|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
posted December 13, 2015 01:50 PM |
|
|
How he said it made me think he meant that men have no say in no case whether it being the final say or not.
If what you say is true though I'd be glad to know that I misinterpreted him then.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 02:43 PM |
|
|
Neraus said:
How he said it made me think he meant that men have no say in no case whether it being the final say or not.
this is what i got from that, as well.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 03:23 PM |
|
|
Serafim said:
"All life matters, except when its attacking my christian rights. In that case, eff life"
In all of my live I have never heard a Christian say any such thing and I myself never have either.
Quote:
How about that all shrinking middle class and unsustainable living standards? You are keen to fight off abortion but when it comes to actually provinding to those people/infants you essetially dont care.
You are making false statements and are ignorant of my life. For many years I have given more than half of my income to charity, including a program for young unwed mothers.
Quote:
if you dont wanna do that,and everyone knows that the religious communtiy wont do that, then you should stop with your religious terrorism on women.
The religious community has thousands of charitable programs to help people in need. Yes, I and other Christians pay out of our own pocket.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 03:58 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 22:32, 13 Dec 2015.
|
JollyJoker said:
You hardcore Christians simply have to learn that an embryo or fetus is not YET a human being.
An embryo is a human organism just as you and I are human organisms. The only difference between an embryo and you is one of maturity. The embryo is a young human and you are an older human.
Quote:
It's not yet a human, although it will become one given time.
An embryo has complete human DNA. It is a human not a pig or elephant. 
Quote:
Now, the problem here - as with all rights - is this: can this right be granted/enforced and who does it? As a rule, it's society as a whole who does the granting/enforcing
There is a difference in our philosophys. I believe in actual human rights and you believe in state-granted rights. State-granted rights are subject to the whims and dictates of the current ruling class. Human rights are rights one possess by virtue of being human.
Humans existed before government. It is self-evident that my rights therefore are not based on Obama's whims or the decrees of some judge.
If human rights exist all humans have those rights, even the very youngest members of our species.
Quote:
The bottom line is, I don't even accept that males have a relevant voice here. Male opinion on abortion? IRRELEVANT!
Another differeonce in philosophy. I believe that both mothers and father's have parental rights and responsibilities.
Also it is the business of all of society when innocent humans are killed.
____________
Revelation
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 04:01 PM |
|
|
Neraus said:
But disposing of the "hetero-normative" context is not relevant to what I was saying.
The discussion was about men not having burdens after impregnating a woman, not all possible other cases.
A man won't have a burden only if he abandons the woman.
In such a case the man has a say too, he will have to work more, and take more responsibilities, and besides, in a couple, a pregnancy can be accepted by the man and not by the woman, why did you exclude that?
And we come to the crux of why I'm against sexual liberation, a one night stand resulting in pregnancy will also result in a woman having to care alone for a baby, or abort it. The problem is that people are becoming more and more naive and child-like, people marry at later ages, they have a job at a later age, and then also have the audacity to divorce, all because we give people responsibilities later in life.
And why should we leave people without responsibilities? It takes two to tango, you can't possibly dance tango alone, and a baby is done through two, so why does one actor become free of his responsibility just because he doesn't feel "ready for it" or doesn't want to stay with someone?
My point was that neither party should be forced into taking care if they do not want to with a few notifications like if the male do not want but the female does and he is the primary provider (IE she wouldn't be able to live on her own salary/what she gets). opposite would also be true if she was the primary provider. IF she can survive on her own, wants the baby but he does not He should be able to leave without any problems.
And much of the current problems tie into the hetero-normative and patriarchal worldview that has shaped much of society (IE the man provides).
Neraus said:
kiryu133 said:
As you say, females put themselves in danger with pregnancies. as such, the final say to everything having to do with it is up to her, no exceptions.
Also, true, she has the final say, but that doesn't mean that a man doesn't have a say on her action.
Not how I would put it, but mostly agreed. If he is to be important to the child at least.
fred79 said:
like i said, there's the real world, then there's the sexist fantasy world that feminists live in.
There are huge problems of inequality across the western world. You're just blinded by your own privilege and/or refuse to see it. Pro tip: south park is not a good place to get your political opinions from.
____________
It is with a heavy heart that I must announce that the cis are at it again.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 04:29 PM |
|
|
kiryu133 said:
fred79 said:
like i said, there's the real world, then there's the sexist fantasy world that feminists live in.
There are huge problems of inequality across the western world. You're just blinded by your own privilege and/or refuse to see it. Pro tip: south park is not a good place to get your political opinions from.
i watch south park for entertainment, but thanks. believe it or not, my political views come from intelligent people who aren't susceptible to sexist propaganda. or any propaganda, for that matter.
i would respond to the feminist "male privilege" bullsnow, if this were the right thread for it. but it's not, and those threads always get shut down anyway.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 04:41 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:45, 13 Dec 2015.
|
Herry, it's pretty rich for you to give tips about keeping HC clean. Here's another warning for you: No spamming threads, and no provocation, and no insults allowed. There's two or three offending posts from you in the last two pages. One has been penalized.
