There's no such thing as the "war on women"

[Rainbow Mage]

What point? Men are mean? That's the only one I saw.

Nah only the ones that think women need men to tell them what choices to make. Do you not think women capable of making these choices? What's your reasoning?

 

[freethinker44]

Nah only the ones that think women need men to tell them what choices to make. Do you not think women capable of making these choices? What's your reasoning?

Women are perfectly capable of making the decision to murder a child, I just think they shouldn't be able to make that decision. No one should.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Women are perfectly capable of making the decision to murder a child, I just think they shouldn't be able to make that decision. No one should.

You haven't demonstrated that its murder, nor told me what standard you as an atheist can use to call it such.

When you can argue this let me know.

 

[freethinker44]

You haven't demonstrated that its murder, nor told me what standard you as an atheist can use to call it such.

When you can argue this let me know.

I'm not going to reiterate everything I said just because you either weren't paying attention or chose to ignore it. It's all saved, if you want to know then start reading. I put my position out there pretty early on so you won't have to read far.

And you never answered my question as to whether or not it's OK to have an abortion hours before delivery if human life begins at birth, as you said it does.

 

[Me Myself]

You haven't demonstrated that its murder, nor told me what standard you as an atheist can use to call it such.

When you can argue this let me know.

You basically said that because morality is subjective, anything is right as long as the society supports it.

Quite honestly, what is there to say to an argument like that?

And you keep talking like if an atheists couldnt value human life, which I do find aboherrent.

 

[freethinker44]

And you keep talking like if an atheists couldnt value human life, which I do find aboherrent.

Good point.

You haven't demonstrated that its murder, nor told me what standard you as an atheist can use to call it such.

When you can argue this let me know.

What does me being an atheist have to do with not wanting people to murder children. I know atheists have a reputation for eating babies, but you know that's just a myth, right?

 

[Me Myself]

Okay. Any memorial services? Can a person who is 20 years old and just a few months shy of his or her 21st birthday walk into a bar and order a drink because, truthfully, they have been living for more than 21 years, just 9 months of that was inside their mom's uterus.

BTW, I love sweeping generalizations.

So, back to your post. Miscarriages happen a LOT. Chromosomal abnormalities do happen, but also stress and high anxiety, diet and not enough folic acid or severe malnutrition, age of the mother (over 35 increases risk of miscarriage, fetal abnormality, and stillbirth), low progesterone, uterine abnormalities, blood clotting disorders, and a whole host of disorders that can be treatable.

So, how come people aren't doing everything in their power to lower the risk of miscarriages in women? And besides, this is about the "BABY" inside the woman, isn't it? I thought protecting the life of the unborn was that important to see pro-life groups organizing 5k runs for the purpose of finding a cure for miscarriages and stillbirths.

Does any group actually try to raise awareness, donate to medical organizations, or fight the disease of miscarriage? At the very least, with as much fervor and excitement as trying to tell women they're just a bunch of killers and shaming them into keeping a pregnancy from being terminated? Gosh golly gall, I thought people cared about the unborn children out there.

I mean, look, if miscarriages could be cured, and people ignore it and decide there really is no point in finding the cure, then aren't these people complicit in the deaths of the unborn as well?

Thats like saying you are an accomplice to the death of children in Africa if you dont donate regularly.

Its just stupid.

 

[freethinker44]

Thats like saying you are an accomplice to the death of children in Africa if you dont donate regularly.

Its just stupid.

I've learned from debating countless creationists, that you aren't supposed to respond to posts like this. When you do, they win because their only goal is to shift focus away from a weak argument to a stronger, completely unrelated argument, so by responding you are actually helping them.

 

[Me Myself]

I've learned from debating countless creationists, that you aren't supposed to respond to posts like this. When you do, they win because their only goal is to shift focus away from a weak argument to a stronger, completely unrelated argument, so by responding you are actually helping them.

I doubt they were purposefully doing that, but you do are right.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I'm not going to reiterate everything I said just because you either weren't paying attention or chose to ignore it. It's all saved, if you want to know then start reading. I put my position out there pretty early on so you won't have to read far.

And you never answered my question as to whether or not it's OK to have an abortion hours before delivery if human life begins at birth, as you said it does.

In my view it isn't preferable to have an abortion hours before birth, but as a man its also not my decision. Its not preferable to anyone I don't believe that abortions take place, but you don't know a woman's reasons, and its certainly not a man's place to decide.

You don't see that this is about control of women. Its the idea that men have some right to tell a woman what to do, and it opens the door to other means of control.

Women have fought too hard, men like me have fought too hard for equal rights to watch the right wing do this and say nothing.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

You basically said that because morality is subjective, anything is right as long as the society supports it.

Quite honestly, what is there to say to an argument like that?

And you keep talking like if an atheists couldnt value human life, which I do find aboherrent.

All I'm saying is that atheists have no authority such as a deity to base any kind of absolute moral standard on.

Because I as a Polytheist don't see the gods as the source of human morality I don't either.

My moral ideas are subjective. I'm in no different a position than the atheist is.

If you're offended that's your issue.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Thats like saying you are an accomplice to the death of children in Africa if you dont donate regularly.

Its just stupid.

Oh, please.

You're passionate about preventing abortions, right? Yes or no? Is it to save the lives of the unborn, in your eyes?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Honestly freethinker you've demonstrated nothing except an Abrahamic-like disdain of women's rights when you say what rights a woman ought not to have, or what rights you think a panel of men should be able to restrict.

