Masters of their own fate? Really?Quote by: minorwork
So an unmarried male who has sex with a woman who becomes pregnant due to that specific sex act can state "I don't want to have a child" and walk away with no obligations?
Can he thus be the "master of his own fate"?
The tree of liberty is hungry. Let's feed it well in the next election.
No one but me should try, condemn, and execute a breather... ...AND accept full responsibility for the killing. The unborn, not yet breathing, is under the pregnant woman's dominion, biologically, and so has full responsibility for the unborn's life or death.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
It would not be safe to assume that, and I'm not sure where you pulled that from the part of my post that you quoted above. A child (which has its own functioning systems that are vital to life) and a newborn baby (which has its own functioning systems that are vital to life) is different from a fetus at a given stage of development where it would not be viable outside of the mother's body (which does not have its own functioning systems that are vital to life, and therefore depends on the mother's systems).
If you leave an adult in a room for a few hours, it will generally not die.
If you leave a child in a room for a few hours, it will generally not die.
If you leave a baby in a room for a few hours, it will generally not die.
If you leave a fetus in a room for a few hours, it will die.
If you already have a child and you are suffering through financial hardship, it is ok to give them up for adoption (I actually don't think this is ok, but if someone is already considering giving up a child for adoption, I wouldn't want that person to have any type of parental custody anyway, not to mention giving up children for adoption is irresponsible because the U.S. adoption system is already overloaded). Since we cannot adopt out fetuses that are inside a woman's womb without tearing them from her body or damaging her in the process, and since a fetus is basically not viable without a woman and is destined to rip apart her vagina in a number of months, I find it acceptable for a woman to abort that fetus.
You disagree that a zygote cannot function independently of another organism?I disagree, because at the moment of conception, the new life starts to multiply itself before it becomes implanted, through its own unique DNA coding; similar to an amoeba. The only difference being is the new multicellular organism requires more cellular growth to reach its full potential; whereas the amoeba doesn't.
My arguments give a woman control over a creature that is committing parasitic-like actions against her body.Your argument dumbs down the child's potential to a fulfilled life.
No, because right now I am not growing inside of her body, causing her to have a variety of different symptoms and conditions, altering her diet, giving her horrendous stretch marks, or causing any type of damage to her body. If we were talking way back when I was in the womb, then yes.And turning the argument to you yourself: Firstly, would you end your life right now to compensate your mother for her being hypothetically forced to have you?
I wouldn't have any emotions because I wouldn't exist, but it would be fair of her to do so.Secondly, alternatively if you don't like that scenario, would you have been happy if your mother had terminated your life before your birth denying you all that you have experienced up to this very point in time? Whatever your answer is matters not to me, providing you are truthful to yourself, and only you will know, if you truly are.
His statement is not required. The ability to "walk away" defines his mental position as well as his biological ability to do so.
That answer would be for such a man to give. I only know a bit of my own circumstances and how challenging is the task of mastering fate. Indeed, there is much idealism in mastering fate.Can he thus be the "master of his own fate"?
Controlling the fate of an unknown pregnant woman under discussion is easier than shaping our own? Or just more palatable?
Ignorance does not lend itself to mastering fate but by breaking its chains and appetite's manacles that hold attention to sensual desire instead of mastery.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
You dodge the question. Why?
The tree of liberty is hungry. Let's feed it well in the next election.
Apologies. He walks away and obligations either pursue him, don't pursue him, or he olbligates himself or not. His choice. Should the pregnant woman become aware of his walking away, she becomes aware of new choices. Like the others in the animal world hoping to correct a bad decision and procure a new mate, she can abort her present pregnancy and pursue that new mate. She can also carry the child to term and then either attempt to raise the child alone or put the newborn up for adoption and try again for a new mate. That was not an exhaustive list of the options that either the male or female might find. I cannot know their situations better than they can.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
His choice? Obligations pursue him, and it's his choice? Choice to what? Allow the obligation to encumber him or flee from justice?=minorwork;872458]Apologies. He walks away and obligations either pursue him, don't pursue him, or he olbligates himself or not. His choice.
The tree of liberty is hungry. Let's feed it well in the next election.
Some people think they own the man's labor to do with as they see fit. A free man is not responsible for others' visions for him but what he allows.
Justice? Whose justice? The slave owner's? The free man assumes full responsibility for his actions and not by your, society's, or the state's criteria, which he may tolerate, but by the dictates of his own conscience.Choice to what? Allow the obligation to encumber him or flee from justice?
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
By a "breather," I assume that you referring to someone outside the womb, and that you 'accept full responsibility for killing' under the laws; as dictated by a legislative assembly. Your argument lacks scientific support. I put the question: How can an unborn child survive the full term of pregency without oxygen (and other substances essential for growth)? Futhermore, your argument excludes any acknowledgment of the atomical presence and physiological function of the umbilical artery which would throw light on the fallacious of your argument.
It could be also be argued: leaving a human being in a vacuum, it would not survive beyond 3-minutes (q.l.). Wheather a human being (in or out of "a room") survives or not; doesn't change the definitional status of abortion i.e., murder.
