Abortion vs. Contraception

[talloulou]

These are really good questions. How would you answer them?

I'd say that the human race needs to be careful as technology advances. Just because we can create life and we have gained all kinds of ability to genuinely control the creation of human life we must not ever mistake creation of life for ownership of life. Human beings do not belong to others. Slavery is always wrong. Though I created my children I do not OWN them and they OWE me nothing. There is no reason to treat those created in a lab any differently. They too are individuals. They owe their creators nothing. Their life belongs to them.

If your mother needed a heart tomorrow she could not just demand yours on the basis that she created you. What in heavens name makes you think you could possibly demand someone else's?

 

[Peralin]

If your mother needed a heart tomorrow she could not just demand yours on the basis that she created you. What in heavens name makes you think you could possibly demand someone else's?

But there is a big difference between me and an embryo. If I am not mistaken, the embryos used for stem cell research have neither a brain nor nerves. So they cannot possibly think as we do, or feel pain when they are destroyed. That's the big deifference between late-pregnancy abortions and embryonic stem cell research.

So who is hurt by this process? The child that would never have existed if the process had not occurred? Of course not, because the child cannot think, cannot feel, has no personality. I still don't understand who is being hurt by this process.

It is better to live and die (painlessly) for the sake of humanity than never live at all. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Felicity]

It is better to live and die (painlessly) for the sake of humanity than never live at all. Do you agree or disagree?

To marginalize a class of humans in such a way DEMEANS THE DIGNITY OF ALL HUMANS. If you can do it to one segment of the human population, you can rationalize doing to other segments.

 

[talloulou]

But there is a big difference between me and an embryo. If I am not mistaken, the embryos used for stem cell research have neither a brain nor nerves. So they cannot possibly think as we do, or feel pain when they are destroyed. That's the big deifference between late-pregnancy abortions and embryonic stem cell research.

So it is okay to kill another human for not thinking as you do? Should it then be okay to kill newborns? They aren't full developed. They certainly don't by any stretch of the imagination think as we do. They could be killed painlessly and have absolutely zero comprehension of what was occuring and zero comprehension that their life was about to end. Likewise you could be killed in the same way. Painlessly with the deed done and over before you ever realized what happened. Dead before you even had a moment to contemplate death, dead before you felt fear, dead without feeling pain. Just because we can kill painlessly doesn't mean it is okay to do it.

So who is hurt by this process? The child that would never have existed if the process had not occurred? Of course not, because the child cannot think, cannot feel, has no personality. I still don't understand who is being hurt by this process.

You are taking a human life and using it for your own means. Newborns show very little personality. It is impossible to guess what or how they think. They can be killed painlessly. Should we grow them for organs?

It is better to live and die (painlessly) for the sake of humanity than never live at all. Do you agree or disagree?

It is better to live and die then never live at all. However the statement is certainly no justification for robbing humans of their life and exploiting them for parts.

 

[Peralin]

To marginalize a class of humans in such a way DEMEANS THE DIGNITY OF ALL HUMANS. If you can do it to one segment of the human population, you can rationalize doing to other segments.

What are you talking about? Why do you have to avoid the question? I'm putting it very simply. I think the reason you are avoiding the question is because you realize that your answer would contradict your beliefs. For the sake of the debate, just forget your beliefs for a moment and answer the question honestly. It is a very important question to answer.

So please answer the question: Is it better to live and be killed for the sake of humanity or not live at all?

 

[Peralin]

So it is okay to kill another human for not thinking as you do?

No, but it is okay to give life to a human for the sole purpose of helping mankind, and then destroying it. After all, it never would have existed in the first place if it weren't for your little experiment.

Should it then be okay to kill newborns? They aren't full developed. They certainly don't by any stretch of the imagination think as we do. They could be killed painlessly and have absolutely zero comprehension of what was occuring and zero comprehension that their life was about to end.

I do not support murder of naturally-created human beings. I do, however, support the murder of clones who exist for the sole purpose of being murdered. Of course, if the company was creating clones simply for the enjoyment of murdering them, that would be a different case. But if a company creates clones (humans that would naturally never exist) for the purpose of using their organs to possibly save other humans, then the murder of these clones (which, again, would not exist without the company's actions) should be prohibited.

