Total posts: 73
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
That’s why there is so much violence in Europe? Oh wait, there isn’t
I'm assuming you mean *gun* violence?
Why is it that so many Americans view Europe as this peaceful paradise? 😆
The truth is that *some* European countries have higher homicide rates than the U.S, and that violence is a problem here too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Cultural relativism originated in the “west” though. Does that make you a westerner? East, west, north and south doesn’t matter.
Stupid and irrelevant.
Are you against boycotting Israel then? I just want to see if you have a principled stance.
Hm, yes...I'm against boycotting Israel 😂
Ideology should be irrelevant? Say that to the workers that were subject to slave labour, all the way up to people wearing t-shirts with rainbows on them.
At this point, I'm almost certain you're trolling. You can't write the above and expect to be taken seriously.
By the way, you started the argument with Lol.
And you said THIS: Ideology should be irrelevant? Say that to the workers that were subject to slave labour, all the way up to people wearing t-shirts with rainbows on them.
LOL!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Then what do you propose it is? These are *western* people making demands and passing judgment on *Middle Eastern* people, lol. That much should be clear to anyone.
ideologically insecure
Oh pls, do expound. No one will have a clue what you're trying to say otherwise.
If you read my comment to you again, you'll see that I was extremely clear about my stance. To explain it in even simpler terms: there was no diplomatic, friendly, or nuanced discussion about Qatar's values and laws. Instead, we tried to impose our views on Qatar and it was not consenting. Qatar don't want to emulate the West, so this was really futile and arrogant on our part. Again, consider "consent" and the importance of that when it comes to having a dialogue and wanting the other party to understand or change in some way. Resorting to threats like we will boycott or we will stop the World Cup from being held there is NOT "peaceful" or an example of people "determining their values"; it is *forcing* another nation to be like you and punishing them if they aren't.
And really, ideology should be irrelevant. We should be able to show tolerance toward another nation without letting our ideology get in the way. Why are people so immature and narcissistic these days? Are you one of them? 😆
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
lol, you're totally missing the point.
What do you think of Muslims who come to the West and try to spread their values, especially by using force? No one is criticizing Qatar saying "oh, it would be better if they were this way"...they were advocating FORCED change. They said that the World Cup should be boycotted, that no one should go, that Qatar should not host it, that Qatar should change their rules and their values to host it, etc. That is forcing our values on another nation without their consent, which means nothing has changed for the West and that progressive liberals are all the things they claim to hate; racist, bigoted, intolerant, and hateful.
What do you think of Muslims who come to the West and try to spread their values, especially by using force? No one is criticizing Qatar saying "oh, it would be better if they were this way"...they were advocating FORCED change. They said that the World Cup should be boycotted, that no one should go, that Qatar should not host it, that Qatar should change their rules and their values to host it, etc. That is forcing our values on another nation without their consent, which means nothing has changed for the West and that progressive liberals are all the things they claim to hate; racist, bigoted, intolerant, and hateful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
You seem to be pretty convinced. Let's have a debate on that, maybe you can convince the others too. Still all this post is off-topic.
I don't have the time or interest to debate you, lol.
It's funny how users like you often jump to the suggestion "let's debate" when you are already really struggling to defend your stance.
You're desperate to show us all how wonderful Islam is, but you aren't convincing anyone. That is because we know how harmful and toxic the Islamic faith is. If you think otherwise, you are deluded.
Your children have more sexual intercourse, sexual partners, pregnancies, & abortions than any in History. You groom them since early age into sexual identity, sexual education, pride, drag, & all the based sexual perversions. Idk where you're from, but in the US 23 million children below 17 have had sexual intercourse, & more than 40 thousand below the age of 10. & it keeping getting worse every year. I know you love to have your children f*ck & attend strip clubs & have abortion after another or children of their own out of wedlock, & participate in all kinds of sexual deviations, but GOD FORBID! they join in holy matrimony. As I keep saying, the only thing your societies promote is degeneracy, nothing else. It's OK if children have all the sex & partners & abortions in the world, as long as they do it out of wedlock. What a sick disgusting culture this is.
Not sure who "your children" is supposed to refer to, as I am Jewish with family that come from Eastern Europe. The rest of your commentary here is opinionated, absurd, banal, and barely readable because of how childish it is.
You've based an entire paragraph (and paragraphs) on pure misguided opinion and assumption - well done to you! If saying "ooh but everyone in the West gets abortions and loves seeeex 2 much" is what I would see in a debate with you, then I'm really glad that I've refused your request.
No such thing. Gang rape is punishable by settlement, cutting off two opposite limbs, & exile in Sharia. & if the perpetrator happens to be non-virgin then stoning on top of all that.
News flash: it tends to be non-virgins who commit rape.
If stoning perpetrators of rape is what you do in Islam, why isn't that happening or at least being encouraged in some way? 🤔
Muslim countries have the lowest rates of rape, while Western countries dominate the top rates
LOL! Has it occurred to you that cases of rape are probably, you know, underreported in your beloved Muslim nations?
In Islam, there is stigma attached to being raped and as a consequence, many women will not say they have been raped. Another factor is that the police in their countries likely do not care.
In the West, it's encouraged to claim rape if you think you have been raped. And, the police have been made to care. This would somewhat allude to the "feminism" that you purport to despise.
Apparently now though, it's convenient for you to like it.
Say, Family values in Islam, I'll take Pro you take Con. Or, gang rape in Islam, I'll take Con & you take Pro. Maybe we can have a debate on who has the best Family values, I'll take Islam, you chose whatever you want.
How about no?! Those resolutions wouldn't be appealing to me and I've no desire to debate you anyway.
In response to your comment on Muslims and China, I can only presume that you are unaware of current events there.
Muslims, are not popular in China.
You are talking to me here & you haven't seen my face. Just think of it as a protective mask... I love how Corona exposed all these types, wearing a head cover or a beanie with a mask is fine, but a hijab with niqab is an unacceptable. Also, you are a girl (I assume); you don't have to worry about seeing her face, that's only for strange men.
In most cases, people were required by law to wear masks. They had no choice, so no one is making the argument that it was "fine" or that they wanted to wear a mask. Now mask mandates have been dispensed with, very few people are still wearing them.
