| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2012 01:43:53 AM · #276 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
People with healthy sex lives are generally happier. Happier people don't follow like sheep as easily. Desperate and unhappy people do. To condemn sex is to try to squelch free thinking. |
Whoa! That was a tour de force of connections... ;) |
Yes and I stand by it. It's as obvious to me as saying well fed people are happier and make better decisions. It's a fairly recent phenomenon when you look at the scope of human history, to go around acting like sex doesn't matter or is only allowed under highly controlled circumstances (aka marriage) when it's an intricate part of life. It's the only reason we exist. I'm not knocking marriage if that's what you so choose, but to go knocking other forms of relationships is unfair and naive at that.
Religion, bad "scientists" and others wishing to gain societal control have done a fairly good job of mucking up, mystifying, and fetishizing something as natural and basically human as sex and the human body. Anti-masturbation devices for the win! Bet you didn't know about them corn flakes!
For anyone interested Sex at Dawn is my number one favorite non-fiction book I've read of this past year. Did a much needed 180 on my world view through that book and the research and further reading it lead to. But if you don't believe in evolution don't even bother. It'll make your head spin. ;)
Message edited by author 2012-02-19 01:45:45. |
|
|
|
02/19/2012 02:17:24 AM · #277 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
People with healthy sex lives are generally happier. Happier people don't follow like sheep as easily. Desperate and unhappy people do. To condemn sex is to try to squelch free thinking. |
Whoa! That was a tour de force of connections... ;) |
Go ahead. I dare you to say sex doesn't make you happy! ;D |
I'm thinking of the Seinfeld episode where lack of sex made George smarter while it made Elaine stupid... |
|
|
|
02/19/2012 02:28:17 AM · #278 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm thinking of the Seinfeld episode where lack of sex made George smarter while it made Elaine stupid... |
In which case free contraceptives and a ban on Viagra should markedly raise the collective IQ of the human race ... |
|
|
|
02/19/2012 05:20:14 AM · #279 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm thinking of the Seinfeld episode where lack of sex made George smarter while it made Elaine stupid... |
In which case free contraceptives and a ban on Viagra should markedly raise the collective IQ of the human race ... |
I get the "ban on Viagra" part, but how does "free contraceptives" contribute to "lack of sex" in any way? :-)
R.
Message edited by author 2012-02-19 05:20:28.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2012 11:42:15 AM · #280 |
| Freely available contaceptives should tend to counteract the lack of sex for women, preventing the dumbing down which was mentioned ... |
|
|
|
02/19/2012 12:23:52 PM · #281 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Go ahead. I dare you to say sex doesn't make you happy! ;D |
Sex doesn't make me happy... at my age it's something more like astounded and delirious... so there. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
02/19/2012 12:33:52 PM · #282 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
The thing growing in a woman's womb is a separate living human being. Show me otherwise and I'll agree abortion should be legal. I'll even abort my next child (if it isn't a living human, what's the point). |
...It might (no guarantees) grow up to eventually become a person, but at the onset it is nothing of the sort.
Originally posted by Nullix:
We don't criminalize SIDS and other problems children have that cause death. |
...and if you read my post (slowly this time) you might comprehend the fact that I was not alluding to SIDS in the least but rather the natural abortion process...(but nice try)
Originally posted by Nullix:
My church is full of sinners. Does that mean we should throw away what we belief or stand up for what we believe is wrong and harmful to others. |
...No dispute from me on the sinners portion of your argument, but I am certain that you would agree that over the centuries the church has thrown away a vast array of beliefs, if only to catch up to the realities of the time at hand.
