How do you feel when you teach more than 68 students?
let's go Brandon
Hello I am looking for a French speaking penal feel free to message me
What means Feminism for you ?
You're free to explain your point of view. Just stay open-minded and respect other people's answers.
| 18839 - Réponse de Shoeva235 , 13 ans (Israel) - 2023-11-29 >> NEW|
|I like this question. I think feminism is both trying to get equal rights and celebrating them, celebrating being strong or smart or independent girls and women, for example by making books about women who did great things. Sort of like pride for queers. That is one kind. But if you are less lucky and you experience sexism, which I think all of us do at some time or other, feminism is rebelling about that, even if it is quietly. For example: in Israel in most shuls (synagogues) only boys and men can lead Tefilla (the prayers), I think making a shul like ours where women can also participate is feminism. By the way though I dont want people to think of Israel as a sexist country because all in all it is pretty accepting and also countries which are supposed to be accepting have prejudice
alas, maybe one day well all be a little freer.|
| 18830 - Réponse de Maia60 , 13 ans (France) - 2023-08-26 |
|Sorry for the last message.. I don't know how to delete it. I sent it because I thought the first one wasn't published, it was for trying...|
| 18829 - Réponse de Maia60 (France) - 2023-08-26 |
| 18828 - Réponse de Maia 60 , 13 ans (France) - 2023-08-26 |
|Feminism mean women have same tignt than men.
But it isn't as easy, because all our live, we are not in the same situations. For example, parents inscribe their son to soccer, but not their daughter. After, there are stereotypes about men. I think feminism should get another name and be more about men. Women know it is not equal, but we cannot keep making an equal world with just women. We need men. We need them to understand that all the stereotypes are fake.
There is a lot of men's stereotypes. For example think that he will look "gay" is stupid. It is a stereotype about
2.have a women attitude, and say that a women attitude is bad, Wich male think women is worse than men...
It is very complicated, because we think equally is preticaly done when it isn't.
It is ok when a girl makes "boy things", but not when a boy does "girl things". A girl can wear all she wants and do all she wants, but if a boy wears a dress for example, people will make him feel it is not ok. Why? Because it is a woman thing and women are inferior so it make him inferior...
Do you guys understand how far it goes...
Sexism is an enemy for all of us. It doesn't mean we have to change it all, but know and accept differences is well.
I hope no more boys of my school will thee to go back to my kitchen next year.
| 18824 - Réponse de Paisley5 (USA) - 2023-06-20 |
|It really depends which wave of feminism we are referring to. Back in the day, it was much more "men and women should have equal rights." Now, I'd argue that it's turned into saying that women need to emulate men to be equal, but simultaneously being "women need more rights than men." For the first part, it's things like women transitioning to be men, or men transitioning to be women and winning all sorts of competitions. That's not exactly making us equal. Rather, it's placing men against women yet again. It's celebrating women who make themselves men (which only glorifies men and not women) or celebrating men destroying women in sporting events (which is taking opportunities away from women). On the other hand, things like the "me too" movement have only made it seem as though women deserve more rights than men. It's always "believe women" in the cases of rape. In the name of "feminism," companies put in quotas for specific numbers of female workers. Women are literally hired because there have to be a minimum number of women in the job. That sounds like enabling and giving women more rights than men. A man might not get a job, even if he's the best pick, because the company needs to hire a less-skilled woman.
Now if I were to say what feminism means to me, it's having equal rights for men and women (which I think we have) and celebrating the things that make women women. Celebrating childbirth, motherhood, etc. Not suppressing it and saying you've done more with your life if you skipped having kids and simply worked. It's empowering true femininity, rather than putting male attributes on a pedestal and coercing women to emulate them.
| 18823 - Réponse de Mia 68 (United States) - 2023-06-17 |
|Let me explain femenism in my life.
I go to school and get dress coded for exposing my sholders beacuse the boys will look at them. So they make me go into a closet will clothes that have never been washed that are too small and change. They never do anything to prevent boys for looking at me in a bad way. I just feel like girls should have the same freedom as boys.
| 18821 - Réponse de Brookelyn 77 , 16 ans (USA ) - 2023-06-04 |
|For me it depends on the the time period you want to define it in as the definition often changes with the time and its policies and politics|
| 18813 - Réponse de Anne30 , 14 ans (USA) - 2022-12-28 |
|women are equal to men, pretty simple|
| 18810 - Réponse de Xenia42 (中国) - 2022-12-25 |
|Yes, wars of aggression and militarism are wrong|
| 18783 - Réponse de Odile193 , 14 ans (France ) - 2022-10-23 |
| Could you Tell First why is the war wrong after you ? I mean of course war is wrong and every one knows it but why do you think wat is wrong ? And at first what is war ?|
| 18776 - Réponse de Levi73 , 15 ans (USA) - 2022-10-21 |
|How so? I would like more of an explanation than "the war is wrong" now this doesn't mean I support the war and the costs that come with it of course, but I'd like to hear your view.|
I hope the conflit in ukraina will solve it and I aprecciate that those people are fighting for theyr country .
| 18805 - Réponse de Nicolas152 (France) - 2022-11-28 |
|I totally agree with you Arthur.
My message was destined to Suca, not you.
| 18804 - Réponse de Artur 173 , 13 ans (Russia) - 2022-11-28 |
|Good day, Nicolas I wasn't trying to say that fighting is OK by sending this message , I was trying to convey the idea that everyone should be aware of the current situation because if you don't understand the reason for war you shouldn't get in this situation. And of course I don't appreciate the violence.|
| 18802 - Réponse de Nicolas152 (France) - 2022-11-24 |
|Really, Suca ? You appreciate people fighting (...) ? dying ?
Personally, I appreciate PEACE, not war. And I'm totally sure both Russian and Ukrainian people would like peace.
You are totally right, Arthur, political situation is not so easy to understand, particularly in Western countries (like mine) where we are totally submerged with fake news. Don't worry, Arthur, many people from France can understand you, and we like both Ukrainian and Russian people.
| 18801 - Réponse de Arthur173 , 13 ans (Russia) - 2022-11-24 |
|Firstly learn to write Ukraine in capital letters and understand the political situation in the world before getting in this situation|
I want to run for US president later on in years. What should I talk about? Let me know?
| 18777 - Réponse de Levi73 , 15 ans (USA) - 2022-10-21 |
|Well, what you should talk about depends on what party you're looking to be in, so what's your party?|
Hello, I am twelve yrs old and I hope that I will someday run for a US persiend.
Here are my ideas:
1# Medcal care should be free. ( To be honest, most of the US healthcare system should be re-written.)
#2 Adbrotson should be legal (unless it is rape).
#3 To urge more people to be aware of climate change. BUT we should be sending trillions of dollars on it either.
#4 If you kill someone out of self-defense you should be charged with something. I am not saying murder/manslaughter though. But you did end a life...
#5 Books should be banned just because a group of people feels offended by them.
- this is just my opinion, pls don't come at me- I probably will update later ( I am still 12 still learning new things) see you then! Sorry if there are any grammar or spelling mistakes. BYE!!
| 18831 - Réponse de Maia60 , 13 ans (France) - 2023-08-26 |
|I am not totally ok with you, Malaya.
#1 yes. It is right you American should do this. We do it it in France yet.
#2 ? Wtf! I didn't understand you message... Abortion should ALWAYS be allowed. My body my choice. What happened in USA about abortion is a tragedy. I am really sad about it.
#3climate action is very important because we will die if we don't act now.
#4 I didn't understand it... Anybody should be killed. Even if you kill someone, they tell you to stop Kling people, so for explaining you, for make you understand they kill you. It makes no sense. I am against killing people. You can't tell someone to do not do something and do it to this person... But the killers should go to prison, sure.
#5 books shouldn't be banished just because they offend them! A book is culture, it is free. If you control the culture, it is a not a free country. Why does those book offend this person's? Because of blood or violence, or because of a too free ideology??? Stop killing culture and let writers, artist, creators, thinkers, everybody think all they want and express think, without discriminating anybody.
But keep thinking Malaya. It is the best think a human can do. After you have thought a lot and see all the points of you and you didn't just listen to Donald Trump, you'll can act.
| 18772 - Réponse de Levi73 , 15 ans (USA) - 2022-10-15 |
|Okay so, I do agree our healthcare system is all messed up, though free may not be what we need.
I have a question for you, you say abortion should be legal? Now wouldn't that virtually be the same as ending a life as you say shouldn't go unnoticed in a case of self defense? Of course if you meant it shouldn't be illegal unless in the case of rape I agree, with the added thought of medical reasons where there isn't a chance the baby nor mother will survive, better save one than none.
The climate change thing I half agree with, personally I don't think it's as big of a deal they claim it to be and it certainly shouldn't be having money we don't have thrown at it, now I do believe that water pollution is a problem and I would certainly support the decision to make people more aware, but climate change is currently the same as waving a cardboard sign saying aliens are coming soon even though you were doing the same thing in the 70's 50 years ago claiming the world would end in 1984 of something along those lines.
The self defense charge is unreasonable in my opinion because you were given the right of life by natural law, which mind you is what the constitution tries it's best to follow, under that natural law you also have the right to defend your life if someone tries taking it away, to charge someone from a fine to time is to revoke them of that right to defend themselves and it also fogs over your right to the 2nd amendment of the constitution.
And finally for the books thing, I believe you meant shouldn't there, and yes I agree.
Now, don't feel I'm attacking you here, it isn't my attention to hurt anyone with my opinion, but I only hope you consider the word of people like me, who if you were to become President or anything within the US government would be your audience and judgement for how ever long you serve.
Good luck with your dreams, but make sure you learn this government well before you play the games the officials play, the world is not the flowers and rainbows like it may seem. . .
| 18734 - Réponse de Josiah A.208 , 16 ans (United States) - 2022-04-22 |
| Hello, Malaya. Good job on standing up for what you believe in. Don't let the haters degrade you. America may be divided, but I believe that our generation of people (Gen Z) can make a big change in today's society.
| 18727 - Réponse de Sophie11 , 16 ans (UK) - 2022-03-27 |
|1. Obviously coming from the UK, "free" healthcare is a luxury - i say "free" because we use tax-payer money to pay for the healthcare. BUT, the issue with the UK's healthcare system is that it is wildly underfunded by the Conservative government - so yes and no, the healthcare system in the US shouldn't be free - but it should be cheaper, and easier to access healthcare
2. ALL abortion should be legal - if you criminalise abortion you are only banning SAFE abortions, people who can get pregnant (and don't want kids) will still have an abortion
3. books shouldn't be banned just because a group of people are offended by them, banning a book - say Animal Farm by George Orwell, which has a lot of socialist/anti-capitalist views within them, teaches people valuable lessons, like challenging the status quo of a society.
