peto453 Posts

From our morality, yes, humans are the ones who give rights to other humans, but these rights have been argued, debated upon and are a social norm based on our expectation of how to interact with others. In this day and age, we do not discriminate rights, based on one's gender, race nor religion. Basically, we do not discriminate against minorities.

I would argue, that a developing fetus is a minority(IE:Inferior), you yourself acknowledge it as such. Therefore an open-ended abortion policy, is a form of discrimination against the fetus.




No, we give that right to everyone. Up until a person violates another's physical integrity, your physical integrity is yours and will remain as such. Unless, of course, under suspicion of a crime and due process and investigation. And while the parent makes the child's health decisions, a moral parent will not diktat to his child what he/she wants. Part of being a parent is listening to your child. Again, this is why I'm thankful you're not a parent:

You look at it robotically, you do not comprehend morality as it relates to decision, or ethics. Human Morality IS a fundamental factor in our decisions, you will find almost every criminal lacks a sense of morality. What they do not lack, in most cases is intelligence. In fact, many of the world's serial killers are brilliantly intelligent(See:Loughner, Holmes.)

The only reason a parent may overrule the child, sometimes misguidingly(IE:Not enough knowledge of the situation) is only due in fact to a high moral standard or in other words: The parent seeks to uphold the sanctity of the child's life. The child, who does not possess the years of experience *in most cases* to make that decision, cannot make that decision with all of the information.

This, sometimes, neglects the fact that what the child lacks in years, the child has in immediate experience(IE:The child is the one attending said school 7 days a week, 365 days a year), and say if the child is bullied or the teacher's neglecting his studies?

The child has immediate knowledge of this(and in most cases), eventually the parent sees this and remedies the situation. As a parent, one must always remember that a child is often right there, in the middle of the problem and you can see the truth through your child's eyes.



Rights are fundamental beliefs that we believe other people should have, so as to maintain a civilized society. The right to privacy and other rights were not granted by the Kingdom, but the people themselves had to march for these freedoms.

The same is true in the civil rights movement, the African-Americans made the case for their own freedom, joined by even the Caucasian community in the recognition that rights for minorities, equal rights for all. All significant movements for human rights, were pushed for by humans, not aristocrats.

The State, is often the greatest oppressor of human rights and dignities.




Good job...repeating what 42 said? I mean, what was the point of this passage? Believe it or not, there are only thousands of criminals, as compared to millions of human beings. I don't believe imprisonment for misdemeanors(such as yelling fire in a crowded theater) is the solution, that's a huge part of the problem of our prison system(different debate), the idea that we can just lock everyone up and throw away with the key.

In fact, that mentality is one that's devoid of a higher moral position and hence why criminality continues. Right now, prison is nothing more than a place of rotting, decaying beings that supports...nothing but the continuation of rotting and decaying behavior. Is there any reason, not to believe they won't engage in criminal activity when they get out?

There are two moral positions that we can(and must) take in order to seriously address the problem of inmates, prison overpopulation and the continuing of serious crimes. Either the Light Yagami Thesis(Morality to a high extent, as to seriously punish the offender. Making it utterly clear that crime is unacceptable.) Or a serious Reform Thesis, that puts the emphasis on trying to reform the criminal offender.

As of now, prisons in the U.S. have less than 2% of these programs. And my response to the fact: Are you freaking kidding me? We spend thousands of millions on career politicians, millions on the debated open-abortion policy, millions on wall-street. But we cannot afford a Reform Program inside our prisons?

Again, a lack of morality is a huge reason for America's financial and moral decline. And if it continues, we won't be able to call ourselves the *world's superpower* anymore.



Human Morality is the source of rights, it's the violation of Morality that takes away rights. I want to seriously ask you: What does the word 'morals' mean to you? Do you think morals exist? And if not, what are human emotions governed by?

Yes, egotistical, anyone who has a position of: "Since this life has not evolved to where I'm at, it has no rights." Is egotisitical. Your position of life being a privilege is the definition of egoism. I cannot proclaim to such an egotistical position as it regards the fetus.

It follows logically, you just don't think logically. Here, a thought map to help you out. Biglundi hates children, you don't think they have the right to birth, hell you don't even want one. Biglundi makes out with "X" and one day "X" gets pregnant. You don't see "X" as a woman anymore, at least not as long as she has "that thing" in her system.
And as you've said, the women has absolute choice. So if she decides to bring the child into the world, you who hates children will either have to A: Leave the relationship(Scumbag), or B:Even worse, you'll commit murder with your own hands.

I'll admit, some of what I stated earlier and even now is speculation. Speculation based on your own anti-human drivel. I can hardly see you(and you even admitted at the end of your post) as a guy that'll ever settle down with a consistent relationship.

I didn't "make shit up" about you, I made inferences based on your miserably-built character.

Ah, the wonders of the difference between a developing country and a developed one. Our laws are drastically different. You're still a dumbass, but lawfully it seems you'll actually get home free(well, depending on the definition of free. You'll possibly have to pay for the kid. But if you were here in the U.S, that'd be the least of your worries :D)

Lawfully and ethically, it doesn't matter that they were both idiots. Hell, the point being you expect a minor to be ignorant when it comes to sexual matters. That's why there's an Age of Consent to begin with.

No matter what way you look at it, he wasn't only a dumbass, he was scum. He took advantage of the kid, impregnated her and from the looks of his opening post didn't want to take responsibility.

Odds are good at the very least, we'll see this dude on the Jerry Springer show lol.

Given your other posts later on, a question: Was the girl as intoxicated as you are? If so, you're in more shit than you can imagine:Forget getting sued, that would actually constitute as rape, whereby the girl was no longer in a position to make proper consentual judgment. In addition to that, her being underage pretty much would seal your fate. This, of course is dependent upon the state you live in.

You better hope it's a liberal state like my own Pennylvania. But most states have it at around 17-18.

Even if you manage to avoid the significant law reprecussions(Highly doubtful), this girl is a mere sophomore probably in high school, literally no job experience ....

I'm a pro-lifer, but I'd support an abortion in this case, hell, I highly recommend it, followed by counseling. There's no reason for this young girl to go through any more trauma then you've already put her through. And the idea of parting away with a life that you gave birth to, at such a fragile, young and naieve age is potentially very devastating.

Whatever she decides, there's no wrong choice in my mind for her. You, on the other hand, I utterly despise men like you from the bottom of my heart. It's men like you, that makes the male species look like monsters. It's men like you, that's the reason for having to make a life or death decision in the first place.