Likewise you could be killed in the same way. Painlessly with the deed done and over before you ever realized what happened. Dead before you even had a moment to contemplate death, dead before you felt fear, dead without feeling pain. Just because we can kill painlessly doesn't mean it is okay to do it.

And if I was created for the sole purpose of donating organs to be used in experiments in attempts to save the lives of other humans, then I would be grateful that I got the chance to live (because it's better to live and die than to never live at all). I would be upset that my life was about to end, but that's because I spent my entire life thinking that I had 80-90 uears to live. I would personally be upset because I was unfortunate that I wasn't a natural human. But that's still better than having no life at all.

You are taking a human life and using it for your own means.

No. I am CREATING a human life and the using it for my own means. That's the important difference and the only reason I am debating this issue. The human WOULD NOT HAVE EXISTED NATURALLY! It only exists because I artificially created it, and I can use it for the betterment of humanity because it is not a natural human being.

It is better to live and die then never live at all.

LOGIC TIME:

1. It is better to live and die than never live at all.
2. Embryonic stem-cell research gives life to a human being and then kills it.
3. Under normal circumstances, the victim of embryonic stem-cell research would never live at all.

THEREFORE: Embryonic stem-cell research is better than normal circumstances.

It's simple: Embryonic stem-cell research= live and die
Normal circumstances = never live at all

However the statement is certainly no justification for robbing humans of their life and exploiting them for parts.

Look at the logic statement above and tell me specifically where I went wrong. It seems pretty simple to me. I'm really starting to think that ther only reason we are in disagreement is becauxse you refuse to change your beliefs. But honestly, just look at the logic statement.

 

[mikhail]

I kinda rate myself higher than a sperm

 

[talloulou]

Look at the logic statement above and tell me specifically where I went wrong. It seems pretty simple to me. I'm really starting to think that ther only reason we are in disagreement is becauxse you refuse to change your beliefs. But honestly, just look at the logic statement.

Your logic basically implies that every human is a slave to its creator. If a mother looked around the house and decided she had too many mouths to feed so she killed one of her kids and exclaimed, "better to live and die then never have lived at all," I'd think she was nuts. I hardly see how children created in a lab would be any different.

If done right clones are as equally human as you and I. As slavery is illegal they owe their creator NOTHING. Just because you've brought someone into the world that should NOT give you a right to take them out.

 

[moolanus]

Of course, if the company was creating clones simply for the enjoyment of murdering them, that would be a different case.

Why would it be any different. If they created them and owned them as you have surmised, why shouldn't they be allowed to ruthlessly chop every clone they make just for the fun of it?

I would not be thankful to have lived for x amount of years and then find out I am being used to save another person. It means that I am being forced to sacrifice my life for someone elses, which takes away the whole meaning of sacrifice. I couldn't imagine a government mandate that stated "if you have two kidneys you have to give them both to someone who ruined their own, and by the way, you will not be getting any kidneys, you will die, you have no choice. For those who are for taking lives to grow organs, it is just pure selfishness and a disregard for all others.

 

[Felicity]

What are you talking about? Why do you have to avoid the question? I'm putting it very simply. I think the reason you are avoiding the question is because you realize that your answer would contradict your beliefs. For the sake of the debate, just forget your beliefs for a moment and answer the question honestly. It is a very important question to answer.

This is a load of assumptions...I find an inherent FLAW in your questions. The inherent FLAW is the question of JUSTICE. I believe that the over-arching INJUSTICE of what you suggest compromises the objective benefit a momentary physical existence has for an individual. You have to look at the bigger picture.

So please answer the question: Is it better to live and be killed for the sake of humanity or not live at all?

Another flaw in this question is the assumption that the death has some sort of positive result for humanity. In the case of killing for stem cells, I do not think the potential medical benefits outweight the de-civilizing such an action does. So my answer is no.

A human conceived and miscarried...sure...it's better that they came into being and then died.

A human purposefully created to be killed for stem cell research...for the individual who has no control over his life and death--neutral...It is tragic that he was used that way and was created in defiance of God's dominion over life, but he can live eternally in service of God.

The effect on society--even IF the cells have a positive medical benefit--net result: NEGATIVE.


