[Munchkins]

Originally Posted by lostalex

there is no vice versa. because there is not centuries of history of women abusing and raping and murdering men, so you can't really say that things should be equal, because history is not equal. Perhaps if women abuse and rape and murder men for a few thousand years, THEN we can start pretending things are equal...that's gonna be at least a thousand years from now though... it's not gonna be any time soon...

There is still many cases though of women abusing men you just don't hear it!. The news hardly ever bother to tell stories of women pedophiles, its always the stereotypical 60 year old man. And besides i wasn't talking about that, i was talking the the media being able to mock men, and it not being viewed as bad. For instance on many chat shows, women are able to fondle and perv over the male guests, and talk shows such as the view and loose women are allowed. Would you ever see an all male talkshow? and have them fondling over women etc, no it would be outlawed

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Redway

There are always alternatives, though. There are plenty of couples out there who are desperate for children. If one couple doesn't want the child, s/he can easily be put up for adoption or something.

umm, look into the foster care system, there are TONS of kids who are NOT able to find homes. There are NOT plenty of families wanting to take these kids in.

Where do you guys get this idea that there are so many perfect families willing to take in kids, and not enuf kids to satisfy them. It's the exact oppossite i'm sorry to tell you.

[Munchkins]

Originally Posted by lostalex

umm, look into the foster care system, there are TONS of kids who are NOT able to find homes. There are NOT plenty of families wanting to take these kids in.

Where you you guys get this idea that there are so many perfect families willing to take in kids, and not enuf kids to satisfy them. It's the exact oppossite i'm sorry to tell you.

I agree with this too though. Adoption is always parading as a definitive over option, when most of the time the child wil just spend time in a home for years waiting for family. Adoption can't just be viewed as an easy option which it often is viewed as

[the truth]

Originally Posted by lostalex

there is no vice versa. because there is not centuries of history of women abusing and raping and murdering men, so you can't really say that things should be equal, because history is not equal. Perhaps if women abuse and rape and murder men for a few thousand years, THEN we can start pretending things are equal...that's gonna be at least a thousand years from now though... it's not gonna be any time soon...

gross generalization about all men as always.

so your solution is to rape and pillage everyone? 2 wrongs dont make a right
this rewriting of history is profoundly simplistic and dumb. back a few 100 years ago the poorest men and women died young, they lived in mud huts, they had barely any legal rights. working men had no right to vote either over a century ago. most poor men were sent to certain death fighting wars for rich people. the battle wasnt men v women it was rich v poor. however centuries ago people were not educated or evolved, they lived by the laws of the jungle....just like wild animals in africa, the strong devoured the weak.

the only person ive ever hear dwho helpd the crippled and the blind was jesus. but in truth those dark years were simply ones of survival. trying to find ebough food to survive and feed ones children. these days we live a relative life of luxury. check out family trees, most men and women either died of TB or disease or due to war. looking at history out of context will teach you nothing. the average person died at less than half the age they do nowadays. look at history and evolution in context and you will see a world of kings and queens and rich landowners , whereas the rest of the 99% lived like pygmies.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Redway

There are always alternatives, though. There are plenty of couples out there who are desperate for children. If one couple doesn't want the child, s/he can easily be put up for adoption or something.

Fair enough about a fetus under 24 weeks old not being a full living being, but I'd rather they were given the chance to live and contribute to society rather than having all those objectives cut off because the mother "wasn't ready" or whatever.

Rape or incest are obviously a lot different but I think the current laws are far too lenient.

100% agreed.

[Munchkins]

Originally Posted by the truth

gross generalization about all men as always.

so your solution is to rape and pillage everyone? 2 wrongs dont make a right
this rewriting of history is profoundly simplistic and dumb. back a few 100 years ago the poorest men and women died young, they lived in mud huts, they had barely any legal rights. working men had no right to vote either over a century ago. most poor men were sent to certain death fighting wars for rich people. the battle wasnt men v women it was rich v poor. however centuries ago people were not educated or evolved, they lived by the laws of the jungle....just like wild animals in africa, the strong devoured the weak.

the only person ive ever hear dwho helpd the crippled and the blind was jesus. but in truth those dark years were simply ones of survival. trying to find ebough food to survive and feed ones children. these days we live a relative life of luxury. check out family trees, most men and women either died of TB or disease or due to war. looking at history out of context will teach you nothing. the average person died at less than half the age they do nowadays. look at history and evolution in context and you will see a world of kings and queens and rich landowners , whereas the rest of the 99% lived like pygmies.