If parents, who are "suffering through financial hardship," irresponsibly embark on a pregnancy, doesn't give them the ethical or moral right to destroy a human being. Your suggestion: "... adoption is irresponsible," because of your alleged claim: "...the U.S. adoption system is already overloaded," (Is this based on your assumption or can you provide government statistics to support your argument?) is an ineffectualargument because, firstly, whether an unborn infant lives or dies dependent on economic factors is devaluing the dignity and worth of the human being. Secondly, your argument promotes destruction (killing) of an infant rather than giving it a chance (adoption) for life. Your graphic argument 'ripping apart her (the mother's) vagina' as 'acceptable ... to abort that fetus' verges on the bizarre; which is undeserving of a serious response.If you already have a child and you are suffering through financial hardship, it is ok to give them up for adoption (I actually don't think this is ok, but if someone is already considering giving up a child for adoption, I wouldn't want that person to have any type of parental custody anyway, not to mention giving up children for adoption is irresponsible because the U.S. adoption system is already overloaded). Since we cannot adopt out fetuses that are inside a woman's womb without tearing them from her body or damaging her in the process, and since a fetus is basically not viable without a woman and is destined to rip apart her vagina in a number of months, I find it acceptable for a woman to abort that fetus.
The argument of dependency (similar to the arguments of the various descriptions of human life (foetus, embryo et cetera)) doesn't detract from this part of the topic i.e., abortion is the killing of a human being, and no matter how much circumlocutory shilly-shallying with technical terms, nothing will change that. Just like in the film The Silent Scream, the host of the film said "The anesthetist asked the doctor that is doing the abortion "Is number one out yet?" which is referring to the head of the unborn child."You disagree that a zygote cannot function independently of another organism?
By what defanition does something that happens natualy, be called parasitic or "parasitic-like"?My arguments give a woman control over a creature that is committing parasitic-like actions against her body.
I'm curious to learn if your 6-year-old self, which I'd assume would have had a fundamental understanding of life and death, would have given the same answer? If 'yes' would you now be prepared to walk the talk to verify the veracity of your statement?No, because right now I am not growing inside of her body, causing her to have a variety of different symptoms and conditions, altering her diet, giving her horrendous stretch marks, or causing any type of damage to her body. If we were talking way back when I was in the womb, then yes.
My apology for not using formal English. The phrase "been happy" was intended as an affirmative answer to your comment regarding the discussion of the hypothetical abortion. Nitpicking of my English language usage now aside, your arguments are contradictory. You said "...it would be fair of her (your mother) to do so," (i.e., have you killed (aborted)), whilst claiming that you 'wouldn't have existed'. Or perhaps you are only now suggesting 'it would be fair for her to have done so' because she in fact allowed you to escape the abortionist's instruments (or chemicals) to survive to the present; to safely luxuriate in lobbying your pro-abortinists stance.I wouldn't have any emotions because I wouldn't exist, but it would be fair of her to do so.
You solely attribute a negative connotation to abortion. Anyway, like I've argued many times before, voting or passing laws isn't going to stop abortions. It seems most of our politicians operate on the assumption that life revolves around their ideologies. It does not, will not and can not.
More simply, we do not refer to the same thing. You call it "murder," yet rarely (if ever) does anyone abort a child with intent at all similar to a murderer's.
Shame and violence are compelling story elements, but this is real life. Attempts to villify people, rather than provide them with adequate family planning and contraceptives, are what make this such a thorny issue to begin with. Also, the assumption that it's anyone's business but the person having the abortion, and perhaps her family.
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
Except humans don't live in vacuums. The poit of the example was to illustrate the difference between a fetus and humans at different stages of development.
http://www.fosteringconnections.org/...s_Agingout.pdfIf parents, who are "suffering through financial hardship," irresponsibly embark on a pregnancy, doesn't give them the ethical or moral right to destroy a human being. Your suggestion: "... adoption is irresponsible," because of your alleged claim: "...the U.S. adoption system is already overloaded," (Is this based on your assumption or can you provide government statistics to support your argument?)
I suppose you don't understand exactly what can happen to a vagina as a baby passes through. Click on the first link here, from Mayoclinic:is an ineffectualargument because, firstly, whether an unborn infant lives or dies dependent on economic factors is devaluing the dignity and worth of the human being. Secondly, your argument promotes destruction (killing) of an infant rather than giving it a chance (adoption) for life. Your graphic argument 'ripping apart her (the mother's) vagina' as 'acceptable ... to abort that fetus' verges on the bizarre; which is undeserving of a serious response.
Let me google that for you
Do you mean to imply that something which is parasitic is by definition unnatural?By what defanition does something that happens natualy, be called parasitic or "parasitic-like"?
A fetus inside a woman is parasitic-like, because it engages in activity similar to some parasites. It takes nutrients (and basically everything it needs to survive) by feeding off of the mother, who it is fused to.
Nobody can know what my 6-year-old-self would have said, seeing that my 6-year-old-self doesn't exist, though presumably, it would still think that babies come from a stork. Asking for testimony from me at age six is a red herring.I'm curious to learn if your 6-year-old self, which I'd assume would have had a fundamental understanding of life and death, would have given the same answer? If 'yes' would you now be prepared to walk the talk to verify the veracity of your statement?
My arguments are most certainly not contradictory. If she had aborted me, I wouldn't have any emotions, nor would I exist, quite obviously. Right now, I think that this is fair for her, because a fetus so greatly affects its carrier. Again, obviously, if she had actually aborted me, asking for my opinion on abortion would be pointless and a tactic of dishonest debate. That's like asking a woman who has never given birth how she felt after her first C-section.your arguments are contradictory. You said "...it would be fair of her (your mother) to do so," (i.e., have you killed (aborted)), whilst claiming that you 'wouldn't have existed'. Or perhaps you are only now suggesting 'it would be fair for her to have done so' because she in fact allowed you to escape the abortionist's instruments (or chemicals) to survive to the present; to safely luxuriate in lobbying your pro-abortinists stance.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks