Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by RainbowSingularity, May 25, 2019.
no representation without impregnation !
whos got a big package ?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
And yet, your response to this:
Because spraining an ankle is extraneous to running. Regardless of the outcome or decision or politics or legislation, pregnancy is not extraneous to motherhood ... hence the query on what you are trying to draw a parallel to.
Why do you guys bother?
He's never going to "understand" anything; he's never going to stop prevaricating and he's never going to make any sense.
Spraining an ankle is extraneous to running; it's hardly extraneous to one's capacity for appreciation of running--or circumstances which make for optimal or viable running.
As with a lot of people (certainly not all), it's not as though he is not capable. It's deliberate. I'm genuinely curious: who is Musika playing to? At the same time, it's not as though I'm unaware that deception, as a tactic, works. But... what kind of "victory" is that?
Now that is a very interesting question. Or rather, a series of related interesting questions.I do not believe we're dealing with an actual person here - it's more like one of the interchangeable products of some underwordly assembly-line: you meet some version of it on every forum.
Who/what motivates them? I mean, it's a lot of effort, making up all that ungawa, twisting and churning, repeating, rehashing, regurgitating, tap-a-tap-a-tapping on that keyboard day and night.
Who is their intended audience? It's not as if anybody reads his spla (I just learned that word from iceaura) with any attention, and it's certainly not as if anyone who did read it got any pleasure from it.
What's it intended to accomplish? It's not as if anyone who hadn't already signed up for the 17th century ever could be convinced by his outspew. It's not as if he were making friends and influencing people.
What's the payoff?
My point was that intimate bearing bears no correlation to advocacy. IOW advocacy, or offering a valid opinion, (either for or against on any subject) has no prerequisite for being directly involved. Ideas stand on their own (de)merit.
Now, culpability, responsibility, etc is a different field, since that involves activities and results. As you quite rightly ascertain, the problem is broader than the activities of women.
I tried to breach this subject previously but it got drowned out in the echo chamber.
Running has no requirement for sprains, hence sprains are extraneous. The same goes for appreciating running. Voicing an appreciation for running has no requirement for touching on the subject of sprains. My query is what is the eqivalent extraneous factor you see present in this debate about abortion.
Right. Because voicing an appreciation is clearly what I meant by appreciation here. Idiot.
And Jeeves clearly meant that motherhood is a punishment--all that extraneous stuff about compelling a person to carry a pregnancy to term was irrelevant.
Go fuck yourself, idiot.
Obviously you need some time out.
Pretty sure if I, or practically anyone else spoke like that, they would be insta-banned.
The truth is a legitimate defense.
Nope. You consistently demonstrate that you are incapable of honesty. Like asking, for instance:
of the matter of pregnancy, in a discussion of abortion.
So, I repeat, go fuck yourself.
Better yet, try being raped and then forced to bear the progeny of that rapist, then explain as how motherhood is a reward.
Happy so far?
Well, the kid is born with a severe disability and you have no medical insurance and don't qualify for state assistance because your husband earns a pittance in seasonal work.
He drinks most of it on payday. You can't afford to stay home and look after the sick baby, because the two kids you already have would starve.
Now, just do it five more times, because your husband is a god-fearing man who doesn't waste his seed and hardly ever beats you on Sundays.
Ain't motherhood grand?
If we were discussing, say, cryptozoology, I would find the dishonesty... curious, maybe; but given the topic, it's disgusting and beyond reprehensible.
Which brings it back to the "why?" From scam artists who call land line after land line to Russian troll farms, there's a clear motivation, no matter how utterly futile the task seems. With this, what could anyone possibly be gaining from it?
Best I can figure? Obfuscation of the issue.
People are easily distracted. You so often see a forum thread driven way into quagmire by one swasti-bot changing the meaning, changing the subject, focusing on a side-issue or just being so goddam annoying that the discussion becomes all about him. Maybe that's the payoff.
It will be interesting to see if mods have access to the version you wrote before you edited it to this.
I am pretty sure that if anyone told anyone they should go get raped that they would earn themselves a lengthy time out.
I think the ''why'' is simply a result of many pro-life people gaining a sense of moral superiority when it comes to things that don't affect their lives. It's easy to tell a woman not to have an abortion, if you don't see it affecting your personal life. It's easy to be against immigration, when you live a comfortable life, and can't fathom that there are people who want to have an opportunity to live a better life. And on and on it goes.
As I've mentioned, I've never had an abortion, but I have a few friends who have had abortions, and it was a last resort. They weighed all of the options, alone - for the men in their lives at the time, abandoned them once they discovered they were pregnant. No woman says in her lifetime ''you know what I want to do more than anything? Have an abortion!'' It's usually a decision that is pain staking for many women. But, the pro life side will paint women to be villains, instead of seeing what many go through when it comes to making a decision to have an abortion. And still no solutions as alternatives to abortions, are really ever given by the pro-life side.
So, the ''why'' in my opinion, is linked to a desire to appear superficially moral.
You're right, that you may offer an opinion, and if you feel that life begins at conception for example, that is your right. But is it your right to restrict a woman's right to choose for herself, what she should do in the event of an unwanted pregnancy? That's where the debate comes in.
"Restricting choices" is rarely an effective social policy ... If it's a not so unncommon scenario for a woman to face the dilemma of choosing whether to abort her pregnancy or take"motherhood as punishment", It would seem her choices are already quite restricted.
Separate names with a comma.