Planned Parenthood T-Shirts

[Imran Siddiqui]

I thought I already made that clear.

You didn't and if you did, it invalidates your argument. A woman's interest can lead to a right. The states interest can never lead to a right. The state doesn't have rights, people do.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Do you want to argue that? Because clearly, after conception it is a human being. Merely one at a very early stage of development.

You don't think obiwan18 tried that before?

[Ben Kenobi]

For someone who spouts off so much on the subject of gay sex and sexuality, you don't seem to have a grasp of the mechanics or motivation of human sexuality at all.

Does one need first-hand experience to understand these things?

By the way- sex for pleasure is not sex for procreation.

Why make the distinction? That I do not understand. Why not have both together?

[Ben Kenobi]

A woman's interest can lead to a right. The states interest can never lead to a right. The state doesn't have rights, people do.

So, where does Roe say that only the state has an interest in the unborn child? Do they categorically reject that the child can have her own interests?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You don't think obiwan18 tried that before?

It doesn't matter. If your conception of rights is based on being a human being, than clearly the zygote has the right to life.

Personally, I don't think simply being a human being makes one deserve rights (my standard is sentience), but your argument was flawed.

[Ben Kenobi]

ben should get "every sperm is sacred" T-shirt

Why? Are you selling one?

I have said numerous times why the zygote is a person, but sperm is not. It's all about the biological distinction between the two.

[Kuciwalker]

You see, UR? Humanity is the basis of Ben's conception of rights.

[Ben Kenobi]

Like I said, it's not a dainty world- why attempt to force daintiness on others?

For the same reason we protect the vunerable who are unable to protect themselves. In protecting them, we also protect ourselves.

If you knew what my family life was like, you probably wouldn't have ventured that gambit.

Sorry to hear that. Still the point holds. Who determines whether one life is worth living or not? Society? I would fear to live in such society.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Does one need first-hand experience to understand these things?

Why make the distinction? That I do not understand. Why not have both together?

Firstly, before you start laying down the law and dos and donts regarding human sexuality, yes.

Secondly, because of a lovely thing called the clitoris, and an equally lovely thing called the human brain.

Explain for anyone who may not know what the reproductive function of the clitoris is, as in what does it do to egg, or sperm?

Anything?

And again, humans are animals- like their close relatives the bonobo chimps. In bonobo chimp society, sex is used as social communication, and for pleasure, not simply to reproduce. We have the mental and physical capacity to separate the mechanics of reproduction from instinct or physical drive, and find pleasure in sex, for reasons other than propagation.

If you believe that sex is only for reproduction that is your choice, but don't go around presuming to tell other people what they have to do if an accident occurs.

[Sikander]

I couldn't be arsed to read a whole abortion thread, so forgive me for asking, but....

has anyone made the "My mommy had an abortion and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" joke yet?

[Agathon]

Presumably, if one endorses an intelligent design theory or some other teleologically based metaphysics, the notion of sex being for procreation is going to appear that much more attractive.

But then you have to deal with things like the female orgasm, which serves no real reproductive purpose. Someone did experiments on macaques which showed that it was perfectly possible for females to have orgasms, but in the wild they never did (the useless males were too quick) - thus it served no reproductive purpose. Much the same goes for human beings I should think.

You can't slip into the "orgasms are for pair bonding" trick, because that would amount to teleological sanction for homosexual couples (and it is just as good a factor in explaining infidelity as pair bonding). And in any case there is simply not enough of a connection between female orgasms and reproductive success to rehabilitate them as "natural" in a way that doesn't open the door to homosexuality.

In essence, religious people should deny women sexual pleasure.

Wait.. they do.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I have said numerous times why the zygote is a person, but sperm is not.

A very handy distinction for someone who would other wise be committing genocide once or twice a day.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You see, UR? Humanity is the basis of Ben's conception of rights.

We are treading on old grounds here.

At any rate, you need to show that a zygote is a human being.

[Last Conformist]

Well, a human zygote is certainly human. So is a human spleen. So get down to define "being".

[Alexander's Horse]

So he's saying a sperm is not human?