But, suffering is very much a part of life, and everyone must come to terms that we all must suffer at one point or another.
You've gotta love the sado-masochists. Hey dude... suffer all you want, hold it real tight because it's yours and I'll have no part of it. I do what I can to ease the suffering of others (call me crazy)
Outside of the argument of rape, what gives a person power to choose whether or not she will have the baby?
What makes the fertilized egg that was the result of rape any different from the fertilized egg that was the result of consensual sex? That's what I thought... look out, it's the morality police and they're coming for YOU! Bwahahahaha!
Not for the many people who are actively sexing it up but have finished with the procreation (or have chosen to forgo that whole scene.) I'm done having children... I will not gestate or give birth ever again. That certainly doesn't mean I'm done having sex. My husband had a vasectomy and now we will happily have sex that feels really good without even being open to the possibility of procreation.As good as sex feels, it's main purpose is procreation.
When is a seed considered a child? Conception
That sentence is just yucky... ew, I can't get it off of me. A seed? A seed is never, ever considered a child. YIK!
This deduction clearly states that abortion is murder. Regardless if you think it isn't, it very much is.
I love this... this is the crux of their argument. "It doesn't matter what your personal belief system is because what I say is the absolute truth. My thoughts, beliefs and opinions trump yours because... well, because I say so!" And then there is much foot stomping and hmph-ing.
By the way, the scientific community acknowledges the fact that birth begins
at conception.
No, seriously... he/she ("anonymous" surprise!) wrote that. That's right ladies and gentlemen... scientists are now saying that Conception is the new Birth! I couldn't make this shit up.
If you support Obama you clearly have no knowledge of basic economy or the basics of capitalism for that matter. Let me point out that that statement is not meant to be insulting; I'm just stating the truth.
I just threw this nugget in because of it's absolute absurdity. And to prove that these people exist (if only on the anonymous Internet.)
12 comments:
Barack Obama and his followers (you, littlebrat and smelly) are terrorists against unborn children.
Hey there,
I just wanted to address a couple things in your post. First off, I noticed that in your response to "as good as sex feels, it's main purpose is procreation" you did not mention why or how procreation is not the primary purpose of sex. I would like to elaborate on the fact that while sex does feel great perhaps you are confusing purpose with motivation. People's motivations for seeking sex are, more often than not, primarily for pleasure. But do not mistake the fact that the biological purpose of sex is for procreation. This is simply a scientific fact and one that cannot be disputed. Motivations, yes, purpose, no.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "seed"?
"By the way, the scientific community acknowledges the fact that birth begins
at conception."
I'll admit that this user is fundamentally flawed in their logic, and it looks like they probably don't fully understand what they're talking about.
I will attempt to clarify their argument by suggesting that, genetically speaking, a fetus/zygote possesses dna which allows it to be included in the species homo sapiens, in other words, it is human. Furthermore this is demonstrated by the fact that a zygote/fetus has a unique genetic structure separate from either the mother or father. Whereas the sperm/egg are both haploid cells incapable of cellular divison, a zygote has a full set of chromosomes which are consistent with the dna structure of members of homo sapiens.
Genetically and scientifically speaking, the fetus/zygote is "human".
You neutered your pet husband!?
As far as I know it's illegal to marry your pets (at least in New York)... but not if those gays have their way, right?
And, I know it appears as if, due to my limitless knowledge of everything, I could seal the vasa deferentia, I am not, in fact, a doctor of Urology.
Mr. anonymous: I just wanted to address a couple things in your post. First off, I noticed that in your response to "as good as sex feels, it's main purpose is procreation" you did not mention why or how procreation is not the primary purpose of sex.
Mellankelly: You first. Simply making the statement that because most woman can become pregnant when they have sex does not make the erroneous claim that "it's main purpose is procreation" true. This is your personal belief... some may share this belief just as others (myself included) will disagree. What we have here is a difference of opinion.
Mr. anonymous: I would like to elaborate on the fact that while sex does feel great perhaps you are confusing purpose with motivation.
mellankelly: And I would like to point out that while some people are motivated to have sex in order to procreate, this does not prove that procreation is the "main purpose" of sex.