They were also mandated for reasons pertaining to health (apparently), which further illustrates that there is absolutely no comparison. We were told to wear masks because of coronavirus and we did not have a choice, whereas Muslim women are told to cover their face because you don't want "strange men" looking at them...😂
Btw, what do you think men do when they see a woman's face? Do you think they get immediately hard and lose all capacity for self-control? Not all women have faces like mine, Yassine.
Jimmy Saville- abused more than 400 child victims, of course, these findings came after his death... We don't need to talk about Jeffery Epstein & where that leads...
Agreed. But, how does this make Islam a good religion that is beneficial to the West? It doesn't, when Islam has led to more problems.
Without Islam, the West would still have rape and it, naturally, would need to address and rectify that.
With Islam, the West has more instances of rape, specifically child rape, which means they have more rape to deal with and more issues to rectify.
Islam has not helped to decrease the likelihood of rape, because more rapes are happening as a result of Islam.
The conclusion here is that Islam is clearly not good for the West. LGBT and feminist agendas also cause harm, but that does not and should not deflect from the harm that Islam is causing.
But once the lower class people in the West suddenly gained wealth & joined the middle class in the early to mid-20th century -largely thanks to Colonialism & Industrialization, they brought their backward barbaric customs with them & imposed them on the rest of the society as the new trend. But I digress.
That is not true, and you surely know that. *Some* women wore face coverings in western cultures but it was not routinely practiced and the reasons for it varied.
According to you, it's just bad to see a woman's face and body in Islam. It seems women can only be sexual objects to you, and that as a man you have no ability to control yourself or prevent attraction *unless* women wear a face covering.
THAT is what's "strange."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Why are you so adamant to see her face?
Because a face is what people use to speak and express themselves with?! No one wants to talk to a Darth Vader.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Also, off topic.
Not when you consider that Islam is culturally void and morally bankrupt in many ways.
In the OP you write:
The result is that the cultures which nurture Family values
Is child marriage a "family value" that you think we should nurture?
What about Islamic rape gangs in the West - are they nurturing family values? Rape is wrong and degenerate, so where is all this wholesomeness and moral superiority that you are alluding to?
As much as celebrating LGBT lifestyles can degrade a culture, child rape and sexual slavery is worse. These issues are prevalent and plague Islam; therefore, we should not consider Islam as having more virtue and should try to stop it from becoming the dominant culture.
You said in another comment:
No society can thrive without nurturing strong Family values,
I think at this point, you should clarify what you mean by family values when people belonging to the Islamic faith like to engage in child marriage, have organized child sex gangs, and engage in child rape.
You can't tell me that they are not a problem when I know businesses belonging to Muslims in my area that have been raided, had people arrested and sent to prison, etc. because they, their friends, their family members and so on have enslaved and raped children. This has been a widespread problem all over my country, and the rest of Europe.
Rebounding fertility rates. They did dip below replacement rate, but not too much, as is the case for Japan or Korea or the Whites. It doesn't matter either way. The point is very simple, societies which foster Family values will inevitably dominate those who don't, from sheer population.
China is #132 in world fertility rates, while U.S is #133.
Not much of a difference, is there?
Regarding your point, though, this only makes sense when we consider cultures that truly do foster family values.
It is hard to make a case for Islam fostering family values, when child marriage, organized sex gangs, and child rape are problems that Islamic communities have. If anything, because of the aforementioned (in particular rape gangs), Islam has inflicted more moral harms on the West, and it has become more morally bankrupt as a result of allowing so many Muslims to settle here.
Islam is a poison, not a remedy.
I would also note that China and Islam aren't really compatible, so I wouldn't be relying on them to be your allies in your battle against the West.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Let's not pretend that Islam isn't plagued by its own set of very significant problems.
Also, China has a declining birth rate as well.
Also, China has a declining birth rate as well.
Created:
Why do people think that being poor or not having the "finances" to raise a child is a valid reason to abort them? Pro-deathers love to use that argument.
They don't seem to understand that it is borderline eugenics.
Although their argument may not have any racial undertones (it does sometimes), it appears that they really don't want people who they view as poor or not very fortunate, to produce offspring. Then you have women who use being "poor" as an excuse to abort their baby, knowing that the real reason is that they don't want to look after it.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Remind me to do this later tonight
You didn't do it later that night.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Uragirimono
You're a trip 😂
That's nice.
Now, let me explain this to you:
Pregnancy is not harmful.
When we say something isn't harmful, that is because generally it is NOT harmful. Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that?
The abject failure from you to properly understand words, phrases and generalities can only lead me to think you may be an autist. It's alright if you are an autist, but please don't go around pretending you're not when the logical conclusion is that you probably are.
If not an autist, you clearly love to employ semantics. But there are just some semantical arguments that you will never, ever, be able to successfully use against someone. Yours are beyond absurd and any rational person would find them hilarious, if not outrageous.
Would you say that going to sleep is harmful? When people fall asleep, there is a chance they could die in their sleep.
Let me provide an example of the faultiness of your logic:
Person A: going to sleep is harmful.
Person B: why?
Person A: because a few people have been known to not wake up when they fall asleep.
Person B: so, this makes going to sleep harmful? It's not exactly the norm for people to die in their sleep, right?
Person A: yes, and by saying it's not the norm and acknowledging that it *can* happen you are admitting that sleeping is HARMFUL!
That is YOU.
I'm fascinated that the person who gets to do what they want regarding pregnancy and birth is screaming at the person who's been denied almost everything she wants.
Aww poor you for not being able to get an abortion.
My heart simply bleeds for you. 😢
Btw, no pregnant woman can truly do what she wants. If you are pregnant, you can't drink alcohol, you can't smoke, you can't do wild and silly things, you *can't* do anything that would put your baby at risk.
I went to a fairground with my boyfriend last year and wanted to go on a ride, but couldn't/didn't because I was pregnant.
You have to attend medical appointments to monitor your baby's health, even when you and your baby are healthy.
