Choice

I know what male and female is, and what men and women are, and have even told you.
Have you heard of Dunning-Kruger?
All people are men and women or intersex, its a biological reality. You need to grasp that reality or we will be very limited on what we can discuss and debate
A biological reality that no one, including myself disputes. What it is not is a sociological reality, a political reality or a medical reality. Do you realise that by claiming that all human life is driven by biology, you are denying religion?
Biological sex is immutable whatever ideas authorities come to. However we will make sure authorities dont succumb to false ideologies.
Sadly for you, the false ideology is yours. Gender identity is not driven by biology alone. I'm sure that any authority can get by without help from you making the decisions. Laws are there to protect society from people like you implementing their absurd and discriminatory hatefests.
Now you are trying to change your faireytale. You said human society is not driven by biology, but of course it is in the respect of reproduction and continuation of the species. Since you deny the reality of biological sex, you didn't want to acknowledge that.
I do not deny the reality of biological sex. I deny that everything in human existence is driven by biological sex.
And all biologists who aren't woke activists recognise the reality of biological sex.
There is no such thing as "woke activism". It is just a pathetic dog whistle from people who cannot stand the thought that people who actually study biology, that is, biologists, don't accept the kindergarten version of sex that you refuse to let go of.
You trying to claim otherwise is just you denying reality
https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/
Project nuttie is a bunch of pathetic, stupid losers who have sold their brains in return for religious platitudes.
You don't have to look at the gonads to tell whether they are lying about their sex, but if you do look at the gonads you will see whether they are lying about their sex.
Why should anyone lie about their sex? Why should anyone be concerned if they do?
If a 9 year old tells you they are 21 do you let them do all that adults do? Of course you don't and neither can they. Can you tell the difference between a child and an adult? Same with a man and a woman, for 99% its obvious.
Why do you need to tell the difference? Why is this so important to you? Why are you so obsessed with other people's genitalia?
As far as both of us are concerned they are all men or women or intersex, as far as I am concerned none of them are 'trans'. Then you are wrong.

Because they are captured. Business cant change the reality of biological sex. People are fighting back against the lies and confusion and the tide is turning. Already given you examples.
The tide is not turning. You are being swept away and the sooner the better. Good businesses care about the health and welfare of their staff. Good governments care about the health and welfare of their citizens. That is why your discriminatory idiocies are so out of touch. L
Though you don't realise it, every human being you meet is either male or female or intersex, you just need to recognise them for what they are as part of who they are rather than what they aren't.
I have said as much. What you don't realise is that as well as being male, female or intersex, they may be trans or non-binary. They may also be gay or bisexual. They may also be pregnant.
As far as both of us are concerned they are all men or women or intersex, that is observable and quantifiable, as far as I am concerned none of them are 'trans' which is just what some people claim.
Very, very few people claim that trans people do not exist. All those that do are totally deluded and blind to reality.
And they are, just as everyone is short, tall or somewhere in between. One cant have 9 people who are under 6' and one who identifies as the shortest at 6'7. Get it?
No, you don't get it.
I do biological sex, I don't do gender, so all people are either male, female or intersex. Got it?
No, you don't get it.
I dont do gender identity. Women have female anatomy and men have male anatomy. A woman who calls herself a 'transman' is a woman and not a 'transman'
Wrong. They may have female anatomy, but if they have transitioned, then they are a trans man. Legally and factually. You are obviously and observable wrong.
I dont do gender identity remember, its mentally deficient.
I know it is mentally deficient not to "do" gender identity. No one cares whether you "do" gender identity. Nevertheless you have a gender identity, just like everyone else. You can deny it a you like.
Everyone is either male or female or intersex. A woman is the adult female and has XX chromosomes, female anatomy and female reproductive organs.
None of this impacts on gender identity.
Look, I dont do gender identity ideology, I can see it is a lie,
If you realise it is a lie to deny gender identity, then stop doing it.
however the biological sex is observable evidence based reality, something neither of us can deny,
Not relevant to gender identity.
so if you want to discuss with me, you will have to do so with biological sex and not imaginary gender ideology that a few people claim and others dont.
A few people, may agree with you, though I doubt there are more than a handful. The vast majority of people, all reputable organisations, public and private, all major religions, all political parties, all medical practitioners, all scientists, every aspect of society, all agree that gender identity exists, that some people's gender identity differs from their biological sex and that such people have always existed and always will.
Female only spaces yes, its quantifiable and evidence based reality.
Which you can neither quantify nor produce evidence for.
Correct, no issue, the moon isnt made of cheese and all people are male, female or intersex. And that is what people must recognise if we want to be able to communicate
No one fails to recognise these truisms. You also need to recognise the facts of gender identity, trans people and their right to exist. Instead of floating strawmen, to communicate you need to address the fact that reality doesn't conform to what you want. You cannot wave away reality by calling it "woke activism". It is you that is failing to engage by refusing even to learn the meanings of the terms of the debate. Unblock your ears, and your mind.
 
It is not the right of the fetal woman, according to those of the pro-abortion persuasion.
It is the right of every pregnant person. Since no foetus is either pregnant or a person, your interjection is stupendously silly.
 
Have you heard of Dunning-Kruger?
Yes, I would very much attribute that to gender ideologues.

A biological reality that no one, including myself disputes. What it is not is a sociological reality, a political reality or a medical reality. Do you realise that by claiming that all human life is driven by biology, you are denying religion?
So you cant have a sociological construct such as gender identity that denies the reality of biological sex and then say you affirm biological sex. Its a contradiction. Furthermore if you did accept the reality of biological sex, then you wouldnt be proposing gender identity lies, which I don't do, every time I mention them!

Sadly for you, the false ideology is yours. Gender identity
Let me stop you there. What ideology? I do biological sex which you have just said you affirm, now you seem to be saying its false. Why are you contradicting yourself?

I do not deny the reality of biological sex.
Ok so man who calls himself a 'transwoman' is a man and not a 'transwoman'? Or do you deny it? You dont know what you are talking about chap, you have been deluded by mentally deficient ideologies

I deny that everything in human existence is driven by biological sex.
So do I, what you deny is biological sex as soon as you invoke gender identity ideology

There is no such thing as "woke activism".
Yes there is, it is the ideology you hold and you demonstrate it almost every post
It is just a pathetic dog whistle from people who cannot stand the thought that people who actually study biology, that is, biologists, don't accept the kindergarten version of sex that you refuse to let go of.
No so, the studies you guys have cited all contain the woke imaginary concepts and wording.

Project nuttie is a bunch of pathetic, stupid losers who have sold their brains in return for religious platitudes.
Ok so you have just said you affirmed biological sex, and now you call the signaturies of Project Nettie such as a Professor of Genetics at University College London, who has MBChB and PhD Genetics, a loser? Nope.

Why should anyone lie about their sex? Why should anyone be concerned if they do?
You tell me. Why should anyone lie about anything? So you think thieves are people who identify as thieves or people who steal?
Why aren't you 22 years old?

Why do you need to tell the difference?
Because otherwise when you say tall short and in between we have no idea what you mean by tall or short.
Why is this so important to you?
Because we dont know what you mean
Why are you so obsessed with other people's genitalia?
We aren't, you are, everyone is either male and female or intersex yet everytime I mentioned it you ignored it. Besides, biological sex is chromosomes anatomy and genitalia, not just genitalia. But genitalia are important when discussing abortion, which is the thread topic, because only the woman, the adult female, has the female genitalia.

The tide is not turning. You are being swept away and the sooner the better. Good businesses care about the health and welfare of their staff. Good governments care about the health and welfare of their citizens. That is why your discriminatory idiocies are so out of touch.
Well its the examples I have given verses your claim

I have said as much. What you don't realise is that as well as being male, female or intersex, they may be trans or non-binary.
They arent. What sex is trans? What sex is non-binary? People not identifying with what they are doesnt change what they are, it just means they dont recognise the reality of what they are. What someone is must be a part of who someone is.

Very, very few people claim that trans people do not exist.
All people are male, female or intersex, have I left anyone out?

All those that do are totally deluded and blind to reality.
All people are male, female or intersex, though a few have a dysphoria with their sex. Most people don't do gender identity which denies the sex a person is. You are peddling deluded propaganda.

No, you don't get it.
I get it but it was a question to you. Why arent you 22 years old? If an anorexic can identify as fat, a 6'7 man identify as shorter than a 5'7" man, and a man identify as a woman, who knows what is what? The question is why do you abandon observable reality and common language when it comes to biological sex. Something badly perverted in the thinking. So why dont you get it?

No, you don't get it.
in what way? All people are male, female or intersex, what is confusing you?

no not wrong, women have female anatomy and men have male anatomy. A woman who calls herself a 'transman' is a woman and not a 'transman' because she has female anatomy. You are denying biological sex.

They may have female anatomy,
Then they are women.
but if they have transitioned,
Not possible, sex is immutable. You are confused.

I know it is mentally deficient not to "do" gender identity.
On the contrary, as I have shown gender identity is mentally deficient, and its no surprise therefore most here recognise it as the lie it is.

No one cares whether you "do" gender identity.
Of course they do, most on this forum. what sort of a delude imaginary world do you live in?

None of this impacts on gender identity.
I dont do gender identity as it is the lie that denies biological sex. I do biological sex which is quantifiable evidence base reality that applies to everyone, not some imaginary social construct that most people reject
If you realise it is a lie to deny gender identity, then stop doing it.
Gender Identity is a lie.

Not relevant to gender identity.
I dont do gender identity as it is a lie, however the biological sex is observable evidence based reality, something neither of us can deny.

A few people, may agree with you,
Most do. I mean I gave you the nettie project with hundreds of scientists, physcologists and medical professional and you called them nutters and loosers. Naah

Which you can neither quantify nor produce evidence for.
Well you said you affirmed biological sex and now you say it isnt evidence. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Unblock your mind, you are increasingly unable to tell reality from fantasy and increasingly unable to communicate with people.
 
It is the right of every pregnant person. Since no foetus is either pregnant or a person, your interjection is stupendously silly.
Every pregnant person is a woman, that is someone with XX chromosomes, female anatomy and female reproductive organs. Before we attribute rights to human beings you need to understand what a human being is and how to recognise them.
 
Every pregnant person is a woman, that is someone with XX chromosomes, female anatomy and female reproductive organs. Before we attribute rights to human beings you need to understand what a human being is and how to recognise them.
Not every pregnant person is legally or morally a woman.
Not every woman can become or is pregnant.
"Pregnant Person" is precise, clear, unambiguous and accurate. Your ideological prejudices notwithstanding.
 
Not every pregnant person is legally or morally a woman.
Not every woman can become or is pregnant.
"Pregnant Person" is precise, clear, unambiguous and accurate. Your ideological prejudices notwithstanding.
Only women can be pregnant, biologically and morally, and observable reality. When you say 'pregnant person' it implies you have been deluded by the lie of the gender identity ideology.
If you want to talk to us make it clear you understand what a woman is!
 
Last edited:
Yes, I would very much attribute that to gender ideologues.
Add Dunning-Kruger to the long list of things you don't understand but think you do. Making you a meta example of Dunning-Kruger. A joke for the purists there.
So you cant have a sociological construct such as gender identity that denies the reality of biological sex and then say you affirm biological sex. Its a contradiction.
Why not? I just did.
Furthermore if you did accept the reality of biological sex, then you wouldnt be proposing gender identity lies, which I don't do, every time I mention them!
Since gender is not reliant on sex, you either don't understand what you are talking about or are denying reality because it is uncomfortable for you. Or both.
Let me stop you there. What ideology? I do biological sex which you have just said you affirm, now you seem to be saying its false. Why are you contradicting yourself?
The false ideology that gender is dependent on sex. This flies in the face of reason, historical precedent, medical and biological orthodoxy and accepted professional practice.
Ok so man who calls himself a 'transwoman' is a man and not a 'transwoman'? Or do you deny it? You don't know what you are talking about chap, you have been deluded by mentally deficient ideologies.
There is no such thing as a man who calls himself a transwoman. You don't know how to even talk about this issue. There is a such a thing as a transwoman, born male, who calls herself a transwoman. In fact there are thousands of such persons. One of them services my Rayburn boiler once a year. Several more work for my daughter. If you think it is mentally deficient to even admit the existence of such people, then mental deficiency is something that you have experience but no knowledge of.
So do I, what you deny is biological sex as soon as you invoke gender identity ideology.
Nonsense.
Yes there is, it is the ideology you hold and you demonstrate it almost every post
No so, the studies you guys have cited all contain the woke imaginary concepts and wording.
"Woke imaginary concepts and wording." The dog whistle imaginings of someone who cannot cope with the real world.
Ok so you have just said you affirmed biological sex, and now you call the signaturies of Project Nettie such as a Professor of Genetics at University College London, who has MBChB and PhD Genetics, a loser? Nope.
Yep. Project Nuttie is a ship of fools.
Because otherwise when you say tall short and in between we have no idea what you mean by tall or short.
Because we dont know what you mean
The observable reality is that some people are trans. This has always been the observable reality. Your denial of reality leads to such absurdities as you spout here.
We aren't, you are, everyone is either male and female or intersex yet everytime I mentioned it you ignored it. Besides, biological sex is chromosomes anatomy and genitalia, not just genitalia. But genitalia are important when discussing abortion, which is the thread topic, because only the woman, the adult female, has the female genitalia.
This is stupid on so many layers. Firstly it is just untrue to say that i deny that every person on the planet is male, female or something else. What other options are there for biological sex? Secondly female genitalia are not involved in pregnancy. People can get pregnant without having sex at all. Have you never heard of IVF? It is the internal reproductive organs, the ovaries, fallopian tubes and the uterus that are involved in pregnancy, and hence abortion. Every transman on the planet has these organs, and many of them are pregnant.
They arent. What sex is trans? What sex is non-binary?
What sex is brunette? What sex is accountant? Why are you asking stupid questions?
People not identifying with what they are doesnt change what they are, it just means they dont recognise the reality of what they are. What someone is must be a part of who someone is.
People not accepting what other people are doesn't change what they are, it just means they don't recognise the reality of what they are. What someone is must be a part of who someone is. and part of that may be a trans gender identity. Your selective blindness doesn't change that.
All people are male, female or intersex, have I left anyone out?
No, and neither have I denied this. You are using this redundant truism like a comfort blanket, multiple times in every post. It isn't relevant.
All people are male, female or intersex, though a few have a dysphoria with their sex. Most people don't do gender identity which denies the sex a person is. You are peddling deluded propaganda.
Every person has a gender identity. You were even asked for your gender identity on the recent census. what did you answer?
I get it but it was a question to you. Why arent you 22 years old? If an anorexic can identify as fat, a 6'7 man identify as shorter than a 5'7" man, and a man identify as a woman, who knows what is what? The question is why do you abandon observable reality and common language when it comes to biological sex. Something badly perverted in the thinking. So why dont you get it?
Observable reality is that trans people exist, and always have existed, in every culture. Why do you deny this obvious observable reality? Why are you so threatened by transgender people?
in what way? All people are male, female or intersex, what is confusing you?
Comfort blanket again.
no not wrong, women have female anatomy and men have male anatomy. A woman who calls herself a 'transman' is a woman and not a 'transman' because she has female anatomy. You are denying biological sex.
You are denying transgender reality.
On the contrary, as I have shown gender identity is mentally deficient, and its no surprise therefore most here recognise it as the lie it is.
You have stated this. You have not shown it, because what you have stated is untrue.
Of course they do, most on this forum. what sort of a delude imaginary world do you live in?
If you think that this forum represents the real world, then you are more deluded than I thought. Which is scarcely conceivable
I dont do gender identity as it is the lie that denies biological sex. I do biological sex which is quantifiable evidence base reality that applies to everyone, not some imaginary social construct that most people reject
Gender Identity is a lie.
No. It doesn't matter how often you say this, it is wrong. It is also technically hate speech. If you were employable, you could be fired for stating this untrue nonsense. Every person has a gender identity. Most have a gender identity that matches their biological sex. there is no logical, biological or medical reason why this should be universal.
I dont do gender identity as it is a lie, however the biological sex is observable evidence based reality, something neither of us can deny.
biological sex (comfort blanket again) is not in dispute. You cannot cope with gender identity. That is a failing of yours and yours alone. The rest of the world understands gender identity and lives with it.
Most do. I mean I gave you the nettie project with hundreds of scientists, physcologists and medical professional and you called them nutters and loosers. Naah
Exactly. Because they are. They have produced nothing but nonsense.
Well you said you affirmed biological sex and now you say it isnt evidence. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I said that it isn't relevant. Just a comfort blanket for you. Let's see, if you reply to this post, how many times you refer to biological sex without acknowledging the fact that it isn't in dispute.
Unblock your mind, you are increasingly unable to tell reality from fantasy and increasingly unable to communicate with people.
Laughable. Sad, and dangerous if it was anything other than an extremely rare form of nonsense. But still laughable.
 
Sadly, no. It should be.

Yes, and?


If I'm understanding you correctly, then obviously yes. I can choose to drive drunk...a poor choice. I still get to make the choice the next day whether to go and collect my car from the tree I wrapped it around. I still get to choose whether to drive drunk the next night or not. I can choose to cheat on my wife...I still get to to choose the next day whether to admit it to her, conceal it, do it again...
So, with losing the ability to make future choices, I could have worded that better.
First off, you gave a good response to what I asked.
If I were to alter my question, I would have to ask "1. Are there things that if a person chooses poorly then they DON'T lose the ability to make choices in that area?"
What I'm trying to get at is that a person can drive drunk and wrap their car around a tree. Now, they've lost the ability to choose to drive that car.
Or with the cheating on the wife, that man will lose the ability to have a relationship with their wife on the same intimate level as when they weren't cheating, especially if they get caught.
Every cause has an effect that in some way limits options.

The topic isn't exempt - anti-choicers just want to make it that way because of their desire to take rights away from women (and all the other reasons for being anti-choice, none of them good).
The first 4 words here seem at odds with your first 5 in your reply.
When I said, "under certain circumstances a woman should not have the ability to chose because they are foolish and make bad choices? If not, why does it seem like this topic is exempt when so many other scenarios aren't?"
I'm in essence saying that everything has a cause and effect, and generally speaking if a person acts foolishly then that tends to limit choice (immediately or down the road). You say that "this isn't exempt" which seems to mean that you agree that if a person acts foolishly then that tends to limit choice.
But your first sentence would mean that all women should have the ability to choose, which includes those who act foolishly.

I think there was some misunderstanding somewhere and I'm trying to find it.
Quite frankly I was going to delete this whole section but I'm leaving it up to hopefully help with being clear about what I'm saying.
 
Last edited:
Add Dunning-Kruger to the long list of things you don't understand but think you do. Making you a meta example of Dunning-Kruger. A joke for the purists there.
Add Dunning-Kruger to the long list of things you don't understand. One example of why I know and you don't is that you referred to all the scientists, medical professionals, biologists etc in the Nettie Project as losers and wrong. All the weight of professional expertise on the one hand and Temujin says on the other.

I dont do gender ideology which is a lie, but a couple of points for you to consider.

There is no such thing as a man who calls himself a transwoman.
If its not a man, then it must be a woman. What do you understand by a 'woman'?

The observable reality is that all people are men, woman or intersex. If its a man who calls himself 'trans' then he is a man, no such thing as trans. A man with dysphoria about his sex, who is living as a woman as much as he can, is a man, not actually a woman or any trans sort of idea. That is observable reality.

I am not threatened by anyone in your imagination. As I have said all people are male(men), female(women) or intersex, so what sort of creature are these 'trans' people you keep going on about?

No one has a gender identity, though some have a gender dysphoria. Its a dysphoria because biological sex is immutable.

Observable reality is that there is no actual thing as 'trans people'. All people are men, woman or intersex. What they call themselves is their idea.

Most people on the forum are in line with biological reality. You however have a perverted and confused idea of a social construct whose contagion is now being pushed back. Biological sex is observable and quantifiable. Your social construct isn't. The signatories on the Nettie Project are professional biologists, scientists etc, you arent. It doesnt need anyone like you to call them fools, its observable evidence they are right. If you want to call them fools then show how what they say is wrong.

It is also technically hate speech.
as opposed to your child abusive speech? What do propose to do about it? Have you got the same spirit as the marxist Stalin and Mao regimes had for punishing people who dont agree?
If you were employable, you could be fired for stating this untrue nonsense.
Only if others are as ignorant of the law as you.
Shame you try and hide behind the law you are so ignorant of and try and batter and silence people.
 
Have you heard of Dunning-Kruger?

A biological reality that no one, including myself disputes. What it is not is a sociological reality, a political reality or a medical reality. Do you realise that by claiming that all human life is driven by biology, you are denying religion?

Sadly for you, the false ideology is yours. Gender identity is not driven by biology alone. I'm sure that any authority can get by without help from you making the decisions. Laws are there to protect society from people like you implementing their absurd and discriminatory hatefests.

I do not deny the reality of biological sex. I deny that everything in human existence is driven by biological sex.

There is no such thing as "woke activism". It is just a pathetic dog whistle from people who cannot stand the thought that people who actually study biology, that is, biologists, don't accept the kindergarten version of sex that you refuse to let go of.

Project nuttie is a bunch of pathetic, stupid losers who have sold their brains in return for religious platitudes.

Why should anyone lie about their sex? Why should anyone be concerned if they do?

Why do you need to tell the difference? Why is this so important to you? Why are you so obsessed with other people's genitalia?

The tide is not turning. You are being swept away and the sooner the better. Good businesses care about the health and welfare of their staff. Good governments care about the health and welfare of their citizens. That is why your discriminatory idiocies are so out of touch. L

I have said as much. What you don't realise is that as well as being male, female or intersex, they may be trans or non-binary. They may also be gay or bisexual. They may also be pregnant.

Very, very few people claim that trans people do not exist. All those that do are totally deluded and blind to reality.

No, you don't get it.

No, you don't get it.

Wrong. They may have female anatomy, but if they have transitioned, then they are a trans man. Legally and factually. You are obviously and observable wrong.

I know it is mentally deficient not to "do" gender identity. No one cares whether you "do" gender identity. Nevertheless you have a gender identity, just like everyone else. You can deny it a you like.

None of this impacts on gender identity.

If you realise it is a lie to deny gender identity, then stop doing it.

Not relevant to gender identity.

A few people, may agree with you, though I doubt there are more than a handful. The vast majority of people, all reputable organisations, public and private, all major religions, all political parties, all medical practitioners, all scientists, every aspect of society, all agree that gender identity exists, that some people's gender identity differs from their biological sex and that such people have always existed and always will.

Which you can neither quantify nor produce evidence for.

No one fails to recognise these truisms. You also need to recognise the facts of gender identity, trans people and their right to exist. Instead of floating strawmen, to communicate you need to address the fact that reality doesn't conform to what you want. You cannot wave away reality by calling it "woke activism". It is you that is failing to engage by refusing even to learn the meanings of the terms of the debate. Unblock your ears, and your mind.

*yawn
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Choice is taken away by society because of some perceived benefit to society - removing a an offender's choices by confining them, for example, is deemed to benefit society as a whole

Only in a rigidly Darwinian society, and only where the choice's consequences cannot be mitigated.
If I walk in front of a bus but don't die immediately, society swoops in with measures to try to keep me alive.

100% "You made your bed..." societies... are there any?

Yes. Lots and lots of them.

Medical interventions for self-"inflicted" injuries/conditions, for one.
A couple things. Let's go with the bus thing. You step in front of a bus, you don't die cause of doctors. You still have to have individuals step in and stop the natural flow of cause and effect. That was my point in that section, that it's not only societies but nature itself tends to limit options when someone makes a poor decision.
But I think that your reply makes an interesting point. Say I cut myself on purpose. No harm done if I just do so with a needle.
Say I cut myself on purpose with a guillotine. There's substantially more harm done.
So to relate it to abortion, I think it would be fair to say that, part of the issue is whether or not this causes severe potential harm. And I think you would agree and say that it works for both sides.

If I can push it further, if my argument works for both sides, then as a general truth then I think that my opening paragraph is valid IF I can prove that having an abortion is foolish.

No - IMO, under no circumstances should a person be forced to be pregnant when they don't wish to be.
Interesting word, "forced".
I was thinking about this, and whether it's forced or not ultimately is determined on how a woman feels based on whatever she deems a good enough reason. If that's true, then whether or not what she's doing is foolish or not is also determined on how a woman feels based on whatever she deems a good enough reason.

I think that's a point worthy of further thought. So... thanks :)

But this brings me to wonder about something else that I need to think about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
A couple things. Let's go with the bus thing. You step in front of a bus, you don't die cause of doctors. You still have to have individuals step in and stop the natural flow of cause and effect. That was my point in that section, that it's not only societies but nature itself tends to limit options when someone makes a poor decision.
But I think that your reply makes an interesting point. Say I cut myself on purpose. No harm done if I just do so with a needle.
Say I cut myself on purpose with a guillotine. There's substantially more harm done.
So to relate it to abortion, I think it would be fair to say that, part of the issue is whether or not this causes severe potential harm. And I think you would agree and say that it works for both sides.
What you are saying in effect that choices have consequences. When the consequences are trivial or limited purely to the individual, then no one is particularly bothered. When the consequences are serious, then responses to the possibility of choice are also serious. Those responses will themselves have consequences. That is fine, as far as it goes.. What is needed is some kind of judgement on the consequences of the choice to have an abortion, together with the consequences of refusing the ability to make that choice. At the moment there is not even agreement on what the consequences are, let alone how seriously they should be taken.
If I can push it further, if my argument works for both sides, then as a general truth then I think that my opening paragraph is valid IF I can prove that having an abortion is foolish.
If you can show that the consequences of having an abortion are more severe to the choice maker, than not having an abortion, then yes you can show that abortion is unwise. It is a leap from there to say that it should be banned.
Interesting word, "forced".
I was thinking about this, and whether it's forced or not ultimately is determined on how a woman feels based on whatever she deems a good enough reason. If that's true, then whether or not what she's doing is foolish or not is also determined on how a woman feels based on whatever she deems a good enough reason.

I think that's a point worthy of further thought. So... thanks :)
Agreed.
But this brings me to wonder about something else that I need to think about.
We are agog... 🤔
 
It is not the right of the fetal woman, according to those of the pro-abortion persuasion.

What you are saying in effect that choices have consequences. When the consequences are trivial or limited purely to the individual, then no one is particularly bothered. When the consequences are serious, then responses to the possibility of choice are also serious. Those responses will themselves have consequences. That is fine, as far as it goes.. What is needed is some kind of judgement on the consequences of the choice to have an abortion, together with the consequences of refusing the ability to make that choice. At the moment there is not even agreement on what the consequences are, let alone how seriously they should be taken.

If you can show that the consequences of having an abortion are more severe to the choice maker, than not having an abortion, then yes you can show that abortion is unwise. It is a leap from there to say that it should be banned.

Agreed.

We are agog... 🤔
... yup, I agree with all of that... except for agog :D
 
Doesnt address the OP as far as I can see. You seem to be saying one CANT choose to drive drunk and increase the chance of killing someone but one CAN conceive and then kill someone.
It addresses the post to which it was a response, like all posts should. You'd be well to take note.

And no, I don't seem to be saying that. You imagine that I'm saying that.
 
So, with losing the ability to make future choices, I could have worded that better.
First off, you gave a good response to what I asked.
If I were to alter my question, I would have to ask "1. Are there things that if a person chooses poorly then they DON'T lose the ability to make choices in that area?"
What I'm trying to get at is that a person can drive drunk and wrap their car around a tree. Now, they've lost the ability to choose to drive that car.
Or with the cheating on the wife, that man will lose the ability to have a relationship with their wife on the same intimate level as when they weren't cheating, especially if they get caught.
Every cause has an effect that in some way limits options.
Yes, that's true - but I don't think it's bad choices that do that alone. Every choice, good or bad, can limit the available next choices. If I do the right thing and take an Uber to the bar, then my choices are limited - I can't drive home. That's a good thing, but it's still a limitation.
The first 4 words here seem at odds with your first 5 in your reply.
When I said, "under certain circumstances a woman should not have the ability to chose because they are foolish and make bad choices? If not, why does it seem like this topic is exempt when so many other scenarios aren't?"
I'm in essence saying that everything has a cause and effect, and generally speaking if a person acts foolishly then that tends to limit choice (immediately or down the road). You say that "this isn't exempt" which seems to mean that you agree that if a person acts foolishly then that tends to limit choice.
But your first sentence would mean that all women should have the ability to choose, which includes those who act foolishly.
Then I was unclear, and apologise. As I said above, every choice limits later choices. I don't know that bad choices do so more than good ones.

For example, if a woman does the "good thing" and bears her child, her choices for the next 20 years are far more limited than had she aborted it. That is not to criticise choosing to bear your child; just to point out that all choices, good or bad, limit subsequent choices.

Is that a bit clearer?
 
Well thanks for your insight. It is indeed a very tedious conversation, repeated many times over many previous occasions. With the same result. BMS looks foolish and the thread dies.
Yes, biological sex is reality and gender ideology is false as proven; you dont get that means one cant be sure what you mean in relation to anyone.
 
Back
Top