[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]

/b/ - Random

Name
Email
Message

*Text* => Text

**Text** => Text

***Text*** => Text

[spoiler]Text[/spoiler] => Text

Image
Direct Link
Options NSFW image
Sage (thread won't be bumped)

Janitor applications are open


Check the Catalog before making a new thread.
Do not respond to maleposters. See Rule 7.
Please read the rules! Last update: 04/27/2021

male opinions.gif

Make feminism great again. Anonymous 46977

I dunno about you, but I can't stand most of the moder "feminism" moviment. I thought of four points that I think we should change in order to make Feminism once again represent women.

1 remove trannies: That should be simple. They're not women and shouldn't be part of the moviment. They don't suffer from the same problems as us and can't help solbing them. Take them (and gay men) out of the feminism should be priority 1 and 2.

2 Stop with this brainless anti-capitalistic mentality: I'm not saying that feminism should embrace laissez-faire capitalism or anything, just stop believing that the economic system is the root of all evil. Nothing has saved more lives than capitalism, nothing has freed more women than it nothing has made so many powerful women than capitalism. Take the gender gape, for instance. It's real and something should change. But how? Forcing companies to pay the same won't work, that will just make women unimployed. Most of the gap is explained because women have to work at home, what makes them work less hours. We should make men share house duties, not punish companies because they want to profit. Another part of it is explained because, well, women get pregnant. Want to work more (and earn more)? Don't have children. Ain't that hard.

3 "fat positive" stuff: This manages to be even more unscientific than the others. You're not helping women by lying to them and saying it's ok to be fat. Obesity is a disease. Your blood tests are good? Cool, that means you're young, not that you are immune to the consequences of being overweight. You're 40 and are still ok? Anecdotal evidence. Yeah, there are people who smoke crack cocaine for decades and are ok too. B-but ana-chans! Whataboutism. They are also ill, and also need help, not lies.

4 Stop thinking that people that disagree with feminism because they are stupid: the world is more complex than that. People can be smart and vote for different candidates. There are good "pro-life" arguments and bad "pro-choice" arguments. Making people angry will not convince them you're right. Of course, that's not an iron law and people can be unreasonable. Learn to debate with each, study more before having strong opinions, and changing your mind about subjects is a sign of intelligence and maturity.

So, what do you think?

Anonymous 46978

>>46977
Good luck getting anyone to publically align with any of your points

Anonymous 46980

>>46978
I believe that many actually agree with them, they are just afraid of being judged by others to admit it. Right now if you think trannies are not women you're almost Hitler, but I honestly think that deep down women know the truth.

Anonymous 46981

I actually agree with a majority of your points. Like 90%

Anonymous 46982

>>46977
You're saying for what feminism shouldn't be about, but you haven't said what you think it should be about.

Anonymous 46984

I think your problem is with liberal/intersectional feminism, there are many branches of feminism. I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I would have added "no sex work positivity" to the list though.

Anonymous 46987

If you're fat AND sporty it just means you eat shit all day long, and that's why you're fat, you refuse to control your diet

Anonymous 46989

>>46987
>men will go for her because she has huge breasts even though she's fat
Of course, having a pretty face with green eyes and tanned skin helps, but that's show how ridiculous things are.

Anonymous 46993

>>46982
She wants it to be about her needs and nobody else's. If you have the same exact needs as her then cool, but everyone else can eat shit.

Anonymous 46995

>>46993
Uh, and what kind of "needs" should I put on my list?
What do you disagree?

Anonymous 47006

>>46989
I mean she's really pretty and even though she's really fat her proportions seem decent. Usually I'm not a fan of fattychans but she looks aight, I can see being attracted to her if I were a guy. She also dresses to highlight her positive attributes which a lot of overweight women don't do, usually I just see them in frumpy potato clothes. Nothing's really ridiculous about this

Anonymous 47009

>>46993
>>46982

OP didn't say anything wrong, she wants feminism to be about women, she mentioned universal problems like health and wages.

Anonymous 47013

Yeah, for the most part you sound rational. I don't agree with the anti-capitalism part, at least to some extent, but the rest is okay. We should help and encourage other women to lose weight, not shame them, we get enough shit from men already.

Anonymous 47016

>>47013
This

As someone who was obese (as in medically, not just sorta fat) a few years ago, the thing that helped me lose weight wasn’t people giving me “tough love” or whatever. It came from being too busy to eat like a fatass anymore and realizing how much better I felt after losing the weight.
Skinny internet people have no idea how fat people work and it shows.

Anonymous 47017

>>47016
So why is Latecia a fatass now

Anonymous 47036

>>46984
I think the fact that are are many branches of feminism is a problem in itself.

Anonymous 48539

>>47013
>>47016
I think this weight part is very tough.
Of course, when you say "there's nothing wrong about being fat, those doctors are morons" you're lying, but bullying won't help anyone.

I honestly don't know how to help overweight women. If feminism is about women's problems, it can't endorse bullying, but we can't pretend it's ok to be sick as well.

Anonymous 48541

>>48539
Just don't mention weight at all. The only people who need to be called out and corrected are the ones who are actively pushing the narrative that being obese isn't unhealthy and that it's a positive thing.

Anonymous 48543

>>48541
Yeah, makes sense. I think almost every obese person is aware that it's not healthy to remain this way and will eventually do their best to achieve a better condition, we don't need to remind them (though, I think praise when we see that they're losing weight is a good thing).
I don't know about other places, but where I live there are a few YouTubers and Instagramers (unfortunately, most of them are women) who praise their fat lifestyle and are always telling how healthy they are (and presenting evidence against what they're saying makes you a "fat-phobe").

Anonymous 48547

>>46978
I would definately do it, but those 4 points are never going to be considered feminist points.

Would also add:

5) Normalization of femdom and rolereversed relationships as a way to deal with the whole homework and children reality described in point "2". Which leads to point 6…

6) Would go as far as pushing that mpreg should be a main research topic for the next century as a way to end with the biological reality that limits women to be breeders and push males to be providers. Only once males can also be breeders, that women will be free and able to make the choice of fully develop into providers and leaders while a sub male can take the motherly and housewife role.

7) Stop ignoring biological and psychological realities. Some biological realities can be overcome. Others cannot. Women are not going to be phisically stronger than males. Perhaps one they we can get them pregnant, but that won't change how we are structured differently. The whole "pushing" of females into male-oriented careers such as programing, IT or engineering is stupid, pointless and just makes women look dumb and uncapable by comparison. It is very fucking obvious and cringy when a girl is rising as a programmer just because of affirmative action and management-level pushing to get mediocre females to be viewed as great. Rather than doing that, lets instead focus on increasing female participation in the medical and law areas, were we are actually psychological prone to be better than males and revalue them so that they can be more economically attractive. I rather have 10 outstanding female medical doctors and psychiatrists than 10 semi-retarded female programmers that can't code for shit or 10 unfunny-as-fuck "comedians" being praised just for not having a dick.

8) Start defending gun-rights. The single thing that can equate a man and a woman in a fight is a gun. Gun ownership is adamant to make females capable of defending themselves against males and no, you won't fucking change 99,9% of the world and 5000 years of natural selection and human agression into a "never harm anyone" mentality just because you want so. It just won't happen and you will still get assaulted at night, so pack a gun in your purse and help natural selection take a course where women don't get beaten up by agressive apes.

Anonymous 48548

>>48545
Yeah, but do they need to be reminded that? Are you helping them by saying they are fat?
Of course, saying they are ok is no good, but reminding them about their state is also wrong.
>>48546
The gap exists, the point of discussion is if it is caused by sexism or by male/female biological differences and the options each sex make on average.

Anonymous 48549

>>48547
Artificial wombs are already a thing, so a guy can just take care of one instead of burdening his wife.

Anonymous 48550

>>48547
>pushing mpreg
Anon, I see you with that big fetish and I feel you.
We are the same.

Anonymous 48552

>>48550
>>48547
why do you two want to get men pregnant, stop the fetish fuel

Anonymous 48553

>>48548
>Yeah, but do they need to be reminded that? Are you helping them by saying they are fat?

Yes, you are helping.

People get fat because they feel confortable with it. People only put the effort to stay thin or to get thin if they feel imense medical and social pressure from it.

Just think for a moment: Why do you make an effort to stay thin when eating chocolate and ice cream all day long would make you happy?

1) Because you know that being fat will get you sick (and if you lie that it wont to the fatsos, they will lose this stimuli)

And:

2) Because you want to feel attractive and beautifull, and you know that being fat is ugly and unattractive (and when you lie that being fat can be pretty you are not only justifying fatness as ok and losing this 2nd stimuli to be thin, but also you are creating a horde delusional people that will try to push their uglyness onto others as if it is normal and then get angry and frustrated when rightly rejected by others).

>>48548
The gap does not exists in the sense that males does not make more money per hour on the same work as females. A female surgeon gets the same ammount of money per hour as a male surgeon and a male police officer gets the same ammount of money per hour as a female police officer.

The gap does exists though as the average male makes more money than the average female. And that happens because males often works more hours per day than women, because they don't get pregnant and therefore do not interrupt their careers for 9 months (minimum), choose higher demanded and higher paying careers (guess what… being an programmer pays more than being a journalist) and also choose riskier and unconfortable jobs that comes with a "unsafe/unsanitary/far-away" bonus (guess what… being a chemical engineer in an oil rig in the middle of the ocean where you can die of an explosion and there is nothing and you have to live where you work pays more than being a psychologist in a trendy upscale urban area with lots of ammenities).

>>48549
Are they really? Can i get one right now for my bf?

Guess not.

>>48550
>>48552
It is not just a fetish fuel, it is true liberation.

At the moment i make 3 times the salary of my sub bf - Yet i can be a high paying professional and domme non-piv top all my life and still i will be stuck up with the biological breeder role and be forced to interupt years of my life to have the family i want to. That effectively prevents me from ever fully developing or being equal to my bf/partner/spouse.

Mpreg is the only way that this obstacle can be removed, in the sense that this will make viable for my bf/partner/spouse to take the breeder role, conceive our kids, quit his job and take the job of raising the kids while i continue to develop my career that is much more lucrative than his.

Anonymous 48554

>>48553
>can i get one
Soon. Just keep telling incels not to fund them, until they're giving more money to research than to e-girls.

Anonymous 48555

>>48553
I can understand the idea behind it but why not just adopt instead or have a surrogate ?

Think you just like the idea of rubbing your preggo bf stomach

Anonymous 48556

>>48554
HUE.

>>48555
Congratz for the triples.

>why not just adopt instead


Because i want my kids to have my genes.

>or have a surrogate


Because surrogates are often piss poor drunkards fatsos from the third world with awfull tier quality of life - and the surrogate's lifestyle have severe impacts over fetal development.

I don't want my kids to have fetal alcoholism syndrom and turn out retarded like Greta Thurnberg just because the surrogate from Romania could not keep her tongue out of a rajka bottle.

>Think you just like the idea of rubbing your preggo bf stomach


Y-yes? But that is just a bonus consequence. Just like him using lingerie to induce me to pegging him after he started having anal orgasms and realized i couldn't resist seeing his bubble butt in lace.

Anonymous 48558

>>48556
>bonus consequence. Just like him using lingerie
>induce me to pegging
>anal orgasms
>bubble butt in lace

This is so a fetish for you, then who gets him pregnant I can only guess it's you somehow ?

Anonymous 48560

>>48558
Never said it was not a fetish. Just said it is not JUST a fetish.

We can have both things working finy and dandy.

>then who gets him pregnant I can only guess it's you somehow


I suppose a doctor needs an egg and sperm to make it viable. I don't see why the egg wouldn't be mine and the sperm wouldnt be his.

Anonymous 48561

>>48560
>Just said it is not JUST a fetish.

kek, Does BF know you want him to have your babies ?

Anonymous 48563

I have to agree with the first point, I don't have anything against transexuals, but I believe they don't belong in any feminist movement

Anonymous 48568


Anonymous 48569

>>48539
>then who gets him pregnant

Males dont get pregnant. Women who are focused on their husband and family do.

Anonymous 48570

>>48568
lewd

I'm actually worried I'm waking up to a fetish I never knew I had.

Anonymous 48574

>>48570
I know that feel. It is how i felt the first time i accidently stumbled upon mpreg images while searching for gentle femdom.

Video related.

Anonymous 48631

>>48581
Except it's possible to enjoy treats in moderation without getting fat. No need to deprive everyone because some people have no self control.

Anonymous 48645

>>48631
Fat people should not enjoy treats in moderation. They need a strict diet until they return to a normal weight, at which point they can enjoy them again.

Anonymous 48647

>>48631
You're not depriving anyone of it. You're just warning them. Wich I think would actually be beneficial for everybody because American companies put a huge amount of sugar into pretty much everything, even things that are meant to be healthy. At least this way you could warn people and stop companies from abusing labels.

Anonymous 48656

>>46977
not based

Anonymous 48657

>>48656
t. tranny

Anonymous 48728


Anonymous 48735

There are no good pro-life arguments as all pro-life arguments imply the denial of the woman's right over herself and her body, and make it possible for someone to make use of another's body against her will.
The common pro-life rebuttal is that sex is consent to pregnancy. It is not, will to have sex is not will to keep a unwanted pregnancy. Another common rebuttall is that the fetus has its own body. True; that does not entitle it to reside inside the body of someone else. It can have its own body outside the woman's.

Anonymous 48736

>>48735
>will to have sex is not will to keep a unwanted pregnancy
Yes it is. If anything willing sex with unwilling pregnancy is a disservice to rape victims.

Anonymous 48742

Why cant the option just be available anyway?
If a woman wants to be horrible let her. That's on her. Don't let a child suffer because a parent was unwilling to be their or raise them. I mean there's still people who want children but beat them like a dog. It's their guilt. And putting a child into the system is just cruel.

Anonymous 48743

>>48739
I'm not saying this to be edgy, but an unwanted fetus is literally a parasite.

Anonymous 48744

>>48743
Stop living for yourself.

Anonymous 48747

>>48745
I still think it should be a option.
I agree there's plenty of ways to prevent pregnancies. But some people are not properly educated on the ways or had a shelter lives or think they cannot afford birth control. (Planned parenthood provides contraceptives, it isn't just about abortions.) Or they could be in their teens too afraid to buy condoms. My cousin was scared of people finding out she was sexually active so did it without protection. Then risk someone seeing her buy condoms or go to the doctors. (Why he didn't buy the condoms, I never cared to ask.)
Getting a abortion should be a serious topic, and anyone who considers it should think about it. But they should be denied the option. I doubt there's anyone treating it like a game. If they are then they need serious help.

Anonymous 48748

>>48745
Its humanity is irrelevant. A symbiotic relationship requires the relationship be mutually beneficial. An unwanted pregnancy is obviously not beneficial to the woman.
>At no point does the existence of a fetus render intentional harm to ensure its existence
It doesn't have to be intentional, and it certainly damages her body, not to mention the burden of carrying and delivering it.

Anonymous 48752

>>48736
No it's not. I want to have sex, I don't want to be pregnant. My will not to be pregnant has nothing to do with rape victims, whom I have not raped.

>>48739

Nobody has the right to use another person's body against their will. Forced pregnancy is the hark back to the justification for slavery here, denying a woman the right to control what stays inside her and what doesn't. A woman has the human right to choose that, male poster.

Anonymous 48753

>>48745
>The rebut to that is a fairly obvious one: someone who can neither care for a child nor wants one to begin with, shouldn't be having sex.
That's a typical male argument from men who want to control women.
Sex is not pregnancy. Women want to have sex without being pregnant, that's why birth control exists. Failure on birth control to do its part sometimes is not willingness on the woman to be pregnant. Don't attempt to control women's lives, that's not feminist.

Anonymous 48754

>>48752
The line at the abortion clinic would be a lot shorter if filthy dungbrains like you weren't hogging it up with your mistakes. You might as well buy junk food with stamps.

Anonymous 48756

>>48749
That's why we make the distinction between wanted and unwanted pregnancies and do not designate women as property who can be forced into having their bodies used against their will. You are the one arguing for using humans as property in this thread, and calling pregnancy a "personal inconvenience" with all the social and health risks and setbacks it carries (sickness, lack of energy, likeliness to lose your job and source of income because of it) makes me think you're not a woman.

Anonymous 48757

>>48754
So much hate for people who have done nothing wrong. If you want shorter lines at the abortion clinic, promote free iuds for all women, minors included, and make it so they can get that iud without needing their parents' approval. That is what Colorado did and their abortion rates have dropped.

Anonymous 48759

>>48753
>>48756
No anon. Not everyone who's pro-life is a man. I'm sure you know the right stereotypes and are going to roll them out.
>>48757
>who have done nothing wrong
If you don't feel like a fat person who just pigged out at a buffet, or a drug addict that just relapsed has done something wrong, you've done something wrong. Have morals, because pleasure fades away.

Anonymous 48760

Here's a fun thought experiment for pro choicers.

Imagine you receive a message from an unknown woman thats saying she's thinking about having an abortion but isn't sure about it. You give her your usual viewpoints about how a fetus isn't a person it's just a cluster of cells, an unwanted fetus is a parasite that deserves to be killed, she should feel no guilt or hesitation about the whole thing, etc etc…

But heres the twist, that woman turns out to be your own mother while she was pregnant with you, communicating through a time rift. She has no idea you're her potential future child, she just thinks you're some stranger.

She says she thinks she's made up her mind based on what you told her and has decided to go through with it and abort you. You have one opportunity before she leaves to potentially tell her something different now that you know the "unwanted parasite" or "just a cluster of cells" is actually you.

So what do you do? Commit suicide for your ideals, or change your tune because you know that fetus is you, a thinking feeling person? No BS answers about time travel doesn't work that, in this hypothetical scenario it does, you're choosing whether or not to erase your own existence.

And remember, you can lie to me in your answer because you know that scenario could never actually happen. You can lie to me because we're anonymous strangers on the internet and you just don't want to admit the truth. But you can't lie to yourself, you know what you would actually do if it was your life on the line.

Anonymous 48761

>>48758
Your personal moral philosophy is yours, the stupid and regressive part is you trying to force it on all women, who have their own personal and moral philosophy and don't necessarily need yours. I am married and I have no intention of having children for the next 15 years at least, like you said for the near future I couldn't handle the mental and physical stress of enduring a pregnancy, let alone rearing children. It is not possible in my current situation. So why did you call something you can't handle a "personal inconvenience" as if it's something small that you could actually handle?

>I do certainly think people ought to put more thought into this matter

What makes you think they haven't? I have put thought into this matter. I've never been pregnant and I am careful with my BC, but should it fail, I will abort because I don't want to be pregnant.

