Sex strike

[SkepticThinker]

Nope. Your presented a false-dilemma which I spotted and you couldn't as it was your creation thus you were blinded by your own bias. Nothing more.





See above.





You are injecting this after the fact as an ad hoc rescue



Nope. I answered. Now you had to change the question as the answer was valid but not the one you wanted to hear, nothing more.




No I didn't. Keep telling me about the fiction in your head. It is amusing.





Nope.




Another assertion . Yawn. Try again son.

Bottom line: My body, my choice. I don't need men who don't know the first thing about how my body works telling me (and every other woman) what we should be doing with it. Go make your own choices with your own body and leave mine (ours) alone.

 

[Shad]

Then show that you have this right to protect your life. By this I mean: Show how you have reached this conclusion.

As without a right to defend myself human life has no value that is not assigned by some authority figure(s). If I can not defend my own life I do not value my own life.

To be succinct in my criticism of your post: A mere statement is not an argument.

Wrong. As statement itself can be an argument.

I find your last line to be rather funny considering that so far you haven't even acknowledged the existence of legal positivism.

Of course not as the idea is fundamental flawed and a few I oppose. Do you even know what you are talking about?

 

[Shad]

Bottom line: My body, my choice.

The baby is not your body.

There was also a set of choice that were made beforehand. Too bad you couldn't make better choices.

I don't need men who don't know the first thing about how my body works telling me (and every other woman) what we should be doing with it. Go make your own choices with your own body and leave mine (ours) alone.

Feminist rant. Heard of something called law? Democracy? Typical feminist reaction defaulting to sexism. Hilarious.

 

[Koldo]

As without a right to defend myself human life has no value that is not assigned by some authority figure(s). If I can not defend my own life I do not value my own life.

Non sequitur.
Try again.

Wrong. As statement itself can be an argument.

Read again. I have said a 'mere' statement. I was saying you weren't making any argument with your statements.

Of course not as the idea is fundamental flawed and a few I oppose. Do you even know what you are talking about?

I am absolutely aware of what I am talking about.
Where is the flaw ? What have you read about legal positivism, for starters ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The baby is not your body.

There was also a set of choice that were made beforehand. Too bad you couldn't make better choices.



Feminist rant.

It's in my body. What happens with(in) my body is up to me and nobody else. Especially when it's my life on the line and not yours. You have no idea, and it's non of your business why people make the choices they do and apparently you aren't aware that there are a lot of choices we don't get to make when it comes to the progression of a pregnancy.

At this point in my life I'm beyond tired of listening to men who don't know the first thing about the female body/pregnancy and it's possible complications/menstruation/ovulation/abortion\c-sections/ectopic pregnancy/stillbirth/pre-eclampsia/etc., etc., etc., telling women what they should be doing with their bodies.
Go worry about your own body.

You bet it's a "feminist rant." The very fact that you would make such a comment tells me all I need to know about what you can do with your opinion on the subject of other peoples' bodies.

 

[Shad]

Non sequitur.
Try again.

Nope. Assertion. The answer was about value of humans. Do humans have value by fact of being human or value determined by some authority figure that one hopes is benevolent rather than malice. History shows the latter is far more common.

Read again. I have said a 'mere' statement. I was saying you weren't making any argument with your statements.

The length of a point does not make it an argument or a non-argument.

I am absolutely aware of what I am talking about.

So that is why you brought up a view that is completely opposite of what I believe as if I should care?

Where is the flaw ? What have you read about legal positivism, for starters ?

Yes. The basic idea that law and morality have no connection is flawed. Toss in it's history when used by actors with malice intent.

 

[Shad]

It's in my body.

So?

What happens with(in) my body is up to me and nobody else.

Wrong. Public intoxication for example.

Especially when it's my life on the line and not yours.

I am willing to compromise when there is a medical condition. I would extend this to mental problems such as PTSD for example.

You have no idea, and it's non of your business why people make the choices they do and apparently you aren't aware that there are a lot of choices we don't get to make when it comes to the progression of a pregnancy.

You made the choice to have sex right?....

At this point in my life I'm beyond tired of listening to men who don't know the first thing about the female body/pregnancy and it's possible complications/menstruation/ovulation/abortion\c-sections/ectopic pregnancy/stillbirth/pre-eclampsia/etc., etc., etc., telling women what they should be doing with their bodies.

Feminist rant.

Go worry about your own body.

Yawn. Great argument against the welfare state though.

You bet it's a "feminist rant." The very fact that you would make such a comment tells me all I need to know about what you can do with your opinion on the subject of other peoples' bodies.

You went right to sexism. That is all I need to know. You have no argument without trying to use sex as a divider. Try again.

It is hilarious that feminists act like the men they claim to hate by using sex to determine if someone can voice an opinion. Get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich. That is what you sound like.

FYI Roe vs Wade was determined by /drum roll men. By your rant abortion is not legally as men had an opinion that made it legal.

 

[Koldo]

Nope. Assertion. The answer was about value of humans. Do humans have value by fact of being human or value determined by some authority figure that one hopes is benevolent rather than malice. History shows the latter is far more common.

It doesn't follow that if there is no "right to defend myself" the consequence is that "human life has no value that is not assigned by some authority figure(s)".
Likewise, it also doesn't follow that if "I can not defend my own life" the consequence is that "I do not value my own life".
Those are both non sequitur.

If humans have value by fact of being human, how does the entail that humans have rights ?
You are not showing the logical connections anywhere.

The length of a point does not make it an argument or a non-argument.

And...?

So that is why you brought up a view that is completely opposite of what I believe as if I should care?

Yes. The basic idea that law and morality have no connection is flawed. Toss in it's history when used by actors with malice intent.

Who said law and morality have no connection ? If you mean this is the legal positivist position, please do quote your source.

 

[Polymath257]

You have concede your point then.

Nope. We all do things for the greater good.

Avoid sex then. Easy really.

And completely non-realistic.

Killing one's children on a whim is immoral in my view.

And I agree. But an embryo is not a child.

 

[Polymath257]

The baby is not your body.

The embryo is *inside* of a person's body. That alone gives the person the right to remove the embryo

There was also a set of choice that were made beforehand. Too bad you couldn't make better choices.

And we now have more options for BC and also abortion. Using them *is* taking responsibility.

Feminist rant. Heard of something called law? Democracy? Typical feminist reaction defaulting to sexism. Hilarious.

Well, until men can get pregnant, women have a role here that is special. The fact that embryos and fetuses grow inside of their bodies means considerations arise that don't for men. This is simply a question of whether a person has a right to control their own body in certain circumstances (invasion of their body by something they don't want).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, until men can get pregnant, women have a role here that is special. The fact that embryos and fetuses grow inside of their bodies means considerations arise that don't for men. This is simply a question of whether a person has a right to control their own body in certain circumstances (invasion of their body by something they don't want).

Which is why I will not oppose a woman's right to choose. I would be inflicting something on her that could not be inflicted on me.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Expect sex is being used as a bargaining tool, an ineffective one. Weak women use sex in such a manner typically against weak men.

On what basis do you decide women must be weak for using sex, a behaviour that most humans have an instinctual urge to engage in, as a bargaining tool? Is it because they're exercising their bodily autonomy in a way you dislike?

Do you truly think sex striking would be encountered so often if it wasn't effective? Or is that where your distaste arises; because it is effective?

A consequence which the Bill's supporters agree with.

A consequence the Bill's supporters have gone out of their way to create, rendering it a self-fulfilled prophecy.

See the above.

Vague and unhelpful. Can you elaborate please?

As I consider it a human life. Size is irrelevant.

This isn't a sufficient reason to violate a woman's bodily autonomy though. The same applies with any person. Say I need a kidney transplant from you and am guaranteed to die by next week if I don't receive it. Now say that you refuse to donate said kidney in the full knowledge that I will die as a result of your choice.

The fact that I'm a human life doesn't hold enough weight morally or legally to justify violating your bodily autonomy in order to force you to give me that life-saving kidney. If that is the case for you, why not with a woman's body? Your refusal to surrender your bodily autonomy in this hypothetical situation would cause the death of a thinking, breathing, autonomous person. Whereas a woman's refusal to surrender her bodily autonomy would result in the death of a foetus.

They have more rights than corpses.

See: Egyptian mummy exhibits

Bad example. Your average cadaver is not an archaeological specimen and you know it. Unless a recently deceased person has stipulated as such in their will or had made such a decision whilst alive, the government cannot take organs from that cadaver once its previous occupant has passed away - even doing so were to save another person's life. In other words a deceased person's bodily autonomy is considered inviolate beyond the instance of death.

So in other words women in some American states now have less right to bodily autonomy than a cadaver.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So?

So, it’s my body and I’ll decide what I’m going to do with it, and everything inside it.

You have the same right to bodily autonomy.

So

Wrong. Public intoxication for example.

In what way?

I am willing to compromise when there is a medical condition. I would extend this to mental problems such as PTSD for example.

Good for you. So when you’re pregnant, you can make that decision for yourself.

I’m not willing to compromise control over my body. So you’re going to have to go get your own uterus and control that instead of mine.

You made the choice to have sex right?....

Yep. That’s another choice I made about what do with my own body.


Thanks for avoiding the point again though; you’re getting good at that.

Feminist rant.

Ah, I see. It’s a feminist rant, so you can easily just dismiss it, rather than actually addressing the point, right? LOL

This is a humanist rant. Bodily autonomy applies to everyone, regardless of gender or sex. It even applies to you.

Yawn. Great argument against the welfare state though.

Whatever that means.

You went right to sexism. That is all I need to know. You have no argument without trying to use sex as a divider. Try again.

No, YOU did that when you responded to my post as a “feminist rant” so you could dismiss it.

It is hilarious that feminists act like the men they claim to hate by using sex to determine if someone can voice an opinion. Get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich. That is what you sound like.

LOL That’s not even close to what I said. Try again, son.


Bodily autonomy belongs to every single human being. Go make decisions about your body, and I’ll make decisions about mine. You don’t have to be a feminist to appreciate that.

FYI Roe vs Wade was determined by /drum roll men. By your rant abortion is not legally as men had an opinion that made it legal.

Yes, because … drum roll please .... for most of history, women haven’t been allowed to hold positions of power. Hence the reason it took us so long to gain any rights at all. And that only really started happening within the 20th Century.


But again, what I actually said was that my body isn’t your business to make decisions about. And your body is not mine to make decisions about. I’m sure you’ll write that off as a feminist rant though. It’s a lot easier than thinking.

 

[Stevicus]

So, getting back to the OP of the sex strike, I wonder how that's been going. Have the strikers been able to hold out? Any chance that opposing sides could come to the bargaining table for a quickie?

I tried to see if there had been any updates, but all I found were some recent raging tweets from Alyssa Milano about Jon Voight's recent praise for President Trump.

Actress Alyssa Milano blasts Academy Award-winning actor for his defense of Trump: ‘Has been,’ ‘F-lister trying to stay relevant’

 

[SkepticThinker]

So, getting back to the OP of the sex strike, I wonder how that's been going. Have the strikers been able to hold out? Any chance that opposing sides could come to the bargaining table for a quickie?

I tried to see if there had been any updates, but all I found were some recent raging tweets from Alyssa Milano about Jon Voight's recent praise for President Trump.

Actress Alyssa Milano blasts Academy Award-winning actor for his defense of Trump: ‘Has been,’ ‘F-lister trying to stay relevant’

Yeah! It couldn't be because she's ticked off about women's rights being taken away from them all over the country.

 

[Shad]

So, it’s my body and I’ll decide what I’m going to do with it, and everything inside it.

I disagree when it comes to killing a baby.

You have the same right to bodily autonomy.

I not the sex that holds another human in their body due to biology.

In what way?

There are consequences for acts.

Good for you. So when you’re pregnant, you can make that decision for yourself.

This issue is beyond that.

I’m not willing to compromise control over my body. So you’re going to have to go get your own uterus and control that instead of mine.

You just want to have consequences free actions paid for by other people

Yep. That’s another choice I made about what do with my own body.

Ergo deal the results of your actions and choices.

Thanks for avoiding the point again though; you’re getting good at that.

Didn't avoid anything. I pointed out you made a choice but not do not want the consequences of that choice.

Ah, I see. It’s a feminist rant, so you can easily just dismiss it, rather than actually addressing the point, right? LOL

When you go right to sexism. Yes it is very easy to dismiss feminist nonsensical rants.

This is a humanist rant. Bodily autonomy applies to everyone, regardless of gender or sex. It even applies to you.

Nope as per your use of sexism and your denial of humans rights to humans you want to kill.

Whatever that means.

If people are responsible for their own bodies there is no need for the welfare state as that is their problem.

No, YOU did that when you responded to my post as a “feminist rant” so you could dismiss it.

Nope. I dismissed parts of it after the point I hit your feminist rant. I read and reply as I go.

LOL That’s not even close to what I said. Try again, son.

I said that is what you sound like. You use sex to determine if one can have an voice opinion or not. Just like men did to women for centuries by undervaluing their opinion due to their sex.

Bodily autonomy belongs to every single human being.

Except for those you want to kill.

Go make decisions about your body, and I’ll make decisions about mine. You don’t have to be a feminist to appreciate that.

I just need to be a feminist to think killing a baby on a whim is morally correct. Amusing.

Yes, because … drum roll please .... for most of history, women haven’t been allowed to hold positions of power. Hence the reason it took us so long to gain any rights at all. And that only really started happening within the 20th Century.

Ergo your rant is just nonsense as men made abortion legal. They told you what you could legally do or not. You do not seem to object to that view held by men.... That is because those men have opinions you agree with so their opinion matters.

But again, what I actually said was that my body isn’t your business to make decisions about.

The child inside is.

And your body is not mine to make decisions about. I’m sure you’ll write that off as a feminist rant though. It’s a lot easier than thinking.

No. It is just general babble.

 

[Shad]

So, getting back to the OP of the sex strike, I wonder how that's been going. Have the strikers been able to hold out? Any chance that opposing sides could come to the bargaining table for a quickie?

I tried to see if there had been any updates, but all I found were some recent raging tweets from Alyssa Milano about Jon Voight's recent praise for President Trump.

Actress Alyssa Milano blasts Academy Award-winning actor for his defense of Trump: ‘Has been,’ ‘F-lister trying to stay relevant’

Hilarious. If Voight is an f-lister what does that make Milano..... Besides unhinged.

 

[Shad]

On what basis do you decide women must be weak for using sex, a behaviour that most humans have an instinctual urge to engage in, as a bargaining tool? Is it because they're exercising their bodily autonomy in a way you dislike?

Sex as a bargaining tool is a sign of weakness as they have no convincing argument. Hence why the point was made a public statement rather than remaining a private choice.

Do you truly think sex striking would be encountered so often if it wasn't effective? Or is that where your distaste arises; because it is effective?

It is effective?

A consequence the Bill's supporters have gone out of their way to create, rendering it a self-fulfilled prophecy.

You do not understand the irony of endorsing the view the opposition has been using for decades unwittingly.

Vague and unhelpful. Can you elaborate please?

See above was the reference that the opposition wouldn't care as the women they are with do not follow the ideology of Milano.

This isn't a sufficient reason to violate a woman's bodily autonomy though.

It is sufficient. You just disagree, nothing more.

The same applies with any person.

Except for the baby people want to kill or any group for that matter. History has great examples of being determining what is and what is not a human so they can just kill it and feel justified.

Say I need a kidney transplant from you and am guaranteed to die by next week if I don't receive it. Now say that you refuse to donate said kidney in the full knowledge that I will die as a result of your choice.

You are not a result of my actions.

The fact that I'm a human life doesn't hold enough weight morally or legally to justify violating your bodily autonomy in order to force you to give me that life-saving kidney.

The link is between the two parties that make the point. Killing a child on a whim is nothing comparable.

If that is the case for you, why not with a woman's body?

See above

Your refusal to surrender your bodily autonomy in this hypothetical situation would cause the death of a thinking, breathing, autonomous person. Whereas a woman's refusal to surrender her bodily autonomy would result in the death of a foetus.

See above

Bad example. Your average cadaver is not an archaeological specimen and you know it. Unless a recently deceased person has stipulated as such in their will or had made such a decision whilst alive, the government cannot take organs from that cadaver once its previous occupant has passed away - even doing so were to save another person's life. In other words a deceased person's bodily autonomy is considered inviolate beyond the instance of death.

It is a great example of people acting differently when they have an interest in doing thus corpse's rights are situational and expire over time.

So in other words women in some American states now have less right to bodily autonomy than a cadaver.

Nope.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I disagree when it comes to killing a baby.

I agree that we don’t have the right to kill recently born/newborn babies.

I not the sex that holds another human in their body due to biology.

Pardon?

There are consequences for acts.

I’ll take care about what goes on with my own body, thanks.

This issue is beyond that.

That issue is that.

You just want to have consequences free actions paid for by other people

Sorry, what?

Ergo deal the results of your actions and choices.

Yep, and I can deal with those results how I see fit since it’s my own body.

Didn't avoid anything. I pointed out you made a choice but not do not want the consequences of that choice.

Sure you did. I was talking about medical complications that can come as a result of pregnancy and your response had nothing to do with it.

When you go right to sexism. Yes it is very easy to dismiss feminist nonsensical rants.

LOL Again, YOU went to sexism when you branded my post a “feminist rant.”

It’s rather disturbing that you think an assertion of bodily autonomy is a “nonsensical feminist rant.”

Nope as per your use of sexism and your denial of humans rights to humans you want to kill.

Sorry but an embryo or a fetus doesn’t have the same rights as a fully grown, independent human being with social ties and responsibilities.

I didn’t use any sexism, YOU did. I pointed out that men and women have the same right to bodily autonomy. You’re the one trying to make this into a “feminist rant” so you can just dismiss it. Sorry son, but this stuff DIRECTLY affects me. So you can bet I’m gonna have something to say about it. When I start dictating to you what you can do with your testicles or your kidney or your penis, maybe you’ll understand then.

If people are responsible for their own bodies there is no need for the welfare state as that is their problem.

That makes no sense.

Nope. I dismissed parts of it after the point I hit your feminist rant. I read and reply as I go.

Yep! As I’ve pointed out countless times now, bodily autonomy applies to all human beings, regardless of sex or gender.

I said that is what you sound like. You use sex to determine if one can have an voice opinion or not. Just like men did to women for centuries by undervaluing their opinion due to their sex.

All I cay say to this at this point is LOL.

Except for those you want to kill.

Embryos and fetuses aren’t viable, independent human beings, as you and I are.

I just need to be a feminist to think killing a baby on a whim is morally correct. Amusing.

To understand and value bodily autonomy, you need only be human.

Ergo your rant is just nonsense as men made abortion legal. They told you what you could legally do or not. You do not seem to object to that view held by men.... That is because those men have opinions you agree with so their opinion matters.

You’re really starting to bore me now. You clearly haven’t paid attention to anything I’ve said. Of course you think it’s all just a big “feminist rant” so that you can dismiss it, which is pretty pathetic.

The child inside is.

Oh, are you going to adopt all the unwanted babies?

No, the embryo or fetus inside of me is not your concern. Neither are any other medical decisions I may or may not make about what happens with my body.

Go worry about your own body.

No. It is just general babble.[/QUOTE]

Yes you’re right; your posts don’t amount to much more than that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sex as a bargaining tool is a sign of weakness as they have no convincing argument. Hence why the point was made a public statement rather than remaining a private choice.





It is effective?





You do not understand the irony of endorsing the view the opposition has been using for decades unwittingly.






See above was the reference that the opposition wouldn't care as the women they are with do not follow the ideology of Milano.




It is sufficient. You just disagree, nothing more.




Except for the baby people want to kill or any group for that matter. History has great examples of being determining what is and what is not a human so they can just kill it and feel justified.



You are not a result of my actions.



The link is between the two parties that make the point. Killing a child on a whim is nothing comparable.



See above



See above



It is a great example of people acting differently when they have an interest in doing thus corpse's rights are situational and expire over time.




Nope.

Yep. You don't have to acknowledge it for it to be true.