- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 120,031
- Reaction score
- 76,045
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
My guess is that the religious try to put controls on human sexuality because it is something they know they are powerless against, and always have been. It is the prime human directive and NOTHING else has inspired so many to contradict their faith with gusto.
Sex, after all, is also a bastion of female power. The power of creation, in reality, exists within THEM. The word "no" is theirs to utter to unacceptable mates. They have the final word. That aspect of human nature is a direct contradiction to the imagined favor of men. God clearly did not create us equal and that truth can not fully be quantified in terms of physical strength alone. The powers that women enjoy are much more magical and important than the blessings of violence with which men have been endowed. I think that irks the religious who have long imagined a male god.
Do you have a point here? Or a question? I mean, I'm fine if you just want to keep insulting me, but I feel like its a waste of your time
Should we just stop reproducing then, if childbirth is such a big problem? American maternal mortality rates come to 20 deaths for every 100000 births. That's a percentage of .02%. Very, very generously, this can be called the 1% case that liberals use to justify the other 99, along with rape and incest cases, and it simply doesn't add up to a meaningful difference.
Should we just stop reproducing then, if childbirth is such a big problem? American maternal mortality rates come to 20 deaths for every 100000 births. That's a percentage of .02%. Very, very generously, this can be called the 1% case that liberals use to justify the other 99, along with rape and incest cases, and it simply doesn't add up to a meaningful difference.
Interesting.
There's no doubt that pregnancy and children are a way that men have used forever to control women. Just from a biological standpoint it makes us more vulnerable. And then they can use our children against us to force us to do just about anything...they still do this in extremist Muslim countries. Just by threatening to take them from us.
Sorry, I'm a more linear thinker, you added many other perspectives to it.
Sorry if I made it overly complicated. It's like our recent discussion of incels. It seems to me like the incels consider the female, sexual being to be a commodity. That's not a new attitude, either. One way that men have found to control the supply of that much-coveted commodity is to convince women that there is a god who cares who they ****. No doubt, those same spokespersons for god dished out enough punishments to get the point across that god is serious about it. They never stopped believing they were entitled to control women through religious violence. It's a tradition or habit that some modern men are loath to relinquish.
Abortion rights are relative to male evolution more than female evolution, as crazy as that sounds. Until the threat of violence, in God's name or otherwise, is no longer hanging over our interactions, there will be no rational discourse, no equality and no hope for a better society.
The middle east is a prime example of social stagnation in God's name.
It wasnt complicated, it was very good. I appreciated the fresh perspective.
You are posting from an uninformed position.
In the US, way more women choose to have babies than to abort and the abortion rate has been steadily dropping every year.
But no one is obligated to reproduce...women are not broodmares.
I didn’t say that women were obligated to reproduce. Men aren’t obligated to do so either. What I am saying is that you don’t get the right to kill a baby because you were careless. This is a two sided-coin you’re using: on one side, you say that I can’t force a woman to give birth to an unwanted child, while ignoring that on the other side, not only are you forcing the child to die, but the child doesn’t even get a right to say anything. The unborn are the epitome of the innocent victim, so why is society so hellbent on punishing them for existing?
I didn’t say that women were obligated to reproduce. Men aren’t obligated to do so either. What I am saying is that you don’t get the right to kill a baby because you were careless. This is a two sided-coin you’re using: on one side, you say that I can’t force a woman to give birth to an unwanted child, while ignoring that on the other side, not only are you forcing the child to die, but the child doesn’t even get a right to say anything. The unborn are the epitome of the innocent victim, so why is society so hellbent on punishing them for existing?
Anti choicers would force it to be born. It doesn't get a say in that either.
If it is in MY body, then it's MY choice whether to leave it there and put my body thru the trauma of gestation and childbirth or not.
Going to court to force fatherhood is not pro choice. It is pro woman.
This is a gynocentric explanation of "anti choice." Generally speaking, "anti choice" makes someone become a parent against their will. Whether it's coming out of your body or your bank account, no one should be obligated to their former sexual partner because of a child. How can anyone justify raising a boy in a world where boys become men who are forced to do something like that against their will? We don't justify raising girls to get raped. It's not pro life to do so.
As they say in Costa Rica, "pura vida." We do not need to force it. Going to court to force fatherhood is not pro choice. It is pro woman.
This is a gynocentric explanation of "anti choice." Generally speaking, "anti choice" makes someone become a parent against their will. Whether it's coming out of your body or your bank account, no one should be obligated to their former sexual partner because of a child. How can anyone justify raising a boy in a world where boys become men who are forced to do something like that against their will? We don't justify raising girls to get raped. It's not pro life to do so.
As they say in Costa Rica, "pura vida." We do not need to force it. Going to court to force fatherhood is not pro choice. It is pro woman.
So let me see if I get this right.
You're anti-pro-choice because the "real victims" in this whole thing are all the MEN?????
If it is in MY body, then it's MY choice whether to leave it there and put my body thru the trauma of gestation and childbirth or not.
If you have an actual baby that you gave birth to, the law says that you have to raise it (anti-abandonment laws). It is because we recognize that people have the moral duty to care for their young. You can't just say, "it's my body/time/resources so it's my choice whether to raise my baby or not".
If you have an actual baby that you gave birth to, the law says that you have to raise it (anti-abandonment laws). It is because we recognize that people have the moral duty to care for their young. You can't just say, "it's my body/time/resources so it's my choice whether to raise my baby or not".
There are Safe Haven laws that allow it. For women and men.
And there are people who oppose these laws.
Anyway, all this is not important. I will just ask you one question: do you think that people have the moral duty to care for their young?
Sure. And if you cannot do so properly it's very moral and responsible to find them a place where they will be cared for properly. That is also 'care.'
While I agree with you in principle, I just think that in practice, this encourages women who don't have any business breeding (I know I sound like a Nazi now) to pump out kids and then give them away for other people to raise. This is dysgenic.
Besides, women, just like all people, need to learn how to be responsible. If they know that they are in no position to raise a child, they really should be careful when it comes to sex and procreation.
VERY MUCH LESS LIKELY. Where did the "intelligent designer" obtain that intelligence, eh? All you are doing is opening a claim that some other intelligent designer created your favorite intelligent designer --but then where did that intelligent designer get its intelligence, eh? (and so on, endlessly)
MEANWHILE, it makes exactly as much sense for the intelligent designer's intelligence to have randomly/spontaneously evolved, as it makes sense for biological intelligence to have randomly/spontaneously evolved.
BESIDES, your worthless blather I quoted above does nothing to refute the Fact that sex existed more than half a billion years before humans began existing on Earth. It didn't have to be created just for humans. ///Do you see why I can say you appear to believe that God is an idiot?[/COLOR]
What is careless about using birth control and still getting pregnant? BC isnt 100%, but stats show that at least 65% of women use it.
There is no child. There's a pea-sized embryo or early fetus, flushed painlessly from the womb. Of course it has no rights, of course it cant 'say' anything.
Why do you value its life more than the woman's? A life is more than just breathing.
Why would it be more entitled to self-determination and bodily sovereignty and a future than a woman?
What is the woman guilty of? The innocence of the unborn is meaningless because it cannot act, it cannot even form intent. It's a vacuum, it has the same "innocence" as a tree or a couch. What is the value that you see in that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?