So, here we are. This is a position you've held for months, not that I thought differently given your responses in the other thread, but when you said "I don't want a child, ever". Want me to tell you the honest to god truth in my heart: "Thank God." I thank whatever beings may or may not be out there, that made it so that such a selfish, vain, egotistical person would never want a child.

If you, god forbid had a child, I'm convinced that you would abandon the child immediately. That is assuming of course, it gets through the pregnancy. Hell, if you're a guy, I have fear for your GF. You don't value the fetus, you probably don't value the girl as much. Infact, if impregnated by you, she's as much of a parasite to you as the 'cells' are. And I can only imagine what you'll do in that case.

If you're so callous to the lives of others, as well as to the life of yourself. Please do keep to your isolationist beliefs, the danger of you ever physically contacting a woman is far too great. You're far from emotionally ready for a relationship. That is, if you can even see yourself having one.

It wasn't me, I might hold true to my beliefs and I might be stubborn. But I'm an intellectual, and he looks at himself the same way. With my pride as an intellectual, I would never negative rep a belief I didn't have.

I know how it feels, the negative rep is kind of a stigma. It's like a punishment for your beliefs. Even if I think Lundi's a coldhearted bastard, he likely thinks the same of me.

If we can't have our opinions respected, then what was the point of our academic journies? I can respect him for that.

How'd you jump from "The 5 jars and the child are equal to that of one child." To the conclusion that "One jar is less than that child"? If we're going to talk logic, I want to know how the hell you came up with that premise.

If we were going on a numbers basis, and my belief that all life is equal, then the 5 jars are actually superior to the one child.(Of course, I don't have this belief.) All life is independent of itself, in other words all life has it's own individual value, there is no such thing as collectivism. Each cell of life has an undetermined value, a potential not yet seen in the world. Therefore, I cannot weigh it against another cell of the same value. Nor can I weigh it against the child.

The way we 'weigh' it, is honestly discrimination: The five year old child, having developed its body will reach his potential quicker than the cells(This will be important to note later in the post.) We're not discriminating on the value of the cell/fetus, because its value is unknown and therefore infinite. We're discriminating on the basis of likeliness of return. We only have to wait 13 years for the five year old to enter college, as opposed to the full 18 for the unborn child.







Says the guy that makes jumps in logic to support his own claim, can you please try to refrain from doing that? Unconsciousness is a state of suspension(we already know this, or at least you SHOULD know this.) As proof of this, if you were to kill a comatose victim(No, I don't mean pulling life support. I mean if you were to take a knife and stab the guy in the heart.) it would still be murder.

In fact, that's exactly what abortion is. Killing of the unconscious life. Just like a comatose victim, the zygote/fetus is also temporarily unconscious. We know there'll be a point where the developing fetus gains consciousness. We DO not know when a comatose victim will awaken, or even how much he'll remember or what kind of brain damage has occurred.

Hell, IF he even awakens at all.

You could say that unconsciousness="death", then in a human being, but not for the developing fetus who, if all goes well, will develop said consciousness while its in the womb. However, the unconscious body still has signs of life, some bodily functions that true, would need medical assistance but nevertheless are still there.

So the unconscious person, unless fatally so, is still very much alive. The fact that you can't murder the comatose is the proof of that statement.

However, I want to blow your mind even further with a new intellectual concept for you to consider. The first definition of consciousness: aware of and responding to one’s surroundings.

After the sperm cells have made the journey to the womb, for some odd reason these cells are able to clump together and form a life. Why is that? Could it be luck, or coincidence? But for human life to be born through this method consistently, eliminates those two factors. These cells clump together, because something resonated causing them to respond. Instinctively? But since you declare that it's lifeless, it cannot have instinct.

If it's not luck, coincidence or instinctual, then we have only one other explanation: Consciousness. Those cells are aware, at the tinest fibers of their DNA structure that if they come together at the womb, that they will form a new life. In other words, the cell is a biological animal on the level of that of an animal from the wild.











I'm not debating that these levels of consciousness are the same, that's common knowledge. However, what I stated is that it's not entirely impossible to wake someone from a deep sleep, through normal methods. It might take the alarm clock ten or fifteen minutes to wake me up, but to be sure I'll eventually get up.

Waking up the kid is not feasible in most cases, but it's possible and worth a try(not worth beating your head over, obviously. But you can try.)






When you quite demonstrably show yourself stretching the finer points of logic, or making assumptions(which you told me not to do), that's the definition of hypocrisy. To proclaim a position and not follow it yourself. It's a simple concept, isn't it?






"So a fetus has the right to life because...people are capable of taking care of them, even if they're financially incapable." Congratulations, you finally showed reading comprehension for the first time in this debate, here an internet cookie:



Let me see if I can simplify it even more for you: The fetus has the right to life, the sanctity of life is a moral concept that if we lose it, we'll lose all fabric to our society(Hey, let's just go about killing this person or that person.)

Banks and businesses may make unethical decisions that amounts to stealing, but that doesn't mean armed robbery is acceptable. It's the same concept here, just because it's financially viable to kill off the developing fetus, doesn't make it acceptable. It's still murder.

And if you're living together in the same roof, having consentual sex and if you plan to have a future together, then you'll have to factor that child into your lives eventually.

A fetus is not a 'thing', it's a human life. If we to go into an anime, like Gundam Seed. You're like the scientist who toyed with the fetus, in the name of progress, outright killing the thing. His justification, like yours:

"I know that, that's why I have to see it through to the end!"(In a cult-like trance.) This progress caused division in the series, to the point of a genocidal war, and it created an anti-villian character who wanted to destroy everything because of his own flawed existence in a world that didn't value life.

Hell, even Rau pointed out that for all their self-proclaimed progress, they really went nowhere. There's still war, discrimination and racism. All they did was heighten an already existing problem.







If they've declared love, have intentions of living together and even see themselves raising a family, then yes, it's not logical or ethical to abort the developing life.

Hell, it surprised me to read(in the same link I gave you), a significant minority percentage of men actually encourage women to abort. So in other words, the financial burden is being lifted from the male. How Ironic. You're talking about women's rights, when it's the scumbags of the male species who benefit.





One's a developing life, the other has no such potential, livelihood or feasibility of livelihood. Understand it now? The fertilized egg has distributive properties to itself, qualified as human life. No other cell has even the slightest hope of achieving such a status.

Can you comprehend the superiority one cell has to the other? Can you comprehend that it doesn't even come close? You're comparing God(The Fetus) to an insect(the skin cell.)






Infidelity is natural, it's only human. But as we've seen through those abortion statistics, abortion is hardly the answer. Rather, again, we must hold ourselves to a higher moral standard. And even if the child's father is not biologically known(I don't know mine), that child has the right to growth, development and nourishment.

