Thanks for posting this discussion. Given that men have never had reproductive rights, it's peculiar that feminism has been so successful in advancing the notion that abortion should be viewed as a fundamental human right for women, without which gender equality is impossible. It seems hypocritical, to say the least, that feminism would be allowed to assert a "my body, my choice" rhetoric with respect to abortion when it raises no objection to the genital mutilation of male babies whose bodies are truly being violated without their consent. This barbaric practice continues to thrive although an analogous cutting of a female baby's genitalia is prohibited by law throughout the industrialized world as well as in most developing countries.
2 ปีที่แล้ว +1
In Sweden, experts speak out about circumcision, namely RFSU. But there is a huge difference in law when it comes to FGM and circumcision. I use circumcision instead of MGM so it's understood. But I do consider circumcision/MGM equally violating as FGM, just with slight differences.
I used to be unsure about the abortion issue until I came across the phrase 'post-birth abortion' in UN circles promoting the concept. That led me discover the eugenics background to most abortion proposers and to realise that abortion (other than to save life) has to be stopped for society's good. There used to be a saying "safe as a mother's womb". Statistically, the most dangerous place for a child is now in its mother's womb.
Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without doubt a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it being underdeveloped, insentient, and/or unconscious. Any person with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is STILL not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary stages of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve year old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the stage of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe - it is FULLY human. The aforementioned preliminary stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that - merely stages of the human life-cycle, and although the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five year-old child, that is insufficient justification in itself for destroying its life. Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious, sentient person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring! See Chapter 12 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) to learn the distinction between legitimate abortion and illegal abortion, and to understand metaethics/morality in general. Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if it was morally-permissible, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe! It would be far preferable for me to encourage my daughter, wife or mother to give birth to the child and then relinquish it to an adoptive family.
my understanding is that the fertilized ovum is stripped of a protective coating and this forces the egg to stick and be denied issue thru the usual mense. It is in effect a kidnapping.
We men need to have an option in all this too: the right to a "financial abortion." If the dad-to-be wants her to abort, but she wants to keep their baby, fine. But he pays her enough to abort, plus a few more bucks for her "incidentals," and then he's done: he no longer has any rights nor any responsibilities re that baby. If she keeps it, fine; if not, fine; but he's off the hook forever.
Thanks, but as a pro-lifer I couldn't support any proposal which would increase the number of abortions, such as yours. The question nobody seems to be asking is, "Why are there so many unplanned pregnancies - almost 50% of them in the UK - in an era of near-infallible contraception?" In our manifesto we make proposals to reduce the number of abortions.
@@justiceformenboys With all due respect, C & F Party, you misread "my" proposal. (Chris Rock actually was the first stand-up comedian, back in ~2014, to propose it.) The idea of a "financial abortion" is where the mom HAS THE KID. THE CHILD IS BORN, BUT THE SPERM DONOR PAYS $ UP FRONT, THEN IS LEGALLY GONE. This is in response to dad wanting a child, but mom wanting to abort.......... and she gets to abort.
The MRM has put the nail in it's own coffin, by getting up on the pro-life kick, despite the fact that over 70% of all Americans and Britons are pro-choice. Generically Red Pill folks are suffering from the sort of intellectual misfires one finds among The Woke Left.... Both run on insane platforms(Anti-Abortion in the case of The MRM, Defunding The Police in the case of The Woke Left), then feign surprise when the public for the most part doesn't support them
@@justiceformenboys Neither sperm nor cells should have rights and therefore I believe that we must agree a deadline. Having studied the matter in some depth and therefore understanding the daily, weekly and monthly development within the womb and having had three children of my own I would say that 2 months should be the deadline after which sperm and cell are declared to be a baby and human rights apply. This should give enough time for rape victims to avoid becoming victims for life and for accidents to be mitigated. Having said that, I do have some sympathy for TAR ICO's position and believe that where a man has been absolutely clear that he has no intention to have a child he should not then be allowed to be victimised, or duped by women and then be made a life long wage slave. This is an issue of prior consent.
Thanks for posting this discussion. Given that men have never had reproductive rights, it's peculiar that feminism has been so successful in advancing the notion that abortion should be viewed as a fundamental human right for women, without which gender equality is impossible. It seems hypocritical, to say the least, that feminism would be allowed to assert a "my body, my choice" rhetoric with respect to abortion when it raises no objection to the genital mutilation of male babies whose bodies are truly being violated without their consent. This barbaric practice continues to thrive although an analogous cutting of a female baby's genitalia is prohibited by law throughout the industrialized world as well as in most developing countries.
In Sweden, experts speak out about circumcision, namely RFSU. But there is a huge difference in law when it comes to FGM and circumcision. I use circumcision instead of MGM so it's understood. But I do consider circumcision/MGM equally violating as FGM, just with slight differences.
I used to be unsure about the abortion issue until I came across the phrase 'post-birth abortion' in UN circles promoting the concept. That led me discover the eugenics background to most abortion proposers and to realise that abortion (other than to save life) has to be stopped for society's good.
There used to be a saying "safe as a mother's womb". Statistically, the most dangerous place for a child is now in its mother's womb.
Tom Golden’s golden laugh melts my heart every time. Great podcast.
Narcissist personality disorder for women has finally been added to the dsm.
You know we live in a world of toxic karens..
Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without doubt a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it being underdeveloped, insentient, and/or unconscious.
Any person with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is STILL not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary stages of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve year old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the stage of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe - it is FULLY human. The aforementioned preliminary stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that - merely stages of the human life-cycle, and although the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five year-old child, that is insufficient justification in itself for destroying its life.
Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious, sentient person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring!
See Chapter 12 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) to learn the distinction between legitimate abortion and illegal abortion, and to understand metaethics/morality in general.
Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if it was morally-permissible, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe! It would be far preferable for me to encourage my daughter, wife or mother to give birth to the child and then relinquish it to an adoptive family.
I wonder what Don would think of my Y chromosome copyright registry idea?
my understanding is that the fertilized ovum is stripped of a protective coating and this forces the egg to stick and be denied issue thru the usual mense. It is in effect a kidnapping.
We men need to have an option in all this too: the right to a "financial abortion." If the dad-to-be wants her to abort, but she wants to keep their baby, fine. But he pays her enough to abort, plus a few more bucks for her "incidentals," and then he's done: he no longer has any rights nor any responsibilities re that baby. If she keeps it, fine; if not, fine; but he's off the hook forever.
Thanks, but as a pro-lifer I couldn't support any proposal which would increase the number of abortions, such as yours. The question nobody seems to be asking is, "Why are there so many unplanned pregnancies - almost 50% of them in the UK - in an era of near-infallible contraception?" In our manifesto we make proposals to reduce the number of abortions.
@@justiceformenboys With all due respect, C & F Party, you misread "my" proposal. (Chris Rock actually was the first stand-up comedian, back in ~2014, to propose it.) The idea of a "financial abortion" is where the mom HAS THE KID. THE CHILD IS BORN, BUT THE SPERM DONOR PAYS $ UP FRONT, THEN IS LEGALLY GONE. This is in response to dad wanting a child, but mom wanting to abort.......... and she gets to abort.
The MRM has put the nail in it's own coffin, by getting up on the pro-life kick, despite the fact that over 70% of all Americans and Britons are pro-choice. Generically Red Pill folks are suffering from the sort of intellectual misfires one finds among The Woke Left.... Both run on insane platforms(Anti-Abortion in the case of The MRM, Defunding The Police in the case of The Woke Left), then feign surprise when the public for the most part doesn't support them
@@justiceformenboys Neither sperm nor cells should have rights and therefore I believe that we must agree a deadline. Having studied the matter in some depth and therefore understanding the daily, weekly and monthly development within the womb and having had three children of my own I would say that 2 months should be the deadline after which sperm and cell are declared to be a baby and human rights apply. This should give enough time for rape victims to avoid becoming victims for life and for accidents to be mitigated.
Having said that, I do have some sympathy for TAR ICO's position and believe that where a man has been absolutely clear that he has no intention to have a child he should not then be allowed to be victimised, or duped by women and then be made a life long wage slave. This is an issue of prior consent.
@@justiceformenboys
Are you pro-life for biblical reasons or for secular reasons?