Are women being turned into livestock again?

Abortion is MURDER. Contraceptives are pre-life Catholic BS. Just Satan-the-pope trying to confuse the stupid women again. Longer live Mr. Happy, key word Longer....................

Originally posted by tacitblue
You know, this nails the problem with the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate right on the head. The issue isn't the issue... The issue is freedom of choice.

Pro-choice doesn't mean you have to have an abortion... It means you have the CHOICE to have an abortion. It is possible to be pro-choice AND against abortion. It is a personal decision - just like what religion to believe in.

You just nail the same point I have, fundamentalist wants to make people that wants to protect women rights into "baby killiers" the turth is that been pro-choice is also to protect women for the right to make the dedicions that are best for them.

I care less what they want to call me, I am fighting for the rights of my daughter now a young women to be able to make decisions about her body rather that a full of hate religous pusher and a self proclaim god advocated.

How about my God he does not share the same fanatical views as then, this is fight and women needs to stop the madness of this groups.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Abortion is MURDER. Contraceptives are pre-life Catholic BS. Just Satan-the-pope trying to confuse the stupid women again. Longer live Mr. Happy, key word Longer....................

I have nothing against Mr. happy I have lived with one for 24 years and I am very content with it.

But the same way that the self proclaim God advocated government wants to legislate women rights they should lesgislate Mr. happy for having a brain of his own.

Originally posted by 0951

Originally posted by Bikereddie
I had a vasectomy 15 years ago, so guess that means i'm guilty of "aborting" my sperm going by the standard that the contraceptive pill is deemed the same as abortion.

As celibate (and happily so) - where does this leave me then ?
No better probably, for passing over the 'opportunity', and being selfish etc...

I'm of the view that I'm not being used by my DNA - all that stuff about falling in love, building a home, having kids - it's all nonsense - it's just a trick played on you by 'your' DNA looking to survive another generation by fiddling about with your body chemistry and making you feel "emotions".

I guess being an atheist (& an evolutionist too, whilst I'm at it) helps too, as I don't need to comply with any externally derived "moral duty" either ...

Apologies to Bikereddie, this wasn't really in any way a response to your posting, but there was a nice link there about being "guilty of aborting" that I wanted to build on: Hope you're ok with that

[edit on 9-11-2004 by 0951]

No problems & no offence taken. this is an excellent debate.

Originally posted by tacitblue

Condoms are outlawed in the Roman Catholic Church; though it is only minorities of devote practitioners who abide by the rule.

Ever been to any mostly Catholic 3rd world country? Guatamala? I wouldn't exactly say minorities...

tacitblue I think you misunderstood my post. I was not saying only minority GROUPS abide by this rule, but the minority of practicing Catholics.

Men should have no weight in debate on this issue. We make up only one tiny second of the birthing process - in a purely phisiological sense.

Okay take away the tiny second of the birth process men ARE involved in and you have NO baby. I think that is a pretty significant involvment don't you. Unless of course we soley practice artificial insemination--which a lot of Anti-Choice (I won't call them Anti-abortionsts) also see as a form of abortion.

There for, those setting policy regarding women's reproductive rights should be female. Female politicians should set female focused laws.

Men can surely debate, but only from the sidelines... I'd be interested to see how issues like this would turn out if that were the case.

This is one of the most undemocratic views I have ever read. To say a mixed experience collective should have no involvent in making laws for individual groups is a fascist ideology! So you also think only woman jurers should sit at rape trials, led by female judges only?
Let's take your theory one step futher: Only black people can make laws about black issues. Only the elderly make laws about pensions. Only doctors make laws about healthcare. Only children make children's laws. Only Muslims passing laws for followers of Islam. Only refugees making laws about their new countries asylum and intake policy.Only the unborn making laws about abortion and contraception!!!
Very secular thinking. Next we will only be having religious leaders making laws for everyone. All based on that great and unbiased work of Fact th Bible, or the New Constitution of The USA as it seems to be now known. George Orwell wrote in Animal Farm a seven conmandment constitution for his fictional animal society. The seventh was "All animals are created equal." All seven were later replaced with the one comandment "
All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Also "no animal shall kill another animal" became "No animal shall kill another animal without cause".Using religion, politics or any ideology to the determine the moral choices of people is a very weak and easily manipulated form of thinking.

Actually I come from a spanish catholic mostly rule country, and we have from abortion clinics to free brith control, the reason, the church knows that to many poor families with to many children is a burden to the church endorsed social programs.

I got 6 out back feeding now.



What would be the point of hearding woman? They are a dime a dozen, its not like they are endangered.

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
Saer, before I continue I want you to know I am pro-choice.

But here is where it does not make sense to me. This is not in assumption of a long term relationship.

If you get pregnant and do not want the child you can have an abortion. What if you are pregnant and do not want the child and the father WANTS the child? Where are his rights? He cannot force you to have the child nor will the courts side with him.

What if the father wants absolutly nothing to do with the child yet the mother decides to keep it? Why should the father be liable for child support? I should think that if the one night stand that resulted in a pregnancy happened and the father under no circumstances wants anything to do with it then he should not have to pay child support if the womans choice was to have the baby.

I think that's a tough one, where the choice has to be in the hands of the one actually carrying the baby. I know that's a raw deal for the good men who would be wonderful parents, but the bottom line is that it is the woman's body. I guess it makes being educated, not just about sex, but about relationships, that much more important. No one can foresee the outcome of any relationship, and people change their minds all the time. So I guess if you have to draw a line somewhere in who has final say over the matter, I'd have to say logic points to the woman, even if that woman isn't a paragon of wise judgement. I think the more men step up to the plate and equalize gender roles, the more their rights as parents will be taken seriously. It won't help in cases where they want the baby and the woman doesn't, but it may help our long term evolution as a culture. And that in turn may help men AND women make smarter choices about when and if to reproduce.

And I think, being a lefty liberal, that no one should be forced to pay child support. If all people have free access to birth control and abortion, then children are the responsibility of the person having them. But again, there should be access to education, jobs, and so on, so peple have a chance at earning enough to suport a family, with or without a spouse.

--Saerlaith

What if you are pregnant and do not want the child and the father WANTS the child? Where are his rights? He cannot force you to have the child nor will the courts side with him.

As a man, I'm willing to give up these "rights" in an effort to make our society more equal between the genders. The reality is I can run around an impregnate hundreds of women if I want and really not have to suffer the consiquences. The baby will not be inside me... There for I give up 100% of my rights to that child to the woman.

Now, as far as having a child... First, I won't outside of a marriage. It won't happen because (1) I am careful about who I choose as a partner, (2) do not have sex outside of a relationship, (3) and use several redundant forms of birth control (between my partner and myself). Should one of my partners become pregnant it would be a choice between the two of us due to the nature of the relationship... The relationship is a safeguard to my rights... But only within that relationship, not in society. I can say this because I will not get into a relationship and have sex with someone who is an idiot.


And as far as the male sex is concerned. Do you realize that with every advance in technology/medicine our reproductive role becomes less vital to the survival of the species? It is possible today to clone and reproduce without the need for male fertilization.

Yes, my brothers, we are more and more useless everyday.

WOW HEEHAW,

I hope so and I want to be Stallion

Polar Bear

Hmmm, STAY OUT OF MY FREAKING BEDROOM! What the hell is the christian obssession with other people's bedrooms? I don't freaking get it, they just have to know what everyone else is doing in the bedroom. Christians, go away! We don't go into your house and tell you you can't do this, can't do that, etc. Stay out of ours!

You people did enough damage with the crusades, the trials, inquisitions, dark age. If it wasn't for you mofo's we would be farther ahead in technology for science wouldn't have been killed off for 500 years by the christians. We were lucky that the mauslims finally took control of Europe and started the Renissance or we may still be afraid of demons killing our crops and dieing at the ripe old age of 25. If christians never existed this place would be far better then what it is. Gallileo wouldn't have been put under house arrest, the other scientists proving the earht was round and not scenter wouldn't have been killed, the witches who were the first doctors, shrinks, pharmicists, and mid wifes wouldn't have been slaughtered by the millions, the black plague would have been as damaging as the common cold is today. Damn christians, again, go away, leave us alone to advance without having to worry about you people blowing up hospitals and blowing up science labs.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
We were lucky that the mauslims finally took control of Europe and started the Renissance or we may still be afraid of demons killing our crops and dieing at the ripe old age of 25. If christians never existed this place would be far better then what it is.

I'm not a Christian so I'm not being defensive but... wasn't it the ancestors of those same Muslims that were partially responsible for the eventual collapse of the early Western civilizations? Isn't it those same ancestors that were roaming the deserts talking about demons taking them in the night? Power changes hands fairly often throughout history, and this betterment issue is one of spoils of war. It's not as if the Muslims introduced civilization and "enlightenment" to the West.

Also, human beings have been using religion (which includes far more than just Christianity) to manipulate the masses for many thousands of years now. "If christians never existed"... people would have manipulated some other religion for their personal gain and I doubt that "this place would be" any better than "what it is" now.

