Mods Please deleat since no one is staying on topic thank you.

[Princess Kiara]

18 minutes ago, Laryal said:

Ok so dieing with dignity is a long way from starving someone to allow them to die an so your saying stll that killing unborn babies is ok? Asking you a question here do animals the four legged ones think ok i am having this or these babies i want someone to reach in an kill them? No they give birth to them an if the fetus dies it is because of nature not because anouther took it's life. So we are the only animals on earth that say hey i have sex i get preg i can get rid of this other human with no second look back. I can get preg all i want an if i do not want the baby off to the the docs who want to murder so i can live my life with out anouther human in my life. An if i decide to have a family i will ,  i do not care about all the other kids i  allowed to get killed in side of me my body my life. That is how i look at each woman who does abort my opinion. An like i said it is like a wave on the water it is small at first then grows first the unborn the the old people then those who society  thinks unfit to live is this right ?  The killing of any human is wrong be it the unborn up to those who are crippled or have illnesses that were born with it. People today have no respect of other an no morals at all it seems.

😅 what you don't seem to get is that they are not starved unless they WANT to. It's their choice. No one is going to kill someone who doesn't want to die.

 

And yes, killing fetuses* is perfectly okay. 

 

I can hardly understand your English, but if you're saying what I think you're saying... Non human animals can and often do decide not to be parents. They don't have the necessary knowledge and equipment to be able to abort, but many times, birds, rabbits, dogs and cats will tear their entire litter to pieces, even when there's nothing wrong with them. Some animals, just like some women, are not cut out to be mothers. And that's fine! Aborting a non sentient fetus is FAR more humane than what the non human animals do. Abortion is not murder.

 

What you're saying is quite frankly extremely ignorant and offensive to women. Abortion is an extremely expensive, painful and unpleasant procedure. No one is getting pregnant just to abort. It's a difficult decision. Did you know that 1 out of every 4 women has had an abortion? We just don't speak of it because of all the hate you pro-birthers spew. Abortion is a very personal choice, if you don't like it then don't abort, it's really that simple. Neither you, nor the government, have any right to interfere with anyone's reproductive choices.

[Laryal]

18 minutes ago, Princess Kiara said:

😅 what you don't seem to get is that they are not starved unless they WANT to. It's their choice. No one is going to kill someone who doesn't want to die.

 

And yes, killing fetuses* is perfectly okay. 

 

I can hardly understand your English, but if you're saying what I think you're saying... Non human animals can and often do decide not to be parents. They don't have the necessary knowledge and equipment to be able to abort, but many times, birds, rabbits, dogs and cats will tear their entire litter to pieces, even when there's nothing wrong with them. Some animals, just like some women, are not cut out to be mothers. And that's fine! Aborting a non sentient fetus is FAR more humane than what the non human animals do. Abortion is not murder.

 

What you're saying is quite frankly extremely ignorant and offensive to women. Abortion is an extremely expensive, painful and unpleasant procedure. No one is getting pregnant just to abort. It's a difficult decision. Did you know that 1 out of every 4 women has had an abortion? We just don't speak of it because of all the hate you pro-birthers spew. Abortion is a very personal choice, if you don't like it then don't abort, it's really that simple. Neither you, nor the government, have any right to interfere with anyone's reproductive choices.

So your saying that animals will allow anouther animal to reach in an kill their baby? The only animals who do that is humans No other animal will decide hey i do not want this baby so get rid of it for me no i never heard of any animal exept humans doing that.An if they do not want a baby they do not mate so what else do you have? an if abortion is not murder then what is it? lets see  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder   So if this link is right then what you going to deny a human the right to live? An also do not tell me that there is to many kids out there that need families an i should adopt .I say to you so can you with having to  kill an unborn baby.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Laryal

[Princess Kiara]

Just now, Laryal said:

So your saying that animals will allow anouther animal to reach in an kill their baby? The only animals who do that is humans No other animal will decide hey i do not want this baby so get rid of it for me no i never heard of any animal exept humans doing that.An if they do not want a baby they do not mate so what else do you have? an if abortion is not murder then what is it? lets see  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder   So if this link is right then what?

The link may be right, but you are not. (As an aside, Wikipedia is not a good source for anything.)

Quote

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

I guess it's lucky then that abortion is not "unlawful", a fetus is not "another human" and a perfectly good justification is "I don't want to let anything grow inside me".

Spay aborts are also a thing in animals. But if you want to stay strictly to nature:

 

Animals in heat mate. That's a fact. It has nothing to do with whether or not they want babies. Their hormones make them want to mate, so they do. That's regardless of whether or not they actually want to breed.

Non human animals cannot have abortions done, they cannot understand or ask for one. But once the litter is born, many of them can and will kill the babies, because they aren't cut out to be parents and they don't want to care for them, so they rip them to pieces as soon as they're born. That's not pretty, it's not cute, but it's nature and nature is harsh. It's much more humane to stop a fetus's development before it's even really alive.

 

Additionally, the moment of death is when a person no longer has any measurable EEG brain waves, not when the heart stops. If we therefore take the medical, legal definition of death, and turn it around and apply it to fetuses...they don't have EEG waves until at least week 24 of gestation. So a fetus prior to those stages is, quite literally, not truly alive; or alive only in the sense that its cells and tissues are capable of dividing.

 

 

[Ruby Eyes]

In other words, if you call a fetus prior to week 24 "alive," you may as well call cancer treatment "murder" because the tumor is multiplying its own cells just the same.

[Laryal]

17 minutes ago, Princess Kiara said:

The link may be right, but you are not. (As an aside, Wikipedia is not a good source for anything.)

I guess it's lucky then that abortion is not "unlawful", a fetus is not "another human" and a perfectly good justification is "I don't want to let anything grow inside me".

Spay aborts are also a thing in animals. But if you want to stay strictly to nature:

 

Animals in heat mate. That's a fact. It has nothing to do with whether or not they want babies. Their hormones make them want to mate, so they do. That's regardless of whether or not they actually want to breed.

Non human animals cannot have abortions done, they cannot understand or ask for one. But once the litter is born, many of them can and will kill the babies, because they aren't cut out to be parents and they don't want to care for them, so they rip them to pieces as soon as they're born. That's not pretty, it's not cute, but it's nature and nature is harsh. It's much more humane to stop a fetus's development before it's even really alive.

 

Additionally, the moment of death is when a person no longer has any measurable EEG brain waves, not when the heart stops. If we therefore take the medical, legal definition of death, and turn it around and apply it to fetuses...they don't have EEG waves until at least week 24 of gestation. So a fetus prior to those stages is, quite literally, not truly alive; or alive only in the sense that its cells and tissues are capable of dividing.

 

 

Ok so who does this spaying abortions hmmmm oh we do humans do not other animals four legged kind.So ok so say your preg an the fetus is not human then what is it? do the doctors take out a cat a dog or any other animal beside a human? An anouther thing you said that fetuses are not truliy alive then how does the cells devide an grow if the cells themselves are dead? Can you take a dead cell an make it alive an grow to something? I do not think you can .So the cells that make up a fetus is very much alive  think on this. 

 

 

Now i do not know how this topic went from the old being staved to death in Oregon  to unborn babies but keep this on topic please thank you. if you want to talk about abortion any more go to the abortion thread please.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Laryal

[Princess Kiara]

2 minutes ago, Laryal said:

Ok so who does this spaying abortions hmmmm oh we do humans do not other animals four legged kind.So ok so say your preg an the fetus is not human then what is it? do the doctors take out a cat a dog or any other animal beside a human? An anouther thing you said that fetuses are not truliy alive then how does the cells devide an grow if the cells themselves are dead? Can you take a dead cell an make it alive an grow to something? I do not think you can .So the cells that make up a fetus is very much alive  think on this. 

 

 

Now i do not know how this topic went from the old being staved to death  to unborn babies but keep this on topic please thank you.

You brought it up yourself, you shouldn't be surprised when called out on spreading inaccurate and misogynistic information.

 

In nature, animals often kill their entire litters once born. They can't have an abortion, so they kill or abandon them after they're born. They do it. Not humans. They do it, because for whatever reason they don't want to raise them.

 

And yes, fetuses' cells are dividing. So are those of a cancerous tumor, as @Ruby Eyes said. Does it then follow that removal of a cancerous tumor is also 'murder', since the cells are alive and came from a human? Would you also argue that a cancerous tumor is a human? How far does this go? If a doctor amputates someone's leg, is that also murder because the cells making up the leg are alive?

 

The fetus is living human tissue, yes, but it is not a human, any more than the appendix removed in an appendectomy is a human.

[Laryal]

4 minutes ago, Princess Kiara said:

You brought it up yourself, you shouldn't be surprised when called out on spreading inaccurate and misogynistic information.

 

In nature, animals often kill their entire litters once born. They can't have an abortion, so they kill or abandon them after they're born. They do it. Not humans. They do it, because for whatever reason they don't want to raise them.

 

And yes, fetuses' cells are dividing. So are those of a cancerous tumor, as @Ruby Eyes said. Does it then follow that removal of a cancerous tumor is also 'murder', since the cells are alive and came from a human? Would you also argue that a cancerous tumor is a human? How far does this go? If a doctor amputates someone's leg, is that also murder because the cells making up the leg are alive?

 

The fetus is living human tissue, yes, but it is not a human, any more than the appendix removed in an appendectomy is a human.

How we are talking about the bill so please if you want to talk about abortin go the that thread ok i asked you one time to do so an quoting what some one said on facebook an  i put my opion on it did not mean for you to make this into an abortion thread so please go to the adortion thread instead of here thank you.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Laryal

[Princess Kiara]

On 3/26/2019 at 12:55 PM, Laryal said:

It only started with abortions/ killing babies, now this.

 

16 hours ago, Laryal said:

Now like i said before it starts with babies an ends up killing the elderly then those who are seen not fit to live. 

 

I didn't bring it up, you did.

 

What I have to say to religious misogynists like you would probably get me banned from this forum, but let me just point out the fact that you were okay with debating until suddenly all your arguments were shot down and you don't want to debate it anymore. You're the one who brought it up, not me, and this is a very sensitive and personal subject for me. I'm not going to stay quiet while more and more people scream "but muh feewingz" to try to take away my rights. Thanks to your ilk, I had to risk my life in a clandestine abortion at home. And yet, you pro birthers were nowhere to be seen when my father beat me black and blue. I was already born, so  me, I guess?

 

I also don't appreciate you PMing me "options" to "help support my child". That ship was sailed, I had my abortion and am thankfully still here and I will not be coerced into going through pregnancy. I will ALWAYS support a woman's right to choose, whether that choice be parenthood, adoption, or abortion. And personally, for myself, I will always choose abortion for as long as old white men think they can deny me the right to a surgical sterilization.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Princess Kiara

[Laryal]

18 minutes ago, Princess Kiara said:

 

 

I didn't bring it up, you did.

Like i said before if you read my post it was a quot from some one on Facebook  a family member had put the first link i gave on my facebook page. An i thought it a fitting topic so please keep this on topic thank you  if you want to talk about abortion then go to that thread ok how many times do i have to say that? Now getting back on topic i understand that dying in dignity is fine but causing one not to eat or drink  if they want to  is wrong to me anyway. An if they refuse to eat do not let them suffer like the  guy's wife in the video was done to her. I know it is not just Oregon but a few other states as well.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Laryal

[GhostMouse]

On 3/26/2019 at 1:55 PM, Laryal said:

It only started with abortions/ killing babies, now this.

You literally started this post by talking about abortion. There was no way of knowing those weren't your own words. You could have written your own thoughts about this but chose not to. None of us can read your mind.

Anyway,

So you're saying that you are fine with euthanasia via methods other than starvation? Am I understanding you correctly? Medically assisted suicide, for example, would be fine with you?

Quoting from the article that you linked (emphasis mine).
 

Quote

Relatively modest drives are afoot in Washington state and California, where organizations have launched education campaigns on how people can fill out instructions for future caregivers to withhold food and drink, thereby carrying out an option that is legal to anybody: death by starvation and dehydration. (It is often referred to as the “voluntarily stopping eating and drinking” method.)

It is still an option, not something that would happen to anyone who didn't opt into it. That is a made up concern. 

But they are trying to make it easier for terminal patients to have access to those drugs, so that people don't have to choose to starve.
 

Quote

Under the current law, eligible patients can obtain prescriptions for lethal barbiturates. Qualified patients must be diagnosed with a terminal illness, have a prognosis of six or fewer months to live, and self-ingest the drug.

...

 

 

Rep. Mitch Greenlick (D), chair of Oregon’s House Committee on Health Care, began looking into expanding the state’s Death With Dignity Act a few years ago, when a well-known 78-year-old lobbyist in the capital, Salem, fatally shot himself in the head after learning that he had Alzheimer’s.
 

“That really shook me up,” said Greenlick, a retired director of the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research. “I started thinking, people with Alzheimer’s should be able to have some control over how they die, rather than having to shoot themselves.”

 

[Laryal]

8 minutes ago, GhostMouse said:

You literally started this post by talking about abortion. There was no way of knowing those weren't your own words. You could have written your own thoughts about this but chose not to. None of us can read your mind.

Anyway,

So you're saying that you are fine with euthanasia via methods other than starvation? Am I understanding you correctly? Medically assisted suicide, for example, would be fine with you?

Quoting from the article that you linked (emphasis mine).
 

It is still an option, not something that would happen to anyone who didn't opt into it. That is a made up concern. 

But they are trying to make it easier for terminal patients to have access to those drugs, so that people don't have to choose to starve.
 

 

ok know what you only read what you want to if you read the post as a whole you would have seen it was about the bill not abortion an yes i do believe that if someone wants to die that docs an caregivers can help but starving them to death.That is a very hard way to die.

[Princess Kiara]

2 minutes ago, Laryal said:

ok know what you only read what you want to if you read the post as a whole you would have seen it was about the bill not abortion an yes i do believe that if someone wants to die that docs an caregivers can help but starving them to death.That is a very hard way to die.

And it's still their choice. No one is out there starving elderly people who want to eat.

[DuskOfTheStars]

2 hours ago, Laryal said:

Ok but what if they did not consent an an elderly person does want to eat an drink but the caregiver keeps that away from them Starving them to death that in itself is so wrong in so many levels. Like the man in the video said he watched his wife starve to death i could not handle that i would have taken a ball bat to the docs an who ever else was starving my loved ones. Know i know that giving the patients drugs to pass on  but starving?

According to the actual bill:

 

If you explicitly sign you don't consent to withdrawal until after you "fully" die, it cannot happen, from what I see in that bill. In addition - people have been able to withdraw life support, in other places at least, for others before this. There's even several court fights involving such, in fact.

 

(Also re: abortion mentions: not a baby till it's out, simple. If it can't survive on its own, oh well, the woman's body is being affected negatively by it, her choice. Fetuses aren't sentient in much of any capacity until late pregnancy. Until then, it's much like having a leech on you, only you might want it there and it's genetically the same species as you. Also - women CAN AND DO need abortions for health reasons - I wouldn't exist if my mother hadn't been able to get a late term abortion because of blood poisoning endangering her life and causing the fetuses to be as good as dead.)

Edited March 27, 2019 by DuskOfTheStars

[Laryal]

Please no more about abortion if you want to talk about abortion go to the right thread for this so please keep this on  topic this topic is not about that at all it is about the bill in Oregon an mods it seems like this will never be on topic again so do as you wish delete or keep it is up to you now. like i said when i read what the link said it concerned me allot because who's to say that they will not pass a bill to kill those who are like me crippled not able to work an stuff? To me this bill is just the beginning of  it is all.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Laryal

[GhostMouse]

7 minutes ago, Laryal said:

ok know what you only read what you want to if you read the post as a whole you would have seen it was about the bill not abortion an yes i do believe that if someone wants to die that docs an caregivers can help but starving them to death.That is a very hard way to die.

So do you understand now that the only people starving to death are the ones who choose to?

 

Do you understand that the people in favor of these laws want to give terminal patients access to euthanasia so they don't have to choose starvation?

[Laryal]

8 minutes ago, GhostMouse said:

So do you understand now that the only people starving to death are the ones who choose to?

 

Do you understand that the people in favor of these laws want to give terminal patients access to euthanasia so they don't have to choose starvation?

Yes an like the guy's wife in the video i know it was just one case but how many more cases are out there having the same thing done that to me is scary. Discuss as long as you want about the bill but as for me i need to log out see you guys later.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Laryal

[Skadi]

It honestly sounds like you've never had experience in the position of having a family member potentially be stuck on life support and brain-dead for the rest of their lives. I honestly have, and it's a very, very hard thing to handle. It wasn't my decision, but I knew it was a decision my family didn't make lightly, and I'm glad they let him pass naturally than be stuck on unnatural life support while legally dead.

 

I can't imagine any of my family members "living" like that. I don't want to. It's not living. If you believe in the afterlife, you're actively denying someone from that afterlife to have no brain functions at all. I do, so to me it's a horrible, horrible fate.

[Laryal]

2 minutes ago, Skadi said:

It honestly sounds like you've never had experience in the position of having a family member potentially be stuck on life support and brain-dead for the rest of their lives. I honestly have, and it's a very, very hard thing to handle. It wasn't my decision, but I knew it was a decision my family didn't make lightly, and I'm glad they let him pass naturally than be stuck on unnatural life support while legally dead.

 

I can't imagine any of my family members "living" like that. I don't want to. It's not living. If you believe in the afterlife, you're actively denying someone from that afterlife to have no brain functions at all. I do, so to me it's a horrible, horrible fate.

Yes i have several of my family members my grandparents an others but to be starved an not getting food is not the way to go i am not meaning those who are on life support i am talking about those who the bill is taking about those who do not refuse to eat or drink.An they are not being fed or given water an they are the dementia patients.

[catstaff]

6 hours ago, Laryal said:

Yes i have several of my family members my grandparents an others but to be starved an not getting food is not the way to go i am not meaning those who are on life support i am talking about those who the bill is taking about those who do not refuse to eat or drink.An they are not being fed or given water an they are the dementia patients.

 

Once again, you are fear-mongering. The bill allows for the patients to sign an advance directive refusing food, etc, BEFORE they become incompetent to make such decisions. Not so different from a signed advance directive refusing resuscitation or chemotherapy or whatever. A terminal patient is a terminal patient, and plenty of patients prefer quality of life to quantity. However, anyone who has not signed such an advance directive will not be refused food.

[Fuzzbucket]

17 hours ago, Laryal said:

So your saying that starving some one to death is a good thing? Also that killing an unborn baby no matter what the life stage is is good? So i see this what your saying is killing is fine to those who want to do it it is your body what part of your body is being taken out? No matter how you look at it abortion staring is killing someone.Ok so your not killing the baby but allowing a anouther person to do so which is morally an inhumane really.Like i said before it starts with unborn an then the rest who society deems unfit to live.I can see his coming  an it is hard to watch really.

 

If that is what the individual wants, yes it IS a good thing. It is right there in my advanced directive that that is what I want to happen. How dare you say I can't do as I want with my own life ?

 

And no-one kills babies; they terminate  pregnancies/ abort foetuses. Which are not viable entities. You are again  totally misconstruing the facts of abortion to suit your own religious and personal agenda. Fine, don't ever have an abortion - but don't take away the rights of others.

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pro-life#The_pro-life_movement_and_U.S._racial_dynamics 

 

But I now see you object to us discussing the subject you brought up, so... back to starving me to death. Yes please, when the time comes. My mother would also thank them for doing that. If anyone ever fed her artificially, I would have them in court as fast as I could. And she does not have dementia; she has just had enough of life.

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Euthanasia

Edited March 28, 2019 by Fuzzbucket

[olympe]

On 3/27/2019 at 5:59 PM, Princess Kiara said:

In the US alone, 17 out of 100 pregnancies end with maternal death.

Dead wrong. It's 17 to 28 out of 100,000 in the US. Of those deaths, around 8 % are due to abortion. That's an error of three orders of magnitude! So, please don't make unborn children into blood- and nutrient-sucking parasites whose sole intent seems to be to kill their "hosts". They're not, and going through with a pregnancy is pretty safe overall.

 

That being said, I think that letting someone stop eating who doesn't want to eat is the correct decision. Since I sucked too much at teaching, I went into nursing. (Since things are very different between Germany and the US, let me try to explain: I'm about half a year from graduating as something akin to what Americans would call a "registered nurse" - only that my sole work focus is care for the elderly. In Germany, getting this degree takes three years.) So, I work with old people all the time. And I deal with these issues regularly.

1. A then 101-year-old lady who told me that she prayed every evening that God would finally take her away from life, and had been doing so for a long time. Only he didn't take her until she was 102 and a half... 
2. We have this one lady in her nineties who is unable to leave the bed, even unable to spend any extended period of time in a wheelchair. And it's quite apparent that she gave up a while back - she doesn't really respond to anyone or anything any more, most of the time refuses to eat or drink until the hunger/thirst gets too bad after a couple of days. She can't eat or drink on her own, so we have to try and coax her into doing so while holding the spoon or beaker to her mouth. Most of the time, she doesn't open her mouth and moves her head away. What do you think we should do? Force food into her through sheer brute force because life is precious? Last summer, she didn't drink nearly enough, and got subcutaneous water infusions (so it obviously wasn't pure water, but with 0.9% NaCl...). Her body refused to absorb the water in a timely fashion, though. This process of her refusing food and drink most of the time has been going on and getting progressively worse for the 2.5 years I've known this lady.
3. Early last year, one of our patients suffered from renal failure. The only thing that could have saved her was dialysis - several times a week, probably for the rest of her life. She refused dialysis, being fully aware of the consequences and died quickly, though probably not painlessly - although she was treated by a local physician who specializes on palliative care. Do you think that she should have been forced to go through treatment, knowing full well that she'd depend on it for the rest of her life?
4. Another lady was suffering from peripheral artery disease (stage IV), one of her legs had several ulcers and later started developing wet gangrene. The only option at this point: Amputation of her leg. She refused and died of the resulting sepsis. Should we have "saved" her life by getting her admitted into hospital once she was unconscious and unable to protest, maybe?

Of course, there are a lot of situation where the risk of death is much less obvious and/or direct. Like with some of our diabetes patients. If they want a 2nd helping of torte, they'll get it - even though it's not good for their blood sugar levels. Because it's their decision. It's not our place to tell them what they can or cannot do. We may advise them on the issue and possible or even probably consequences, but if they decide that they still want their 2nd helping, they will get it. We also have one male patient who has severe COPD who's a heavy smoker. (His COPD is so bad that he often needs oxygen.) We won't stop him from smoking, either. Because smoking is one of the very few things in life he still enjoys.

Edited March 28, 2019 by olympe

[Princess Kiara]

3 hours ago, olympe said:

Dead wrong. It's 17 to 28 out of 100,000 in the US. Of those deaths, around 8 % are due to abortion. That's an error of three orders of magnitude! So, please don't make unborn children into blood- and nutrient-sucking parasites whose sole intent seems to be to kill their "hosts". They're not, and going through with a pregnancy is pretty safe overall.

 

My bad, it's been a while since I checked the actual stats. That being said, you described them pretty perfectly lol. I should know, I had one inside me. The relief, both mental and physical, after it was gone was enormous.

 

Agree 100% with humane euthanasia when elected by the patient. No one should be forced to live caged in a broken body if they don't want to.

[Ribombee]

On 3/27/2019 at 1:05 PM, Laryal said:

So your saying that animals will allow anouther animal to reach in an kill their baby? The only animals who do that is humans No other animal will decide hey i do not want this baby so get rid of it for me no i never heard of any animal exept humans doing that.An if they do not want a baby they do not mate so what else do you have? an if abortion is not murder then what is it? lets see  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder   So if this link is right then what you going to deny a human the right to live? An also do not tell me that there is to many kids out there that need families an i should adopt .I say to you so can you with having to  kill an unborn baby.

 

Animals purposely abort their fetuses a lot more than people realise. In fact, MOST mammals have the capability and do abort fetuses. Only a few mammals (great apes, certain bats, elephant shrews) have "invasive placenta" in which the fetuses grow a placenta around them that attaches to the uterine wall so they can't be aborted easily. In other mammals, females will absorb/abort the fetuses any time that conditions are not right (whether they be lack of resources, poor health of the mother, or even social problems in social species). Many marsupials are super callus from a human perspective. They produce and give birth to several underdeveloped young, and only a few can possibly survive. The ones that don't get to a teat first fall off and just die.

 

Animals also mate all the time when they do not want to have offspring. Nature is super brutal. 

 

CW: mention of forced animal mating, insects

Spoiler

Bedbug males literally stab through a female's abdomen to impregnate her, and she doesn't have a choice in the matter. Male ducks have to be either kept alone or with enough females that they can't end up over-mating any one female because they will continue to harass the females to the point of death if there are not enough for the male to rotate forced mating with. This kind of forced mating is extremely common in animals. Otters, dolphins, chimpanzees, orangutans, the list goes on and on.

 

And regardless of whether the initial words were your own, you can't just say "don't talk about it" because you don't like the answers you were given. You chose to put those words there. You chose to continue talking about abortions quite vehemently throughout the thread. As such, people can address those poorly-informed opinions in this public forum. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Ribombee

[Laryal]

Players please read thru all my posts instead of picking what parts you want  an i told everyone to stay on topic this is not an abortion thread an if you would read i said animals do not have other animals killing their unborn babies . Ok Know what you guys are not staying on topic so this thread will be taken down by the right mods I told you guys to stay on topic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Also you guys keep an seem like your targeting only me on here on what i say which is in the rules that you do not target players i believe so since like i said i asked you all to stay on topic this thread is closed  thanks guys for this it seems like the only topics you guys acually discuss on is your own so signing off thanks for letting me know how  ypu guys treat players i believe i will never come back to a rude forum again nore a rude game if you all are like this.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Laryal

[Fuzzbucket]

It isn't up to you to decide what can be discussed in a thread. But fine - forget abortion - that has been done to death in the other thread anyway.

 

But you haven't answered my question - what right have you to say what I can do with my own body (not with something growing unwanted inside it, MY body.) If I have cancer - am I also to be forced to have chemo because life is precious ? Am I to have "life-saving" surgery because my life must be preserved - even if I don't want it to be ? That's a slippery slope too. How long would you FORCE people to live when they don't want to do that any more ? Are you saying my poor mother, who longs to die, shouldn't be allowed to stop eating (she almost has) just because her life is so precious to you - who have never met her ?

 

What right have you to determine the lives of anyone but yourself ?

 

What right have you to take away the choices of others who don't happen to agree with you ?

 

Way to go Oregon for allowing that choice to be made. (and yes, by relatives too; my family all know that if I EVER wake up to find that they were offered the choice to pull the plug on me and didn't say yes, pull it - their lives will not be worth living. For me, NOTHING is worth the risk of ending up in PVS or incapacitated in major ways.)