advertisement


Roe vs Wade overturned

As do I. It’s not my fault if you haven’t understood it. And you know what, if it’s ad hom to call somebody out as a stupid, bigoted ****wit, then **** it, im going to do it, AUP or not. Because this planet is in the ****ed up state it is because stupid bigoted people do things because they are too stupid or just too ****ing lazy to think about them before they do them. They go with their gut, or they do whatever the DM or the Express tells them they should think, or do. And we’re all ****ed up as a result. I’m tired of being expected to be polite and respectful towards people who won’t give some thought towards their opinions, who aren’t amenable to having their mind changed by a persuasive argument, or a valid alternative viewpoint. So **** it. And if I get a ban, then so be it, but I’m tired of it all, and I’ll ****ing tell it how I ****ing see it.

Agreed, but please don't let one anonymous inconsequential fool ruin your mood. He's just not worth the bother.
 
I wholeheartedly agree & in many cases much worse psychologically than giving up a child for adoption.

"Giving up a child for adoption"? Have you ever done this? "Giving up a child". Can you imagine the emotional and physical trauma of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to full term, giving birth under joyless circumstances and then having to hand over your own flesh and blood, your own child, to persons and destinations unknown?
I worked for a time in children's services in a "leafy suburb" local authority area. The proportion of children in care, in children's homes, who were there because of "adoption breakdown" (parents no longer coping when a troubled, adopted child reaches teenage years) was staggering and heartbreaking.

I'm sorry to say, I think your comments are foolish and wilfully ignorant. I won't be engaging with you any further on this topic.
 
Have you read my earlier posts, it seems not. I do wish people would at the very least get the facts correct before throwing accusations such as this. I did not say it should be law to force women & minors who have been the victim of rape & abuse to give birth, i said there are many who do through their own choice for whatever reason. For clarity, as stated many times here, exceptions are clear, the risk to life, rape & abuse.

It's quite low & no way to debate this subject IMO.
Should have been clearer. I'm not thinking of rape and abuse victims specifically.

If I understand you correctly you would compel pregnant women to carry their unwanted baby to term and then give them up for adoption.

I maintain that that is a monstrous suggestion that commodifies both women and babies.

@wulbert has already made several fine posts that capture my objections to your moral absolutism so I'll just leave it there.
 
I don't feel it a choice to end the life of an unborn child. Many women who have been the victim of abuse or rape give up their children for adoption, many minors who have suffered the same give up their children for adoption & there are many women who cannot conceive, desperate to adopt. Choice should be to rear the child or allow others to if you can't. The choice should not be to abort IMO.

Have you ANY idea what it is like to have been adopted?
Answer has to be no.

Do you have loving caring biological parents still alive?

I wholeheartedly agree & in many cases much worse psychologically than giving up a child for adoption.

Nonsense!
 
"Giving up a child for adoption"? Have you ever done this? "Giving up a child". Can you imagine the emotional and physical trauma of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to full term, giving birth under joyless circumstances and then having to hand over your own flesh and blood, your own child, to persons and destinations unknown?
I worked for a time in children's services in a "leafy suburb" local authority area. The proportion of children in care, in children's homes, who were there because of "adoption breakdown" (parents no longer coping when a troubled, adopted child reaches teenage years) was staggering and heartbreaking.

Don't you know it.

I could write a book about the ordeals at the mercy of christians and their co-conspirators, the freemasons.

Despicable bunch.

Hands up any other Adoptees here on pfm?
 
Firmly add Kendrick Lamar to the artists speaking out against the Supreme Court and for women’s rights. An astonishingly powerful end to his set where he basically threw the killing of Christ by oppressive state power at the subject and threw it with some real force. A jaw dropping statement that he had spent the whole set building up to.

PS Footage of the last minute or so here, but better to catch the whole set on iPlayer (Twitter).
 
On the radio today there was an interview with an OB/GYN doctor from Texas who performs abortions. When Texas passed the 6-mo rule earlier this year, she moved her practice to Oklahoma. The most disturbing part of her interview was when she stated that, on average, the women she's seeing now are much farther along in their pregnancies because of the difficulties in finding a clinic.

https://www.ualrpublicradio.org/202...lects-how-the-end-of-roe-will-affect-her-work

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/26/1107...lects-how-the-end-of-roe-will-affect-her-work
 
“Elections have consequences. It’s the political way for winners to tell losers: 'Tough luck, you lost. Get over it.' ”

Stings a bit now.


Problem is the consequences last for years, even after a change of the party in power. And the party out of power continues to obstruct anything resembling progress.
 
No, I'm saying that at 9 years old there were a lot of things I didn't know. I don't expect a 9 year old to have yet been educated in sex. Do you?
So you are happy for 9 year olds to be "educated" badly by friends and gossip, but don't think they should receive sensible and beneficial education?
 
Don't you know it.

I could write a book about the ordeals at the mercy of christians and their co-conspirators, the freemasons.

Despicable bunch.

Hands up any other Adoptees here on pfm?
What the hell have Freemasons got to do with anything here, or anyone's "ordeals"? I'm happy to discuss freemasonry with you if you'd like to PM me.
 
Maybe there's good freemasons and bad freemasons. The only ones I've met seemed pleasant enough; they even gave me a free biro when I went on a guided tour of their Lodge on Park Street (though I kept thinking of Mark E Smith shouting out 'At the Lodge! At the Lodge!' on 'Feeling Numb'). They even asked me to join them, but I told them, politely but firmly, that as a Roman Catholic I was forbidden to do so, on pain of eternal Hell fire.
 
Society should remember that sex is a method of procreation, the natural result of intercourse is pregnancy.
The idea that sex is for procreation is one of the least examined ideas in this thread. Coincidentally, it is an idea that the religions often preach. My view is that procreation is only one component of intercourse, and it is downstream of two other components. The natural result of sex is actually: enjoyment and intimacy. Only sometimes does it result in pregnancy.

Let's look at the evidence shall we? Firstly, the fertility window in humans is at most around 6 days, but in the view of some experts it is much narrower, basically the day of ovulation - day 10-14 of the menstrual cycle. Which means that sex as a means of procreation has similar starting odds to Russian roulette, where five of six chambers are empty. And that's before you factor in the likelihood of successful germination of the egg (insert Russian roulette puns about 'firing blanks' ;)). If sex were solely or mainly about procreation, we would have evolved differently - to be more fertile.

So, the question is - what else is going on? What happens, biologically, when we have sex? The main answer is: good sex produces endorphins such as dopamine and oxytocin ('the love hormone'). So sex is partly, and I'd argue primarily, about social bonding, or less pompously, love.

Now, arguably, the first two components of sex (enjoyment and intimacy) increase the chance of a loving relationships that are able to provide long-term care for offspring, so you could say that they are related to the idea of sex being primarily about reproduction. I'd disagree as post-menopausal sex, etc doesn't align with this interpretation. But even if you insist on the primacy of reproduction, what I find hard to accept is the argument that, when sex has not succeeded in bonding a couple via enjoyment and intimacy, that the female (and the female alone) should bear the consequences of the less common result of sex: pregnancy.

When our biology has the aim of equipping a child with optimal circumstances for its upbringing, why would we want to force children into the world in sub-optimal circumstances? Shouldn't we trust that the mother has her and her potential offspring's best interests at heart?
 
Last edited:
How many have conceded a point to anyone about anything, if it comes to that?

I don't think it's about changing minds; most people have fixed opinions about most things, and are only really open to persuasion and having their minds changed about things where they don't feel particularly strongly in the first place. It's more about putting the opposite point of view, with arguments based on logic rather than 'gut feelings' or dogma.
I'm pretty sure I've had my opinion changed on things by arguments on here. Sometimes you hear a POV that you hadn't thought of, or have the consequences of a line of thought laid out in a way that gives a new perspective. It happens, but not perhaps as often as might be ideal. But yes, I agree, if somebody gives a view that I disagree with, why wouldn't I express my disagreement, on a discussion forum? And sometimes, with a bit of luck, I might change a mind along the way.
 
The idea that sex is for procreation is one of the least examined ideas in this thread. Coincidentally, it is an idea that the religions often preach. My view is that procreation is only one component of intercourse, and it is downstream of two other components. The natural result of sex is actually: enjoyment and intimacy. Only sometimes does it result in pregnancy.

Let's look at the evidence shall we?
There's something else, too. I'm not aware of much evidence that animals have sex for fun - all those Attenborough series fail to depict a whole lot of enjoyment and intimacy, despite miles of footage of copulation. So how come we humans get such a kick out of it? Presumably, those who argue from a religious perspective would assert that this is God's gift and proves, yet again, that They have put us in a special category among the beasts of the Earth. So if it is God's gift, then isn't treating it as only for procreation an affront to the giver?
 


advertisement


Back
Top