It goes again, to the major difference between the emphasis I put on life, and the scary lack of emphasis you put on it.

The woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body, except when it considers another life(the fetus) in the equation. You may not consider it one, your disgusting ideological colleagues don't consider it one. Those of us who hold morality, consider it one.

No life is superior to the other, in that we can take it deliberately. If we go down that scope, it's over. Why can't you realize that?






You really do make it easy for me, population control to help the economy. Please, don't run for office. We know how your story ends, it ends in mass genocide and warfare. Secondly, your premise is mistaken based on the fact the newborns are some 16(at the least) years away from participating in the work force.

If anything, a healthy nation with families that are reproducing economically, encourages actual job growth. Do you see prosperity over the African Continent? No, I didn't think so, the famine and genocide doesn't seem to be helping them much.






Even the evil ones, bring something productive to society from time to time. Can you imagine if Stalin didn't work his people to death, and continued pursuing pro-life policies like this one? The Soviet Empire might've actually lasted.

Hell, if we copied and pasted this policy into American politics, that'll be the first start of some sound economic policy.




**Yawn**, And so now your forced to attack me. That's the proof of my victory. But of course, Liberalism which has produced nothing but failure has nothing but an attack to pray upon. It was the same in the democratic campaign for the presidency in '08.

"We cannot afford another four years, so vote for me."

In reality, it might've been the least effective campaign of all time. If not for Bush's general incompetence, as well as their horrible pick of John McCain Republicans would've won such an election in a landslide. Sadly, they chose a miserable hack in Mitt Romney, so they're going to lose this election by at least ten percentage points.

I'm a former Liberal, whose quite dissatisified with the Obama Administration, the bailouts, the disruption of the free market, kenyesian failed economics which led to the collaspe to begin with. The Libya and then Syria engagements.

This failure isn't even political, an apolitical, disinterested person would deem it failure.






A fetus is a developing life, most people concur to that. The forcible elimination of life, is murder. Most people generally concede to that, it's not an opinion or if it is one, it's a mainstream opinion.

The only thing keeping Abortion alive, is the idea of "rights", or the fallacy of the demi-god status of the female. If an intellectual such as myself were to make the political debate, pro-life reform would begin within the next few years.

As proof? Before Abortion's approval, most states were anti-abortion. It was pretty predominate actually, after the end of WW2 and we stopped flirting with eugenics.

Well, until Roe V Wade, we stopped. Now we've become even worse than Communist China, you see, Communist China actually has to force it's women to abort. They kidnap these women, they inject them with drugs and treat them inhumanely.

To Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren, Communist China is just the beginning of the Abortion revolution, we should have abortions on a world-stage!

The only reason we don't have such a regime, is that the American citizenry is so apathetic, it approves of such measures on a wide scale. Hence, I call it worse than China.






Actually no, we deduced that at least 80% of abortions, conservatively are for economic reasons. Eliminate the economic problem, as Stalin did, and you'll have an Empire. Once upon a time, America didn't have a wide-open abortion policy and it's productivity was unmatched.

Now? Now our infant morality rate is somewhere around the 50's, our financial structure is collasping and neither the young nor the old have any sort of stability.

Please give me more the 'great' democratic society, that's produced nothing that resembles the pure epicness our Founders gave us. We spoiled greatness.







You yourself concurred to it, so you don't have any right to ask me for statistics.




Doesn't have to be perfect, if we can get this economy back to the levels it was in heck, the 90's, we're good to go. If we can significantly revive the dollar's value, then we can kick China's economic ass. My America has a much brighter future than the democratic America of 'today'.





We can think of feasible solutions, I already mentioned one: Let those overgrown, cancerous organizations die off and allow talented, under-appreciated workers and companies take the fold, the new blood will actually revive the economy.

But no, we can't do that because the morally(and financially bankrupt) big corporation is gonna collaspe, the horror!(Here's a hint, we're not out of the woods yet with the crisis, even Obama has admitted as such.)





I was beginning to think you were so anti-human life, you'd oppose the potential for said medical science and technology to help increase the probability of a safe birth.





Japan(and not just because I'm an otaku on a Fakku site XD). Japan actually has great medical, health and crime standards. And that's dealing with vast inflation. At the end of this China-US-Russia mess, you could look at Japan as the next world power, if they can deal with the inflation of the EN.

I want to make America into Japan, hell, it used to be the other way around a century ago. The Japanese admired the Americans, now look at me. I wish I was born in my ancestor's age.

Japan with inflation>>>>America with inflation and it's not even close.




It may be called America, but ethically and morally, it's not America. A country of bailouts, political divisiveness and moral bankruptcy is far from what we inherited and kept up. Hell, 90's America OWNS the modern day situation on the ground today.




And yet, a woman who didn't even graduate H.S singlehandedly took care of her son for 20 years now, that would be my grandmother. If a non-graduate can do it, so can we. Provided of course, our economy and country doesn't slip even further down the drain. To do that, let's try to value our future as well as our present.

It's not too hard a concept, is it?



What a degenerative thought for one, and for second: Suppose we took such an evil mindset to human life, you'd have to cut down on the healthy adults taking jobs, not the fetus's who, in your mind are lifeless and you know damn well they haven't had their opportunity. No, it's because they haven't had their opportunity that you justify killing them.

Your mindset is like that of the Yotsuba group from Death Note.






Even you acknowledged these cases number probably in the few hundreds, maybe a few thousand. And again, this falls under medical abortions. The lives it saves, pails in comparison to the lives it takes.

Hey, here's an idea: You can use that sentiment for gun control(which I support), the lives guns can save, pails in comparison to the lives taken over the past couple of weeks.



We already discussed this earlier, the loss of a high magnitude of lives doesn't mitigate the few lives you saved. For a geopolitical comparison, no matter how many people the Nazi Army might've helped(and most certainly, for it's own selfish interests), it doesn't take away from the fact that they committed open genocide.

Understand now?





Actually, that isn't logic. You just added another reason to strengthen the original premise. If the first premise(such as "Killing someone takes away their life") is such a significant premise however, there's no need to add anymore reasons.

It's the person without conviction, who questions himself over and over. The person with conviction, doesn't need the questions. A true intellectual is able to quickly decide the pros and cons of a decision, the righteousness or wrongness of a theory and understand why. I don't waste my time asking myself questions to understand a concept, hopefully I paid enough attention that I understand the idea without all of the clutter.

Now in some cases, a clear-cut determination isn't possible. For example, the life of a serial murderer or a high-profile criminal. The reason for this, however still lies with the original premise. It's because the criminal no longer values his life, or the lives around him that we who do value our lives, have to take preventive measures for the rest of society.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy For everyone's reference, this is what Lundi's referring to. I think we can all concur to the belief in Human Autonomy, however, there are some decisions that cannot be made morally by individual beings.
This is why we have a system of law and order. And as we've rejected murder of a human being, we should also reject the murder of a developing human being.

And it IS a developing human being, unless you can reference me to a pregnancy where after the mother gave birth, she gave birth to an animal other than a Homo Sapien.

Communism tends to value the collective, over the individual. Those of us who believe in a capitalist society, tend to value both the individual as well as the collective. Hell, it IS the individual that makes the collective.

And since we've already gone ad nauseum about the negatives of abortion as it pertains to the individual mother(let alone the fetus, as well as other family members involved), it's safe to say a capitalist philosopher would never come to agree with abortion.

And to be sure, I believe in capitalism, I don't believe in abortion. I believe in Autonomy, but I believe we don't have rights above our moral judgment. That's what Abortion grants the female, quite mistakenly at that.

We are not Demi-Gods, we have no more justification over the lives of innocent people as they do on us. Your Ethics teacher is failing you miserably, if you can't even comprehend that.



This is the suggestion that children directly impact the divorce rate, it's not a surprising suggestion coming from the same man who believes any life that has lost consciousness for a moment, is dead or is not a being.

Unfortunately for you, your article doesn't back you up whatsoever. Instead, social beliefs on how to raise the child, loss of intimacy and monetary issues are listed as the primary difficulties a family deals with when raising children.

I'd argue these same difficulties would arise from adoption, or heck, even without a child, with the way our wages are, many people have worked up to two jobs. The lack of intimacy in a worker-based economy has always been significant, but even more so in a recession.




In your dream world perhaps.




What am I projecting unto you, your own stupidity? You do that just fine on your own, thank you very much.




Unless the numbers directly correlate to the women they've interviewed, the percentage of women who committed suicide, most likely weren't interviewed by the studies in question(how could they, they're dead.) And secondly, it is a strong claim. Much stronger than the claim that 5% of pregnancies from rape, justifies an open-ended abortion policy. Come on, it shouldn't take rocket science.

49% of women affected severely by abortion VS 5% of women pregnant from rape.

The solution(Abortion) is actually much more deadly than the problem(rape).
All too often, we ignore social problems and social solutions. Because we lack the moral and ethic leadership to actually take responsibility.






Legal, politically, not morally. There's a difference. Hitler deemed the jews inferior, doesn't mean we acknowledged his theories, then or now. And while I know you want to twist the argument in this fashion, I won't allow you: I'm not condemning the female to death for her choice. Rather, my condemnation is on the abortion doctor in the first place. God crucified Eve for eating the apple, he forgot it was Adam who tempted her in the first place.

I won't forget the Adam(the Abortion Doctor) in this case, and of course women can be tempted. For so long, women have been prosecuted. The word 'liberation', no matter what it's consequences appeals to the female psyche.

Which is why Adam was able to taint Eve to begin with.

Condemning in this fashion, also chills back-door abortions. Wanna give back-door abortions? You can, just know that your own life is now lawfully at risk.

One's own life>>>>>>Jail-time. One's own life>>>Any involvement whatsoever with the fetus. Light Yagami was truly a genius and implementing his plan in the real world leads to results like this: The end of capital murder.







It's not obvious to you? We don't have the right to decide who lives or dies, anyone who puts themselves in that position, also must deal with the consequence of being judged in the same manner. The person who murders, should logically be held to account via his own death. But since, for whatever reason I have no clue, most murderers get a jail sentence, fulfill it and to the absolute surprise of no one, kills again!

The disease is breast cancer, it's the deadliest killer of women. So abortion not only murders the fetus, it has a possibility of giving the aborter either a terminal illness, or death through suicide.

It is a killing machine, it does nothing but murder. There isn't anything humane about it. If men really were macho supremacists, they'd be all for abortion and the mass murder of women worldwide in a masucline conspiracy :D







So because 1/5th to 1/4th of women(at best) suffer post partum depression, you equate it to the seriousness of the abortion problem?

Post partum depression, however, has little to do with the actual child. Marriage-related stress is a factor, money is a factor, the spouse is also a factor. But the fetus, who has no comprehension of these things, cannot logically be blamed for these problems. At best, the fetus is an indirect cause.

Whereas the policy of Abortion is a direct and primary cause of PTSD, Breast cancer and the death of the fetus.

You can't argue something's worse than Abortion, it simply can't be done.




It is a being of life(you acknowledged it as biological existence), it just isn't a human being yet. Just as a caterpillar goes through evolutionary stages to reach it's adult form of a butterfly.

Give up yet?



In correct, as the tumorous cells lump together(that's where there are lumps inside the cancer-infected body), these cells then start attacking and destroying white blood cells, and any other cells in it's multiplication process.

How we wish it was as simple as a mere problem with the multiplication system for our cellular structure. If it were, a cure would've likely been found by now.





Coming from you, that speaks a lot. Please stop talking



Just because you don't think you've been rebutted, doesn't mean you haven't been.


*yawn*

Whatever you say my friend, I take pride in my own academic excellence. My journey's been far from an easy one.







Looked it up on google, I still couldn't find the term. But you defined it clearly in that statement. "One is not alive unless they have awareness(consciousness) of themselves." That's exactly your belief, as ascribed earlier.




Actually, western philosophers such as Plato and Socrates were much more in tune with philosophical theory than say, academia as a whole is today. The Founding Fathers themselves, hardly were educated in a scholarly sense. Your right, our modern day laws(such as legal abortion) came from close-minded academics, and a political train thought that can only be described as childish.







Name one situation where an animal acts, rather than reacts? A house pet(such as a dog), gives love out of abundance and that can be classified as an act. But anything else? The animal is 90% reactionary, come on now.

You still haven't answered the question: If not a person, what will a fetus become?
A fetus is inherently a person, it always will be one. You can try to scientifically demote it all you want, but that doesn't change the fact of it's human existence.





Want to go into the wilderness? Go and tell me exactly how many animals act on reason, logic and some kind of philosophy. You're actually arguing this, cute.




Not a person, but it is a being. And all beings are equal before their creator. Therefore, any biological being has the right to life. We do agree to this, otherwise pouching would be legal.




You misread into my statement, what I said was, the animal kingdom doesn't develop the slightest bit of cognition, period. It's awareness is always at that biological level, as if their development was retarded.

As proof of this, the only way an animal develops further is if it the human trains the pet, this is true even of wild animals, via the zoo or the circus. For evolution, the animal is wholly dependent upon Mankind.






Your hubris is so utterly laughable. You and I were both zygotes, we were living off our mothers. Are you saying she had the right to kill us? Where your logic fails, is that you cannot comprehend the zygote as a life. It is simply incomprehensible to you who lacks any moral intelligence.

In a consentual relationship however, the mother has chosen for the seed to be planted in the womb. She opened herself to the connection with her future child.
So it's not like a foreign body invaded the mother and violated her, the fetus was in the case of consentual sex, accepted by the mother. Even yes, in the case of failed contraptive practices. She believes in her lover, in her relationship and her connection. She'll be able to overcome and raise her family with feminine pride.





Our supremacy over the animal kingdom is something that's professed in the abortion policy alone, in addition to the struggles that animal right groups have gone through to struggle to get these same rights, it took activism for ecosystem protection. So please don't tell me it's subjective opinion.

Or if it is subjective opinion, then acknowledge that far from my own opinion, it's the opinion of mainstream society.



It isn't a reason, nor is it established. Only in closed academic minds, is it established. And while I, as a college student am part of academia, I do not accept its closed minded thoughts. Academia has that weakness, it is a place where you can repeat its statements, and even acquire some wisdom from it, but it's a horrible place to actually build an intellectual or moral thesis on.

A reason, is something that makes logical sense, either to the individual(subjective) or to a plethora of individuals(society). Ideally, both. It may make sense to you, and to those closed academics. But to someone of moral intelligence, it makes little sense to me. It's amoral, anti human and it's anti-choice. There's no choice involved in taking a life.





To contradict myself, would be to give a different answer from another, or to change my position. Accepting realities, and differing situations that occur from time to time, does not change the moral position of a person. My moral intelligence didn't wane, I've never contradicted myself once. I value life, and I believe that the more we value life, the more we get out of it.





That's the sad part, don't you understand? It has no voice in whether it lives or dies, it cannot argue for why it wouldn't mind living under those "difficult" situations. I reference back to the "taking candy from a baby", the baby might be aware that something was taken from it, but it has absolutely no recourse to get it back. No hope whatsoever of even confronting the person who did he/she wrongly.

Also, if you think abortion is something where a cell is simply killed, I'll awaken you to the horrifying truth of the matter:



And the video describes early on, about the other abortive measures earlier in the development phases, and they don't sound so, uh, humanitarian is the word we'd use here.

The doctor has videos regarding the first and second trimesters and what's interesting, as it relates to the first trimester: "Even though it has an heartbeat, arms and legs."

So, we're not talking some skin cell here, or some blob. We're talking a development that by this time, is significantly closer to completion.









From that article, it describes how the counseler may not be able to diagnose the patient with PTSD-related disorders, and how it's hard to separate depression from something related to abortion. Their job is incredibly difficult, and blame should not be associated unto them.




We went over this, the lives it saves



Unfortunately, you don't seem to realize that 'little' increase in debt(and by little, Obama is the greatest spender in U.S. Presidential history, in ONE term. He managed to outdo Bush, that's an accomplishment in of itself.) is what may be the last straw that brakes the camel's back.

See: Greece, Europe.







It would interest you that I'm one of those people, and yet I proclaim it as such. Why? Because, it has not developed my family's ability to get a job, it has not improved my economic outlook. I might as well be comatose lying on a hospital bed with a bunch of equipment supporting me.

I call that failure, any true social net would be able to help these families on their feet. Not via a redistribution of wealth, but via some kind of support structure to help them support themselves. That is actually helping these families.





You calling yourself educated is a riot. You have healthcare thanks to what I would call saturation of the market. Health care prices will only continue to increase thanks to Obamacare and the health industry will continue to grow into a monopoly. How do we know this? From the banking industry, the Founders never wanted government to regulate or even to interfere with businesses for this precise reason.

You'll "lament" that health care in much the same way the owners lament their purchase of depreciated homes that they couldn't afford it.





Last response, if you give a person a "right", in exchange for "something", that is not a "right". That is a privilege. You are now proclaiming life is a privilege. And that, is the pure form of your thought process. It's utterly mistaken and incorrect. Life is not a privilege, in the sense that we humans can dictate who owns this privilege and who doesn't.

Life is a privilege in that, I can live every day, and I don't know when the journey ends. If we both see life as a privilege, the comprehension of the kind of privilege we have, and our understanding of how special it is, is levels apart.

And I mean your the one that has to catch up.

Incorrect, you gave me the decision to either save the five year old, or to save the jars. And either way, you would have either proven your "point" of saying I valued a certain life over the other.(IE:You would have crucified me if I chose the jars over the boy). Try to keep up, please.





Actually, the words 'conscious' and 'alive' are synonymous and I'm using conscious in the correct manner. Your level of vocabulary just isn't up to par with mine, which again isn't surprising. When a person falls temporarily unconscious, his brain is in a suspended comatose state, however, the human being is still alive. Blood is still circulating through the body, and oxygen still passes through the body(In worse case scenarios, breathing machines and the such aid the body, but it doesn't entirely take over said process.)







You make a subjective claim "It doesn't work", without proving it so. Though it is logical that in most cases, the injured-unconscious person wouldn't wake up. But the probability exists and you can give the brief chance to try it. Most people consciously, however wouldn't take it to chance. They'd just grab the child and GTFO out of there.





Weren't you reading below? You clearly demonstrated your own hypocrisy(though you don't believe it so, doesn't make it not so.)





You're the one whose spouting nonsense. The key word to highlight is "probable", this means it's likely, but with a disclaimer and the disclaimer followed, acknowledging the difficulties of economics but that human life is universal in it's equality. I didn't feel that they were "fine" or I passed over the issues as nonsensical, but that even with the difficulties, a fetus that is conceived through consenting intercourse has the right to life.

I'm not surprised it doesn't follow logically for you, you're DEVOID of logic. If Economic Factors won't change whether one had a baby in one's 'adult youth' or in the prime of an adult's life(Mid-30's to 40's), then the logic of a 'better' life, which was already an intellectual fallacy has become even more so of a fallacy.

Get it, yet? If two roads intersect, and they lead to the same destination it doesn't matter which road you take. If the two roads intersect in this case, then the logic of a 'better life', is no longer justification for abortion.







Having an abortion does not equal the right to say no, having a child is a part of the 'risk'(an ugly term to use in a relationship, if you're really committed, the child should be looked at as a part of your future.). You see Biglundi, I might be old-fashioned but I'm of the belief that Murder is Murder, regardless of what kind of spin you'd like to put on it.

Outside of non-medical related issues(rape, etc, the likes), what's the other probable reasons for abortion? The right to say no? Poverty?(That's what it all comes down to.)

Here's a fine idea: Instead of advocating for a wide-ranging murder policy like we're communist China, we can actually focus on pro-economic policies, so that more Americans(men and women) can get jobs, have their morale boosted and thereby both mother and child can grow and live prosperously together.

What a concept, it was the way we used to do things. It's no surprise that since we dropped that, we declined. No thanks to Karl Marx's cult, it caused massive death in Russia, it's causing the same death here. Leftism is a disease upon this country's surface, a disease that should have never crept on this country as the Founders universally rejected it.

We fought a war to prevent it from coming here, but Mccarthy ultimately turned out to be right.




No, not all abortions are equal. Your "reproductive choice" is murder, there are even pro-choicers who agree with that sentiment. You also make the false argument that there'll be "back alley abortions", and that women will inevitably try to cut open their stomachs just to get that 'thing' out of them.

You also made the false attack, out of nowhere, with no proof whatsoever that I would "advocate" for back alley abortions. Showing your Liberal stupidity with pride, now?

Abortions have two primary causes: Medical(Rape, incest, etc. OR Danger to the womb/mother's life) or economic.

Eliminate the economic concerns, and you've cut abortion by 3/4ths. Imagine the advances in science, that can make those dangerous pregnancies, much safer in the future? An even further decrease in abortion.

The partial-ban of abortion would be the final straw on the camel's back of this abomination. If you don't like America's future without abortion, my suggestion is to go to China, Venezuela or some other third world country that's more fitting.

But since I hold America to first world standards, I expect 10,000 abortions...a YEAR. Period. This would be a dramatic decrease from the approximately 1.2 million slain unborns a year in what used to be called 'America'.







The cost argument as it relates to raising a child, is a false argument since the cost is not initial, but rather it's yearly. And as I said, that's what a working economy is for, which ironically enough requires human beings. So there's something to be said about the reproductive system, and our system of loving other beings.

Between suicide, heavy depression, or potentially disease(Breast Cancer), those are more than enough reasons. Adding into that, the death of the fetus? Let's compare it to a cigarette, it blows cigarette's out of the water in terms of negative risk, little productivity. Abortion is literally the killer of women. It's thereby the
killer of the human race.

If there's a devil who despises the human race(I'm not implying there is, take note of the word 'if' here), then he devised the ultimate weapon: Abortion.






By the decree of our own design. We've been given the ability to merge with a significant other, share in the experiences through pregnancy, marriage, etc. These developments are a crucial, in fact the lynchpin to the entire society.

You might think that the "right to choose" is humanizing the feminine, but you're mistaken. You're actually making her more of an object, by objectifying the fetus as a 'thing', she can easily dispose of if she chooses, instead of a life she harbors out of love. Human life is valuable, the liberal who doesn't recognize
this value of course, won't be able to understand this. Can you?








A baby is not required for a deep relationship, obviously. But when a couple has a child, that child improves their relationship ten-fold. The experience of being there for your love through the trial and errors of the pregnancy.

So far from irrelevant, a pregnancy is one of the hugest and biggest parts of a deepening, serious relationship. It's a part of our human development. I know it's hard for you, but please try to wrap your head around that fact.





No, I don't mind. You've disregarded everything I've said. Frankly, I should disregard you as well. But here I am, still trying to beat logic into you. For one thing, since Abortion is sadly supported on a political spectrum, obviously 100% is an impossible demand to make upon me. However, I do actually intend on answering this question as outlined, just to show you the difference in our intellectual power.

In that article I gave you, around 34% of women who had an abortion, regretted it. And around 15% at least suffered PTSD and/or PTSD-related symptoms. Add that to the actual suicide rate, and we're easily talking 70% of Abortion-caused victims.





.

Don't make me repeat myself: Yes, you have the right to decide not to have a family, have children. No, you don't have the right to capital murder. Understand the difference? Non-medical Abortion is Capital Murder.







No, that's a fact. It's linked to a disease, kills a fetus and even kills the aborter. So far, I've yet to see a single productive thing abortion brings, other than the fallacy of the choice of Demi-Godhood.






At this point, I'm laughing Light Yagami-style. Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me. When a sperm cell is attached to the womb and starts to formulate(into a Zygote), it is already a developing being. Your comparing a cell of force and life, to a diseased cell that deteriorates, breaks down the living body....

I shouldn't HAVE to tell you how retarded that sounds, but you should be disgraced that I'm typing this. Liberals call themselves intellectuals, I also call myself an intellectual. So why are you making such a fool of yourself? You should have more pride than to bring such a low level argument before me.

You're facing a high level college student who ranked on the Dean's List. So put more effort into it.




And that, is intellectual arrogance. That is to say, since we can comprehend life, that we understand it, therefore we're alive. It's something out of an academic setting that has no place in real time. However, the animal kingdom exists to disprove your theory. The animal kingdom has no cognition beyond the sense of life and death, it often reacts instinctively in preservation for it's own life.

The animal does not take the initiative and if it does, it's based on instincts, not a logical observation of the facts. So, is it not conscious? You'd argue it's not a person, and obviously it's not. But it is a biological being, you're not THAT stupid are you? You can concur that an animal is a biological being, right?

Assuming you're not brain dead, you'll make that concurrence. Now, here's where you'll learn something: That zygote, is a biological being. It may not yet be conscious, aware of it's surroundings. But it is a biological being, in fact it's wholly superior to the animal.

Whereas the Animal Kingdom will never achieve even the slightest bit of cognition, within the womb alone, when the fetus has developed to a state of consciousness, it is already aware that it is in the womb and it moves about. At the very beginning stages of human life, the human has already acquired cognition.

And that's not all, our human body is made of those same cells. These cells actually have memory stored in them, and that's why we can maintain our appearance or even improve upon our appearance. Do you get it? Even at it's very beginning, man is wholly superior to all other life forms. That zygote is our equal, superior to all other beings. The symbolic proof, is that the zygote/fetus is one with the human mother, who you've falsely deemed to be superior in demi-godhood.






This all boils down to the standards we hold for society and our morality. Whereas I see all life as equal, you do not see all life as equal. Therefore, we aren't likely to ever come to an agreement. However, I know my position to be held in logic, both ethical and ethereal logic. Yours, is held in political language and intellectual dishonesty.

I've said nothing against medical abortion, nor have I said anything against contraception. What I've said, is that no man or woman has the right to capital murder. If you want to talk about controversial ethical choices, people have the choice to drink or not drink, smoke or not smoke. The reason being, those actions(and even taking drugs), do little harm outside of yourself.

In the case of abortion, you're taking another life, and in some cases(a hell of alot more cases than pregnancy through rape, it should be pointed out.) it even takes the life of the aborter.

Again, can you tell me one good thing this serial killing machine of humanity is for? Besides, killing?





The ideal world, is a progression of modern day reality to a state of general acceptance. Whereas the Liberal promotes some of the most controversial, nonsensical ideas known to America: The businessmen/women who were at the helm of the financial crisis, and their organizations should be bailed out and paid in full, to the tone of trillions of US Dollars. Why? Because heaven forbid those overgrown companies collaspe, allowing the market to naturally correct itself.

And abortion, a human serial killing machine is your greatest invention, in second place comes our failed social program which is billions of dollars in the red.

Is there anything Communism/Leftism has NOT ruined, whether in America or the rest of the world?




Let's use Merriam Dictionary for the definition of "Reproductive" and "rights"
Reproductive: "of, relating to, or capable of reproduction"
Rights: "the interest that one has in a piece of property"

In short, the woman's womb is hers and hers alone. There shouldn't be an abortion clinic, there should be no claim to a woman's reproductive abilities. She has the right to bring children into this world. She also has the right not to do so.

But what she DOES not have the right to do, is take away from the rights of the fetus. Just because it is not conscious of it's rights, does not rob it of its rights. Understand that concept?

It's the old "taking candy away from a baby." Only, this is much much worse than simply taking candy from a toddler. It's murder of the defenseless, it's first degree, capital murder.







*Yawn* here as well, if you're really an intellectual then take what I said into consideration and think on the thesis for a while. I don't want to repeat this conversation later. Try to think of something new if you're going to rebut me.

The fallacy is in presenting a scenario wherein you have to choose between A and B, and it's a damned you do, damned if you don't scenario. Such a scenario makes it a one-way debating point. Specifically, it would fall under the False Dilemma category.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma




You can't be serious, can you? The five year old is breathing, he has a respiratory system that's working. He's a conscious, living being, he's just temporarily unconscious in your scenario. I mean, uh, duh?





No matter how severe the injury, it's quite possible to wake someone from an unconscious, to conscious state(Unless of course, it's at the severe point of comatose.) If it weren't possible, what then is the purpose of our alarm clocks? Or how do people wake others when they're sleeping in the first place(as you clearly imply that we can do.)

Now mind you, in a manner of life and death a person in that hypothetical scenario wouldn't have the "time" to give it a concentrated effort, but there's no harm in trying for a minute or two. In the event that, of course, we have to save the lives that we can, it is not because we held one over the other. It's precisely because both are weighed equally, that it's difficult to make that decision.

There's the ideal, and sometimes there's reality. I wouldn't want to leave either to die, no matter how much you want me to imply it's acceptable.





Will you hold the same standards to yourself? Hypocrite.







Your unprecedented stupidity(no offense) continues to amaze me. Where in my statement do you see the word "perfect"? In the very paragraph, if you actually bothered to read it, I acknowledged the difficulties it would take for such a family to raise the child. I also stated that, regardless, there's a high chance that even a decade from now, said economic factors won't change and that it'll still be difficult. Because of that, morally, we should hold that all lives are equal and they have the same chance to develop.

Oh and get this: Because you said that I believed that they would be 'perfectly capable' of raising a child, you made an assumption. The pot calls the kettle black.








As much as I'd like to demonstrate it, I have the feeling you're not going to understand it, so here it goes: They 'have' the right to say no, by using proper methods of birth control, by not engaging in a sexual relationship if they should so choose. What they do not have the right to do, in non-medical cases is capital murder(Abortion.)

The ironic thing about this "choice"(Liberals often live in fantasy world and not reality), is that in some cases, this liberating act of murder doesn't just take the life of the child. It also takes the life of the murderer(the 'mother' in this case)

http://afterabortion.org/2011/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-psychological-complications-related-to-abortion/

Read, comprehend, try to make sense of it. As difficult as it might be for you.






I thought we weren't going to make presumptions? What I mean, is that a woman's ability to grant life is a gift bestowed upon a woman. The pain, the joy and the excitement with a significant other. There's no "choice" involved in Abortion, there's only tragedy, only blood spilled. In a productive economy, where women can get high-paying jobs and where we can hold to the morality of our male gender, we can have productive, healthy families which will build something mysterious and unknown to you called a society.

Abortion is an abomination of hell, a poor answer to the problem called poverty.

Reproductive rights, to me, means the ability for a woman to have strong economic and moral security, to have a healthy family to support her financially and emotionally. Now THAT will go further than murdering babies just because we can.






Valid point #1: You're an idiot. You just equated treatment to kill a diseased cell, to killing a developing human being. Enough said, you're a moron. Still not convinced? You said they don't have the right to live AFTER developing sensory nerves(In other words, feelings), IE:Beyond the 23-week threshold. So unbeknowest to you, you made your position that much worse -_-

I said it earlier, I'll repeat here since with your intelligence, it might just pass by you the first time: Reproductive rights, means the rights to a safe and fertile environment for a prospective mother to have a child. In the ideal world, we make it so that there are few of those endangered ghettos and parents as possible. When you force a "choice" upon a woman, putting her parental responsibilities in the negative, OR, the idea of parting ways with the life she and her lover worked hard to conceive. You're taking away her reproductive rights, you've defiled the woman in the worst ways.

If you've anything of decency, morality and SOME fiber of intelligence, you should realize why you're actually anti-reproductive rights.

Agreed, there are plenty who haven't and couldn't make the climb. It's not a climb I want to present to my child. That's why I want to build my life as best as I can for my child. Nothing's perfect, and nothing will likely be perfect in our generation(or even untold future generations.) But we should uphold our morality. When we uphold our morality, the sanctity of life and what it means to be human we have a much better chance of creating a better society.

Morality should guide our ideals and convictions, our ideals shouldn't govern our morality.

Well, obviously, you'd like to get your feet on the ground as a couple: Have a supporting job, get your education, etc. Without all these things, it's highly doubtful a child could be raised in a 'great' atmosphere(probably, something close to the ghetto.) But it's not "impossible." Heck, I went through some of those same challenges that today, some would argue, I should have been aborted and maybe "born" into a better life.

For my part, I'm glad I wasn't aborted. I'm glad I faced those challenges, I still am facing those challenges and they cultivate my personality and me as a person to uphold my ideal of morality.

To me, to try and put a "spin" on the morality of abortion by saying:"We're going to give the child a better life" is an intellectual fallacy, since the ideal of the better life is an unknown quantity. We don't know if your life is going to be better or not.

I'll say it like this: Ideally, those in "dire" poverty shouldn't have children, but are we to discriminate and kill every impoverished fetus?

