Abstinence trends on Twitter in wake of Roe v. Wade ruling (nypost.com)

A ridiculous pretext, you are maintaining. FYI, liberals have long advocated for greater freedoms for women in the Muslim world, generally. So, "if you say something" you may be mistaken for a feminist-- but only by someone, unfamiliar with your posting history.

 

Caroline apparently hates herself, AND has a pea-sized brain.

 

So now I’m a misogynist? My mom is a woman.

 

It's about reality, not what so many people WANT to be reality. Yes, all methods of birth CONTROL have a failure rate. That's why it's not called birth PREVENTION. It's also a matter of biology. Biology isn't fair or unfair, it just IS. Human sexual reality is this: if you CHOOSE to engage in certain sexual activities, pregnancy is a possibility, no matter how hard you try (or don't try) to prevent that happening. Stamping your feet and wishing that wasn't so and crying that it's unfair to the human female is just stupid. Biology is what it is. The question becomes: because some females WANT to be able to have that type of sex and NOT ever become pregnant yet don't want to sterilize themselves, should they be allowed to kill the human life their choice created?

Medically, a pregnancy is defined as beginning at successful implantation, not at conception, thus the specious arguments of all the deaths of the fertilized eggs that are flushed out with a menstrual cycle are ridiculous as well, on both sides of the abortion debate. They will never and would never develop into a human life. But everyone of us existing on the planet today began our unique human life with a successful implantation in our mother's uterus.

Personally, I go by what IS. What exists as a human life doesn't change depending on how someone FEELS about it. The fact that someone can be charged with a homicide for killing an unborn human life IF the mother wanted it, yet that same life can be killed if she decides she doesn't, ignores the objective reality of what physically exists. It is now again up to the citizens/voters of each State to decide what their moral and legal values are regarding this individual human life, what rights it should or should not have, what responsibilties should be expected of humans choosing to engage in sexual activity, etc., and whether some women's desire that biology were other than it is actually justifies the killing of a human life when other alternatives are available.

 

The collective whole of society of a state does not elect representatives to represent one person

 

Y'know, it's sorta strange though - we have a poster here who dials the feminism and pro-abortion up to eleven and I noted when she mentioned that the court or whatever has become the Taliban that it took this for the left to finally condemn Sharia Law. I *have* noticed that the left very easily condemns the religious right - and as often as not with good cause - but when something comes up in the news where, I dunno, someone running some Islamic nation says something very anti-woman, the response from the left-wing posters here is curiously muted, if there is any at all. I have often wondered if said posters live in fear of some Muslim squad tracking them then attacking. You might wanna read THIS and THIS.

 

I support any state who gets pregnant to make that decision, just any individual should

 

God, you are depicting your perceptive understanding of things to be a far cruder tool, than I believe is truly the case.

So, for the record, you are claiming that your understanding, is that anyone who is not a feminist, is a misogynist?

And, therefore, anyone who is not a misogynist, is a feminist? Is that really the bizarrely false way, you conceive of this, with no space in between those two denominations?

 

I took into consideration who wrote that post and what he was possibly trying to say and do so in a way that won’t earn him an infraction.

 

Thanks for the links. I will try to get to them soon. I went to the first, just to get the feel, and it seemed to be only one person's opinion, not any type of statistical study, proving its point. I will still read it but, as my post stated, its thesis goes against my own impression, of the reality: I know that I have heard criticisms of the way women are treated in Muslim countries, for example, not being allowed to drive cars, or permitted to continue their schooling beyond a relatively low level, depending on the country. Have you really never heard these criticisms? If not, I would suggest it may have to do with your news viewing habits. While I don't generally recommend her program, I know that MSNBC's Joy Reid (7 P.M., Eastern, weeknights) has not been shy in her criticisms, as is her wont, about anything of which she disapproves. And she is certainly not the only one.

The other point, of course, is that your reply and links, don't seem directly applicable to my post. I do know that this is, in part, something for which I bear some responsibility, as you were (erroneously) sent an alert, on this post. That is because I had begun working on a reply to one of your posts, but then put it aside. When I replied to Steve, I didn't initially see that your post, was in there, too. When I noticed this, I deleted your incompletely answered post, but must have left you scratching your head, when you checked the alert of my reply, to find no posting of your own, included. Sorry about my goof. If I have any worthwhile observations, or wish to pick up the topic with you, once I've read your two articles, I'll let you know-- for real.

 

So, IOW, you took a wild guess, based on your "feeling," but not on anything I'd actually written.

And yet, your are likely surprised, at your utter misjudgement, right?

There was no reason for me to cloak my meaning, or for you to presume that I was. Your post to which I'd replied had made the preposterous claim, IMO, that you would get in some kind of trouble, if you stood up for the rights of Muslim women. Really? That is ridiculous, and that's what I called it.

With all your experience at this sort of thing, one would expect you to be a lot better at it, than this current example would suggest you are.

 

No. My post insinuated I’d be called the R word for being critical of Muslims.

 

The links were more referring to the left NOT saying anything about Islam for fear of being Islamophobic, and somewhere in there there's a story about Ben Affleck taking issue with someone saying look, Islams beliefs are problematic and his response being along the lines of "That's racist" or somesuch. The overall vibe I get here - and elsewhere - is that you can condemn Christianity, you can condemn Judaism (although be careful) but Islam is off-limits. I mean, we had a thread here years ago about the NYT tweeting that it had been years since "airplanes took aim and brought down the Twin Towers," something like that, when it was clearly Islamic Terrorists that aimed the planes there and not the planes themselves - and the NYT went out of its way to avoid saying so. When it was discussed here, you had posters being glibly (and hilariously) disingenuous about it - "You mean airplanes weren't involved?" or deflecting to Trump - anything to avoid naming the actual culprits, pretty much exactly what the NYT did.

Yeah, I got a notification about it, went to see and saw nothing. It's happened before - some glitch in the Matrix. Thanks for letting me know about it.

 

The R-word was racist? I thought the R-word here was Republican?

 

How can you not know that standing up to misogyny, is considered the "woke" thing to do, and is not taken to be "racist." That said, I guess I really don't know what you had in mind. Were you planning on blaming the women, themselves?

 

The R word is race or anything to do with it. If anyone other than a lib mentions anything about race that doesn’t portray them as victims they’ll be pounced on and accused of being obsessed with race.

 

No, I wasn’t going to blame the women, I was going to point out that certain cultures don’t place a night value on them. We can see that just across our southern border.

 

Pregnancy is a consequence of the freedom of choice.

 

I am glad you people are at least calling it what you view it as — consequence for daring to have sex.

 

Carnal mindset? No, carnal desires are not related to mindset, but to instincts. Whether people are giving in to carnal desires, or not, is a matter of mindset, not the desires themselves.

Baby boomers happened because people were eager to return to normal family life after so many years of war.

 

Need some cheese mate ? and Yes ... Red Fundamentalist wing-nut females are Highly unlikely to go along with the choice crowd.

"Kill unborn babies" -- what's this nonsense .. Who told you a single human cell was "A Baby" .. where did you get this loopy doopy idea that this is 'defacto true' --- Pastor John following the edict of the Pope.. as if the Pope's edicts have merit.

Not a good track record on the edicts mate .. you need to find a better source for your information .. next thing you know you will be torturing cats on the basis of the Popes edict ... sketchy mate .. sketchy .. down the dark path you have trod.

 

Seriously?

Did you know that abstinence leads to anxiety, stress, lower resistance to illness? Believe me, you don't want to live among stressed women.

Please don't tell me that women just have to marry if they want sex. Ever heard of domestic violence? Marriages are not 100% safe for women either.

 

Give people a little more credit. We're not as primal as the animal kingdom. There isn't any sexual value biologically to an ass, we should not be attracted to a female cushion if we were solely biologically driven. But we're not. Feelings, emotions and our ability to comprehend these emotions drive our human actions, not the mere existence of stimuli.

You could strip in front of me, and if i don't find you attractive or appealing then I won't have any inclinations, no matter how nude you might be.

 

Feelings and emotions are primal.

The role of instincts in our lives is greatly underestimated, me thinks. We are not aware of thought processes taking place in the nonconscious mind, that's why it seems to us that we are masters of our own lives.

http://journalpsyche.org/processing-information-with-nonconscious-mind/

Our ability to intentionally control ourselves is very limited, because we don't have access to most of the thought processes that influence behavior.

 

That was an interesting read, as someone who does believe in the subconscious and the meta physical. Even if we take it as true that our physical minds simply 'read' or 'act out' the superior knowledge of the non conscious, the fact of its consciousness cannot be understated. Sure, we can get the thoughts to do bad/evil, but we can either reject or redirect those thoughts to a better outcome, and I think that is a vital function of human psychology and I do think it applies sexually(and everywhere else). Otherwise our freedom of expression/self expression are simply myths we tell ourselves.