"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists

[Scottty]

Then we have differing opinions on bodily autonomy. Not prioritizing it is how you end up with government officials and doctors deciding to euthanize sick people and taking their organs. Because it WILL go that way. The very idea that people don't have control over their body will lead to dystopian shenanigans.

If someone is in a coma, does he have any more control over his body than does a newborn baby?

They are not attached to another being for existence, and I have already addressed that it can lead to some disturbing ideas like legalized infanticide if taken too far. But since nobody is taking it that far, and pro-choice activists are only concerned with ensuring that women don't get forced to bear the children of their rapists or mistakes, we can let that lie for now.

Later, of course, we can deal with it. But personally, I don't think a child is a person until the umbilical cord is cut anyway. Until then, I treat it as just another extension of its mother.

It's not. The baby is a distinct organism from the mother - different DNA - every cell is different from the mother's.

It's a bit creepy that here you are going beyond when the baby is just a ball of cells, beyond when it could survive if the mother died and the baby had to be surgically removed, beyond when the newborn child takes his or her first breath of the outside air... to a new arbitrary distinction.

Did you know that the umbilical cord is physiologically part of the baby, not the mother? It's a cable connecting the baby to the placenta - also made of the baby's cells. Where the placenta attaches to the inside of the womb is where the actual mother/baby interface is.
Did you know that?

And of course, all individuals have full autonomy over their own bodies and souls.

That's nice.
So you agree that I have the right to refuse to be vaxxed?
How about conscription?

Oh here's a good one: if a woman who is a Jehovah's Witness has the right to have her baby killed if she does not want it, does she have the right to refuse blood transfusions for her child, when the child is still too young to understand?

 

[SoliFortissimi]

If someone is in a coma, does he have any more control over his body than does a newborn baby?

Newborn baby? You mean a foetus?

How about conscription?

Conscription is a stupid mistake. Conscripts are bad soldiers. Besides, it's unnecessary except in cases where the nation's very existence is endangered.

 

[Aldarion]

Absolutely. Meanwhile, the other side wants to punish them for having sex.

Personally, I don't stand for punishing victimless crimes. If someone's body or property has been harmed? Sure, let the bullets fly. But we are not obligated to protect the feelings of a Bronze Age cult that thinks it has the right to tell us what to do or not to do.

Religion will be left alone as long as it leaves others alone. Otherwise, remember how low it has fallen and how much lower it can fall.

If you take action, you have to accept responsibility for it. Accept consequences.

You want sex? Fine. But accept that children are a possible consequence even with contraception. You absolutely don't want children? Don't have sex.

Also, saying that you "don't stand for punishing victimless crimes" while in the same breath advocating for murder of the most innocent human being possible is just... ugh.

Lmao, it isn't even capable of existing by itself. It's just another part of its mother's body.

No, it is not. To quote:

If a baby can be legally murdered because it cannot live on its own, then people in coma, or relying on dialysis and so on, also have no right to live.

And genetics don't lie. All other measures are entirely arbitrary, but genetics tell it as it is. Baby is not part of mother's body.

Nope. They derive everything from their mother. They have no individual existence, not even a mind.

So when do we start killing people in coma?

 

[SoliFortissimi]

If you take action, you have to accept responsibility for it. Accept consequences.

Sure, the abortion is the consequence. Those things aren't free, you know.

Baby is not part of mother's body.

It's literally attached to her.

So when do we start killing people in coma?

If you guys keep alienating 85% of the population with your Bronze Age dogmas? Probably by 2030, when Democrats have painted the country blue.

Remember, this is about more than your futile attempts to replace the Constitution with the Bible. This is about who controls Western Civilization.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

As I said, if something goes wrong with the pregnancy then the option to abort is there and will be used to save the mother’s life. Otherwise, tough shit. Taking the necessary precautions when bonking and not bonking so liberally would have prevented the whole mess in the first place.

 

[Aldarion]

Sure, the abortion is the consequence. Those things aren't free, you know.

No, it isn't. Abortion by choice is running away from consequence. Trying to solve a character flaw with money.

It's literally attached to her.

And?

If you guys keep alienating 85% of the population with your Bronze Age dogmas? Probably by 2030, when Democrats have painted the country blue.

Remember, this is about more than your futile attempts to replace the Constitution with the Bible. This is about who controls Western Civilization.

Firstly, you might stop trying to debate me until you either a) understand what my position actually is, b) decide to stop strawmanning, c) learn the math, or d) all of the previous. Because looking at the link, it turns out that between 40% and 50% of population agrees with my views.

Secondly, if 85% of population agrees with your position on abortion, then USA are fucked and there is no point trying to save anything, because death by nuclear fire may well be the best outcome possible. Recovering from nuclear armageddon may well be easier than recovering from leftist dominance.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Abortion by choice is running away from consequence

So the only consequences you accept is being saddled with unwanted children. You don't want responsibility, you just want everyone to only have sex for children.

Ever read 1984?

Secondly, if 85% of population agrees with your position on abortion, then USA are fucked and there is no point trying to save anything, because death by nuclear fire may well be the best outcome possible. Recovering from nuclear armageddon may well be easier than recovering from leftist dominance.

Ah, so you're that type. You'd rather the world end than someone disagree with your policy.

Then we can hardly find much common ground.

 

[Aldarion]

So the only consequences you accept is being saddled with unwanted children. You don't want responsibility, you just want everyone to only have sex for children.

Ever read 1984?

Purpose of sex is having children. If you don't want children and are just horny instead... well, there are solutions that are easy, practical and you can do them on your own.

And we should probably continue this discussion after you take time to look up definition of responsibility.

Ah, so you're that type. You'd rather the world end than someone disagree with your policy.

Then we can hardly find much common ground.

I don't want the world to end... be it by nuclear armageddon or by leftist policies.

But you clearly cannot see anything beyond individual hedonism and "me, myself and glorious my own self", so above is probably too difficult for you to understand.

 

[Scottty]

Newborn baby? You mean a foetus?

Ever tried to have a conversation with newborn?

And what's a "foetus" anyway? What stage of development do you have in mind there?

Conscription is a stupid mistake. Conscripts are bad soldiers. Besides, it's unnecessary except in cases where the nation's very existence is endangered.

All quite true, but also beside the point. The question was about conscription being a violation of the right to bodily autonomy.

 

[Scottty]

If 85% of the population are eagerly killing their children, then it's the 15% whose opinion really matters, because it will be their children who will be there in the future.
Just saying...

 

[SoliFortissimi]

If 85% of the population are eagerly killing their children, then it's the 15% whose opinion really matters, because it will be their children who will be there in the future.
Just saying...

Presuming, of course, that said 85% don't have children at all. Which is a really heavy presumption to have.

 

[mrttao]

If 85% of the population are eagerly killing their children, then it's the 15% whose opinion really matters, because it will be their children who will be there in the future.
Just saying...

unless those 85% just take the children of the 15%
which is what is happening

 

[Ixian]

But it is entirely dependent on the mother to survive, and she has a choice about whether it will or not. Full stop.

The mother is the only one relevant here, because she's the only one who has to bear the foetus.

A one month old baby is also entirely dependent on its mother, does she still magically have the right to kill it if she decides she doesn't want to take care of it?

The mother, barring criminal action, made the decision to take part in an act which comes with the well known consequence of having a child, she has a responsibility to take care of the child she created, she doesn't get to kill the child because she doesn't feel like doing her job.

Tell me, do you think a father has the right to abandon a child he doesn't want?

Also fyi, zero of the reason I'm against abortion has anything to do with religion, so don't hide behind anti-religious arguments.

 

[Cherico]

fair but the government is in charge of adoptions so the fact that it is inefficient and awful at actually matching up prospective families for the kids is just expected at this point.

I am unmoved by the argument that the mother being the incubator for the baby means she gets to choose whether or not to kill it. it makes no difference to me whether the kid is in the womb or outside of it. murder is bad. murdering your own kid because you want to go out and party or it would ruin your figure or you can't afford a kid but you can afford a bunch of other expensive material things like more than 90% of abortions are about is just awful and horrendous.

So leaving behind mortality one must look at society as a whole.

The pro choice movement thrived and made sense in an era of mass population booms. We are entering a global population contraction, even in the 3rd world this is the case. Right now the governments of the world have not caught up to this but this is going to hit them soon with all of the problems that brings.

When national survival is on the line things change rapidly.

Abortion after a certain period of time being out lawed is one of the responses I expect, another one is a bachalor tax on men the later wont work just like all of the other times its been tried the former might.

 

[DarthOne]

So leaving behind mortality one must look at society as a whole.

The pro choice movement thrived and made sense in an era of mass population booms. We are entering a global population contraction, even in the 3rd world this is the case. Right now the governments of the world have not caught up to this but this is going to hit them soon with all of the problems that brings.

When national survival is on the line things change rapidly.

Abortion after a certain period of time being out lawed is one of the responses I expect, another one is a bachalor tax on men the later wont work just like all of the other times its been tried the former might.

No, no. What you do is give tax breaks for people who have kids, not punish those who don’t. Also fix up the laws surrounding marriage and divorce.

…Which will probably have to be done at gun point. There’s little incentive to fix things when they can keep importing cheap labor from the third world and Make GDP Line Go Up with that.

 

[Cherico]

No, no. What you do is give tax breaks for people who have kids, not punish those who don’t. Also fix up the laws surrounding marriage and divorce.

…Which will probably have to be done at gun point. There’s little incentive to fix things when they can keep importing cheap labor from the third world and Make GDP Line Go Up with that.

We already do the tax breaks for people who have kids, and that isn't working. Your right that taxing people who don't wont work either the romans tried the same and it failed for them too. Cheap labor in the 3rd world?

The third world is having less children too so importing cheap labor will stop working as a tactic.

You are most likely correct that the marrage and divorce laws will be changed at gun point all of the peaceful means of changing them have been foiled and since this is vital for the survival of civilization and the state well sooner or later people with guns will go up and just make the problem 'vanish'.

 

[Wilykit]

It’s amusing in some respects. If you could keep modern medicine, life as medieval peasant wouldn’t be as unbearable as you might think.

Don't forget modern sewage systems.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

And how many orphans or other children are also waiting to be adopted?

This is why we need the government to get out of the way so that adoptions don't cost so much or take so long to happen.

And if it's a case of rape, then there should be no punishments for anyone but the rapist

You've answered your own question. If no one should be punished except the rapist should be punished, why kill the baby?

 

[ATP]

This is why we need the government to get out of the way so that adoptions don't cost so much or take so long to happen.

You've answered your own question. If no one should be punished except the rapist should be punished, why kill the baby?

Yep.All rapist should be able to song "Lamenti di castrati" after they get caught.

 

[mrttao]

You've answered your own question. If no one should be punished except the rapist should be punished, why kill the baby?

so if your wife/daughter gets raped, the govt should force you to raise the rape baby? you want to forcibly turn all men into cucks or something?

letting rapists reproduce is very dysgenic. especially if it was incest rape.
letting rapists reproduce rewards the rapist.
it also is almost guarenteed to cause a lot of serious problems for society because you are now forcing a rape baby on a bunch of a families who need to raise it.

sure, it can end up well. but the odds are it won't be.