NationStates Jolt Archive

Mostly for the girls, but guys you can play along too and imagine you're female. Suppose that tomorrow, you found out you were pregnant, and it was too late for the Pill. Never mind if you're a virgin (like me) or whatever; just go along with the question. Would have an abortion, carry the baby but put it up for adoption, or simply raise the child?

Also please give your age and general situation - e.g. have your kids already left the house, are you engaged, single, a teenager in a supportive home and relationship, 7th grader whose parents would kill you?

I'm 14, a 9th grader, and my parents are very supportive. I'm not in a relationship. I believe I would raise the child. Even though I'm pro-choice, I'm personally opposed to abortion and believe it would be traumatic for me. Adoption would seem to be a guiltless middleground way to shirk responsibility, but I'd still end up wondering where they might be and what if they came back as adults looking for their blood parents? Thus, I think that simply raising them would be the best of the options.

I'd be really disturbed because I'm male.

I'd wonder how giving birth through the anus would feel like.

Anyway, i'm pro-choice on the grounds that backstreet abortion is worse than an abortion clinic and all that jazz.

I'd abort, straight away. I have neither the time nor the energy to be pregnant, nor do I have the means to even pay for the medical treatment on my own. I'm a 19 year old lesbian, engaged to another woman, so, the likelihood of this happening is slim to none.

I'd abort, straight away. I have neither the time nor the energy to be pregnant, nor do I have the means to even pay for the medical treatment on my own. I'm a 19 year old lesbian, engaged to another woman, so, the likelihood of this happening is slim to none.

That might be one long-term engagement! ;)

Not if she lives outside America or in the lovely haven of Massachusetts...

I'd be really disturbed because I'm male.
LOL same here

I'd abort just because the time and pain it would take to birth a child (with my sex organ) would be unbelievable. Heck, and I thought passing a kidney stone hurt like hell. Ouchie!! (http://home.student.uu.se/a/anli7609/pain.jpg)

I'd abort just because the time and pain it would take to birth a child (with my sex organ) would be unbelievable. Heck, and I thought passing a kidney stone hurt like hell. Ouchie!! (http://home.student.uu.se/a/anli7609/pain.jpg)

Get a C-section.

I'd abort, assuming I was the pregnant one (being a male, not really an issue, but, eh, more reason to abort if something that horrific happened), as soon as humanly possible. If it made it to whatever trimester the little buggers develop senses, then I wouldn't (the same goes for if a pet got magically knocked up), but otherwise my situation doesn't allow it at all (I'm an English major with a year and a half of tightly-packed courses to go), I lack a paternal nature, and I don't feel the world deserves yet another victim.

I'd abort just because the time and pain it would take to birth a child (with my sex organ) would be unbelievable. Heck, and I thought passing a kidney stone hurt like hell. Ouchie!! (http://home.student.uu.se/a/anli7609/pain.jpg)


Should I click that link or am I going to have to burn my eyes?

Abort. Neither the time nor the money. No one should ever be saddled with a pregnancy they don't want.

And yes, pushing a baby through my urethra would be a bitch.

And I would give the child up for adoption because I can't take care of a child...

i would be marching my way to the nearest abortion clinic to have that bloody parasite removed.

hell yeah

fetus :mp5:

Abort. Neither the time nor the money. No one should ever be saddled with a pregnancy they don't want.

And yes, pushing a baby through my urethra would be a bitch.

What about through your buttucks?

I'm male, but in the scenerio you gave, I would probably go with the abortion. I'm in high school, and if I had a kid then it could seriously harm my future. The financial and temporal stresses of a kid might hinder my college education. I believe that no-one should have kids until they're out of school.

oh, god. that poll makes me sick.

oh, god. that poll makes me sick.

let me guess - appalled at the abortion numbers?

oh, god. that poll makes me sick.
You're just jealous of responsible people.

[QUOTE=New Genoa]I'd wonder how giving birth through the anus would feel like.
[QUOTE]

*shoots self*

21 year old female

If I knew who the father was and he wasn't a dead beat, then I'd raise the kid. However, if the guy is MIA then I would have an abortion.

Europe and america have some of the best adoption agencies in the world, and ANY life is better than no life. I'm a dem., but i don't like abortion. that and the fact that abortion should only be used as a means to help control over pop. (it's even sick then, but if ppl die of starvation, then it may be necessart to some extent in that region), or for medical emergencies.

put the kid up for adoption. you got pregnant, have the kid.
HOWEVER, i do believe that in special circumstances women should be able to choose. i'd like to see a self-proclaimed 'staunch republican' look a rape victim on welfare in the eye and tell her she HAS to have the child.

What about through your buttucks?
Would probably be slightly pleasurable, like taking a huge dump.

*mental image of fetus in toilet*

ughh...

Regaurdless of where you live, abortion should not be an option. If you are old enough and ready to have sex, you are old enough and ready to raise a child. If you do not want to get pregnet, you don't have sexual intercourse, it's that simple.

If you are raped, you birth the child, and give it away to adoption. Then find the rapest, cut off his penis, fry it up, and force feed it to him. Then, cut off any 11 digits, 1 limb, then tar and feather him. After this, cover him in honey or some other sticky sugar, and place him near a colony of fire army ants.

Raping is wrong and anyone who can't get laid, can buy a whore. If your psycotic and must rape someone, try raping an old lady or better yet, ask the old prune if she'd like to get nailed.. Or theres fat chicks. There are many desperate girls who will have sex with the most but ugly of men.

Honestly, if you rape someone, you should suffer and be raped. How about a man made, machine raping device, a 12 innch long, 4 inch thick cold steel cock, that pulsatates at 1800ppm (pulses per minute) is cramed into the anal passage of the rapist, and he is raped by the mech-o-cock for 24 hours, once a week, for a year.

If anyone disagrees with my reply, i would like to further discuss it as it could bring some seirous flaming, or some good times laughing your frickin ass off. If you did not find my (yes seriious) reply humourus, then you must be a rapist, in which case, you should go jump off a bridge, as in real life, I will implement this punishment in 32 states in the USA and all 13 provinces/territories of CANADA by the year 2008.

-----

Prime Sinister - Lord Tyler

Would probably be slightly pleasurable, like taking a huge dump.

*mental image of fetus in toilet*

ughh...

okay guys, knock it off. you're supposed to be imagining you're female, not coming up with sick ways that a male could give birth.

I'm 24, in grad school, and in a committed relationship. My boyfriend and I have agreed that, in the event I do get pregnant (which is very unlikely), we will make the sacrifices/lifestyle changes necessary to have a child. On top of that, since we are pseudo-engaged already, we would probably go ahead and get married.

You're just jealous of responsible people.
do responsible ppl HAVE to have abortions? I think not.
Ppl need to realize that the point of sex is to reproduce, not to have fun. that's thrown in as an incentive to do it, because if it hurt or something, it's be a chore when you were responsible enough to do it. ppl need to realize that when you have sex, you run the risk of *dare i say it* REPRODUCING AHHH!!!! And it is NOT the child's fault. It still deserves to live. and 'because the child bearing will be a pain' is not an excuse. YOU screw up, not the kid. if you don't want a kid, don't go screwing ppl. you break it, you buy it. same principle here.

Bah, I already imagined my feminine side, and yes, I would abort any baby I had no desire of having.

Abortion on demand, yall.

Regaurdless of where you live, abortion should not be an option. If you are old enough and ready to have sex, you are old enough and ready to raise a child. If you do not want to get pregnet, you don't have sexual intercourse, it's that simple.

If you are raped, you birth the child, and give it away to adoption. Then find the rapest, cut off his penis, fry it up, and force feed it to him. Then, cut off any 11 digits, 1 limb, then tar and feather him. After this, cover him in honey or some other sticky sugar, and place him near a colony of fire army ants.

Raping is wrong and anyone who can't get laid, can buy a whore. If your psycotic and must rape someone, try raping an old lady or better yet, ask the old prune if she'd like to get nailed.. Or theres fat chicks. There are many desperate girls who will have sex with the most but ugly of men.

Honestly, if you rape someone, you should suffer and be raped. How about a man made, machine raping device, a 12 innch long, 4 inch thick cold steel cock, that pulsatates at 1800ppm (pulses per minute) is cramed into the anal passage of the rapist, and he is raped by the mech-o-cock for 24 hours, once a week, for a year.

If anyone disagrees with my reply, i would like to further discuss it as it could bring some seirous flaming, or some good times laughing your frickin ass off. If you did not find my (yes seriious) reply humourus, then you must be a rapist, in which case, you should go jump off a bridge, as in real life, I will implement this punishment in 32 states in the USA and all 13 provinces/territories of CANADA by the year 2008.

-----

Prime Sinister - Lord Tyler

XD OMG! LOL! although i do agree. u just had the balls to say it.

Ppl need to realize that the point of sex is to reproduce, not to have fun.
You sound deprived.

that's thrown in as an incentive to do it
By God?

If I were having sex (and if I were female) it would be with the knowledge that I might get pregnant. (Because there's always the chance of human error with every method of contraception.)

With that in mind I wouldn't be having sex with anyone who wouldn't be willing to stay with me and raise his child.

I would raise the child with my chosen mate.

And BTW, I'm an agnostic, not a Christian.

I'm 24, in grad school, and in a committed relationship. My boyfriend and I have agreed that, in the event I do get pregnant (which is very unlikely), we will make the sacrifices/lifestyle changes necessary to have a child. On top of that, since we are pseudo-engaged already, we would probably go ahead and get married.
I congratulate you. You are a resposible, caring adault. unlike many irresponsible ppl who don't think of the consequences ahead of time

Should I click that link or am I going to have to burn my eyes?

Click it. You know you want to.

Europe and america have some of the best adoption agencies in the world, and ANY life is better than no life.
So you seriously do not think the world is overpopulated. There are way, way too many humans on this planet already. And my parents wanted to adopt a child, but it was so difficult they just decided "screw it", and had children. Adoption isn't as easy as it seems.

Honestly, if you rape someone, you should suffer and be raped. How about a man made, machine raping device, a 12 innch long, 4 inch thick cold steel cock, that pulsatates at 1800ppm (pulses per minute) is cramed into the anal passage of the rapist, and he is raped by the mech-o-cock for 24 hours, once a week, for a year.
Are you aware that many rapists are psychopaths? This means that they cannot empathise at all with other people's emotions, including pain, and cannot learn from consequences. Punishment is useless on psychopaths.

And BTW, I'm an agnostic, not a Christian.
That has nothing to do with it. Don't you feel even a little bit grossed out at the thought of it? I think a sense of right and wrong is embedded in all people, not just christians. Do you have any moreals at all? Don't you feel compassion for the dead, or sadness for their widows? It's the same thing.

So you seriously do not think the world is overpopulated. There are way, way too many humans on this planet already. And my parents wanted to adopt a child, but it was so difficult they just decided "screw it", and had children. Adoption isn't as easy as it seems.
oh, you are SOOOO full of crap. my MOM is adopted, one of my best friends is adopted, and I have a friend who recently adopted someone. And i think that CERTAIN places in the world are over-populated.

That has nothing to do with it. Don't you feel even a little bit grossed out at the thought of it? I think a sense of right and wrong is embedded in all people, not just christians. Do you have any moreals at all? Don't you feel compassion for the dead, or sadness for their widows? It's the same thing.

DUDE. Did you even read her post? She said she'd raise the kid.


So you seriously do not think the world is overpopulated. There are way, way too many humans on this planet already. And my parents wanted to adopt a child, but it was so difficult they just decided "screw it", and had children. Adoption isn't as easy as it seems.

DUDE. Did you even read his post? He said it was okay for purposes of preventing overpopulation - weird position from my point of view but yeah.


PEOPLE: read the whole post and please stop flaming in my thread!

That has nothing to do with it. Don't you feel even a little bit grossed out at the thought of it? I think a sense of right and wrong is embedded in all people, not just christians. Do you have any moreals at all? Don't you feel compassion for the dead, or sadness for their widows? It's the same thing.
Something I've noticed, is that without religion, morals become subjective.

And i think that CERTAIN places in the world are over-populated.
Which means that the entire world is overpopulated. Learn some ecology and population biology, then say that again.

Yes, adoption isn't EASY, but I think that the easy things in life al to often aren't the best things in life.

I'd have an abortion. I talk with my partners about the 'what if' and all of them except one has told me they would have an abortion. I suppose i could just not have sex if i'm not ready to be a daddy at 20, but that seems rediculus to me.

Something I've noticed, is that without religion, morals become subjective.
Something I've noticed, is that with religion, morals become subjective.

Since any religion is open to interpretation, morals and ethics become subjective. That's why we can have evangelists and catholics simultaneously.

Which means that the entire world is overpopulated. Learn some ecology and population biology, then say that again.
You have some interesting reasoning. Based on that reasoning, i could say that because one glass of water is poisoned, that MUST mean that all the world's water must be poisoned. Interesting logic.

Something I've noticed, is that with religion, morals become subjective.

Since any religion is open to interpretation, morals and ethics become subjective. That's why we can have evangelists and catholics simultaneously.
True again. Within one defined religion, morals are absolute. Between different religions, morals become subjective.

do responsible ppl HAVE to have abortions? I think not.

I know you are probably about 12, but this is a completely naive and wrong statement.

Ppl need to realize that the point of sex is to reproduce, not to have fun.

Years of behavioral and evolutionary biology would say that *both* are the point of sex, as is the emotional bond it engenders.

ppl need to realize that when you have sex, you run the risk of *dare i say it* REPRODUCING AHHH!!!! And it is NOT the child's fault.

Scientifically, there is no child to speak of until the fetus is at least viable.
Scientifically, there is no *organism* to speak of until about the end of the first trimester.

You have some interesting reasoning. Based on that reasoning, i could say that because one glass of water is poisoned, that MUST mean that all the world's water must be poisoned. Interesting logic.
Touché. I phrased that badly. In reality, pretty much everywhere but Siberia and Antartica, as well as other nigh inhospitable places, are overpopulated. What I meant was that if everywhere is at maximum capacity, and some places are above that, then there are too many humans overall.

But, seriously, the proper amount of humans on this planet is measured in millions. Compare that to the current population of the world, and I think you'll see a discrepancy.

That has nothing to do with it. Don't you feel even a little bit grossed out at the thought of it? I think a sense of right and wrong is embedded in all people, not just christians. Do you have any moreals at all? Don't you feel compassion for the dead, or sadness for their widows? It's the same thing.

That's exactly what I was saying by pointing out that I'm not a Christian. The common idea that only religious folks are pro-life is absurd.

DUDE. Did you even read her post? She said she'd raise the kid.

She?

I congratulate you. You are a resposible, caring adault. unlike many irresponsible ppl who don't think of the consequences ahead of time

Don't be so naive. Many people think of the consequences ahead of time and then the situation changes.

You have some interesting reasoning. Based on that reasoning, i could say that because one glass of water is poisoned, that MUST mean that all the world's water must be poisoned. Interesting logic.

Actually, no. You need some logic.

What he's saying is that it doesn't matter where they are, the total world population is too great. It doesn't matter if there's 999 999 999 people in 1 sqKM, then one person in another, that still equals 1 000 000 000, which is overpopulated. The same goes for the world.

Edit: Touché. I phrased that badly. In reality, pretty much everywhere but Siberia and Antartica, as well as other nigh inhospitable places, are overpopulated. What I meant was that if everywhere is at maximum capacity, and some places are above that, then there are too many humans overall.

But, seriously, the proper amount of humans on this planet is measured in millions. Compare that to the current population of the world, and I think you'll see a discrepancy.

That happened while I was writing my post. But what I said still applies.

Scientifically, there is no *organism* to speak of until about the end of the first trimester.
Though I agree with your point, that is so untrue it isn't funny. The zygote is an organism, as well as the ovum (egg) and sperm. There is never a moment when there isn't an organism.

True again. Within one defined religion, morals are absolute. Between different religions, morals become subjective.
not even then. religion is practiced by the individual, and so it breaks down at the individual's perception of their religion, making religion completely non-sensichal to use as an argument.

You have some interesting reasoning. Based on that reasoning, i could say that because one glass of water is poisoned, that MUST mean that all the world's water must be poisoned. Interesting logic.

No, imagine it this way: a table can only support 50 pounds. There are five smaller tables on it, each of which is only intended to support 10 pounds. One is piled with seven pounds of candy, two with nine each, one with ten, and one with eighteen. Even though only one smaller set is overburdened, the 50-pound table at large is overloaded with 53 pounds.

I'm 22 in a rented place with my boyfriend of 2 years. I put that I would have an abortion if I had gotten pregnant as between us we wouldnt be able to raise a child financially or emotionally. I cant have children ie get pregnat and maintain a pregnancy to full term so chances that it would happen are slim!

Though I agree with your point, that is so untrue it isn't funny. The zygote is an organism, as well as the ovum (egg) and sperm. There is never a moment when there isn't an organism.

High school biology - the embryo does not have the capacity to sense and respond to stimuli *as an organism,* therefore it does not meet the requirements to be an organism. At the point where it has a reflexive nervous system (about the end of the first trimester), it can be considered an organism.

The egg is a *cell*, not an organism, as are the sperm and zygote.

I don't know where you learned biology, but someone taught you *completely* wrong. Every cell is not an organism and if your view were true, I would be killing lots of organisms by scratching my arm. Only a single-cell species can be a single cell and meet *all* requirements to be termed as such.

Though I agree with your point, that is so untrue it isn't funny. The zygote is an organism, as well as the ovum (egg) and sperm. There is never a moment when there isn't an organism.

Yes, the proper term would be "self-sustainable organism".

True again. Within one defined religion, morals are absolute. Between different religions, morals become subjective.

I think you'll find that even within a defined religion that morals are subjective to those who abide by them and those who don't.

I'd be really disturbed because I'm male.



Same here, but if I did, I may keep it and then set it up for adoption. It would depend, either that or an abortion but at this point in my life, I wouldn't consider keeping it.

Yes, the proper term would be "self-sustainable organism".

Wrong again. The fetus is a "self-sustainable organism" only at the point that it becomes viable - generally in the early to mid- *third* trimester.

What he's saying is that it doesn't matter where they are, the total world population is too great. It doesn't matter if there's 999 999 999 people in 1 sqKM, then one person in another, that still equals 1 000 000 000, which is overpopulated. The same goes for the world.
Thank you; that was much better put than my explanation.

Originally Posted by Gnostikos
Touché. I phrased that badly. In reality, pretty much everywhere but Siberia and Antartica, as well as other nigh inhospitable places, are overpopulated. What I meant was that if everywhere is at maximum capacity, and some places are above that, then there are too many humans overall.

But, seriously, the proper amount of humans on this planet is measured in millions. Compare that to the current population of the world, and I think you'll see a discrepancy.
I agree to a point, but population control through abortion still is unjustified. Genocide is never the answer, even like that. People should be taught to be responsible, and we wouldn't have 14 kid parents, or abortions en masse as they are now.

I agree to a point, but population control through abortion still is unjustified. Genocide is never the answer, even like that. People should be taught to be responsible, and we wouldn't have 14 kid parents, or abortions en masse as they are now.

You can only call something genocide if you are killing something that is confirmably a human being. THe only way to say that an embryo or early-term fetus is a human being is religious, which you cannot force on others.

I think you'll find that even within a defined religion that morals are subjective to those who abide by them and those who don't.
True again.

It seems we must simply accept that morality is totally completely subjective.

As for the viability argument going, it is notable that the point of viability has been moving earlier, with advances in science and medicine.

If a single-cell zygote could grow on a petri dish and then in an artificial incubator into a full human, then the argument of viability would be complete bunk.

That said, even if a zygote could exist outside the woman's body, I still wouldn't consider it a human, and I would feel no qualms with flushing it down the toilet.

ppl need to look for a long-term humane solution, rather than a quick fix. get the republican out of you! i'm gonna need a young dem., and an old dem. the power of logic compells you!the power of logic compells you!the power of logic compells you!

She?

Eh. It's hard to discern gender on these boards. Lots of people think I'm a dude. I guess your username, and the fact that you didn't make some dumb comment about how it would be painful to give birth via the penis...

True again.

It seems we must simply accept that morality is totally completely subjective.

As for the viability argument going, it is notable that the point of viability has been moving earlier, with advances in science and medicine.

If a single-cell zygote could grow on a petri dish and then in an artificial incubator into a full human, then the argument of viability would be complete bunk.

Not really, since it would have to be a viable *organism* which doesn't happen until the point at which elective abortions are illegal anyways.

Edit: In most state and according to Roe v. Wade, that is.

Oh yea, and I voted "abortion"...

a) because I'm a 16-year-old guy, and...
b) because I don't think I'd be able to take care of a child.

However, my girlfriend would probably vote for adoption. And she's here now so I'd better put her opinion in. :p

Edit: Ok somehow I deleted my old post.... I said...
"[quote Dempublicents?] Damn, i'm failing... give me some multiple choice questions! :p"

At the point where it has a reflexive nervous system (about the end of the first trimester), it can be considered an organism.
Oh, I apologise. I was under the impression that bacteria were alive. And protists. Since they don't have any nervous system, they must not be alive. And how do we explain viruses and prions? I personally classify viruses as "half-living", I guess, and have no opinion on prions, but some certainly consider at least viruses alive.

The egg is a *cell*, not an organism, as are the sperm and zygote.
You are partially correct here, I misspoke. I guess it's debatable whether the ovum is an organism or not, but the sperm and zygote certainly are.

Every cell is not an organism and if your view were true, I would be killing lots of organisms by scratching my arm.
Assuming a cell is alive, then yes you are. If you are killing bacteria and protists by scratching your arm, then you are killing organisms. The top layer of skin is not alive, though, so that doesn't count. But please, before you criticise my biological education, understand that a multicellular organism is made up of smaller, unicellular organisms. Your bad.

People should be taught to be responsible, and we wouldn't have 14 kid parents, or abortions en masse as they are now.
Relying on the responsibility of humans has never worked in the past. Why would it work now?

That said, even if a zygote could exist outside the woman's body, I still wouldn't consider it a human, and I would feel no qualms with flushing it down the toilet.
So you think that if something is fertalised in vitro, and has all of the chromosomes for the species Homo sapiens, that you wouldn't consider it a human? That's ridiculous!

Thank you; that was much better put than my explanation.

No problem :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dempublicents
Wrong again. The fetus is a "self-sustainable organism" only at the point that it becomes viable - generally in the early to mid- *third* trimester.

r u saying that it can't be an organism? if so, then are tapeworms not organisms? there's a whole section of things that aren't self-sustaining, they're called parasites. and if you really want to argue that, NOTHING is self-sustaining. EVERY living thing has to eat something to stay alive, thereby becoming a parasite to it.

Eh. It's hard to discern gender on these boards. Lots of people think I'm a dude. I guess your username, and the fact that you didn't make some dumb comment about how it would be painful to give birth via the penis...

I wasn't taking offense, I was just having fun with the fact that you missed the "(and if I were female)" I included to tell people my gender.

Ummm well I'm a guy so penis aside, I'd be screwed. It's completely the woman's decision (although I think a guy should have the right to give up "parental resposibility" before the baby is born, I mean the woman can just ditch the baby, right?) But I would probably support adoption unless one of two circumstances were true. First, I found a sweet job, FAST, or if she was rich/had said sweet job. I don't even have insurance myself, I could never support a child in my current financial state. You never can tell what you would do though til the baby's in your hands.

I would never support abortion, but people have the right to if they want to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dempublicents
Wrong again. The fetus is a "self-sustainable organism" only at the point that it becomes viable - generally in the early to mid- *third* trimester.

r u saying that it can't be an organism? if so, then are tapeworms not organisms? there's a whole section of things that aren't self-sustaining, they're called parasites. and if you really want to argue that, NOTHING is self-sustaining. EVERY living thing has to eat something to stay alive, thereby becoming a parasite to it.

Actually, what I meant by "self-sustainable" is that the embyro/zygote can survive outside the mother without modern technology. I didn't mean other organisms, just human embryos.

hmm lets see i realy couldnt give a kid up for addoption not after seing in psychology what it does to them i mean the mental damadge caused by growing up without a solid bond is just devestating
i simply dont have the capacity for raising a kid myself hell i am still in school i would hardly have the time to look after it not to mention my natural reaction to kids is a kind hatred of everything under 8 years of age
no the only possible way of dealing with this situation would be abortion hell compared to the kind of life it would lead otherwise its the kind option not that this would ever be an issue for me i am way carefull about protection

But, seriously, the proper amount of humans on this planet is measured in millions. Compare that to the current population of the world, and I think you'll see a discrepancy.

Millions???

How do you figure?

With better agricurtural technology (Including desalinization plants and/or pipelines to import water for irrigation) almost every region/nation could support its human population with thier existing land.

Then we'd need to slow down reproduction somehow...isn't there a thread around here with a solution to that?

hmm lets see i realy couldnt give a kid up for addoption not after seing in psychology what it does to them i mean the mental damadge caused by growing up without a solid bond is just devestating
i simply dont have the capacity for raising a kid myself hell i am still in school i would hardly have the time to look after it not to mention my natural reaction to kids is a kind hatred of everything under 8 years of age
no the only possible way of dealing with this situation would be abortion hell compared to the kind of life it would lead otherwise its the kind option not that this would ever be an issue for me i am way carefull about protection
So you believe that a hard life is better than NO life at all? Some of the best people in history have risen from hardship, and human often judge their worth by what they have endured.

If I were a woman, I wouldn't be pregnant. I would be homosexual. Maybe even narcisistic.

If I, by some wierd reason, gets pregnant, I would raise the kid. Exceptions are:
Rape

I am personally against abortion, but as I do not like to force that view upon others, they can do whatever they want with the kid as long as it is not born. I would never have an abortion, but I don't want to stop others from doing it as well.

umojan, LOL! so true. I don't see how woman can be attracted to men half the time, with all the hair, and laziness, and conflicting intrests. I myself am male, and acknowlge that fact.

Oh, I apologise. I was under the impression that bacteria were alive. And protists. Since they don't have any nervous system, they must not be alive. And how do we explain viruses and prions? I personally classify viruses as "half-living", I guess, and have no opinion on prions, but some certainly consider at least viruses alive.

Bacteria and protists are evolved to be single-celled organisms and have their own methods of sensing and responding to stimuli. However, the pieces of a multi-celled organism (ie. your skin cells) are not organisms themselves as, alone, they cannot meet all the requirements to be termed as such.

You are partially correct here, I misspoke. I guess it's debatable whether the ovum is an organism or not, but the sperm and zygote certainly are.

Darling, I don't know what school you went too, but sex cells are not organisms. Neither the sperm, the ovum, nor the zygote meet all of the requirements to be deemed as such.

Assuming a cell is alive, then yes you are. If you are killing bacteria and protists by scratching your arm, then you are killing organisms. The top layer of skin is not alive, though, so that doesn't count. But please, before you criticise my biological education, understand that a multicellular organism is made up of smaller, unicellular organisms. Your bad.

WRONG WRONG WRONG. This would explain why people fail science tests in this country. Every individual cell in your body is *not* considered to be an organism. *Any* biology book worth its weight makes this quite clear.

You know, I just have to say that I'm amazed by how popular this thread is. Usually my threads crap out after half a page, but DUDE! Six pages already and the day's not even over yet!

r u saying that it can't be an organism? if so, then are tapeworms not organisms? there's a whole section of things that aren't self-sustaining, they're called parasites. and if you really want to argue that, NOTHING is self-sustaining. EVERY living thing has to eat something to stay alive, thereby becoming a parasite to it.

No, I didn't say that at all. THere are stages here darling.

The fetus cannot be considered an organism until it has the multi-celled organism equivalent of a method to sense and respond to stimuli - namely, a rudimentary nervous system.

After that point, it is a parasitic organism up until the point it is born. And it cannot be considered a "self-sustaining" (ie. non-parasitic) organism until it is viable and can live outside the womb.

You know, I just have to say that I'm amazed by how popular this thread is. Usually my threads crap out after half a page, but DUDE! Six pages already and the day's not even over yet!

Well, when I see people spouting incorrect biology, I have to correct them - it's one of my neuroses.

Millions???

How do you figure?


...because no other mammal population has ever passed the billion mark, or probably even the 100 million mark. The dinosaurs most likely never passed the 500 000 000 mark, and that's a whole evolutionary class!

I know we're more intelligent than anything else that's ever lived on this planet, but that's still too many people.

With better agricurtural technology (Including desalinization plants and/or pipelines to import water for irrigation) almost every region/nation could support its human population with thier existing land.

Then we'd need to slow down reproduction somehow...isn't there a thread around here with a solution to that?

Paragraph 1: That's beside the point. Read what I said above.
Paragraph 2: We should. China has a good idea (albit a bit impractical one) with limiting one child per couple, though that does have the implication of many girls being abandoned. 2 is a reasonable number. But the whole issue of the girls is because of the paternal naming culture. Just change that, and we're in the clear! [/RAMBLE]

Well, when I see people spouting incorrect biology, I have to correct them - it's one of my neuroses.

Mine is chemestry and spelling mistakes. :D

Millions???

How do you figure?

With better agricurtural technology (Including desalinization plants and/or pipelines to import water for irrigation) almost every region/nation could support its human population with thier existing land.

Then we'd need to slow down reproduction somehow...isn't there a thread around here with a solution to that?
Even though this isn't the only part of my argument, that is included in what it takes for a healthy environment. Humans have to be in proportion to other types of life in an area, and there aren't many places like that now. Sure, we could support humans, but can we support the ecosystem?

WRONG WRONG WRONG. This would explain why people fail science tests in this country. Every individual cell in your body is *not* considered to be an organism. *Any* biology book worth its weight makes this quite clear.
Seeing as you're so certain in your conviction, I will look into that. I'll get back to you. And a zygote is not a reproductive cell, it's a somatic cell.

Male-16 years old -adoption

No, I didn't say that at all. THere are stages here darling.

The fetus cannot be considered an organism until it has the multi-celled organism equivalent of a method to sense and respond to stimuli - namely, a rudimentary nervous system.

After that point, it is a parasitic organism up until the point it is born. And it cannot be considered a "self-sustaining" (ie. non-parasitic) organism until it is viable and can live outside the womb.
Uhhhh. dude. Scientific studies have PROVEN that the fetus responds to stimuli. Such as talking to it in the womb makes it more likely to befriend you when it is born, and that cameras have shown that babies move away from the needle when they feel it, even kick it.
And you still haven't responded to my "All living things aren't self-sustaining" argument.

Seeing as you're so certain in your conviction, I will look into that. I'll get back to you. And a zygote is not a reproductive cell, it's a somatic cell.

I am well-aware of this fact. However, the moment it is formed, it begins dividing, and none of the cells formed from it can be considered single-celled organisms, just as each individual cell in your stomach is not it's own organism.

You know, I just have to say that I'm amazed by how popular this thread is. Usually my threads crap out after half a page, but DUDE! Six pages already and the day's not even over yet!

6? My view just reached 3.....

"these messages have been brought to you by the letter β and the number -5i"

Wow... beta and an imaginary number together! w00t!

P.S. My DJ name is DJ βon. :p

Uhhhh. dude. Scientific studies have PROVEN that the fetus responds to stimuli. Such as talking to it in the womb makes it more likely to befriend you when it is born, and that cameras have shown that babies move away from the needle when they feel it, even kick it.

The fetus responds to stimuli *after* it has a rudimentary nervous system - as I have pointed out. Movement, etc. come *at this point*.

And you still haven't responded to my "All living things aren't self-sustaining" argument.

Actually, I have, and it was irrelevant as I never stated that they were. However, all "self-sustaining living things" are "self-sustaining," which was the only argument I ever made.

um....β is german man.

The fetus responds to stimuli *after* it has a rudimentary nervous system - as I have pointed out. Movement, etc. come *at this point*.
Yet being motive is certainly not a requirement for something to be considered an organism.

um....β is german man.
There is a German ß and a Greek β. They're different.

And you still haven't responded to my "All living things aren't self-sustaining" argument.

I stated that, not him. And, as I said, I never said "All living things are self-sustaining", I said a human embryo isn't before a point. Get your illogical arguments straight.

The fetus responds to stimuli *after* it has a rudimentary nervous system - as I have pointed out. Movement, etc. come *at this point*.
then we have no conflict of intrest here, b/c i don't have a problem w/ abortion (exceot for its' immaturity) until it can feel.


Actually, I have, and it was irrelevant as I never stated that they were. However, all "self-sustaining living things" are "self-sustaining," which was the only argument I ever made.
oh.....*looks down at floor and feels stupid*

There is a German ß and a Greek β. They're different.

Yes. β is the Greek letter "beta", representing the sound in "boat"
ß is the German schfras (sp, sorry) s, representing a "sharp" 's' sound. "sing"

I stated that, not him. And, as I said, I never said "All living things are self-sustaining", I said a human embryo isn't before a point. Get your illogical arguments straight.
HEY! my bad! don't start flaming! no one likes it. try and stay civil. we all seem to be decently intellegent people here. don't reduce the argument to flaming this early. I hate it when ppl do this! :headbang:

HEY! my bad! don't start flaming! no one likes it. try and stay civil. we all seem to be decently intellegent people here. don't reduce the argument to flaming this early. I hate it when ppl do this! :headbang:

Sorry. I wasn't thinking. I'm not trying to flame you.

I am a 16-year-old, asexual/nonsexual female 'engaged' to another woman. The likelihood of my getting pregnant is quite slim. Ignoring that, if I found myself pregnant I would want an abortion as soon as possible.

At this point in my life, I do not under any circumstances want a child. Just my getting pregnant would be damaging to my life, having to carry it to term would destroy me, possibly more from self-inflicted shame than anything. Maybe that seems selfish, and perhaps it is, but currently I feel that if I couldn't get an abortion I would seriously consider suicide. And well... I personally think that a beloved daughter and friend is more important than a mass of developing cells. My family and friends would probably agree.

Say what you like against that, but it is my personal opinion currently. Now, abortion isn't what's right for everyone, if you want to birth your child and keep it or put it up for adoption, all the power to you. But it isn't something I could/would do.

Yes. β is the Greek letter "beta", representing the sound in "boat"
ß is the German schfras (sp, sorry) s, representing a "sharp" 's' sound. "sing"
Really? My german teacher writes it β, not ß. He's been teaching it for a looong time, so is he wrong?
(honest q, not flaming)

Really? My german teacher writes it β, not ß. He's been teaching it for a looong time, so is he wrong?
(honest q, not flaming)

They are very similar, and some people write the German one as a beta.

That's quite common when writing. But the font makes it clear, so now you know! ;)

He's not wrong, it's just the way he writes the letter. It's a common mistake. General rule, if the line extends down like writing a "p" as opposed to "o", it's "beta". You should correct him... :p

I am a 16-year-old, asexual/nonsexual female 'engaged' to another woman. The likelihood of my getting pregnant is quite slim. Ignoring that, if I found myself pregnant I would want an abortion as soon as possible.

At this point in my life, I do not under any circumstances want a child. Just my getting pregnant would be damaging to my life, having to carry it to term would destroy me, possibly more from self-inflicted shame than anything. Maybe that seems selfish, and perhaps it is, but currently I feel that if I couldn't get an abortion I would seriously consider suicide. And well... I personally think that a beloved daughter and friend is more important than a mass of developing cells. My family and friends would probably agree.

Say what you like against that, but it is my personal opinion currently. Now, abortion isn't what's right for everyone, if you want to birth your child and keep it or put it up for adoption, all the power to you. But it isn't something I could/would do.
I guess you're entitled to your opinion. No one can change that. I just think that selfishness and having sex without being ready for the consequences doesn't justify abortion.

I am a 16-year-old, asexual/nonsexual female 'engaged' to another woman. The likelihood of my getting pregnant is quite slim.
There is no such thing as an "asexual" human. There are some people with one X chromosome, and some with XXY, but they're not asexual. Only asexually reproducing organisms are considered asexual, or certain members of a species that cannot reproduce, such as worker ants (though they're called asexual females). Some people like to be called "gender-queer" or "hermaphrodites" or some such nonsense, but that is biologically impossible in humans. Though I have no problem if you want society to call you that, just don't force people to.

They are very similar, and some people write the German one as a beta.

That's quite common when writing. But the font makes it clear, so now you know! ;)

He's not wrong, it's just the way he writes the letter. It's a common mistake. General rule, if the line extends down like writing a "p" as opposed to "o", it's "beta". You should correct him... :p
i think i will. Thanks! :p

There is no such thing as an "asexual" human. There are some people with one X chromosome, and some with XXY, but they're not asexual. Only asexually reproducing organisms are considered asexual, or certain members of a species that cannot reproduce, such as worker ants (though they're called asexual females). Some people like to be called "gender-queer" or "hermaphrodites" or some such nonsense, but that is biologically impossible in humans. Though I have no problem if you want society to call you that, just don't force people to.

I think she means she's not sexual, i.e. not interested in sex, celebate, etc.

i think i will. Thanks! :p

No problem. Just say next time "that looks like the Greek beta... is it?" He'll probably blush a bit. :p

I think she means she's not sexual, i.e. not interested in sex, celebate, etc.
Then just say "celibate". Asexual is a strictly scientific term, in my opinion.

Then just say "celibate". Asexual is a strictly scientific term, in my opinion.

I agree, just pointing that out.

btw takuma, love your sig. "Guys & Dolls" was the first musical/play that we did at my highschool, and the first time I had helped build a stage for anything, and it was a blast, and the musical was soooo good!

I'd wonder how giving birth through the anus would feel like.

Anyway, i'm pro-choice on the grounds that backstreet abortion is worse than an abortion clinic and all that jazz.
You dont need to worry non of your partners would be able to prod your kidneys :p
Nah id keep the baby
21
Single

btw takuma, love your sig. "Guys & Dolls" was the first musical/play that we did at my highschool, and the first time I had helped build a stage for anything, and it was a blast, and the musical was soooo good!

Wow nice! I love it! I'm in the pit band, and I'm listening to the soundtrack right now! :p

I do the violin/cello parts on a keyboard with a string patch because my music class had to do it! Everyone except me hates it, which is dissapointing, but we'll pull it off. The music is damn hard!

I'd be scared as shit if I were pregnant, in light of the fact I'm male xD

Anyways though if I were a female...

Well first of all considering my moral values, the idea of an unplanned pregnancy seems virtually impossible... however again playing along with your little scenario

I'd keep the child (if I were a) female, and b) there were some conceivable way that I were pregnant).

Abortions are basically the murder of an innocent as far as I'm concerned.