>>48759
>Not everyone who's pro-life is a man
What kind of woman doesn't know the massive impact pregnancy has on women's life and tries to dismiss it as something unimportant?

>if you don't feel like you've done something wrong, you've done something wrong

That makes no sense. You're trying to induce guilt where guilt has no reason to exist.

>Have morals

I already do, that's why I don't want women to be forced into keeping unwanted pregnancies.

Anonymous 48762

>>48760
>not having to endure inane attempts at guilt tripping by shitty men who want to ruin your life
There's always a silver lining.

Anonymous 48765

>>48761
>guilt has no reason to exist
Oh but it does, anon, and every time you try to satisfy your desires you will ultimately be left empty where it counts. You can't live more than a hobo does if you're partying everyday with infinite wealth at your command. You need to find fulfillment without having to touch someone else. At least then people who actually have an emergency will be able to get help, without you getting in the way to satisfy yourself. Quit hiding behind people who need help to justify your wants.

Anonymous 48766

>>48763
>I was arguing that seeking an abortion is something done for personal convenience
It's not. To say so means you think a woman's health, medical decisions and quality of life are "personal convenience" and can be disregarded. That's the complete opposite of feminism.

>not that pregnancies are a self-induced personal inconvenience (they are, though)

Not at all. They are not an inconvenience, their impact on women's lives is too big to write pregnancy off like that. And they are not self-induced, as birth control is used to prevent them, not to induce them.

>prioritizing the personal decision of a woman's right to choose means acknowledging that a fetus is inhuman

How so? Even if you want to see the fetus as human, no human has the right to use another human's body against his or her will. It is inhuman to imply so. The woman has the right to choose what stays and what doesn't stay inside her body, that is a human right called bodily autonomy. To deny it is to treat women as mere property, objects without a will of their own. Given that all women are human and have a will of their own, that's unacceptable.

>Restricting that "right" is the exact opposite of a woman being regarded as property

That's false. You are denying a woman her right over her body, saying her body is for the use of another. That's slavery, the ownership of one's body is not one's own but is at the mercy of someone else. That is being regarded as property.

>it's acknowledging the sanctity of a life and that all people, no matter the circumstances, deserves the right to live

That's not right. The right to live has limiting circumstances. You cannot take other's people organs just because you need a organ transplant. You cannot reside inside a woman's body against her will just because you need her organs to live. Her organs are her property, you have no right to steal her property to use it for yourself. That warrants your death because you are trying to live at another body's expense, and that's unacceptable for humans.

>Another thought experiment, blah blah blah

In order to make it relevant to abortion and pregnancy, one of the two people is physically attached to the other, by a mosquito-like needle digging deep into the other's body sucking blood from the other person, making them weak and making it impossible for the other to escape. The other person is suffering immensely because of this, this person doesn't want the other to suck their blood away, it's causing them immense harm and pain. This person has every right to kill the other, free themselves and stop the harm being done to their body.

You think that's just body horror? It's exactly what happens during pregnancy. The fetus steals nutrients from the woman's bloodstream. There's nothing equal between a fetus and its host; the fetus steals blood from the host and doing this causes it physical harm. Denying the host body the right to protect itself from this is immoral, and it makes the host a slave to the fetus.

Anonymous 48767

>>48765
Please stop trying to project your insecurities on others, anon.
>You need to find fulfillment without having to touch someone else
That someone else is my husband, are you saying women should deprive their loved ones of sex and intimacy at the risk of destroying their marriage? Or subject themselves to sex acts they don't want for the sake of their partner's happiness, thus killing their marriages all the same because they will end up the miserable one?

>At least then people who actually have an emergency will be able to get help

They already get help, thanks to women wanting abortion to be available for all. Who are you to decide someone's unwanted pregnancy is no reason for her to get help? You sound like you want to deny women help and force them into being denied their body autonomy for some sick dishumanizing reason.

Anonymous 48769

why would a capitalistic system be of benefit to women's advancements? it's just a dog fight

Anonymous 48772

>>48768
>If there's a decision to be made at all, then that necessitates that this be an optional ordeal.
That makes no sense. You can choose to obey a tyrant or suffer persecution and discrimination, that doesn't make it an acceptable choice to force on someone.

>I'm actually firmly within the camp of healthcare being a human right

You're clearly not. Abortion is part of women's healthcare.

>I was quoting you…

You were not. I never called pregnancy or abortion a "personal inconvenience".

>What does birth control have to do with pregnancies being self-induced.

It prevents them, showing the will of the woman is not to induce abortion but prevent them. Sex is not consent to pregnancy. I never said "Excuse me" please stop projecting things that aren't there.

>A fetus has no agency.

That's irrelevant. A coma patient has no agency too, that does not entitle the coma patient to using another person's organs against that person's will just because this coma patient needs new organs. Lack of agency does not entitle anyone to breach other humans' rights.

>You're cheapening the severity of an abortion by equating any and all abortions as being the same as the absolute worst case scenario.

No, that's false. I stated how pregnancy works and defended the woman's right to own and control her body, and not be made a slave for someone else. If someone's cheapening anything, you are cheapening women's rights.

>you're deciding whether or not something should live or die

I'm deciding if something stays inside my body or not. Whether it lives or dies outside my body is not my concern; my body is not for public use.

>you don't get to take OD meds because you're having a bad trip. That'd be stupid.

A bad trip can be a sign of OD, and you take or give OD meds anytime you suspect OD might happen to prevent it or stop it from happening. Not that all this rant of yours is relevant to unwanted pregnancy.

>Just because the you have the ability to do something, does not justify you doing it.

Except it does in does in plenty of cases and abortion is one of them, being the fundamental right to body autonomy for women.

>And, come one, don't pull that bullshit on me. "Women are human and have a will of their own." You're actually fucking kidding me, aren't you?

What, you don't think women are human and don't have a will of their own?

>Fetus are human too

That does not entitle them to using another person's body against that person's will.

>In cases which involve immediate danger to the life of the mother and in cases of rpe as we've been over before, right? Right*?

No, body autonomy means you cannot force someone to have their body used in a way they did not consent to, that's slavery. Attempt to do so is an attempt on that person's basic rights and warrants the removal of the offending party. You have no right to take another person's organs no matter what, even if you're going to die you have no right to do that and it warrants your victim the right to kill you if you try.

>You cannot reside inside a woman's body against her will just because you need her organs to live.

>You're a disgusting human being.
For not wanting my body to be used against my will? Damn, you must hate the abolition of slavery.

>A GOD DAMN FETUS DOES NOT CHOOSE TO BE PUT INSIDE YOUR VAGINA

Irrelevant. I do not choose for it to attach itself to my uterus either, that's its action not mine. Should that happen, I will to remove it from my uterus because I don't want it attached to my body.

>If you had sex, you assume the responsibility of becoming pregnant.

No, I don't. Consent to A is not consent to B. I consent to sex, not to pregnancy.

>If you can't be held to account of your own actions,

What actions? Sex is not pregnancy.

>maybe don't have sex, retard.

Ahhhh, trying to control women's lives, a classic of anti-choicers.

>there is a fucking limitless number of avenues for preventing pregnancies, practically all of which can be stacked on top of one another to make pregnancy virtually impossible

You don't know every individual's life to guarantee that is feasible in all circumstances.

>you disgust me blah blah blah

Women-hating drivel, yawn.

Anonymous 48773

>>48768
>Fetus are human too
this is fundamentally incorrect and any argument based on this being true is meaningless and to be ignored. a fetus has no consciousness. it has no "soul"

unless youre talking about late stage abortion, youre just wrong

Anonymous 48775

>>48774
Not at all. My case is and has always been women are human, and humans have the human right to own their bodies, and not have their bodies used against their will. Why do you want to deny humans their rights?

Anonymous 48776

>>48774
>Currently, I don't want you to exist. Because I'm a rational human being, however, I recognize that you have a right to live. I'm not sure whether you'd say the same of me.
love this

Anonymous 48778

>>48777
Using another person's blood and organs against that person's will is not a right. I cannot stab you with a syringe to take your blood against your consent just because I need a transfusion, and I cannot take a kidney from you just because I need a kidney. Likewise, thefetus does not have the right to use the woman's blood and uterus against her will. Using another person's organs is not a human right. You're right, it is not my concern what happens to the fetus, just like it's not my concern what happens to the patient who dies because he can't find an organ donor. Too bad, organs are not public property.

Anonymous 48780

>>48779
She'll make a better mother than poor uneducated bums popping out kids when they don't have the means to raise them.

Anonymous 48783

>>48778
People go through such absurd lengths of mental gymnastics to justify abortion as a women's right issue. Who the fuck cares about that? Abortion is a necessary evil and that's all that matters. Don't try to make ridiculous claims like those, it's no way to win a debate. You just sound insane. Instead focus on the economical and social necessity for abortion. Nobody can fucking deny that and the feelings of an unborn individual don't matter more than economical and social benefits for society.

Anonymous 48784

>>48767
You're not even quoting me, anon. Quit being a starving animal. You don't need sex. There are plenty of people getting unwanted sex that'll need abortion more than you do. So stop being lustful. Wants don't matter. Needs do, and you don't need to have sex.

Anonymous 48786

>>48783
>who the fuck cares about bodily autonomy
People who value their freedom.

>Instead focus on the economical and social necessity for abortion.

They're kind of related, women who see their basic freedom to body autonomy trampled by being denied an abortion end up developing hate and resentment toward the child they're forced to birth, which leads to said child growing up with a host of lifelong mental illnesses and social problems like drugs and crime. Prague abortion study, google it. But I prefer to get to the root of the problem which is the lack of recognizing the woman's right to be sole owner and proprietor of her own body.

>>48784
If one wants to have a happy, stable, loving relationship with another person, yeah they'll need sex eventually. Even just once in a while, there'll be a need for intimacy with their partner to keep the relationship alive. Telling women not to have relationships is a breach of their privacy, you don't control other people's lives. And women having abortions simply because they don't want to be pregnant does not take anything away from rape victims, abortion is not a finite resource.

Anonymous 48792

>>48786
If people like you ever want to have a happy, stable, loving relationship with another person, you need to quit being so sex-addicted. Consider stopping yourself from having lewd thoughts about bodies. Maybe then you'll know what a platonic relationship feels like, nympho.

Anonymous 48794

>>48789
>Easy solution: orphanage.
That is not easy at all. Unwanted pregnancy and denial of abortion when requested has a physical and mental toll on the woman, causing her to fall in depression, that is also in the study. I care what happens to the woman.

>this is a completely baseless argument

No it's not. A woman may not to want to do any sex other than vaginal. You gonna pressure her into types of sex she doesn't want?

>Normalizing abortions means lessening necessary cases of abortion as the same as those

I don't see how. All abortion cases are necessary as no woman should be pregnant against her consent, there is no lessening of anything. Just because you don't like women having sex doesn't mean their lives are not important.

>if the other person just said that from the get go I would have never disagreed

I doubt that. You're already discriminating against women who have sex as not having a valid reason to have an abortion, just like pro-lifers do, and for pro-lifers women can and should risk death getting risky illegal abortions because that's what they deserve for being sluts, your common argument.

>>48792
I know what platonic relationships are like, they're called friendships. I'm talking romantic relationships, which you seem to want to deny women. You seem to have an unhealthy view of sexuality, I'm talking about two people in love and you keep thinking of whoring around, like you can't imagine happy couples in love with each other.

Anonymous 48801

>>48789
Orphanages are a horrible solution.
Not very kid gets adopted and then they get stuck in the system.

Anonymous 48802

>>48794
>I'm talking romantic relationships
Which is possible without sex. Platonic relationships don't just happen between friends. They can happen in dating, too. Are you seriously this perverted that you can't imagine knowing someone's name without sleeping with them? Who hurt you? This sex-starved mentality is what makes males so unattractive these days. They just can't be friends with someone. They have to sleep with them too. They can't not have sex. Control your hormones and go masturbate or something.

Anonymous 48804

Let women have abortions.
Why do you care? It's not like it's your child or life. Why do you get to tell people how to live?

Anonymous 48805

>>48802
>Which is possible without sex.
Not really, no. They're not romantic relationships then.

>Platonic relationships don't just happen between friends.

Sure, there's also coworkers, relatives, acquaintances, and etc. etc, but none of those are romantic relationships.

>They can happen in dating, too.

In the earliest stages when two people aren't really sure about each other, mostly. Sexless marriages or sexless long-term relationships are dead relationships, as once they know each other and they have decided they like each other, couples get together to have sex.

>Are you seriously this perverted that you can't imagine knowing someone's name without sleeping with them?

Where have I said or implied anything like that? I said I'm married and I want to have sex with my husband without having children from it, dude. Of course I know my husband well, just like he knows me well. I don't have sex with strangers or with anyone besides my husband.

>This sex-starved mentality is what makes males so unattractive these days

What's that got to do with me or my arguments?

Anonymous 48806

>>48802
You sound like the one who's been hurt.

Anonymous 48810

>>48789
>No matter what, you're going to lose the moral argument, but the utilitarian argument is completely reasonable because no one in their right mind wants to go back to the age of back alley clothes hanger abortions.
I agree. This is why I believe duels should come back as well. We don't have a legalized streamlined way of killing each other so back alley murders keep taking place. We need a formalized system to right wrongs from a utilitarian perspective.

Anonymous 48811

>>48804
Abortion should not be legal.

Close your legs

Anonymous 48812

>>48811
Get fucked

Anonymous 48814

>>48805
You're one of those people that can't imagine a kiss being non-promiscious. Right?
>married (an institution specifically meant to produce offspring between two people)
>doesn't want kids
Why do I even bother? If you don't want kids, you don't want to get married. You want a career and a future. He's basically a friend with benefits. Don't you see where this misunderstanding of customs gets you? You're stuck between a happy family and a good future with neither in your grasp wasting time and resources, and you want free abortions so you can keep living your "quiet life", like a plant.
>>48812
No, that's gross.

Anonymous 48816

>>48814
Why do you care what other people do with their lives?

Anonymous 48819

>>48816
Because every part of a society affects the rest of society. If this weren't the case, why does feminism and any other -ism push for changes in others lives?

Anonymous 48820

>>48819
So you just want to encourage more unwanted children into the world. Giving them to a system that's underfund and over worked. And anyone who does have sex without the intention of children is a whore.
All because you don't like sex and you want to feel better about yourself. Got it.

Anonymous 48822

>>48820
I'm not >>48814, just explaining why people care how other people live.

On the otherhand, I would love to see you quote where anything you just asserted was stated in the thread.

Anonymous 48823

>>48820
>you just want to encourage more unwanted children into the world
People should be spending less time caring about the chemicals in their brain and more about the future. A peasant acting like he isn't meant to produce offspring is useless to society and a moral abyss. The least he could do is invent something instead of just masturbating.

Anonymous 48825

>>48822
>>48789
>Easy solution: orphanage
Orphanages are a horrible solution. Not only are you encouraging people to carry a child they don't want to full term. You willing to get it to a system which that cannot guarantee it a future.
>>48802
This post just basically if you have sex, you are demented. Which just sounds like slut shaming to me.

>>48823
Then leave cc and go be a baby factory. Because that what it sounds like what you really want to do.

Anonymous 48828

>>48825
>if you have sex, you are demented
If you think you can just orgasm til you're dead, you might not be very smart.
>leave
How ironic. Don't you think this demand would be more reasonable somewhere else more social-oriented like-I don't know; Facebook? You can even block people there, too!

Anonymous 48829

>>48814
>You're one of those people that can't imagine a kiss being non-promiscious. Right?
Not at all. You however sound like one of those who thinks sex for intimacy is "promiscious" even when it's an act of love between two people who love each other.

>If you don't want kids, you don't want to get married

That's bullshit, anon. Childfree people marry, people who want to postpone children marry. Marriage is the union of two people who want to live with each other and have their union legally recognized, and these people may not want children now or ever, you have no right to dictate how their marriage should be. People are not your slaves. That's an unacceptable invasion of their privacy and lives.

>You're stuck between a happy family and a good future

I already have a happy family with my husband, and a nice present likely to turn into a good future, thank you very much. Please stop trying to project your problems onto people you don't know.

>>48823
Why do the people who whine the most about fetuses being human and having rights are the first to deny other people their human rights, especially the right to self-determination? You want people to be slaves to your delusions.

Anonymous 48831

>>48828
What's your excuse to not popping a child out?

Anonymous 48833

>>48829
>marriage is the union of two people who want to live with each other and have their union legally recognized
It's the union of two families to bring wealth together and create offspring to carry it you absolute commoner. You don't know the difference between social norms and laws.
>a nice present likely to turn into a good future
Until one of you ceases to be attracted to the other, but I'm sure you two have already discussed "breaks".
>you want people to be slaves to your delusions
You want people to be slaves to their desires. Which is worse?
>>48831
That you can consciously choose when you want to succumb to the chemicals in your head making you want to fuck someone, and not just making decisions only after you've made a mistake.

Anonymous 48837

>>48825
>Orphanages are a horrible solution. Not only are you encouraging people to carry a child they don't want to full term. You willing to get it to a system which that cannot guarantee it a future.

Yeah… Outright murdering the kid/fetus is soooo much better right?

Retard.

Anonymous 48839

>>48833
So you're just saying you haven't found mr right

Anonymous 48843

>>48837
Pretty much, yes

Anonymous 48853

>>48829
>Marriage is the union of two people who want to live with each other and have their union legally recognized, and these people may not want children now or ever, you have no right to dictate how their marriage should be.
Marriage as a system comes from securing legal rights for reproduction and alliances between families. The modern abstracted idea of just a union of two people really doesn't mean anything. The benefits that come with a modern marriage (visitation rights, tax breaks, ease of inheritance) should be conferred without anything as formal as a marriage taking place. A marriage without prospect of children is functionally no different then cohabiting, which would facilitate all of the positives that you've listed. While I can understand a delay in giving birth an intentionally childless marriage is a conflict in terms.

Anonymous 48854

>>48850
Sounds like you support it already

Anonymous 48857

>>48833
>It's the union of two families
No it's not, little larper. I married and live with my husband, not with his family, and likewise he didn't marry nor does he have any intention to live with my parents. We keep friendly relations with both our families of course as they have given us no reason not to, but they're not part of our union between the two of us. Our families respecting that is part of why we keep friendly relations. You have fucked up social norms if you can't respect individuals like that.
>You want people to be slaves to their desires
I don't want people to be slaves, unlike you. I don't see why I should demonize healthy and natural desires like wanting a happy relationship with someone you love. You're fucked up to me, that's all.

>you can consciously choose when you want to succumb to the chemicals in your head making you want to fuck someone

If you ever get married, you're going to have a really shitty marriage.

Anonymous 48858

>>48839
Yes. Are you foolish enough to think that everyone wants the same things as you do, like the slave to envy you are?

