474 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Ethical Scabs wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ethical Scabs wrote...
Arright dude. Obviously you're the arbiter of definitions. Have fun now.

i didnt define this. im just reiterating it. you can go and tell the DNA in an embryo it's wrong if you like.

There's actually some very good examples of multi-cellular organisms where this isn't the case though.  Mitochondria and chloroplasts for instance.  They have their own DNA, separate from that of the cell they are in.  Does this mean they are a separate organism?  That'd be silly.

you're comparing microcellular organisms to humans? there is a pretty clear distinction here. identification of individual human beings is easily accomplished via DNA. identical twins are the only humans that share DNA sequences, and that is because they came from the same embryo. this even begs the argument that two humans dont even need to have distinct DNA sequences to be seperate living things.

[Recidiva]

TSamee wrote...


Ah, cool, thanks for clarifying. The second I read the posts I assumed that people  would capitalise on the welfare as an excuse to remain unemployed, but I wanted to know if women did this out of desperation (bad education, poor family, can't bring up child, etc.) or out of laziness. Hmmm... Though I hate the whole "welfare queen" mentality with every fibre of my soul, I think it's unfair on the child if their mother's income (which, let's hope, feeds and clothes them) is cut purely because the father says so. For all we know, the father could wish the child had never been born, and the mother could just see the kid as a paycheck. It's a sad existence, but it could be made much worse if uncaring fathers could simply cut they kids' economic lifeline on a whim.

The moderate solution I see:

If the father chooses to cut the mother's income, a reason must be provided, and the mother needs to be evidently capable of supporting herself. If deemed incapable, and the father is incapable of providing the monthly income, she should be put on government welfare or left with a consenting relative (sorry, the hypercapitalist "go out and die" mentality annoys me too), and the child will either also be left with said relatives, or brought up as an orphan. It is sad, I know, but growing up with a cold, calculating mum and a dad who just doesn't give a **** can't be nice either.'

This is probably packed with flaws, but I haven't given it much thought, it's as close as I can get realistically to what seems right.

I'm just trying to equalize the law to some state that is less imbalanced than it is now.  I do believe that a woman should have the right to decide what happens, because of all the social and medical reasons inherent in bearing a child.

But if I believe this is true, it is a deeply and inherently imbalanced situation to thrust upon men, therefore they deserve and should get some level of equality and control.

I don't want children to suffer, but I believe they are doing so under the law as it is now, because of the inequality and because it's being exploited. 

I will have to rely on other social programs to attempt to help a baby thrive once it's brought into the world.  But I can't think that allowing men to be forced into financial slavery is the answer.

[Squiggles1334]

outlaworacle wrote...

I know I'm a man and I have no right to an opinion involving anything even remotely female, but I think we should all pitch in $1.05 and get this thread aborted.

Change I can believe in.

[bzombo]

wow is this off topic. :-)

[the_one_54321]

Recidiva wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

but she caused the problem to begin with. well, she and the man. outside of rape, all pregnancies are 100% preventable.

Actually she and a participant "caused" the "problem" and she can "cause" the solution.



Babies are not problems to be solved. And if you want to punish someone into being a parent, I will simply choose to disagree that this is a productive or socially beneficial arrangement for anyone.

ending a life is not a solution.



i actually agree with you that it is neither productive nor socially beneficial. when two people act irresponsibly in this way, everyone loses out, the child most of all.but killing what is genetically distinguishable as a separate human being is the worst asnwer, not the best.

[Bullets McDeath]

Squiggles1334 wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...

I know I'm a man and I have no right to an opinion involving anything even remotely female, but I think we should all pitch in $1.05 and get this thread aborted.

Change I can believe in.

It's just gonna get the Stanely Woo-hammer anyway, I say we see what science is capable of first!

[JAMiAM]

Recidiva wrote...

JAMiAM wrote...

It's okay to laugh at the nature of my argument.  Just don't giggle at the *size*...

No, never.

But although I understand testosterone can be a curse, thus can estrogen.

Or I'd happily give up a period and all the fun headaches and hormone swings that go with them. 

I apparently I also have a sex drive that got me the nickname "Terminator."   And I'm not alone.  Lots of women experience the same syndrome.

"It's what she does!  It's all she does!  And she absolutely...will...not...stop...until you are dead..." (Nickname courtesy of second husband.)

Which reminds me of a joke...

In the beginning, God handed out to all the his creatures their various defining characteristics and attributes.  As He got to his prized creations, Adam and Eve, His bag was getting a bit empty.  When He got to the bottom of it, He found that there were just two characteristics left.

Addressing them, He said, "Since I only have two things left to give you, you shall each have one."  Reaching into the bag, He pulls out a slip of paper with "Urinates while standing".  Adam blurts out "Oh please, Lord!  Please let me have this ability.  I don't care what the other is, just let me have this one!"  God turns to Eve, who acquiesces.  Adam, thus endowed, happily trotted off to find the Garden's largest snowbank to pee his name into.

God then turned to Eve, and said "Oh, I almost forgot.  Here's yours.  'Multiple Orgasms'." 

[Ethical Scabs]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ethical Scabs wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ethical Scabs wrote...
Arright dude. Obviously you're the arbiter of definitions. Have fun now.

i didnt define this. im just reiterating it. you can go and tell the DNA in an embryo it's wrong if you like.

There's actually some very good examples of multi-cellular organisms where this isn't the case though.  Mitochondria and chloroplasts for instance.  They have their own DNA, separate from that of the cell they are in.  Does this mean they are a separate organism?  That'd be silly.

you're comparing microcellular organisms to humans? there is a pretty clear distinction here. identification of individual human beings is easily accomplished via DNA. identical twins are the only humans that share DNA sequences, and that is because they came from the same embryo. this even begs the argument that two humans dont even need to have distinct DNA sequences to be seperate living things.

 

Well yeah, that's a perfect comparison.  It is an entity with a separate DNA structure housed within a larger Entity, but still considered to be part of the larger Entity.

Modifié par Ethical Scabs, 08 janvier 2010 - 09:26 .

[Tirigon]

Obtusifolius wrote...

Maviarab wrote...

Bibdy wrote...

This thread is ****ing hilarious. What happens when stupid people get their hands on a keyboard.

Exactly...syas a lot that statement doesnt it?

That made me chuckle.

It´s a phenomena that in every discussion will be someone whose only participation is to say it´s an unnecessary discussion.
If I feel like that about a discussion, I don´t say anything at all. But probably I´m just too mature in that aspect.

[bzombo]

Obtusifolius wrote...

JAMiAM wrote...


Which reminds me of a joke...

In the beginning, God handed out to all the his creatures their various defining characteristics and attributes.  As He got to his prized creations, Adam and Eve, His bag was getting a bit empty.  When He got to the bottom of it, He found that there were just two characteristics left.

Addressing them, He said, "Since I only have two things left to give you, you shall each have one."  Reaching into the bag, He pulls out a slip of paper with "Urinates while standing".  Adam blurts out "Oh please, Lord!  Please let me have this ability.  I don't care what the other is, just let me have this one!"  God turns to Eve, who acquiesces.  Adam, thus endowed, happily trotted off to find the Garden's largest snowbank to pee his name into.

God then turned to Eve, and said "Oh, I almost forgot.  Here's yours.  'Multiple Orgasms'." 

I love it Especially the bit about silly little Adam trotting off to ****** on a snowbank.

that is sexist!!!!!! i'm no masculinist, but that is offensive! [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/w00t.png[/smilie]

Modifié par bzombo, 08 janvier 2010 - 09:29 .

[Bullets McDeath]

JAMiAM wrote...

Recidiva wrote...

JAMiAM wrote...

It's okay to laugh at the nature of my argument.  Just don't giggle at the *size*...

No, never.

But although I understand testosterone can be a curse, thus can estrogen.

Or I'd happily give up a period and all the fun headaches and hormone swings that go with them. 

I apparently I also have a sex drive that got me the nickname "Terminator."   And I'm not alone.  Lots of women experience the same syndrome.

"It's what she does!  It's all she does!  And she absolutely...will...not...stop...until you are dead..." (Nickname courtesy of second husband.)

Which reminds me of a joke...

In the beginning, God handed out to all the his creatures their various defining characteristics and attributes.  As He got to his prized creations, Adam and Eve, His bag was getting a bit empty.  When He got to the bottom of it, He found that there were just two characteristics left.

Addressing them, He said, "Since I only have two things left to give you, you shall each have one."  Reaching into the bag, He pulls out a slip of paper with "Urinates while standing".  Adam blurts out "Oh please, Lord!  Please let me have this ability.  I don't care what the other is, just let me have this one!"  God turns to Eve, who acquiesces.  Adam, thus endowed, happily trotted off to find the Garden's largest snowbank to pee his name into.

God then turned to Eve, and said "Oh, I almost forgot.  Here's yours.  'Multiple Orgasms'." 

Here's another one:

So Adam is chilling alone in the Garden of Eden when God appears to him and says "Adam, lo, I have had the most greatest of ideas. I shall make a companion for you to fill the loneliness of your days! I call it A WOMAN. It will be similar to you, but far softer, more precious and more beautiful that you can imagine. She will smell of sweet fruits, possess great wisdom and insight into your heart and exist to tend to your every pleasure, fulfill your every desire. In her arms, at last your soul will be at peace."

So Adam says "Golly Lord, that sounds great. What do I have to do?"

And God says "Well that's what I wanted to talk to you about Adam... I can build a woman for you, but I need one of your arms and one of your legs to do so."

Adam ponders for a moment and then replies "what can I get for a rib?"

[Recidiva]

the_one_54321 wrote...

ending a life is not a solution.

i actually agree with you that it is neither productive nor socially beneficial. when two people act irresponsibly in this way, everyone loses out, the child most of all.but killing what is genetically distinguishable as a separate human being is the worst asnwer, not the best.

Okay, then make that choice when you get pregnant.  Otherwise, hands off someone else's uterus. 

Unless you're willing to raise every single child your choice brings into being, singlehandedly, you're offering an idealistic opinion that has very little to do the real choices available.  Your argument doesn't solve a problem, it perpetuates the worst aspects of it.

Being genetically distinguishable isn't mechanically or biologically useful information until the genetically distinguishable entity can exist in a real sense.  And all choices regarding abortion should be made before that point.

I'm sure we wouldn't have this problem if a "genetically distinguishable" entity could vacate the uterus before three months and require no actual care or feeding for say...18 years, with a lease option for a lifetime.

[the_one_54321]

Ethical Scabs wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ethical Scabs wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ethical Scabs wrote...

Arright dude. Obviously you're the arbiter of definitions. Have fun now.

i didnt define this. im just reiterating it. you can go and tell the DNA in an embryo it's wrong if you like.

There's actually some very good examples of multi-cellular organisms where this isn't the case though. Mitochondria and chloroplasts for instance. They have their own DNA, separate from that of the cell they are in. Does this mean they are a separate organism? That'd be silly.

you're comparing microcellular organisms to humans? there is a pretty clear distinction here. identification of individual human beings is easily accomplished via DNA. identical twins are the only humans that share DNA sequences, and that is because they came from the same embryo. this even begs the argument that two humans dont even need to have distinct DNA sequences to be seperate living things.

Well yeah, that's a perfect comparison. It is an entity with a separate DNA structure housed within a larger Entity, but still considered to be part of the larger Entity.

it's not human, and has a distinctly different reproductive process. in fact, if i am not mistaken the mitochondria function for cellular mitosis. meaning, it has different DNA so that the organism can reproduce.

[Recidiva]

JAMiAM wrote...

Which reminds me of a joke...

In the beginning, God handed out to all the his creatures their various defining characteristics and attributes.  As He got to his prized creations, Adam and Eve, His bag was getting a bit empty.  When He got to the bottom of it, He found that there were just two characteristics left.

Addressing them, He said, "Since I only have two things left to give you, you shall each have one."  Reaching into the bag, He pulls out a slip of paper with "Urinates while standing".  Adam blurts out "Oh please, Lord!  Please let me have this ability.  I don't care what the other is, just let me have this one!"  God turns to Eve, who acquiesces.  Adam, thus endowed, happily trotted off to find the Garden's largest snowbank to pee his name into.

God then turned to Eve, and said "Oh, I almost forgot.  Here's yours.  'Multiple Orgasms'." 

Multiple orgasms are very nice.  I'm smug.

[Sialater]

Oh, my God, really? An abortion thread?

I need to throw up now.


I'd rather discuss multiple orgasms.

Modifié par Sialater, 08 janvier 2010 - 09:30 .

[Xandurpein]

Recidiva wrote...

