Thread: I despise the right-wing politicians and feminists equally

Originally Posted by I_walk_alone

All life is sacred, yet the people parroting this seem to value the right to purchase armor-piercing rounds in Walmart more than the safety of kids being mowed down in school by said bullets.

Strawman. Ralely will you find people advocating for this specific thing. Mind you America isn't the entire world.

Also If life isn't sacrosanct why ban murder? If life shouldn't be treated as such, cases for legally killing people who've commited atrocities, alleged or proven, could be made. It would lead to many bad things that i believe you are capable of seeing.

It is undeniable that life is sacrosanct. That's how society/laws treat it.

Originally Posted by Smoking Wizard

But, TigPlaze, you do have the freedom to choose to have sex and to use protection or not. There are governments who are financing contraceptives with taxes, they are financing abortions as well. If you don't act responsible, why should the whole nation pay for your (bad) decision?

While I'm not familiar and not properly educated on female circumcision, I know that circumcision on males is not only done for religious reasons. There is also a hygienical and a medical aspect. Some boys are born with phimosis, so it gets very painful if you don't remove the foreskin. If it is done only for aesthetic reasons, you certainly have a good point.

If there is a soul in every being cannot be proved as well as it cannot be falsified. But this is not the point. The point is to give the developing human a chance to live and strive and prosper.

The "my body, my choice" argument is really funny, because on a regular base it only applies to women. What about all the men who are forced to kill and get killed in wars? Do they also have a choice? And the even more important part is that the fetus has been made by two persons, a man and a woman, so why should only the woman decide over its life or death? I'm sure you would say that is, because it's her body... well, not exactly, the fetus has its own body. It's not like the woman aborts a part of her body, no, she aborts a new body. Think about it.

It's a fair point that she should use contraception if sexually active, and not doing so is irresponsible. However, the right-wing in the United States is so extreme, they would force her to bear the child even if the pregnancy were the result of rape. In that type of case, she's certainly not being irresponsible. If some criminal forced sex on her, it's totally not her fault.

I would also point out that the burden of proof is on the people who claim this "soul" thing exists. It's not on those denying that proof exists. That's the negative position, and it's not even logically possible to prove a universal negative. Do you at least agree that the use of the morning after pill and abortion are two separate issues? As I pointed out, the morning after pill is simply contraception. It is not an abortion, as it only prevents a fertilized egg from attaching, and then the egg is flushed out of the body. There is no fetus at that point, and hence no abortion procedure is needed to end the pregnancy. With the ovum not having attached, there is no pregnancy yet at that point. Furthermore, the morning after pill is the ONLY possible contraception that a rape victim can use. It's an extremist position on our far-right that a rape victim should be denied the only contraception method that can prevent her pregnancy. Then she should be forced to bear her rapist's kid. At that point, in some states, the rapist/father would even have some parental rights (depends on the state). That's lunacy.

To further complicate matters, some of our wonderful far-right politicians actually oppose both abortion and contraception. Some religions believe that contraception is against God. Well, that's insanity. You would think someone who is opposed to abortion would be totally gung-ho on contraception, since the only women who ever have an abortion are pregnant ones. To further add to the insanity, many of the politicians in the southern states don't make an abortion exception for an ecopic pregnancy. That's one where the ovum survives outside the uterus. Such a pregnancy cannot succeed in creating a baby, but it will succeed in killing the woman if not removed. Currently, there is no medical procedure to move the ovum into the uterus for a normal pregnancy. The only thing that can be done is to remove the ovum, and that's necessary to save the woman's life. What's going on is we have some far-right politicians who don't fully understand human biology, and thus don't even know to put in an exception for an ecopic pregnancy.

Do you support the right to end an ecopic pregnancy?
And do you support classifying the use of the morning after pill as the use of medicine, which is not an abortion?

Originally Posted by TigPlaze

It's a fair point that she should use contraception if sexually active, and not doing so is irresponsible. However, the right-wing in the United States is so extreme, they would force her to bear the child even if the pregnancy were the result of rape. In that type of case, she's certainly not being irresponsible. If some criminal forced sex on her, it's totally not her fault.

I would also point out that the burden of proof is on the people who claim this "soul" thing exists. It's not on those denying that proof exists. That's the negative position, and it's not even logically possible to prove a universal negative. Do you at least agree that the use of the morning after pill and abortion are two separate issues? As I pointed out, the morning after pill is simply contraception. It is not an abortion, as it only prevents a fertilized egg from attaching, and then the egg is flushed out of the body. There is no fetus at that point, and hence no abortion procedure is needed to end the pregnancy. With the ovum not having attached, there is no pregnancy yet at that point. Furthermore, the morning after pill is the ONLY possible contraception that a rape victim can use. It's an extremist position on our far-right that a rape victim should be denied the only contraception method that can prevent her pregnancy. Then she should be forced to bear her rapist's kid. At that point, in some states, the rapist/father would even have some parental rights (depends on the state). That's lunacy.

To further complicate matters, some of our wonderful far-right politicians actually oppose both abortion and contraception. Some religions believe that contraception is against God. Well, that's insanity. You would think someone who is opposed to abortion would be totally gung-ho on contraception, since the only women who ever have an abortion are pregnant ones. To further add to the insanity, many of the politicians in the southern states don't make an abortion exception for an ecopic pregnancy. That's one where the ovum survives outside the uterus. Such a pregnancy cannot succeed in creating a baby, but it will succeed in killing the woman if not removed. Currently, there is no medical procedure to move the ovum into the uterus for a normal pregnancy. The only thing that can be done is to remove the ovum, and that's necessary to save the woman's life. What's going on is we have some far-right politicians who don't fully understand human biology, and thus don't even know to put in an exception for an ecopic pregnancy.

Do you support the right to end an ecopic pregnancy?
And do you support classifying the use of the morning after pill as the use of medicine, which is not an abortion?

1. Seems pragmatically legit and logical to me, intervening in a human event, sacrificing one already doomed to save another. It's a medical triage decision, they're made all the time.

2. Philosophical pragmatics; if the egg is fertilized and measures are taken to abort the egg while human life has technically started its journey, then more grey paint for any lines worth drawing, just saying technically a choice was made to intervene on nature and extinguishing a human existence that would have otherwise surly happened, it's at the least an altered destiny, personally, theoretically, I wouldn't want to have been that egg!

Why mgtows should care for abortion in the first place? It´s not our problem.

-I get that abortion is just a nice word for murder babies;
-I also get that classical religious right-wing couldn´t care less for a lot of reasons (I could make a list)

Anyway, we cannot change anything. Attention is money nowdays and fight usually means give attention (money) to the thing you want to destroy or kill in the first place.

Here in Brazil Bolsonaro made a pathetic management. He even steal from people who vote him and give to women who majority are now calling him mysoginist. He will probable lose the next election and I am not even sad with it.

Originally Posted by TigPlaze

Do you at least agree that the use of the morning after pill and abortion are two separate issues?

Do you support the right to end an ecopic pregnancy?

And do you support classifying the use of the morning after pill as the use of medicine, which is not an abortion?

Yes, I agree that the morning after pill and a (regular) abortion are different things, medically. From my personal ethical and philosophical view, if the egg has been fertilized, the human life already started. Mgtower couldn't phrase it better in his comment above. And if you wanted to be mean, you could point out that this was the classic catholic approach, but for me it holds also true in a biological approach. A fertilized egg is the beginning.

Yes, I agree that an abortion in case of pregnancies which would lead to the death of the woman should be legal.

No, I don't agree that the morning after pill should be classified as medicine, because a pregnancy is not an illness.

Where I am yet undecided is the question, if a woman should be able to abort legally, if she got raped. I know it sounds horrible, but let me explain. How do you make sure, that a woman who simply don't want the child, accuses the father of rape? If you, let's say, ban abortions, but you let women the option to declare that the child has been made by rape, what would be the consequence in our "rape, hookup, metoo, believeallwomen, etc." culture?

So, at this point we are in a crucial situation. We have to decide what would be more harmful, (1) men who get falsly accused of rape only because women want legal abortions, or (2) women who (really) got raped and have to bear the child of her molester...

Me personally, I would choose option (2) only because of the reason that in this case, you could save all three, not guilty fathers who got falsly accused, mothers who have to bear the child of their molester and the children who would have gotten aborted.

All you would have to do is let the government pay the women who got raped for bearing the child, and secondly if she doesn't want to raise the child, the government should be able to either organize the adoption of the child or raise the child in a environment which is protected by the government.

In this case, you could save men from getting falsly accused, the women would get something for their sacrifice and the children could live.

But maybe I'm dreaming and this is a bad idea. Let me know.

Sorry, I had to edit it again to add a short note: Let's assume that the people working in these governmental institutions are incentivized to have the best in mind regarding the child.

Originally Posted by Smoking Wizard

Yes, I agree that the morning after pill and a (regular) abortion are different things, medically. From my personal ethical and philosophical view, if the egg has been fertilized, the human life already started. Mgtower couldn't phrase it better in his comment above. And if you wanted to be mean, you could point out that this was the classic catholic approach, but for me it holds also true in a biological approach. A fertilized egg is the beginning.

Yes, I agree that an abortion in case of pregnancies which would lead to the death of the woman should be legal.

No, I don't agree that the morning after pill should be classified as medicine, because a pregnancy is not an illness.

Where I am yet undecided is the question, if a woman should be able to abort legally, if she got raped. I know it sounds horrible, but let me explain. How do you make sure, that a woman who simply don't want the child, accuses the father of rape? If you, let's say, ban abortions, but you let women the option to declare that the child has been made by rape, what would be the consequence in our "rape, hookup, metoo, believeallwomen, etc." culture?

So, at this point we are in a crucial situation. We have to decide what would be more harmful, (1) men who get falsly accused of rape only because women want legal abortions, or (2) women who (really) got raped and have to bear the child of her molester...

Me personally, I would choose option (2) only because of the reason that in this case, you could save all three, not guilty fathers who got falsly accused, mothers who have to bear the child of their molester and the children who would have gotten aborted.

All you would have to do is let the government pay the women who got raped for bearing the child, and secondly if she doesn't want to raise the child, the government should be able to either organize the adoption of the child or raise the child in a environment which is protected by the government.

In this case, you could save men from getting falsly accused, the women would get something for their sacrifice and the children could live.

But maybe I'm dreaming and this is a bad idea. Let me know.

Sorry, I had to edit it again to add a short note: Let's assume that the people working in these governmental institutions are incentivized to have the best in mind regarding the child.

You've hit upon another very good reason to keep abortion legal: To protect men from false accusations of rape. As you point out, if it's illegal with a rape exemption, women might be tempted to falsely accuse someone in order to be allowed to abort. You can't wait for the rape to be proven in a court of law because the baby would already have been born by then. So the only option for that exemption is to just take her word. If abortion is legal, per her choice, anyway, she has no temptation to falsely accuse anyone. Making abortion illegal creates these kinds of dilemmas and quagmires. We might as well just keep it legal and leave it up to the mother. It's not my responsibility to choose for a woman whether or not she should abort or keep the baby. That weight should be on her shoulders alone.

I do not see a zygote as being covered by the sanctity of life. It has no characteristics of a human being other than having human DNA. It can't breathe, think, dream, or reason. It's just a bunch of cells. When I skin my knee, other than some physical pain, I don't suffer the loss of those skin cells. Just like a zygote, they contain human DNA. In fact, they contain enough human DNA to make an entire person. It's the same thing with the loss of an unfertilized human egg at the time of a woman's period. That unfertilized egg has enough human DNA to make a life. In fact, they did experiments in which they treated an unfertilized egg with chemicals to make it think it was fertilized. The result was it began to develop into a fetus. They had to quit the experiment for ethical reasons, but if they had kept going, it could have developed into a baby. I would be one with only an X chromosome, but it could have eventually been a functioning human being; it would have been female. That's one of many reasons why I don't believe in magic. I don't believe that God comes down when people fuck and then if the egg gets fertilized, he somehow gives the zygote something called a "soul". I think human life simply develops via instructions found in DNA. That's why I don't think that a collection of cells is sacred, despite containing DNA. They're just cells. That zygote is simply part of a woman's body. She should be allowed to remove it just like she can have a mole removed if she wants to. If she wants to take the morning after pill to do so, she should be able to. She might be avoiding having to give birth to her rapist's baby. Or she might just be avoiding making some dude a father whom she doesn't like. But I wouldn't want the government to invade her private life by ordering her not to. I don't see that as the government's role. I want the government staying out of people's lives and personal choices as much as possible. I've chosen this MGTOW lifestyle for myself. You can be certain I would have something to say about it if the government ordered me not to be MGTOW. Maybe the government decides that the birth rate is too low and it's somehow my duty to knock a woman up. I would be like "fuck that" and I would refuse.

I might feel differently if a rash of women were waiting until they went into labor and then were deciding to abort. By then you've actually got a baby. The vast majority of abortions are in the first trimester. The "partial-birth abortion" thing and even the absurd "after-birth abortion" are pieces of fiction dreamed up by far-right extremists to enrage the public. We're talking about either a microscopic zygote or a bean-sized fetus. When you've only got a zygote, you're not anywhere near to having a baby. I think we're all better off if we just leave it as a woman's personal choice. Don't give her an incentive to falsely accuse someone of rape, and don't make her travel across the country, or even to another country, to get the procedure. Just leave her alone. You and I normally don't even know if a woman has an early pregnancy, nor do we know if she terminates it. That's how I like things. I prefer not to even know the details of someone else's personal life.

I realize we probably won't end up agreeing on this. I don't see that we have to. I'm glad we're able to have a civil conversation about it, unlike most places. Most social media places simply erupt into screaming fights filled with bitterness and insults. We've proven that we, MGTOW, have more class than that. This is one of the new places where the issue can be discussed with respect, and in the end we're still MGTOW brothers.

Originally Posted by TigPlaze

You've hit upon another very good reason to keep abortion legal: To protect men from false accusations of rape. As you point out, if it's illegal with a rape exemption, women might be tempted to falsely accuse someone in order to be allowed to abort. You can't wait for the rape to be proven in a court of law because the baby would already have been born by then. So the only option for that exemption is to just take her word. If abortion is legal, per her choice, anyway, she has no temptation to falsely accuse anyone. Making abortion illegal creates these kinds of dilemmas and quagmires. We might as well just keep it legal and leave it up to the mother. It's not my responsibility to choose for a woman whether or not she should abort or keep the baby. That weight should be on her shoulders alone.

I do not see a zygote as being covered by the sanctity of life. It has no characteristics of a human being other than having human DNA. It can't breathe, think, dream, or reason. It's just a bunch of cells. When I skin my knee, other than some physical pain, I don't suffer the loss of those skin cells. Just like a zygote, they contain human DNA. In fact, they contain enough human DNA to make an entire person. It's the same thing with the loss of an unfertilized human egg at the time of a woman's period. That unfertilized egg has enough human DNA to make a life. In fact, they did experiments in which they treated an unfertilized egg with chemicals to make it think it was fertilized. The result was it began to develop into a fetus. They had to quit the experiment for ethical reasons, but if they had kept going, it could have developed into a baby. I would be one with only an X chromosome, but it could have eventually been a functioning human being; it would have been female. That's one of many reasons why I don't believe in magic. I don't believe that God comes down when people fuck and then if the egg gets fertilized, he somehow gives the zygote something called a "soul". I think human life simply develops via instructions found in DNA. That's why I don't think that a collection of cells is sacred, despite containing DNA. They're just cells. That zygote is simply part of a woman's body. She should be allowed to remove it just like she can have a mole removed if she wants to. If she wants to take the morning after pill to do so, she should be able to. She might be avoiding having to give birth to her rapist's baby. Or she might just be avoiding making some dude a father whom she doesn't like. But I wouldn't want the government to invade her private life by ordering her not to. I don't see that as the government's role. I want the government staying out of people's lives and personal choices as much as possible. I've chosen this MGTOW lifestyle for myself. You can be certain I would have something to say about it if the government ordered me not to be MGTOW. Maybe the government decides that the birth rate is too low and it's somehow my duty to knock a woman up. I would be like "fuck that" and I would refuse.

I might feel differently if a rash of women were waiting until they went into labor and then were deciding to abort. By then you've actually got a baby. The vast majority of abortions are in the first trimester. The "partial-birth abortion" thing and even the absurd "after-birth abortion" are pieces of fiction dreamed up by far-right extremists to enrage the public. We're talking about either a microscopic zygote or a bean-sized fetus. When you've only got a zygote, you're not anywhere near to having a baby. I think we're all better off if we just leave it as a woman's personal choice. Don't give her an incentive to falsely accuse someone of rape, and don't make her travel across the country, or even to another country, to get the procedure. Just leave her alone. You and I normally don't even know if a woman has an early pregnancy, nor do we know if she terminates it. That's how I like things. I prefer not to even know the details of someone else's personal life.

I realize we probably won't end up agreeing on this. I don't see that we have to. I'm glad we're able to have a civil conversation about it, unlike most places. Most social media places simply erupt into screaming fights filled with bitterness and insults. We've proven that we, MGTOW, have more class than that. This is one of the new places where the issue can be discussed with respect, and in the end we're still MGTOW brothers.

I solved the abortion debate by refusing to impregnate, and along with the abortion debate, I liquidated a plethora of other things always being debated, in fact by ghosting there is no debate, just action by inaction obliterating each and every debate brought to the table of gender dynamics. When a man ghosts, there is no argument, there is no debate, no waffling, no swaying, no reprobate thinking, just standing on the solid concrete of choice and decision.

Some people say; "don't judge me".

A MGTOW ghost says; "can't judge me, I'm not involved"...

Originally Posted by mgtower

I solved the abortion debate by refusing to impregnate, and along with the abortion debate, I liquidated a plethora of other things always being debated, in fact by ghosting there is no debate, just action by inaction obliterating each and every debate brought to the table of gender dynamics. When a man ghosts, there is no argument, there is no debate, no waffling, no swaying, no reprobate thinking, just standing on the solid concrete of choice and decision.

Some people say; "don't judge me".

A MGTOW ghost says; "can't judge me, I'm not involved"...

That's a great point. We have big advantages in our lives by simply opting out. The whole dating and marriage thing is one big quagmire. Better to just stay out of it.

With abortion now being illegal in many places, it does make me wonder if there will be some women who also simply opt out of dating, sex, and marriage. They can do that if they want to, and I wouldn't blame them.

Tig-
I understand your disdain for politicians. However, your claim that late term and post birth abortion was fabricated by the “far right” is not true.

https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emi...-would-proceed


I lived in the DC area when Nothham (a liberal Democrat) said this. It was on the news for about a day before the MSM buried it.

The US is a shit show right now. But the conservatives are by far the better of two evils right now. If you can’t see that yet, you will soon.

Originally Posted by Hello_World

Why mgtows should care for abortion in the first place? It´s not our problem.

-I get that abortion is just a nice word for murder babies;
-I also get that classical religious right-wing couldn´t care less for a lot of reasons (I could make a list)

Anyway, we cannot change anything. Attention is money nowdays and fight usually means give attention (money) to the thing you want to destroy or kill in the first place.

I agree that this is not a MGTOW problem. Not even the decay of this civilization, inevitable as it is by the disruption of all social contracts.

I simply dont care even if women are legally killing their own kids at age 0-3 years old. Why not? What are a few months more... Imagine the change their mind about having kids?



My single concern is that in my country I dont have the right to own weapons for defending my life when the "death pannels" decide I am no longer a "viable human being due to my age". That is the long term consequence of devaluing human life and legalising murder by convenience.

Originally Posted by TigPlaze

That's a great point. We have big advantages in our lives by simply opting out. The whole dating and marriage thing is one big quagmire. Better to just stay out of it.

With abortion now being illegal in many places, it does make me wonder if there will be some women who also simply opt out of dating, sex, and marriage. They can do that if they want to, and I wouldn't blame them.

You can't tell anyone or any political machine how to straighten out and fly right, but what you can do is leap out the the cargo door with your MGTOW parachute and safely land on the ground, instead of enduring a burning wreck of a life that each day haunts you with legal demands, legal restrictions, for child support, alimony, false accusations and overall banishment as any sort of human being living under threat of prison for non compliance.

Who would sum this up and not abandon it in its entirety? I flew half way around the planet, and leisure cruised in a couple of its oceans while some poor shmuck was slaving for someone else's benefit that used the contract of marriage, cohabitation, and impregnation chaining him to this modern form of slavery!

Yea, fire up those jet engines and take me where I wanna go! Any time I want to go! Anywhere I want to go! Or stay here, feed my chickens and take care of my gardens! The point is MY LIFE IS LEGALLY UNHINDERED, UNCHAINED, AND WITHOUT BOUNDS! A FREE ROAMING HUMAN ANIMAL!

Originally Posted by Survivor64

Tig-
I understand your disdain for politicians. However, your claim that late term and post birth abortion was fabricated by the “far right” is not true.

https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emi...-would-proceed


I lived in the DC area when Nothham (a liberal Democrat) said this. It was on the news for about a day before the MSM buried it.

The US is a shit show right now. But the conservatives are by far the better of two evils right now. If you can’t see that yet, you will soon.

That person's an outlier nut. A so-called "post-birth" abortion isn't even an abortion by definition. It's just killing someone. I wouldn't support that lunacy. I only support first- and second-trimester abortion, and third-trimester emergency ones, meaning to save her life.

Mgtower is right that we're amongst the lucky ones who have simply ejected from all this shit. We ain't knocking anyone up. We've opted out and are not part of this quagmire.

Originally Posted by TigPlaze

The idea that it's good to cut skin off a dick is a bad idea courtesy of religion.

(apologies to members here who were genitally mutilated as infants, but …)

It's done to desensitize the penis, with the idea that that will make the man holier, or something. What actually happens is that he finds sex isn't as good as his genes tell him it should be, so he starts going for paraphillias. All those #MeToo guys, the ones that "hid" behind plant pots and masturbated where the shocked young intern could see them, the ones having sex with younger and younger girls until there's no question that it's rape - circumcised.

Originally Posted by Moses Mamonides

Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. … The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened.

What an idiot. Sexual need isn't *in* the penis. "Concupiscence and lust" isn't *in* the penis. Weakening the member just makes those urges come out in weird ways.

Originally Posted by Moses Mamonides

The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.

All of those man-hating feminists, al the "men are pigs and beasts" feminists - mostly been fucked by circumcised men. It alters the stroke when you have a desensitised nub at the end.

Originally Posted by Mr Wombat

All of those man-hating feminists, al the "men are pigs and beasts" feminists - mostly been fucked by circumcised men...

It seems to me that woke women have developed a preference towards circumscision. (I'm not undermining your point. Just another case of women playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes i guess.) I often see posts where they brag about circumscising their baby or that they will only ride circumscised shlong.

Ik kek, right? So absurd it's hard to believe. Maybe it is just an exaggeration or elaborate troll. After all, all of the posts I've seen were second-hand and could easily be taken out of context.

If not though, why? This is somehow even more moronic than those "magic stones".

Originally Posted by Manfred

I agree that this is not a MGTOW problem. Not even the decay of this civilization, inevitable as it is by the disruption of all social contracts.

I simply dont care even if women are legally killing their own kids at age 0-3 years old. Why not? What are a few months more... Imagine the change their mind about having kids?



My single concern is that in my country I dont have the right to own weapons for defending my life when the "death pannels" decide I am no longer a "viable human being due to my age". That is the long term consequence of devaluing human life and legalising murder by convenience.

The bitch in this photo is not doing her cause any favors. Most people are okay with the morning after pill, and with first trimester abortions. When you get to the second trimester, people get more uncomfortable and leery, but many will still support it. For third-trimester abortions, most people say no way. That's a baby that's developed much like one that's already been born. So for this lady to just paint that on her very pregnant belly is like saying "fuck you" and that she doesn't see any difference between a one-day zygote and a baby that's about to be born. No wonder people want to tell her "fuck you." She's decided to handle this highly nuanced and delicate issue with a sledge hammer.

Originally Posted by TigPlaze

You've hit upon another very good reason to keep abortion legal: To protect men from false accusations of rape. As you point out, if it's illegal with a rape exemption, women might be tempted to falsely accuse someone in order to be allowed to abort. You can't wait for the rape to be proven in a court of law because the baby would already have been born by then. So the only option for that exemption is to just take her word. If abortion is legal, per her choice, anyway, she has no temptation to falsely accuse anyone. Making abortion illegal creates these kinds of dilemmas and quagmires. We might as well just keep it legal and leave it up to the mother. It's not my responsibility to choose for a woman whether or not she should abort or keep the baby. That weight should be on her shoulders alone.

Just leave it up to the "mothers" - they don't even deserve to be called mothers in my opinion - lead us to this absurd situation. You can say that you don't care, which might be true, but it doesn't change the fact that she just killed your offspring and you did nothing to prevent it, like a good slave...

I pointed this out in another post, feminism is totalitarian, it will not stop on its own... Therefore I'm glad that the abortion issue is debated again because in every other aspect of our society, killing something like 50 million people would be considered as genocide!

Originally Posted by Smoking Wizard

Just leave it up to the "mothers" - they don't even deserve to be called mothers in my opinion - lead us to this absurd situation. You can say that you don't care, which might be true, but it doesn't change the fact that she just killed your offspring and you did nothing to prevent it, like a good slave...

I pointed this out in another post, feminism is totalitarian, it will not stop on its own... Therefore I'm glad that the abortion issue is debated again because in every other aspect of our society, killing something like 50 million people would be considered as genocide!

I don't believe a zygote is a human being. The science does not show that it is. I also don't believe a first-trimester fetus is a human. It's a collection of cells that could develop into a human. So, no, this isn't genocide. If it's someone in her 8th or 9th months demanding an abortion for convenience, then I'm with you. That goes too far.

Flushing a zygote out of a woman's body before it can attach to the uterus is simply not the same thing as pulling out a 9 mil and blowing a baby's head off.