I will elaborate later, for now I am off to enjoy friends and family.
anonymous: Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "seed"?
mellankelly: Hey, you'll have to ask "anonymous guy on the Internet" about that. When I think of "seed" in conjunction with sexual activity, I think of sperm. What do you think he/she meant by "seed"?
anonymous: I'll admit that this user is fundamentally flawed in their logic, and it looks like they probably don't fully understand what they're talking about.
mellankelly: Hmmm... sounds vaguely familiar... just like some anonymous posters on my blog, no?
anonymous: I will attempt to clarify their argument by suggesting that, genetically speaking, a fetus/zygote possesses dna which allows it to be included in the species homo sapiens, in other words, it is human.
Genetically and scientifically speaking, the fetus/zygote is "human".
mellankelly: My eyelash contains dna... it is also human. Are you really attempting to explain that merely having dna (unique or not) is what makes us people? Because many scientists, philosophers and scholars would disagree with you.
anonymous: blah, blah, blah... terrorists against fertilized eggs
mellankelly: Somebody doesn't know what a terrorist is. I, for one, have never systematically used a state of intense fear as means of coercion against fertilized eggs. I wouldn't even know how one would go about terrorizing a zygote, you anonymous fool.
Hey there mellankelly.
I was the one who made the post on:
October 7, 2008 11:58 PM
You said "you first. Simply making the statement that because most women can
become pregnant when they have sex does not make the erroneous claim that
"it's main purpose is procreation" true. This is your personal belief.
I'm not entirely certain how you believe this to be a personal belief.
Sex stands for sexual reproduction, versus asexual reproduction. We're talking
about something scientific, not your philosophical or religious beliefs. By all
means look into a biology text book and you'll find it's meaning is clear.
Granted, sex can be used for pleasure, and it more often than not is. The sexual revolution
in the 60s which perhaps is where you're getting your opinion from, attempted to change
the purpose of sex to one of pleasure where previously it'd been ingrained in a conservative
tradition of making families.
You are welcome to disagree but that doesn't make science any less correct. Sex,
due to the explusion of sperm from the male which flows into the women so as to
attempt to fertilize her egg(s) is sexual reproduction. I would not have thought I'd
have to explain such basic science to anyone. But regardless, that is the defintion
of sexual reproduction. As I said, you can be motivated to use sex for some other reason,
but that does not mistake it's biological purpose.
Your eyelash containing dna is fundamentally different from a fetus in the womb
and there is really no basis of comparing one to the other.
Genetically speaking your eyelashes possess the same DNA that 'you' possess, the dna of their host body. Not only that but they are, genetically speaking, a product of your DNA.
Due to the fact that a fetus' DNA is unique, and separate from the mother; your argument doesn't quite make sense.
Now, if your eyelashes had different DNA then you did, then maybe your theory would have some validity.
Science suggests that what makes us "human" is our inclusion in the species homo sapiens.
Scientists would agree, philosophers would agree, scholars would agree.
They don't have to "agree" though, because this is just basic scientific fact, it's not really
something you can go around and be like "well, I don't really think so." You're trying to
argue that the earth is flat, you're just not gonna get anywhere doing so.
And seriously, whoever the fuck is talking about prochoice people being terrorists needs
to shut the fuck up, you're just pissing me off and making a fool of yourself.
Tobiius: And seriously, whoever the fuck is talking about pro-choice people being terrorists needs to shut the fuck up, you're just pissing me off and making a fool of yourself.
mellankelly: I totally dig that about you! And thanks for letting me know who I'm corresponding with... it's always nice to put a name to the words (and to be clear that I'm not replying to the same "anonymous" who believes pro-choice persons to be terrorists :).
Tobiius: I'm not entirely certain how you believe this to be a personal belief. Sex stands for sexual reproduction, versus asexual reproduction. We're talking
about something scientific, not your philosophical or religious beliefs. By all means look into a biology text book and you'll find it's meaning is clear.
mellankelly: I believe that is an example of a simplified theory (ie reductionism). Thinking of human sexuality only as a means of reproduction is a form of reductionism. One could most definitely and without question argue that sexuality is not merely a biological subject but very much a philosophical (and oftentimes religious) one.... ergo, ones perspective regarding the main purpose of sex could most certainly be seen as a personal belief. You are incorrect in stating that by looking into a biology text book you will find the meaning of sex (as procreation) to be clear... the meaning of sex is not and never has been clear. It can change depending upon the person, the relationship, the time & place among many other factors.
Tobiius: Granted, sex can be used for pleasure, and it more often than not is.
mellankelly: I don't believe that sex is "used for" anything... be it procreation or pleasure. Sex just IS. We may be motivated to have sex for different reasons... if that's what you meant I would agree. But that doesn't clear up the whole "main purpose of sex is..." statement.
oooh... I've got to run. Be back later to respond in full.
Tobiius: The sexual revolution in the 60s which perhaps is where you're getting your opinion from...
mellankelly: It is not. My opinion comes from years of observance, study and personal experience, not the attitudes and experiences of others. Just as your opinions come from your observance, study and personal experience. I can't imagine one would base ones opinion solely on the thoughts and beliefs of some third person.
Tobiius: ...attempted to change the purpose of sex to one of pleasure where previously it'd been ingrained in a conservative tradition of making families
mellankelly: How peculiar. How would one go about "changing the purpose of sex?" I could no more change the purpose of your sex than you could change the purpose of mine.
Tobiius: You are welcome to disagree but that doesn't make science any less correct
mellankelly: Right back atchya.
Tobiius: Sex, due to the explusion of sperm from the male which flows into the women so as to attempt to fertilize her egg(s) is sexual reproduction.
mellankelly: Does sex have the function of reproduction? Sure, it does. Do people engage in sex for many other purposes in spite of the possibility of reproduction? They sure do. To casually put aside as secondary all of the reasons people engage in sex is utterly reductionistic. Frankly, I'm surprised you didn't see this yourself.
Tobiius: I would not have thought I'd have to explain such basic science to anyone. But regardless, that is the defintion of sexual reproduction
mellankelly: I didn't ask for a definition of sexual reproduction. I simply refuted (quite admirably) your false statement that the main purpose of sex is procreation. You must understand that your definition of sexual reproduction in no way, shape or form supports procreation being the "main purpose" of sex, right?
Tobiius: As I said, you can be motivated to use sex for some other reason,but that does not mistake it's biological purpose.
mellankelly: I don't believe (and science would support me here) that one could define sex as merely a biological matter. You may disagree and in and of itself that is perfectly understandable... what you cannot do is make the statement that sex being merely a biological matter is an absolute truth. Disagreeing is about as far as from my statement that you could logically go.
Tobiius: Your eyelash containing dna is fundamentally different from a fetus in the womb and there is really no basis of comparing one to the other.
mellankelly: Okay... the statement made was: " I will attempt to clarify their argument by suggesting that, genetically speaking, a fetus/zygote possesses dna which allows it to be included in the species homo sapiens, in other words, it is human. Genetically and scientifically speaking, the fetus/zygote is 'human'."
~and my response that my eyelash also contains dna and genetically & scientifically speaking, was considered "human" was spot on. If you'd like to define the differences between my eyelash and a fetus please feel free, but rest assure, that is certainly not what I was responding to.
Tobiius: Science suggests that what makes us "human" is our inclusion in the species homo sapiens. Scientists would agree, philosophers would agree, scholars would agree.
mellankelly: Again, the statement I made was that the mere existence of dna does not define personhood, as it were. "Science suggests" no such thing. No scientist (or philosopher, scholar or theologian) has been able to define what makes us people. The medical definition of human (as a noun) doesn't help much "a bipedal primate mammal of the genus Homo" - bipedal = two footed animal, as a fertilized egg, zygote & embryo most certainly do not have two feet. The definition of human (as an adjective) doesn't help much "of, relating to, or characteristic of humans" as my eyelash would be considered every bit as human as a fertilized (or unfertilized) egg.
Tobiius: They don't have to "agree" though, because this is just basic scientific fact, it's not really something you can go around and be like "well, I don't really think so."
mellankelly: Well then, why do you insist upon basing your argument on what you "think so"?
Tobiius: You're trying to argue that the earth is flat, you're just not gonna get anywhere doing so.
mellankely: Silly boy... I've done no such thing!
holy fucking shit! i just found out i'm a terrorist against the unborn. ROFLMAO! i have to agree that i'm not quite sure how you'd exactly go about that.
oohhh...i think i'd rather be a terrorist against the undead...THAT would be cool. i could hold all of the undead hostage and terrorize them! then blow them up and kill them again! YEAH! although i'm not quite sure how i would exactly communicate with them cuz communicating with the undead is not really a talent i possess. i'd have to get an undead interpretor in my employment, but i wonder how much they'd charge. and could i really trust this go-between? i mean...what if this person just wants a good laugh and is all "dead dude's right next to you...blow him up" and then i just end up blowing up air. i mean, really? that kinda took the air outta my balloon so i'm gonna go now and try to get over being so upset with my future alive dead-translator.
Post a Comment