Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: United States: Election Time
Parents are the guardians of their kids. They're not the owners of their children. That's why parents can choose some things of their children's way of life but not whether they should live or not.
And Sasha didn't say your choice of your life is determined only by yourself. Sasha says your choice to live or not is determined only by yourself, the moment you can make this choice (a baby of 6 months is obviously in no position to make that call as it has no realization of what that choice is whatsoever or at least it can't express it).
And Sasha didn't say your choice of your life is determined only by yourself. Sasha says your choice to live or not is determined only by yourself, the moment you can make this choice (a baby of 6 months is obviously in no position to make that call as it has no realization of what that choice is whatsoever or at least it can't express it).
F..ck !! :-)
All my answers to you gone away by a wrong manipulation of keyboard !! :-D...
Just to resume...
My first answer you quoted... You don't answer to this as i answered well to this... But i agree that wish and reality are non similar... But in a close future, it iwill happen with the luck of knowledge of science ;-)
I don't agree that you said wer are not owned by our parents in uterus... the existence of embryo is totally determined by the body of the mother...you wanna talk about morality, i talk about biological statement.
Another question Sasha ? Are you a parent ? If not, it is not so important.
Yes, I am. Twice. But how's that relevant? Am I more or less competent for this discussion then? I had parents. I think that should be enough.
Here, you obvisoulsy don't read my bold part of sentence :-p
In the following part, about the right of child and parents... again you use moral and i use logic... If you give the right to let live a child for a parent who don't want him (rape for example), both have not the same right... If you permit abortion for parent, parent will get reight and not the child... Logic... You never can have both in the same time...
About the last paragraph about sex... Well...to resume i prefer freedom than abstinence :-)
Btw, as your morale was the rule before, thus, if let live the unborn child is the rule for the goodness of him, why you forbid him to decide to die whenver he wants ??? You decide to stop the right when you want then ? (i agree that i change a bit the discussion ;-)...)
All my answers to you gone away by a wrong manipulation of keyboard !! :-D...
Just to resume...
My first answer you quoted... You don't answer to this as i answered well to this... But i agree that wish and reality are non similar... But in a close future, it iwill happen with the luck of knowledge of science ;-)
I don't agree that you said wer are not owned by our parents in uterus... the existence of embryo is totally determined by the body of the mother...you wanna talk about morality, i talk about biological statement.
Another question Sasha ? Are you a parent ? If not, it is not so important.
Yes, I am. Twice. But how's that relevant? Am I more or less competent for this discussion then? I had parents. I think that should be enough.
Here, you obvisoulsy don't read my bold part of sentence :-p
In the following part, about the right of child and parents... again you use moral and i use logic... If you give the right to let live a child for a parent who don't want him (rape for example), both have not the same right... If you permit abortion for parent, parent will get reight and not the child... Logic... You never can have both in the same time...
About the last paragraph about sex... Well...to resume i prefer freedom than abstinence :-)
Btw, as your morale was the rule before, thus, if let live the unborn child is the rule for the goodness of him, why you forbid him to decide to die whenver he wants ??? You decide to stop the right when you want then ? (i agree that i change a bit the discussion ;-)...)
Parents are the guardians of their kids. They're not the owners of their children.
Did i say sometinhg else ? No :-)... As i consider a child as soon as he is born :-)... Before that he is a possibility... If i want him, i try to give him all chances to live otherwise, he did not exist :-)
That's why parents can choose some things of their children's way of life but not whether they should live or not.
Can choose ? You 're funny... You can delete the word "can"... they choose the bed, the food, the clothes, the temperature of the water and so on... A little by little, the child becomes owner of his own point of view to determine and negociate his own choices...
And Sasha didn't say your choice of your life is determined only by yourself. Sasha says your choice to live or not is determined only by yourself, the moment you can make this choice (a baby of 6 months is obviously in no position to make that call as it has no realization of what that choice is whatsoever or at least it can't express it).
Sorry, here my english is not good enough to understand you...
Did i say sometinhg else ? No :-)... As i consider a child as soon as he is born :-)... Before that he is a possibility... If i want him, i try to give him all chances to live otherwise, he did not exist :-)
That's why parents can choose some things of their children's way of life but not whether they should live or not.
Can choose ? You 're funny... You can delete the word "can"... they choose the bed, the food, the clothes, the temperature of the water and so on... A little by little, the child becomes owner of his own point of view to determine and negociate his own choices...
And Sasha didn't say your choice of your life is determined only by yourself. Sasha says your choice to live or not is determined only by yourself, the moment you can make this choice (a baby of 6 months is obviously in no position to make that call as it has no realization of what that choice is whatsoever or at least it can't express it).
Sorry, here my english is not good enough to understand you...
I don't agree that you said wer are not owned by our parents in uterus... the existence of embryo is totally determined by the body of the mother...you wanna talk about morality, i talk about biological statement.
The abortion issue cannot be discussed without the moral aspect. E.g. a quadriplegic's existence may be totally determined by the country he lives in (or even his family). If that country (or family) makes such set of goal priorities that they see quadriplegics as mere obstacles to make these goals, would that give this country the right to unplug life support and kill them? Can this issue be discussed at all without the aspect of morality? Why are you able to exclude moral aspect from the abortion issue and not from the forcible euthanasia of quadriplegics?
Here, you obvisoulsy don't read my bold part of sentence :-p
Ah sorry. I did read the bold part but I didn't understand that you're just curious about it. ;)
In the following part, about the right of child and parents... again you use moral and i use logic... If you give the right to let live a child for a parent who don't want him (rape for example), both have not the same right... If you permit abortion for parent, parent will get reight and not the child... Logic... You never can have both in the same time...
You relativize rights as though all rights are equally valued. The right to live should be superimposed to all other rights except in very extreme circumstances like war or other examples when a sacrifice of life is needed to save even more lives.
The main problem is that you refuse to recognize the inherent embryo's ability to be a person by himself just because of its temporary weak condition when he needs other people to survive (who doesn't?) and doesn't have the obvious characteristics of a person. Legally, the only 2 things that can prevent him from having his deserved life are either an Act of God or murder.
The abortion issue cannot be discussed without the moral aspect. E.g. a quadriplegic's existence may be totally determined by the country he lives in (or even his family). If that country (or family) makes such set of goal priorities that they see quadriplegics as mere obstacles to make these goals, would that give this country the right to unplug life support and kill them? Can this issue be discussed at all without the aspect of morality? Why are you able to exclude moral aspect from the abortion issue and not from the forcible euthanasia of quadriplegics?
Here, you obvisoulsy don't read my bold part of sentence :-p
Ah sorry. I did read the bold part but I didn't understand that you're just curious about it. ;)
In the following part, about the right of child and parents... again you use moral and i use logic... If you give the right to let live a child for a parent who don't want him (rape for example), both have not the same right... If you permit abortion for parent, parent will get reight and not the child... Logic... You never can have both in the same time...
You relativize rights as though all rights are equally valued. The right to live should be superimposed to all other rights except in very extreme circumstances like war or other examples when a sacrifice of life is needed to save even more lives.
The main problem is that you refuse to recognize the inherent embryo's ability to be a person by himself just because of its temporary weak condition when he needs other people to survive (who doesn't?) and doesn't have the obvious characteristics of a person. Legally, the only 2 things that can prevent him from having his deserved life are either an Act of God or murder.
It can be discussed without the morale aspect... But you don't want to :-p... And you want to discuss about your morale poiont fo view which totally differ from mine ;-)
And why i have to recognize your point fo view please ? :-D
I just ask for some question to know more about your first comment and just try to argue with my views...
And why i have to recognize your point fo view please ? :-D
I just ask for some question to know more about your first comment and just try to argue with my views...
