AS: No I mean in the truest sense of the word Aesthetics....in the way human beings cling to aesthetics without really realizing how much their opinion formation is based on such shallowness as appearances. People love to think there is something "magical" in how they feel about a certain thing. But there is no basis in fact in that thought. So what I meant when I said 'aesthetic purposes' was that give people a cut off date that please them aesthetically...i.e. the fetus becomes a cute pink adorable bundle of joy at 25 ish weeks...(not they they will ever care about that life in order to see that it is taken care of properly....which is why I say people are shallow to think they care about "life" when all they really care about is not destroying the "beauty" that pleases them. Once they are required to take care of said "beauty", it becomes a whole nother ball park. Which is why you personally would never want the responsibility of being pregnant. It is a whole nother ballpark when we are talking about YOUR freedom...YOUR personal choices. Where is that lofty golden rule now? LOL You hide behind a false front that men were designed to hunt and women were designed to love their children. Well, that is really convenient to your argument but it is not the truth at least not any more. Call it what you will...but times are changing. Technology and civil rights has made us all pretty much equal and we no longer need "protectors" (we have guns), we...and by we I mean all people...we have food available to us in grocery stores, so we don't need anyone to hunt for us. We have shelter we can rent or purchase...so we don't need anyone to build us a hut for the night. Basically, the MAN as a protector, hunter/gather...is obsolete. He is redundant...he is history.
Now it is the time that he evolves. He will need to change his image to keep up with women in the work place. Evolution says he must adapt. Now I don't know what that means...but I do know that someone is going to have to start taking care of the babies now that women have other options. Forget what the church taught you....here you say:
Alex: Since you have revealed you are 50 years old, i won't sugarcoat anything(!). I must remind you that genetic changes don’t happen on demand, but after thousands of years, when nature ‘decides’ so..
And since your ‘model’ leads to divorce, and unhappy kids with less prospects of survival, it won’t survive. Because ‘nature’ doesn’t like weakening survival, so 'she' won't aim 'evolution' in the direction of a failing model..So men, only change superficially, but not 'truly', genetically..
They are unhappy being forced to pretend they changed as well..
Women haven’t really changed one bit, either, in their supposed “revolution” , they still go for money, although they can earn it. They still go for ‘protection’ or 'power' in whichever form they can find it..They still go for ‘bad’ guys, or 'dominant', or notorious, or famous, or 'gutsy' men, although they are educated…Genetic changes don't happen on demand, again..for women too..
Some men, on the other hand, have tried to 'adapt', because they think that it is a way to keep ‘things working’. But , of course, these men don’t get any credit for trying to be what you say you want them to be, because the 'modern' status quo of women doesn't have the honesty to say what it really wants.
AS:I hate to break it to you...I was not talking about divorce. Actually, women have less 'power" in a marriage than outside marriage. Simply because she has been "boned"/mounted/ stuck-a-flag-in-her-ass and consider her climbed. I know you don't like the truth about aesthetics...but this is the way it is and always will be. Men behave differently according to a woman's appearance. Whether or not he is married to her or does not even know her...a good looking young woman has more power than an ugly or older women. Those are just the facts sexist or not. If a man loves a woman (which may or may not be based on aesthetics....but 99% of the time love is based on aesthetics) he will move mountains for her....whether or not he is married to her.
Alex: You are denying one very basic truth, women do exactly the same thing, of course ‘looks’ is a basic factor, but they are being cryptic about it. But we know..!
AS: Yes you would. You most definitely would if it meant your offspring would not have a quality life. This is just human nature and survival 101. And you can post all the "statistics" you want about overpopulation...but try believe your own eyes for a moment instead of what someone is telling you. Just wrap your head around this for a moment.
Alex: You make a factually untrue point. You mentioned that ‘losing my spot’ was due to overpopulation where overpopulation isn’t relevant to stopping abortion after 20 weeks.
AS: Remember for a second when you were young (I don't know how old you are...but if you are in your 20's it might not work as well...still...remember I told you this when you get older). How big was your town? How many kids were in your school...If you are as old as me there is a drastic difference in population. A difference you can see. When I was younger...And we moved to the very edge of town...everyone thought we were crazy to move into "the boondocks". Well fast forward 30 short years...and Boom! Were we lived then...Is considered central. It is toted as being 'close to the Strip!"( I live in Las Vegas.)
Perhaps you've witnessed such growth in the few years you've been alive? Now imagine a time in the future...if things continue like they are? Eventually, it will be too crowded to survive. !00% No if's and's or but's about it...and when it is...you mean to tell me you are going to care about a bunch of cells that a woman in Kalamazoo is carrying at the expense of your children i.e. your loved ones quality of life? I say BULLSHIT. I say it is then when you would second guess your "morality".
Alex: Immorality doesn’t have an end date, depending on population. A couple of cells? I thought we were talking about after that time .. Still the same trick?(well, it must be a trick since you keep using it, ignoring our previous exchanges)
AS: Don't worry...you won't be alone. Everyone will. I am not saying this to be mean...or to be crass. I am just saying this as a matter of fact. I have seen it a thousands times before in my relatively short 50 years (Yikes...I just admitted it! I just turned 50! )....I have seen countless people say "NEVER" And then when times change...and it become acceptable to do a certain thing that was unheard of before...all of a sudden...the people who said "NEVER" are in line with the new morality! Not only that....they praise what they once thought was 'immoral' or hip or whatever...as being the best thing ever! This is why I say most people shallowly follow aesthetics ....whether it be the trend of fashion or the trend of morality or even the person they fall in love with. They then take that aesthetic and try to make it glorious...as if they rose above the essence of humanity! They call aesthetic "magical" because of the way it makes them feel...and not the truth of the matter...which is we are all herd followers. Hate to break it to you...but it will hardly help to kill the messenger.
Alex: Some people are followers. Some people are leaders. But most leaders are just followers of the followers, just to please them. Some followers are leaders in the 'following'(subservient) way the ‘leaders’ want them to be, but they(the followers) do it just to get 'stuff'. If they get enough ‘stuff’ they become ‘leaders’..Some leaders don’t know they are leaders, some followers also.
But do you think that men have changed one bit, or women? Or are we just pretending to?