Should the West repeal womens' suffrage ?

[Maxcady10001]

You didn't at all acknowledge your mistake in mentioning Plato.

[Steve3007]

You see Littlemoon? Off we go on a fun-filled ride with all sides having lots of fun.

[Dachshund]

I don't think this "theme" if we can call it that, deserves any discussion.

Over the last few years, for most of the time, there's usually been at least one person like this on the site. Enegue, Grunth etc. Don't you think it adds spice? The thesis in the OP may be self-evidently ridiculous, but it may stimulate moderately interesting side discussions, don't you think?

I take it you think that the feminist-generated abortion industry in the US is just a trivial, amusing side issue/" side-show" as well? Right? And, you find the fact that since feminist political agitation prompted an already left -leaning Supreme Court judiciary to decriminalised womens' access to medical abortion in the first trimester in 1973 ( cf: Roe Vs Wade) over 60, 000,000 abortions have been completed in the United States is a matter of fact that is in your opinion merely"moderately amusing"? More particularly, I presume that you think that the industrial -scale use of medical abortion ( i.e. the murdering of a potential human beings via a technically efficient, scientific, medical procedure/s) TODAY by untold thousands of women in the US/UK as a form of birth control[/i is an issue that is only worth reflecting upon for the fact it may possibly have some value as light entertainment.

Pardon me if I I don't find it all "jolly japes" because I think the widespread use of abortion as a convenient mode of birth control in the West it is utterly immoral, i.e. WRONG and WICKED, and those responsible for this tragic state of affairs are primarily feminist ideologues who are convinced that the postmodern doctrine of moral relativism is water-tight , and that it gives them ( like James Bond) a special licence to kill (murder).

Do you happen, Steve, to have any firm views on how 50 years of feminism may have a bearing of any type upon these kind of serious (IM humble O) issues or are you one of those congenitally low- testosterone, pussed - whipped, Anglobitch- dominated ,beta males, who daren't voice an opinion on the matter at allor fear that it may breach PC protocol in polite, respectable ( and progressive) English middle class society ?

I wonder...

[Maxcady10001]

You still haven't addressed your mistake in mentioning Plato.

[Steve3007]

Abortion, eh? Interesting issue. Discussed around here many times before. Relates, of course, to the question of how we define human life. Should a newly fertilized embryo be afforded the same rights as a soon-to-be-born 9 month old baby? If not, at what point do we decide to afford rights to the unborn child? 1 week? 12 weeks? 3 months? Is every sperm sacred? That kind of thing. Interesting stuff.

What's your view John?

And do you think these things should be discussed in this place with the utmost gravitas? No place for levity?

[Steve3007]

You should probably talk to Maxcady10001 about Plato too. It seems to be a pressing issue.

[Dachshund]

You didn't at all acknowledge your mistake in mentioning Plato.

Plato's "community of wives and property" clearly demonstrates his contempt for women.

[Maxcady10001]

You're completely disregarding the direct quote I provided, that advocates for equal rights, and you're using the topic of discussion out of its context to imply misogynistic meaning. Socrates intended to pair men and women of a similar nature, there were not to be any free choices regarding sexual partners in order to ensure this.

Also, how do you reconcile the inequality of Nietzsche with what seems to be religious thought, your views on abortion are very different from what Nietzche thought. He did not believe all people had the right to procreate, so he would view most abortions, as appropriate.

[Dachshund]

Abortion, eh? Interesting issue. Discussed around here many times before. Relates, of course, to the question of how we define human life. Should a newly fertilized embryo be afforded the same rights as a soon-to-be-born 9 month old baby? If not, at what point do we decide to afford rights to the unborn child? 1 week? 12 weeks? 3 months? Is every sperm sacred? That kind of thing. Interesting stuff.

What's your view John?

And do you think these things should be discussed in this place with the utmost gravitas? No place for levity?

When some ugly, 20-something, grossly over-weight, tattoo-festooned, multi-colour haired, loud-mouthed "radical feminist" bitch thinks that it OK not to worry about not having used any form of contraception while she's being banged stupid by some bad- boys at a weekend pool party in the suburbs because : " I can always have a quickie ,"welfare state" ( male wage -slave) funded abortion if I need to". I tend to lose my sense of humour. I don't think what we are talking about is funny in any way at all; quite the opposite. It is literally a deadly - serious business we are discussing.

[Steve3007]

So what's your view, John? Should all abortions be illegal? Illegal up to a certain number of weeks of gestation? 12 weeks maybe?

Personally, I think the abortion debate is one of the most intractable because the question of when a fertilized embryo becomes a human being is so subjective. My gut feeling is that abortion after about 12 weeks gestation should not be permitted. But I have to admit that is an entirely personal feeling with very little basis in anything that could be called rational argument.

[Dachshund]

You're completely disregarding the direct quote I provided, that advocates for equal rights, and you're using the topic of discussion out of its context to imply misogynistic meaning. Socrates intended to pair men and women of a similar nature, there were not to be any free choices regarding sexual partners in order to ensure this.

Also, how do you reconcile the inequality of Nietzsche with what seems to be religious thought, your views on abortion are very different from what Nietzche thought. He did not believe all people had the right to procreate, so he would view most abortions, as appropriate.

Abortion, and in particular the political/legal notion of abortion "on demand" was not an existing social issue/reality for Nietzsche in his 19th century west European middle class circumstance. Given this I am not prepared to speculate or discuss what Neitzsche's attitude to the abortion industry in the contemporary West today may or may not have been.

What I can tell you for certain is that Nietzsche had a very low opinion of women in general. He repeatedly warns that they are not to be trusted and like children must be kept firmly in line by male supervisors to prevent them from getting themselves or others into trouble. Nietzsche would have argued that women because they cunning, duplicitous, innatrely irrational, fickle, treacherous and intrinsically unpredictable ought never be entrusted with something like independent suffrage nor indeed any other serious matter that had the potential to generate widespread, non-trivial political, social, cultural or moral ramifications.

As for Socrates, notice how he deals with Xiantippe when she visits him in his prison cell shortly before his execution. This can be viewed as disclosing his true attitude towards her and women generally ( in the sense that the female temperament and mentality is flawed in being characteristically illogical and ever prone to irrational displays of intense emotional and emotional lability and performances dramatic and often disingenuous histrionic behaviours) as it arguably embodies the same kind of profound and sincere honesty as does a "death-bed" confession.

When Xiantippe starts shreiking and screaming, beating herself with her fists an carrying on , in general, like a giant "pork chop" in his cell in front of his (male) friends, Socrates , to his credit, just says quietly...(for **** sake) "would someone please take her home ?"

[Dachshund]

So what's your view, John? Should all abortions be illegal? Illegal up to a certain number of weeks of gestation? 12 weeks maybe?

Personally, I think the abortion debate is one of the most intractable because the question of when a fertilized embryo becomes a human being is so subjective. My gut feeling is that abortion after about 12 weeks gestation should not be permitted. But I have to admit that is an entirely personal feeling with very little basis in anything that could be called rational argument.

My view is that the abortion ( medical/chemical destruction) of a live fertilized ovum in a woman2s womb at any time after moment after conception should be banned because it effectively represents the cold-blooded, premeditated murder of a defenseless and utterly vulnerable (potential) human being.

[Sy Borg]

In summary, I am not thrilled with people who are less intelligent and informed than myself seeking to remove my rights based on childish superficialities.

You are also referring I presume, Greta, to those undoubtedly "less intelligent than yourself" individuals like Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Pericles, Marcus Aurelius, Kant, Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche ...

If we are to embrace historical values, let's also embrace death by stoning, death for adultery, etc. Certainly, as a denizen of the modern age, I know an enormous amount that these gentlemen could not even imagine. Further, as a living being, yes, I am far smarter than any corpse.

Meanwhile, the naivete of your "correlation equals causation" argument suggest that you certainly are not smarter than I am. So why should I be denied the vote while you, with your naive and hateful ideas, be granted suffrage?

Oh gosh, and just as I post I find that you believe that the life of a zygote - a freakin' microbe! - is more worthy than that of a grown women.

[Sy Borg]

Dachshund, I think that's the full checklist of hates delivered by you so far:

- blecks
- Arabs
- women
- gays
- abortionists.

Have I missed any? Transsexuals surely - almost everyone hates them anyway. Asians? How are you with them? Aboriginals? I can't imagine you'd approve.

Why do you embrace this standard grab bag of hatreds? My father also had that same suite of hatreds, although his main hatred was for unionists. I never understood why he was like that; he was more keen on doing than communicating so he couldn't explain it. To some extent he seemed to follow the hatred tribally - if his right wing Liberal Party tribe targeted a group via the right wing media he consumed (Murdoch press, Channel 9), then he'd follow.

I suspect the deeper answer was him being forced from Vienna in 1939 by the Nazis as a teen with the family having to start again out here. So there was a chronic sense of insecurity and fear resulting in hypervigilance, ultimately leading to these fearful hatreds. This kind of thinking is emotion-based, irrational and harmful and should always be challenged in the small hope that the "haters" will eventually appreciate that life is too short and tenuous for such divisive nonsense.

[Dachshund]

You are downgrading women (and men if I might add) if you think any normal person would cooperate with hitler.

What about the spineless, *****, British Prime Minister Arthur Neville Chamberlain who didn't have the balls to stand up to him in the late 1930? The weak-kneed , dithering Chamberlain whose policy of appeasing ( read "cooperating with/ enabling" ) Hitler and his Nazi war machine lit the fuse for the outbreak of the Second World War in Europe in 1939?

Chamberlain was a very" normal", respectable man in most regards? His only problem is that he was a "big girl"