Bolded by me to indicate poster went from women are obligated to reproduce for society TO ""say women have absolutely no obligation to the developing life they are carrying and can summarily kill it for any reason whatsoever""" - - - Updated - - - Shhhh, don't give away our secret!!
I use the term incubator metaphorically. I assumed most readers would realize that. Eventually, I believe technology will improve and scientists will be able to grow a human being from a zygote (but I have no idea what they will call that device). I based my analysis on your questions. When you say "Every human has an obligation to contribute to society and one of those obligations is (by our very biology) to create new human life." does that not mean a woman who is pregnant has an obligation (in your worldview) to "incubate" that zygote/embryo/fetus to produce a new human? Most pro-lifers who hold that position believe it that gives them the right do force a woman to carry every pregnancy to term. If that is NOT your position, then I apologize for misinterpreting your post. I am pro-choice, so I support your right to run your own life as you wish. I just reject the attempts of pro-lifers to impose their worldview on the rest of the country.
Just because you repeat your previously failed argument doesn't make it any more viable. And you are still wrong about an incubator...look it up. Just because you 'believe technology will improve and scientists will be able to grow a humanbeing from a zygote' does not change today's definition of an incubator which can NEVER be a metaphor for a human uterus/womb. Having sex for fun is great however, it is not so great to have it at the expense of killing a developing human life. With procreational-type sex SHOULD come the obligation by both parties, to be RESPONSIBLE for what may develop. Abortion is a cop out. Feminists don't WANT to have any obligations at all and, frankly, want to be more like men than women while, at the same time, are unwilling to let men have any say at all in procreation.
By 'poster' if you are referring to me you are dead wrong. As I already said, you left out 'YOU' in that statement. Try actually thinking before shooting from the hip. Why is the fact sex is pleasurable a 'secret?' <MOD EDIT - Rule 3 - Flamebait Removed>
Bolded blue above shows poster's ORIGINAL statements. Statements that indicated he thought women have an obligation to reproduce for society. (NOTHING about an obligation to a fetus) He has been shown to be in error since he hasn't provided any LAW, Royal Decree, or even a tablet of stone with that carved on it.... I don't have anyone on ignore, I am not afraid of anyone.
You quoted me saying... You mean women who were born to make new life by their very biology have 'no obligation' to society at all? Show me where I posted that (your statement) women have an obligation to reproduce for society. You ADDED that I did not say that. This is part of the typical garbage pro choicers try to push on anyone even questioning them. Lies and more lies. So, you are saying women have NO obligation to society at all...got it. So you think all women are sociopaths? Oh and BTW, you are not addressing a crowd so no need to refer to me as 'he' which is insulting but then, that seems to be what your are good at. I suspect you have an anger problem.
In that case, to be more precise, let's say most pro-life people want the woman to act as a gestation appliance (not an incubator). I suppose that is fair since pro-choice people ask for precision when it comes to the term fetus versus baby. I cannot speak for feminists, but I assume like most of us they are happy to take on the responsibilities that they choose of their own free will. If a couple has sex with no intention of having a baby (perhaps they even used birth control) then there was no intent to create a new human being. Am I correct now in assuming that (in the event of an unexpected pregnancy) you would choose to take on that responsibility but you have no objection if some other couple decides on an abortion?
Oh please...Now you are going further down the libbie feminist rabbit hole. Since when has any pro-lifer said a woman is a 'gestation appliance?' I'd say by your description of women as 'incubators' and now 'gestation device' you might just have some issues yourself. It doesn't matter what their 'intentions' are the procreational sex act is DESIGNED to impregnate and develop a fetus that will most likely develop into a born human baby. In fact, we actually have to try to preclude that by taking drugs (birth control) or go to the radical procedure of removing and killing that developing human baby to stop nature from taking its natural course. Trying to gloss over what nature has already put into our bodies and pretending that we all can be happy sex addicts with no responsibility at all is just idiocy. It's funny to me that feminists and pro-choicers HAVE to have penis in vagina sex and demand to either kill it before it can form or kill it after it forms instead of being a bit more creative.....You do know there are other ways to have sex that risk no impregnation at all don't you?
All the proof of your statements is in post #131...do you deny those are your posts? You: """So, you are saying women have NO obligation to society at all...got it. So you think all women are sociopaths?""" Only someone using no logic at all would come up with that........now you're twisting it yet again to "No obligation to society at all" when your original statement was that women were obligated to society to give birth...... It's squirming around and you know it..... You really have no point. And NO proof that women owe society children....no proof whatsoever.
I did not think we were discussing all life, but your moral imperative was very general (developing life). If we are excluding non-sentient life then we can exclude the zygote/embryo/fetus until sometime later in the third trimester when it might be inhabited by a sentient mind capable of significant brain activity. If a woman carries a pregnancy to that point, she is probably seeking an abortion because of some critical problem that is none of your business (unless perhaps you are her partner). What is your rationale for placing the requirements of the pre-sentient human body above the requirements of the woman who is hosting it? Do you believe it has a spirit or a soul before the brain is fully developed? If not, then clearly the pregnant woman is the only human being involved until late in the third trimester and she has an obligation to act in her own interests, and that of her existing family (remember some women get abortions because they already have as many children as they and their husbands can support).
When you post questions without stating your position it is only natural for readers to infer your position based on your questions. Maybe you could avoid some of that by stating your position more clearly at the beginning.
Oh please..This whole thread is about human life...YOU brought up veal not me. Whether you like it or not, abortion is the TERMINATION of a DEVELOPING HUMAN LIFE. Hosting? Like the thing was just PUT into her without her permission? That is rape isn't it? So you buy into the lie that all sex is rape? I think there should be an obligation to get and receive a commitment before a procreational sex act occurs. That is, if, as a male, you want to put your penis into a vagina and she agrees, BOTH should get and receive commitments from each other as to how to proceed should a viable human pregnancy take place. Men are especially vulnerable as they have 0 reproductive rights. You are correct, a woman will act in her own interest making unilateral decisions about the developing life that has the man's DNA.
Since when has any pro-lifer said a woman is a 'gestation appliance'? It is implied by their willingness to take away her right to choose. She becomes an appliance to gestate children for society (based on the obligations you implied with your earlier questions). Now I infer that you are resorting to nature as your authority. Nature created the male and the female to procreate, and we are being evil if we do not satisfy nature's design by allowing the zygote to develop into a newborn. That is a flawed argument because we also build houses to thwart the natural order of things. We developed guns and other weapons to kill bears, mountain lions, and all manner of nature's creatures who would like to kill us and eat us. You have lost your moral justification if you claim that now, when it comes to pregnant women, we must bow to nature's demands.
I stated my position you altered what I said with your own assumptions. Nothing I can do about that other than to point out the lies. - - - Updated - - - When did I say anyone needs my approval? More lies. So much anger...
Go speak to 'Them' then. Who said anything about evil? Good God...Houses, guns? Is there no obfuscation you won't try?
Or... If a man and woman are contemplating sex they could sign a contract stating that there is no intent to create a new human life, so they are bound by contract to terminate any unexpected pregnancy before it becomes a sentient human?
I think you'll have trouble convincing people I lied when I asked a question. You can tell a question by the little squiggly thing on the end of the sentnence. """Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post You DO know that people are free to have sex anyway they choose without your approval ?? There were even TWO and you missed them both ! .....and the only person who seems to be angry here is you.....
Then I offer you an opportunity to clarify your position. Do you agree that a pregnant woman should have the right to thwart nature's design by aborting an unwanted pregnancy? If so, then maybe you are pro-choice after all. If not, please explain why we have the right to thwart nature's design in so many other ways... but not in this way?
You answer a question with a question...nice deflection. Answer my question. - - - Updated - - - I've already stated my position over and over. Try clearing the pro choice cobwebs.
Duhhh, nice attempt at a deflection...I already did answer.....thought I'd give you a chance to answer since , by your question, it wasn't clear if you believed it or not.... ...and once again you can't answer....
I'm not here to convince 'people' I am merely addressing your posts. Two what? And you never answered my question. .....and the only person who seems to be angry here is you.....[/QUOTE]
