Should single men have right to exploit women's bodies?

[Tsaraine]

When Balk looked upon this thread, at the first instant; his braincell count suffered minor loss, his liver was suddenly assaulted by a torrent of alcohol and bleach and his tastebuds felt the sensation of gunmetal being rubbed against them.

Yes.

The sensual feelings of trigger-related suicide are amazing, ennit?!

*** One day ban for spamming/trolling *** in conjunction with a history of similar offenses. I'm also upgrading Balkenreich's warning, above, to a one-day ban. The shitposting stops now, gentlemen.

~ Tsar the Mod

[Husseinarti]

You are all sexist for opposing this. Don't you want to be on the reich side of history?

[Galavance]

So wait a minute, how can it be exploitation if these women are deliberately consenting to becoming a surrogate- because unless they're being held against their will and forced to become impregnated- it would have to be consent-based. Which it usually is.

So exploitation doesn't really happen. As for the comment of "transsexual so and so" instead of using the individual's name from the original poster pretty much negates any sensible argument that they had- if it could be thought of sensible to begin with.

The fact of the matter is by calling willing and consenting women exploits used by single men for surrogacy, you're directly insulting their ability to make their own decisions. Which in turn is sexism because you're automatically assuming that because they're a woman they're inherently unable to make healthy decisions for themselves.

[Tsaraine]

You are all sexist for opposing this. Don't you want to be on the reich side of history?

*** One day ban for spamming/trolling ***. Holy Darwin wept.

~ Tsar the Mod

[Machine Cultists]

So wait a minute, how can it be exploitation if these women are deliberately consenting to becoming a surrogate- because unless they're being held against their will and forced to become impregnated- it would have to be consent-based. Which it usually is.

So exploitation doesn't really happen. As for the comment of "transsexual so and so" instead of using the individual's name from the original poster pretty much negates any sensible argument that they had- if it could be thought of sensible to begin with.

The fact of the matter is by calling willing and consenting women exploits used by single men for surrogacy, you're directly insulting their ability to make their own decisions. Which in turn is sexism because you're automatically assuming that because they're a woman they're inherently unable to make healthy decisions for themselves.

Exactly! It's their body, their choice! Let's oppose this archaic anti-surrogacy legislation that seeks to rob women of their right to choose! Gimme freedom, dammit! I honestly have no idea why people are trying to take away women's rights here.

[Tsaraine]

The theoretical framework appears to be that, under The Patriarchy, women's decisions are constrained by economic and social factors imposed by men, and so certain decisions (those obedient to the will of The Patriarchy) are not truly freely made, and are therefore invalid.

[Galloism]

The theoretical framework appears to be that, under The Patriarchy, women's decisions are constrained by economic and social factors imposed by men, and so certain decisions (those obedient to the will of The Patriarchy) are not truly freely made, and are therefore invalid.

Yes - which since this applies, apparently, only to women, means women and only women are incompetent to make their own decisions.

You know - like children.

[Tsaraine]

Hey, I didn't say I supported that line of thinking - just trying to explain what I think is the line of reasoning there.

If you want my actual opinion, I find quite a few parallels between Chessmisstress' threads and the antics of young Earth creationist apologists. "Archaeological evidence PROVES Exodus!" "Noah's Ark FOUND on Mt. Ararat!" "Evolution DISPROVEN by this one weird fish!" - it's the same hyperbolic claims based on unsupported articles cherry-picked from a sea of evidence contradicting the claim, topped with a rhetorical question the OP has already answered in her heart ("Did Christ TRULY die for our sins?" "Is the Earth really 6,000 years old?") and has no intention of allowing to be challenged by evidence to the contrary. So she engages in very selective reading of responses, because the Revealed Truth of Satan's War for Christian Souls - sorry, I mean the evident facts of The Patriarchy's oppression - is fundamental to her worldview, and as dearly held as any theology.

That's what this is, really; theological proselytizing. And the real enemies are not the apostates or the Satanists but the heretics within the ranks; the (no true) feminists who dare disagree on points of doctrine.

[Gauthier]

Hey, I didn't say I supported that line of thinking - just trying to explain what I think is the line of reasoning there.

If you want my actual opinion, I find quite a few parallels between Chessmisstress' threads and the antics of young Earth creationist apologists. "Archaeological evidence PROVES Exodus!" "Noah's Ark FOUND on Mt. Ararat!" "Evolution DISPROVEN by this one weird fish!" - it's the same hyperbolic claims based on unsupported articles cherry-picked from a sea of evidence contradicting the claim, topped with a rhetorical question the OP has already answered in her heart ("Did Christ TRULY die for our sins?" "Is the Earth really 6,000 years old?") and has no intention of allowing to be challenged by evidence to the contrary. So she engages in very selective reading of responses, because the Revealed Truth of Satan's War for Christian Souls - sorry, I mean the evident facts of The Patriarchy's oppression - is fundamental to her worldview, and as dearly held as any theology.

That's what this is, really; theological proselytizing. And the real enemies are not the apostates or the Satanists but the heretics within the ranks; the (no true) feminists who dare disagree on points of doctrine.

No One Expects the Spanish Femquisition!

[Costa Fierro]

I don't think the government should be encouraging single parenthood.

Given the current penchant for divorce or even the slightest of transgressions within marriage, and given that women stand to benefit from custody of their children, that is going to happen anyway.

[Xuskeuclite]

No but if your saying that all men are evil rapist and are suppose to pay you back doing whatever you want for years or something like that for something we didn't even do I wouldn't care if you got raped and exploited I still won't agree with abortion though they exploited themselves and it was their fault they had an abortion if it was a rapist then it's also their fault for being oblivious to what kind of people there are in this world and that they will do those things with no mercy and that also teaching us that rape is bad doesn't work we already know it was bad if we thought it was ok we would have been asking what we did while we (males) are not idiots and know rape is bad maybe if you didn't shame us (assuming your feminist) for be sexually frustrated and a lot of other things we wouldn't result to rape. NOT SAYING ALL MEN COMMIT RAPE

[Dumb Ideologies]

Oh look, a bullshit tinfoil "patriarchy" interpretation of a perfectly reasonable decision complete with a dig at the dastardly transfolk.

Chessmistress? Nah, more of a woodpusher.

[Aelex]

What's so bad with giving to men a chance to have kid alone? We never had such problems with allowing it for women.
Plus given the current birthrate in the West, every birth should be precious.

[Herador]

I give chessmistress ~10 more threads before she starts trying to support her positions with "biotruths".

[Esternial]

I certainly agree that forcing women to carry a child is never okey.

But how does one protect freedom if one takes away women's freedom to be a surrogate for commercial purposes? (provided they do so out of their own volition)

How is surrogacy "undignified"? Or are you solely talking about the instance where women are somehow forced to be a surrogate?

[Halivaara]

Then it would be nothing more than legal rape, Roosh V would be proud.

[Donut section]

Well that's one step closer to axylotyl tanks. And us living in the dune universe.

So I'm all for it.

[Herador]

Well that's one step closer to axylotyl tanks. And us living in the dune universe.

So I'm all for it.

On the internet, no one knows you're a weird mutant who lives in a gas tank with precognitive powers.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What do you think NSGs?

I wonder how it must feel like living in your world where you can get duped by clickbait. All of those articles are about the same story. Word for fucking word. I wonder why do all these tabloids keep reposting the same clickbait?

As I mentioned before, the WHO uses the ICD-10 definition of infertility, not a social definition. So even the change would have to go first through the ICD board and published in the ICD-10 in order to change an entire definition pegged into infertility as per WHO guidelines.

In other words, even the thought of it being a real thing must make you laugh about it, but no, you instead decided to make this all about your ideology instead of doing your research online, which only takes 5 minutes.

Why Chess? Why do you do this to us?

[Donut section]

Well that's one step closer to axylotyl tanks. And us living in the dune universe.

So I'm all for it.

On the internet, no one knows you're a weird mutant who lives in a gas tank with precognitive powers.

If my account ever get deleted I'm coming back as a ghola.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Also, it is pretty funny -- and telling -- that the title of all those articles is not about women benefitting from any changes from infertility being changed from a medical to a social issue. No, it must be about the evil, single men who want to be parents, doesn't it?

That in itself should tell you it is a clickbait article.

[Herador]

Also, it is pretty funny -- and telling -- that the title of all those articles is not about women benefitting from any changes from infertility being changed from a medical to a social issue. No, it must be about the evil, single men who want to be parents, doesn't it?

That in itself should tell you it is a clickbait article.

Fuck me for wanting kids, right?


...please?

[Ethel mermania]

I certainly agree that forcing women to carry a child is never okey.

But how does one protect freedom if one takes away women's freedom to be a surrogate for commercial purposes? (provided they do so out of their own volition)

How is surrogacy "undignified"? Or are you solely talking about the instance where women are somehow forced to be a surrogate?

The arguement ithey are forced by economic circumstances, you know like third world prostitution.

[Zakuvia]

I certainly agree that forcing women to carry a child is never okey.

But how does one protect freedom if one takes away women's freedom to be a surrogate for commercial purposes? (provided they do so out of their own volition)

How is surrogacy "undignified"? Or are you solely talking about the instance where women are somehow forced to be a surrogate?

The arguement ithey are forced by economic circumstances, you know like third world prostitution.

Holy crap, a valid argument! CM, where are you, can someone screenshot this for hyr? You're cool, EM, I'm just having some fun. But yes, I do think there is the possibility that surrogacy could be abused for personal short-term profits. It needs to be very closely managed to prevent abuse and should honestly only be employed by governments experiencing population shortfalls. Which honestly aren't many.

[Freefall11111]

Should OP have the right to exploit clickbait?