I'm a progressive I'm also pro life, abortion rights are doomed, give up the fight.

Answer the question if you could kill people legally would you if it made your life eaiser.

 

Absolutley. In a new your minute under the right circumstances. Not doing so would be immoral

 

YOU are the one who posted :"""Then they should not get themselves pregnant!""


...and you ONLY advise women to not have sex.... it seems you don't think men have anything to do with it...

 

YOU:
Sackeshi said: ↑
Human populations were only in the hundreds or thousands, in icolated towns. They were also sick, and only about 2/7 on average survived meaning that abortion would never have been a sustainable thing.""

You did NOT give the dates of that statement.

Medicine has been practiced successfully for thousands of years. It wasn't always successful but it isn't today either.


A "reliable healthcare sytsem " has nothing to do with it but, of course, the Scandinavian countries would be far ahead of and far more advanced than the US..

From Wiki:
Hippocrates of Kos

A conventionalized image in a Roman "portrait" bust (19th-century engraving)
Born c. 460 BC
Kos, Ancient Greece
Died c. 370 BC
Larissa, Ancient Greece
Occupation Physician
Era Classical Greece
Title The Father of Western Medicine

Hippocrates of Kos (/hɪˈpɒkrətiːz/; Greek: Ἱπποκράτης ὁ Κῷος Hippokrátēs ho Kṓos; c. 460 – c. 370 BC), also known as Hippocrates II, was a Greek physician of the Age of Pericles (Classical Greece), who is considered one of the most outstanding figures in the history of medicine. He is often referred to as the "Father of Medicine"[1] in recognition of his lasting contributions to the field as the founder of the Hippocratic School of Medicine. This intellectual school revolutionized medicine in ancient Greece, establishing it as a discipline distinct from other fields with which it had traditionally been associated (theurgy and philosophy), thus establishing medicine as a profession.[2][3]



BTW, Hippocrates commented on ABORTION.

 

That is homicide buddy. LOL

 

YES, I believe in self defense.

 

Westren medicine sucked until the 1900s. Other forms in other parts were likely better but I digress. Its been documented that the Human population stayed stagnant until about the industrial revolution. From wars, famine and disease.

 

Then the very basic solution, my little darling, is not to get pregnant, don't you agree? If you do not want to be fat, you can go and have a liposuction, but the best solution is - of course - not to get fat in the first place, yes?

Then they should make sure they do not get pregnant!

If they cannot afford the consequences of sex, they should not be having sex!

Then they should close their legs and work hard to reach the top!

That does not mean they do not have the money to afford proper contraceptives!

It depends how they choose to invest it. If a woman has enough time to sleep around so much that her contraceptives eventually fail, she is obviously doing it too much and, quite clearly, has loads of time on her hands.

Then they shouldn't get pregnant!

Well, not if you go all autistic over the semantics. However, if a man and a woman consent to have sex and the intercourse results in pregnancy, it is fair to say the woman "got herself pregnant". I will not even try to expand on this any further because I know that you know what I mean.

No, it doesn't. Not at all.

This is not necessarily always correct.

If we were to have a real philosophical discussion about choice, non-interventionism andself-ownership, I am sure I would come out the most principled and firm believer in all of those notions. Trust me.

Did your record just break?

Oh, come on! Don't be silly now!

And somehow you are an exception to that?

 

Where do I even begin on that? First and foremost, it is a matter of self-respect; a real woman should not just go to bed with anyone because she is horny and thinks "sex is fun", because that is a lifestyle that will not keep her happy in the long run. When women see "free sex" as "empowering", men become predetors and we get a society that sexually objectifies the female body and its sexuality. Secondly, "sleeping around" too much means a very big risk of catching an STD and I am sure that is a health problem most people would like to avoid, especially if they look to find love and settle down in the future. Which brings us to the third reason that is; the more sexual partners a woman has had, the harder will it be for her to stay monogamous in the future. This is because sex breeds all kinds of hormones that have the purpose of bounding the engaged parties to ensure a safer upbringing of the child. If the brain keeps producing all these hormones with no commitment as result, it will eventually stop producing them because she tells her body she does not want it. And that may have absolutely devasting effects on her future plans of building a family. Nature is cruel and fantastic at the same time, do not blame me for how it works.

See, I do not really care two flying horses about abortion. My concern is with the individual, with society and with doing what is right. I do not want women to be treated as sex robots and I do not want men to give up on love and family making because of what some idiot Incel or MGTOW forum members tell them. I believe in love and respect and believe the two genders complete each other.

 

Oh , so now your switching to "Western medicine"....how handy to ignore what was actually going on in the world...

 

",


OMG, where do I go with that crap?!

NOW you are dictating what a "real" woman should do and be??? Hilarious....must be frustrating for you that they ignore your "rules"

Women have the same right as men have to go to bed with whomever they choose and , here's a shocker for YOU, SEX IS SUPPOSED TO BE FUN.

