Gays rights vs Abortion rights.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
No I said someone from here said they were two separate things, I am providing a counter and saying they are not two separatie things. That was a quote from another person. NOT ME.

So you are saying that an unborn fetus is the same thing as a born baby.

The counter is that an unborn fetus is a parasite and dependent on the woman and therefore she should have the right to keep it or not. A born baby, while needing care from SOMEONE, is not a parasite.

The only counter you've provided is that it's better to breastfeed a baby than not.

Your counter argument is as confusing and irrelevant as this thread.

Later.

Allright then, tell me what the difference is between a fetus and a baby.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by THE_PROFESSIONAL]

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
If gay people have rights and put their sinful "partner" on an insurance plan or such, why cant my friends brother put his own brother on his insurance plan??? This is ridiculous.

Why is it that gays are banning the nonsinful people as in australia from places. I say we ban all gays from everywhere except their houses.

Why is it that gays have a right to live and a small baby does not. Shame on you. What are we coming to.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by THE_PROFESSIONAL]

Being gay, or being in a gay relationship does not make one sinful. If you're referring to the OT of the bible then look at what else is said in the chapters that are supposed to be about this subject.
Do you obey those laws?
I didn't think so.

Calling gay people "gays" is considered rude, just like calling black people "blacks" is. They are people, and are more than just the one characteristic you use to refer to them.

Your friends brother is not in a relationship with his brother I presume? The insurance plan is for people in a relationship.

Gay people were born gay, just like you were born with (as far as I can make up from your post) a low intelligence.
Now the cool thing about your situation is that if, next time you make a post, you put some extra effort in whatever proces you went through to get to your rather special conclusion that banning "all gays from everywhere except their houses" is a good idea, you may actually learn something and post less ignorant posts on these forums.

I am afraid the same is not the case for gay people, as they can not make themselves straight, as much as they would want to, if only to shut people like you up.

So whataya say, next time read and think a little more before posting?
Goodluck.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Jakko]

Originally posted by Jakko
Calling gay people "gays" is considered rude, just like calling black people "blacks" is. They are people, and are more than just the one characteristic you use to refer to them.

It's not rude to call people who serve in the United States Marine Corps, Marines. It's not rude to call people who are citizens of the United States, Americans. It's not rude to call people who belong to the Freemason, Masons.

Why then, is it rude to call homosexuals, gays, if gay is a term which homosexuals decide is an appropriate term for homosexuality?

There was a backlash against identifying people as synonymous with diagnoses, which I understand, but we still don't hear many complaints from diabetics about being called diabetic.

This hypersensitivity gets on my nerves, especially when it leaves people scratching their heads about what name is correct because the name keeps changing.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The counter is that an unborn fetus is a parasite and dependent on the woman and therefore she should have the right to keep it or not.

This is the most ignorant statement I have ever read and yet, it is the mantra of the feminist movement. What a callous disregard for innocent human life. What a complete lack of understanding of the English language. Please tell me you didn't graduate from high school.

www.m-w.com...

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

It's not rude to call people who serve in the United States Marine Corps, Marines. It's not rude to call people who are citizens of the United States, Americans. It's not rude to call people who belong to the Freemason, Masons.

Why then, is it rude to call homosexuals, gays, if gay is a term which homosexuals decide is an appropriate term for homosexuality?

There was a backlash against identifying people as synonymous with diagnoses, which I understand, but we still don't hear many complaints from diabetics about being called diabetic.

This hypersensitivity gets on my nerves, especially when it leaves people scratching their heads about what name is correct because the name keeps changing.

I think in general people see it as unrespectful to describe people with one word that reflects the way these people were born.
Peoples professions, or where they come from, do not have this problem for some reason.

In general the terms like "blacks, gays, whites" are most problematic in situations where the group described has a history of being discrimated against.

I understand that many people are not aware of it, or mean it in any way bad. But in this world, the word "gays" is no longer used by official organisations because of the reasons I gave.
Those that don't want to type out the words "gay people" can keep on calling gay people "gays" as far as I am concerned though.

Gay people just sounds nicer to me.

Well, you can call me a white, or even whitey, any day of the week.

In fact, you can call me redneck, hillbilly, grit, cracker, blondy, baldy, freckle-face, or almost anything that refers to the way I was born, without fear of insulting me.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Well, you can call me a white, or even whitey, any day of the week.

