|
Post by thefleetsin on Mar 9, 2021 17:38:26 GMT
which religiously-tooled manuscript shall we dredge up first?
let's start at the very first spinning, a very good place to start.
when you spin you begin with he and him then you graciously let your women in your women in.
the first three goats will pay for her sin...
now be a good little girl and go play with your kitchen utensils.
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Mar 9, 2021 18:17:34 GMT
I think the woman usually should have the final say in the matter, that being said I also think the prospective father should have a say in the matter as well (unless it's a product of rape. of course).
There are some other exceptions, primarily medical. Sometimes the parents/guardians (if the girl is say 13 years old).
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 9, 2021 18:46:13 GMT
In the overwhelming majority of situations the answer is of course yes. But if there were only two people alive, a man and a woman both capable of breeding, it goes without saying that the woman would be obligated to continue the species. But that's not just true of the woman but the man as well. If the woman were a lesbian and the man were gay the situation would call for both to go against their sexual orientations for the good of the species. Situations like that may come up for certain bloodlines but as far as I know it's more commonly accepted than not with reservation that individual bloodlines die out rather than force outsiders to continue them or have those who don't want to continue their bloodline to do so against their will. I don't have many specific examples to contribute, however, only imagined situations so I'm probably on the wrong side of the Dunning Krueger effect and won't say much more. I vehemently disagree. An obligation to continue the species is a personal position. If there are only 2 people left on Earth and they want the human race to end, then the human race will end. If one of them wants it to continue and the other doesn't then that is tough shit for the one who does. I mean all one of them would have to do to ensure this is to kill themselves before the other decides to rape the other because they want the human race to continue. Now, for the one who believes they have an obligation to continue the species, they could make an argument for necessary evil.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 9, 2021 23:47:39 GMT
I think the woman usually should have the final say in the matter, that being said I also think the prospective father should have a say in the matter as well Do you think the "father's say" should carry any legal weight? Or should his say count only as much as the woman decides it counts?
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Mar 10, 2021 0:31:32 GMT
I think the woman usually should have the final say in the matter, that being said I also think the prospective father should have a say in the matter as well Do you think the "father's say" should carry any legal weight? Or should his say count only as much as the woman decides it counts? He legally should be consulted by the woman in question before a decision is made insofar it's possible (he could be dead, the pregnancy could be from an unknown father from a one-night stand etc.). His opinion shouldn't carry any legal weight, after all it is her body who has to carry it to term.
But how would you feel if you where to find out your child had been aborted or becoming an unwanted father without even being consulted on the matter?
Don't get me wrong there are many bullshit ways governments are trying to guilt-trip a woman to not having an abortion, and to male abortions as difficult as possible. A practice I find abhorrent.
But this checkbox actually matters. I consider it a Men's Rights issue.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 10, 2021 1:06:04 GMT
Do you think the "father's say" should carry any legal weight? Or should his say count only as much as the woman decides it counts? He legally should be consulted by the woman in question before a decision is made insofar it's possible (he could be dead, the pregnancy could be from an unknown father from a one-night stand etc.). His opinion shouldn't carry any legal weight, after all it is her body who has to carry it to term.
But how would you feel if you where to find out your child had been aborted or becoming an unwanted father without even being consulted on the matter?
Don't get me wrong there are many bullshit ways governments are trying to guilt-trip a woman to not having an abortion, and to male abortions as difficult as possible. A practice I find abhorrent.
But this checkbox actually matters. I consider it a Men's Rights issue.
Legally requiring that the father be notified where possible sounds reasonable to me.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 10, 2021 1:36:40 GMT
He legally should be consulted by the woman in question before a decision is made insofar it's possible (he could be dead, the pregnancy could be from an unknown father from a one-night stand etc.). His opinion shouldn't carry any legal weight, after all it is her body who has to carry it to term.
But how would you feel if you where to find out your child had been aborted or becoming an unwanted father without even being consulted on the matter?
Don't get me wrong there are many bullshit ways governments are trying to guilt-trip a woman to not having an abortion, and to male abortions as difficult as possible. A practice I find abhorrent.
But this checkbox actually matters. I consider it a Men's Rights issue.
Legally requiring that the father be notified where possible sounds reasonable to me. ...that's fine as long as he is then legally bound to pay half of costs of child rearing for 18 years!
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Mar 10, 2021 2:27:24 GMT
Legally requiring that the father be notified where possible sounds reasonable to me. ...that's fine as long as he is then legally bound to pay half of costs of child rearing for 18 years! Provided she gets custody of the kid, sure. The opposite if he has custody has to be the case too.
But here we are neither in the realms of Men's or Women's Rights. Now we are talking about what's best for the child.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 10, 2021 2:38:53 GMT
Legally requiring that the father be notified where possible sounds reasonable to me. That's if the tramp knows who he is. To 'people' like you, all women who reproduce are tramps. Was your Mum a tramp?
|
|
|
Post by SuperDevilDoctor on Mar 10, 2021 5:39:57 GMT
Either a woman controls her body (including reproductive organs), or the state does.
Those are the only two choices.
It'd be interesting indeed to see government policies mandating "chastity belts" for all men from puberty until adulthood (18 years old)... After all, it's in the interest of the state to prevent teen pregnancies -- because maintaining the welfare state to help pay for unwanted/unplanned teen pregnancies is counter to the interests of responsible taxpayers.
Anybody who is so-called "pro-life" should have no problem supporting such a mandate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2021 7:47:42 GMT
Yes, this is an abortion rights thread started by a feminist. It is a question worth asking however. If a female fetus in utero belongs to the mother, then a woman's body belongs to her at the mother's sole discretion. There is no line. Life begins at conception. To terminate that life without consent is to commit murder. Prove that the fetus doesn't want the life you gave it before you kill it.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 10, 2021 21:14:16 GMT
Yes, this is an abortion rights thread started by a feminist. It is a question worth asking however. If a female fetus in utero belongs to the mother, then a woman's body belongs to her at the mother's sole discretion. There is no line. Life begins at conception. To terminate that life without consent is to commit murder. Prove that the fetus doesn't want the life you gave it before you kill it. I know you are living up to your monika, however what difference does the sex of a fetus have to do with anything we are discussing here? No there is a sliding scale of cost/risk analysis to be made by the mother over the course of a pregnancy. No, potential life begins at conception. Naturally many zygotes with be aborted, and some by the mother at her discretion. This is a meaningless sentance, which could only have any semblance of meaning if we were discussing euthanasia. Another really stupid utterance. Even a newborn doesn't have preferences on pretty much anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2021 23:17:06 GMT
what difference does the sex of a fetus have to do with anything we are discussing here? This is your thread and your thread title. It's interesting how atheists acquire a new definition of life when discussing abortion. Suddenly it becomes more than just the sum of its parts. Quality of life (for either the baby or the mother) is the main factor when deliberating abortions, if not the only one. We are talking about euthanasia. Prove it. Specifically, prove it doesn't want to live.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 11, 2021 11:26:17 GMT
It is a question worth asking however. Of course a woman's body belongs to the woman, and she can do with it what she wants. This includes the right to dress without being pressured by male relatives. However, when I pointed that out on another thread, some poster accused me of having a "hidden agenda" against Muslims. Who was that poster again?...
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 11, 2021 21:20:08 GMT
It is a question worth asking however. Of course a woman's body belongs to the woman, and she can do with it what she wants. This includes the right to dress without being pressured by male relatives. However, when I pointed that out on another thread, some poster accused me of having a "hidden agenda" against Muslims. Who was that poster again?... ...no, the woman should have the right to choose what she wears be it a bikini or a hijab or burqa and to imply that she would only do that under pressure one way or another from male relatives is evidence of your own anti-Muslim agenda.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2021 22:13:50 GMT
Of course a woman's body belongs to the woman, and she can do with it what she wants. This includes the right to dress without being pressured by male relatives. However, when I pointed that out on another thread, some poster accused me of having a "hidden agenda" against Muslims. Who was that poster again?... ...no, the woman should have the right to choose what she wears be it a bikini or a hijab or burqa and to imply that she would only do that under pressure one way or another from male relatives is evidence of your own anti-Muslim agenda. Anti-Christian agendas good. Anti-Muslim agendas bad. Noted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2021 0:58:54 GMT
If a female fetus in utero belongs to the mother, then a woman's body belongs to her at the mother's sole discretion. There is no line. Life begins at conception. To terminate that life without consent is to commit murder. Prove that the fetus doesn't want the life you gave it before you kill it. But is this life a fully formed human yet? Does the fetus have legal rights? Do they supersede a human with legal rights? Even the Bible is ambiguous on the subject of just when a fetus qualifies as a human being. Certainly, the God of Nature has no problem aborting fetuses. And Yahweh had no issues commanding Israel’s army to whole-slaughter the their Canaanite neighbors...presumably some of the women were pregnant. And if the state is forced to protect the life of the unborn, then why doesn’t the state pay for it? It could be argued that none of us are fully formed, or that some of us are more formed than others. Please explain what a "fully formed human" is and why only "fully formed humans" have the right to live.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2021 1:01:24 GMT
Anti-Christian agendas good. Anti-Muslim agendas bad. Noted. Critical thinking good; false dichotomies bad. I lurk enough to know that in Goz's case, it's not a false dichotomy. She notorious for attacking Christians and defending Muslims while persistently claiming to be anti-religion across the board.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 12, 2021 11:14:58 GMT
I think the issue needs context. From what standpoint?
Do you mean absolutely and objectively? Are you asking if it is objectively right that women own/control their own bodies? If so, on what basis is anything objectively right/wrong?
From a purely natural evolutionary standpoint, no. The woman's body doesn't belong to her, it belongs to a species, a population, a gene pool and the function of the female in species is to produce offspring. Same goes for the man. His function is to procreate and continue the species. What other function does an individual have other than to perhaps provide sustenance for some other species, you know, predators?
I think the only way anyone has any 'rights' or owns anything is if society decides they have rights and can own things. If society (say the govt of the US or a given state) decides that a woman does not have the 'right' to an abortion whenever and whyever, then on what other basis would someone say they 'do' have the right to such an abortion?
That is why it is really up to the woman voters (in the US and in Arkansas/whichever state) to decide they DO want the possibility of elective abortions unless they're ok with the state more or less taking away their rights.
They can say...as many do that YES the woman has the right to choose....to choose NOT to have sex and get pregnant. But once they do decide to have sex, it's outta their hands. I don't know what their answer is on how the whole 'in cases of rape' fits into this 'right to choose not to get pregnant' but if women are concerned about that, they need to vote for legislators who will uphold their right to get an abortion when THEY (the woman) decide they need one. If women think they want equal rights with regard to whether they have to carry a pregnancy to term, then they need to vote for equal rights. I contend that if men got pregnant and bore children, the right to an abortion when ever would be IN THE DAMN CONSTITUTION just like the right to bare arms.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 12, 2021 18:11:00 GMT
But is this life a fully formed human yet? Does the fetus have legal rights? Do they supersede a human with legal rights? Even the Bible is ambiguous on the subject of just when a fetus qualifies as a human being. Certainly, the God of Nature has no problem aborting fetuses. And Yahweh had no issues commanding Israel’s army to whole-slaughter the their Canaanite neighbors...presumably some of the women were pregnant. And if the state is forced to protect the life of the unborn, then why doesn’t the state pay for it? It could be argued that none of us are fully formed, or that some of us are more formed than others. Please explain what a "fully formed human" is and why only "fully formed humans" have the right to live. Persons have a right to life. Persons have a sense of self, a sense of time, and expectations for the future. Fetuses don't have any of those. "Fully formed humans" in the sense of right to life are human beings who have attained personhood. At least that's my opinion, and the opinion of some authors quoted in Peter Singer's "Writings on an Ethical Life", if I am not mistaken.
|
|