Should men have a say in abortion ?

[spidergoat]

Control. There have been over 45,000,000 million abortions in the U.S. If I were in control, there would be an additional 45,000,000+ potentially cool people in this world. + people we will never know.

I think measured immigration birth is a good thing, more so when the mothers are able to add to the economy. When you import give birth to a million destitute people with few skills, you are having people who will be dependent on our resources for years to come. It might take the next generation to integrate completely. Taking on a bunch of unwanted babies is no trivial matter. I understand your compassion, but it's not so simple as having a big heart. You are accepting responsibility for them, or you are condemning them to worse treatment by unscrupulous people here.

 

[iceaura]

The Pro-Life crowd hold that human life is worth saving, more so that just starting life. So, yes, you are correct. We believe human life has a right to exist, even when it exists within the womb of its mother.

That belief doesn't give you any say in a woman's decision to abort.

Besides: You're full of shit, the lot of you.

For hundreds of years you discard miscarriages as medical waste and sewage - without even checking to see if they are alive. For hundreds of years you relegate lethal damage and injury inflicted on zygotes and embryos by industrial operations to civil lawsuit only, and that of weak standing. And all of a sudden, in this one issue and this one circumstance only, you come up with this "belief" that you write into law and enforce on other people?

You have no such belief. You might want to have it - hard to tell - but you don't and never have.

Meanwhile, whenever somebody by mistake grants you too much "say", we find that the woman has no right to defend her life - if another "human life" wants to occupy her body at great risk and significant injury to her, her human life's right to exist is set aside, modified.

And that's what you are trying to put over by shifting to abortion itself, in some abstract sense of good or bad, instead of the limits of your say in the matter.

If I've missed anything, let me know.

You missed the thread topic.

 

[Jeeves]

No government can save you, Jeeves.

Fortunately for me, my government invests reasonably in social services, while yours has just cut funding to the fire department again, which is unfortunate for you - because
your pants are burning.

 

[Bowser]

Hey Guys and Girls, 10 replies to this thread in the short time I've been away. I think it more effective to approach this issue from a different angle than simply yammering with all of you. I sincerely appreciate your thoughts and wish you the best. I do believe there is a more subtle way to reach out to others than camping in front of an abortion clinic holding a sign. I'm willing to give it a try.

Thanks for the debate/discussion/arguments and insults. This thread would not have been any better had any one of you been aborted.

 

[iceaura]

I do believe there is a more subtle way to reach out to others than camping in front of an abortion clinic holding a sign. I'm willing to give it a try.

You've had your say.
Beyond that, you should mind your own business, and leave women be.

 

[Tiassa]

Apparently, you're unable or unwilling to have an honest discussion about the matter. So be it.

Actually, he has a point:

What have you missed?
This is not a forum where these sorts of questions or issues can be discussed or apparently even thought about.
This discussion(?) is a waste of time.

No, really, he's not entirely wrong.

What has Bowser missed? Nothing; this is how he behaves, for years.

Nor is Sciforums really a place where certain questions can be discussed openly; this, too, is fairly well established.

And it's true; this thread is an utter waste of time.

That's all very cryptic.

To which private communication are you referring? A date should allow me to find it. Perhaps we can continue the discussion privately.

I don't recall ever saying anything to you privately about any political agenda I might have.

While it's true Musika could offer us some manner of citation, it should be noted there is nothing unusual about you failing to recall your own actions. As a matter of fact, it seems one of the defining attributes of the character you play at Sciforums.

So I will, in this moment, remind that one of our backroom discussions spilled into public view a few months ago, and of that I would ask you to consider a couple of points:

• It is mildly, albeit obscurely, ironic that we are presently discussing Musika, but it's not unrelated. Once upon a time, someone told me—and you're actually aware of this episode, whether you recall it or not—that the members here are generally educated, professional, and capable of havng a discussion without being unduly upset. Certain reactions to Musika remind me of that episode, and while it's a fairly straightforward ABC, the irony is still a distraction.

• Within the public portion of our spilled policy dispute, a certain, relevant point arose:
Certes, some are generally annoying, but, as I said↗, "Nobody says we have to keep them around if they're utterly full of shite. Well, okay, maybe you do" Your response↗ was quite particular: "Yeah, I do, and I've explained why, many times, at length."​

Given your tendency to forget your own words and actions, I admit it wouldn't be surprising if you said you cannot recall what I'm reminding. But it's also true you used, in the spilled dispute, the word "hatred", and, yes, we get its colloquial meaning as well as the darker suggestion; maybe it's time you reconsidered your relationship to the hatred itself: "This in spite of my intense hatred of the lot of them (see what I did there?). Funny that."

†​

We should also note, one reason I'm not doing this in green ink has to do with you; that is, it's not for considerations of rank, but, rather, there really isn't any point since rational discourse itself is anathema as a result of your policy prerogative, to any pretense of attempting, for the sake of the members, to clarify policy and rules in this. What stands about your complaint is the contrast that this is what we've cultivated around here, and for your sake.

†​

Let us, then, make a couple other things clear: I don't have to like the way Musika behaves in discussions like these, but it's not exactly unfamiliar behavior compared to the rest of what goes on around here. Nor do I like writing other people's answers for them, but if you look at the idea that I just reached back to January and cited two posts, you might take a moment to consider, first, whether no information, or, some information, is the more or less common behavior around here. That Musika didn't answer you directly is unsurprising compared to either the individual or the larger community. Additionally, in January, you also argued on your own behalf, "What would be the point of me digging through the archives to find hundreds of counter-examples to your thesis? You could do that yourself. In fact, you should have done that yourself."

And, yes, there are a couple things to make clear about that:

• You did, by that, demand I prove a negative, which is its own question of fallacy. Not unrelated is that you also demanded I should have gone out and found your examples for you, and then assessed them according to your criteria on your behalf. Functionally, at least, that's what you did, there. More importantly, however, the question of hundreds of examples is virtually a straw man, as the danger looming over the effort of digging up even one example is the prospect of criticism.

• If I suggest your disdain for evidence showed through, it's true I expect you wouldn't recall what that reminds, but it is connected, and the purpose of raising the suggestion in this moment is to make the point that while I, too, was expecting something more substantial from Musika, complaining of his generality seems rather quite futile.​

The bottom line, James, is that whatever else we might disdain and discuss about our neighbor's behavior, the hit—

You have privately made it clear which way you are going to swing if there is a dilemma between your personal political agenda and forum guidelines. My, or anyone else's, honesty or lack of it has zero bearing.

—and the way he leads his dodge—

I guess there is a chance you haven't been the one moving and shaking on the moderation front (or, more specifically, communicating why you are refraining from it) and are thus genuinely oblivious ....

—are fulfilled simply by reading through the public portion↗ of our dispute from January.

So, as much as I might not like writing people's answers for them, you put far too much effort into pretending confusion in order to set up a projection; and if it happens that I just went out and grabbed a smallhandful of links, we might consider, to the other, how many people around here ever really bother with even that, and, furthermore, we have you on the record disdaining such efforts.

As I said, early on↑: The entire pretense of this thread is askew from the outset; there is an underlying question of risk worth exploring, but as the topic post shows, it's a difficult one to set up properly.

Thus: No, Musika is not entirely wrong; still, if this thread is a waste of time, the difficult setup isn't the problem, but, rather, what people bring to it. And, no, we need not overlook Musika's behavior and, thus, role; but neither, as such, should we overlook other disdainful, fallacious, or disruptive behavior.

There are plenty around here who are unable or unwilling to have an honest discussion about this or that subject. In that particular context, the intersection of the factors I've noted really is too much to ignore. Otherwise, sure, it's just another day at Sciforums, which, in turn, is pretty much how you've wanted it.

 

[Bells]

It’s weird. I wasn’t active on here for a while, and now that I’m posting again...I see that the site has a resident sexist. Feels the need to post vulgar, trashy songs that degrade women, disrespects women by asking them if they find men sexually attractive and supports Trump.

