie stuff, its been that way for billions of years, for life all across the universe, why would it be any difference for us mere humans ? We are at the mercy of the universe just like all the other life in the universe is. We're not special lol, we never were and we never will be. We're just mere carbon based life, powerless against nature and thus the universe.

The universe is a harsh place, sucks, but nothing we can do about it. That's reality anything else is simply denial.




You mean like yours truly? Well, can't argue with that logic.

Aren't you glad that I'm still optimistic about talking with you? Some pissed-off bears are just angry people, not pessimists. There's a difference between one being angry as oppose to other being pessimistic. Are you related by any chance?


I'm not angry lol, I just try not to get my hopes up for something so in case it doesn't work out I don't get all disappointed, and if it does, then cool. I guess that's pessimistic apparently. So I guess I'm a pessimist.

All I was saying is that the world is a kill or be killed place, has been ever since it first cooled off enough for molecules to start competing against other molecules for resources to become even more complex molecules and thus allowing life to form, the earth was a kill or be killed place( in the sense, molecules aren't alive ) before the very first protocell ever existed, that predates life ( on earth that is ) lol. Why would it be any different for us ? It wouldn't lol.

Going into a battle with a hippie ( peace / love / harmony / blah blah, are all possible without any sacrifice ) mindset is like putting the barrel of the enemies gun in your mouth and waiting for them to pull the trigger. It will get you killed.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 10/16/09 , edited 10/16/09

SeraphAlford wrote:




Black vs white and born vs a zygote isn't a very good analogy for obvious reasons. A zygote is one cell, there's an actual rational behind not equating one cell to a person, there's no real rational to not equating an adult black man to a white man. And giving black people the same status as whites doesn't mean black people would be able to come randomly into the lives of white people and live off them for a painful 9 months. We were so focused on the status of the fetus and its moral significance I forgot to mention the women, the ones who should really be the main aspect of the issue because they are the ones who get pregnant and decide what they want to do.

Imagine if someone randomly comes up to you and connects you with a sick person and says you have to go through 9 very unpleasant months connected to this person who is going to live off you. You didn't choose to be connected to this person or have him be dependent on you, it's going to be a huge disruption of your life, it's going to be very difficult and painful; both the emotional and physical aspects of it, why is it ok for you to be forced to go through that? Why should you be forced to give up your body and put your life on hold to support this other person for 9 months against your will? Isn't that against your basic rights?

A women gets raped and gets pregnant. Wouldn't forcing her to go through the 9 months and to give birth to this child be infringing on her rights? It's her body, and she can decide what she does with it, I remember you mentioned an example like this a long time ago. It sure would be nice if you decided you would be willing to go through the 9 months connected to this person even though you never wanted to be, but you shouldn't be forced to do so. The government can give the fetus whatever status and rights they want, they just need to somehow make sure the fetuses don't infringe on any women's rights. Black people aren't allowed to go live off the bodies of white people and make them put their lives on hold for 9 months, why should fetuses be allowed to do that? All human beings should have equal rights under the law, white, black, born, unborn, right? So if it's illegal for any person to walk into another person's home and force them to give up their body so they can live off it for 9 months, then shouldn't it also be illegal for the fetus to do that?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/16/09 , edited 10/16/09

Black vs white and born vs a zygote isn't a very good analogy for obvious reasons.


It’s not a very good analogy if the two cases are different. If the two cases are similar it is a very good analogy.

If all the points within the respective wholes coincide then the wholes also coincide. It’s just like geometry. If I have straight line A traveling from point C to point D and I have straight line B traveling from point C to point D then A=B because A and B have all the same points. If all the points within the respective wholes coincide, then the wholes also coincide.

Thus, the conclusion is that you can only draw one straight line between two points and my argument is logically factual. You can deny the argument but that’s being illogical and irrational, unless you can demonstrate fault within one of the two premises. In other words you have to show me that I’m wrong in Premise One or that I am wrong in Premise Two, but if I am correct in both premises then the logical conclusion of the argument is fact.

Premise One:
What is white bigotry against blacks? It’s exactly as I defined it, one group of humans deciding that because of their personal values that they’re superior to another group of humans. Do you think this is wrong?

Premise Two:
What is it pro-choice people do against fetuses? It’s exactly as I defined it, one group of humans deciding that because of their personal values that they’re superior to another group of humans. Do you think –this- is wrong?

If both of these statements are true then both prejudices are the same thing.


