LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Women's right to choose what?

In a mature rational society, the anti-abortion movement would have faded away in the 1970s, and we would now only ever hear about it from a few crankish Catholic priests who are laughed at by their own congregations.
 
YDB95 said:
That's not even close to the definition of feminist, radical or otherwise.
Click to expand...
The absolute most charitable definition of feminism is female advocacy. The vast majority are just misandrist so it's right on the money actually.
 
TomTeacher19 said:
The abortion debate is still one of the most pathetic things. Not because it's not okay to have a strong feeling either way, but because of the absolute completeness that both sides literally ignore what the other is saying.

Pro Choice runs around all the time screaming about people trying to control a woman's body and no one actually is doing that. Pro Life people run around screaming about killing a baby but no one on the other side thinks it is a baby. Both sides are totally ignored by the others because they start their entire argument with totally false and irrelevant points for the other side.

And neither sides actually approaches what the other side is saying. Pro Lifers should begin by pointing out the wealth of evidence proving they don't want to control women's bodies. Pro Choicers should begin by pointing out how the the idea of killing the baby being wrong is because human life should always be protected and they are being hypocritical with literally everything else they fight for in health care and guns and the death penalty and the environment and on and on.

But in the end they are both just a bunch of tools because the politicians don't really care and actually like when they aren't getting their way because it riles up more support and money and votes from their side when they can pretend they are being victimized.
Click to expand...
I have no issue with the termination of a pregnancy any time during the pregnancy. I'm against infantcide and the killing of babies. The two are not the same, (just as the ending of a pregnancy against the will of the woman) so admitting one is equivalent to the other is not something I am required to do or care to do. I think viability is a good measure of compromise because it recognizes that a pregnancy can be brought to finality while allowing gestation to complete via other methods.

I don't demonize those who hold differing opinions about abortion. I do correct them when they attempt to bring incorrect terminology into the discussion for purposes of emotional appeal or in attempt to demonize my position. Additionally, I defer to medical professional terms and opinions above all else.
 
Last edited:
UltraChad said:
The absolute most charitable definition of feminism is female advocacy. The vast majority are just misandrist so it's right on the money actually.
Click to expand...
If you feel attacked by feminism, it's probably a counterattack.
 
dawnonyou said:
I know that many liberal woman beat the, "women's right to choose drum." I also realize that they are typically speaking about freedom to terminate pregnancy. That issue seems to revolve around whether an unborn baby has any legal rights or not. So, that topic has been discussed and seems to upset people. So, enough said about that. However, I am left wondering if women should have any other rights to choose? Can she choose to be injected with biological agents that have never been studied for long term side effects? Or is that best left to the government to decided about her body? What about locker rooms? Should she have the right to choose if someone born with xy* chromosomes sees her naked? (*that is humans born with a penis as apposed to xx chromosomes that defines humans born with a vagina.) What do you think? For example if a liberal male grows his hair long, puts on makeup and declares he is female...should he be allowed in the girls bathroom or locker room? Say at a sporting event or maybe the Halls of Congress? The xx born people then don't have a right to choose if the guy is in their private changing areas? Please enlighten me about the proper limits of a woman's right to choose.
Click to expand...
I'm going to drag this off the abortion subject in a different direction that I think is more in line with what the OP intended, perhaps she'll jump in and correct me if I'm wrong.

The subject is agency, regardless of gender actually. To what extent is the individual in control of their own body/environment and to what extent is the government? Further, to what extent is the state acting in the best interest of the individual as opposed to the state acting in it's own self-interest?

Taking the locker room issue. Not all that long ago any male that strolled into a woman's locker room did so at the risk of great physical harm by the women and no one would have any particular sympathy for him. But now those women are subjected to top down mandated cultural realignment.

There are many areas where we can all agree that the state has the authority to limit individual agency, fine. But where is that line crossed, and not just with individual agency but with cultural norms?
 
Rebel5soul said:
Taking the locker room issue. Not all that long ago any male that strolled into a woman's locker room did so at the risk of great physical harm by the women and no one would have any particular sympathy for him. But now those women are subjected to top down mandated cultural realignment.
Click to expand...
That just is not true. Once again you're confusing reality with your bigoted impressions.
 
Rebel5soul said:
Taking the locker room issue. Not all that long ago any male that strolled into a woman's locker room did so at the risk of great physical harm by the women and no one would have any particular sympathy for him. But now those women are subjected to top down mandated cultural realignment.
Click to expand...
There never was a time when a transgender in the locker room would have provoked the reaction you are describing.
 
Rebel5soul said:
I'm going to drag this off the abortion subject in a different direction that I think is more in line with what the OP intended, perhaps she'll jump in and correct me if I'm wrong.

The subject is agency, regardless of gender actually. To what extent is the individual in control of their own body/environment and to what extent is the government? Further, to what extent is the state acting in the best interest of the individual as opposed to the state acting in it's own self-interest?

Taking the locker room issue. Not all that long ago any male that strolled into a woman's locker room did so at the risk of great physical harm by the women and no one would have any particular sympathy for him. But now those women are subjected to top down mandated cultural realignment.

There are many areas where we can all agree that the state has the authority to limit individual agency, fine. But where is that line crossed, and not just with individual agency but with cultural norms?
Click to expand...
Thank you for getting this tread back on track.
 
Rebel5soul said:
I'm going to drag this off the abortion subject in a different direction that I think is more in line with what the OP intended, perhaps she'll jump in and correct me if I'm wrong.

The subject is agency, regardless of gender actually. To what extent is the individual in control of their own body/environment and to what extent is the government? Further, to what extent is the state acting in the best interest of the individual as opposed to the state acting in it's own self-interest?

Taking the locker room issue. Not all that long ago any male that strolled into a woman's locker room did so at the risk of great physical harm by the women and no one would have any particular sympathy for him. But now those women are subjected to top down mandated cultural realignment.

There are many areas where we can all agree that the state has the authority to limit individual agency, fine. But where is that line crossed, and not just with individual agency but with cultural norms?
Click to expand...
This is why the conversation must always be brought to the dividing issue.

divide et impera
 
Politruk said:
So what?
Click to expand...
It is a terrorist organization just like the current Mexican government.

We should withdraw from it, defund it and expel it from our shores and then watch where the cockroaches scatter: it will be more than illuminative. Let's see who want to foot the "I hate America" bill now.

Will it be the funders, backers and sponsors of the DNC?
 
At east one of us has something to say about the topic you pathetic, boring little person.
 
Politruk said:
What's going on there ain't any legitimate warfare.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Only OCT7 2023 Hamas fucked around.....and they've been finding out pretty much ever since.

Fair and equitable, all that fuckin' lefty retardation goes right out the window and aren't any part of legitimate war.

Politruk said:
There's an ICC arrest warrant out for Netanyahu.
Click to expand...

Nazis mad their buddies are losing doesn't make it a genocide.

Words mean things.
 
How long do you hold on to (respect) her choice knowing her proclivity to change her mind?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
What ever happened to conservatism?
2
Replies
30
Views
183
Politruk
P
L
Taking back the language from the ELK
Replies
23
Views
148
AceDesSpades
A
P
What happens now to Rojava/Syrian Kurdistan?
Replies
20
Views
103
Politruk
P
Rightguide
Now Lit's Leftwing Men Can Finally Come Out
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
827
Lance_Castro
Lance_Castro
P
I can't believe RWs are saying Harris has Communist leanings
Replies
9
Views
128
dawnonyou
dawnonyou
Back
Top