This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - eggsalad
Pages: 1 ... 141516 1718 ... 84
451
« on: March 17, 2016, 10:22:59 PM »
Nice word twisting What you mean using your own rhetoric and applying it to anything else? I don't get why you would assume I don't know anything about the process
I know it
You invert the penis
It's disgusting
But what you want to do is what you want to do
My problem is that it's used to further the delusion instead of actually finding a cure to help them with their mental disease
I wasn't talking about the specific procedure for SRS you idiot I was talking about the fact that this "it's a cure" boogeyman you're so fucking concerned about is a figment of your imagination. Therapists and endocrinologists actively discourage the idea that HRT will fix your problems. These only serve to physically and hormonally change your body
They do nothing to help you mentally Estrogen and testosterone intrinsically effect your mood and state of mind you fucking idiot. I'm not saying that we need absolute perfection
I'm saying that instead of getting us closer to a cure, your bullshit treatments are going the opposite direction
"Opposite direction" defined by someone who doesn't know shit and proudly demonstrates it.
452
« on: March 17, 2016, 08:07:56 PM »
This is getting rather petty if we are having to go over definitions It's not petty, it's the crux of your argument.
Human Potential begins when the Egg is fertilized by the sperm, therefore it has the Potential to grown into a Human being How does potential begin there? Are you implying that an individual sperm and an egg don't have the potential of meeting and fertilizing and leading to a human inevitably? They do. They just require intervention and assistance. Does it have to be without external intervention then? Wrong, the mother's body is the only thing keeping it alive and growing, she is constantly intervening to ensure that potential is fulfilled. There isn't a dichotomy here as far as "potential" is concerned.
If that does not happen (contraception) then, Potential exists for it to happen, but has been voided, therefore something that Had the potential for a Life was not wasted, just delayed/stalled. How is abortion not making "that not happen"? How is abortion not just "voiding" potential for it to grow past the fetal stage? You did not posit any reason why conception is the sudden start of "potential". Potential exists by virtue of causal reasoning and Newtonian determinism.
No life is wasted in contraception, But active potential for life is wasted in an abortion.
Sperm and eggs are active, living cells. When you just discard them you're "wasting" potential for life, those sperm could have made distinct individuals. But that's the point, they're worthless. The only difference between them and a zygote is a zygote has a mixture of the shared gametes and alleles and whatnot, and as long as it is continually kept alive, will continue to develop and grow. But nothing instantly creates value until you give it an arbitrary amount of value. A sperm and egg would just die and not develop into a human without intervention, so to would a fetus or even a baby.
A Zygote can develop into a human, an egg/Sperm on their own Can't.
A zygote on it's own can't develop into a human, as I stated.
You can say that it is a human by virtue of distinct DNA, but then you also include the brain-dead, the deformed stillborn with no brains, and a host of other "human" clumps of cells that in no way constitute things of value. Your distinctions are inconsistent.
Semantics... A zygote is within an environment where it usually survives.
Sperm and egg in their usual environment where they will succeed will...unsurprisingly, lead to a zygote which then, if in ideal environment, leads to life.
woah it's almost like it's easy to apply your logic to a bunch of things
Sperm does not reach the Egg without sex, ... again stop with the semantics.
A zygote doesn't live without the mother constantly providing for it, stop pretending to be stupid.
I'm not debating THAT.
Wort wort wort.
Well unless you produce a difference between the two situations: sperm, eggs, zygotes, they all have the same value.
453
« on: March 17, 2016, 08:04:07 PM »
The fuck what are you guys talking about.
I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.
Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.
If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.
It's up to both of the parents. Simply because the woman is the one giving birth, that doesn't mean she owns the kid. The kid is a product of the mother and father.
Are you blind to the fact that childbirth is not a trivial act?
And that consenting to sex is not reasonable grounds to irrevocable obligation?
The risks are known, but if consent still goes through, then they are responsible,
6 months is a long ass time (going to go pre third trimester here to be generous to you) to have your views and mind change and adapt. Sex is not a fucking record deal or business contract, it's an unwritten, unspoken, social contract. The huge implications and obligations you try to wedge into it are naive and burdening to everyone for reasons you have yet to justify.
The risks are known before hand, Ramifications happen, learn to deal with them.
You haven't produced anything compelling as to why they have to be dealt with. Remember, you're the side of the argument arguing that there is a moral imperative that we are obligated to do something. "deal with it" is not valid.