A zygote is one cell, there's an actual rational behind not equating one cell to a person, there's no real rational to not equating an adult black man to a white man


There’s a rational between both of them. The rational of the first one is your moral opinion; the rational in the latter is the moral opinion of somebody else. Your rational is that being sentient gives a human moral value, though you’ve been unable to accept the conclusions of this premise. Their rational is that being white gives a human moral value, and pretty much they’ve accepted this premise. So really, they’re being more rational then you are. Again, both are the same thing. There is in fact a rational in both cases. The only difference is that one rational you agree with and the other you do not.

Yet, you also agree that we cannot go around defining people as inferior and then eradicating them whenever they become a nuisance to us based on our moral perspective. So your moral perspective, now called your rational, should not be taken into consideration under the premise that you yourself have accepted.


And giving black people the same status as whites doesn't mean black people would be able to come randomly into the lives of white people and live off them for a painful 9 months


Well, of course not.


We were so focused on the status of the fetus and its moral significance I forgot to mention the women, the ones who should really be the main aspect of the issue because they are the ones who get pregnant and decide what they want to do.


We acknowledge the fetus because the fetus is; we should also acknowledge the mother because the mother is. It would be intellectually dishonest to ignore either one, since both are. Yet, it would also be dishonest to say that one is more than the other is, since both are equally existent. One is simply more tangible than the other.


Imagine if someone randomly comes up to you and connects you with a sick person and says you have to go through 9 very unpleasant months connected to this person who is going to live off you. You didn't choose to be connected to this person or have him be dependent on you, it's going to be a huge disruption of your life, it's going to be very difficult and painful; both the emotional and physical aspects of it, why is it ok for you to be forced to go through that? Why should you be forced to give up your body and put your life on hold to support this other person for 9 months against your will? Isn't that against your basic rights?


Are you arguing that women become spontaneously pregnant? Do fetuses suddenly materialize at random, completely defying the concepts of causality? Clearly they do not. In all cases except the case of rape the woman makes a decision that consummates in the fetus.

Judith Jarvis made this same argument in her “A Defense of Abortion,” which was published in Philosophy and Public Affairs 197: pp. 47-66.

She asks that you suppose you were kidnapped and attached to a musician through a series of life supporting tubes. You can protect this man’s life by remaining attached to him for nine months, or cut the cord and spend that time unencumbered. However, if you make the latter decision the musician will inexorably die.

Judith offers a bit of praise for mothers who see the pregnancy through when she notes that it would be a wonderful thing for you to support this life. Yet, you have no legal or constitutional obligation to be a wonderful person. Actually, you have a right to do the opposite. You have the right to cut the cord. A woman has the right to attain an abortion.

It’s a very good argument and it completely applies to cases of rape. All the parts in the respective wholes coincide; therefore, the wholes coincide. So, you’ve triumphed. Abortion should be legal in cases of rape. We agree. However, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute only 1% of all abortions being attained are attained for rape, molestation, and incest combined. So, your argument justifies less than 1% of all abortions being attained.

Concerning the other 99%, it is no longer a matter of being kidnapped and forcibly attached to the musician. Instead it would be more accurate to say that you chose of your own volition to attach yourself to this stranger without his consent. (A fetus never asks to be conceived.) You have just made this man reliant on you for survival. You have just created a living human who is dependent upon you for survival where there was none before.

Imagine that I came into your house and slit your wrist. I let you bleed until you were almost dead and then attached you to me through a series of blood transfusion tubes. Now, I can stay attached to you and you’ll live but that requires me being tied down regardless of any other place I might have to be. On the other hand, I can pull the tube and then you’ll wind up bleeding to death. Would you say that it’s my right to let you bleed to death even though I am the one who created the dependence in the first place?

Imagine an ambitious girl fresh from high school. Her plan is to go through college and become a legislator. On the way she falls in love with a man who convinces her not to pursue her education. Instead he asks her to marry him, abandon her career, and become a stay at home wife. After forty years of marriage he divorces her. We now have a fifty eight year old with no tangible work experience or financing skills trying to survive in society.

Luckily, our courts protect this woman. The husband created a dependent and is held accountable for it. Judith says that a woman has no constitutional obligation to be a wonderful person. Well, she’s right. We can be immoral or amoral. Nevertheless, we are required to provide for our dependents. There are strict laws concerning the care of children. Why, if a fetus is just as human and has just as many rights as I do, should our laws force us to support a newborn but not an unborn? Under the postulate that a fetus is a living human and has human rights these laws apply.

Consider child support in general. Fathers are being forced to use their bodies for physical labor to generate income to provide sustenance for their children. To shorten that, fathers are being forced to use their bodies to support their children. Should the father decide he doesn’t want to work he would not be permitted to abort the children.

The difference here is that the father, like a raped woman, is not given a choice. The woman decides to keep the child or to have an abortion and the consequences of that decision are forced upon the father.


A women gets raped and gets pregnant. Wouldn't forcing her to go through the 9 months and to give birth to this child be infringing on her rights? It's her body, and she can decide what she does with it, I remember you mentioned an example like this a long time ago. It sure would be nice if you decided you would be willing to go through the 9 months connected to this person even though you never wanted to be, but you shouldn't be forced to do so. The government can give the fetus whatever status and rights they want, they just need to somehow make sure the fetuses don't infringe on any women's rights. Black people aren't allowed to go live off the bodies of white people and make them put their lives on hold for 9 months, why should fetuses be allowed to do that? All human beings should have equal rights under the law, white, black, born, unborn, right? So if it's illegal for any person to walk into another person's home and force them to give up their body so they can live off it for 9 months, then shouldn't it also be illegal for the fetus to do that?


Well, if a fetus ever forces itself into your body then you have my permission to have an abortion. Although, I’d actually recommend running to the nearest science lab and allowing them to do some experiments because you’re probably going be very, very famous afterwards. O.O

Sorry if that’s a bit sarcastic, I couldn’t help myself. I just got this picture of an infant like forcing its way down its mother’s throat to reach her stomach and started laughing. It was hilarious looking in my head. Like those dancing, roller skate Michael Jackson babies. Those were pretty funny too…
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 10/16/09 , edited 10/16/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

There’s a rational between both of them. The rational of the first one is your moral opinion; the rational in the latter is the moral opinion of somebody else. Your rational is that being sentient gives a human moral value, though you’ve been unable to accept the conclusions of this premise. Their rational is that being white gives a human moral value, and pretty much they’ve accepted this premise. So really, they’re being more rational then you are. Again, both are the same thing. There is in fact a rational in both cases. The only difference is that one rational you agree with and the other you do not.

Yet, you also agree that we cannot go around defining people as inferior and then eradicating them whenever they become a nuisance to us based on our moral perspective. So your moral perspective, now called your rational, should not be taken into consideration under the premise that you yourself have accepted.


Obviously there's a rational behind thinking blacks are inferior to whites, but you should know what I mean when I say there's no "real" rational, it makes no sense. Saying one cell isn't equivalent to an adult human being is not insane or irrational. I'm being real here, not all technical, btw...



Are you arguing that women become spontaneously pregnant? Do fetuses suddenly materialize at random, completely defying the concepts of causality? Clearly they do not. In all cases except the case of rape the woman makes a decision that consummates in the fetus.

Judith Jarvis made this same argument in her “A Defense of Abortion,” which was published in Philosophy and Public Affairs 197: pp. 47-66.

She asks that you suppose you were kidnapped and attached to a musician through a series of life supporting tubes. You can protect this man’s life by remaining attached to him for nine months, or cut the cord and spend that time unencumbered. However, if you make the latter decision the musician will inexorably die.

Judith offers a bit of praise for mothers who see the pregnancy through when she notes that it would be a wonderful thing for you to support this life. Yet, you have no legal or constitutional obligation to be a wonderful person. Actually, you have a right to do the opposite. You have the right to cut the cord. A woman has the right to attain an abortion.

It’s a very good argument and it completely applies to cases of rape. All the parts in the respective wholes coincide; therefore, the wholes coincide. So, you’ve triumphed. Abortion should be legal in cases of rape. We agree. However, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute only 1% of all abortions being attained are attained for rape, molestation, and incest combined. So, your argument justifies less than 1% of all abortions being attained.

The difference here is that the father, like a raped woman, is not given a choice. The woman decides to keep the child or to have an abortion and the consequences of that decision are forced upon the father.

Well, if a fetus ever forces itself into your body then you have my permission to have an abortion. Although, I’d actually recommend running to the nearest science lab and allowing them to do some experiments because you’re probably going be very, very famous afterwards. O.O

Sorry if that’s a bit sarcastic, I couldn’t help myself. I just got this picture of an infant like forcing its way down its mother’s throat to reach her stomach and started laughing. It was hilarious looking in my head. Like those dancing, roller skate Michael Jackson babies. Those were pretty funny too…


Wait, so you meant abortion should be legal if a woman is raped? I thought that was just your personal belief on the issue.

