Submitted by dimitrios10 on Tue, 05/29/2018 - 17:10
I am curious if you guys like DonaldTrump, or do you hate him?
This may be of interest to our US contributors:
A cunning plan?
The problem i have with both issues is the way people view them is often just very black and white.
Like Blob just totally against abortion while not seeing the shades of grey.
But then i see the death penalty the same way, I think a lot of people just see it as black and white and dont even want to look at the shades of grey, for instance people always say what about if someone is innocent?
Yeah that is the biggest problem with it, but when you have someone that has committed multiple murders or other violent acts time after time or gone on some shooting spree then there is times when there is no doubt of guilt.
Much different if just a one off murder or one off violent act.
To me the right wing Christian who has a black and white stance on abortion is just as bad as the Left wing supposedly open minded person that see's capital punishment as black and white issue.
People always say the civilised society thing too, i think what a civilised society is is really subjective.
Does a civilised society accept or support abortion?
Does a civilised society train people (soldiers) to be basically killers?
Does a civilised society support captain punishment in some instances?
I also feel the same way about Euthanasia i think it has it's place but needs strict control.
....you rides a single fin?
The left are wrong about everything
thats right, i rides boards with 1, 2,3 and 4 fins
You say I'm totally against abortion without a shade of grey?
My logic is that since abortion is a demonstrable bad, it is only justifiable if the failure to abort is a greater bad.
This allows abortion in extreme cases.
My 'black and white' contention is that unless you can define the status of the unborn at each stage of development you cannot justify attributing or denying human rights to them.
Everyone seems to me to be talking around the primary question.
I'm hardly perfect myself, I give as good as I get, but I think I'm justified in pointing out anti religious bigotry when It comes my way.
I really don't care if weak dopes have to take pot shots, but I'll point out their hypocrisy.
As for your take on Christianity's record, I think you are being completely one sided.
I'm accused of black and white thinking but you only use black where Christianity is concerned.....that is the definition of fundamentalism.
Christianity is a multitude of churches and each has pros and cons....like every other type of religion or man made philosophy.
People do what people do with or without Christianity.
Evil done in the name of Christianity is not Christianity.
The soul of Christianity is the same true religion that is written in every enlightened heart.
Jesus was poor, went about doing good, taught great moral principles and was killed by the church.....don't hang the crusades and colonialism on him.
But, even with all its flaws historical Christianity has been, on balance, a great force for good in the world.
Are you aware of the religious practices of the Aztecs and a thousand other cultures that were converted?
The Aztecs modified their warfare and weapons so as to disable but not kill.
They did this so they could have an enormous constant supply of sacrificial victims whose living hearts were cut out and offered to their gods.
Human sacrifice was endemic in Africa.....and hundreds of missionaries went there knowing they would die.
Have you been to Africa lately?.
You probably weren't eaten or sacrificed.
Since they are so committed to humanity, perhaps those who like to knock Christianity should put their money where their big atheist mouths are and become missionaries to ISIS.
....and if I reckon I'm right on any issue I'm no different to most other other opinionaters here.....the comments don't start with 'I'm totally wrong about this but this is what I think anyway...'
The lefties keep telling me I'm wrong but somehow me saying I'm not is seen as proof I am.
.......and Dinosaurs aren't a problem in my view....God makes things any way He likes, and the Book of Genesis is allegory to some degree.
Blob your question about the human rights of the unborn comes down to culture. Biology is only of limited assistance. In terms of culture then we see the full range of possibilities from those who assign full human rights from the moment of conception to cultures which denied them to infants who were considered disposable up to a certain age.
In this regard you seem to be placing yourself close to assigning human rights at, or shortly after conception. I think this is unwise for the reasons I have stated above. In my view the greater good is served by minimising the number of unwanted children in the world and abortion is an acceptable way of achieving thisup to the point assigned by the medical profession.
You say that abortion is acceptable in some circumstances but do not state at what stage it becomes unacceptable. In your view the foetus of a rape victim apparently has less of a right to life than others. This position would seem to be very hard to justify in terms of your previous position of demanding an exact stage at which human rights should be assigned. I will be interested to hear your response.
Aaah blob..... keep bailing! ;)
We know you are hardly perfect - every human is ‘made that way’ - so to speak;) And you ‘give as good as you get’! Your buddy Jesus would be so proud of that, just not sure where he espoused such glorious wisdom along those lines - as his teachings are in essence the exact opposite..
The whole ‘anti religious bigotry’ claim is a little bit of a stretch too. Bigot will do - as in a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions or beliefs... Sound like blob at all? You know..... just saying;)
Now....For ‘my take’ on Christianity’s record - well Christianity wrote that record, it’s not mine, and I’m not being completely one sided.... I do understand the many wonderful things that have been and continue to be done under the banner of being Christian. I don’t doubt that. I do, however, question why Christians CHOOSE to bypass or deflect the realities of the atrocities committed under the guise of doing ‘gods work’. Be clear about that please. I didn’t hang the crusades or colonialism on Jesus, I clearly pointed out examples of how Christianity has very cleverly used its own economic and power driven ideals to enforce things over the course of history such as genocide, slavery and displacing peoples while occupying or taking their lands. It continues today. If you wish to go on about the missionaries etc. well, yes, no doubt some honourable and selfless people served with ‘good intent’. Please remember they were backed by force, ruthless force, and this involved systematic rape and mass murder. Maybe not endorsed as such, but with full knowledge of this occurring by the powers that be. Those powers were influenced, encouraged and financed by the institutions that represented Christianity and validated their actions under the guise of doing ‘gods work’... Yes? No? Maybe? ;);)
You try excuse particular truths by saying there are a multitude of churches and each has its pros and cons (how convenient!) - ‘like every other type of religion or man made philosophy’. Are you saying religion is not a man made philosophy!? Now that is certainly bold ;);)
Mentioning the Aztecs and Africa etc. The Aztecs certainly followed some barbaric practices, and nice try at highlighting the supposed atrocious behaviours of a people in accordance with their beliefs and their Gods... Aaaah! The glorious art of deflection;) Not sure if the weaponry thing is relevant - the only way Christians have been able to conquer and destroy cultures is through superior and advanced weaponry. Gauge the purpose to suit yourself, the intention remains exactly the same. Can you say that other than through the conventional military might that the Dutch, Britain, France, Spain or Portugal possessed, they didn’t willingly use other methods of warfare to disable (and kill) - such as handing out blankets with smallpox etc.? Sugarcoat all you like about multitudes of churches or different denominations or whatever. The fact is these people were representing the Christian faith.....
Skip the crusades - they went well!
Now Africa.... ‘Human sacrifice was endemic’ - you think Christian powers went there to cull that? It’s not like any human sacrifice ever existed to appease God in the Judaic tradition right? And the Christians saved Africa ;);) They perfected a superior form of human sacrifice..... Its called slavery, and they justified it by what was set out in a book written by men... Not god.
Now, when you choose to shoot off your big anti atheist mouth, being no different to any other bigot, you might ask yourself. What would Jesus do? He’d forgive them right?
You state: ‘The soul of Christianity is the same true religion that is written in every enlightened heart’. Is that true or just something ‘you reckon’?
And you are the Christian. You go become a missionary to ISIS. Why aren’t your so called religious heroes willing to go try handle ISIS? Is it because it’s maybe a little more preferable to just go and keep using the superior weaponry once again? It’s proven to work!;);) The modern crusades have achieved nothing. We have, though, been proficient in helping further displace people who we then regard as ‘illegal’ immigrants when they seek refuge in ‘our’ lands. Funny that.... Slightly hypocritical? We wage illegal wars and then use legalities to then not be accountable for the fallout.
We are just trying to clean up the mess we created in places like Iraq. And in no way do ISIS represent or have any affiliation with Islam. Whatever you believe or whatever you read - regardless of what you think or think you know of religion or religious fanaticism - as much as being a ‘self declared’ caliphate and the like, ISIS is also a self declared offshoot of Islam - in the same vein you tried to describe Christianity being ‘a multitude of churches and each has pros and cons’... Well, ISIS is the Islamic con that has no true understanding of or legitimate claim to being a representative of Islam. (I’m not a Muslim, by the way).
But let’s not be one sided blob. I mean, there is no such thing as fundamentalist Christian warmongers... Right? ;);) Are you sure your forefathers haven’t taught them a trick or two;);) It’s just not as much fun when you get as good as you give....
‘God makes things any way He likes, and the Book of Genesis is allegory to some degree.’ Is god a ‘he’ ?;);) How do you know what ‘he’ likes?? C’mon blob .... change the goal posts all you want. Change the ‘some degree’ to your liking. It’s how you rewrite history and it’s how you modify untruths to suit your own skewed understanding that is purely based on ignorance. You require allegories to try explain the unexplainable.
And I’m no athiest, believe it or not ;) Please divulge your direct experience of God that goes beyond what you believe or have read or what’s been told to you. Really - please share your direct communication ;);)
There is also one thing you failed to acknowledge - possibly the most glaring and repeatedly ignored fact. The systematic abuse of children by representatives of the very institution that represents Christianity.... And the continued cover up by the people within these organisations at all levels. Remember these people profess to be Christians! This includes the payment to people and families of people who survived repeated sexual and physical violence. This in essence is to absolve any accountability or punishment. Strange that those with money and power believe paying somebody under the condition of not divulging the truth will make the truth go away... Eerily similar to ya mate Donald Trump;)
Similar values maybe or just similar beliefs?
Theological magnanimity obscures a few crucial facts regarding the nature of belief itself, foremost, that a belief is not the truth.
Apart from a few people on here, I was wondering if anyone else thought Kavanaugh's interview the other day demonstrated behaviour unbecoming of a candidate for the US Supreme Court. Apparently so.
'More Than 500 Law Professors Condemn Kavanaugh For ‘Lack Of Judicial Temperament'https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/kavanaugh-judicial-temperament-l...
I get the feeling that Blob isn't really a Christian. Or even a Trump supporter. Hell, he may not even be an American!
I also get the feeling that he is clearly 'against' a lot of stuff, but not really 'for' anything in particular.
I'm sure he will attempt to clear this up.
@westofthelake, I agree with that, introducing politics into his hearing was very poor form and goes to the heart of his understanding of his role and agenda for the next decades(?) if he gets the nod.
Kavanaugh knows what this is all about, keeping the politically conservative/fundamental christian lobby powerful .... and that is factually old white men.
Its a fact, here and in the US, historically so, and change is coming glacially slow, so perhaps all this noise is about the transition. Personally, I think the world would be a far better place if power was shared more equally.
Any one else sees the irony of the self-declared pussy grabber saying its a scary time for men in the US?
Rumour has it that Kavanaugh sought Donald's counsel before his hearing and was advised to push back......so he comes across as an emotional toss bag, and nothing like a future judge.
AS for the irony of the pg's comments regarding young men, what a dickhead.
Nobody has reason to be scared of anything if they haven't been an asshole in the past.
Thanks Guy Smiley,
That was an interesting article.
I am a strong supporter of Jordan B Peterson's work, so I was particularly interested in the way he was conveyed here:
"Beyond Shapiro, University of Toronto clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson has drawn thousands of young conservative men to his lectures across the United States, railing against the effects of feminism and urging men to speak up for themselves. "Boys are suffering in the modern world," he has told his followers."
For mine, if Trump were to show legitimate interest in the fair treatment of men, then he would allow sufficient time & resource to discover the prevalent truth in the allegations.
To me this type of appeal to victim-hood by Trump merely exacerbates the current divide.
I sincerely do believe in the existence of a growing extreme aspect of feminism which is oppressive toward men. History tells us that society has long been oppressive to women, and that has made huge strides in the last 100 years. I believe that we have likely achieved a balance in equality of opportunity in the West, though it would be near impossible to measure. I also believe that there will always exist a percentage of people who have a deep partisan resentment in the opposite sex, and that Men and Women would be best served by being made aware of the mechanics of oppression and how to identify when the boundary between standing up for oneself and oppressing others is crossed.
Go deeper Taylor, go deeper!
Are you white , Guy ?
I can get you a 12 hour a day, $20 a month labouring job on a building site in a country with a huge population, starting tomorrow, seeing as you want one so badly blowindo. Leave your mull home but. Or you'll be pushing up a coconut tree. And your reflex jab and racist bullshit won't be tolerated at all like it is on here but...
Ive heard people will do anything for money in that country, Lifty.
They’ll even marry seedy old foreign men for money .
Desperation forces them to become live -in whores.
It’s the old white men that exploit them that we should be getting angry at.
It’s just new lipstick on the colonialism pig.
"I sincerely do believe in the existence of a growing extreme aspect of feminism which is oppressive toward men".
I don't see that at all. What I do see is women bravely finding their voice and saying no to the old rules, barriers and assumptions. Personally, I think the #metoo movement has the opportunity to create real change in a positive way. Lets face it to effect change there will be tension because I don't see the powerful willingly giving any of it up .... oppressive towards men, that's a bold statement, I just don't see that at all, maybe that says more about us blokes than what women are trying to achieve.
You shouldn’t be so hard on your mate indoblown blowindo. You’re a brave, although hidden little bullshit artist, spineless little cunt to hide while you call his wife a hoare though.
Who’s wife ?
And when I refer to those poor women from developing nations that are forced into marriages of economic desperation, I’m in no way at all disparaging them.
Quite the contrary. I think it’s admirable what they’ll do to survive and provide for their families.
I use the term whore intentionally because it reflects badly on the rich foreigner who exploits the imbalance in economic circumstances to indenture a person into a “ relationship “.
Well, the only guy I know on here who married someone from indo, is Indoblown, so you obviously group him in that target?
No mate. I’m pretty sure that Indo is in a conventional loving relationship.
Not every inter culture relationship is built on an economic covenant.
Who mentioned Indonesia ?
Great piece on Corbyn and U.K. politics
Exactly. Just like same culture relationships blowindo. But, again, your racist stereotyping shines through, as well as your bullshitting, spineless, hidden, maggot like squirming.
You dodged your stupid assertion though.
'I can get you a 12 hour a day, $20 a month labouring job on a building site in a country with a huge population, starting tomorrow, seeing as you want one so badly blowindo. Leave your mull home but. Or you'll be pushing up a coconut tree. And your reflex jab and racist bullshit won't be tolerated at all like it is on here but...'
Want the job or not?
Biological science is telling us what we already knew...that the the pre born are 100% human and 100% unique individuals from the moment the DNA is set.
Instead of talking conception and delivery you need to tell me at what point in between the pre born become HUMAN.
TELL ME THAT please.
I'll give you a hint.
When a child asks a woman why she has a round tummy she doesn't answer saying it's because she has a foetus inside.
She says she has a baby in there.
And to her it is a baby....a developing and loved baby.
Unloved babies have the same rights as loved babies, don't they?
Are human rights intrinsic or dependent on how we are valued by others?.
If your mother didn't want you would you prefer to be aborted or to be allowed to live?.
The foetus is to the child as the child is to the adult.....points on the same line of human life.
Abortion isn't about culture.....unless you want to use culture as the excuse for anything at all
....it's about morality.
Or the lack of it
If you'd read my previous comments you would see that I understand that the rights of the mother may be threatened by her pregnancy to the point that her health might take precedence over that of the child....as in rape trauma or physical peril.
Also the foetus may be badly impaired.
.....rare situations that goes nowhere near the numbers created by our immoral abortion on demand culture.
and freinds of mine tried to adopt for years.........you are wrong, children are not unwanted, and even if they were it wouldn't effect their rights.
Sweet baby Jesus! Some of the stuff on here!
And then - of course - Jordan Peterson gets a guernsey!
What Jordan Peterson is:
A Canadian clinical psychologist; A compelling and creative speaker; An influential self-help guru; A relatively entertaining polemicist.
What Peterson is not:
A serious, erudite and original thinker on philosophical and cultural problems; An authority on the Bible, Art, Biology...actually most things that are outside his narrow academic speciality.
A 'thinker' for the You-Tube age?
Never underestimate the power of self-confidence and self-promotion.
Are you saying ISIS is not Muslim but bad Christians are christian?
Are you saying the way we treat refugees is because Christianity?
Are you judging me as a christian?
Are you saying there is no allegory or symbolism in the book of Genesis?
Are you saying Trump is a paedophile priest?
I reckon kavanaugh may well have been a bit of a sleazebag in high school and college. And I reckon he may well have inappropriately groped a girl or two.
But, lets just give him the benefit of the doubt for a minute regarding any actual rape, and actually holding his hand over the girls's mouth.
If so, in his eyes, he hasn't even really done anything wrong at all (by 1986 standards). And then all of a sudden, he's getting publicly slammed and smeared by an incompetent, divided, and fucked up democrat party who seem to have lost any capacity or desire to play by the rules. A party fuelled by the fervour and momentum of a movement that has long lost any sight of real justice.
So, if we can give kavanaugh that minute of grace, where we actually play fair, and count someone as innocent until proven guilty, I think his behaviour has been quite reasonable, quite measured. If I was in his position I'd be tearing strips of the democrats too. I'd be flabbergasted. I'd be livid at the audacity of a pack of morons who have long lost any sight of the forest.
I'd be pissed. Really pissed.
He is pissed. And fair enough. Even if he's guilty, he's entitled to that basic principle of innocence until proven otherwise.
But nah, he's caught up in a witch hunt. A witch hunt that's got fuck all to do with anything he has actually done, innocent or not.
""I sincerely do believe in the existence of a growing extreme aspect of feminism which is oppressive toward men".
I don't see that at all."
When you say..."I don't see that at all."
Do you really mean that?
Like, really not at all?
As in nothing at all. No overstepping the mark?... at all? No incidence (at all) of the mob getting a bit caught up in the moment? Nothing...nothing at all?
Because, I would say, take of those shit smeared glasses a moment guysmiley, and gain some perspective. Even advocates of #metoo have said they're concerned about where the movement is heading, and the fervour that is fuelling it.
But you..."I don't see that at all"
"...Personally, I think the #metoo movement has the opportunity to create real change in a positive way."
I think it has too.
Or at least it did. I think it has sparked some much needed conversations, and really had the capacity to evoke positive change.
However, the irrationalality and nastyness of the never trumpers has squandered that opportunity ten times over in a rabid race to the bottom of the barrel.
Even self confessed 'rabid feminists' have concerns. So for you to have no qualms "at all"....well I can only say, that's just more myopic partisan crap from the smikeyguy who constantly claims, and cries, for "balance", whilst appearing to be the most partisan one eyed unbalanced moron on these forums....
I say good work, because it is either good work from a very prolific political hack.
Or....you are a moron...
Abortion is heavily culturally influenced blob. Over thousands of years and through different cultures, abortion has been an issue dealt with in different ways. China and it's one child policy is one example.
Course if you prefer to live in a world with an extra 500 million because China was wrong in your book then you better consider renting out your front paddock in downtown Sydney.
Nice bit of dodging the point there Blob. My point was that if you believe that human rights begin st conception then how can you justify abortion for rape victims? I mean do some foetuses have more rights than others?
Oh and DNA is essentially a recipe for constructing proteins so to say that the DNA is the same as the person is like confusing the recipe with the cake.
Sypkan how is the domestic violence/death rate going and who are the victims?
Obviously not talking about Indonesia "$20 a month"
Official min wage rates in areas of Indonesia ranges from $200-$300+ a month
Although in reality labourers would get paid less, but still would be $100 to $150+ a month now.
Wage growth in Indonesia has been rising quite fast in recent years as has cost of living.
I think you might have mistakenly homogenised my message into a rejection of the #Metoo movement:
I don't see that at all. What I do see is women bravely finding their voice and saying no to the old rules, barriers and assumptions. Personally, I think the #metoo movement has the opportunity to create real change in a positive way."
Totally agree with your thoughts about the #Metoo movement in general, but I sincerely believe that an aspect of extreme feminism is attempting (and will always attempt to) to oppress men by pushing identity politics (white privileged male) and pushing for a forced equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity. Whilst the population is currently dividing itself to the extremes, this aspect of extreme feminism is able to flourish.
I grew up in my teen years feeling a need to project an overt resentment toward women. My purposes for this were due to fear of rejection by women and wanting to be one 'of the Boys'. What I know now is that deep down at that time I wanted nothing more than to receive validity from women that I admired, but didn't feel worthy of.
I see that the above type of adolescent male resentment is publicly labelled "toxic masculinity".
I can see how that type of behaviour can easily become institutionalised in boys clubs like sports teams and all-boys schools. But in my experience growing up, there were few places available in my wider community offering a different point of view of Masculinity.
Now that I have opened my eyes to the damage I did to others by perpetuating the fear & resentment that I saw other boys my age promoting, I notice that I am more aware of the potential damage of any form of resentment projected upon anyone.
For me to assume that all women, all feminists, have pure intentions that are not founded in resentment would be dangerous. On the other hand, for me to conclude that the #Metoo movement is based upon a foundation of resentment toward men is equally damaging.
So for mine, the best way forward is to address what I see as the root of all divisiveness between the sexes. And to me it IS fear and resentment (regardless of sexual orientation), that perpetuates resentment through the generations. Resentment causes people to act in ways that are oppressive because it lives and breeds in the "i'm a victim, and you are the oppressor who must be punished" mindset.
So for me to accept the burden of any degree of resentment being placed on either sex, is in my view, my willingness to accept and perpetuate the core problem. I would much rather call a spade a spade and clearly identify and question any person who appears to be oppressing "them" in the name of gaining retribution for "us"
A current example:
Oppressive Men: positioning Kavanaugh as someone who has done so much 'good' that he should not be IDENTIFIED with nor held to account for any wrongdoing in his past.
Oppressive Women: BELIEVE Dr Ford over and above Kavanaugh, before any final determination of the truth prevails.
"...Sypkan how is the domestic violence/death rate going and who are the victims?"
I focus, I've got no idea, I could google it, but you just get bagged for that shit round here.
But, if I could draw some similarities from Australia, I'd say the rate is woeful, and it's pretty well all women.
Conversly, I would ask you to look at the suicide rate for fathers with limited access to their children. I would also ask you to look at the suicide rate of teenagers who've grown up amongst this narrative of 'toxic masculinity'.
I'd also say look at the rate of females at university versus males. And, generally, school retention, completion, and success rates.
Also, academic studies re. the feminisation of the school curriculum and it's effects on male students.
Whilst I'm not a full blown peterson fan, I agree with yocal, there was some form of equality reached at some point relatively recently. However, now that shit's all over the place.
I've never put my recipe inside a cake...try again.
Your comeback is to not answer a simple question but to say I'm dodging your question.....the one I've answered repeatedly.
What is wrong with your head?
Read the W.O.R.D.S.
I REPEAT AGAIN, and again, and again....
If continuing with the pregnancy puts the mother in danger this creates a contest between the right to life of the mother and the right to life of the foetus which may justify an abortion.
AND AGAIN, and again, and again.....
TELL ME THIS
At what point in its nine months of development does the unborn child become a human and attain human rights?
I have not heard anyone say Kavanaugh should not be held accountable for any past misdeeds.
That is what PROCESS is meant to resolve.
The democrats are abusing process ...and they would still do it if the nominee was a woman they didn't want.
The democrats don't care about Ford....she is a willing pawn.https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/03/ann-coulter-whatever...
Last I heard the suicide differential was 3 men for every woman.
....must be men's fault.
“Women should be made aware that if they want a termination at 24 weeks, their baby is now viable. It is not a thing in them – it is a human being.”
These words suggest the view that, when a foetus is capable – with medical help – of surviving outside the womb, it acquires what philosophers call “moral status”.
To have moral status is to matter morally in your own right, and so for there to be moral constraints on what may be done to you. Understanding the moral status of the foetus, and how this might develop over time, is a key part of what the philosophical problem of abortion is all about.
Of course culture effects everything.
I'm not saying it doesn't
I.E. Slavey was culturally acceptable in MANY societies.
I think slavey is always unacceptable on moral terms even if it may be accepted in some cultures ....even today.
Most people now agree.
Abortion IS morally repugnant as now practiced in this culture ....here....now...
That's fine, but quantifying the 'moral status' stage is still arbitrary.
Who is wise enough to make that call without getting blood on their hands?.
If you say it's not ok to kill the foetus today how do you know it was ok yesterday?.
It is a status arbitrarily bestowed by others for no defensible reason in logic.
Trump has taken a side very clearly. He expressed that Kavanaugh is most likely a victim of the current political climate.
There is a reluctance to extend the process, but no basis as to why aside from that it is unfair to both the accuser and the accused ('a fine man').
That's fine, but quantifying the 'moral status' stage is still arbitrary.
Who is wise enough to make that call without getting blood on their hands?.
If you say it's not ok to kill the foetus today how do you know it was ok yesterday?.
It is a status arbitrarily bestowed by others for no defensible reason in logic."
Blob I agree that the complexity lies in determining what is fair to both the foetus and mother. Is your solution then to throw out abortion altogether?
Point taken Blob, but the article does go towards quantifying things.
Although it's a massive grey area, the article states that at about 6 months the foetus can survive (with help of course) if taken from the womb.
This means that the status is not arbitrary and there is (some) logic behind it, even if highly debatable.
Apart from being in favour of a woman's choice to have an abortion, I have no particular views on the details and I've only put that article up to promote some discussion.
Here's an article that I see is overstepping an altruistic 'speaking out' approach in the #Metoo movement and instead encouraging oppressive attitudes:
Personally, my take from the Kavanaugh testimony that his anger and aggression presented a man that is fearful that he is near to losing everything, guilty of lying in some way to the public, and playing the victim role, being backed into a corner and lashing out. I would argue that his aggression weakened his testimony.
Dr. Fords reservation and sincerity played strongly to her credibility.
"...Last I heard the suicide differential was 3 men for every woman.
....must be men's fault."
I wouldn't dispute that statistic blob. But I'd say men have always been a bit more prone to suicude. Whether that's due to the pressure to be a good provider is up for debate (despite being so lucky they were born into 'the patriarchy' as male...cough...cough).
If I was a statistc slut I'd be spruikin it, because it makes a good point, no matter how misleading...
A better statistic would be the rate of suicide amongst single dads estranged from their kids by a cruel system. Now that would be a revealing statistic.
My guess is no one is really interested in studying such mundane uninteresting statistics though, not conducive to any meaningful agenda in the current climate.
Not important, not significant, not even worthy of mention, because you know...they're oh so lucky to be born male and shit.
Clearly they should just get over it!