Just to inform you about my morale point of view if you could ever be interested in :-)
I'd let the right to any parents to abort if their difficulty to maintain a fair level of education, love for the future child is too hard, too dangerous psychologically and physically... Then, if you (as following your religious point fo view or anyone else who follows his own morale) want to keep the unwanted child because of your morale and you feel clear with that, i'm ok with that, but if some other persons prefer to abort, i'm ok with that too...
It is like i'm ok with leaving you having your believe even i don't believe in anything... I just prefer my morale than yours... Obvisously and will always try to practise it ;-)
(edited)
I'd let the right to any parents to abort if their difficulty to maintain a fair level of education, love for the future child is too hard, too dangerous psychologically and physically... Then, if you (as following your religious point fo view or anyone else who follows his own morale) want to keep the unwanted child because of your morale and you feel clear with that, i'm ok with that, but if some other persons prefer to abort, i'm ok with that too...
It is like i'm ok with leaving you having your believe even i don't believe in anything... I just prefer my morale than yours... Obvisously and will always try to practise it ;-)
(edited)
So aborting one week before the projected birth date is no problem for you?
Ignoring to be pregnant for 8 month would clearly be a good thing to abort, no ?
Well, ok, it can be discussed without the morale aspect but I can't. It makes no sense to me.
And you didn't answer my quadriplegic dilemma. Does a country need to provide healthcare and life support to quadriplegic that wants to live? Why wouldn't we forcibly kill terminally ill patients? It's more convenient than having to care about them. What's the difference here?
And you didn't answer my quadriplegic dilemma. Does a country need to provide healthcare and life support to quadriplegic that wants to live? Why wouldn't we forcibly kill terminally ill patients? It's more convenient than having to care about them. What's the difference here?
Ignoring to be pregnant for 8 month would clearly be a good thing to abort, no ?
I would prescribe to you a therapy of watching videos of such abortions with mandatory giving name of your preference to child's remains.
I would prescribe to you a therapy of watching videos of such abortions with mandatory giving name of your preference to child's remains.
I don't understand you here... Don't you see i teased Levitate ? To be more serious to the question of Levitate you tried to jam me with my point of view... If a mother learn about his pregnancy only 1 week before birth of baby, it is clearly that she is ignorant about what is a baby and it would be a preferable choice for her to tell her to abort :-)... The question of Levitate is useless because all cases of abortion are talked in the first weeks of pregnancy :-)
And you didn't answer my quadriplegic dilemma. Does a country need to provide healthcare and life support to quadriplegic that wants to live? Why wouldn't we forcibly kill terminally ill patients? It's more convenient than having to care about them. What's the difference here?
I have another solution here : Let understand what is the position of living and dying for everyone... My aim is to see every old person valid or not decide to die for the goodness of humanity.... Thus your question would be useless... Otherwise, your question depends on many factors : in which country you live, in which side you are... What is your own goal ?...
I don't understand you here... Don't you see i teased Levitate ? To be more serious to the question of Levitate you tried to jam me with my point of view... If a mother learn about his pregnancy only 1 week before birth of baby, it is clearly that she is ignorant about what is a baby and it would be a preferable choice for her to tell her to abort :-)... The question of Levitate is useless because all cases of abortion are talked in the first weeks of pregnancy :-)
Euhm, I must be blind. You said that abortion was for you no problem, without mentioning any condition (like limited to the first X weeks of the pregnancy). That's why I asked that question.
Euhm, I must be blind. You said that abortion was for you no problem, without mentioning any condition (like limited to the first X weeks of the pregnancy). That's why I asked that question.
I knew you could ask this question after my point of view about abortion... That's why i wrote you tried to jam me (sorry i googled : tu as essayé de me coincer)... I put no conditions in this because clearly all cases are resolved in the first weeks of pregnancy ;-)
As soon as I saw 30+ new postings in this topic, I knew Sasha has joined the conversation :p
This is getting off topic btw
This is getting off topic btw
True... Let's go back to the american election talk show...