If the fetus should have the same rights as you or me, how is it ever ok to murder it? lol you're against capital punishment of murderers, but killing an innocent person is ok? I mean it's not like the mother's life is in danger, so the mother's right to not have to be pregnant takes priority over the right to life that all humans have? How does that work, I would think the right to life is more important than not being inconvenienced for 9 months.

Also, I wouldn't say it's just with rape cases. Many responsible women use contraceptives but they fail to work, there's no guarantee they will work 100% of the time. So they were responsible and used birth control, but they still get pregnant. I think there is no type of contraceptive that works 100% except for not having sex at all.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/16/09

Obviously there's a rational behind thinking blacks are inferior to whites, but you should know what I mean when I say there's no "real" rational, it makes no sense. Saying one cell isn't equivalent to an adult human being is not insane or irrational. I'm being real here, not all technical, btw...


Well, I suppose I’m very stupid because rather or not I SHOULD understand what you mean I don’t understand what you mean. At least I like to tell myself out of respect for you that what I think you mean is incorrect. See, it appears to me that when you say, “real,” you mean agreeing with your perspective. It appears to me that you’re saying that racists are “irrational,” and “insane,” for not agreeing with your personal moral opinion.

By the way, you should note that Richard Dawkins, Nietzsche, and nihilists do in fact believe that you and I are insane for believing that humans have some kind of intrinsic moral value. Inanity is simply a measure of how obscure your view on reality is. So, if humans have no intrinsic moral value you are insane for believing they do. Your view on reality is warped, incorrect, and not real in any sense of the word.

Technicalities, on the other hand, are real. In ever since of the word. So, what do you mean when you say real? Well, to me real as you're using it seems to be an ambiguous moral term. I don't know, I'll wait until you've explained yoruself.


Wait, so you meant abortion should be legal if a woman is raped? I thought that was just your personal belief on the issue.


My personal view on the subject is that abortion is acceptable in all cases except late term abortions. My political view on the subject is that acceptable or not it should be illegal in all cases except rape or threat to the mother’s life.


If the fetus should have the same rights…how is it ever ok to murder it.


Imagine you’re park on the side of a bridge and looking over the edge into the water. There’s a drunk driver coming across this bridge. There’s a passenger sleeping in the back of his car. This drunk driver swerves suddenly and is about to hit you. If he hits you your car will be knocked of the bridge and you’ll surely die. On the other hand, you’ve actually noticed the danger in time to kick the car into gear and step on the gas. It is possible for you to drive forward and avoid being hit by the drunk driver, but if you do he and his vehicle will crash through the rail and fly off into the water. The passenger will die, but that’s not you murdering it. That’s simply you refusing to let the passenger use your rights to protect its rights.

Maybe that example’s too complicated. I know how you hate complications. Imagine you have no family except your brother, his wife, and their kid. Now imagine that the brother and wife died and left custody of their children to you. It would be very nice of you to provide care for these children but you have no legal obligation to do so.

To use a more familiar example, imagine somebody came into your house and forcibly attached you to a musician through a series of life supporting tubes…


it? lol you're against capital punishment of murderers, but killing an innocent person is ok?


I believe this is called the fallacy of the unequal.


I mean it's not like the mother's life is in danger, so the mother's right to not have to be pregnant takes priority over the right to life that all humans have?


The mother’s right to life is not in danger, but she has other rights that are in danger and has the right to protect those rights with reasonable force. So, if we come up with a technology that allows us to take a zygote outside of a mother’s womb and transmit it into a test tube to finish development there, well then I wouldn’t support the right to an abortion in the case of rape. Since no such technology yet exists, I support her right to abortion…


How does that work, I would think the right to life is more important than not being inconvenienced for 9 months. [/quote\]

That’s just your ambiguous moral perspective. Some people say that all rights are equal regardless of how fundamental.


Also, I wouldn't say it's just with rape cases. Many responsible women use contraceptives but they fail to work, there's no guarantee they will work 100% of the time. So they were responsible and used birth control, but they still get pregnant. I think there is no type of contraceptive that works 100% except for not having sex at all.


