Abortion and Women's Rights

Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights.  Murder is not a right. 

"Lets not dodge the point here.  You were saying that banning late-term abortions is not justified due to the fact that there are laws on the books that *might* limmit the availibility of contraceptives, and that this *somehow* absolves the guilty parties of their crimes (killing unborn conscious human life).  I totally disagree.  They made the decision with those laws on the books, and they made it anyway.  They made a choice, they knew the consequences, and we *do* have sexual education now, so I fail to see how you could POSSIBLY not blame them.  The fault is all theirs." When these impairments act upon their liberties then they are absolved of a possible immorality of a related action. This is the case with parent notification laws, for example.
"But individuals make individual decisions which then result in unwanted pregnancies." But politicians enact policies that invariably increase the probability of poor individual decisions. How good is the sex-ed by the way?
"So they aren't bitches for screwing up their child's life, since they provided it?" Existence is existence, it's status is not very important.
"I would be disgusted and embarassed with myself, if I was you." If this came from an individual whose sentiments had value, I would introspect by now. Yet I'll just have some blueberries.
"There you go.  I'd support that.  Boycotting is the proper way to deal with companies or groups you don't like.  Organized boycotting is even stronger, provided you have a large group." Mmhm. I just think capitalism will be a horrible force without consumer responsibility. If that Lovelock dude is right, and his Gaia theory is actually plausible, civilization as we know it is gone in about 25 years.
"Don't try to evade the fact that said group of people use very fascist, or at the least, authoritarian methods of getting their agenda implanted in reality." Well, those're just words, although I understand your sentiments regarding my position, flexible though it may be.
"If you are genetically human, and exhibit the characteristics of 'life', would you not then be considered 'human life'?" yup, but not human existence.
"Yeah, aside from consciousness, senses, and feeling, *nothing* to distance it from a cancer, lol!" Well, nothing to distance it from a fish, then.
"Also, cancers are formed of their own accord, more or less.  Fetuses are brought on by their bearer." That is only relevant when the fetus is more special than a fish.
"Genetically human + consciousness = no more abortions, with the given few exceptions." My situation just glanced off. With some fiberoptics, we could create a simulation of human matter communicating with a *hind brain*, that we share with all animals.
"What are you talking about? Speak more clearly.  I support equal rights, and that's it.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with this." And the extent of said support? An employer who discriminates a woman discriminates me.
"Activity to promote the lives of women only, rather than all people regardless of sex, is essentially sexist to me." I'm not entirely iron-cast on my position regarding this, so no worry please. But I always base myself on reality, so if some limited and accurate affirmative action program with proven results were suggested I would not wince away.
"Nope, some comes from the man too." That is half the blueprint, not the building blocks.
"They haven't.  None of the serious ones anyway.  I don't know where you'd get that idea." I'm talking about the quotes from that fucked-up forum.

>>601
"When these impairments act upon their liberties then they are absolved of a possible immorality of a related action. This is the case with parent notification laws, for example."

No, they are not absolved of the immorality of killing babies due to some other law on the books.  They made their decisions, got pregnant, etc, with the said law on the books.  The responsibility and blame lies squarely and fairly upon them.
"But politicians enact policies that invariably increase the probability of poor individual decisions."

No, they don't.  Individuals still have the option to not make stupid decisions.  Absolving them of blame for making stupid decisions is not going to reduce the number of said stupid decisions.

"How good is the sex-ed by the way?"

What can I say, they told me all the stuff I had already learned myself years before.  They talked all about the various STDs you can get, they talked about the effectiveness and price of various methods of contraception, they talked about myths, they talked about a lot of stuff.  Too much for me to tell you about all in this paragraph in response to your post. 

"Existence is existence, it's status is not very important."

I fail to see how this addresses my question.

"If this came from an individual whose sentiments had value, I would introspect by now."

Yes, because I'm consistent, don't think women should have the right to kill human babies, and dislike fascist feminazis, my sentiments hold no value.

"If that Lovelock dude is right, and his Gaia theory is actually plausible, civilization as we know it is gone in about 25 years."

I seriously doubt it.  People have been preaching doomsday for centuries now, and likely longer.  Guess what? The sun tends to rise the next day, and the end of the world wasn't upon us all the previous times.

"Well, those're just words, although I understand your sentiments regarding my position, flexible though it may be."

Yeah, 'fascist' and 'authoritarian' are 'just words', just like 'communism', 'totalitarianism', 'racism', 'sexism' 'genocide', 'murder', 'police-state', etc.