Then just say "celibate". Asexual is a strictly scientific term, in my opinion.

The thing is I'm not celibate. I'm not choosing to not have sex, I just don't have any urges for it and am not sexually attracted to other people. And I wasn't trying to force anyone to call me that, it's fine if you want to keep it to the originally intended meaning, it's why I coupled it with non-sexual. Pick which one you feel like using, it was simply the easiest way to express my sexuality.

Edit: Actually, if you use the word in its meaning of 'unmarried', then yes, I am celibate.

Wow nice! I love it! I'm in the pit band, and I'm listening to the soundtrack right now! :p

I do the violin/cello parts on a keyboard with a string patch because my music class had to do it! Everyone except me hates it, which is dissapointing, but we'll pull it off. The music is damn hard!
Sweet! :D but the music and acting is sooooo worth it! it's so good! :p

Sweet! :D but the music is sooooo worth it! it's so good! :p

Yea.

"Follow the fold and stray no more!"

Yet being motive is certainly not a requirement for something to be considered an organism.

Being able to respond to stimuli *is*. Human beings use the same system for motion that they do for sensing stimuli. Guess what system that is?

P.S. Sorry for hijacking the thread.

There is no such thing as an "asexual" human.

From a psychological standpoint, those with little to no interest in sexual intercourse with any gender are sometimes referred to as asexual, as a comparison to homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual.

The thing is I'm not celibate. I'm not choosing to not have sex, I just don't have any urges for it and am not sexually attracted to other people. And I wasn't trying to force anyone to call me that, it's fine if you want to keep it to the originally intended meaning, it's why I coupled it with non-sexual. Pick which one you feel like using, it was simply the easiest way to express my sexuality.

Edit: Actually, if you use the word in its meaning of 'unmarried', then yes, I am celibate.
Well, no, I use celibate to mean choosing to not copulate, and sometimes as a person who is virginal. And I cannot really understand what you're getting at... You have never had any sexual or physical attraction or urges of any type? The girl who I'm currently in love with, though I think she's terribly attractive physically, I oddly enough only feel drawn to her emotionally. I have yet to puzzel that out--my theory is that, as I block out sexual feelings sometime so as to better concentrate, I would be so attracted that I block it all out. But I digress, and I kind of get what you're saying by that, I guess, but I've certainly had sexual feeling before. Have you begun puberty (I doubt you'll say no, as you said you are 16 but there's always a chance). And what are the odds of finding another person who also is "non-sexual"? And why would you be engaged to someone that you weren't sexually attracted to? Did you have some sexual trauma when you were younger or something, because I simply cannot wrap my mind around the fact that a 16-year-old would have no sexual feelings whatsoever...

Being able to respond to stimuli *is*. Human beings use the same system for motion that they do for sensing stimuli. Guess what system that is?
XD HAhaha! I laughed soo hard when I read this. You really burned him. He;s entirely wrong and you got him. Kudos to you, friend.
I'm a varsity debate team member, so i live for this stuff.

XD HAhaha! I laughed soo hard when I read this. You really burned him. He;s entirely wrong and you got him. Kudos to you, friend.
I'm a varsity debate team member, so i live for this stuff.

I'd join my school's debating club, but I'm in 3 school bands, excluding the pit band (which is actually my music class.) Debate is good for society. It's how things change.

Being able to respond to stimuli *is*. Human beings use the same system for motion that they do for sensing stimuli. Guess what system that is?
Can you define what you mean by "respond to stimuli"? Cells, even in the human body, are constantly evolving. That is why, if cells are bombarded repeatedly by a certain type of protein, the next generation will have more receptors for that type of protein. That is responding to stimuli on a unicellular level within a multicellular organism. And some leukocytes are able to respond to stimuli. Plants can certainly not respond to stimuli the way animals can.

Yea.

"Follow the fold and stray no more!"
OMG! you're awesome! Last post on Guys and dolls, promise!

Abortion. I'm 17, single, not working (full time student), am at risk for Clinical Depression (both my parents have it) so I'd worry about my mental state during the course of the pregnancy, am pro-choice (and leaning towards pro-abortion).

I also think that having a child with the sole intention of putting them up for adoption is one of the most selfish things a person can ever do. But hey, that's just me and my silly moral values.

Abortion is small step down from murder, and asuming there are no risks to my health, I would have and raise the kid.(I'm male though.. 14 years old)

XD HAhaha! I laughed soo hard when I read this. You really burned him. He;s entirely wrong and you got him. Kudos to you, friend.
I'm a varsity debate team member, so i live for this stuff.
I think you're jumping the gun, my friend. I'm not finished yet.

I'd join my school's debating club, but I'm in 3 school bands, excluding the pit band (which is actually my music class.) Debate is good for society. It's how things change.
What's you're point? Anyone in participating fora probably enjoy debate, myself included. I love debate in fact, which is why I determined I continue to post in this forum.

Can you define what you mean by "respond to stimuli"? Cells, even in the human body, are constantly evolving. That is why, if cells are bombarded repeatedly by a certain type of protein, the next generation will have more receptors for that type of protein. That is responding to stimuli on a unicellular level within a multicellular organism. And some leukocytes are able to respond to stimuli. Plants can certainly not respond to stimuli the way animals can.
By reponding to stimuli, he means (I think) someone pokes you, and it hurts. You move away from them= response!
And yes, plants do respond to many types of the same stimuli, and some we don't. And they respond a lot the same way we do, in some respects.

Can you define what you mean by "respond to stimuli"? Cells, even in the human body, are constantly evolving. That is why, if cells are bombarded repeatedly by a certain type of protein, the next generation will have more receptors for that type of protein. That is responding to stimuli on a unicellular level within a multicellular organism. And some leukocytes are able to respond to stimuli. Plants can certainly not respond to stimuli the way animals can.

Humans are multi-cellular creatures, so it's logical that the criteria would be based on *multi-cellular* responses to stimulii. Otherwise every single cell of our body deserves full legal protection as it fits the same requirements for life as the zygote (unicellular responses to stimulii). Thus scratching your arm would be classed as mass murder.

Can you define what you mean by "respond to stimuli"? Cells, even in the human body, are constantly evolving. That is why, if cells are bombarded repeatedly by a certain type of protein, the next generation will have more receptors for that type of protein. That is responding to stimuli on a unicellular level within a multicellular organism. And some leukocytes are able to respond to stimuli. Plants can certainly not respond to stimuli the way animals can.

You are missing the point. To be an organism, a life-form must meet *all* the requirements to be such. Individual human cells can respond to certain stimuli, but die immediately upon removal from the organism itself. They are not parasitic organisms, as they are *part* of the organism.

Simply responding to stimuli is not sufficient to be an organism. However, it is necessary.

am pro-choice (and leaning towards pro-abortion).
What's the differece? Are you leaning toward forcing people to abort their fœtūs and empryos?

What's you're point? Anyone in participating fora probably enjoy debate, myself included. I love debate in fact, which is why I determined I continue to post in this forum.

I really have no point to that comment, just saying it. This is the only forum I've ever been on (and I've been on a lot!) where debate like this is encouraged, or even allowed! Keep on going! Your doing fine.

Abortion is small step down from murder, and asuming there are no risks to my health, I would have and raise the kid.(I'm male though.. 14 years old)

Are you aware that even a pregnancy with no specific complications poses a risk to a womans life? And that giving birth is one of the top 10 causes of death of women? And even worse in third world countries?

Giving birth *would* be a risk to your health, in and of itself (nevermind the host of fun aftereffects, like haemorroids...)

I think you're jumping the gun, my friend. I'm not finished yet.
gigity gigity gig ity Alright!

What's you're point? Anyone in participating fora probably enjoy debate, myself included. I love debate in fact, which is why I determined I continue to post in this forum.
No, it's just my little justification for awarding kudos to the winner when some pepole think it means I'm flameing on the loser.

What's the differece? Are you leaning toward forcing people to abort their fœtūs and empryos?

Pro-choice is usually only associated with the idea that abortions should remain legal, and allows for the individual to never have an abortion personally.

Pro-abortion is more along the lines of abortion being beneficial to society as a whole, and that the stigma should be fought against, and abortion offered in a much more positive light. It still certainly wouldn't involve *forcing* women to abort.

What's the differece? Are you leaning toward forcing people to abort their fœtūs and empryos?

No offense ment, but it's kinda funny you took the trouble to type to non-standard characters then spelled the second-next word wrong! :p Man, you made my day! ;)

Are there any new ideas in regard to the poll?

You are missing the point. To be an organism, a life-form must meet *all* the requirements to be such. Individual human cells can respond to certain stimuli, but die immediately upon removal from the organism itself. They are not parasitic organisms, as they are *part* of the organism.

Simply responding to stimuli is not sufficient to be an organism. However, it is necessary.
An ant cannot survive independent of its hive. It will die without interaction with other ants for too long. They form a collective force. Does this mean that an individual ant cannot be classified as a member if its species?

Aww, f**k! I think I just stumbled upon my answer...in order to be classified as an organism, a life-form must be able to be named as its own species. Damn you, taxonomy! To speak truthfully, I was never actually told the definition of an organism, I had always just assumed that anything that is classified as "living" is an organism.

P.S. I know that plants are able to respond to stimuli, I just wanted to use them as an example since Dempublicents might not know much on botany...I didn't think it was likely, but it might've strengthened my argument.

No offense ment, but it's kinda funny you took the trouble to type to non-standard characters then spelled the second-next word wrong! :p Man, you made my day! ;)

Are there any new ideas in regard to the poll?
Yes, it should. I should be ridiculed extensively for that. That's pathetic.

No! The debate is over! Well, it was good. You both had good arguements. Good job.

...because no other mammal population has ever passed the billion mark, or probably even the 100 million mark. The dinosaurs most likely never passed the 500 000 000 mark, and that's a whole evolutionary class!

That's a false analogy fallacy.

I know we're more intelligent than anything else that's ever lived on this planet, but that's still too many people.

I would say "We have the ability to change our change our enviornment without irrevocably destroying it." rather than call us intelligent. In groups we don't act very intelligent.


Paragraph 1: That's beside the point. Read what I said above.
Paragraph 2: We should. China has a good idea (albit a bit impractical one) with limiting one child per couple, though that does have the implication of many girls being abandoned. 2 is a reasonable number. But the whole issue of the girls is because of the paternal naming culture. Just change that, and we're in the clear! [/RAMBLE]

A Modest Proposal: We need to encourage the practice. Limiting the number of females will slow reproduction because it reduces the number of possible mated pairs.

Even though this isn't the only part of my argument, that is included in what it takes for a healthy environment. Humans have to be in proportion to other types of life in an area, and there aren't many places like that now. Sure, we could support humans, but can we support the ecosystem?
If we were an intelligent species I believe that we could do both.

Yes, it should. I should be ridiculed extensively for that. That's pathetic.

If this is sarcasm (mainly the last line) sorry, I'm not trying to ridicule you or anything, just saying it's kinda ironic and funny. Sorry if you took it that hard.

You are missing the point. To be an organism, a life-form must meet *all* the requirements to be such. Individual human cells can respond to certain stimuli, but die immediately upon removal from the organism itself. They are not parasitic organisms, as they are *part* of the organism.

Simply responding to stimuli is not sufficient to be an organism. However, it is necessary.
I don't know. Technically and philosophically I think that you could just classify humans as a group of cells that all live in a parasitic relationship with eachother. :p
If you really want to get Philosophical. :D

Well, no, I use celibate to mean choosing to not copulate, and sometimes as a person who is virginal. And I cannot really understand what you're getting at... You have never had any sexual or physical attraction or urges of any type? The girl who I'm currently in love with, though I think she's terribly attractive physically, I oddly enough only feel drawn to her emotionally. I have yet to puzzel that out--my theory is that, as I block out sexual feelings sometime so as to better concentrate, I would be so attracted that I block it all out. But I digress, and I kind of get what you're saying by that, I guess, but I've certainly had sexual feeling before. Have you begun puberty (I doubt you'll say no, as you said you are 16 but there's always a chance). And what are the odds of finding another person who also is "non-sexual"? And why would you be engaged to someone that you weren't sexually attracted to? Did you have some sexual trauma when you were younger or something, because I simply cannot wrap my mind around the fact that a 16-year-old would have no sexual feelings whatsoever...


Yes, I have gone through puberty. Around the age of 12 I began to develop sexual feelings, but afterwards they petered off into nothingness. If it was the result of sexual trauma, then I've repressed the memories, but I doubt such a thing occured. There are actually quite a few 'non-sexual' people out there. Nowhere near the numbers of bisexual or homosexual, but still quite a few. But the point is nil, seeing as I don't need the person to be 'non-sexual' to develop a relationship with. I'm not sexually attracted to anyone, why would a fiance be any different? But though I don't want sex, I do want companionship and somebody to be more intimate with than just a friend would be. I am romantically attracted to this woman, who returns my feelings and is willing to stay with me despite my being 'non-sexual'. It's understandable that you wouldn't understand how a 16-year-old could have no sexual feelings, as it's hard to wrap your mind around something you've never experienced, especially when it is something as built in to most humans as sexuality is.

