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.
A long tedious thread was created that suggests that women are less happy as a result of feminism.
While women may be less happy for a number of reasons, I doubt the suggestion that their level of "happiness" is due to some evolutionary need to be subservient and wonder if women would turn back the clock, if possible.
I've included both "male" and "female" choices because it might be amusing.
So feminism is the cause women are unhappy? I thought they were unhappy because they are women.
No sane woman would kill her own child, however a non viable fetus is not a child.
A non-viable fetus would be miscarried. You must be referring to the child (developing human) who is still dependent on his/her mother for life - you think it's ok to stop a human heart from beating?
You believe it's ok to KILL your own child?
It's not murder. And the nervous system is in the early stages of development at 8 weeks, it is not an "intact" complete system. It is unlikely that the fetus feels pain.
A fetus isn't a baby.
WRONG. Babies can likely feel pain - because the nervous system is intact at 8 weeks - but many abortions happen after that. Watch the reaction of this baby who was killed at 12 weeks gestation (when a lot of abortions are committed), you can tell by his/her heart beat and movement - that the child is in pain as he/she is being killed:
Yes, an actual living woman's rights trump the right of a fetus. You worry about your own medical decisions and let others worry about theirs.
That ^ mentality is why so many children and others who have no voice suffer.
How hypocritical of you to suggest others die because they are too young - when you were not killed but allowed to live past their age!
Why would you be so eager to kill innocent children??!!
Who gives a woman her rights?
According to the founding US documents, it is the Creator (God) who gives each of us "inherent right to life."
Children have the same rights as women - even though you would have them killed based on genocidal discrimination based on age.
A non-viable fetus would be miscarried. You must be referring to the child (developing human) who is still dependent on his/her mother for life - you think it's ok to stop a human heart from beating? You believe it's ok to KILL your own child?
spare me please, a non-viable fetus is one that cannot sustain life outside of the womb
"Non-viable fetus is a fetus that not capable of living or developing. It can be an expelled or delivered fetus which, although living, cannot possibly survive to the point of sustaining life independently, even with support of the best available medical therapy. Nonviable means not capable of living, growing, or developing and functioning successfully. It is antithesis of viable, which is defined as having attained such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of living outside the uterus."
A non-viable fetus is not a baby, full stop. I will not argue this with you.
...cannot possibly survive to the point of sustaining life independently
Legally, children under 18 depend on their parents and cannot survive independently.
So, with your illogical reasoning, you are for killing children who are 17 & 11/12 months because they are not considered able to live independently.
Why would anybody want to KILL their own child - or any child? Why? You do realize it is KILLING - it is stopping a human heart from beating - that is KILLING. It's wrong and you know it.
And how hypocritical and immoral of you to have been able to live, despite the time when you depended on others - while you are trying to deny others the same right you've enjoyed.
Legally, children under 18 depend on their parents and cannot survive independently.
So, with your illogical reasoning, you are for killing children who are 17 & 11/12 months because they are not considered able to live independently.
Why would anybody want to KILL their own child - or any child? Why? You do realize it is KILLING - it is stopping a human heart from beating - that is KILLING. It's wrong and you know it.
And how hypocritical and immoral of you to have been able to live, despite the time when you depended on others - while you are trying to deny others the same right you've enjoyed.
Huge difference a newborn or toddler already born vs one in utero. Any one can care for a baby born. Not so in utero
Legally, children under 18 depend on their parents and cannot survive independently. So, with your illogical reasoning, you are for killing children who are 17 & 11/12 months because they are not considered able to live independently. Why would anybody want to KILL their own child - or any child? Why? You do realize it is KILLING - it is stopping a human heart from beating - that is KILLING. It's wrong and you know it. And how hypocritical and immoral of you to have been able to live, despite the time when you depended on others - while you are trying to deny others the same right you've enjoyed.
If you respond to a post please avoid taking words out of context and pretending that is what the poster said. This is what I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
spare me please, a non-viable fetus is one that cannot sustain life outside of the womb
"Non-viable fetus is a fetus that not capable of living or developing. It can be an expelled or delivered fetus which, although living, cannot possibly survive to the point of sustaining life independently, even with support of the best available medical therapy. Nonviable means not capable of living, growing, or developing and functioning successfully. It is antithesis of viable, which is defined as having attained such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of living outside the uterus."
In case you are still confused by what I said, maybe this will clarify it: children who have been born can obviously live outside of the uterus.
No sane woman would kill her own child, however a non viable fetus is not a child.
Ayn Rand much?
"A proper, philosophically valid definition of man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells."
The emancipation of women, as opposed to radical feminism, is the largest single societal force since the Enlightenment, and I don't have a problem with it. What I do have a problem with is the attachment of all "women's issues" to a broad-spectrum Leftist ideology. That and, at the other end of the economic spectrum, the continued hijacking of real progress by Madison Avenue, Hollywood, and a culture of trending, spending, and gender-bending. It's the young, our boys in particular, with a diminished sense of a heritage and the responsibility that goes with it, who will pay the cost over the long run.
Yes, this. This feminist is starting to see it's not just women who deal with oppression. The various forms of men's oppression have been ignored:
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.