A forgotten fact in history, it always seems like. People do forget that whilst women did have to fight for the vote for longer, normal men did also not have equality for quite a period of time. The fear is that sexism could turn the other way around imo, and we will have a society deragatory towards normal men

[the truth]

maybe the fact men have no voice in whether their children live or die, and no support system whatsoever in dealing with the loss of their child, is one of the reasons behind the massive suicide rates amongst young men worldwide

[Munchkins]

Originally Posted by the truth

maybe the fact men have no voice in whether their children live or die, and no support system whatsoever in dealing with the loss of their child, is one of the reasons behind the massive suicide rates amongst young men worldwide

Also the fact that it seems, in society we seem to forget Men have emotional problems too. All we see paraded is female eating disorders etc, we never hear stories of male eating disorders. It's always viewed as 'sissy' like for a male to admitt to his problems, and we dont talk about it as a society, which is terrible

[MTVN]

The fact that most men didn't have the vote for centuries is still sorta gender related though, because it was decided by property and by land which would always be in the hands of the male head of the household because of how patriarchal society was. It wasn't wholly to do with gender, but nor completely due to class, the two were pretty tied in with each other

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Munchkins

A forgotten fact in history, it always seems like. People do forget that whilst women did have to fight for the vote for longer, normal men did also not have equality for quite a period of time. The fear is that sexism could turn the other way around imo, and we will have a society deragatory towards normal men

umm, but those "normal" men, working class men, also had women as slave laborers, they considered their wives to be their property, and women had no freedom at all in those working class homes, so i don't see why you are saying that as if it means that men EVER suffered as much as women, they didn't.

Even men who were SLAVES still had it better than women who were slaves. IN the times of slavery, the black male slaves still had it better then white women. White women (wives/mothers/daughters) got beaten and ordered around just as much if not more than black male slaves.

Please don't feel sorry for men.

[Munchkins]

Originally Posted by lostalex

umm, but those "normal" men, working class men, also had women as slave laborers, they considered their wives to be their property, and women had no freedom at all in those working class homes, so i don't see why you are saying that as if it means that men EVER suffered as much as women, they didn't.

Even men who were SLAVES still had it better than women who were slaves. IN the times of slavery, the black male slaves still had it better than white women.

Please don't feel sorry for men.

I'm not trying to say they have suffered as Bad, but they have faced discrimination in other areas. I'm not going to discuss a lot of this though, because whilst i am studying History at a level, it's not in this area, and i don't think i should debate it, if i don't know the facts

[the truth]

both my grandfathers and great grandfathers were conscripted to fight in the world wars. the first war was a rich mans war, where tens of millions of very young men who knew very little about the world died in the trenches. 70,000 died in one morning at the somme. I have my great grandfathers diary hand written. it would make a glass eye cry. he fought for 3 long years and cam eback with black water fever. he had no pension and my great gran was left to nurse him and my grand dad....so everyone suffered... all these men were great men, pacificts, who wanted nothing more than to be home with their families living a happy peaceful life. my other grand dad fought in the navy, when he returned he had no pension nothing. he had to return to work , where he walked miles to work every day in cobbled boots to get home and give the wage to my granny to pay for the 5 children.