The Founding Fathers said all life is equal before their creator, I agree unilaterally. All life is equal before creation, and all life deserves the opportunity to grow and develop.

Ideally, I'd like to save both. First, get the unconscious kid out of the fire. And then go back in and save the jars. This, however is a logical fallacy. The way you state the argument, again forces a rational person to take the side of the unconscious child, hence proving your argument that we would view conscious beings
over unconscious beings.

However, you're incorrect as you attempt to portray my position. Both conscious and unconscious beings, are beings. I therefore see them both as equal, plus there's always firefighters and they typically do the lifesaving thing in the case of a fire.

Hell, I'd wake up the child and tell him to GTFO and then go and save the jars.

In the case of consental sex where a female partner thinks protection is being used, and it wasn't used, I do concur that the female doesn't have the 'right' to abort that baby. Most likely, the female and male were contemplating a true, serious long-term relationship, and were planning out their future.

Is it an unfortunate accident? Yes. Could they raise the child? Probable, even if in "poor conditions" initially, but whose to say five or ten years later is the difference economically for the couple? Most likely, there isn't an economic difference.

An abortion, in non-medical cases is pure selfishness and a Demi-God status granted unto females. Do you want to know where irony truly lies? At the Pro-"Choice" crowd. "Reproductive Rights", the meaning of the word reproductive is to actually have children.

If we were to give the term "Reproductive Rights" true meaning, we would create a country and a economy where women are giving birth in full, resulting in the future wealth of a future generation of Americans.

Liberals do not stand for "Reproductive rights", as proof of that you give the excuse that because the undeveloped life has not yet developed sensory nerves, it doesn't have the right to live. Liberals stand for murder of the worst kind, murder of the innocent, helpless and defenseless.

I won't deny that, it goes both ways, there are some of the most perverse, evil men(and sometimes, even women) who hold these kind of secret fetishes that we in society generally don't accept, and/or violates the will of others.

I think what it goes to prove, is that effort is futile. Whether we open it up more, or whether we make it less open is not going to change the criminal behavior of the thousands of perverse humans in our society.

But, we can at least hold to our own morality, I think Liberals don't understand the symbolic meaning of morality, a human being with a strong sense of morality, is a human being who is almost always productive in society.

Upholding a society based on morals, will lead to generally less of these crimes. Sadly, we can't entirely prevent them, but we can try to move closer.

I cannot sadly speak for the world, just as I cannot speak for the world as it regards BDSM and whether one would constitute that as 'abusive', it's subject to opinion and open discussion between the partners. I can only say what I feel about a certain situation.

I've no doubt, that most, if not all victims simply want the perpetrator put behind bars for their crimes, it's what I and it's what everyone else wants. What should be openly discussed, and it's not: Is how do we fix the problem of the lack of successful persecution of rapists, sexual criminals?

I do not believe, it is majorly a part of "sexism"(as much as you'd like to believe otherwise.) Proof of sexual violation is often actually very difficult due to the delicacy of the evidence(IE:Sperm) and how long sperm cells actually last.

Then there's the difficulty of matching up the DNA of the prepetrator with someone, etc. I don't make "excuses", but there are logical reasons to an extent of the difficulties.

We should think of ways of making it easier to catch prepetrators of sexual violence.

The issue stems from the flaw of trying to bring 'justice' to the victim through monetary compensation in the first place! It literally devalues the crime that was perpetuated on the female victim. In my mind, you cannot place a dollar sign on a rape victim, nor should you. The only fitting punishment for a rapist is a long sentence term, and I mean at the least 25 years-to-life.

I think we kind of step over the boundaries when we attempt to regulate sex. As your example of "Drugged/drunken/sleeping/otherwise impaired individual" occurs. Let's take for example, a honeymoon. A couple will typically go to a fine wine resturant, order cocktail and after a few hundred kisses, eat to their hearts content.

After which, they probably are a bit intoxicated as they go to either A: a neutral romantic site or B:The home, where they then proceed to make love.

Is it against the law? Both parties are intoxicated. Similarly, a couple may be sleeping and one day the male(heck, in some cases even the female), wakes up and proceeds to sexually advance on his/her partner. Hell, to me, it's hot and I wouldn't mind my significant other doing it to me one day.

I know that, you're trying to highlight situations where the female obviously wasn't able to give consent, but what I'm trying to point out is:There's no blanket that covers all situations, we can only uphold a sense of morality to govern human laws and nature.

When we victimize situations however, sometimes we tend to lose that morality in a sense of vigilant justice.

Not that the experience wasn't horrifying, or that the victim's justified feelings of upset, trauma, etc would be 'invalid', of course they're valid. Her personal space as a human being is being violated, of course she would/should be terrified, upset and in fact angry at this person.

But I feel as though, we humans have our own personal power, first we have power over ourselves(I could easily be a degenerate if I wanted to be, but because I have power over myself, I refuse to degenerate and to become that which I despise), and that power, if properly exercised allows us to have the power to shape society.

Where Feminism was positive, was in encouraging women to use their own personal power to protect themselves. However, as 42 has noted, Feminism has perverted into something of a dismal-in-distress/yet villify the male type of movement, that actually disempowers the feminine.

I honestly think the word "victim" is one of the worst words we've created in human history. It certainly is not right for the rapist to engage in his actions, but let's not act like you can't take preventative action from putting yourself in that situation.

If you're a woman and you're going out late at night, go out with your friends. Nothing sexist about that suggestion, is there? And I don't think there's anything suggestive about wearing appropriate clothing for the right situation. Sure, at a club go out and party, but when in a car, try to do what you can to put yourself back in decency for a public setting.

I believe, like you, in sex education. Sadly, sex education is mostly in JR. High/High School, and that setting I believe is a god awful one for such an important discussion(I shouldn't have to explain, why, should I? Both male and female teenagers feel 'giddy' about the topic, want to explore it and make light of it at times.)

Pres.Obama once supported something 'radical' that I approve of: Sex Education should be had at the lower levels(Middle school/younger), hell, parents should be actively involved in Sex Education. If we made Sex education more of a parental issue and less of a State/Public School issue, I find that'll be true social reform.

I don't think "roleplaying" a case of rape is going to help reform, you cannot proclaim rapists to be "beasts who want power over a woman", and at the same time purpose a solution that identifies a lack of sexual knowledge as the problem. And I'd hate to make sexual behavior more open than it actually is. Roleplaying would encourage that it's okay for sexual intercourse on an open platform.

In my mind, it's the open sexuality that has led to perverse behaviors, making it even more open and less sanctified would lead to more violations of women, not less.