Abortion

[Runic]

Eh I don't care. Long as they haven't legalized after birth abortion I wont put too much thinking in it.

But she couldn't be my friend I'd have bus drivered her.

[Supercommunist]

I'm surprised that a communist would be in favor of gay marriage.

Communism is the belief that you don't have private property, therefore your butt does not belong to you and must be shared by all those that desire it.



All joking aside I have super liberal beliefs on relationships.

[creature386]

Well, given that commies are left-wing extremists (and lefties are normally liberal), this doesn't even sound strange to me.

[Supercommunist]

Just to clear things up for those of you that cannot detect my subtle humor, I am obviously not actually a communist, as I would be forced to view the rest of you filfthy plebians as my equal.

[creature386]

Yeah, it would be ridiculous to assume that you could even approach my level.

[Life]

Humans being primates is not an argument, humans do not live like other primates. Humans have developed sense of right and wrong, other species have not achieved this.

Most of our matters are about right and wrong. This topic itself is about right and wrong vis-à-vis the subject of abortion.

As far as lifestyle is concerned, institution of marriage was established to eliminate barbaric ways in personal relationships. In this respect, member guategojira have a point. IMO, it is degrading to women to give sex outside wedlock in search of proper companionship; this is absolute exploitation of a woman's sexual integrity and reduces her to prostitution levels. People should be cultured enough to behave in civilized ways in matters of personal relationships. Institution of marriage is the answer, it prevents sexual degradation/exploitation of women, ensures extension of genetic lineage of a man, and also ensures a sound environment to raise a family.

guategojira

I think you are misinformed about Islam. If you want to know about it better, you can consult me.

[creature386]

Of course other species have a sense for right and wrong (otherwise they couldn't survive) and some kind of morals, they just don't have the level of freedom and the ability of thinking we have. But broly just wanted to say that humans being the only animals with souls (if they exist) doesn't make so much sense to him.

[Derdadort]

Jun 14, 2014 16:16:11 GMT 5 Life said:

As far as lifestyle is concerned, institution of marriage was established to eliminate barbaric ways in personal relationships. In this respect, member guategojira have a point. IMO, it is degrading to women to give sex outside wedlock in search of proper companionship; this is absolute exploitation of a woman's sexual integrity and reduces her to prostitution levels. People should be cultured enough to behave in civilized ways in matters of personal relationships. Institution of marriage is the answer, it prevents sexual degradation/exploitation of women, ensures extension of genetic lineage of a man, and also ensures a sound environment to raise a family.

Marriage outside of religion aka civil marriage is, besides tax abatement, a symbolic act. I think marriage seals an already "civilized" relationship, but can't protect one the spouse (most time the woman) of being degraded to sex. You don't need wedlock to have a "civilized" relationship or to raise children.

B2t: I voted for pro choice. However I think it's better to give a child, if possible, to an adoption than to kill it even if it happens in an early stadium when the nervous system hasn't already evolved. Nevertheless if the woman's life is in danger or the child has no chance to survive the early years, an abortion should be a legit option.

[Supercommunist]

As far as lifestyle is concerned, institution of marriage was established to eliminate barbaric ways in personal relationships. In this respect, member guategojira have a point. IMO, it is degrading to women to give sex outside wedlock in search of proper companionship; this is absolute exploitation of a woman's sexual integrity and reduces her to prostitution levels. People should be cultured enough to behave in civilized ways in matters of personal relationships. Institution of marriage is the answer, it prevents sexual degradation/exploitation of women, ensures extension of genetic lineage of a man, and also ensures a sound environment to raise a family.

Don't see how having sex with a woman out of marriage is degrading to her, if SHE wants to have sex as well. If anything calling a woman a borderline prostuite for wanting to have sex outside an "official" union is far more insulting if you ask me and the majority of woman.

[Life]

Jun 16, 2014 0:19:40 GMT 5 Supercommunist said:

As far as lifestyle is concerned, institution of marriage was established to eliminate barbaric ways in personal relationships. In this respect, member guategojira have a point. IMO, it is degrading to women to give sex outside wedlock in search of proper companionship; this is absolute exploitation of a woman's sexual integrity and reduces her to prostitution levels. People should be cultured enough to behave in civilized ways in matters of personal relationships. Institution of marriage is the answer, it prevents sexual degradation/exploitation of women, ensures extension of genetic lineage of a man, and also ensures a sound environment to raise a family.

Don't see how having sex with a woman out of marriage is degrading to her, if SHE wants to have sex as well. If anything calling a woman a borderline prostuite for wanting to have sex outside an "official" union is far more insulting if you ask me and the majority of woman.

Degrading aspect arises when a woman wants to have a relationship but experiences failures before finding out the right one for her, sometimes her young years get wasted in this kind of process. She ends up having sex with multiple men in this manner, just like a prostitute. Some men dump her after having sex with her, excuse is often lack of so-called sexual compatibility. Sometimes, a woman ends up co-habiting with a man who doesn't marries her even after span of many years. This is barbaric culture and sheer exploitation of sexuality of women.

Humans came with the concept of marriage to prevent sexual exploitation of women at the hands of men long ago. A culture was established to ensure that a man must take responsibility for a woman with whom he have sexual relations. This tradition worked/works best for both individuals and society in general. Sex outside wedlock sounds fun and exciting but this development is degrading to women's sexuality.

Also, women will behave according to societal conditioning. If they are raised to value their bodies, they will not have sex outside wedlock.

[theropod]

I find it rather patronizing to claim a woman (or, in that case, also a man) cannot have sex without being exploited unless she (he) does so in a marriage.

After all, marriage has never saved people from exploitation (in many different ways), and many people have healthy and non-degrading sexual relationships without marrying instantly, or at all. Sex is an important part in relationships and can’t just be talked into something bad that has to be avoided as long as possible, or something that needs a contract to be ok.

If that is your personal religious conviction there’s nothing wrong with it. If you decide to wait in agreement with your partner the necessary self-control is even quite impressive. But you can hardly claim this to be a general truth…

Btw marriage predates recorded history, but it most likely wasn’t instituted to PREVENT exploitation of women, considering throughout history women where considered their husband’s property rather than free human beings.

[coherentsheaf]

Jun 16, 2014 22:56:57 GMT 5 theropod said:

throughout history women where considered their husband’s property rather than free human beings.

Citation ****ing needed. There were elements of that in certain cultures but as generalization this seems to be a persistent feminist myth.

[theropod]

Well, of course there where cultures in which women had a high social status etc (e.g. ancient egypt), there’s no doubting that. That might even have been the norm in prehistoric communities.
But in younger history (which is, after all, the time during which the majority of humans lived) I think there can be no doubt women where not by any means enjoying similar freedom to men in the vast majority of societies, and that certainly isn’t just a feminist myth. Marriage didn’t prevent that, if anything it contributed to it. That automatically results in them being exploited in some way, as is usually the case when people are denied the right to take part in decisions.

It’s absolutely possible that there are feminist myths overhyping that. But certainly the average medieval farmer was in charge of his wife, not the other way around.

[coherentsheaf]

Jun 17, 2014 2:14:26 GMT 5 theropod said:

Well, of course there where cultures in which women had a high social status etc (e.g. ancient egypt), there’s no doubting that. That might even have been the norm in prehistoric communities.
But in younger history I think there can be no doubt women where not by any means enjoying similar freedom to men in the vast majority of societies, that certainly isn’t just a feminist myth.

This is not what you said. You claimed that women were treated as property, which is demonstrably wrong. Women did not have the same rights and responsibilities throughout history that much I do agree, but the actual status was constantly changing and the claims that they were mostly treated as property are highly offensive to the people who actually were treated like property i.e. slaves.

That automatically results in them being exploited in some way, as is often the case when people are denied the right to take part in decisions.

I think demonstrably low status males were incredibly exploited (draft etc) It is not surprising that we have far more female ancestors than male ones. But when it comes to decision making in particular, pro female decision making is documented in both males and females (the so called women are wonderful effect, see for example psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/87/4/494/ where both males and females unconsciously and imo probably instinctually sided with females)

It’s absolutely possible that there are feminist myths overhyping that. But certainly the average medieval farmer was in charge of his wife, not the other way around.

I am not sure that is true. I many social situations I witness, while men may often have overt power, women seem very adapt at exerting social influence. An example is the exgirlfriend of one my best friends, who during their breakup leveraged her social position in the dorm in a way to exclude him from social contact.
Edit: Some clarification since by now I know that people in gender related subjects tend to jump to conclusions: I am not claiming this due to intrinsic/genetic properties. It could as well be cultural attitudes that allow such influence to a greater degree in females. Who knows?

[Fragillimus335]

Shockingly, being a super-liberal, I am against abortion at any stage of pregnancy unless the mother is in medical danger due to the pregnancy, or the child was a product of rape. In all other circumstances, you took the risk of having a baby when you decided to have some fun sex. Simply, it boils down to killing a human to avoid the discomfort of a pregnancy you chose to risk.