Anonymous 48862

>>48841
I already did, dude. As I said: you're already discriminating against women who have sex as not having a valid reason to have an abortion, just like pro-lifers do, and for pro-lifers women can and should risk death getting risky illegal abortions because that's what they deserve for being sluts, your common argument.

Anonymous 48863

>>48841
>If people consent to wanting to murder one another instead of going to court, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?
Who said anything about both parties consenting? Only one should be needed.

Anonymous 48871

>>48850
You're right, suicide is going to take place anyway. Instead of unreliable painful methods like hanging or guns, suicide pills should be available to all.

#mybodymychoice

Anonymous 48873

>>48853
Not at all. Marriage is a union between two individuals, as you've said, that is the system as it being an union between families is oppressive to the individuals involved directly in the marriage, they're the ones who have to live with each other, not their families. Those who are not getting wed are not part of the marriage. There is no conflict of terms, you want it to be because you want to deny people their right to self-determination.

Anonymous 48877

>>48860
No shit you tard

Anonymous 48879

>>48853
You sure sound like you want to force the things you want on everyone, especially those who don't want them.

Anonymous 48883

>>48878
>I'm for abortion being legal for pragmatism's sake. Do I approve of abortion? Clearly not.
That just means you don't want abortion to be legal but are too coward to openly say so, and are looking for reasons to demonize women who get abortions and undermine their rights so you can force to live like you want them to, no matter that causes them to suffer.

Anonymous 48884

>>48857
Those are some insane social norms. Do you even visit your own family? Is there resentment or something? It's natural to elope, but both families were there at the reception and met each other before right? This an American thing?

Anonymous 48888

>>48871
>Those are some insane social norms
I'm thinking that of you and your norms.
>Do you even visit your own family?
Of course.
>Is there resentment or something?
No. They respect my privacy and the fact I'm an adult in control of and wanting to live my life and I in turn respect their privacy and the fact they are adults in control of and wanting to live their lives.
>It's natural to elope
Who eloped?
>both families were there at the reception and met each other before right?
Yes.
>This an American thing?
I'm European.

Anonymous 48889

>>48886
But you spoke of restricting a woman's right to bodily autonomy, here >>48763 to precise, so you do want it to be illegal when you don't personally like the reasons for the woman to get an abortion, forcing her to try and get a risky back alley one to avoid a forced pregnancy.

Anonymous 48890

>>48858
You use the word slave/commoner/peasant a lot
And a lot of you're arguments is that human desires are flawed and people shouldn't be forgiven for impulses. And a lot of your wording implies that you think that this is a frequent thing to everyone except you.

Anonymous 48896

>>48878
>That's not how a duel works, Anonymous…
It does in my legal framework. Plus only one person gets a weapon, everybody loves an underdog.

>>48879
What I want is to understand what exactly is the point of getting married? Is it sex? You don't need to marry to have that freely these days. Is it visitation rights? You should be able to confer those in writing beforehand through other means. Tax breaks? They should apply to cohabiting couples.

The only meaningful difference between a "couple" and a "married couple" left is inheritance and reproductive rights, which only applies if children. Please explain it to me like I'm stupid, since you're already treating me as such.
What is the difference between a cohabiting couple and a married couple?

Anonymous 48898

>>48886
>no where did I say that abortion should be restricted

From your post:

>Restricting that "right" is the exact opposite of a woman being regarded as property; it's acknowledging the sanctity of a life and that all people, no matter the circumstances, deserves the right to live.


So you're going back on your words? You don't want fetuses to have the right to live no matter what?

Anonymous 48901

>>48896
For me, it's because my husband wanted it, he loves being able to call himself my husband in front of others. He sees it as the culmination of our union. I love him of course, and I would be with him wedding or no wedding, so for me it was just a formality that I gladly did as it makes my beloved happy.

Anonymous 48913

>>48909
>This whole time I was making a philosophical moral argument.
Which is also wrong as it disregards the actual reality of pregnancy, the woman's rights, her well-being derived from those rights, and the implications the denial of her rights has on her life as well as the life of everyone else whose body is suddenly not their own anymore.

>What I want is irrespective of what I can do or support.

The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

>no matter how much I say, "abortion is immoral," will I ever say that it should be illegal.

Don't worry, other people will do that for you and use your bullshit arguments as justification.

>no matter how much I'll resent a woman who gets an abortion

Why resent her at all? You hate her being in control of her body? You think people should have a right to her organs?

>The loss of two lives is more significant than the loss of one

So you don't care about the quality of life of women forced to have children they don't want?

Anonymous 48918

>>48901
>For me
And for the legal system?
>he loves being able to call himself my husband in front of others.
Why does being called husband matter to him? It only indicates that you're married. You're saying being married is important to you and you husband because your husband gets to say he's married. That's circular thinking
>so for me it was just a formality that I gladly did as it makes my beloved happy.
A formality? Something you do just because others did it? Why do you think others get married? If it's a formality, i.e., something born from social custom, where did that social custom come from?

Anonymous 48919

>>48913
>Which is also wrong as it disregards the actual reality of pregnancy, the woman's rights, her well-being derived from those rights, and the implications the denial of her rights has on her life as well as the life of everyone else whose body is suddenly not their own anymore.
Rights as a concept completely depend on moral philosophy. It's exactly because those situations exist that rights were invented. To say moral philosophy has nothing to do with rights is absurd. You wouldn't have rights without moral philosophy.


>So you don't care about the quality of life of women forced to have children they don't want?

NTS but are you implying that one life can be of high enough quality to equal that of two?

Anonymous 48920

>>48909
>And for the legal system?
Various rights and duties to each other cohabitating couples don't have.
>Why does being called husband matter to him?
It makes him happy.
>You're saying being married is important to you
No, I'm not saying that. In fact being married is not important to me, I would be with him regardless of marriage. But it's important to him, and his happiness is important to me.
>Something you do just because others did it?
No, something I did because I cherish my partner.
>If it's a formality, i.e., something born from social custom, where did that social custom come from?
The oppression of the church on secular matters such as marriage since the crisis of the third century, when the church stole the power to legally recognize marriage from the state, and made it impossible for couples to be together without marrying as cohabitation was illegal and treated as a crime.

Anonymous 48922

>>48919
But your moral philosophy is completely ungrounded from reality, as evidenced by your calling pregnancy a "personal inconvenience" when it's a foreign object stabbing into your bloodstream, manipulating your blood pressure and stealing oxygen and blood nutrients from you to feed itself like a parasite. I'm not saying moral philosophy has nothing to do with rights, I'm saying your "moral philosophy" is a load of bullshit.

>are you implying that one life can be of high enough quality to equal that of two?

I am saying the woman has the right not to have her life made immorally worse by making her slave to another, taking away her control over her body and what is allowed to stay inside it.

Anonymous 48924

>>48814
>If you don't want kids, you don't want to get married. You want a career and a future.
way to be brain dead. plenty of couples don't want kids for plenty valid reasons, retardo. for one, you should not have kids if you can't afford them.

Anonymous 48926

>>48921
>Having sex carries the possibility of pregnancy.
Which is why people to have an abortion in case of contraceptive fail, which is a possibility no matter how slim it is.

>Abortion outside of rape or immediate danger to the mother is done for personal convenience

That's your opinion, dude, and I don't agree with it.

>Fetuses have no agency

As I said already, that is irrelevant. A coma patient in need of a new liver has no agency either, that does not entitle him to take someone else's liver. The fetus' actions are that it uses the woman's organs against her will, and that is not acceptable.

>Denying their right to live inherently prioritizes the life of one over another

Denying the woman's right to own and control her body and what happens to it inherently denies the woman her humanity and reduces her to the status of object to be used.

>It's called pragmatism.

It's called bullshit. You gonna get women killed.

>Who are these people? Certainly not the fetus.

You're the one that said the fetus is human, humans do not have a right to use other humans' organs.

>"Quality of life" in other cases means that a unwanted pregnancy is a personal inconvenience

And once again, that's only your opinion.

>I personally think that people should be held to account for their actions

How so? Should they be penalized for doing something you don't like, even though they did nothing wrong and are perfectly well within their human rights?

Anonymous 48927

>>48925
20% of pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion. are you mourning for those lost souls anon?

Anonymous 48928

>>48921
Addendum: it's not actually only your opinion, as pregnancy is a constant loss of blood and nutrients for the woman having them stolen by a foreign entity, ergo it's physical harm the woman has to suffer. That is not "personal inconvenience", that is a medical matter and bodily harm. You think women being physically harmed is "personal inconvenience", you're full of bullshit.

Anonymous 48929

>>48926
*Which is why people plan to have an abortion

La Caudilla 48930

self portrair abbo…

It's pretty tense in here

Anonymous 48931

>>48922
>But your moral philosophy is completely ungrounded from reality
I'm nta, just pointing out the absurdity of separating rights from philosophy.
>I'm saying your "moral philosophy" is a load of bullshit.
What philosophy is "grounded in reality"? Philosophy applies to humans and human matters only.
>I am saying the woman has the right not to have her life made immorally worse by making her slave to another, taking away her control over her body and what is allowed to stay inside it.
You've just reiterated what I said, but in the negative. The women's life is worth the quality of two, because it would lower the quality of the one too much to let the second live. You also keep throwing that word "right" around like it has weight.

>>48920
>Various rights and duties to each other cohabitating couples don't have.
That's an argument for why cohabiting couples should have more rights, I've already covered why those rights shouldn't be exclusive to marriages, unless you're referring to having children, but that doesn't apply to a childless marriage.
>No, something I did because I cherish my partner.
And why did your partner do it? Because as you said, he likes the idea of being married. Why? Because he likes being able to say he's married. Sounds like he dislikes the alternative.
>The oppression of the church on secular matters such as marriage since the crisis of the third century, when the church stole the power to legally recognize marriage from the state, and made it impossible for couples to be together without marrying as cohabitation was illegal and treated as a crime.
Then why are you not just cohabiting? By capitulating to the standards set by the church you're reinforcing the standards you yourself don't agree with.

Anonymous 48936

>>48919
>just pointing out the absurdity of separating rights from philosophy
Anon, all I did was call his "moral philosophy" a load of bullshit.
>What philosophy is "grounded in reality"?
The philosophy of human rights should be, as denying the reality of pregnancy in the name of a bullshit "philosophy" causes harm to women and opens the way for people to be abused.
>You keep throwing that word "right" around like it has weight
It does, that's why you can't abuse women.
>That's an argument for why cohabiting couples should have more rights
Never said anything against that.
>Sounds like he dislikes the alternative
That's his prerogative. My rights are secured no matter my social status, so it wasn't a big deal for me.
>Then why are you not just cohabiting? By capitulating to the standards set by the church you're reinforcing the standards you yourself don't agree with.
I had a civil marriage, which is an acceptable compromise for me in order to make my partner happy and not be forced to agree to something I don't agree with. A civil marriage is not the standards set by the church in any way, as the church does not recognize non-religious marriage. For the church I am cohabitating, they just can't persecute me for it.

Anonymous 48938

>>48934
>It's not an opinion. It's a fact.
No, it's an opinion.

>Unless something is required, it is by definition, optional

Once again, no, as one can be forced to make an unacceptable choice between two evils, for example obey or get gulaged. Plus, optional is not synonym to "personal inconvenience that can be easily dismissed" like you're trying to portray pregnancy as.

>This is actually a medical ethics discussion

Not really. You are not entitled to stealing another person's organs just because you need new organs yourself.

>This is a bastardization of Essentialist philosophy.

It's a statement of fact. A woman is a not an object to be used, and denying her control over her body reduces her to the status of slave, much like an object, a property to be used against her will.

>human are complex beings

Pro-lifers are not. They think the same you do, they want those sluts punished and they don't care if they end up dead.

>You must think all fetuses are organ donors

Nice attempt to twist my words, but no. You on the other hand want all women to be forced to be organ donors.

>I just think that anyone who finds themselves pregnant ought to take responsibility for becoming so

By planning to have an abortion if that pregnancy is unwanted, thus not ruining their lives and not creating unwanted people.

>Human rights are universal

Exactly, all humans have the right to body autonomy, which means only the woman controls her body and her how her organs are used. Do you deny the human right to body autonomy?

Anonymous 48942

>>48937
Church interference has been a thing until the 1990s, anon, in many places it's still a thing. Marital rape was still not recognized as a crime in many western countries until the mid 90s still because the idea of marriage was still founded on the religious idea of an union between a man and a woman, with the woman being subservient to the man and his whims. In Russia the Orthodox Church is currently attempting to block a law punishing domestic violence from being passed because it will destroy the sanctity of marriage, as for the church marriage is a man beating a disobedient woman. This happening as we speak. Church interference is a cancer not yet defeated.

Anonymous 48946

>>48944
Where have you pointed out contradictions in my logic, anon?
It is a fact the denial of bodily autonomy is a violation of human rights and it is a fact it reduces people to the status of slaves, as people without bodily autonomy do not own their bodies, their bodies becoming someone else's property to be used against the person's will.
It is also a fact that pregnancy is a foreign entity acting like a parasite to the woman, stealing blood nutrients from her bloodstream like a mosquito. Pregnancy in itself is physical harm to the woman's body with the constant risk of the harm becoming worse, and unwanted pregnancy is psychological harm too.

>All of your arguments revolve around your self.

How when I have repeatedly stated bodily autonomy is a human right, universal for all humans, women included?

Anonymous 48948

>>48780
Stop being anti-working-class, Anonymous. Poverty isn't a personal decision.

Anonymous 48949

>>48888
Really? The way you posted made it sound like you were really separated from your families. Like it's none of their business. You act like sex is ultimately necessary to living your life, but it's only necessary to making life.
>>48890
>human desires are flawed
Yes.
>and people shouldn't be forgiven for impulses
Just stop.

Anonymous 48950

>>48944
You projecting your absurdities onto strangers is entirely your fault, anon.
>Like it's none of their business
I am sure you are going to twist and misunderstand this now because to you someone disregarding your opinion is a personal offense and you can't accept the idea of other people (not you) being in control of their lives, but while their advice is always welcome, my life is ultimately my business and no one else's.

>You act like sex is ultimately necessary to living your life

Given that my life includes a meaningful marriage relationship I want to sustain and keep alive, yes it is.

>it's only necessary to making life

All the couples out there divorcing or breaking up because of dead bedrooms would like a word with you.

Anonymous 48955

>>48953
My bad. >>48950 is meant for >>48949.

Anonymous 48958

>>48950
>a meaningful marriage relationship I want to sustain and keep alive
How do you intend to sustain it towards the end of your thirties? Don't you think you're wasting your time in the name of pleasure instead of pursuing something more career-oriented?
>all the couples out there divorcing or breaking up because of dead bedrooms would like a word with you
What about that validates getting married for the sake of only pairing up?

Anonymous 48959

>>48953
>How do you intend to sustain it towards the end of your thirties?
By being a good partner to my husband, of course, provided he is a good partner to me in return. So far I have no complaints, as long as he stays the same in character, psychology and behavior the future is good.
>Don't you think you're wasting your time in the name of pleasure instead of pursuing something more career-oriented?
No. I'm happy with my job and have no wish to change.
>What about that validates getting married for the sake of only pairing up?
It shows romantic relationships, marriage or not, cannot survive without intimacy, despite your pitiful attempts to deny this reality.

Anonymous 48960

>>48958
>How do you intend to sustain it towards the end of your thirties?
Not the same Anon you're talking to but people can still have sex in their 40s. My grandparents would have sex occasionally in their 60s (I wish I didn't know that.)
>Don't you think you're wasting your time in the name of pleasure instead of pursuing something more career-oriented?
You can easily do both especially when there's no children involved. You're making it sound like people only get married to have sex or have a family. People can get married to simply enjoy each other's company. It's about, cooking for each other, helping each other through life, being there for them and being committed to each other.

Anonymous 48961

Not any of the above, but the arguments of this pro-choice anon are just terrible. I don't even have an opinion of the subject but that was awful.
Are you French? It's an important question.

Anonymous 48963

>>48959
>>48960
So you're fully content on burning things away just for the sake of feeling pleasure, and you want abortions just for this, with barely any concern for people that actually need it.

Anonymous 48964

>>48963
The only one who's not showing concern for anyone ITT is you, anon, who want women to be forced to keep pregnancies they don't want.

Anonymous 48965

>>48963
What are you even on about?

Anonymous 48966

>>48963
>but the arguments of this pro-choice anon are just terrible
Why?

Anonymous 48967

>>48948
having kids is, it's the whole point of that argument

Anonymous 48968

>>48964
What part of "actually need it" do you not understand? You're being purposely obtuse, I swear.

Anonymous 48969

>>48968
Who are you to decide which woman needs it and which doesn't?

That indian girl who died in Ireland because she was denied an abortion looked like she didn't need it, until she got worse so suddenly and quickly there was no time to save her anymore when she needed it desperately. She knew she needed it, but you and people like you didn't believe her.

The women in the Prague study were also told they didn't need it, until they developed depression and psychosis as a consequence of being forced to have children they didn't want, and abused their children to vent their frustration. Women don't need mental health, huh?

You have no right to make decisions for others over their life and bodies. Only woman who's unwillingly pregnant can decide if she actually needs it or not. Fuck off, creep, and stop trying to turn women into objects.

Anonymous 48970

>>48969
Only in the situation where there are clearly no consenting parents is it right to end the life of a fetus, and even then its a very tough choice to make. Call it a parasite all you want, but that only means you considered yourself the same thing when you were born.

Anonymous 48971

>>48970
The woman who does not consent to be a parent or an incubator has every right to remove the unwanted parasite from her body. Parasites have no right to live as literal bloodsucking parasites attached to someone else's body.

Anonymous 48972

>>48971
Where did you learn to be like this? Seriously.

Anonymous 48974

>>48971
I'm pro-choice but even I feel like this is a bit of extreme thinking.
That being said I feel like this thread is just people talking to a brick wall and I'm going to drop out. seriously everyone set on their own decision the pro-lifers are going to be whatever they think is right regardless. even though I don't agree

Anonymous 48976

>>46977
Who even uses Facebook this day in age it's a dead site.

Anonymous 48983

>>48974
Same. It's probably a moid trying to make pro-choice people sound bad with irrational nonsensical arguments.

Anonymous 48990

Anons who call the fetus "parasite" would hate their children and abuse them… it's better to abort than to make them miserable.
And bad mothers need to be physically removed.

Anonymous 48993

>>48983
>>48974
So forcing women to have children they don't want aka this person >>48970 is acceptable thinking to you, but women calling something they don't want mean names is "extreme thinking"? You're the moids. The more you try to force shit I don't want on me the more I hate it and the more I express my hate however I like.

>>48990
You betcha I would hate those pieces of shit and beat the lights out of them and destroy their lives. I would hate them. I don't want them to exist.

Anonymous 48995

>>48990
No. Only unwanted fetuses are parasites. Wanted ones are not.

Anonymous 48996

>>48995
Fetuses that reside in the body of a woman who doesn't want them in her body are parasites, and the woman has every right to hate and kick that disgusting parasite out of her body. Force her to keep something she doesn't want in her body, it's your fault for any physical, emotional or psychological violence that happens to that parasite once it's born. You knew she hates that horrid thing.

Anonymous 48997

>>48995
All fetuses are parasites. It's up to the woman to decide if she's okay with keeping a parasite inside her or not.

Anonymous 48998

>>48997
Nah, it's a symbiote if it's wanted.

Anonymous 48999

>>48998
Parasitism is a form of symbiosis, the parasite benefits while the host is harmed.

Anonymous 49000

>>48999
Yes, but the relationship is mutually beneficial if the potential mother wants to have a baby, meaning it's not parasitic.

Anonymous 49001

parasite.PNG

A parasite is literally defined by living inside another species. Your own offspring is not a parasite.

Anonymous 49002

>>49000
On a biological level it's not, she still has to give up her nutrients to feed the parasite, making her weaker and exposing her to greater risk. If for any reason she cannot find enough energy to sustain both the parasite and her, the parasite might release toxins in her bloodstream that cause the blood pressure to rise to unsustainable levels and kill her.

Anonymous 49003

>>49001
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasite

1 : a person who exploits
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

Yes, my own offspring would be a parasite.

Anonymous 49004

>>49002
And yet, if she considers the drawbacks worth it in order to have a baby, it's still beneficial to her.

Anonymous 49005

>>49004
Her considering the ordeal beneficial despite the drawbacks is her prerogative, likewise a woman who does not consider the ordeal beneficial for her may not be forced into keeping the parasite.

Anonymous 49010

>>48998
>>48995
Biology is the same for both wanted and unwanted children.

Anonymous 49023

>>48996
>>48997
>>49002
>>49003
You're a basketcase. Seriously go get yourself checked out. I don't know who did this to you, but you don't deserve to be in public with this way of thinking.

Anonymous 49027

>>49023
Why do you anti-choicers always resort to insults and the emotional appeals you disdain so much when you can't refute facts?

Anonymous 49030

>>49027
Answer my question. Why are you like this? Who taught you to be this way? Tear down your walls!

Anonymous 49031

>>49030
I have no idea what you're rambling about. You sound crazy, dude.

Anonymous 49033

>>49031
Who taught you that fetuses are "parasites"?

Anonymous 49036

I personally really hate how "open" relationships are being pushed by some feminists as a positive thing. That a traditional family is somehow oppressive and something to rebel against. This mindset plays right into the hands of men who don't want to commit.

Anonymous 49037

>>49033
Biology, of course. You know how pregnancy works, yes?

Anonymous 49038

>>49036
If anything, women should make it known they're the Matriarch in the relationship. They should own the relationship, and command it rather than giving it up.
>>49037
What person taught you this biological "fact"?

Anonymous 49039

>>49036
Well the traditional family to many is a man being justified if he beats up a woman because she doesn't want to obey him, a man who's allowed to rape her because they don't think he needs her consent if she's in a relationship with him, and a man she cannot escape from because he controls her money and she has nothing to live on without that money. That is oppressive and something to rebel against in my book.

Anonymous 49040

>>49038
I already answered your question here: >>49037

Anonymous 49042

>>49039
So what's wrong with reversing the roles?
>>49040
No, you haven't. What person put these thoughts into your head? Please just come forward.

Anonymous 49043

>>49042
Do you have trouble reading or do you think women are incapable of coming to a conclusion on their own?

Anonymous 49044

>>49043
So a biology book taught you this? Which one?

Anonymous 49048

>>49039
Do you live in a 3rd world country? If those things are what you associate with a traditional family then I agree that it's good to rebel against it.

Anonymous 49050

>>49044
Any that describes the pregnancy process in depth and detail, dude. Spiral arteries are small arteries which temporarily supply blood to the endometrium of the uterus. During pregnancy the fetus invades these arteries via the syncytiotrophoblast, AKA the outer layer of the placenta formed by the embryo, which invades the wall of the uterus to establish nutrient circulation between the embryo and the woman much like a mosquito sticking its needle into your bloodstream.

Anonymous 49051

>>49050
So you thought this all the way from your start in sexual education? When was that?

Anonymous 49054

1568241351376.jpg

>>46977
I'm kinda feeling sorry for you right now OP. Your proposal had been thrown off a proverbial cliff and now everyone is sperging over abortion. I agree with most parts at least.

Anonymous 49055

>>49051
I had a hunch pregnancy is not the mysterious magical process "pro-lifers" try to peddle it as since I was a little girl.

Anonymous 49057

>>48743
This turns out to be one of the worst non sequiturs ever.
So, because it need somone elses body it's ok to get riddle of it? Just because a newborn baby needs someone to take care of it (in fact it parasites you even more than a fetus) it's ok to kill it?

That being said , your right "There are no good pro-life argument" even if they manage to be less bad than the the baby killer arguments. The only ethical, possible answer is evicctionism. Not that brainlet, layman, horrible person like you knows what is it.
>>48961
>Are you French? It's an important question.
Kek it's indeed that arrogant single digit IQ French anon, I thought the same. Her writing style and hunches on subjects she doesn't understand are recognizable.

Anonymous 49059

>>49057
>So, because it need somone elses body it's ok to get riddle of it?
Yes! It's a blood-sucking parasite. Get rid of it.

>a newborn baby needs someone to take care of it

Since when do newborn suck blood? They must be vampires, drive a stake through their heart and kill those monsters.

>The only ethical, possible answer is evicctionism


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism

>Evictionism is a moral theory advanced by Walter Block and Roy Whitehead on a proposed libertarian view of abortion based on property rights. This theory is built upon the earlier work of philosopher Murray Rothbard who wrote that "no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body" and that therefore the woman is entitled to eject the baby from her body at any time. Evictionists view a mother's womb as her property and an unwanted fetus as a "trespasser or parasite", even while lacking the will to act. They argue that a mother has the right to evict a fetus from her body since she has no obligation to care for a trespasser.


How is that any different from what's already been said in this thread?

Anonymous 49060

>>49055
Who the hell learns about this kind of stuff at that age? Was this a part of your elementary curriculum? I don't think your teachers should've been telling you this from a young age, if that's the case.

Anonymous 49061

>>49060
You didn't learn about the birds and the bees when you were a kid? Damn, no wonder you turned out so stupid.

Anonymous 49062

>>49059
>Yes! It's a blood-sucking parasite. Get rid of it.
No, it isn't and even if it were it doesn't give you any right of killing it.
>b-but you can tapeworms
Yeah, a human life indeed worthes as much as a worm.
Genius.
>Since when do newborn suck blood?
So, your definition of parasite is sucking blood? Did you finish high school?
>How is evicctionism any different from what's already been said in this thread?
If you don't understand that says more about you and your tiny brain than about the arguments ITT.

Anonymous 49064

>>49062
>No, it isn't
>The only ethical, possible answer is evicctionism
>Evictionists view a mother's womb as her property and an unwanted fetus as a "trespasser or parasite"

Do you have brain damage?

Anonymous 49065

>>49064
Good to see you gave up about the other points.
As for evicctionism (I see your only source on the subject is WIkipedia) does not allow you to kill the baby. By the time it's in your womb you cannot kill it anymore. You can, however deliver the baby when it can live by itself. IOW, when you're seven months pregnant you don't need to wait anymore, you can have it and put it to adoption. But killing it? No. Never.

Anonymous 49066

>>49061
>>49064
You're a monster. An inhuman monster. I ask too many questions, and you lash out at everyone. I don't know what happened to you that made you like this, but you need to stop.

Anonymous 49067

>>49062
>So, your definition of parasite is sucking blood?
Sucking blood is how parasites feed themselves. They take the nutrients they need to sustain themselves directly from a host's bloodstream, harming the host, that's how a parasitic relationship is defined. This applies to mosquitos, tapeworms, and fetuses too.

>>49065
>evicctionism… does not allow you to kill the baby
So you admit it's a parasite and say it's my right to kick it out of my body at anytime, only to turn around and say I cannot kick it out of my body and I have to keep a parasite inside myself? That makes no sense. I do not want to have a parasite inside myself, I do not want to deliver it, and I get it out of my body.

Anonymous 49068

>>49066
>you lash out at everyone
Says the person who calls "monsters" women who don't want parasites in their bodies

Anonymous 49069

>>49067
>>49068
Quit calling yourself a parasite. You were a fetus once. Do you think you deserved to die since you by your own terms were a "parasite"?

Anonymous 49070

>>49067
>Sucking blood is how parasites feed themselves
Not always.
>This applies to mosquitos
I see, you didn't finsh high school. Mosquitos are as much as parasites as any other animal, including you.

A parasite is a living being that needs another living being to complete its biological cycle, causing it harm. By the biological definition, a pet is a parasite (here we're ignoring the joy it brings to you). A fetus is as much as a parasite as a baby, a disabled person or someone very old: it can't live on its own, it needs someone else in order to live. Do you think it's ok to kill the elders because a child does not want to take care of them?

But the most important thing, what you still failed to explain is, what gives you the right to kill someone else? And no, "don't want" is not enough".
Honest question, did you have an abortion? Is that why you're pro-choice? You're trying to cope? Or are you a guy trying to make women look retard?

As for evicctionism, you still didn't understand, you cannot kill it at all. If you find a way for it to survive without your body, that's A-ok, but you having an abortion a couple of weeks after you got pregnant is not.

Anonymous 49072

>>49069
I think if my mother had decided not to have me I would not resent her for it, her body her choice.

>>49070
>Not always
That's what happens in the case of bloodsuckers like mosquitos and fetuses.

>A fetus is as much as a parasite as a baby, a disabled person or someone very old

No, a baby, a disabled person or someone very old do not live inside someone else's body, and do not invade people's arteries to suck blood from them. Usually, at least. Maybe they do in horror stories, and they are killed in cold blood like the monsters they are in those stories.

>what gives you the right to kill someone else?

Self-defense from a parasite hurting me, invading my body and stealing my blood. What gives someone the right to steal my blood? There's no such right, while there is the right for me to defend myself against such offense against my body. No, I never had an abortion. I am pro-choice because I do not want to be pregnant, pregnancy is disgusting and forced pregnancy is a violation of my rights, should I become pregnant I don't want to keep the pregnancy.

>As for evicctionism, you still didn't understand, you cannot kill it at all

Then it's retarded and evictionists lie when they say that "no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body" because that's what fetuses do, being parasites they cannot survive outside the host. Evictionists are not evictionists at at all, you want to force women to keep parasites inside themselves against the woman's will, you should just call themselves anti-choicers like the rest of you.

Anonymous 49073

>>49072
If you were her, would you really consider it?
>should I become pregnant I don't want to keep the pregnancy
Then why would you keep doing something that's clearly designed to get you pregnant? It's insane, like cutting yourself and getting mad that you're bleeding.

Anonymous 49074

I think pro-choice anon (49072) has some sort of trauma, her tone and wording come off as unhinged.

Anonymous 49076

>>49073
I'm not her. I have already it considered abortion for myself should I become pregnant despite being meticulous with by birth control.

>Then why would you keep doing something that's clearly designed to get you pregnant?

You mean sex? Because it's not solely designed for pregnancy, it's also designed for bonding and intimacy, and that's my reason for having sex. Pregnancy is an unfortunate downside I contrast with birth control and, as a last resort, abortion.

Anonymous 49078

>>49074
That's what misogynists always say whenever a woman is certain and frank about her plans not to keep a pregnancy. Why can't women speak their negative feelings toward unwanted children and unwanted pregnancies, freely and plainly, as men are allowed to?

Anonymous 49080

>>49072
I'm none of the above and I had never seen so many mistakes on a single post in so many areas of science.
>That's what happens in the case of bloodsuckers like mosquitos and fetuses.
That does not make mosquitos or a fetus a parasite. You eat other beings. Are you a parasite? No, you are a consumer. That is a technical term, don't adapt it.

>Self-defense from a parasite hurting me, invading my body and stealing my blood

If you say that in front of a judge he will laugh at you. Self-defense, just like every other right, has limits. If you are dying you can have an abortion and very few will deny this right even on the Catholic Church, but if it's just stealing your blood you cannot, just like you can't kill someone just because he stole your care. The whole idea of the human rights was built upon the fact that none of them is absolute, and right to self defense does not apply here. just like the right to live has its limits.
And yes, in your exemple it's the same as letting your child starve.

>evictionists lie when they say that "no being has a right to live,

Did you know this word before one hour ago (I didn't) to make this statement? How much do you know about their theory for having such a strong opinion on the subject?

Anonymous 49081

>>49076
I second this.
Abortion should be a last and final resort.
I just don't get how people think people are out there getting abortions like it's a game. Like they have a punch card where the 10th one is free. That's just crazy thinking.

Anonymous 49082

>>49079
>That does not make mosquitos or a fetus a parasite
Yes it does. A parasitic relationship is one in which one organism, the parasite, lives off of another organism, the host, harming it and possibly causing death. The parasite lives on or in the body of the host. I eat other beings but I don't live inside them, so yes I am a consumer and not a parasite; but the fetus lives inside the woman and therefore is a parasite.

>but if it's just stealing your blood you cannot

Let's put it to the test, shall we? Let me stick a big needle into your organs so I can draw blood from you for a prolonged amount of time, see how you react to that.

>in your exemple it's the same as letting your child starve

Vampires should starve, monsters that feed on human blood have no right to live at the expense of humans.

>>49081
I don't think you understand me. It is a last resort for me because I think it's best to prevent pregnancy through birth control. But if birth control fails, I'm not waiting around to be on the brink of death to get an abortion, I'm getting an abortion the moment I know I'm pregnant.

Anonymous 49083

>>49076
It is absolutely designed for pregnancy. The endorphines released are meant to be an incentive to procreate. Other mammals without this ability could not ascend. Abortion is a social construct.
>>49078
Killing human beings is wrong. That's why.
>>49082
If you want to keep yourself from getting pregnant, why keep having sex that will clearly lead to it? If there was no way to immediately abort it, would you even be able to stop yourself?

Anonymous 49084

1581893028665.jpg

Since this just seems to be a shot throwing contest now. I feel a little more okay posting this.

I fucking hate fat acceptance

Anonymous 49085

>>49083
>The endorphines released are meant to be an incentive to procreate
If that were true infertile, homosexual and sterilized people would not release endorphines and would not enjoy sex, yet infertile, homosexual and sterilized people are perfectly capable of having and enjoying sex as much as anyone else regardless of the inability to procreate. Therefore no, sex is designed for bonding and intimacy as an activity separated from pregnancy.

>Killing human beings is wrong

Harming and forcing harm on women is wrong. Women are human beings too.

>why keep having sex that will clearly lead

Sex does not always lead to pregnancy, and protected sex (especially with IUDs) is very unlikely to lead to pregnancy. There's still a small window of possibility, though, and that's why I keep abortion as a last measure.

>If there was no way to immediately abort it

There's always a way. Without having to resort to coat hangers, menstrual extraction is a method to manually extract the lining of the uterus and any fertilized egg/embryo attached to it during the first 9 weeks of pregnancy. Any woman can perform it on herself, alone. It was developed by feminists when abortion was still illegal as a way for women to have a safe abortion without having to depend on other people who might refuse them or rattle them out.

Anonymous 49086

>>49082
>A parasitic relationship is one in which one organism, the parasite, lives off of another organism
Your lack of education is showing. A parasitic relationship has to do with the lifecycle. A plasmodium is a parasite, but anophelis isn't.
>but the fetus lives inside the woman and therefore is a parasite.
What? There are many lifeforms inside you, not all are parasites.
As I mentioned before.If the problem is living of you that's still irrelevant, a baby can't live without someone else. Is it a parasite?
>I said if your life is at stake is ok to kill the offender
>gives an exemple where my life is in danger.
Are you a brainlet?
>monsters that feed on human blood have no right to live at the expense of humans.
So, as long as it is not blood it is ok to live at someone else expense? Not that a fetus eat literally blood, of course?

Anonymous 49087

ITT: everyone against a single retarded. Most pro'choice ppl I know at least deny that the fetus is alive, this one thinks it's ok to kill one.
Lol

Anonymous 49089

>>49086
>A parasitic relationship has to do with the lifecycle
https://necsi.edu/parasitic-relationships
Not necessarily.

>A plasmodium is a parasite, but anophelis isn't

Both are parasites. The mosquito is a temporary parasite, as it feeds on other organism's blood temporarily while it needs to feed its eggs, but it's still a parasite.

>There are many lifeforms inside you, not all are parasites

And how many of them suck nutrients off my bloodstream?

>If the problem is living of you

The problem is living inside me, off my organism.

>a baby can't live without someone else

Really? So adoption campaigns are all lies? /s for the retarded.

>gives an exemple where my life is in danger

So the woman's life is in danger too, as the example I gave you is exactly what happens during pregnancy, and it's her right to defend herself. You can't claim it's ok to steal blood and then say stealing your blood puts your life in danger, pick one.

>Not that a fetus eat literally blood, of course?

Yes, actually. As I explained many times fetuses eat by sucking nutrients and oxygen off the woman's bloodstream, so they do literally suck blood.

Anonymous 49090

>>49087
Until a certain stage of development it's a vegetable like a braindead coma patient is a vegetable, but it is alive. A dead fetus is a an even bigger risk to the woman's health.

And yes, for the woman who has it inside her it's ok to kill it. Her body, her choice of what stays inside her body.

Anonymous 49095

>>49089
1 Did you read your own link?
>The parasite lives on or in the body of the host.
Don't see any mosquito living in or on me.
>The mosquito is a temporary parasite
> temporary parasite
Did you just invent this expression?
>So adoption campaigns are all lies?
>adopted children are not living off someone else
>And how many of them suck nutrients off my bloodstream?
Most of them. You have more bacteria in your guts than cells in your body. And every cell in your body has a Mitochondrion.
>So the woman's life is in danger too, as the example I gave you is exactly what happens during pregnancy, and it's her right to defend herself. You can't claim it's ok to steal blood and then say stealing your blood puts your life in danger, pick one.

Right now very few women die of pregnancy and dropping (94% are in shitholes). Again, proportion. That's a basic point of every logical and ethical system since the Hamurabi's Code. If the chance is tiny your right of self defense by killing the agressor cease to exist.

