SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
Please don't tell me you don't know what liberty means.
"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists
- Thread starter Jormungandr
- Start date
Blasterbot
Well-known member
Murder isn't liberty brah. I'm reasonably sure that not even the hardest of hardcore libertarian would argue the position that people should be free to murder each other.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Liberty does not make you free from natural consequences.
You have two lives, the baby, and the mother. One of the two people made a decision that resulted in the situation where the baby's life is dependent on the mother's, the other did not. That person is therefore responsible for the consequences of that decision, while the other is not.
The fact that she doesn't like those consequences does not remove them.
If I'm driving down a residential road and hit someone at 25 MPH resulting in moderate injuries, unless they literally jumped out in front of me, I'm going to be the one held responsible. The fact that I don't like those consequences doesn't change the fact that I'm the one who hit them, and I'm going to be expected to pay a fine, pay damages, and possibly serve jail time.
A woman choosing to have sex, she similarly has responsibilities for the results of having sex. It's going to cost her time, money, and some suffering, just like time in court will cost me time, money, and some suffering. There are inherent risks to every activity, and just because you don't like them, doesn't mean you get to ignore them.
A man choosing to have sex is also responsible for the child, he simply won't be incubating it within his body, because that's how biology works.
If a woman wants to make absolutely sure she won't have an unplanned pregnancy, she can have a surgery to that effect.
mrttao
Well-known member
This, btw, is something that is absolutely enshrined in western nations.
The govt will hunt down you down and force you to pay for that child.
To the point of even nabbing you if the child is not yours
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
I told you, the consequence is the monetary cost. Besides, I don't imagine that abortions are stress free operations.
I see no reason for why all of society should suffer for their mistake.
Ixian
Well-known member
Nothing about your stance is "logical", in fact it is highly irrational. The baby is dependent on the mother, because of her own damn choices.
It isn't the responsibility of the child to stop depending on the mother, it is the mothers legal responsibility to care for the child she created. It has absolutely nothing to do with "scripture".
You know what else isn't fair to the child? Killing it while it is at its most defenseless and vulnerable. Great deal for a lazy, deadbeat pos mother however.
You never did answer me, with your clearly laid out feelings on how the mother has no responsibility towards the child she created, up to the point that you support her right to kill said child, you still haven't said how you feel about father's abandoning their child.
The only logical position you can take is that you feel things like child support should be abolished right? After all, the kid should stop depending on their parents, right?
Thats just the cost the mother would pay in your "she should never have to deal with the real consequences of her actions" crazy world you live in.
The cost the child pays is obviously much higher, ya know, like it's life.
Last edited:
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
No, it is not. Monetary cost is literally a way to avoid true consequence.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
The "child" is a nonsapient clump of cells. Besides, bodily autonomy. You cannot be forced to save or preserve someone with your own body. That's why it's illegal to force someone to donate blood even to save a dying man.
That they should be punished for it. If the mother cannot abandon the child, neither can he.
It's not paying anything. It isn't even alive.
mrttao
Well-known member
at what age does it become sapient?
do you support post birth killing of children until they become fully sapient?
so which is it. nonsapient clump of cells, or "not even alive".
because those are very very different things
your definition is literally shifting within the same post.
Ixian
Well-known member
The "non sentient clump of cells" is a human being in the earliest stages of the human lifecycle.
It is a human life, that isn't debatable.
A child that you created isn't comparable to a stranger that you have no connection or responsibility towards. It was the personal choice of the mother and father to create the person, so they have a responsibility to care for the person.
Except you are advocating for the mothers right to abandon the child via death here, so I'm not certain your opinion is consistent, if a mother can kill a child she doesn't want, then certainly a father should be able to abandon a child he doesn't want? Or do you only think women should be allowed to do that?
The child is absolutely 100% alive from the second the egg is fertilized, thats basic biology.
Skitzyfrenic
Well-known member
You want another secular reason to be pro-life?
Fuck corporations. Do you want to know why all the big corps are pro-choice? Because that means your female workers only stop working for like a half day, instead of months. And they'll definitely come back.
Motherhood is bad for big business.
Fuck corporations. Do you want to know why all the big corps are pro-choice? Because that means your female workers only stop working for like a half day, instead of months. And they'll definitely come back.
Motherhood is bad for big business.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
Reddit is over there.
Because workers come from thin air, apparently.
It's more that while the child at that stage is just a clump of cells (IIRC, fertilized eggs are often randomly aborted by the mother's body without them ever knowing due to certain biological processes being triggered, without the traditional signs of a miscarriage, which occurs when development of the fetus hits a certain stage), the point is that, left unimpeded by biology or human intervention, they develop fully into a person.
While nature is cruel, it's nature; it's different from man-made interventions to abort a child, which is effectively killing a person/the person who is going to come about from those cells.
It's also why I can't stand the idea of having cats fixed when they're pregnant: They say kittens aren't viable until a day or so before giving birth, but left alone they become kittens, so fixing the mother is the same as murdering kittens in my eyes.
I've always made my own personal stance on abortion clear.
Five minutes of hate news
Eh, to me its just a video game creation of the old "Bard seducing the dragon" in DnD.
www.the-sietch.com
Fringe cases aside like kids being raped and impregnated, adult or late teenage women (with their partners) getting knocked up should agonize over this choice, not see it as a "whoopsie! I fucked Chad or Tyrone and got knocked up! Time for egg scrambler again!" which the pro-choice crowd celebrate.
Skitzyfrenic
Well-known member
That's fucking hilarious for the redditor tier 'conservative' to tell someone else to go to reddit.
Just gonna ignore all the fuckery that corporations get up to? It's like ignoring the fuckery the government gets up to.
Big Business are chock full of fuckery, like Big Tobacco legitimately engaged in a conspiracy to keep the link between smoking and cancer out of the public's eye.
Women on maternity leave need to have the gap they left in the staffing filled, there needs to be a position there when the woman comes back, and they might not come back. Yes, motherhood is bad from a staffing position in the short term. Which if you haven't noticed is something of another problem we've been having with corporations. Re: the shit quality of entertainment being pumped out by corporations for short term gains instead of actual quality productions for long term profits.
It's absolutely within their ability and they have the motivation to encourage abortions over maternity leave.
It's called 'importing a workers from foreign countries' and it's a big problem, right now. As far as the nation and corporations are concerned they basically do come from thin air.
Do you not see how these things are linked? Or can you simply not follow the trail from 'abortions' to 'birth rate' to 'immigration' with the context of corporations?
Abortions are encouraged because it means that corporations don't have to deal with a gap in their workforce for maternity leave, make sure a slot is open for when the new mother comes back, or deal with the new mother not coming back.
Abortions contribute to low birth rates, regardless of the reason they are performed. This means less workers and less consumers, which means less profits.
New workers and consumers are needed to compensate. Especially if they're from a culture of breeders.
So nations have been importing workers and consumers from high birth rate places. And for two or three generations, they'll breed big.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
If I wanted conspiracy theories about how corporations are responsible for everything bad in the world from (apparently) abortion rights to healthcare, I'd go to reddit.
Failing that, I'll just remind you that your position is the fringe, and 85% of the population is all for giving women bodily autonomy. The only quibbling in the real world is over what the deadline for abortion would be, not whether it should be allowed or not.
Failing that, I'll just remind you that your position is the fringe, and 85% of the population is all for giving women bodily autonomy. The only quibbling in the real world is over what the deadline for abortion would be, not whether it should be allowed or not.
They either support abortions or they discriminate and don't hire women who are capable of having kids (e.g. in their twenties and thirties and such) in the first place.
If it came down to two applicants, one a male and one a female, and even if the male is slightly less skilled, they'd take the male while giving some excuse to the woman.
From a logical standpoint, a cold one mind, it makes sense; you spend months, maybe years training a woman worker to do a role or job, and then she gets knocked up by her boyfriend or husband, and she's on maternity leave for over a year. Meanwhile, they have to scramble to find a replacement, temporary or not.
Why risk the headache and hire a woman in the first place?
More and more employers are openly stating they're quietly yet purposefully binning female applicants' CV's/resumes, not only because of possible pregnancies disrupting things but also because of the whole MeToo shit. Women are causing disharmony and disruption in the workplace, so they're subtly being shafted away from being hired.
Women have basically played themselves into not being desirable workers.
I'm calling bullshit on the 85% statistic: If it were that high, there wouldn't be such open and hostile debates about it.
I'm all for women having bodily autonomy, but even I can smell the bullshit in that post.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Concentration of power is responsible for all the evils in the world. Doesn't matter whether it is big government or big corporations, both are equally evil.
Well, concentration of power and modernity. So make that two things responsible for all the evils we face today.
And stop with that BS 85% statistics. I have already explained why it is bollocks.
Skitzyfrenic
Well-known member
Centralizing motherhood under the state, instead of leaving it to the family, certainly hasn't been going so well either.
Speaking of, apparently corporations also think so, considering their massive bloat with administrative/legal CYA workers whose actual output beyond checking the right boxes on statistical forms is negligible, if not negative when it comes to professional political troublemakers of "diversity manager" vein.
We need to spend money on a friendly robot race against our allies from East Asia, and less money on third world imported menials who create more costs and damages than their productivity can give in even optimistic predictions, and mostly female administrators who mostly work to justify the work of other administrators and political troublemakers.
Waste not, want not also applies to workforce.