TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

The blatant, unabashed hypocrisy of Feminism

Unnecessary_Timeline
November 30, 2022
606 upvotes
/r/MensRights
post image

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/MensRights.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title The blatant, unabashed hypocrisy of Feminism
Author Unnecessary_Timeline
Upvotes 606
Comments 248
Date November 30, 2022 5:19 AM UTC (9 months ago)
Subreddit /r/MensRights
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-blatant-unabashed-hypocrisy-of-feminism.1141313
https://theredarchive.com/post/1141313
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/z8ic2h/the_blatant_unabashed_hypocrisy_of_feminism/
Red Pill terms in post
feminism
Top posts by Unnecessary_Timeline

TIL of the “4B Movement” in South Korea. It is “a radical feminist movement that pledges to renounce marriage, raising children, dating and sex” and is praised by media. Yet MGTOW continues to be demonized as a group of dangerous sexist men.

293 upvotes
March 31, 2023
/r/MensRights

Stanford University employee charged with lying about rapes

237 upvotes
March 16, 2023
/r/MensRights

Fairborn man awarded $45M for wrongful conviction after 20 years in prison

188 upvotes
November 23, 2022
/r/MensRights

ChatGPT out here straight up lying

110 upvotes
March 21, 2023
/r/MensRights

Unusual uptick in men’s issues reached Reddit’s front page today

63 upvotes
August 15, 2023
/r/MensRights

Feminist asking Feminists what Men’s Advocates want from Feminism. Feminists respond to the very unbiased question w/ inclusive & unbiased answers… /s [Archive link]

59 upvotes
November 17, 2022
/r/EverydayMisandry

Example #43,076 of Male Disposability, with a little "Men Slaughtered in War, Women Most Effected" for extra Misandry points

55 upvotes
April 18, 2023
/r/EverydayMisandry

Silver lining: at least these people remove themselves from the dating pool

54 upvotes
November 23, 2022
/r/EverydayMisandry
Comments

[–]asdfman2000 85 points86 points  (28 children) | Copy Link

Emma Goldman was against women having the right to vote. She said women tend to be busybodies and pass frivolous laws.

Ironic that she’s a feminist icon.

[–]pappo4ever 25 points26 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

She was not wrong on that.

[–]asdfman2000 17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

She cited Colorado giving women the vote as evidence. So she wasn’t talking out of her ass.

[–]to_yeet_or_to_yoink 20 points21 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You know we can be supportive of and fighting for men without hating women, right?

We criticize the feminist movement for being less pro-women and more anti-men, but if this is how we act, can we truly claim to be any better?

[–]ArgueLater 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The reality is that most people shouldn't be voting, men or women. You don't ask a group of laypeople how to fix a car, and that's way less dangerous and convoluted than an entire country.

[–]Night_Panda95 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, people don't seem to agree tho... It's a shame, people say feminist's are anti-men yet they do the exact same thing on this channel being anti-women. People are just people and we should fight for our rights and be supportive of all, inclusion not exclusion.

[–]bionicmook 6 points7 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

You give MRA a bad name.

[–]pappo4ever -4 points-3 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

God damn, the first time I agree with a feminist and I get accused of being a misogynist.

[–]bionicmook 5 points6 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

You’re agreeing that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. This is why people don’t listen to or take groups like this seriously. You’re hurting the cause you claim to support. Very few people in this day and age believe in denying voting rights to any group of people based on gender or race or religion. Rightly so.

[–]pleasedrowning 0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

Meh... Agreeing that women make poor policy isn't insisting women shouldn't be able to vote. 2 separate and district claims.

PS I think you would be interested to know that not as few people are giving up on modern democracy as you would think. This makes a great case

Democracy: The God That Failed https://g.co/kgs/rvvdoX

[–]bionicmook 1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

As long as we all agree that women should keep the right to vote, and that it’s a bad idea to start taking voting rights away from any group.