I also think that you should be commended for taking an interest in politics at such a young age
| 18710 - Réponse de Jack100 , 16 ans (United States) - 2021-12-12 |
|I don't agree with a lot of things you said, but keep developing your views!|
| 18708 - Réponse de Hazel75 , 11 ans (USA) - 2021-11-18 |
|I'm confused. Which parts should be legal and which ones shouldn't be? Cause if you say "Abortions should be legal (unless it's ****)" that seems like you shouldn't be able to have one if it is ****.|
| 18707 - Réponse de Malaya156 , 12 ans (USA) - 2021-11-18 |
|Sorry, I just noticed that I spelled abortions wrong. Sorry.|
I have been planning, and thinking of running for a high political office once I reach the required age to do so. If I do win, my plans entail-
-Fully separating church and state in the US, you shouldn't have to swear to a god you don't believe in, in an anthem, and or court (though exceptions have already been made to the latter). Mind you, this doesn't mean I am for the persecution of any religion, they should still be protected under the 1st Amendment.
-A basic healthcare system available to all Americans, while at the same time not eradicating competitive insurance agencies. This also will not be felt on the middle and lower class (I will explain later)
-Full rights for the LGBTQ+ community such as the ability to adopt.
-Personally I have no issue with the second amendment, however I think we must limit what Americans can and cannot own (not extensively but people shouldn't be keeping anti-tank rifles in their basement) and have extensive background checks. At the same time to counteract mass shootings we need to have a comprehensive and free therapist and psychologists to provide people with the mental help they need.
- Free upper education, we need to stay competitive with the rest of the world and increase the amount of people who are college educated.
-Increased taxes based on the wealthiest citizens, while also decreasing military budget.
-Increased wages for military personnel, including a major system to help battle ptsd and other mental health issues. (Just one of many changes to the military, might make a post to explain it later).
-Terms for senators and representatives (I am thinking 8 (maybe 10) years max)
-Clean energy (which includes; but is not limited too) Nuclear power, hydropower and solar panels.
-Using our words, not first to improve our international strength.
-Subsidizing the creation of small and medium businesses
-Decreasing political power of western ranchers (ask me about this, its a weird one)
-Fixing immigration crisis; blocking them off isn't moral or going to work for long, and we cannot let them all in. The third option is improving their home countries and hopefully causing the immigration flow to slow.
-Greater effort in space exploration; coupled with an international alliance of the major powers to explore space, hopefully improving Earthside relations.
-Decreasing pay-wage gap
-Reclaiming American manufacturing ability through subsidization.
-Decreasing congressional wages
Feel free to debate any ideas with me.
| 18822 - Réponse de Brookelyn 77 , 16 ans (USA ) - 2023-06-04 |
|I really like your idea about bringing back American industry Not only would it bring more jobs to the country but it would also make America more secure in the event of global political unrest and it could be a potential way to help alleviate our country's debt|
| 18800 - Réponse de Gianna5 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-11-13 |
|Sorry, I forgot to specify. The message below this one is for Nil. :)|
| 18799 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-11-07 |
|What is it that makes the mother's life more important than the unborn child's? Why does someone who is born deserve the right to life more than the unborn? Why does a born woman deserve more help than the unborn?
Just to get this straight: You think it's better for a baby to be killed rather than possibly being born at the wrong time? Pregnancy does not disrupt studies, necessarily. For example, someone I know got pregnant during her senior year of high school. It's a religious family, so obviously that she had intercourse before being married was a disappointment. Furthermore, the family greatly disliked the boyfriend/father. The mother did not tell her parents until she was about 7 weeks pregnant, I believe. She had plans to go to college and enter nursing school. When they found that she was pregnant, she was still able to study. Flash forward, and she gives birth. I haven't seen this girl so happy in a while. Even though her baby came at a highly inconvenient time for her, she was able to continue her studies with no setback, and she is super happy with her baby. She's still up with her studies. Being pregnant did not set her back at all. Basically, I'm saying that being pregnant does not necessarily disrupt studies, and a woman can give birth and then do adoption. No one has to die.
What changes to a woman's body are you referring to in pregnancy/childbirth?
Once more, no one on the pro-life side is forcing any woman to become pregnant. We only advocate for the protection of the child in the womb, as it's just as human as the mother. If a women doesn't want a baby, she should not have made the choice to have intercourse (not counting cases of rape). She shouldn't be able to kill her child merely because she didn't want to be pregnant, even though she willingly participated in intercourse and, most likely, knew that pregnancy was a possibility.
I'd assume after 7 kids that a woman would understand ovulation and how to time things out to become pregnant. It's not a "fault" to become pregnant. It's merely a natural result of intercourse. I'm saying that she and her husband should be responsible for the life they created and ensure that it is cared for as all parents should.
I don't know where you got the idea that I said that it is a women's "fault" for getting pregnant from a rapist or from a forced marriage. It's tragic, and women deserve much better. It's certainly not their fault that they were raped/coerced. The women are the victims in that case. However, the trauma of abortion cannot make up for the trauma that comes with rape or a forced marriage. Likewise, one can't kill an innocent child for their father's crimes.
When I advocate for the ban of abortion, I'm only advocating for taking this from women: when a woman is pregnant, she cannot murder her child. Women can still have a sexual life. I never said they couldn't. All I said was that, if they become pregnant, they should not have the "right" to kill their baby.
"... right to keep the body and the life she feels good in." I'm not entirely sure this is a right. No matter what, one's body and life is going to change. It's natural. Let's take this as an example: Gloria gets a dog. Gloria willingly chose to get the dog. However, the dog is very unfriendly and does not like people. Furthermore, one day, when taking a walk, the dog tripped Gloria, and now she has a broken ankle. Now she is stuck with a broken ankle and a life she does not want, with the dog being crazy and ruining her social life, as she can't leave the dog at home alone. The animal shelter cannot take the dog back for a few months, as they are all full. Does she have the right to kill the dog? Another example: I felt great when I was 13. I had great stamina, athleticism, and I felt really good in my life and body. I can't stop the inevitable - change is going to happen. Now I'm older with the occasional painful joints. I have to pay taxes, work, and buy things for myself. When I was 13, I was living with my parents and siblings, and I did not have to worry about taxes or finances. It's impossible for one to stay in the body and life they are comfortable with. Everything changes. And when a woman consents to having intercourse, she is willingly doing something that can contribute to a change of her life and body through natural process.
| 18798 - Réponse de Nil22 , 15 ans (France) - 2022-11-06 |
|I think that abortion is a right about women because yes, the ftus is alive, but as long as it is in the women's belly, it more concerns this woman than your point of view. You can notice too that pregnancy is an important period, where a lot of things change, and if the woman doesn't want that baby, why could anyone force her to care it ??
Yes, the ftus is alive, but what is more important between a ftus, or someone who is already born and needs help ?
Maybe this ftus is alive, but I think it is better for babies, to be born at the right moment of parents's life. I would prefer to know that a kid is born 5 years later a woman got an abortion than to know that she kept her child and make him feel guilty to be born during her studies.
"If a woman didn't want another child after 7, she should have abstained from intercourse during her fertile period." It is so disrespectful.... do you really think all women know what it is ? Do you mean it's their fault if they get pregnant ? Do you think a young woman, married by force, knows what means intercourse / consentment ? Do you think the woman who is getting raped now has time to say "eh guy, you forgot the condom" ?
Sometimes, you can't control the situation. You can make mistakes, things can go worse to worse. But what makes us stranger, is our freedom, our freedom to think what we want to, and our freedom to dispose of the body we have.
When you revoke abortions, you take these 2 lady things a woman has : the right to think that she can have a sexual life, and the right to keep the body and the life she feels good in.
| 18797 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-11-05 |
No, I am not respecting the rapist's choice more than the unborn child's or the woman's. That's why raping is illegal. We don't respect his choice. We send the rapist to jail.
I'm not trying to listen to the unborn's rights rather than a woman's. They are both human beings. They both have the same rights. No one has the right to murder. Everyone has the right to life.
I'm certain that not 100% of women want to be mothers. However, I'm saying that just about 100% of women who partake in intercourse understand that intercourse can lead to pregnancy. Just in case I'm not being clear enough, I translated it to French (using Google Translate eheh) "Toutes les femmes qui ont des relations sexuelles comprennent que cela peut mener à une grossesse."
If a woman didn't want another child after 7, she should have abstained from intercourse during her fertile period. No matter how much she didn't want the child, if she willingly chose to have intercourse, she has no right to kill it. Just because someone isn't wanted doesn't make them unworthy of life.
As hard as it would be for an 11 year old rape victim, her rape does not give her the right to end someone else's life. Violence can't solve violence. As mentioned before, abortion has worse effects on a girl/woman than childbirth. Quite honestly, an abortion would make the trauma worse.
I am a little bit curious... how do you know whether or not they are happy or scared?
Except once they are pregnant, it is NOT their life, nor is it their choice. There is another human being living. She cannot choose to end someone else's life. That is not a right. I don't doubt that women are smart enough to make decisions about themselves. But when it comes to the life of another human being, a completely innocent, vulnerable human being, murder is simply not an option. A woman is no longer deciding for just herself. She is choosing, quite literally, life or death for another human being. It's not morally right in any scenario.
You're right, I can't force love. No one can. But please note that I'm not advocating for women to be forced to keep their children even if they really don't want them. I'm merely advocating that they allow the child to live. No one has the right to murder another human being.
When do you think human rights begin?
| 18796 - Réponse de Nil22 , 15 ans (France) - 2022-11-04 |
|So you say that the child hasn't chose to live, and the woman has not decided to be raped, but the raper does, but the woman still has to have this baby, you accept the fact that the raper's choice is more respected than the victim's.
And when you say that the ftus hasn't chose to live, you are right. So why would you keep trying listening to rights of unborn babies instead of hearing that the woman who cares it isn't ready.
And when you say that a woman who has intercourses was 100%sure ready to be a mother, well not... maybe it is in your way to live, but it isn't right for a big majority of women.
I think most of women who had a child they didn't want do their best to be a mother, but there is still a big trauma.
I think there are some limits to this whole question of pro life. Yeah, babies are cute. But how can you dare to judge a woman who got an abortion after her 7th kid ?? Or a 11 years old girl, victim of rape by her father ??
And I hear the "there are some organisations.... to "kill" the baby..."
The real murder would be to stay in that lie, and act just like if these women were happy to be pregnant. They're not. They are just scared, or not ready, or just not interested, and it's their life, their choice. And I think they are smart enough to let make a choice.
