The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

I agree that a pregnant woman should have the choice of whether she wants to abort the baby or not.

However:

Saying stuff like that really isn't the way to get men to side with your cause.

I'm guessing it was a joke.

Furthermore, a fetus can have its "rights" when it is no longer dependent on my biological systems to sustain its life. Beyond that, I feel, the rights of already born people trump the rights of the unborn. Additionally, as a woman, I don't want to live in a world where a fetus is granted "person-hood."

Talk about an epic nightmare.....

Hardly comparable. Pregnancy is a natural function of a woman's body. And the state didn't get her pregnant. It would be bodily harm if the state forced her to abort it.

Guess again.



Turns out it was genuine hate speech.

I always find it amusing that the above is always the counter argument from men about this issue. They never say, "Of course, I would sacrifice my body for a baby." or "What a gift that would be." It's always right to the "natural" argument. Lots of things are natural, doesn't mean you should be required to experience them. Having a baby is a sacrifice for women. But they do it anyway (for some reason I don't understand.) I still think that if men were the ones to bear children this wouldn't even be an argument. There is no way men would let a child interfere with the realization of their ego.

Girl, PREACH. If men were the ones that had to carry babies and give birth, access to abortion would be a given everywhere in the world--restricting it would never even occur to people. Their right to their own bodily autonomy and the choice to not be pregnant if they don't want to be would never, ever be in question.

Forcing women to carry and deliver babies against their will is "natural", but suggesting men should have vasectomies is "hate speech"? LOL

I guess only men are entitled to assume they have any degree of bodily autonomy.

You find facts amusing?



Men have been sacrificing their bodies for women, babies and other men since we started forming societies, but I'm not sure how this ties in to the matter of the state doing bodily harm (except insofar as men's bodies are deemed expendable when the excrement hits the fan).



When we're discussing the matter of the state doing harm to an individual vs the effects of pregnancy on a woman, the "natural" argument is the only relevant one.



Nobody is required to experience pregnancy. It's something most women opt into by letting a man put that there.



How many limbs do they have to give up? If you consider yourself victimised by motherhood, you weren't ready to have children and shouldn't have put that there.



Because having a child is one of the most amazing and fulfilling experiences you can have.



That argument doesn't begin to make sense. If men bore children, they'd be the female of the species, and our cultures would have developed very differently.



Spoken like someone who has never experienced fatherhood, let alone who understands what it is to be a man. Children can render grown men utterly powerless with a gesture.



Spoken like someone who doesn't understand biology or how societal development is plastic to experience.



How many women are forced to get pregnant? If you don't want to breed, then don't.

What you suggested is that men be "required to have a vasectomy". If you don't understand the difference between "men should be forcibly harmed" (or, indeed, why that constitutes hate speech) and "we probably shouldn't kill fetuses" it's little wonder you're arguing from a position of self-entitlement.

I'm not sure why you feel a need to control the discourse in this way. It's amusing because it would likely be too much of a burden for men to carry children; the state would probably pay them to do it.


You're still here.


Really, it's the only relevant argument? Sometimes I think men secretly look at women as breeding stock.


"That there?" I've often thought that men undervalue sex with women. I'll add this to my mental list in support of that.


Sex and parenthood are not the same thing. Consent to one is not to the other. Plenty of men are aware of this, as often they see no problem with not caring for their offspring.



Oh wow ... just a gesture, really, that's amazing. [sarcastically]
Why is it always about power with men?

I'm beginning to think this whole "pro-life" thing is just a cover for trying to control the breeding stock.

A lot of women, actually. Women and girls get raped, sometimes even by close family members. Some women and men practice safe sex, but mistakes and accidents happen. My husband's condom ripped once, so I got a morning-after pill. Sometimes a woman wants a baby, but needs an abortion for health reasons - either her own or that of the fetus, which may have severe abnormalities. These are the kinds of issues that people who deal with sex in real life take into consideration. I get the sense that sex is hypothetical to you, which is why you bitterly refer to it as "breeding".



Given that you thought vasectomy was castration, I'm not sure you're qualified to talk about what constitutes "harm" and what doesn't. You also seem completely oblivious to the real, lifelong harm that women's bodies can suffer during pregnancy and childbirth. Why don't you go Google that instead of writing another long-winded, obtuse, pedantic, defensive reply?

Asking questions is 'controlling the discourse'? The point I made has clearly sailed over your head. A woman's natural function includes becoming pregnant and birthing a child. Whether or not that's something you deem "good" is irrelevant. The point at which the state interferes is the point at which the law decides the fetus should be entitled to rights. At this stage, your whims do not trump those legal rights.

Incidentally, most Western nations already reward child-rearing financially in a number of ways.



For the majority of my life, I've been in the category "other men". For all I despise war and all that surrounds it, I have great respect and admiration for those people who have given up their lives in order to preserve mine.



And you continue to misunderstand the context of the entire discussion. As for what men "secretly think", I'm not interested in arguing on behalf of paranoia-fuelled imaginary men.



See previous response.



Having sex carries the widely known possibility of becoming pregnant. If your consensual intercourse leads to such, nobody is accountable but yourself and your chosen partner.



Short answer: It's not.

Longer answer: You were the one who brought up ego. Why are you so intent to make this about power?



No thanks, I'm perfectly happy with the relationship I'm in.

Works for me!

You see, adifferentname? A voice of reason!

What percentage of pregnancies are the result of rapes?



Thanks for the lesson, but you're about 30 years late with your information.



Oh no, I've been called a virgin on the internet! What's the procedure these days? Should I start a patreon appeal?



Given that you thought vasectomy was castration,[/quote]

Misquoting =/= conflation. Nice try though.



As you don't understand the difference between the state causing harm and the state doing nothing, I'm completely sure that you're not qualified to make that assessment.



Because I haven't mentioned them? Why, using your logic, I can think of literally thousands of things you seem completely oblivious to!

Suffering harm through your own decisions is not the responsibility of the state. Why are you so ready to defer your personal agency to the government?



Why don't I? Because my knowledge of pregnancy and its effects is already quite comprehensive, but thanks for the pointless suggestion.

New word definition of the day:

reason: that which agrees with my hate speech