That's a false analogy fallacy.


I would say "We have the ability to change our change our enviornment without irrevocably destroying it." rather than call us intelligent. In groups we don't act very intelligent.


A Modest Proposal: We need to encourage the practice. Limiting the number of females will slow reproduction because it reduces the number of possible mated pairs.


1. I've never heard of that one, what is it?

2. Yes, that's what I meant, I know "intelligant" is the wrong word. :p

3. Yes, that's true, but the humanitarian response would be too great. People wouldn't stand for it.

I don't know. Technically and philosophically I think that you could just classify humans as a group of cells that all live in a parasitic relationship with eachother. :p
If you really want to get Philosophical. :D

Wouldn't the majority of the relationships between cells be symbiotic, rather than parasitic?

Parasitic relationships involve a host, which gains nothing, and a parasite, which gives nothing. I don't think the cells within the human body generally act like that...

Speaking 'Philosophically' :p

1. I've never heard of that one, what is it?

2. Yes, that's what I meant, I know "intelligant" is the wrong word. :p

3. Yes, that's true, but the humanitarian response would be too great. People wouldn't stand for it.

My favourite example of a false analogy:

You can teach a dog to sit, therefore you can teach a potato to dance.

Basically comparing two different 'things' in two different situations, and using the argument as though the two things/situations are similar.

An ant cannot survive independent of its hive. It will die without interaction with other ants for too long. They form a collective force. Does this mean that an individual ant cannot be classified as a member if its species?

It will die due to behavioral effects, not due to being unable to survive. A cell, separated from the body, with it's nourishing bloodstream and growth factors will die, plain and simple. Depending on the method of separation, it will either apoptose or lyse.

Aww, f**k! I think I just stumbled upon my answer...in order to be classified as an organism, a life-form must be able to be named as its own species. Damn you, taxonomy! To speak truthfully, I was never actually told the definition of an organism, I had always just assumed that anything that is classified as "living" is an organism.

Proof again of a poor education system.

There are requirements to be defined as a living organism. These include:

Obtain and use nutrients (metabolism)
Excrete waste
Sense and respond to stimuli
Growth

A method of reproduction is also sometimes included for the species as a whole, but is sometimes relaxed - as mules (for instance) cannot reproduce.

P.S. I know that plants are able to respond to stimuli, I just wanted to use them as an example since Dempublicents might not know much on botany...I didn't think it was likely, but it might've strengthened my argument.

I know a bit less on botany than I do on physiology and cell biology - my area is in the medical field after all - but I am well aware that plants do respond to stimuli - some quite violently in fact.

My favourite example of a false analogy:

You can teach a dog to sit, therefore you can teach a potato to dance.

Basically comparing two different 'things' in two different situations, and using the argument as though the two things/situations are similar.

Ah thanks. I'll have to look out for that.

I don't know. Technically and philosophically I think that you could just classify humans as a group of cells that all live in a parasitic relationship with eachother. :p
If you really want to get Philosophical. :D

No, because *none* of them could survive independently.

Wouldn't the majority of the relationships between cells be symbiotic, rather than parasitic?

Parasitic relationships involve a host, which gains nothing, and a parasite, which gives nothing. I don't think the cells within the human body generally act like that...

Speaking 'Philosophically' :p
yes, yes, you caught me on termilology. But it was a fun thought, was it not?

If this is sarcasm (mainly the last line) sorry, I'm not trying to ridicule you or anything, just saying it's kinda ironic and funny. Sorry if you took it that hard.
No, you should. I'm not being sarcastic, though a little hyperbolic. I really should have looked at the post more carefully. "B" and "p" aren't even next to each other. I have no excuse.

Yes, I have gone through puberty. Around the age of 12 I began to develop sexual feelings, but afterwards they petered off into nothingness. If it was the result of sexual trauma, then I've repressed the memories, but I doubt such a thing occured. There are actually quite a few 'non-sexual' people out there. Nowhere near the numbers of bisexual or homosexual, but still quite a few. But the point is nil, seeing as I don't need the person to be 'non-sexual' to develop a relationship with. I'm not sexually attracted to anyone, why would a fiance be any different? But though I don't want sex, I do want companionship and somebody to be more intimate with than just a friend would be. I am romantically attracted to this woman, who returns my feelings and is willing to stay with me despite my being 'non-sexual'. It's understandable that you wouldn't understand how a 16-year-old could have no sexual feelings, as it's hard to wrap your mind around something you've never experienced, especially when it is something as built in to most humans as sexuality is.
Intriguing. Thank you explaining that to me, I think I have a better understanding of what you're trying to say. I don't think I could empathise, but I can accept it.

yes, yes, you caught me on termilology. But it was a fun thought, was it not?

Yeah, 'twas fun. Interesting angle, to be sure. But Dempublicents learned us both good.

Guess that's why philosophy isn't taught in biology classes :D

No, you should. I'm not being sarcastic, though a little hyperbolic. I really should have looked at the post more carefully. "B" and "p" aren't even next to each other. I have no excuse.

It's ok, we all do it sometimes.

yes, yes, you caught me on termilology. But it was a fun thought, was it not?

Strangely enough, evolutionary theory states that multi-cellular organisms grew out of symbiotic relationships in which the cells became more and more specialized towards specific functions. Mitochondria and chloroplasts are both believed to have been symbiotic organisms which eventually integrated into the overall organism. So it wouldn't be *that* far off.

However, to be symbiotic, each cell in your body would have to be a separate organism capable of perpetuating it's species over ~ infinite generations. They are not.

It's ok, we all do it sometimes.

Speak for yourself :D


(man, it's going to reeeeally suck next time I mistake 'F' for '8' and get jumped on...)

Yes, I have gone through puberty. Around the age of 12 I began to develop sexual feelings, but afterwards they petered off into nothingness. If it was the result of sexual trauma, then I've repressed the memories, but I doubt such a thing occured. There are actually quite a few 'non-sexual' people out there. Nowhere near the numbers of bisexual or homosexual, but still quite a few. But the point is nil, seeing as I don't need the person to be 'non-sexual' to develop a relationship with. I'm not sexually attracted to anyone, why would a fiance be any different? But though I don't want sex, I do want companionship and somebody to be more intimate with than just a friend would be. I am romantically attracted to this woman, who returns my feelings and is willing to stay with me despite my being 'non-sexual'. It's understandable that you wouldn't understand how a 16-year-old could have no sexual feelings, as it's hard to wrap your mind around something you've never experienced, especially when it is something as built in to most humans as sexuality is.
I agree. I'm 16 and I'm non-sexual, although not to this extent. I don't go out with people with any weight based on 'I wonder what she looks like naked', or 'I wonder how fast I can get into her pants', but as a companion that I like to share my time with. I'm emotionally attracted to people I go out with. Yes I am sexually as well, but that never ammounts to anything in real life, so I don't factor it in on a date. And, for some odd reason, when I date someone I like, I lose most of my sexual desire toward the person, probably because I want to retain that air of being with them just for who they are. So, it's not all that uncommon as you'd think, whoever it was that said this was wierd. Not all people are infatuated with sex. :p
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Proof again of a poor education system.
Well then I have two questions for you. One, are there any cells that are RNA-based, as retroviruses are? My biology teacher said she didn't think so, but couldn't answer definitively. And two, do you consider viruses or prions to be alive? I know it's mainly opinion, but I'm just curious what someone who has gone further with biology than I have yet (I'm 15) thinks.

Regaurdless of where you live, abortion should not be an option. If you are old enough and ready to have sex, you are old enough and ready to raise a child. If you do not want to get pregnet, you don't have sexual intercourse, it's that simple.

If you are raped, you birth the child, and give it away to adoption. Then find the rapest, cut off his penis, fry it up, and force feed it to him. Then, cut off any 11 digits, 1 limb, then tar and feather him. After this, cover him in honey or some other sticky sugar, and place him near a colony of fire army ants.

Raping is wrong and anyone who can't get laid, can buy a whore. If your psycotic and must rape someone, try raping an old lady or better yet, ask the old prune if she'd like to get nailed.. Or theres fat chicks. There are many desperate girls who will have sex with the most but ugly of men.

Honestly, if you rape someone, you should suffer and be raped. How about a man made, machine raping device, a 12 innch long, 4 inch thick cold steel cock, that pulsatates at 1800ppm (pulses per minute) is cramed into the anal passage of the rapist, and he is raped by the mech-o-cock for 24 hours, once a week, for a year.

If anyone disagrees with my reply, i would like to further discuss it as it could bring some seirous flaming, or some good times laughing your frickin ass off. If you did not find my (yes seriious) reply humourus, then you must be a rapist, in which case, you should go jump off a bridge, as in real life, I will implement this punishment in 32 states in the USA and all 13 provinces/territories of CANADA by the year 2008.

-----

Prime Sinister - Lord Tyler
Make it the world youve got my vote

Strangely enough, evolutionary theory states that multi-cellular organisms grew out of symbiotic relationships in which the cells became more and more specialized towards specific functions. Mitochondria and chloroplasts are both believed to have been symbiotic organisms which eventually integrated into the overall organism. So it wouldn't be *that* far off.

However, to be symbiotic, each cell in your body would have to be a separate organism capable of perpetuating it's species over ~ infinite generations. They are not.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I have a more active intrest in Philosophy. ;)

Intriguing. Thank you explaining that to me, I think I have a better understanding of what you're trying to say. I don't think I could empathise, but I can accept it.

You're welcome, and I'm glad it is something that you can accept. And I can imagine it would be a very difficult thing to empathize, as it's quite a different mind set, I would think...

Speak for yourself :D


(man, it's going to reeeeally suck next time I mistake 'F' for '8' and get jumped on...)

:p I'll be there!

1. I've never heard of that one, what is it?

2. Yes, that's what I meant, I know "intelligant" is the wrong word. :p

3. Yes, that's true, but the humanitarian response would be too great. People wouldn't stand for it.

Brian Yoder's Fallacy Zoo (http://www.goodart.org/fallazoo.htm) is a great resource to find most fallacies.

It contains more fallacies than I had ever heard of and the only one I know of that it lacks is the "Unfalsifiable Premise" fallacy. In many cases those can be dismissed as "appeals to authority" so it's not a huge lack.

Mitochondria and chloroplasts are both believed to have been symbiotic organisms which eventually integrated into the overall organism.
Chlorophlasts too? I though it was only mitochondria, since only they have their own set of DNA.

I agree. I'm 16 and I'm non-sexual, although not to this extent. I don't go out with people with any weight based on 'I wonder what she looks like naked', or 'I wonder how fast I can get into her pants', but as a companion that I like to share my time with. I'm emotionally attracted to people I go out with. Yes I am sexually as well, but that never ammounts to anything in real life, so I don't factor it in on a date. And, for some odd reason, when I date someone I like, I lose most of my sexual desire toward the person, probably because I want to retain that air of being with them just for who they are. So, it's not all that uncommon as you'd think, whoever it was that said this was wierd. Not all people are infatuated with sex.
I don't think that's what she means. As I said, I am oddly enough not very sexually attracted to the girl I'm in love with, but I certainly wouldn't classifly myself as "non-sexual". Hell, I only decided I was in love with her, and didn't just have a crush, after I found out that she read philosophy. And there's a difference between sexual attraction, and infatuation or calling oneself "non-sexual".

do responsible ppl HAVE to have abortions? I think not.
Ppl need to realize that the point of sex is to reproduce, not to have fun. that's thrown in as an incentive to do it, because if it hurt or something, it's be a chore when you were responsible enough to do it. ppl need to realize that when you have sex, you run the risk of *dare i say it* REPRODUCING AHHH!!!! And it is NOT the child's fault. It still deserves to live. and 'because the child bearing will be a pain' is not an excuse. YOU screw up, not the kid. if you don't want a kid, don't go screwing ppl. you break it, you buy it. same principle here.
Yeah heres a fair trade you dont to deal with the child you die not the Baby
You :mp5: baby :p
that or make them be in the Navy if Male or a Servant if Female

You're welcome, and I'm glad it is something that you can accept. And I can imagine it would be a very difficult thing to empathize, as it's quite a different mind set, I would think...

I can understand it, with my girlfriend I feel that way. However, I do have sexual feelings for other girls... Oww Sabrina stop hitting me..... :p

Brian Yoder's Fallacy Zoo (http://www.goodart.org/fallazoo.htm) is a great resource to find most fallacies.

It contains more fallacies than I had ever heard of and the only one I know of that it lacks is the "Unfalsifiable Premise" fallacy. In many cases those can be dismissed as "appeals to authority" so it's not a huge lack.

Thanks. This'll be a big help in my debates.

Chlorophlasts too? I though it was only mitochondria, since only they have their own set of DNA.


