Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It would solve tons of problems in the current society.
But its not necessary when the one who is doing it just for a bit of fleshy pleasure understands that it naturally leads to pregnancy and that this is a risk he/she must reckon with.
Really, you don't know the difference between a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus) and a direct abortion (removal of a child from the uterus)?What in the world are you talking about?
Sorry, no brass ring. Here's the parallel:No it's not.
"Hey, person X, we are going to force you to use <YOUR BODY PART HERE> to keep another person alive, and we don't care if you don't like it!"
It's the same thing.
Responsible sex, no problem. Irresponsible sex, problems. "Tubby" really enjoys his chocolate ice cream. Is it someone else's fault that "Tubby" weighs 20 stone and can't get out of bed?Ah yes, completely ignore the fact that people enjoy having sex.
There you go again.And what about cases of rape?
No need to get emotional. No one forces another to do anything in this thread. Do society's laws against murder force the would be murderer to abstain?The "don't have sex unless you're willing to be forced to go through a pregnancy" argument is disgusting.
It’s a valid argument because I’m using your argument against you. The only way that it isn’t valid is if what is in the uterus isn’t a person.You can't honestly think that's a valid argument?
Not allowing your uterus to be used to have a pregnancy that you don't want is nothing like giving up a kidney to save the life of a child you DO want.
It would stopped pregnancies, unwanted ones included.Well, it's only an issue when women have sex with men. If we stopped doing that, it would solve the problem, yes?
Really, you don't know the difference between a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus) and a direct abortion (removal of a child from the uterus)?
Sorry, no brass ring. Here's the parallel:
"Hey, person X, we are going to murder you to keep another person from enduring a pregnancy or to insure she get her medical degree or gets that "beemer" she's always wanted, and we don't care if you don't like it!"
Responsible sex, no problem. Irresponsible sex, problems.
"Tubby" really enjoys his chocolate ice cream. Is it someone else's fault that "Tubby" weighs 20 stone and can't get out of bed?
There you go again.
No need to get emotional. No one forces another to do anything in this thread. Do society's laws against murder force the would be murderer to abstain?
It’s a valid argument because I’m using your argument against you. The only way that it isn’t valid is if what is in the uterus isn’t a person.
It would stopped pregnancies, unwanted ones included.
Uterus = kidney? I'm still trying to figure out why you try to compare a kidney to a kid.Yes, I'm just trying to figure out why you've started talking about hysterectomies.
"Hey, we're going to let you die because the one person with the body part that can keep you alive doesn't want to let you use it."
If it's a person not wanting to donate a kidney, people accept it. If it's a pregnant woman, people cry foul. Why the difference?
"Both have one person who is alive ..." Is that the second time in this thread that you've acknowledged the person hood of the preborn?Both have one person who is alive who is facing death if the other person doesn't agree to allow their body to be used.
Do you really think that using imperfect birth control appliances equates to responsible sex? Celibacy is the only perfect method of birth control.Do you REALLY think that responsible sex means birth control never fails?
Please don't deflect. Let's stay on topic.And let's not forget that some people believe birth control is just as bad as abortion.
There you go again.And what about cases of rape? Should a ten year old girl raped by her uncle be forced to carry the child?
Wanna try that one again? Whatever does that word salad mean?I think you'll notice that murder victims aren't forcing the murderer to use their body to keep the victim alive.
I think about all my posts and, yes, that one is especially good.Do actually think about what you post, or did you actually think this is a good argument?
Now you are deflecting. If what is in your uterus is a person, and you are willing to kill it because you should be able to use your uterus when and how you see fit, then you would also be willing to not donate a kidney to your child for the same reason. If it’s not a person, then the OP is a moot point.Well, you either think it's a valid argument or it's not a valid argument.
If you think it is a valid argument, then I expect you're going to immediately donate as many organs as you can to help people who would die without them.
If you don't think it's a valid argument, then you shouldn't see it as an argument against abortion.
Take your pic.
Uterus = kidney? I'm still trying to figure out why you try to compare a kidney to a kid.
You do not recognize the difference between letting someone die and murdering someone.
? I have no problem with a pregnant woman not wanting to donate her kidney.
"Both have one person who is alive ..." Is that the second time in this thread that you've acknowledged the person hood of the preborn?
Do you really think that using imperfect birth control appliances equates to responsible sex? Celibacy is the only perfect method of birth control.
There you go again.
Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the (pro abortion) Guttmacher Institute.
Wanna try that one again? Whatever does that word salad mean?
I think about all my posts and, yes, that one is especially good.
Now you are deflecting. If what is in your uterus is a person, and you are willing to kill it because you should be able to use your uterus when and how you see fit, then you would also be willing to not donate a kidney to your child for the same reason. If it’s not a person, then the OP is a moot point.
I’m not saying that you would. I’m saying that if you are correct, you could easily not give a child a kidney as you could easily not provide your uterus. You’ve made no distinction between the two.If I have a child who needs a kidney, then I decided I wanted that child. Why would I then decide I did not want that child?
I’m not saying that you would. I’m saying that if you are correct, you could easily not give a child a kidney as you could easily not provide your uterus. You’ve made no distinction between the two.
Maybe we can keep a supply of men somewhere, and when a woman wants to have a child, she can go and pick one and use his seed to produce a child.
We can speculate about various nonsense, but in the end we will end up with traditional family as the most functional system for a long-term working society.
Well, you basically want to have the last word, be it as you wish. Its your thread.I won't speak on this any further in this thread (if you'd like to continue discussing it, please feel free to start a new thread on it and I'll join in), but the nuclear family - father as breadwinner, mother as a housewife, two kids - has not been viable for quite a while, and when we look at different cultures around the world, it's just one of many different family structures.
Why the Nuclear Family Ruined Us
The nuclear family has failed
The male breadwinner nuclear family is not the ‘traditional’ human family, and promotion of this myth may have adverse health consequences | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Well, you basically want to have the last word, be it as you wish. Its your thread.
After you posted an attack on the nuclear family, you said you do not want to discuss that further... OK.No, I just don't want to derail this thread with an off-topic discussion.
No, I understood what you were trying to infer but your analogy is fatally flawed. No one is dying in an elective abortion.You didn't actually understand the analogy, did you?
Again, you recognize the preborn child as a person. Consult Sigmund on your repeated slip as it likely discloses your preconscious and/or subconscious true feelings on the matter.Both cases you are making a choice that results in the death of a person.
Cry foul? The emotive language does not help your case. Only an irresponsible woman would engage in sex without being willing to accept the possible consequence of pregnancy.Person does not want their kidney to maintain the life of another person - you have no problem.
Person does not want their uterus to maintain the life of another person [again you betray your true position] - you cry foul.
We have laws "forcing" women and men to not run around naked in the public square. Do those laws deny them their "bodily autonomy"? No.Because my argument here - that forcing a woman to remain pregnant when she does not want to be - is denying her of her bodily autonomy.
I'm sure you do.I know many lesbians who would happy to tell you how they can have sex with zero chance of pregnancy.
Are you really comparing a kidney to a preborn child?Are you really comparing a person who has an eating disorder with a pregnant person?
After you posted an attack on the nuclear family, you said you do not want to discuss that further... OK.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?