Originally posted by Nullix:
I'm gone for the weekend, please don't take my silence as approval[/i] |
Shall I then assume that in all of those instances where you did not reply that these were signs of approval... had I known I would have sent you a thank you note. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
02/19/2012 04:04:44 PM · #283 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll have to quibble and say I'm pretty sure 98% would be a high number for any group. Can you provide the survey? Otherwise this is just a line from Huffington Post (a bastion of journalism). |
//www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98-percent-of-catholic-women-use-contraception-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html |
|
|
|
02/19/2012 04:11:35 PM · #284 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'm not going to do the nit picking word game. I'm sure you knew what I meant, but I'll be more specific. A baby that can survive, with care, not connected to an umbilical cord is a person, in my opinion. Also, in my opinion, an elderly person or a person of any age that needs a machine to function are people. An embryo is not a person. It's survival depends solely on the survival of it's host. |
You are certainly entitled to that opinion Kelli and it is shared by many people. Personally I find it more satisfying if examples like this can be tied together with simple rules which would allow one to predict the answer for a future scenario. Right now you "an embryo is not a person" sticks out as being unpredictable based on your other assertions. It sounds arbitrary. This is one of the advantages (despite other possible ramifications) of the "person at fertilization". It is clear and consistent. (Don't read from this that this is my own personal opinion.) |
There's nothing arbitrary about it. If it has to be connected to my body to survive, then if I choose to end my own life, it also dies. Therefore, it cannot survive without me. If I was 7 months pregnant and they removed it from my body before I drew my final breath, and it survives, it's a person. If I was 6 weeks pregnant and they removed it from my body, it wouldn't survive.
Here's the thing, in a fairy tale scenario I would say if I got pregnant and didn't want the baby, but someone else did and if they could remove it from my body and "grow" it else where, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I'm a realist though, the fact that there are thousands (or maybe hundreds of thousands) of kids that are unwanted in the foster care system shows just how much these people actually care about the kids once they're no longer in some woman's body. They'll never be adopted. I certainly understand the view point of people who don't believe in abortion. I have no problem with them not getting one. Even if they plan on throwing the child away later at some point. It's a shame for the unwanted child. But it's their choice. All I'm saying is I didn't make your choice so don't try to make mine.
eta: And I didn't mean you, as in you. LOL! |
I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with Jason. Using the umbilical cord as the basis for personhood is arbitrary, not to mention it makes late late abortion ok (i.e. even after the baby has exited the mother but the cord still attached). Besides, with the way technology is advancing soon we'll be able to take a fertilized egg and have it develop completely independent from the host mother's body. What then? My guess is abortion would go down as more people are able to see what's happening right in front of them with their own two eyes. Well unless they keep their eyes closed. But that won't stop the majority from swinging to the pro-life side. It'll be just like hunting. Some people won't care that they just put a bullet between Bambi's eyes but most everyone else will find it barbaric to do such a thing to a beautiful creature.
Message edited by author 2012-02-19 16:13:11. |
|
|
|
02/19/2012 06:22:06 PM · #285 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'm not going to do the nit picking word game. I'm sure you knew what I meant, but I'll be more specific. A baby that can survive, with care, not connected to an umbilical cord is a person, in my opinion. Also, in my opinion, an elderly person or a person of any age that needs a machine to function are people. An embryo is not a person. It's survival depends solely on the survival of it's host. |
You are certainly entitled to that opinion Kelli and it is shared by many people. Personally I find it more satisfying if examples like this can be tied together with simple rules which would allow one to predict the answer for a future scenario. Right now you "an embryo is not a person" sticks out as being unpredictable based on your other assertions. It sounds arbitrary. This is one of the advantages (despite other possible ramifications) of the "person at fertilization". It is clear and consistent. (Don't read from this that this is my own personal opinion.) |
There's nothing arbitrary about it. If it has to be connected to my body to survive, then if I choose to end my own life, it also dies. Therefore, it cannot survive without me. If I was 7 months pregnant and they removed it from my body before I drew my final breath, and it survives, it's a person. If I was 6 weeks pregnant and they removed it from my body, it wouldn't survive.
Here's the thing, in a fairy tale scenario I would say if I got pregnant and didn't want the baby, but someone else did and if they could remove it from my body and "grow" it else where, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I'm a realist though, the fact that there are thousands (or maybe hundreds of thousands) of kids that are unwanted in the foster care system shows just how much these people actually care about the kids once they're no longer in some woman's body. They'll never be adopted. I certainly understand the view point of people who don't believe in abortion. I have no problem with them not getting one. Even if they plan on throwing the child away later at some point. It's a shame for the unwanted child. But it's their choice. All I'm saying is I didn't make your choice so don't try to make mine.
