• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

pro-life[W:1119]

Re: pro-life

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.

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.
 
Re: pro-life

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

Not in that post...it was a matter of perspective for you to consider.

Or counter if you choose.

Certainly I expressed clear curiosity on how people of faith overcome such hypocritical thinking (I used science examples)....I'd be happy to see your answer.
 
Re: pro-life

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.

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.
 
Re: pro-life

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.

What percentage of home invasions end in a murder? Whatever the number, it justifies protecting your home, right? It's the same principle.

Besides, I'm not saying that a woman should never take the risk, as your hyperbolic response suggests. I'm saying that 100% of women should be free to decide for themselves whether procreation is important enough to them to risk injury, death or a conservative child that just doesn't ask intelligent questions.

This issue is not between authoritarians on the right trying to control women or authoritarians on the left trying to control the religious. There is only one authoritarian position and it's largely held by conservative christians. If some religious woman thinks dying for her fetus makes sense, I wouldn't try to stop her. As long as it's her ass in jeopardy, there is no conflict.

Hopefully (and I'm not holding my breath) you and any other anti-choice person reading this exchange will see the distinction between our positions. It's really VERY simple.
 
Re: pro-life

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.
 
Re: pro-life

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.
 
Re: pro-life

It wasnt complicated, it was very good. I appreciated the fresh perspective.

Thanks. I didn't mean to imply it was over your head in any way, just that my thoughts may have not been fully coherent.
 
Re: pro-life

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?
 
Re: pro-life

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?

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?
 
Re: pro-life

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.
 
Re: pro-life

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.

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.
 
Re: pro-life

Going to court to force fatherhood is not pro choice. It is pro woman.

Completely wrong on all counts.

The man is already a father if there is a kid.

And the laws are not pro-woman. They are pro-child and also protect the taxpayer.

And the law is equal for men and women....if the courts dont apply it equally, that's their fault. And most of the judges are still men.
 
Re: pro-life

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 thread is not about forcing fatherhood. Why must you try to derail practically every thread? There are numerous threads dedicated to men and their rights.
 
Re: pro-life

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?????

giphy.gif
 
Re: pro-life

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?????

inorite? I just added this sentiment in a similar thread:

"The resentment that some men feel is apparent.

I have to agree that it would suck to be stuck with these payments if you didnt want a kid, but I would hope that both parents could act like adults in the best interests of the kid and both be part of the kid's life. Women get 'stuck' having kids all the time...it kind of blows me away that they do...I think alot just wait too long or that many just do not believe in abortion. Either way...they are also stuck. Men seem to think it's a simple decision. It's not.

But alot of men chafe at the idea of women having 'control' or 'power' over them...they've used those words many times. What is ridiculous is that in order to have sex, they are willing to risk that...but then STILL blame the women! Obviously, time & place, they place sex over consequences. THEY choose. But then they look for a way to blame women for their own choice."
 
Re: pro-life

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".
 
Re: pro-life

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 is no such law where I live. The born child can be handed off to others to raise.
 
Re: pro-life

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.
 
Re: pro-life

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?
 
Re: pro-life

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.'
 
Re: pro-life

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.
 
Re: pro-life

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.

Nobody wants irresponsible or poor parental material (at the time) to breed. Good luck with that.

Nobody's affected that for...ever.

Humans have always had sex, no matter what the consequences and in the past there were much more dire: disownment, ostracism, public flogging or other punishment, stoning, STDs, exile, and even death (childbirth). Today, consensual sex is much safer and doesnt have to lead to a kid. Sex is a very enjoyable thing...people arent going to stop.

It's the strongest instinct on the planet
 
Re: pro-life

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)

You are directed to Professor John Lennox' lecture titled "A Matter of Gravity." You can see it on YouTube. "If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?"

Your "favorite designer" is NOTHING. You pretend that NOTHING made EVERYTHING and you pretend that such a fatuous fantasy is "rational" and "scientific." In fact, NOTHING is neither.

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.

And all matter, all energy, all information, all elegance and beauty "randomly/spontaneously evolved"? Unscientific and irrational. Even Stephen Hawking made such absurd proposals. Hawking said "All that was needed to get everything going was gravity." And the gravitational constant is precise to 1 part in 10 to the 10 to the 120th power, was established by random processes? So was the extremely large value for light, and the relatively small constant for sound, and the electron/proton mass ratio, also critical, and dozens of other constants as well? They all fabricated themselves from... randomness.


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]

Your NOTHING is truly a genius. But clearly you are even smarter than your NOTHING. Impressive.
 
Re: pro-life

I don't have to pretend, sine we know for a fact the power of nothing If God exists, then where did God come form? If God always existed, then why can't that be true of the Universe (which includes nothing)? There is nothing you can say about God that cannot also be said of the Universe.
 
Re: pro-life

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?

The carelessness is sex outside of marriage. And I agree, the life is far more than just breathing. The life is life from the moment of conception.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom