as you have pointed out on numerous occasions angelica we are all responsible for our actions. and we must own them. is that the same as being held accountable? no it is not.
taking responsibilty for ones actions is not the same as having societal morals forced upon us.
and no that is not my argument in regards to the ability and often willingness of governments to step in where care is wanting. they are two separate issues.
I think you misunderstand. I'm saying besides that we are held accountable by the government......
is your point that because the mother, or the relative of the invalid can take off, and the person in question can receive care elsewhere that this is the difference for you than with a pregnancy, when the mother has no one else to take the care of the pregnancy?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I personally wonder why we justify certain kinds of killing and not others. It's very arbitrary to me.
The majority of people cannot understand why a serial killer takes a life and connot justify it. Or we cannot accept when someone loses their temper and kills their spouse out of anger.
And then in some cultures, (and not others) we can justify taking the lives of the unborn. Apparently, because people can understand why their peers, living in their society, would want to.
it doesn't make sense to me.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
And then in some cultures, (and not others) we can justify taking the lives of the unborn. Apparently, because people can understand why their peers, living in their society, would want to.
it doesn't make sense to me.
I'm not even trying to step into this minefield, but many people don't define the beginning of life in the same way you are. You make it seem obvious that the life of a serial killer's victim and an unborn fetus are inherently equitable. They are anything but.
I think you misunderstand. I'm saying besides that we are held accountable by the government......
is your point that because the mother, or the relative of the invalid can take off, and the person in question can receive care elsewhere that this is the difference for you than with a pregnancy, when the mother has no one else to take the care of the pregnancy?
no. it is not.
my point is the parasitic like embryo can not survive specifically without its mother host.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm not even trying to step into this minefield, but many people don't define the beginning of life in the same way you are. You make it seem obvious that the life of a serial killer's victim and an unborn fetus are inherently equitable. They are anything but.
people are funny.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I personally wonder why we justify certain kinds of killing and not others. It's very arbitrary to me.
The majority of people cannot understand why a serial killer takes a life and connot justify it. Or we cannot accept when someone loses their temper and kills their spouse out of anger.
And then in some cultures, (and not others) we can justify taking the lives of the unborn. Apparently, because people can understand why their peers, living in their society, would want to.
it doesn't make sense to me.
see heres the thing we do not need to justify a killers reasoning. that is up to him. as abhorrant as that is. we can however choose to accept that he has reasoning and try to understand or we can dismiss the killer as an irredeemable monster and shut our minds off.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
...many people don't define the beginning of life in the same way you are. You make it seem obvious that the life of a serial killer's victim and an unborn fetus are inherently equitable. They are anything but.
this is exactly my point....it's arbitrary where people draw the line...
Some people and/or cultures give a nod to the termination of developing unborn offspring. Others do not.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
this is exactly my point....it's arbitrary where people draw the line...
Some people and/or cultures give a nod to the termination of developing unborn offspring. Others do not.
Any definition of where life begins, or when abortion becomes "OK", both yours and mine, is arbitrary. Only God (if one does exist) could tell us if life begins with conception.
see heres the thing we do not need to justify a killers reasoning. that is up to him. as abhorrant as that is. we can however choose to accept that he has reasoning and try to understand or we can dismiss the killer as an irredeemable monster and shut our minds off.
We do as a society decide that we will not accept his/her actions.
And the same society says we will accept the termination of unborn offspring.
It's arbitrary. It seems to me that the difference is because people have more understanding/compassion for the termination of unborn offspring, maybe because WAAAYYYYYYY more of us have been in situations that cause us to understand the fear of unwanted offspring.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Any definition of where life begins, or when abortion becomes "OK", both yours and mine, is arbitrary. Only God (if one does exist) could tell us if life begins with conception.
I'm definitely with you on the arbitrary thing, which is why I've said it twice.
It all depends on how we look at it, and yet people are so closed minded to their own view.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm definitely with you on the arbitrary thing, which is why I've said it twice.
It all depends on how we look at it, and yet people are so closed minded to their own view.
Well, there has to be a line. Whether or not it's arbitrary, we have to examine our own conscience and the facts at hand and make a decision. In that sense, every decision is arbitrary, so I don't see what it has to do with deciding when abortion should and should not be legal.
Well, there has to be a line. Whether or not it's arbitrary, we have to examine our own conscience and the facts at hand and make a decision. In that sense, every decision is arbitrary, so I don't see what it has to do with deciding when abortion should and should not be legal.
When we decide whether abortion should/should not be legal, we just are apparently deciding based on arbitary standards.
the thing is people don't think it's arbitrary. They think they are making these decisions because they are 'right', no matter which side.
That's why I'm bringing up serial killers, or passion crimes...we don't think that's arbitrary, because enough people agree with us. We think it's fairly universal right/wrong when we have the support of the vast majority.
And yet, according to evolution, if one believes in it....we are supposedly driven to perpetuate ourselves, our races, our bloodlines, etc.....and yet at that level, terminating offspring doesn't make sense. It sounds like when looked at from that perspective, we are using our logic and emotional intelligences to do something maladaptive, or evolutionarily unsound. Which then makes such justification illogical.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
We do as a society decide that we will not accept his/her actions.
And the same society says we will accept the termination of unborn offspring.
It's arbitrary. It seems to me that the difference is because people have more understanding/compassion for the termination of unborn offspring, maybe because WAAAYYYYYYY more of us have been in situations that cause us to understand the fear of unwanted offspring.
it is not that that same society accepts as you call it 'termination of unborn offspring'. tis that we as a society can not force a woman to do something that is against her will. and that for me is what it comes down to. i will not appease societal morality at the expense of my own.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I personally wonder why we justify certain kinds of killing and not others. It's very arbitrary to me.
The majority of people cannot understand why a serial killer takes a life and connot justify it. Or we cannot accept when someone loses their temper and kills their spouse out of anger.
And then in some cultures, (and not others) we can justify taking the lives of the unborn. Apparently, because people can understand why their peers, living in their society, would want to.
it doesn't make sense to me.
It is not arbitrary at all. Its about human suffering and loss. In early abortions, the unborn does not suffer pain, and has no memories or accomplishment to lose.. no ambitions to lose, and no loves to lose.
The only one with memories and ambitions with respect to this unborn baby is the mother.. which is why, she is in the best position to choose.
you may not agree that she should have that right to choose, but you have to see that the human suffering and loss is far less with an abortion than the lose of someone that has built relationships and dreams.
it is not that that same society accepts as you call it 'termination of unborn offspring'. tis that we as a society can not force a woman to do something that is against her will. and that for me is what it comes down to. i will not appease societal morality at the expense of my own.
I said I understand your argument. And I do..I have used it on this board before. Due to my choice not to terminate my own offspring, I experienced some very severe consequences. I understand the consequence of that type of force.
What I'm looking at is another level....why as societies, do we come to a place where the huge pain/burden/responsibility falls to women? When a women is considering terminating her offspring...as in my case, there is/was so much wrong there to begin with to get to that point......and I'm not referring to in myself or in other women (even though that's part of it too)...I'm referring to all the variables around me that I was dealing with. I chose to nurture the life inside of me. And I've never regretted it, but I took a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE, HUGE, (and I cannot stress this enough, obviously) one for the team of humanity doing so. These situations are horribly dysfunctional and no amount of justification can say otherwise.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It is not arbitrary at all. Its about human suffering and loss. In early abortions, the unborn does not suffer pain, and has no memories or accomplishment to lose.. no ambitions to lose, and no loves to lose.
The only one with memories and ambitions with respect to this unborn baby is the mother.. which is why, she is in the best position to choose.
you may not agree that she should have that right to choose, but you have to see that the human suffering and loss is far less with an abortion than the lose of someone that has built relationships and dreams.
first of all, I don't at all say she shouldn't have the right to choose.
I am saying, though, that the "human suffering and loss is less with an abortion" argument is arbitrary opinion, depending on someone's perspective. It's not a given at all.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
When we decide whether abortion should/should not be legal, we just are apparently deciding based on arbitary standards.
the thing is people don't think it's arbitrary. They think they are making these decisions because they are 'right', no matter which side.
That's why I'm bringing up serial killers, or passion crimes...we don't think that's arbitrary, because enough people agree with us. We think it's fairly universal right/wrong when we have the support of the vast majority.
And yet, according to evolution, if one believes in it....we are supposedly driven to perpetuate ourselves, our races, our bloodlines, etc.....and yet at that level, terminating offspring doesn't make sense. It sounds like when looked at from that perspective, we are using our logic and emotional intelligences to do something maladaptive, or evolutionarily unsound. Which then makes such justification illogical.
Well, I don't mean to sound condescending, but we can accept that all and stew around and contemplate........and then we have to come back to the same problems and debates regarding abortion.
Well, I don't mean to sound condescending, but we can accept that all and stew around and contemplate........and then we have to come back to the same problems and debates regarding abortion.
I totally support people doing what they feel is right.
I merely ask people to open their minds to the arbitrariness of this "rightness". In the end, what the majority chooses will win out, until we find better ways.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
it's common in evolutionary theory to see perpetuation of ourselves/our races, etc. is the ultimate purpose of our existence...our survival as a species. This is the very core of it! To go against that is not adaptive, but maladaptive.
Plus, all the studies on abortion, done before they became political taboo, showed huge negative effects of abortion on the women who had them. These have now been swept under the rug by the politics of abortion, and the going thing is to further burden those who have emotional negative effects after abortion, by labelling them as having been weak, emotionally, to begin with. Again, more dysfunction, and more burden for the one person in our society taking it for the team of humanity when our relations break down and an unplanned pregnancy presents itself.
And that's not to mention the cancers, etc, over the long term that occurred at higher numbers in women who had abortions.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I totally support people doing what they feel is right.
I merely ask people to open their minds to the arbitrariness of this "rightness". In the end, what the majority chooses will win out, until we find better ways.
Unfortunately, some of your posts in here have seemingly signified that the life begins at conception approach is the natural, right approach. Such a position, I feel, is equally arbitrary. Would you be willing to stipulate, then, that all we can know for sure if the United States outlaws abortion is that the mother's rights have been limited, regardless of whether that limitation is just or not?
I totally support people doing what they feel is right.
I merely ask people to open their minds to the arbitrariness of this "rightness". In the end, what the majority chooses will win out, until we find better ways.
it seems to me and correct me if im wrong as i know you will, that you believe that those woman who have abortions do so without regard to how the embryonic life inside them fits into the bigger picture. that their opinion of what life is and when it begins is based on soemhting as flighty as arbitrariness. when this is not the case. as you well know. it would appear that because of the great 'sacrifice' you made when you birthed your children, your judgement has been coloured.
i have been on both sides of this coin, so to speak, and one of my decisions i struggle with daily, the other gives me no pause whatsoever.
and just because the majority will win out doesnt make it any more right. it just means by sheer force of numbers there are others that will be disadvantaged for the sake of the whole.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
it's common in evolutionary theory to see perpetuation of ourselves/our races, etc. is the ultimate purpose of our existence...our survival as a species. This is the very core of it! To go against that is not adaptive, but maladaptive.
Plus, all the studies on abortion, done before they became political taboo, showed huge negative effects of abortion on the women who had them. These have now been swept under the rug by the politics of abortion, and the going thing is to further burden those who have emotional negative effects after abortion, by labelling them as having been weak, emotionally, to begin with. Again, more dysfunction, and more burden for the one person in our society taking it for the team of humanity when our relations break down and an unplanned pregnancy presents itself.
And that's not to mention the cancers, etc, over the long term that occurred at higher numbers in women who had abortions.
i do not see perpetuation of a species as evolutionary per se. for me sheer weight of numbers is not evolution. it just provides the platform for the possibility.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
it seems to me and correct me if im wrong as i know you will, that you believe that those woman who have abortions do so without regard to how the embryonic life inside them fits into the bigger picture. that their opinion of what life is and when it begins is based on soemhting as flighty as arbitrariness.
This isn't even close to what I'm saying.
I am saying that I see this as a much larger issue. And that I see it's highly valid to look at why we as a species are going wrong to the degree that it eventually comes down on certain individuals to take the blame/shame and the mental and emotional consequences into their bodies, minds and lives (as you and I can attest to apparently, the hardship of), when it's at the cause of something much larger than the individual.
we have practical concerns at this time, and what is happening is what it is in terms of abortion. And yet, we humans are able to theorize and to look at the bigger picture and ascertain where we can make improvements and change these dynamics...and to actually evolutionarily adapt, and weed out the necessity for such problems to arise in the first place.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Unfortunately, some of your posts in here have seemingly signified that the life begins at conception approach is the natural, right approach.
You have read this in. I didn't say this or intend to say this at all.
Such a position, I feel, is equally arbitrary. Would you be willing to stipulate, then, that all we can know for sure if the United States outlaws abortion is that the mother's rights have been limited, regardless of whether that limitation is just or not?
When I say it's all opinion and arbitrary, I speak about my own view, also. I am not attached to my view, except as a starting place in discussion. I openly admit my view changes from moment to moment depending on the context and my changing perspective in each moment.
As for "rights", I see there being a huge difference between our actual natural rights, and our man-made ego-based ideas where we think we "should" have this or that (and which, imo, is unrealistic).
Our man-made "rights" are merely our idea of what we "should" have, and often are out of synch with nature. I think humans are so wrapped up in their personal 'story' that they don't realize how arbitrary and man-made what they consider 'rights' are. I try to follow nature and her laws whenever possible, as human law is as realistic as the humans who make it...hence not being too realistic most of the time.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I am saying that I see this as a much larger issue. And that I see it's highly valid to look at why we as a species are going wrong to the degree that it eventually comes down on certain individuals to take the blame/shame and the mental and emotional consequences into their bodies, minds and lives (as you and I can attest to apparently, the hardship of), when it's at the cause of something much larger than the individual.
we have practical concerns at this time, and what is happening is what it is in terms of abortion. And yet, we humans are able to theorize and to look at the bigger picture and ascertain where we can make improvements and change these dynamics...and to actually evolutionary adapt, and weed out the necessity for such problems to arise in the first place.
well i think it comes down to society not actually fulfilling its role as society. we area society of individuals and that is why some sections of this so called society are marginalised and quite often made to feel like pariahs.
in this instance women are made to shoulder all responsibility for procreation because we are the ones, the ONLY ones who are capable of carrying the offspring. and all is great so long as we choose to embrace our given role as human incubators. but once we decide no more... that we will decide when and if we procreate and under what circumstances, then there is a breakdown in the patriarchally defined society we all live in.
youre right angelica it is something bigger than the individual. but it shouldnt be at the expense of that same individual.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
As for "rights", I see there being a huge difference between our actual natural rights, and our man-made ego-based ideas where we think we "should" have this or that (and which, imo, is unrealistic).
Our man-made "rights" are merely our idea of what we "should" have, and often are out of synch with nature. I think humans are so wrapped up in their personal 'story' that they don't realize how arbitrary and man-made what they consider 'rights' are. I try to follow nature and her laws whenever possible, as human law is as realistic as the humans who make it...hence not being too realistic most of the time.
Well, then according to that there is no point for law. There is no need for borders and boundaries. There is no worth in upholding a Constitution. And I suppose that's possible, but I can't get past the fact that in my world, in my children's world, and in my children's children's world and probably far beyond, there will be law. There will be borders. There will possibly even be a Constitution that is endangered. And I think I need to tether the arguments I have to the grounded world. I don't think these kind of problems will wait for a time when there is seemingly no need for 'man-made rights.'
Comments
is your point that because the mother, or the relative of the invalid can take off, and the person in question can receive care elsewhere that this is the difference for you than with a pregnancy, when the mother has no one else to take the care of the pregnancy?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The majority of people cannot understand why a serial killer takes a life and connot justify it. Or we cannot accept when someone loses their temper and kills their spouse out of anger.
And then in some cultures, (and not others) we can justify taking the lives of the unborn. Apparently, because people can understand why their peers, living in their society, would want to.
it doesn't make sense to me.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm not even trying to step into this minefield, but many people don't define the beginning of life in the same way you are. You make it seem obvious that the life of a serial killer's victim and an unborn fetus are inherently equitable. They are anything but.
no. it is not.
my point is the parasitic like embryo can not survive specifically without its mother host.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yes, people certainly are.
I don't find abortion very funny, and have no clue what you mean, but OK then.
see heres the thing we do not need to justify a killers reasoning. that is up to him. as abhorrant as that is. we can however choose to accept that he has reasoning and try to understand or we can dismiss the killer as an irredeemable monster and shut our minds off.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Some people and/or cultures give a nod to the termination of developing unborn offspring. Others do not.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Any definition of where life begins, or when abortion becomes "OK", both yours and mine, is arbitrary. Only God (if one does exist) could tell us if life begins with conception.
And the same society says we will accept the termination of unborn offspring.
It's arbitrary. It seems to me that the difference is because people have more understanding/compassion for the termination of unborn offspring, maybe because WAAAYYYYYYY more of us have been in situations that cause us to understand the fear of unwanted offspring.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It all depends on how we look at it, and yet people are so closed minded to their own view.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well, there has to be a line. Whether or not it's arbitrary, we have to examine our own conscience and the facts at hand and make a decision. In that sense, every decision is arbitrary, so I don't see what it has to do with deciding when abortion should and should not be legal.
the thing is people don't think it's arbitrary. They think they are making these decisions because they are 'right', no matter which side.
That's why I'm bringing up serial killers, or passion crimes...we don't think that's arbitrary, because enough people agree with us. We think it's fairly universal right/wrong when we have the support of the vast majority.
And yet, according to evolution, if one believes in it....we are supposedly driven to perpetuate ourselves, our races, our bloodlines, etc.....and yet at that level, terminating offspring doesn't make sense. It sounds like when looked at from that perspective, we are using our logic and emotional intelligences to do something maladaptive, or evolutionarily unsound. Which then makes such justification illogical.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
it is not that that same society accepts as you call it 'termination of unborn offspring'. tis that we as a society can not force a woman to do something that is against her will. and that for me is what it comes down to. i will not appease societal morality at the expense of my own.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
who says it is anti evolutionary?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It is not arbitrary at all. Its about human suffering and loss. In early abortions, the unborn does not suffer pain, and has no memories or accomplishment to lose.. no ambitions to lose, and no loves to lose.
The only one with memories and ambitions with respect to this unborn baby is the mother.. which is why, she is in the best position to choose.
you may not agree that she should have that right to choose, but you have to see that the human suffering and loss is far less with an abortion than the lose of someone that has built relationships and dreams.
What I'm looking at is another level....why as societies, do we come to a place where the huge pain/burden/responsibility falls to women? When a women is considering terminating her offspring...as in my case, there is/was so much wrong there to begin with to get to that point......and I'm not referring to in myself or in other women (even though that's part of it too)...I'm referring to all the variables around me that I was dealing with. I chose to nurture the life inside of me. And I've never regretted it, but I took a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE, HUGE, (and I cannot stress this enough, obviously) one for the team of humanity doing so. These situations are horribly dysfunctional and no amount of justification can say otherwise.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I am saying, though, that the "human suffering and loss is less with an abortion" argument is arbitrary opinion, depending on someone's perspective. It's not a given at all.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well, I don't mean to sound condescending, but we can accept that all and stew around and contemplate........and then we have to come back to the same problems and debates regarding abortion.
I merely ask people to open their minds to the arbitrariness of this "rightness". In the end, what the majority chooses will win out, until we find better ways.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Plus, all the studies on abortion, done before they became political taboo, showed huge negative effects of abortion on the women who had them. These have now been swept under the rug by the politics of abortion, and the going thing is to further burden those who have emotional negative effects after abortion, by labelling them as having been weak, emotionally, to begin with. Again, more dysfunction, and more burden for the one person in our society taking it for the team of humanity when our relations break down and an unplanned pregnancy presents itself.
And that's not to mention the cancers, etc, over the long term that occurred at higher numbers in women who had abortions.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Unfortunately, some of your posts in here have seemingly signified that the life begins at conception approach is the natural, right approach. Such a position, I feel, is equally arbitrary. Would you be willing to stipulate, then, that all we can know for sure if the United States outlaws abortion is that the mother's rights have been limited, regardless of whether that limitation is just or not?
it seems to me and correct me if im wrong as i know you will, that you believe that those woman who have abortions do so without regard to how the embryonic life inside them fits into the bigger picture. that their opinion of what life is and when it begins is based on soemhting as flighty as arbitrariness. when this is not the case. as you well know. it would appear that because of the great 'sacrifice' you made when you birthed your children, your judgement has been coloured.
i have been on both sides of this coin, so to speak, and one of my decisions i struggle with daily, the other gives me no pause whatsoever.
and just because the majority will win out doesnt make it any more right. it just means by sheer force of numbers there are others that will be disadvantaged for the sake of the whole.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i do not see perpetuation of a species as evolutionary per se. for me sheer weight of numbers is not evolution. it just provides the platform for the possibility.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
=/
hahah.
I am saying that I see this as a much larger issue. And that I see it's highly valid to look at why we as a species are going wrong to the degree that it eventually comes down on certain individuals to take the blame/shame and the mental and emotional consequences into their bodies, minds and lives (as you and I can attest to apparently, the hardship of), when it's at the cause of something much larger than the individual.
we have practical concerns at this time, and what is happening is what it is in terms of abortion. And yet, we humans are able to theorize and to look at the bigger picture and ascertain where we can make improvements and change these dynamics...and to actually evolutionarily adapt, and weed out the necessity for such problems to arise in the first place.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
When I say it's all opinion and arbitrary, I speak about my own view, also. I am not attached to my view, except as a starting place in discussion. I openly admit my view changes from moment to moment depending on the context and my changing perspective in each moment.
As for "rights", I see there being a huge difference between our actual natural rights, and our man-made ego-based ideas where we think we "should" have this or that (and which, imo, is unrealistic).
Our man-made "rights" are merely our idea of what we "should" have, and often are out of synch with nature. I think humans are so wrapped up in their personal 'story' that they don't realize how arbitrary and man-made what they consider 'rights' are. I try to follow nature and her laws whenever possible, as human law is as realistic as the humans who make it...hence not being too realistic most of the time.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
well i think it comes down to society not actually fulfilling its role as society. we area society of individuals and that is why some sections of this so called society are marginalised and quite often made to feel like pariahs.
in this instance women are made to shoulder all responsibility for procreation because we are the ones, the ONLY ones who are capable of carrying the offspring. and all is great so long as we choose to embrace our given role as human incubators. but once we decide no more... that we will decide when and if we procreate and under what circumstances, then there is a breakdown in the patriarchally defined society we all live in.
youre right angelica it is something bigger than the individual. but it shouldnt be at the expense of that same individual.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well, then according to that there is no point for law. There is no need for borders and boundaries. There is no worth in upholding a Constitution. And I suppose that's possible, but I can't get past the fact that in my world, in my children's world, and in my children's children's world and probably far beyond, there will be law. There will be borders. There will possibly even be a Constitution that is endangered. And I think I need to tether the arguments I have to the grounded world. I don't think these kind of problems will wait for a time when there is seemingly no need for 'man-made rights.'