In this country, you can't even decide how you will give birth in most cases. If you are fit and healthy, you are going to push your baby out no matter what. There won't be any cesarean for you unless you or your baby have an illness that make it necessary or lower the risk in a substantial way. Even my poor mom didn't get a cesarean, when she really should have.
Avoiding pregnancy is 100% on me, but if I get denied sterilization it's still on me, if I get raped it's still on me, if my state outlaws contraception it's still on me. For an act that takes two people, there sure is an insane amount of responsibility on one person in your mindset.
Woe is you.
Life is tough, get used to it.
Created:
Bot, troll, or user who isn't a bot or troll, I don't think they should be muted or banned.
I've engaged in posts Shila has posted in and read others, and I haven't seen much toxicity from this user at all.
How is toxicity defined on this site? What has Shila done beyond replying to posts a lot?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Uragirimono
I don't think any one experience of pregnancy and childbirth is the universal norm. One woman may have a beautiful pregnancy with zero lasting effects and another may end up crippled for life. The entire spectrum of pregnancy experience is valid and must be considered in discussions of abortion.
No, that is not how this works. You are speaking from subjective opinion, whereas I am arguing from reality.
It is not the norm for women to be crippled for life, but it is the norm for women to go through pregnancy and give birth with relative ease.
"Pregnancy experience" sounds silly and irrelevant. Phrases like that are just absurd lol.
Your statement of "in the majority of instances, it does not" result in harm factually proves that sometimes it does result in harm. Sure, if it makes you feel better to consider it that minority of cases I don't care at this point, but even you agree that in a minority of cases, pregnancy causes harm. It is therefore a true statement to say "Pregnancycan cause harm."
Now you're just using semantics and misrepresenting my argument (again).
What I said:
Pregnancy is not harmful.
I said this because ordinarily, pregnancy isn't harmful. *Some* severely life-impacting or life-ending damage being incurred in a minority of cases does not translate to pregnancy being harmful. Saying that a harm that is a considerable harm (i.e not an easily managed harm or a non-harm), can sometimes happen is not admitting to pregnancy being harmful because that kind of statement would be misleading and obviously false. When we claim that something is harmful, it is because it IS harmful in many, not few, instances. That harm can be proven and demonstrated, and it isn't just subjective.
I don't know how to speak to this without knowing where you live, but suffice it to say that I am American, and am therefore looking at Roe v Wade as my own country's problem.
I live in the U.K. I'm not sure what the point of the rest of this statement is.
You're welcome to read the below article for proof that parts of the US have more restrict abortion laws than Saudi Arabia. I'm not going to walk you through it as I assume you can read this for yourself.
Impressive, you've managed to show that one state out of fifty states in the U.S has some abortion laws that you consider extreme...well done!
What is your point, exactly? Are you trying to say that the white hicks in Alabama have gotten worse than the strict Muslims in Saudi Arabia?
Once more, this is myopic.
Again, you offer me evidence of my own point -- most Americans support abortion.
Except a large percentage does not.
Why don't you think that states should be able to decide their own laws on abortion? If one state (like Alabama) is mostly against it, explain why they should be compelled to facilitate abortions?
How wonderful for you that you were allowed to make this decision. How tough it would be for you if the government were to make it for you.
That is different, because here we are talking about what we want and don't want. I am happy to come second to children. Women who want abortions are not.
They can prevent whatever misery they think will be inflicted on them if they have a child by using contraception, which as I have told you is more than 99% effective when used properly. If it does fail them, they can place their child for adoption considering that pregnancy itself is only temporary and will not result in any severely life-impacting or life-ending harm, most of the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Might that suggest Lemming is built differently?As far as I'm aware, Lemming can't get pregnant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
It's not a vague word when you consider that we are referring to medical harms.
Even if we weren't, though, looks are subjective. You can't say that a person's physical features have been harmed because a.) that is insulting and b.) what if there is another person who likes those features? And if the woman isn't bothered by them, what is the problem?
I don't know why a lot of weight would be gained in pregnancy, as you are only supposed to have an additional 200 calories a day toward the end of pregnancy. There is no need to get fat if that is what you're doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Cesarean scars,
Since when are they harmful?
Stretched skin,
Again, since when is this harmful?
Not all women get stretched skin either...I didn't, or if I did it went back to normal.
Gained weight,
Not all women gain a lot of weight.
Also, you can easily lose weight.
Chance of death during birth,
Would you say that life-saving operations are harmful? There's a chance of death during those too.
Morning sickness,
Not every woman gets this. I didn't have it at all in my second pregnancy.
I would also note that it's only a temporary harm.
Temporary immobility,
lol, whaaat?
Pregnancy gingivitis,
Only temporary, and doesn't happen to every woman.
Obstetric fistula,
Very uncommon.
Many more I imagine, and I'll admit I don't know statistics on them, chance/percents.Some are temporary, others medicine overcomes, others overcomable through effort.
"Some" aren't even harms at all.
In addition, are any of these perceived harms more important than your child? For instance, if a woman had to choose between having cesarean section scars or her child/children, which do you think she would choose?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
"Can be" harmful and "is" harmful are two different things. It is far more normal for a pregnancy to not be harmful, and for your attachment to your child to outweigh any potential harms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Uragirimono
Yes, I do, but I think I understand why you have trouble believing that I'm writing my own beliefs.A difference between you and I seems to be that I don't center my own experience as "normal" or "fact".
You don't think pregnancy and childbirth are normal occurrences?
You said "It's just a fact that pregnancy is not harmful, because it does not result in harm to your body." Literally everyone knows this is not true. Pregnancy can and does result in harm sometimes. I'm happy it didn't harm you, but I know many women that it did harm. You've centered your own experience over the well-documented experiences of others in order to justify your position.
lol, I still can't believe you're making arguments THIS stupid. Saying that pregnancy does not result in harm to your body is a *factual* thing to say because in the majority of instances, it does not. It is extremely rare for women to die during childbirth, but is the norm for women to birth their child and not be harmed during this process.
I know women who had difficult births and almost died (my own mother was close to that), but I'm still able to ankowledge that childbirth is generally very safe.
Moreover, we do other things that are demonstrably harmful all the time. If harm is a problem for you, why don't you just lock yourself away forever? If you go out, you may be at risk of harm!