eta: And I didn't mean you, as in you. LOL! |
I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with Jason. Using the umbilical cord as the basis for personhood is arbitrary, not to mention it makes late late abortion ok (i.e. even after the baby has exited the mother but the cord still attached). Besides, with the way technology is advancing soon we'll be able to take a fertilized egg and have it develop completely independent from the host mother's body. What then? My guess is abortion would go down as more people are able to see what's happening right in front of them with their own two eyes. Well unless they keep their eyes closed. But that won't stop the majority from swinging to the pro-life side. It'll be just like hunting. Some people won't care that they just put a bullet between Bambi's eyes but most everyone else will find it barbaric to do such a thing to a beautiful creature. |
You're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying here. |
|
|
|
02/19/2012 09:03:13 PM · #286 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with Jason. |
(jaw drops on the floor...) :) Don't worry Richard, I won't hold it against you! |
|
|
|
02/20/2012 06:32:12 PM · #287 |
Originally posted by yanko:
... Besides, with the way technology is advancing soon we'll be able to take a fertilized egg and have it develop completely independent from the host mother's body. What then? . |
The what then is here and now since the catholic church already frowns on the in-vitro fertilization process and it too is a sin.
Next...
Ray |
|
|
|
02/20/2012 07:17:57 PM · #288 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by yanko:
... Besides, with the way technology is advancing soon we'll be able to take a fertilized egg and have it develop completely independent from the host mother's body. What then? . |
The what then is here and now since the catholic church already frowns on the in-vitro fertilization process and it too is a sin.
Next...
Ray |
Are you sure about the specifics of that? If one were to fertilize a single egg and implant it, would the church still frown upon it? I'm not sure of the answer, but I suspect the church's beef is with discarding embryos. |
|
|
|
02/20/2012 07:45:07 PM · #289 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If one were to fertilize a single egg and implant it, would the church still frown upon it? |
Given the degree of cleanliness required for facilities performing this, and the fact that no sex is involved, wouldn't such a procedure qualify as an immaculate conception? Just askin' ... ;-)
Message edited by author 2012-02-20 19:46:17. |
|
|
|
02/20/2012 08:50:58 PM · #290 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'm not going to do the nit picking word game. I'm sure you knew what I meant, but I'll be more specific. A baby that can survive, with care, not connected to an umbilical cord is a person, in my opinion. Also, in my opinion, an elderly person or a person of any age that needs a machine to function are people. An embryo is not a person. It's survival depends solely on the survival of it's host. |
You are certainly entitled to that opinion Kelli and it is shared by many people. Personally I find it more satisfying if examples like this can be tied together with simple rules which would allow one to predict the answer for a future scenario. Right now you "an embryo is not a person" sticks out as being unpredictable based on your other assertions. It sounds arbitrary. This is one of the advantages (despite other possible ramifications) of the "person at fertilization". It is clear and consistent. (Don't read from this that this is my own personal opinion.) |
The viability argument may not satisfy the desire for a philosophical definition of "personhood" that can be agreed upon by a majority, but that doesn't make it arbitrary. There is reason and logic behind that argument. In any event, the alternative argument -- that a clump of cells or a fertilized egg is a person and is entitled to all the constitutional/legal protections that the woman carrying it is afforded -- is ludicrous. |
|
|
|
02/20/2012 09:58:59 PM · #291 |
| Well, ludicrous is such a hysterical word... |
|
|
|
02/20/2012 10:47:02 PM · #292 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, ludicrous is such a hysterical word... |
Now you're being silly ... (check the etymology of that one) |
|
|
|
02/20/2012 11:42:40 PM · #293 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, ludicrous is such a hysterical word... |
Now you're being silly ... (check the etymology of that one) |
Yes, it was pregnant with implication... |
|
|
|
02/21/2012 05:30:08 AM · #294 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If one were to fertilize a single egg and implant it, would the church still frown upon it? |
Given the degree of cleanliness required for facilities performing this, and the fact that no sex is involved, wouldn't such a procedure qualify as an immaculate conception? Just askin' ... ;-) |
I am off to work Doc, but I did find this Link.
Since my spouse went though the process many years ago, I can tell you for a fact that it was severely frowned upon back then.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/21/2012 11:49:28 AM · #295 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I am off to work Doc, but I did find this Link. |
I'm amused by the article's use of pronoun, which on the surface equates human beings only with males.
"The Church teaches that a human being must be respected--as a person--from the very first instant of his existence as a human being." |
|
|
|
02/22/2012 11:57:21 AM · #296 |
Wow. This is priceless....... In January, as the Virginia State Senate debated a bill that required women to have an ultrasound before an abortion, Democrat Janet Howell attached an amendment that required men to have a rectal exam and cardiac stress tests before they could receive prescriptions for erectile dysfunction medication like Viagra. The amendment was rejected in the Senate, 21-19.
//news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/21/georgia-democrats-to-propose-limitations-on-vasectomies-for-men/ |
|
|
|
02/22/2012 01:47:36 PM · #297 |
If contraception and abortion are medical procedures, well then, I thought conservatives stood against government interference with people's personal/private lives ... where do these guys find the right to enter into/interfere with anyone's confidential discussion with their doctor/health care provider? As far as I'm concerned, the Constitution and medical ethics both override legislative statutes.
Originally posted by Kelli:
Wow. This is priceless....... In January, as the Virginia State Senate debated a bill that required women to have an ultrasound before an abortion, Democrat Janet Howell attached an amendment that required men to have a rectal exam and cardiac stress tests before they could receive prescriptions for erectile dysfunction medication like Viagra. The amendment was rejected in the Senate, 21-19.
//news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/21/georgia-democrats-to-propose-limitations-on-vasectomies-for-men/ |
Imagine if they'd tried to impose a 72-hour waiting period!
Message edited by author 2012-02-22 13:48:58. |
|
|
|
02/22/2012 01:48:29 PM · #298 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Wow. This is priceless....... In January, as the Virginia State Senate debated a bill that required women to have an ultrasound before an abortion, Democrat Janet Howell attached an amendment that required men to have a rectal exam and cardiac stress tests before they could receive prescriptions for erectile dysfunction medication like Viagra. The amendment was rejected in the Senate, 21-19.
//news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/21/georgia-democrats-to-propose-limitations-on-vasectomies-for-men/ |
The other proposed legislation discussed in that article (to control or invade men's bodies) is priceless, too.
I found this segment of The Rachel Maddow Show, her expose of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (supporter of the state-sanctioned rape bill, otherwise known as the trans-vaginal ultrasound bill) very interesting. From her expose, some choice quotations from the gov:
"leaders must correct the conventional folklore about the separation of church and state"
"the perverted notion of liberty that each individual should be able to live out his sexual life in any way he chooses without interference from the state"
"a dynamic new trend of working women and feminists that is ultimately detrimental to the family"
(emphasis added)
Also from the expose, McDonnell:
~ supports wage discrimination in employment between men and women
~ supports discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation
~ supports banning contraception
~ supports discrimination in adoption services based on sexual orientation, age, gender, disability, religion, and political belief
While watching this segment of The Rachel Maddow Show, I was reminded of a passage from Chris Hedges' book "American Fascists" that I just finished reading:
"Dr. James Luther Adams, my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, told us that when we were his age -- he was then close to 80 -- we would all be fighting the 'Christian fascists.' The warning, given to me nearly 25 years ago, came at the moment Pat Robertson and other radio and televangelists began speaking about a new political religion that would direct its efforts at taking control of all institutions, including mainstream denominations and the government. Its stated goal was to use the United States to create a global Christian empire. It was hard, at the time, to take such fantastic rhetoric seriously, especially given the buffoonish quality of leaders in the Christian Right who expounded it. But Adams warned us against the blindness caused by intellectual snobbery. The Nazis, he said, were not going to return with swastikas and brown shirts. Their ideological inheritors in America had found a mask for fascism in patriotism and the pages of the Bible."
Message edited by author 2012-02-22 13:59:53. |
|
|
|
02/22/2012 04:33:23 PM · #299 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
"Their ideological inheritors in America had found a mask for fascism in patriotism and the pages of the Bible." |
So scary, so true.....
|
|
|
|
02/22/2012 04:35:49 PM · #300 |
Nice. I've been called ludicrous and now a nazi. Always the moderate Judith...
I understand this is Rant and what goes along, but I'll say that quote is a bit strong even for this forum. I find it offensive.
Message edited by author 2012-02-22 16:42:27. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 03:29:19 PM EDT.