The moral being - Be responsible for your actions.
Being responsible for your actions would be realizing you are not prepared to bring a person into existence, and that thinking you can just whip yourself into ideal shape to do it is naive at best, and possibly grossly putting that child at potential detriment otherwise. Following some arbitrary, undefined (you haven't demonstrated otherwise yet) rulebook about "potential life" that has no grounding in reality or actual care for the well being of a child's well-being is the irresponsible and childish thing to do.
Being responsible would be dealing with your consequences dead on, not taking out the easy way out.
"I was irresponsible in making this child, so instead of considering potential consequences to following through with this and avoiding unnecessary suffering, I'm just going to follow through with it because...uh..."
If you can't justify your ideas and you refuse to consider consequences for your actions (having a kid no matter if it'll put the kid in detriment or not) I'm just going to conclude that you don't understand the concepts of consequences and how they're supposed to shape your decisions and that you don't understand being a rational person.
You were responsible for making this child, so the right course of action would be dealing with it, dealing with the mistake you made & learning from it. Not just jumping out like a Coward and aborting it.
Does the child just not exist to you? The child could potentially suffer from that action, is that not relevant? Do you not care? Nothing about something "being the easy way" means it's inherently bad. You're using "responsibility" for the absolute opposite.
454
« on: March 17, 2016, 07:56:30 PM »
This is getting rather petty if we are having to go over definitions It's not petty, it's the crux of your argument.
Human Potential begins when the Egg is fertilized by the sperm, therefore it has the Potential to grown into a Human being How does potential begin there? Are you implying that an individual sperm and an egg don't have the potential of meeting and fertilizing and leading to a human inevitably? They do. They just require intervention and assistance. Does it have to be without external intervention then? Wrong, the mother's body is the only thing keeping it alive and growing, she is constantly intervening to ensure that potential is fulfilled. There isn't a dichotomy here as far as "potential" is concerned.
If that does not happen (contraception) then, Potential exists for it to happen, but has been voided, therefore something that Had the potential for a Life was not wasted, just delayed/stalled. How is abortion not making "that not happen"? How is abortion not just "voiding" potential for it to grow past the fetal stage? You did not posit any reason why conception is the sudden start of "potential". Potential exists by virtue of causal reasoning and Newtonian determinism.
No life is wasted in contraception, But active potential for life is wasted in an abortion.
Sperm and eggs are active, living cells. When you just discard them you're "wasting" potential for life, those sperm could have made distinct individuals. But that's the point, they're worthless. The only difference between them and a zygote is a zygote has a mixture of the shared gametes and alleles and whatnot, and as long as it is continually kept alive, will continue to develop and grow. But nothing instantly creates value until you give it an arbitrary amount of value. A sperm and egg would just die and not develop into a human without intervention, so to would a fetus or even a baby.
A Zygote can develop into a human, an egg/Sperm on their own Can't.
A zygote on it's own can't develop into a human, as I stated.
You can say that it is a human by virtue of distinct DNA, but then you also include the brain-dead, the deformed stillborn with no brains, and a host of other "human" clumps of cells that in no way constitute things of value. Your distinctions are inconsistent.
Semantics... A zygote is within an environment where it usually survives.
Sperm and egg in their usual environment where they will succeed will...unsurprisingly, lead to a zygote which then, if in ideal environment, leads to life.
woah it's almost like it's easy to apply your logic to a bunch of things
Sperm does not reach the Egg without sex, ... again stop with the semantics.
A zygote doesn't live without the mother constantly providing for it, stop pretending to be stupid.
455
« on: March 17, 2016, 07:55:34 PM »
The fuck what are you guys talking about.
I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.
Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.
If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.
It's up to both of the parents. Simply because the woman is the one giving birth, that doesn't mean she owns the kid. The kid is a product of the mother and father.
Are you blind to the fact that childbirth is not a trivial act?
And that consenting to sex is not reasonable grounds to irrevocable obligation?
The risks are known, but if consent still goes through, then they are responsible,
6 months is a long ass time (going to go pre third trimester here to be generous to you) to have your views and mind change and adapt. Sex is not a fucking record deal or business contract, it's an unwritten, unspoken, social contract. The huge implications and obligations you try to wedge into it are naive and burdening to everyone for reasons you have yet to justify.
The risks are known before hand, Ramifications happen, learn to deal with them.
