Thread: MGTOW. Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

I don't take a stance. It's not something that affects me. That being said, I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools. Obviously, the evils of abortion were emphasized frequently. I do find it odd that conservatives are so heavily anti-abortion.

Let's be real, it's not good little Christian, conservative girls getting most abortions (yes, some do) it's mainly minorities and "left leaning" types. Planned Parenthood was even based on eugenics and controlling minority populations. So why conservatives want the taxpayer to fund even more welfare is beyond me. Besides, if it's illegal...then women do what they've done for centuries- get abortions the old fashioned way.

Originally Posted by DangZagnut

If cross state migration data is to be believed, it looks like the California citizens are seceding themselves right outa commiefornia.

The irony being they'll take the very Leftie politics they are fleeing with them and fuck up another state.

Originally Posted by manaloneforever

MGTOW. Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

I am pro-life. Partly by moral conviction, partly as a practical concern.

First, as a moral conviction, nobody has ever been able to coherently explain how the being growing in a woman's womb is not a human and how wantonly terminating that being's life is not murder. Often, the pro-abortion crowd throws around words like "choice", "autonomy" and so forth. But those obscure the facts. And the facts are that a woman is gestating a human being and terminating that human's life can only be rationally understood as an act of homicide.

Second, on the practical level, access to abortion is a major pillar of feminism. Access to abortion exists to alleviate women's existential fear. Namely, the fear that her hypergamy can be tricked, that she can get impregnated by a sub-par male no matter how careful she is. This nameless, secret dread haunts a woman's subconscious mind. Women shit test men as part of their ongoing effort to force a man to continually prove himself. Shit-testing is one method of alleviating the existential fear. Abortion is another. Feminists have some awareness of this (some more consciously than others) and so they prioritize 50-state access to abortion on demand.

If access to abortion is kicked out from beneath, feminism will be weakened. Maybe not crippled, maybe not fatally weakened, maybe not wholesale destroyed. But restricting abortion in any way (i.e., overturning RVW) will elicit no small amount of existential angst from Feminism, Inc. Feminism itself will seem less appealing (by whatever degree) to women who are armed with the knowledge that their access to abortion is one state legislature's bill away from lost (which is what overturning RVW would allow).

Continued access to abortion in safely blue states is not enough to alleviate this existential fear. Abortion must be legal nationwide or else the majority of the population will not have access to it. And the modern woman reflexively fears that.

Yes, ALL women. Even the supposed tradcon women. The opposition to be abortion espoused by most Republican women is entirely contextual. Rape, incest, the mother's life, blah blah blah. All of those are deliberate loopholes to look more conservative while still supporting the abortion mill. Every pregnancy can be categorized as rape, incest or a threat to the mother's life. Thus, every pregnancy is a potential candidate for conservative-friendly abortion.

If you oppose abortion then oppose it. Fully. No loopholes, no what-ifs, no exceptions, no apologies, no regrets.

Originally Posted by mgtower

Thou shalt not kill.

An a whole bunch of other stuff mankind does and bullshits ourselves that its all good.

If you're referring to the bible, it's actually "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER", which is the correct scripture, and one of the TEN COMMANDMENTS. Because murder is more specific. Any one can kill, but does any one actually murder? Women are suspect to murder, and they do so with abortion. But not only through abortion, women actually carry out their violent, homicidal acts, and society ignores it, while men has to be quiet and endure the abuse.

The only woman with a psychiatry Ph.D, is Helen Smith. Through her book,"Men on Strike: Why Men Are boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why it Matters", she explain that men are logging out of society, because of all sorts of violence abuse from their wives and girlfriend and other women. She also listed facts and is troubled that women get away more with cruel acts of violence, and noticed that they are not held responsible for these acts, and found that society always looked to men as the main faults of the relationship (as usual. they never once consider who is really at faults, and who is actual instigator of these violent acts), and so Helen proceeds to cite and show written proof that women are really the instigator of all sorts of violent acts against men in relationship. During the writing of her book, she said she supports men going their own way, because these women are held without consequences, and predicts that society will collapse and will return to original patriarchy, if society itself refuse to convict these women with serious consequences.

Smith has many of her male clients's permission to cite facts and their written experiences of abuse, by violent women, these males has encountered behind closed doors.

Here's the link to her book: https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Bo...s%2C135&sr=8-1

Helen Smith's book is very good and very shocking.

I'm against having the government interfere in people's personal lives. That's what it's doing if it tries to stop women from having abortions. I don't buy the religious claim that it's killing babies. By law she can only elect to have an abortion before the fetus reaches viability, meaning basically that it's able to live with feelings like a person. Any non-emergency abortion happens when the fetus is the size of a kidney bean. The science does not support that that tiny thing is a living human being any more than your sperm cells or the cells in your hand are separate, viable human beings. At that point, that tiny clump of cells is just a group of unthinking cells growing in a woman's body. Since I'm for freedom, I'm for letting women decide for themselves if they want to keep that growing in their bodies or not. It's not my decision to make, at it's certainly not the government's. There are emergency abortions allowed after a fetus has viability, but those are rare. But I'm glad that even those are available. If my sister were pregnant, but things went really wrong and so the doctor had to abort the fetus to save her life, I would be good with that. It's not what I would prefer. You of course would rather that she safely deliver a healthy baby. But if that's not possible, it's good that abortion is available to save a woman's life, even with a post-viable fetus. On the other hand, when the fetus is pre-viable, it simply is not a full-fledged and viable human being. Thus a woman should have the right to abort that just like you can choose to have your tonsils removed if you wish.

One huge myth about abortion is that the Republican politicians care about the issue and care so damn much about babies. They don't give a fuck about that one iota. They've simply figured out how to manipulate this issue to get religious people to vote for them. When Ronald Reagan was Governor of California, he allowed for abortion. That was before his party started making a big ta-do about it. By the time he was running for President, his party was already body surfing the anti-abortion wave. They convinced many voters that removing a bean-sized piece of tissue from a woman's body was murdering a human being. That notion is absurd, but their scientifically illiterate followers ate it up. You'll notice that the anti-abortion nuts always turn to religion. They say crap like "I believe life begins at conception." That's not a scientifically proven fact. That's a religious belief. Basically, they're trying to impose their religious belief on others. Well, I don't believe in any of that religion crap. I don't need Jesus to save me. I didn't ask him to die on the cross or to be an asshole about it. In fact, I don't believe that he ever even lived. I think the whole Jesus story is just that: a story, and ONLY a story. I don't have to believe in that, and I don't have to believe in the religious claim that "life begins at conception." I base my views on scientific findings.

Whenever a Republican politician speaks about abortion, what they're really saying is, "Let me use this issue to manipulate you into voting for me." This is one of the few issues in which I agree with the feminists. However, don't let that fool you. I despise them every bit as much as I despise the right-wing fanatics. The feminists may be right on this one tiny issue, but they're total lunatics on others. I don't buy into their "rape culture" bullshit or their stupid "healthy at any weight" nonsense. If I had it my way, I would put all the feminists and all the right-wing religion nuts together on a small island and then arm them all to the teeth with AK-47s and plenty of ammo. Let them kill each other. The world would be better off without the fanatics of both sides. Of course, the right-wingers would be more skilled in the use of firearms, so they would probably wipe the feminists out, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

I have no objections to abortions, but think women (and men) who don't want or cannot afford children should be taking every precaution to avoid falling pregnant. Accidents of course do happen and I think I would be hypocritical to say any woman must see through to the end a mistake, as I believe men should have the option NOT to be a father too in case of a mistake.

I would like to append my post. I may be against banning abortion, but my coincidental agreement with feminists ends there. What I DON'T believe is that anyone with an opposing view is automatically some sort of misogynist that is making war on women. On almost any issue you can think of, there are almost always many different viewpoints. It doesn't make anyone automatically bad, unless a particular viewpoint is really way out there and vicious, like if you were for lining women up and executing them or something. Knock, knock, knock ... uh, feminists, knock it off with the "kill all men" shit. That viewpoint actually is sick.

Another disagreement with feminists is I think men's reproductive rights are equally important to women's. Feminists don't think that because they don't see men as human beings. However, I think it's a problem that a woman can simply write a man's name on a birth certificate with no paternity DNA test and that automatically makes him a father with all the responsibilities thereof. I think it's a problem that a woman teacher can rape her 14 year-old student and get off lightly, and then years later even sue him for child support and win. I think it's a problem that it's not illegal for a woman to pick up the used condom after sex and use the contents to impregnate herself behind the man's back in order to rope him into years of child support payments.

Feminists want men to jump in and protest against the attempts to ban abortion, but they would never reciprocate and support men's reproductive rights. They think any such "men's rights" efforts are just evil misogyny. Thus, while I agree that banning abortion is a bad idea, am I going to jump in and go to massive protests, donate money, and put all my energy into preventing an abortion ban? Fuck no. Why would I help feminists when they see me and treat me as a subhuman?

This is a long going debate, OP. As i see it I think I'm in "the middle" of both sides. Seeing it from a medical POV there are 3 "levels" of abortion.
1 is when a pregnancy threatens the life of a woman. In that case physicians will always pick the mother over the fetus. 2 reasons: the fetus will probably die anyway and the mother can "produce" a new one. I think this is a no brainer
2 with an otherwise healthy pregnancy the social circumstances might justify an abortion. If the mother is a crack addict whore living alone on the streets might not be the best environment for a child to grow up into. This situation is already far more debatable.
3 When women using abortion as "retrospective contraception." Healthy pregnancy, stable social circumstances but it doesn't suit Stacey right now, because she still needs to ride the CC, make career and "find herself" first.

I think 3 is the focus of the whole debate for the most part. I'm leaning towards to the "against" group. Because for me that's very like actual murder. But not only that: abortion carries the risk of getting infertile for the woman with every procedure. And psychological problems (even more than they already are having) in the future for her is a real possibility.

I know there's a country where abortion is legal but where women have a mandatory week of thinking it over before proceeding. The feminist politicians went full "miss green hat" over that. And I had a debate with my mom over this. She agrees with the feminists "Don't you think those women already have thought it over before they come to the gynecologist for abortion!?" My answer is: no, I don't think so. As a matter of fact I think they came in the first place because they thought things over very well.

Originally Posted by TigPlaze

I'm against having the government interfere in people's personal lives. That's what it's doing if it tries to stop women from having abortions.

I'm not trying to start anything with you Tig but there is something here that I encounter often. Most pro-choice advocates claim that government shouldn't interfere with people's lives, thus abortion should be legal. I don't believe that, but fair enough. What I wonder is, are you proportionately against government interference in our personal lives when it comes to reaching into our wallets to pay for the cost of these abortions? Government funded abortions should be off limits to anyone that argues that they dislike government interference in their lives. Why should I, as a tax payer, have to fund the cost of some idiot woman's poor choice? That's a major interference in MY personal life. If someone is hell bent on getting an abortion they should fund it themselves. It's funny how they always have money to do their hair and nails, buy cigarettes, booze, and venti frappucchinos. Freedom from government interference for everyone!

"We pay to exist" - AntiNatalist on Reddit

I am NONE of them.

Let me explain, yes, abortion is a sugar word for killing, it´s horrible as kill a baby. But it´s not my problem at all. Why it´s not my problem? Very simple, it´s not my problem because I don´t have any rights over fetus.

Man should concern less about this type of killing and more with the fact that he don´t have any rights to begin with.

Originally Posted by Mr Wombat

I kinda feel that we are not going to settle the question on this forum.

The minute I saw this new thread I knew there would be trouble. What a piece of bait the OP is. Not all members can just answer one way or the other, with a brief statement. Instead, it becomes a place for a member to lay it all out. The longer the statement made, the more likely someone feels he just has to respond to any of it, and then it's no longer just answering the question but becomes commenting on someone comments. And that's where the trouble begins. It's not like blackjack where each player interacts with only the dealer. Wish it could have been but this topic is too controversial.

Really, taking the thread title question literally, who gives a fuck which members say pro-life and which members say pro-choice? Do we actually expect new surprises to this question? This thread was only asking for trouble.

Perhaps a better place to opine on this topic would be in the course of responding to other topics, where an opinion on this would be parenthetical or be supporting information, buried in the context of that topic. By shining a spotlight on the question all by itself, the OP is practically saying, "Hey guys, let's rumble!"

I'm not interested in a thread that acts like a roadside speed trap to issue infractions, having no other serviceable use. More trouble will come if this thread stays open.

Thread closed.

Originally Posted by Chris007

I'm not trying to start anything with you Tig but there is something here that I encounter often. Most pro-choice advocates claim that government shouldn't interfere with people's lives, thus abortion should be legal. I don't believe that, but fair enough. What I wonder is, are you proportionately against government interference in our personal lives when it comes to reaching into our wallets to pay for the cost of these abortions? Government funded abortions should be off limits to anyone that argues that they dislike government interference in their lives. Why should I, as a tax payer, have to fund the cost of some idiot woman's poor choice? That's a major interference in MY personal life. If someone is hell bent on getting an abortion they should fund it themselves. It's funny how they always have money to do their hair and nails, buy cigarettes, booze, and venti frappucchinos. Freedom from government interference for everyone!

It's fine, man. We're not like the uptight and hollering woke dildoes and screeching and demanding feminists who spew hatred at anyone who doesn't swallow their dogma. Unlike them, we're capable of having rational discussions on this topic without having self-righteous spazz attacks and then shoving the other person into an iron maiden. We know that people have different viewpoints, and that's perfectly okay. The other person is still a good person. Anyway, to answer your question, I do not favor using public funds to pay for elective abortions, that is, abortions that the woman simply chose, but not out of a medically urgent situation. I am okay with public funds paying for abortions of medial urgence. For example, a pregant woman is in a car accident and is rushed to the hospital, and they have to abort the baby to save her life. But put an asterisk by that. It shouldn't be paid out of the general tax fund, but rather out of whichever public or private health insurance plan she chose.

I'm perfectly comfortable with some government mandates, if it's for some type of service that is essential for everyone, for example roads, police forces, an interstate highway system, etc. And one essential service is health care. However, I wouldn't have that provided by the single-payer system that is often advocated by Bernie Sanders and other progressives. I would mandate coverage via a German-style multi-payer system. The Germany system sets up various publicly funded sickness funds, which are essentially non-profit insurance coops that you can buy into. They outline what they cover, and all must cover government minimums (like broken arms, flu treatment, cancer treatment, etc.) So if you go for public insurance, you pick one of these coops and pay their fees to be covered by them. Your other option would be to buy private insurance, which is insurance provided by normal, for-profit companies. In Germany, at the doctor, they always ask if you have public or private insurance. Then you tell them either which public coop you belong to or which private insurance company you're covered by. Your insurance coop or company provides you with a booklet with little tear-out information cards with all of the insurer's information. So when you go to the doctor or hospital or whatever, you just tear out one of the cards and give it to them. There's no need for them to photocopy anything or write anything down. And, participation in either a public insurance coop or a private insurance policy should be mandatory in my opinion. In Germany, 90% of people go for public insurance, as it's most affordable. Some richer people get private insurance, which affords some perks that public insurance doesn't. But, IMO, you should be required to choose one or the other. People too poor to afford it should have one of the public policies provided for them. If someone refuses to choose anything, then a public plan should be selected for them, and then it will be paid for out of that person's taxes, or provided for free if they're too poor. But that's how I would get everyone insured. It's different than the single-payer system advocated by most liberals in that it offers choice. You get to pick between several public coops or several private insurance policies. Single-payer would simply expand Medicare to cover everyone and pay for it with taxes. There would be no choice of insurance as there is in Germany.

I know not everyone is for this style of health insurance. Other people aren't obligated to agree with this idea just because I'm for it. But if they look closely at it, it has big advantages over our mess of a system. In our system, not everyone is insured. The ACA didn't manage to do that. Therefore, if an uninsured person falls down and breaks his arm, he gets help at the nearest hospital, then the hospital sends him a huge bill, which he probably can't pay. Then the hospital ends up eating the cost, or they can try to sue him. In the German system, no hospital (or any medical professional) ever gets stiffed for payment. The procedure is simply paid for by whatever public or private insurance system the person subscribes to.

So, back to that emergency abortion. It would be paid for by either the public coop or the private insurance company that she's insured through, and would not be paid via the general fund.

Anyway, thanks for listening. I know not everyone is for insurance mandates. I prefer using them so that we no longer have hospitals and other medical businesses getting stiffed for payment by uninsured people, or getting bailed out by the government. IMO, there are some things the government should mandate, like construction standards so that our bridges and buildings don't fall down. But that's another topic we could get into some other day. Thanks for listening.

It's great to be able to talk about tough and complex topics without screaming fights breaking out. On social media, we have a shit-ton of dogmatic prick-brains from just about every political persuasion who don't know how to have civil conversations. But we know how to do that here.