[–]pleasedrowning -1 points0 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

No we aren't agreeing on that. Book makes the case that democracy is fucked, the basis of which is voting.. so women shouldn't be voting, neither should men. It's actually a good argument Not involved then this but: Democracy is essentially a government that's publicly owned with too many divergent interests. Those at the head have short in terms where they have influence and profit. This leads to raping the country and running. A monarch, on the other hand, l may be brutal if he so chooses but has no interest in short term gains on a constant basis... He takes the long road and invests in the country because he owns it and its resources. So will his children. Plenty of stuff in YouTube on this book https://youtu.be/kJ8cH79alLc

[–]bionicmook 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Monarchy is dumb as hell. Having a leader just because they were born to the right family makes no sense. Democracy and republics make far more sense.

[–]pleasedrowning -1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I am not concerned with which system is smart or dumb. I want a system that minimizes harm. This book makes a decent case that having a train run on a nation with a new set of pricks every 4 years isn't ideal for the people of that nation.

[–]TangledGoatsucker 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

She was right, with herself being the primary evidence.

[–]ArgueLater 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Anyone capable of proving knowledge in a subject matter should be allowed input. The idea that gender defines such things is ridiculous. But -- also -- the idea that anyone should be allowed to vote has been a pretty clear downfall of western nations once mass media was introduced.

[–]ColonelVirus 94 points95 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Yes she should, her body after all.

The father should also have the ability to walk away should she choose to keep it.

No one should be taking away rights, we just need more rights.

[–]asder517 38 points39 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The only right answer.

The thing is, you can't force a woman to keep a child, but you can't force an abortion either. Just like you shouldn't be able to force a man to monthly payments for 18 years based on of a woman's decision.

[–]Snippychicken22 14 points15 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

My body my choice My wallet my choice

[–]Foxsayy 41 points42 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

It's her body, so she gets to make your choice.

[–]Professional-You2968 17 points18 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

And of course no choice for men.

[–]drewdp[🍰] 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This post seems rather disingenuous, taking her beliefs out of context to push an agenda.

She's talking about contraceptives... condoms at the time, and now more modern variants. She refused to perform abortions and saw contraceptives as a healthy alternative to prevent unwanted children.

If a guy doesn't want kids, he can choose to get snipped, wear a condom, and pull out. He has that right too.

But at the end of the day, pregnancy is a risk in having sex. Both parties have to agree to it. I'm not a huge fan of a woman aborting a child the father wants, but I'd be less of a fan of forcing anyone to bear an unwanted child.

A better use of energy would be combating the family courts mother bias. Let fathers get custody more often and the mother can pay child support. At the same time we can be good male role models for the next generation, influencing the way men are seen by society.

[–]Armunt 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

and pull out.

OH BOY this ends poorly.

[–]drewdp[🍰] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's specifically in addition to condoms. I've known some ppl to do that to limit the chances of a failed condom.

Don't rely on that alone.

[–]Nathaniel66 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Funny is: they vant together in vitro and contraception financed by tax payers. WTF? Make up your mind? First you want to damage your health by pills, than wait till geriatric pregnancy and you think you deserve tax payers to pay for you to have a child?

[–]0R0V0H0 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Reading the comments is just making me think more and more that we need rights around sex, gender and reproduction to be unified under an all-encompassing philosophy which doesn’t separate any sex or gender from the equation. We will never have equality in a society which insists on gender-segregated issues. It takes two people to make a baby. Both people’s interests are always going to be involved. The very reason sex, reproduction and relationships are such complex issues is because it involves more than one person, and more than one type of person. One-sided philosophies and movements are doomed to harm.

[–]SpaceMonkey877 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

If this is what you think men’s rights is about, you need to do more research.

