The voters have decided that Jarden is right!
Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
Related Posts
Also about Relationships
+111There are a lot of girls out there who's only positive character trait is their body, amirite?
Also about Relationships
+24If girls go through tomboy phases do boys go through femboy phases. amirite?
It's awkward when Lord Voldemort is more concerned about your rights than your government.
Since when does Voldemort stand up for people's rights?
Muggles are pathetic. They discriminate against another when they should really be fighting me.
Marriage isn't really that natural :/
Fine, but straight people have been allowed to marry for thousands of years, an it's unfair that gay people are punished for being gay.
Yeah, I'm not against gay marriage, but I think calling it a natural right is a bit strong.
It is a natural right to be with the person you love in a meaningful bond.
Article 16 of the UN Universal Deceleration of Human Rights states:
"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage, and its dissolution."
Ergo, it's a right...
It's a right, but marriage isn't natural. It's manmade.
Agreed. Any mods wanna change it for me?
It's a right, but not a natural one.
Natural rights != things that are natural
The idea of natural rights is one of those things people debate for centuries in every government and philosophy class ever. Natural rights are things like life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, and revolution depending on which philosopher you're talking about. Marriage might fall under liberty or pursuit of happiness.
Yes, I see my mistake now. I'm still not sure if I would consider marriage a natural right, but I can certainly see why it could be considered one.
We should just do away with marriage; it causes too many problems. :P
Anyway, the arguing is never going to end because there are people out there that think other citizens shouldn't have the same "rights" as them because they do something different then what they're used to.
I hate when people bring up the marrying animals thing. Animals can't consent to marriage.
Dog marriages? Sigh...only in America
I don't believe other anon indicated where they were from.
Like a dog marrying another dog? If so, that's super cute.
Then Kim Kardashian wouldn't have to divorce so many times.
I just realized that you were joking about doing away with marriage.
It's mostly just for financial reasons.
Society: "I don't like it, therefore demons"
But if my sister gets married to another girl then......no I've got nothing.
Well said Voldy!
I love how the gay rights movement suddenly turned into a debate about abortion...way to get off topic! Lol
I've always had mixed feelings on abortion. It's a choice I would never make for myself, but I can understand other women who would. I was a victim of rape and incest, and I didn't have the courage to speak up about it for a very long time. I constantly worried that I would become pregnant, since my abuser didn't use protection. Studies have shown that genetically, an abuser's child is more likely to abuse others, whether it was raised by the abuser or not.
I know there are fewer cases of abuse resulting in pregnancy, so it's not really relavent, I just wanted to share my opinion. Also, even in those cases (cases of rape), if there is a heart beat, the abortion should not be allowed.
What if the person carrying the baby was going to die if they didn't get an abortion even if the heart of the fetus was beating?
You're right, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have assumed that that went without saying. In all cases, a woman should be able to abort a fetus if it's a matter of life and death. Although TV and society make it seem like most women would choose to die for their unborn children, in a lot of cases they find the danger early on, and the fetus wouldn't survive without the mother. Like ectopic pregnancies. There will be other children. I feel like it would be somewhat selfish for a woman to leave her partner and family with a child they may or may not resent and be able to care for properly.
Cool story, bro.
If gay marriage is a natural right, then the right to life after conception is certainly one as well......
Only citizens can have rights under the law. Fetuses are not citizens.
You're begging the question. The whole Issue is whether or not to treat them as citizens with protected rights.
Number 1, when did I mention abortion exactly? Number 2, I think that abortion should be legal until the baby's heart beats, since you've had 3 months to decide. Unless the baby is life-threatening to the mother, Honestly, I don't think we should call a clump of cells a citizen.
You didn't. I was just commenting to get people to think.
Regardless of whether or not its a baby, it is undoubtedly a human. It has the irreplaceable blueprint of what will become a fully developed human.
Political debate FTW!
But what if you were raped, or drunk? Or can't fund a baby? I mean, it's irresponsible to get pregnant if you can't take care of the baby, but if it doesn't even have a heart, than it's not a human.
There are almost no situations which would be more horrifying and devastating than getting pregnant from a rape. But how a person is conceived is completely irrelevant to their intrinsic moral value. Plus, less than .5% of abortions are because of rape or incest.
If a person is incapable of providing for a baby, then they shouldn't be having sex. I don't believe in punishing a human for the mistakes of someone else. I think adoption should be encouraged.
I don't know why you think a heart is necessary for something to be a human. At the moment of conception, the fetus has 46 chromosomes, is already male or female, and has the complete genetic blueprint to become a fully developed human. It is never a canine, feline, or bovine fetus. It is always a human fetus.
The single biggest reason abortion should be promoted rather than demonized is this: i don't know if you've been under a rock or something, but the earth has something of a population issue. if someone doesnt want a baby, we should be thanking them for getting an abortion instead of adding to this problem, as this would leave more room for wanted (and therefor more likely to be raised well and grow up to be a contributing member of society) babies.
People can become pregnant regardless of protection being used. Condoms break, pills stop working, ect. Accidents happen. And until there is a heart beat coming from that clump of cells it's a FETUS and therefore not a baby or human so no one is dying. It's like removing a tumor from the body.
Exactly. Which is why I'm for abortion. But it is irresponsible to have unprotected sex when you know full well that you can't handle the consequences.
(Death Eater): It's a human fetus. It's not yet a baby, but biologically, its still a human.
I believe that you replied to the wrong person.
I don't think abortion should be viewed in such a utilitarian view. The main question is whether or not its a human. If it is, then killing them to meet a purpose is despicable.
i personally feel that whether it's a human or not is irrelevant, and i will explain. You say we shouldn't view it so utilitarianly... why? I'm aware i come across as blunt and maybe even a bad person, but that's only because i believe in saying what you mean, and saying what others arent willing to vocalize but agree with. Saying that killing humans to achieve a means is despicable is like saying communism is flawless; you're being ignorant and unrealistic. Humans have been going to war and killing humans to achieve a means for millenia. Should not making at most a small personal sacrifice (since they dont want the baby anyway) to better humanity be considered a step forward, not a step back? I believe your problem is that you attempted to cross the river without first building the bridge.
My friends and I just had this conversation in law class.
It's a good idea not to try and make babies if you can't afford it, but who is really going to tell people they're too poor to be having sex?
I agree with you that there isn't a lot of rape or incest, but it should be accounted for. And yes, people shouldn't have unprotected sex if they can't provide for a baby, but mistakes happen. Yes it has the potential to become a human, but cells aren't a human, neither is a quarter-formed blob.
I think that saying it has the potential to become a human is misleading. If left alone, it will always form into a baby. Biologically, its a human.
The funny thing is that it won't always form into a baby. It could just die.
..... I wouldn't call that funny.
That's hardly a good argument. Yes, some may be unhealthy and die, but a healthy fetus will always develop into a human.
No it won't. A healthy fetus of a human will always develop into a human if it remains healthy long enough. All mammals have fetuses. Also a baby is not considered a fetus until it reaches a certain stage in pregnancy.
Of course it was implied that I was talking about a human fetus.
You're arguing semantics.
I'm not gonna say anything about anything else, but "if a person can't provide for a baby, they shouldn't be having sex"? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Not necessarily not having sex, but not unprotected or not on the pill.