It’s not just this thread, but what I’ve observed since returning that tells me many pro-lifers are of this mindset - a solely sexualized view of women. I’ve dated sexist guys and they all think alike. They don’t see a man as needing to have responsibility in keeping unwanted births under control, that’s a woman’s job. I mean, how else did 45 million abortions happen if men were doing their part in using a condom? But when a woman finds herself pregnant, these same types of sexist men think they should control what happens after that. Seriously?

I must live in a bubble. Maybe I’m just fortunate to know good men who don’t feel the need to mansplain and degrade women. Hmm.

I have to laugh at this, to be honest.. And not at you Wegs.. This is not aimed at you, but at a malady that this thread highlights..

It's not that there is one or "a" resident sexist on this site, it's more a case of a constant stream of sexist behaviour, from even the most unlikeliest of sources. For example, not too long ago, in a discussion and disagreement, someone, for some bizarre reason decided to allude to the possibility that I may be arguing a certain way and apparently defending another person because of a possible relationship of some sort or something something, between myself and another person.. And made sure to add that whatever 'it' was, "that's fine".. And I thought to myself, "really? This is what you decided to go with?".. And I wondered, would this weird and out of nowhere argument have been made if I was male? The answer is no, of course not. But the statement was subtle as it was overt..

It's not just the overt sexism, like say Bowser displays. It's not one resident sexist.. It's the whole thing. I mean, look at this thread as a prime example.. No one finds it strange that the largest portion of participants are male and they are discussing whether they get a say about what happens in women's bodies? Not a single person finds it strange that the women who are speaking in this thread are being drowned out by the men who are trying to determine if they get a say over our bodies or not?

I mean, what the fuck? It should be laughable.

But it is not. Because women are literally dying. And more women will die, because men refuse to respect our fundamental human rights.

Sexism comes in all forms and the tragedy that this thread highlights is that most aren't even aware of it.

 

[Bowser]

But it is not. Because women are literally dying. And more women will die, because men refuse to respect our fundamental human rights.

I don't want to play the victim, bells, but you might want to research the issue a bit more...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckd...than-women-to-be-killed-at-work/#61e62d4452e8

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190313-why-more-men-kill-themselves-than-women

https://www.heuni.fi/material/attachments/heuni/projects/wd2vDSKcZ/Homicide_and_Gender.pdf

 

[Musika]

Actually, he has a point:



No, really, he's not entirely wrong.

What has Bowser missed? Nothing; this is how he behaves, for years.

Nor is Sciforums really a place where certain questions can be discussed openly; this, too, is fairly well established.

And it's true; this thread is an utter waste of time.



While it's true Musika could offer us some manner of citation, it should be noted there is nothing unusual about you failing to recall your own actions. As a matter of fact, it seems one of the defining attributes of the character you play at Sciforums.

So I will, in this moment, remind that one of our backroom discussions spilled into public view a few months ago, and of that I would ask you to consider a couple of points:

• It is mildly, albeit obscurely, ironic that we are presently discussing Musika, but it's not unrelated. Once upon a time, someone told me—and you're actually aware of this episode, whether you recall it or not—that the members here are generally educated, professional, and capable of havng a discussion without being unduly upset. Certain reactions to Musika remind me of that episode, and while it's a fairly straightforward ABC, the irony is still a distraction.

• Within the public portion of our spilled policy dispute, a certain, relevant point arose:
Certes, some are generally annoying, but, as I said↗, "Nobody says we have to keep them around if they're utterly full of shite. Well, okay, maybe you do" Your response↗ was quite particular: "Yeah, I do, and I've explained why, many times, at length."​

Given your tendency to forget your own words and actions, I admit it wouldn't be surprising if you said you cannot recall what I'm reminding. But it's also true you used, in the spilled dispute, the word "hatred", and, yes, we get its colloquial meaning as well as the darker suggestion; maybe it's time you reconsidered your relationship to the hatred itself: "This in spite of my intense hatred of the lot of them (see what I did there?). Funny that."

