Post Reply
Page 5 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9 Next
5 years ago  ::  Aug 13, 2009 - 10:26PM #41
Marysara722
Posts: 2,550

Aug 13, 2009 -- 11:37AM, kat8765 wrote:

First of all, I did read the whole thing.  I was commenting on one part but that doesn't mean that I didn't read the whole article.



This is kind of like being an English Lit teacher.  You can always tell which students did or didn't do the assigned reading work.


kat << I still do not sympathize with the Dr.  He performs a procedure which is unnecessary, and he puts his whole family at risk by doing so.


One question to ask here, er make that two. 
Do you have a medical degree and license to practice medicine?  
And does the doctor/specialist who handles penial dysfunction also putting "his whole family at risk by doing so"?
Okay so three questions sorry but why should "his whole family" be "at risk" and targeted for anything in the first place?


kat << Once a baby is past 21 weeks, if for some reason the mothers health is an issue, the baby can be taken by cesarean and at least given a chance. 


You should start your "medical" assertions prefaced with "In my opinion" ---unless of course you have a certified medical degree and a license to practice medicine.
But getting back to the above .... give it/them WHAT "chance"?  What chances are you talking about when it comes to a fetus with no face or brains?
How do you justify that?


kat << In my opinion all abortions are unnecessary but the most heinous would be late term for obvious reasons and this dr. makes a living by doing exactly that.


There, that's better about your postulation regarding your "medical" opinions and from the tone of your above remark, either a) you didn't read said article or b) there's a lack of compassion in-general or c) you have no idea/understanding of what you're "medically"  speaking about and then there's d) all-of-the-above.
But ya know, those specialists who handle penile erectile dysfunction disorders and who also prescribe Viagra™ should be barred from practicing and thus making "a living by doing exactly that."
I mean really, no proper "working" penis gives us no pregnancies and thus no need to worry about those "elective" abortions.

But do call me when you get your medical degree/license, and maybe then we can have a realistic discussion.  Until then, I'll take two aspirin and call my real doctor in the morning.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 14, 2009 - 4:52AM #42
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754

Aug 13, 2009 -- 6:06PM, kat8765 wrote:

Bluehorse, I never said anything about not getting medical help if you are sick. You are reading into things. And yes I dare say that I would put life over the mothers comfort anyday. We should not be allowed to end an innocent life, period.



So you're a Jainist? Paper mask and all, to keep from inhaling innocent bugs?


No, wait, you seem to talk like a Christian...  if that's the case, I suggest you read that bible of yours and find out what your god thinks of 'taking innocent lives.'  Divine murder and genocide (including of innocents) are pretty common in the Bible - sometimes comitted by that god, sometimes at his command. 


Religion aside, just where do you draw the line?  Where is it ok to usurp your god's perogative?  shelter and clothing are apparently ok, but based on the bible I'd be willing to bet that treating epilepsy or STDs isn't.  Fertility treatments probably shouldn't be; if gods don't want a couple to have children, shouldn't they just accept that?  Or maybe the wife should sleep with her brother-in-law just to make sure her husband's 'seed' doesn't die out? And if gods had wanted us to travel at 60mph, wouldn't we have been made as fast as cheetahs?  If gods had wanted us to fly, wouldn't we have wings?  The bible clearly says that relying on doctors instead of prayer is bad, so pretty much any modern medical treatment, from ibuprophen to surgery, is not ok.  Curing leprosy is very bad - it's a punishment from God, so curing it is denying his will.  Causing a woman to abort is punishible, according to the bible, only by a fine - but relying on doctors to treat your illness causes that god to withdraw his support and leave you berift of everything you had gained and eventually lead to your death (I'm thinking of the story of King Asa here, if you were wondering.  Not to mention all of the faith healing that Jesus does. If you haven't read it, you can google it).


So where's the line?  And how do you justify wanting to change U.S. law to allign with your faith rather than the Hindi, Buddhist, or Shinto faiths?  For that matter, just *which* branch of Christianity do you think American medical law should be regulated by?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 14, 2009 - 4:54AM #43
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754

Aug 13, 2009 -- 9:59PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Aug 13, 2009 -- 8:13PM, mountain_man wrote:

You made a claim yet failed to supply supporting reasons. How can something no bigger than your thumb usurp the rights of a fully grown human being? Where is the equality in that?



The same way a black can "usurp" the rights of a white. Or a woman can "usurp" the rights of a man.




Huh? 


You're saying that a black person taking advantage of affirmative action is the same as a zef using another person's body for homeostasis?  That a woman demanding equal pay for equal work is doing the same?  Whose body do you think Sonia Sotomayor was using when she got into college?


Wow.