Isn't drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes harmful? I'm assuming you've partaken in at least one of those before. Also, if you've ever had sex without the use of a condom, you could have acquired a sexually transmitted disease. Maybe, that disease could be something as bad as the human immunodeficiency virus. I would say that this is more harmful than a woman giving birth.
You seem to think that we can live in a world where everyone should just believe you, or not question you when you say you have been harmed. At least that is what you're arguing. I struggle to think you could be so silly as to believe that though.
If I say I have been harmed and am using that harm to further an agenda, should you take my word for it? Don't you think you should investigate whether I truly was harmed first?
Claims don't = truth. A person's subjective experience doesn't equate to objective reality.
Really? Didn't study history much, did you? You think human history regarding pregnancy and childbirth is warm and fuzzy?
I think that women, overall, were able to give birth and survive this ordeal. If that was not the case, no one would exist and the human race would have died out.
Many women died, but more women survived. And now, we live during a time that a woman's health is monitored thoroughly during pregnancy and the risks to her are incredibly well-managed. They see their doctor and midwife regularly, they have options as to how they want to birth their baby, have access to pain relief during that birth, and constant medical observation when labor does occur. Giving birth is in fact more safe than going out in your car each day.
When birth control does fail because sometimes it does, I don't think it rational or logical to force someone to go through something they were clearly trying to avoid, especially when it will result in an unwanted child in a world swimming with unwanted children.
You've made quite a drastic claim here, and I can't help but ask you to consider the questions it has raised for me.
What does it matter to you if children are unwanted, and is being unwanted really a reason to have ended their existence? Don't you think that child will ever be able to find love or happiness? What if they become a great person?
Honestly, you don't get to decide what children are wanted or not, and whether your perception of them being unwanted is a reason for them to have not existed. A more empathetic response would be to help children, as opposed to advocating their non-existence.
You think the world is "swimming" with unwanted children, but on what grounds exactly? I really want to know more about these children who are apparently unwanted, and how this is so much of a problem that you've felt the need to use words like "swimming". This would suggest to me that you may think this issue is widespread.
Your exact language was "most in this context seems excessive." It's not excessive if it's the literal definition of the word.
The way you interpreted and then applied "most" in this context is what constitutes excessive. Percentages matter, and it's not as if it's a small minority of people who are against abortion and a large majority of people who are for it.
Lol, this is true. I'm surprised you pointed out that most of our ally countries think we're insane for gutting abortion rights.
Why surprised? I never said that I thought your "ally countries" are right to be pro-abortion, or that they are even desirable places to live. I personally think that the U.S is a much nicer place to live, and I assume this is why Europeans move there. If I had to compare the U.S to my country, I would say that without a doubt, the U.S is better. Wages are better, free speech is better, education (I think) is better, it is more geographically diverse, and is fairly cheap (in comparison to my country) in many areas. Countries that criticize the U.S for dispensing with Roe v. Wade ought to look at their own problems, which in my view are great and many.
I have friends in Saudi Arabia that have better access to abortion than I do and my Japanese friends think our instance on birthing regardless of consideration of circumstance is cruel and inhumane. The world does see us as highly divided but the world largely agrees with pro-choice Americans. In fact, since 2000 only two countries in the world have made abortion access more restrictive -- the US and Nicaragua. Every other country that implemented a change moved in the direction of less restriction. The global trend is pro-choice,
If we consider this in a global context, abortion is a controversial issue in *many* countries.
Really? If your friends in Saudi Arabia have better access to abortion than you, I can only conclude that they or their babies have/had physical or mental impairments because those are the only instances where abortion is allowed. If there is no risk to the mother's life, it is illegal in Saudi Arabia. Other countries in the Middle East and North Africa are even more strict than that, so your little comeback here has failed monumentally.
As for Japan, I don't think we should really be using that place as an example for anything. Over there you are required by law to get your waistline checked annually once you reach a certain age...don't you think that violates bodily autonomy because it undermines the right of people to be fat, if they want?
Not everything is perfect with respect to their abortion laws either:
In terms of how other countries view abortion, there are a significant number that have strict rules.
Laws regarding abortion are diverse. As of 2021, there are twenty-four countries in which abortion is illegal in any and all circumstances.
In 37 countries, abortion is illegal unless it saves the mother's life. In other countries, it is illegal unless used to save the mother's life or preserve her health during pregnancy.
Many countries, if they do allow abortion without there being a risk to the mother's life, only allow it up to 12 weeks.
This is false. The only state that has given the people a voice (allowing them to vote directly on the issue) is Kansas, and the majority voted to keep abortion legal.
According to the Guardian, abortion could be banned all across the U.S if the Left doesn't stand up and do something:
Seventeen states have banned abortion. There is strong support for this in all of those states.
If you really want to know how many people are against abortion in every U.S state, you can view this source:
As for our conjoined twins example, I think I make it fairly clear that in the second example the latter twin *could* have difficulty communicating their desire to not be separated from the former twin. The purpose of this example is to get you to see that just because another being cannot voice their opinion, it doesn't mean we should take it upon ourselves to make decisions for them because we feel those decisions will benefit us. Women are not only deciding their own future when they have an abortion, but are also getting to decide whether another human lives or dies, and are doing so in an extremely casual manner.
If we're really going to look at this with an open mind, perhaps I could make an argument for the fetus wanting to live *if* it is moving around. While it may not be able to talk, its movements that can be seen on an ultrasound *and* felt by you, could significy an unconscious desire to live.
It sounds strange (given my petite frame it makes sense to me), but I started feeling my second baby move very, very early on. With my son it was about 18 weeks, but with my daughter it was 14 weeks as she was my second baby, and you can feel them move earlier on (although this WAS early). She was moving regularly each day, and I could FEEL it. If I was of a mind to get an abortion, I could take that as a sign that there is a real, and growing, human life inside me, and that it may well want to live.
Regarding children and adults having equal value, I have decided that as a parent, I have less value than my children. I would even say that every child, and certainly baby, has more value than me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Uragirimono
So if I say "being pregnant and giving birth will cause me harm" and you say "no it won't" I'm supposed to listen to you because I am mentally ill. You have a very low opinion of women.
