Yeah, I think you are right. It is the only sensible explanation for the attitudes of legions of self-declared 'pro-lifers' who argue blue murder for women not to have abortions...yet do not take one bit of action to help the uncountable children who need caring stable families. Apparently babies are all important, but only when they're inside you. Then they're irrelevant and not nearly as precious.
'It's a child not a choice...but not if you were raped'
- Thread starter visceral_instinct
- Start date
Yeah, I think you are right. It is the only sensible explanation for the attitudes of legions of self-declared 'pro-lifers' who argue blue murder for women not to have abortions...yet do not take one bit of action to help the uncountable children who need caring stable families. Apparently babies are all important, but only when they're inside you. Then they're irrelevant and not nearly as precious.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Its not a false accusation. He has done so in the past, it was something he hurled towards me to be exact.
I think I have found the quote she was referencing
Clearly it wasn't a misogynist quip
It was a joke to deflate her unbridled attempts at goading
Last edited:
Feminism is the triumph of materialist patriarchy.
Materialist patriarchy had finally managed to convince (at least some) women to think, feel and behave the way the men of materialist patriarchy always wanted from women. Namely, sex for free, even outside of marriage or any other commitment or obligation, and the women themselves taking care of the possible unwanted side-effects (aborting a pregnancy, giving the child up for adoption or willing to be a single mother).
A feminist woman is, basically, every materialist patriarch's dream (despite her occasional hysterics).
Sisters, how have you let yourselves fall so low!
You fail to realize that women themselves often WANT those things. How is it oppressive to women to be free to have sex when you want and to decide whether or not you want a child? It's not, it's the very opposite of oppressive.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
What he's trying to say is that you don't know what you want, you only know what men want you to want. That's how little they know of women
If you can't even get the gender right of the poster, you also have a few holes in your knowledgeWhat he's trying to say is that you don't know what you want, you only know what men want you to want. That's how little they know of women
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
I would agree with you if it weren't men who opposed the women's right to vote in the suffrage movement and women who sat in dismay during the feminist movement. The feminist movement didn't hinge on free sex. Reproductive rights were always about the freedom to control when or if one had children ie: birth control, lobbying for equal pay and equal protection under the law.
its also incredibly presumptuous for you to believe women cannot choose with whom, when and how often they want to engage in sex. I mean men have been practicing 'free sex' forever haven't they? With whom do you think they were having these relations?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
If you can't even get the gender right of the poster, you also have a few holes in your knowledge
Why is Signal a female?
Bells I'm still interested in your comment on my post, if as you say its appalling if a male partner has consentual sex but sabertashes the condom so she falls pregnant and why should she have to put up with the results then why is it ok for the reverse? If the female partner pokes holes in the condoms or lies about taking the pill then legally its to bad and he has to pay for the child ect. In fact I herd one women say that its a women's right to have kids no matter what her partner wants and if she has to lie to get one good on her
Absinance or waiting for marriage is just the best policy.
Utterly irrelivent, just because someone is married doesn't mean they have to want kids and why should only people who do get to be the only ones who have sex. Now if you had said stick to oral... but your comment is just more religious junk which is irrelevant
Has absolutly nothing to do with religion. And that is the problem if people acnnot differentiate between sound policies and religion. What are the answers? Well we know what the problems are. That we are conditioned to be oversexed? I would say so. Sure i can see two stray dogs humping, rats who procreate into oblivion. Humans should be smarter. And think of all the used condoms. People should have sex once a year...And that goes for everone on the damn planet.
Of course not.
Dont think it keeps partners together. Well you could but (i think) you would be wrong about that.
SilentLi89
Registered Senior Member
What led you to that assumption?
I was inferring is that it is definitely not the main component. In fact in terms of compatibility it is kind of low on the list.
Whether I or LG or you or VI or anyone here is male or female or trans or whichever should be irrelevant in a philosophical discussion of ethics.
But some of you constantly resorting to ad hominems shows that your ability to engage in a philosiophical discussion is lacking.
Well that woman is an ASSHOLE, isn't she? Nobody should be forced into having a child and taking care of that child when they didn't have a say in it.