Abortion

[Gustaf]

I will give my view on abortion, which is inconsistent, therefore i don't really have one. I would like to take the same position as Dazzleman and many other people; that I am against abortion personally, but can accept under certain circumstances, don't want it to be banned, and so on. The problem is, that is not defensible. An opposition against abortion has to be based on the notion that an unborn child is a human being with a right to life. Murdering that human being cannot really be justified by anything. That leaves a ban as the only way out, but that is a horribly bad solution.

I hate the abortion-issue. There is no good answer.

[Gustaf]

To dazzleman:
I fail to see the apparent and vested liberty interest in taking aspirin. After all, no one ruled aspirin consumption part of the right to privacy.
To Christopher Michael:
My graces, you have a fetish for these unicellular organisms. I'll have to just address your ideas, one by one, onerous as that task might be. I'd like to contest your idea that a zygote is a viable organism and a person. First of all, a person isn't even technically pregnant at the point because the zygote or blastocyst hasn't implanted itself in the uterine lining. That's why pharmaceuticals like Birth Control Pills and Post-Coitial Contraception are called contraception and not abortives. But getting back to the issue of viability, it cannot be considered viable because if it was removed from the fallopian tube or uterus, it would not survive. As you know, viability is the point at which something can survive independently. Also, you said you would restrict funding to any state that allows abortion. Is it really that important that many states would enter into fiscal crises over arcane debates over the point of the beginning of personhood? Now for your downright scary idea about the allocation of Medicaid funding. I don't see how the death of a fetus, assuming it was alive in the first place with a life to take, would justify the death of another person. As for disallowing private insurance companies from doing that, I daresay that the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee could tell you why that is at odds with free enterprise and a free market. I now have the distinct displeasure of addressing the statement that just won the Nobel Prize for Hypocrisy for this year. You emblazoned upon your post, in bold letters, one of the Ten Commandments, Thou shalt not kill. While in Cambridge we refer to them as the three suggestions, I will accept their validity for the sake of argument because you say you do. If you honestly believe in those words, how can you justify your stand in favor of capital punishment? Someone is being killed, and it does say kill. I know you Christians do try to run circles around the wording of that commandment, by saying it only refers to murder, but that just amounts to second guessing what it says. What I think is that you will bang that commandment over our heads whenever it is convenient to you, but whenever it isn't quite suitable to your reactionary agenda, you disown it like some poor relative. I cannot stand such wishy-washiness, and I'm eager to see you defend it, while you say I am complicit in the murder of innocent babies. Now I'm going to do something I haven't done in a while. I'm going to get down on my knees and pray. My prayer will be that the revealed intentions of God that Christopher Michael will be President, disclosed in His lengthy conversations with him, will never come true, because if it does, we'll be screwed six times over.

Actually, CM is the only anti-abortionist here being consistent. If you take a stand against abortion it would have to be all the way, since the view that it is a human being would prohibit killing it, even if there is rape or incest involved.

To jravnsbo:

I hope you do not actually believe in "an eye for an eye" as a base for the legal system? (Damn, why didn't I bring that up with jmf? ). Like, if you rape someone you should get raped yourself, or what?  

[Gustaf]

Well, clearly the fetus is not a viable human being on its own, since it can't survive outside the human body. The record for the earliest that a fetus has ever been born and survived outside the body is at about 6 months, hence the concept of "trimesters" for abortions. The reason that it is ok to regulate abortions in the 3rd trimester is because at that point, the fetus gains the ability to theoretically survive outside the womb (even though at 6 months it would be extremely unlikely, but it has been proven to be possible). So as to the question of whether or not a recently conceived zygote is a viable human being, the answer is clearly no. So why should a zygote have rights? Well, you might say because it is potential human life, but every single cell in your body is potential human life, as well. When you scrach an itch on your skin, you kill thousands of cells that could potentially become a human life. Obviously no one thinks that this should be illegal. Obviously those cells are a part of your body and thus you have the right to do with them as you please, and they have no rights on their own.
Now, one could raise a religious objection to abortion, and argue that when two people have sexual intercourse, God decides whether or not the sperm and egg will come together to form a human being, and thus humans have no right to interfere with that. That's fine, but it creates a problem. If so, then how can there be an exception for rape and incest? Does it say somewhere in the Bible that God only guides the sperm and egg together in consensual, nonincestous sex, but otherwise it's just random? That doesn't make any sense. If one is raising a religious objection to abortion, it would seem that one would also have to oppose it in cases of rape and incest as well. Likewise, even if you believe that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder, you'd have to still oppose it in rape and incest cases for the same reason; it's still murder even then. Only to save the life of the mother (not even the health, just the life) could abortion thus be justified. And even in those instances, one could argue that it is still being guided by God's will, as to who dies and who lives.
So, as I see it, there is no scientific basis for making abortion illegal in the first 6 months of pregnancy, as the fetus would have to be defined as a part of the mother's body and not as its own organism during this time, there are only religious reasons, and thus as I believe there should be a seperation of church and state, I think that abortion should be legal in the first 6 months. During the last trimester, however, once the fetus has achieved theoretical viability, I think that it should be legal to ban abortion except in cases in which the life or health of the mother is at risk. I do believe that at that point the fetus should have some rights, since it could live on its own outside the mother's body, and thus its right to stay alive should supercede the mother's whims.

That is a matter of definition is it not? Handicapped or new-born babies cannot survive on their own, just like a fetus. But they are still viewed as human beings.

[Gustaf]

ABORTION IS WRONG! IT IS EVIL AND IT IS MURDER! ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT IS AN ACCOMPLICE MURDERER AND ANYONE WHO PERFORMS IT OR HAS IT DONE IS A MURDERER!

Please...calm down.

[Gustaf]

Friend,

I respect your passion but I don't think that rhetoric and attitude is going to convince anyone of your position.  If you start using words like "murderer", you will throw off a lot of people who might otherwise listen to your position.

ABORTION IS WRONG! IT IS EVIL AND IT IS MURDER! ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT IS AN ACCOMPLICE MURDERER AND ANYONE WHO PERFORMS IT OR HAS IT DONE IS A MURDERER!

Probably, yes. The guy has posted the same kind of posts in the other threads as well. I am glad most people on this board are more reasoning.

[Gustaf]

I just see abortion as one method of resolution, like bearing the child or miscarrying, for example, would resolve the situation. I used that phrase to just find a nice, alliterative way of showing how even basic and primal aspects of everyday life are politicized.

Lack of moralt responsibility can be very damaging to a society. We're seeing that in Sweden and, believe me, it isn't nice.

[Gustaf]

I just see abortion as one method of resolution, like bearing the child or miscarrying, for example, would resolve the situation. I used that phrase to just find a nice, alliterative way of showing how even basic and primal aspects of everyday life are politicized.

Lack of moralt responsibility can be very damaging to a society. We're seeing that in Sweden and, believe me, it isn't nice.

Gustaf, you are so correct, and that's one of the reasons I am uncomfortable with abortion.  The whole philosophy behind it is one of evading responsibility for your actions by making somebody else pay for them.

It's very refreshing to hear a European talk that pay, because so many of our liberals look to Europe as an example of the direction we should move in.  I don't agree at all, and I hope to see the US resisting the push from the liberals to embrace ideas in vogue in Europe like moral relativism.

Well, there is a middle way between, say, PD and Migrendel, I hope. A point that many people miss is that a liberal society (in the American sense) cannot exist without high moral standards. As soon as people start using the system to their own advantage it collapses. That is why Scandinavia, the most honest group of countries in the world, have such large welfare states. The problem is that nothing has been done to uphold morality and ethics in these societies, and thus the entire system is now endangered.

[Gustaf]

Well, there is a middle way between, say, PD and Migrendel, I hope. A point that many people miss is that a liberal society (in the American sense) cannot exist without high moral standards. As soon as people start using the system to their own advantage it collapses. That is why Scandinavia, the most honest group of countries in the world, have such large welfare states. The problem is that nothing has been done to uphold morality and ethics in these societies, and thus the entire system is now endangered.

I agree completely.  A free and (classically) liberal society depends upon a certain level of moral standards, and the expectation that the vast majority of people will support themselves, and take responsibility for their actions.

As appealing as the welfare state sounds in theory -- nobody in want, nobody in need, all needs met -- in practice it is morally corrosive because needs cannot be met unless somebody is there to meet them.  If everybody decides that they will excercise their entitlement to have their fellow citizens support them, the whole thing will collapse because there will be nobody there to provide the needed support.

The whole "privacy" and "rights" argument behind the abortion movement is a facade in my opinion.  It's really about convenience.  Abortion is a necessary accompaniment to the to casual sex, since pregnancy is often an undesirable by-product of this type of sex.  The philosophy is, do what you feel like, and get rid of the unpleasant consequences.  It's a lot like slavery; all the arguments and justifications and rationalizations in the world can't make it right.

What you are saying is true, though I was actually making another point...

In a classic liberal laissez-faire society, those who don't take responsibility for their own lives will probably just die, and thus society will work, at least fot the others. In a leftist society, they will be living on other people's money, and thus undnermine the society as a whole. In Sweden the increasing problems with tax evasion, people taking advantage of social services and so on, has raised doubts about whether the current system is possible to maintain. If you increase the social responsibilities of the state while removing moral standards, you're headed for disaster.

[Gustaf]

jravnsbo,

Roe Vs. Wade said that restrictions may be placed on abortion in the 3rd trimester, but it did not ban it. I agree that it should be allowed by law unless the life or health of the mother is at risk.

Gustaf,

When I say "survive on their own" I mean the physical ability to survive. New born babies, even those who are handicapped, can eat food and breath air, but fetuses before the 6th month cannot do these things, they must get all of their life sustaining processes directly from the mother. Fetuses at this stage would die instantly if they were removed from the womb, as would all of the other cells in your body if they were removed from your body. Near the end of the pregnancy, even though the fetus is still in the womb, it could survive outside the mother's womb if it was born prematurely.

Yes, I realized that, that's why I said it was a matter of definition [of "survive on their own"]. I'm just saying...

Siamese twins is another example. At least in certain cases they can't survive on their own, would die if separated. But they are still regarded as humans!  

[Gustaf]

I love the Hitchhiker's Guide! Realpolitik, have you ever played the computer game?

So do I! I haven't played the game though...

That is a book everyone should read, if just for sheer pleasure! One of the comic masterpieces together with, among others, Catch-22.

[Gustaf]

Aborts this conversation to return it to Abortion.

You wish.

All I know is that the answer to everything is "42".

Well, that is really the essence of the book, anyway.

[Gustaf]

Well, there is a middle way between, say, PD and Migrendel, I hope. A point that many people miss is that a liberal society (in the American sense) cannot exist without high moral standards. As soon as people start using the system to their own advantage it collapses. That is why Scandinavia, the most honest group of countries in the world, have such large welfare states. The problem is that nothing has been done to uphold morality and ethics in these societies, and thus the entire system is now endangered.

I agree completely.  A free and (classically) liberal society depends upon a certain level of moral standards, and the expectation that the vast majority of people will support themselves, and take responsibility for their actions.

As appealing as the welfare state sounds in theory -- nobody in want, nobody in need, all needs met -- in practice it is morally corrosive because needs cannot be met unless somebody is there to meet them.  If everybody decides that they will excercise their entitlement to have their fellow citizens support them, the whole thing will collapse because there will be nobody there to provide the needed support.

The whole "privacy" and "rights" argument behind the abortion movement is a facade in my opinion.  It's really about convenience.  Abortion is a necessary accompaniment to the to casual sex, since pregnancy is often an undesirable by-product of this type of sex.  The philosophy is, do what you feel like, and get rid of the unpleasant consequences.  It's a lot like slavery; all the arguments and justifications and rationalizations in the world can't make it right.

What you are saying is true, though I was actually making another point...

In a classic liberal laissez-faire society, those who don't take responsibility for their own lives will probably just die, and thus society will work, at least fot the others. In a leftist society, they will be living on other people's money, and thus undnermine the society as a whole. In Sweden the increasing problems with tax evasion, people taking advantage of social services and so on, has raised doubts about whether the current system is possible to maintain. If you increase the social responsibilities of the state while removing moral standards, you're headed for disaster.

That is very true.  I agree that the lack of moral reasponsibility in society is startling and unsettling.  I too see the abortion debate as one of responsibility.  If we cannot be responsible about our behavior, even to defend the most defensless people in our society, what does that say about us?

Well, the paradox is that a society that relies on moral responsibility, like Sweden, tends to undermine it, whereas a society which could do without it, like the US, have it, at least to a certain degree.

[Gustaf]

The US also needs moral responsibility.  Every society does.  The US is simply not as "advanced" as Sweden, and Europe in general, in snuffing it out.

Well, to a certain extent, obviously. That's what is called "social capital", and has been measured by someone as the number of choirs per capita. Apparently, the more choirs in a society, the better off it is! I was talking more in economic terms, the welfare states of Europe are collpasing due to faltering ethics.

[Gustaf]

The US also needs moral responsibility.  Every society does.  The US is simply not as "advanced" as Sweden, and Europe in general, in snuffing it out.

Well, to a certain extent, obviously. That's what is called "social capital", and has been measured by someone as the number of choirs per capita. Apparently, the more choirs in a society, the better off it is! I was talking more in economic terms, the welfare states of Europe are collpasing due to faltering ethics.

That's an interesting theory about choirs per capita!  I must admit I had never heard of it before.

But seriously, what many people don't appreciate is that the economic and social health of a society are linked.  Lack of personal and moral responsibility will lead to declining social health in a society -- out of wedlock births, high crime, etc. and this ultimately undermines the economic health of a society.  If people look to the government to solve the problems created by the lack of moral responsibility, that saps the wealth of a society.

I think the lessons are:

(1) in the long run, government cannot maintain a society's social health, as many liberals seem to expect.  Only individual people can do that; and
(2) in the long run also, a society can't have good economic health coupled with poor social health.

Many Democrats in the US say they are economically conservative and socially liberal, the reverse of traditional Democrats, who were socially conservative and economically liberal.  Neither combination works in my opinion.  

Economic liberalism, if not very carefully applied, eventually undermines personal responsibility to the point that social liberalism becomes seen as a "solution" to all the problems that people are creating.  Welfare programs, which led to an explosion of out-of-wedlock births, are a perfect example of this.  Now of course, these kids don't have the right guidance, can't be educated properly, etc. and more government programs are "needed" to "fix" these problems.

On the other hand, it is not tenable to have a system which allows and encourages the type of behavior that leads to dependency, and then say we're going to have low taxes and limited government programs.

Europe has been both socially and economically liberal for quite some time now, but that combination falls apart eventually too, because it become too expensive to keep adding "programs" to "fix" the problems created by social irresponsibility.  The problem with the entitlement mentalities that are bred by this combination of policies is that somebody has to provide the money, but the more people fall into an entitlement mentality, the fewer people there are to provide the money, which eventually causes the whole thing to collapse.

I think we are pretty much in agreement. The lat part is exactly my point. Economic liberalism and social liberalism tend to go together, which is problematic.

What you have to keep in mind is that Sweden was originally really a socially conservative country, with strong notions of personal responsibility and ethics, combined with a firm belief in  a strong goverment. This led to what you would call economic liberalism, and the creation of a large welfare state. The early stages of this period is usually viewed as a golden age in Sweden, the early 50s. People were honest, hard-working and responsible, living standards were higher than ever, people were generally very potimistic about the future. However, the mentality that the state should take responsibility for people's lives and the notion of the expression of self as vastly important, that one should put one-self before others, started to undermine society.

As people become irresponsible and egoistic they don't pay their taxes. They claim benefits that they shouldn't rightly have. They go on sick leave despite being fit for work, and then take a job in the black market instead, and so on. That quickly drains the system of money, and then taxe have to be raised on those who still pay them. The constant message going out is that society rewards those who don't take responsibility and punishes those who do.

I am a liberal, or liberal-conservative, in the European sense, which means that I distrust the goverment and supports the rights of individuals in all fields. I am no extremist though, and see the need to uphold morals. I would like this to be done without government interference, however. The day we need the government to tell us what is right and what is wrong, it will all be over anyway, I figure. A society is built from its citizens and upwards, not from the government and downwards. But running a soicety is not an easy task, it isn't black and white, and there are seldom easy solutions to a country's problems. Therefore I am generally open to compromise.

[Gustaf]

The paradox is that government cannot create higher moral standards; only individuals can do that.

But government can effectively undermine moral standards, by rewarding irresponsible behavior, and sending out the message, as you said, that those who behave responsibly will be punished, while those who behave irresponsibly will be rewarded.

In both the US and in Europe, this is the main problem with left-party politics -- the reward of irresponsible behavior, and the resulting decline in moral and personal responsibility.  It is a very slippery downward slope, and very hard to climb back up.

The problem is that left-wing policies produce immediate benefits, but the problems they create take a lot longer to become obvious.  And even when they do, liberals deny any connection between their policies and the problems they have created.

The world constantly changes, and the reason for that is that yesterday's solution becomes today's problem.  Welfare was originally conceived as a solution to the problem of poverty, and eventually welfare itself became the problem.  Public education, as presently constituted, is also going through a crisis for a number of reasons, including the view of it as a cash cow by teacher's unions, and the belief, in many quarters, that the existence of public education relieves parents of their responsibility as their child's primary educator.  Large government entitlement programs throughout the western world are in grave danger as they have grown so big that more and more people are collecting on them, while fewer are paying.

To keep the world in good working order, people must always be a step ahead, working to solve today's problems and anticipate tomorrow's problems, rather than focused on yesterday's problems.  I think that today, the left is focused on yesterday's issues, and their thinking is outdated.

Yes, I agree. In Sweden we have vouches schools, why don't you try that to solve the problems of oublic education?

Btw, I am feeling less and less Democratic by the post...

[Gustaf]

Yes, I agree. In Sweden we have vouches schools, why don't you try that to solve the problems of oublic education?

Btw, I am feeling less and less Democratic by the post...

The Republican Party supports school vouchers in places with failing public schools (which means just about every US city).  The Democrats are implacably opposed, because the teacher's unions are big contributors to the Democratic Party, and they fear the competition from better private schools.

I thought you were in charge?

[Gustaf]

The Republican Party supports school vouchers in places with failing public schools (which means just about every US city).  The Democrats are implacably opposed, because the teacher's unions are big contributors to the Democratic Party, and they fear the competition from better private schools.

I thought you were in charge?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not that simple.  Republican majorities are slim in both the Senate and House, and committed Democratic opposition makes it very difficult to pass it.  Not every Republican supports it, but Democratic opposition is vehement.

The one thing that would make it pass is if black voters, who disproportionately suffer from failing schools, made it clear to the Democrats that they would vote against them unless they end their opposition to vouchers.  Black voters favor vouchers, but once again place ethnic identification ahead of actual issues in determining their votes.  Black "leaders" are vociferiously opposed to vouchers, largely because they have money and have already chosen to put their own kids into private schools.  So the failing public schools are only for poor blacks, not those who are better off.

The US has much less of a party-based system than the typical European country, in any case.  Legislatures are elected independent of the executive branch, unlike the parliamentary system, and each legislative body has its own set of procedures for passing laws that can effectively prevent a small majority from having absolute control.

Yeah, I figured that would be the reason.

This is probably the only area where one could say that Sweden is to the right of the US!

[Gustaf]

Marvin is my hero...

Marvin who?

[Gustaf]

the paranoid android

Oh, you're back to Hitchhiker! I thought it had something to do with abortion, voucher schools, or the social fabric of society...

[Gustaf]

The Republican Party supports school vouchers in places with failing public schools (which means just about every US city).  The Democrats are implacably opposed, because the teacher's unions are big contributors to the Democratic Party, and they fear the competition from better private schools.

That's really not true
I am very against school vouchers because it is the public education system that needs to be improved.  School vouchers are like giving up on the public education system.
In MS, all of the private schools were founded in the 1960's to avoid integration.  Vouchers for those schools would be horrible.
As a public school student, I can say that vouchers are NOT what is necessary.

People have been talking about improving public schools for 40 years, and for liberals, that has meant two things:  forced integration, which would somehow magically solve the disparity between black and white education (it didn't) and more money into a system that is failing.

The central question is, with respect to inner city schools, can anything be worse than what we have right now?  In my opinion, the answer is no, and I'm therefore willing to try something outside the box, like vouchers.  Right now, we are consigning virtually ALL inner city people, except for the lucky few who win a lottery and get to go to a magnet or suburban school, to a violent and substandard education.  A way has to be found to separate the wheat from the chaff, because it is unconscionable to lump all inner city people togeter, and condemn them en masse, and that's what we're doing now.  If we could save 20, 30, 40, 50% of them, we could create some positive momentum in the urban culture with respect to the benefits of education, and change some attitudes, as welfare reform did.

But if we just say we're going to improve the public schools, well , that will never happen under the circumstances that exist in inner city communities.

We seem to have changed the topic completely, but that's OK.
Here's the deal in MS:
Many people at private schools are there because they don't want to be with black people.  Some aren't.  But that is the sole reason that a lot of people have at private schools.
Most inner city schools in Jackson aren't good at all.  However, vouchers will not solve the problem.  The private schools are nowhere near the inner city.  If a black person recieved a voucher to go to one, he would have to get his own transportation to get there.
JPS (Jackson Public Schools) has a policy that anyone can go to another schoool in the district.   If he could get that transportation to a private school, he could simply go to a higher quality JPS school (there are about 3) and go there.  He would receive the same quality education, and half the student body wouldn't hate him just because of his race.
Perhaps the situation is different in other regions of the country, but until I see some examples of them working well, I can say that I do not believe vouchers are the way to go,.

It works pretty well in Sweden.

[Gustaf]

Some really long posts here...

Even Swedish social democrats are beginning to accept voucher schools. It actually works pretty well, and makes the public shools better out of necessity. They have to improve in order to compete. And just for the record; in the Swedish system you are not allowed to charge the pupils at all, IF you are to recieve public money. This means that private schools for the really rich is something different than the independently run, but publicly financed voucher schools.

[Gustaf]

ABORTION IS WRONG! IT IS EVIL AND IT IS MURDER! ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT IS AN ACCOMPLICE MURDERER AND ANYONE WHO PERFORMS IT OR HAS IT DONE IS A MURDERER!

I support it...to a certain degree. So I'm a murderer eh? Well what if the mother's life is in danger? And the doctor's determine in the early stages of pregnancy that she can not have this baby and live, thus ending HER life AND the baby’s life. So you're against saving both of them eh? Wouldn't that make you a DOUBLE murderer then?

I support abortion...under these terms....

The mother's life is in danger

Incest

Rape

If the baby is in the early stages, if it gets to far along, it should NEVER be aborted no matter what the reason of abortion is.

And I think another reason might be, if the baby will have severe problems when it is born, and the doctor can determine this early in the pregnancy (e.g. deformation, etc.) There is no reason to have the baby suffer from severe problems, and then when born the parents can't afford to give the child the medical help it needs. Which would result in the baby either DYING, or going up for abortion and spending the rest of it’s life in a hospital with no one to love it. Again, I am sort of ambivalent about this.

What I HATE about abortion, is when the mother uses abortion as a "birth control". Some stupid little bitch (excuse me for saying that) who has a midnight fling with some boy of her dreams, and has sex without protection resulting in her becoming pregnant. She doesn't wanna have the baby, the parents can afford to get rid of it, and view it as an ABOMINATION that she is going to have the child in the first place at a young age. This makes me sick. If you're old enough to have sex, you're hold enough to face the results of sex, and the responsibilities that come from it (i.e. a child).

Although I times I don't agree with abortion, I think the good out-weighs the bad, therefore, I would ultimately support it.

You’re post, PD, is kinda insulting to me, and I’m sure it is to others. I would normally haul off on your for something like that, but I feel too tired to do that today. But next time.......next time....

If I were you, I’d watch what you say....

Or what? I will only let abortion go if the woman is raped and her life is in danger. That's the only way. If she gets herself shacked up and her life is in danger, then so be it. She gets what she deserves. I guess I expected you to know this about me earlier. I should've said something. But others who support it in any other way, I do consider murderers.

Do you think they should be executed, then? Since you support the death penalty, I mean?

[Gustaf]

I could use more choice words, but I consider you a murderer of the human spirit, willing to crush the hopes of those in the most desparate straits. Let's face it, you're just not a nice person.

Let's face it, you're weird and immoral.

He's wierd!  Great comeback line, PD!

Yep. He is pretty weird. Someone who would betray his country's founding form of government is pretty wierd.

Not if he disagrees with it. It is notmore weird than thinking feminists want to murder children and destroy capitalism.

[Gustaf]

I could use more choice words, but I consider you a murderer of the human spirit, willing to crush the hopes of those in the most desparate straits. Let's face it, you're just not a nice person.

Let's face it, you're weird and immoral.

He's wierd!  Great comeback line, PD!

Yep. He is pretty weird. Someone who would betray his country's founding form of government is pretty wierd.

Not if he disagrees with it. It is notmore weird than thinking feminists want to murder children and destroy capitalism.

What's wierd about believing something that's true.

Where on earth do you get these ideas? "destroy capitalism". What do you get that from? It is illogical and insane.

[Gustaf]

Feminists are about treatment not based on gender. There is still a substantial gap in poverty, income, leadership, double standards, and visibility between the genders. Its good that feminists are trying to address these things.

The only thing feminists are trying to adress is that women are better than men and that men are worthless, weak pigs. That's all. I'm not saying that I think women shouldn't vote or have jobs, what I'm saying is that women should not neglect their natural duty to families. It is a proven fact that most men work harder, career-wise, and are more able to do hard work. This is like saying that women would be excellent football players. Feminists would rather use a dildo than get married to a real man and start a family. They see children as a waste of time, things that get in the way of their constant, neverending boyfriends that they screw one night and abandon the next. One feminist said that it should be a woman's right to choose whether she wants to have a child without the father there. That's bullsh**t!  

So you think that every woman should have to assume their "natural duty to families", b/c "it is a proven fact that men work harder, career-wise"? Has it crossed your mind that this might be b/c men choose that path, not that they are naturally inclined to do so? IQ tests have shown that blacks generally have slightly lower intelligence than whites, should they then do menial labour? Feminism is fundamentally about gender equality, not destroying capitalism, or any of the other stupid accusations you come with. You have no idea what you're talking about, sory if you're offended, but someone has to break it to you. These comments on women's rights are just way out there.