I don't think that's what she means. As I said, I am oddly enough not very sexually attracted to the girl I'm in love with, but I certainly wouldn't classifly myself as "non-sexual". Hell, I only decided I was in love with her, and didn't just have a crush, after I found out that she read philosophy. And there's a difference between sexual attraction, and infatuation or calling oneself "non-sexual".
No, no. You mistake me. I was only giving a not so extreme way that you might be able to understand more, not claiming that I was one. And I was basing this on the perception that you were infatuated with sex. Which you clearly are not. My bad!

A long time ago, in a far away galaxy...somebody invented the condoms...nothing else to say.

A long time ago, in a far away galaxy...somebody invented the condoms...nothing else to say.
And a long time ago, in a galaxy not to far away...Someone's broke, and the girl became pregnant. :headbang:

A long time ago, in a far away galaxy...somebody invented the condoms...nothing else to say.

But the evil Darth Vader planeted tiny pricks in the condoms, causing them to inadvertantly break.

No, no. You mistake me. I was only giving a not so extreme way that you might be able to understand more, not claiming that I was one. And I was basing this on the perception that you were infatuated with sex. Which you clearly are not. My bad!
Ahh, ok, I understand. Thank you, I will think about the example you gave, and see if perhaps I can understand a little better.

And a long time ago, in a galaxy not to far away...Someone's broke, and the girl became pregnant. :headbang:

Haha that's what I was getting at with mine.

Haha that's what I was getting at with mine.
Great minds think alike.

Touché. I phrased that badly. In reality, pretty much everywhere but Siberia and Antartica, as well as other nigh inhospitable places, are overpopulated. What I meant was that if everywhere is at maximum capacity, and some places are above that, then there are too many humans overall.

But, seriously, the proper amount of humans on this planet is measured in millions. Compare that to the current population of the world, and I think you'll see a discrepancy.
firstly true Australia has the least number of people to land(barr Antarctica)but there isnt enough water
but what do you mean millions

firstly true Australia has the least number of people to land(barr Antarctica)but there isnt enough water
but what do you mean millions
I explain that. Read all of the posts, and you will see that argument kind of died off.

well, that was a lot of fun. Good job guys, you made my evening, but I've got to go :(
Bye! ;) :cool: :D

Eh. It's hard to discern gender on these boards. Lots of people think I'm a dude. I guess your username, and the fact that you didn't make some dumb comment about how it would be painful to give birth via the penis...
id say your Jewish because of your name :p

I'm a 21 year-old virgin male in a committed relationship with a young woman whom I intend to marry in three years or so (she knows this, so on the off chance that one of you know her, don't expect to surprise her with it). However, if she were pregnant (or if, by some freak of science, I was), I would decide to have the child born and then be put up for adoption. I am pro-life (yeah, I'm one of those dreaded born-again Evangelical Christians the New York Times warned you about), and consider the destruction of an entity with unique DNA morally reprehensible, but I also realize that, as much as I would like to raise a child and be a father, I simply cannot at the moment. There are so many families willing to give children good homes in the United States, and I feel that would be the next best thing to raising the child myself in the instance that I could not support a child. I know many people who were adopted, and it's hard to imagine them simply "not existing" today because their mothers decided they didn't want them (my paternal grandfather was adopted, so technically I could not be here), and abortion for medical defects is a scary situation to me in a more personal sense. Doctors told my parents I would probably be born blind, and actually told them about the option of abortion; they refused, and I ended up (by some miracle) regaining some semblance of sight. So, from my own perspective, the choice is pretty clear. People deserve a chance, whether pre-adult, pre-school... or pre-born.

Great minds think alike.

Thanks!

Well then I have two questions for you. One, are there any cells that are RNA-based, as retroviruses are?

None that anyone has discovered. At this point, this has only been observed in viruses.

And two, do you consider viruses or prions to be alive? I know it's mainly opinion, but I'm just curious what someone who has gone further with biology than I have yet (I'm 15) thinks.

Yeah, the consensus on this one is pretty iffy. I would say no, but they are on the border - with viruses being closer than prions. Viruses and prions themselves don't obtain use nutrients, nor do prions seem to have any way of sensing and responding to stimuli. *Neither* excretes waste.

I am pro-life (yeah, I'm one of those dreaded born-again Evangelical Christians the New York Times warned you about), and consider the destruction of an entity with unique DNA morally reprehensible, but I also realize that, as much as I would like to raise a child and be a father, I simply cannot at the moment.
Commit suicide. Right now. Because guess what? You're body is killing off innumberable amounts of micro-organisms as you speak, each and every one of them with their own set of DNA. And no more eating if you decide not to kill yourself, because that is destroying an entitry with unique DNA to break down into basic nutrients to feed your selfish, greedy body.

DEATH TO ALL CONSUMERS!!! FOR SHAME THAT YOU DESTROY LIFE SO!!! DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU ARE NECESSARY FOR A HEALTHY ECOSYSTEM!!!

congrats!! i hope that effing marriage amendment doesnt get passed. what an asshole..

Chlorophlasts too? I though it was only mitochondria, since only they have their own set of DNA.


Chloroplasts also have their own DNA.

Millions???

How do you figure?

With better agricurtural technology (Including desalinization plants and/or pipelines to import water for irrigation) almost every region/nation could support its human population with thier existing land.

Then we'd need to slow down reproduction somehow...isn't there a thread around here with a solution to that?
i wish it was true but it aint
the Dead sea has sunk about 1 meter in the last 3 years due to this process
Israel is doing the same

the answer is a World War a big one too and stop giving aid to africa because there is omeone wholl bleat and moan about world debt but if you cant get in the green yourself the debt rises again

which means dont have kids if you dont want to deal with them but dont kill them its not their fault its yours.

Mostly for the girls, but guys you can play along too and imagine you're female. Suppose that tomorrow, you found out you were pregnant, and it was too late for the Pill. Never mind if you're a virgin (like me) or whatever; just go along with the question. Would have an abortion, carry the baby but put it up for adoption, or simply raise the child?

Also please give your age and general situation - e.g. have your kids already left the house, are you engaged, single, a teenager in a supportive home and relationship, 7th grader whose parents would kill you?

I'm 14, a 9th grader, and my parents are very supportive. I'm not in a relationship. I believe I would raise the child. Even though I'm pro-choice, I'm personally opposed to abortion and believe it would be traumatic for me. Adoption would seem to be a guiltless middleground way to shirk responsibility, but I'd still end up wondering where they might be and what if they came back as adults looking for their blood parents? Thus, I think that simply raising them would be the best of the options.
abortion would be the only ethical option for me. also, no offense, but if you think that putting a kid up for adoption is "guilt free" then i have to say i find that utterly disgusting. in my opinion, that would be the most irresponsible and dishonorable way to deal with an unplanned pregnancy, and it horrifies me that people are taught abortion is somehow a guilty act by comparison.

This almost happened to me, and I can tell you from experience that I'd raise the kid. It happened when I was younger and less well off, and I chose then to raise the kid if I had to.

Chloroplasts also have their own DNA.
Really? I must've forgotten then. I thank you again.

which means dont have kids if you dont want to deal with them but dont kill them its not their fault its yours.
nobody is proposing that we kill children.

abortion would be the only ethical option for me. also, no offense, but if you think that putting a kid up for adoption is "guilt free" then i have to say i find that utterly disgusting. in my opinion, that would be the most irresponsible and dishonorable way to deal with an unplanned pregnancy, and it horrifies me that people are taught abortion is somehow a guilty act by comparison.


What's wrong with adoption per se.

I admit that it is not always carried out properly, but are you saying the very idea of adoption is wrong? That I can't believe.

...because no other mammal population has ever passed the billion mark, or probably even the 100 million mark. The dinosaurs most likely never passed the 500 000 000 mark, and that's a whole evolutionary class!

I know we're more intelligent than anything else that's ever lived on this planet, but that's still too many people.



Paragraph 1: That's beside the point. Read what I said above.
Paragraph 2: We should. China has a good idea (albit a bit impractical one) with limiting one child per couple, though that does have the implication of many girls being abandoned. 2 is a reasonable number. But the whole issue of the girls is because of the paternal naming culture. Just change that, and we're in the clear! [/RAMBLE]
it dosent work people in the country ignore it people in the cities bribe there way out of it.

Humour me are rats or mice mammals?

As a note to everyone, do remember that, when answering "what would you do if...?" questions, especially ones like this, no one who has not been in the situation can really say what they would or would not do.

I feel that I am at a place in my life where I am not yet planning to have a child (but do want one eventually), but could support one if I were to become pregnant and have the child. My boyfriend and I have discussed this and agreed that it would be our plan. However, I have never been pregnant - especially not in a time when I was not relatively financially and emotionally secure - so I cannot say *with certainty* what my decision would be.

Likewise, on the other side of things, Bottle who (if I am not mistaken) *never* wants children could possibly form a strong emotional attachment she was not expecting if she were to become pregnant. ((Don't yell at me Bottle, I know this is highly unlikely, but it *is* possible and you were the most extreme example on here I could think of)). While she currently feels she would have an abortion, if she has not *been* in the situation, she can never be totally sure.

Really? I must've forgotten then. I thank you again.

No prob. =)

nobody is proposing that we kill children.
Oh, I beg to differ. I am a pædophobic. I think all children should be brutally murdered in their cradles. Especially infants. But I don't really care about unborn ones--they're not full freaking developed yet.

Who was it that wrote that satire on eating children? I swear, I should remember this...I think he was Irish...

What's wrong with adoption per se.

I admit that it is not always carried out properly, but are you saying the very idea of adoption is wrong? That I can't believe.
the idea of adopting a child is wonderful. the idea of carrying a fetus to term with the full intent of putting it up for adoption is disgusting and shameful, and i have zero respect for those who choose to do that. i support their right to do it, because it's their body and their choice to not abort and if they won't care for the baby when it's produced then they shouldn't keep it, but i think they are on the same level as child abusers. i think any person who does that or encourages their partner to do it should be permanently sterilized.

nobody is proposing that we kill children.
id say thats a matter of opinion but thanks

id say thats a matter of opinion but thanks
no, it isn't. the definition of the word "child" does not include pre-birth "infants." if you wish to call a fetus a child then that's your business, but you will be just as wrong as if you wanted to call it a dinosaur.

the idea of adopting a child is wonderful. the idea of carrying a fetus to term with the full intent of putting it up for adoption is disgusting and shameful, and i have zero respect for those who choose to do that. i support their right to do it, because it's their body and their choice to not abort and if they won't care for the baby when it's produced then they shouldn't keep it, but i think they are on the same level as child abusers. i think any person who does that or encourages their partner to do it should be permanently sterilized.


I don't understand. Why is that so? I just can't equate it with child abuse if the child goes to a good family. Isn't that a good thing?

I don't understand. Why is that so? I just can't equate it with child abuse if the child goes to a good family. Isn't that a good thing?
the "child" should have been aborted if the parents were unwilling/unable to care for it. they never should have brought the child into the world if they weren't prepared to take responsibility. to choose to bring it into the world and then foist it off on somebody else is disgusting, especially in view of the critical overpopulation that already exists. in my opinion, it is the height of selfishness and irresponsibility to do that.

I don't understand. Why is that so? I just can't equate it with child abuse if the child goes to a good family. Isn't that a good thing?

Even *if* the child goes to a good family, and that is a big *if*, it is likely to have emotional problems stemming from an abandonment complex.

However, that aside - would you condone someone who bred their dog and got its puppies, just to abandon them or dump them off on the humane society where they may or may not find a good home?

I don't understand. Why is that so? I just can't equate it with child abuse if the child goes to a good family. Isn't that a good thing?
Besides the other arguments, how do think children who grow up in an orphanage for a while feel? They may feel unwanted or something along those lines. And there is not guarantee that he or she will go into a good family, or a good orphanage for that matter.

Also, no-one knows who the guy who wrote the satire on eating is? Please, I cannot remember for the life of me.

There is no such thing as an "asexual" human. There are some people with one X chromosome, and some with XXY, but they're not asexual. Only asexually reproducing organisms are considered asexual, or certain members of a species that cannot reproduce, such as worker ants (though they're called asexual females). Some people like to be called "gender-queer" or "hermaphrodites" or some such nonsense, but that is biologically impossible in humans. Though I have no problem if you want society to call you that, just don't force people to.
your saying hermaphrodites dont exist?

your saying hermaphrodites dont exist?
human hermaphrodites are not asexual.

your saying hermaphrodites dont exist?
Oh no, not at all. A hermaphrodite is a plant with stamina (stamens) and pistil in the same flower, or an animal that produces both male and female gametes. Roses and earthworms are both hermaphrodites.

human hermaphrodites are not asexual.
And that.

To B,D & G.

I just said that I understand that there are problems inherent in the adoption system. My point was that I fail to see why adoption per se - that is adoption where the child goes to a good family imeadiately - qualifies as chilld abuse.

Other than some notion of abandoment complex, no-one has answered that.

I agree, children shouldn't be dumped in orphanages too, but that doesn't really explain why the principle of adoption is bad.

Also there is no over-population problem in the US or Europe.

I suppose you all are against surrogates too.

Then just say "celibate". Asexual is a strictly scientific term, in my opinion.
Just like i say your asocial as in you dont like hanging round with people
I think Asexual is a fair statement

I suppose you all are against surrogates too.

I'm not even against adoption in all cases - I was simply demonstrating a point.

And surrogate mothers are specific to a family that wants to conceive but cannot, it is not bringing a child into the world with no idea whatsoever what will happen to it.

I will ask you again, however, do you think it is a moral action to breed my dog (if he wasn't fixed) just so that I could give the puppies over to the pound where they may or may not be adopted or put down?

Oh no, not at all. A hermaphrodite is a plant with stamina (stamens) and pistil in the same flower, or an animal that produces both male and female gametes. Roses and earthworms are both hermaphrodites.
Really humans with both male and female parts are called hermaphrodites.

To B,D & G.

I just said that I understand that there are problems inherent in the adoption system. My point was that I fail to see why adoption per se - that is adoption where the child goes to a good family imeadiately - qualifies as chilld abuse.

Other than some notion of abandoment complex, no-one has answered that.

I agree, children shouldn't be dumped in orphanages too, but that doesn't really explain why the principle of adoption is bad.

Also there is no over-population problem in the US or Europe.

I suppose you all are against surrogates too.
i did answer your question. i believe it is incredibly irresponsible and wrong to intentionall create a new person if you are not fully prepared to take on parenthood. i believe that anybody who does that once should be denied the option of ever making the same mistake, and if they want a child in the future then they can adopt one.

and if you think there isn't an overpopulation problem you are delusional. there is a serious and severe overpopulation problem effecting all nations in the world right now. the Earth has a stable carrying capacity for humans (if one assumes a European standard of living) of 2.5 billion people. we're more than double that, and growing exponentially.

EDIT: oh, and as for surrogates i don't really care. if a couple needs/wants to use a surrogate instead of bearing their own children then that's between them and the surrogate. i strongly oppose all fertility treatments and believe those who use them are acting reprehensibly, but i support people's right to choose such things if they wish.

I agree, children shouldn't be dumped in orphanages too, but that doesn't really explain why the principle of adoption is bad.
I don't think the principle is fundamentally bad, just that it I don't think it is acceptable to have a child with the full intent of sending him or her to an orphenage. I think it's terrible and cruel to the child.

Also there is no over-population problem in the US or Europe.
If only...if only...

I suppose you all are against surrogates too.
Well, I don't think they're a good idea, per se, but if someone really wants a surrogate, I say give it to 'em. I don't really care much about that, although there have been some incidents where the surrogate doesn't want to give the child to the biological, but not viviparously so. And I don't think that's correct usage of the word...

From a psychological standpoint, those with little to no interest in sexual intercourse with any gender are sometimes referred to as asexual, as a comparison to homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual.
Word up

Really humans with both male and female parts are called hermaphrodites.
How many humans are born with both male and female genetalia? I haven't heard of any, and I'd acknowledge proof. And they'd be called gynandromorphs.

I'm not even against adoption in all cases - I was simply demonstrating a point.

And surrogate mothers are specific to a family that wants to conceive but cannot, it is not bringing a child into the world with no idea whatsoever what will happen to it.

I will ask you again, however, do you think it is a moral action to breed my dog (if he wasn't fixed) just so that I could give the puppies over to the pound where they may or may not be adopted or put down?


Like I said, I am fully aware that there are flaws in the adoption system. And therfore I fully understand why someone would choose to abort a pregnancy.

Nevertheless, to outright condemn the other choice as child abuse seems foolish hyperbole. I am simply arguing against this blanket proposition that somehow the choice of adoption is, in all cases, morally reprehensible. It is not. (And you know what, I know a couple right now that is desperate to adopt a baby, and they would give the baby an ideal home).

As to your dog breeding point. Coming from a family that used to breed fox terriers, I have never known any breeder that ever produced litters to go to the pound.

Edit: Though we did have to off a few, because there was no home for them.

As to your dog breeding point. Coming from a family that used to breed fox terriers, I have never known any breeder that ever produced litters to go to the pound.and why do you suppose that is? we have Bob Barker reminding people to spay and neuter their pets so as not to produce unwanted puppies and kitties, but for some reason everybody gets squeemish when someone proposes that human beings show similar restraint with their own bodies.

As to your dog breeding point. Coming from a family that used to breed fox terriers, I have never known any breeder that ever produced litters to go to the pound.

Of course they wouldn't. And most would consider such morally reprehensible. And yet you condone a couple who breeds a human specifically to dump it off on the human equivalent of a pound.

I am simply arguing against this blanket proposition that somehow the choice of adoption is, in all cases, morally reprehensible.
No-one is saying that. They're simply saying that to give birth to a child with the full intent of sending him or her to an orphenage is morally reprehensible.

As to your dog breeding point. Coming from a family that used to breed fox terriers, I have never known any breeder that ever produced litters to go to the pound.
That was part of his point.

No-one is saying that. They're simply saying that to give birth to a child with the full intent of sending him or her to an orphenage is morally reprehensible.

Bottle was.


That was part of his point.


Standard part of dog breeding.

I'm asking everyone who visits this page to please read, "My View on Abortion ( An Opiniated View.) I think that you have stated a very strong point on why you would raise the child, but I believe I made a strong point as well with my interpretation.

Bottle was.

no, Bottle wasn't. Bottle specifically clarified that ADOPTING a child is great, and specified that carrying a fetus to term with the intent of putting it up for adoption is the reprehensible act. DeaconDave must have missed that.

missed this before:

Likewise, on the other side of things, Bottle who (if I am not mistaken) *never* wants children could possibly form a strong emotional attachment she was not expecting if she were to become pregnant. ((Don't yell at me Bottle, I know this is highly unlikely, but it *is* possible and you were the most extreme example on here I could think of)). While she currently feels she would have an abortion, if she has not *been* in the situation, she can never be totally sure.

of course i won't yell at you for that, and it was a good call to try to use me for that example (since i am the radical example :)). however, i have been in that situation, and i know exactly how i will react. emotional attachment is one thing, but i would never and will never let my personal feelings get in the way of doing what is best and what i believe is right. i cannot turn my back on ethics simply because it might make me feel sad, and i would never put my emotional attachment to something or someone above doing what is best.

How many humans are born with both male and female genetalia? I haven't heard of any, and I'd acknowledge proof. And they'd be called gynandromorphs.
Wouldn't that just depend on where you were taking the roots for your words from?
From Greek, Hermes (male) Aphrodite (female) = hermaphrodites.

From Latin (?) Gyno (female) Andro (Male) = Gyandromorphs

emotional attachment is one thing, but i would never and will never let my personal feelings get in the way of doing what is best and what i believe is right. i cannot turn my back on ethics simply because it might make me feel sad, and i would never put my emotional attachment to something or someone above doing what is best.
Hear, hear! Though this is the harder course of action, it is far better, in my opinion.

Are you aware that many rapists are psychopaths? This means that they cannot empathise at all with other people's emotions, including pain, and cannot learn from consequences. Punishment is useless on psychopaths.

But damn entertaining...

Out of curiosity, can you actually cram 4-inches of cold steel up someone's ass?

no, Bottle wasn't. Bottle specifically clarified that ADOPTING a child is great, and specified that carrying a fetus to term with the intent of putting it up for adoption is the reprehensible act. DeaconDave must have missed that.

I think we are talking at cross purposes.

By the standard you have just given every adopted newborn - other than those adoptions that occur due to the parent(s) being killed - is the result of a morally reprehensible act.

What it, for example, a woman becomes pregnant and knows during the window for leagal abortion, that there is a perfectly good family willing and able to adopt the baby. Would it then be morally reprehensible to choose to carry it to term and allow it to be adopted to that family? Would that still qualify as child abuse?

I can't see it.

missed this before:

of course i won't yell at you for that, and it was a good call to try to use me for that example (since i am the radical example :)). however, i have been in that situation, and i know exactly how i will react. emotional attachment is one thing, but i would never and will never let my personal feelings get in the way of doing what is best and what i believe is right. i cannot turn my back on ethics simply because it might make me feel sad, and i would never put my emotional attachment to something or someone above doing what is best.

Ah, well I was making an erroneous assumption that you had not actually been in the situation. Like I said, no one who has never been pregnant can say for sure what they would do - thus why I can tell you what I *think* I would do, but not actually what I *would* do. Those who have been in the situation are much more qualified to say.

[[My argument also hinged on the idea that you *might* find that you did want children at some point and feel you could raise them, which would be a realization that came before you would have one - I never meant to suggest that you would do so simply based on emotion.]]

I'd abort it.

I think we are talking at cross purposes.

By the standard you have just given every adopted newborn - other than those adoptions that occur due to the parent(s) being killed - is the result of a morally reprehensible act.

yes and no. many women are not able to obtain abortions, or have their access to reproductive health care restricted, and in those cases i cannot blame them for carrying to term. i also want to be clear that i don't hold the infants responsible for any of this (obviously), and i don't think they should be neglected or maltreated in any way as a result of their parents' selfishness.

What it, for example, a woman becomes pregnant and knows during the window for leagal abortion, that there is a perfectly good family willing and able to adopt the baby. Would it then be morally reprehensible to choose to carry it to term and allow it to be adopted to that family? Would that still qualify as child abuse?

yes, and the mother should be sterilized immediately. if the mother became pregnant deliberately in order to provide a child for that loving family, and the family knew and was part of this plan (like a surrogate, essentially) then that's fine because the infant was conceived as part of a conscious and thought-out plan for its future. but to carry a fetus to term with the full intent of putting it up for adoption is wrong, period, in my opinion. that loving family can adopt any of the millions of children already waiting for adoption, and the newly-pregnant woman needs to take responsibility for her own situation rather than contributing to the problem.

Wouldn't that just depend on where you were taking the roots for your words from?
From Greek, Hermes (male) Aphrodite (female) = hermaphrodites.

From Latin (?) Gyno (female) Andro (Male) = Gyandromorphs
Well, to be more accurate, "hermaphrodite" came from the Greek Hermaphroditos (Latin Hermaphroditus), son of Hermês and Aphroditê. "Gynandromorph" comes from Greek gynê, "woman", and anêr (root andr-), "man".

And hermaphrodite and gynandromorph can sometimes be synonymous, but in biology typically are different. Again, a hermaphrodite is a plant with stamina and pistil in the same flower or an animal that produces both male and female gametes. A gynandromorph is an organism containing both male and female characteristics (only present in certian insects).

My argument also hinged on the idea that you *might* find that you did want children at some point and feel you could raise them, which would be a realization that came before you would have one - I never meant to suggest that you would do so simply based on emotion.
ahhhhh, gotcha. i certainly acknowledge that possibility, since i know i have changed a lot over the last few years and will probably continue to change as i age...perhaps someday i will want kids, but i know that right now i very much do not.

I explain that. Read all of the posts, and you will see that argument kind of died off.
nope im just going thru 5 threads replying to things ;)

yes, and the mother should be sterilized immediately. if the mother became pregnant deliberately in order to provide a child for that loving family, and the family knew and was part of this plan (like a surrogate, essentially) then that's fine because the infant was conceived as part of a conscious and thought-out plan for its future. but to carry a fetus to term with the full intent of putting it up for adoption is wrong, period, in my opinion. that loving family can adopt any of the millions of children already waiting for adoption, and the newly-pregnant woman needs to take responsibility for her own situation rather than contributing to the problem.

What?

So you think that if a woman who becomes pregnant, by accident, and knows of a family that is waiting for a baby chooses to carry it to term to adopt it to them, should be sterilized.

Or, if a woman who becomes pregnant accidently, is approached by a family she knows asking to adopt the baby, and she agrees, she should be sterilized.

In both cases I am assuming that the pregnancy is due to failure of birth control and the adoptive families are excellent choices.

I don't see it at all.

What?

So you think that if a woman who becomes pregnant, by accident, and knows of a family that is waiting for a baby chooses to carry it to term to adopt it to them, should be sterilized.

Or, if a woman who becomes pregnant accidently, is approached by a family she knows asking to adopt the baby, and she agrees, she should be sterilized.

In both cases I am assuming that the pregnancy is due to failure of birth control and the adoptive families are excellent choices.

I don't see it at all.

Why the heck do they need to approach some random pregnant woman and ask for her child? There are thousands and thousands of children waiting to be adopted - they can have one of them.

The only case I can see your scenario happening is if the prospective parents were interested in some feature of the mother, ie trying to get a designer baby without the gene altering. People like that shouldn't even be allowed to hold children, let alone care for them.

The mother should not add to the adoption problem by having another unwanted child, and the couple approaching her should go through the right channels and lessen the adoption problem by adopting a child that's *already born*

Why the heck do they need to approach some random pregnant woman and ask for her child? There are thousands and thousands of children waiting to be adopted - they can have one of them.

The only case I can see your scenario happening is if the prospective parents were interested in some feature of the mother, ie trying to get a designer baby without the gene altering. People like that shouldn't even be allowed to hold children, let alone care for them.