You can maybe force women to be pregnant, but you can't force love to be there, and what you try to keep there, it's not life or ftus's rights, that's a lie, and a big ball of regrets. That's pain, and I hope one day, the world will see that
| 18795 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-11-04 |
Whoops! I'm sorry about that! I shouldn't have assumed. I'm very sorry!
Also the definition of life message was for Jack - sorry for not making that more clear. I'll address who it is to from now on.
Just because a child isn't wanted doesn't mean that the right choice is to kill it. There's a certain amount of responsibility involved if the woman and man chose to have intercourse. If they chose to have intercourse, I don't think they should have the choice to kill their child. Of course contraception fails sometimes, but I would just like to point out a few things: 1: humans are very infertile animals, so there are only about 3-4 days *max* per month that a girl can become pregnant, 2: if they are taking contraceptives, they surely understand that there is a risk of becoming pregnant. They knew the risk, so they should not be able to kill the child after willingly choosing to have intercourse anyways. I find the infertility tidbit relevant because, if someone does not want to have a child, it's very easy to avoid pregnancy by avoiding intercourse in that time period (called natural family planning, or NFP). Obviously NFP is not 100% effective, but it is more effective than contraceptives. Either way, she still willingly engaged in intercourse.
So taking the case of a woman who freely chose to have intercourse, did not want kids, but got pregnant (I am nearly certain that everyone who has intercourse is aware that pregnancy comes from intercourse), she should not be able to kill her child. She chose what she wanted to do, and she is facing the natural consequences of it. All the pro-life position asks is that she carry her child to term and allow the baby to live until further placements can be made, such as adoption or, if the mother had a change of mind, keeping it. In fact, several fire stations and hospitals have Safe Haven Baby Boxes, where a mom can anonymously leave her child in a box, pull an alarm, and then leave. Around sixty seconds after the alarm goes off (giving the mother a minute to leave), someone comes out and collects the baby.
I don't believe I would ever say that to a 13 year old girl who has just become pregnant. I'd do my best to help the girl get through her pregnancy, and I'd support her through it. While it might have been better for her to have abstained from intercourse, no one can change anything, and I'd help her navigate throughout her pregnancy and afterwards if she needed help. Of course, if she ever wanted to, I'd also help her track down the father and drive her out to go punch him for coercing her into intercourse and abandoning her... but I suppose that's rather unrelated to helping her care for her baby....
Just a slightly off-hand question: I'm sure we've all encountered women who were in an awkward/difficult situation while pregnant, such as being a teenager, or out of wedlock, or financially burdened, etc. Have you ever seen one regret giving birth to their baby? This isn't a rhetorical question. I'm honestly curious. In my experience, I have not, but I was merely curious if you had.
I'm not cold or immune to the effects of rape. My heart goes out to rape victims. I despise rapists, as I'm sure we all do. The woman did not choose to be raped. No matter what she was wearing (I've seen several people blame the girl for her rape because of the clothes she was wearing, but I don't agree), she is not responsible for her rape. She's truly a victim. Even considering cases, such as with the 13 year old girl, my heart aches. It's easy for a raped woman to feel as though she's trapped. I mean, a rape is serious trauma. But I don't think abortion is a solution to that trauma. Countless sources indicate further trauma following an abortion. It would not reduce all her problems, but instead increase them. Violence cannot be fought by violence. And I firmly believe that the child is an innocent party. The child didn't choose to be conceived, just as the woman did not decide to be raped. The child didn't force the mother to carry it. The rapist did. So I don't think giving the child the death penalty for the father's actions is morally right. I would support a raped woman, or any woman, throughout her pregnancy. As soon as I possibly can (i.e., as soon as my living conditions support it), I intend to adopt/foster/both/honestly whatever I can to provide a proper home for a child.
| 18794 - Réponse de Nil22 , 15 ans (France) - 2022-11-04 |
First of all, you said "him" but i'm a girl hehe (no problem, I can understand that my name isn't that popular)
Then I wasn't looking for the definition of life.. but thanks
Yes, people have sometimes intercourses to have babies, but today, men and women have a sexual life. If you say that a woman make the choice to have a baby when she starts an intercourse, it is not true. I think that if a woman made the mistake to not use a contraception, she shouldn't have to wear that for the rest or her life. Are you sure that keeping a baby that you are sure to not to love is the right decision ? Personally, if my mother was depressed because of me, and I had to grow up with this idea during all my childhood, I would prefer not to be born.
And I just want to add that a rape is not always a rape as we imagine it, most of time it is when the woman isn't sure, has doubts, and the guy doesn't mind it. And most of time, women who are victims of this don't tell anyone about it because they feel guilty.
And I just want to finish and say that the real murder would be to tell a 13 years old girl "haha you mustn't have done that " when she tells you, crying she isn't ready
Personnally I find this debate interessant but if you want to change I'm open to your propositions
| 18793 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-11-03 |
No, I think that a woman can have intercourse even if she does not wish to have a child. But when a woman willingly chooses to have intercourse and then aborts her baby because she deemed herself not to be ready, or she didn't consent to the pregnancy, that is where issues arise. To become pregnant, quite literally, is one of the purposes of intercourse. When a woman says that she should have the choice to abort her child because she "isn't ready" after having willingly chosen to have intercourse, I don't think she should have the right to her child's life. She willingly partook in activities that often result in pregnancy. She should not have the option, after having made that original choice, the murder her child.
| 18792 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-11-03 |
|As I generally learned in nursing school, something is living when it 1: has a specific organization (containing specialized, coordinating parts such as cells/a cell), 2: can maintain homeostasis when in proper environmental conditions (whenever we have the correct external stimuli, we can maintain a constant internal environment), 3: the ability to metabolize (basically take in food and use it, resulting in waste), 4: reproduction, or the potential to reproduce (as a species, humans have the potential to reproduce), 5: the ability to grow and develop, 6: response to external stimuli, and 7: the ability to evolve as a species. Here is the definition of life you are looking for, I believe.
If you would like to call the fact that it is wrong to murder merely a moral standpoint, then you can. If you would like to say that it is only a moral belief that the approximate 130 children being killed every minute worldwide is wrong, who am I to judge? The word "choice" makes it sound like a moral and subjective issue, but when you really break it down, it's murder. Murder is objectively wrong. I don't think a serial killer would be excused for his heinous crimes because he was only following his moral standpoint.
If you don't mind me saying so, I'm certainly ready for this discussion. For ten years I've been advocating for the rights of the unborn, and I've done my fair share of research. I have no intention of making this exchange bitter. I merely try to speak with clarity and proficiency. If that comes off as bitter, that was not my intent. I try my best to communicate with respect to the others involved, and I'm sorry if I've fallen short of that.
If you would like to debate other things, we can. If Nil still wishes to debate abortion, I will do so with him, but if you wish to stop, I am willing to debate other things with you.
| 18791 - Réponse de Nil22 , 15 ans (France) - 2022-11-03 |
|Many peaceful ideas in what you mentionned Jack. You are true in many points. But I still find interesting to discuss about these differences, and I think that good ideas often come from an exchange between 2 different points of view. And I know I won't change my mind about it, and my goal isn't to change Gianna's, just to discover hers.
You said that "Her choice came from her choice to have intercourse."
An interessant sentence... you mean that women have not the right to have intercourses if it isn't to have a baby after that ?
| 18790 - Réponse de Jack49 , 16 ans (USA) - 2022-11-03 |
|Oh god help me
There is not always a ground that both sides in any dispute can tread on, sometimes the differences are too great to allow a common viewpoint. It is within these differences that we argue and separate because the difference is not in facts, but the entire moral standpoint a person is built upon. I am not dismissing abortion as a major issue, but a hyper fixation that has not caused anyone to budge and has not helped heal a various critical wound that continues to pain society is not a good thing to have. I don't believe that we are ready to have a conversation about this, no one can define what life is yet, what is logic and fact is warped enough so that anything is fact and anything is false. I understand why we debate, and I have debated, but I have also come to the conclusion that a common consensus might not be reached. In that light, I just wish we could focus our energy to find common solutions in other issues, rather than succumbing to the same bitterness that is surging the world.
| 18789 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-11-03 |
|Have you ever considered that, perhaps, when abortions are banned, women are less likely to get pregnant? Knowing that one can't get an abortion, a woman and man might be more careful about their interactions. While that definitely doesn't account for all of the decreases in abortion, I'm just wondering if it ever crossed your mind that this may be the case. I do not have any statistics or anything, but I merely figured that this happens.
Am I understanding you correctly here: You aren't concerned about there being fewer abortions because the ones that remain are still unpleasant for the woman? If we're talking about women who willingly chose to have intercourse, which accounts for over 99% of abortions that take place, why does their "right" overrule the baby's right to life? Why is it that, even though they willingly chose to have intercourse, their right to abort and kill an innocent human being because "they don't feel ready" or "they don't want the pregnancy" overrules the first human right of all, the right to life? Just my thoughts.
I'm not forcing anyone to get pregnant. I'm merely advocating that, when a woman has already become pregnant, she can't kill her child. She has the choice to avoid pregnancy. However, once the child is there, it's not right to kill it because it's a woman's "choice." Her choice came from her choice to have intercourse.
Rape is tragic and it needs to end. I am not denying that many women experience rape-related pregnancies. However, when looking at the statistics, only about 1% percent of abortions are from rape victims. Personally, I don't think we should be using 1% to make a law for all women. This is why I find it rather cowardly to use this minority, who suffered greatly, as an argument to let women who willingly chose to have intercourse kill their child. It just does not add up.
| 18788 - Réponse de Nil22 , 15 ans (France) - 2022-11-03 |
Thanks for this interessant answer.
You often use the argument that there are less abortions when they become illegal. For me it isn't something positive. It won't change the fact that they don't want this pregnancy and don't feel ready for that. You take off the right of women to own their body, and to decide about the biggest choice of their life.
And when you say that rape doesn't count because there are not enough rapes to take this in this debate... I would say the inverse. There are too much rapes on this earth to not talk about that. And if you don't pay attention to these women, it just adds violence.
| 18787 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-10-27 |
|"Once again, I will just say that, if you want to use the exception of rape, it is logically unsound to use it in an argument unless you truly believe that it is the only case in which abortion is illegal."
I meant to say legal, not illegal. I apologize.
| 18786 - Réponse de Levi73 , 15 ans (USA) - 2022-10-26 |
|Ah wonderful! More reading material.|
| 18785 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-10-24 |
|Once again, I would just like to add the point that 90% of "unsafe" abortions from before abortion was legal were done in a facility by a physician. If we take the 150,000 illegal abortions done in 1972 in the USA, 10% of those (the number of abortions not done by a physician of some kind) are 15,000 women. Quite honestly, I find it rather useless to permit abortions merely in order to stop women from dying in their kitchens with a needle in the stomach. Quite frankly, it would be like making murder legal because 10% of murderers are getting killed in their attempts to murder.