To marginalize a class of humans in such a way DEMEANS THE DIGNITY OF ALL HUMANS. If you can do it to one segment of the human population, you can rationalize doing to other segments.

 

[1069]

A human conceived and miscarried...sure...it's better that they came into being and then died.

Christ. Better for whom??

 

[Felicity]

Christ. Better for whom??

The individual who was conceived....per the OP's twisted premise.

Obviously, no picnic for the mother.

 

[Peralin]

Your logic basically implies that every human is a slave to its creator.

No it doesn't. It only implies that every CLONE is a slave to its creator. If there's something wrong with my logic, please show me SPECIFICALLY. I think we both agreed on the three premises, and the result follows logically. If there is a mistake it should be easy to find.

If a mother looked around the house and decided she had too many mouths to feed so she killed one of her kids and exclaimed, "better to live and die then never have lived at all," I'd think she was nuts. I hardly see how children created in a lab would be any different.

The difference is that the kids were created naturally. The parents most likely chose to have sex, and they were the result. All natural. They exist naturally as a union of sperm and egg.

Clones are artificial (I know that's not the right word but you all know what I mean). They do not exist in nature and they never will exist in nature. The only way to make a clone exist is through an artificial process. because these clones are not natural human beings and only exist because scientists gave them life, they owe their lives to the scientists.

So the difference is that the mother's children were created through a natural process and clones were created through an artificial process. You could say that the natural children "earned" their existence, only it was really more like luck. But clones are completely unnatural.

If done right clones are as equally human as you and I.

Yes, but their existence is owed to the scientists.

As slavery is illegal they owe their creator NOTHING.

This debate is about the morality of stem-cell research, not the legality. Just because it is illegal to do something doesn't mean that it is immoral. Big difference.

Just because you've brought someone into the world that should NOT give you a right to take them out.

No, but if they are brought into the world for the sole purpose of being destroyed for the good of mankind), then I have no problem with destroying them. After all, it's better to live and die than never live at all.

If you cannot find a flaw in my logic statement then you have no argument against me. If you agree to all three premises and know how to use the process of substitution, you would understand that the conclusion logically follows. So please tell me:

Do you disagree with Premise 1? ("It is better to live and die than never live at all.") You already said yes to this question.

Do you disagree with Premise 2? ("Embryonic stem-cell research gives life to a human being and then kills it.")

Do you disagree with Premise 3? ("Under normal conditions, the victim of embryonic stem-cell research would never live at all.")

Or do you think that my process of substitution was incorrect? ("Embryonic stem-cell research is better than normal conditions.")

IF YOU AGREEE WITH THE FIRST THREE STATEMENTS AND AGREE THAT I CORRECTLY USED THE PROCESS OF SUBSTITUTION, WE ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT. SO tell me, exactly where is the disagreement?

 

[Peralin]

Why would it be any different. If they created them and owned them as you have surmised, why shouldn't they be allowed to ruthlessly chop every clone they make just for the fun of it?

Because in that case, I disagree with Premise 1: It ios better to live and die than never live at all.

Because if the clone's entire life is torture (whether it can feel or not is irrelevant) then its life is not worth living. This is simply my opinion, but that's why I made that exception.

I would not be thankful to have lived for x amount of years and then find out I am being used to save another person.

Even if the alternative was to never exist at all? Then you would look at it a bit differently. After all, the life you are living now is certainly better than non-existence. Aren't you grateful for the life you've had so far?

It means that I am being forced to sacrifice my life for someone elses, which takes away the whole meaning of sacrifice.

Right. You would be forced to sacrifice THE LIFE THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE WITHOUT THE PROCESS.

I couldn't imagine a government mandate that stated "if you have two kidneys you have to give them both to someone who ruined their own, and by the way, you will not be getting any kidneys, you will die, you have no choice.

I couldn't either. And I'm not talking about the legality, only the morality. And wait a second. Why do you think that the only people who will benefit from the research will be people who "ruined their own" organs. What about people who need transplants because of cancer? Sure, there will be smokers and drinkers who need new organs also. But why do you think that they will be the only ones to benefit from stem-cell research?

For those who are for taking lives to grow organs, it is just pure selfishness and a disregard for all others.