Dissapointed, but not surprised.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 14, 2009 - 7:27AM #44
Tmarie64
Posts: 5,277

The same way a black can "usurp" the rights of a white. Or a woman can "usurp" the rights of a man.



There's the racism AND the misogyny that I've been waiting for.


Thank you, Bei, for showing me that I was right and that deep down many plers ARE simply hate-filled and misogynistic.

James Thurber - "It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 14, 2009 - 9:31AM #45
kat8765
Posts: 70

Aug 13, 2009 -- 10:26PM, Marysara722 wrote:


Aug 13, 2009 -- 11:37AM, kat8765 wrote:

First of all, I did read the whole thing.  I was commenting on one part but that doesn't mean that I didn't read the whole article.



This is kind of like being an English Lit teacher.  You can always tell which students did or didn't do the assigned reading work.


kat << I still do not sympathize with the Dr.  He performs a procedure which is unnecessary, and he puts his whole family at risk by doing so.


One question to ask here, er make that two. 
Do you have a medical degree and license to practice medicine?  
And does the doctor/specialist who handles penial dysfunction also putting "his whole family at risk by doing so"?
Okay so three questions sorry but why should "his whole family" be "at risk" and targeted for anything in the first place?


kat << Once a baby is past 21 weeks, if for some reason the mothers health is an issue, the baby can be taken by cesarean and at least given a chance. 


You should start your "medical" assertions prefaced with "In my opinion" ---unless of course you have a certified medical degree and a license to practice medicine.
But getting back to the above .... give it/them WHAT "chance"?  What chances are you talking about when it comes to a fetus with no face or brains?
How do you justify that?


kat << In my opinion all abortions are unnecessary but the most heinous would be late term for obvious reasons and this dr. makes a living by doing exactly that.


There, that's better about your postulation regarding your "medical" opinions and from the tone of your above remark, either a) you didn't read said article or b) there's a lack of compassion in-general or c) you have no idea/understanding of what you're "medically"  speaking about and then there's d) all-of-the-above.
But ya know, those specialists who handle penile erectile dysfunction disorders and who also prescribe Viagra™ should be barred from practicing and thus making "a living by doing exactly that."
I mean really, no proper "working" penis gives us no pregnancies and thus no need to worry about those "elective" abortions.

But do call me when you get your medical degree/license, and maybe then we can have a realistic discussion.  Until then, I'll take two aspirin and call my real doctor in the morning.


 





Wow... it's so sad to me that when I pro-lifer tries to make some valid points all you pro-choicers can do is try to use ad-hom rhetoric to get back at me.  Instead of attacking me personally MarySara, why don't you try refuting the arguement next time. Instead of spending the majority of time attacking me as a person, why don't you try to refute the arguement with some valid points of your own. 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 14, 2009 - 9:36AM #46
kat8765
Posts: 70

Aug 14, 2009 -- 4:52AM, bluehorserunning wrote:


Aug 13, 2009 -- 6:06PM, kat8765 wrote:

Bluehorse, I never said anything about not getting medical help if you are sick. You are reading into things. And yes I dare say that I would put life over the mothers comfort anyday. We should not be allowed to end an innocent life, period.



So you're a Jainist? Paper mask and all, to keep from inhaling innocent bugs?


No, wait, you seem to talk like a Christian...  if that's the case, I suggest you read that bible of yours and find out what your god thinks of 'taking innocent lives.'  Divine murder and genocide (including of innocents) are pretty common in the Bible - sometimes comitted by that god, sometimes at his command. 


Religion aside, just where do you draw the line?  Where is it ok to usurp your god's perogative?  shelter and clothing are apparently ok, but based on the bible I'd be willing to bet that treating epilepsy or STDs isn't.  Fertility treatments probably shouldn't be; if gods don't want a couple to have children, shouldn't they just accept that?  Or maybe the wife should sleep with her brother-in-law just to make sure her husband's 'seed' doesn't die out? And if gods had wanted us to travel at 60mph, wouldn't we have been made as fast as cheetahs?  If gods had wanted us to fly, wouldn't we have wings?  The bible clearly says that relying on doctors instead of prayer is bad, so pretty much any modern medical treatment, from ibuprophen to surgery, is not ok.  Curing leprosy is very bad - it's a punishment from God, so curing it is denying his will.  Causing a woman to abort is punishible, according to the bible, only by a fine - but relying on doctors to treat your illness causes that god to withdraw his support and leave you berift of everything you had gained and eventually lead to your death (I'm thinking of the story of King Asa here, if you were wondering.  Not to mention all of the faith healing that Jesus does. If you haven't read it, you can google it).


