RE: Women's Rights!

RE: Women's Rights! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aylee -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 9:16:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U On that subject and women's rights, Emily Murphy (and 4 other women, known as "the Famous Five.") fought to have women considered 'persons' under the law (The British North America Act, or BNA Act, of 1867) which at that time denied women access to the vote, ability to run for office nor serve as a civil elected official. If these women didn't stand up to the system (to win even the vote in 1918) as well as the ability to enter the Parliamentary service, who knows how long it would have continued that Canadian women were 'non-persons-under the law'. but, on that subject in reference to abortion, when will anyone (if ever) give the same dignity and rights to a fetus and name it a 'person' since conception? Abortions (in too many cases) are given because of frivolous activities which require one to think that it is more of a bigger social issue than a health. People don't become pregnant by sitting on park benches minding their business. So how can anyone turn something so intimate, so gosh-darn important and dramatic (the sex act itself) into something so non-chalant or traumatic as abortion? The consequences sometimes are easier to rid of and takes less effort and energy maybe than forethought, in that case. If that is an individuals 'practice' or philosophy, they might want to look into better decision making skills to prevent such 'trauma' in the future. Should the state pay? People had to vote for that, majority rules. Does it imply that women have more rights or more 'liability' for their own bodies? no. It simply means that others are giving you a means to 'remove' your problem asap, with or without discussion as to preventive accessability. Abortion isn't a right. It is the inalienable solution from an obvious irresponsible act. If that helps someone sleep better nights to think of it as a 'right', bless em. Some even believe that butterscotch pancakes can float. Doesn't mean I am going to wander IHOP to IHOP seeking to find the magic floatin' pancake. The ability to be educated into making wise, bodily function decisions is a right, given by the state. Some just forget to do their homework and should be carrying around crib notes for a lifetime. (maybe even write it on their hand, like Sarah Palin). A couple of points that I would like to make: 1. You are using the fight that women had to be considered "persons" as a way to take away their status as persons. Once you decide that a fetus has more rights that the female carrying it, you take away that woman's right to choose. So you would use the women's rights movement to take away those rights and to turn women into nothing more than a flower pot. 2. quote: Abortions (in too many cases) are given because of frivolous activities And HERE we have the heffalump in the room. You have decided that there are those deserving and undeserving. Who gets to choose? You? Why? Again, this erodes rights. Now, I cannot get too irritated with you. This has been an ongoing issue since the conception of social welfare. The deserving and undeserving poor. However, universal MEANS everyone. Whether they deserve it or not. You do NOT get to decide which sex is frivolous and which is not for another person, because once again this takes away an individuals right to choose for themselves. 3. quote: The ability to be educated into making wise, bodily function decisions is a right, given by the state. Abilities are NOT given by the state. The freedom to use those abilities is (for most things ~ the use of the ability to pick locks for criminal purpose would be one such exception.)

LadyAngelika -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 9:32:33 AM)
quote: Beyond wondering where these woman who see abortion as "non-chalant"(by the way is that actually two words ,with a hyphen?)or for that matter ,and of more immediate concern...where are the woman who see sex as a "frivolous" act(need to find me some of them thar woman)I'm just going to sit back and monitor the responses. Nonchalant is one word. It is a French word ;-) You also have to realise that just because a woman might be very promiscuous and to use your words see sex as a frivolous act, doesn't mean she sees abortion as nonchalant. Most women who I know that are empowered through their active sex life practice very safe sex. The "who I know" part is important because the women who I know who are sexually active with multiple partners are well educated about their bodies and sex and have the necessary resources to help them make the right choices. The issues that arise are when women have very little sexual education and are sexually active, perhaps so out of necessity or out of pressure to be, are the ones that are going to make bad decisions. And often who has access to resources and education, those who have the money. Is anyone else seeing a pattern here? - LA

Moonhead -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 9:38:58 AM)
A desire to have the underclass breed like vermin in order to drive down the minimum wage and provide lots of poorly educated peasants to call up in the event of a draft? Stranger things have happened.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 9:45:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Yes it would make a difference to me - one is a medical necessity the other is a mental health and/or social issue. That's the biggest hole in your argument. An unwanted pregnancy carries all kinds of mental anguish. Mental health is a health issue. If a healthy woman is transformed into an incubator for a fetus she does not want to carry to term, she may well go fucking bonkers and need years of therapy, or worse. The problem here kittin is that you see the big picture and think of long term planning whereas people who see abortions as elective procedures do not. - LA

LadyAngelika -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 9:53:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead A desire to have the underclass breed like vermin in order to drive down the minimum wage and provide lots of poorly educated peasants to call up in the event of a draft? Stranger things have happened. Oh gosh!! Don't even go there! I try to avoid conspiracy theories like the plague though that one seems to creep up on me and haunt me at times. I shudder to think of breeding military pawns... or anything similar to the Huxley's epsilon? - LA

CalifChick -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 10:05:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella You know, this is something I really have an issue with. If a man has no desire to pay child support, the courts tell him he has no choice in the matter, that he chose to have sex, that he knew sex could result in pregnancy, and that he has to accept the consequences of his actions by supporting the child he helped to create. Good luck saying the exact same thing about a woman. This is like my 6 yr old saying, "but mommy, that's not FAIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR". Until science/medicine finds a way to transfer the unborn baby to the father, it will never be equal or what some perceive as fair. I can't believe that people actually think it doesn't matter that one person grows another human being, and one person doesn't, and that they should be treated the same way. Cali

Lucienne -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 10:09:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Yes it would make a difference to me - one is a medical necessity the other is a mental health and/or social issue. That's the biggest hole in your argument. An unwanted pregnancy carries all kinds of mental anguish. Mental health is a health issue. If a healthy woman is transformed into an incubator for a fetus she does not want to carry to term, she may well go fucking bonkers and need years of therapy, or worse. I'd take this a step further and say that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is injurious to her whether or not she needs therapy over it. ETA: If someone was wrongfully imprisoned for 9 months, you wouldn't require a doctor's diagnosis to determined the person has been wronged. I don't have time at the moment to argue the details, but I think respecting the autonomy of women requires, at the very least, the recognition that a woman in her first trimester is legally and ethically entitled to treat that pregnancy as a parasite and have it removed as such. That's a medical issue. Just as much as getting anti-biotics to kill a bacterial infection, or surgery to remove polyps.

Moonhead -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 10:21:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead A desire to have the underclass breed like vermin in order to drive down the minimum wage and provide lots of poorly educated peasants to call up in the event of a draft? Stranger things have happened. Oh gosh!! Don't even go there! I try to avoid conspiracy theories like the plague though that one seems to creep up on me and haunt me at times. I shudder to think of breeding military pawns... or anything similar to the Huxley's epsilon? - LA I don't think that one comes under a conspiracy theory, sadly: it's a lot less tinfoil hat than it might sound. It's a situation that suits the interests of the ruling class perfectly, and is reinforced by various social and religious structures that do the scum no good at all. It's more the sort of thing that Marx was complaining about than a conspiracy, I'd have said. There's certainly a lot of documentation of employers exploiting competition for jobs to drive down pay and benefits historically. Just look at what went on during the depression.

kittinSol -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 11:44:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne I'd take this a step further and say that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is injurious to her whether or not she needs therapy over it. I completely agree.

slvemike4u -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 12:48:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: Beyond wondering where these woman who see abortion as "non-chalant"(by the way is that actually two words ,with a hyphen?)or for that matter ,and of more immediate concern...where are the woman who see sex as a "frivolous" act(need to find me some of them thar woman)I'm just going to sit back and monitor the responses. Nonchalant is one word. It is a French word ;-) You also have to realise that just because a woman might be very promiscuous and to use your words see sex as a frivolous act, doesn't mean she sees abortion as nonchalant. Most women who I know that are empowered through their active sex life practice very safe sex. The "who I know" part is important because the women who I know who are sexually active with multiple partners are well educated about their bodies and sex and have the necessary resources to help them make the right choices. The issues that arise are when women have very little sexual education and are sexually active, perhaps so out of necessity or out of pressure to be, are the ones that are going to make bad decisions. And often who has access to resources and education, those who have the money. Is anyone else seeing a pattern here? - LA Other than pointing out that those weren't my words....but rather words borrowed from came4u's earlier post.....I have no issue with anything else contained in your post [:D]

LadyAngelika -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 12:54:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Other than pointing out that those weren't my words....but rather words borrowed from came4u's earlier post.....I have no issue with anything else contained in your post [:D] Apologies then mike. I've sort of been ignoring her posts because I know my responses wouldn't have been pretty ;-) - LA

slvemike4u -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 1:02:04 PM)
No problem LA,none at all....

came4U -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 3:30:12 PM)
A whole page quoting slavemike's fartin around with one sentence.., thus misquoting me, mike's wording of the sentence as mine? and you say quote: Apologies then mike. I've sort of been ignoring her posts because I know my responses wouldn't have been pretty ;-) If you are going to ignore someone's posts and use other's posts as that person you ignored...well, what an odd and indelicate way of debating. I, at least do make sense and take the care quote as accurately as possible. I said: quote: Abortions (in too many cases) are given because of frivolous activities which require one to think that it is more of a bigger social issue than a health. People don't become pregnant by sitting on park benches minding their business. So how can anyone turn something so intimate, so gosh-darn important and dramatic (the sex act itself) into something so non-chalant or traumatic as abortion? One person might get plenty of abortions (or one) and treat it as no big deal, one might be distraught, perhaps need therapy for months, years over it. Point is, they didn't get pregnant in the first place by sitting at a bus stop. quote: 1. You are using the fight that women had to be considered "persons" as a way to take away their status as persons. Once you decide that a fetus has more rights that the female carrying it, you take away that woman's right to choose. So you would use the women's rights movement to take away those rights and to turn women into nothing more than a flower pot. No, before that fight, women under the law were non-persons. Don't know how you see it backwards. me: quote: Abortions (in too many cases) are given because of frivolous activities quote: And HERE we have the heffalump in the room. You have decided that there are those deserving and undeserving. Who gets to choose? You? Why? Again, this erodes rights. Now, I cannot get too irritated with you. This has been an ongoing issue since the conception of social welfare. The deserving and undeserving poor. Aylee, What does being frivolous with a pussy and/or irresponsible have to do with income? Abortion has been a debate since ...time. I am not even discussing incomes in that entire statement. Where is income coming into the equation here?? Was it the word frivolous (as in a self-indulgent conduct)? or just more assumations that I imply that only the poor line up for abortions?

kittinSol -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 3:50:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U Aylee, What does being frivolous with a pussy and/or irresponsible have to do with income? Woah... your approach to sexuality is very, very repressed. It's interesting. Why do you judge sexual enjoyment so negatively? (I realise many of us do it, but none that I have seen to such an outspoken extent as you, and none with such a vociferous amount of female on female dislike?) Were you raised to attach morality to sex like that, and to think of your pussy, and of sex by extention, as 'frivolous' and 'irresponsible', or is it a condition you developed later in life?

came4U -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 4:00:56 PM)
quote: Woah... your approach to sexuality is very, very repressed. It's interesting. Why do you judge sexual enjoyment so negatively? (I realise many of us do it, but none that I have seen to such an outspoken extent as you, and none with such a vociferous amount of female on female dislike?) Were you raised to attach morality to sex like that, and to think of your pussy, and of sex by extention, as 'frivolous' and 'irresponsible', or is it a condition you developed later in life? Now I hate women? Where do you drag this stuff from? under your bed? Irresponsible sex, that leads to one having an abortion is 'frivolous' sex. I know if I wanted to become pregnant or not, I wouldn't choose it to be with some loser I picked up at a bar. Therefore, I'd be a lot more cautious in the prophylactic department. Why take a chance in having a baby with some guy who isn't fit? He might be good enough to fuck, but he might not be good enough as to qualify (for me) as good father material. If others waste their pussy as such, then that explains the high rate of unwanted pregnancies, for wasting pussy, wasting an egg. Ok, I said it in a nice way 'frivolous' instead of saying 'slutty'...as in fucking people without protection, without being sober, without knowing their name, without caring if you are ovulating, not caring if they ejaculated in you, saying 'oh well, I will rinse it later' lol and being slight and incidental about the act. Not that being slutty is a bad thing, but there are ethical sluts [;)] that take the time to cover their asses (not literally)., who make smart decisions BEFORE the cock goes in. These are the people who don't wake up at a clinic getting the morning after pill. If they do, then likely they lacked in one of the above steps. as LA said: quote: Most women who I know that are empowered through their active sex life practice very safe sex. The "who I know" part is important because the women who I know who are sexually active with multiple partners are well educated about their bodies and sex and have the necessary resources to help them make the right choices. The issues that arise are when women have very little sexual education and are sexually active, perhaps so out of necessity or out of pressure to be, are the ones that are going to make bad decisions. And often who has access to resources and education, those who have the money. There is no repression in me about it. It is statistical FACT that more go in for abortions by NOT following the above patterns. Does it happen that most might be poorer? Likely, and unfortunately, yes. http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html points: Who's having abortions (income)? Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%. Why women have abortions 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Aylee -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 4:35:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U No, before that fight, women under the law were non-persons. Don't know how you see it backwards. And if you grant personhood status to a fetus and give it more rights than the female carrying it, what does that do to the rights of the woman? If you take away the right to carry to term or not, what other rights will you take away to protect the "personhood rights" of the fetus? quote: me: quote: Abortions (in too many cases) are given because of frivolous activities quote: And HERE we have the heffalump in the room. You have decided that there are those deserving and undeserving. Who gets to choose? You? Why? Again, this erodes rights. Now, I cannot get too irritated with you. This has been an ongoing issue since the conception of social welfare. The deserving and undeserving poor. Aylee, What does being frivolous with a pussy and/or irresponsible have to do with income? Abortion has been a debate since ...time. I am not even discussing incomes in that entire statement. Where is income coming into the equation here?? Was it the word frivolous (as in a self-indulgent conduct)? or just more assumations that I imply that only the poor line up for abortions? If you look at the history of the social welfare movement you will find the terms "deserving and undeserving poor." My point is that you have decided that some are deserving of a medical procedure and some are not. Some are deserving of choices and some are not. You are willing to take away the rights of females and their choices about their own bodies because you have judged their actions as "undeserving." Just as social welfare services were denied to the "undeserving poor." Just because a female has sex for something OTHER than making a baby does NOT make it "frivolous." And the abortion debate is fairly recent in the scheme of history. It was often thought to be acceptable before quickening. In fact abortifaciant herbs (large stocks of them like Queen Anne's Lace) have been found in neolithic sites and digs. The making of women's bodies into a political battle ground is a much more recent phenomenon.

came4U -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 4:48:51 PM)
quote: And if you grant personhood status to a fetus and give it more rights than the female carrying it, what does that do to the rights of the woman? If you take away the right to carry to term or not, what other rights will you take away to protect the "personhood rights" of the fetus? personhood as my example or any example was given to be EQUAL with men in that case. In this case, the same value. The fetus should be of EQUAL status as a person (at time of conception). quote: My point is that you have decided that some are deserving of a medical procedure and some are not. Some are deserving of choices and some are not. I don't know where you got that from. I answered someone pages ago that I don't believe ANYONE should have the proceedure. aka I don't believe in abortion under ANY circumstances. quote: You are willing to take away the rights of females and their choices about their own bodies because you have judged their actions as "undeserving." Just as social welfare services were denied to the "undeserving poor." Have I said I am taking away rights? What someone does because they were irresponsible is their decision. The only time I touched on the subject of legality is when the discussion came up and I said it is law because 'majority rules'. I made no further comments about the legalities. Nor have I mentioned income, poverty etc, until you brought it up (previouis page). So you are grasping and unless you can quote me on the subject, don't put words into my mouth.

Aylee -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 4:50:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U Does it happen that most might be poorer? Likely, and unfortunately, yes. http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html points: Who's having abortions (income)? Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%. Why women have abortions 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). Well, by my math, over 50% of reported abortions are for the middle class and above. (51.8%) And while this next statement is going to really piss Kittinsol off, I would prefer to see a female get an abortion than to become a single mother. But that is just me.

came4U -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 5:03:26 PM)
quote: Well, by my math, over 50% of reported abortions are for the middle class and above. (51.8%) thus, you are correct as my post said: quote: Who's having abortions (income)? Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%. THAT number IS the middle class. Again I HAVEN'T mentioned income through the entire thread. Why you are worried about income and the topic is beyond me. my stats are from The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (www.agi-usa.org), not math in my head. Where are your stats of over 50% come from? Your math?

Aylee -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 5:10:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U personhood as my example or any example was given to be EQUAL with men in that case. In this case, the same value. The fetus should be of EQUAL status as a person (at time of conception). And you do not see the problem with this? Oy vey. quote: I don't know where you got that from. I answered someone pages ago that I don't believe ANYONE should have the proceedure. aka I don't believe in abortion under ANY circumstances. Lovely. You would force a woman to carry and birth a stillborn triploided chromosome baby because you dislike abortion, to give an example. How nice for the woman. quote: Have I said I am taking away rights? What someone does because they were irresponsible is their decision. The only time I touched on the subject of legality is when the discussion came up and I said it is law because 'majority rules'. I made no further comments about the legalities. You are taking away the right of a female to own her body. You are forcing a woman to use her body in way that she does not want to ~ as an incubator. You are taking away her choice on motherhood. You are taking away her choice on sexuality. You are certainly restricting her choices on lifestyle. To name a few. quote: Nor have I mentioned income, poverty etc, until you brought it up (previouis page). So you are grasping and unless you can quote me on the subject, don't put words into my mouth. Look you gwoac! I was using a historical example. If you did not get it, fine. I gave you the information that you could go look it up. Let the force of the google-fu be with you.

Page: << < prev 28 29 [30] 31 32 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875