No it isn't. For one thing, I don't plan to ever benefit from stem-cell research. I might someday when I grow old, but I'm certainly not thinking about myself in this debate, so don't call me selfish. I have no medical problems right now, and I'm hoping that I won't have to worry about death for at least 50 more years. I just don't understand who is hurt by the process of embryonic stem-cell research, and unless there is a flaw in my logic statment, I don't think I ever will understand why so many people think it is immoral.

 

[Peralin]

Another flaw in this question is the assumption that the death has some sort of positive result for humanity. In the case of killing for stem cells, I do not think the potential medical benefits outweight the de-civilizing such an action does. So my answer is no.

So your saying that killing an embryo has a negative affect on society? How is that? Nobody feels love for these clones. So, really, how is society hurt by the deaths of people who would never exist naturally? I would be much happier to think that a human being gets the chance to live and die and possibly help mankind than not exist at all.

A human conceived and miscarried...sure...it's better that they came into being and then died.

A human purposefully created to be killed for stem cell research...for the individual who has no control over his life and death--neutral...It is tragic that he was used that way and was created in defiance of God's dominion over life, but he can live eternally in service of God.

How can you say this is neutral? I am asking what is best for the child, not for God! The only negative you have here is "that [the child] was used that way and was created in defiance of God's dominion over life". God minght be upset about that, but would the child? Of course not, he'd be happy that he gets to live with God forever.

Option 1: Live and die and go to heaven (according to your beliefs, correct?)
Option 2: Never live, nevr die, and never go to heaven. Never exist at all.

I would choose Option 1. And so would everyone who thinks life is good. Or even that God is good.

The effect on society--even IF the cells have a positive medical benefit--net result: NEGATIVE.

I don't know how you got a negative result here. Let's go over pros and cons.

PRO: gives life to a human being that would normally not exist
possible medical benefits
once dead, the child lives with God for eternity

CON: negative impact on society (I don't know what you mean by this)
the human being (which would normally not exist) is killed

I think the pros outweight the cons. But please explain how stem-cell research would negatively impace society, because you may have a valid point there. I still don't think it will be enough negative effects, but I'd like to know what you mean by that.

 

[Felicity]

So your saying that killing an embryo has a negative affect on society? How is that? Nobody feels love for these clones. So, really, how is society hurt by the deaths of people who would never exist naturally?

THIRD time posting the same position...To marginalize a class of humans in such a way DEMEANS THE DIGNITY OF ALL HUMANS. If you can do it to one segment of the human population, you can rationalize doing to other segments.

? Of course not, he'd be happy that he gets to live with God forever.

neutral--said human is aware of the injustice of his conception and death. Not that he is culpable--but the conception and death were objectively against justice. God is immutable, so "upset" isn't exactly correct...it would be contrary to God's justice.

Option 1: Live and die and go to heaven (according to your beliefs, correct?)
Option 2: Never live, nevr die, and never go to heaven. Never exist at all.

I would choose Option 1. And so would everyone who thinks life is good. Or even that God is good.

No you wouldn't--BECAUSE to choose it, you have to exist at some point to have a WILL..NEVER existing, you are not such a creature. Nobody "chooses to be conceived" This whole thing is specious.

CON: negative impact on society (I don't know what you mean by this)
the human being (which would normally not exist) is killed

FOURTH TIME.....To marginalize a class of humans in such a way DEMEANS THE DIGNITY OF ALL HUMANS. If you can do it to one segment of the human population, you can rationalize doing to other segments.

But please explain how stem-cell research would negatively impace society, because you may have a valid point there. I still don't think it will be enough negative effects, but I'd like to know what you mean by that.

FIFTH TIME.....To marginalize a class of humans in such a way DEMEANS THE DIGNITY OF ALL HUMANS. If you can do it to one segment of the human population, you can rationalize doing to other segments.

 

[1069]

THIRD time posting the same position...To marginalize a class of humans in such a way DEMEANS THE DIGNITY OF ALL HUMANS. If you can do it to one segment of the human population, you can rationalize doing to other segments.





neutral--said human is aware of the injustice of his conception and death. Not that he is culpable--but the conception and death were objectively against justice. God is immutable, so "upset" isn't exactly correct...it would be contrary to God's justice.

No you wouldn't--BECAUSE to choose it, you have to exist at some point to have a WILL..NEVER existing, you are not such a creature. Nobody "chooses to be conceived" This whole thing is specious.





