Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (48 users) | |
|
Please attempt to distinguish between a child and a foetus so that both sides of this debate can attempt to communicate in a common language. You may argue that a child and a foetus have the same rights, that both have souls, that the potential of a foetus to become a child makes it have the same value or whatever but please, please understand that they are two different words which refer to two separate and distinct parts of human development. This is not opinion, this is just what the words mean. People who use child when they mean foetus will be moderated for being lazy/stupid. | ZasZ. United States. June 01 2012 05:57. Posts 1745 | Profile # |
On June 01 2012 05:48 ElizarTringov wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 05:42 Leporello wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:37 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:33 KwarK wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:31 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:18 LarJarsE wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:12 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:05 SnipedSoul wrote:
The world is moving backwards.
Is abortion supposed to be progress?
no, but trying to control women and their decisions is regressive.
How do you know? It might be progressive, you have no idea the decisions the people will make. For example they might choose self control and limit the amount of children they have that way instead of choosing abortion.
I really, really doubt that women actively choose to go through the painful, invasive and distressing process of abortion because they can't be bothered to go to the store and get condoms. Would you?
Condoms are not self control, by self control I simply mean not having sex.
Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh. It's not like it's in our DNA to have sex or anything. What a grand concept, to not have sex. Maybe they should just eat cake instead? Let them eat cake. Glad I don't live in Turkey, but America isn't too far behind. Stupid people making stupid laws.
So your DNA makes your decisions for you? How do Buddhist monks stay celibate? Are they lacking in DNA? What about Christian nuns? They must be lacking DNA as well. Humans are able to control plenty of other instincts so why not the sex instinct?
Buddhist monks and nuns stay celibate because they choose to live their life a specific way in order to coincide with their beliefs. No one is saying that people can't control their sexual urges, but aside from the aforementioned religious figures, who would want to? It is a natural part of life that is enjoyable and good for your health. Like anything else, it is possible to be irresponsible in your enjoyment, and contract a disease or cause an unwanted pregnancy. But should the punishment for irresponsibility be slavery to a child you don't want? Maybe, maybe not. |
|
|
| ElizarTringov Bulgaria. June 01 2012 06:02. Posts 186 | Profile Blog # |
On June 01 2012 05:54 Leporello wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 05:48 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:42 Leporello wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:37 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:33 KwarK wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:31 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:18 LarJarsE wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:12 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:05 SnipedSoul wrote:
The world is moving backwards.
Is abortion supposed to be progress?
no, but trying to control women and their decisions is regressive.
How do you know? It might be progressive, you have no idea the decisions the people will make. For example they might choose self control and limit the amount of children they have that way instead of choosing abortion.
I really, really doubt that women actively choose to go through the painful, invasive and distressing process of abortion because they can't be bothered to go to the store and get condoms. Would you?
Condoms are not self control, by self control I simply mean not having sex.
Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh. It's not like it's in our DNA to have sex or anything. What a grand concept, to not have sex. Maybe they should just eat cake instead? Let them eat cake. Glad I don't live in Turkey, but America isn't too far behind. Stupid people making stupid laws.
So your DNA makes your decisions for you? How do Buddhist monks stay celibate? Are they lacking in DNA? What about Christian nuns? They must be lacking DNA as well. Humans are able to control plenty of other instincts so why not the sex instinct?
Oh good, I didn't realize Turkey was a country of Catholic nuns and Buddhist monks. You know who else practices celibacy? Catholic priests. Look how well that turned out for them. Everyone thinks about sex, and everyone wants sex. Buddhist monks seek to absolve themselves of their own desires, so most of them would admit that they have do a naturally driven desire to have sex.... but most people don't live that way (nor should they have to). Sex is paramount. Yes, most people do let their desires guide their decisions. Sex is often impractical, but it's always going to happen. As for abortion, it'll always be there. It might as well be regulated, in a legal manner. That's just being practical.
As a woman it is not practical to choose to have sex if you do not want to get pregnant. By definition if you practice celibacy you do not have sex so those catholic priests you speak of are not actually celibate.
|
| | Perfect practice makes perfect. |
|
|
| ZasZ. United States. June 01 2012 06:04. Posts 1745 | Profile # |
On June 01 2012 06:02 ElizarTringov wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 05:54 Leporello wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:48 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:42 Leporello wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:37 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:33 KwarK wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:31 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:18 LarJarsE wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:12 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:05 SnipedSoul wrote:
The world is moving backwards.
Is abortion supposed to be progress?
no, but trying to control women and their decisions is regressive.
How do you know? It might be progressive, you have no idea the decisions the people will make. For example they might choose self control and limit the amount of children they have that way instead of choosing abortion.
I really, really doubt that women actively choose to go through the painful, invasive and distressing process of abortion because they can't be bothered to go to the store and get condoms. Would you?
Condoms are not self control, by self control I simply mean not having sex.
Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh. It's not like it's in our DNA to have sex or anything. What a grand concept, to not have sex. Maybe they should just eat cake instead? Let them eat cake. Glad I don't live in Turkey, but America isn't too far behind. Stupid people making stupid laws.
So your DNA makes your decisions for you? How do Buddhist monks stay celibate? Are they lacking in DNA? What about Christian nuns? They must be lacking DNA as well. Humans are able to control plenty of other instincts so why not the sex instinct?
Oh good, I didn't realize Turkey was a country of Catholic nuns and Buddhist monks. You know who else practices celibacy? Catholic priests. Look how well that turned out for them. Everyone thinks about sex, and everyone wants sex. Buddhist monks seek to absolve themselves of their own desires, so most of them would admit that they have do a naturally driven desire to have sex.... but most people don't live that way (nor should they have to). Sex is paramount. Yes, most people do let their desires guide their decisions. Sex is often impractical, but it's always going to happen. As for abortion, it'll always be there. It might as well be regulated, in a legal manner. That's just being practical.
As a woman it is not practical to choose to have sex if you do not want to get pregnant. By definition if you practice celibacy you do not have sex so those catholic priests you speak of are not actually celibate.
As a woman it is eminently practical to choose to have sex and also choose to use birth control. Then you get the best of both worlds! But how does your "practicality" factor in when rape is the cause of the pregnancy?
|
|
|
 KwarK United Kingdom. June 01 2012 06:04. Posts 20509 | Profile Blog # |
On June 01 2012 06:02 ElizarTringov wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 05:54 Leporello wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:48 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:42 Leporello wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:37 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:33 KwarK wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:31 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:18 LarJarsE wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:12 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:05 SnipedSoul wrote:
The world is moving backwards.
Is abortion supposed to be progress?
no, but trying to control women and their decisions is regressive.
How do you know? It might be progressive, you have no idea the decisions the people will make. For example they might choose self control and limit the amount of children they have that way instead of choosing abortion.
I really, really doubt that women actively choose to go through the painful, invasive and distressing process of abortion because they can't be bothered to go to the store and get condoms. Would you?
Condoms are not self control, by self control I simply mean not having sex.
Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh. It's not like it's in our DNA to have sex or anything. What a grand concept, to not have sex. Maybe they should just eat cake instead? Let them eat cake. Glad I don't live in Turkey, but America isn't too far behind. Stupid people making stupid laws.
So your DNA makes your decisions for you? How do Buddhist monks stay celibate? Are they lacking in DNA? What about Christian nuns? They must be lacking DNA as well. Humans are able to control plenty of other instincts so why not the sex instinct?
Oh good, I didn't realize Turkey was a country of Catholic nuns and Buddhist monks. You know who else practices celibacy? Catholic priests. Look how well that turned out for them. Everyone thinks about sex, and everyone wants sex. Buddhist monks seek to absolve themselves of their own desires, so most of them would admit that they have do a naturally driven desire to have sex.... but most people don't live that way (nor should they have to). Sex is paramount. Yes, most people do let their desires guide their decisions. Sex is often impractical, but it's always going to happen. As for abortion, it'll always be there. It might as well be regulated, in a legal manner. That's just being practical.
As a woman it is not practical to choose to have sex if you do not want to get pregnant. By definition if you practice celibacy you do not have sex so those catholic priests you speak of are not actually celibate.
It very much is. It is very easy to have sex and not get pregnant. |
| | The angels have the phone box | |
|
|
| Tayar United States. June 01 2012 06:05. Posts 1280 | Profile # |
Banning abortion =/= stopping abortions from happening. The only thing this changes is that rather than going to a professional, experienced clinic, people with go to some shady street abortion dealer guy, and the person getting an abortion will probably die.
The whole moral debate is completely beside the point, banning abortion is fundamentally impracticable. You'd think after the abject failure of drug bans society would learn its lesson. |
|
|
 PassionFruit June 01 2012 06:06. Posts 177 | Profile Blog # |
It's always the same analysis regardless of what country you're in. You weigh the interest of the fetus against the interest of the woman. In Turkey, women rights are radically reduced and the right of a fetus exists at conception. Different cultures weigh the interests differently.
