Tony Lavis

Ha ha suck eggs.

Phanto
“You did not answer my question.”

You did not answer mine that were before yours.

Answer mine first; then I’ll answer yours.

Killarney
What did the women marchers accomplish by dressing as vaginas – apart from having President Trump sign anti-abortion action the next day?

You think it’s okay to stab a child in the head because its mother finds it inconvenient? Yes? No?

You think women should have a special privileged exemption from the law against homicide because they have a vagina?

If that’s not sexist, what is?

You didn’t know that sex causes babies?

You think the law against rape should be repealed because “equal opportunity” and “my body my choice”? Yes? That’s what you believe, isn’t it? “We” need a “more inclusive society”? Yes? Correct?

If a majority vote for rape or slavery, there can be no *moral* objection, because “no democratic deficit”? Yes? That’s what you think, isn’t it?

You think it’s okay to force non-consenting parties – unequally men - to pay for women’s private and exclusive reproductive choices? Yes? Or you support the abolition of the feminist political platform? Which?

If a man is raped in prison as part and parcel of the enforcement of feminist laws and policies functioning to grant non-consensual benefits to women at the expense, how does that sit with you? Fine?

The jumbled self-contradictions of your sexist, hateful, violent, hypocritical hate ideology are obvious. You stand for bigoted female privilege, not gender equality which is a non-factual, non-logical, non-ethical, anti-human concept.

AC
Female by definition means the offspring-bearing sex.

Women don’t have babies as a matter of gender, they have them as a matter of sex.

At the time of birth, the biomass interest of the mother is TRILLIONS of times bigger than the father’s.

It simply factually false that male and female are equal in fact, and this invalidates all feminism in logic and ethics.

Feminism is a hate ideology of hypocritical bullies and cowards.

Killarney

You were saying? The significance of the women's march was ... what?

Hillary should have been given the Presidency because of affirmative action?

JKJ:

"Phanto
“You did not answer my question.”

You did not answer mine that were before yours.

Answer mine first; then I’ll answer yours."

I can't answer your question until I know what you mean by 'human life'. Unless we can agree on that definition we cannot communicate.

phanto

I am challenging anyone to defend *any* tenet of feminism; and I will undertake to show their self-contradiction and hypocrisy.

I would like anyone to answer *all* the questions I have posted.

However the specific point of departure for you and me is this:
"And you think it's okay to kill a partially-born child? Yes? No? If so, why not a born child? If not, on what principle do you decide which human beings it's okay to kill, and which not?"

To which you have asked both
1. On what principle do you decide what a human being is?
and
2. what do I "mean by 'human life'"?

I'm not sure that I understand your question.

I regard it as self-evident that live adults of the genus Homo are live human beings.

And I take it that there is no issue that newborn babies are live human beings?

And take it that there is no issue that partially born babies are live human beings - although Hillary Clinton stood for the "right" of women to stab them in the head and sell the body parts, apparently. Certainly she stood for killing partially-born children, and Planned Parenthood has been selling body parts. I would like to know whether Killarney or you agree?

And I regard it as self-evident that the baby immediately before birth is also a live human being.

And so on, back in time to any point at which anyone is aware of its existence as an individual.

But if you say that at some earlier stage the unborn baby becomes not a human being, then by what objective criterion do you define that stage?

I do not define a human gamete as a "human being", because, although it is undoubtedly alive, and is of the human species, I have never heard anyone refer to a gamete as a "human being", have you? It always refers to a diploid individual; and the purpose of abortion is to kill that individual, obviously.

Now kindly join issue in a complete way and either answer all my questions, or all of these:
1. Do you think it's okay to kill a partially-born child?
2. If so, why not a born child?
3. If the rationale is convenience to the mother, why not kill any child she finds inconvenient?
4. If it's not okay to kill a partially-born child, on what principle do you decide which human beings it's okay to kill, and which not?

We are going to find that feminism is hypocritical, anti-human, and stands for sexist female privilege based on double standard and double talk, as usual.

JKJ:

I don't have a definitive answer for those questions but one thing I do know for certain is that you do not either.

A woman who has an unwanted pregnancy has to make a decision. She is the only one who is capable of making a decision which affects her and whatever you like to call the thing growing inside her. The thing inside her cannot make a decision.

Out of the two entities which will be affected only she can decide. Therefore only she should decide what that entity is and whether it continues to develop or not.

It is none of your business whatsoever.