FOURTH TIME.....To marginalize a class of humans in such a way DEMEANS THE DIGNITY OF ALL HUMANS. If you can do it to one segment of the human population, you can rationalize doing to other segments.

FIFTH TIME.....To marginalize a class of humans in such a way DEMEANS THE DIGNITY OF ALL HUMANS. If you can do it to one segment of the human population, you can rationalize doing to other segments.

Repeating that over and over doesn't make it true.
I do not feel it's possible to "demean" people's "dignity" by giving them more freedom or more options.
Conversely, you do not preserve someone's "dignity" by restricting their freedom or abrogating their rights.
I've heard this same line used in reference to the legalization/ illegalization of sex work: it's supposedly "demeaning to women" to allow them to do this this work legally.
Forcing someone to do something involuntarily does nothing to preserve their "dignity", for one thing; that's like saying that people who have cancer are "brave".
How is it "brave", when they don't have any frickin' choice in the matter? They didn't choose to get sick, and wouldn't be sick if they could help it.
How is a woman being forced to gestate an unwanted pregnancy against her will "dignified"?
How is a woman who terminates an unwanted pregnancy inherently "demeaned"?
She's demeaned if she feels demeaned, and she's not if she doesn't.
A woman forced to carry a pregnancy against her will is far more likely to feel 'demeaned", and from my perspective attempting to remove women's right to reproductive choice and turn women into mindless incubators is far more "demeaning" than simply allowing them reproductive choice.
You've already stated numerous times that you not only believe hormonal contraception to be immoral, but that you also find barrier contraceptives to be subtly "demeaning" to human dignity.
Apparently, in light of your take on abortion, hormonal birth control, and barrier contraceptives, the only thing you do consider "dignified" in a female is for her to spend her life wallowing around like some darned old brood sow and squirt out ten or fifteen curtain-monkeys before finally dropping dead.

How can we take seriously the opinion of someone who rejects not only birth control pills but also condoms- even for married couples- as "demeaning".
Gee, what a surprise. You think abortion is "demeaning" as well. Ooh, ouch. That hurts.
You no doubt think women working outside their homes is "demeaning", even as you do it yourself.
I recall you once thanking a post by Deejay, in which he stated that stay-at-home mothers are the only women who are worth a damn, and all other women are worthless pieces of sh!t.
You thanked him for saying that about you.
I can link to the post, if you're planning on denying it.

In short, you equate patriarchy and male dominion with 'dignity' (although you prefer to refer to said patriarchy as "Natural Law"; which in my opinion is sort of like icing a dog turd and trying to persuade others it's a cupcake).

You view equality between the sexes as "demeaning" or "degrading".

That being the case, I'm glad you consider me "demeaned", "degraded", and no doubt utterly depraved and disgusting.
I'd be more worried if you agreed with me, or liked what I had to say.

 

[Felicity]

I do not feel it's possible to "demean" people's "dignity" by giving them more freedom or more options.

that isn't what demeans the dignity of life.

Conversely, you do not preserve someone's "dignity" by restricting their freedom or abrogating their rights.

Sure you do--laws are made to secure the well being and dignity of individuals within a society.

I've heard this same line used in reference to the legalization/ illegalization of sex work: it's supposedly "demeaning to women" to allow them to do this this work legally.

Actually prostituting (why use the euphemism?) demeans the dignity of all people also--not just women.

Forcing someone to do something involuntarily does nothing to preserve their "dignity", for one thing; that's like saying that people who have cancer are "brave".
How is it "brave", when they don't have any frickin' choice in the matter? They didn't choose to get sick, and wouldn't be sick if they could help it.

It's how you deal with adversity.

How is a woman being forced to gestate an unwanted pregnancy against her will "dignified"?

Different definition that "dignity"--you're changing the point I made.

How is a woman who terminates an unwanted pregnancy inherently "demeaned"?

Again--I'm talking about life being demeaned--not the woman, per se.

She's demeaned if she feels demeaned, and she's not if she doesn't.

Yeah right...and if nobody sees you take the cookie out of the cookie jar, you didn't really do anything wrong--right?

