The threads seem to have gotten switched somehow!

I was noticing the same thing. Oh well. All I care about is that we keep the abortion topic in one place and the Godwin topic in the other. It's just easier to follow that way.

We've had feminists and "(pro-women) activists" post on our forums before. They ran off because they couldn't substantiate their claims/arguments with any substance and most of their claims/arguments required some sort of "leap of faith". What's weird is that they had one idle mod (Ivar T) take sides and also state (without any evidence to support his claim) that what they spout about women and IT is true.

I have never taken things on "blind faith", and I never will. Too much destructive BS in the 20th century was peddled around on "blind faith". And yes, some of that includes the "supremacist" beliefs of national-socialism. Other portions include "faith-healing" and 1950s/60s fascination with martians, UFOs, the like. It's happening again with most Abrahamic religions around the globe.

edit;Lots of political movements are figuring out the hard way to either "moderate" their approach or be forced out of existence from lack of interest during the 21st century.

Well, I would want to hear the side of the feminists before commenting.  As to whether or not they were "run off," perhaps it is more likely that they got bored and left.  

Meanwhile, the grizzlies sing invitingly.

You don't know MDSheppard or Whiterabbit very well then. They posted sometime last year, and they exhibited "feminist rage" quite emphatically. MDSheppard got told off by myself and other long-time AFFers. (One of whom was cy )


They don't post that often, now. Most of the ND posters who come to AFF but fail to "agree to disagree" or lack some other basic ability to compromise in social situations no longer post (regularly) on AFF.

(MDSheppard's views was pretty whack, even by 3rd Wave Feminism's standards. As in "Centuries of Womyn" whack. I'll see if I can find the thread by whiterabbit.)

Here it is; "Female geek rant"

lulz aplenty.

Well, in any case, I don't want the grizzlies to leave me behind so I'll scamper off the thread.

Do visit my thread on eugenics and please, if you feel strongly on the OP, please post support on the thread.

Ciao.

Just a tip: When you split a topic, it really helps if each of the newly split elements has a suitable title.

If both elements end up with the same title.... confusion is inevitable.

She put it there.

It's really hard to notice a [split] in the thread title...

You can't assume that.  And it's not up to you whether she keeps it there either.

No, my argument is not about abortion rights, merely about scientific facts. A foetus implants in the uterine lining on account of the biological funtions of the mother. It's not a free-will decision, but it is undeniably put there by the mother.
In any case, I doubt you'd be allowed to evict a squatter if doing so would inevitably lead to his death. He'd also have legal rights to allow him to find alternative accommodation. And, to go back to the argument that got these threads started, you certainly wouldn't be allowed to wait until his nine month tenancy had expired and then kill him once he got outside.

Then who cares?

That's a very strange perspective.  Yes, it is the functions of the woman's body that--IN PART--allow it to exist, but it's a big stretch to say it's "undeniable" that she put it there.  There is another element required, you know.  

Sorry, I feel that this section needs explanation.  Now let's say that I believe the first sentence you wrote in that post.  That your statements have nothing to do with abortion rights.  Then I must conclude that you are sexually naive beyond mere lack of experience.  Look up fertilization.  You'll find that more than an egg is necessary.  

If you think you can build an artificial womb and get all potentially aborted fetuses remanded to it, then I honestly wish you luck.  Such a system would probably increase reproductive liberty by a great deal.  But that's really beside the point.  A fetus is not a separate living organism until it is living separately.  Up till then it IS just a body part, and nothing more.  Or perhaps you would prefer the term parasitical organism, since a fetus meets that "scientifically factual definition" to a t.  Whatever emotions you may have about it, there is no compelling reason to make it legally distinct from the mother.  

Also: you have some adorably naive beliefs about how society treats the soon-to-be-homeless!  Of course you'd be allowed to evict them.  Why should a fetus get any more consideration?

My entire point the whole time was that infanticide and abortion are morally distinct.  I've been arguing against the philosophers in the OOP.  Hell, this post is itself an argument that born persons should be given full legal rights, and greater consideration than the unborn.

This post was last modified: 03-07-2012 12:26 PM by Lang.

Luke Mauser is... Luke Mauser. I believe, matter-of-factly, that Skyblue commented he acts 'oppositional over inanely trivial things' from time to time. Best to ignore him until he gets over it.

(I had to, at least)

Regardless, "she put it there" is one of the most common misogynistic troll tactics of the anti-abortion crowd.  'Course, they usually don't claim not to be anti-abortion, so that comment was difficult to respond to.  Apparently.  

I mean really.  Chaining a woman to a fetus, but not a man, is rather silly.  And good luck chaining men to fetuses.  If you think that it's possible to chain the male gender to the products of semen, then at the risk of sounding anti-woman myself, you've never met an honest-to-goodness ***!  (keep in mind, men are encouraged to be sluts, but women are advised against it.  Double standard!  And this is definitely the silliest aspect of western gender roles).  SO if you know many men, you've probably met at least a few sluts.  But it's only the females who are expected to be chained to the fetus.  You may comment that, well, we should make men be fathers! but you'll never do it, so our only choice is to unchain women.