[–]WinterDotNet 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Men and women are not so different. There are some true feminists out there but also a bunch of assholes. Same goes with Men's rights. The only difference is no one gets eye-rolled at if they're a feminist. :)

[–]SpaceMonkey877 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminism has been decried and ridiculed since it’s inception. Even today, “radical feminism” is a by-line and an epithet. Outside of the academy, most folks only have pop culture understandings of masculine studies or feminism, and posts like this are indicative of how little many men’s lib folks actually know about their ostensible goals and social critique. I do study masculinity in America. Quite literally, it’s the focus of my dissertation.

[–]WinterDotNet 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I was agreeing with you by the way. All I'm saying is that yes, there are people that think this is what Men's Rights is about, just like there are Feminists that think that their end goal is the subjugation of men. Neither one of these is right and what we should all be focusing on is making sure that the playing field is balanced. There's so much propaganda on both sides, and the lashing out from both sides at each other just exacerbates things. I think OP was mostly just frustrated and saw something that on the surface was an extension of their frustration. There's nothing wrong with being frustrated. They should have done a bit more due diligence, but when has Reddit EVER cared about due diligence? :)

[–]pappo4ever 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Also feminists: "If I say you are the father, then you are the father, even if he's black and you are white. Start paying or else you go to prison."

[–]WinterDotNet 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, this is my point as well. Men should be able to forfeit any rights to be involved with the child while also removing any financial or civil obligation to the child. If the mother still wants to have the child in that case, that's her choice and no one should take it away from her. No one should ever force her to have the child either.

[–]denvercaniac 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Join me in demanding reproductive rights, not reproductive responsibilities.

[–]WinterDotNet 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I like your wording here.

[–]WA0SIR 15 points16 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

You know there’s something horribly wrong with your thinking when you start looking at motherhood, as slavery.

[–]Humble_Measurement_7 13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Because victim feminism is a submission fetish. They want to pretend like they live in the handmaid tales. Disgusting.

[–]PoolPartyAtMyHouse 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Greatest gift in nature and humanity, one women took pride in for centuries... modern women look at it like a chore, and the bonus of it's men's fault often they "get pregnant"

[–]AnonymousNeko2828 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Even if Children are a joy to a lot of people, you can't deny they're a lot of work, money, time. If you have to dedicate all of that without wanting to, it can feel awful.

There's the option of putting the child up for adoption, but my previous sentences are assuming the child is kept in the household, as it's not exactly motherhood if there is no child.

[–]WinterDotNet -4 points-3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

How is it not if you are not allowed to decline it? There's something horribly wrong with your thinking when you apply your own morals to others with a superior attitude.

[–]FreakyManBaby 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree, I really feel bad for modern women. There is literally no way for them to avoid getting pregnant. Even the 97 year old woman across the way from me is carrying a child she doesn't want.

[–]WinterDotNet 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

FFS, you guys need to learn reading comprehension. If you're not pregnant or a mother then it's NOT motherhood. If you avoid it, then there's nothing to feel enslaved about. My issue was that OP is asserting that it's wrong to NOT want to be a mother and having a holier than thou attitude about it.

[–]Nobleone11 -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

How is it not if you are not allowed to decline it?

Abortion, Birth Control and Adoption.

Women have a choice. They're not forced into it or being held hostage.

Some, GASP, actually WELCOME motherhood.

[–]WinterDotNet 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Abortion, Birth Control, and Adoption are NOT motherhood. You're GASP judging others based on your morals, as if the NOT wanting to be a mother is abhorrent and you've effectively said that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong thinking. I stand by my statement that judging others based on YOUR morals and opinions is bad thinking.

[–]Nobleone11 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Abortion, Birth Control, and Adoption are NOT motherhood.

I never said they were for if you had any comprehension skills whatsoever, you would've understood that I was talking about the ability to opt out of motherhood to dispute your belief that women are slaves to motherhood.

You're GASP judging others based on your morals

Look who's talking.

as if the NOT wanting to be a mother is abhorrent

Funny but isn't that the exact mentality of people who think Motherhood is slavery?

and you've effectively said that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong thinking.

Yeah, critical thought. You should try exercising it sometime. You'll grow.

I stand by my statement that judging others based on YOUR morals and opinions is bad thinking.

I'll tell you what's bad thinking, bud: Believing women are slaves to motherhood. Essentially claiming children are fucking slave drivers.

[–]WinterDotNet 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You know there’s something horribly wrong with your thinking when you start looking at motherhood, as slavery.

So, this is LITERALLY what you said. You've made a value judgement about anyone who would look at motherhood as abhorrent as being wrong thinking. It's not my bad reading comprehension, if your words don't mean what I'm interpreting it's your failure in communicating your point correctly. You've used weasel words to imply that anyone who wouldn't want to be a mother is wrong thinking. That's what I'm calling bullshit on. You're applying your morals to other people's decisions. Fuck that. Even your "arguments" with me are condescending and applying your own morals on me. No one cares about your morals than you, and denigrating others is not an acceptable response.

You're GASP judging others based on your morals Look who's talking. I'm not judging anyone on my morals, I'm calling out that just because you believe it doesn't mean it's right.

as if the NOT wanting to be a mother is abhorrent

Funny but isn't that the exact mentality of people who think Motherhood is slavery? Except they're making a personal choice and you're judging someone else based on theirs.

and you've effectively said that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong thinking. Yeah, critical thought. You should try exercising it sometime. You'll grow. Knowing the difference between being critical of something and having critical thought is important. You've not demonstrated a single critical thought thus far. You've said, "no you!" and then proceeded to just be a condescending twat. I've given this plenty of critical thought, but clearly you don't know what that is based on your comment here.

I stand by my statement that judging others based on YOUR morals and opinions is bad thinking. I'll tell you what's bad thinking, bud: Believing women are slaves to motherhood. Essentially claiming children are fucking slave drivers. Now you're going back to your original statement and adding a straw-man argument on top of it.

Critical thinking is not being critical of others, it's being able to entertain opposing thoughts and considering them rationally. If you're able to do that, your words here have certainly not demonstrated that.

[–]Nobleone11 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

THIS is what YOU said, earlier, in response to someone who disagrees with the notion of Motherhood as akin to slavery:

How is it not if you are not allowed to decline it?

I, in return, disputed your claim that there's no way to opt out of with examples like this:

Abortion, Birth Control, and Adoption

You then proceeded to make claims that I never did and assumptions which aren't true.

It's not my fault you fail to grasp what I'm saying and prefer making a pompous, arrogant asshat out of yourself.

So, we're done.

Idiot.

[–]WinterDotNet 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You then proceeded to make claims that I never did and assumptions which aren't true.

It's not my fault you fail to grasp what I'm saying and prefer making a pompous, arrogant asshat out of yourself. So, we're done. Idiot. One of us has been pompous, arrogant, and condescending this entire time, that's true.

[–]Brian18639 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

True

[–]compellinglymediocre 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

i think it requires an agreement of course between mother and father, but ultimately it is the woman’s choice. It is her body, her child as well.

[–]WinterDotNet 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The counter to that, and mind you, I agree with your statement, is that the father has no such choice to accept an 18-year+ financial obligation to this. The woman should be free to choose to have the child or not, but also the father shouldn't be trapped in providing child support for 18+ years without their consent as well. If the father's decision not to be involved affects the mother's decision, that's still her choice. The system needs to be fair to both parties and not have some oppressive religious fascists trying to take those rights away from both parties.

[–]lzzbian94 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This should be common sense

[–]tabris51 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There is nothing wrong with what she said. No women should ever be forced to have a pregnancy.

[–]Efficient_Creme_3067 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

For clarification, i am both pro life and pro choice….in a way. I will quickly explain.

I am more “anti-suffering” than pro life. As long as a fetus is aborted before it can’t feel the pain of what’s happening to it (usually around 20 weeks), then have at it…for any reason.

After that, if the physical, mental, emotional and even financial health of the mother is in danger, then abortion done in the most painless way possible.

HOWEVER, men’s physical, mental, emotional and financial health should also be considered. If a man can not or does not want to “parent” a child, he should be allowed to do a “paper abortion” as some have said. Where he is released from ALL financial or legal obligations to that child.

Equality is about everyone getting the same deal. If women can “choose not to parent”, then men need to have that same power too. Forcing men to take on a responsibility they can’t handle or afford, is torturous. One of the largest reasons for men to commit suicide, is losing access to their kids and having their name dragged through the mud in court. So this inequality is LITERALLY killing men.

[–]blackdahlialady 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Jesus, the hypocrisy is real.

[–]ebony-mori 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

What is actually wrong with this statement?

[–]Balages 21 points22 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I think he tries to say that if feminism is for everyone then it should say: "Every person should have the right to say whether they shall have a child or not. Parenthood should be voluntary act, not the act of a slave"

[–]ebony-mori 4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I agree. However, Emma Goldman lived from the year 1869 till 1940. These were different times, and the statement above was highly relevant.

To be fair, there is still nothing intrinsically wrong with the above statement, so I am unsure why it has been posted in the first place. Just because it lacks gender neutrality, doesn’t mean that the statement is incorrect or misandrist. It is just purely stating that women should have reproductive rights.

[–]Malkor 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I don't think you can really interpret the words of someone who wrote in 1897, then worked in factories at the turn of the next century...

I'll bet that she's an inspiration to some Radical Feminists though.

[–]ebony-mori 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don’t quite understand what you mean by the first part there.

In regards to the second, yes she probably is still admired. Reproductive rights are important, and someone that stood up for that before it was commonly accepted is brave.

[–]Malkor 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh I didn't finish my sentence on the first part! Too many tabs!

I meant to say

That that her words are being looked at via a modern lens. I have to imagine that she was surrounded by suffering, at home, in her vicinity and finally when she was on her own working.

She was a rebel's rebel and at the time of her words it wasn't so much hypocrisy as striving for something that society wasn't going to let happen.

[–]ebony-mori 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes I agree. 😊 Well put.

[–]liga__privada 0 points1 point  (23 children) | Copy Link

They all want to be mothers but not wives...how strange

[–]bionicmook 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

It’s surprises me how many anti-abortion people exist in our community. To me, that doesn’t seem to align with the core beliefs of men’s rights. Why is the answer to take rights away from women and men who choose to not have children and want to go through with an abortion? How does that help? It just seems vindictive against the people who choose to go that route. I just don’t see what taking away the rights of someone else helps.

[–]Anih1list 0 points1 point  (17 children) | Copy Link

Hypocrisy? Where? She just stated her position on women’s reproductive rights. I disagree with her statement (reproduction is immoral) but it’s not hypocritical

[–]JewelFyrefox -1 points0 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

And how bout the unborn child? Why don't they get rights? What makes full grown women who believe they should kill innocent children more worthy?

I'm terrified of pregnancy because of my arthritis and chondrolysis, but I would still go through it if I had to for my child. It's not my right to end a being's life.

Also, men should have the ability to have an opinion in this situation, because they are human and this is about the rights of an unborn human. Screw the whole "they aint women" bullshit, this is about killing children, and they should decide weather or not they want to fight for that. Are they gonna next say that infertile women can't fight? Or those who can't have children for whatever reason?

[–]ebony-mori 0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

A tadpole isn’t the same as a frog. A foetus isn’t the same as a baby.

A person is more important than a foetus. The foetus does not have rights because it is still inhabiting a woman. It’s a part of her body, and it is her choice if she wants to keep it or not.

[–]JewelFyrefox -1 points0 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

A tadpole is literally a undeveloped frog which is still alive and developing even after it hatches and does not stop until its a full grown frog. It's life is just as valuable as the frog's life.

A foetus is the same way, it's alive the moment a heart and brain is formed, and despite it not being a full human, it is still developing, just like a tadpole, until it is a fully human baby, and guess what? It's alive.

Death is eternal, 9 months is 9 months. Why can't a woman wait roughly 9 months for a child to be born? Or, matter of fact, if you really don't want a child then why not get surgery before getting pregnant so you can't get pregnant and won't kill a child?

There is literally no reason that a woman should kill a child. No reason at all. A woman's life isn't more valuable than an unborn child's just because the child is in her, especially when it could be or could not be her fault that she is pregnant in the first place. It's a human just like the woman, regardless of if it's unborn. Therefore it has rights, or at least it deserves the right to life.

[–]ebony-mori -1 points0 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

You would genuinely value a tadpole the exact same as a frog? Really?

The foetus is not more important as the woman carrying it. The foetus isn’t even as important.

Do you know how difficult it is to get that surgery?

Some women choose to have abortions, and then later have children. In that point of their life, they were not ready to have a child. That would stop them ever having children.

What of the woman’s rights? What of cases of: - Rape? - Incest? - If the pregnant person is a child? - If the woman is in a domestic violence situation? - If she is in poverty?

Actual humans matter more than potential humans. While it is in her body, it is her choice and should always remain that way.

[–]JewelFyrefox 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You would genuinely value a tadpole the exact same as a frog? Really?

You just compared us as a species to an amphibian, a frog, and this is what your question is? Also yes, I would. They are the same species and both alive.

The foetus is not more important as the woman carrying it. The foetus isn’t even as important.

Just because they are unborn they aren't important? Do you suggest children in general aren't important? Would you care if a born baby was slaughtered?

Do you know how difficult it is to get that surgery?

I imagine very difficult. I mean you are getting an unnatural surgery. But it's either that or just not have sex, and I know for a fact not every woman that wants an abortion has been raped.

Some women choose to have abortions, and then later have children. In that point of their life, they were not ready to have a child. That would stop them ever having children.

And somehow she has the right to chose when to have a child but the unborn child doesn't get the right to chose when to be born.

What of the woman’s rights? What of cases of: - Rape? - Incest? - If the pregnant person is a child? - If the woman is in a domestic violence situation? - If she is in poverty?

None of this is the child's doing or their fault. They didn't rape the woman, they didn't commit incest, they aren't the abusers, these children are completely innocent in all of these situations.

Abortion is equivalent to the death penalty, we are literally treating these children like serial killers for things that they didn't do.

Also, adoption exists for a reason, so does foster care. It may not be much but it's better than nothing. If poverty is a problem then why are we killing children instead of fighting for a less greedy government?

Actual humans matter more than potential humans. While it is in her body, it is her choice and should always remain that way.

There is nothing potential about an unborn child. And no, the baby is not her body. It may be connected to her but she doesn't control it. She doesn't have the same thoughts, heart, or nervous system as the child, nor the same spirit/concious.

[–]ebony-mori -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

But, a tadpole is not a frog. A tadpole is not a baby frog either. It is a potential frog. While you can argue that the tadpole is important, it does not have the same value as the living, breathing frog. If you had to choose to save one or other, you would pick the frog.

As I have made it very clear that I value the life of born children, however believe that the pregnant woman should have the right to choose whether or not to terminate, I think it is quite silly asking me whether I would be okay with a born baby being slaughtered, don't you? I think you know the answer to that one, but are trying to be extreme to prove a point. A foetus is not a baby. An abortion is not the same as a born baby being killed.

No, the foetus doesn't get a say, but you're welcome to try ask one and get an answer. I doubt you will get very far. At the end of the day, the actual is more important than the potential. As much as you may not like the idea of that, that is true. Your life is worth more than a foetus.

Just to clarify, even if a 12 year old girl was raped, you do not believe she should have the right to an abortion on the grounds of the foetus not committing the crime that got her pregnant? If that is true, and I do apologise if I have misunderstood there, but I hope you do not consider yourself pro-life, because it seems your empathy runs out the second that child is out of it's mother.

Do you even know what the foster system is like? Do you know what the adoption system is like? If so, I'm sure you wouldn't wish to condemn god knows many children to a system that is already over-burned, incapable, and riddled with abuse.

[–]WinterDotNet 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You just compared us as a species to an amphibian, a frog, and this is what your question is? Also yes, I would. They are the same species and both alive.

Thus you would never eat. Period. Meat is the killing of animal life, plants are the consumption of vegetable life. You use broad definitions to support your arguments but then narrow those definitions when it's inconvenient to your own points.

[–]JewelFyrefox 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

We eat for survival. We literally can't survive without killing something until it's something like tofu if I recall. In cases of survival, killing isn't considered murder, especially if you had no choice but to kill.

And plants are just as alive as animals. You can't eat a tadpole, but when it grows to a frog, you can. You also can't eat a frog raw, especially if its poisonous, so what exactly is your point?

There are alot of animals we can't eat or at least haven't found a way to eat yet, but that doesn't make them any less of an animal or alive.

[–]WinterDotNet 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

My point is you're trying to arbitrate on only your own terms what life is ok to destroy and what is not, and what constitutes life. Abortion for the first 2 trimesters is no different than removing a tumor. The cells are no more or less alive than cancer cells. But you want deny someone the choice to not carry to term because you want to protect the rights of something indifferentiable from a tumor.

[–]Main-Tiger8593 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

pardon but if you try to argue about where life starts you will lose this... im pro choice but im aware that all life should be protected and see the dilemma in our constitutions... that said you can push conservatives to actually support the child and mother if they are pro life else it shows their hypocrisy... consistent conservatives would probably also agree on most of your raised points while still not liking it...

[–]ebony-mori 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

The thing is, if someone could only save one: a pregnancy or an actual baby, they could choose the baby every time. That’s because the baby has more intrinsic value than a foetus.

A foetus, particularly a first trimester foetus, is dependant on the mother to survive. It’s in her body and cannot survive without her. So it is her choice.

The anti-abortion rhetoric is so hypocritical, you are right. As soon as that baby is born, that’s where their “care” ends.

[–]Main-Tiger8593 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

i understand that but i know the whole process of this debate... your example of "can not survive without her" will be expanded to no baby or coma patient or extrem mental ill person can survive alone aswell... there are ways to reveal their hypocrisy but try to avoid the mock debates...

[–]ebony-mori 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

To be fair, someone that believes a child victim of rape should be forced to carry the resulting pregnancy, probably doesn’t care either way. 🤦🏻‍♀️

[–]WinterDotNet -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

No live has value. It's eminently replaceable and a thing is only precious when it is rare. We've got 8 billion human lives already in flight on this planet. Your entire existence, and every other living thing in existence, is based on live killing other life. You literally cannot continue to exist if you're not destroying life. The universe doesn't guarantee anything's existence. You're effectively arguing that the one who should decide what life gets protected and what does not is you and people who think like you. Ironic that the ones devoted to their god so often want to role play as a god.

[–]JewelFyrefox 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Then why is murder, or neglect or abuse that leads to death so hated if no one is valuable?

You're effectively arguing that the one who should decide what life gets protected and what does not is you and people who think like you.

I have never said that. Every life deserves to be protected, regardless of how many of that species exsist in the world. Every life has value. There isn't two of you in the world. Even identical twins have different finger prints.

Next time someone you know well dies, I want you to repeat what you said here to their family and friends. I dare you. And you shouldn't cry at funerals if someone you love dies because they have no value, there are hundreds of other people in the world that can replace them, according to you.

Prochoicers are the ones acting as if the one who should decide what life gets protected and what does not is them and them alone. It's ridiculous that prochoicers try to blame us for things they are doing.

[–]WinterDotNet 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Next time someone you know well dies, I want you to repeat what you said here to their family and friends. I dare you. And you shouldn't cry at funerals if someone you love dies because they have no value, there are hundreds of other people in the world that can replace them, according to you. I don't cry at funerals. Both my parents are dead. I didn't cry at their funerals. Just because we mourn the loss of people doesn't mean that they're inherently valuable. Do you cry when tens of thousands of people die every day of hunger, crime, famine, abuses, violence, war, disease...? No, because NONE of that life has any tangible value to you. It's jsut some empty platitude about how all life should be protected. You're applying your own personal emotions and values as if it applied to everyone.

Your relative/friend/whatever dying does absolutely nothing in the grand scale of civilization. None of us has any inherent value insomuch as their contribution to the species and society. Worst of all are the people who spread fascist beliefs that they get to tell other what to do with their bodies because THEY get their feelings hurt.

Every life deserves to be protected, regardless of how many of that species exsist in the world.

Then stop eating. You're either destroying life or you are dying. You can't say all life should be protected and eat. Tofu is soybeans which were alive. You say "all" life, but you don't actually mean all life so that entire argument is bullshit and we're back to YOU deciding for everyone what life should be protected and even what is independent life despite having no actual basis in that knowledge.

Prochoicers are the ones acting as if the one who should decide what life gets protected and what does not is them and them alone. It's ridiculous that prochoicers try to blame us for things they are doing. Prochoicers aren't forcing you to have abortions. They're just fighting for their own right for autonomy for their own bodies. If there weren't fascists like you trying to take away their rights, there wouldn't even BE a pro-choice movement because it wouldn't be needed. You cannot play the innocent blameless victim when you are literally the source of the ENTIRE problem.

[–]DoppelGangHer88 -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

A woman already has that right; whether or not abortion is legal. Women aren't forced to "mother" children, the argument is that they shouldn't be allowed to kill children.

If she becomes pregnant, she's already a mother; all the abortion does is transform her into a mother who's killed her child. Big distinction.

The choice of whether or not to become pregnant is before the sexual act, not after.

[–]Ilikepotatoes_876 -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It is voluntary. Don’t get knocked up if you can’t pay the price.

[–]WinterDotNet 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're right, getting pregnant is a crime that is punishable with 18 years of pain and obligation with no way to opt out.

[–]dumoktheartist -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Uhm, you wouldn’t want someone force you to conceive a child would you?

[–]QtPieGrahamsCrust -2 points-1 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Child support is for the CHILD, not the WOMEN. A child who didn't ask to be born.

[–]Rifter0876 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Please provide documentation to back this up. I've yet to see any where it states the money has to be spent on/for the child. Generally the mother can do whatever she wants with the money.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I would have to read up on my local laws, but it’s typically frowned upon in the court I go to, if the woman didn’t use money given to her on the child and went instead and bought another new phone when she already one, or bought herself the latest version of a console. And it’s CHILD SUPPORT for a reason honestly, to support the child’s care. Spending the money on yourself instead is not only selfish but literally defeats the intended purpose of the income. Pretty sure alimony is for her.. child support is literally for the child.

[–]WinterDotNet 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The principle behind them, you're correct on. The practice is that there's no obligation or enforcement on this and once the money is taken from the father there's no accountability on what it's used for.

[–]Rifter0876 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah exactly my point. Zero accountability.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

True

[–]LardBall13 -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Back when feminism was benevolent.

[–]reverbiscrap -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Posted this before I could.

[–]LackPsychological724 -3 points-2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

What is wrong with women having bodily autonomy?? Bodily autonomy is a human right. Women are more than their ovaries, breast and womb.

[–]WinterDotNet 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Agreed. Also, men are more than their wallets.

[–]Various-Lie-4045 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I love the smell of napalm in the turn of the century

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter