You know why people who are pro-life in America's attitude differ fundamentally from the attitude towards women in Saudi Arabia?
Because the attitude towards women in Saudi Arabia is "we need to put the whamen in their place and make them subservient," and the attitude of western pro-lifers is "Don't kill the baby."
Originally posted by Emperordmb
You know why people who are pro-life in America's attitude differ fundamentally from the attitude towards women in Saudi Arabia?Because the attitude towards women in Saudi Arabia is "we need to put the whamen in their place and make them subservient," and the attitude of western pro-lifers is "Don't kill the baby."
Yeah, women are not subservient in the US, they just have to fix their most important life choices to an insensible life form disregarding whether such organism is going to be valued by society at all. That's entirely different.
Originally posted by Bentley
Typical american strategy: let's minimize issues from other countries in order to talk internal politics by implying other places are sh_t countries.Surtur once again proves to be the most feminist poster in this forums
Just to be clear: it's not minimizing issues to imply Christians treat their women worse than Saudi Arabia treats its women...?
Cuz see, when someone does the "hold my beer" joke, it's taken to mean "What I'm about to do is gonna surpass what you did". In this case those saying it were the Christian conservatives, Christian conservatives do not surpass Saudi Arabia in their domination of women lol.
Oh and hell yeah I'm feminist as f*ck, it's why when I heard California was gonna set gender quotas for corporate boards I was like "what about the construction workers and garbage workers? Give them a piece of those sweet sweet mandatory quotas, the feminists wouldn't only want to work on corporate boards!". 🙂
Originally posted by Emperordmb
You know why people who are pro-life in America's attitude differ fundamentally from the attitude towards women in Saudi Arabia?Because the attitude towards women in Saudi Arabia is "we need to put the whamen in their place and make them subservient," and the attitude of western pro-lifers is "Don't kill the baby."
Well said and spot on. 👆
Originally posted by Surtur
Just to be clear: it's not minimizing issues to imply Christians treat their women worse than Saudi Arabia treats its women...?Cuz see, when someone does the "hold my beer" joke, it's taken to mean "What I'm about to do is gonna surpass what you did". In this case those saying it were the Christian conservatives, Christian conservatives do not surpass Saudi Arabia in their domination of women lol.
This is pretty much what I implied, so we are in agreement here.
Originally posted by Bentley
Yeah, women are not subservient in the US, they just have to fix their most important life choices to an insensible life form disregarding whether such organism is going to be valued by society at all. That's entirely different.
If anything men are subservient to women in the US under the current paradigm in this situation. The woman can just choose to end the life of a man's child, or keep it and demand money from him for child support.
Also over the past 21 years, my parents have had to fix most of their most important life choices to me... because that is what parents do and that is what is generally expected of them.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yes protecting a human organism from death is an entirely different reason from "wear this burka, otherwise you're a whore if you get raped" and "you can't drive because **** you." There's a reason why a large proportion of the country is pro-life, and why not even remotely that number of people are pushing for other measure's like ending women's suffrage, or not allowing women to drive, or wanting to make women sex slaves, or making it illegal for them to show their knees in public.
I did say it's entirely different awesr
Originally posted by Emperordmb
If anything men are subservient to women in the US under the current paradigm in this situation. The woman can just choose to end the life of a man's child, or keep it and demand money from him for child support.
There is a difficult balance to achieve because being servant to others is not exactly a linear process. Your example about the parents/child relationship is a good one: by not having to work for several years you reaped benefits off your parents efforts but you certainly did not had the same liberties and your responsabilities were different. Women used to have several big benefits when they were dedicated housewives that have been slowly disappearing for decades. Being able to leave a healthy, rich and protected life just by getting married was a big boon.
So I'd argue that even in past paradigms men were subservient to women.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Also over the past 21 years, my parents have had to fix most of their most important life choices to me... because that is what parents do and that is what is generally expected of them.
And you thanks them by coming to this sh_thole of a forum!
Originally posted by Bentley
Yeah, women are not subservient in the US, they just have to fix their most important life choices to an insensible life form disregarding whether such organism is going to be valued by society at all. That's entirely different.
By "insensible life form" do you mean "unborn human child"?
Humans are not animals regardless of what Bentley or any other abortion advocate may think. Humans are clearly seperate and far above any animal. I know that is one of the primary goals of brainwashing students with this evolutionary nonsense: to get them to believe they are merely animals and so they are justified in acting like animals and that abortion is no big deal because it is "just an animal" in the mother's womb but it is a lie. It is a human being from conception.
Ernst Haekel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" which was based on his fake drawings was proven to be a hoax way back in the late 1800's yet it is still in biology books today as so-called "proof" of evolution nonsense.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Only as much an animal as you or I. Does that mean we have equal value of life to that of a rat or mosquito?
I see where you are going: mass extinction of species is truly the biggest issue of our time.
In a more serious note, you are spot on in one the notion that we don't value all life equally. Death is a natural reality and we demonize it. Somehow we are convinced that killing someone is a bigger penalty that putting him in jail for two thirds of their lifespan. We are unable to see Death as a socially acceptable outcome which is problematic because dying is personal and social interest targets whole communities
Originally posted by Bentley
I see where you are going: mass extinction of species is truly the biggest issue of our time.In a more serious note, you are spot on in one the notion that we don't value all life equally. Death is a natural reality and we demonize it. Somehow we are convinced that killing someone is a bigger penalty that putting him in jail for two thirds of their lifespan. We are unable to see Death as a socially acceptable outcome which is problematic because dying is personal and social interest targets whole communities
That is a very strange reply to a very basic comment and question on your choice of words. None of what I said implied nor pointed to any of that.
Maybe address the comment/question directly and not leap light years ahead of the discussion?
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Humans are not animals regardless of what Bentley or any other abortion advocate may think. Humans are clearly seperate and far above any animal. I know that is one of the primary goals of brainwashing students with this evolutionary nonsense: to get them to believe they are merely animals and so they are justified in acting like animals and that abortion is no big deal because it is "just an animal" in the mother's womb but it is a lie. It is a human being from conception.Ernst Haekel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" which was based on his fake drawings was proven to be a hoax way back in the late 1800's yet it is still in biology books today as so-called "proof" of evolution nonsense.
The mental gymnastics we use to justify violence against animals are also used to marginalize humans.
I find it funny when christians think it's insulting to be an animal when our God in full dignity and might became a mammal for salvation
Originally posted by Bentley
The mental gymnastics we use to justify violence against animals are also used to marginalize humans.I find it funny when christians think it's insulting to be an animal when our God in full dignity and might became a mammal for salvation
Uh, God Himself said we are made in His image. God is not an animal and He took on the form of a human being because the first person, Adam, was a human being (created straight from the hand of God, Himself. Adam didn't "evolve" from lower life forms, God got it perfect the first time as an infallible God should). We may be classified as "mammals" according to our classification of living things but it's obvious God doesn't use the same classification system we do.
Any yes, it is insulting to call someone an animal unless of course they are actually acting like animals and thus deserve the label.