Thread cleaned.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 05:13 PM |
|
|
kiryu133 said:
My point was that neither party should be forced into taking care if they do not want to with a few notifications like if the male do not want but the female does and he is the primary provider (IE she wouldn't be able to live on her own salary/what she gets). opposite would also be true if she was the primary provider. IF she can survive on her own, wants the baby but he does not He should be able to leave without any problems.
And much of the current problems tie into the hetero-normative and patriarchal worldview that has shaped much of society (IE the man provides).
I have some doubts women are capable of working while pregnant, and, unfortunately workplaces today aren't that supportive of pregnancies, and that's part of the reason families get stuck at most with three babies, unless the woman is a stay at home wife.
The problem is, when taking in account pregnancies it's difficult for a woman to be a primary provider, it's almost one or two years of maternity leave, and bosses aren't exctatic of that, they'll eventually find a way to fire her if she starts having too many children. So, it's only possible if the woman has only one or two children.
So, it's difficult to strip the man of its responsibilities regarding a child, unless that woman is a CEO or the boss in a business and can allow herself to maintain her job despite pregnancies.
And why spout patriarchy at everything, after all, this supposed male dominated society damages men too, if you caught my drift when I said this:
Quote:
And besides, it's liberating for men if a woman has an abortion following that thought so...
Men should be much more supportive of abortions, especially if that man is the main provider and, as you said, should compensate the woman.
kiryu133 said:
There are huge problems of inequality across the western world. You're just blinded by your own privilege and/or refuse to see it.
You're right, I'm white, I'm male, I'm cis and hetero. What passed through my mind, I'm trash!
Better go flagellate myself then...
I swear, how is it not making an argument so easy to ignore when you tell somebody that you don't know over the internet that somebody's privileged, not all users are dukes of some place, the internet is also browsed by Syrians in the middle of a civil war.
If a Syrian told you the same things, would you say he's privileged?
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Serafim
Hired Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 05:59 PM |
|
|
Elodin said:
Serafim said:
"All life matters, except when its attacking my christian rights. In that case, eff life"
In all of my live I have never heard a Christian say any such thing and I myself never have either.
Quote:
How about that all shrinking middle class and unsustainable living standards? You are keen to fight off abortion but when it comes to actually provinding to those people/infants you essetially dont care.
You are making false statements and are ignorant of my life. For many years I have given more than half of my income to charity, including a program for young unwed mothers.
Quote:
if you dont wanna do that,and everyone knows that the religious communtiy wont do that, then you should stop with your religious terrorism on women.
The religious community has thousands of charitable programs to help people in need. Yes, I and other Christians pay out of our own pocket.
You are dodging the problem at hand. THousands or so wont cut it. Every and all people should pay taxes and damage compensation for every unwated child and forcefuly adopt them. Spedning pennies wont fix the matter, just like charity rarely solves any issue because there is almost always no money for all those that need it.
The fact that you give money to charity is not enough. Why havent you adopted an unwanted child? Or two or three?
Also, you dont make any sense. Why keep guns then? Arent most if not all christians for/pro death penalty?
I digress.
The idea that everyone should be able to care or give birth to a child is economical/social suicide.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 10:58 PM |
|
|
@Elodin
How do you feel about in vitro fertilization?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 11:20 PM |
|
|
Corribus said:
@Elodin
How do you feel about in vitro fertilization?
I am not opposed to the concept of IVF but I oppose how it is put into practice.
If every embryo created were implanted with the hope every one of those young humans would be born that would be ok.
But many embryos a thrown out (murdered.) And selective abortions are often done when multiple embryos are implanted.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2015 12:27 AM |
|
|
We got 20 kilometer long tunnels where scientists throw different atoms at each other to create new elements. We got stem cells research. Etc. What if, in 150 years, scientists can create a cell that is the equivalent of a human fertilized egg, but by using other material than a sperm and a woman's egg. It develops and grows into a human. Would religious people consider that person to have a soul?
Anyways. An interesting read I found.
The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.
And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6
Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.
Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16
God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)
Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14
Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16
God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.
Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14
God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.
The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28
God's law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.
Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by snowdom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 14, 2015 02:09 AM |
|
|
I'm not going to bother amnswering a copy and paste from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.
I've presented arguments based on science that prove an embryo is a human. Your argument can only be: "Human life has no value so the mother can kill the human in her womb at will."
If you place no value on human life nothing I can say will persuade you killing the youngest of our species is wrong.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2015 02:28 AM |
|
Edited by Kayna at 02:29, 14 Dec 2015.
|
Well nobody's forcing you to answer, although if two verses of the bible says two different things, then it seems you just take the one you want to take and discard the one you don't want.
Yeah, they're copy pasted from some website as you say.
The first two I find curious. They may or may not discuss of pregnancy. They do not count pregnancy AND kids that aren't a month old. Perhaps because they often die at that age? Pregnancy aside, why do they pretend less than a month old infants don't even exist?
The Hosea parts seems like verbal scares to keep people in line, although religious folk take it like it's from God himself. They don't really talk about how humans have the right to do such things though, only God. The rest seems also scare tactics, this time to keep wives in line, from adultery.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 14, 2015 04:11 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 04:28, 14 Dec 2015.
|
Elodin said:
I've presented arguments based on science that prove an embryo is a human. Your argument can only be: "Human life has no value so the mother can kill the human in her womb at will."
Actually, nobody claimed an embryo isnt a human yet based on an argument that suggests an embryo is made of something other than human DNA. What people said, including me, was that the embryo lacks the basic organs and functions which constitute a human. When you reply to that by "it's human DNA" it isnt proving any counter argument like you imagine it does, so is a brain dead patient or a finger nail you throw in the toilet. DNA is our biological fingerprint but it's not an ontological answer to the question of what makes us human. And when it comes to that, I'm pretty sure the existence of a brain is quite necessary.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2015 08:46 AM |
|
|
Let's say, we had another Bible inspired law: masturbation FOR MEN is legally forbidden (punishment: lose a hand). Reason: waste of potential life and valuable human DNA (Onan's story).
It would be the same discussion. In this case, my point would be that WOMEN shouldn't have a say with the respective laws, because that law would never be of relevance for them. They could never be punished, never come into the situation. MY body, MY sperm, MY decision.
Obviously, now, this would be a very bad law, because it would add hormonal pressure. Men could find release only with sex, the crime rate would rise in every respect and so on. (It is interesting, that although God doesn't seem to like masturbation, I think, there was never more than a tap on the fingers in regard to this.)
Even though, pregnancy and its termination seems to be a more severe matter, the issue isn't different.
It doesn't matter what you consider a fetus to be - the fact that some consider them a human being is completely irrelevant. CHILDREN don't have the same rights than grown-ups, while fetuses have not the same rights than even children.
The main things are, that for every fetus there is is one and only one female person the life and development of the fetus depends on, and that is the mother. The fetus cannot exist without her.
That's the biggest difference there is when you look at the situation of a human life. There is a stadium when a human being in development can continue the process only in a certain environment and with at least some approval of the "host". This status continues, until said human being in development can exist outside of the womb (and taken care of ANYone).
Women are biologically tasked with this, but an individual person is not forced to "fulfill the biological role". A society should do everything possible to ensure a responsible handling of motherhood and parenthood. Pregnancy should be something both partners want, not a forced duty. We don't live in the stone age anymore.
If a woman becomes pregnant and doesn't want the child (otherwise there wouldn't be an abortion), obviously something went wrong and male sperm went to where it wasn't supposed to went in the first place. If you want to avoid abortions and make them illegal, you have to change responsibilities and put responsibility legally to the man:
If a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want the child, the man involved must pay her 3/4 of an average yearly income. If the man can't be found or took off (in case of a rape), the state pays.
Can you imagine, that in this case men would take UTMOST care to make sure their sperm wouldn't get where it's not supposed to be?
I can't see that happen, though. And until then, abortion has to be legal, for practical reasons. The ethics aspect doesn't even matter.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 14, 2015 02:39 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Everyone should be free to do with their body as they will as long as they don't use such control to harm others.
Of course a fetus has complete human DNA that differs from the DNA of the mother so anyone who claims the fetus is not a separate human is a science denier. The mother should not be allowed to use control of her body to harm the young human in her womb.
I have the right to control my body but if I reach out with my hands and choke another human I have violated that human's right to live. In the same way a woman using control of her body to kill the young human in her womb is a murderer.
The idea that when a man and woman sleep together consentually and the woman gets pregnant the man owes her a salary is absurd. Of course the practice of casual sex leads to all sorts of issues and none of those issues are justification for killing any young human that results from the unwise union.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2015 02:59 PM |
|
|
Elodin said:
The idea that when a man and woman sleep together consentually and the woman gets pregnant the man owes her a salary is absurd.
Why? The man made her pregnant - he owes her 9 months of her life.
Don't you think that this would radically increase the willingness of men to make sure their sperm doesn't get anywhere expensive? Keep in mind, that after birth the woman could still give the kid to adoption.
In any case - your "absurd" argument is just another proof that all "ethics" and "life" arguments, when it comes to abortion rights, are just veiled misogyny at work. Repeating them ad nauseam doesn't make them more valid or even relevant.
Just start to think what it means that you cannot protect a fetus from the ill will of a mother that doesn't want it. Strange, innit?
|
|
Kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2015 03:22 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Let's say, we had another Bible inspired law: masturbation FOR MEN is legally forbidden (punishment: lose a hand). Reason: waste of potential life and valuable human DNA (Onan's story).
Actually, there is a line, somewhere in the bible, that gives the example of a man having sex with his wife but does the coitus interruptus and spills his seeds on the floor ; God himself decided to crush and kill him with his finger.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2015 03:25 PM |
|
|
Yeah, as I said, Onan's story.
No big deal, though, afterwards - easy to guess why as well.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