In fact, you can call me redneck, hillbilly, grit, cracker, blondy, baldy, freckle-face, or almost anything that refers to the way I was born, without fear of insulting me.

You are an example to us all, freckle-faced redneck.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The counter is that an unborn fetus is a parasite and dependent on the woman and therefore she should have the right to keep it or not.

This is the most ignorant statement I have ever read and yet, it is the mantra of the feminist movement. What a callous disregard for innocent human life. What a complete lack of understanding of the English language. Please tell me you didn't graduate from high school.

www.m-w.com...

and yet, in some cases, this little parasite can be deadly.......so how callous is it to rig up laws that could prevent the parasite from being removed, so the host can be alive and well?

about as calloused as it would be for them to write up laws prohibiting doctors to remove the giant tumor from someone's brain!!

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
If gay people have rights and put their sinful "partner" on an insurance plan or such, why cant my friends brother put his own brother on his insurance plan??? This is ridiculous.

Why is it that gays are banning the nonsinful people as in australia from places. I say we ban all gays from everywhere except their houses.

Why is it that gays have a right to live and a small baby does not. Shame on you. What are we coming to.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by THE_PROFESSIONAL]

I keep reading this and have decided to speak out.
For starters, alot of what I am seeing in the original post here is anger. My question for you, THE_PROFESSIONAL, is how many gay people do you know intimately, not know of? Do you have any idea of what their life is like, or are you basing your view on the points of others?
For my own point, for those of the alternative lifestyle, who I am friends with, all are the same as everyone else, they get up, go to work, come home and live like everyone else. What they do in the privacy of their bedroom, is their business.
You make reference to gay banning non gay people from a place in Australia and it is one place and most who I have talked to, gay and non gay agree that is a bad idea as it brings up more problems than it would fix.
How many children do you have or support in your house, The_Professional? How many unwed mothers or women do you go up to and offer to pay for their medical costs so they can carry that child to full term? Do you offer to pay for everything to that woman for her to carry that child? It is easy to state it is murder, but the reality is that the cost of medical care is high and most, unless they have medical insurance or are wealthy, can cause major debt. It is ultimately their decision, and they are the ones who will have to deal with all of the ramifications of such, and we can sit by and debate till we are blue in the face. Reality here, and I am amazed, is that we would deny a woman, and I have known several where having a child would harm them, a proceedure to save their lives, knowing that carrying a child to full term will end up in their and their childs lives ending at birth, would you deny them the right to have an abortion sentencing them to a painful death?

Originally posted by dawnstar
about as calloused as it would be for them to write up laws prohibiting doctors to remove the giant tumor from someone's brain!!

Brilliant, dawnstar.

Brain tumor=baby.

I'd've never arrived at that conclusion without your insight.

WELL, you wouldn't try to pass legislation prohibiting the removal of a tumor... or a diseased organ, if it would help the patient be more healthy...
but, here we are, a number of bills have been introduced, some have passed that would make it illegal to remove a harmful fetus....with no consideration as to the health and welfare of the mother. a fetus does fit the basic description of what a parasite is....and if it is harming the mother, endangering her life, well, then very few parasites are that harmful....and you would treat those.

what is happening is some are trying to place the rights of a few cells that are living within the mother above her own rights, and who cares if these few cells are harming her..

tumors are living organisms too, maybe we should pass legislation prohibiting their removal also.

Could you provide links to such bills, so that we could peruse them?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
This is the most ignorant statement I have ever read...

It's not ignorant at all. I posted the definition of parasite and that's exactly what a fetus is. It's an organism living in another organism in parasitism. It's not a judgment, it's just a fact. Perhaps the emotionalism is blinding you.

and yet, it is the mantra of the feminist movement.

Perhaps because it's true.

What a callous disregard for innocent human life.

No at all. I treasure human life. I just don't consider a fetus to be a human life.

What a complete lack of understanding of the English language.

Again, you are incorrect. The meaning is clear. I understand it perfectly. I just don't add a bunch of emotional garbage to it.

Please tell me you didn't graduate from high school.

Another case of a personal attack. What gives, Grady? I've never known you to sink to personal attacks because you disagree with me. Yet, here in 2 threads, you're after me. Take something. Have a drink. Mellow out. Disagree with me, but you don't have to attack me or my education. I assure you, my education is first-rate.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I just don't consider a fetus to be a human life.

What kind of life is it?

Is this an acceptable definition of parasite to you?