I am a woman, and can say with certainty that I do not have a low opinion of other members of the female sex. In cases of abortion and all other matters pertaining to children, I always side with the child (the child comes first), but that does not mean I can't empathize with women.
It's just a fact that pregnancy is not harmful, because it does not result in harm to your body and you do not have to keep your child if you don't want it. If you think pregnancy causes harm to women, you should ask yourself why the planet is so vastly populated and how humankind has made it this far.
Regardless, pro-choice women aren't asking for a perfect world with no regrets or no harm. We're asking for the freedom to make our own choices so that if there is regret, it will be regret we chose. I'd rather terminate a pregnancy of my own volition and regret it later than be forced to give birth and regret it later.
This is one of the most asinine comments I've ever read.
Do you actually believe what you're writing?
Right, of course. There's never in the history of humanity been a pregnancy conceived while contraceptives were in use. Silly me, I guess I'll go tell those kids I know that they can't exist because Mommy was on the pill and Daddy used a condom.Contraceptives fail all the time, even when used correctly. Stick to reality, not wishful thinking.
Again, I wonder if you really believe this because it is one stupid view to hold. Contraceptives are said to be more than 99% effective when used correctly, and most of us know that.
I don't want to speculate on this too much, but has it ever occurred to you that some of the women who have said they were using contraception at the time of conception may not have been telling the truth? After all, it's embarrassing to say that you're having an abortion after you did nothing to avoid pregnancy.
The chances of getting pregnant when using a contraceptive method like the injection, with your male partner also wearing a condom, are extremely slim.
If it's separate, then by definition it can go away. "Separate entities" exist in two different places at once. Try taking a fetus out of a woman and putting it in the next room if it's so separate. If it dies without me, it's not separate from me. This is simple logic.
It "goes away" when you carry it to the point of birth, which is how nature intends it to be. A fetus dying without you does not make it a part of you.
I know it's a body. I have never said it is not a body. I have said it is a human body more than once and like every other human body on the planet it is not entitled to the use of my body if I do not consent to it. People can have all the problems they want, but unless it's their body in question, their "problems" should not be used to make decisions.
Except you consent to the act that you know can lead to an unwanted pregnancy if you don't use contraception, or don't use it properly if you do.
Tred carefully here. You're very casual in using groups to which you don't belong to prove your point. If I told you I was disabled, would you casually throw my demographic in our conversation?
How do you know I don't belong to this group?
Disabled people can communicate. Maybe not the way we want or expect them too, but certainly moreso than a fetus. It's rather heartless of you to suggest disabled people can't communicate more than an embryo can.
A disabled person's ability to communicate depends on their disability and how this affects them. There are a wide range of disabilities a person can be afflicted with, you know.
Perhaps, we could further consider the scenario where the conjoined twin in question is unable to talk AND write, but is otherwise living a functional life and is accepting their situation as best they can, bearing in mind they are also permanently attached to their twin. In a world where sign language might not exist OR if they simply can't, don't, or won't learn it, how can they communicate their desire to not be separated?
60% is "most" by every definition of the word. Roe was overturned by a handful of people that the average American had no influence over and did not reflect current popular attitudes. I guarantee if we put it up to a national vote, the majority of Americans would vote for it to be legal.
I never said it wasn't "most", I commented that support wasn't unanimous. You should be able to admit that abortion is a highly controversial topic, and that 40% is not a negligible number. You are trying to diminish the overturning of Roe v. Wade and its appeal to many Americans, but you've failed. That states have acted on Roe v. Wade no longer being in existence by changing their abortion laws *with* support from people living in those states, shows how the alteration is very popular to a lot of concerned parties.
In Europe, the U.S is considered as being a nation where the population is truly divided on the matter of abortion, to the extent that it is acknowledged that significant numbers of people are highly likely to be against abortion. Depending on certain trends, perhaps the number of people against abortion will rise to 50%.
What will you say then, oh person who thinks that a consensus around suicide prevention can be compared to the (lack of) consensus around abortion?
With regard to your response concerning a case of conjoined twins, I think you are misunderstanding or misrepresentating my argument again.
A secondary issue is that it refers to children only, whereas I would like to know what you think of a conjoined twin who is an adult not giving their consent to a surgical separation. As previously stated, they could be disabled or unable to talk/write for whatever reason, but know that they do not want to undergo surgery and be separated.
In addition, you need to understand that the example of the 22 month old coinjoined twins who were separated is speaking from a perspective where there is a desire to "save", not end, a life. These parents want to save at least one child so they can look after it, and so are prepared to lose one to save the other one. If you don't know why, let me tell you that it is because they value that child's life. It's the one child who they can save and have future happiness with.
Most fundamentally, they are putting their child, not themselves, first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Uragirimono
We go to war over greed. The US didn't invade Iraq because we thought Americans were more valuable than Iraqis. We invaded because we wanted their oil. The humans living there were a side note. Judging someone's value requires acknowledging them, and we couldn't even do that.
You are missing the point entirely, lol. Greed is one reason we go to war, but to be able to do this you need to have an army that believes it has value and that they are fighting for a worthwhile cause. Value comes before the greed. If you think you don't have any value, you'll probably never become greedy.
One problem with people is that they often assign themselves too much value. This is certainly the case with women who think their need to not carry their offspring that will not harm them, is more important than the need of that offspring to live or the needs of other people who do not want to see it killed.
So you think a woman saying "I do not want to go through pregnancy" is a sign of mental illness. Adoption does not prevent her from going through pregnancy. It is a solution to not wanting to parent, not a solution to not wanting to be pregnant.
A solution to not wanting to get pregnant is to use birth control and/or use a condom. There are several highly effective forms of contraception to choose from, and they are all readily avaliable in most developed countries.
Using this contraception as advised, in addition to using condoms to be even more safe, will stop you from getting pregnant.
Henceforth, this issue of enduring a pregnancy you don't want need not be an issue, as it is *very* preventable.
Your scenario doesn't answer my question. I said "Yes, because no one on this thread has given me an example of when we legal require one group to give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of another." There is no legal requirement in your conjoined twins example for one group to give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of another. We've legalized that all pregnant people forgo their bodily autonomy for 9 months for the sake of the unborn. There's no law that says "conjoined twins have to stay together/separate."
Yes it does, because it's an example of when there is conflict surrounding bodily autonomy involving two humans. You're arguing that an unborn offspring has no personhood, but it IS a member of the human race and IS a separate entity from the mother. If it wasn't separate, you wouldn't need to abort it when you don't want it.
Even in your example you have two people both capable of giving an opinion -- they can discuss and come to a rational decision like adults. Abortion doesn't match this, as we can't ask the child if it wants to live. It can't even want anything as it doesn't have the mental capacity to do that. So you're painting the wants/desires of a person (the woman) as equal to the nonexistent wants/desires of a fetus in this analogy.
They can discuss it, but if there is no agreement in the end, they have reached an impasse and if the former twin wants to pursue this separation, they can get a lawyer and try to take it to Court. This is when it becomes a legal matter, and when their bodily autonomy is called into question. Having the ability to talk about it doesn't mean they will reach a conclusion that they can both agree to.
Another problem here is that you clearly think that being able to verbalize is an integral part of personhood, which is very ignorant on your part. What if the latter twin was or became deaf? Or couldn't read or write? Have you considered that they may be disabled or have special needs? They wouldn't be able to have much of a rational discussion then.
Being disabled or having special needs would make it difficult for them to voice their view, and their twin may try to take advantage of that.
Does them having a mental disability or special needs make them less of a person because they can't verbalize or vocalize very well?
In the case of abortion, have you considered the father of that child and his needs? The baby is half of each parent so he should be allowed to have a say in whether his baby is born or not. That this baby grows inside the woman's body for nine months is irrelevant because it's part of him as well.
If the roles were reversed and men could get pregnant, would you ardently support them having abortions because of "my body, my choice", or would you believe that women should have a say in the matter?
I'm still amazed that you haven't realized that it's a body in your body, and that this is why many people have a problem with abortion. It's not just your needs that are important when you have another human body in you. Even an embryo or a very small fetus is its own "body."
Awesome, so given that most Americans think abortion should be legal, glad to hear you're supporting choice now. A year ago "the law and commonly held views" allowed abortion in America, and pro-lifers still overturned it. If commonly held views is what decides what's right, I hope you'll join the majority and fight to get abortion access reinstated across the country.
"Most" in this context seems excessive when you consider that it's only around 60% of Americans who, as of this year, say they support abortion. If there was such unanimous support for this practice, Roe v. Wade wouldn't have been overturned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
I hope you have unprotected sex and get pregnant. Then come back and argue your same nonsensical drivel after you have an abortion because you are too young and financially ill-equipped to have a child for 18 years of your life.
I've already had two kids, fool.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Uragirimono
This is demonstrably false. We already kill other humans is many socially acceptable ways and none of them are based on value. We don't execute prisoners because they're inherently less valuable than the rest of us. We don't go to war and bomb people because they're inherently of less value. We don't shoot people who break into our homes because they're of less value. Value does not determine who we're okay with killing in societal terms.
I'm anti-war and I don't support the death penalty, but you are wrong as to the reasons people are killed in these instances. When we go to war, we are of the view that we have equal or more value than our enemies, and that this is why killing them can be justified. Why do you think countries are interested in self-defense? Because they believe they don't have any value?
There wouldn't be any point in having an army or entering a war if you don't think that you have value that is equal to or more than the value of the enemy. When you kill in combat, you do it because you don't want to die, as you feel your life has value, and that your country has value.
Why would you do it if you are without that value?
When someone is convicted of comitting a serious crime or crimes, some people think that person's value is diminished and that their life should come to an unnatural end. I am strongly against the death penalty, but that is how they rationalize it.
I don't care if my choices are accepted. I care when my choices are made illegal by the opinions of others. Shun me, scold me, hate me for getting an abortion all you want, I don't care. Don't limit my rights by making laws based on your feelings and we'll be good. What if I thought having more than one kid was immoral? How would you feel if I tried to ban multi-child families?
People want to make this choice illegal *because* they don't accept it, so perhaps you should start caring. We make a lot of laws based on feelings...should we dispense with those because they limit the right of someone to do what they want? Abortion involves instristic harm to a human embryo or offspring (harm that can be avoided), which other people in society want to protect.
Yes, because no one on this thread has given me an example of when we legal require one group to give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of another. Do you think marital rape should be legal? Do you think slavery should be legal? Do you think Christians should drag native children away from their families to re-education centers legally? All of these violations of bodily autonomy used to be legal and socially accepted, and then we grew as a people and said "no, you can't do that anymore." We've long accepted bodily autonomy is real and must be respected -- even you do so. You just exclude pregnant people from it, saying they must be legally required to forfeit their autonomy in favor of the unborn.
These are non-sequiturs. None of your examples involve the purposeful ending of another human life that is of no threat to the human life that it is presently attached to, beyond that person thinking they don't want it. You can't even really make an argument for the mental health of a woman who wants to abort her baby but isn't legally able to, as she can give it for adoption or just leave it in the hands of another person who does want it, after it is born. Pregnancy is a natural state of being, not an illness.
I will, however, provide you with a relevant example of when bodily autonomy is compromised:
Let's imagine that there are conjoined twins. One of them really wants to be separated and to live independently from their twin, but the other is prepared to tolerate being conjoined to their twin for the rest of their life, and is concerned about the medical outcomes that could result from this surgery.
They have been told by a doctor that they CAN separate them, but it is not without some significant risks. The former twin is desperate to go ahead with the surgery, but the latter twin is unwilling.
In this scenario, who should get their way?
You're assuming I agree with this. I agree with an individual's right to self harm and don't think suicide should be illegal. Counseling should be available and easily accessible for those who feel like they struggle with self-harm or suicidal thoughts, but it should not include involuntary confinement.
It's irrelevant whether you agree or disagree. Fundamentally, the rest of society agrees and that is what matters. The police, doctors, nurses, members of the public, etc. uphold that individuals shouldn't be able to harm their bodies, and that is of greater significance than your opinion.
In this country and many others, you are subject to involuntary confinement if you are a "danger to yourself or others."
This law and the commonly held views associated with it mean more to me than what Uragirimono from this obscure site on the internet thinks. 😆
Out of curiosity, though, wouldn't you say that involuntary confinement in a psychiatric facility is a way for people to access mental health care and counseling? If someone is intending to harm themselves or commit suicide, they probably aren't thinking of any potential counseling they can receive at a future date, and so the issue then has to be dealt with by using some degree of force. And that is what the police do.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Everything.
haha
Not an answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Uragirimono
You're using "important" as if I've been arguing value. Adults and children are both valuable. But that value does not give anyone, adult or child, the right to use another's body without their consent. You're welcome to name a legal example where it does.
I am arguing value, as a reason we don't kill or are not allowed to kill other humans is because they are seen as having value and society deems it wrong to harm other humans to the point of causing an unnatural end to their life.
Because it's her choice, and what the rest of us think don't matter. The "brutality" is besides the point -- birth is just as brutal as abortions, if not more so depending on gestation time, and yet "I don't want to be ripped open by a baby" isn't seen a valuable to pro-lifers.
The "her choice" argument is boring and overused, and not a valid rebuttal. We can all make choices but it doesn't mean that they should be considered good or legal ones, and that they should not invite any opposition. It's really stupid of you to believe that having the power to make a choice ought to result in that choice being accepted by everyone, including those with the ability to decide whether women should have access to legal abortions or not.
Also, childbirth isn't "brutal" lol. I have given birth twice so far, and it was not that.
Birth entails the natural delivery of your baby from your body, abortion entails the forced expulsion of it because you want to kill it and for it to be dead. A loved and cared for baby gets to come out in one piece, while an aborted baby is forced out and then discarded.
Birthing the baby that you have conceived is natural, aborting it is not.
They couldn't be more different.
Again with the value thing. Women get to decide what happens to their organs in regards to all other people, including their children. It's not because they're more valuable, it's because no one's value exceeds another person's autonomy.
Yeah, value is kind of important when deciding whether we should be able to terminate another human life or not.
Do you actually think that we're allowed to do what we want with our bodies?
If that's the case, why can you be put in a psychiatric hospital against your will if you harm or attempt to harm your body? If it's your body, why won't people let you harm it?
Correct, because I don't owe my organs to anyone, including my child. I get to decide what comes out, when it comes out, why it comes out, and how it comes out.
That's a very strange and myopic thing to say, lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Uragirimono
Again, my sex choices are completely mine and I will not entertain suggestions.
Ooh, get you and your "modern" ways.
*sigh*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Uragirimono
Here's some non-religious reasons:
- Empathy for the child.
- Recognizing that children's rights are more important than women's rights.
- Moral consistency, or lack thereof.
- Recognizing that human life has value and that it is wrong to kill another human, even if it isn't fully formed yet.
- Taking responsibility and not choosing the easy way out.
Point #2 is very important because in every single circumstance bar abortion, children are more important than female adults. Adults matter less than children, and certainly much less than infants, so why does that suddenly change when someone wants an abortion?
Point #3 is similar to the second one, but it's essential to expound on it separately.
Why is it that when a woman wants to keep her baby, it is treated with the utmost care and consideration and all efforts are made to look after and embrace this baby by her, her family, her medical practitioners, and the rest of society, but when a woman decides that she doesn't want it it becomes this dispensible cluster of cells that is of no significance to her or the rest of us, and just needs to be disposed of in the most disgusting and brutal way?
A baby who dies when a woman is at 20 weeks may get a grave, but another one who isn't wanted at the same gestational age gets crushed and dismembered while still inside her, and then put into trash bags and treated as medical waste?
Where is the moral consistency? Why aren't all babies worthwhile? If one is valuable and is to be treated with great care throughout pregnancy and beyond, why aren't they all like that?
It seems to me that women are getting to decide what life has value and what life does not have value, and that we as a society are having to go along with this incredibly toxic and weird notion because "women's rights, ya'll."
I hate living in a society THAT stupid and weak.
All babies are either worth keeping, or they are not depending on what mommy wants to do with the offspring that she created. The science doesn't matter, fetal viability doesn't matter, religion doesn't matter, morality doesn't matter...it's just me and my right to expel that thing I conceived because it's MY body. And then, they (these women) get all insane and demented when trying to defend or promote this view.
I pity anyone who falls for it.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Oh no, you called me "little one"...I'm just soo offended now 😭🤣
What shall I do?!
factual accuracies
What is it you've said that you think is so factually accurate?
Created:
-->
@Shila
Does he make the case why abortions are absolutely necessary to prevent more repetitive and poorly applied retorts?
No, I don't want to take away the only thing he's any good at!
He loves his logical fallacies, but doesn't seem to be aware that he is one himself.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
= "I know you are, but what am I" childish banality.Meaning, you have no intelligent rebuttal
- You haven't offered any intelligent arguments, instead just relying on opinion and then repeating that same opinion over, and over again.
- You're too arrogant and too stupid for anyone to have a constructive and reasonable discussion with.
- Several people have brought valid arguments, thoughts, and responses to this post, but because you're so narrow and seemingly incapable of critical thought, all you can do is dismiss them.
- It is YOU who routinely uses insults and ad hominem attacks. This is to the extent that even the OP included blatant and childish attacks along the lines of "these people don't advocate my view on this matter, so they are stupid".
- In addition to that, you use extremely repetitive and poorly applied retorts.
Can you grasp that, or is it another "false equivalency fallacy"?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
lol
You seem to be totally ignorant of the fact that *every* criticism you have in response to other people applies with complete accuracy to you.
Fools will be fools, though.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Starting off with an ad hominem argument demonstrates not only the Dunning Kruger Effect, but that you also lost the debate/discussion before you even begin.
Says the man who repeatedly "starts off arguments" with ad homimen attacks!
You're absurd.
Once that embryo has formed, it has everything needed to enter the world as a baby if it is left unharmed
That is what I said. I suggest you take note of the words "if it (the embryo or fetus) is left unharmed", because that is important in establishing what their potential actually is and whether it's of significance or not. An embryo's potential is no more different to yours considering that they, like you, will do just fine if allowed to live.