So where's the line?  And how do you justify wanting to change U.S. law to allign with your faith rather than the Hindi, Buddhist, or Shinto faiths?  For that matter, just *which* branch of Christianity do you think American medical law should be regulated by?





Okay, as far as I know this is not about religion, I think I might have said earlier something about being a Christian but I realize that not everyone agrees with that.  I really don't think abortion is a religious issue at all.  I believe it is a humans rights issue plain and simple.  Pro-choicers choose to give the woman the right to end the life of her unborn child, a member of the family, and pro-lifers try and protect that right to live.  I really don't see how your religion babble does anything.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 14, 2009 - 10:36AM #47
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,750

Aug 14, 2009 -- 9:36AM, kat8765 wrote:

Okay, as far as I know this is not about religion, I think I might have said earlier something about being a Christian but I realize that not everyone agrees with that.  I really don't think abortion is a religious issue at all.  I believe it is a humans rights issue plain and simple.  Pro-choicers choose to give the woman the right to end the life of her unborn child, a member of the family, and pro-lifers try and protect that right to live.  I really don't see how your religion babble does anything.





I have never encountered any human rights statement that includes requiring that one person, against his/her will, give over or share use of his/her body functions, organs, bodily fluids and so on to another person. Do you have a basic human right to take another person's kidney, or their blood, against their will, even if you will die without it? Or does this "right" extend to fetuses only? Do you advocate that someone else's infant child, perhaps, being able to demand and obtain your blood, or your kidney, if they need it to live? Or does a child lose this "human right" you seem to think exists when it's born?


If not from a religious belief or tradition, where did this "human right" that you say exists come from?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 14, 2009 - 11:45AM #48
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Aug 14, 2009 -- 4:54AM, bluehorserunning wrote:

Huh? 


You're saying that a black person taking advantage of affirmative action is the same as a zef using another person's body for homeostasis?  That a woman demanding equal pay for equal work is doing the same?  Whose body do you think Sonia Sotomayor was using when she got into college?


Wow.


Dissapointed, but not surprised.



Purposely taking what someone typed out of context? Disappointed, but not surprised. It is you we're talking about, after all, so it's not totally unexpected. Oh well... I guess I'll have to break it down for you.


If I treat two individuals differently on the basis of race, is that equality? You'd say no. If I treat two individuals differently on the basis of gender, is that equality? You'd say no. If I treat two individuals differently on the basis of age, is that equality? You'd say no. If I treat two individuals differently on the basis of stage of development, is that equality. You'd say yes? Really...??? How, exactly, does that work? Because, given your answers to the previous questions, it doesn't. Equality isn't limited to those things you want it to be limited to. Do you understand the concept of equality? No...? Didn't think so.


But, see, notice how you totally didn't even attempt to address that part of what I wrote out. No, as per usual, you completely and totally ignored it and went off on some unrelated tangent about affirmative action or equal pay or Sonia Sotomayor. Honestly. It's like you're not even trying anymore.


...And homeostasis is self-regulated. Just throwing that out there.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 14, 2009 - 11:54AM #49
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Aug 14, 2009 -- 7:27AM, Tmarie64 wrote:

There's the racism AND the misogyny that I've been waiting for.


Thank you, Bei, for showing me that I was right and that deep down many plers ARE simply hate-filled and misogynistic.



I'll be nice. I'll give you a chance to rescind this statement.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 14, 2009 - 2:12PM #50
kat8765
Posts: 70

Aug 14, 2009 -- 10:36AM, newsjunkie wrote:





I have never encountered any human rights statement that includes requiring that one person, against his/her will, give over or share use of his/her body functions, organs, bodily fluids and so on to another person. Do you have a basic human right to take another person's kidney, or their blood, against their will, even if you will die without it? Or does this "right" extend to fetuses only? Do you advocate that someone else's infant child, perhaps, being able to demand and obtain your blood, or your kidney, if they need it to live? Or does a child lose this "human right" you seem to think exists when it's born?


If not from a religious belief or tradition, where did this "human right" that you say exists come from?





Are you saying that the right to live comes from religious beliefs?


  I see this arguement over and over again about forcing someone to give organs or blood even if it will save the life of someone else.  What are you talking about?  I seriously do not see how you can compare that to an abortion. 


Example:  I, just for arguments sake, am a deadbeat mom.  My child needs a kidney and I'm a perfect match.  I really haven't had much to do with my child for 10 years so I'd  rather someone else donate and I'd rather keep my kidney to myself.  My child dosen't get a donor and dies.  Now am I directly responsible for the death of my child?  No  Indirectly? maybe.  Did I intentionally kill him? No  Abortion is intentional.  The purpose is to end a life.  As far as I know we, as innocent humans, have a right not to be intentionally killed.  I'm pretty sure there are laws against that.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook