Women and Men are not equal

[veritasvincit]

Here is a great article written by Women against Feminism that embraces the idea that men and women are not equal but each of their strengths complement the other:

http://pub32.bravenet.com/faq/show.php? ... id=3266#q1

# How can you say that men and women are not equal?
The real question here is how you define the word �equal.� In the mathematical, logical and literal sense, only two �likes� can stand on opposite sides of the equals sign. Thus, four equals four and two squares of exactly the same dimensions equal each other. In this sense, men and women are not equal. They are very different. This does not mean that we believe women are of lesser value or do not possess the same basic human rights and dignities as men. As we state in our About LAF section, men and women are �equal� in many ways as human beings. They have equal ethical worth. They are equally important to society. They have equal standing before God. But in the sense of sameness, they cannot stand on opposite sides of the equals sign.

Women bear and feed children from their own bodies; men do not (cannot). The majority of men have far greater bodily strength and muscle mass, while women are built completely differently. Women have a higher pain threshold than most men; but men are (as has been proven in scientific studies) better able to face panic situations (like combat) than women. These biological and psychological differences are built into us from conception (male and female babies develop differently in the womb, particularly when it comes to the brain). To then insist that men and women are 100% equal in every way becomes an absurdity. And, more to the point, why would we want to be the same? Maleness and Femaleness are complementary, not antagonistic. They are two halves of a complete whole�the whole of the human race. Working in harmony, these two parts of humanity create families, communities, and wonderful societies and cultures. Warring against each other, they actually become cannibalistic and end up devouring not only each other, but also themselves in the process.

When women refuse to accept the unique and multi-faceted responsibilities of womanhood and men refuse to accept the unique and multi-faceted responsibilities of manhood, we have chaos and confusion. Egalitarianism has had a hey-day in our culture, whispering to us that all things are the same � that there are no inherent differences between the sexes, between stations in life, between cultures, between religions, and even between right and wrong. Everything becomes relative and, therefore, up for grabs. The majority decides (for today) what will constitute Male and what will constitute Female. And we ride this insane, nauseating roller coaster uphill and down according to the whims of contemporary fashion, opinion polls and emotions. We at Ladies Against Feminism want to hold out the Idea that you can step off the roller coaster and find that life is not only stable but beautiful, rich, and affirming � that there are, indeed, eternal definitions of Male and Female, Right and Wrong, Truth and Error. We realize this seems insulting or narrow to many people. But we are here to say (with great joy), that it is exactly the opposite. The �Truth shall make you free� (John 8:32). And that freedom is one that gives us great joy, purpose, meaning and focus � it is not robbing us of our intelligence, tying us to the kitchen sink or weighing us down with drudgery and monotony. We invite you to explore this Idea with us!
Category: Equality and Egalitarianism
350 visitor(s) thought this was helpful. Do you? Yes, it was helpful No, it was not helpful



# Do you think man's role is more important than woman's? Is it true you believe men should be honored more than women? Do you think that women are the inferior sex and men the superior?
To give you the short answer, "No, no, and no!" ;-) Being "against feminism" has nothing whatsoever to do with dishonoring women, treating them as inferior, or saying their role is less important than a man's. If you'll take the time to read the articles in our "Theme" section, you'll find our definitions of feminism and womanhood and see that, rather than being opposites locked in a power struggle, men and women are complementary halves of a whole. Or, as J.W. Porter wrote 77 years ago, "In the very nature of the case, there can be no such thing as rivalry between man and woman. Neither constitute a sphere, but each a hemisphere, and together they make the sphere of life, love and labor." Beautiful! That's what it's all about. Thanks for asking!
Category: Equality a

nd Egalitarianism

[SolusInAeternum2]

This reminds me of an excellent article (rather long, but well worth the read), that expands on those ideas:

Is There Anything Good About Men?

To summarize my main points: A few lucky men are at the top of society and enjoy the culture's best rewards. Others, less fortunate, have their lives chewed up by it. Culture uses both men and women, but most cultures use them in somewhat different ways. Most cultures see individual men as more expendable than individual women, and this difference is probably based on nature, in whose reproductive competition some men are the big losers and other men are the biggest winners. Hence it uses men for the many risky jobs it has.

Men go to extremes more than women, and this fits in well with culture using them to try out lots of different things, rewarding the winners and crushing the losers.

Culture is not about men against women. By and large, cultural progress emerged from groups of men working with and against other men. While women concentrated on the close relationships that enabled the species to survive, men created the bigger networks of shallow relationships, less necessary for survival but eventually enabling culture to flourish. The gradual creation of wealth, knowledge, and power in the men's sphere was the source of gender inequality. Men created the big social structures that comprise society, and men still are mainly responsible for this, even though we now see that women can perform perfectly well in these large systems.

What seems to have worked best for cultures is to play off the men against each other, competing for respect and other rewards that end up distributed very unequally. Men have to prove themselves by producing things the society values. They have to prevail over rivals and enemies in cultural competitions, which is probably why they aren't as lovable as women.

The essence of how culture uses men depends on a basic social insecurity. This insecurity is in fact social, existential, and biological. Built into the male role is the danger of not being good enough to be accepted and respected and even the danger of not being able to do well enough to create offspring.

The basic social insecurity of manhood is stressful for the men, and it is hardly surprising that so many men crack up or do evil or heroic things or die younger than women. But that insecurity is useful and productive for the culture, the system.

Again, I'm not saying it's right, or fair, or proper. But it has worked. The cultures that have succeeded have used this formula, and that is one reason that they have succeeded instead of their rivals.

[Bela]

To summarize my main points: A few lucky men are at the top of society and enjoy the culture's best rewards. Others, less fortunate, have their lives chewed up by it. Culture uses both men and women, but most cultures use them in somewhat different ways. Most cultures see individual men as more expendable than individual women, and this difference is probably based on nature...

This essay is centering around a class issue, not a gender one - it totally misses on gender.  Senator's sons don't go to war. What do you think this song was about?:
[youtube:199izzsp]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBfjU3_XOaA[/youtube]199izzsp]

Some women are considered expendable.  Prostitution is a risky job.  No one misses a missing person, if they're a prostitute or trafficked.  You don't see rich girls in Thailand going into the trade.

Aileen Wurnos wouldn't have ended up a hitchhiking hooker if her family had been rich.  I can almost guarantee that.  She might have still ended up a drunk.  Alcoholism is a genetic tendency.

[youtube:199izzsp]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq70brIQP40[/youtube]199izzsp]

Women are generally considered lower on the ladder, in the pecking order.  They don't get as much respect.  I've had women and men both jerk me around in ways that they would not if a man was present with me.

[Brandyman]

The single best book I've seen on the subject is The Myth of Male Power, by Warren Farrell. I can't even get thru it w/o getting apoplectic on every page, it's so full of astonishing facts on how things really are. Camille Paglia and Nancy Friday and some other old-line feminists welcomed the book. Essential deprogamming for this entire generation. 1993.

[Anonymous]

Chapter 13 of David Duke's book 'My Awakening' covers the differences between the sexes very detailed and well. I believe chapter 13 is called 'sex and society'.

I am sorry I don't have a direct weblink to the chapter but the book is in audio format and also available as a PDF online which is fairly easy to find.
 
Apparently women on average have 5% smaller brain and 5% lower IQ on average than men.

Duke explains it very nicely in a non offending complimentary way for women

I think this is the reason for the jews to get women to vote and into positions of power and into politics. They can be brainwashed easier, but I have seen intelligent women who have woken up, unfortunately the number of women compared to men who have woken up is about 10 to 1. So what does that tell you?, women can be very good influence on people and certainly different topics of the conspiracy is better explained coming from a mouth of a women instead of a man. Women speaking out against the jew do not have the baggage attached to it as a man does, for example a man would be considered a hate filled nazi but it is different if a woman says it.

[jai_mann]

Relative brain size has no influence upon intelligence in humans. It is the connections which have been created that are important. The important thing is how it is used. Men tend to stay grounded in reality on certain issues while women are more likely to give in to emotions such as fear. But any more men have been turned into a bunch of pussies who behave like women. I don't think there's any evidence to show that women are more easily brainwashed. Both sexes are equally weak when it comes to propaganda. This stems from the fact that both have been conditioned to seek out and engage "entertainment" over "important" issues, and as such they both fail to catch propaganda because they are under educated and do not seek education beyond that to be had in institutional settings (which is why they're so fucking stupid when it comes to reality based issues).
I don't agree with the men are more likely to be considered Nazi's comment.

Men and women certainly have different roles or there wouldn't be men and women, there would be a single hermaphroditic sex or soemthing along those lines. Women have been suckered into less fulfilling roles than raising children. They have been conditioned to think that somehow this is not a worthy pursuit, and then they wonder why they get "post-partem" depression? Duh, stupid, it's because you shouldn't be in a god damned cubical working as a labor slave, you should be at home raising your fucking child. Your own body and mind are telling you this when you get this depression, but you are forcing yourself to do something entirely UN-NATURAL which is to GIVE AWAY your child to someone else to raise.

Society is good and fucked until they correct certain issues such as this.

[jai_mann]

Aileen Wurnos wouldn't have ended up a hitchhiking hooker if her family had been rich.  I can almost guarantee that.  She might have still ended up a drunk.  Alcoholism is a genetic tendency.

Alcoholism isn't a genetic issue. It's a learned behavior. Some one turns to it as a coping mechanism. These "genetic" issues are being pushed as such because of the funding pulled in to "research" it. Trends in behavior may cross families but that in no way demonstrates that it is genetic. It does demonstrate a lack of proper outlets for dealing with stress, and the habit may have been acquired by mere observation of a family member. I find the genetic claim to be weak and also demonstrating a poor understanding of stimulus control over behavior.

[sirbadman]

Ugh the whole women/men thing.. as far as waking up goes... I have woken up one female friend who in turn woke up her boyfriend.

Also remember another female friend of a friend who totally knew about the jewish control which surprised me...

Another one of my friends got his gf on to this stuff ages ago.. i think it's more about open mindedness and gender doesn't matter that much.  

But it is true that more males seem to wake up than women... and i always think of what Ron Hubbard said.. in that he preferred female scientologists ..  while i dont know if that was because he wanted to bone them, i think he found them easier to control and less rebellious.

That's probably what it comes down to, I dont know all the reasons behind it and whether it's biological or cultural but males are more likely to rebel against social norms than women. While people who question jewish tyranny might still be on the fringes of society, i think once this movement spreads and becomes more common place there will be a lot more women fighting the good fight.

Then again my gf isn't very interested when i bring this stuff up so I dont bother her with it too much.

[Brandyman]

For a while I've had a theory that alcoholism and other things can BECOME genetic through previous generations abandoning their self-control in these addictions. So someone may be born today with a proclivity toward being an alcoholic and it'll look like there's nothing he/she can do about it so we call that genetic. But his/her parents or someone along the line could have reordered their lives.

[Anonymous]

Nah, Alcoholism is genetic. European people have become tolerant to it and do not abuse it that greatly to excess. Thousands of years ago when it was first discovered and produced, it certainly would have cause alot of problems. Those who could not handle their drink most likely died early and did not reproduce or were unable to care for their offspring leaving those who were able to function normally with it being available to them, they survived to pass on their genes which are not susceptible to alcoholism. If you look at indigenous populations they have a massive problem with alcoholism which probably sooner or later after afew generations would naturally abate, but the western social system will take away children of alcoholic parents who most likely would have failed at bringing their offspring alive to adulthood to reproduce so currently there has been no improvement of indigenous populations response to alcoholism as nature's biological adaption process is being manipulated.

[Brandyman]

Ah...thanks for the extra comment. I like the Weeding by Nature line of thought and this'll make me weave it into my previous ones.

[Bela]

Apparently women on average have 5% smaller brain and 5% lower IQ on average than men.

Duke explains it very nicely in a non offending complimentary way for women

.

Oh, please.  Every time this men vs. women topic comes up, it's usually all about mens insecurities - then comes the "who is smarter" routine.
 
I got into Mensa when I was 16.  In other words, I beat out 98% of the population on IQ tests. I was a self taught reader and could read by the age of 2 1/2 - 3 from newspapers.  Ask my cousin, he was there to witness it.
 
.  
Now I know a bit about IQ because of having dealt with Mensa for so long.  Basically, IQ does NOT determine success.  Ability does. Environment does.  It has been found that the major indicator of success in school is a stable family situation.  That's it   That is the main indicator.  Not necessarily money and not brains.  

You can also measure ability, how the brain is wired for certain ways of thinking.  Johnson O'Connor foundation has been doing this for years.  Some people are wired for structural occupations such as engineering, science, medicine - others are abstract thinkers - e.g. teaching, law, management.  There are many other variables that can be measured.    IMHO, this is how suitability for a job should be evaluated.  

The general stupidity coming from jackasses like Makow is that women are "biologically" tied to being mothers.  This is baloney.  Not everyone should be a parent or is happy in that role.  Postpartum depression is related to hormones and possibly diet, NOT to some philosophy.  Some women are completely happy without having to raise a family.  According to Leonard Swidler in his essay on women and the philosophy of Jesus, Jesus rejected this idea of females are solely '"babymakers" who should stay at home and raise children.  Raising children is fine if you have the inclination.  It is NOT an indicator of life satisfaction.  

As far as IQ goes, I have not found the majority of PEOPLE, including men, to be all that brilliant.  The average male can be parodied as something along the lines of "Sex - YEAH!, food - YEAH! sports, YEAH!" - a rather simple creature who maybe knows a few things about whatever trade they have trained for.  Intellectuals come in both genders and all races, however they are rare.  And yes, alcoholism IS genetic, ask any rehab center.

[veritasvincit]

The differences between men and women have nothing to do with intelligence – women are as equally as intelligent and creative as men and have comparable analytical and critical thinking skills.  The point of this topic is the natural and inherent physiological differences that keeps humanity going – that keep us pro-creating – this is the law of nature.  This law of nature cannot be manipulated by man or society otherwise we will turn into robotic baby makers kept on life support by machines.  These inherent differences ensure that the nurturer (usually the female) and the hunter (usually the male) work in harmony with one another to provide for the family unit so that the next generation is mentally and physically healthy to be productive and to pro-create.  

Science and society have sold us a pack of lies.  If women are responsible for their own body then do we take full responsibility when it comes to pregnancy – do you get pregnant on your own?  Is there a man involved? Well if there is – does he not have a responsibility in the matter of the child since without him there would be no child? Is an abortion considered murder?  If you can tell me with 100% certainty that an abortion is not considered murder – I would like to hear the argument.   Ignorance for getting pregnant in this day and age is not an excuse however, people do make mistakes.  There are humane ways of dealing with mistakes without murder – such as adoption.  If a girl or woman gets pregnant the first time by mistake and has to carry the child to full term – I'm sure she will be extra careful the next time around.  Abortion like everything else in our society is a quick fix.
   
I agree that not everyone is wired to be a mother nor is everyone wired to be a father.  There are always anomalies in nature and this is not a negative comment in any manner.  The majority, however are wired to pro-create – it is the natural law – it is what perpetuates humanity.  Motherhood in of itself is probably the greatest responsibility that has ever been given to us.  To be a great mother requires intelligence, patience, empathy, insight, strength, fortitude, psychological skills, nursing skills, logical and emotional intelligence, and too many more to mention.  This responsibility determines the moral, emotional, intelligence and strength of the next generation.  A great mother identifies a child's unique strengths and hones those strengths throughout their life and provides them with wings that will help them soar into adulthood to become independent, inquiring, intelligent adults.  Women – you have been lied to – motherhood IS the most important and rewarding career you will have – the fruits of your labour are perpetual.  This is long-term thinking and the implications to society are astronomical.

When a society does not acknowledge the importance of child rearing then we have lost all reason for being.  Everything else is short-term but then we've come a long way baby?  Haven't we?  Take a pill and it will fix everything instantly and you become a slave to that quick fix.  It will help you sleep, give you an abortion, relieve a headache, help you forget, get you high and help you survive into the next day.

There are many women including myself that are highly intelligent, independent and critical thinkers who love and respect men for all of their God given strengths.  My strength as a woman comes from my God given gifts as a mother and nurturer – the rewards of motherhood are intangible.  Like most important things in life – there is no price.

The differences between men and women are complementary and should be respected.

Makow can be compared to feminists whose views about men and women are black and white.  Makow makes men out to be victims as do feminists who cry that men have victimized women as well.  People who play the victim role are usually quite pathetic.  It is time to grow up children and stop blaming everyone else for your own insecurities.  Both groups are antagonistic and promote warfare against one another which play right into the Z's hands.  They are the Z's puppets.  (Makow probably hates his mother too - I bet if we took a poll on Makow's website - the majority of men who follow him probably hate their mothers)

If we as men and women are comfortable in our own skin and embrace our inherent differences – there is no need to be at war with one another nor play the victim – if you feel you are a victim with just one person then – get out - because it is only one person. – one person does not constitute a whole gender.  

MEN AND WOMEN UNITE!

[GordZilla]

:lol:

Not to make lite of the debate ...   wait, no scratch that....  make that; "in order" to make lite of the debate....  

