Your argument only makes sense if you believe that salmon have no relation to rivers. An invitation is a voluntary act. Always and in all cases. To use the word in any other way is to misuse the word. Is English your second language, perhaps? I have no idea if a rough translation would mean something else in another language, but in English, the language in which you’re writing here, “invitation” is a conscious act.
This is only true if we bring religion into the mix. Otherwise, a woman’s body wasn’t “designed” at all. Is that what you’re doing?
And yet a woman does not necessarily consent to having her eggs fertilized, nor does she necessarily consent to having said egg implanted. By the way, what are your thoughts on the morning after pill? Is it ok to evict the stowaway before your so-called “invitation”?
The salmon was not created by the river and is not indistinguishable from the river. The unfertilized egg of a woman is the equivalent of water in your example. Yes the invitation is voluntary, it is just on a very basic biological level. An invitation is an act of inviting. The womans body is simply acting as it is designed to do.
No, its a biological fact. It has nothing to do with religion. I did not mention who designed it just an acknowledgment of how it functions. So I assume you disagree that woman’s bodies are designed to have children?
From your view is it possible for a woman to invite a fertilized egg under any circumstances?
And what if she does consent to all of those things?
As far as the morning after pill is concerned, I think a person has the right to attempt to avoid implantation of the fertilized egg, there are several birth control devices that do this. Also, we don’t really know if there is a fertilized egg at that point but hypothetically the burden for protecting the child occurs at implantation not fertilization.
Max, when you leave your door unlocked and i come in and fuck up your house did you necessarily consent to that? im invited arent i? the unlocked door is an invitation isnt it? inanimate objects can invite cant they?
At the very least wouldnt invitro fertilization be considered being invited?
How about a woman getting pregnant and wanting the baby for the first two months but then wanting an abortion? Wouldn’t that be considered an invitation?
You seem to suggest it is an impossibility for a woman to invite the pregnancy because the invitation occurs biologically.
A more appropriate analogy is that you prepare a room for your child so they can show up anytime they want. One day the child shows up and you stab it with a knife because you say you werent expecting it. Now we are talking apples to apples.
a womans genitalss and other parts are objects and do not invite or other anthropomorphic things that only people can do.
invitation is the wrong word. when i put a fish in my mouth i am not inviting it into my belly. i invite guests to my home. i invite customers to my place of work. i dont invite my car into my garage.
it would be considered at first wanting it and then later not wanting it.
no, you missed out the escalation whereby you tell the child it is not longer welcome, and it refuses to leave. it does not play its part in a peaceful evacuation. it does not cooperate in vacaating its lodgings promptly.
either its a mass of cells incapable of rationality, like a coconut, and not worthy of inter agent rights respect.
or it is an agent that is willfully abusing anothers property, abusing its positions as a squatter. it is a slaver. death to slavers anyone?
How it functions is worlds away from why it functions. “They are designed that way,” implies there is a purpose to the function. Describing the function would be, “Women are able to carry babies.” The latter states an ability; the former implies an ought.
Incorrect: Because I use my jaws and teeth to chew, that’s what they’re for.
Correct: Because my jaws and teeth are able to chew, and I have a desire to chew, that’s what I use them for.
You have an opposable thumb that, along with your fingers, is able to grasp things. It also happens to be a the proper size and shape to fit perfectly into your anus. These are both biological facts. It’s silly to say your thumb was designed for either.
Let’s move on to your absurd definition of invitation. So if you are tied up and locked in a closed garage with a running car, you aren’t being murdered, right? I mean, your lungs are inviting the carbon monoxide into your body. And your hemoglobin is inviting the carbon monoxide to bond with it, right? The bonds between carbon monoxide and hemoglobin is 250 times stronger than the bond between oxygen and hemoglobin (a biological fact) so it stands to reason that the human body is designed for carbon monoxide poisoning more than it is for breathing.
No, but just as you can throw out a stranger who walks into your house, you can also offer him a chair and some tea.
And now you get to prove that if you consent to drive and get in an accident, you cannot get your car repaired. Because that’s what you’re claiming. Saying no will only make me laugh, little one. You and many others have a warped definition of “facing the consequences”. I’ve pointed this out in other threads. You special plead your strange definition, hoping that repeating your odd view will make it correct. But it won’t.
And yes, little one: you do really need to learn how to think.
No, that’s not a valid analogy. You’re trying to compare an active choice in creating a room vs. an automatic biological process–one which carries no choice. Please Max: try to think. And please stop with the invalid telos claims.
If something only has one purpose then it is designed for that purpose. The repoductive organs only have one overriding function to reproduce. This is not something that is chosen by you, your body just works that way.
If the sole function of lungs was to use carbon monoxide then that would be correct. The lungs arent meant to function with carbon monoxide. The woman’s body is meant to host and maintain a child there is no abnormal act occurring contrary to the design of the body. Your logic only applies if you believe that women having babies is some unnatural event that the woman’s body is performing, of course that is not the case.
And once you chain him to the chair can you then hack off his arms to make him leave?
We will never agree. No matter what you think of my analogy or I of yours. It is only settled at the barrel of a gun. Where you have the guns on your side with the state protecting your ideas of murder which is where this all comes from…imposed by the state… then you will be able to murder. When you lose your protective state then you will have to be responsible. Are you prepared for that?
If I recall correctly you advocate the death penalty for the ‘crime’ known as abortion ?
Uh oh. So, Max, dear, you used to work for the state as cop and soldier. I wonder what did you do when you had such ‘honorable’ jobs…? Protect life liberty and property…?
And now you are saying that you are going to use violence against people who are self-owners and do whatever they please with their bodies…
Meant by whom? They absorb carbon monoxide. Are you claiming this is a design flaw?
Meant by whom? Designed by whom?
Inhaling is natural. Carbon monoxide is natural. Hemoglobin bonding with carbon monoxide is natural. Death is natural. Where is the unnatural event? By the way, the uterus functions well as a hiding place for drugs while smuggling. Thus, it does not have a sole function.
transitive verb1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan :devise, contrive 2 a: to conceive and plan out in the mind <he design**ed the perfect crime> b: to have as a purpose :intend <she design**ed to excel in her studies> c: to devise for a specific function or end <a book design**ed primarily as a college textbook> 3archaic: to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name 4 a: to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of b: to draw the plans for <design a building>
In all cases, designing requires a conscious plan. So I’ll ask again, designed by whom? Who intended the body part to be used in that manner, and only in that manner?
The nerves in the sexual organs have only one funtion, to cause pleasure. This is not something that is chosen by you, your body just works that way. I uderstand your claim perfectly; I simply disagree with it. Reproduction is a mere side effect of sex, the real purpose of which, almost always, is to experience a particular pleasurable sensation.
Why do you insist on trying to re-define the word “responsible”? Is there some reason you think no one will notice that you’ve tried to eliminate the concept of abortion from “be[ing] responsible”? Knock that dishonest crap off, Max.