On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/27/2013 11:19:51 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/27/2013 5:17:42 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM, drhead wrote:
But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?

A "pro-lifer" could say that a fetus is a developing human being, no different than a child. It grows, changes physical features, and carries human DNA that guides this process. In that sense, it is human. They could go on to argue that once brain activity begins, it is also alive, making the killing of it a violation of it's right to life. This is a very good argument.

However, it falls flat on it's face when you introduce the issue of bodily sovereignty, which necessarily overrides any creature's "right to life". The right of the mother to control her body overrides the right of the fetus to live; this is because the fetus has no right to use the mother's body against her will, just as I have no right to, for instance, take organs from you against your will, even if I would die without them.

http://academic.wsc.edu...

I'm not seeing your point. Your article agrees with me that the mother and fetus are two separate entities. Thus the mother has every right to control her body; and that includes what has access to it. In this case, the fetus.
Forums Home > Politics

The hypocrisy of abortion supportersPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/27/2013 8:48:09 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
Abortion is outright, unjustifiable wicked murder.

The mother has no right to kill.

Even in self-defense and self-preservation?

YHWH decides who should live and who should die.

1) Prove Yahweh exists.
2) Tell us why we should care what he wants.

If he did not want the women to have off-spring He would not have made women.

In other words, a woman's only purpose is to pump out babies?

There are rare circumstances when a women would have to (EXTREME EMERGENCY SITUATIONS ONLY) possibly turn to such a drastic and horrific extreme, study Torah if you want the Truth, make sure you submit first through repentance! In Yahshua the Messiah's name! To all: I would turn to Yahshua now, to wait is not wise, tomorrow is not promised........

Bla bla bla.
Forums Home > Philosophy

The hypocrisy of abortion supportersPosted 7 years Ago

Because what makes abortion legal and justifiable is the mother's bodily sovereignty, which overrides the fetus' right to life. The fetus does not have an inherent right to the mother's body. The mother owns her body, and therefore, chooses who she will let use it, and who she will not let use it. If she no longer wishes to allow the fetus to use her body, she therefore has every right to have the fetus removed from her, even if the fetus will die. However, if she does not desire this, and desires to allow the fetus to use her, then the fetus' right to life is still active; a right which is violated when it is killed by an aggressor.

There is no hypocrisy here.
Forums Home > Philosophy

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM, drhead wrote:
But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?

A "pro-lifer" could say that a fetus is a developing human being, no different than a child. It grows, changes physical features, and carries human DNA that guides this process. In that sense, it is human. They could go on to argue that once brain activity begins, it is also alive, making the killing of it a violation of it's right to life. This is a very good argument.

However, it falls flat on it's face when you introduce the issue of bodily sovereignty, which necessarily overrides any creature's "right to life". The right of the mother to control her body overrides the right of the fetus to live; this is because the fetus has no right to use the mother's body against her will, just as I have no right to, for instance, take organs from you against your will, even if I would die without them.
Forums Home > Politics

Topless in Public?Posted 7 years Ago

At 5/26/2013 10:12:38 PM, Chaotic_Neutral wrote:
What exactly is the advantage of going topless in public?

It's not about the "Advantage" of going topless, it's about having the freedom to choose, and not having pointless regulations forced upon you, especially when those regulations are sexist.

I see this as a situation in which there is very little to be gained while many would be outraged.

This is the equivalent of claiming Jim Crow laws shouldn't have ended, because it would cause "outrage". Oppression is oppression, and needs to be done away with.
Forums Home > Politics

Philosophy is useless, pointless BSPosted 7 years Ago

Philosophy is thinking. You learn philosophy in order to learn how to think, and how to question, how to analyze, and how to judge the worthwhileness of certain ideas or theories. That's a very important skill to have, and not enough people have it. Philosophy is most certainly not pointless BS. It's the foundation of any enlightened and successful society.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Nationalize ProstitutionPosted 7 years Ago

As much a commie as I am, I don't think I can agree with the nationalization of prostitution. Legalization, certainly. But it seems to me to be a veyr private matter. Who's to say what the value of one person's body is to another? That seems to me to be highly barbaric honestly.

I think prostitution should be decriminalized, and brought out into the open, certainly. This would also allow for greater safety for prostitutes, and greater safety for potential clients. But nationalization is a whole 'nother bucket of worms, and one that I think should remain closed.
Forums Home > Politics

Topless in Public?Posted 7 years Ago

So I saw this image on Tumblr today, and found it to be very relevant to this topic.

http://24.media.tumblr.com...
Forums Home > Politics

Topless in Public?Posted 7 years Ago

At 5/25/2013 5:30:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
Rules are made by the majority.

Not quite true.

More people find breasts sexy then being eaten alive.

That does not make them inherently sexual however. Do you understand what the term "inherently" means? It means devoid of input or subjectification. If something is "inherent", it is that way, regardless of whether or not people recognize it, agree with it, ect.

People find breasts sexual. People also don't find them sexual. No one is contesting this. But breasts do not serve an inherent sexual purpose, and therefore, are not inherently sexual. In other words, you cannot objectively claim "breasts are sexual". You can only claim "breasts are sexual - to me and others".

I do not wish to respond more because

You've utterly failed on all fronts? Yeah, that can be a pain.
Forums Home > Politics

Topless in Public?Posted 7 years Ago

At 5/25/2013 5:01:25 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
Buts are not used it sex. If you argue anal sex, then I would say people titifuck.

I do not see your point. I've already said nude butts should be allowed. And no, there's nothing inherently sexual about butts either.

Being eaten alive is illegal.

Again, what's your point? I brought that up because I can sit and watch someone eat food, and have personal fantasies about it in my mind. To me, watching someone eat can be lightly sexually stimulating.

Again, what're you going to do? Ban eating in public, because it can be seen as a sexual thing? Or tell me to "get over it, you're in public"?

Some people find sex a very personal private act.

And some people don't.

Maybe this is why people are offended by sexual body parts. It is important to take their point of view into account.

No, it's not, because it's not about what "offends" someone, it's about what's harmful.

Also, breasts definitely are sexual.

Nope. Go ahead, try to justify that claim. I'll be perfectly happy to shoot it down each and every time someone states it. Breasts are not inherently sexual. Can they be sexual? Sure. In the same way that eating for me can be sexual; But they are not inherently sexual.
Forums Home > Politics

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.