No, it does not have everything needed to enter the world. Without fetal viability, that embryo dies upon entering the world too early.
And what? This means people should be allowed to abort the embryo that will become a fetus, which is then a baby?
Note: I don't really distinguish between "fetus" and "baby", as fetus just means offspring.
You clearly lack the requisite knowledge to comprehend fetal viability
So more "ur stupid cuz u dont agree wit me"...is that really all you've got?
You do realize that you're just coming up with the lamest, most untroubling, and completely banal insults in practically every post you make? Can't you see how pathetic it makes you look?
understanding it has no relationship to basic viability.
In *your* opinion it has no relationship to "basic viability", and you are not the one who gets to decide whether an embryo or fetus is viable.
In criminal law, the U.S seems to consider an embryo/fetus as very viable because it is considered separate to its mother, and you can be punished for causing harm to it.
Wrong. It is a medical fact.
What about most babies requiring medical intervention? For instance, a baby needs to have its cord cut from the mother after birth...isn't that a medical intervention?
In my country, they also get their heartbeat, hearing, vision, etc. looked at before you can leave the hospital.
Do you even know what kind of medical interventions you're talking about?
Also, don't you think it's kind of limited on your part to have only one perspective on this matter? Your entire stance is based on "but it's not viable, it can't survive yet" (admitting to knowing that babies have survived *even* when they can still be aborted), and that is it. No considerations have been made for moral arguments or even other scientific arguments.
Essentially, you're just set on repeating the same old boring opinion.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
So, in other words, you're unable to address any of the points I've made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
How cute, psychological projection. LOL! Mirror mirror on the wall…hose the dumbest after all!
You didn't learn any better insults in the army?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
Only a stupid person would write that horror of a post.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Whoever liked this post is a fool, lol.
Do you realize how stupid your first sentences actually are?
This would be a proper translation of what you said:
"dem guyz like Shapiro and Walsh are 2 stupid 2 get y abortion aint bad!"
That's such a profoundly predictable and unintelligent thing to say.
Also, you think that a zygote is just a potential baby. While it may be true that a zygote and an embryo aren't a fully formed baby yet, it is also true that all life, even after you are born, is having the potential for something that would ordinarily come providing that you survive.
In your lifetime, you go through many stages to then finally die one day if you are lucky enough to make it to old age.
For instance, are you an old man yet? No. But do you have the potential to be providing nothing ends your life? Yes! A zygote, and embryo, WILL develop into a fetus, that WILL be someone's newborn baby if it does not die. Abortion forces the death of an embryo or fetus, and this ends its natural life path.
Once that embryo has formed, it has everything needed to enter the world as a baby if it is left unharmed. That's just like we have everything needed to make it another year if nothing, or no one, kills us.
===================================
Another issue I would raise is your view that a baby is only viable once it can survive outside the womb without "medical intervention", which is a really vague and poorly explained stance.
Most babies need some medical intervention to see if they're healthy, so does this mean they're not viable? What about premature babies?
Moreover, were you aware that some babies have been known to survive at a stage where women can (and do) still get abortions?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I spent more time with my cousins during the pandemic, because at that time we sort of came together as a family as well.
A few months into covid, they started going out with friends again. They're all very sociable and well-adjusted so that was something they still wanted to do. I was the same as by May 2020 I was going out whenever I could and just trying to have a normal life with my newborn. I was getting used to taking care of a baby, not obsessing with covid and so on.
I hardly ever see my cousins now because I've had another baby, they're still kids, and just wrapped up in school and their own lives.
I think in a strange way, many families did come together during this time. There were other circumstances that made this all the more so for me, but it was all coinciding with covid.
People started to care more for each other I guess.
Created:
-->
@Shila
lol
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The original post is almost entirely centered around how pedo_troll says they were treated in prison, and that was what I responded to.
They then claimed that pedophilia does not harm children, which is a demonstrably stupid and untrue thing to say. Many children and adults (who were sexually abused as children) said that this sexual abuse harmed them, so who are we to call them liars?
Pedo_troll may even say that they are vulnerable to harm by not being able to have sexual relations with children, and maybe that is true. To that extent, I wouldn’t deny the existence of that harm. If someone says something is harmful to them, we have to take their word for it.
Multiple children have said that having sexual relations with adults was harmful, and I believe them.
It is beyond stupid for pedo_troll to deny the existence of such harms.
They then claimed that pedophilia does not harm children, which is a demonstrably stupid and untrue thing to say. Many children and adults (who were sexually abused as children) said that this sexual abuse harmed them, so who are we to call them liars?
Pedo_troll may even say that they are vulnerable to harm by not being able to have sexual relations with children, and maybe that is true. To that extent, I wouldn’t deny the existence of that harm. If someone says something is harmful to them, we have to take their word for it.
Multiple children have said that having sexual relations with adults was harmful, and I believe them.
It is beyond stupid for pedo_troll to deny the existence of such harms.
Created:
-->
@Shila
You are even confirming Best.Korea has one powerful argument.
Uh, no.
Best.Korea found you very insulting.
I’m starting to think THEY may be a child. Only children or adults with developmental issues would see my comments and just think “insults”, and give that more credence than anything else I said.
Most pedophiles probably are mentally delayed though.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I said that because he’s arguing with you, lol. You’re an obvious troll (or worse, a pedo-troll) who can barely even speak English, let alone defend your pedophilic tendencies in a compelling way. Not that it’s possible to do that, but you’re really failing miserably at convincing anyone here.
All you can come up with in response to me is “where is harm, there is no harm...what harm...no harm.” Well fuck, that’s one powerful argument you’ve got there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Meanwhile in Florida...
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
What do I disagree with them on?
I’m merely saying that people shouldn’t take you or that other person seriously.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Whatever/whoever that person is, they aren’t worth arguing with. That’s why I could only “rofl” at their response to me — they’re totally stupid, pathetic, and a waste of time.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
It was a joke. Just some dark humor and a throwback to the sort of trolling I used to pull on DDO.
I appreciated it.
<3
Created: