Page 290 of 452

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:18 pm
by Neutraligon
Stellar Colonies wrote:
Katganistan wrote:...


Except the double standard about controlling women's bodies already exists, and apparently, no one is interested in eliminating it in the least invasive way, which is to stop forcing women to have kids they don't want.

Which is plenty draconian.

So why can't we force men not to impregnate women willy-nilly?

...

It's just a 'gotcha' that will backfire in terms of trying to protect the bodily autonomy of everyone and forces the creation of a gender war in this when it barely exists.


...barely exists? I am sorry but considering that the pro-life argument is in the end about controlling women's bodies and sexuality it exists.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:20 pm
by Stellar Colonies
Neutraligon wrote:
Stellar Colonies wrote:It's just a 'gotcha' that will backfire in terms of trying to protect the bodily autonomy of everyone and forces the creation of a gender war in this when it barely exists.


...barely exists? I am sorry but considering that the pro-life argument is in the end about controlling women's bodies and sexuality it exists.

I meant more in terms of the gender balance between pro-abortionists and anti-abortionists, the percentage of each gender in each movement seems fairly similar. It seems far more of a secular/religious conflict than a male/female one.

And I hesitate to speak too expansively in this debate since it's not one I pay a lot of attention too, but the talking points of anti-abortionists seems to focus more on trying to defend the 'rights' of the fetus, with the bodily autonomy violation of women being a side effect instead of the main goal.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:36 pm
by Neutraligon
Stellar Colonies wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:
...barely exists? I am sorry but considering that the pro-life argument is in the end about controlling women's bodies and sexuality it exists.

I meant more in terms of the gender balance between pro-abortionists and anti-abortionists, the percentage of each gender in each movement seems fairly similar. It seems far more of a secular/religious conflict than a male/female one.

And I hesitate to speak too expansively in this debate since it's not one I pay a lot of attention too, but the talking points of anti-abortionists seems to focus more on trying to defend the 'rights' of the fetus, with the bodily autonomy violation of women being a side effect instead of the main goal.


Except that more often then not they use pregnancy as punishment, and so make it clear that it is not a side effect.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:42 pm
by Stellar Colonies
Neutraligon wrote:
Stellar Colonies wrote:I meant more in terms of the gender balance between pro-abortionists and anti-abortionists, the percentage of each gender in each movement seems fairly similar. It seems far more of a secular/religious conflict than a male/female one.

And I hesitate to speak too expansively in this debate since it's not one I pay a lot of attention too, but the talking points of anti-abortionists seems to focus more on trying to defend the 'rights' of the fetus, with the bodily autonomy violation of women being a side effect instead of the main goal.


Except that more often then not they use pregnancy as punishment, and so make it clear that it is not a side effect.

Ah, as a punishment for having sex instead of being abstinent? I see your point with that, also cheapens the fetus as a human being and increases the likelihood of the kid being abused or neglected after birth.

Regardless, my main point was that trying to install forced vasectomies is merely a revenge tactic, largely on people who would otherwise agree with legalized abortion since a similar percentage of men as to women are favorable of it, which would almost certainly backfire by cheapening bodily autonomy in general.

Kind of like trying to combat infant male circumcision by legalizing infant female genital cutting or forcing women into the Selective Service like men already are, instead of focusing on trying to eliminate the injustices already present. Good as a shock tactic, but equally likely to stoke an unproductive backlash and doubling down on the other side.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:48 pm
by Neutraligon
Stellar Colonies wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:
Except that more often then not they use pregnancy as punishment, and so make it clear that it is not a side effect.

Ah, as a punishment for having sex instead of being abstinent? I see your point with that, also cheapens the fetus as a human being and increases the likelihood of the kid being abused or neglected after birth.

Regardless, my main point was that trying to install forced vasectomies is merely a revenge tactic, largely on people who would otherwise agree with legalized abortion since a similar percentage of men as to women are favorable of it, which would almost certainly backfire by cheapening bodily autonomy in general.

Kind of like trying to combat infant male circumcision by legalizing infant female genital cutting or forcing women into the Selective Service like men already are, instead of focusing on trying to eliminate the injustices already present. Good as a shock tactic, but equally likely to stoke an unproductive backlash and doubling down on the other side.


No the point of the legislation is not revenge, it is to point out the absurdity of the abortion debate, that the way the abortion debate is framed is fundamentally anti-woman. After all, why is it women are the ones punished for the pregnancy while men are not held responsible?

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:55 pm
by Stellar Colonies
Neutraligon wrote:
Stellar Colonies wrote:Ah, as a punishment for having sex instead of being abstinent? I see your point with that, also cheapens the fetus as a human being and increases the likelihood of the kid being abused or neglected after birth.

Regardless, my main point was that trying to install forced vasectomies is merely a revenge tactic, largely on people who would otherwise agree with legalized abortion since a similar percentage of men as to women are favorable of it, which would almost certainly backfire by cheapening bodily autonomy in general.

Kind of like trying to combat infant male circumcision by legalizing infant female genital cutting or forcing women into the Selective Service like men already are, instead of focusing on trying to eliminate the injustices already present. Good as a shock tactic, but equally likely to stoke an unproductive backlash and doubling down on the other side.


No the point of the legislation is not revenge, it is to point out the absurdity of the abortion debate, that the way the abortion debate is framed is fundamentally anti-woman. After all, why is it women are the ones punished for the pregnancy while men are not held responsible?

Because anti-abortionists regard them as the ones choosing to "murder" the fetus, I guess.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:58 pm
by Sundiata
Neutraligon wrote:
Stellar Colonies wrote:Ah, as a punishment for having sex instead of being abstinent? I see your point with that, also cheapens the fetus as a human being and increases the likelihood of the kid being abused or neglected after birth.

Regardless, my main point was that trying to install forced vasectomies is merely a revenge tactic, largely on people who would otherwise agree with legalized abortion since a similar percentage of men as to women are favorable of it, which would almost certainly backfire by cheapening bodily autonomy in general.

Kind of like trying to combat infant male circumcision by legalizing infant female genital cutting or forcing women into the Selective Service like men already are, instead of focusing on trying to eliminate the injustices already present. Good as a shock tactic, but equally likely to stoke an unproductive backlash and doubling down on the other side.


No the point of the legislation is not revenge, it is to point out the absurdity of the abortion debate, that the way the abortion debate is framed is fundamentally anti-woman. After all, why is it women are the ones punished for the pregnancy while men are not held responsible?

A man who makes love with a woman has a moral responsibility to her, and especially if that act results in pregnancy, he has a responsibility to her and their children.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:15 pm
by Godular
Sundiata wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:
No the point of the legislation is not revenge, it is to point out the absurdity of the abortion debate, that the way the abortion debate is framed is fundamentally anti-woman. After all, why is it women are the ones punished for the pregnancy while men are not held responsible?

A man who makes love with a woman has a moral responsibility to her, and especially if that act results in pregnancy, he has a responsibility to her and their children.


Where is this responsibility from?

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:21 pm
by The V I C
Sundiata wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:
No the point of the legislation is not revenge, it is to point out the absurdity of the abortion debate, that the way the abortion debate is framed is fundamentally anti-woman. After all, why is it women are the ones punished for the pregnancy while men are not held responsible?

A man who makes love with a woman has a moral responsibility to her


No he doesn't. Haven't you heard of hit it and quit it?

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:15 pm
by Suriyanakhon
The V I C wrote:
Sundiata wrote:A man who makes love with a woman has a moral responsibility to her


No he doesn't. Haven't you heard of hit it and quit it?


That's... not a moral statement. It's very immoral.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:34 pm
by Sundiata
Godular wrote:
Sundiata wrote:A man who makes love with a woman has a moral responsibility to her, and especially if that act results in pregnancy, he has a responsibility to her and their children.


Where is this responsibility from?
Lex Naturalis.

Men owe it to women to support them when they become mothers. Anything less than that is truly a culture of misogyny and hatred towards women.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:51 pm
by Alcala-Cordel
Sundiata wrote:
Godular wrote:
Where is this responsibility from?
Lex Naturalis.

Men owe it to women to support them when they become mothers. Anything less than that is truly a culture of misogyny and hatred towards women.

Forcing people to give birth and insisting that their main goal in life should be to have kids really doesn't give you much moral high ground

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:55 pm
by Alcala-Cordel
Sundiata wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:So you agree that women have the right to not be molested by undesirable elements, unlike inanimate objects?

Yes. Do you agree that the unborn have the right not to be massacred en masse as if they are beneath human beings, animals?

Ironic that you dehumanize women yet try to humanize things that are about as human as tumors are.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 8:15 pm
by The Caleshan Valkyrie
Sundiata wrote:
Godular wrote:
Where is this responsibility from?
Lex Naturalis.


There is no such ‘responsibility’ in natural law. Natural law rather specifically countermands your claim at the outset.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 8:41 pm
by Ifreann
Sundiata wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:
No the point of the legislation is not revenge, it is to point out the absurdity of the abortion debate, that the way the abortion debate is framed is fundamentally anti-woman. After all, why is it women are the ones punished for the pregnancy while men are not held responsible?

A man who makes love with a woman has a moral responsibility to her...

That's right folks, God says you have to go down on your girlfriend.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 8:43 pm
by Suriyanakhon
Ifreann wrote:
Sundiata wrote:A man who makes love with a woman has a moral responsibility to her...

That's right folks, God says you have to go down on your girlfriend.


Does this mean wlw is most holy in God's eyes?

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 8:44 pm
by Ifreann
Suriyanakhon wrote:
Ifreann wrote:That's right folks, God says you have to go down on your girlfriend.


Does this mean wlw is most holy in God's eyes?

It turns out that lesbians are God's chosen people.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:15 pm
by Neutraligon
Sundiata wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:
No the point of the legislation is not revenge, it is to point out the absurdity of the abortion debate, that the way the abortion debate is framed is fundamentally anti-woman. After all, why is it women are the ones punished for the pregnancy while men are not held responsible?

A man who makes love with a woman has a moral responsibility to her, and especially if that act results in pregnancy, he has a responsibility to her and their children.


Since a man does not deal with the medical consequences of being pregnant, he cannot be held responsible the way the law is attempting to demonstrate. This law is forcing men to go through medical consequences for the act of sex, the same way you are trying to force women to go through.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:11 pm
by The Kingdom Of The Three Isles
Ifreann wrote:
Suriyanakhon wrote:
Does this mean wlw is most holy in God's eyes?

It turns out that lesbians are God's chosen people.

That’s right guys. The Church messed up big again by misinterpreting the Bible. You don’t need to be straight to go to heaven. Some people don’t believe heaven exists but okay.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:34 pm
by Sundiata
The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Lex Naturalis.


There is no such ‘responsibility’ in natural law. Natural law rather specifically countermands your claim at the outset.

There is if a man wants to be the best he can be in paternal circumstances. For the good of humanity, it doesn't make sense not to.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:40 pm
by New haven america
Sundiata wrote:
Godular wrote:
Where is this responsibility from?
Lex Naturalis.

Men owe it to women to support them when they become mothers. Anything less than that is truly a culture of misogyny and hatred towards women.

So is forcing to go through birth against their will but that doesn't stop you...

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:43 pm
by Sundiata
New haven america wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Lex Naturalis.

Men owe it to women to support them when they become mothers. Anything less than that is truly a culture of misogyny and hatred towards women.

So is forcing to go through birth against their will but that doesn't stop you...

Better a mother than a participant in a killing.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:46 pm
by New haven america
Sundiata wrote:
New haven america wrote:So is forcing to go through birth against their will but that doesn't stop you...

Better a mother than a participant in a killing.

We get it, you view women solely as brood mares.

You don't have to repeat it 10000 times, we got it the 500th time.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:49 pm
by Sundiata
New haven america wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Better a mother than a participant in a killing.

We get it, you view women solely as brood mares.

You don't have to repeat it 10000 times, we got it the 500th time.

No. Broodmares? Not anymore than men are Stallions, or the metaphorical equivalent. We're all just people, including the unborn.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:04 pm
by Thepeopl
Sundiata wrote:
New haven america wrote:So is forcing to go through birth against their will but that doesn't stop you...

Better a mother than a participant in a killing.

Just because one has created something, doesn't mean they are loving it. (Do you love abscesses, kidney stones or your other excrement?)
Just because a woman gets pregnant, doesn't make her a mother. Parenthood is chosen. It really is a calling. It definitely is not for everyone.

To force people to become parents is immoral. It promotes suffering, negligence and abuse.