forced sterilization, who supported it?

apple0154 said:
Your post reads like someone is stuttering. LOL

Anyway, the problem is evaluating a human being using only DNA as the criteria. Using that method ONLY means an acorn is an oak tree and that doesn't make any more sense than saying a fertilized egg is a chicken. (People who live on farms still eat the occasional fertilized egg.)

Where did you learn biology, in kindergarten....??
Animals are animals, plants are plants and human are humans....
Human DNA will ALWAYS be human DNA at EVERY stage of life

It depends on what criteria we use. For example, there are numerous fruits but saying something is a fruit and is good for you is not necessarily the truth. One is cautioned against eating grapefruit while taking certain medication. That doesn't mean the person can not eat any fruit. The point being we often have to use a number of factors in order to classify something.
IRRELEVANT
Near the end of life we use brain wave and other indicators to determine if one is alive. Technically, with the aid of medical devices that person is alive. They are carrying on bodily functions, their skin is regenerating, etc. However, we draw a line.

Then we have certain accepted customs/rules that say every human being is an individual. The individuality of our bodies is sacred. Then there are things that require an exact date of birth. If we want to be fair someone born, say, two months premature should have to wait until they are 18 years and two months old before voting and 65 years plus two months before collecting SS.

certain accepted customs/rules that say every human being is an individual.?------customs and rules have nothing to do with every human being an individual

That set aside we come to, what is to me, the devil in the details. How far do we go if a fetus is considered a human being? We have laws, in certain jurisdictions, that prohibit adults smoking in cars in which there are children. Makes perfect sense just as prohibiting a pregnant woman from smoking makes perfect sense assuming a fetus is a human being. We know smoking results in carcinogens travelling through the blood. Are they passing through the placenta to the fetus?

Its biology....a human is a human is a human at any age....civil laws are irrelevant.....its biological fact

What about nourishment? If authorities saw a child malnourished they wouldn't think twice about removing the child from the parent. If a doctor determines the fetus is too small due to the mother not eating properly what actions do we take, as a society? We can't remove the fetus so our alternatives are limited to taking action to ensure the woman eats properly.
IRRELEVANT
Then there's activities. People would look on in horror if a woman went down a ski slope with an infant strapped to her back or stomach. Can anyone justify a pregnant woman on a ski slope
jeopardizing the life of another human being?
IRRELEVANT
Ridiculous scenarios? Absurd concerns? There was a time when smoking was permitted in hospital rooms, of all places! Fifty years ago, if someone had said smoking would be banned in bars reaction was probably the same as we see today when someone says behavior detrimental to a fetus would be prohibited.
IRRELEVANT
It all boils down to unintended consequences. Classifying a fetus as a human being will strip women of rights, many which are not readily apparent.

The women will always have her rights....now so will the other human being (the right to a life)

All that said we haven't even touched on back-street abortions and the literal millions of neglected and abused children who will enter the world. Some posters have suggested making adoption easier. Others have suggested support/social programs for new mothers. Perhaps before any legislation is passed to curtail abortion it might be a good idea to put programs in place and prepare for the inevitable adjustments that would have to be made.

IRRELEVANT.....we don't murder the homeless because they are homeless or starving...we shelter them and feed them...as we should any human being..

Over one million abortions per year. Even if a fraction of those live births ended up not wanted by the biological mother we would see hundreds of thousands of Children institutionalized over the years. Hundreds of thousands of women bearing children they do not want. We have to find another solution.
Click to expand...

You solution is Adolf Hitlers solution....THE FINAL SOLUTION.....
 
Damocles said:
This is, what did Socrtease say?, ghoulish. Often there is a very real grief at the death of a child.
Click to expand...

There is no child. Frequently the woman does not even know the sex of the fetus. As for the "father" to be grieving over a fetus.....please.

Either. It is theirs.
Click to expand...

But people make mistakes in judgement and society tries to help them.

You answered less than half the questions, most of which you spent trying to create a socialized victimization that doesn't exist. Society does not "have to" pay for your stupid decisions.
Click to expand...

Looks like I have to explain this again. Have you ever visited countries without proper social programs like Mexico or Jamaica? Why do you think tourists are advised to stay close to the resort and not "wander off"? Well, I'll tell you why. When people are compelled to be "self-reliant", to the extent they are in those countries, they have no problem taking from others. And not just taking a portion. They will mug one and take all because....well, because they have to be self-reliant and look after themselves. That's why crime is high even in impoverished areas in affluent, western countries.

Helping people and looking out for others. A neighborhood, a community, a country. That's what makes a society worth living in.
 
