Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 may god have mercy on us all for what is about to happen | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What did you just do... may god have mercy on us all for what is about to happen"I know better than to comment hence opening it up for others  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
You will get so many different answers on this and it will all depend where they stand in their feminist views, no answer is right or wrong as it is how each person views that situation.
As long as no one is preaching, pushing their views on to another and allows them to have their own opinion and choice, that is all that matters to me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Damn that’s heavy for a Monday
You will get so many different answers on this and it will all depend where they stand in their feminist views, no answer is right or wrong as it is how each person views that situation.
As long as no one is preaching, pushing their views on to another and allows them to have their own opinion and choice, that is all that matters to me "You know it's controversial when even the ladies don't want to answer the question  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it safe to watch YouTube videos linked on the forum?! " I believe so | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Damn that’s heavy for a Monday
You will get so many different answers on this and it will all depend where they stand in their feminist views, no answer is right or wrong as it is how each person views that situation.
As long as no one is preaching, pushing their views on to another and allows them to have their own opinion and choice, that is all that matters to me
You know it's controversial when even the ladies don't want to answer the question "I wasn’t surprised by it as heard similar before, talking it through with a group of friends. However, I was surprised all the females were to the left | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Damn that’s heavy for a Monday
You will get so many different answers on this and it will all depend where they stand in their feminist views, no answer is right or wrong as it is how each person views that situation.
As long as no one is preaching, pushing their views on to another and allows them to have their own opinion and choice, that is all that matters to me
You know it's controversial when even the ladies don't want to answer the question
I wasn’t surprised by it as heard similar before, talking it through with a group of friends. However, I was surprised all the females were to the left "I am not saying anything, but I also can see why you were as shocked as me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Damn that’s heavy for a Monday
You will get so many different answers on this and it will all depend where they stand in their feminist views, no answer is right or wrong as it is how each person views that situation.
As long as no one is preaching, pushing their views on to another and allows them to have their own opinion and choice, that is all that matters to me
You know it's controversial when even the ladies don't want to answer the question
I wasn’t surprised by it as heard similar before, talking it through with a group of friends. However, I was surprised all the females were to the left
I am not saying anything, but I also can see why you were as shocked as me "Wise move | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it safe to watch YouTube videos linked on the forum?! " Yes it’s not against the forum rules also It’s YouTube the safest platform there is | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it safe to watch YouTube videos linked on the forum?! Yes it’s not against the forum rules also It’s YouTube the safest platform there is " You misunderstand
I meant safe, as in, "will I need eye/brain bleach if I view this link"
There was no mention of rules, you'll note also | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it safe to watch YouTube videos linked on the forum?! Yes it’s not against the forum rules also It’s YouTube the safest platform there is You misunderstand
I meant safe, as in, "will I need eye/brain bleach if I view this link"
There was no mention of rules, you'll note also "No bleach required you're safe | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it safe to watch YouTube videos linked on the forum?! Yes it’s not against the forum rules also It’s YouTube the safest platform there is You misunderstand
I meant safe, as in, "will I need eye/brain bleach if I view this link"
There was no mention of rules, you'll note also
No bleach required you're safe "It's okay, I trusted Mr Booty and watched it... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it’s a bit misleading to interpret the results because it’s a leading question. Feminism is about supporting women to make the choices that are right for them and their situation not enforcing one choice over the other. I’m gonna go back to watching Wonko & his read messages dilemma now "I thought feminism was about equality | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it’s a bit misleading to interpret the results because it’s a leading question. Feminism is about supporting women to make the choices that are right for them and their situation not enforcing one choice over the other. I’m gonna go back to watching Wonko & his read messages dilemma now
I thought feminism was about equality "The fundamental basis of feminism is the idea of equality of the sexes, yes. However, there seem to be lots of "sub categories" of feminism nowadays. My personal view is that equality can only be achieved when people have genuine choice about things that happen to them. Choosing whether or not to continue a pregnancy would be, to me, a choice that should be extended to all women. That would make me pro-choice. I personally decided to continue a pregnancy when I was 16 because I knew that I could not go through with an abortion, knowing that decision would have an impact for the rest of my life. I made one choice for myself but would advocate to the ends of the earth for people to have their own proper choice. People seem to conflate the choice they'd make themselves in a certain situation, with the right to allow others to make different choices, which frustrates me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it’s a bit misleading to interpret the results because it’s a leading question. Feminism is about supporting women to make the choices that are right for them and their situation not enforcing one choice over the other. I’m gonna go back to watching Wonko & his read messages dilemma now
I thought feminism was about equality
The fundamental basis of feminism is the idea of equality of the sexes, yes.
However, there seem to be lots of "sub categories" of feminism nowadays.
My personal view is that equality can only be achieved when people have genuine choice about things that happen to them. Choosing whether or not to continue a pregnancy would be, to me, a choice that should be extended to all women. That would make me pro-choice.
I personally decided to continue a pregnancy when I was 16 because I knew that I could not go through with an abortion, knowing that decision would have an impact for the rest of my life. I made one choice for myself but would advocate to the ends of the earth for people to have their own proper choice.
People seem to conflate the choice they'd make themselves in a certain situation, with the right to allow others to make different choices, which frustrates me. "Sub categories with different ideologies? Some of them even contradictory? But all fall under the umbrella of feminism? That seems like a very flawed approach to feminism . I think is exactly why so many people (women and men) are so reluctant to call themselves feminists. Everyone is an advocate for equality, yet no one calls themselves a feminist... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it’s a bit misleading to interpret the results because it’s a leading question. Feminism is about supporting women to make the choices that are right for them and their situation not enforcing one choice over the other. I’m gonna go back to watching Wonko & his read messages dilemma now
I thought feminism was about equality
The fundamental basis of feminism is the idea of equality of the sexes, yes.
However, there seem to be lots of "sub categories" of feminism nowadays.
My personal view is that equality can only be achieved when people have genuine choice about things that happen to them. Choosing whether or not to continue a pregnancy would be, to me, a choice that should be extended to all women. That would make me pro-choice.
I personally decided to continue a pregnancy when I was 16 because I knew that I could not go through with an abortion, knowing that decision would have an impact for the rest of my life. I made one choice for myself but would advocate to the ends of the earth for people to have their own proper choice.
People seem to conflate the choice they'd make themselves in a certain situation, with the right to allow others to make different choices, which frustrates me.
Sub categories with different ideologies? Some of them even contradictory? But all fall under the umbrella of feminism? That seems like a very flawed approach to feminism . I think is exactly why so many people (women and men) are so reluctant to call themselves feminists. Everyone is an advocate for equality, yet no one calls themselves a feminist..."Not everyone
I don't believe in equality, I think it's a flawed concept | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
in my humble opinion without being sentimental or offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, I honestly believe! I have nothing to say  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it’s a bit misleading to interpret the results because it’s a leading question. Feminism is about supporting women to make the choices that are right for them and their situation not enforcing one choice over the other. I’m gonna go back to watching Wonko & his read messages dilemma now
I thought feminism was about equality
The fundamental basis of feminism is the idea of equality of the sexes, yes.
However, there seem to be lots of "sub categories" of feminism nowadays.
My personal view is that equality can only be achieved when people have genuine choice about things that happen to them. Choosing whether or not to continue a pregnancy would be, to me, a choice that should be extended to all women. That would make me pro-choice.
I personally decided to continue a pregnancy when I was 16 because I knew that I could not go through with an abortion, knowing that decision would have an impact for the rest of my life. I made one choice for myself but would advocate to the ends of the earth for people to have their own proper choice.
People seem to conflate the choice they'd make themselves in a certain situation, with the right to allow others to make different choices, which frustrates me.
Sub categories with different ideologies? Some of them even contradictory? But all fall under the umbrella of feminism? That seems like a very flawed approach to feminism . I think is exactly why so many people (women and men) are so reluctant to call themselves feminists. Everyone is an advocate for equality, yet no one calls themselves a feminist..."All ideologies have sub groups. Else it's more a cult thinking, if an ideology is to exist you need differences of opinion and debate within it else how do you not create fascists? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it’s a bit misleading to interpret the results because it’s a leading question. Feminism is about supporting women to make the choices that are right for them and their situation not enforcing one choice over the other. I’m gonna go back to watching Wonko & his read messages dilemma now
I thought feminism was about equality
The fundamental basis of feminism is the idea of equality of the sexes, yes.
However, there seem to be lots of "sub categories" of feminism nowadays.
My personal view is that equality can only be achieved when people have genuine choice about things that happen to them. Choosing whether or not to continue a pregnancy would be, to me, a choice that should be extended to all women. That would make me pro-choice.
I personally decided to continue a pregnancy when I was 16 because I knew that I could not go through with an abortion, knowing that decision would have an impact for the rest of my life. I made one choice for myself but would advocate to the ends of the earth for people to have their own proper choice.
