Men have no rights when it comes to womens health concerning

[Anathema]

Morality has adapted to technology and circumstances for as long as there have been people. Birth control and technology changed the playing field. Why wouldn't morality change as well?

Technology is a test for Morality. Just because you can do or make something doesn’t mean you should do it or use it. Just that simple.

 

[Anathema]

So there's never, ever been a matriarchal society?

Relatively few, and not generalky the upper echelon of societies over time. There are a few exceptions, as with any data set but not many.

 

[Anathema]

The world would be a much better place is women ran it.

That’s a bit too far. Our conversations are over. You’re going on Ignore.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So there's never, ever been a matriarchal society?

Relatively few, and not generalky the upper echelon of societies over time. There are a few exceptions, as with any data set but not many.

Yes, there are a few exceptions. But that doesn't mean it's some kind of natural thing. It just means it happens quite a lot. And most male dominated societies are majorly fucked up, because men can't handle the power.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The world would be a much better place is women ran it.

That’s a bit too far. Our conversations are over. You’re going on Ignore.

That's fine. If you have a problem with this then who the fuck wants to talk to you anyway?

 

[Penelope]

abortions. No rights even if the male is married to the female and wants a baby. A women should make it known to men that she is not ready or doesn't' want kids before marriage and a women has a choice to change her mind anytime she wants.

but if the woman tells the man AFTER she told him she was ready to have a child....knowing the man wanted the child....

if after this she decides to have an abortion....

then she has no right anymore

the man has a voice in this....50% of a voice

period.

my personal opinion.

It up to you, but it would be a he said and she said, is he going to raise the child that she carried for say 40 wks? I guess you missed the part where I said the woman can change her mind. You are entitled to your opinion , just do not make it a law.

 

[Skylar]

Morality has adapted to technology and circumstances for as long as there have been people. Birth control and technology changed the playing field. Why wouldn't morality change as well?

Technology is a test for Morality. Just because you can do or make something doesn’t mean you should do it or use it. Just that simple.

Morality is determined by the people and circumstances. It is adapted to that society and the conditions under which they live. As technology changes those conditions, morality changes to match it. This is a pattern that humanity has followed for thousands of years.

If the patterns of the past are the authority you wish to cite in establishing morality, you can't rightly ignore the patterns in the establishment and adaptation of morality.

As morality has most definitely not been a constant or an absolute. But changed fairly fluidly depending on circumstances. With technology being one of the most driving catalysts for cbanges.

 

[Skylar]

So there's never, ever been a matriarchal society?

Relatively few, and not generalky the upper echelon of societies over time. There are a few exceptions, as with any data set but not many.

Yes, there are a few exceptions. But that doesn't mean it's some kind of natural thing. It just means it happens quite a lot. And most male dominated societies are majorly fucked up, because men can't handle the power.

Slavery happened a lot. And was abolished only a couple of hundred years ago. If patterns in history establish morality, than slavery would be moral.. Even time lines of the decline of slavery and the decline of absolute male domination are historically analogous (give or take half a century).

So using A's logic.....slavery would also have to be moral. Along with religious wars of conquest and some fairly belligerent forms of racism. As those also have long historical pedigrees.

 

[Anathema]

As morality has most definitely not been a constant or an absolute.

Yes it has. People’s willingness to follow it may have changed, but the Divine has not changed its definition of Morality.

 

[Anathema]

So using A's logic.....slavery would also have to be moral. Along with religious wars of conquest and some fairly belligerent forms of racism. As those also have long historical pedigrees.

All of which I DO believe are Moral and appropriate.

 

[Skylar]

As morality has most definitely not been a constant or an absolute.

Yes it has. People’s willingness to follow it may have changed, but the Divine has not changed its definition of Morality.

No, it hasn't. Historically, morality has been very, very different across cultures and within the same culture across any significant span of time. Feudal Japan was wildly different than say, Victorian England in terms of morality. And Feudal English morality is very different than modern English morality.

Its a historical fact that morality is variable to circumstances and peoples. So you're ignoring your own standard of history as your authority. Negating that same standard as the basis of a woman's 'proper place'.

Now you're appealing to a different authority. The 'Divine'. Which has enormous holes in it as well. As the 'Divine' is adapted to the circumstances and the people just like morality is. The conception of the Divine, the plurality of the Divine, the will of the Divine, the nature of the Divine.

All wildly fluid. Even your new appeal to authority demonstrates the same degree of variability as your last.

 

[Skylar]

So using A's logic.....slavery would also have to be moral. Along with religious wars of conquest and some fairly belligerent forms of racism. As those also have long historical pedigrees.

All of which I DO believe are Moral and appropriate.

Lets take slavery. What makes you think its moral and appropriate to own another person, and though violence compel them to act as you command? What is your moral justification for treating another human in that manner?

 

[Anathema]

Lets take slavery. What makes you think its moral and appropriate to own another person, and though violence compel them to act as you command? What is your moral justification for treating another human in that manner?

Two things....

1’ their inability to provide for or take care of themselves. Whether they’ve sold themselves into skavery because they can’t afford to provide for themselves or been forced into it, proving they can’t defend themselves, it’s proof they aren’t competent to be in charge of themselves. Therefore they don’t qualify as human beings.

2. My wealth/strength and capability to buy them, keep them, and find a fanfic use for their labor

 

[percysunshine]

abortions. No rights even if the male is married to the female and wants a baby. A women should make it known to men that she is not ready or doesn't' want kids before marriage and a women has a choice to change her mind anytime she wants.

How selfish.

Parents share children.

 

[Anathema]

[QUOTE="Skylar, post: 20785015, member: 49869"Now you're appealing to a different authority. The 'Divine'. Which has enormous holes in it as well. As the 'Divine' is adapted to the circumstances and the people just like morality is. The conception of the Divine, the plurality of the Divine, the will of the Divine, the nature of the Divine.[/QUOTE]

My view of Morality (I don’t get to define it) has always been based on the Morality I believe was instinctively implanted in our oldest ancestors by the Divine. I refer to it as Universal Morality and its why I don’t believe in organized religion, as that is a bastardization of Morality.

 

[Skylar]

Lets take slavery. What makes you think its moral and appropriate to own another person, and though violence compel them to act as you command? What is your moral justification for treating another human in that manner?

Two things....

1’ their inability to provide for or take care of themselves. Whether they’ve sold themselves into skavery because they can’t afford to provide for themselves or been forced into it, proving they can’t defend themselves, it’s proof they aren’t competent to be in charge of themselves. Therefore they don’t qualify as human beings

So if any point you over overpowered, for any reason.....you're not a human being?

You're equating weakness with not being a human being....then you cease to be a human being if you're old or sick?

What 'Divine' ever concluded this to be true?

 

[Skylar]

My view of Morality (I don’t get to define it) has always been based on the Morality I believe was instinctively implanted in our oldest ancestors by the Divine. I refer to it as Universal Morality and its why I don’t believe in organized religion, as that is a bastardization of Morality.

The problem with your reasoning is that your assessment of 'Universal' has to pass through you. You are the genesis of this moral system. That you appeal to an authority (The Divine) and attribute the implantation of that code to your authority doesn't factually establish anything you believe.

Belief and invention are not objective. But subjective.

This is just as true of you as it would be say, a Muslim that believes that his God demands that he blow himself up and kill other people. That belief may be deeply held. But it isn't objective.

Any moral code with the title 'Universal' would need to be objective. And yours is entirely subjective.

 

[Anathema]

So if any point you over overpowered, for any reason.....you're not a human being?

You're equating weakness with not being a human being....then you cease to be a human being if you're old or sick?

What 'Divine' ever concluded this to be true?

If you cannot defend and provide for yourself, or have family friends who will do those things for you; you have lost your worth/value as a human being.

Someone once asked me what would happen if I were to ever become unable to support myself. My response - 1 bullet to the head

 

[Skylar]

So if any point you over overpowered, for any reason.....you're not a human being?

You're equating weakness with not being a human being....then you cease to be a human being if you're old or sick?

What 'Divine' ever concluded this to be true?

If you cannot defend and provide for yourself, or have family friends who will do those things for you; you have lost your worth/value as a human being.

Then you lose your value as a human being every time you get sick? Your value as a human being diminishes as you age? Or will you use technology like say, a knife or a gun to increase your capacity to defend yourself.....and in turn, increase your value as a human being?

And, if technology can increase your value as a human being, why couldn't it also elevate women in the exact same way? After all, you vs a woman with a gun has a clear victor in terms of your 'universal morality'.

Not you.

If she has technology to gain power over you, per your own reasoning you cease to be a human. And thus deserve whatever she does to you.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

No I'm not going to "fug off" and I get sick of males telling women what they can and can't do

LOL Women tell men what to do all the time

Smile...

Nod...

Yes dear, is the response...

Walk away....

Turn the corner...

Laugh quietly...

They have been "trying" to tell us what to do...

The Mrs. has found that it hasn't worked for years.

She has learned to suggest and then compromise.