You haven't produced anything compelling as to why they have to be dealt with. Remember, you're the side of the argument arguing that there is a moral imperative that we are obligated to do something. "deal with it" is not valid.
The moral being - Be responsible for your actions.
Being responsible for your actions would be realizing you are not prepared to bring a person into existence, and that thinking you can just whip yourself into ideal shape to do it is naive at best, and possibly grossly putting that child at potential detriment otherwise. Following some arbitrary, undefined (you haven't demonstrated otherwise yet) rulebook about "potential life" that has no grounding in reality or actual care for the well being of a child's well-being is the irresponsible and childish thing to do.
Being responsible would be dealing with your consequences dead on, not taking out the easy way out.
"I was irresponsible in making this child, so instead of considering potential consequences to following through with this and avoiding unnecessary suffering, I'm just going to follow through with it because...uh..." If you can't justify your ideas and you refuse to consider consequences for your actions (having a kid no matter if it'll put the kid in detriment or not) I'm just going to conclude that you don't understand the concepts of consequences and how they're supposed to shape your decisions and that you don't understand being a rational person.
456
« on: March 17, 2016, 07:45:33 PM »
This is getting rather petty if we are having to go over definitions It's not petty, it's the crux of your argument.
Human Potential begins when the Egg is fertilized by the sperm, therefore it has the Potential to grown into a Human being How does potential begin there? Are you implying that an individual sperm and an egg don't have the potential of meeting and fertilizing and leading to a human inevitably? They do. They just require intervention and assistance. Does it have to be without external intervention then? Wrong, the mother's body is the only thing keeping it alive and growing, she is constantly intervening to ensure that potential is fulfilled. There isn't a dichotomy here as far as "potential" is concerned.
If that does not happen (contraception) then, Potential exists for it to happen, but has been voided, therefore something that Had the potential for a Life was not wasted, just delayed/stalled. How is abortion not making "that not happen"? How is abortion not just "voiding" potential for it to grow past the fetal stage? You did not posit any reason why conception is the sudden start of "potential". Potential exists by virtue of causal reasoning and Newtonian determinism.
No life is wasted in contraception, But active potential for life is wasted in an abortion.
Sperm and eggs are active, living cells. When you just discard them you're "wasting" potential for life, those sperm could have made distinct individuals. But that's the point, they're worthless. The only difference between them and a zygote is a zygote has a mixture of the shared gametes and alleles and whatnot, and as long as it is continually kept alive, will continue to develop and grow. But nothing instantly creates value until you give it an arbitrary amount of value. A sperm and egg would just die and not develop into a human without intervention, so to would a fetus or even a baby.
A Zygote can develop into a human, an egg/Sperm on their own Can't.
A zygote on it's own can't develop into a human, as I stated.
You can say that it is a human by virtue of distinct DNA, but then you also include the brain-dead, the deformed stillborn with no brains, and a host of other "human" clumps of cells that in no way constitute things of value. Your distinctions are inconsistent.
Semantics... A zygote is within an environment where it usually survives.
Sperm and egg in their usual environment where they will succeed will...unsurprisingly, lead to a zygote which then, if in ideal environment, leads to life. woah it's almost like it's easy to apply your logic to a bunch of things
457
« on: March 17, 2016, 07:44:32 PM »
The fuck what are you guys talking about.
I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.
Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.
If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.
It's up to both of the parents. Simply because the woman is the one giving birth, that doesn't mean she owns the kid. The kid is a product of the mother and father.
Are you blind to the fact that childbirth is not a trivial act?
And that consenting to sex is not reasonable grounds to irrevocable obligation?
The risks are known, but if consent still goes through, then they are responsible,
6 months is a long ass time (going to go pre third trimester here to be generous to you) to have your views and mind change and adapt. Sex is not a fucking record deal or business contract, it's an unwritten, unspoken, social contract. The huge implications and obligations you try to wedge into it are naive and burdening to everyone for reasons you have yet to justify.
The risks are known before hand, Ramifications happen, learn to deal with them.
You haven't produced anything compelling as to why they have to be dealt with. Remember, you're the side of the argument arguing that there is a moral imperative that we are obligated to do something. "deal with it" is not valid.
The moral being - Be responsible for your actions.
Being responsible for your actions would be realizing you are not prepared to bring a person into existence, and that thinking you can just whip yourself into ideal shape to do it is naive at best, and possibly grossly putting that child at potential detriment otherwise. Following some arbitrary, undefined (you haven't demonstrated otherwise yet) rulebook about "potential life" that has no grounding in reality or actual care for the well being of a child's well-being is the irresponsible and childish thing to do.
458
« on: March 17, 2016, 07:32:54 PM »
The fuck what are you guys talking about.
I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.
Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.
If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.
It's up to both of the parents. Simply because the woman is the one giving birth, that doesn't mean she owns the kid. The kid is a product of the mother and father.
Are you blind to the fact that childbirth is not a trivial act?
And that consenting to sex is not reasonable grounds to irrevocable obligation?
The risks are known, but if consent still goes through, then they are responsible,
6 months is a long ass time (going to go pre third trimester here to be generous to you) to have your views and mind change and adapt. Sex is not a fucking record deal or business contract, it's an unwritten, unspoken, social contract. The huge implications and obligations you try to wedge into it are naive and burdening to everyone for reasons you have yet to justify.
The risks are known before hand, Ramifications happen, learn to deal with them.
You haven't produced anything compelling as to why they have to be dealt with. Remember, you're the side of the argument arguing that there is a moral imperative that we are obligated to do something. "deal with it" is not valid.
459
« on: March 17, 2016, 07:31:55 PM »
This is getting rather petty if we are having to go over definitions It's not petty, it's the crux of your argument.
Human Potential begins when the Egg is fertilized by the sperm, therefore it has the Potential to grown into a Human being How does potential begin there? Are you implying that an individual sperm and an egg don't have the potential of meeting and fertilizing and leading to a human inevitably? They do. They just require intervention and assistance. Does it have to be without external intervention then? Wrong, the mother's body is the only thing keeping it alive and growing, she is constantly intervening to ensure that potential is fulfilled. There isn't a dichotomy here as far as "potential" is concerned.
If that does not happen (contraception) then, Potential exists for it to happen, but has been voided, therefore something that Had the potential for a Life was not wasted, just delayed/stalled. How is abortion not making "that not happen"? How is abortion not just "voiding" potential for it to grow past the fetal stage? You did not posit any reason why conception is the sudden start of "potential". Potential exists by virtue of causal reasoning and Newtonian determinism.
No life is wasted in contraception, But active potential for life is wasted in an abortion.
Sperm and eggs are active, living cells. When you just discard them you're "wasting" potential for life, those sperm could have made distinct individuals. But that's the point, they're worthless. The only difference between them and a zygote is a zygote has a mixture of the shared gametes and alleles and whatnot, and as long as it is continually kept alive, will continue to develop and grow. But nothing instantly creates value until you give it an arbitrary amount of value. A sperm and egg would just die and not develop into a human without intervention, so to would a fetus or even a baby.
A Zygote can develop into a human, an egg/Sperm on their own Can't.
A zygote on it's own can't develop into a human, as I stated. You can say that it is a human by virtue of distinct DNA, but then you also include the brain-dead, the deformed stillborn with no brains, and a host of other "human" clumps of cells that in no way constitute things of value. Your distinctions are inconsistent.
460
« on: March 17, 2016, 07:20:44 PM »
"if they didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have had sex"
How can you apply this to the woman but simultaneously not apply it to the man? Other than rampant misogyny.
Ah wait, I see you're just going off the premise of pro-life.
Which no one except you agreed to as the premise for this conversation.
And even if we did, it eliminates the point of the discussion, it's not about individual stakes in a pregnancy, you just don't like abortion.
Abortion is fine, when it's necessary. "Misogyny" lol, calm down. I support rights for both genders. But some rights trump others in certain situations.
Why is the right to having your child born more imperative than the right to not have your body get ravaged by childbirth?
Are you implying that consenting to sex should have that serious of irrevocable ramifications?
And why is necessity a requirement, refer to the post where I asked you to provide non-arbitrary reasoning behind your stance.
- If you consent, you are also consenting to the ramifications that could occur.
- Abortions due to reckless sex (exceptions noted) are not necessary.
They are necessary if the mother's life is in danger, if the child has a disorder/issue that there life will be of horrific quality .
Its not necessary in anyway, just because they don't want to have their body wrecked, they should've thought of that before they went they consented,
Justify why it needs to be necessary. "They should have thought about it" is circular.
461
« on: March 17, 2016, 07:17:46 PM »
The fuck what are you guys talking about.
I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.
Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.
If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.
It's up to both of the parents. Simply because the woman is the one giving birth, that doesn't mean she owns the kid. The kid is a product of the mother and father.
Are you blind to the fact that childbirth is not a trivial act?
And that consenting to sex is not reasonable grounds to irrevocable obligation?
The risks are known, but if consent still goes through, then they are responsible,
6 months is a long ass time (going to go pre third trimester here to be generous to you) to have your views and mind change and adapt. Sex is not a fucking record deal or business contract, it's an unwritten, unspoken, social contract. The huge implications and obligations you try to wedge into it are naive and burdening to everyone for reasons you have yet to justify.
462
« on: March 17, 2016, 07:15:54 PM »
I'm not able to see anything compelling about the unwritten social contract between a couple being taken as imperative over a woman being able to not have to go through childbirth against her will.
A father should be able to divorce himself from fiscal responsibility if he elects for abortion and the mother declines and the state takes over, but forcing someone to undergo something as physically tasking and painful and scarring as childbirth? Against their fucking will?
Do you people think women lay eggs?
If she didn't want a child, she should of been using birth control, It's not exactly moral, to just have reckless sex & when the ramifications appear, just take the cowards way out. If she didn't want the child to begin with, she should of been acting against it, rather than throwing potential human life away, just for the sake of her rights.
Birth control fails you dolt. Your mind can change over the course of several months. Do you actually think that some horny bangtown session is grounds for forcing someone to carry something in them that drastically changes their life for the gestation period followed by up to a day of excruciating pain that leaves their nether regions permanently scarred and puts them in recoup mode for up to weeks?
Were you given sex ed?
Your inability to grasp that the trauma of carrying a child you don't want is easily worse (definitively physically) than the grief of losing your unborn child just demonstrates how biased you're allowing yourself to be.
(Exceptions are obviously taken into consideration, thus don't bring them up)
Reckless sex has consequences, it's on them to learn from them, not take the easy way out. Wasting human potential for the sake their "comfort" is a joke. Heard the phrase - "Check yourself before you Wreck yourself" applies to women.
Promoting throwing children into the hands of parents who are not ready is the more irresponsible and negligent to the well-being of children than any abortion ever will be.
- giving the child away to Adoption.
Is irresponsible and burdening not only on that child but on the already overtaxed system and society.
463
« on: March 17, 2016, 07:15:15 PM »
This is getting rather petty if we are having to go over definitions It's not petty, it's the crux of your argument. Human Potential begins when the Egg is fertilized by the sperm, therefore it has the Potential to grown into a Human being How does potential begin there? Are you implying that an individual sperm and an egg don't have the potential of meeting and fertilizing and leading to a human inevitably? They do. They just require intervention and assistance. Does it have to be without external intervention then? Wrong, the mother's body is the only thing keeping it alive and growing, she is constantly intervening to ensure that potential is fulfilled. There isn't a dichotomy here as far as "potential" is concerned. If that does not happen (contraception) then, Potential exists for it to happen, but has been voided, therefore something that Had the potential for a Life was not wasted, just delayed/stalled. How is abortion not making "that not happen"? How is abortion not just "voiding" potential for it to grow past the fetal stage? You did not posit any reason why conception is the sudden start of "potential". Potential exists by virtue of causal reasoning and Newtonian determinism. No life is wasted in contraception, But active potential for life is wasted in an abortion.
Sperm and eggs are active, living cells. When you just discard them you're "wasting" potential for life, those sperm could have made distinct individuals. But that's the point, they're worthless. The only difference between them and a zygote is a zygote has a mixture of the shared gametes and alleles and whatnot, and as long as it is continually kept alive, will continue to develop and grow. But nothing instantly creates value until you give it an arbitrary amount of value. A sperm and egg would just die and not develop into a human without intervention, so to would a fetus or even a baby.
464
« on: March 17, 2016, 07:01:22 PM »
"if they didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have had sex"
How can you apply this to the woman but simultaneously not apply it to the man? Other than rampant misogyny.
Ah wait, I see you're just going off the premise of pro-life.
Which no one except you agreed to as the premise for this conversation.
And even if we did, it eliminates the point of the discussion, it's not about individual stakes in a pregnancy, you just don't like abortion.
Abortion is fine, when it's necessary. "Misogyny" lol, calm down. I support rights for both genders. But some rights trump others in certain situations.
Why is the right to having your child born more imperative than the right to not have your body get ravaged by childbirth? Are you implying that consenting to sex should have that serious of irrevocable ramifications? And why is necessity a requirement, refer to the post where I asked you to provide non-arbitrary reasoning behind your stance.
465
« on: March 17, 2016, 06:59:11 PM »
The fuck what are you guys talking about.
I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.
Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.
If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.
It's up to both of the parents. Simply because the woman is the one giving birth, that doesn't mean she owns the kid. The kid is a product of the mother and father.
Are you blind to the fact that childbirth is not a trivial act? And that consenting to sex is not reasonable grounds to irrevocable obligation?
466
« on: March 17, 2016, 06:58:27 PM »
I'm not able to see anything compelling about the unwritten social contract between a couple being taken as imperative over a woman being able to not have to go through childbirth against her will.
A father should be able to divorce himself from fiscal responsibility if he elects for abortion and the mother declines and the state takes over, but forcing someone to undergo something as physically tasking and painful and scarring as childbirth? Against their fucking will?
Do you people think women lay eggs?
If she didn't want a child, she should of been using birth control, It's not exactly moral, to just have reckless sex & when the ramifications appear, just take the cowards way out. If she didn't want the child to begin with, she should of been acting against it, rather than throwing potential human life away, just for the sake of her rights.
Birth control fails you dolt. Your mind can change over the course of several months. Do you actually think that some horny bangtown session is grounds for forcing someone to carry something in them that drastically changes their life for the gestation period followed by up to a day of excruciating pain that leaves their nether regions permanently scarred and puts them in recoup mode for up to weeks?
Were you given sex ed?
Your inability to grasp that the trauma of carrying a child you don't want is easily worse (definitively physically) than the grief of losing your unborn child just demonstrates how biased you're allowing yourself to be.
(Exceptions are obviously taken into consideration, thus don't bring them up)
Reckless sex has consequences, it's on them to learn from them, not take the easy way out. Wasting human potential for the sake their "comfort" is a joke. Heard the phrase - "Check yourself before you Wreck yourself" applies to women.
Promoting throwing children into the hands of parents who are not ready is the more irresponsible and negligent to the well-being of children than any abortion ever will be.
467
« on: March 17, 2016, 06:56:44 PM »
Rights aren't petty. And this ventures into the debate on whether that form of life in the beginning of its development is considered worthy of its right to live. Unfortunately for your standpoint, not many who aren't religious radicals claim that it is worthy.
Human life shouldn't be wasted because of her "petty" rights. (Exceptions noted) - If she didn't want to have a child in the first place, steps should've been taken to prevent it, such as birth control. The stage of Development is irrelevant as it is "still a waste of Human potential", I never said it was alive.
Wasting human life for the sake of "rights", is petty.
Define "human potential" in a non-arbitrary fashion. A fetus needs nurture to survive and fulfill its potential. A baby needs nurture to survive and fulfill its potential. A sperm or an egg (separate) need nurture to survive and fulfill their potential. If we're so concerned about wasting human potential why are we allowing contraceptives? "The adults decided they aren't ready for it yet so the potential isn't there yet." What about conception removes the ability to rescind that decision of readiness other than arbitrary self-service to your argument?
468
« on: March 17, 2016, 06:47:47 PM »
"if they didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have had sex"
How can you apply this to the woman but simultaneously not apply it to the man? Other than rampant misogyny.
Ah wait, I see you're just going off the premise of pro-life.
Which no one except you agreed to as the premise for this conversation.
And even if we did, it eliminates the point of the discussion, it's not about individual stakes in a pregnancy, you just don't like abortion.
469
« on: March 17, 2016, 06:46:07 PM »
I'm not able to see anything compelling about the unwritten social contract between a couple being taken as imperative over a woman being able to not have to go through childbirth against her will.
A father should be able to divorce himself from fiscal responsibility if he elects for abortion and the mother declines and the state takes over, but forcing someone to undergo something as physically tasking and painful and scarring as childbirth? Against their fucking will?
Do you people think women lay eggs?
If she didn't want a child, she should of been using birth control, It's not exactly moral, to just have reckless sex & when the ramifications appear, just take the cowards way out. If she didn't want the child to begin with, she should of been acting against it, rather than throwing potential human life away, just for the sake of her rights.
Birth control fails you dolt. Your mind can change over the course of several months. Do you actually think that some horny bangtown session is grounds for forcing someone to carry something in them that drastically changes their life for the gestation period followed by up to a day of excruciating pain that leaves their nether regions permanently scarred and puts them in recoup mode for up to weeks? Were you given sex ed? Your inability to grasp that the trauma of carrying a child you don't want is easily worse (definitively physically) than the grief of losing your unborn child just demonstrates how biased you're allowing yourself to be.
470
« on: March 17, 2016, 06:36:38 PM »
I'm not able to see anything compelling about the unwritten social contract between a couple being taken as imperative over a woman being able to not have to go through childbirth against her will.
A father should be able to divorce himself from fiscal responsibility if he elects for abortion and the mother declines and the state takes over, but forcing someone to undergo something as physically tasking and painful and scarring as childbirth? Against their fucking will?
Do you people think women lay eggs?
Are you trying to apply a second grader's understanding of contract law?
471
« on: March 17, 2016, 05:55:05 PM »
Living without legs is my fetish fam.
472
« on: March 17, 2016, 05:39:26 PM »
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/[/url]
I don't understand why people are surprised to find differences in the brain of people with mental illness
How did you take what Verb said and end up jumping to this?
Because he thinks the cure to transgenderism is acceptance, implying that the problem plaguing transgenders is social violence
And I'm saying that it's not
The problem is in their heads
Yeah bro they're just imagining those violence and homicide statistics.
473
« on: March 17, 2016, 05:33:33 PM »
Because medication actually cures depression No it doesn't. Or at least it helps the victim long enough for them to get out of it on their own Wait are you saying that treatments aren't 100% effective just by taking a pill? By your logic it seems we should discontinue it because as long as this treatments exists, there isn't incentive to create something more effective and permanent. Hormone therapy and surgery is NOT the cure
No one treats it like it's a cure. The professionals in the industry actively try to hammer it into your head that it is nowhere near a cure. You think this because you lack any experience or knowledge of the process. The suicide rate pre and post op is exactly the same for transgender people
SRS =/= HRT. HRT is a much larger component as social transition is often the far more important aspect to healthy mental function. Most trans people don't get SRS. My only guess as to why you put such emphasis on SRS over HRT is because either you only have data to suit your argument in the case of SRS comparison, and/or you simply don't understand the difference between the two treatments. So it is not the solution
It's the current best, stopping doing it now would be just worsen the conditions these people face. But it is stopping the look for a cure because now the surgery is glorified as the solution thus stopping the search for an actual cure
Failing to provide care because you accept nothing but perfection is asinine. Can you provide evidence that the current process is "halting the search for a cure" in any other way than the absence of a situation in which we have no treatment creating more incentive for R&D?
474
« on: March 17, 2016, 01:34:12 PM »
Wanting to be another Gender is not a Health problem in its self, you can live with that.
So you don't believe that mental illness causes suicide?
I already preemptively countered your argument, by saying "It is not a health problem in it's self, You won't suddenly have heart failure if you don't magically switch to the other gender, while it can have other implications, that result from said wishes, in its self it is not a health problem,
Well that's a really misleading and disingenuous way of representing it, but you're not wrong. Yeah, you don't just drop dead. You experience severe depression until you inevitably kill yourself.
475
« on: March 17, 2016, 01:28:10 PM »
Wanting to be another Gender is not a Health problem in its self, you can live with that.
So you don't believe that mental illness causes suicide?
476
« on: March 17, 2016, 11:56:24 AM »
Some crossplays very obviously try to make themselves jokes but otherwise nothing to disagree with.
edit: Oh I misinterpreted. Make yourself a joke or you will be harassed.
477
« on: March 17, 2016, 11:26:56 AM »
It isn't, but just for laughs imagine it is, and the best treatment was through hormone therapy or surgery; how is that any different than correcting chemical imbalances in depressed people with medication?
Step 1: Make erroneous comparison to other dysmorphic disorders. Step 2: Fail to compare the differing bodily health consequences. Step 3: Accommodating illness bad!
478
« on: March 17, 2016, 11:04:17 AM »
they dont even cut off the dick dork
479
« on: March 17, 2016, 05:01:31 AM »
some douche was pvping in oolacile and he was abusing the fact that if you cast pursuers before the invader spawns, they can't see the pursuers.
some people have no honor
480
« on: March 16, 2016, 03:35:26 AM »
Obviously Rogue One
Is Star Wars seriously going to enter Marvelitus.
Pages: 1 ... 141516 1718 ... 84
|
Show Posts