Anonymous 49098

>>49085
They were mutated as an incentive to breed so that the species wouldn't become extinct anon. You don't seem to get how reality works at all when you try to bring things like homosexuality into human nature.

Anonymous 49099

>>49087
>Don't see any mosquito living in or on me
Yeah, you don't normally notice when they bite you as they inject an anesthetic. You only notice later.

>Did you just invent this expression?

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/temporary+parasite
No.

>adopted children are not living off someone else

I see you missed the /s, of course you did.

>Most of them

>bacteria in your guts
Which have no access to the bloodstream, retard. Blood is normally a sterile environment so the detection of bacteria in the blood is always abnormal.

>Right now very few women die of pregnancy and dropping

Actually rising in places that restrict abortion like republican states in the USA.

>Again, proportion

There's no proportion with pregnancy because complications can arise at any moment even when you don't expect them, see the death of Savita Halappanavar, who died of cardiac arrest following a sepsis after being refused an abortion because her life was not immediately in danger - until it was and then it was too late. This in Ireland. My life is already in extreme danger by having a foreign entity I can't control inside my body, manipulating my blood pressure and putting me at constant risk of death by sudden, unforeseeable complications. You have no right to force me to risk my life and I have every right to defend myself before I'm on the brink of death.

>>49098
[citation needed]

Anonymous 49101

>>49099
All this time, you haven't cited one single reason to constantly have sex and abort fetuses. Where's your purpose?

Anonymous 49104

>>49103
You moids truly are ignorant. If you were women you would know rach pregnancy is unique as each body is different, what hasn't happened to others could easily happen to me. As I said, you have no right to force me to risk my life and health. You quit trying to get women killed.

>>49101
>you haven't cited one single reason to constantly have sex and abort fetuses
Your idea of women is demented, I never aborted despite having sex because thanks to birth control I always prevented any possible pregnancy from being. Most women have sex without needing to abort fetuses thanks to birth control. We just want to be safe should our birth control fail.

Anonymous 49105

>>49104
All this time calling them parasites and you've never actually been pregnant before? I think those pills you're taking are messing with your head. You're certainly inexperienced.

Anonymous 49107

>>49105
I don't need to be pregnant to recognize a parasite, anon.

>those pills you're taking are messing with your head

And more misogynistic bullshit. For a board that's supposed to be for women, this place is filled with shitty men.

Someone who's never had cancer is inexperienced too, guess what? They can still understand cancer is horrible and not want it in themselves. You really hate women if you think women don't have the intellectual capability to learn about something and decide they don't like it and don't want it simply by understanding what it is.

Anonymous 49110

>>49105
are you against birth control anon? this is important.

Anonymous 49112

FYI

https://www.thejournal.ie/eighth-amendment-4-3977441-Apr2018/

Savita found out she was pregnant in August 2012. She visited her GP and was referred to the antenatal clinic in UHG for care. It was her first pregnancy and she was due on 20 March 2013.

She had no risk factors or past medical problems.

On 11 October she went to UHG for her first routine antenatal visit. She was 15 weeks and five days into her pregnancy. The findings of all her exams were normal. She told staff that she wished to breastfeed and was given advice. A complaint about back pain led to a referral to a physiotherapy service.

A fetal anomaly scan was booked and she was scheduled for her next antenatal clinic on 3 December 2012, when she would have been at 23 weeks gestation.

However, on Sunday 21 October 2012 at 9.35am, Savita and her husband Praveen attended the gynaecology ward at UHG without appointment. She presented with intermittent lower backache.

She was assessed and a treatment plan for back pain put in place. She left the hospital but was told by a doctor to come back in if she had any concerns.

Later that day – at about 3.30pm – she did return. She was upset and crying after having “felt something coming down”, which she had pushed back in.

A midwife working in the ward believed she was miscarrying and doctors were brought in to review the case.

By then, Savita was distressed and in unbearable pain.

The doctors on the ward believed that she was in the middle of a miscarriage – or about to miscarry. They noted that pregnancy loss was both inevitable and impending. They ruled out being able to perform what is known as a rescue cerclage (stitching the cervix closed to prevent miscarriage and allow a pregnancy continue to foetal viability).

The Halappanavars were moved to a single room to allow them their privacy during this devastating episode.

During that Sunday, doctors checked for a fetal heartbeat, which they were able to detect. The plan was to wait for the natural outcome of events.

Just after midnight on Monday, 22 October, Savita began vomiting violently and had a spontaneous rupture of membranes – that is that the bag of membranes around the foetus had burst and the fluid (also known as liquor) had leaked out.

By 8.20am, she was experiencing bleeding but her pain had eased. At this time, the consultant discussed the risk of infection and sepsis with her, explaining the need to continuously check for a fetal heartbeat.

At the same time the following day – Tuesday, 23 October – Savita and Praveen asked about using medication to induce the inevitable miscarriage. According to the HSE report published after her death, they told the consultant they did not want a protracted waiting time when the outcome was inevitable.

They were advised of Irish law in relation to this request with the consultant recalling saying:

Under Irish law, if there’s no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied so long as there’s a fetal heart[beat].

The clinical plan to “await events” remained and Savita continued to be administered antibiotics while being examined throughout the day. She complained of ‘weakness’ during this time but was eating and drinking normally.

Praveen continued to stay with her through the days – and overnight on a camp bed.

At 4.15am on Wednesday 24 October, a midwife noted that Savita was feeling cold and shivery (the radiator in the room did not work and was documented as being “stone cold”). Both she and her husband asked for extra blankets and the midwife noticed Savita’s teeth were chattering. She was given paracetamol to manage her increased temperature.

By 7am, Savita was suffering from nausea and vomiting. Just over an hour later, the consultant’s team diagnosed chorioamnionitis (an inflammation of the fetal membranes due to infection). Their focus was to find the source of that infection and to give time for the prescribed medications to work.

The plan at this point was for Savita’s vital signs and fetal heart rate to be monitored. She was to be reviewed later with a view to induce labour once there was no fetal heartbeat present.

By 11.45am, the fetal heart had been checked and was still 148 beats per minute (within normal range).

Savita, by lunchtime, was also complaining of chest pain and had difficulty breathing.

Nurses had noted a sudden deterioration of her condition at about noon, and she was “very unwell” by 1.20pm.

Following a review by the consultant team, Savita was diagnosed with septic shock, with chorioamnionitis being considered as the cause.

After 2pm, the plan of treatment was noted to include a dosage of misoprostol, a drug used to induce delivery. However, it was never administered as there was a spontaneous delivery at 3.15pm in theatre, where she had been brought to have a central line inserted.

Praveen was taken into the operating theatre to be with his wife who was extremely upset about the miscarriage.

Savita was then transferred to the High Dependency Unit of the hospital.

Overnight, into Thursday 25 October, her condition continued to deteriorate. She needed increased oxygen and was transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) at 3am.

She remained critically ill throughout the coming days. She was intubated, ventilated and her cardiac output was decreasing by Friday afternoon.

Despite ongoing measures by the ICU medical staff through to Saturday, Savita remained in critical condition – and deteriorating.

At 12.45am on Sunday, 28 October, Savita suffered a cardiac arrest.

At 1.09am – almost a full week from her presentation to the hospital – she was pronounced dead.

Fuck anyone who thinks women should be at risk of death to get an abortion.

>>49108

What you call the weakest argument was the cause of death for this innocent woman, who could have been saved if doctors hadn't put the life of a parasite over the life of a woman. The possibility DOES exist, it's deadly and terrible, and you want to gamble with women's lives. People like you shouldn't exist, murderer.

Anonymous 49115

>>49107
I don't like talking to stupid people, and you're one of them. Put that on your T-Shirt and wear it.
>>49110
It clearly has good preventative properties for an unwanted pregnancy going by this anon's "experience", so no I'm not against it.

Anonymous 49117

>>49114
If 0.01% of people die while operating heavy machinery, the solution is to make heavy machinery safer and its use more and more regulated until 0% of people die while operating heavy machinery, and most importantly not force anyone who has the feeling operating an heavy machine might be dangerous for them into operating it anyway at their own risk.

>The case your referring to has no bearing on countries which have legalized abortion

The case I am referring helped legalize abortion in a country where it was previously only legal in case of "substantial" risk of death for the mother, a stupid and completely inadequate legislation as evidenced by Savita's death.

>If a deteriorating condition and infection are not proof enough of danger to the mother, then that's a complete misjudgement of the situation and the doctors in question should be held to account.

And yet because Irish law required substantial risk of death before the doctors could intervene and Savita was not showing that, her danger was deemed not sufficient to warrant an abortion, and she died because of this stupid irrational thinking. Anyone who thinks a woman needs to be over an arbitrary danger threshold in order to get an abortion has gotten and is going to get women killed.

>Not everyone subscribes to strawman ideology

"Reality is a strawman" says the dude who's okay with women risking their health and lives.

Anonymous 49125

>>49123
Rape aside, if you want abortion to only be legal when the woman's life is in immediate danger as you have implied here >>48768, you may as well want abortion to be illegal, as you are exposing women to arbitrary danger and condemning them to death in case the gravity of the situation is not immediately obvious until it's too late as it was in Savita's case.

Anonymous 49131

>>49100
No, they aren't, thats the point, you brainlet.

Anonymous 49147

>>49114
All your points are pro-life bullshit that want to deprive the woman of control over her own body, reduce her to the status of slave whose body is to be used for someone else's gain, control women's lives and punish them for having sex, as if you hate the idea of women enjoying sex exclusively for recreation. Which is retarded MRA bullshit, sex is not only for procreation as I have told you already. "I want women to take responsibility" is also pro-life bullshit as abortion IS taking responsibility, women who abort do the responsible thing toward themselves not letting their body be used for something they don't want and toward society not creating more unwanted people that will either end up in the foster system (putting a further strain on everyone else) or will end up abused and deficient because their mother hates them.

Women have the right to self-determine their lives, and that includes having all the recreational sex they want. Responsibility here is:

1) Educate people about pregnancy and birth control, especially the parasitic nature of the fetus.

2) Make birth control such as iuds and implants immediately and easily available for all women, minors included and without the need for parental approval. Teen girls have sex too and they are one of the most vulnerable group for unwanted pregnancy, being still vulnerable to the bullshit of pro-life parents.

3) Use birth control to avoid catching pregnancy. This is a preventive measure however, since the whole implantation process is not under the control of the woman, ie she cannot go inside herself and stop the offending egg/embryo/fetus from attaching to her uterus the moment it happens DESPITE precautions. This is an act that happens not because of the woman and is against the woman's will. If fetuses are human too they are offending humans that attack a woman who's not willing.

And once again because of the inalienable rights of self-determination and bodily autonomy, no human has the right to be inside another human who doesn't want them to be, nor can any human use another human's body and organs without that human's consent. You're gonna claim that sex is consent to pregnancy has you already have, but once again no, it isn't. Consent to sex is consent to sex, sex is not pregnancy, sex does not unavoidably end in pregnancy and consent to A is not consent to B, otherwise anytime a man has willing sex with a woman once, he is entitled to rape her all the other times, because her consent to the first time is automatic consent to any other time. Except it isn't, cretin.

If you think humans have the right to be inside other humans and use human bodies against someone's will under the cry of "but they'll die without it!", live up to your ideas and stop hoarding your organs, there's dying patients in need of lungs out there.

Anonymous 49148

>>49147
Genuinely curious, what do you think the age of consent should be?

Anonymous 49150

>>49148
For minors having sex with other minors such as horny teenagers, there should be a close age exception such as no more than 2 years of difference between the individuals, so they are not punished for having a sexuality. Some countries put the starting point of these close age exceptions at 14, others at 15 or 16. I do not know enough about human psychology and healthy development to pick a specific age between these, so I'll just say the close age exceptions should be in this range.

Anyone over 18 should only be allowed to have sex only with other people over 18, and any attempt for someone over 18 to have sex with anyone under 18 should be considered rape.

Anonymous 49152

>>49147
>But if she doesn't want to be pregnant she shouldn't have sex!
No. Willingness to have sex is not willingness to be pregnant.

>But she knew she would get pregnant if she had sex!

That's not guaranteed, not all sex results in pregnancy. Birth control especially makes pregnancy unlikely and shows a clear intent on the woman's part to NOT be pregnant.

A woman does not fully control her reproductive process. She cannot willingly decide when and if she has eggs in her uterus or not, and she does not control those eggs and their behavior. If that were possible, I would choose to never have eggs in my uterus and never have to deal with menstruation ever again. You want to hold her responsible for something she has no control over, that's unacceptable.

>But she could just not have sex!

That's an unacceptable breach of her rights and limitation of her freedom. That's like saying you shouldn't have electricity in your house because there might be a short circuit. The possibility of undesired consequences cannot prevent legit beneficial use, and consensual sex is beneficial for a woman in a relationship as it strengthens and improves the bond between the couple. Just like the existence of undesired consequences does not justify forcing people to go through them, just because someone smokes doesn't mean if they get cancer they should just die of cancer. If people have the material possibility to rectify the course such as by getting an abortion, that is their right to. The life of the harmful, uncontrolled trespasser that is the fetus does not overtake the rights and freedom of the woman.

Anonymous 49153

>>49095
So you're saying people can't fight against a certain arbitrary amount of harm and pain inflicted on them by someone? If the harm and pain is below your arbitrary threshold, they should just take it and suffer?

That's what you are saying when you you talk about "proportion". At the basest the fetus always harms the woman by invading her bloodstream and stealing nutrients from her, and you don't think that's harm enough to warrant retaliation. So logically, as long as I'm not immediately causing you to die you think I can stab you and take your blood and you can do nothing about it, if you try to stop me if I will just keep doing it just like the fetus never withdraws from the woman's bloodstream.

Oh and you have no right to get me to stop by causing me more damage than I am causing you, that would be out of proportion. All you can do is put up with it and suffer. It's totally acceptable to inflict this kind of torture on you as you think it's acceptable to inflict this kind of torture on women.

Anonymous 49160

>>49150
So a couple who are both 17 can have sex, but as soon as one of them turns 18 they have to stop?

A 17 year old can have sex with a 15 year old, but that same 17 year old cannot have sex with an 18 year old, despite being closer in age?

Anonymous 49162

>>49160
If you want propose a close age exception for 17 years old having sex with 18 years old, that might be possible I guess, but as a rule it has to be very clear it's meant exclusively for those close ages so there's no exploitation of this rule by dirty old men who want to rape teenage girls.

Anonymous 49164

>>49162
That's pretty much the system a lot of places have already, except they generally use the age of 16 rather than 18.

Anonymous 49165

>>49164
It's a good system overall. Allows teenagers to have consensual sex with their peers in age so they don't have to unhealthily repress their sexuality, doesn't let predators take advantage of their inexperience.

Anonymous 49169

>>49165
Although for me personally the age of consent for minors should be only relative to sex with other minors, with the exception of 17 year olds having sex with 18 year olds. For anyone over the age of 19, a minor cannot consent to sex with them, so sex with minors for people 19 years old and older is rape. This to protect the minor from exploitation.

So to answer your question, I think the age of consent overall should be 18, with close age exceptions for teenagers between ages 14 to 18. Meaning a 14 year old can have sex with a 14, 15 or a 16 year old, a 15 year old can have sex with a 14, 15 or 16 year old, a 16 year old can have sex with a 15, 16 or 17 year old, a 17 year old can have sex with a 16, 17 or 18 year old, and an 18 year old can have sex with a 17 year old or with anyone 18 or older. Reposted for clarification.

Anonymous 49179

What a joke age on consent is. As far as nature is concerned, there are only 2 stages of life. Prepubescent and post-pubescent. Anything else is a made up line that most people just mindlessly believe the "correct" age is whatever culture they were born into. Europe has pretty much universally lower ages of consent then america and wouldn't you know it, the entire continent didn't get vaporized over it. In fact it's got far lower rates of sex related crime than america.

Anonymous 49206

>>49153
>So you're saying people can't fight against a certain arbitrary amount of harm and pain inflicted on them by someone?
Not me, every single philosopher and jurist ever mentions how being proportional is vital to any legal system. The pain you're suffering is nothing when compared with killing a life. You're comparing some pain with a destruction of someone who would still live for 80 years (that you put inside of yourself along with someone else). Do you see how retard you sound?

Glad to see you're alone ITT.

Anonymous 49212

>>49206
It's not yet a life though. It merely has the potential to become one, at the expense of the pregnant woman, should she allow it.
>would still live for 80 years
Development would cease outside of the potential mother's womb.

Not that anon, btw.

Anonymous 49217

>>49206
>cites the legal system
>claims that "the pain you're suffering is nothing when compared with killing a life"

Interesting. So you think someone who's being tortured doesn't have the right to kill their captor to free themselves when their captor won't stop torturing them? Because most legal doctrine doesn't agree with you.

And no woman takes an egg or embryo from the embryo store and shoves it inside herself, retard. Ovulation is outside her control.

Who calls "herself" a feminist and dismisses women's pain like that like women aren't people with rights too?

Anonymous 49219

>>49217
>And no woman takes an egg or embryo from the embryo store and shoves it inside herself, retard. Ovulation is outside her control.
The woman has no control over getting fertilized?
>>49212
>It's not yet a life though.
This is always what the pro-life/pro-choice debate has to default to as far as ethics.
>Development would cease outside of the potential mother's womb.
Let's say hypothetically it could, would the embryo be considered alive to you in that case?

Anonymous 49221

>>49219
Over getting fertilized? No. She cannot will her ovaries to stop producing eggs and she cannot stop her eggs from getting into her uterus. It's not a voluntary process, if you are a woman you should know that.

Anonymous 49222

>>49221
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware sperm floated through the ether and found it's way into eggs. My sex ed class was way different.

Anonymous 49223

>>49219
>This is always what the pro-life/pro-choice debate has to default to as far as ethics.

Why?

Even if you consider it a life, it's objectively a parasitic, harmful, and (when unwanted) violating one.

Anonymous 49224

>>49222
Birth control is there to prevent that. However, no woman can stop her eggs from being produced to ensure fertilization never happens in case birth control fails, an event she has no control over.

Anonymous 49226

FC467A6F-96DD-4F60…

>mfw another feminism thread falls to the old pro-life vs pro-choice bullshit

It wasn’t even the main focus of OP and you dumbasses still make it the only topic of conversation. Yes, I know that the idea of babies dying hurt your feelings, I get it. Yes, I know human larvae are parasites when it comes down to it and all the “incest rape and incestual rape” arguments, I get it. At the end of the day, it’s for lawmakers to decide whether people are allowed to do it and whatever belief system you have to tell you if it’s ok or not.
Can we please move on and focus on bigger issues like removing trans “women” from our spaces and figure out a plan to stop the incels from murderraping us? Thanks

Anonymous 49228

>>49226
Based. Can you create another thread where people can discuss the abortion issue instead of derailing this even more? I'm not at home right now.

Anonymous 49229

>>49212
>It's not yet a life though.
That's an entire different argument (and a very good one although I don't agree with it) that I think most pro-choice supporters should focus (like they do). The other anon said the fetus is a life but it's ok to kill it. See the difference?
>>49217

>So you think someone who's being tortured

Again, you have to be proportional, my brainlet friend. The pain of pregnancy is not the same as being denailed and you know it.
>Ovulation is outside her control.
Agree, that's why we have brith control
>b-but it fails
Yeah, but that's not the rule, so the exemple is retarded.
>Who calls "herself" a feminist and dismisses women's pain like that like women aren't people with rights too?
Who calls "herself" a feminist and dismisses a female genocide (most of aborted child are women) because you don't want to feel sick?

Anonymous 49230

>>49227
>the fetus is a life but it's ok to kill it
The fetus is a life AND it's ok to kill it. Plenty of lives are OK to be killed for various reasons, you just don't like the idea of a woman being in control of her body so you don't think that's an acceptable reason. I completely disagree with you.

>you have to be proportional

I am, retarded one. There is no fixed amount of pain for pregnancy, and unwanted pregnancies have been found to cause severe psychological damage to women, because the pain of unwanted pregnancy IS torture no matter how much you try to deny it.

Source:
https://globaldoctorsforchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/Unwanted-Pregnancy-Forced-Continuation-of-Pregnancy-and-Effects-on-Mental-Health-v2.pdf

>but that's not the rule

It's still something that happens, and a woman can decide in advance to abort in case it happens.

>I want women to suffer!!

How feminist of you.

Anonymous 49231

>>49226
People just like to fight, unfortunately it's human nature

Anonymous 49232

>>49226
>plenty of lives are OK to be killed for various reasons
Indeed they are, when they are threatening other lives, unlike fetuses.
>you just don't like the idea of a woman being in control of her body so you don't think that's an acceptable reason
No. You just like the idea of women dying, so you think that's an acceptable reason.
>I completely disagree with you.
Too bad for you, I'm right, you're wrong.
>There is no fixed amount of pain for pregnancy,
So, we should allow EVERY women to kill their babies if they want because they are feeling pain? You're aware that most women that have abortions don't seek it because of pain, right? In this case you're using a pathetic utilitarist reasoning that is not even utilitarist (as you're harming more people than saving).
>It's still something that happens, and a woman can decide in advance to abort in case it happens.
If it was possible to prove that a woman got pregnant due to birth control fail I would endorse the abortion in this case, but well, it isn't so there isn't much to do.

>>I want women to die!!

How feminist of you.

Anonymous 49235

>>49232
>when they are threatening other lives
Or when they are threatening other people's property, or when the inflicted harm won't end without resorting to deadly force, such as with fetuses.

>You just like the idea of women dying

Considering lack of access to safe abortion is what causes women to die, I think you're the one who masturbates to the idea of women dying.

>So, we should allow EVERY women to kill their babies if they want because they are feeling pain?

What kind of babies are physically attached to a woman's uterus after birth? Go on anon, explain that one.

>most women that have abortions don't seek it because of pain

>mental and emotional pain aka anguish don't exist for women guise, women are just cattle to be bred, those inferior beings don't have a developed mind! You can't psychologically torture a woman because women are dumb!

>as you're harming more people than saving

>mental harm is not harm

>If it was possible to prove that a woman got pregnant due to birth control fail I would endorse the abortion in this case, but it isn't

>Hey Becky, are you on birth control?
>Yes, here is the blister pack of pills I'm currently taking. I think my birth control failed though, I should have started my period by now but it hasn't yet. I'm worried I might be pregnant. Thank god I have abortion pills to take as my back up.

>I'm right, you're wrong!

>fetuses are women!
I pity you, dude.

Anonymous 49236

>>49223
Answer my question first, and I'll be able to answer yours. If it were viable outside the womb would you consider it alive?
>>49224
>However, no woman can stop her eggs from being produced to ensure fertilization never happens in case birth control fails, an event she has no control over.
A woman has no control over entering a situation where birth control can fail?
>>49226
OP literally mentions it in 4th tier of importance, if you want to be fair >>48735 started the argument. If we want to move topics that's fine with me, I'm trying to discover answers for myself by playing both sides.
>Can we please move on and focus on bigger issues like removing trans “women” from our spaces
You'd first need to define what a women is and why trans "women" aren't them.
>and figure out a plan to stop the incels from murderraping us?
Is there even an incel menace? It just seems like the same losers like Elliot Roger but a new name. I'd be worried if there were widely organized and coordinated attacks, not lone incidents. How dangerous are the incels?

Anonymous 49240

>>49235
>>fetuses are women!
>I pity you, dude.
I think anon is referring to the fact that in developing countries (like India) parents are more likely to abort female fetuses than male ones. Not sure though.

Anonymous 49244

>>49236
>A woman has no control over entering a situation where birth control can fail?
Telling women to never have sex unless they're planning to have children is unreasonable. Sex is not only for procreation and it's necessary to healthy intimacy for couples.

>>49240
That's still demented though. More female fetuses than male ones are aborted in places like India because women are generally not valued as people but only as baby factories, ironically enough. Because men decide they prefer sons over daughters and their wives don't dare oppose them, "she" wants to reduce other women to the status of baby factories too?

Anonymous 49246

>>49235
>Or when they are threatening other people's property,
You're reading too much Murray Rothbard or Ayn Rand, anon. Your body is not your property, your body is you.
>Considering lack of access to safe abortion is what causes women to die
They are dying because they are killing someone. In any case:
>in every abortion a fetus die
>in very few, (and every day less and less) pregnancies and abortions the mother die
The difference is blantant.
>What kind of babies are physically attached to a woman's uterus after birth?
"Physically" is the keyword here. Everything you said is a non sequitur.
>mental harm is not harm
Again, how many women become mentally handicapped because they had an unwanted pregnancy? Less than those who work on some jobs. Proportion, I've said the word 500 times.
>>Yes, here is the blister pack of pills I'm currently taking. I think my birth control failed though, I should have started my period by now but it hasn't yet. I'm worried I might be pregnant. Thank god I have abortion pills to take as my back up.
So, we'll believe in the testimony only? You're IQ is even lower than I thought.
>fetuses are women!
Half of them, actually, and you want to kill them.
>I pity you, dude.
Can't say I pity you. At most I pity your lack of brain cells.

Anonymous 49248

>>49246
>Your body is not your property
Self-ownership, what is that? If your body is not your property, you're saying other people can own your, specifically yours, body?

>your body is you

So any harm on my body is harm on my person that I have every right to stop and nobody has the right to inflict on me, thanks for that.

>They are dying because they are killing someone

A fetus is not a person. If you want to see a fetus is a person, it's a someone who attacked the woman first, so they are dying because you don't want them to be able to properly defend themselves.

>The difference is blantant.

And useless. Unless someone dies you don't think it's harm, so logically as long as you don't die you're okay with prolonged physical torture being inflicted on you. That's your logic.

>"Physically" is the keyword here

Exactly. You know fetuses are attached physically, yes? You cannot retreat from the harm they cause you because they're inside you, you know that, yes?

>how many women become mentally handicapped because they had an unwanted pregnancy?

https://globaldoctorsforchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/Unwanted-Pregnancy-Forced-Continuation-of-Pregnancy-and-Effects-on-Mental-Health-v2.pdf

>Less than those who work on some jobs. >Proportion

What does proportion have to do with things that are completely unrelated to each other, retard? Women who work on jobs can get out of their situation by changing jobs. Women who have an unwanted pregnancy and don't want to give birth can only get out of their situation by getting an abortion. Women who are not unwillingly pregnant have nothing to do with women who have an unwanted pregnancy.

>we'll believe in the testimony only?

What other causes do you think there could be and how do you intend to discover them without violating the woman's dignity, exactly?

>fetuses are women

A woman is an adult human female, anon, how is an undeveloped clump of cells an adult human exactly?

Anonymous 49251

>>49248
Since she thinks her body is not her property, it's obvious she's okay with her body being open to public use. Males are going to love that, finally a cunt they can rape with impunity.

Anonymous 49252

>>49244
>Telling women to never have sex unless they're planning to have children is unreasonable. Sex is not only for procreation and it's necessary to healthy intimacy for couples.
I never said otherwise, what I asked was, women have no control over entering situations where birth control can fail?
>More female fetuses than male ones are aborted in places like India because women are generally not valued as people but only as baby factories, ironically enough.
What's ironic about it? This is just a situation where abortion benefits man over woman.

Anonymous 49253

>>49252
You implied exactly that though, as repeatedly stated ITT a woman does not directly control what happens inside her uterus. She can only intervene indirectly through birth control.
>What's ironic about it?
Are you really this stupid? Depriving women of the right to abort if they want to reduces them to being nothing but bodies for other people to use, exactly as they are considered in those countries. In countries where women are considered more than incubators, abortion always benefits the woman, since it's her choice exclusively. No man can force a woman to abort if she doesn't want to just like no man can force a woman to keep a pregnancy if she doesn't want to. Instead of elevating the status of women in developing countries, you want to make the lives of women in developed countries worse.

Anonymous 49262

>>49251
This reads like a moid post.

Anonymous 49263

>>49262
She's the one saying women's bodies don't belong to women, not me.

Anonymous 49264

>>49253
>You implied exactly that though
I did not imply it, I am simply trying to find at what point we have control over this process.
>as repeatedly stated ITT a woman does not directly control what happens inside her uterus.
I agree here, the specific situations we covered are a chain of events, going backwards
>the egg ovulating
Can not be controlled, can be influenced by birth control, but not controlled. Do we agree?
>the physical act of an egg being fertilized by a sperm
Same as above, no control, do we agree?
>the sperm entering the uterus at all
Does control start here? I completely agree with the assertion that I can not directly control when I ovulate, I agree I can not directly control the act of fertilization, so when exactly do I get control in this process? Never?
>Depriving women of the right to abort if they want to reduces them to being nothing but bodies for other people to use, exactly as they are considered in those countries. In countries where women are considered more than incubators, abortion always benefits the woman, since it's her choice exclusively.
Women in India DO have rights to abort, and are still mainly aborting females. Not as liberal as the West, but they do nonetheless.
>No man can force a woman to abort if she doesn't want to just like no man can force a woman to keep a pregnancy if she doesn't want to.
This applies if woman do or don't have the right to abort. Unless, are you stating that the women in India and other developing countries are being physically forced to get abortions by men? I can understand a man brutally beating his wife until she has a miscarriage but that's not an abortion.
>Instead of elevating the status of women in developing countries, you want to make the lives of women in developed countries worse.
I have never once asserted in this thread we shouldn't have the right to abort. And I've never once in this thread asserted morality concerning it. All I have been doing is asking you to clarify what you mean in your posts about us not having control over our bodies. I want to dissect your reasoning for why and reach my own conclusion.

Anonymous 49267

>>49264
>I am simply trying to find at what point we have control over this process.
Never. Welcome to being a woman.

>when exactly do I get control in this process? Never?

If you're not willing to to abort, yeah. Abortion is the moment a woman directly controls what is in her uterus by removing whatever she doesn't want to be there.

You can sterilize yourself removing your ovaries and/or your uterus, but that's not an option for women who don't want children now but want them later in their lives.

>Women in India DO have rights to abort

Not exactly. Women in developing countries have the social obligation to abort if their husband wants them to abort, but they don't have it recognized the right to choose for themselves which pregnancies they want to keep and which ones they don't. If an Indian woman wants to abort a son and keep a daughter, you can bet she's not allowed to do that. That's not "her body, her choice" as it is in the West.

>are you stating that the women in India and other developing countries are being physically forced to get abortions by men?

They're being coerced by abusive husbands and abusive families, yes. In developing countries the man is usually the breadwinner and that gives him huge leverage to coerce the woman into doing what he wants, as he can simply cut her off his money and make her destitute and homeless if she refuses to obey. Society tolerates this because in people's eyes it's the woman's fault for not being obedient.

>All I have been doing is asking you to clarify what you mean in your posts about us not having control over our bodies

How are you so ignorant of your own biology?

Anonymous 49271

>Abortion argument in a board of virgins

Anonymous 49276

>>49219
Only if it could do so without any medical intervention.

Anonymous 49278

>>49271
Virgin women can decide in advance they will abort should they get an unwanted pregnancy, abortion is something you can plan before having sex.

Anonymous 49290

>>49276
What counts as a medical intervention? Pretty sure a C-section counts as intervention.

Anonymous 49297

>>49248
>Self-ownership, what is that
A concept that doesn't make sense according to moder biology and philosophy and that even Classical Liberals (John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume) and neoliberal right-wing libertarians (Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises) despise.

You're yourself, if you're your owner you're even supporting a mind duallism or falling on the Mereological Fallacy.
But I guess you had never read anything about that, do you? Of course not, you're a fucking brainlet.

Owner and property are exclusive categories, you cannot be the owner and the proterty at the same time.
>So any harm on my body is harm on my person that I have every right
What part of the "you're not being proportio"n you didn't understand?
Killing because you're feeling pain is not being proportional.
>A fetus is not a person
It wasn't what you said in the first place.
>t's a someone who attacked the woman first
No, it was put there against its will.
> so they are dying because you don't want them to be able to properly defend themselves.
For the 10th time, if the life of the mother is in danger an abortion is acceptable. But guess what, most of them aren't in danger, and you can't extend the right to them. If you were a woman, you would know that pregnancy, albeit hard, is tolerable.
>Unless someone dies you don't think it's harm,
I didn't say that, you're attacking a strawman again.

>https://globaldoctorsforchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/Unwanted-Pregnancy-Forced-Continuation-of-Pregnancy-and-Effects-on-Mental-Health-v2.pdf

So, not a way too little when compared to those who were killed by peoplle like you.

The rest of your post makes even less sense, the kind of thing than only a single digit IQ moid could write.

Anonymous 49303

>>49297
>Owner and property are exclusive categories, you cannot be the owner and the proterty at the same time.
According to what logic?

Anonymous 49305

>>49297
Locke, who wrote in his Two Treatises on Government that "every man has a Property in his own Person". Locke also said that the individual "has a right to decide what would become of himself and what he would do, and as having a right to reap the benefits of what he did"?

Mises, who argues that labor markets are the rational conclusion of self-ownership, the concept of self-ownership doesn't make sense to him? He despises the concept he builds his whole ideas on? Is he full of shit?

I ain't even gonna touch the rest. You're an open sewer of bullshit.


>You're yourself, if you're your owner you're even supporting a mind duallism blah blah blah

You're talking crazy, dude. Cut off your finger. Whose finger is it? Is is still yours or is it some stranger's fingers suddenly?

What part of "there's nothing proportional in pregnancy" don't you understand? The woman is extremely at disadvantage being at the mercy of an entity that's inside herself and has access to her organs. Try getting someone to stab you and shove a tube into you to draw blood from you 24/7. You cannot get the tube out without killing your torturer. That's the only comparable situation to pregnancy, and killing in that situation is absolutely proportional because the torture isn't stopping without the death of the torturer and anyone has the right to stop such a serious and violating threat. You refuse to accept the reality of pregnancy and want to torture people.
>it was put there against its will
No. Nobody took an embryo and shoved it inside the woman and the woman did not take her egg in her hands and shoved it in her vagina either. It was already there waiting for a chance to attack.
>It wasn't what you said in the first place
Neither did you. You think being a life is all that matters, but it's not.
>most of them aren't in danger
YOU are putting them in danger by denying them safe abortions, cretin.

I am a woman and I know how pregnancy is depends entirely on the woman and how she feels about it. Unwanted pregnancies are absolutely not tolerable for the victims who have to suffer them, that's why many women would rather risk death than suffer an unwanted pregnancy. You don't decide how another woman feels.
>I didn't say that
Yes you did. You keep dismissing the harm the woman suffers as not important.

>not a way too little

Way too many, psycho.

>>49304

If humans are not property, why are you for treating women like chattel denying them the right to do what they want with their bodies?

Anonymous 49307

>>49303
Absolute Retard logic where apparently a woman is not property yet she is not free to direct her own actions either, making her a literal chattel slave

Anonymous 49312

>>49305
>>49305
>every man has a Property in his own Person"
This is not the same as "being your own properety". If you haven't read the book, please don't talk about it. He didn't say that the natural rights were absolute after all, hence his defense of the State and according to some, slavery.
>Mises, who argues that labor markets are the rational conclusion of self-ownership
Even though he supported a rationalistc view on the market (a terrible mistake, considering since Smith people knew that the market is a fruit of the spontaneous order of cooperation) he didn't say you are your owner. People tried to retconned him latter, but he supported a total utilitarianist view of the market and society, as even Rothbard admits on his Ethics of Liberty.
>Cut off your finger. Whose finger is it?
Don't you see this your argumentj is just semantics?
Again, you can't be an owner and property. You're you, you're not your property (or your owner) because you can't be both. It ain't that hard.
>You think being a life is all that matters, but it's not.
How many times did I say that when a life is in danger abortions are ok? I honestly lost the count.
>I know how pregnancy is depends entirely on the woman and how she feels about it.
There's not a single phenomenon that is defined by a single factor.
It doesn't, and it's not even the most important factor.
>You keep dismissing the harm the woman suffers as not important.
I always said that my main preocupation here is with women. You don't want a few to feel a bit of pain for 9 months. I don't want them do die. See how anti-feminist you are?
>Way too many, psycho.
I'm the one advocating for mudering here? I wouldn't call you a psycho though, just someone very uneducated and with a very, very low IQ that can't understand how wrong you are because of your low intellect.

Anonymous 49316

>>49304
>A very basic natural right that pretty much every living person agrees with is that humans are not property.
Yes, in the sense that no human can own ANOTHER human, because slavery is built on the idea that a person does not belong to himself or herself but to someone else who has legal ownership over them. Persons who are enslaved do not have the freedom to direct their own actions, and the idea that humans can't be property is to ensure people have the freedom to do just that, direct their own actions under their own will and not someone else's will.

Self-ownership is is the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity and be the exclusive controller of one's own body and life. Without self-ownership, a human is a just a slave. You're either a retard or acting completely in bad faith if you refuse this.

>>49312
>This is not the same as "being your own properety"
Yes it is. The concept is the same, you are your exclusive owner of yourself and your destiny.
>he didn't say you are your owner
Yes he did. He explicitly talks of self-ownership.
>He accuses my argument of being semantics
The irony. Don't dodge the question, retard. Is the finger you cut off your finger or someone else's finger?
>you can't be an owner and property
When it comes to your body, yes you can. You are the exclusive owner of your body, nobody can use your body without your consent. If you don't agree with this, you are okay with your body being used as anyone likes even without your consent, I can cut you to pieces and you have no right to do anything about it because you have no right to stop me from doing what I want to your body, it's not yours.
>How many times did I say that when a life is in danger abortions are ok?
You're the one putting women in danger, cretin. You're completely illogical.
>It doesn't
Yes it does.
>it's not even the most important factor
Yes it is.
>I don't want them do die
Then why are you trying to force them to risk death with illegal abortions? You're the only anti-feminist here, wanting to deprive women of their rights and liberty and wanting to reduce them to slaves.
>I'm the one advocating for mudering here?
Worse, you are advocating for torture and slavery.

Anonymous 49317

>>49312
If humans are not property, why are you for treating women like chattel denying them the right to do what they want with their bodies?

Anonymous 49326

Pro-slavery anon, do you think women are free to do whatever they want with themselves?

Anonymous 49328

>>49316
>The concept is the same,
No, it isn't. Again, it's a paradox.
>Is the finger you cut off your finger or someone else's finger?
The finger is part of you. Again, it's a semantic question. Now, if your question is, "is the finger an immanent part of you?". No it isn't.
About Mises and Locke, you didn't read them. Guess you'll soon say he mentioned the "Human Action Axiom" on his magnum optus too.
>When it comes to your body, yes you can.
Ah hoc hypotesis.
>. You are the exclusive owner of your body, nobody can use your body without your consent
Again, you're not the owner. You're your body. What you're saying doesn't even make sense, the body is no transcendence between the body or the soul without unless we're falling on the Occam's razor.
>You're the one putting women in danger, cretin.
Oh, really? I am the one putting millions of women in danger just because a few retards didn't use a birth control and can't deal with some pain for a few months?
>Worse, you are advocating for torture and slavery.
>having people pay for their actions by not killing their own child is torure and slavery
What a terrible slippery slope, anon.
>>49326
>do whatever they want with themselves
What is "freedom"? According to the Classical Liberalism tradition freedom (or liberty) someone is free as far as he can live and get on without being at the mercy of arbitrary decisions on the part of other people.
What is "arbitrary", you're probably thinking? Google Spontaneous Order and you might understand.
But being free to do what you want doesn't make sense, it will end up in anarchy, where there's no freedom at all but the law of the strongest.

Anonymous 49335

>>49328
>No, it isn't.
Yes it is. There is no paradox, it is the foundation of freedom.

>The finger is part of you.

So you're saying, it's your finger. It's not someone else's finger? It's no longer part of you because you cut it off, yet it's still yours?

>it's a semantic question

No it's not. You don't want to admit a basic concept of ownership.

>Now, if your question is, "is the finger an immanent part of you?". No it isn't.

But it's still your finger, it didn't suddenly become someone else's. It came from the your body not from mine.

>you didn't read them

Speak for yourself, anon.

>you're not the owner

Again, speak for yourself. Or don't, because slaves have no right to speak for themselves. Who is your master?

>You're your body

So any violation against your body is a violation against yourself, or you don't agree with that either?

>What you're saying doesn't even make sense

It makes perfect sense for people who don't want slavery, anon, it protects people from being enslaved by others, such as by forcing women to keep pregnancies they don't want to keep. You clearly want women to be enslaved though.

>I am the one putting millions of women in danger

Yes, you are. Birth control can fail and you have no right to downplay the suffering of others nor enslave them to force them to endure whatever torture you want. You're a sick, disgusting monster.

>having people pay for their actions

Pay? What's there to pay, retard? Sex is not a crime, it's a legal action women are free to engage in at their own leisure without being punished for it. And a fetus is not a child.

>What a terrible slippery slope

Yeah, your ideas certainly are.

>What is "freedom"? According to the Classical Liberalism tradition freedom (or liberty) someone is free as far as he can live and get on without being at the mercy of arbitrary decisions on the part of other people.

>But being free to do what you want doesn't make sense

So you are not a liberal, you are an authoritarian and you want to arbitrarily impose your views and your decisions on others denying them their freedom and liberty to decide for themselves and live as they want. All your talk of liberalism is and has always been complete bullshit.

>it will end up in anarchy

Women have the hard-earned right to do whatever they want with themselves and their bodies right now and we're not in an anarchy, retard.

>the law of the strongest

Women are not the strongest in society, if we lived under the law of the strongest women would be abused by men constantly and they would be forced to keep pregnancies they don't want just because a man wants them to.

Anonymous 49337

>>49335
> it is the foundation of freedom.
If you had ever read one single book about freedom you would knew that rationalism constructivism like the idea of "self-property" is the antithesis of freedom.
So, no, it isn't, and that's why it was debunked by the scholars of freedom.
I'm saying it's part of you. Just like when you say "the Oxygen". Does that mean the HD is a property of a computer? No, it means
>You don't want to admit a basic concept of ownership.
You don't even know what this word means. Oh, and before I forget, owning something doesn't mean being free to use it like you want all the time. Again, every right has its limits.
Just study about externalities (both positive and negative) work.
>Again, speak for yourself. Or don't, because slaves have no right to speak for themselves. Who is your master?
That doesn't even make sense
>So any violation against your body is a violation against yourself, or you don't agree with that either?
I agree, but there's no violation, as you were awared of what was happening. And again, proportion. The "violation" is minimal when compared to muderer.
> it protects people from being enslaved by others
So, having some pain because a mistake you've made is "slavery". Again, slippery slope.
>Sex is not a crime, it's a legal action women are free to engage in at their own leisure without being punished for it.
It isn't, but there are consequences. You know that you can get pregnant if you don't use a birth control. You're not allowed to hurt someone else because of your mistakes.
Ignoring rape and birth control fails, the child is there because of you.
> you want to arbitrarily impose your views and your decisions on others
What? I'm supporting the rule of law. Do you know how is the law created according to Liberalism?
>All your talk of liberalism is and has always been complete bullshit.
So, maybe you and your small brain just don't like freedom, because what I'm saying is what every author also says.
>Women have the hard-earned right to do whatever they want with themselves and their bodies
So, why are you preventing so many women to do that by killing them:
>Women are not the strongest in society, if we lived under the law of the strongest women would be abused by men constantly and they would be forced to keep pregnancies they don't want just because a man wants them to.
And that's why even if you were right, "self-property" is not enough as it will end up in anarchy, as the very few supporters of the idea (Rothbard, Block, Hoppe, Kinsella, etc) understand.

TL;DR: You're so uneducated you can't understand how much you're ignorant even on basic subjects.

Anonymous 49338

>>49337
>the idea of no one else ever being allowed to own you and force you to what you don't consent to is the opposite of freedom
You have to be acting in bad faith. You can't be this retarded.

>I'm saying it's part of you

So it's mine? Or it can be someone else's? Pick one.

>Does that mean the HD is a property of a computer?

Silly slave, since when objects can own property?

>You don't even know what this word means

Nah, that's you.

>Every right has its limits

Limits that are normally agreed upon, not arbitrarily imposed like you want to. I don't agree with your limits, they are inhuman and oppressive.

>That doesn't even make sense

Yes it does, you're the one who said you don't own yourself.

>there's no violation

That's not for you to say, you don't control how other people perceive.

>you were awared of what was happening

No woman can be aware that the birth control isn't working as intended, stupid. She has long decided she doesn't care what's happening, she doesn't want the pregnancy.

>The violation is minimal

Absolutely not, it's huge and terrible and an extreme violation for the woman. Forced pregnancy is absolutely worse than death.

>having some pain because a mistake you've made is "slavery"

Having your person, your freedom and your rights arbitrarily dismissed because some psycho doesn't care for you is slavery, yes. Being forced to endure torture and not being allowed to control what happens to your body is completely slavery.

>there are consequences

Which the woman is free to ignore and avoid because nobody can force her to what she has not agreed with.

>You're not allowed to hurt someone else

You are definitely allowed to when you are under attack, and the fetus' life is a continuous attack on the woman. It's there DESPITE the woman, not because of her.
And it's not a child.

>I'm supporting the rule of law

Which law, the current one that recognizes humans the right to bodily autonomy, self-ownership and self-determination? Because you clearly don't respect that.

> I'm saying is what every author also says

You're parroting the views of a bunch of men who have never experienced pregnancy and don't care for the rights and liberty of the woman? Try thinking for yourself, once.

>why are you preventing so many women to do that

I'm not preventing anything, all women are free to do whatever they want with themselves. A woman is an adult human female. A fetus is not a woman.

>"self-property" is not enough as it will end up in anarchy

We already have self-ownership, retard, and we are not in an anarchy. Women are the exclusive owners of their wombs and nobody may force them to keeps in their wombs what they don't want to be there.

>You're so uneducated

Says the man who's trying to claim depriving women of liberty is "freedom".

Anonymous 49340

>>49337
So feminist to dismiss the suffering of women as "a little pain", yup

Anonymous 49342

>>49338
Forget limits, might as well say I have no rights at all when "she" doesn't want me to control what's inside my body

Anonymous 49346

Why is a woman not allowed to hurt someone else but a fetus allowed to hurt a woman?

Why does this anon want a woman to have less rights than a fetus?

Anonymous 49350

>>49346
Now that you mention adults do get less rights then kids.
>kid punches another kid he gets expelled
>I punch someone else it's assault and I go jail

Anonymous 49352

>>49350
Did that someone attack you first?

Anonymous 49353

In both situations, equally, no. I punched first, the kid punched first.

Anonymous 49354

>>49353
So both of your situations are unrelated to a woman who takes precautions to avoid pregnancy, the precautions fail, and she finds herself suddenly under attack.

Anonymous 49355

>>49354
What I pointed out had nothing to do with your situation. It was the funny observation that, using your vernacular, children have more rights than adults. You taking it that direction might indicate your defensiveness though.

Anonymous 49356

>>49354
Does that mean abortion isn't justified if no parties even attempted birth control?

Anonymous 49357

>>49356
No. Pro-lifers tout pulling out and the rhythm method as effective birth control methods when they're not. Can't fault people for making mistakes when there's pro-lifers spreading fake news.

Anonymous 49358

>>49355
"You had sex so it's all your fault" is a common refrain with pro-lifers, they often act like the woman "attacked" the fetus first by having sex with her man so she should just take it and suffer. You looked like you were starting (yet again) that kind of argument.

Anonymous 49359

>>49357
nobody does that, source?

Anonymous 49360


Anonymous 49362

>>49361
My apologies is the post was genuinely benign. When a post starts with a comparison to something unrelated to pregnancy it's usually prolifers making stupid, senseless comparisons just to place the blame on women.

Anonymous 49364

>>49360
tehy are talking about periods in women which is actually a good method to avoid pregnancy. you won't get pregnant if the egg is dead and flushed out unless you're virgin mary.

Anonymous 49365

>>49364
No, they are not talking about that. They are talking about tracking a calendar as well as basal temperatures to guess when a woman ought to be fertile and when she ought not to be. Except cycles are often irregular making your predictions completely wrong, and that's why these methods have a failure rate of over 25%.

Anonymous 49367

>>49364
>>49365
Also it is possible for a woman to get pregnant during her period, see https://kidshealth.org/en/teens/sex-during-period.html

This place is full of men isn't it? There's no way a bunch of women can be so ignorant about their bodies.

Anonymous 49368

>>49357
I always heard that in school. "Don't want a baby then don't have him cum in you." That was like 10 years ago and even then I thought it was stupid advice.

Anonymous 49595

>>46977
>That GIF
Off-topic, but I find it interesting that many of the ideas contained in Revolutionary Girl Utena are, in fact, the opinions of a male, specifically its creative director Kunihiko Ikuhara. You can't draw from that show without adopting male opinions (not that Ikuhara is a typical male).

Anonymous 49646

>>49367
>There's no way a bunch of women can be so ignorant about their bodies.
Sonething something this is america

Anonymous 50095

>>46977
I hate the term TERF. trans-erasure is NOT a part of feminism because feminism is not about men having identity problems.
>>46987
reeeeeeeeeee fuck off ana chans she is a healthy weight

Anonymous 50114

>>50095
>reeeeeeeeeee fuck off ana chans she is a healthy weight
She is clearly overweight though. She just has good proportions.

Anonymous 50127

Spoiler

>>50095
Don't go around saying that perpetually stuffing your face with cakes and ice cream is healthy, chubster-chan
Also, what does feminism have to do with body acceptance? Or intersectional feminism?

Anonymous 50367

>>46977
>Want to work more (and earn more)? Don't have children.
Looks like the only way to have the best of both worlds is to simply be a lesbian, yet again. Men easily have successful careers and children simultaneously because they never bother with caretaking

Anonymous 50375

>>50127
They get that small??!
It reminds me of a nightmare I once had.
What's the point of it?! It can cum I don't see any balls!

Anonymous 50453

ywfdxfkkfgxghxxjcm…

>remove trannies
I have no problem with trannies since the actual ones are rare, the problem is the ones who does it because they think it's beneficial and trendy.

>"fat positive" stuff

obesity is bad but
unattractive=unhealthy is the standard since the beginning of time so shoving body positivity towards people (especially men) is futile no matter what.

it's game over mah dudes

Anonymous 51132

top kek

Anonymous 51135

dafuq.jpg

>>51133
>>remove trannies
>women are women

Anonymous 51138

images (1).png

>>51135
Don't answer, anon. It's either a newfag tranny that believe they're welcome here or a troll.

Anonymous 51141

>>50453
>the actual ones are rare
There are no “actual” trannies lol. They are all the same type of deluded person who somehow thinks that can “feel” like the other gender.

>>51133

>Nah. Women are women.
Women are adult human females. Try asking a tranny their definition of “woman” and watch the stumble on their words.

Anonymous 51142

>>51141
>Women are adult human females
Why do you call fetuses 'women' then? Fetuses are not adult human females.

Anonymous 51146

So far the greatest clashes I've seen between feminists are those related to "transpeople yes/no" and "fat acceptance yes/no"

Anonymous 51147

>remove trannies
Yes true.
>stop being anti-capitalist
Nah, women's labor is purposely devalued, even in important fields like medicine (see: Russia, where since most doctors are women, the job isn't taken as seriously). The "Most women stay home" thing is used to deflect from the true. Either fix the issues of capitalism, and also kill the supply/demand mantra as it pertains to sex trafficking, or we're going to have to think of something else.
>no more fat positivity
I'll take this, and raise you one more: Enforce fat negativity on men. Stop pretending Seth Rogen's body looks healthy or normal. Heavily shame "dad bods". When a fat man has the gall to appear on screen for anything besides custodial work, call him out for normalizing obesity. Widely pan any movies or shows that portray the ugly fat guy dating a beautiful woman. It's not realistic, it's an eyesore of wish fulfillment. If we're booing Amy Schumer, cancel any fat fuck of a male comedian who can't shut up about his rancid dick. Fat men are a strain on the health industry, and society as a whole. We need to stop letting them hide behind their sex. Until restriction-type eating disorders are just as prevalent with men as they are with women, there is a gross imbalance.
>Stop thinking that people that disagree with feminism because they are stupid
They literally are. Anti-feminists typically just hate women, or they're completely ignorant on what it entails. We've all seen their arguments, there's no mistaking it. If they're there in good faith, they can be convinced to adopt new views, regardless of how low-IQ you or I personally believe them to be.

Anonymous 51148

>>51142
"Grown" fetuses with XX chromosomes, ovaries and female sexual organs are female. Men with mental disorders who ingest horse piss and may/may not have sissy fetishes are not.

Anonymous 51150

>>51133
A fat tranny approaches

Anonymous 51151

>>50446
what the hell is that….

Anonymous 51157

15111284._SY475_.j…

>2 Stop with this brainless anti-capitalistic mentality: I'm not saying that feminism should embrace laissez-faire capitalism or anything, just stop believing that the economic system is the root of all evil.
Capitalism may not be the root of all evil, but it is quite literally the root of sexism, misogyny, and the social and economic dehumanization of women as individuals and as a class. Even while "advancements" towards the liberation of women have been made within the last few centuries, the ways which sexism is expressed have changed into modern formats. They didn't leave.

>Nothing has saved more lives than capitalism, nothing has freed more women than it nothing has made so many powerful women than capitalism.

Under capitalism, women were allowed to be owned as legal property for centuries (Google "coverture") because they were considered subhuman to men. Also under capitalism at various points in time, women:
>were forced to be mothers with no option to not have children, nor to receive any form of birth control or contraceptive
>were sold or traded as a commodities
>weren't taught to read or write as girls, while boys were
>couldn't express romantic or sexual desires without being killed
>couldn't spend money without their husband's legal permission, or sometimes at all
>couldn't have a job and were forced to stay at home
>couldn't walk in public without a male partner present
>weren't legally defended from being beaten or raped by men
>weren't allowed to get a formal education (many establishments were sex-separated for a long while)
>were denied access to any mental health assistance, and often were institutionalized for demanding rights
When you speak vaguely about these supposed benefits that capitalism brings to women, what specifically are you talking about? Capitalism, in function, subjugates women. It continues to today.

>Take the gender gape, for instance. It's real and something should change. But how? Forcing companies to pay the same won't work, that will just make women unimployed. Most of the gap is explained because women have to work at home, what makes them work less hours. We should make men share house duties, not punish companies because they want to profit.

The exact issue you describe is caused by the way capitalism subjugates people, socially, politically, and economically, as classes - "female" being one of those classes. You can't solve a problem created by capitalism by attempting to regulate the capitalism; you must remove that function of the system if you wish for the issue to be eradicated and to not arise once again in the future of your economy. For example, if modern capitalism reached a point where there was no wage gap between white men and white women, even if it created a wage gap and discrepancy in various earnings between white women and nonwhite women who contributed the same amount to the workforce, would you consider that to be "feminist?" I personally wouldn't, because feminism is about women, and I refuse to support any economic function which discriminates against any women.

>Another part of it is explained because, well, women get pregnant. Want to work more (and earn more)? Don't have children. Ain't that hard.

Here is where the selfishness and carelessness of pro-capitalist ideology is revealed - do you not care about the rights or lives of girls and women who live in areas of the world where they are not legally defended from sexual assault and rape, and have no access to birth control or contraceptives? If face to face, would you say to those women (who are just as much victims of social and economic sexism and misogyny as you are) "just don't get pregnant, it's easy!"? It "ain't that hard" for you because you experience a degree of privilege that allows you to never face a struggle which many women do face.

In all honesty, I don't know how anyone who considers themselves anti-sexism and anti-misogyny can support capitalism. The struggle for women is inherently and inseparably tied to class, and the struggles of various other classes, like women of color and disabled women.

