View Single Post
  #48  
Old 07-29-2010, 05:26 PM
RatatouilleStrychnine's Avatar
RatatouilleStrychnine RatatouilleStrychnine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
Child-free from what I have read is the desire to not procreate, period. Passing along your dna inherently means you are going to procreate, thereby excluding it from the definition.
I don't agree. I don't think that having genetic offspring in the world is the same thing as "having children" (as the dictionary definition you linked to defined it.) I don't see a sperm donor who isn't even aware of whether or not his genetic material has been used as a parent, and therefore he does not "have children." And I don't think many men who donate sperm do so because they desire to procreate. Nor is a man who accidentally got a woman pregnant, never saw her again, and was not aware that the baby was born, a parent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
Again, I invoke the "virginity comparison": If you had sex when you were unmarried and say, 17 years old, then you decided that sex before marriage is wrong, you're not a "born-again virgin". Once you have sex, your virginity is GONE - BYE BYE! The same goes for being CF. You can't un-ring that bell.
I don't really see the point in the comparison, because virginity is a fundamentally useless concept to me. The pro-virginity movements does, as you say, accept "renewed virgins", which makes a lot more sense to me than sticking to the dictionary definition of the term "virgin" no matter what.

Quote:
Is there some law of the universe that says one cannot hold arbitrary opinions about anything? If so, would you please direct me to it? A Wiki link should suffice.
Questioning your arbitrary views is not the same as saying you should not have them.
Reply With Quote