Feminism

[ulukinatme]

I'm just as shocked - there are men freely having sex with feminists. Sick.

Rape!

So what you're saying is the Nazis were actually the good guys?

Rape!

As in women should be able experience the most sexual pleasure possible. Correctable consequences be damned. Idk man just what I've heard people say doesn't make sense.

Rape!

People have always made attempts to justify their actions as shameless including pulling complete junk out of the clear blue sky. People do not want to accept the consequences of their actions or even be told there are such things. That is one of the huge reasons faith is on a roller coaster plunging decline in America. People do not want to feel restricted and fact is, faith restricts. So instead of doing what God tells them to do, they reject God in favor of the Idol of Self. Sad but fact. Unfortunately for them, the Idol of Self wont do a lot for them when they are heading towards that black, dark pit where the wailing and nashing of teeth sounds are coming from.

But it has always been this way with mankind. Throughout history mankind has rejected God in favor of what they want. Start with Adam and Eve, move to the people of Noahs time, go to the followers of Moses out of Egypt. Everyone wants to do their own thing and not be told what to do. All with really bad results of course...

That was deep. Rape!

Huh?

....Rape!

 

[IrishinSyria]

~11,283,000 people died in Nazi concentration camps.
~58,000,000 babies have been aborted since the passage of Roe v. Wade.

Challenge: present a coherent argument for why the Nazis are the greatest villains of the 20th century, while Planned Parenthood is praised as a champion of feminism and liberal values.

At the end of the day, it's all just eugenics-- the eradication of society's undesirables.

Quite frankly, I find it as wildly offensive that you would compare planned parenthood to the nazis as you find planned parenthood's abortion numbers. It would be like saying Conagra has killed 100 million cows: why aren't we calling their CEO the next Hitler. Or, alternatively, Ron Jeremy wastes 2.1 billion sperm a year: is he the next Gengis Khan.

For me, it all comes down to how we value human life. I don't believe life is inherently valuable from the moment of conception. I don't think everyone has a soul and a divine purpose. What makes us special- and what I think is worthy of government protection- is our interaction with the outside world, our relationships, our capacity for awareness and all the emotions that come with that awareness (fear, hope, love, etc...).

I don't think the Nazis are evil because they killed 6 million living things. I think they're evil because they killed 6 million human beings. Because they inflicted fear and suffering, because they tore children away from their mothers, because they destroyed human communities, and because their victims knew exactly what was happening to them the whole time.

In other words, I haven't seen the fetus equivalent of Night or The Diary of Anne Frank.

To be clear, I don't think abortion is a good thing. I believe in the mantra safe, legal, rare. I think better sex education, better access to birth control, and big incentives for people to adopt are all necessary. But I don't think it's an evil thing either. I think comparing planned parenthood to the Nazis is deliberately inflammatory.

 

[gkIrish]

Quite frankly, I find it as wildly offensive that you would compare planned parenthood to the nazis as you find planned parenthood's abortion numbers. It would be like saying Conagra has killed 100 million cows: why aren't we calling their CEO the next Hitler. Or, alternatively, Ron Jeremy wastes 2.1 billion sperm a year: is he the next Gengis Khan.

For me, it all comes down to how we value human life. I don't believe life is inherently valuable from the moment of conception. I don't think everyone has a soul and a divine purpose. What makes us special- and what I think is worthy of government protection- is our interaction with the outside world, our relationships, our capacity for awareness and all the emotions that come with that awareness (fear, hope, love, etc...).

I don't think the Nazis are evil because they killed 6 million living things. I think they're evil because they killed 6 million human beings. Because they inflicted fear and suffering, because they tore children away from their mothers, because they destroyed human communities, and because their victims knew exactly what was happening to them the whole time.

In other words, I haven't seen the fetus equivalent of Night or The Diary of Anne Frank.

To be clear, I don't think abortion is a good thing. I believe in the mantra safe, legal, rare. I think better sex education, better access to birth control, and big incentives for people to adopt are all necessary. But I don't think it's an evil thing either. I think comparing planned parenthood to the Nazis is deliberately inflammatory.

I'm sure Whiskey will respond soon but I have to say those analogies are some of the most ridiculous ones I've ever heard. Are you seriously comparing a cow or a sperm to a fetus?

 

[IrishinSyria]

I'm sure Whiskey will respond soon but I have to say those analogies are some of the most ridiculous ones I've ever heard. Are you seriously comparing a cow or a sperm to a fetus?

And are you seriously comparing a fetus to the people who were killed in concentration camps?

My comparisons are absurd, but no less absurd than the one needed to get at the idea of this being a new holocaust. Also, the argument has been made that the slaughter of cows (Peter Singer) and the waste of sperm (the Catholic Church) are bad (murder/sin), so it's not like I pulled those two out of my ass

 

[wizards8507]

And are you seriously comparing a fetus to the people who were killed in concentration camps?

Yes.

My comparisons are absurd, but no less absurd than the one needed to get at the idea of this being a new holocaust. Also, the argument has been made that the slaughter of cows (Peter Singer) and the waste of sperm (the Catholic Church) are bad (murder/sin), so it's not like I pulled those two out of my ass

You're either evil or an idiot. Peter Singer says it's okay to kill babies. Born, alive, fully functioning babies.

"Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons, therefore, the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."

You really want to hitch your cart to that wagon?

Also, the Church's position against masturbation has nothing to do with the waste of sperm.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Yes.


You're either evil or an idiot. Peter Singer says it's okay to kill babies. Born, alive, fully functioning babies.

"Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons, therefore, the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."

You really want to hitch your cart to that wagon?

Also, the Church's position against masturbation has nothing to do with the waste of sperm.

Obviously, I was not endorsing either Peter Singer's views nor the Catholic Church's with my post.

retracted, maybe

 

[gkIrish]

Obviously, I was not endorsing either Peter Singer's views nor the Catholic Church's with my post. And also, the Singer quote you posted DOES NOT SAY he believes it's ok to kill babies. But, you know, go ahead and call me the idiot when you don't understand that he's using a rhetorical argument to set up his ultimate point: that equality should be extended to animals.

I really hope you are vegan or I'm just really confused.

 

[Ndaccountant]

As in women should be able experience the most sexual pleasure possible. Correctable consequences be damned. Idk man just what I've heard people say doesn't make sense.

Irony is that men cannot have a "free" sexual experience because:
1 - Condoms......who likes those?
2 - Don't dare snip my sack
3 - The pill lowers women's sex drive
4 - If you get a girl knocked up, you are financially on the hook if she so chooses

I am officially starting a campaign for men to have full sexual freedom. Who is with me?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Quite frankly, I find it as wildly offensive that you would compare planned parenthood to the nazis as you find planned parenthood's abortion numbers. It would be like saying Conagra has killed 100 million cows: why aren't we calling their CEO the next Hitler. Or, alternatively, Ron Jeremy wastes 2.1 billion sperm a year: is he the next Gengis Khan.

As gk mentioned, if you think this is in any way comparable to a cow or a spermatoozon, there's something broken inside you.

For me, it all comes down to how we value human life. I don't believe life is inherently valuable from the moment of conception. I don't think everyone has a soul and a divine purpose. What makes us special- and what I think is worthy of government protection- is our interaction with the outside world, our relationships, our capacity for awareness and all the emotions that come with that awareness (fear, hope, love, etc...).

This is hilariously incoherent. Human life has no inherent worth, souls don't exist, but some people are entitled to government protection because they're capable of some neat emotions.

I don't think the Nazis are evil because they killed 6 million living things. I think they're evil because they killed 6 million human beings.

I never argued otherwise. You're the one who's trying to argue that Planned Parenthood has killed 16,000,000 things, instead of 16,000,000 tiny humans. Planned Parenthood is under scrutiny for harvesting and selling the organs of those babies, a fact which fatally undermines your argument. Those organs are valuable only because of the humanity of those murdered children. The market for tripe and sperm isn't nearly as lucrative.

Because they inflicted fear and suffering, because they tore children away from their mothers, because they destroyed human communities, and because their victims knew exactly what was happening to them the whole time.

So when do you think it's OK to destroy a human life? Because the Democrats just filibustered a bill that would have prohibited abortions after 20 weeks, despite overwhelming evidence that babies can feel pain after that point. Neither Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or Hillary Clinton believe there should be any restrictions on abortion at all, a view that is much further from the American mainstream than the average pro-life politician holds.

If it's OK to vivisect a baby in utero right before it's born, shouldn't it be OK to smother it immediately after it enters the world? How about the mentally disabled? Many of them would likely fail your ridiculous definition of "what makes us special".

To be clear, I don't think abortion is a good thing. I believe in the mantra safe, legal, rare.

That's mighty white of you. You find it distasteful, but still think it's necessary. The more fastidious members of Waffen-SS probably felt the same way about all those concentration camps. Didn't save any of them from the noose at Nuremburg, though.

I think comparing planned parenthood to the Nazis is deliberately inflammatory.

It's instructive, because there are so many similarities. The Nazis defined a vulnerable group of humans as something less than persons, and what followed was the systemic murder of 11,300,000 people. It was justified at the time as a necessary evil to protect the German Volk, but has since rightly been condemned by history.

53 years ago, the Supreme Court similarly defined a vulnerable group of humans as something less than persons, and since then 58,000,000 tiny human lives have been destroyed. It was justified at the time as a necessary evil to protect the sexual autonomy of adults and to advance the women's rights movement. But how will history judge it 50-100 years from now?

The only thing separating your view from that of a Nazi sympathizer is your incoherent definition of "what makes us special".

 

[pumpdog20]

Quite frankly, I find it as wildly offensive that you would compare planned parenthood to the nazis as you find planned parenthood's abortion numbers. It would be like saying Conagra has killed 100 million cows: why aren't we calling their CEO the next Hitler. Or, alternatively, Ron Jeremy wastes 2.1 billion sperm a year: is he the next Gengis Khan.

For me, it all comes down to how we value human life. I don't believe life is inherently valuable from the moment of conception. I don't think everyone has a soul and a divine purpose. What makes us special- and what I think is worthy of government protection- is our interaction with the outside world, our relationships, our capacity for awareness and all the emotions that come with that awareness (fear, hope, love, etc...).

I don't think the Nazis are evil because they killed 6 million living things. I think they're evil because they killed 6 million human beings. Because they inflicted fear and suffering, because they tore children away from their mothers, because they destroyed human communities, and because their victims knew exactly what was happening to them the whole time.

In other words, I haven't seen the fetus equivalent of Night or The Diary of Anne Frank.

To be clear, I don't think abortion is a good thing. I believe in the mantra safe, legal, rare. I think better sex education, better access to birth control, and big incentives for people to adopt are all necessary. But I don't think it's an evil thing either. I think comparing planned parenthood to the Nazis is deliberately inflammatory.

Isn't this exactly what Planned Parenthood does too?

 

[IrishLax]

I'm sure Whiskey will respond soon but I have to say those analogies are some of the most ridiculous ones I've ever heard. Are you seriously comparing a cow or a sperm to a fetus?

Truly one of the worst analogies I've ever read on the internet, and that's saying something. Holy fuck was that stupid and I stopped reading his post there.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Truly one of the worst analogies I've ever read on the internet, and that's saying something. Holy fuck was that stupid and I stopped reading his post there.

TL;DR, that's exactly how I feel about analogizing abortions to Nazi death camps.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

TL;DR, that's exactly how I feel about analogizing abortions to Nazi death camps.

Enlighten me then. In both cases, millions of human lives are being destroyed. In both cases, it has been justified by defining a vulnerable group of humans as something less than persons.

My worldview compels me to condemn both, since a core tenet of Christianity is that human life is inherently valuable. Yours is committed to the practice of abortion, and tries to distinguish it from the Holocaust based on a vague idea of "what makes us special" that attains at some point later than conception.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't sleep well at night if something so tenuous was all that separated my worldview from that of a Nazi sympathizer's.

 

[tussin]

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't sleep well at night if something so tenuous was all that separated my worldview from that of a Nazi sympathizer's.

Unfortunately, millions and millions of people are in the same boat as him. It really is a shame.

Unrelated, but nothing irritates me more than when those same people flippantly dismiss pro-life stances as close-minded conservatism and rag on "one issue voters" who refuse to vote for a candidate that supports the murder of babies.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Enlighten me then. In both cases, millions of human lives are being destroyed. In both cases, it has been justified by defining a vulnerable group of humans as something less than persons.

My worldview compels me to condemn both, since a core tenet of Christianity is that human life is inherently valuable. Yours is committed to the practice of abortion, and tries to distinguish it from the Holocaust based on a vague idea of "what makes us special" that attains at some point later than conception.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't sleep well at night if something so tenuous was all that separated my worldview from that of a Nazi sympathizer's.

If you humor me for a second and, as a thought experiment, drop the idea that life is inherently valuable, it should be pretty obvious why one is much much much worse than the other. I've got to go now, but if it's not, I'll try to write out a better explanation in time.

Basically, start with Singer and then back away from the absurdities he goes to in trying to construct a perfectly logically coherent system. I'm ok with a little incoherence when it's needed to comport with our moral intuition on the fringe cases (newborns, mentally disabled, etc..).

 

[wizards8507]

Unrelated, but nothing irritates me more than when those same people flippantly dismiss pro-life stances as close-minded conservatism and rag on "one issue voters" who refuse to vote for a candidate that supports the murder of babies.

Or pro-choice Catholics. That's my favorite.

 

[tussin]

If you humor me for a second and, as a thought experiment, drop the idea that life is inherently valuable, it should be pretty obvious why one is much much much worse than the other. I've got to go now, but if it's not, I'll try to write out a better explanation in time.

Your "thought experiment" fails in the first sentence. The bolded is not an idea, it's a fact.

 

[kmoose]

Or pro-choice Catholics. That's my favorite.

What's wrong with a Pro-Choice Catholic?

 

[pkt77242]

As gk mentioned, if you think this is in any way comparable to a cow or a spermatoozon, there's something broken inside you.



This is hilariously incoherent. Human life has no inherent worth, souls don't exist, but some people are entitled to government protection because they're capable of some neat emotions.



I never argued otherwise. You're the one who's trying to argue that Planned Parenthood has killed 16,000,000 things, instead of 16,000,000 tiny humans. Planned Parenthood is under scrutiny for harvesting and selling the organs of those babies, a fact which fatally undermines your argument. Those organs are valuable only because of the humanity of those murdered children. The market for tripe and sperm isn't nearly as lucrative.



So when do you think it's OK to destroy a human life? Because the Democrats just filibustered a bill that would have prohibited abortions after 20 weeks, despite overwhelming evidence that babies can feel pain after that point. Neither Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or Hillary Clinton believe there should be any restrictions on abortion at all, a view that is much further from the American mainstream than the average pro-life politician holds.

If it's OK to vivisect a baby in utero right before it's born, shouldn't it be OK to smother it immediately after it enters the world? How about the mentally disabled? Many of them would likely fail your ridiculous definition of "what makes us special".



That's mighty white of you. You find it distasteful, but still think it's necessary. The more fastidious members of Waffen-SS probably felt the same way about all those concentration camps. Didn't save any of them from the noose at Nuremburg, though.



It's instructive, because there are so many similarities. The Nazis defined a vulnerable group of humans as something less than persons, and what followed was the systemic murder of 11,300,000 people. It was justified at the time as a necessary evil to protect the German Volk, but has since rightly been condemned by history.

53 years ago, the Supreme Court similarly defined a vulnerable group of humans as something less than persons, and since then 58,000,000 tiny human lives have been destroyed. It was justified at the time as a necessary evil to protect the sexual autonomy of adults and to advance the women's rights movement. But how will history judge it 50-100 years from now?

The only thing separating your view from that of a Nazi sympathizer is your incoherent definition of "what makes us special".

I will take a stab at this point. When a baby is viable is when abortions should end (say 24ish weeks currently for about 50% or if someone wants a higher threshold, 26 weeks gives about 70-75%). I view an abortion of a 5 week fetus very differently from a 36 week one. At 36 weeks it could be taken through c-section or induced labor and be given to parents wanting to adopt it and live a normal life. That is not an option at 5 weeks (or 15 weeks, etc).

 

[wizards8507]

I will take a stab at this point. When a baby is viable is when abortions should end (say 24ish weeks currently for about 50% or if someone wants a higher threshold, 26 weeks gives about 70-75%). I view an abortion of a 5 week fetus very differently from a 36 week one. At 36 weeks it could be taken through c-section or induced labor and be given to parents wanting to adopt it and live a normal life. That is not an option at 5 weeks (or 15 weeks, etc).

Viability is nothing more or less than the present state of medical technology. There will be a time in the not so distant future when an artificial uterus can carry a fetus from conception to full term. Even if I accepted the premise of viability (which I don't), doesn't it make you uncomfortable that you system allows for something to be moral today but immoral tomorrow based on changes in technology?

 

[tussin]

Also, the point of viability is not black and white. It is a completely arbitrary determination. It is ridiculous to say that a fetus is viable and should be protected at Day 150 and have no rights on Day 149.

 

[pkt77242]

Viability is nothing more or less than the present state of medical technology. There will be a time in the not so distant future when an artificial uterus can carry a fetus from conception to full term. Even if I accepted the premise of viability (which I don't), doesn't it make you uncomfortable that you system allows for something to be moral today but immoral tomorrow based on changes in technology?

Nope. In fact I look forward to the day that technology has advanced enough to make abortion obsolete.

 

[wizards8507]

Also, the point of viability is not black and white. It is a completely arbitrary determination. It is ridiculous to say that a fetus is viable and should be protected at Day 150 and have no rights on Day 149.

Not to mention you could take a perfectly healthy four year old and, left to its own devices, it'll die.

 

[pkt77242]

My question to those here is would you be willing to trade tight clamps on abortions (say nothing after 20 weeks) for a bill that mandated quality sex education, and free and easily available birth control?

recent studies show that quality sex education paired with easy access (and free) birth control can significantly lower abortions.

Free Birth Control Access Can Reduce Abortion Rate by More Than Half - Observations - Scientific American Blog Network

Also Colorado
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html?_r=0

 

[Irish#1]

I'm just as shocked - there are men freely having sex with feminists. Sick.

Feminists don't charge because then they wouldn't be called feminists.

 

[wizards8507]

My question to those here is would you be willing to trade tight clamps on abortions (say nothing after 20 weeks) for a bill that mandated quality sex education, and free and easily available birth control?

recent studies show that quality sex education paired with easy access (and free) birth control can significantly lower abortions.

Free Birth Control Access Can Reduce Abortion Rate by More Than Half - Observations - Scientific American Blog Network

Also Colorado
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html?_r=0

No.

1. There are zero people getting pregnant because they don't know how a penis works or where babies come from. Zero.

2. There are zero people getting pregnant because they can't afford condoms. Zero.

I'm sure I can find studies that say vegetable-rich diets cut down on heart disease, or that children are safer with certain types of car seats. That doesn't mean vegetables and car seats should be free.

 

[gkIrish]

My question to those here is would you be willing to trade tight clamps on abortions (say nothing after 20 weeks) for a bill that mandated quality sex education, and free and easily available birth control?

recent studies show that quality sex education paired with easy access (and free) birth control can significantly lower abortions.

Free Birth Control Access Can Reduce Abortion Rate by More Than Half - Observations - Scientific American Blog Network

Also Colorado
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html?_r=0

I'm not Catholic so I could care less about birth control. I'm all for more of it.

 

[ryno 24]

My question to those here is would you be willing to trade tight clamps on abortions (say nothing after 20 weeks) for a bill that mandated quality sex education, and free and easily available birth control?

recent studies show that quality sex education paired with easy access (and free) birth control can significantly lower abortions.

Free Birth Control Access Can Reduce Abortion Rate by More Than Half - Observations - Scientific American Blog Network

Also Colorado
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html?_r=0

I would not be okay with this trade. Because Abortion is murder (particularly when child has a heartbeat). The science is there to back up to show that this is a human being.

However, I would be okay with better sex education. While I dont personally believe that contraception is moral and it violates the teachings of the Catholic Church, I think as a country having this taught better (not paid for... because I am not paying for anyone else to have sex) would be good for the country.

 

[wizards8507]

However, I would be okay with better sex education.

Do you honestly think there's a single kid in a single high school anywhere in this country who doesn't know where babies come from.

A great philosopher once said "of course they're gonna know what intercourse is by the time they hit fourth grade, they've got the Discover Channel don't they?"

 

[pkt77242]

No.

1. There are zero people getting pregnant because they don't know how a penis works or where babies come from. Zero.

2. There are zero people getting pregnant because they can't afford condoms. Zero.

I'm sure I can find studies that say vegetable-rich diets cut down on heart disease, or that children are safer with certain types of car seats. That doesn't mean vegetables and car seats should be free.

You would be wrong.
Yale study shows ignorance about conception - SFGate

These numbers show many women still have a lot to learn about eggs and sperm.

48.3%

The percentage of women surveyed who thought that having sex more than once per day would increase the chances of becoming pregnant, though research doesn't support this idea. The study points out that a man's sperm count actually decreases if he ejaculates more than once a day.

37.4%

The percentage of those surveyed who thought that certain sexual positions would make them more likely to conceive. Research doesn't support that either. Regardless of the position, the study says, sperm reach the cervix within minutes.

9.2%

The percentage of women who knew that to conceive, intercourse needs to happen before - not after - ovulation. The study notes that a woman's "fertile window" is the six days leading up to and including the day of ovulation, and the chances of conceiving with intercourse after ovulation are slim.

65%

The percentage of the surveyed women who either already had children or were pregnant at the time of the survey. Still, two-thirds of them answered the ovulation question incorrectly. Thus, the researchers say, many women get pregnant despite misunderstanding ovulation.

Many people know jack shit when it comes to getting pregnant.

Also from a different study

Authors cited other research showing more than a third of women with unintended pregnancies didn't use birth control because they didn't think they would get pregnant.

When it comes to condoms, yes some people can't afford them, and while we are on the topic, condoms as birth control are really far down the list of effective methods as you have to actively use it, you have to put it on correctly (and if you didn't have good sex ed you might not do that), there are things you can't use with it, etc.).

You think that abortion is a great evil, but when studies show that these things will significantly lower it you don't want to do it. How does that make sense?