What is it that makes the unborn child so different from the born child? What is it about birth that gives the child rights?
I don't find these laws sexist at all. If you don't want kids, don't have intercourse. If you agree that all abortions from consensual intercourse should be illegal, then we can discuss rape. However, if you still maintain that all abortions should be legal, I suggest not weaponizing a vast minority as a way to win an argument.
I'm not entirely familiar with the term "wide abortion." Can you please clarify that?
"How could I prefer to defend the right of life of people who aren't born yet, if these people's bodies are meant to be drived by sexist laws, like if there were no mind inside ?" Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you here, but you mentioned the right to life of people who aren't born. Does this mean that they ARE people? Does this mean that they have the same worth as the rest of us, except that they are not born? If so, why does location define whether or not someone has a right to life? Furthermore, I would like to add that pro-life laws do not "prefer" to protect the lives of the unborn rather than the born. We merely advocate for equal rights for both, as both are human beings.
"A woman has for me, the right to decide when, where, and with who, she wants to give life." Yes, I agree. This is why, if she does not want children, she should not have intercourse. Once again, I will just say that, if you want to use the exception of rape, it is logically unsound to use it in an argument unless you truly believe that it is the only case in which abortion is illegal.
"And if she doesn't want to have a baby, and she becomes pregnant, and her life is a mess, would you prefer to know that this woman had children later, or to know that she didn't get an abortion because she's "no murderer" and now, her 9 years old child has to watch mama getting drugs because the pressure was too big for her, when her parents leaved her alone when they knew she had a fear out marriage." Abortion actually increases the rates of drug-dependence. Furthermore, adoption is an option.
I'm just curious... why is it that all that pro-lifers do does not change anything, even though they could help fix many of the situations you are using as arguments?
Of course, no one's mind is truly a puppet. I do not mean to control your mind. Thank you for letting me know that you are not interested in changing your views. I do have a question, though: what is the use of exchanging ideas and thoughts if not to allow us to make further and more intelligent decisions in the future?
| 18784 - Réponse de Nil201 , 15 ans (France) - 2022-10-24 |
|Yeah there is no problem don't worry. Thanks by the way.
Well, yes, abortions are no sweety cutie things as you mentionned it. But I would prefer to know that my cousin got an abortion (surgical/ chemical) than to learn that she died in her kitchen with a needle in her belly.
And I'm not against abortions, I'm against wide abortions. A woman who has not the right to decide of her body and who tried to get off a child off her belly because she wasn't ready for that, is not for me a murderer, but a victim of the system.
How could I prefer to defend the right of life of people who aren't born yet, if these people's bodies are meant to be drived by sexist laws, like if there were no mind inside ?
A woman has for me, the right to decide when, where, and with who, she wants to give life.
And if she doesn't want to have a baby, and she becomes pregnant, and her life is a mess, would you prefer to know that this woman had children later, or to know that she didn't get an abortion because she's "no murderer" and now, her 9 years old child has to watch mama getting drugs because the pressure was too big for her, when her parents leaved her alone when they knew she had a fear out marriage.
And you can add all arguments about how the governement does to help these women, it doesn't change anything.
"have a question: what is it that makes you pro-choice? What, if anything, would change your mind about the matter? I just don't want to be using information that isn't considered relevant to you."
I just want to end on this... I'm not here to change my mind, I'm here to say what I think, and to discover other's thoughts.
If your intention was to make of me a "pro life", then I'm not the good person. My mind is no puppet.
| 18782 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-10-23 |
|Sorry I didn't make it more clear. I meant that if you wanted to write in French, I'd use a Google Translate. I didn't mean to make it seem as though I was accusing you of using Google Translate or something... by the way, your English is really good.
I just want to describe the abortion process just so we both know what is happening.
Chemical abortions make up over 50% of abortions. In a chemical abortion, women take two pills. One pill deprives the zygote/embryo/fetus of nutrients, starving it in the womb. Then another pill is taken that induces contractions, and the woman gives birth to her child. This is usually done at home over the toilet. The woman does not have medical help with her, usually. She has the same contractions a mother at full-term would. The gestational cut-off for chemical abortions used to be 49 days, or 7 weeks. However, it was increased to 70 days, and there is A LOT of growth within this time. Oftentimes, mothers will not know how far along they are, and thus often these are done over 70 days. The complications are severe. From 2000-2019 (note: the requirements of reporting effects were decreased in 2016) there were over 3800 adverse reports to the pills, at least 20 deaths, more than 500 life threatening complications, and over 2000 severe complications.
Surgical abortions are the ones where an abortionist goes into the uterus and pulls apart the fetus with forceps. Sometimes the fetus is first injected with a chemical in its heart to kill it. Other times, the fetus is torn apart alive. An abortionist literally goes into the woman and dismembers her child. Then they have to make sure that no parts of the baby were left, and this often results in scarring or scratching of the uterus, which has its own side effects if you are interested in them. Surgical abortions are often completed with a suction-type-vacuum device to suck the rest of the fetus out of the womb.
As much as it is a shame that woman will still have abortions, and more unsafely at that, we can't permit legal and "safe" killing as a solution. Banning abortions will decrease the numbers of those who have abortions. An interesting little statistic here: The death toll from illegal abortion the year before Roe vs. Wade was 39 women, not the 20,000 claimed by the pro-abortion forces. Also, approximately 150,000 illegal abortions were performed annually in the United States before Roe, not the 1.5 million claimed by abortion supporters. Furthermore, most of the illegal abortions were performed by a physician in a facility of some sort. After abortions were made legal, the number increased A LOT. World wide, the number of abortions per year is about 71 million. For the United States, the number of abortions in 2020 was about 930,160. We can see that, as abortions became legal, the number went up greatly. Evidently a ban of abortion would decrease the number of abortions per year. Even if both the mother and child died in all illegal abortions (let's use 150,000 as the number of illegal abortions), that would be 300,000 deaths. Assuming that only the child dies in legal abortions, there would be 930,160 deaths. A ban in abortion would result in fewer deaths. Of course, this number can't be completely reliable because there are not recent numbers of illegal abortions, and thus I used the number from 1972.
I have a question: what is it that makes you pro-choice? What, if anything, would change your mind about the matter? I just don't want to be using information that isn't considered relevant to you.
| 18781 - Réponse de Nil201 , 15 ans (France) - 2022-10-22 |
|Thanks but I can write in English, and I don't use Google translate even if it would be easier haha.
Congratulations for your medical studies.
Well, most of your arguments there are based on percentages. Even if they were right (I don't say I don't trust you), I'm not on your side.
You ask me if I know how chemical , or surgeral abortions are done. I have to say that you have a point.
But do you know how wide abortions are done ? I have to say that NOTHING can be worse to see or to feel. Of course women can survive without them and in carrying their child, but even if you tell them not to abort they will. And you can add all statistics you want, they will still abort, we just won't mind it, cause they will have to hide. If a women has to abort, she will : in her kitchen, with a needle, and finally die with her child; or in a hospital, where she has a chance to survive.
| 18780 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-10-22 |
|No, no I completely understand. I know Google Translate isn't exactly the most reliable source, but if you'd prefer to write in French, I could always use an online translator.
"You have to understand that these women are no murderers, and believe me, if they could, they wouldn't make things end like this. They are just too weak compared to this horrible situation." I don't believe that is true. It implies that women are not strong enough to deal with an unplanned pregnancy. However, the pro-life movement and many others understand that abortion and killing a child are not needed for a woman to succeed in life. To be honest, stating that women need the choice of killing their children to be successful is quite offensive to women. Our bodies naturally have the gift of carrying the unborn. There is nothing unnatural about being pregnant, and women have been so for thousands of years. In the twenty-first century, where our technology has advanced so much, it is shameful to say that women are not strong enough to give birth.
Abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. Also, several studies have indicated that the death rate is higher for those who have aborted than those who have not.
You bring up a good point about women attempting at-home abortions even when it is illegal. However, the number of abortions goes down after a ban, even with estimated "backstreet abortions" added in. Overall, there are still fewer abortions and fewer deaths when abortions are banned. Many pro-life organizations offer support to mothers in unplanned pregnancies. Crisis pregnancy centers, for example, offer counseling (pre AND post pregnancy outcome), parenting classes, supplies, medical appointments, adoption referrals, etc. However, the pro-abortion community marks them as unethical and medically inaccurate. A quick google search of "crisis pregnancy center" will bring up articles from PlannedParenthood and other pro-abortion websites about how inaccurate and awful crisis pregnancy centers are. However, PlannedParenthood itself is medically inaccurate. They do not give an accurate depiction of the zygote/embryo/fetus at its current stage of life. In fact, just a few days ago an article came out about how, before 10 weeks of pregnancy, the zygote/embryo/fetus is merely a transparent sheet of cells. I cannot begin to tell you how medically inaccurate that is. I am a nurse. I've studied biology and anatomy for years, and I can assure you that the unborn look nothing like a transparent sheet of cells. Abby Johnson, a former PlannedParenthood employee and a current pro-life advocate, offers some good information. She has seen abortions firsthand, and she was traumatized enough to become pro-life. I suggest her, as she has been on both sides of the spectrum, and she gives information on what actually happens inside PlannedParenthood. In short, if crisis pregnancy centers were not being classified as unethical, inaccurate, and manipulative facilities, fewer women might find themselves with a coat hanger or needles.
I'd just like to bring up some statistics quickly. From the top of my head, I believe about 1/6 of rape victims seek abortions. 60-80% of them regret their abortion.
Compared to pregnant women who had their babies, pregnant women who aborted were ...
3.5 times more likely to die in the following year 3.5 times more likely to die in the following year
1.6 times more likely to die of natural causes 1.6 times more likely to die of natural causes
6-7 times more likely to die of suicide 6-7 times more likely to die of suicide
14 times more likely to die from homicide 14 times more likely to die from homicide
4 times more likely to die of injuries related to accidents 4 times more likely to die of injuries related to accidents. Another study found that, compared to women who gave birth, women who had abortions had a 62% higher risk of death from all causes for at least eight years after their pregnancies. Deaths from suicides and accidents were most prominent, with deaths from suicides being 2.5 times higher.
At least 31% of women who have had abortions had health complications (the number could be much higher, as in 2016 the requirements of reporting complications went down). There is an 80%-180% increase in doctor's visits.
Teenage girls are 10 times more likely to attempt suicide if they have had an abortion in the last 6 months than are teens who have not had an abortion.
Two national records-based studies from Finland revealed that aborting women were 6 times more likely to commit suicide in the following year than were delivering women.
Another study of more than 173,000 American women who had abortions had 154% higher risk of suicide in the eight years after an abortion than those who gave birth.
I am simply curious, but are you aware of how both chemical and surgical abortions are done?
| 18779 - Réponse de Nil201 , 15 ans (France) - 2022-10-22 |
It's quite difficult for me to explain exactly what I want to say in a language that isn't mine, so I sometimes get a bit angry (and I know I shouldn't)
Excuse me if you have been blessed by my words, it wasn't in my intention.
All I want to say more is that abortion exists since a long time. And the reasons why a woman abort are there since longer. Sometimes, women think it's the only decision to be free. Because sometimes they can't finish their studies, or they were rapped, sometimes by their father. Or they just feel scared and lonely to affront this situation alone. You have to understand that these women are no murderers, and believe me, if they could, they wouldn't make things end like this. They are just too weak compared to this horrible situation.
And when abortion were legal, yes, the ftus were thrown away. But the mother had a chance to survive.
And if you make abortion illegal, it wouldn't change the fact that women will abort. Women have always abort, even if they have to use hangers, or needles (which isn't safe at all). More people die in these wild abortions : generally, the ftus die, and the woman has so much more chances to die than in a real abortion.
If you make abortion illegal it will just change that instead of saving the mother in "killing the baby", you kill 2 persons : the ftus, and the mother.
| 18778 - Réponse de Levi73 , 15 ans (USA) - 2022-10-21 |
|I must say that reading this debate is oh so entertaining, most fun on a forum in a while.
Personally on Gianna with this btw though not sure if I'm looking to debate anything.
| 18771 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-10-11 |
|Actually, I am rather calm. I merely expect a certain respect to be given to every person involved. I never intended to manipulate anyone's words, and if I did so, I am very sorry for that. It was never my intention.
Whenever you feel you want to revisit this, I'm willing to start up again.
I do have one question that, I think, will be very helpful for all people involved when we re-instigate this debate:
Would you be in favor of banning all abortion except for cases of rape?
| 18769 - Réponse de Jack100 , 16 ans (USA) - 2022-09-27 |
|Eh... I can feel this exchange getting a little heated from all sides involved, including myself, so let's all just take a break from this as we obviously are in a full on partisan mode and focus on debating other issues until we can all have time to digest information and come to a conclusion on certain topics instead of manipulating people's words to make them appear to be a bad person. For my own role in that I apologize.|
| 18767 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (U.S.A.) - 2022-09-11 |
|Very wrong. We began our life when we were conceived, thus when the genetic info of the sperm fused with that of the egg. Then a zygote is formed and you now have a human child in your womb. We were never an ovum. We were only ever zygotes. Our life was formed by an ovum and sperm, but we were never those things in themselves.
I believe child refers to anyone who isn't an adult, for the most part. One could also say that it is anybody who is a son/daughter of someone, thus that person's child. I am not mistaken in calling it a child.
Let's say a woman gets in a car accident. She was pregnant. The doctors do everything they can, but both the mother and unborn have died. What do they tell the father? "I'm sorry, sir. We could not save your wife and child."
Once again, you are wrong that cancer is killing someone. At conception, the point at which I think it is wrong to abort the zygote, is the point at which a new human being is formed. It has its own DNA. It is a separate human being than its mother or father. A cancer cell is a cell of your own, with your DNA.
So no, I would say that I don't see your point.
Why does a woman die if she isn't mentally prepared? If it is mental health problems, there are ways to address those. If conditions permitted, she could even be put in a psychiatric hospital for a while so she can get in a better place mentally prior to birth.
Your accusation that we "let women die in suffering without trying to help them" is entirely wrong. Donations, crisis pregnancy centers, charities, etc. I believe those all really help out women and stop much of the suffering you mentioned. :)
Why does a mother get to abort her child and face no consequences, yet a neighbor could kill his child and be locked in jail?
Let's say Molly is expecting. She feels she might not give her child what it needs to live, as she is poor and feels she might suffer immensely by giving birth. Thus she decides to abort. No problems there, I'm assuming, right?
But let's say Kate is in the same situation, except she has an infant (approximately 1 month or so). Can she kill her child?
| 18766 - Réponse de Nil22 , 15 ans (France) - 2022-09-11 |
|Stop saying "child" when you talk about a ftus which hasn't even a name yet. Yes we were all a foetus at a point of our lives. But if you think in your way, we were also ovums at a point of our lives. So when women have their period and lost their ovums, they are killing a child.
And if you say everybody has the right to live, then why people who have cancer try to kill their cancer ? A cancer is alive too. If I think in your point of view, people who have cancer are murderers because they try to survive un killing their cancer.
You see ?
There is no much difference, some women can't mentally survive in having a child they don't want to. Because they were rapped, or they didn't feel ready, or they lost their job and have no money to give a house to their child. You let women die in suffering without trying to help them.
| 18765 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-09-11 |
|Why is it my business what my neighbor does with his kid? Shouldn't I let him do whatever he pleases?
Yes, I would still love my sister. I would be very disappointed in her, though.
I'd be stopping my sister from aborting her baby. Abortion has many linked side effects in addition to the obvious; killing the baby and a general sense of guilt because of it. As far as I can tell, murder is always wrong. Should I not stop someone from murdering someone else, as that would be taking control over their body?
You're totaling missing the point. This isn't about wanting to control women's bodies. It's about wanting to protect the life and rights of the unborn. No one has the right to murder. Everyone has the right to live. There are certain points where one cannot do as they wish, as it infringes on another person's rights.
The peanut analogy doesn't make very much sense. We are offering just about all the care we can. That is not merely a "peanut" compared to being super hungry.
Why does a mother get to abort her child and face no consequences, yet a neighbor could kill his child and be locked in jail?
Let's say Molly is expecting. She feels she might not give her child what it needs to live, as she is poor and feels she might suffer immensely by giving birth. Thus she decides to abort. No problems there, I'm assuming, right?
But let's say Kate is in the same situation, except she has an infant (approximately 1 month or so). Can she kill her child?
| 18764 - Réponse de Nil22 , 15 ans (France) - 2022-09-09 |
|No I said it was your business and you have to help your neighboor's kid. By the way, would you support your sister even if she gets an abortion ? Would you still love her ?
And you said "I would try everything in my power to convince her to keep the child"
Well, if you want to have power on her body, you are just like the father who abused her. If she doesn't want this child (which I can totally understand) that is her choice. And yes, it's a difficult choice, and yes, it's not a ftus friendly thing, but if she tells you she would more suffer in giving life to her father's baby (who has chances to have medical problems by the way), you have to believe her.
And if you don't believe her and support her in all her choices, you are a bad friend. It's like if someone told you "my shoes are really dirty but I can try to wash them" and you say "no keep them like that, if you don't, I won't talk to you"
Anyway, you have to know that pregnant women who didn't want their pregnancy suffer more than foetuses who feel nothing, and more than you when you hear someone saying "I got an abortion"
You see abortion as a murder, but the murder would be to not help women who need it. And you said you helped them with centers and free psychologists and idk.
But maybe it would be easier to just listen to them instead of saying "well, you're hungry, don't you? Yeah we know, we're gonna give you one peanut. Happy ?"
| 18763 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-09-09 |
|Firstly, the case of my fifteen year old sister is an example of a "False Dilemma" illogical fallacy. There are many other options than what you mentioned. I would support my sister throughout her pregnancy and help her as she raises her kid.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, I should let my neighbor keep abusing his kid as it is none of my business? I just want to be sure I'm understanding correctly.
Yes, I would try everything in my power to convince her to keep the child. At the same time, I would do everything in my power to help her financially and emotionally as she raised it. I would also highly suggest taking legal action against the father.
See, this is where I don't understand your logic. You are telling me that my neighbor abusing his kid is none of my business, and I should do absolutely nothing about it. Yet, if he made her pregnant, you are saying "Would you make her suffer," I'm assuming, by having her keep the pregnancy. If it is none of my business that my neighbor is abusing his kid, and I shouldn't do anything about it, whether it is taking her to an abortionist or otherwise, why should an abortionist be allowed to do anything about it? After all, it is none of our business, and we shouldn't interfere.
| 18762 - Réponse de Nil22 , 15 ans (France) - 2022-09-08 |
|If your sister of 15 made a mistake, and get pregnant, would you try to understand her or force her to care a child she doesn't want, even if you know she wouldn't have the strengh to keep it.
And you're totally right when you said that if your neighboor keeps being violent to his childs. It does concern you.
And the fact that her daughter gets pregnant of him too. Would you force her to keep the child of her father, who's a psychopath ? Or would you stand to help her, and the future children she will have when she will be ready, to treat them as her children and not as her father's shit ?
Would you agree with the father, saying "well it's her mistakes, her skirt was far too short!" And saying that she deserves to suffer ?
Your opinion, i respect it
| 18761 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-09-08 |
|Jack (couldn't fit everything into one message for some reason) - Do you not realize that Planned Parenthood advertises based on having affordable healthcare, i.e. abortions? This is what makes so many impoverished women seek it. However, there are about seven to one crisis pregnancy centers and centers that will practically deliver the child for as free as possible. Furthermore, there are 36 families waiting to adopt every 1 child born into the adoption system. Also, if foster care is really such a concern, why don't you advocate for fixing that, rather than the "right" to murder a child?
Let me ask you this: what makes murder wrong? Not in terms of any specific scenario (abortion, gun violence, etc.), just in general.
Here is just one of many sources stating that life begins at conception: "When Does Human Life Begin? The Scientific Evidence and Terminology Revisited." by Maureen L Condic, and this is at St. Thomas University.
As the USCCB is evidently a scholarly source to you, regardless of our differences in faith: "Scientific Community's Response to the Question: When does Life Begin?" by USCCB.
Actually, I never doubted that climate change existed. I merely felt that people often made more of a deal out of it than it was. Also, I believe 97% of scientists agree that climate change exists. 96% agree that life begins at conception.
A kidney is a part of someone's body, a part that has the same DNA as the rest of it. However, an embryo/zygote/fetus/whatever you want to call it has separate DNA. I learned this in high school biology, and it has only been reconfirmed in my 3 years of being a nurse (and four before that of nursing school).
First of all, you are putting words into my mouth. I don't think any worse of LGBTQ+ members than anyone else. I have certainly never called them God-less freaks. Please have the decency to stop making things up about your interlocutors. They have no fewer rights than the rest of us. The only reason many are so outspoken against it is because it is one of the most widely accepted sins of this day. Next, there is nothing wrong with saying the truth to one's parents. They would be able to help her with the situation. If not, there are homes for women who are pregnant and alone. I believe, if you look into St. Augustine's writings, especially in his City of God book mentioning the rape of Lucretia, a Christian woman would be content knowing that God knew that the rape was not her fault.
| 18760 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-09-07 |
|Jack, I couldn't fit everything in one message for some reason. It wouldn't post. Please check the very top of the forum for my second response.|
| 18759 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-09-07 |
|Jack - I told Nil this above regarding the fact that abortions are never medically necessary: Thankfully, medical advancements continue to save more lives. Situations in which the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother are extremely rare. Late-term abortions are never medically necessary. Emergency C-sections are often the medically appropriate response to save both mother and child. Viability at this stage of the childs development is generally very good, especially with advances in neonatal care. Babies who weigh just under a pound are surviving! As for first-trimester scenarios, most are to save the mother from ectopic (out of place) pregnancies, which typically occur in the Fallopian tube. Surgeries for ectopic pregnancies are not medically classified as abortions. The death of the unborn child is an unintended result of said surgery, unlike abortion. Also, an interesting tidbit is that in a study in Finland, it was found that those who had abortions had a much higher death rate. Chile also has reported to have a lower maternal mortality rate now after having banned abortions/restricted them greatly.
I never stated that those with Turners Syndrome or monosomy, which is roughly 1/2250 of the population, were not worthy of life. They still have human chromosomes. A human and a human can only produce a human, and from the moment the sperm and ova join, about 2249/2250 times it will be a diploid cell with 46 chromosomes, making up their own DNA and making them entirely separate from the parents.
Exactly why I try to make it my point to applaud teen, single, and mothers who put up their children for adoption for choosing life. It was quite a courageous thing to do, and society really ought to have more respect for them. As I mentioned above, it is actually very much so evident that restricting abortions will decrease the maternal mortality rate.
So it has changed from "clumps of cells" to a "glob of RNA"? Every single human being has RNA. RNA is what codes for amino acids that will be turned into proteins. DNA stores all the genetic information for one's life. In fact, simply that one already has all their DNA at conception indicates the capacity to have a conscious is there. We don't discredit infants for their gender only because their reproductive organs aren't fully matured, do we? We don't claim that they are not male or female because of their present inability to reproduce, do we?
If we are looking from a Christian perspective of a soul, I believe that it can be agreed that one receives a soul at conception. In the Old Testament, the psalmist assumes the humanity of the unborn child at conception when he says, Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me (Ps. 51:5, NRSV). This indicates that the unborn child possesses a sinful, fallen nature at the time of conception (though it does not manifest in actual, personal sins until later; cf. Romans 9:11). Since sin is a spiritual phenomenon, the presence of a sinful nature indicates a spiritual nature and thus a soul, making the child a complete human being from conception.
| 18758 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-09-07 |
|Nil - 1: Your point about some women not saying that they have been raped is a valid one. Planned Parenthood actually does not report cases of rape, even statutory rape, to the authorities. Thus, by offering women abortions as a solution for their rape, their rapist is often not held accountable for his actions. In addition to this, the violence of abortion does not make up for the trauma of rape.
2: Thankfully, medical advancements continue to save more lives. Situations in which the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother are extremely rare. Late-term abortions are never medically necessary. Emergency C-sections are often the medically appropriate response to save both mother and child. Viability at this stage of the childs development is generally very good, especially with advances in neonatal care. Babies who weigh just under a pound are surviving! As for first-trimester scenarios, most are to save the mother from ectopic (out of place) pregnancies, which typically occur in the Fallopian tube. Surgeries for ectopic pregnancies are not medically classified as abortions. The death of the unborn child is an unintended result of said surgery, unlike abortion. Also, an interesting tidbit is that in a study in Finland, it was found that those who had abortions had a much higher death rate. Chile also has reported to have a lower maternal mortality rate now after having banned abortions/restricted them greatly.
3: Actually, I never claimed that a fetus is more important than a pregnant woman. I did, however, claim that they have equal rights. I'd rather invest in counseling for my daughter that way she could deal with the anxiety and stress that comes with pregnancy rather than allowing her to murder her unborn child.
4: I see your point that, since abortion is not harming me, I should not really care. However, the same thing could be said for child abuse. Let's say my neighbor is abusing his child. It does not affect me in any way, so should I not report it to the police?
Thank you, and I respect you as well.
| 18755 - Réponse de Jack100 , 16 ans (USA) - 2022-09-01 |
|Gianna, please reread what you said "Abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life. The vast majority of potentially fatal pregnancy complications happen after 6 months of pregnancy". You just claimed that is is never necessary, then admitted there are times when it is necessary.
Please show where you found this evidence of human life beginning at conception, I have found sources on princton and American College of Pediatricians, however both source events that happened in the 60's as their primary evidence. Without a proper refresh it's a bit stale for me. Even if that is true, there is a difference between human life and life. I once again reaffirm that it is not human at that stage in a mental and soul perspective. I don't understand your views regarding your trust in scientist, one moment you dismiss climate change and scientists, then you grasp science as a weapon if it agrees with you.
Ahh yes... " one with 46 human chromosomes", those born without 46 chromosomes are not worthy of life... look up Turner syndrome or monosomy and I have to ask if an innocent girl now deserves to die. I have to ask why you included this key element, it's awfully particular.
Around 650 people died during child birth in 2018. Do you realize that we are the worst industrialized country in terms of that? It doesn't just end, there is also social shaming involved. People are looked down upon for teen pregnancies, or giving up the child, or being pregnant without a significant other. The social ramifications are massive, and they don't just end after 9 months.
Regarding homelessness and poverty, the number of abortions from impoverished families is rapidly increasing, from 2000-2008 it increased by 18%. (This is according to United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who I hope you would find reliable given your religious stance). A large amount of foster kids end up in poverty, thus feeding the cycle. Being "pro-life" is not about saving children. Once the child is born no one cares an ounce do they? Just subject them to the streets and into poverty so they can repeat the same thing their parent did.
What defines a human life is having a soul, and I don't think a glob of RNA has a soul. Life is different from having a soul, and I won't get too strange here but I think it is when the conscious forms.
Rapist should be forced to provide money anyways if their is a child or not!! If the only deterrent for not raping someone is having to pay the person off then there is no deterrent at all. No one is saying that someone can do as they please when it comes to other people with their body. What people are saying is that a person has a right to do what they please to their own body. As you said, it is a symbiote. If a person wanted too they could legally rip out their kidney even though it is in a helpful relationship with them. Whats the difference?
I just want you to see what the world you are fighting for looks like:
Sally is walking home from school wearing the most non-scandalous clothing possible as per what her strict Christian parents told her. She ignores the LGBTQ students because they are nothing but god-less freaks of nature. Thats what her science textbook and teacher told her. All of a sudden she see's her friend bob, they have been friends for a while of course and Sally likes him. Bob rapes here after they go to his house and in distress she collapses into a pile.
Who does she tell? Her christian parents when she was not meant to go to his house? Or maybe her friends? She decided to tell no one and in five months it is becoming evident she is pregnant. She can't say bob raped her anymore no! Now she was a sinner who seduced bob. She is shunned by her friends and family, and gives birth in a painful and arduous process.
This future really sucks so please keep me out of it.
Does she tell her
| 18754 - Réponse de Nil22 , 15 ans (France) - 2022-08-31 |
|I won't answer to all you said because I don't have vocabulary enough to explain some things. But I thank you for this interesting answer.
1 - you said that rapes concerned only 1% of women. First, we can't always know if the woman was rapped or not, they sometimes don't say it. And secondly, it means that for you they do not exist. Yes you cannot base all on 1%, but the 99% other pourcents have bodies and rights you can't ignore.
2 - you said a woman can't die in giving life. I don't know where you read it but it's wrong.
Some women actually are dieing because they can't get a curetage because doctors don't have the right to do it. Some girls are dieing because of this.
3 - I understood that for you, a ftus is more important than a woman. But why would you save ftus if you're too blind to save women who need your help ? If you think about it, a woman is like a big ftus to be saved. But now, she doesn't need someone to make the right choice instead of her. Now she can decide and if she feels and decides that she's not ready to be a mother, then nobody can tell otherwise.
Would you prefer to have a grandson few years after or to know that your daughter killed herself because she was 16 and wasn't ready ?
I know all you said about adoption and all but 1 : one homeless on three comes from a host family, it means that host family aren't always the good way. And secondly, even if the governement tries to help, women are still hurting. To force women to be pregnant and after that try to not let them suffer is like if you killed every firemen of a city and after that, you create a hospital to help victims of fire. It doesn't make any sense.
4 - okay, i see your point of view. But when women can abort, it is not hurting you, because women who are anti abortion can still have a normal pregnancy. But when you get off abortions, women who don't need abortions are the only one to be safe.
When you have the right to it means you can live with some people who get it, and some people Who don't get it. Everybody can choose her way to live. And the difference we have make us rich, and open - minded. You said you understood, if you really understood, you would have no troubles to live in a country where women are free to do what they want of their bodies.
I know we don't share the same point of view at all. But we also don't share the same education and experience. But I still respect you.
As we all should respect each other and their differences. I think when everybody is free to think what they want to, we get closer to justice. So now, I just hope justice will come into everybody and everybody can choose his / her way to live.
| 18753 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-08-29 |
|*by person I mean when are they worthy of human rights, including the right to life?|
| 18752 - Réponse de Gianna50 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-08-28 |
|Hey, Nil. Don't worry about your English; it's pretty good!
There are several points I would like to address. First of all, rapes account for 1% of all abortions. One cannot really argue the pro-choice case simply based on 1% of people. Even so, there are solutions to pregnant rape victims. There are many foundations, here in America at least, that will offer practically free medical care for a pregnant woman, and there are also places for said pregnant women to stay if they do not have a home. After giving birth, the baby can go to adoption, or be kept, if the mother so chooses. There are 36 families waiting to adopt per every 1 baby adopted. Pregnancy lasts for about nine months. That does not set behind a woman's life by much, and Mary in our example could probably get to 6 months before she begins to face serious inconveniences (i.e. bigger stomach, fatigue, etc.). It is perfectly possible to continue getting an education and therapy even if you are pregnant. :)
You mentioned the possibility that Mary might die. Abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life. The vast majority of potentially fatal pregnancy complications happen after 6 months of pregnancy, by which time the baby has a good chance of living in a prenatal unit. In fact, doing an abortion at this point causes more danger to the mother because of the amount of time it would take to prepare for the surgery. If we are talking about complications that arise earlier in pregnancy, of which there are very few, most doctors are able to bring the mother and child to a point where they can both live. If not, however, surgeries can be done to try to fix the complication, as, if the mother dies, neither the baby nor the mother can live. In addition to this, these surgeries only have the possibility of the death of the baby. Some are higher than others, but either way, the death of the baby was not intentional, and all that could be done was done to save both the mother and the baby. But again, this is very, very few cases.
Scientific studies have confirmed that humanity and life begins at conception. At the moment the DNA from the sperm meets that of the ova, a diploid cell - one with 46 human chromosomes - is formed, and it rapidly multiplies. It is already a living, human being.
Definitely the case of a child being neglected is difficult. However, as stated earlier, there are 36 families waiting to adopt for every 1 baby put up for adoption. The foster care system, although it isn't ideal, is certainly a solution. Every person does deserve love. And they ARE loved by someone, whether they know it or not. I try my best to remind myself that I should love all, my enemies, my friends, and those I haven't met. That is part of the reason I have become involved in advocating for the unborn; I love the unborn.
Let me ask you this: If a mother consented to intercourse and had no health problems, would you be in favor of permitting her to get an abortion? Also, what makes someone a person?
Don't worry, this is a debates forum, after all. I would, however, beg to differ that these are merely opinions. This is, quite literally, a life or death issue for millions of unborn children.
| 18751 - Réponse de Nil22 , 15 ans (France) - 2022-08-23 |
First, I want to thank everyone to share all these different points of view without any aggressivity.
And I don't know how this page works but I wanted to answer to Gianna's message about abortion and raped women.
If I well understood what you meant you think that let raped women get an abortion is a mistake because it is more violence for them. Also you said "My question is, what right of a mother allows her to kill her child?"
So for you get an abortion is a a child murder (tell me if I go too far).
But let's talk about an example of women.
Mary is a 16 years old girl. She is shy, she loves sports and lives with her mother and her father in law.
I won't go into details but, that day arrives, where this father in law rapes Mary. She is 16 years old. She has no job. She is scared, lost, she feels dirty because the smell of his breathe is still on her skin.
The body she had is not hers anymore. He took her everything. Her mother doesn't support her.
And few weeks later, boum. She gets pregnant.
Mary is lost. She doesn't want to be a mother. If she becomes a mother without feeling ready, what would it mean in this child life ? Do you prefer to know that a woman got an abortion and can start a therapy, go to school... or to know that a 16 years old girl becomes a mother because of a rape, even if she has no home, no job, no hope. How long this girl could stay alive ? And what if she dies in giving birth ? She would die just because her father rapped her and abortion is illegal. It's not even about the man who raped her, because if you forbid abortion and she gets pregnant even if she doesn't want to, YOU are the raper of her rights, of her body, of her choices. Nobody can decide for all women. If a woman wants to be pregnant that's great, and I'm glad for her. But it's impossible you know how it feels when you know you're diving because you can't love this child.
You were talking about the ftus rights.
A ftus is not a human. And I think we should be give more empathy to women who are already born.
Ok and let's say you're right and a ftus is human and we are all humans so we have rights and so they are.
A human has the right to be loved.
If you suppress the right to get an abortion it won't mean this ftus will be loved. It means that women who wanted to abort would have to care a baby for 9 months, 9 long months to just abandon him/her in the street and make one homeless of more. I don't think it is the solution.
And let's say you're right and abort is a crime because you "kill" the ftus.
Would you prefer to know your daughter has "killed" her foetus or to know that your daughter wasn't ready to have this child so now she's drinking because she has 3 jobs and can't pay the electricity because she's alone and haven't could finish her studies and now your grandson is stealing in the street, has no education because your daughter doesn't mind him. He has diven in drugs, becomes a junkie....
And now, because there were no love when he was born, when his mother educated him,because of the compassion you refused to your daughter, your grandson is in a silent looong death.
I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, because no opinion is wrong. I'm just trying to make this conversation more spicy giving this arguments against yours
I won't say if these arguments are mine or not. Let's just say that I want to bring hard examples.
(Sorry if I made some grammar mistakes, I know my English isn't perfect)
| 18750 - Réponse de Gianna127 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-07-25 |
|Okay, I'm back. I'm sorry for having two messages.
Personally, I think it's dehumanizing to say it's necessary for any raped woman to have the option to abort. It's telling a child conceived by rape that they didn't/don't have the humanity to live. In addition to this, by aborting a child conceived by rape, we are only adding violence to the violence of rape. Why should we allow the killing of an innocent child for his or her father's crimes? Abortions also add serious trauma to a woman. Adding that to the trauma from rape would only hurt a woman more. Furthermore, having abortion as an option only keeps the rapist less accountable. Rapists are less likely to rape if they know that the chance of them being forced to provide money to the mother is higher. I also think that, if the child is causing the woman that much grief that she feels she must abort, delivering early is an option. As long as she induces labor in the third trimester and near a NICU, both the baby and the mother have very high chances of survival.
My question is, what right of a mother allows her to kill her child? Bodily autonomy appears to come up quite often, but bodily autonomy is limited. One can't go traipsing on another's property and excuse it by saying it's his or her own body. Even more so, one can't kill another person simply because they wanted to do with their body as they please. A fetus is not a parasite, as many people claim. If we're not recognizing it as a human being, then we must at least recognize it as a symbiont, where both the mother and child are thriving. It is not doing any specific harm to the mother (excluding times with complications, which aren't as many as people actually think, and even so, most of them are not life-threatening), and the fetus actually helps the mother repair organs by donating stem cells.
Technically, we don't know whether or not a fetus has brainwaves before 14 weeks. At about 14 weeks we are able to pick up on its responses to the environment with the machinery we have, but it could be occurring much earlier. In addition to this, if consciousness is what causes one to be truly alive (with the right to life), what about people in comas? People experiencing non-REM sleep (simply put, sleep without dreams or thoughts). That's why we're human BEINGS. Not human FEELINGS or THINKINGS. We're human beings. From the moment of conception, we are living. We ARE. From the moment of conception we're entirely human. Human + are (form of "be") = human being.
I'm also not sure if this is a me thing, but I feel insulted that people pressure women to get abortions in order to be successful. Women fought hard to gain rights and the ability to work. Having children did not stop them from doing so. I personally feel that it's a step backwards to be telling women they can either be a mother or successful. There is room for both, and that we "must" have the option to murder our children in order to be successful suggests that there is a distrust in our capability, to put it quite simply.
What do you think of these points?
| 18749 - Réponse de Gianna127 , 25 ans (US) - 2022-07-25 |
|Yes, that was where I was going with my argument. I have encountered countless people who have claimed that humans are no different than other animals, so that is typically what I would tell them. But by then saying that humans are different than other animals, with a moral compass and other like things, we are kind of proving the existence of the soul, as well as that of God if one truly looks into it. As it's said, God created them man and woman. It is also said many times throughout the Bible that homosexuality is wrong. So if we are taking God to be God and going from a religious standpoint, homosexuality is still wrong (by homosexuality I mean homosexual acts). The Church considers homosexuality to be disordered thinking, similar to that of a mental illness. I couldn't help that my thoughts told me to starve myself. It was a disorder. It was what I chose to do with my thoughts that determined whether or not it was a sin. Similarly with depression. One can't help that their thoughts tell them that they are worthless and that they should kill themselves. We are called to hate the sin, not the sinner. Just as someone with severe depression should try to abstain from self-harm, someone with homosexual inclinations should try to abstain from acting on them. An unmarried person who is very hormonal should try to abstain from intercourse. We're all sinners, yet God does not hate any of us. As all of us are sinners, even the best people have sinned seriously. Slavery was inherently wrong, yet many of who we consider to be the greatest Americans had slaves. Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, for example. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, something that helped with the expansion of the United States. God permits sin to happen, as He gave us all free will. While sin is still wrong, permits it to happen. He gave us the tools and means to help us reach Heaven. It is what we choose to do with them that determines if we get there. For example, a candidate running in my state, Josh Shapiro, is extraordinarily anti-Catholic. One specifically horrible example is during the beginning of the COVID pandemic. Many elderly nuns, who provide nearly free care (monetarily free to the patient) to many poor people. However, their care did not contain contraceptives, which are wrong in the Catholic faith. Josh Shapiro took them to court in order to get these monetarily poor, dying nuns (as they were old, COVID hit them relatively badly...) to pay for contraceptives as part of the healthcare they provided. Yet Josh Shapiro liberated the Church in one way. He made it open for anyone who had been abused by a Catholic priest to call in and be reimbursed for their trauma. That helped liberate the Catholic Church from the stigma surrounding the abuse incidents in Pennsylvania. That was a good feat, but he did sin in the past. That is similar to the Julius Caesar example. I don't know if what I'm saying is making sense... basically God permits sin, as He loves us so much that He's given us free-will. While He allows sin to happen (i.e. murder, homosexual acts, intercourse out of wedlock, etc.), it doesn't stop it from being wrong.
If you are referring to the sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church, I understand what you mean. It was horribly wrong, and the Church is trying much harder now to stop the predators. People criticize the Catholic Church for having not done much about it in the past, but the thing is, that was, quite unfortunately, the social norm in the past. No one wanted to make the children suffer through a court session. My aunt was involved in a case where a man (non-religious) sexually abused her. My grandparents were furious, and they had my aunt describe and identify the man from mugshots. Apparently this man had a habit of doing this, but the police did nothing. They didn't want her to have to go through the trauma of facing him in court. While I agree that the Church should have done more about it, it is hard to say they are the only ones who did not hold people accountable for sexual abuse.
I have to go for now, but I will respond more later
| 18748 - Réponse de Jack100 , 16 ans (USA) - 2022-07-17 |
|I think I see where your thoughts were going, "that no other creature has homosexual relationships on purpose, then why do we?" Is that correct? If it is I would say that humans are certainty unlike any other animals. However I could also say with certainty that we are still an animal; with the basic and barbaric tendencies that you can find. What strikes me as different is our capacity to make a conscious and moral choice that other animals cannot (with the exception of large thinking mammals such as dolphins, cats, dogs,primates and elephants to name a few not being able to come even close despite their intelligence and consciousness). To me that means the difference between two men being in a relationship and two male ducks being in a relationship is that we have the choice too. If god doesn't want that then he can smite me dead and everyone who is homosexual. Yet god doesn't because I believe that homosexuals are natural and another aspect of gods creation. Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great, Julius Caesar and more were all often considered to have a homosexual relationship of some kind, yet they contributed vast works in the foundation of mankind. Julius Caesar established the Roman Empire which would allow Jesus's teachings to spread across Europe and North Africa; was this part of gods grand design? A homosexual contributing to the salvation of mankind? I don't know if I make any sense, but I do believe that they are another of gods creations, just like you and I, and are meant to be happy just like you and I.
Also, I don't mean to step on any toes but the Catholic church hierarchy is in no position to dictate what homosexuals can and can't do when they have their own little dirty secret about that within the church.