Socrtease said:
We now live in a country where if a man wants his child, he has no voice. If a man does NOT want his child, he has no voice. If the woman does not want her child, she can abort. If a woman does want her child, then a man, whether he wants it or not is stuck paying for it for 18 years. Women have cried, justly, for equal rights for 2 centuries. Yet when it comes to procreation they want to be more equal than men. This is a sticky subject for me. I don't want men having complete veto power over a woman's right to choose. What I want, is a legal mechanism, whereby if the man agrees in writing that he will adopt the child thereby absolving the woman of any financial or legal responsibility that she give birth to the child, which is 50% his anyway. I think he should even agree to pay all medical bills related to the birth of the child as consideration, IF he truly wants the child. This still makes the woman more equal, because absent another man willing to adopt a child, no state allows a man to absolve himself of financial responsibility.
Click to expand...

While I agree men and women are not equal when it comes to pregnancy the pregnancy is not shared. Also, the sperm leaves the man's body. The egg does not leave the female and enter the man so, in effect, he has given it away.
 
apple0154 said:
While I agree men and women are not equal when it comes to pregnancy the pregnancy is not shared. Also, the sperm leaves the man's body. The egg does not leave the female and enter the man so, in effect, he has given it away.
Click to expand...


AAaaahhhhh....truly, the wisdom of a seven year old.....
 
apple0154 said:
While I agree men and women are not equal when it comes to pregnancy the pregnancy is not shared. Also, the sperm leaves the man's body. The egg does not leave the female and enter the man so, in effect, he has given it away.
Click to expand...


OR....ve vill put into effect zee FINAL SOLUTION.....
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i'm sure that was all thought out when the framers wrote the constitution, so what had to change now?
Click to expand...

When the Framers wrote the Constitution anyone could be self-reliant. There was free land. Does the apartmernt living city-dweller have the opportunity to get some free land and plant a garden? Also, today, people depend on others. Our lives are linked more than they were 200 years ago. We're interdependent. We have to adapt.
 
apple0154 said:
When the Framers wrote the Constitution anyone could be self-reliant. There was free land. Does the apartmernt living city-dweller have the opportunity to get some free land and plant a garden? Also, today, people depend on others. Our lives are linked more than they were 200 years ago. We're interdependent. We have to adapt.
Click to expand...
There wasn't free land. Why do you lie?
 
bravo said:
You solution is Adolf Hitlers solution....THE FINAL SOLUTION.....
Click to expand...

My goodness. The Drama Queen.

Where did you learn biology, in kindergarten....??
Animals are animals, plants are plants and human are humans....
Human DNA will ALWAYS be human DNA at EVERY stage of life.
Click to expand...

Where did you learn biology? All that DNA can tell us is if something is human material. MATERIAL. Is a slice of skin off the liver a human being? No, it is a piece of human material. Is a slice of skin off a cadaver a living human being? No, it is human material off a dead body.

So, please, stop this nonsense about DNA showing us/telling us/proving something is a living human being. It isn't because it can't. Once you grasp that vital point we can have an adult conversation.

As for the comments that you considered "IRRELEVANT that's precisely the problem anti-abortionists have. They either can't or won't think past their limited philosophical view and thinking things through is necessary for one to determine if their position is logical and saying a fetus is a human being is illogical on so many levels.

Think, man. Think.
 
apple0154 said:
My goodness. The Drama Queen.



Where did you learn biology? All that DNA can tell us is if something is human material. MATERIAL. Is a slice of skin off the liver a human being? No, it is a piece of human material. Is a slice of skin off a cadaver a living human being? No, it is human material off a dead body.

So, please, stop this nonsense about DNA showing us/telling us/proving something is a living human being. It isn't because it can't. Once you grasp that vital point we can have an adult conversation.

As for the comments that you considered "IRRELEVANT that's precisely the problem anti-abortionists have. They either can't or won't think past their limited philosophical view and thinking things through is necessary for one to determine if their position is logical and saying a fetus is a human being is illogical on so many levels.

Think, man. Think.
Click to expand...


The DNA tells you that the "material" is from A HUMAN BEING.....dead or alive is irrelevant bullshit like you always like to bring up thinking its some kind of important revelation....I don't think anyone ever claimed the DNA proved anything else....

Its not about abortion...its about human beings at the earliest stages of life....DNA proves something is human...other things tells us if its alive or not.......
You're too stupid to separate one subject from the other.....
Biology is about science....abortion is about killing.....
 
apple0154 said:
While I agree men and women are not equal when it comes to pregnancy the pregnancy is not shared. Also, the sperm leaves the man's body. The egg does not leave the female and enter the man so, in effect, he has given it away.
Click to expand...

Until men start getting pregnant, the final choice will reside with the woman, period. Here is what I don't understand: we all know this. Other than a couple of guys here (the younguns), we're all mature adults. Is there really anyone here who is picking up people in bars and having one-night stands? If so, should a pregnancy occur, you probably will never be told. But I would have to assume almost all of us are having relationships of some sort or the other.

Is it possible there are men over the age of 30 who are entering into sexual relationships with women without discussing this first?? That would really amaze me. If you are a man, and you have strong feelings about abortion, you need to discuss that first. You need to discuss birth control, and you also need to discuss how she feels she might react were it to fail. With many women this will be a short conversation:

Man: I don't believe in abortion
Woman: I totally support your right not to have one then!
Man: I mean I don't believe you should have one if my condom comes off and you get pregnant.
Woman: Bye.

She's going to tell you one of three things. 1) She'd discuss it with you and take your feelings into consideration. 2) there is no way she is having a baby, there would be an abortion and she expects you to be supportive of her decision. 3) there is no way she is having a baby, there would be an abortion, but she'd never even tell you about it.

You do have the option of not having sex with the woman if you can't come to an agreement on this. This seems really simple to me.

However, no matter what, the final choice is always going to be the woman's and she can change her mind. Buy condoms. Talk to her about using a backup method in case the condom comes off or breaks. This is not rocket science, and when you are able to afford birth control, and you are no longer a stupid, hormone-driven kid (we all messed up back then), I don't see the problem.
 
apple0154 said:
When the Framers wrote the Constitution anyone could be self-reliant. There was free land. Does the apartmernt living city-dweller have the opportunity to get some free land and plant a garden? Also, today, people depend on others. Our lives are linked more than they were 200 years ago. We're interdependent. We have to adapt.
Click to expand...

One adaptation would be to reintroduce the conditions that allow for self reliance. In reality we are all individuals, our notions of society are simply our individual choices of loyalty.
 
apple0154 said:
When the Framers wrote the Constitution anyone could be self-reliant. There was free land. Does the apartmernt living city-dweller have the opportunity to get some free land and plant a garden? Also, today, people depend on others. Our lives are linked more than they were 200 years ago. We're interdependent. We have to adapt.
Click to expand...
by surrendering our freedom and rights? I bet the framers would completely disagree with you.
 
bravo said:
The DNA tells you that the "material" is from A HUMAN BEING.....dead or alive is irrelevant bullshit like you always like to bring up thinking its some kind of important revelation....I don't think anyone ever claimed the DNA proved anything else....

Its not about abortion...its about human beings at the earliest stages of life....DNA proves something is human...other things tells us if its alive or not.......
You're too stupid to separate one subject from the other.....
Biology is about science....abortion is about killing.....
Click to expand...

It's not about a human being. 50% of fertilized cells, cells that you call a human being, spontaneously abort within hours or days. Do we know if those cells contained all the necessary ingredients to eventually form a human being? No, we do not and to believe they are human beings when 50% of them die is absurd in the extreme.
 
Apple you are a disgusting, sick human being since you support abortion right up until the moment that the umbilical cord is cut. No attempts to divert the subject to "fertilized cells" will change that.
 
Darla said:
Until men start getting pregnant, the final choice will reside with the woman, period. Here is what I don't understand: we all know this. Other than a couple of guys here (the younguns), we're all mature adults. Is there really anyone here who is picking up people in bars and having one-night stands? If so, should a pregnancy occur, you probably will never be told. But I would have to assume almost all of us are having relationships of some sort or the other.

Is it possible there are men over the age of 30 who are entering into sexual relationships with women without discussing this first?? That would really amaze me. If you are a man, and you have strong feelings about abortion, you need to discuss that first. You need to discuss birth control, and you also need to discuss how she feels she might react were it to fail. With many women this will be a short conversation:

Man: I don't believe in abortion
Woman: I totally support your right not to have one then!
Man: I mean I don't believe you should have one if my condom comes off and you get pregnant.
Woman: Bye.

She's going to tell you one of three things. 1) She'd discuss it with you and take your feelings into consideration. 2) there is no way she is having a baby, there would be an abortion and she expects you to be supportive of her decision. 3) there is no way she is having a baby, there would be an abortion, but she'd never even tell you about it.

You do have the option of not having sex with the woman if you can't come to an agreement on this. This seems really simple to me.

However, no matter what, the final choice is always going to be the woman's and she can change her mind. Buy condoms. Talk to her about using a backup method in case the condom comes off or breaks. This is not rocket science, and when you are able to afford birth control, and you are no longer a stupid, hormone-driven kid (we all messed up back then), I don't see the problem.
Click to expand...

Man: I don't believe in abortion
Woman: I totally support your right not to have one then!
Man: I mean I don't believe you should have one if my condom comes off and you get pregnant.
Woman: Bye.
Click to expand...

:good4u: :rofl: I love it!
 
DamnYankee said:
Apple you are a disgusting, sick human being since you support abortion right up until the moment that the umbilical cord is cut. No attempts to divert the subject to "fertilized cells" will change that.
Click to expand...

It's not a diversion. Until and unless it can be established all fertilized cells contain the necessary ingredients to become human beings, which is doubtful considering 50% spontaneously abort within hours or days, the fertilization of a cell is not necessarily the start of a human being's life. It follows that if we don't know the start then how do we determine when it is a human being?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top