Correct. There is no double standard. The only people who are having their rights to their own body removed with your proposals are women. There is no benefit to society with the position you support. In fact evidence shows a steep cost to society and quality of life. So no, there is no double standard.
I realize I am a minority here, in fact, several minorities. I have engaged with others even when their comments made me groan. But I refuse to try to convince someone I am an equal human. Either accept or shut the fuck up. In this past week I was told someone, presumably some god, wants me to be straight, that men have the absolute right to force themselves on women because our pain and suffering is trivial compared to some man's possible disappointment, and that Torah and Tanach, and presumably Jewish people, are just preludes to Christianity. Enough. Fuck this shit. You guys, and you know who you are, can all fuck yourselves. Better that than a woman, considering your contempt for us.
God is a God of absolutes. We can argue with or discard those all we want. As this relates to you and me, I'll choose to agree to disagree. I think we've already been down that path before.
Yep. You'll choose a book written hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, in an effort to control the population over the rights of people alive today, even if that choice is cruel, hurts everyone involved and data shows that it is even horrible for society. I'll definitely disagree.
I always found it disturbing that God feels that stealing and swearing is a worse crime/sin than molesting kids or abortion.
Really? I would have thought that someone who knows that the 93 billion light years in the observable universe were created just for us, knows the purpose of life, knows what happens after we die, knows the answers to life's questions are in a man-written book, knows that the creator of the universe gives a shit about our sex life - someone with all that knowledge should surely know the answer to a basic physics problem.
I think the real question is can you alone determine you’re an asshole, or do the courts get to decide
I've come to realize that a certain type of person is not at all interested in solving societal problems, but rather see laws and punishments as a shortcut to distinguishing "bad people" from "good people" (in their mind). They couldn't care less if criminalizing *insert activity* doesn't actually reduce *insert activity*, because the entire point for them is "*insert activity* is bad [in their opinion] so those engaging in *insert activity* ought to be punished for being a bad person." The punishment is the end goal, it does not go further than that. They might dress up their opinion by saying they actually care about reducing harm, but that shell of faux-utilitarianism cracks at the slightest prod and then you realize all they actually care about is punishing people they don't like.
No, your position removes any ability for fatherhood unless a woman allows it. Your position denies an innocent victim life because a mother cant handle the responsibilities of her actions. complete side step of personal responsibility. Completely despicable and a stance that drives us into a more and more uncaring society where we feel we can do whatever the fuck we want with no repercussion. Casual sex? Cool. Kill off all unwanted offspring. Completely moral. Not. You may want that. I certainly dont. Most people acknowledge we are watching in real time, humans dumb down. your position enhances thar by removing responsibility from the choices people make. we shall have to agree to disagree on our moral stances. You can belittle mine all you want but don't think it means a thing. Just like my opinion of yours means nothing either. whats truly despicable are those who are sooo stubborn they refuse any type of compromise other than a complete subordination of their ideals.
There is probably a combination of drugs and medical procedures that could be given to a man that would simulate the pregnancy experience: very distended belly, morning sickness, needing to pee constantly, etc, followed at the end of nine months by an extremely painful procedure that involves lots of bleeding and probably stitches in the nether regions. I think we have the technology to do that. And then we can give the man a baby that he must care for for the next 18 years. So to make OB's idea fair, if a couple has sex, either party should be able to mandate that the other person go through all that, if they want. It might cut down on other people having sex, which I suspect is the real underlying goal here. barfo
both. The woman can birth it and then hand it over. They both made a choice to engage in an act that creates life. The father took it serious and is wanting the opportunity of fatherhood and that should be denied because the woman didn't take it serious? yeah. Thats fair.
LOL, that's not both deciding. That's the man deciding. You feel that men should have ultimate say over what happens with a woman's body, essentially. Fuck that. If the man wants to have a child, he can find someone who shares that view.
If im saying that, then you are saying a woman can decide if im ever to be a father or not. Fuck that too. See how this non-compromising stance works? Two consenting adults should discuss prior to having sex and take proper precarioms or end the relationship, if they arent in agreement on what to do if a pregnancy comes to be. Its called being responsible. if the woman didnt want a child, she never should have had unprotected sex with someone she didnt previosuly discuss not wanting. Child with. Its time we hold adults being accountable for their actions.
