A Rebellious People

[Authari]

---

Disdain for women? I'm not the one advocating that a mother should rip the life of her child from her womb in one of the most grotesque ways possible known to man. Also your only response was to call me a misogynist. As for what gives them the right? I've stated it multiple times, because they are a sentient being capable of feeling fear and love, and sentient beings are given the right to life, the mother had she not wanted children could have easily chosen not to welcome that seed into her womb, in the act of her copulation she consented for that life to grow in her because she did invite that seed into her womb. Again you reprobate you should not advocate for the shedding of innocent blood over a childish desire to be free from responsibility, you should mature and grow up and accept responsibility for your actions, as should all women who find themselves mothers to be. Saying that innocent children should be murdered by the hand of their own mother just because society said its acceptable does not make it right, rather it shows the degradation of our society and the lack of respect that is given to human life. How can you call yourself a humanitarian when you advocate to shed innocent blood? When you advocate that a mother should murder their own children. Who really is the misogynist here? Because if you really cared about women you would hold them to a higher standard than the one you currently do. It is the standards we set for ourselves that determines how we live our lives.

You clearly have very low standards if you advocate for a mother to take the life of her own child.

---

You failed to provide a scenario where person #1 is allowed to use the body of person #2 without person #2 consent. You conveniently ignore to adress that you DEMONSTRABLY are giving fetuses special rights.
You also did not apologize for usage of the term "promiscuity" as a broad brush to talk about the situation(s) at hand (i am not even adressing your incredibly discusting "spread her legs" statement, but it tells us a LOT about you).
You keep using emotional, loaded language. Stop that. Its not useful for a fruitful discussion. It only shows your silent admission to having no good arguments for your cause.
You also never listen, never learn. NONE denies a fetuses right to live. So please stop rambling straw man. We all know by now how intellectually lazy you are, but its getting annoying.

Until you change any of this, ill keep calling your out for what you are: A misogynist piece of shit.

in the act of her copulation she consented for that life to grow in her because she did invite that seed into her womb.

Consent to intercourse does not equal consent to pregnancy. How often has that been told to you?

You clearly have very low standards if you advocate for a mother to take the life of her own child

Being a dishonest (see: loadad language) misogynist (see: promiscuity) piece of shit, you clearly are not equipped (or willing, it seems) to have any meaningful discussion about my standards.

We can have a civil discussion, if you desire. But you need to improve some things in your wording and demeanor:

• stop using loaded language (child =!= fetus, abortion =!= murder, etc, pp)
  
• stop being misogynist, aka stop using deroatory terms for women and their actions (unless you want me to use derogatory words for you and your actions)
  
• Stop strawmanning: We are talking about bodily autonomy, not the right to live. Stop insinuating that people here deny fetuses any right to live
  

If you cant bring yourself to the point of having an informed discussion, to be willing to even understand the opponents perspective before you evaluae it, this "discussion" was over long before it began. Unlike you, most people here DO understand your position, have commented on it, adressed issues (dishonesty, inconsistency aka special rights to fetuses, misogyny), have provided their own standards.

How can you call yourself a humanitarian when you advocate to shed innocent blood?

You dont seem to understand humanitarism. You dont seem to understand the ethical conflict humanitarians would like to adress.
I will leave you at that and hopefully will find some time later today, to briefly outline this to you. We will also see if you are prepared and willing to engage, or if all you have is being polemic.

In nature animals mainly only have sex to procreate (sure you get the odd walrus trying to have sex with a penguin but we're not talking about extraordinary cases here), the act of coitus is itself the act of procreation, ergo having sex is indeed a willing invitation to get pregnant because it is the act of procreation for which all intents and purposes animals solely engage in to produce offspring. As far as loaded language goes really you're going to nark on me for my polite word choices in the face of such hostility from the community here who took the opportunity not to have a fruitful conversation but instead rail against me personally, of course I take it with stride, there's nothing I love more than ruffling the feathers of atheists.

A mother and a father have an obligation to care for their children, a mother especially has the obligation to care for the life inside of her, through the act of procreation she already gave her consent for life to dwell within her she knew the consequences that would arise from a union with a man she was not married to, and no surprise men who aren't married to you often don't want to take responsibility for the child they helped produce therefore it is the Male Patriarchal Society that tries to convince women who are the only ones who can create life, that this gift that has been given to her, the gift of life, should be instead ripped from her stomach using crude surgical tools that tears the infant apart in the womb leaving a bloody mess and scenes that would make horror movies cringe. But that's humane... and loving... isn't it? right? To rip asunder that child limb from limb while it kicks in its mother's womb.

A mother has an obligation to care for her children, its not that 'another person has no right to live inside another person without their consent' its a mother has an obligation to her children. These are the values we set for ourselves as a society, we expect women to mature into loving mothers. Tell me how a woman is going to feel attached to her children after having three of them aborted because she didn't want them? Seems to me that she would have less attachment to her children than the mother that did not have an abortion done to her. By advocating for abortion you are advocating for the mother to take the life of her own children, how does that build a warm fuzzy feeling for her children after seeing the remains of her dead son or daughter in a glass tube dismembered and disemboweled? The Parent has a DUTY to their children, and that duty begins the moment they were conceived, for our society was structured in such a way that if done properly children are only conceived in the marital bed of a husband and wife. Just because someone wanted to 'express' themselves for a moment of passion, does not mean they get to rid themselves of the consequences of an act that should remain between a husband and a wife. They practiced their 'bodily autonomy' and that's fine, but as you have said, somebody is living inside of her, which means that body belongs to someone that is not the mother, and so draws to the sad conclusion for you that her 'autonomy' does not extend to the life of her unborn child, who as we have shown multiple times has its own cognizance and is capable of feeling fear and love.

Would you disagree and say that a mother and father do not have an obligation to their children?