Originally posted by veritas93
Also, human beings have been using religion (which includes far more than just Christianity) to manipulate the masses for many thousands of years now. "If christians never existed"... people would have manipulated some other religion for their personal gain and I doubt that "this place would be" any better than "what it is" now.

I think one big problem in history, and no doubt now and in the future, is that any culture, country, population, that can figure out a harmonious, sustainable, respect-based way to live, will always be at the mercy of neighbors with "less-enlightened" mindsets. Cultures that arise out of deprivation, scarcity, war, class-stratification go about regulating their subjects more harshly and in more detail. The haves become the leaders and use religion and other "punishment" ideologies to keep a tight rein on the masses under them. Assuming that without strict controls, people will revert to anarchy. That without fear of punishment, both here and in the afterlife, there will be no reason to swear fealty to a warlord. And that if someone isn't physically strong enough to withstand attack, they are meant to be conquered.
Cultures that arise out of more fluffy values like equality, love, learning (yes there were a few here & there in history) generally assume that people operate from a live and let live mindset. That if you respect your neighbor's rights, he/she will respect yours. That people basically mean well to each other, and disputes come from misunderstandings. Living under rule of law and equality frees up a lot of energy to better oneself and one's people. Art, music, science, literature and so on.

But we can't all get on the same page long enough to try living as a fluffy culture. If we could do it, even for a short time, people might like it enough to stop stealing from the "weak", and imposing pointless religious rules on humanity - a basically fun-loving, love-loving and joyful species.

--Saerlaith (who has a dose of Hippie this Friday)

So next I suppose "pulling out" will be illegal?
Perhaps masturbation too?

*hears the goose-stepping outside and lowers the shades*

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Abortion is MURDER.

mur�der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m�rdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

v. mur�dered, mur�der�ing, mur�ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.


Actually, Abortion is legal, so isn't murder at all by definition. And if it isn't predicated by being a legal act, then, aren't you, by your logic, calling soldiers murderers?

After all, they are killing people in Iraq. Sometimes children too. If the soldiers aren't murderers, are you saying that it's okay to kill the innocent for the greater good?

"As couples have fewer children, population growth slows, providing a demographic bonus that countries can invest in better education, health care, job creation, and other improvements. Rapid population growth, unemployment, and lack of savings and investment are part of a cycle of poverty that trouble many developing countries. This cycle could be broken if governments at the same time emphasized providing family planning and stimulating economic growth.

In some countries living standards have improved after population growth slowed substantially. "Even in adverse circumstances--low incomes, limited education, and few opportunities for women--family planning programs have meant slower population growth and improved family welfare," the World Bank has noted."


www.findarticles.com...

"Reproductive health is a means to sustainable development as well as a human right. Investments in reproductive health save and improve lives, slow the spread of HIV/AIDS and encourage gender equality. These in turn help to stabilize population growth and reduce poverty. Investments in reproductive health extend from the individual to the family, and from the family to the world."

www.unfpa.org...

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems when women control the size of their familes, everyone in the entire world benefits to some extent. Except maybe dictators in need of fresh cannon fodder

--Saerlaith

Also, people wonder why gays are popping up everywhere, ever wonder why? Maybe MOTHER NATURE is telling us there are already to many people for her to handle and so is creating her own population control. Anyways, abortion is not murder, it isn't alive, so how can it be killed? Or is it like the zombie movies? They are already dead, just have to "kill" them again?

One thing I can never understand about Americans is that they seem hell bent on outlawing abortion because they feel it is wrong to kill a human life, yet you have the death penalty. So you want to make abortion a criminal act because it is wrong to kill, but you freely kill criminals. I just don�t see the logic.

Originally posted by Saerlaith. Men rape, men coerce, men lie, men cheat. Most women have been at the receiving end of male wiles when sex is at stake. And too many women have seen how fast those men deny any responsibility if the woman gets pregnant.

So now your true colours shine. Less bitch'n more kitchen

Originally posted by Saerlaith
Men rape, men coerce, men lie, men cheat. Most women have been at the receiving end of male wiles when sex is at stake. And too many women have seen how fast those men deny any responsibility if the woman gets pregnant.

It is not only men that rape you know.There have been countless cases of female attended rape. Rosemary West for one, coersed, lied and cheated many woman into being raped by her husband with her joining in on the act. These woman were also murdered. News Flash--woman enjoy sex, woman coerse men into having sex, woman use what is know as their feminine wiles into getting men into bed.
Sex is a two way conversation, and the results are the responsibility of both parties.

[edit on 13-11-2004 by The Teller]