"If you are genetically human, and exhibit the characteristics of 'life', would you not then be considered 'human life'?" yup, but not human existence."

You are still a human life, and it is the proper duty of good and just government to defend human life.

"Well, nothing to distance it from a fish, then."

Wrong, fish aren't human.

"That is only relevant when the fetus is more special than a fish."

lol @ xel for thinking unborn babies are only as special or deserving of life as a fish.

"And the extent of said support? An employer who discriminates a woman discriminates me."

Employers have the right to hire, fire, or not hire whomever they please.  They have the right to sell or not sell to whomever they please.  Employment should be entirely voluntary.  Nobody has a 'right' to a job.  Nobody has a 'right' to the money of others.

"I'm not entirely iron-cast on my position regarding this, so no worry please. But I always base myself on reality, so if some limited and accurate affirmative action program with proven results were suggested I would not wince away."

Good.  Since your position isn't iron-cast, change it.  As I said, it is still essentially sexist.

"They haven't.  None of the serious ones anyway.  I don't know where you'd get that idea." I'm talking about the quotes from that fucked-up forum."

This forum? I like this forum. 

"The responsibility and blame lies squarely and fairly upon them." Provided that they live in truly free society where lying and propaganda is not prevalent.
"Individuals still have the option to not make stupid decisions." Well, reality is probabilistic. If polticians repeatedly make choices that fuck with people, they are at fault.
"Absolving them of blame for making stupid decisions is not going to reduce the number of said stupid decisions." Said blame isn't helping either.
"What can I say, they told me all the stuff I had already learned myself years before.  They talked all about the various STDs you can get, they talked about the effectiveness and price of various methods of contraception, they talked about myths, they talked about a lot of stuff.  Too much for me to tell you about all in this paragraph in response to your post." Sounds reasonable, and I'd pay for it.
"I fail to see how this addresses my question." Your question seems to implicate that having a kid with a non-ideal phenotype is gambling with said kids life. Newsflash; every parent does that, and to spread your genes even though they are not perfect is not immoral.
"Yes, because I'm consistent, don't think women should have the right to kill human babies, and dislike fascist feminazis, my sentiments hold no value." You refuse to establish limits that can be universalized and you use an emotional, non-accurrate term as if it makes you solid. You offer few facts and have likened a woman to a female dog. Not good.
"I seriously doubt it.  People have been preaching doomsday for centuries now, and likely longer.  Guess what? The sun tends to rise the next day, and the end of the world wasn't upon us all the previous times." Things have a tendency to accumulate nonetheless. Ah, it doesn't matter. For some reason humanity's survival doesn't... Concern me for some reason.
"Yeah, 'fascist' and 'authoritarian' are 'just words', just like 'communism', 'totalitarianism', 'racism', 'sexism' 'genocide', 'murder', 'police-state', etc." They are blankets.
"You are still a human life, and it is the proper duty of good and just government to defend human life." Not at the expense of human existence.
"Wrong, fish aren't human." But they have unique genetic codes and exhibit all the faculties you've listed. DNA doesn't make any difference; life is incredibly complex no matter where you look, but it is our brains that makes us human. If one took a human brain, suspended it in some stable liquid and played upon it expertly, the lack of a body would not even be registered.
"lol @ xel for thinking unborn babies are only as special or deserving of life as a fish." If they're not compiling their experiences in a brain that is more advanced than a fish, they are fish.
"Employers have the right to hire, fire, or not hire whomever they please.  They have the right to sell or not sell to whomever they please.  Employment should be entirely voluntary.  Nobody has a 'right' to a job.  Nobody has a 'right' to the money of others." Well, I agree. Stick that on a banner and kiss a few babies. Meanwhile, in complexworld...
"Good.  Since your position isn't iron-cast, change it.  As I said, it is still essentially sexist." If you want to make me change my views, don't tell me to. You're not a veru good marketer of your ideas.
"This forum? I like this forum." This forum is overrun with scratched LPs. I was referring to another one.

>>603
"Provided that they live in truly free society where lying and propaganda is not prevalent."

No.  That has nothing to do with the fact that they have committed murder. 

"Well, reality is probabilistic. If polticians repeatedly make choices that fuck with people, they are at fault."

The people still made their decision, and knew what the consequence would be.  It is their fault.

"Said blame isn't helping either."

If said 'blame' was enforced in the form of laws, it *would* help.

"Your question seems to implicate that having a kid with a non-ideal phenotype is gambling with said kids life. Newsflash; every parent does that, and to spread your genes even though they are not perfect is not immoral."

Its not just 'not perfect', it is that it is a serious disease that could have very serious consequences for the child's future, and could result in the need for a late-term abortion to save the mother's life, if the mother's health gets threatened.  Again, they are gambling with lives other than their own, and this is not responsible or compassionate.

"You refuse to establish limits that can be universalized and you use an emotional, non-accurrate term as if it makes you solid. You offer few facts and have likened a woman to a female dog. Not good."

Establish limmits that can be universalized? Use an emotional, non-accurate term as if it makes me solid? Likened a woman to a female dog? Explain.

I don't need to offer *many* facts as long as I offer a few good ones that prop up my argument, which I do.  Anyway, I do offer many facts.

"They are blankets."

Words are just symbols, essentially, that represent things in reality, much like numbers.  However, you happen to have a very disgusting word that represents you (fascist).  This is not something to be proud of.

"Not at the expense of human existence."

It is the fault of said humans that the life is there.  Considering that, I have no issue with holding them at fault and making them pay.

"But they have unique genetic codes and exhibit all the faculties you've listed."

Yet are still not genetically human.  Quite a crucial difference to me.

"DNA doesn't make any difference;"

LOL, yeah, who gives a fuck about DNA? Unimportant shit, right?

"life is incredibly complex no matter where you look, but it is our brains that makes us human."

Human DNA makes you human, not just your human brain.

"If one took a human brain, suspended it in some stable liquid and played upon it expertly, the lack of a body would not even be registered."

Doesn't change the fact that they are human lives, are innocent, are conscious, can possibly feel, and that it is the duty of good government to protect them.

"If they're not compiling their experiences in a brain that is more advanced than a fish, they are fish."

No, they are genetically human.  They are not fish. 

"Well, I agree. Stick that on a banner and kiss a few babies. Meanwhile, in complexworld..."

Good. 

"If you want to make me change my views, don't tell me to. You're not a veru good marketer of your ideas."

Sure.  Go ahead and be a fascist sexist if you like then.

What's with all this talk about killing babies? Fetus =/= Baby

Also, feminism is for equality of both sexes, not just for women. It just so happens to have 'femin' in it. It could be called 'masculinism' for all I care and still have the same meaning. Most people take offence to feminism just because of how it looks. Don't judge a book by its cover.

bump for defeat of spammer

>>605
"What's with all this talk about killing babies? Fetus =/= Baby"

We are discussing late-term abortions that occur after a point at which the fetus is conscious and or can feel, and can thus be considered a human life.  To kill it at this point constitutes murder, pure and simple.

"Also, feminism is for equality of both sexes, not just for women."

It states clearly in the definition of feminism that it is for the promotion of women.. this is just as sexist as having an organization of people dedicated to promoting white people would be racist.

"Most people take offence to feminism just because of how it looks. Don't judge a book by its cover."

That's not the qualm I have with it, I assure you.

"We are discussing late-term abortions that occur after a point at which the fetus is conscious and or can feel, and can thus be considered a human life.  To kill it at this point constitutes murder, pure and simple." Still not buying that.
"It states clearly in the definition of feminism that it is for the promotion of women.. this is just as sexist as having an organization of people dedicated to promoting white people would be racist." It tries to create balance by promoting that which is temporarily lower. Few feminists consider women innately superior to men, so they'll stop promoting once balance has been achieved.
>>604 "The people still made their decision, and knew what the consequence would be.  It is their fault." Well, humans aren't electrons, unfortunately. Nor do they have the same margins you think they have. If some people act wrongly I want to understand why, and your explanation is sub-par.
"If said 'blame' was enforced in the form of laws, it *would* help." No, it would just raise the sale of coathangers.
"Its not just 'not perfect', it is that it is a serious disease that could have very serious consequences for the child's future, and could result in the need for a late-term abortion to save the mother's life, if the mother's health gets threatened.  Again, they are gambling with lives other than their own, and this is not responsible or compassionate." Well, they are giving the life in the first place, making their parenthood equal to that of other parents. Healthy women could harbor trisonomic kids who'll die in their thirties, while fetuses of diabetic women could experience a mutation that would cancel the disease. All parents gamble with their children's lives, some just have a worse hand than the others. When is the limit for having a kid, then?
"Establish limmits that can be universalized? Use an emotional, non-accurate term as if it makes me solid? Likened a woman to a female dog?" It's not really my job to explain this.
"don't need to offer *many* facts as long as I offer a few good ones that prop up my argument, which I do.  Anyway, I do offer many facts." Not very many, really.
"Words are just symbols, essentially, that represent things in reality, much like numbers.  However, you happen to have a very disgusting word that represents you (fascist).  This is not something to be proud of." Exactly, and your words are either inaccurate or used as blankets.
"It is the fault of said humans that the life is there.  Considering that, I have no issue with holding them at fault and making them pay." Well, there is still no good limit as to when the fetus is equal to the parents.
"Yet are still not genetically human.  Quite a crucial difference to me." Human existence is nothing without a brain.
"LOL, yeah, who gives a fuck about DNA? Unimportant shit, right?" It's just not that special. Unfathomably complex but irrelevant.
"Human DNA makes you human, not just your human brain." Beg to differ.
"Doesn't change the fact that they are human lives, are innocent, are conscious, can possibly feel, and that it is the duty of good government to protect them." And it's my job to prevent government from doing so.
"No, they are genetically human.  They are not fish." That doesn't make them equal to the parents.
"Sure.  Go ahead and be a fascist sexist if you like then." You know, I just don't feel anything when you use words like that. Like they've lost their edge.

"this is just as sexist as having an organization of people dedicated to promoting white people would be racist."

So an organization pormoting only blacks, or Hispanics is not racist?

>>562

"Whether or not abortion is wrong or not does not depend upon whether or not capital punishment is wrong or not.  They are separate issues.  The fact that one or the other may exist does not justify making a wrong decision in implimenting a policy on the other."

What the fuck?

The entire point is that as long as your reasoning for banning abortion is: "Conscious individual beings have a right to life"- then the natural and logical response will be the question of Capital Punishment. Your inability to discuss this aspect of the driving ideals behind your belief that abortion is wrong is indictive of a rudimentary understanding of those ideals.

They are *not* seperate issues. That just you trying to re-frame the debate. Sorry, but most of pro-choicer have gone to college and we know that this is not how any adult would debate this issue. Why are you so fucking afraid to tell us your age, sex, or a statement about your sexual experiences? It's just plain suspicious.

Re-read and RESPOND: [b]"Consciousness does not imply right to live.  As long as there is capital punishment, the decision of whether all human life is sacred is an arbitrary one, and not decided on absolutes such as definition of life, etc."

>>609 Don't split hairs. As generalizing as he is, he has a *possible* point.

>>610 The problem is that he doesn't wish to appreciate the universalizability princip as long as it raises questions about his beliefs.

>>610
I laughed when I read this post.  Time for the refutation.


"The entire point is that as long as your reasoning for banning abortion is: "Conscious individual beings have a right to life"- then the natural and logical response will be the question of Capital Punishment."

And I am against the death penalty as well.  I guess your comprehension was just that bad that you failed to pick up on this.

"Your inability to discuss this aspect of the driving ideals behind your belief that abortion is wrong is indictive of a rudimentary understanding of those ideals."

See above.

"They are *not* seperate issues."

Yes they are.  The death penalty involves the question of whether or not it is right or not to execute *guilty* people.  Abortion involves the *innocent*.  They are completely different.  This is not to say I agree with the death penalty (I don't.)

"That just you trying to re-frame the debate. Sorry, but most of pro-choicer have gone to college and we know that this is not how any adult would debate this issue."

'Most of pro-choicer have gone to college'? Really? *chuckles*

"Why are you so fucking afraid to tell us your age, sex, or a statement about your sexual experiences? It's just plain suspicious."

I'm a 17 year old american white male.  I already said this a while ago, but in a different thread.  I don't believe you asked me my age/sex/etc in this thread.  What made you think I wouldn't answer when you had never bothered to ask the question in the first place? Clearly, whatever assumption you had about me was wrong.

"Re-read and RESPOND: [b]"Consciousness does not imply right to live.  As long as there is capital punishment, the decision of whether all human life is sacred is an arbitrary one, and not decided on absolutes such as definition of life, etc."

Wrong.  Capital Punishment involves the destruction of *guilty* human life.  Late-term abortion involves the destruction of *innocent* human life.  Therein lies the essential difference.  (Note for the slow:  I am not advocating the death penalty.  I am against it.)

>>609
"So an organization pormoting only blacks, or Hispanics is not racist? "

I never said that.  From the information you give me on your example, I would say it would be just as essentially racist. 

>>612
"The problem is that he doesn't wish to appreciate the universalizability princip as long as it raises questions about his beliefs."

Explain.

>>608
"Still not buying that."

Fails for not explaining why.

"It tries to create balance by promoting that which is temporarily lower. Few feminists consider women innately superior to men, so they'll stop promoting once balance has been achieved."

Then maybe they should attempt to promote equality, rather than promoting women alone? This part of the definition is obviously sexist.

"Well, humans aren't electrons, unfortunately. Nor do they have the same margins you think they have. If some people act wrongly I want to understand why, and your explanation is sub-par."

Supposing we had the laws I want, they would have acted wrongly knowing that the laws were there in advance, knowing full well what the consequences would be.  I see no issue with laying down the law in this case.

"No, it would just raise the sale of coathangers."

If the law tightened up on the criminals, and the risk of having one was too great, the number would decline. 

"Well, they are giving the life in the first place, making their parenthood equal to that of other parents."

And gambling with the lives, health, and general well being of their future children.  Again, neither responsible or compassionate.

"Healthy women could harbor trisonomic kids who'll die in their thirties, while fetuses of diabetic women could experience a mutation that would cancel the disease. All parents gamble with their children's lives, some just have a worse hand than the others. When is the limit for having a kid, then?"

The odds Kumori gave for her example (1/4 & 1/2) are too great for the decision to be a responsible and compassionate one in my opinion.

"It's not really my job to explain this."

If you can't explain and prove your accusations, I have no reason to pay any heed.

"Not very many, really."

This refutation fails to address the central point of my statement.

"Exactly, and your words are either inaccurate or used as blankets."

Innacurate? You are a fascist by definition.  I don't know how you could say they are innacurate.  You are also a sexist by definition.  Thus, you are a fascist sexist.  This is totally accurate, until you change your views.

"Well, there is still no good limit as to when the fetus is equal to the parents."

I think I have found a reasonable point at which the right to life of the human fetus should be recognized.

"Human existence is nothing without a brain."

Redundant.  It is the proper duty of good government to defend human life.  If a fetus is genetically human, and exhibits certain characteristics of life (i.e. consciousness & or feeling), it is the proper duty of good government to defend said human life.

"It's just not that special. Unfathomably complex but irrelevant."

So DNA is what made you a human, and a snake a snake, yet this is irrelevant? DNA makes humans human.

"Beg to differ."

Why is that?

"And it's my job to prevent government from doing so."

Heh.  And I'll side with the government on this one.  Supposing this is what they are enforcing, I'd happilly become a detective to help them enforce it.  They are good laws.

"That doesn't make them equal to the parents."

It does give them a right to continue to live and develop.

"You know, I just don't feel anything when you use words like that. Like they've lost their edge."

Due to the fact that you are indeed a fascist sexist, and that they accurately represent you and what you believe, they likely don't sting.  Would Hitler have disliked being referred to as a Nazi? Hmm.

>>612

"The problem is that he doesn't wish to appreciate the universalizability princip as long as it raises questions about his beliefs."

If you are talking about the death penalty again, this is false because I don't advocate it or support it.

>>613 "I'm a 17 year old american white male." You've had a birthday? When? I'm 18 in November, anyway. And I live in Sweden, if anyone cares and has just dropped in or something.

>>616 Cares too much about about arguing, and ignoring anything that may cross his beliefs.

>>615 "Explain." The idea is that if one uses his freedom to act and be in the public to do unjustified harm to another person's rights then it is the freedom to act and be in public, not the damaged right, that is to be removed. DP is just eye for an eye. In the abortion debate, I believe that autonomy has only been established by a fetus once it has accumulated a unique, unimitatable individual persona, considering it's genetic code is as complex as that of the host, and it has even fewer biological faculties and processes than that of the host. As such, consciousness is not enough to justify murder, and the parents are not guilty of anything worse than an appendix procedure.  As such, a nation can't ethically have a defense of a fetus' life on the *principle of consciousness* and still claim the right to off people.

>>619
"Cares too much about about arguing, and ignoring anything that may cross his beliefs."

Tell me what I am ignoring that may 'cross my beliefs'.

>>618
Yep I turned 17..:)

>>620
I am not for the death penalty.  I am consistent in my principles.

Regarding this: 

"In the abortion debate, I believe that autonomy has only been established by a fetus once it has accumulated a unique, unimitatable individual persona,"

I disagree.  Genetically human + exhibits characteristics of human = 'human life'.  That said, it is the proper function of good government to defend and protect *life*, liberty, and property.  My opinions are totally consistent.

"As such, consciousness is not enough to justify murder, and the parents are not guilty of anything worse than an appendix procedure."

See above.

"As such, a nation can't ethically have a defense of a fetus' life on the *principle of consciousness* and still claim the right to off people."

If the fetus is exhibiting one or more of the characteristics of 'life', can be considered to be 'alive', or essentially alive,   and is genetically human, it is then a 'human life', and to kill it is murder, plain and simple.

>>621 Still not through using the same loopholes?

"I disagree.  Genetically human + exhibits characteristics of human = 'human life'.  That said, it is the proper function of good government to defend and protect *life*, liberty, and property." - So does my kidneys and spleen exhibit human genetics and characteristics. It would then be murder to remove them from what you said above. It is the human conscious and mind that separates human beings from being sacs of organs to individuals with unique personas.
Oh, I'm going to be 20 end of November. :/

>>622
"So does my kidneys and spleen exhibit human genetics and characteristics."

Yet does not exhibit one of the more crucial of the characteristics of an individual life - consciousness.

STOP POSTING

>>623 "Yet does not exhibit one of the more crucial of the characteristics of an individual life - consciousness." The woman has a more crucial characteristic, existence, a cast-iron sense of *I*. As such, I need to protect her over the fetus, sorry.

>>622
"Still not through using the same loopholes?"

If you want to call defending conscious human life 'using a loophole', then I guess I'm not through using them, no.

>>625
"The woman has a more crucial characteristic, existence, a cast-iron sense of *I*. As such, I need to protect her over the fetus, sorry."

That does not mean the fetus deserves no protection.  This only gives justification for abortion when medically necessary. 

>>624
OR, *you* could stop *reading.*

>>628
Or you could stop depressing /newpol/ by continuing to post here.

STFU

>>626 Your use of lopeholes harms your credibility. True coming up with something more original instead of assdragging.

>>629
"Or you could stop depressing /newpol/ by continuing to post here.

STFU"

Nope.

>>630
"Your use of lopeholes harms your credibility. True coming up with something more original instead of assdragging."

I don't consider it a 'loophole'.

I think the following are reasonable, based on my readings and analysis of the thread: 

Child Support Laws are fine, both parties are responsible for, and have rights to the child.

Abortion should be legal up until the point at which the human fetus could be considered a 'human life', i.e. has attained consciousness and or feeling/senses.  After this point, no abortions should be allowed at all unless continuing development of the fetus and birth is deemed a -serious- threat to the mother's life by medical professionals or other able, credible, and knowledgeable people.  In this instance, the abortion would only be allowed if done humanely.

No abortion should be allowed without the consent of the man, due to the fact that the unborn baby is indeed partly his, as well as is partly his responsibility.

Contraceptives should be totally legal, unrestricted, and deregulated. 

Pharmacists should be allowed to sell or not to sell their services if they please.

>>631
haha so you are going to continue to humiliate yourself hahaha

>>632
Oh, and one more thing I forgot to add (I am poster 632), responsible and able male parents should not be denied their children so regularly in custody battles, as the child is, again, a mutual right and responsibility of both parents.

>>633
I'm not a fascist sexist, I think it is the feminists and feminazis who should be frightened of being humiliated.

>>632 & >>634
The logical and truthful conclusion.

>>635 Using feminism as a scapegoat again? You may feel free to insult the neo-feminists/feminazis or do whatever with them, but leave the true feminists (equal rights for both sexes, nothing else) out of the picture. Kthxbai.

>>637
Feminism by definition is not just 'equal rights for both sexes, and nothing else'.  If this is all it was, I would gladly support it, and proclaim myself a proud feminist.  Since that is not the case, and the reality is that they wish to use fascism to shove their agenda down everyone's throat, promote the lives of women only, etc, I am proud to say I am *not* a feminist.  I *do* however support equal rights for everyone, regardless of sex.  If that's 'feminism' to *you*, than *you* can consider me a 'feminist'.

>>638 True feminists promote the lives of both men and women regardless of sex. This is what I support, and I call myself a proud feminist because of it. The feminist name has been dirtied up by neo-feminist/feminazi rejects.

>>638
Seconded.