1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery

2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

www.merriam-webster.com...

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
What kind of life is it?

It's the precursor to human life, but it is not A human life, in my opinion.

Is this an acceptable definition of parasite to you?

Yes, it's the one I've been using all along.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's the precursor to human life, but it is not A human life, in my opinion.

And what kind of DNA would the "precursor" to human life have? Would a DNA sample taken in utero be different than a DNA sample taken of the same life-form immediately after birth, or even 50 years later?

Is this an acceptable definition of parasite to you?

1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery

2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

www.merriam-webster.com...

Yes, it's the one I've been using all along.

And, if that is the definition of a parasite, wouldn't a child of any age qualify as a parasite, by that definition, and using your logic, would it not be acceptable to terminate the life of any dependent child, or any dependent human being?

[edit on 2007/6/9 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Would a DNA sample taken in utero be different than a DNA sample taken of the same life-form immediately after birth, or even 50 years later?

If DNA is the measure you use to determine that the thing inside a pregnant woman is a human life, then that's where you stand. That's cool. DNA is not what I use to determine what is or is not a human life. There is DNA in a hair from my head. However, a hair is not a human life. Skin is not a human life. A liver is not a human life, although my DNA is in all of these.

And, if that is the definition of a parasite, wouldn't a child of any age qualify as a parasite, by that definition, and using your logic, would it not be acceptable to terminate the life of any dependent child, or any dependent human being?

No, this has already been covered in this very thread. Once a child is born, it is dependent, yes, but not on a host. If someone, anyone, cares for it, it will survive. If you remove a fetus from a host, it dies.

Secondly, a parasite lives in, on or with a person. Not "with" as in the same house, but "with" as in connected. Always. You can't leave a parasite in the other room for a few minutes or hand it off to another person to care for for a while. (I'm using the second definition of parasite.)

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

So. Dakota
HB1215

Would ban all abortions in the state of South Dakota, except if necessary to save the mother's life...no exception is made for the general health of the mother.

www.freerepublic.com...

technically, saving the mother's life isn't the same as saving her eyesight, is it?

Mississippi
SB 2391
This one would only go into effect if Roe vs. Wade was overturned by the Supreme court. Exception for rape or to save the life of the women...but not blindness!!

Virginia is considering several bills involving abortion and pregnancy, including a total ban on the procedure if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade The legislation banning abortion would provide an exception when the life of the pregnant women is threatened.....what about blindness???



Tx.....
"Many of us on the pro-life side and even those on the pro-choice side believe it is a matter of time before Roe vs. Wade is overturned," said Mr. Patrick, a conservative radio talk-show host who was sworn into office as a state senator Tuesday.

"I want to have a law on the books in Texas that clearly says if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, there will be no abortions in Texas."

A companion bill has already been filed in the House by Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa. "

www.dallasnews.com...

intentions can't be any plainer than that, can it...
no abortions in the state.......regardless..

Then there's the partial- birth abortion ban, that doesn't care about the life of the mother even, nor the fact that it's defination can't be found in any medical dictionary....

www.commondreams.org...

North Dakota...
HB 1466

criminalize abortion with exception to rape, incest or when the women's life is in danger.....not eyesight, or any number of other possible disabilities or problems that many develope....but only when her life is in danger...and of course that can be proven in court....

And, I am tired of looking....there's also bills that would require parental notification, ect...that are lacking in this area.

what all these bills would lead up to is something like this...
www.worldnetdaily.com...

doctors and their patients going into court, presenting their medical evidence that yes, this unborn baby is a clear and present danger to the mother, it will kill her....to judges and a jury who more than likely have no of medical terminolgy or proceedures. in order to obtain permission for the abortion..
hey, that blind lady from poland went through a similar process....we all know where it got her. something like three or four kids to care for and no sight!

And once again, as happens so often in these discussions, we have the 2 separate camps. One camp (the Anti-Freedom camp) thinks that everyone should be legally forced to behave in the manner of which they approve and agree. The other camp supports individual liberties and believes that even though they don't approve of others' choices, they support their protection under law to make those choices.

I personally disapprove of abortion. I believe in low-cost, easy, available birth control and education. And if I got pregnant, I would not have an abortion unless my life or health were at stake, even in the case of rape! But I can't make that decision for anyone else and I don't understand how anyone can.

If an individual feels that abortion is "wrong" or harmful, they should not have one.