Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Feminists claim to care about women, they claim to care about ALL women's rights and well-being, often times at the expense of men, but yet they support abortion. How can you truly care about women's rights if you support the violation of the Right to Life of other women? And the brutal murder of baby girls in the womb? That's definitely not within their well being is it? How would you like it if someone did that to you?
This is why the feminist movement has no credibility and why it should be completely ignored until they change their stance on abortion (and hating men). I'm all for women having equal pay and dissolving the glass ceiling, but you don't have to be a feminist to support those things, and I won't support the feminist movement because they support baby killing (abortion is a PC term). Plus I am a man so they never wanted my support anyway. I actually care more about women and their rights than they do as I want all baby girls to live, they do not.
I'm going to go out for some lunch, I will check back on this thread later.
This might have a bit more relevance if it wasn't littered with hyperbole and extreme bias.
"often times at the expense of men."
Doubtful. Yeah, some of the loudest feminists are extreme and in many ways anti-men. But the loudest people of any moments are almost always the dumbest and more extreme. There are a few exceptions, but mostly, the most vocal supporters of anything can often create extreme variants that aren't really a good way to measure the movement as a whole.
"Brutal murder of baby girls in the womb."
A lovely attempt to get people riled up. Brutal? Abortion is not violent. As to it being murder or not is irrelevant, but a brutal murder implies an act of extremity within the act of murder. Abortion is relatively humane, in how it's carried out.
"Abortion is a PC term."
Not really. Abortion is the term for the aborting of a pregnancy. It's more accurate than pro-life, which is just a term invented to get a positive reaction. Anti-abortion is the real stance, but that's to negative terms and that's bad for public image. But being pro is great, and who doesn't love life, so let's call it pro-life. Same reason pro-abortion is called pro-choice.
You're simplifying feminism too much. Abortion is an issue that has gotten far too much traction. You want to solve abortion, we invest in birth control and get the idea of abstinence out of sex education. That's not sex education. And schools should spend more time talking about consent rather than policing dress codes.
As far as feminism, the overwhelming majority don't want to take anything away from anyone. They just want to removes the restriction society puts on women, be it institutional or social. Really, they are in favor the removing the strict need for gender differences, that have no biological reasoning anyway.
And I don't consider myself a feminist, or any kind of 'ist' if I can avoid it. But this is ridiculous. Feminism is not more dangerous the any other social movement or group. Some extremists will appear, but that's not an exclusive to feminism and judging the movement as if it is exclusive is completely unfair.
They are of the belief that if abortion isn't around then people will simply have more responsible sex, no sex, or just marry for the sake of the child. That's why they never have any plans put out because they believe the reality you talk about would not take place. Of course the reality and the conservative based fantasy are 2 different things altogether.
Sorry, no. It's history, not conservative based fantasy. We did not have legal abortion until 1973 and there was no epidemic flood of starving sick babies on the street with nobody to take care of them. When you can point to the evidence of millions and millions more babies in crisis prior to 1973 than after, then you can talk with some degree of legitimacy. Until then, I'm afraid the facts go with you being the one engaging in political fantasy, not the conservatives.
Feminists claim to care about women, they claim to care about ALL women's rights and well-being, often times at the expense of men, but yet they support abortion. How can you truly care about women's rights if you support the violation of the Right to Life of other women? And the brutal murder of baby girls in the womb? That's definitely not within their well being is it? How would you like it if someone did that to you?
Then how do you stop a woman from getting an abortion, since it seems to personally concern you so profoundly? Do you grab her by the arm just before she enters an abortion clinic? And if she decides, instead, to look on the Internet for how to induce an abortion, do you ban publication of all info on how abortions can be performed? It's really about you as a man wanting to impose your choice on all pregnant women on what NOT to do when they are pregnant, like you know best.
As for how I would like it, I wouldn't have minded having been aborted at all, since I have not had a very happy life. And I would have been spared from seeing all this damned hate, violence, disorder and evil in this world.
Originally Posted by West Coast Republican Feminists claim to care about women, they claim to care about ALL women's rights and well-being, often times at the expense of men, but yet they support abortion. How can you truly care about women's rights if you support the violation of the Right to Life of other women? And the brutal murder of baby girls in the womb? That's definitely not within their well being is it? How would you like it if someone did that to you?
So, if we only aborted male embryos and foetuses, you'd be OK with that?
Something tells me....not so much.
Rant away.
Sorry, no. It's history, not conservative based fantasy. We did not have legal abortion until 1973 and there was no epidemic flood of starving sick babies on the street with nobody to take care of them. When you can point to the evidence of millions and millions more babies in crisis prior to 1973 than after, then you can talk with some degree of legitimacy. Until then, I'm afraid the facts go with you being the one engaging in political fantasy, not the conservatives.
Which is why the teen birth rate before roe vs wade was much higher, right ? It's because people were making more responsible choices regarding sex due to the lack of access to abortion, right? I think you are the one who needs to take a look at the evidence again .
Sorry, no. It's history, not conservative based fantasy. We did not have legal abortion until 1973 and there was no epidemic flood of starving sick babies on the street with nobody to take care of them. When you can point to the evidence of millions and millions more babies in crisis prior to 1973 than after, then you can talk with some degree of legitimacy. Until then, I'm afraid the facts go with you being the one engaging in political fantasy, not the conservatives.
And what about the flip side of that argument? The women who were maimed or killed by back-alley abortion clinics? The legal status of abortion has very little to do with the number of abortions actually performed.
The only factors that are effective in preventing abortion are comprehensive sex education and access to free birth control. Both things conservatives are typically against.
A pretty poor connection between feminism and the freedom to choose. So the OP feels women should give up their rights and be told what they can an cannot do with their own bodies? Why does the OP hate the Constitution and America?
This might have a bit more relevance if it wasn't littered with hyperbole and extreme bias.
"often times at the expense of men."
Doubtful. Yeah, some of the loudest feminists are extreme and in many ways anti-men. But the loudest people of any moments are almost always the dumbest and more extreme. There are a few exceptions, but mostly, the most vocal supporters of anything can often create extreme variants that aren't really a good way to measure the movement as a whole.
In this case, however, it really is at the expense of men. Feminists have actively opposed domestic violence resources being made available to men who are victims of violent women. Feminists promoted Title IX which has been applied solely to men's college sports programs, not women's. Feminists have campaigned against health insurance for women costing more, while saying nothing about life and car insurance costing men more. Feminists have advocated for more programs and spending for girls' education even after it was shown that boys are falling behind and some universities are now 2/3 female. Feminists have pushed the theory that women need to be made comfortable with coming forward about rape to the point where women are now free to make false rape allegations without consequence unlike any other crime. Feminists continue to push for more spending on healthcare issues which affect only women, even though such issues already receive far and away more funding than health issues which are specific to men. So yes, feminists do indeed push the interests of women at the expense of men.
Quote:
"Brutal murder of baby girls in the womb."
A lovely attempt to get people riled up. Brutal? Abortion is not violent. As to it being murder or not is irrelevant, but a brutal murder implies an act of extremity within the act of murder. Abortion is relatively humane, in how it's carried out.
Yes, I agree this was an appeal to emotion on the OP's part. However, so is the "you want to control women's bodies" argument that is all-pervasive on the pro-choice side. That's also an attempt to get people riled up. The debate is whether abortion should be treated as murder or not. Wanting to control women's bodies has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
You're simplifying feminism too much. Abortion is an issue that has gotten far too much traction. You want to solve abortion, we invest in birth control and get the idea of abstinence out of sex education. That's not sex education. And schools should spend more time talking about consent rather than policing dress codes.
I don't see what consent has to do with abortion. Investing in birth control and improving education are good ideas. We can invest in birth control and sex education and also ban abortion.
Quote:
As far as feminism, the overwhelming majority don't want to take anything away from anyone. They just want to removes the restriction society puts on women, be it institutional or social. Really, they are in favor the removing the strict need for gender differences, that have no biological reasoning anyway.
Not really. I have yet to see feminists overly concerned with getting more men involved in female dominated careers. I have yet to see feminists advocating for having women sign up for selective service. I have yet to see them advocate for allowing men into womens' schools or womens' professional organizations the way they do about allowing women into mens'. I have yet to see feminists advocating for making the family courts less lopsided in favor of women. I have yet to see the feminists crusading about how much more lenient sentencing women get for committing the same crimes as men.
Quote:
And I don't consider myself a feminist, or any kind of 'ist' if I can avoid it. But this is ridiculous. Feminism is not more dangerous the any other social movement or group. Some extremists will appear, but that's not an exclusive to feminism and judging the movement as if it is exclusive is completely unfair.
It may not be more dangerous than any other social movement, but it is dangerous. Ask the Duke Lacrosse players if out of control feminism doesn't have a noticeable and negative affect on society as a whole. How many abuse victims have not received adequate support and treatment because their abuser was female? How many fathers and children's relationships have been permanently damaged because the woman made up false allegations to get a better settlement in a divorce? How many men have died of prostate cancer because of breast cancer receiving seven times the funding even though the incidence and fatality rates between the two are the same? The feminist extremists may be the fringe, but their influence is much greater than their numbers.
They are of the belief that if abortion isn't around then people will simply have more responsible sex, no sex, or just marry for the sake of the child. .
In short, they believe Leave It To Beaver is reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
? It's because people were making more responsible choices regarding sex due to the lack of access to abortion, right? I think you are the one who needs to take a look at the evidence again 
.