YOU do NOT know that. Even if it doesn't make her happy it's none of your business to make sure other people are happy..

DUH, men have always done that....but, of course, you'll blame women for what men think and do.

That's the biggest load of non-scientific sexist hogwash I've seen yet....

I can't decide what part is the most outrageous BUT

"" the more sexual partners a woman has had, the harder will it be for her to stay monogamous in the future"


is pretty funny. Totally unscientific, has nothing to do with biology or facts or real life. Seems you think women must be trained in their sexual habits ...

YOU don't want to be blamed for how nature works ?? Then quit blaming women for "how nature works".

That's fine but that's your business....why do you think you should rule on other's business...

If you don't care about abortion then why be so dead set against it....that doesn't make sense...but I don't expect it to...

 

Find nice girl at Church, settle down and have a family in a nice suburb in a small town, build a nice picket fence and stay indoors as much as possible. Then forget about the rest of the world so it can forget about you. See how easy it is....now, go find her!

 

It is not because they (my definition of "real women") are actually not ignoring "my" rules.

Women are actually freer than men since it is them who have the final say. I doubt drunk sex while you are also drugged on BC's is any more fun than actual love-making, but perhaps I am just an ignorant prude.

I actually care about humanity, so it is my business to ensure my co-citizens are happy with life because if they are sad and depressed, it is a negative externality for the rest of us.

This is just pure falsehood. If it was indeed "always" the case that people prefered sleeping around over marriage, then how come only two generations ago, most people were married in their early 20's and had their first child before 30? You are spewing bs and you know it.

Nope, it is absolutely true.

How am I doing that?

Why do you think you should?

Because I am not against abortion but against unwanted pregnancies, I am actually against all things that are "unwanted". It is kind of like an egg or chicken thing where you cannot have one without the other.

I am not against abortion. I am just Pro-Cautiousness.

 

Are ypui saying there are no good women out there? That's sexist, bro.

 

What I am saying is that YOUR idea of what constitutes a "Good Woman" is best found in your Church and is thus best for you. My idea of a "Good Woman" (my wife) would be an unpleasant match for you and her. Personally I very much enjoy sex and took steps to allow it without creating children and also expect my "Good Woman" to have a mind at least equal to my own in capability as well as her own persona, the fact she is totally hot is a great bonus. I find sexism to be more the stepford wife expectation of yourself than the free/feminist direction I enjoy.

 

OHHH, I see , you have actual stats and affidavits from women all over the world swearing they live a certain way because of what YOU said....

Where did I mention ""drunk sex while you are also drugged on BC's" ANSWER : I didn't but if you think that's the definition of "fun sex' then I feel sorry for your partners..

No it isn't....your life is your business and their lives are their business.

Sorry , but you seem to have some kind of idea that you are responsible for the rest of the world....and you aren't..

.

There are sad and depressed people all over the world and yet I'm happy and know lots of happy people.....should we all go around being sad and depressed because somebody else is?

THAT'S JUST NUTS!

That does not dispute what I posted: DUH, men have always done that....but, of course, you'll blame women for what men think and do.

Uh, no, you have no proof whatsoever of your silly sexist non-scientific claim that :



"" the more sexual partners a woman has had, the harder will it be for her to stay monogamous in the future"


…..is pretty funny. Totally unscientific, has nothing to do with biology or facts or real life. Seems you think women must be trained in their sexual habits ...

OH, of course you couldn't answer the question:....why do you think you should rule on other's business...?

I don't think I shuld rule on other's business that would be you and you admitted it.

I believe people, and that includes women, should be free to do what they want with their lives as long as they're not hurting anyone...


But YOU actually want to dictate how and when and with who women should have sex....I am NOT the control freak here..

Well, you dream about your little Utopia and hope the world will change but I prefer leaving people and their rights alone so they can pursue their "Utopia"...

 

Not what he said .

BUT this IS sexist: ""
"" the more sexual partners a woman has had, the harder will it be for her to stay monogamous in the future"

 

I have always respected girls and their bodily integrity. I was never one of those sexually frustrated teenage boys who ran around groping girls in school or who enjoys dry humping on a crowded dance floor. Partially due to my personality type and partially due to that I was taught to treat people with respect.

I do not judge people who like the things I dislike as long as it is voluntary and consenual. However, I do know what I think is best for society and that was the very reason I once joined this board - To debate with people who do not share my views, to make my case and, maybe, also learn something new from "!he other side". I do not engage in political debate to stroke my own ego, if I was one of those people, I would just talk to the mirror.

 

blah:, blah, blah.

 

It's actually science.

 

Which you cannot and will not provide data for.

 

http://cdn.freedomainradio.com/FDR_2899_Marriage_Partners_Study.pdf
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...ual-partners-ve-determine-likely-DIVORCE.html
https://ifstudies.org/blog/counteri...between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/

 

No, it isn't.

 

SCIENTIFIC proof. Your blogs aren't

 

I accept your concession.....