†​

We should also note, one reason I'm not doing this in green ink has to do with you; that is, it's not for considerations of rank, but, rather, there really isn't any point since rational discourse itself is anathema as a result of your policy prerogative, to any pretense of attempting, for the sake of the members, to clarify policy and rules in this. What stands about your complaint is the contrast that this is what we've cultivated around here, and for your sake.

†​

Let us, then, make a couple other things clear: I don't have to like the way Musika behaves in discussions like these, but it's not exactly unfamiliar behavior compared to the rest of what goes on around here. Nor do I like writing other people's answers for them, but if you look at the idea that I just reached back to January and cited two posts, you might take a moment to consider, first, whether no information, or, some information, is the more or less common behavior around here. That Musika didn't answer you directly is unsurprising compared to either the individual or the larger community. Additionally, in January, you also argued on your own behalf, "What would be the point of me digging through the archives to find hundreds of counter-examples to your thesis? You could do that yourself. In fact, you should have done that yourself."

And, yes, there are a couple things to make clear about that:

• You did, by that, demand I prove a negative, which is its own question of fallacy. Not unrelated is that you also demanded I should have gone out and found your examples for you, and then assessed them according to your criteria on your behalf. Functionally, at least, that's what you did, there. More importantly, however, the question of hundreds of examples is virtually a straw man, as the danger looming over the effort of digging up even one example is the prospect of criticism.

• If I suggest your disdain for evidence showed through, it's true I expect you wouldn't recall what that reminds, but it is connected, and the purpose of raising the suggestion in this moment is to make the point that while I, too, was expecting something more substantial from Musika, complaining of his generality seems rather quite futile.​

The bottom line, James, is that whatever else we might disdain and discuss about our neighbor's behavior, the hit—



—and the way he leads his dodge—



—are fulfilled simply by reading through the public portion↗ of our dispute from January.

So, as much as I might not like writing people's answers for them, you put far too much effort into pretending confusion in order to set up a projection; and if it happens that I just went out and grabbed a smallhandful of links, we might consider, to the other, how many people around here ever really bother with even that, and, furthermore, we have you on the record disdaining such efforts.

As I said, early on↑: The entire pretense of this thread is askew from the outset; there is an underlying question of risk worth exploring, but as the topic post shows, it's a difficult one to set up properly.

Thus: No, Musika is not entirely wrong; still, if this thread is a waste of time, the difficult setup isn't the problem, but, rather, what people bring to it. And, no, we need not overlook Musika's behavior and, thus, role; but neither, as such, should we overlook other disdainful, fallacious, or disruptive behavior.

There are plenty around here who are unable or unwilling to have an honest discussion about this or that subject. In that particular context, the intersection of the factors I've noted really is too much to ignore. Otherwise, sure, it's just another day at Sciforums, which, in turn, is pretty much how you've wanted it.

I thought I was being specific. I assume the messages one privately receives from alerts are penned by mods and not bots. I could be wrong.

As for James's hatred, that's obvious, as it is of anyone, by the same mechanics. The thing is that he prides himself as a person of reason, so there is (was?) an opportunity to respect the platform of discussion as opposed to copping out with a blithe servility to a political agenda. As for yourself, on account of being more politically invested than him, I think you have your heart set on establishing the birds of a feather, but would do it more methodically, such as writing it into forum guidelines or something. As for the third, well they couldn't not "not be political" if they tried.

In another thread, James was harking back to the halcyon days of sciforums, before facebook. It would be interesting to map the decline in relation to changes in peoples and policies on the moderator front.

This may come as a surprise, but as for myself, I think the real enemy of this world are monopolies. Socially speaking, making diversity a casualty in the name of efficiency is a fast track for exponentially reducing size or delivering abnormal results. It's true of all creeds and classes.

 

[Bowser]

What has Bowser missed? Nothing; this is how he behaves, for years.

It's true. But I really appreciate you folks taking the time to listen. Thanks again. You are champs for allowing me to speak.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

You've had your say.
Beyond that, you should mind your own business, and leave women be.

walks in the room, drops his pants and sticks his penis on the table and shouts "look at me look at me"

narcissistic defense
playing on free speech by using free speech to complain you dont have an opportunity to say something...

this is what i would call trolling to intelligent people.

