setsunatenshi said:
You missed the point so radically that I'm not sure english is your first or second language even. Woman that identify as a man or as a horse makes no difference, only she has the right to decide what life her body supports. If she wants to carry a pregnancy full term that's fine, if she doesn't that's her choice too. Can you follow so far? The father's input should be as valid as the mother's as soon as the child is born. Until that point, as long as only the fetus is leeching off of the mother's life force, only her input is really important on wether she wants to carry it full term or terminate the pregnancy. Will you somehow misinterpret this? I was never about physical dominance and who is stronger, I have absolutely no idea where you came up with that. A woman not deciding what goes on inside my testicles has nothing to do with some rape fantasy you came up with (how the hell did you even go there?) |
Je ne parlay en Englais mes amis. (Thats totaly spelt wong, eye tink...)
If a woman identifies as a man, and she's pregnant, she's now considered a pregnant man. Men then have the ability to choose based on what you said.
Man does what he wants with his body. Man decides to rape woman. Man's rape causes harm to woman. Man pays the price.
Woman does what she wants with her body. Woman decides to get pregnant. Woman's abortion causes harm to man. Woman get's off scot free.
I don't see how the similarities aren't apparent to you. Do you not see how one gender is giving something up for the betterment of the other, yet the other is being somewhat selfish?
It's not some rape fantasy, it's historic fact. Every century you go back, rape culture actually becomes more and more true, right to the point in time where if you were a woman, you at a very young age, found yourself a gladiator of a man to defend you, mostly from being abused and/or raped. A lot of other good came from this, but safety was the main concern.
What I'm saying is we've logically concluded that allowing men to use their brute strength as a weapon to overpower a woman is not a good idea, due to how it effects a woman, so it stands to reason that allowing a woman to use her body as a weapon to always overrule a man is not a good idea, due to how it effects a man, and shouldn't be allowed either.
Pachofilauri said:
First of all, am not burdening anyone, am not saying that no one has the right to have sex or that they shouldn't. But everyone has to be responsible for everything they do, and is not like having a baby is a punishment or the worst thing that can happened so to someone. Women can be productive for at least 5 or 6 months in their pregnancy and after giving birth they can give the baby to adoption and forget about it for the rest of their life if they want to. Second, people do have body autonomy, that´s why there are no laws against chopping your arm, your leg or even suicide. People can do with their body what ever they want, its when you put the life of someone else in the middle that i don´t agree. And am sure you will say that they are only a bunch of cells and all that, but for me is a potential human being |
Nature didn't make you feel all tingly and over the moon because it just wanted you go be able to feel good and make life worth living. It did that because if there was no feeling at all during the act, people wouldn't do it other than to specifically reproduce. Considering it's not just that simple, and can sometimes take attempt after attempt, making those body parts as sensitive as they are, and the overall experience as pleasurable as it can be, leads people to naturally want to experience that quite often. This makes the odds of reproduction considerably higher, which is what nature wants. If it never wanted us, or wanted less of us, it would have done things differently.
Just think about it. Most things that taste good, are ok to eat, and the better they taste, the more we eat it. If something tastes bland or flat out gross, we don't bother with it or stay away from it entirely. Now while this works well, it's not perfect, just like reproduction. Eating way to much fast food, as good as it may taste, will likely make you fat and useless, just like how too much sex will likely lead to too many offspring and being overwhelmed, not to mention overpopulation.
On the topic of nature, since when did it give humans any natural rights? We made those up. Just look at Lions. When a male lion forces the other(s) out, and becomes leader of the pride, one of the first things he does, is kill all the cubs. He does so partially because those other cubs belong to other weaker lions and aren't worth raising as far as he's concerned, and secondly, since he wants to get working on his own offspring asap, by getting rid of those cubs, the females will go into heat again allowing him to be able to do so. When his cubs are only 2 years old or so, when they can reproduce themselves, he kicks them out and says good luck, whether they could survive or not. Why would nature be so harsh? Lion rights?
Pemalite said:
It all comes down to ownership of the body in the end. |
I'm not saying it wouldn't be tough or a drain on the woman to have to house the child, but it would also be tough and a drain on the man to have no power whatsoever and have his offspring killed without his consent. If consent is given when creating the child, it shouldn't be a given that she should be able to break that agreement without consequence. Truthfully based on that thinking process, a woman could agree to have sex with you, then change her mind during and tell you to stop, and if you don't stop immediately, that split second, she could technically claim you raped her, which is insane. Which of course is tricky, because you can't exactly say if she agree's initially, that you don't have to stop after the fact if she wants you to, because that could be traumatic for her. I just can't believe people can honestly agree that allowing a woman the right to choose for her own body always, makes sense, yet men should be restricted when it comes to theirs at times. Both can do damage to each other, so why not put some restrictions on both? What happened to fairness and equality?
This is another part of the reason why I think a compromise makes the most sense at this point in time anyway. No abortion whatsoever doesn't make complete sense and doesn't please enough people, but abortion with it only being her choice also doesn't completely make sense and doesn't make enough people content. That's why I think a compromise would be the way to go to better serve as many as possible.
Being part of the act, and offering support are different situations that should have different rules applied.
Last edited by EricHiggin - on 09 October 2018