Exactly, so if you don’t want to get pregnant don’t have sex. Whenever you choose to engage in a behavior the consequences, intended or otherwise, are yours to bear when it pulls somebody else into the issue. As the police say, ignorance is not an excuse. For example, if you get drunk and go joy riding and hit and kill somebody, you have to deal with the consequences of that. On the other hand, if you jump into a lake in the middle of winter and get sick you can still take medicine, because at no point is anybody else’s rights violated.

See where I’m coming from? But, is it your intention to really argue the point so as to understand the truth or are you just launching a counter attack? Be sure that we’re trying to uncover what’s right and not who’s right.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 10/16/09 , edited 10/16/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

Well, I suppose I’m very stupid because rather or not I SHOULD understand what you mean I don’t understand what you mean. At least I like to tell myself out of respect for you that what I think you mean is incorrect. See, it appears to me that when you say, “real,” you mean agreeing with your perspective. It appears to me that you’re saying that racists are “irrational,” and “insane,” for not agreeing with your personal moral opinion.

By the way, you should note that Richard Dawkins, Nietzsche, and nihilists do in fact believe that you and I are insane for believing that humans have some kind of intrinsic moral value. Inanity is simply a measure of how obscure your view on reality is. So, if humans have no intrinsic moral value you are insane for believing they do. Your view on reality is warped, incorrect, and not real in any sense of the word.

Technicalities, on the other hand, are real. In ever since of the word. So, what do you mean when you say real? Well, to me real as you're using it seems to be an ambiguous moral term. I don't know, I'll wait until you've explained yoruself.


You have never heard of "keeping it real?"

Basically real = the opposite of politically correct. But with you I think it translates as some sort of blasphemy that threatens to destroy the fabric of time and space, so I won't do it anymore.




The mother’s right to life is not in danger, but she has other rights that are in danger and has the right to protect those rights with reasonable force. So, if we come up with a technology that allows us to take a zygote outside of a mother’s womb and transmit it into a test tube to finish development there, well then I wouldn’t support the right to an abortion in the case of rape. Since no such technology yet exists, I support her right to abortion…

To use a more familiar example, imagine somebody came into your house and forcibly attached you to a musician through a series of life supporting tubes…


The fetus has the right to life and the woman has the right to not be pregnant.

Both are completely innocent, and both are victims in the rape case. The woman has the right to defend her rights, but what about the fetus, why can't it's rights be defended, why should it be the one to have it's rights taken away to protect the mother's? Because the fetus has no say? Why not take the mother's rights away and keep the fetus's, would that be very different?

For the life supporting tube example, this musician(?) is completely innocent and has done nothing to put himself in his position, why does his right to life get taken away for the sake of my right to not have him connected to me? It's like Siamese twins having the right to kill each other because they are connected to each other against their will, but which one has the right to get rid of the other one?




I believe this is called the fallacy of the unequal.


The keeping it real thing will stop, don't worry.





That’s just your ambiguous moral perspective. Some people say that all rights are equal regardless of how fundamental.


Then how is it decided which rights should be prioritized over others? In these kinds of situation where the rights of two people are threatened, one should be prioritized.



Exactly, so if you don’t want to get pregnant don’t have sex. Whenever you choose to engage in a behavior the consequences, intended or otherwise, are yours to bear when it pulls somebody else into the issue. As the police say, ignorance is not an excuse. For example, if you get drunk and go joy riding and hit and kill somebody, you have to deal with the consequences of that. On the other hand, if you jump into a lake in the middle of winter and get sick you can still take medicine, because at no point is anybody else’s rights violated.

See where I’m coming from? But, is it your intention to really argue the point so as to understand the truth or are you just launching a counter attack? Be sure that we’re trying to uncover what’s right and not who’s right.


So a woman who tries to prevent pregnancy and uses contraceptives, and still gets pregnant, has her rights taken away and is forced to have the baby because her actions cause her to get pregnant, regardless of her intentions.

Well then it could be argued that some woman's actions led to them getting raped (like getting too drunk), and so she has to deal with the consequences, like a drunk driver would. Usually when a woman is too drunk to give consent and has sex it's considered rape, even if she agrees to it while she's drunk.

My intention is to find out what the law should be so it's the most fair.
74538 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Limitless Fortres...
Offline
Posted 10/16/09

I stand up for a woman’s right to attain an abortion in the case of rape or threat to her life, but in all other cases I stand up for the victim not the victimizer. With love and compassion in my heart, and more importantly with logic providing my answers. Why is the issue the woman? Why would you ignorantly, why would you narrow-mindedly ignore the bigger picture? Why wouldn’t you acknowledge the fetus? What makes the woman superior to anyone else, including the child she created through choices made of her own volition?


