raven_gaurd0
-
Posts
363 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by raven_gaurd0
-
-
OT: Necrophilia! 'A Little Piece of Heaven' by Avenged Sevenfold.
There are far better options then a crack house. But no matter how bad the situation may be, killing an innocent child is wrong.And to nick: A cow doesn't equal a human. But a young human not fully developed does.
I live in a one room apartment - no bedroom. It is, perhaps the size of a moderate living room. Certainly I don't use drugs, but there isn't room for a child to develop here. Certainly I would not want one to. Nor do I think I have the experience or time to raise one.
At any rate, Laura, you seem sensible enough to know, then, that you shouldn't get pregnant. However, if you were arrogant or foolish enough to have unprotected sex, and you got pregnant, whose fault is it that you now a carry a child within yourself? Really, it's yours. You don't have to concede to your boyfriend / husband if they refuse to wear a husband, and if they go ahead and do it anyway, it's rape.
Rape abortion, at any rate is different...
Adoption is always something to be considered then. If it's your fault, then why rob the child of life? That's a transfer of blame, or guilt, of the 'crime' (being unprotected and unplanned sex) and that's not right. That, in itself, IS a crime. Just because it doesn't have a voice doesn't make it a ready scapegoat to suffer for your stupidity.
If you really cannot raise a child because your family refuses to help (which I'd doubt) then you have the option of giving the child to an adoption agency (the Catholic Church is one) to be at least given the opportunity to live on this green earth.
EDIT: I think it'd be awesome if this got to page 485. :D
-
What ever happened to Ford?
P.S. Nice Crimson King avatar, Quoi. I got an album for Christmas.
-
And the reason for parental consent in abortion is simply because the daughter has made a mistake; a teenager who has messed up that bad before they're even out of the house needs to be rectified. Or at least, that's the general view that society has.
I ask again: if your daughter was pregnant, would you want to know it? It instills a sense of security.
The daughter hasn't made a mistake. Married couples get pregnant when they really really don't want to sometimes. Often when they are as incapable of raising a child as the teenage daughter is. But no one calls it a "mistake". As to the abortion, it is a responsible choice for her to get one. In fact, if she doesn't, her and the kid are pretty much f***ed. (I recognize that she could consider adoption as a 3rd option)
In regards to parents having the right to know, well, some (may i even go as far as saying many?) parents arn't exactly perfect decision makers themselves. They may force her to have the child due to a decision based off of stubborn religious principles :shame: . And do you really want your parents knowing when you're pregnant? And do they really need to know? If a doctor MUST notify parents, then that would encourage self-abortions, and hidden pregnancies. (young women should feel comfortable in getting the attention they need)
Theres a lot of things we want to know. But you have to remember we are all people, young and old, with our individual rights to privacy. :thumbsup:
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't read this.
Erm, people under 18 don't really have rights...they have a few, but not many. They have writ of Habeus Corpus, life, liberty, and pursuit of property, but that's pretty much it.
Also, Nick, a cow doesn't have the potential to turn into a human. That's what the difference here is. And it's pretty big.
-
Theres a Pro and Con to this in reguards to pregnant teens: There ARE times when something goes wrong during sex such as the condom breaks etc and you may get pregnant. In this situation the Girl might have either strict parents, Beliefs or simply couldn't bere to tell them, in which this err... policy thing entitles her to. the downside is some girls who think sex is a sport ( and we ALL know there are girls like this only 13-18 years of age) think of it as a escape route if it happens and doesnt realy teach them much of a lesson, unless the Doctors notice her in once every month then i think her parents might want to know. :|
The girl can be in there once a month, and under this plan it'd still be illegal for the Doc to tell her parents about it.
Like I said, too much control for the teens. And time has proven, again and again, that teenagers and children are not decision makers. (Melanine and gray-matter, anybody? I think I posted that science somewhere else...)
-
Communist in name. I fully don't believe it works on a big scale. I have other reasons for believing that Americans are irresponsible. (Bush? Iraq War? A Civil Rights movement 50 years ago? They only abolished slavery 150 years ago, and that was decades after the rest of the civilized world had moved on.)
At any rate, I feel I may have been misjudging something in the resolution and would like to take a slightly altered stance.
I do not approve of abortion, but theoretically, without my opinion being added, I would think it be best for the parents to have to know about this ground-breaking advancement in their daughters' life, but not necessarily have the power to force their daughter to keep said baby. I, of course, would have them keep it and do their best, with the steady and loving support of their family and hopefully the father, perhaps with adoption at the end of the road.
Sex is NOT something to be taken lightly. While abstinence without facts is hardly good, mere education isn't a solution either. We need to educate fully, illustrating the severe complications that could come along with unprotected sexual intercourse. Education with encouraged abstinence under the age of 18, I feel, is the best way to go.
-
Would you kill something that hasn't even proved itself in the real world? All I'm going to say.
Absolutely. After all, its just a thing and it doesn't have life.
But is it the right thing to do?
Aww I was hoping a grammar nazi would notice what I did there. :(
But onto the point; how is destroying an object immoral? An object consisting of a few hundred cells I may add, cells that do not have feelings or human life into it. An object with cells that numbers equivalent to a day's worth of scratching off skin cells and a shower's worth of hair clogging the tube. It is not a human being but as an object and thus should be treated as such.
Its incorrect calling the unborn child a something, where it should be called a someone. Nick the Smartass strikes again. >=D
Well, that ball of cells is considered a person by the legislature of the United States in the case of homicide.
Look at the case of Peterson v. Peterson, a trivial court case of a husband murdering his pregnant wife and being convicted of double homicide. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laci_Peterson).
-
FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT. It doesnt mean you have to get an abortion. Just means you have the FREEDOM to make a choice. Which, as Americans, we deserve
I'd disagree. Americans tend to be the most irresponsible with their choices, and there is the opposite side that values the LIFE over the CHOICE.
So by that logic (life over choice) you're against the right to bear arms as well? I mean guns kill and you state that Americans are irresponsible...
Note I'm personally pro-choice and anti-firearms but I'm playing devil's advocate slightly here
Yes, I really am. Guns are abhorrent.
And I fixed your size 'cause I'm awesome. =D>
-
-
Mmm. I'm going to go edit the front. I don't want this to turn into a debate over Church v. Government or about the wonders and the marvel of Our Lord Obama, (note: I'm communist by party and centrist by policy; I disapprove of McCain and Obama, so don't call me a partisan 8-) ) or about the ethics of the Catholic Church.
But yes, private institutions have the right to do what they want. Honestly, if the Catholic hospitals closed down in America if FOCA is passed, the institutions will just be moved to probably more needy countries, so don't play this as an ethics card against the Church. We do consider it murder, and knocking down restrictions around abortion is, to the Church, a lot like easing up on the murder punishment.
Warren has a point, though. A drastic shutdown is a little uncalled for, but I think that the removal of so many restrictions around abortion is pretty radical, too. If I were the Pope right now, I'd try to make a move so that the Church wouldn't be put in such a stranglehold of 'practice abortion or disband'.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT. It doesnt mean you have to get an abortion. Just means you have the FREEDOM to make a choice. Which, as Americans, we deserve
I'd disagree. Americans tend to be the most irresponsible with their choices, and there is the opposite side that values the LIFE over the CHOICE.
-
Would you kill something that hasn't even proved itself in the real world? All I'm going to say.
Absolutely. After all, its just a thing and it doesn't have life.
One person's idea of right and wrong is nothing unless it is with others. 'Right' nowadays isn't a matter of moral principle, it's a matter of whatever the majority wants.
I suppose it's always been that way, but it's getting much more specific and debatable nowadays.
And, I understand that sex is a natural human urge, but I think that that's a lame excuse for having it so young. I mean, I often have the natural human urge to kill somebody because I hate them, but I don't. I think that self-control is just a little important.
-
In my opinion, this is the right thing to do. If something happens, and an underage woman does become pregnant, it is her right to decide if she wants to go through with the pregnancy. It is a life changing event that will affect how she lives the rest of her life. Just because she has done something that is morally wrong for her age does not mean should she be punished for the rest of her life.
I must also point out that I am a healthy proponent of adoption. I think it's silly for somebody to keep the baby for 18 years if they economically or emotionally cannot, but abortion is a terrible alternative that should never be used unless the baby is threatening the life of the mother and cannot be saved itself.
-
There is a reason why there are councilors and leaders and sages in the way; you don't know what decisions to make all the time. I don't think anybody would disagree me when I say that the decision to do an abortion is life-altering at a minimum, and that any pregnant 15 year old girl who doesn't even have the proper decision making skills NOT to have school actually has the clarity to decide what to do with the baby.
Abortion may very well be the only viable solution for her, but to tackle it alone is the stupidest thing I ever heard of. You would need counsel - I mean, there are other things that you can do. But I guarantee that getting rid of the punishment for having underage and irresponsible sex is not the right thing to do.
I mean, if we got rid of the penalty for committing a murder (20+ years) do you honestly think that the murder rate would go DOWN? It's the same concept here. All this does is advocate underage sex and encourages the idea that nouveau-dans la mondeteenagers know better than time-tested adults.
-
Aw. Your Luke Skywalker sig is gone.
I don't know, I felt sketchy about writing that part. My point in writing it, though I represented it poorly, was that the FOCA is really a breach in one way or the other about party morals.
And no, they will be 'forced' to perform abortions. While nobody is going to do it gunpoint, it'll be considered malpractice to deny them 'treatment' on grounds any less than insurance. Like, if you go to a normal doctors agency and ask for a flu shot, if they deny it because they don't feel flu shots are ethical, you can sue.
And the reason for parental consent in abortion is simply because the daughter has made a mistake; a teenager who has messed up that bad before they're even out of the house needs to be rectified. Or at least, that's the general view that society has.
I ask again: if your daughter was pregnant, would you want to know it? It instills a sense of security.
-
I, personally, think that the most viable solution is a reductions of the out-of-controls meat industry, but eradication by any means is a ridiculous concept. We could stand to produce less cows a year, perhaps by stopping forced procreation, and that would reduce global food supply on meat and raise it in terms of vegetation, while still not overflowing the market with newly diverted food sources.
We could always stand to use less cows. Those things are terrible. The less amount of organic compound CH4 we have, the better.
Mmm...organic molecule chains...
At any rate, a balance is what's important. Less meat, more green, is, I feel, the way to go, but the extremists who shove to one end of the spectrum aren't really helping.
-
Dieting can be a problem, because excessive thin-ness can be caused by a simply fast metabolism. I, personally, am old enough to be 200 but I weigh a measly 110. I've gorged myself sick on McDonalds, chocolate, and protein shakes, but nothing works.
I've conceded that I am doomed to be forever thin. Though my pelvis, since it's so pronounced, serves as a good armrest for whoever wants it. \
-
The Freedom of Choice Act, which I hear has been signed off by Obama (but that doesn't matter) is a Federal mandate (ie, will override states' rights) that will overturn some many state regulations and place a new code for the practice of abortion. Here are just the things that it will terminate:
- State abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states
- Forty-four states laws concerning parental involvement
- Forty states laws on restricting later-term abortions
- Forty-six states conscience protection laws for individual health care providers
- Twenty-seven states conscience protection laws for institutions
- Thirty-eight states bans on partial-birth abortions
- Thirty-three states laws on requiring counseling before an abortion
- Sixteen states laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion
This is...Wow. :shock:
So girls at any age who are irresponsible enough to get pregnant can now go and get abortions, with no repercussion, and, furthermore, without even altering their parents?
Remember when you were a small child, and you'd do something stupid and irresponsible? Your parents would learn about it from one medium and then punish you by putting you in time out. Do you know why they did this? Because they wanted to teach you a lesson! They wanted to teach you, 'What you did was wrong, and you will be punished so you won't do it again!'
Sex may or may not be bad, but getting pregnant when you're underage is, yeah, bad.
Let's say you're a father / mother, I mean, wouldn't you at least want to hear if your daughter was irresponsible enough to go off and have sex with some dude you didn't know about or even hear about?
How is this supporting 'planned parenting' if it's encouraging reckless underage endangerment?
And it even overturns the right of the doctors to refuse to do abortions, which means that many privately founded and funded hospitals, such as Catholic and Jewish foundations, will either be given the option to have to give abortions or close down. My own diocese has made it clear that if this act is passed, it will close it's hospital down to preserve it's ideals on abortion.
Furthermore, the FOCA would make it legal to do partial birth abortions and late-term abortions. Even pro-choicers have to concede that killing a baby who is quite obviously a human being at this point with the only difference being that it still has it's umbilical cord, must be unethical.
For conservatives, this is a huge step in the way of a completely government controlled society that can change at the whims of the Senate, and for liberals, this is a huge breach on the sanctity of the rights of the family to know what's going on with such sensitive subjects like sex.
I don't know. If this gets passed, I'm packing up and going to Russia, where there is at least some sanity.
...and because they're goin' back to communism WHOO!
EDIT: I got the statistics from: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/ ... e-act.html though I did some more digging to find the number of states that it violated and mixed around with the wording a bit. (The way I made it sound at first was unintelligent and unclear.)
-
Well, Serpent, you'll note that I did say that melanine actually peaks at 30. But 18 is the societal age in which your parents say, 'hell, he's got enough, let's see how he does' and kicks you out the door.
And while you can take it out at any time, there will always be a hole in your nose, and that's not really a societal norm. If the ring is what I think it is (few cm's in thickness) then even taking it out after wearing it for an extended period will leave the cartilage of your nose rather bulbous and distended.
I'm just saying, you don't see successful people with face jewelry. (Steve Jobs, anyone?)
-
Yeah...have you ever heard the saying, 'Just because you can, doesn't mean you should?' I could probably rape a baby. But that's totally not kosher.
Vegetarians who are vegetarian under the ground of global food conservation I understand, appreciate, and encourage, but I hate vegans who do it for the sake of animal rights. Animals are, in fact, a food source. There isn't any real difference between a plant and a cow in my opinion, other than the fact that one has a more recognizable organic system. I've spent a lot of time studying the organic functions of plants and animals, and they're both incredibly similar.
That being said, it is, as a rule of thumb, incredibly inefficient to eat meat. (For each 100g of corn put into a cow, you get 1g of meat out.) For that, I think it's great for those of us who feel that it simply helps more to be a vegetarian. But don't feed me animal rights. Animals, for the most part, don't have rights. Yes, you shouldn't be over cruel and be garishly inhuman towards them, but for the love of whatever, there is no way that it's ever going to be practical to put cows and chickens back on the prairie and still expect to keep up with the demands of an ever-growing population.
If you really want to stop animal cruelty in the slaughterhouse, stop the massive procreation, don't -not- eat the meat. Because if you don't, somebody else will.
-
Yeah, Stranger was short.
Try Ishmael if you can find it. That was a more contemporary philosophy book.
-
I've read Kafka, the Republic, Mein Kaumpf, (sp?), Locke's Second Treatise...and a lot of worthless fantasy stuff.
The only philosophy book I've really liked was Sun Tzu's Art of War.
-
I'm with the sane people.
Harry Potter was great until about the beginning of the sixth. Then it ALL became about Harry's [cabbage] problems that nobody gives a flying [bleep] about, and everything spiraled down from there.
Ah well. I'm just waiting for the 8th book; "Dumbledore and Voldemort's Erotic Adventures."
I think I just disproved Rowling as an author.
...[bleep]in' Rowling.
-
Well, if you're Atheist, then I suppose God can't kill you. Assuming you're Atheist, then God is merely an idea justified through a collection of events credited to a non-existent being, or miracles.
Nope, even if you're an atheist God can kill you.
It's called a crusader.
HOLAY WAHR!
-
Permanent additions and subtractions to your body are not legally your choice until your 18 for a reason.
Scientific studies show that the amount of melanine (the protein lipid that covers the nerve tail connecting the two sets of nuclei that transmit messages and thought) and gray-matter in the brain is a very strong factor in proper, logical and intelligent decision making, and, to be honest, people under the age of 18 (up to 30, actually,) don't have it developed all the way. It's perfectly logical for your parents to deny you the right to pierce your nose. Ears are different, in my opinion, but a nose piercing is a major addition to your body, permanent as well.
Young people (and I do include myself in that category) don't understand the world as well as they think. Trust me, unless you want to go 'starving artist' you won't be allowed to enjoy that pierced nose for very long anyway.
And you'll like like a douchebag, but that's my opinion and you shouldn't base any decisions on that.
-
I feel I should pay more attention to my own threads.
But, Muslims...yeah, it's a sense of gaining back something that they have felt that they have lost, and that thing (their religion, which defines EVERYTHING about them) is more precious than the lives of the people who are trying to destroy that for them.
Abortion: Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)
in Off-Topic
Posted
It's a western ideal that life is the most sacred thing in the world. The people who don't believe in that we call radicals - they were just bombing the [cabbage] out of Israel a couple of days ago.
There are no conditions of human life. It is sacred, and anything sacred is worth protecting.
Putting conditions on life is exactly what Hitler did to Jews in the 1930's and '40's. "They are humans, but they are also Jews [fetus'] and are therefore expendable whenever I wish in order to make my life better."
It makes me sick to think that people like you are the people who intend to lead our country for the next 4 years.