~ archived since 2018 ~

Feminists violently attack men - worst attacks yet (feminists don't hate men /s)

MenandBoysareGood

October 14, 2015

34 upvotes

http://www.crossmap.com/news/shock-video-violent-mob-of-topless-pro-abort-feminists-assaults-praying-men-tries-to-burn-cathedra-21705

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Feminists violently attack men - worst attacks yet (feminists don't hate men /s)
Author	MenandBoysareGood
Upvotes	34
Comments	27
Date	October 14, 2015 10:45 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3os8bz/feminists_violently_attack_men_worst_attacks_yet/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/feminists-violently-attack-men-worst-attacks-yet.969394 https://theredarchive.com/post/969394

Comments

[–]scanspeak 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]aesopstortoise 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TDCRedPill 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]aesopstortoise 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FromTheFarSouth 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pnw_diver -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]tadashinae 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]tadashinae 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

There is a significant difference. If you have a 5 year old kid, you can't just kill it if you don't want it anymore! The Catholic Church merely see the age threshold as different than you (and to be honest, most others). And lets be honest, knowing that the child is moving inside the stomach (around week 10), and can feel when you touch the stomach with a finger, it is hard not to understand where they are coming from. In our society, we just decided that we can kill that baby until 3rd month (sometimes 6th month), whereas they decided to respect the life.

Furthermore, as it is right now, there is a doublestandard in most countries. If a woman wants to abort a child, it is perfectly fine, as it is not a human being. If a man wants to abort a child, it is now considered murder.

An example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3000249/Man-jailed-six-years-putting-abortion-pills-ex-girlfriend-s-smoothie-causing-suffer-miscarriage.html

As feminists have long preached: When you have sex, you risk getting children. I fail to see the validity of such a claim, if it only applies to men, and not to women.

Ps. And please do remember that I am pro-abortion - I merely try to view the case from more than my own paradigm, which is something everyone default to do.

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

There is a significant difference. If you have a 5 year old kid, you can't just kill it if you don't want it anymore!

That's right. But you can choose to physically not have anything to do with the child anymore. The child is not entitled to have any access to your body.

A woman getting an abortion is making to same choice. I want nothing to do physically with this thing inside me, please take it out. The embryo cannot survive outside of the womb, but that isn't the woman's problem. No one should ever be forced to allow someone else to make use of their body.

If a man wants to abort a child, it is now considered murder. An example:

Your example disagrees. The Norwegian court did exactly the right thing there - they did not treat it as a murder case. They charged him with drugging her and poisoning her, with it resulting in bodily harm. He had no right to do that, and six years seems reasonable for that situation.

Abortion is not about being able to kill children, it's about the right to your own body. It's about being able to choose to deny someone else access to the use of your body.

[–]tadashinae 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

When you decide to engage in unprotected sex, you also decide to carry the risk (or chance!) of having a child. In that case, you have to take responsibility for your previous action! If you on a wintertrip decide to kick your child out of the car, and the child dies, you will go to jail. Why is it so different? The child cant survive outside, same with the child in the stomach.

A little reference for Norway: 6 years is EXTREMELY long time for a crime in Scandinavia. I had a case where a man had done three assaults, had a 10+ year history of prison visits once a year, and he got a total of 30 days in jail. Now compare that to 6 years for what (by your logic) was just making her sick for a day, since the embryo is not a human being at all! Also, look at the comments. If he killed another man, he would be considered less of a monster.

Abortion is about whether we want to kill the child or not. We have in most Western countries agreed that killing the child before 3 months is fine. Trying to define it as a non-human being is absurd.

tldr: Catholic Church does not kill the child at all. We accept killing the child until it is 3 months old.

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

When you decide to engage in unprotected sex, you also decide to carry the risk (or chance!) of having a child. In that case, you have to take responsibility for your previous action!

Well, you're certainly able to believe that sex is consent to parenthood, and that it's better to force women to go through pregnancy against their will than allow them to disagree that the act of sex was consent. But that is a viewpoint that I strongly disagree with, and I think it is extremely immoral to force women to do that when they don't believe sex is consent to go through with a pregnancy and give birth.

If he killed another man, he would be considered less of a monster.

If his sentencing is inconsistent, that's a different issue.

Trying to define it as a non-human being is absurd.

I don't think it's absurd. A seed is not a tree, and an embryo is not a human.

But even if we agreed that an embryo is a human - no human has the right to make use of another person's body, even if it's the only way for them to survive.

[–]tadashinae 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]FromTheFarSouth 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tadashinae 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pnw_diver 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FromTheFarSouth 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Tadashinae doesn't support the Catholic Church's point of view on abortion. In fact, he stated clearly that he's pro-abortion. He's trying to explain that pro-life position is not about taking control of women's bodies, but about protecting what they view as a human life. If the Church wanted to take control of women's bodies, they would be legally allowed to force women to abort. However, in countries where abortion is banned, the legislation provides harsher penalties for people who force a woman to abort by violent means or without her consent.

By the way, in Argentina abortion is allowed when the woman's life is at risk and in cases of rape. What these feminists want is the legalization of unrestricted abortion. Do you think this is fair? Abortion is more than making a decision about your own body. We decide about our own bodies when we get a tattoo, a piercing or undergo surgery. When a woman decides to undergo an abortion, she's taking a decision that goes beyond her physical integrity. She's not just expelling an embryo or a fetus out of her body, but she's also choosing not to be the mother of a potential child. In other words, she's renouncing her maternity. Women abort not because they worry about their physical integrity, but because they worry about the effects of motherhood. In fact, in the United States most women say they abort when they don't feel able to take care of a child, or because they think that having a baby would interfere with their work.

The problem is that men don't have the right to renounce their paternity. If a woman decides to continue pregnancy and give birth to a child, men are legally forced to pay alimony or child support. This is a blatantly unfair situation that is endorsed by feminists. In the United States, Men's Rights activists have been advocating for the right to renounce one's paternity for several years. On March 9, 2006 The National Center For Men filed suit in Michigan on behalf of Matt Dubay, who was forced by the state of Michigan to pay child support for a child he never intended to bring into the world. They called their lawsuit Roe vs. Wade for Men. Matt insisted that the child’s mother repeatedly assured him she could not get pregnant and, also, Matt said that she knew he did not want to have a child with her. Unfortunately this case was unjustly dismissed by the District Court of Michigan.

In view of this, it's not hard to understand why some men trick their girlfriends into taking abortifacients. I'm from Chile, one of the few countries in which abortion is totally banned. Every time a woman kills her child, local feminists say that we shouldn't judge her because she did it out of desperation. Can't we say the same about the Norwegian guy who put abortion pills into his ex-girlfriend's smoothie?

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If the Church wanted to take control of women's bodies, they would be legally allowed to force women to abort.

If that was what the Church wanted in Argentina, I believe they would have successfully used their influence to gain this ability within the law. And that situation would be just as worthy of protesting.

Do you think this is fair?

Yes, because people should always be able to choose what to do with their own bodies (with certain exceptions like mentally ill people with urges to harm themselves). And especially because the government should never, ever have the power to force people to use their body against their will in a medical effort to keep someone else alive. Forcing women to carry a child when they don't want to is approximately equivalent to forcing a man to donate a kidney to save a stranger's life against his will.

Women abort not because they worry about their physical integrity, but because they worry about the effects of motherhood.

I'm well aware of that. And I think that everyone should have the right to not be forced into parenthood against their will. A legal parental surrender contract is necessary for men to have equality under the law. The American courts are out of line, ignoring rights for men such as the right to not be forced into parenthood, and the right to not be discriminated against in sentencing for crimes.

Every time a woman kills her child, local feminists say that we shouldn't judge her because she did it out of desperation. Can't we say the same about the Norwegian guy who put abortion pills into his ex-girlfriend's smoothie?

Absolutely. A desperate man resorted to extreme measures out of fear of being forced into parenthood... that's exactly what it is.

The problem is that his plan required poisoning her with medication she didn't want, and doing physical harm to her body in the process. This certainly can never be a legal thing to do, so they charged him with those crimes and now he's paying a fair penalty for it.

They made sure to charge him with the right crimes and didn't charge him with murder, a distinction that an American court didn't figure out in a similar situation. IIRC they tried to charge him with killing a baby, something the pro-life crowd applauded because there would be legal precedent for charging women with the same thing when they induce an abortion. He ended up pleading guilty to a lesser crime and receiving a reasonable punishment.

These situation would never have occurred if men and women both had the right to avoid being forced into parenthood, and that's a shame.

[–]FromTheFarSouth 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What's your opinion?

If the legal system doesn't consider a fetus to be a human life (and it shouldn't) when a woman gets an abortion or suffers a miscarriage, then it cannot consider the fetus to be a human life here. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act needed to be written to only apply to fetuses who are over 20 weeks in development. John Kerry was correct to criticize it because it simultaneously says a fetus is a human and is not a human.

I think that Welden case is the one I was thinking of, but I thought he had ended up with a shorter sentence. He was found guilty of the correct crimes (not murder), but was given nearly the maximum sentence possible. 13 years is too long of a punishment for this crime... people get shorter sentences for attacking someone and stabbing them with a knife. I hope this is one of those situations where he's eligible for parole in a much shorter time period.