Anonymous 51165

>>51157


My first attempt to answer this post was too harsh, so I decided to rewrite it from the scratch in order to make it as polite as yours. I’m sorry if is still too harsh on you, it’s just that tankies seem to lack any knowledge on History (as well as in Economics, Philosophy, Political Theory, etc, though you guys are even worse in History) and have a hard time putting them above Fascists. If you lived in a non-capitalis country you would understand, I bet.
> it is quite literally the root of sexism, misogyny, and the social and economic dehumanization of women as individuals and as a class
What? Are you implying capitalism created any of these problems? Sexism is older than the written history while capitalism only truly begun after the XVIII century. Since then, things got better, despite what your favorite tankie blogger told you.
> Even while "advancements" towards the liberation of women have been made within the last few centuries, the ways which sexism is expressed have changed into modern formats.
Are you implying these advancements are empty? And that they are not impart because of capitalism? Come on. Just compare all the rights women used to have not so long ago and now. Also compare the rights women have on capitalist liberal democracies and in countries that adopt other systems.
> , women were allowed to be owned as legal property for centuries (Google "coverture
As I said, a far older problem. Coverture started during the middle ages. It was only disappeared during the peak of capitalism in the XIX Century (and as OP said, no one is supporting a Dickensian Capitalism, though parts of China look similar to what Dickens described on that time)
>all these problems
Again. 1 None of them were created by capitalism. 2 They were all mitigated by capitalism. 3 They aren’t as prominent in the capitalist countries as in non-capitalist countries even now.
Among other benefits:
It allowed more women live. Now there’s more food, more medical assistance and more education than ever for women (especially on the capitalist countries). Until not so long ago women live less and received less education than men. Now, even if we started later men are lag behind on these subjects. There’s a lot to do. Indeed. But things have changed for better.
>but US health

US doesn’t have an universal healthcare system (even Hayek and Friedman said there should be one) and the government spends more there than in any other country with health. You can blame Capitalism for it? Well, sort of. But also government incompetency. No one is saying that Ayn Rand should be the new name of Feminism, and countries even more capitalist than US, like Switzerland, Singapore and Hong Kong have the best systems in the world.
How capitalism did this could make an entire book, and this post is already long enough.

> You can't solve a problem created by capitalism by attempting to regulate the capitalism;

Again, it wasn’t created by capitalism. Just compare how it was 300 years ago. Women had 15 children, 11 of them died and youngest died with her. On the other hand now there are more women than ever on the top of large companies and political positions. Oddly enough, most of these also endorse capitalism. See Thatcther, the first female to be in charge of a relevant country (Ok, there was Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria, but that makes my point even stronger) or Angela Merkel now. The richest country in Europe has been governed by a highly conservative, capitalist supporter women for like 15 years.
That being said, as Hayek said, endorsing capitalism means progressivism! Take the first wave of feminism, for exemple.
> For example, if modern capitalism reached a point where there was no wage gap between white men and white women, even if it created a wage gap and discrepancy in various earnings between white women and nonwhite women who contributed the same amount to the workforce, would you consider that to be "feminist?"
It depends at how is this gap created. The government does have it’s role to mitigate this problem (ie. Giving education health, even taxing the rich more, though US, for exemple, has the most progressive taxation of the OECD), but if this inequality is created by the voluntary relations I can’t see why it’s unfair. People choose those who are rich and those who aren’t. Not always, but in the cases where they are free to do so, it’s not unfair. People are different. I don’t think blacks are less smart than, but there are many reasons that go far beyond capitalism for the race gap.
> Here is where the selfishness and carelessness of pro-capitalist ideology is revealed
Well, too many problems here. First. Forcing people to be solidary and work for the others seem even worse than being selfish. Again, let’s not make Ayn Rand our feminist symbol, Elinor Ostrom will do. Men and women are biologically different. Both sides have advantages. There’s no way to have equality here without making terrible incentives and being quite unethical. Equality before law, where everyone can pursue their objectives is far more important than material equality. People have different interests and different capacities. They will be different, and if they don’t the lack of incentives will make us all poor.

This post is just too long and I don't feel like answering the rest, but TL;DR: you didn't mentioned problems caused by capitalism (they do exist) and misunderstood most of the history of the last few centuries.

Anonymous 51168

I think OP wants to make feminism more scientific.
I also think that feminists should stop unironically believing in Astrology and homeopathy, this crap makes us look as dumb as anti-vaxx.

Anonymous 51175

>>51142
>Why do you call fetuses 'women' then?
Who called fetuses “women”? A woman is an ADULT human female. A female fetus with XX chromosomes is still a female, and will one day grow into a woman. Not sure how your strawman proves that mentally ill men are women.

Anonymous 51195

>>46978
>people need to align with and validate your points for them to be right

Umm sweetie.

Anonymous 51207

>>51165
>I don’t think blacks are less smart than, but there are many reasons that go far beyond capitalism for the race gap.
From the first paragraph of your post I knew you would mention this topic in this way. You're all so fucking predictable.

Anonymous 51219

quote-the-word-rac…

>>51207
And I hope you didn't see "racism" in my post. I don't think the race gap is solely their fault, of course racism is a causa and as I've mentioned four or five times in my post, the government should act in order to change this, especially by education.
Oh, and I'm not white. Not that it matters anyway.

Anonymous 51220

Are we going to get closer to a more female dominated society or is that just a fantasy?

Anonymous 51223

>>51220
Does anybody really want this? It usually doesn't turn out so good.

Anonymous 51226

>>51223
I'm indifferent towards it but I have run into women (and men for some reason) saying they want it

Anonymous 51232

1.PNG

>>51219
Ah, Thomas Sowell.

>From 1965 to 1969, Sowell was an assistant professor of economics at Cornell University. Writing thirty years later about the 1969 "violent" takeover by black Cornell students of Willard Straight Hall, Sowell characterized the students as "hoodlums" with "serious academic problems [and] admitted under lower academic standards" and noted "it so happens that the pervasive racism that black students supposedly encountered at every turn on campus and in town was not apparent to me during the four years that I taught at Cornell and lived in Ithaca."


>Sowell also writes on racial topics and is a critic of affirmative action and race-based quotas. On the topic of affirmative action, Sowell has stated: "One of the few policies that can be said to harm virtually every group in a different way… Obviously, whites and Asians lose out when you have preferential admission for black students or Hispanic students—but blacks and Hispanics lose out because what typically happens is the students who have all the credentials to succeed in college are admitted to colleges where the standards are so much higher that they fail."


>In Intellectuals and Race (2013), Sowell argues that intelligence quotient (IQ) gaps are hardly startling or unusual between, or within, ethnic groups. He notes that the roughly 15-point gap in contemporary black–white IQ scores is similar to that between the national average and the scores of certain ethnic white groups in years past, in periods when the nation was absorbing new immigrants.


>Critics such as Hampton University economist Bernadette Chachere, Harvard University sociologist William Julius Wilson, social scientist Richard Coughlin, Stanford law professor Richard Thompson Ford, and Pulitzer Prize winner Steven Pearlstein have been critical of his work. Criticisms include lack of citations in some works, failure to explain a 70% difference between the earnings of whites and non-whites in an article, failure to take into account discrimination against women at work, poor methodology, and downplaying racism while caricaturing and then attacking liberal theories.


And quite possibly the best addition:
>Sowell has said that he was a Marxist "during the decade of my 20s"; one of his earliest professional publications was a sympathetic examination of Marxist thought vs. Marxist–Leninist practice.

Is it really shocking that a pro-capitalist feminist is self-hating?

Anonymous 51235

1494205367730-1.pn…

>>51232
I was only quoting a phrase of him that is correct, Let's not start with ad hominem I don't like many of his conclusions as well and we both know that Wikipedia is not a good source. The strongest case against him in your post, poor methodology, for exemple, is not explained.

And you did answer my longer post.

Anonymous 51240

>>51235
Is that comic sans?

Anonymous 51241

>>51240
Yeah…
I knew someone was going to mention that when I uploaded that image

Anonymous 51242

>>51175
>and will one day grow into a woman
Artificial wombs don't exist yet, and no fetus has the right to stay inside a woman who doesn't want it inside her.
>>51148
Fetuses are not women.

Anonymous 51246

>>51242
No women has the right to put a fetus without its consent on her body*.
Fixed for you.

Anonymous 51249

>>51242
I’m pro-choice so I agree with you. I’m not sure why you’re turning this into an abortion discussion when all I was saying is that trannies are not women.

Anonymous 51250

>>51242
>Fetuses are not women.
To be a woman, you must be female.
Unlike a tranny, the only reason they aren't women is because they're not adults yet. If they're born, they will be girls, which you also need to have been at one point to be a woman.
You're not a woman because you have XY chromosomes, and you're also not a girl. You will never grow into being female, a woman or a girl. That's just the reality of things.

Anonymous 51251

>>51157
based ml anon

Anonymous 51259

>>51146
And the answer is no to both.
You don't need to hate them, it's just that feminism is not about transgender people and is suppose to help women, not pretend it's ok to be sick when you can better yourself.

Anonymous 51766

Let’s make the peo…

I agree with the whole post except one point:
>Stop with this brainless anti-capitalistic mentality
No. Class society is the root of most inequality, and has been since the beginning of what we know as society. The gender wage gap would not exist under socialism. With the eradication of class society, we shall know true freedom, and this will allow women to truly be able to have a REAL chance at genuine equality. It is impossible in the realm of class society. We can try to make things better, and we will try very hard, but it will never be equal in class society. I firmly believe that a poor white man is at a greater disadvantage than, say, a rich woman of color like Beyonce. Beyonce still experiences sexism, she still suffers as a woman, but you are fooling yourself if you think she is worse off than a poor or homeless man. Class, to me(!) is more important than gender. Unfortunately some socialist men who take this stance think it's a free pass to be sexist towards any women they see as more "privileged" than them, but regardless of class misogyny does affect women.
I am not a 'class reductionist' by any means, but with the introduction of socialism, along would come everything material that feminism demands. The social demands would come easier as well, due to everyone being provided for and earning just wages, with no room for anyone to be discriminated against as a worker due to their sex or race. Class dictates a woman's opportunities.

Anonymous 51777

huai005.jpg

>>51776
The USSR was in a "transitioning" state of capitalism, some refer to it as state capitalism, but it was not yet socialist, and especially not communist. In spirit, yes, they were socialist, but the actual economic system was that of capitalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-stage_theory
>The two-stage theory, or stagism, is a Marxist–Leninist political theory which argues that underdeveloped countries such as Tsarist Russia must first pass through a stage of capitalism via a bourgeois revolution before moving to a socialist stage.
>In Marxist–Leninist theory under Joseph Stalin, the theory of two stages gained a revival
>Marx and Engels argue that Western capitalism provides the technological advances necessary for socialism and the "grave diggers" of the capitalist class in the form of the working class

The USSR was still part of class society. This is a major source of arguments amongst leftists. Most leftists I meet these days hate the USSR and see it as a capitalist state that masqueraded as socialist.

>Look at the women in commie China now.

China has not achieved socialism, nor have they achieved communism. Communism is a stateless, classless society that requires worldwide effort and cooperation, ran entirely by the people. China is similar to the USSR–they are socialists ideologically, yet the means of production aren't owned by the workers which means they as a country are not socialist yet.

It's funny that anti-China people go "ree socialist countries are poor and all garbage" yet China is prospering economically. And if I call China economically capitalist, they attribute all of China's success on capitalism..


>How is killing female babies helping women?

It's not. The one-child policy has not been in place for years, and during China's one child policy, most girls were simply not reported to officials, rather than killed or aborted. As many as 25 million unreported females may exist as they are now popping up on government records as they get older.
http://news.ku.edu/2016/11/22/study-finds-chinas-missing-girls-theory-likely-far-overblown

Anonymous 51778

>>51776
>>51777
Samefag but: You argue that capitalism has done wonders for women, yet the same can be said for countries that were ruled by socialists.
As soon as China was led by socialists, a wave of feminist laws were enacted and tons of sexist practices were outlawed. Foot-binding was banned, women were allowed and encouraged to enter the workforce along with men and granted equal pay, concubines were banned, arranged marriages were banned, prostitution was banned, and hey, even porn ended up being banned. Women went from commodities to human beings with the introduction of socialist leadership!
Now, what has capitalism done? Great, we're not living under feudalism, sure, but capitalism still allows for women to be commodities, it still allowed for women to not have any say in anything and locked away inside the home until the 20th century. Women now have to work or they starve, and half the women I know my age are cam girls or prostitutes otherwise they will be homeless. How lovely. At least in China there is UBI and social programs to keep people fed and sheltered even if they aren't working.
All the "feminist" successes you've attributed to capitalism has nothing to do with capitalism. There is nothing about capitalism that is related to social emancipation of anyone. Capitalism is purely about the bourgeoisie enslaving the proletariat class. For a long time, only bourgeois women were exercising these "rights" that you claim capitalism granted them. Even now, bourgeois women are applauding "girlbosses" as if that's something to strive for, as if exploiting other people including women is a feminist act. All while POOR WOMEN are still being fucked over, still being trafficked, still being forced to prostitute, still experiencing far higher rates of rape and violence and unwanted pregnancies with NO means to access proper birth control methods.

Fuck capitalism. It has done nothing for women.

Anonymous 51782

slide_2.jpg

>>51778
>Fuck capitalism. It has done nothing for women.
This, and nothing else.

Anonymous 51785

communist party co…


Anonymous 56572

I mentioned on /hb/ this point. The "normalization" culture is justified sometimes justified, but should work the other way around often.

No, women shouldn't stop shaving/waxing because that makes us "strong" or whatever just because most men don't do this. In fact, the change should be: men should start shaving and waxing too.
There are many other exemples, another anon mentioned a few: having low standards and just sleeping with everyone that ins't morbid obese, like men do isn't helping women at all IMO. It would be better if men actually were more selective and didn't care about sex as much as they do (though one may argue that it's not 100% their fault, that's how their bodies work). Smoking and binge drinking isn't setting you free, again it's the other way around. Men should drink less, not women should drink more (even if, again, since their bodies allow them to drink on average more, things will never ve 100%¨equal).

Anonymous 56574

>>51785
Is this meant to be a rebuttal? Different anon, but I see women in that pic. Just as many if not more than I would expect from a country like the US.

Anonymous 56577

>>56576
I wouldn't call him a moderate conservative. I think the Rockefeller Republicans (Charlie Baker and Lisa Murkowski, for exemple) are better.

Anonymous 56579

>>56578
I don't trust their statistics though. They're a Orwellian dictatoship, if that's the number they announced it's probably a lot worse, like, probably worse than US.

Anonymous 56581

>>56580
>, if you think China is socialist in anything but name and colors, you are making a huge mistake.
Nah, I don't think they are socialists at all.
In fact most of China lives in an embarrassing laissez-faire situation that even mild libertarians like me won't support. But most of tankies I know do believe that they are socialists, and their alleged success if a result of "socialism"

Anonymous 56582

>>56578
India… :(

Anonymous 56584

>>56583
You're correct, but my point is that there is little to no welfare in most of China. People complaining about the lack of healthcare in US shouldn't praise China.

Anonymous 56645

>>56572
>No, women shouldn't stop shaving/waxing because that makes us "strong" or whatever just because most men don't do this. In fact, the change should be: men should start shaving and waxing too.

It seems to me that demanding other people change is not really realistic. Shaving and waxing is an aesthetic choice - in fact, it's actually pretty localized geographically; Asians barely shave or wax at all.

I don't see why men and women need to be exactly the same in every way. They're not the same. One has extra bits up stacked up top and the other extra bits hanging off the bottom, one is able to have kids the other is insanely more strong. Women can be strong without being men, because women aren't men. Whether you achieve it through changing women or changing men entirely misses the point because if you're going to become strong by becoming similar to a man, then you're still defining strength as masculinity.

>>56585

Well it's stress relief, sort of like how some men airbox if they're angry. They can either do that or hold their anger in in until it explodes and they abuse a real person. Much healthier for them to get it out of their system than to walk around with a growing bomb in their brain.

Anonymous 59688

Where the fuck can one go to be free from trannies anymore????

Anonymous 59695

IMG_20200530_12503…

I would actually consider myself a feminist if it was more like OP said.

Anonymous 59701

>>59688
Real life, I have never seen a tranny IRL

Anonymous 59704

>>46977
Is this a man hate thread? Women and Men going their own way is meaningless because men already go their own way when they find out the pregnancy test is positive.

Anonymous 59768

>>59688
Saidit and ovarit have a lot of GC discussion without trans being around. Only places I know of after the subreddit got banned.

Anonymous 59795

>>51777
Necro but:
China really began prospering economically bc of the SEZs which allow free market competition (capitalism) anon. If they kept the socialist economic/political policies from Mao then their economy would be just as pathetic as North Korea's.
China's current economy is not even one quarter of what it could potentially be. Foreign leaders are scared because Xi Jinping isn't a complete fucking retard when it comes to policy like Mao (see: China's belt and road initiative).

A lot of economists find Marx to be overrated but as a woman/radfem I at least also have to appreciate Marx for his views against prostitution.
> the prostitute, like the criminal, is for Marx the lowest degree to which capitalism reduces human life.
From here: https://ressourcesprostitution.wordpress.com/2017/02/13/marx-and-prostitution/

Anonymous 59845

>>59795
If you actually read Marx you'd realize that transitioning from semi-feudal China straight to Communism was guaranteed to be a failure from the start. A society must transition fully into a capitalistic economy before communism is even a viable option. China learned this the hard way and now is doing it in proper order. If this weren't true I would hope we would see all kinds of communist paradises popping up in Africa.

Anonymous 59875

>>59845
>you have to kill people en masse with buses before you starve everyone to death

Anonymous 59878

>>59877
They are still trying to figure out if men are women or not so you tell me

Anonymous 59879

>>59875
Exactly, and before you kill people with buses you have to kill them with religion.

Anonymous 59880

>>59877
i think that's just personal preference anon

Anonymous 59892

>>59879
You could've said "industrialism" but I guess you had to make it known you're on the spectrum.

Anonymous 60423

>>59695
yeah same, fucking hate trannies and the pro obesity shit.

Anonymous 60424

>>46989
men would go for a female pig if her ass shaked hard enough

Anonymous 61760

>>46977
This.

All I see now is women feeling sorry for men. Trans men, men that were victims of rape, bla bla bla. I get it, I feel sorry for them too. But feminism has turned into anti-female garbage.

Forcing males into our spaces just because we are not considered "low" on the "victim hierarchy".

I have even heard black women being really angry on youtube that the BLM movement only uses them as shields for a fight, while only caring about Black moids.

All this shit is tiring. Feminism used to be about women's rights. Not about whatever the fuck this is.

Anonymous 61761

>>48759
I think you are a man, laarping as a female.



[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]