So, if a mother murders her son, AFTER birth, then she should rot in prison. BUT, if a mother murders her son, BEFORE birth, then that is PERFECTLY FINE, and in fact she should be ALLOWED to do it then.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:43 amI didn't really need your life story. And if she murdered your son then she should be rotting in prison. What does any of that have to do with anything I've written? Humans are complex, but one fact remains constant--it's only women who have babies. Where did I say that all women are even capable of giving a child everything it needs? All the more reason for safe, accessible abortion.Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:21 amNow you are calling the kettle black. I raised my last son, his brother died of abuse at his mother's hand, in another state. And she was never charged because after all, bruises all over his face, does not prove that anyone did it. Why bother, when people can work that out among themselves? The state can use it to take children, but only take them when it is profitable for an interesting party with money.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:46 pm
Another woke hypocrite. So a woman who has a child when she's under twenty is automatically a 'slut'? Not misogynistic at all. Gotta love the woke. At least they keep us entertained.
My own 3X great grandmother was 13 and married off to a 37 year old man in Limerick, Ireland (I went through a stage of dabbling in family genealogy). And no, that wasn't 'normal' for the time either. Most people actually got married in their twenties back then, contrary to what people think. She had her first (of many) children at 14, so it certainly wasn't 'platonic'. I suppose that makes her a 'slut'. What was 'he'? I have no idea what the circumstances would have been, although records can be unreliable from that far back, and it was all written in long-hand which can be hard to read. Perhaps she was a couple of years older than that, but still very young. When you go into genealogy it only takes a very short time to realise that women have been bringing up children on their own for as long as they have been having children. The 'nuclear family' is a myth.
He is the same age as one of my grandson's.
You seem to think a lot of men don't have to raise children, some men do exactly what women do, take the the children and then sue the woman for child support. That is being a real dick.
My first two children came, one just before military service, and the other during. She demanded that I leave the service, while I was still in basic, which she demanded that I join, I told her, I gave my word and I will not beak it, and then just stopped writing. She would just go to my parents and brag about who she slept with, and my parents did not want to hurt my feelings by letting me know.
That was a wonderful situation. The divorce went under Madam X, uncontested, yet the state decided that such women are are more fit to raise the children because after all, women are more fit mother's, whatever the hell that means. I could not fight it, I was in the service of a country at war. I just had to pay the bills, because after all, the man is more fit to pay.
However, you have bad taste arguing with a moron with no ethical code, nor even civil manners. You must be drawn to men you know would not even think twice about anything.
My first wife had deep issues I learnt after marriage, sado-masochism (now that is odd, this spelling app wants it to be soda-masochism, which is pretty funny), something I cannot even wrap my brain around.You never consider, how many men in the service of their country, who cannot even fight the absurd divorce laws because its his a job to serve, and a woman's job to be served? you don't approach that real fact at all. many women have come to practice it as an art, taking the money and running to find another mark, just because of state laws.
How has it come to be, that a marriage, by mutual agreement gives any country any right at all to turn a free will agreement into the slavery of the other? especially, the one who can pay the lawyers the most money? When does a free will agreement give anyone the right to impose any form of slavery upon the other? Why not, the party who breaks their word, pays for it and just leave it at that, instead of all this bull shit about gender equality, is simply the problem every one has, of respecting the word they original gave?
Language is the currency expressed in grammar systems whereby social behavior is exchanged: Now the origins of that idea go way back in history and complies with the biologically defined job of a mind you cannot seem to comprehend. If you cannot keep your word, you pay. Why does everyone demand that it is fair play to play the shell game with words? You just don't even consider it.
Well you can use the absurd expression of gender equality ignoring the reality that a dick is not pussy, and vice versa to hide the real fact, nobody can make gender equal at all. The lot of you are just out of your fucking minds.
Now you want the really scary version, King Solomon. As children are produced through a free will agreement, if people think breaking their word is an option, then divide the child as well.
You would be amazed at how many people sue for money over child support because all they want is their own support as having a job is just so much work.
You do not argue in terms of physical and biological fact, or any concept of ethics, the job of a mind, but simply play a shell game with words, because you like the shell game. The only possible ethical concern, but a mind, as all a mind can do, is read, process, and write, the only thing it can do is learn, understand, and express, in grammar systems. But it is easier to play a child's shell game. I don't have to tell you to go to hell, because the lot of you have created hell on earth and enjoy it. Look at yourself, you prefer to argue with a person who can only use words like an ape-man wielding a club than one who puts stress on your mind to learn. How much different is that of Madam X? The whore of Babylon refers to Man, not to a gender. You whore the word, like everyone else, because you enjoy it. You cannot even recognize the art of psycho-linguistics.
This reminds me of a habit my niece has, of going to the store, and then checking the expiration date after she has paid and left the store, a virtual habit. When asked why don't she just read the label at the store since one can just read it there. And then she says, why read it when I don't have to? So, you mean you were taught to read, but why bother? Okay.
Now you take abortion laws, under the fake excuse of right to life. How many children will be born physically and mentally handicapped and how many just smart enough for cannon fodder. My mother was forced to have my youngest sister, even though my mother had rubella at the time. And who was protecting my sister, born with mental and physical defects, no one she managed as well as she could defects and all till she died, and whose daughter because of mental and physical defects and could not support herself, I do, none of her brothers, or sisters, or the state will. Or those born to parents who are unable to afford to raise them, whose right to life is actually violated because some liar claims to have the authority over any one else bodies. Or is it a biological fact, each person is the sole beneficiary of their own body for good or bad? How can you claim that the rights of children means you can enslave the parent of that very same child? That you can enslave the general population, tax them, for people who cannot rightfully support themselves? Just bull shit players of the shell game with words. How can you the right to life gives you the right to take it, but not a woman of the child of her own body?
And another issue. A state claims a person too disabled to support themselves, even though a birth defect, yet that very same person has a right to every cent a possible spouse makes and more, because she has a right to what that person actually worked for? After all, she is incapable of earning any support but earns, by marriage the actual wages, and more, of a person who rightfully had to work for everything?
Which is it, you have a right to your earnings, and you don't. That a 50 50 relationship actually means money and has nothing to do with earning anything.
Bull shit. Yes, I have issues all right, having to live in a social structure of liars, cheats, and thieves, because the lie is the law.
And this is not even LOOKING AT the Fact that ONLY AFTER a child is born, then so-called "disabilities" can be much more visible, and it is 'disabilities', which is what is sometimes used for as a REASON to murder the unborn child,
Also, this is not even taking into CONSIDERATION of just how much more stressful it can be to raise children, especially ones with severe forms of so-called 'mental disabilities', than it is sometimes to just bear children?
Furthermore, we do NOT KNOW the circumstances of WHY she murdered that son. There may well have been a VERY GOOD REASON to do so, which might explain WHY she was NEVER charged for doing it. That, and the Fact, that she might NOT have even done it. For all we KNOW "phil8659" might have murdered his own son, to get back at the sons mother.
Oh, and by the way, humans are NOT complex AT ALL, and ones who say they are, just have NOT COME TO FULLY UNDERSTAND 'them', YET.
Furthermore, EVERY woman AND man are capable of giving EVERY child absolutely EVERY thing they NEED. Sadly, though ALL of the women, and ALL of the men, in the days when this was being written, did NOT give children what they ACTUALLY NEED, in Life. But this was just because those women AND men, back in those days, did NOT KNOW what children NEED, in Life. They were still just in the process of LEARNING and OBTAINING this KNOWLEDGE.