Pro-life or pro-choice?

I think value is relative, personal and abstract. there are people who are important to me, but this is my own bias. I believe in individual's rights, and I don't consider a fetus an individual.

and it doesn't really matter who I think would make the better mother, at the end of the day I respect the autonomy of others. that type of Makowism makes me sick. there are roles that men and women traditionally fall into within a society, but these are detrimental to individual rights. not to mention arbitrary. the endangered nuclear family doesn't mean anything to me...

 

Well, I am extremely pro-autonomy, and I believe people should be able to live the lives they want to live. I am not here to tell people how to live. If women want to opt for the corporate world instead of having families, I have no problem with that, as long as it's what they really want. Unfortunately, most people are composites of their indoctrination, and this includes men and women alike. It's instinctual and natural for women to want to bear children and care for their families. It's not instinctual or natural for women to want to be corporate sharecroppers for men in suits, just so they can have the status and all the material luxuries in life. This is what has been indoctrinated into people, and that, in my opinion, is not only anti-woman, but anti-human. This is why many women who decide against having families, often end up bitter and depressed later in life. Not all women, mind you, but many women.

While I believe feminism started off as being pure in its intent, I know the movement was later hijacked and co-opted. It presented itself as being for the rights of women, then it said that women should become equal to men by becoming more like men and taking on the roles of men. This had nothing to do with the equal rights of women and everything to do with getting women into the workplace, so the government would then have double the tax base while the children would be raised by the state, which would instill them with their values.

I simply take issue with the notion that being pro-family somehow equates to being anti-woman, when to me that sounds a lot like the same propaganda that is being churned out by the modern-day, foundation-funded feminist movement, which basically says that men are pigs and children are dirty. A person cannot be much more backwards in their thinking by believing that women who love and care for their families are somehow being oppressed, while women who take the corporate route and serve the system are somehow free. They might swallow the propaganda and believe they're free, until their natural instincts take over.

 

well thats kind of a paradox lol, if the women are going out into the "corporate world" and are told to hate children, then they would only be destroying their future tax base by limiting population growth, which kids are going to be educated by the "state" if women don't like men and don't have kids? they will have no one to brain wash or get taxes out of if women don't give birth. also, most kids have been going to public/"state run schools" for ages, even when the typical family structure was inplace in most homes

 

This is actually a very good question.

The people at the top really don't care about money. They care only about control. They are eugenicists and believe in massively reducing the world's population. People's taxes have been used for a very long time to basically build the system we are living under today. Now that the system is largely in place, so is the infrastructure to literally control vast numbers of people. What you mentioned in your post is EXACTLY the outcome they have been looking to create all along, and they created that system with the people's tax money. Now that the system is largely in place, tax money isn't as important to them, other than to ensure that the people have less money in their own pockets. They strive to create a socialistic and fascistic system where people are completely dependent on the government. These people HATE independence. They love INTERDEPENDENCE. They love CONTROL! Most of all they LOVE COLLECTIVISM and HATE INDIVIDUALITY.

Their goals have largely been achieved through the destruction of the family unit and the public's inability to think critically about anything.

 

I have every right to do what I want with my vagina and my eggs, feminism aside.

 

I heard you the first time, Allison, and I respect your opinion.

 

Oh good. Someone has to listen to me roar. Thanks dear.

 

I know you believe in and respect individual's rights. women traditionally have been homemakers, and I think this is probably instinctual, but I don't see how more women in the work force is harming society. what do you fear will be the outcome? I agree that this is due to secular indoctrination, but it could be argued that the same applies to traditional family-oriented gender roles as well as nature. it's a matter of perspective and can't be proven. I'll also be the first to admit that women are unfathomable to me and I don't have enough confidence to make any concrete statements about what women are really like.

I don't think pro-family and anti-woman are synonymous by any means, but I have observed an overlap. they both seem overtly concerned with the "feminization" of men, the homosexual agenda, and their wives/girlfriends wearing the pants in the family, and often come to the same conclusions.

 

Wow, unreal. I have definitely heard it all now. Humans are no more special than a fly?? Hitler could have really used you! I think you just lost ALL credibility on this topic.

"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

 

I'm pretty sure Hitler believed people of certain ethnicities were worth more than people of others.

I don't care. most people disagree with me. at least I'm not afraid of a meaningless life. cling to your transitional shit while you can.

 

Some women have no interest whatsoever in rearing their children, or to really be the person more involved and required as the center role of the family and caregiver of the children. I don't believe that women have more instinctual urges to rear children any more than a man would. I think those attitudes and notions are culturally linked and inherited through historical sex-roles of many perceived social inequalities.

The problem I have, are in those Durkheim writings and those of later structural-functionalist theorists that imply that it is generally better for the well-being of the family and society if women's interests and aspirations outside of the home are subordinated to those of men.

People assume that women are predominant in the 'expressive' role, caregiving of the domestic spheres of a household while men engage largely in 'instrumental' or occupational roles outside of the home.

It's my opinion that this arrangement and the idea that it's a natural phenomenon - appears to be total bullshit to me, and is an occurrence determined by circumstance and the sexual divisions of labour.

 

Well, first of all, you have to understand the reason behind getting women into the workforce to begin with. Part of it had to do with more money for the government, but it really had to do with breaking down the family unit. This was discussed long ago in books that most people would probably never bother to read. You see, if both parents are working, then the children are raised predominately by the state and the parents become almost irrelevant in the child's life. Bertrand Russell, who was employed by the Crown, once stated that if the children could be schooled starting at the age of four, the values of the parents would become irrelevant in place of the values instilled by the state.

Why do you think so many families are so dysfunctional today? It's not simply by mere coincidence. We are being socially engineered. Today, family life equates to the time spent at the dinner table and that's it. The majority of the rest of the time, both parents (if there even are "both" parents) are working (just to make end's meat in most cases) and the children are being raised in state indoctrination centers known as public schools.

The family has long been the #1 target of the Elite because it represents the last vestige of the tribal unit. Families bond together and stick up for each other. When you remove the family from the equation, people turn to the state for support.

This passage from Eric Blair (aka George Orwell)'s 1984 sums it up well:

We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother.

 

So yeah, in one sense if one has the the idea that women hold the dominant role and natural choice for child-rearing - it can appear as though family values and orientations towards the family is anti-woman since there is no other natural way of balancing the scales. You know?

 

I see where you're coming from, but I still view this emphasis on the family as undermining a woman's chance at autonomy. I don't like either of the outcomes. how would the state raise a child if both parents were working, aside from school which the kid would attend anyway?

 

so you're basically saying that women are only meant to take care of kids? You're acting like the only alternative is working in a corporation. WRONG.
I am a woman. I don't want to have kids, I am pro-choice.
Why? Because I'm an independent person, and I'd rather focus on learning and growing and teaching myself then dedicating my life to taking care of someone else. I'm taking care of me. I want to experience all of life without being tied down.

 

No, I am not saying women are only meant to take care of children. (Sorry, I find the word "kids" offensive. They are human, not animals.) I am saying that is the woman's instinctual and natural role in a more NATURAL and more TRIBALISTIC society -- unlike the UNNATURAL and largely INHUMANE society we live in today, which is centered around money and material greed. Most people don't even know what they really want because "their" thoughts are in fact someone else's.

What does having children have to do with your ability to learn and grow? I would say women who have children learn and grow a lot from their experiences as mothers.

Personally, I don't want to bring children into this world. It's not because I don't like children, but because I am mindful of the world they will grow to inherit. I am speaking simply in regards to the notion that being pro-family is somehow anti-woman, which is not even remotely true, other than to those who have swallowed the modern feminist propaganda which is aimed at the destruction of the family.

 

ah well la dee da.

gee SORRY, Matt.

 

Thanks for at least listening to what I have to say, Nick, even if you don't agree with me. I know you're an intelligent guy and can probably better understand what I am saying than most people (even if you don't agree with what I have to say).

But I already said that people should have the right to do what they want. I am not speaking of anybody imposing their will on anyone else. As a staunch individualist and free-thinker, I am very strongly against that. I am simply speaking to the idea that being pro-family is somehow anti-woman, when that is in fact very much the popular modern-day view instilled by modern-day feminism, which is closely connected with the CIA and has its own ulterior motive.

As far as the state raising the children, well, it isn't simply the education system I am speaking of. For instance, many children come home from school to an empty house because both parents are working just to put food on the table and live a relatively decent life. (This alone puts an enormous amount of strain on the family.) The children come home, then turn on the TV where they are then further downloaded with more garbage which serves to instill and cement their view of the world, which is always favorable to what the controllers want.

Like I said, today, the most contact children have with their parents is at the supper table and sometimes on the weekends. Some children don't even have that, let alone meals that aren't in the form of Hot Pockets and GMO microwave dinners.

The family has taken a backseat to the almighty dollar, and it's not simply by coincidence.

 

Thing is, women have and will always continue to have abortions. There are statistics in the 1960s from Romania showing that the country had 4 times as many abortions as live births, and it was seen as the primary form of birth control. Was a bit of a cultural phenomenon. There is a lot of human trafficking within the Balkans because the UN forces keeping the peace there create such a demand.

It is my opinion that women that do not have access or knowledge of contraceptive measures deserve to have safe and available abortions as an option.

 

thanks buddy

the media has obviously become more sympathetic to pseudo-progressive values, but I don't think I'd be buying into the party line propaganda if I wouldn't want to put all feminism down to brain washing and indoctrination. women have historically had rather limited options, and I don't know if the recent encouragement for women to aspire for equal rights is really to blame for whatever is to come.

I see the media in all of it's manifestations as the largest threat to a free society, but I can't help but see feminism as innocuous.

of course I'm kind of apathetic about the whole thing, but why not?