Yeah, I personally think the argument for abortion that relates to rape is flimsy at best. I mean it is necessary but ultimately more of a symbolic aspect rather than a practical one. I do think that it is necessary for people who were raped, but basing an entire argument on it just undermines the basic foundation of the pro-abortion argument.
There needs to be a balance, it isn't right for someone to abort a fetus like a month before it's born. Its practically already a full grown baby. Yet the mothers rights are also paramount, but I do believe at a certain point the mother does bear a responsibility for the child. Which brings us to when does an embryo think and such... everyone has different opinions. I think the simple fact is that before 7 weeks its essentially a glob of DNA and material. It definitely has no conscious because it has no organs. 14 weeks is when the fetus first gains the ability to even experience an outside sensation. Without it it is just an empty vessel. In my own view 14-15 weeks should be the cut-off for abortion on request from a moral standpoint. Yet, again, thats just my own personal view.
Its unfortunate that people say that, it isn't right and everyone should be able to express their political views without harassment. It is certainty harder to be pro-life as a women and argue against people who are pro-choice as you and I have both seen, they dive into personal attacks. I suppose the great irony in this all is that my "bloc" claims to fight for equal rights, yet degrades women who argue against them, saying they belong in a kitchen.
A basic mental health screening is a great idea, guns should simply not be in the hands of people who could turn it on others or themselves.
Thank you, and I could say the same too you. I know I have mentioned this before, but our ability to find common cause, and agree to disagree on our differences does give me hope that we can move forward from this political unrest that plagues our country.
| 18747 - Réponse de Gianna127 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-07-15 |
|Certainly likening a sexual orientation to the Nazis is extreme. I'm in favor of helping people with love, compassion, and empathy whenever possible. For the most part, the Catholic Church simply opposes LGBTQ+ using the Bible, specifically Leviticus, but many traditions in that book are no longer followed. However, there are other sources in the Bible that are opposed to it. But seeing that not everyone is religious I tend to base my oppositions to engaging in homosexual interactions with basic tradition and sense. Until the recent years, almost everyone considered gay relations to be wrong. Marriage is the beginning of a family unit. It's where a man and woman join together to be intimate partners to help achieve life callings, as well as allowing your love to be fruitful and, if it is so, helping the children to get raised correctly. In general, no animals except humans are truly homosexual as many claim. Rather, most animals mate homosexually based on the instinct to mate in heat, often when an animal of the other gender is not around. As humans we understand that having intercourse just because of hormones leads to loveless intercourse, which should be an act of self-giving. Of love. Not based on the hormonal urges. Another example of when homosexuality occurs in animals is when there is an uneven number of females to males, causing some of the additional males/females to mate together. Another basic argument I have with it is intercourse itself. It's both for procreation and joining the couple in an act of self-giving. Without there being the possibility of procreation, it obviously isn't self-giving. It isn't saying that the love is strong enough to last with a child. Another part of it is that it is complementary. Obviously men and women are made to be complementary. Same-sex couples are not. This probably sounds like a lot of random thoughts... sorry haha. It is an extremely hard issue, and I tend to struggle with philosophical things. I think one of the most basic arguments that doesn't fall back on any particular subjective beliefs is the complementary joining of a man and woman, as well as the basic fact that intercourse is pretty much for procreation. I have absolutely no hate towards those with homosexual urges. I just don't agree with gay marriage.
I do need a fair bit of advice on the pro-choice issue... I've experienced, especially lately after the Roe v. Wade reversal, many people claiming that abortion is necessary because of rape victims. However, < 1% of abortions are from rape victims. Also another argument I've run into quite a lot is that the bodily autonomy of the mother trumps the right to life of the child in the womb. Another is that the beginning of life is subjective, as an embryo isn't sentient or capable of thinking. Where do you stand on these? Most of the people I have engaged with have told me that I was "obviously jealous of successful women, and you're only an incapable busybody who is speaking online because you'll never amount to anything in the real world" as well as being accused of trying to get other women to "come back into the kitchen." I'm just wondering if you have any advice on this... I know we don't see eye to eye on pro-life vs. pro-choice, but I know that debates here are tame and respectful, so I was wondering if you had any insight or anything on those issues that we could debate without telling each other to go make a sandwich, as that's all we'll be good for.
I lost a friend back quite a few years ago to a domestic case of gun violence, so I'm definitely wary of guns. Although I am not fond of them, I understand that they are an important part of feeling safe for many people, as well as for hunting. I think more intensive background checks would be fairly wise... just to make it a little bit harder for anyone to impulsively buy a gun, or for a violent person to buy one at all. I personally have never owned a gun, and I don't recall my parents' buying of one (even so it was kept locked up and disassembled due to mental illness) or how hard it was to obtain. Would you agree with having a basic mental health screening, as well as perhaps a polygraph test?
I take back what I said about it being right because they were only taking orders... I did not think of it in that way. It was a very insensitive thought. You tend to think things through very well, and thanks for calling out my error in your last paragraph. :)
| 18746 - Réponse de Jack100 , 16 ans (USA) - 2022-07-12 |
|Hey, sorry for my late response.
I have read articles published by the Southern Poverty Law Center that completely discredits his work. To begin with he is a member of an pro-traditionalist marriage Catholic group "The Ruth Institute". Its founder said:
Its really important to be well informed about what the church actually says about homosexual practice
.The church is very clear that same-sex sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can never be morally acceptable.
Jennifer Roback Morse on Catholic Answers Live, 2012
While I know you agree with this point, the founder is actively campaigning against same-sex couples.
Furthermore: "she likened priests loyal to the Nazi regime to Christians who failed to oppose the pagan ideology of marriage equality."
Heres another study that found the opposite result as well, "theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/23/children-raised-by-same-sex-parents-do-as-well-as-their-peers-study-shows
Frankly, I would not believe a word of anything that comes out of the mouth of a organization that compares LGBTQ to Nazi's, and those who fight against LGBTQ as freedom fighters.
It would, but the thing is that it would need to be phased out slowly to be replaced, if you just drop it immediately there would be a fair bit of chaos from people who were involved or relied on planned parenthood.
Most people who bought a gun and attacked a school had some sort of disciplinary, mental or online history before they committed the act. Violent messages, violence or even bullying are all signs that there is something wrong with a person. Looking at these and deciding, "this person said he wishes he could kill xyz" is a pretty good factor in deciding whether a kid should get a gun.
So is it alright when someone died because the person was just following his orders? Then that absolved the thousands of SS guards who didn't actively commit the Holocaust, just knew about it. Look, if people were to follow orders we would be living in a nuclear holocaust right now, a Russian saved us from that by not listening to orders to send a bomb over to our capital. Besides there were kids in there, I don't care if it was there orders or not, its there duty to protect kids. If your valuing police lives, who join and serve knowing that theres a risk that they will need to put their life on the line, over a bunch of elementary school children then there is a major issue. I know you aren't alluding to that but I have met many people online who believe that the death of children, and I quote, "was a necessary sacrifice to preserve freedom."
| 18744 - Réponse de Gianna127 , 25 ans (USA) - 2022-06-16 |
|I'm really sorry again for my delay... I really need to work on replying to people faster.
It seems we've traveled in a full circle... Gay adoption. I still stand by my view that children need a mother and father to thrive. Having both parents ensures the child the ability to converse and interact with both sexes. Statistically, children are much more successful and at less risk of mental illness with their natural parents. However, when this is unattainable, heterosexual couples are the next with success and mental stability. In a study done by American sociologist Paul Sullins it was found that emotional problems are over twice as prevalent for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents, problems including but not limited to misbehavior, worrying, depression, relationships with peers, and inability to concentrate. True, being brought up by a same-sex couple, divorced parents, or a single parent might be better than spending their childhood in an orphanage, there is no doubting that the best situation for the children is for a heterosexual couple to adopt them. It's for this reason, although I'm certainly planning to adopt once I'm married, that I've chosen not to adopt while I'm in my current state of solitude and confiding in my dog. I also still believe that a same-sex union is immoral, but that isn't related to the point of abortion. However, if you would want to, I'd be happy to debate this topic again.
I was under the impression that the new entity would take the place of Planned Parenthood; it would help the family support the newborn/unborn child, as well as help with adoption if needed. Did you have a different idea about what this new organization would do?
In your opinion, what should the universal background checks consist of? Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I always remembered that a criminal always has a first crime, before which they were innocent and seemingly harmless. Likewise, the shooter appeared harmless until he went into the school, so no one could really have prevented it. It's tragic, but I feel that there isn't much that can happen in regards to preventing shootings. They are often unpredictable.
I do think physical training for police officers would be helpful. Not necessarily being nitpicky with them about doing a certain amount of exercise each day, but encouraging them and reminding them to keep in good shape. I haven't looked too far into it, and I'm not extremely certain about how police officers function, but I've heard that the officers were unable to go into the school by an order, and that they had to wait for a more capable team to show up. Of course, going into the school might have helped, but at the same time they were being held back by orders. Again, I'm not entirely sure how true this is, but I've heard this from a few sites.
| 18743 - Réponse de Jack 100 , 16 ans (USA) - 2022-05-28 |
|I would like to take back my words about calling all police cowards, it is simply not true. The two officers who did lead the charge we incredibly brave and I hope for their health. Most other officers around the country are brave as well, I just wish more action was taking to prevent this.|
| 18742 - Réponse de Jack100 , 16 ans (USA) - 2022-05-28 |
|I agree, it is definitely a very difficult matter. Frankly there is far more I could learn about the subject before I make any major assertions over it. However, based on my knowledge I would say a system similar to Big Brothers/Big Sisters, where adults and youth could take out a child for the day from an orphanage or foster care system. It would help them develop bonds I think... though that might already be in place. I would encourage gay families to adopt of course, though many already do.
I am conflicted whether Planned Parenthood should be combined with this new entity as having so many government bureau's leads to so much redtape and confusion. If it is separate then funds would be taken from planned parenthood. I also think the government could encourage wealthy organizations to donate funds into this system as well. I know many anti-abortion groups would probably be eager to, but I of course may be wrong.
It is terrifying and utterly senseless; I don't understand how someone could kill another person without reason... especially children. It strikes home for me as I am in still in school. Personally, police in schools are a horrifically flawed idea. My school officer cannot run and frankly always looks about five seconds from passing out. I have no faith in his ability to protect us, such as the officer at Uvalde failed to protect the students. Greater physical conditioning among police officers is definitely needed, alongside gun training. Maybe also getting some that weren't cowards and sat outside the school for twenty minutes as a murderer rampaged through would be good as well. Universal Background checks would also help, including (in my opinion) making it so that between the age of 18-21 someone cannot buy a weapon without their parents/guardians being present.
I am an INFP-T.