As for the United States, I don't believe that abortion should even be a federal issue. Just leave it to the States to decide what they want in their respective State. There isn't a right or wrong answer. Too many interests at play to just definitively side with pro-life or pro-choice regardless of the circumstance. There are decent arguments for both sides. |
|
|
| n2o June 01 2012 06:06. Posts 46 | Profile # |
I don't know if it is stated that we also have a fantastic health minister who suggests the raped women to give birth to their baby resulting from rape and if necessary, the government will take care of the baby.
I am studying hard at university. To study and/or work abroad in the future as soon as possible. I am sick of this government. |
|
|
| ElizarTringov Bulgaria. June 01 2012 06:08. Posts 186 | Profile Blog # |
On June 01 2012 06:04 ZasZ. wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 06:02 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:54 Leporello wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:48 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:42 Leporello wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:37 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:33 KwarK wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:31 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:18 LarJarsE wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:12 ElizarTringov wrote:
[quote]
Is abortion supposed to be progress?
no, but trying to control women and their decisions is regressive.
How do you know? It might be progressive, you have no idea the decisions the people will make. For example they might choose self control and limit the amount of children they have that way instead of choosing abortion.
I really, really doubt that women actively choose to go through the painful, invasive and distressing process of abortion because they can't be bothered to go to the store and get condoms. Would you?
Condoms are not self control, by self control I simply mean not having sex.
Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh. It's not like it's in our DNA to have sex or anything. What a grand concept, to not have sex. Maybe they should just eat cake instead? Let them eat cake. Glad I don't live in Turkey, but America isn't too far behind. Stupid people making stupid laws.
So your DNA makes your decisions for you? How do Buddhist monks stay celibate? Are they lacking in DNA? What about Christian nuns? They must be lacking DNA as well. Humans are able to control plenty of other instincts so why not the sex instinct?
Oh good, I didn't realize Turkey was a country of Catholic nuns and Buddhist monks. You know who else practices celibacy? Catholic priests. Look how well that turned out for them. Everyone thinks about sex, and everyone wants sex. Buddhist monks seek to absolve themselves of their own desires, so most of them would admit that they have do a naturally driven desire to have sex.... but most people don't live that way (nor should they have to). Sex is paramount. Yes, most people do let their desires guide their decisions. Sex is often impractical, but it's always going to happen. As for abortion, it'll always be there. It might as well be regulated, in a legal manner. That's just being practical.
As a woman it is not practical to choose to have sex if you do not want to get pregnant. By definition if you practice celibacy you do not have sex so those catholic priests you speak of are not actually celibate.
As a woman it is eminently practical to choose to have sex and also choose to use birth control. Then you get the best of both worlds! But how does your "practicality" factor in when rape is the cause of the pregnancy?
Celibacy IS birth control. Well then it is up to the woman as it was not her choice to be raped.
|
| | Perfect practice makes perfect. |
|
|
| Aelfric Turkey. June 01 2012 06:08. Posts 876 | Profile Blog # |
On June 01 2012 06:02 ElizarTringov wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 05:54 Leporello wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:48 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:42 Leporello wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:37 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:33 KwarK wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:31 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:18 LarJarsE wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:12 ElizarTringov wrote:
On June 01 2012 05:05 SnipedSoul wrote:
The world is moving backwards.
Is abortion supposed to be progress?
no, but trying to control women and their decisions is regressive.
How do you know? It might be progressive, you have no idea the decisions the people will make. For example they might choose self control and limit the amount of children they have that way instead of choosing abortion.
I really, really doubt that women actively choose to go through the painful, invasive and distressing process of abortion because they can't be bothered to go to the store and get condoms. Would you?
Condoms are not self control, by self control I simply mean not having sex.
Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh. It's not like it's in our DNA to have sex or anything. What a grand concept, to not have sex. Maybe they should just eat cake instead? Let them eat cake. Glad I don't live in Turkey, but America isn't too far behind. Stupid people making stupid laws.
So your DNA makes your decisions for you? How do Buddhist monks stay celibate? Are they lacking in DNA? What about Christian nuns? They must be lacking DNA as well. Humans are able to control plenty of other instincts so why not the sex instinct?
Oh good, I didn't realize Turkey was a country of Catholic nuns and Buddhist monks. You know who else practices celibacy? Catholic priests. Look how well that turned out for them. Everyone thinks about sex, and everyone wants sex. Buddhist monks seek to absolve themselves of their own desires, so most of them would admit that they have do a naturally driven desire to have sex.... but most people don't live that way (nor should they have to). Sex is paramount. Yes, most people do let their desires guide their decisions. Sex is often impractical, but it's always going to happen. As for abortion, it'll always be there. It might as well be regulated, in a legal manner. That's just being practical.
As a woman it is not practical to choose to have sex if you do not want to get pregnant. By definition if you practice celibacy you do not have sex so those catholic priests you speak of are not actually celibate.
The thing is you can't forbid making mistakes or being stupid or people that are not using their brain to it's full potential. Otherwise you'd have to punish almost half of the humans all the time. Practically, life just doesn't work that way. |
| | Tomorrow never comes until its too late... |
|
|
| zasta United Kingdom. June 01 2012 06:09. Posts 97 | Profile # |
I believe in fifty years time (give or take) it will be completely possible to implant a uterus in a man. When this moment comes, the abortion debate will collapse because every man who has ever told a woman that she had to grow a child inside of her will now be answered by: "You think it's so important? Here you go."
This will be a better world. |
|
|
| mrafaeldie12 Brazil. June 01 2012 06:12. Posts 534 | Profile # |
No exceptions for rape? Holy shit this is ridiculous. With the global adoption system being bloated with children, how will the government "take care" of them? This is recipe for disaster.
|
| | "..it all comes thumbling down thumbling down thumblin down" |
|
|
| Zvenn3n Sweden. June 01 2012 06:15. Posts 808 | Profile Blog # |
On June 01 2012 06:09 zasta wrote:
I believe in fifty years time (give or take) it will be completely possible to implant a uterus in a man. When this moment comes, the abortion debate will collapse because every man who has ever told a woman that she had to grow a child inside of her will now be answered by: "You think it's so important? Here you go."
This will be a better world.
Funny analogy, and also completely true. Had this been about men, I kind of think that Turkey would've acted differently due to (at least what I know) the difference of rights when it comes to men and women. |
| | Fear is the one true enemy. http://steamcommunity.com/id/Sh4p3 OckE's my nick. Swedish flag's my pic. |
|
|
| Rassy Netherlands. June 01 2012 06:15. Posts 1494 | Profile # |
No way that will be possible in 50 years.
Maybe they will be able to raise a fetus inside some machine but definatly not inside a man.
The debate would indeed kinda collapse then, though probably give room for a new debate.
What if these machines to raise fetus turn out to be extremely expensive? |
|
|
| Evilmystic Russian Federation. June 01 2012 06:16. Posts 248 | Profile # |
| State trying to control people's private choices including abortion is just a medieval barbarity. There is no place for such customs in a society trying to find it's place in a post-industrial world after information revolution. Last edit: 2012-06-01 06:17:01 |
|
|
| selin1005 Turkey. June 01 2012 06:17. Posts 23 | Profile # |
On June 01 2012 05:44 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
Looks like they won't be joining the EU anytime soon then. Thank god.
I love how a female person's right to choose what to do with her body/life is discussed, and this is what you come up with.
Then again, if I was in your shoes, I would probably think the same.
On June 01 2012 05:54 Rassy wrote:
Suprised that abortion was legal in turkey, always thought that it was illegal in every islamic country.
Turkey is not an Islamic country, but it surely is turning into one. Actually until this week, legality of abortion was not even on the agenda. Many of us still believe this whole abortion discussion is a political diversion. What makes it most fun for me as a Turkish woman is, it is a diversion that will probably end in regression of women's rights in this country.
As for my opinion on abortion, I am pro-choice. One thing I believe that many 'pro-life' (I love this term. Makes all us pro-choice people look like we hate both life and the living) people get wrong is, abortion is not a method of birth control. It is not like couples go, 'Now that there's abortion, no condoms for us anymore!' Abortion is the method with which unwanted pregnancies are ended, i.e. when birth control does not work, or tragically it was not only the pregnancy that was not wanted, but also sex (fancy way of saying the woman was raped). It still is a medical procedure that a woman has to go through, which probably will leave huge emotional baggage (whilst actually being one of the safer medical procedures). It is not the go to solution for women who get knocked up every other month.Last edit: 2012-06-01 06:37:00 |
| |
|
| ShatterZer0 United States. June 01 2012 06:20. Posts 1832 | Profile # |
It really is a funny question, what is it that qualifies a person as human?
I mean, we all have an inextricable desire, or need, for the parts of us to stay parts of us. By this I would mean that even children who have lost limbs attempt to keep their amputated parts near them. Knife fighters fear numerous shallow cuts more than a few deep cuts because just seeing enough of your own blood outside of your body just knocks you out even though there's no medical reason for you to have fainted.
Also, the question should almost never be "is it going to hurt?" when contemplating life and death. A human being can be a human being even if they lack tactile sensation, right? Nobody can actually make a convincing argument that CIPA patients aren't human beings...
For me abortion where it is for the Mother's safety is trading a life you have certainty of with two lives you have less certainty of, which can be moral, I guess.
In cases of parents being poor and the pregnancy being both viable and not harming the mother, I don't really think abortion is defensible if there are proper foster care/adoptive services around. I mean, shouldn't you at least give the kid a chance to choose between living a likely shitty life and death? Of course, this would be glazing over the serious cost of pregnancy mentally, physically, and monetarily for the mother/father... but I think unless you were raped that it's your responsibility to begin with.
On a related note, why do hospitals charge patients with pregnancy costs? It sounds really weird to me xD |
| |
|
| Mongoose United Kingdom. June 01 2012 06:21. Posts 123 | Profile Blog # |
I can't help but feeling they are taking a step back in terms of progress by banning abortion.
I'm not trolling here, but look at global population.. The Earth can barely support its current population. I know Turkey is only one country and has a negligible impact on world population, but eventually it'll get to a point where every country will need to look at population increase, not only through abortion but abortion will be a factor (especially as developing countries become 'developed'), in my opinion.
Last edit: 2012-06-01 06:21:36 |
| |
|
| Heavenlee United States. June 01 2012 06:25. Posts 673 | Profile # |
One, people who have never had sex in their life should probably not give their opinions on celibacy and sex in general. You're arguing out of a deep well of ignorance and you aren't going to convince anyone to not have sex to prevent the possibility of abortion.
Second, a fetus is not a person. It's a blank slate that has some basic organic functions. They do not experience any emotions beyond some basic animal ones at a certain point. Reacting to noises is not a sign of sentience. It has no to very little frontal lobe development. No experiences, thoughts, grasp of language, nothing besides basic reflexes and growth. Look at the development of a fetus and its brain, they are not "sentient" beings. You may as well consider an animal more human than a fetus if you're going to base life on its ability to grow and react to certain stimuli. Even a plant can do the same thing.
You can argue that they will be sentient in the future, but they are not currently a person. Sure they have potential, but 1) at what point is it ethical to impinge on the mother's rights just for future sentience of a fetus and 2) even if they were the majority, what right do those who value all life as sacred have to impose their viewpoint on others? The government should not be able to regulate everything a person does just because the president has a certain viewpoint that many others do not share, especially when he is not the one even remotely affected by his choice.
Last edit: 2012-06-01 06:29:42 |
|
|
| msl Germany. June 01 2012 06:27. Posts 230 | Profile # |
On June 01 2012 06:17 selin1005 wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 05:44 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
Looks like they won't be joining the EU anytime soon then. Thank god.
I love how a female person's right to choose what to do with her body/life is discussed, and this is what you come up with. Then again, if I was in your shoes, I would probably think the same.
Please keep in mind that the deniziens of the UK don't actually want to be in the EU anyway. I'd rather trade them for Turkey to be honest. So on behalf of Europe I apologiese for that guy on the same idiot as me being a continent.
|
| |
|
| ElizarTringov Bulgaria. June 01 2012 06:29. Posts 186 | Profile Blog # |
On June 01 2012 06:25 Heavenlee wrote:
One, people who have never had sex in their life should probably not give their opinions on celibacy and sex in general. You're arguing out of a deep well of ignorance and you aren't going to convince anyway.
Second, a fetus is not a person. It's a blank slate that has some basic organic functions. They do not experience any emotions beyond some basic animal ones at a certain point. Reacting to noises is not a sign of sentience. It has no to very little frontal lobe development. No experiences, thoughts, grasp of language, nothing besides basic reflexes and growth. Look at the development of a fetus and its brain, they are not "sentient" beings. You may as well consider an animal more human than a fetus if you're going to base life on its ability to grow and react to certain stimuli. Even a plant can do the same thing. The possibility of sentience in the future is not current sentience.
People who have never had sex in their life should probably not give their opinions on celibacy? Then who should? Porn stars? It is the people who have the least sex who value it the most. |
| | Perfect practice makes perfect. |
|
|
| Prev 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 36 37 Next All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
