13 Jan 2023, 3:36 am
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
13 Jan 2023, 3:44 am
magz wrote:
^ You'd be surprised.
Women aren't nearly as solidary as some seem to expect us to be.
Just like any other demographics.
Women aren't nearly as solidary as some seem to expect us to be.
Just like any other demographics.
I’d be very surprised.
That many references to women and not once including their self amongst women.. doesn’t seem realistic. At all.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.13 Jan 2023, 3:46 am
13 Jan 2023, 4:09 am
13 Jan 2023, 4:11 am
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,800
Location: the island of defective toy santas
13 Jan 2023, 5:05 am
13 Jan 2023, 7:50 am
13 Jan 2023, 7:55 am
13 Jan 2023, 8:01 am
Mikah wrote:
Good old Roe vs Wade logic. I once described the stupidity of that ruling by saying it was akin to ruling that child and/or spousal murder is a personal private matter for families and no one else's business and therefore protected under the constitutional right to privacy. Now that is has been repealed I suppose I won't have many more chances.
Perfectly said.
13 Jan 2023, 8:02 am
13 Jan 2023, 8:12 am
goldfish21 wrote:
MissMary227 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
@MissMary227:
I happen to believe that there are justifications for having abortions that are consistent with a Christian worldview. Causing the death of another person while acting in a necessary way to preserve your own life is not a sin.
I happen to believe that there are justifications for having abortions that are consistent with a Christian worldview. Causing the death of another person while acting in a necessary way to preserve your own life is not a sin.
Hi, AngelRho. I like your username. What does it mean?
Self-defense, yes. We agree. But killing your baby is not self-defense.
If you are saying, as the Jews believe, that to kill the fetus to save the mother is biblically sound, then I disagree with that, and with the Jews who think that is okay. I have looked it up and I don't interpret any verses that way.
Quote:
The Bible makes no distinctions between threats that are intentional and threats that are unintentional. There's no difference between someone operating heavy machinery not looking where he's going and an armed robber.
I see where you are going with this. You are saying that a mother has just as much right to defend her body from a foreign enemy as an internal enemy, as if the baby is attacking her unintentionally, but causing her harm nonetheless.
The bible does say one has the right to kill to protect himself.
But you cannot equate a conceived baby in utero to a malicious attacker, or even a non-malicious attacker.
The baby is not attacking her, it is simply living and growing. An enemy attacker is meaning to do you harm, or take your stuff.You all act as if pregnancy is this horrible event that is so bad for you and hurts your body. It is not! Pregnancy is beautiful and women are made to endure it well. Sure, they might complaint about it but pregnancy and labor and childrearing is part of women's curse. Just as man's curse it to work.
Quote:
And that principle extends to the unborn. The conditions are strictly that abortion is ONLY a medical, life-saving procedure, a last resort, and a decision that the woman is allowed to freely make (e.g. she can freely choose under no obligation to sacrifice her own life to save her baby). Given the state of medicine and medical technology, this is less and less the case.
When would a woman need to sacrifice her unborn baby to save herself? Give me some scenarios. Because I am a midwife and I can't think of any viable ones that are not extremely far-fetched.
Quote:
Where I've noticed people on WP seem to struggle is with objective objections to abortion. Many of us get hung up on the idea that the father of the child might have an interest in the baby being born. Also, the state has an interest in the right of babies to be born. The interest of all of individuals is in self-preservation and the right to live. We shouldn't fear being murdered. And in a free society, we all already have the freedom to do as we please with our own bodies. It's in telling others what they can/can't do where it becomes a problem.
I say let women kill their babies if they must. It is a sin, but I cannot control what a woman does in her own home or life.
Quote:
This is normally applied to the relationships between women's rights and patriarchy. But it also applies to the relationship between women's interests and the interests of the unborn.
If women are so concerned the patriarchy and we pro-lifers are going to get all up in her uterus, then she should know I'd like her to keep her uterus to herself. She is the one who does not want to keep her uterus to herself. She is the one who wants to forego privacy and hire a trained mercenary to assassinate her baby by inserting sharp instruments into her womb. Because [/b]she[/b] knows by herself she is truly left alone with her uterus and she hates that because she hates what her uterus produces. So it is a bald-faced lie that women and feminists tell themselves--and other gullible bystanders--that they don't want people to come between her and her vagina or reproductive 'care' or whatever the narrative is. She is too weak to carry out her threats of murder by herself and she knows it!
The whole abortion argument and narrative assumes the hiring of a third-party trained assassin!! ! ! ! Eliminate the assassin and give women the right to do whatever THEY want with THEIR bodies. And they will mostly continue the pregnancy (as they always have historically) and give the babies up for adoption or find another solution. Yes, they 'give up' a year of their life for another human being, but that is not a big deal in the scheme of life.
Just wanted to point out that I found it very peculiar for a user account claiming to be female, with a female gendered screen name, failed to include themselves even once when referencing females in their long winded religious fanaticism inspired misogynistic rant about reproductive rights.
And the one reference to the bible saying people have a right to kill to protect themselves doesn't say themselves, it says himself.
Makes me wonder if I know which young man is behind these posts.
Hi, Goldie
Does one usually argue a heated topic in the first person?
And Pikachu is non-binary, didn't you know?
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,157
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
13 Jan 2023, 8:16 am
13 Jan 2023, 8:25 am
Sweetleaf wrote:
Why should anything/anyone regardless of how innocent they are have a right to use someones body without consent of that person?
It's called the circle of life. Have you had sex ed yet?
13 Jan 2023, 8:28 am
MissMary227 wrote:
Hi, Goldie
Does one usually argue a heated topic in the first person?
Yes. Personal experiences are how heated topics can become much more civil and constructive.
13 Jan 2023, 8:33 am
magz wrote:
MissMary227 wrote:
Hi, Goldie
Does one usually argue a heated topic in the first person?
Yes. That's how heated topics become more civil and constructive.
Interesting. I have always felt that I wanted to look at the big picture, beyond what my personal feelings were, to right and wrong, not my waffling right and wrong; but to think about what is right objectively. Because what we feel personally is more prone to manipulation and variables, but what we can think about absolute truth lifts us out of ourselves and helps to find a common denominator that all people can live by more ethically. No?
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,157
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
13 Jan 2023, 8:39 am
MissMary227 wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Why should anything/anyone regardless of how innocent they are have a right to use someones body without consent of that person?
It's called the circle of life. Have you had sex ed yet?
Yes, I have, have you taken basic biology?