TSamee wrote...


Ah, cool, thanks for clarifying. The second I read the posts I assumed that people  would capitalise on the welfare as an excuse to remain unemployed, but I wanted to know if women did this out of desperation (bad education, poor family, can't bring up child, etc.) or out of laziness. Hmmm... Though I hate the whole "welfare queen" mentality with every fibre of my soul, I think it's unfair on the child if their mother's income (which, let's hope, feeds and clothes them) is cut purely because the father says so. For all we know, the father could wish the child had never been born, and the mother could just see the kid as a paycheck. It's a sad existence, but it could be made much worse if uncaring fathers could simply cut they kids' economic lifeline on a whim.

The moderate solution I see:

If the father chooses to cut the mother's income, a reason must be provided, and the mother needs to be evidently capable of supporting herself. If deemed incapable, and the father is incapable of providing the monthly income, she should be put on government welfare or left with a consenting relative (sorry, the hypercapitalist "go out and die" mentality annoys me too), and the child will either also be left with said relatives, or brought up as an orphan. It is sad, I know, but growing up with a cold, calculating mum and a dad who just doesn't give a **** can't be nice either.'

This is probably packed with flaws, but I haven't given it much thought, it's as close as I can get realistically to what seems right.

I'm just trying to equalize the law to some state that is less imbalanced than it is now.  I do believe that a woman should have the right to decide what happens, because of all the social and medical reasons inherent in bearing a child.

But if I believe this is true, it is a deeply and inherently imbalanced situation to thrust upon men, therefore they deserve and should get some level of equality and control.

I don't want children to suffer, but I believe they are doing so under the law as it is now, because of the inequality and because it's being exploited. 

I will have to rely on other social programs to attempt to help a baby thrive once it's brought into the world.  But I can't think that allowing men to be forced into financial slavery is the answer.

I am so happy to live in a country where they teach kids about contraceptives in school. I am pro-choice, but contraceptive is way better than abortion for everyone involved. Have fun and safe sex

[the_one_54321]

Recidiva wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

ending a life is not a solution.



i actually agree with you that it is neither productive nor socially beneficial. when two people act irresponsibly in this way, everyone loses out, the child most of all.but killing what is genetically distinguishable as a separate human being is the worst asnwer, not the best.

Okay, then make that choice when you get pregnant. Otherwise, hands off someone else's uterus.



Unless you're willing to raise every single child your choice brings into being, singlehandedly, you're offering an idealistic opinion that has very little to do the real choices available. Your argument doesn't solve a problem, it perpetuates the worst aspects of it.



Being genetically distinguishable isn't mechanically or biologically useful information until the genetically distinguishable entity can exist in a real sense. And all choices regarding abortion should be made before that point.



I'm sure we wouldn't have this problem if a "genetically distinguishable" entity could vacate the uterus before three months and require no actual care or feeding for say...18 years, with a lease option for a lifetime.

what is the difference between an embryo and a newborn? the birthing process? the fact that the cells have taken the shape of a human? what you're arguing here is that it is ok to kill another person based on their physical stage of development. in the end it is still shirking responsibility which results in killing. IMO the mother should be held responsible for the pregnancy that she had a hand in causing. once she's done with that she can put the child up for adoption.



certainly not the best of solutions. but again, killing is the worst solution.

[Tirigon]

Obtusifolius wrote...

Sialater wrote...

Oh, my God, really? An abortion thread?

I need to throw up now.


I'd rather discuss multiple orgasms.

Be our guest

I´d like to learn more about this greatest gift of God to womanhood.
So, don´t be shy, go ahead and tell whatever you want...
B)

[Ethical Scabs]

the_one_54321 wrote...


it's not human, and has a distinctly different reproductive process. in fact, if i am not mistaken the mitochondria function for cellular mitosis. meaning, it has different DNA so that the organism can reproduce.

4 cells isn't a human either bub.

If this were able to be empirically proven one way or another, the medical community would have decided on it.  As it stands, they haven't for a very good reason--it's a blurry painful distinction.

Trying to lay your black/white view on reality and expect it to make sense is pretty absurd.

Edit--regardless this is absurdly off topic.  I'm done.  I will graciously allow you the last word, because I know you won't be able to resist.

Modifié par Ethical Scabs, 08 janvier 2010 - 09:36 .