People seem to conflate the choice they'd make themselves in a certain situation, with the right to allow others to make different choices, which frustrates me.
Sub categories with different ideologies? Some of them even contradictory? But all fall under the umbrella of feminism? That seems like a very flawed approach to feminism . I think is exactly why so many people (women and men) are so reluctant to call themselves feminists. Everyone is an advocate for equality, yet no one calls themselves a feminist...
Not everyone
I don't believe in equality, I think it's a flawed concept "OK OK...equality as in equal rights and equal opportunity | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it’s a bit misleading to interpret the results because it’s a leading question. Feminism is about supporting women to make the choices that are right for them and their situation not enforcing one choice over the other. I’m gonna go back to watching Wonko & his read messages dilemma now
I thought feminism was about equality
The fundamental basis of feminism is the idea of equality of the sexes, yes.
However, there seem to be lots of "sub categories" of feminism nowadays.
My personal view is that equality can only be achieved when people have genuine choice about things that happen to them. Choosing whether or not to continue a pregnancy would be, to me, a choice that should be extended to all women. That would make me pro-choice.
I personally decided to continue a pregnancy when I was 16 because I knew that I could not go through with an abortion, knowing that decision would have an impact for the rest of my life. I made one choice for myself but would advocate to the ends of the earth for people to have their own proper choice.
People seem to conflate the choice they'd make themselves in a certain situation, with the right to allow others to make different choices, which frustrates me.
Sub categories with different ideologies? Some of them even contradictory? But all fall under the umbrella of feminism? That seems like a very flawed approach to feminism . I think is exactly why so many people (women and men) are so reluctant to call themselves feminists. Everyone is an advocate for equality, yet no one calls themselves a feminist...
All ideologies have sub groups. Else it's more a cult thinking, if an ideology is to exist you need differences of opinion and debate within it else how do you not create fascists?
"Fair point | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it’s a bit misleading to interpret the results because it’s a leading question. Feminism is about supporting women to make the choices that are right for them and their situation not enforcing one choice over the other. I’m gonna go back to watching Wonko & his read messages dilemma now
I thought feminism was about equality
The fundamental basis of feminism is the idea of equality of the sexes, yes.
However, there seem to be lots of "sub categories" of feminism nowadays.
My personal view is that equality can only be achieved when people have genuine choice about things that happen to them. Choosing whether or not to continue a pregnancy would be, to me, a choice that should be extended to all women. That would make me pro-choice.
I personally decided to continue a pregnancy when I was 16 because I knew that I could not go through with an abortion, knowing that decision would have an impact for the rest of my life. I made one choice for myself but would advocate to the ends of the earth for people to have their own proper choice.
People seem to conflate the choice they'd make themselves in a certain situation, with the right to allow others to make different choices, which frustrates me.
Sub categories with different ideologies? Some of them even contradictory? But all fall under the umbrella of feminism? That seems like a very flawed approach to feminism . I think is exactly why so many people (women and men) are so reluctant to call themselves feminists. Everyone is an advocate for equality, yet no one calls themselves a feminist...
Not everyone
I don't believe in equality, I think it's a flawed concept "Unless everyone is at the same starting point it is a massively flawed concept. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it’s a bit misleading to interpret the results because it’s a leading question. Feminism is about supporting women to make the choices that are right for them and their situation not enforcing one choice over the other. I’m gonna go back to watching Wonko & his read messages dilemma now
I thought feminism was about equality
The fundamental basis of feminism is the idea of equality of the sexes, yes.
However, there seem to be lots of "sub categories" of feminism nowadays.
My personal view is that equality can only be achieved when people have genuine choice about things that happen to them. Choosing whether or not to continue a pregnancy would be, to me, a choice that should be extended to all women. That would make me pro-choice.
I personally decided to continue a pregnancy when I was 16 because I knew that I could not go through with an abortion, knowing that decision would have an impact for the rest of my life. I made one choice for myself but would advocate to the ends of the earth for people to have their own proper choice.
People seem to conflate the choice they'd make themselves in a certain situation, with the right to allow others to make different choices, which frustrates me.
Sub categories with different ideologies? Some of them even contradictory? But all fall under the umbrella of feminism? That seems like a very flawed approach to feminism . I think is exactly why so many people (women and men) are so reluctant to call themselves feminists. Everyone is an advocate for equality, yet no one calls themselves a feminist...
Not everyone
I don't believe in equality, I think it's a flawed concept
Unless everyone is at the same starting point it is a massively flawed concept. "Equal opportunity then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it’s a bit misleading to interpret the results because it’s a leading question. Feminism is about supporting women to make the choices that are right for them and their situation not enforcing one choice over the other. I’m gonna go back to watching Wonko & his read messages dilemma now
I thought feminism was about equality
The fundamental basis of feminism is the idea of equality of the sexes, yes.
However, there seem to be lots of "sub categories" of feminism nowadays.
My personal view is that equality can only be achieved when people have genuine choice about things that happen to them. Choosing whether or not to continue a pregnancy would be, to me, a choice that should be extended to all women. That would make me pro-choice.
I personally decided to continue a pregnancy when I was 16 because I knew that I could not go through with an abortion, knowing that decision would have an impact for the rest of my life. I made one choice for myself but would advocate to the ends of the earth for people to have their own proper choice.
People seem to conflate the choice they'd make themselves in a certain situation, with the right to allow others to make different choices, which frustrates me.
Sub categories with different ideologies? Some of them even contradictory? But all fall under the umbrella of feminism? That seems like a very flawed approach to feminism . I think is exactly why so many people (women and men) are so reluctant to call themselves feminists. Everyone is an advocate for equality, yet no one calls themselves a feminist...
Not everyone
I don't believe in equality, I think it's a flawed concept
Unless everyone is at the same starting point it is a massively flawed concept.
Equal opportunity then? "I still don't think it exists as such. Does someone who is brought up in poverty have the the same opportunities as someone who can afford to send their kid to Eton? They unfortunately don't there is a flaw in ideology of it. Doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to narrow the gap but my feelings are it will always exist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it’s a bit misleading to interpret the results because it’s a leading question. Feminism is about supporting women to make the choices that are right for them and their situation not enforcing one choice over the other. I’m gonna go back to watching Wonko & his read messages dilemma now
I thought feminism was about equality
The fundamental basis of feminism is the idea of equality of the sexes, yes.
However, there seem to be lots of "sub categories" of feminism nowadays.
My personal view is that equality can only be achieved when people have genuine choice about things that happen to them. Choosing whether or not to continue a pregnancy would be, to me, a choice that should be extended to all women. That would make me pro-choice.
I personally decided to continue a pregnancy when I was 16 because I knew that I could not go through with an abortion, knowing that decision would have an impact for the rest of my life. I made one choice for myself but would advocate to the ends of the earth for people to have their own proper choice.
People seem to conflate the choice they'd make themselves in a certain situation, with the right to allow others to make different choices, which frustrates me.
Sub categories with different ideologies? Some of them even contradictory? But all fall under the umbrella of feminism? That seems like a very flawed approach to feminism . I think is exactly why so many people (women and men) are so reluctant to call themselves feminists. Everyone is an advocate for equality, yet no one calls themselves a feminist..."I didn't invent feminism as a concept, so don't shoot the messenger. The central concept of equality across the genders is, to me, is something we should all be striving for. I couldn't care less how you label it or what you call it. I am a feminist. My son describes himself as a feminist. We have very different views on many things, but the central tenet of equal rights and equality of opportunity across the sexes is what we have in common. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it’s a bit misleading to interpret the results because it’s a leading question. Feminism is about supporting women to make the choices that are right for them and their situation not enforcing one choice over the other. I’m gonna go back to watching Wonko & his read messages dilemma now
I thought feminism was about equality
The fundamental basis of feminism is the idea of equality of the sexes, yes.
However, there seem to be lots of "sub categories" of feminism nowadays.
My personal view is that equality can only be achieved when people have genuine choice about things that happen to them. Choosing whether or not to continue a pregnancy would be, to me, a choice that should be extended to all women. That would make me pro-choice.
I personally decided to continue a pregnancy when I was 16 because I knew that I could not go through with an abortion, knowing that decision would have an impact for the rest of my life. I made one choice for myself but would advocate to the ends of the earth for people to have their own proper choice.
People seem to conflate the choice they'd make themselves in a certain situation, with the right to allow others to make different choices, which frustrates me.
Sub categories with different ideologies? Some of them even contradictory? But all fall under the umbrella of feminism? That seems like a very flawed approach to feminism . I think is exactly why so many people (women and men) are so reluctant to call themselves feminists. Everyone is an advocate for equality, yet no one calls themselves a feminist...
Not everyone
I don't believe in equality, I think it's a flawed concept
Unless everyone is at the same starting point it is a massively flawed concept.
Equal opportunity then?
I still don't think it exists as such. Does someone who is brought up in poverty have the the same opportunities as someone who can afford to send their kid to Eton? They unfortunately don't there is a flaw in ideology of it. Doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to narrow the gap but my feelings are it will always exist."True, equality as such does not exist and we don't know if it will ever exist like that, but when a person says they believe in equal rights, it is correlating to the fight for equal rights and equal opportunity, which we should always strive for. Similar to freedom, we probably have more freedom than ever before, but we still struggle with freedom of speech ( you have people trying to silence other people) freedom of religion ( not all religions are accepted- and by all means some are dangerous ) , freedom of expression ( I mean look at us here, lurking in the shadows afraid to show our face and admit we are on a swingers site, because the majority of society don't understand and accept it - and yes I know some people here have no problem showing their face)... but we should still fight for FREEDOM (William Wallace scream) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Sub categories with different ideologies? Some of them even contradictory? But all fall under the umbrella of feminism? That seems like a very flawed approach to feminism . I think is exactly why so many people (women and men) are so reluctant to call themselves feminists. Everyone is an advocate for equality, yet no one calls themselves a feminist... I didn't invent feminism as a concept, so don't shoot the messenger. The central concept of equality across the genders is, to me, is something we should all be striving for. I couldn't care less how you label it or what you call it. I am a feminist. My son describes himself as a feminist. We have very different views on many things, but the central tenet of equal rights and equality of opportunity across the sexes is what we have in common. " My daughter and I are both feminists. Still working on my boys | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it’s a bit misleading to interpret the results because it’s a leading question. Feminism is about supporting women to make the choices that are right for them and their situation not enforcing one choice over the other. I’m gonna go back to watching Wonko & his read messages dilemma now
I thought feminism was about equality
The fundamental basis of feminism is the idea of equality of the sexes, yes.
However, there seem to be lots of "sub categories" of feminism nowadays.
My personal view is that equality can only be achieved when people have genuine choice about things that happen to them. Choosing whether or not to continue a pregnancy would be, to me, a choice that should be extended to all women. That would make me pro-choice.
I personally decided to continue a pregnancy when I was 16 because I knew that I could not go through with an abortion, knowing that decision would have an impact for the rest of my life. I made one choice for myself but would advocate to the ends of the earth for people to have their own proper choice.
People seem to conflate the choice they'd make themselves in a certain situation, with the right to allow others to make different choices, which frustrates me. "Spot on. An individual question conflated with an ideology with the right to self-determine, to make those very choices, at its core. Flawed logic in clickbait vid.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No lengthy comment..just have to say what a twunt that grace is on it "Yeah I think everyone can universally agree she's a bit of a looney | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it’s a bit misleading to interpret the results because it’s a leading question. Feminism is about supporting women to make the choices that are right for them and their situation not enforcing one choice over the other. I’m gonna go back to watching Wonko & his read messages dilemma now
I thought feminism was about equality
The fundamental basis of feminism is the idea of equality of the sexes, yes.
However, there seem to be lots of "sub categories" of feminism nowadays.
My personal view is that equality can only be achieved when people have genuine choice about things that happen to them. Choosing whether or not to continue a pregnancy would be, to me, a choice that should be extended to all women. That would make me pro-choice.
I personally decided to continue a pregnancy when I was 16 because I knew that I could not go through with an abortion, knowing that decision would have an impact for the rest of my life. I made one choice for myself but would advocate to the ends of the earth for people to have their own proper choice.
People seem to conflate the choice they'd make themselves in a certain situation, with the right to allow others to make different choices, which frustrates me.
Sub categories with different ideologies? Some of them even contradictory? But all fall under the umbrella of feminism? That seems like a very flawed approach to feminism . I think is exactly why so many people (women and men) are so reluctant to call themselves feminists. Everyone is an advocate for equality, yet no one calls themselves a feminist...
Not everyone
I don't believe in equality, I think it's a flawed concept
Unless everyone is at the same starting point it is a massively flawed concept.
Equal opportunity then?
I still don't think it exists as such. Does someone who is brought up in poverty have the the same opportunities as someone who can afford to send their kid to Eton? They unfortunately don't there is a flaw in ideology of it. Doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to narrow the gap but my feelings are it will always exist.
True, equality as such does not exist and we don't know if it will ever exist like that, but when a person says they believe in equal rights, it is correlating to the fight for equal rights and equal opportunity, which we should always strive for. Similar to freedom, we probably have more freedom than ever before, but we still struggle with freedom of speech ( you have people trying to silence other people) freedom of religion ( not all religions are accepted- and by all means some are dangerous ) , freedom of expression ( I mean look at us here, lurking in the shadows afraid to show our face and admit we are on a swingers site, because the majority of society don't understand and accept it - and yes I know some people here have no problem showing their face)... but we should still fight for FREEDOM (William Wallace scream)"Totally agree with you it's something we should strive for. But it's the widening or narrowing of the gaps that I think are most likely to derive benefits to people. Don't start me with freedom of speech, think that has gone backwards in the last few years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Totally agree with you it's something we should strive for. But it's the widening or narrowing of the gaps that I think are most likely to derive benefits to people. Don't start me with freedom of speech, think that has gone backwards in the last few years. " Freedom of speech exists in our culture. Freedom of speech does not mean free from consequence. The difference is the ability to express such speech, and in turn challenge it too is global so you see more expressing their freedom of speech, and those challenging those views. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So a question came up in a Jubilee video https://youtu.be/a6qInn2DOng 9:38 time stamp, and for some reason I find it a little odd? To see where it went. Would anyone like to voice their opinion? Please just keep it mature "Groupthink is deplorable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Totally agree with you it's something we should strive for. But it's the widening or narrowing of the gaps that I think are most likely to derive benefits to people. Don't start me with freedom of speech, think that has gone backwards in the last few years. Freedom of speech exists in our culture. Freedom of speech does not mean free from consequence. The difference is the ability to express such speech, and in turn challenge it too is global so you see more expressing their freedom of speech, and those challenging those views." I wouldn't broadly say "freedom from consequence". There should not be certain kind of consequence from someone's speech. For example, the government should not make arrests or take action on someone just because they said something. If they do, then it's not freedom of speech. Of course, people have the right to use their freedom of speech to bash whatever I am talking about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Totally agree with you it's something we should strive for. But it's the widening or narrowing of the gaps that I think are most likely to derive benefits to people. Don't start me with freedom of speech, think that has gone backwards in the last few years. Freedom of speech exists in our culture. Freedom of speech does not mean free from consequence. The difference is the ability to express such speech, and in turn challenge it too is global so you see more expressing their freedom of speech, and those challenging those views. I wouldn't broadly say "freedom from consequence". There should not be certain kind of consequence from someone's speech. For example, the government should not make arrests or take action on someone just because they said something. If they do, then it's not freedom of speech. Of course, people have the right to use their freedom of speech to bash whatever I am talking about. " But nothing is free from consequence. The consequences vary but they exist for everything. Somebody says something I disagree with? That's fine, they shouldn't be arrested, but they may or may not receive a fist to the face (they won't because I'm not a violent person) but that is a consequence of their freedom of speech. Just as is any consequence that comes my way for punching them and my freedom of speech to call them a cunt afterward. Challenging and standing up to an opposing view is a consequence all the same, regardless of what that action may be. Anything from, a challenging argument, a slap, or arrest. "but that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it" good for you, that's great! does not mean there won't be opposing views, pushback, chellenges or more - all of them consequences to your right to express that freedom of speech. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's how the question is worded that causes the issue. Saying "should be" instantly rules me out. It no longer a question about the topic (being pro choice) but about enforcing one view point on others. Am I pro choice? Absolutely. Do I believe being feminist means you *should* be? No. Being feminist rules out some of the arguments against being pro choice but it doesn't mean you should be one or the other - they are two separate ideas. Mr" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Totally agree with you it's something we should strive for. But it's the widening or narrowing of the gaps that I think are most likely to derive benefits to people. Don't start me with freedom of speech, think that has gone backwards in the last few years. Freedom of speech exists in our culture. Freedom of speech does not mean free from consequence. The difference is the ability to express such speech, and in turn challenge it too is global so you see more expressing their freedom of speech, and those challenging those views." I was thinking globally, though didn't express myself well admittedly. What equality and freedom of speech etc look like to me is very different to what someone else in repressive regimes or a third week world country looks like. And I agree that freedom of speech does have consequences. Which many seem to baulk at. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Totally agree with you it's something we should strive for. But it's the widening or narrowing of the gaps that I think are most likely to derive benefits to people. Don't start me with freedom of speech, think that has gone backwards in the last few years. Freedom of speech exists in our culture. Freedom of speech does not mean free from consequence. The difference is the ability to express such speech, and in turn challenge it too is global so you see more expressing their freedom of speech, and those challenging those views. I wouldn't broadly say "freedom from consequence". There should not be certain kind of consequence from someone's speech. For example, the government should not make arrests or take action on someone just because they said something. If they do, then it's not freedom of speech. Of course, people have the right to use their freedom of speech to bash whatever I am talking about. But nothing is free from consequence. The consequences vary but they exist for everything. Somebody says something I disagree with? That's fine, they shouldn't be arrested, but they may or may not receive a fist to the face (they won't because I'm not a violent person) but that is a consequence of their freedom of speech. Just as is any consequence that comes my way for punching them and my freedom of speech to call them a cunt afterward. Challenging and standing up to an opposing view is a consequence all the same, regardless of what that action may be. Anything from, a challenging argument, a slap, or arrest. "but that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it" good for you, that's great! does not mean there won't be opposing views, pushback, chellenges or more - all of them consequences to your right to express that freedom of speech. "Agree that there are always consequence. But there is freedom of speech only if there is no consequence of certain types - like government action or violence. That's what makes it a freedom. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's how the question is worded that causes the issue. Saying "should be" instantly rules me out. It no longer a question about the topic (being pro choice) but about enforcing one view point on others. Am I pro choice? Absolutely. Do I believe being feminist means you *should* be? No. Being feminist rules out some of the arguments against being pro choice but it doesn't mean you should be one or the other - they are two separate ideas. Mr" Can you force a woman to carry a child to term against their will, and call yourself a Feminist? Surely not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An important part of the of the equality debate is equality vs equity Equality isn’t right for all circumstances. Neither is equity Attempts at affirmative action often get targeted for not being about equality for exactly what I write above. It’s important to understand both and the challenge comes in distinguishing which to use and when " Very true. There is a great image displaying both. One side of the image has 3 men, all different heights given the same small sized box to stand on to see over. One can see fine, the other can just about see over but partially and the 3rd cant see over at all. The other side of the image each man is given what they need to see over. The first the same box as previous. The second, 2 boxes. And the 3rd 3 boxes. All men can now see over the fence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's how the question is worded that causes the issue. Saying "should be" instantly rules me out. It no longer a question about the topic (being pro choice) but about enforcing one view point on others. Am I pro choice? Absolutely. Do I believe being feminist means you *should* be? No. Being feminist rules out some of the arguments against being pro choice but it doesn't mean you should be one or the other - they are two separate ideas. Mr Can you force a woman to carry a child to term against their will, and call yourself a Feminist? Surely not." Can you celebrate the removal of walk on girls/grid girls etc. Removing the choice for women who choose that profession and make a lot of money from it and call yourself a feminist? Surely not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Can you force a woman to carry a child to term against their will, and call yourself a Feminist? Surely not. Can you celebrate the removal of walk on girls/grid girls etc. Removing the choice for women who choose that profession and make a lot of money from it and call yourself a feminist? Surely not. " I honestly don't know what this comment means. What's a grid girl? Do they make money from abortions somehow? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Can you force a woman to carry a child to term against their will, and call yourself a Feminist? Surely not. Can you celebrate the removal of walk on girls/grid girls etc. Removing the choice for women who choose that profession and make a lot of money from it and call yourself a feminist? Surely not. I honestly don't know what this comment means. What's a grid girl? Do they make money from abortions somehow?" The problem is pro-life people believe that fetus is alive. From their perspective, allowing abortion is same as allowing murder. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Can you force a woman to carry a child to term against their will, and call yourself a Feminist? Surely not. Can you celebrate the removal of walk on girls/grid girls etc. Removing the choice for women who choose that profession and make a lot of money from it and call yourself a feminist? Surely not. I honestly don't know what this comment means. What's a grid girl? Do they make money from abortions somehow?" Sorry. No nothing to do with abortion. I agree with you. It was just another example of some of these feminists taking women’s choices away | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's how the question is worded that causes the issue. Saying "should be" instantly rules me out. It no longer a question about the topic (being pro choice) but about enforcing one view point on others. Am I pro choice? Absolutely. Do I believe being feminist means you *should* be? No. Being feminist rules out some of the arguments against being pro choice but it doesn't mean you should be one or the other - they are two separate ideas. Mr Can you force a woman to carry a child to term against their will, and call yourself a Feminist? Surely not." It’s a moral question with no answer Can you force a woman to carry a baby to term and call yourself a feminist? Surely not Can you murder a child befit it’s even been given a chance to be born and call yourself a feminist? Surely not Life is full of these situations where there is no answer. It’s not as black and white as we want it to be | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's how the question is worded that causes the issue. Saying "should be" instantly rules me out. It no longer a question about the topic (being pro choice) but about enforcing one view point on others. Am I pro choice? Absolutely. Do I believe being feminist means you *should* be? No. Being feminist rules out some of the arguments against being pro choice but it doesn't mean you should be one or the other - they are two separate ideas. Mr Can you force a woman to carry a child to term against their will, and call yourself a Feminist? Surely not. It’s a moral question with no answer Can you force a woman to carry a baby to term and call yourself a feminist? Surely not Can you murder a child befit it’s even been given a chance to be born and call yourself a feminist? Surely not Life is full of these situations where there is no answer. It’s not as black and white as we want it to be " In my view, feminism is about ensuring women have the ability to make their own choice in such a circumstance. It's not for me (the feminist) to enforce my morals on another person. This is my issue with a lot of feminists (and other demographics) - the inability to see beyond their own circumstances or point of view. I've made it very clear further up the thread about my own personal choices around abortion - I couldn't abide the idea of aborting my baby, despite being 16 and knowing perfectly well that my decision to continue with the pregnancy would impact my life forever. However, my personal choice not to have an abortion cannot be imposed on another person. Despite being unwilling to have an abortion myself, I've always said I'd sit and hold the hand of a friend or student who decided it was the right thing for them to do. That's what pro-choice means. It does not mean pro-abortion. It means supporting people's right to choose. A person can be unwilling to actually have an abortion but support the right of others to choose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's how the question is worded that causes the issue. Saying "should be" instantly rules me out. It no longer a question about the topic (being pro choice) but about enforcing one view point on others. Am I pro choice? Absolutely. Do I believe being feminist means you *should* be? No. Being feminist rules out some of the arguments against being pro choice but it doesn't mean you should be one or the other - they are two separate ideas. Mr Can you force a woman to carry a child to term against their will, and call yourself a Feminist? Surely not. It’s a moral question with no answer Can you force a woman to carry a baby to term and call yourself a feminist? Surely not Can you murder a child befit it’s even been given a chance to be born and call yourself a feminist? Surely not Life is full of these situations where there is no answer. It’s not as black and white as we want it to be In my view, feminism is about ensuring women have the ability to make their own choice in such a circumstance. It's not for me (the feminist) to enforce my morals on another person. This is my issue with a lot of feminists (and other demographics) - the inability to see beyond their own circumstances or point of view. I've made it very clear further up the thread about my own personal choices around abortion - I couldn't abide the idea of aborting my baby, despite being 16 and knowing perfectly well that my decision to continue with the pregnancy would impact my life forever. However, my personal choice not to have an abortion cannot be imposed on another person. Despite being unwilling to have an abortion myself, I've always said I'd sit and hold the hand of a friend or student who decided it was the right thing for them to do. That's what pro-choice means. It does not mean pro-abortion. It means supporting people's right to choose. A person can be unwilling to actually have an abortion but support the right of others to choose. " This is exactly how I feel too. Pro-choice for me means choice to do what you think is best for you, and I'll support you even it it's not the choice I would make. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's how the question is worded that causes the issue. Saying "should be" instantly rules me out. It no longer a question about the topic (being pro choice) but about enforcing one view point on others. Am I pro choice? Absolutely. Do I believe being feminist means you *should* be? No. Being feminist rules out some of the arguments against being pro choice but it doesn't mean you should be one or the other - they are two separate ideas. Mr Can you force a woman to carry a child to term against their will, and call yourself a Feminist? Surely not. It’s a moral question with no answer Can you force a woman to carry a baby to term and call yourself a feminist? Surely not Can you murder a child befit it’s even been given a chance to be born and call yourself a feminist? Surely not Life is full of these situations where there is no answer. It’s not as black and white as we want it to be In my view, feminism is about ensuring women have the ability to make their own choice in such a circumstance. It's not for me (the feminist) to enforce my morals on another person. This is my issue with a lot of feminists (and other demographics) - the inability to see beyond their own circumstances or point of view. I've made it very clear further up the thread about my own personal choices around abortion - I couldn't abide the idea of aborting my baby, despite being 16 and knowing perfectly well that my decision to continue with the pregnancy would impact my life forever. However, my personal choice not to have an abortion cannot be imposed on another person. Despite being unwilling to have an abortion myself, I've always said I'd sit and hold the hand of a friend or student who decided it was the right thing for them to do. That's what pro-choice means. It does not mean pro-abortion. It means supporting people's right to choose. A person can be unwilling to actually have an abortion but support the right of others to choose. This is exactly how I feel too. Pro-choice for me means choice to do what you think is best for you, and I'll support you even it it's not the choice I would make. " Please forgive me for being lost (I’m not meaning to annoy) but are we saying that you cannot be feminist and pro life then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's how the question is worded that causes the issue. Saying "should be" instantly rules me out. It no longer a question about the topic (being pro choice) but about enforcing one view point on others. Am I pro choice? Absolutely. Do I believe being feminist means you *should* be? No. Being feminist rules out some of the arguments against being pro choice but it doesn't mean you should be one or the other - they are two separate ideas. Mr Can you force a woman to carry a child to term against their will, and call yourself a Feminist? Surely not. It’s a moral question with no answer Can you force a woman to carry a baby to term and call yourself a feminist? Surely not Can you murder a child befit it’s even been given a chance to be born and call yourself a feminist? Surely not Life is full of these situations where there is no answer. It’s not as black and white as we want it to be In my view, feminism is about ensuring women have the ability to make their own choice in such a circumstance. It's not for me (the feminist) to enforce my morals on another person. This is my issue with a lot of feminists (and other demographics) - the inability to see beyond their own circumstances or point of view. I've made it very clear further up the thread about my own personal choices around abortion - I couldn't abide the idea of aborting my baby, despite being 16 and knowing perfectly well that my decision to continue with the pregnancy would impact my life forever. However, my personal choice not to have an abortion cannot be imposed on another person. Despite being unwilling to have an abortion myself, I've always said I'd sit and hold the hand of a friend or student who decided it was the right thing for them to do. That's what pro-choice means. It does not mean pro-abortion. It means supporting people's right to choose. A person can be unwilling to actually have an abortion but support the right of others to choose. This is exactly how I feel too. Pro-choice for me means choice to do what you think is best for you, and I'll support you even it it's not the choice I would make. Please forgive me for being lost (I’m not meaning to annoy) but are we saying that you cannot be feminist and pro life then?" No it's that I support a woman to do with her body as she sees fit. That is her choice to make not mine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's how the question is worded that causes the issue. Saying "should be" instantly rules me out. It no longer a question about the topic (being pro choice) but about enforcing one view point on others. Am I pro choice? Absolutely. Do I believe being feminist means you *should* be? No. Being feminist rules out some of the arguments against being pro choice but it doesn't mean you should be one or the other - they are two separate ideas. Mr Can you force a woman to carry a child to term against their will, and call yourself a Feminist? Surely not. It’s a moral question with no answer Can you force a woman to carry a baby to term and call yourself a feminist? Surely not Can you murder a child befit it’s even been given a chance to be born and call yourself a feminist? Surely not Life is full of these situations where there is no answer. It’s not as black and white as we want it to be In my view, feminism is about ensuring women have the ability to make their own choice in such a circumstance. It's not for me (the feminist) to enforce my morals on another person. This is my issue with a lot of feminists (and other demographics) - the inability to see beyond their own circumstances or point of view. I've made it very clear further up the thread about my own personal choices around abortion - I couldn't abide the idea of aborting my baby, despite being 16 and knowing perfectly well that my decision to continue with the pregnancy would impact my life forever. However, my personal choice not to have an abortion cannot be imposed on another person. Despite being unwilling to have an abortion myself, I've always said I'd sit and hold the hand of a friend or student who decided it was the right thing for them to do. That's what pro-choice means. It does not mean pro-abortion. It means supporting people's right to choose. A person can be unwilling to actually have an abortion but support the right of others to choose. This is exactly how I feel too. Pro-choice for me means choice to do what you think is best for you, and I'll support you even it it's not the choice I would make. Please forgive me for being lost (I’m not meaning to annoy) but are we saying that you cannot be feminist and pro life then? No it's that I support a woman to do with her body as she sees fit. That is her choice to make not mine. " For pro-life people, abortion is same as murder. You can't say "I won't murder. But you have the right to murder. It's your choice" That's the whole point of debate here. I am pro-choice myself. But the idea that feminists must be pro-choice is silly. If someone considers fetus to be alive, they cannot be pro-choice even if they are feminist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Please forgive me for being lost (I’m not meaning to annoy) but are we saying that you cannot be feminist and pro life then? No it's that I support a woman to do with her body as she sees fit. That is her choice to make not mine. " I agree. The more I think about it and read the opinions in the thread, I think that there’s argument (mostly said or implied already above) that you can’t be feminist and pro life. But I also don’t (personally) think it’s for me as a man to assert whether a woman that claims to be a feminist is or isn’t/ can or cannot be. So I’m just going to keep reading and learning. Thanks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's how the question is worded that causes the issue. Saying "should be" instantly rules me out. It no longer a question about the topic (being pro choice) but about enforcing one view point on others. Am I pro choice? Absolutely. Do I believe being feminist means you *should* be? No. Being feminist rules out some of the arguments against being pro choice but it doesn't mean you should be one or the other - they are two separate ideas. Mr Can you force a woman to carry a child to term against their will, and call yourself a Feminist? Surely not. It’s a moral question with no answer Can you force a woman to carry a baby to term and call yourself a feminist? Surely not Can you murder a child befit it’s even been given a chance to be born and call yourself a feminist? Surely not Life is full of these situations where there is no answer. It’s not as black and white as we want it to be In my view, feminism is about ensuring women have the ability to make their own choice in such a circumstance. It's not for me (the feminist) to enforce my morals on another person. This is my issue with a lot of feminists (and other demographics) - the inability to see beyond their own circumstances or point of view. I've made it very clear further up the thread about my own personal choices around abortion - I couldn't abide the idea of aborting my baby, despite being 16 and knowing perfectly well that my decision to continue with the pregnancy would impact my life forever. However, my personal choice not to have an abortion cannot be imposed on another person. Despite being unwilling to have an abortion myself, I've always said I'd sit and hold the hand of a friend or student who decided it was the right thing for them to do. That's what pro-choice means. It does not mean pro-abortion. It means supporting people's right to choose. A person can be unwilling to actually have an abortion but support the right of others to choose. This is exactly how I feel too. Pro-choice for me means choice to do what you think is best for you, and I'll support you even it it's not the choice I would make. Please forgive me for being lost (I’m not meaning to annoy) but are we saying that you cannot be feminist and pro life then? No it's that I support a woman to do with her body as she sees fit. That is her choice to make not mine. For pro-life people, abortion is same as murder. You can't say "I won't murder. But you have the right to murder. It's your choice" That's the whole point of debate here. I am pro-choice myself. But the idea that feminists must be pro-choice is silly. If someone considers fetus to be alive, they cannot be pro-choice even if they are feminist." I haven't commented who should be labelled a feminist and who shouldn't. I'm not the gatekeeper to feminism. What my beliefs on what feminism is and what others do can be different, which I appreciate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The lines between so many socio-political movements and ideologies tend to be a little blurred and muddied these days. Rarely will somebody every truely be all in on any one type without their views of another being conflicted with their views within another, or certain view points within those ideologies they also disagree with. Those that do, tend to be extremists and muddy things even more to the point of alienating you from the label. " I think intersectionality mostly allows for us to consider that. Feminists don’t look at womanhood or women’s issues as separate to other intersecting ones and I think that’s a good thing actually. Although I thought (now rethinking  ) there’s an argument that you can’t be feminist and pro life, there are plenty of religious women that may well identify that way for example. I don’t think it’s alienating, I think there can actually be good in remembering that our identities and therefore our viewpoints will naturally overlap. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first woman to answer doesn't seem to understand what pro choice means. To say you personally would never have an abortion but that you support the right of other women to choose what's best for them is being pro choice. You can not agree with abortion at all for yourself and still be pro choice if you believe other women should have the right to make different choices to you. Being pro life by definition denies other women rights regardless of if they have the same beliefs as you and I don't personally see how that can ever be feminist. Feminism is about women having choices. As for the second woman, I'm not sure where she's getting her information but nearly 90% of abortions are performed under 10 weeks gestation and only 1% are performed from 20 weeks onwards (mostly due to abnormalities) so for nearly all abortions, the sex is never known. " Just catching up on this. I think the biggest issue facing those of us who are pro-choice (and this has been pointed out above) is how abortion is seen by those who are against it. It is easy to talk of "forcing women" and yes this should be instinctively wrong to us all. The problem arises when you view abortion as murder. No one would be prepared to say "I don't believe in murder but it's up to you if you want to" similarly we wouldn't talk about the choice between forcing a woman to stay with a husband she doesn't love and murdering him. It is totally possible to be a feminist and not be pro choice. You can defend a woman's rights to choose her career, her clothing, who she has sex with etc without defending her rights to choose who she murders. Until we agree whether or not abortion is morally equivalent to murder the question of choice is irrelevant. Mr | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first woman to answer doesn't seem to understand what pro choice means. To say you personally would never have an abortion but that you support the right of other women to choose what's best for them is being pro choice. You can not agree with abortion at all for yourself and still be pro choice if you believe other women should have the right to make different choices to you. Being pro life by definition denies other women rights regardless of if they have the same beliefs as you and I don't personally see how that can ever be feminist. Feminism is about women having choices. As for the second woman, I'm not sure where she's getting her information but nearly 90% of abortions are performed under 10 weeks gestation and only 1% are performed from 20 weeks onwards (mostly due to abnormalities) so for nearly all abortions, the sex is never known. Just catching up on this. I think the biggest issue facing those of us who are pro-choice (and this has been pointed out above) is how abortion is seen by those who are against it. It is easy to talk of "forcing women" and yes this should be instinctively wrong to us all. The problem arises when you view abortion as murder. No one would be prepared to say "I don't believe in murder but it's up to you if you want to" similarly we wouldn't talk about the choice between forcing a woman to stay with a husband she doesn't love and murdering him. It is totally possible to be a feminist and not be pro choice. You can defend a woman's rights to choose her career, her clothing, who she has sex with etc without defending her rights to choose who she murders. Until we agree whether or not abortion is morally equivalent to murder the question of choice is irrelevant. Mr" The woman with the braids literally says we all have different thought processes and we should support the freedom of choice regardless of the lifestyle the woman wishes to choose yet she disagrees. It doesn't make any sense. If you are pro life you are not supporting freedom of choice at all nor allowing for different view points. It is not a universal or even majority viewpoint that abortion is murder so why are we catering exclusively to the viewpoint of the minority? If a woman feels that abortion is murder, she doesn't have to ever have one. Her opinion doesn't give her the right to dictate to everyone else though. While there is no consensus, how is it right to restrict everybody? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first woman to answer doesn't seem to understand what pro choice means. To say you personally would never have an abortion but that you support the right of other women to choose what's best for them is being pro choice. You can not agree with abortion at all for yourself and still be pro choice if you believe other women should have the right to make different choices to you. Being pro life by definition denies other women rights regardless of if they have the same beliefs as you and I don't personally see how that can ever be feminist. Feminism is about women having choices. As for the second woman, I'm not sure where she's getting her information but nearly 90% of abortions are performed under 10 weeks gestation and only 1% are performed from 20 weeks onwards (mostly due to abnormalities) so for nearly all abortions, the sex is never known. Just catching up on this. I think the biggest issue facing those of us who are pro-choice (and this has been pointed out above) is how abortion is seen by those who are against it. It is easy to talk of "forcing women" and yes this should be instinctively wrong to us all. The problem arises when you view abortion as murder. No one would be prepared to say "I don't believe in murder but it's up to you if you want to" similarly we wouldn't talk about the choice between forcing a woman to stay with a husband she doesn't love and murdering him. It is totally possible to be a feminist and not be pro choice. You can defend a woman's rights to choose her career, her clothing, who she has sex with etc without defending her rights to choose who she murders. Until we agree whether or not abortion is morally equivalent to murder the question of choice is irrelevant. Mr The woman with the braids literally says we all have different thought processes and we should support the freedom of choice regardless of the lifestyle the woman wishes to choose yet she disagrees. It doesn't make any sense. If you are pro life you are not supporting freedom of choice at all nor allowing for different view points. It is not a universal or even majority viewpoint that abortion is murder so why are we catering exclusively to the viewpoint of the minority? If a woman feels that abortion is murder, she doesn't have to ever have one. Her opinion doesn't give her the right to dictate to everyone else though. While there is no consensus, how is it right to restrict everybody? " I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that in the eyes of the pro life lobby the issue isn't choice. If a large section of society said that r@pe was their choice, if you don't like it that's fine don't do it, but don't force your choices on them etc etc, would you agree that that was fair enough and sit back and allow them their freedom of choice? I'm not arguing that abortion is the moral equivalent of r@pe or murder, just pointing out that someone who believes it is will also belive they have a moral duty to stop others committing what they see as a horrendous crime. They believe they are protecting innocent babies from being murdered, think about your visceral feelings of disgust at (fir example child abuse, the lengths you would go to in order to protect a child from this and you will begin to understand why they take the stance they do. Until those of us in the pro choice camp understand this, then all the arguments in the world about choice, free will, forcing women etc etc are no use. When you talk to someone who is against abortion you are literally asking them (in their eyes) to accept that you condone murder and that though they may not like it they should allow others to do it - to innocent babies no less. The argument starts and ends with agreeing whether abortion is morally equivalent to murder. Only when you convince people of this will they accept it is an issue people should be allowed to choose in. I also don't believe we are catering to the viewpoint of the minority,abortion is legal in this country. Mr | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first woman to answer doesn't seem to understand what pro choice means. To say you personally would never have an abortion but that you support the right of other women to choose what's best for them is being pro choice. You can not agree with abortion at all for yourself and still be pro choice if you believe other women should have the right to make different choices to you. Being pro life by definition denies other women rights regardless of if they have the same beliefs as you and I don't personally see how that can ever be feminist. Feminism is about women having choices. As for the second woman, I'm not sure where she's getting her information but nearly 90% of abortions are performed under 10 weeks gestation and only 1% are performed from 20 weeks onwards (mostly due to abnormalities) so for nearly all abortions, the sex is never known. Just catching up on this. I think the biggest issue facing those of us who are pro-choice (and this has been pointed out above) is how abortion is seen by those who are against it. It is easy to talk of "forcing women" and yes this should be instinctively wrong to us all. The problem arises when you view abortion as murder. No one would be prepared to say "I don't believe in murder but it's up to you if you want to" similarly we wouldn't talk about the choice between forcing a woman to stay with a husband she doesn't love and murdering him. It is totally possible to be a feminist and not be pro choice. You can defend a woman's rights to choose her career, her clothing, who she has sex with etc without defending her rights to choose who she murders. Until we agree whether or not abortion is morally equivalent to murder the question of choice is irrelevant. Mr The woman with the braids literally says we all have different thought processes and we should support the freedom of choice regardless of the lifestyle the woman wishes to choose yet she disagrees. It doesn't make any sense. If you are pro life you are not supporting freedom of choice at all nor allowing for different view points. It is not a universal or even majority viewpoint that abortion is murder so why are we catering exclusively to the viewpoint of the minority? If a woman feels that abortion is murder, she doesn't have to ever have one. Her opinion doesn't give her the right to dictate to everyone else though. While there is no consensus, how is it right to restrict everybody? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that in the eyes of the pro life lobby the issue isn't choice. If a large section of society said that r@pe was their choice, if you don't like it that's fine don't do it, but don't force your choices on them etc etc, would you agree that that was fair enough and sit back and allow them their freedom of choice? I'm not arguing that abortion is the moral equivalent of r@pe or murder, just pointing out that someone who believes it is will also belive they have a moral duty to stop others committing what they see as a horrendous crime. They believe they are protecting innocent babies from being murdered, think about your visceral feelings of disgust at (fir example child abuse, the lengths you would go to in order to protect a child from this and you will begin to understand why they take the stance they do. Until those of us in the pro choice camp understand this, then all the arguments in the world about choice, free will, forcing women etc etc are no use. When you talk to someone who is against abortion you are literally asking them (in their eyes) to accept that you condone murder and that though they may not like it they should allow others to do it - to innocent babies no less. The argument starts and ends with agreeing whether abortion is morally equivalent to murder. Only when you convince people of this will they accept it is an issue people should be allowed to choose in. I also don't believe we are catering to the viewpoint of the minority,abortion is legal in this country. Mr" I don't really understand what you're saying though. The question wasn't how do we change the minds of people who are pro life. It was can you be both pro life and a feminist and I don't personally believe you can be as one vastly contradicts the other. They do believe that but someone who was an extreme vegan campaigning to make eating animal products illegal would also believe they were protecting innocent animals from being murdered. It doesn't mean that they can also claim to be pro freedom or anti-authoritarian however. I didn't say we are currently catering to the viewpoint of the minority. I am saying that is what pro lifers want us to do. They want the will of the minority imposed on all women. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If feminists are for equality can you not be pro life? Where’s the equality in murdering someone before their even born? Where was their fair chance at life? It’s a moral dilemma with no real answer." Hmmm. Personally, I think that humans should have complete autonomy over their bodies. And I think that a human potentially not having full autonomy over their body is an extremely dangerous slope. But I do think people are pro life from a religious pov AND identify as feminist and to the point of the thread, that’s what feminism is. It’s not a monolith. It’s a (revolutionary) movement that doesn’t have to be exclusionary. This is where my brain has taken me over this thread anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If feminists are for equality can you not be pro life? Where’s the equality in murdering someone before their even born? Where was their fair chance at life? It’s a moral dilemma with no real answer." It's how bodily autonomy works. If I or even a child was dying because of needing a heart transplant and you were a perfect match, if you decided before you died you didn't want to donate your organs, if you died they couldn't be taken even if it meant me or the child dying. Even if I was pregnant. The only reason you need is that you simply don't want to. Even though you're dead and don't need the heart anymore. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first woman to answer doesn't seem to understand what pro choice means. To say you personally would never have an abortion but that you support the right of other women to choose what's best for them is being pro choice. You can not agree with abortion at all for yourself and still be pro choice if you believe other women should have the right to make different choices to you. Being pro life by definition denies other women rights regardless of if they have the same beliefs as you and I don't personally see how that can ever be feminist. Feminism is about women having choices. As for the second woman, I'm not sure where she's getting her information but nearly 90% of abortions are performed under 10 weeks gestation and only 1% are performed from 20 weeks onwards (mostly due to abnormalities) so for nearly all abortions, the sex is never known. Just catching up on this. I think the biggest issue facing those of us who are pro-choice (and this has been pointed out above) is how abortion is seen by those who are against it. It is easy to talk of "forcing women" and yes this should be instinctively wrong to us all. The problem arises when you view abortion as murder. No one would be prepared to say "I don't believe in murder but it's up to you if you want to" similarly we wouldn't talk about the choice between forcing a woman to stay with a husband she doesn't love and murdering him. It is totally possible to be a feminist and not be pro choice. You can defend a woman's rights to choose her career, her clothing, who she has sex with etc without defending her rights to choose who she murders. Until we agree whether or not abortion is morally equivalent to murder the question of choice is irrelevant. Mr The woman with the braids literally says we all have different thought processes and we should support the freedom of choice regardless of the lifestyle the woman wishes to choose yet she disagrees. It doesn't make any sense. If you are pro life you are not supporting freedom of choice at all nor allowing for different view points. It is not a universal or even majority viewpoint that abortion is murder so why are we catering exclusively to the viewpoint of the minority? If a woman feels that abortion is murder, she doesn't have to ever have one. Her opinion doesn't give her the right to dictate to everyone else though. While there is no consensus, how is it right to restrict everybody? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that in the eyes of the pro life lobby the issue isn't choice. If a large section of society said that r@pe was their choice, if you don't like it that's fine don't do it, but don't force your choices on them etc etc, would you agree that that was fair enough and sit back and allow them their freedom of choice? I'm not arguing that abortion is the moral equivalent of r@pe or murder, just pointing out that someone who believes it is will also belive they have a moral duty to stop others committing what they see as a horrendous crime. They believe they are protecting innocent babies from being murdered, think about your visceral feelings of disgust at (fir example child abuse, the lengths you would go to in order to protect a child from this and you will begin to understand why they take the stance they do. Until those of us in the pro choice camp understand this, then all the arguments in the world about choice, free will, forcing women etc etc are no use. When you talk to someone who is against abortion you are literally asking them (in their eyes) to accept that you condone murder and that though they may not like it they should allow others to do it - to innocent babies no less. The argument starts and ends with agreeing whether abortion is morally equivalent to murder. Only when you convince people of this will they accept it is an issue people should be allowed to choose in. I also don't believe we are catering to the viewpoint of the minority,abortion is legal in this country. Mr" This is a rabbit hole against the main thread of pro-choice, but "Life begins at conception" is pretty much pro-life doctrine; contraception is in the same category as abortion. Pro-life is fundamentally opposed to many, many legal choices feminists and others have fought for. Self-determination only applies if you agree with the doctrine and its major absence of choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If feminists are for equality can you not be pro life? Where’s the equality in murdering someone before their even born? Where was their fair chance at life? It’s a moral dilemma with no real answer. It's how bodily autonomy works. If I or even a child was dying because of needing a heart transplant and you were a perfect match, if you decided before you died you didn't want to donate your organs, if you died they couldn't be taken even if it meant me or the child dying. Even if I was pregnant. The only reason you need is that you simply don't want to. Even though you're dead and don't need the heart anymore. " Would you agree that it is possible to be a feminist and still believe that a woman who drowns her 2 month old baby should have her freedom removed and be imprisoned? What about a 2 day old one? What about aborting 2 days before birth? You are arguing that abortion is about bodily autonomy - and that is fine. Pro lifers don't believe the argument is about the autonomy of the woman's body but that of the baby. Sure you can decide whether or not you want your organs donated but that is separate to your child's organs. Presumably you have a point where you agree that autonomy ends. To use your analogy of organs, a parent has the right to say whether their infants organs are allowed to be used but not say their 38 year old son? If you agree killing a new born is wrong, what about a baby 1 day before birth? 2 days? 3 weeks? The question is when does the babies bodily autonomy supercede that of the mothers? You are presenting your argument that it is all about the woman's autonomy and yes, in that scenario I agree it isn't possible to be pro life and a feminist. However, if you grant the baby the same level of autonomy as you do the mother then it absolutely is possible to be pro life and a feminist. The only difference between your view point and that of the majority of pro lifers is where you choose to believe the baby becomes a living being separate to its mother. Even most pro lifers (with the exception of a few ultra religeous zealots) are prepared to accept morning after pill and the coil, both of which "kill" a viable fertilised egg. You have a line some distance past this that you think is acceptable (I don't know where your line is but clearly it is some way into pregnancy). A pro lifer simply draws that line further back than you. None of this precludes a belief in a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Mr | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If feminists are for equality can you not be pro life? Where’s the equality in murdering someone before their even born? Where was their fair chance at life? It’s a moral dilemma with no real answer. It's how bodily autonomy works. If I or even a child was dying because of needing a heart transplant and you were a perfect match, if you decided before you died you didn't want to donate your organs, if you died they couldn't be taken even if it meant me or the child dying. Even if I was pregnant. The only reason you need is that you simply don't want to. Even though you're dead and don't need the heart anymore. Would you agree that it is possible to be a feminist and still believe that a woman who drowns her 2 month old baby should have her freedom removed and be imprisoned? What about a 2 day old one? What about aborting 2 days before birth? You are arguing that abortion is about bodily autonomy - and that is fine. Pro lifers don't believe the argument is about the autonomy of the woman's body but that of the baby. Sure you can decide whether or not you want your organs donated but that is separate to your child's organs. Presumably you have a point where you agree that autonomy ends. To use your analogy of organs, a parent has the right to say whether their infants organs are allowed to be used but not say their 38 year old son? If you agree killing a new born is wrong, what about a baby 1 day before birth? 2 days? 3 weeks? The question is when does the babies bodily autonomy supercede that of the mothers? You are presenting your argument that it is all about the woman's autonomy and yes, in that scenario I agree it isn't possible to be pro life and a feminist. However, if you grant the baby the same level of autonomy as you do the mother then it absolutely is possible to be pro life and a feminist. The only difference between your view point and that of the majority of pro lifers is where you choose to believe the baby becomes a living being separate to its mother. Even most pro lifers (with the exception of a few ultra religeous zealots) are prepared to accept morning after pill and the coil, both of which "kill" a viable fertilised egg. You have a line some distance past this that you think is acceptable (I don't know where your line is but clearly it is some way into pregnancy). A pro lifer simply draws that line further back than you. None of this precludes a belief in a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Mr" Exactly. The difference between a pro-choice and pro-life person is that the latter believes the fetus is alive and hence abortion is same as murder. Being feminist or not has nothing to do with it. The question is whether you consider the fetus as life or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If feminists are for equality can you not be pro life? Where’s the equality in murdering someone before their even born? Where was their fair chance at life? It’s a moral dilemma with no real answer. It's how bodily autonomy works. If I or even a child was dying because of needing a heart transplant and you were a perfect match, if you decided before you died you didn't want to donate your organs, if you died they couldn't be taken even if it meant me or the child dying. Even if I was pregnant. The only reason you need is that you simply don't want to. Even though you're dead and don't need the heart anymore. Would you agree that it is possible to be a feminist and still believe that a woman who drowns her 2 month old baby should have her freedom removed and be imprisoned? What about a 2 day old one? What about aborting 2 days before birth? You are arguing that abortion is about bodily autonomy - and that is fine. Pro lifers don't believe the argument is about the autonomy of the woman's body but that of the baby. Sure you can decide whether or not you want your organs donated but that is separate to your child's organs. Presumably you have a point where you agree that autonomy ends. To use your analogy of organs, a parent has the right to say whether their infants organs are allowed to be used but not say their 38 year old son? If you agree killing a new born is wrong, what about a baby 1 day before birth? 2 days? 3 weeks? The question is when does the babies bodily autonomy supercede that of the mothers? You are presenting your argument that it is all about the woman's autonomy and yes, in that scenario I agree it isn't possible to be pro life and a feminist. However, if you grant the baby the same level of autonomy as you do the mother then it absolutely is possible to be pro life and a feminist. The only difference between your view point and that of the majority of pro lifers is where you choose to believe the baby becomes a living being separate to its mother. Even most pro lifers (with the exception of a few ultra religeous zealots) are prepared to accept morning after pill and the coil, both of which "kill" a viable fertilised egg. You have a line some distance past this that you think is acceptable (I don't know where your line is but clearly it is some way into pregnancy). A pro lifer simply draws that line further back than you. None of this precludes a belief in a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Mr" There is a huge difference between an abortion and drowning a two month old baby. An abortion two days before birth would not be an abortion, it would be a delivery. Again, I don't think you understand my point. If I was a pregnant woman and both myself and my unborn baby would die without the organs of a dead person, that person had the right to allow me and my unborn baby to die. A person gains bodily autonomy when they have the ability to consent. You accept that an infant has no ability to consent and therefore a parent can decide on their best interests but talk about granting the foetus the same level of bodily autonomy as an adult? I.e. the right to make decisions over what happens to their body. Before they even develop the part of the brain used for thinking? In this country a foetus cannot be aborted at the point at which it can survive independently from the mother. Babies do not have bodily autonomy and even if they did, fully grown adults would not be allowed to live within another human being and feed off of them without their consent either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If feminists are for equality can you not be pro life? Where’s the equality in murdering someone before their even born? Where was their fair chance at life? It’s a moral dilemma with no real answer. It's how bodily autonomy works. If I or even a child was dying because of needing a heart transplant and you were a perfect match, if you decided before you died you didn't want to donate your organs, if you died they couldn't be taken even if it meant me or the child dying. Even if I was pregnant. The only reason you need is that you simply don't want to. Even though you're dead and don't need the heart anymore. Would you agree that it is possible to be a feminist and still believe that a woman who drowns her 2 month old baby should have her freedom removed and be imprisoned? What about a 2 day old one? What about aborting 2 days before birth? You are arguing that abortion is about bodily autonomy - and that is fine. Pro lifers don't believe the argument is about the autonomy of the woman's body but that of the baby. Sure you can decide whether or not you want your organs donated but that is separate to your child's organs. Presumably you have a point where you agree that autonomy ends. To use your analogy of organs, a parent has the right to say whether their infants organs are allowed to be used but not say their 38 year old son? If you agree killing a new born is wrong, what about a baby 1 day before birth? 2 days? 3 weeks? The question is when does the babies bodily autonomy supercede that of the mothers? You are presenting your argument that it is all about the woman's autonomy and yes, in that scenario I agree it isn't possible to be pro life and a feminist. However, if you grant the baby the same level of autonomy as you do the mother then it absolutely is possible to be pro life and a feminist. The only difference between your view point and that of the majority of pro lifers is where you choose to believe the baby becomes a living being separate to its mother. Even most pro lifers (with the exception of a few ultra religeous zealots) are prepared to accept morning after pill and the coil, both of which "kill" a viable fertilised egg. You have a line some distance past this that you think is acceptable (I don't know where your line is but clearly it is some way into pregnancy). A pro lifer simply draws that line further back than you. None of this precludes a belief in a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Mr Exactly. The difference between a pro-choice and pro-life person is that the latter believes the fetus is alive and hence abortion is same as murder. Being feminist or not has nothing to do with it. The question is whether you consider the fetus as life or not." Erm... This entire post is about whether you are a feminist or not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If feminists are for equality can you not be pro life? Where’s the equality in murdering someone before their even born? Where was their fair chance at life? It’s a moral dilemma with no real answer. It's how bodily autonomy works. If I or even a child was dying because of needing a heart transplant and you were a perfect match, if you decided before you died you didn't want to donate your organs, if you died they couldn't be taken even if it meant me or the child dying. Even if I was pregnant. The only reason you need is that you simply don't want to. Even though you're dead and don't need the heart anymore. Would you agree that it is possible to be a feminist and still believe that a woman who drowns her 2 month old baby should have her freedom removed and be imprisoned? What about a 2 day old one? What about aborting 2 days before birth? You are arguing that abortion is about bodily autonomy - and that is fine. Pro lifers don't believe the argument is about the autonomy of the woman's body but that of the baby. Sure you can decide whether or not you want your organs donated but that is separate to your child's organs. Presumably you have a point where you agree that autonomy ends. To use your analogy of organs, a parent has the right to say whether their infants organs are allowed to be used but not say their 38 year old son? If you agree killing a new born is wrong, what about a baby 1 day before birth? 2 days? 3 weeks? The question is when does the babies bodily autonomy supercede that of the mothers? You are presenting your argument that it is all about the woman's autonomy and yes, in that scenario I agree it isn't possible to be pro life and a feminist. However, if you grant the baby the same level of autonomy as you do the mother then it absolutely is possible to be pro life and a feminist. The only difference between your view point and that of the majority of pro lifers is where you choose to believe the baby becomes a living being separate to its mother. Even most pro lifers (with the exception of a few ultra religeous zealots) are prepared to accept morning after pill and the coil, both of which "kill" a viable fertilised egg. You have a line some distance past this that you think is acceptable (I don't know where your line is but clearly it is some way into pregnancy). A pro lifer simply draws that line further back than you. None of this precludes a belief in a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Mr Exactly. The difference between a pro-choice and pro-life person is that the latter believes the fetus is alive and hence abortion is same as murder. Being feminist or not has nothing to do with it. The question is whether you consider the fetus as life or not. Erm... This entire post is about whether you are a feminist or not?" The topic of debate here is whether a feminist can be pro-lifer. I am pro-choice myself. I read your previous post and understand your view point. But your take on bodily autonomy is not something pro-lifers share. A feminist who believes in equal rights for women can still believe that the women has no right to kill the foetus because they consider foetus is alive. Being pro-choice or pro-life is not directly correlated to one being feminist or not feminist. It's an independent decision. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Jordan peterson and ben shaprio great videos and speeches " and candice ownes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Jordan peterson and ben shaprio great videos and speeches and candice ownes " Videos and speeches about what, exactly? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Jordan peterson and ben shaprio great videos and speeches and candice ownes Videos and speeches about what, exactly? " Well Ben Shapiro seems to like talking about how dry he makes his wife | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If feminists are for equality can you not be pro life? Where’s the equality in murdering someone before their even born? Where was their fair chance at life? It’s a moral dilemma with no real answer. It's how bodily autonomy works. If I or even a child was dying because of needing a heart transplant and you were a perfect match, if you decided before you died you didn't want to donate your organs, if you died they couldn't be taken even if it meant me or the child dying. Even if I was pregnant. The only reason you need is that you simply don't want to. Even though you're dead and don't need the heart anymore. Would you agree that it is possible to be a feminist and still believe that a woman who drowns her 2 month old baby should have her freedom removed and be imprisoned? What about a 2 day old one? What about aborting 2 days before birth? You are arguing that abortion is about bodily autonomy - and that is fine. Pro lifers don't believe the argument is about the autonomy of the woman's body but that of the baby. Sure you can decide whether or not you want your organs donated but that is separate to your child's organs. Presumably you have a point where you agree that autonomy ends. To use your analogy of organs, a parent has the right to say whether their infants organs are allowed to be used but not say their 38 year old son? If you agree killing a new born is wrong, what about a baby 1 day before birth? 2 days? 3 weeks? The question is when does the babies bodily autonomy supercede that of the mothers? You are presenting your argument that it is all about the woman's autonomy and yes, in that scenario I agree it isn't possible to be pro life and a feminist. However, if you grant the baby the same level of autonomy as you do the mother then it absolutely is possible to be pro life and a feminist. The only difference between your view point and that of the majority of pro lifers is where you choose to believe the baby becomes a living being separate to its mother. Even most pro lifers (with the exception of a few ultra religeous zealots) are prepared to accept morning after pill and the coil, both of which "kill" a viable fertilised egg. You have a line some distance past this that you think is acceptable (I don't know where your line is but clearly it is some way into pregnancy). A pro lifer simply draws that line further back than you. None of this precludes a belief in a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Mr" The morning after pill only works if taken before the egg is released, it does not kill a foetus. The morning after pill is not effective in 1 of your 6 days of fertile period. Only the coil would stop an already fertilised egg from implanting. Think that is a massive and important difference. And personally I think there is less triggering language that can be used to discuss this topic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