"pissing on a group of people talking"

the need to take control instead of the ability to "join in"

 

[Bowser]

walks in the room, drops his pants and sticks his penis on the table and shouts "look at me look at me"

narcissistic defense
playing on free speech by using free speech to complain you dont have an opportunity to say something...

this is what i would call trolling to intelligent people.

"pissing on a group of people talking"

the need to take control instead of the ability to "join in"

Do you believe in democracy, Rain?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Do you believe in democracy, Rain?

if someone gives you a seat at the table and you spend all your time there complaining about not getting the best quality cup, do you think your opinion should be counted on serious issues ?

 

[Bowser]

if someone gives you a seat at the table and you spend all your time there complaining about not getting the best quality cup, do you think your opinion should be counted on serious issues ?

Do you believe in democracy? I certainly do. Well?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

im-a-let-you pregnate !

 

[Bowser]

im-a-let-you pregnate !

Do you believe in democracy? Yes or No? It's not a trick question, for goodness sake.

 

[iceaura]

Do you believe in democracy? I certainly do. Well?

More irrelevancies to dodge the OP.
The fundies who post here are full of shit. All of them.

 

[Bowser]

More irrelevancies to dodge the OP.
The fundies who post here are full of shit. All of them.

I have faith you would cast your vote given an opportunity.

 

[wegs]

I have to laugh at this, to be honest.. And not at you Wegs.. This is not aimed at you, but at a malady that this thread highlights..

It's not that there is one or "a" resident sexist on this site, it's more a case of a constant stream of sexist behaviour, from even the most unlikeliest of sources. For example, not too long ago, in a discussion and disagreement, someone, for some bizarre reason decided to allude to the possibility that I may be arguing a certain way and apparently defending another person because of a possible relationship of some sort or something something, between myself and another person.. And made sure to add that whatever 'it' was, "that's fine".. And I thought to myself, "really? This is what you decided to go with?".. And I wondered, would this weird and out of nowhere argument have been made if I was male? The answer is no, of course not. But the statement was subtle as it was overt..

It's not just the overt sexism, like say Bowser displays. It's not one resident sexist.. It's the whole thing. I mean, look at this thread as a prime example.. No one finds it strange that the largest portion of participants are male and they are discussing whether they get a say about what happens in women's bodies? Not a single person finds it strange that the women who are speaking in this thread are being drowned out by the men who are trying to determine if they get a say over our bodies or not?

I mean, what the fuck? It should be laughable.

But it is not. Because women are literally dying. And more women will die, because men refuse to respect our fundamental human rights.

Sexism comes in all forms and the tragedy that this thread highlights is that most aren't even aware of it.

Well said.

I thought this after the first couple of pages, before I began chiming in...are men sparring with other men as to if men should have a say in abortion?

I noticed that our posts were going overlooked, and didn't know what to make of it. Just smh.

Appreciate you posting this, because...well, it's true.

 

[Jeeves]

No one finds it strange that the largest portion of participants are male and they are discussing whether they get a say about what happens in women's bodies? Not a single person finds it strange that the women who are speaking in this thread are being drowned out by the men who are trying to determine if they get a say over our bodies or not?

No-one finds it strange, because that's the norm. There are more - like three or four to one - male than female participants most internet forum I've ever seen, and with a very few exceptions, the males are more aggressive and vocal, more extreme and obdurate in their views and, entrenched in those views, and far more inclined to whine about being mistreated than the females.
If the fair-minded men didn't respond to your posts, it's because you weren't annoying. (I did appreciate the unequivocal language, btw - it stood up just fine on its own.) In defense of fair-minded men: a question posted on a forum, unless addressed to a specific group, is open to all; anyone can have an opinion.

Posters like Musika and Bowser goad people into responses; by sheer weight of odium, they displace the topic and become the subject of debate themselves. I believe misogyny is secondary on their agenda; their main motivation is to suck up all the attention in the world.