Please.

There has to be a male element involved to create the fetus. Probably one as ignorantly entitled and as stupid as the other.

It doesn't matter what moral or political position a person takes on this matter, legislation outlawing abortion is nearly impossible and will ALWAYS be challenged. Notice how the U.S. Supreme Court goes out of its way to throw out cases regarding abortion legislation? They don't want to touch it.

First of all there is the obvious fact that you would be legislating a body part which exists in only a section of the population. Sure, that section may be close to half, but still, it would be considered discriminatory. You can't restrict the right of a person's ownership of their own body to one half of the population without an equitable legislation for the remainder.

In what way could that ever be done? Why would anyone choose to be female? Well, they can't. So making one part of their body subject to legislation, thereby in essence, owned by the State, would be in violation of our Constitution. We have abolished slavery after all. So the only way it could be made "equitable", would be if the State owned everyone's body, in one way or another. Since the sex organ of the female is subject to legislation, the sex organ of the male would be equally subject.

Sure, -we could load everyone's (and I mean EVERYONE) DNA information into a huge database, and those people who were found responsible for creating an unwanted fetus and aborting it would be punished. Perhaps jail time for the mother, and mandatory sterilization for the father? Or perhaps the judge would be lenient and only sentence both to probation with chemical castration... oh the possibilities. But that is never going to happen. The DNA database in itself would be challenged by rights of individual privacy. It would be in the courts forever.

Males would never let this happen. They would never approve of a law that would potentially make their peckers soft. Legally.

Oh and then there are the rights of religious people, who (despite being colossal busybodies) would probably be concerned with matters of the soul. ---And exactly when does the soul enter the body? Religions can't seem to agree on this. it could be at the moment of conception, at the quickening (when the fetus moves inside the womb, or at the moment of emergence (the first inhalation of breath). As you see, it all depends on what religion is consulted. In any case, one religion may contradict another on this idea. So is it murder? It may be considered so in one religion, but not in another. Considering the state gives all organized religions equal weight under the law, how can legislation apply to one and not another?

Religions challenging each other in court. Now that is a sideshow I would love to see.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/16/09 , edited 10/16/09

You have never heard of "keeping it real?" Basically real = the opposite of politically correct. But with you I think it translates as some sort of blasphemy that threatens to destroy the fabric of time and space, so I won't do it anymore.


Well, the opposite of politically correct is politically incorrect. Well, would you say it’s politically correct of whites to decide for moral reasons that blacks are inferior and then go around eradicating any black that becomes an inconvenience for them? So, if we’re keeping it real and real is the opposite of politically correct then blacks are not humans, Jews planned 9/11, Hitler is the Christ, and fetuses are human…

I mean, when have you ever heard a mainstream media station use the term unborn child? Usually they use the term fetus or potential human. Even Fox has refrained, so far as I’ve seen, from calling a fetus a human. After all, calling a fetus a human means that every woman who’s had an abortion is a murderer. What could be more politically incorrect than that? So, if you’re being ‘real,’ then a fetus is a human.

If you’re being real and real is politically incorrect you’re being politically incorrect. And it’s politically incorrect to call being pro-choice being a bigot. So, in ‘real,’ terms pro-abortionists are bigots. A bigot is somebody who thinks their group of people is superior to another group of people. In this case a fetus. So then if they’re bigots against fetuses then fetuses are human.

But, let’s not be ‘real.’ Let’s not be politically incorrect. Let’s not be politically correct. The whole point here is for the two of us to find out what’s right, right? You’re not trying to force your views down my throat. I’m not trying to force my views down your throat. We’re just trying to find out what’s right. So, let’s not be politically incorrect. Let’s be truthful, Yei, you and I. If the truth turns out to be politically correct, so be it. If the truth turns out to be real, so be it! Let's be honest, Yei, honest and truthful.


The keeping it real thing will stop, don't worry.


Good! And will the keeping it truthful begin?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/16/09

Then how is it decided which rights should be prioritized over others? In these kinds of situation where the rights of two people are threatened, one should be prioritized.


I think that’s another conversation, hints I’ve dedicated a separate post to it. Well, I would say that the rational response is to prioritize the victim who’s rights are being trespassed against’s rights since the victim is the subject of trespass. Wouldn’t you agree? Just like the case of murder and self defence.

In court the assailant initiates the situation so he is responsible for the repercussions. The victim may in a sense be victimizing the assailant, but since the self defence is a response to the attack it’s the consequence of the assailants violation of the victim’s rights; therefore, his responsibility.


So a woman who tries to prevent pregnancy and uses contraceptives, and still gets pregnant, has her rights taken away and is forced to have the baby because her actions cause her to get pregnant, regardless of her intentions.

Well then it could be argued that some woman's actions led to them getting raped (like getting too drunk), and so she has to deal with the consequences, like a drunk driver would. Usually when a woman is too drunk to give consent and has sex it's considered rape, even if she agrees to it while she's drunk.

My intention is to find out what the law should be so it's the most fair.


I’m completely happy to get on this road with you but in order for any deductive investigation to work we have to solidify our terms. All of the terms you used seem pretty solid, except rape. What definition are we going to accept? Is having sex with somebody who’s drunk but drunkenly consents rape if you’re drunk, and what about if you’re not drunk? Is having sex with somebody who’s an idiot rape?
Posted 10/16/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Then how is it decided which rights should be prioritized over others? In these kinds of situation where the rights of two people are threatened, one should be prioritized.


I think that’s another conversation, hints I’ve dedicated a separate post to it. Well, I would say that the rational response is to prioritize the victim who’s rights are being trespassed against’s rights since the victim is the subject of trespass. Wouldn’t you agree? Just like the case of murder and self defence.

In court the assailant initiates the situation so he is responsible for the repercussions. The victim may in a sense be victimizing the assailant, but since the self defence is a response to the attack it’s the consequence of the assailants violation of the victim’s rights; therefore, his responsibility.


So a woman who tries to prevent pregnancy and uses contraceptives, and still gets pregnant, has her rights taken away and is forced to have the baby because her actions cause her to get pregnant, regardless of her intentions.

Well then it could be argued that some woman's actions led to them getting raped (like getting too drunk), and so she has to deal with the consequences, like a drunk driver would. Usually when a woman is too drunk to give consent and has sex it's considered rape, even if she agrees to it while she's drunk.

My intention is to find out what the law should be so it's the most fair.


I’m completely happy to get on this road with you but in order for any deductive investigation to work we have to solidify our terms. All of the terms you used seem pretty solid, except rape. What definition are we going to accept? Is having sex with somebody who’s drunk but drunkenly consents rape if you’re drunk, and what about if you’re not drunk? Is having sex with somebody who’s an idiot rape?


the world is just full of idoits =_= if i had it my way i would kill everyone last one but what's the point .
74538 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Limitless Fortres...
Offline
Posted 10/16/09

Is having sex with somebody who’s drunk but drunkenly consents rape if you’re drunk, and what about if you’re not drunk? Is having sex with somebody who’s an idiot rape?


This "stream of consciousness" almost seems like you are speaking from personal experience....
Posted 10/16/09

missnthrope wrote:


Is having sex with somebody who’s drunk but drunkenly consents rape if you’re drunk, and what about if you’re not drunk? Is having sex with somebody who’s an idiot rape?


This "stream of consciousness" almost seems like you are speaking from personal experience....

And you're avoiding the question.

How can having sex while drunk not considered rape? When people under the influence of alcohol have their inhibitors obstructed due to their drunken state. What's not OK for consenting adults is suddenly OK when stoned? You might as well say only stupid people have dumb luck getting themselves knocked up by having sex with others. When smart people will use various contraceptives during sex.

A moment of Zen, perhaps?
74538 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Limitless Fortres...
Offline
Posted 10/17/09

DomFortress wrote:


missnthrope wrote:


Is having sex with somebody who’s drunk but drunkenly consents rape if you’re drunk, and what about if you’re not drunk? Is having sex with somebody who’s an idiot rape?


This "stream of consciousness" almost seems like you are speaking from personal experience....

And you're avoiding the question.


The question wasn't directed at me. so I felt no need to answer it.

But since you so politely asked:

I feel that humans do what chimps do, and that the majority of these humans/monkeys are already idiots. I doubt that in the example's "scenario", it could be considered rape, but merely the procreation of the next generation of genetically damaged, fetal alchohol syndrome infected, pud-pulling consumers.

Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 10/17/09 , edited 10/17/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


I think that’s another conversation, hints I’ve dedicated a separate post to it. Well, I would say that the rational response is to prioritize the victim who’s rights are being trespassed against’s rights since the victim is the subject of trespass. Wouldn’t you agree? Just like the case of murder and self defence.

In court the assailant initiates the situation so he is responsible for the repercussions. The victim may in a sense be victimizing the assailant, but since the self defence is a response to the attack it’s the consequence of the assailants violation of the victim’s rights; therefore, his responsibility.


The problem I have with this is that if the fetus has the same status as everyone else, it makes no sense that it should ever lose the right to life.

The fetus isn't responsible for the situation so it's as much of a victim as the woman, the difference with this and some other examples you had is we can choose who's rights we keep, and we have to deliberately end the life of a human being if we make one choice, or we can let him/her live. What's the difference of purposefully killing the fetus to protect the mother's rights, and forcing the mother to not kill the fetus to protect the fetus's rights? In both situations we're taking a right away from one person to protect the right of another. Aren't the fetus's rights being trespassed when the woman chooses to get an abortion so if it could, shouldn't it have the right to stop that from happening? But in this situation it seems like the fetus's right to life doesn't get prioritized because it has no say and is completely helpless.

But both rights can't be protected at the same time, so we have to choose which one.

If it really does have the same rights as everyone else, its right to life shouldn't be taken away when it is as much of a victim as the mother, but then that would require us prioritizing the right to life all humans have over the woman's other rights. That's why the fetus having the same status as everyone else doesn't make sense, because no one else is physically connected to another human being and is completely dependent on them for life for almost 9 months, a human being under those circumstances should be in a separate category under the law. Except maybe for Siamese twins, but Siamese twins don't have a right to kill each other because they think the other one is infringing on their rights.



I’m completely happy to get on this road with you but in order for any deductive investigation to work we have to solidify our terms. All of the terms you used seem pretty solid, except rape. What definition are we going to accept? Is having sex with somebody who’s drunk but drunkenly consents rape if you’re drunk, and what about if you’re not drunk? Is having sex with somebody who’s an idiot rape?


Rape is having sex with someone without their consent. If someone has sex with a 16 year old, it's considered rape even if the 16 year old agrees to it, because when you're 16 you can't legally give consent. So if you have sex with someone who cannot give consent, it's rape.

If you're drunk when you rape someone, then I guess you could equate it with drunk driving and say they should have to face the consequences of what they did when they were drunk. But I guess that would mean if two people are drunk and both give consent to each other, they both were raped and both are the rapists (so I guess they cancel each other out?l). And if a woman gets pregnant in any of these situations, she can't get an abortion because her actions led to the pregnancy, like the drunk driver.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 10/17/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

Well, the opposite of politically correct is politically incorrect. Well, would you say it’s politically correct of whites to decide for moral reasons that blacks are inferior and then go around eradicating any black that becomes an inconvenience for them? So, if we’re keeping it real and real is the opposite of politically correct then blacks are not humans, Jews planned 9/11, Hitler is the Christ, and fetuses are human…

I mean, when have you ever heard a mainstream media station use the term unborn child? Usually they use the term fetus or potential human. Even Fox has refrained, so far as I’ve seen, from calling a fetus a human. After all, calling a fetus a human means that every woman who’s had an abortion is a murderer. What could be more politically incorrect than that? So, if you’re being ‘real,’ then a fetus is a human.

If you’re being real and real is politically incorrect you’re being politically incorrect. And it’s politically incorrect to call being pro-choice being a bigot. So, in ‘real,’ terms pro-abortionists are bigots. A bigot is somebody who thinks their group of people is superior to another group of people. In this case a fetus. So then if they’re bigots against fetuses then fetuses are human.

But, let’s not be ‘real.’ Let’s not be politically incorrect. Let’s not be politically correct. The whole point here is for the two of us to find out what’s right, right? You’re not trying to force your views down my throat. I’m not trying to force my views down your throat. We’re just trying to find out what’s right. So, let’s not be politically incorrect. Let’s be truthful, Yei, you and I. If the truth turns out to be politically correct, so be it. If the truth turns out to be real, so be it! Let's be honest, Yei, honest and truthful.


0_0 lol wow, analytical much?

No, that's not exactly what it means.

I'll give you a nice example:

Politically Correct: "The US didn't send any help during the genocide in Rwanda because of distractions from other issues at the time and the recent incident in Somalia."

Real: "The US didn't send help during the genocide in Rwanda, because no one gives a **** about poor, black people in Africa."

Like that.

Most people see it as a form of down to Earth honesty. Kanye West is always getting in trouble for being too real for people to handle.

Watch the Dave Chappelle show and you'll understand it better.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.