Apparently, in light of your take on abortion, hormonal birth control, and barrier contraceptives, the only thing you do consider "dignified" in a female is for her to spend her life wallowing around like some darned old brood sow and squirt out ten or fifteen curtain-monkeys before finally dropping dead.

You are a sad woman. I wish better for you.

How can we take seriously the opinion of someone who rejects not only birth control pills but also condoms- even for married couples- as "demeaning".
Gee, what a surprise. You think abortion is "demeaning" as well. Ooh, ouch. That hurts.

What's with this rant?

You no doubt think women working outside their homes is "demeaning", even as you do it yourself.

No...I don't. However, women shouldn't abandon their children to daycare. That's demeaning to the dignity of motherhood.

I recall you once thanking a post by Deejay, in which he stated that stay-at-home mothers are the only women who are worth a damn, and all other women are worthless pieces of sh!t.
You thanked him for saying that about you.
I can link to the post, if you're planning on denying it.

Please do.

In short, you equate patriarchy and male dominion with 'dignity' (although you prefer to refer to said patriarchy as "Natural Law"; which in my opinion is sort of like icing a dog turd and trying to persuade others it's a cupcake).

You view equality between the sexes as "demeaning" or "degrading".

That being the case, I'm glad you consider me "demeaned", "degraded", and no doubt utterly depraved.
I'd be more worried if you agreed with me, or liked what I had to say.

Gee...thanks for telling me what i think...I'm sure it's clearly obvious to EVERYONE I really don't have a grasp on my position and I need the angry militant fem to school me. Thanks hon...let's set up a play date at the Chucky-Cheeses next time...then we can discuss this over a few beers while i wallow in my misery of being a brood sow and the "curtain-monkeys" pester me for more tokens--you can tell me what I ought to think instead of what you think I think :mrgreen: arty

 

[Jerry]

From a PL position, I believe the difference is in one instance a life is being killed, in another, there is no life to begin with. From a PC position, I do not believe that there is much of a difference, especially when it comes to 'souls' or 'personhood'. I'm not completely sure of these explanations, but this is how I see it in simple terms.

That's my take on it exactly.

 

[1069]

I recall you once thanking a post by Deejay, in which he stated that stay-at-home mothers are the only women who are worth a damn, and all other women are worthless pieces of sh!t.
You thanked him for saying that about you.
I can link to the post, if you're planning on denying it.

Please do.

Felicity and seven other forum members thanking Deejay for asserting that Felicity is "worthless, useless scum".

Deejay----> :beat <----- Felicity ("Thank you sir may I have another, thank you sir may I have another, thank you sir may I have another...")

 

[1069]

Actually prostituting (why use the euphemism?) demeans the dignity of all people also--not just women.

It's not a euphemism; sex work is what it's actually called (it's an all-encompassing, morally neutral umbrella term that covers everything from porn to stripping to actually selling sex for money).
"Prostituting" is a derogatory and defamatory term used by dumbarses who don't actually know anything about it, but want to talk sh!t about it anyway, simply because they enjoy listening to the sound of their own ignorant flapping yaps.

 

[Peralin]

THIRD time posting the same position...To marginalize a class of humans in such a way DEMEANS THE DIGNITY OF ALL HUMANS.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't hurt or "demean" any of us. I don't know why you think it would. It'd be nice if you would EXPLAIN your point instead of just stubbornly repeating the same thing over and over. How are we demeaned? By possibly finding treatments for cancer? By spending money on the possibility that lives will be saved in this process? That doesn't make any sense. Tell me how our dignity is demeaned, because I sure don't feel demeaned.

And I wasn't ignoring this position. I didn;t answer it because I didn't (and still don't) understand what you're talking about. That's why I said "please explain how stem-cell research would negatively impace society, because you may have a valid point there". I am not dismissing your position, I am asking you to clarify. Tell me how.

God is immutable, so "upset" isn't exactly correct...it would be contrary to God's justice.

Contrary to God's justice??? I'm sure he'd be pleased to have a new human being join him in heaven!

neutral--said human is aware of the injustice of his conception and death. Not that he is culpable--but the conception and death were objectively against justice.

Wait a second. Did you just say "injustice of his conception"?????? I understand you being against his death, but why against his conception? It may be unnatural but there is certainly nothing "unjust" about it. He deserves to get a chance to live! Justice is served.

No you wouldn't--BECAUSE to choose it, you have to exist at some point to have a WILL..NEVER existing, you are not such a creature. Nobody "chooses to be conceived" This whole thing is specious.

But it's better to exist than not exist. We all agree on that. SO we can assume that all embryos would feel the same way and be happy that they were concieved. I would think that clones, too, would be happy that they were concieved (if they are capable of such emotion). EVERYONE IS GLAD THAT THEY WERE CONCIEVED. Why would clones be different?

Put yourself in the clone's position. You were just concieved. You are going to die in a few months because a bunch of scientists want to grow your organs to try to help save some sick people. How do you feel?

You probably feel scared because you are going to die. But you, Felicity, believe in heaven, so there's really nothing to fear at all. After you die, you will get to live with God forever. Lucky you.

Aren't you glad that you were concieved? Your life may be grim, but your afterlife is gonna be lots of fun. Wouldn't you rather live forever in Paradise than not exist at all?

 

[Peralin]

If you can do it to one segment of the human population, you can rationalize doing to other segments.

No, I can't. I can only rationalize doing it to clones. I don't know why you think I can rationalize doing it to other humans too. I don't need you to tell me what I believe. I believe that it is okay to destroy clones only. Okay?

I can rationalize the executions of mass murderers (such as Hitler, Saddam) but not of teenagers or any other criminals.

Many people (I don't know about me personally) can rationalize torturing specifc prisoners of war to obtain information. But the same people would be very much against the torture of little children or of innocent civilians. But according to you, if you can rationalize the torture of one segment of the human population, you can rationalize trturing other segments also.

 

[1069]

How are we demeaned? By possibly finding treatments for cancer? By spending money on the possibility that lives will be saved in this process? That doesn't make any sense. Tell me how our dignity is demeaned, because I sure don't feel demeaned.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot: she thinks euthanasia, the Death with Dignity Act, and physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill are "demeaning" to the "dignity" of humans as well.

Apparently "demeaning" is a euphemism for "alleviating", and "dignity" is a euphemism for "suffering", in Felicityville.

:roll:

 

[Felicity]

Ah....Okay angry lady....let's look at this little bit here...

Here's what YOU said.

Originally Posted by 1069
And see, comments like that are why moms with real jobs both ridicule and pity people like you.
If you truly feel that crappy about yourself, do something to change your life, instead of making it everybody else's problem.

"Mom's with real jobs." eh?????:rofl If you can't see what is totally wrong about that, my explaining it to you won't help.

And if these "moms with real jobs" are ridiculing and pitying stay at home mothers...why are more women choosing to stay home?

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/64096

USATODAY.com - Census: 5.4 million mothers are choosing to stay at home

Nurseries feel pinch as mothers stay home-Life & Style-Women-Families-TimesOnline

Okay....And DeeJay's post...

there is no higher calling, no more important job than a stay at home home mom

I TOTALLY agree. Children deserve parents who think this way. It makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE in their lives and eventually the future of the world. The saying "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" is not cliché for nuthin'--it is because motherhood, and how well it's accomplished IMPACTS THE FUTURE.

the rest of you are nothing but part time, when it is convenient, losers who should not have had offspring because the timing was inconvenient
the reason the world is currently so ****ed up, is because so few women are stay at home moms

To address MY particular situation (as if it was any of your business :roll: ) My husband works on weekends only, and I am a part-time teacher. Mom AND Dad are home most of the time in my household--and when one isn't, the other is. We set it up this way FOR OUR KIDS. It inconveniences our career opportunities but our children are worth it.

Again--I agree that women who choose their convenience or career over the child they created are contributing to F-ing up the world--as DeeJay notes.

Stay at home moms are the most crucial, most important, most critical parts of sociiety

Again--totally agree!

any body else is worthless useless scum

These seven words in an otherwise spot-on position do not make the post not worth thanking.

Your problem is your own guilt and you can't even look at it. I don't know if it has to do with your career choices, or just the fact your mothering situation was f-ed up from the get-go due to your tender age...but damn, Ten...you are headed for bitter-old-ladyville at breakneck speed. Find some peace rather than being so damned defensive and aggressive, will you.:doh I promise you, you'll be a happier person.