its too simplistic to way all men are this all women are that..many male leaders have sent people to war, many female leaders have too...its nothing to do with gender...most wars are wars over land, wealth power and ego. we find ourselves in crazy situations left behind from previous generations.. look at the vietnam war, the majority of americans killed were 19 year old men fighting another unwinnable crazy war. take obama hes won the nobel peace prize yet has killed thousands with drones. in the war office war generals have to make decisions where thousands will die no matter what decisions they make. in an over populated world, where millions starve (men and women) and resources are scarce, wars will always be fought. BUT if the rich could release their grip from power we could quite easily feed the whole world. sadly we spend more on wars and weapons than on feeding and medicating the poor.


this is to do with class , wealth and power. why did monarchy make the male head of the family? I dont know is that the fault of al men? in reality, families dont work that way. fathers and mothers are a team. they help each other out and dont see each other as enemies but a slovers and as team mates. the truth is the battle of the sexes is a total lie, its yet another divide and conquer technique used by the rich to get the poorer people fighting amongst themselves.

[lostalex]

Remember this, In America, black men got the right to vote BEFORE white women got the right to vote.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by lostalex

umm, but those "normal" men, working class men, also had women as slave laborers, they considered their wives to be their property, and women had no freedom at all in those working class homes, so i don't see why you are saying that as if it means that men EVER suffered as much as women, they didn't.

Even men who were SLAVES still had it better than women who were slaves. IN the times of slavery, the black male slaves still had it better then white women. White women (wives/mothers/daughters) got beaten and ordered around just as much if not more than black male slaves.

Please don't feel sorry for men.

I do. I feel sorry for you.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by lostalex

umm, look into the foster care system, there are TONS of kids who are NOT able to find homes. There are NOT plenty of families wanting to take these kids in.

Where do you guys get this idea that there are so many perfect families willing to take in kids, and not enuf kids to satisfy them. It's the exact oppossite i'm sorry to tell you.

That may be true but that still doesn't detract from the fact that there are many people out there who will take in a child.

As I said earlier, even if there is a substantial difference between ≥24 weeks and ≤23 weeks, that fetus should be given the chance to develop into a living being (assuming that it already isn't). Getting rid of a (potential) life because of school or whatever is just shallow. If someone's going to have sex, they should at least be prepared to face the consequences and realise that out of that may emerge a life being formed.

The current foster care system isn't perfect, sure (it's seldom that anything in life is), but if you don't want a child, then why not just abstain from sexual intercourse, if the system's overflowing?

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Remember this, In America, black men got the right to vote BEFORE white women got the right to vote.

I don't know why I never knew this and by fifty years too...

[the truth]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Remember this, In America, black men got the right to vote BEFORE white women got the right to vote.

some states granted women the vote before this, however poor people had to wait longer 9thats men and women) who couldnt afford the poll taxes required to allow them to vote. even nowadays theres millions who cannot afford to vote. this keeps rich people (men and women) in power longer. the battle is rich v poor, not man v woman, its a shame youve been brainwashed not to realise this.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by the truth

some states granted women the vote before this, however poor people had to wait longer 9thats men and women) who couldnt afford the poll taxes required to allow them to vote. even nowadays theres millions who cannot afford to vote. this keeps rich people (men and women) in power longer. the battle is rich v poor, not man v woman, its a shame youve been brainwashed not to realise this.

It's a shame you can't see the truth, that rich or poor, black or white, women have ALWAYS been at the bottom of the totem pole.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by lostalex

It's a shame you can't see the truth, that rich or poor, black or white, women have ALWAYS been at the bottom of the totem pole.

like queen victoria? she was longer in power than most people lived their entire lives? cleopatra? Boudica? Eva Peron?Hatshetshup, the eqyptian pharoah over 500 years ago? Tomyris the iranian queen 1500 years ago? catherine the great? joan of arc? Ghandi.....where have you been?

strange how you claim to care about women 100s of years ago, yet show no care for poor young men dying in trenches in coal mines of black water fever on foreignb fields or leprasy dying young, for the disabled, or for babies murdered in the womb? did you shed a tear for your forefathers who got bullets in their brain at the normandy landings when fighting the greatest tyranny the worlds ever seen for YOUR future and mind
you call babies leeches and care not at all that a million have been aborted in 6 years in the UK alone, often as a lifestyle choice....you have told everyone never to have any sympathy for any man, total 100% bitter hateful discrimination, but you go on to preach against discrimination when it suits you, total hypocrisy.

oh but you do claim to care more about words like murdered , more than you care for the actual action of murdering? incidentally how would you feel about parents deciding to abort because they believe the baby would be gay?

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by the truth

like queen victoria? she was longer in power than most people lived their entire lives? cleopatra? Boudica? Eva Peron?Hatshetshup, the eqyptian pharoah over 500 years ago? Tomyris the iranian queen 1500 years ago? catherine the great? joan of arc? Ghandi.....where have you been?

strange how you claim to care about women 100s of years ago, yet show no care for poor young men dying in trenches in coal mines of black water fever on foreignb fields or leprasy dying young, for the disabled, or for babies murdered in the womb? did you shed a tear for your forefathers who got bullets in their brain at the normandy landings when fighting the greatest tyranny the worlds ever seen for YOUR future and mind
you call babies leeches and care not at all that a million have been aborted in 6 years in the UK alone, often as a lifestyle choice....you have told everyone never to have any sympathy for any man, total 100% bitter hateful discrimination, but you go on to preach against discrimination when it suits you, total hypocrisy.

oh but you do claim to care more about words like murdered , more than you care for the actual action of murdering? incidentally how would you feel about parents deciding to abort because they believe the baby would be gay?

and all of those women you mentioned, were only allowed to be queens because there were no men that could take their place, in all of monarchy's heirarchy's, men were still above women, right?

In fact it was only last year(2012) that the british monarchy finally decided that women should be treated equal to men if the royal couple (wills and kate) have a daughter. right?

[lostalex]

to answer your last question, it would be impossible for a mother to abort a baby for being gay, because when a woman aborts a fetus it is not a baby. babies are not aborted, and babies are not "murdered" as you like to put it in the abortion process. Fetuses, or in most cases just clusters of cells are aborted. Babies are not aborted. A Baby is an infant human being, and there is no place in the world where murdering babies is legal or accepted in any way, shape, or form.

For someone to murder a baby because they thought it might be gay would of course be a horrible crime. The most horrific of crimes.

Did I answer your question?

[Redway]

Originally Posted by lostalex

to answer your last question, it would be impossible for a mother to abort a baby for being gay, because when a woman aborts a fetus it is not a baby. babies are not aborted, and babies are not "murdered" as you like to put it. Fetuses, or in most cases just clusters of cells are aborted. Babies are not aborted.

For someone to murder a baby because they thought it might be gay would of course be a horrible crime.

did i answer your question?

I agree with what you're saying but if it would be a horrible crime to abort a baby over sexual preferences (which it would be), so it would be to do so on the basis on the baby potentially having a disability (e.g. Down's syndrome).

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by lostalex

to answer your last question, it would be impossible for a mother to abort a baby for being gay, because when a woman aborts a fetus it is not a baby. babies are not aborted, and babies are not "murdered" as you like to put it in the abortion process. Fetuses, or in most cases just clusters of cells are aborted. Babies are not aborted. A Baby is an infant human being, and there is no place in the world where murdering babies is legal.

For someone to murder a baby because they thought it might be gay would of course be a horrible crime.

did i answer your question?

Sometimes babies ARE aborted,wasn't there a pic doing the rounds at one time it was even on her I think.

Unless we can "abort" or "assist to death" the royal family, I reckon this thread might have wondered off topic!

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Sometimes babies ARE aborted,wasn't there a pic doing the rounds at one time it was even on her I think.

Well if it is in the last stages of development, then of course that is murder., BUt most countries have very specific limits on the difference between an abortion, and murdering a baby.


i don't know the actual number of weeks, but there are very specific laws based on science and facts that distinguishes between a fetus and a baby.

Any one who kills a baby, that is obviously inexcusable, no matter what the reason, be it because they are gay or whatever. There is a scientific definition and a legal definition of when a baby becomes a baby.

This is why it's so important that abortions are made legal and safe for all women. so that they can be done as soon as possible.