The mother should not add to the adoption problem by having another unwanted child, and the couple approaching her should go through the right channels and lessen the adoption problem by adopting a child that's *already born*


As I said, not random, a family that she knows.

And how is it unwanted if a family is there for it?

In any event, in those cases it is certainly not child abuse.

i am a 47 year old woman who just got her son out of the house and into college. been there, done that, AIN'T doing it again. im not sacrificing 18 years of my life for another child

the only impediment to my getting an abortion as soon as possible is that i might mistake the early signs of pregnancy for MENOPAUSE and let it go longer than i would do otherwise.

As I said, not random, a family that she knows.

And how is it unwanted if a family is there for it?

In any event, in those cases it is certainly not child abuse.

It is unwanted because the mother is giving it away... ie, doesn't *want* it. The other couple either just wants a child in general, or specifically wants this woman's child. If they just want a child in general, her specific child is no more 'wanted' than if she didn't know that family. If not, well, I'd want to know why this family wants *her* child specifically.

You didn't actually answer why that family should adopt her child, rather than one of the thousands of children already born in need of adopted parents.

Well, i a 8th grade male. If this happened my parents would kill me but do to my own beliefs an abortion would be out of the question. So I'd probably put the kid up for adoption.

It is unwanted because the mother is giving it away... ie, doesn't *want* it. The other couple either just wants a child in general, or specifically wants this woman's child. If they just want a child in general, her specific child is no more 'wanted' than if she didn't know that family. If not, well, I'd want to know why this family wants *her* child specifically.

You didn't actually answer why that family should adopt her child, rather than one of the thousands of children already born in need of adopted parents.

Well, they might feel some famialial relationship. Or they might just feel because they know her they want to do this. Also the proper channels, as you so inaptly term them do not always as quick for qualified couples. Hence if the opportunity arises they might want to sieze upon an adoption between known parties, which is a lot more expeditious than the "proper" chanels method.

As to your point about it being unwanted, apparently you believe only the mother can decide whether or not the child is *wanted*. Hence all orphans are unwanted.

Also you must feel that surrogacy is wrong too.

Besides which, how is this child abuse. I don't see it.

well, let's see. i'm 20 and in university.

i drink a couple times a week usually. i have a family history of spina bifida, which can be prevented in fetuses with the proper nutrition (which i dont' get) and a lack of alcohol (well, alcohol increases the incidence)

i'm also on the birth control pill, which fucks up embryos.

i'm also randomly dizzy, which i'm sure is not a good thing to be for myself, and then tacking on extra shit for my body to deal with?

i'm in a relationship, but due to some medical issues that have made my bf unable to work, he's been out of work for a while and now has some debts.

my parents have all these expectations that i'll finish school in a timely manner (well, they are helping me out with tuition and stuff... i got a job so they don't have to do everything)

if i were to have a kid with spina bifida, no one would want to adopt it. i can't take care of it (hell, my grandmother had a hard enough time and she was married and had three other kids already... ) not that i can afford to keep it. i'd go for an abortion. i wouldn't particularly want it, i would rather not have to make a decision either way. i would personally prefer that my pills work and the condoms always work so that it's never an issue.

Well, they might feel some famialial relationship. Or they might just feel because they know her they want to do this. Also the proper channels, as you so inaptly term them do not always as quick for qualified couples. Hence if the opportunity arises they might want to sieze upon an adoption between known parties, which is a lot more expeditious than the "proper" chanels method.

As to your point about it being unwanted, apparently you believe only the mother can decide whether or not the child is *wanted*. Hence all orphans are unwanted.

Also you must feel that surrogacy is wrong too.

Besides which, how is this child abuse. I don't see it.

The mother is the only one who can make the choice for or against abortion, therefore, it is whether or not SHE wants the child that matters foremost.

If she doesn't, and is not planning to care for it after birth, and she makes that decision during the period when elective abortions are legal, abortion is the non-selfish route.

While your example is a gray area of sorts, it's the tiny tiny tiny minority of cases. As such, I can withhold any opinion of that *tiny* minority, and still condemn all the other women who just say 'well, I don't want it, I'll throw it up for adoption'.

The mother is the only one who can make the choice for or against abortion, therefore, it is whether or not SHE wants the child that matters foremost.

If she doesn't, and is not planning to care for it after birth, and she makes that decision during the period when elective abortions are legal, abortion is the non-selfish route.

While your example is a gray area of sorts, it's the tiny tiny tiny minority of cases. As such, I can withhold any opinion of that *tiny* minority, and still condemn all the other women who just say 'well, I don't want it, I'll throw it up for adoption'.

Okay, you so haven't read everything I posted.

I was complaining that the idea of adoption per se was child abuse. Which it is not.

I never really mentioned whether or not she should have an abortion (other than to say if that is her chioce then so be it.)

What?
So you think that if a woman who becomes pregnant, by accident, and knows of a family that is waiting for a baby chooses to carry it to term to adopt it to them, should be sterilized.

i believe it is wrong for ANY woman to carry any unplanned pregnancy to term unless she is prepared to care for the child. whether or not there is a family that is willing to adopt the child is irrelevant; that family could be adopting one of the millions of other babies waiting for a home, and thus their generosity is not an excuse for the mother's irresponsible actions.


Or, if a woman who becomes pregnant accidently, is approached by a family she knows asking to adopt the baby, and she agrees, she should be sterilized.

see above. not to mention the fact that what you are describing pretty much NEVER happens.


In both cases I am assuming that the pregnancy is due to failure of birth control and the adoptive families are excellent choices.
I don't see it at all.
it's very simple: the ONLY two options that i believe are ethical in the case of an unplanned pregnancy are to either rear the child yourself or to have an abortion. carrying to term and putting the child up for adoption is unethical, in my views, no matter what kind of family you might or might not be able to secure for the child.

i believe it is wrong for ANY woman to carry any unplanned pregnancy to term unless she is prepared to care for the child.
it's very simple: the ONLY two options that i believe are ethical in the case of an unplanned pregnancy are to either rear the child yourself or to have an abortion. carrying to term and putting the child up for adoption is unethical, in my views, no matter what kind of family you might or might not be able to secure for the child.
My sentiments exactly. For some reason everyone wants to try to put words into our mouths, and just won't listen to the actual argument.

Regaurdless of where you live, abortion should not be an option. If you are old enough and ready to have sex, you are old enough and ready to raise a child. If you do not want to get pregnet, you don't have sexual intercourse, it's that simple.

If you are raped, you birth the child, and give it away to adoption. Then find the rapest, cut off his penis, fry it up, and force feed it to him. Then, cut off any 11 digits, 1 limb, then tar and feather him. After this, cover him in honey or some other sticky sugar, and place him near a colony of fire army ants.

Raping is wrong and anyone who can't get laid, can buy a whore. If your psycotic and must rape someone, try raping an old lady or better yet, ask the old prune if she'd like to get nailed.. Or theres fat chicks. There are many desperate girls who will have sex with the most but ugly of men.

Honestly, if you rape someone, you should suffer and be raped. How about a man made, machine raping device, a 12 innch long, 4 inch thick cold steel cock, that pulsatates at 1800ppm (pulses per minute) is cramed into the anal passage of the rapist, and he is raped by the mech-o-cock for 24 hours, once a week, for a year.

If anyone disagrees with my reply, i would like to further discuss it as it could bring some seirous flaming, or some good times laughing your frickin ass off. If you did not find my (yes seriious) reply humourus, then you must be a rapist, in which case, you should go jump off a bridge, as in real life, I will implement this punishment in 32 states in the USA and all 13 provinces/territories of CANADA by the year 2008.

-----

Prime Sinister - Lord Tyler

As someone that was raped, I don't think I would be able to carry the child full term before seriously damaging my own mental health. I get flashbacks just holding someone's hand. I can't IMAGINE carrying my rapist's baby for 9 months. That would be absolute agony.

And to actual prosecute against a rapist, it can take up to 3 years in court, retelling your story over and over again. A lot of rape victims (myself included) might never ever be ready for something like that.

i believe it is wrong for ANY woman to carry any unplanned pregnancy to term unless she is prepared to care for the child. whether or not there is a family that is willing to adopt the child is irrelevant; that family could be adopting one of the millions of other babies waiting for a home, and thus their generosity is not an excuse for the mother's irresponsible actions.

So you are against surrogacy too. The same conditions apply. Simply because one is planned and one is unplanned does not change the unwanted baby problem.


see above. not to mention the fact that what you are describing pretty much NEVER happens.

So it's always child abuse, whatever the conditions.


it's very simple: the ONLY two options that i believe are ethical in the case of an unplanned pregnancy are to either rear the child yourself or to have an abortion. carrying to term and putting the child up for adoption is unethical, in my views, no matter what kind of family you might or might not be able to secure for the child.

Nice. So you feel that even if there is a viable third way in any particular case, it is still unethical, because it is not part of your weltanschauung.

Personally I think that anyone who becomes pregnant accidently should be sterilized, wether or not they choose an abortion. Clearly they are unable to accurately assess the potential risk of their actions, and therefore should be removed from the gene pool

So you are against surrogacy too. The same conditions apply. Simply because one is planned and one is unplanned does not change the unwanted baby problem.

...

So it's always child abuse, whatever the conditions.

...

Nice. So you feel that even if there is a viable third way in any particular case, it is still unethical, because it is not part of your weltanschauung.

Personally I think that anyone who becomes pregnant accidently should be sterilized, wether or not they choose an abortion. Clearly they are unable to accurately assess the potential risk of their actions, and therefore should be removed from the gene pool
Please, stop generalising. You keep trying to divert the conversation away from the real argument. if you actually read the posts, you will be seeing that you are making assumptions and ignoring parts that do not support your convictions.

the idea of adopting a child is wonderful. the idea of carrying a fetus to term with the full intent of putting it up for adoption is disgusting and shameful, and i have zero respect for those who choose to do that. i support their right to do it, because it's their body and their choice to not abort and if they won't care for the baby when it's produced then they shouldn't keep it, but i think they are on the same level as child abusers. i think any person who does that or encourages their partner to do it should be permanently sterilized.
No no no, my friend. Each year children are put up for adoption, and for most of them, it tears up the parents' hearts to see it happen. However, they do it because they know that it is better for the child. Why? Because when they get adopted, the family will be screened intensively, and the child will live in a better home. Most parents who give-up their children for adoptionusually don't even have a choice; the government declares that they must in the intrest of the child, and they do just that, in the intrest of the child. Giving up a child to adoption is usually for the child, so to generalize to the point you have is just disgusting. Sorry, but that's what it is, really.

Even *if* the child goes to a good family, and that is a big *if*, it is likely to have emotional problems stemming from an abandonment complex.

However, that aside - would you condone someone who bred their dog and got its puppies, just to abandon them or dump them off on the humane society where they may or may not find a good home?
What do you mean 'if'? The famalies are screened, rather intensively I might add, to ensure that it is a good family, and are monitered afterward. And an abandonment complex is a minor complication compared to death, buddy.

Originally Posted by Evil Tylerism
Regaurdless of where you live, abortion should not be an option. If you are old enough and ready to have sex, you are old enough and ready to raise a child. If you do not want to get pregnet, you don't have sexual intercourse, it's that simple.

If you are raped, you birth the child, and give it away to adoption. Then find the rapest, cut off his penis, fry it up, and force feed it to him. Then, cut off any 11 digits, 1 limb, then tar and feather him. After this, cover him in honey or some other sticky sugar, and place him near a colony of fire army ants.

Raping is wrong and anyone who can't get laid, can buy a whore. If your psycotic and must rape someone, try raping an old lady or better yet, ask the old prune if she'd like to get nailed.. Or theres fat chicks. There are many desperate girls who will have sex with the most but ugly of men.

Honestly, if you rape someone, you should suffer and be raped. How about a man made, machine raping device, a 12 innch long, 4 inch thick cold steel cock, that pulsatates at 1800ppm (pulses per minute) is cramed into the anal passage of the rapist, and he is raped by the mech-o-cock for 24 hours, once a week, for a year.

If anyone disagrees with my reply, i would like to further discuss it as it could bring some seirous flaming, or some good times laughing your frickin ass off. If you did not find my (yes seriious) reply humourus, then you must be a rapist, in which case, you should go jump off a bridge, as in real life, I will implement this punishment in 32 states in the USA and all 13 provinces/territories of CANADA by the year 2008.

-----

Prime Sinister - Lord Tyler


WAIT, WHAT IF THE RAPIST IS A WOMAN?

WAIT, WHAT IF THE RAPIST IS A WOMAN?
There are very, very few female rapists compared to male.

Please, stop generalising. You keep trying to divert the conversation away from the real argument. if you actually read the posts, you will be seeing that you are making assumptions and ignoring parts that do not support your convictions.

My point: Adoption is not necessarily child abuse in the case of an unplanned pregnancy. That's all.

So don't tell me not to generalize.

I know that, but you can't cut-off a female rapists penis, so what's the equivalent?
And can a man get raped in the same sense, in all honesty?