 

[kiwimac]

What gives women the right to murder children?

Murder is a legal term describing the unlawful taking of a human life, abortion is legal hence not murder.

 

[freethinker44]

In my view it isn't preferable to have an abortion hours before birth, but as a man its also not my decision. Its not preferable to anyone I don't believe that abortions take place, but you don't know a woman's reasons, and its certainly not a man's place to decide.

I don't care if it preferable or not. Do you consider it wrong? If life begins at birth, why would it or wouldn't it be right to have an abortion hours before birth. If you say life begins at birth, then it wouldn't unreasonable to assume you are implying hours before birth, a fetus/unborn baby isn't a human life.

You don't see that this is about control of women. Its the idea that men have some right to tell a woman what to do, and it opens the door to other means of control.

Women have fought too hard, men like me have fought too hard for equal rights to watch the right wing do this and say nothing.

I am all for women's rights. Women should have the ability to do whatever they want with their bodies whenever they want and for whatever reasons. But one persons rights end where anothers begins. If a fetus is viable, it has a life separate from it's mother, therefore, the womans rights end when the fetus becomes viable.

 

[Kalidas]

I've learned from debating countless creationists, that you aren't supposed to respond to posts like this. When you do, they win because their only goal is to shift focus away from a weak argument to a stronger, completely unrelated argument, so by responding you are actually helping them.

The proper term is called a red herring. The idea is throw out an unrelated argument that is so at out there that you MUST answer to it and thus nver argue your point. A red herring is a very very very smelly fish.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Murder is a legal term describing the unlawful taking of a human life, abortion is legal hence not murder.

Exactly ^^^

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Women are perfectly capable of making the decision to murder a child, I just think they shouldn't be able to make that decision. No one should.

Emotional rhetoric. "Murder a child?" At what point does it become a "child" in your eyes?

Fetal viability is roughly 22-24 weeks depending on the development of the fetus. That is my red line. If the fetus has the capability of surviving outside the uterus, I support induced labor for delivery if the woman chooses not to be pregnant. Before that, I think if a woman does not wish to be pregnant, she should have full access to chemically induced miscarriage or surgical abortion depending on what stage she is in with the pregnancy.

 

[Me Myself]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I understand your position more now.

My thoughts are this. It seems to me like i said in an earlier post that you're viewing this in an over-simplified manner. I don't view this as a choice between a demographic passing hardship and a demographic being killed, rather it's a struggle to determine exactly when does one of them become a demographic, and having to keep in mind the hardships the already established demographic might and do go through.

It's from this very difficulty of determining a clear cut line that the issue becomes so complex. Priorities need to be set, and i do agree it's not just about women, there is an element to society in this. But women are also part of society in general. See what i mean?

IOW, men and women, generally, each deserve an equal amount of presentation by default. But then, when we also factor in that women also happen to be the ones who go through pregnancy and have to put up with what it entails, it just follows that women's role should be dominant in the scenario. Men are less involved, there's no way around that. They're involved the same way as woman are in one respect (because they too start in the womb), but are completely un-involved in the other (the actual process of pregnancy). Women are involved in two ways while men are involved in just one.

So an all male panel is essentially a panel made out of the least important party, which is laughable.



Think about all the oppression that occurred in history to women (and in general actually). Many of it doesn't seem to benefit men, it doesn't make sense. What makes even less sense is the fact that a very good percentage of the oppression was contributed to and enforced by other women.

It's a gradual kind of thing, where a loop forms and things just keep getting worse, until someone fights back. There are of course explanations for this, but i'm just saying it's not as straight forward as one would think. It's not just men oppressing women to gain obvious advantages. The oppression of will itself, apparently, and for example, seems to be considered on some level or another an advantage.

I understand what you say about one of the parties being invariably women, but as I said before, when we are tlaking dead, everything else gets backsit.

We both agree that in general a gender balanced congresss would be the best and this topic's panel would be no exception to that. The thing is that as I said before, we are trying to go with who is or is not a person with this law. Saying more women are needed in the panel "more specially" for this feels like saying "lets see who is being inconvinienced by such a personhood" . And honestly, this just feels.... Well, just extremely backsit topic. If they are people, they are people, its not a manner of who is going to feel bad about it, do you understand what I mean?

And again, did they consciously tried to put people who started as unwanted pregnancies in the panel? Dont get me the "its too hard to tell" thing, did they ask them? Invited some to the panel to hear what they had to say?

Of course not. And that's okay. Its not a big deal. You wont have every demographic in the congress, and they must speak for people from all demographics. They will speak for old, young, women, men, conservatives, republicans, people who bat with their left hands, etc.

About opression towards women I would say opression towards both. In general both had their fixed roles in society and both were opressed on being unable to choose outside their roles. Thean was forced to be a warrior when needed and risk his life for his family and country. The woman was forced to bare children. (Risking her life to create instead of to kill) . The man was forced to be the breadwinner of the relationship. Te woman was forced to be the one caring for the children the whole time.

They were roles, people of that time thought that was the way they were biologically apt to be. It wasnt that they wanted to opress themselves and opress women, they acted in the way they thought was the way they were made.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

How is it a separate viable life from its mother freethinker when its connected to her, breathes through her, and receives its nourishment through her?

It is not a separate life capable of self survival.