It is important for men to remember that, as women grow older, it becomes harder for them to maintain the same quality of housekeeping as when they were younger.  When you notice this, try not to yell at them. Some are oversensitive, and there's nothing worse than an oversensitive woman.  
 
My name is Kevin. Let me relate how I handled the situation with my wife.  Since I retired several years ago, it has become necessary for her to get a full-time job along with her part-time job, both for extra income and for the health insurance benefits that we needed.  Shortly after she started working, I noticed she was beginning to show her age. I usually get home from the golf club about the same time she gets home from work. Although she knows how hungry I am, she almost always says she has to rest for half an hour or so before she starts dinner. I don't yell at her.  Instead, I tell her to take her time and just wake me when she gets dinner on the table. I generally have lunch in the Men's Grill at the club so eating out is costly and not reasonable and I'm ready for some home-cooked grub when I hit that door.  She used to do the dishes as soon as we finished eating. But now it's not unusual for them to sit on the table for several hours after dinner. I do what I can by diplomatically reminding her several times each evening that they won't clean themselves. I know she really appreciates this, as it does seem to motivate her to get them done before she goes to bed.  Another symptom of aging is complaining, I think. For example she will say that it is difficult for her to find time to pay the monthly bills during her lunch hour.  But, boys, we take 'em for better or worse, so I just smile and offer encouragement. I tell her to stretch it out over two or even three days. That way she won't have to rush so much. I also remind her that missing lunch completely now and then wouldn't hurt her any (if you know what I mean). I like to think tact is one of my strong points.
 
 When doing simple jobs, she seems to think she needs more rest periods.  She had to take a break when she was only half finished mowing the lawn. I try not to make a scene. I'm a fair man. I tell her to fix herself a nice, big, cold glass of freshly squeezed lemonade and just sit for a while and, as long as she is making one for herself, she may as well make one for me too.  I know that I probably look like a saint in the way I support her. I'm not saying that showing this much consideration is easy. Many men will find it difficult. Some will find it impossible! Nobody knows better than I do how frustrated women get, as they get older.  However, guys, even if you just use a little more tact and less criticism of your aging wife because of this article, I will consider that writing this was well worthwhile. After all, we are put on this earth to help each other.  
Sincerely,  
 Kevin
 
EDITOR'S NOTE:  
Kevin died suddenly on March 1 of a perforated rectum. The police report says he was found with a Calloway extra long 50-inch Big Bertha Driver II golf club jammed up his rear end, with barely 5 inches of grip showing and a sledge hammer lying nearby.  His wife was arrested and charged with murder. The all-woman jury took only 15 minutes to find her Not Guilty, accepting her defence that Kevin somehow, without looking, accidentally sat down on his golf club.

[veritasvincit]

good one

I got that story in an e-mail recently

[Christopher Marlowe]

Apparently women on average have 5% smaller brain and 5% lower IQ on average than men.

Duke explains it very nicely in a non offending complimentary way for women

.

Oh, please.  Every time this men vs. women topic comes up, it's usually all about mens insecurities - then comes the "who is smarter" routine.
 
I got into Mensa when I was 16.  In other words, I beat out 98% of the population on IQ tests. I was a self taught reader and could read by the age of 2 1/2 - 3 from newspapers.  Ask my cousin, he was there to witness it.

Wow!  Just think how smart you would be if you had a man-sized brain!

[jai_mann]

Oh, please.  Every time this men vs. women topic comes up, it's usually all about mens insecurities - then comes the "who is smarter" routine.
 
I got into Mensa when I was 16.  In other words, I beat out 98% of the population on IQ tests. I was a self taught reader and could read by the age of 2 1/2 - 3 from newspapers.  Ask my cousin, he was there to witness it.

Wow!  Just think how smart you would be if you had a man-sized brain!

LMFAO!!! Right on cue man!

I have to continue to firmly disagree with this notion that alcoholism is a genetic issue. Folks, you've got to think of the implications for something to become "genetic". This isn't a genetic issue, it's a behavioral issue. The alcohol serves as a form of reinforcement as it permits the user to feel good and to obliterate feeling bad and thinking about things that make them feel bad.

Let's put it this way: Is cocaine addiction genetic? Is Meth addiction genetic? Is heroin addiction genetic? No to all of them. They are all forms of reinforcement in that they change the users state of mind which, for most addicts, is in a really bad place and why they are self-medicating.

The genetic issue has been pushed by the media as there is money to be had in never properly treating people. Deal with the underlying issues and the user will have a much lower motivation for seeking out their drug of choice for changing their state of mind.

The fact that self-medication may run in families is simply an indication of poor stress coping skills. Parents who abuse substances aren't going to teach their children how to cope with stress well. It's a vicious cycle. It's like the females who leave abusive relationships only to wind up in more. That's what they know and they unconsciously seek out certain patterns in other people. Until they learn to avoid those patterns they continue the mistakes.

[Anonymous]

veritasvincit

"If you can tell me with 100% certainty that an abortion is not considered murder – I would like to hear the argument. Ignorance for getting pregnant in this day and age is not an excuse however, people do make mistakes. There are humane ways of dealing with mistakes without murder – such as adoption."

I don't have a problem with abortion. You could make an argument that if a woman is not permantly pregnant she is murdering unborn children. Under most human right laws until a baby is born, it is not covered. I really do think it is upto the woman, yes the man should have some say in it that he can make his feelings known to her and want her to keep the baby, but what if the woman made a mistake, perhaps she changed her mind that the father is unfit geneticly and would rather father a baby from a different man? No I think it is upto to the woman, I support abortion for those who choose to do so.

jai_mann

I do believe alcoholism is based on genetics, It's wrong to simply use alcoholism, it's susceptibility to substance abuse. When someone takes a drink of alcohol, the pleasure and feelings one derives from it varies, some people like the effects, others don't. Those who take a drink and feel wonderful after and all their problems melt away while under the influence will be in danger of becoming dependant on it. Also people's who have not had a history of alcohol being available would not have weeded out alot of the DNA making them more resistant to alcohol abuse.

[Christopher Marlowe]

veritasvincit

"If you can tell me with 100% certainty that an abortion is not considered murder – I would like to hear the argument. Ignorance for getting pregnant in this day and age is not an excuse however, people do make mistakes. There are humane ways of dealing with mistakes without murder – such as adoption."

I don't have a problem with abortion. You could make an argument that if a woman is not permantly pregnant she is murdering unborn children. Under most human right laws until a baby is born, it is not covered. I really do think it is upto the woman, yes the man should have some say in it that he can make his feelings known to her and want her to keep the baby, but what if the woman made a mistake, perhaps she changed her mind that the father is unfit geneticly and would rather father a baby from a different man? No I think it is upto to the woman, I support abortion for those who choose to do so.

1)

You could make an argument that if a woman is not permantly (sic) pregnant she is murdering unborn children.

:? -->???Who would make such an argument? That is a very hastily constructed strawman: a woman who is not PERMANENTLY PREGNANT? Can a woman be permanently pregnant? I don't think so. The obvious point of this argument is that a woman will be accused of "murdering her unborn children" no matter what she does, so she might as well do as she pleases.  But no one would accuse a woman of such a thing merely because she is not permanently pregnant. They might accuse her of murdering her unborn children when she pays a doctor to kill the baby with a vacuum cleaner, tearing the baby to pieces while it screams in pain. Someone might say that is murder.

2)

Under most human right laws until a baby is born, it is not covered.

--> I don't know what to make of this sentence. But applying the current interpretation of the US courts, the competing interests in this area are: a woman's right to privacy in her own body vs. the state's interest in protecting human life. The USSC ruled (out of whole cloth and with no supporting case law) that a woman's right to privacy outweighs the state's interest in protecting the unborn. BUT the state's interest begins when the baby is VIABLE, meaning that the baby can live outside the womb. (That shows how ridiculous the made-up law is: it is completely arbitrary as this viability will forever move towards the moment of conception as science becomes more able to construct an artificial womb.) Currently states can prohibit abortions in the 3rd trimester. So I think it is a misrepresentation of the law to saw that "until a baby is born, it is not covered".  

Another point that should be made here is that a woman's right, or anyone's right to privacy must yield to the state when national security is at stake: see Koramatsu v US.  Is it an unreasonable leap from this point to making the case that "national security" interests are implicated by "overpopulation"? And then could the state control every woman's right to conception? And could they also force a woman to have an abortion, as they do in China?

The only logical point to begin recognizing human life is at conception. The law of property long recognized the right of the unborn. e.g. The phrase "persons now living" in a Will was interpreted to mean babies that were conceived at the point the will was read, so the unborn could take an inheritance under that will.  

3)

I really do think it is upto the woman, yes the man should have some say in it that he can make his feelings known to her and want her to keep the baby, but what if the woman made a mistake, perhaps she changed her mind that the father is unfit geneticly and would rather father a baby from a different man? No I think it is upto to the woman, I support abortion for those who choose to do so.

-->You are making at least two points here; The first is that a man should have some input into whether a baby should live, but that the man's right is limited to expressing his feelings to the woman, who ultimately gets veto power, so that she can shred the baby if that suits her whims.  
Second, that women should decide whether to tear a baby limb from limb based upon some genetic preference.  That is basically supporting eugenics.  I think that is a fair assessment of the world "birth control" movement: they create a fear of overpopulation and use that fear to justify killing off humanity.  In shorthand we see the extreme poverty of third world countries that is fostered by the international bankers, and then they present that poverty as an example of why they need to kill people.  

This sort of thoughtlessness is what goes through the minds of women who think they are being "empowered" as they are turned into cattle. They give up the joy of raising their children so they can have a "career", which is usually just some 9 to 5 job making money for some corporation. They give up their greatest blessing, the ability to give life, and instead they mutilate their baby with a vacuum, and they are fooled into thinking that is a great "choice", and that it is their "right" to kill that baby.  And this foolishness is reinforced by the MSM, NOW, and the worthless public schools, so women never have to chance to examine the truth of the matter.  

I remember having a conversation with a lady who was a recent university graduate. I had overheard a pimp trying to convince a young lady to become a whore and work for him, and she was resisting him.  Her sister was already working for the pimp. I was disgusted and had told the story to the university graduate of this sick story.  The young lady graduate told me that her feminism class has helped her to understand how prostitutes were actually empowered.   :shock:  Can you believe that crap? How f*cking stupid is that? The MSM et al are turning women into Hypnotized cattle.

[Bela]

Wow!  Just think how smart you would be if you had a man-sized brain!

LMFAO!!! Right on cue man!

I have to continue to firmly disagree with this notion that alcoholism is a genetic issue.

That's an opinion.  Any rehab center knows about ethnicity and alcoholism  - Native Americans are one glaring example of how addiction is related to genetic adaptation to alcohol.  Italians have a particularly low rate of addiction.  This has been well studied.  You are pulling your ideas out of thin air (I was going to say out of your own ass, but I don't want to sound hostile). Read "Alcoholism, Myths and Realites".  Please.

As for brain size:

...new scientific studies across several animal species, including humans, are challenging the notion that brain size alone is a measure of intelligence. Rather, scientists now argue, it is a brain's underlying organization and molecular activity at its synapses (the communication junctions between neurons through which nerve impulses pass) that dictate intelligence.

Two years ago, Paul Manger, a professor of health sciences at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, caused quite a stir when he referred to the beloved bottlenose dolphin, owner of a large, nearly human-size brain, as "dumber than a goldfish."

"When you look at cetaceans, they have big brains, absolutely," Manger says. "But if you look at the actual structure of the brain, it's not very complex. And brain size only matters if the rest of the brain is organized properly to facilitate information processing."

He argues that the systems within the brain—how neurons or nerve cells and synapses are organized—are the keys to determining information-processing capacity. Manger speculates that cetacean brains are large not because of intelligence but instead due to an abundance of fatty glial cells (non-nerve cells serving as a supporting tissue), which may be present to provide warmth in cold waters for the information-processing neurons in the brain's interior.http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ize-matter

Maybe men are just big fat-heads after all.  

[Bela]

They give up the joy of raising their children so they can have a "career", which is usually just some 9 to 5 job making money for some corporation. They give up their greatest blessing, the ability to give life, and instead they mutilate their baby with a vacuum, and they are fooled into thinking that is a great "choice", and that it is their "right" to kill that baby.  

Raising children is always a joy?  Some of us don't think so. Ask my mom.  I had no clue she was getting anything "joyous" from raising us and putting up with my dad, who wouldn't allow her the use of the car (in other words, he was a "traditional" chauvinist - or as Dr. Phil would have asked him "How much fun do you think you are to live with?" )

Frankly, I'd rather live without children.  If I want to deal with them, I can work with them (as I do now) or adopt, or go into foster parenting.  

What is this bullshit that women are naturally tied to their biology and jobs make them miserable?  This is Makow style garbage.  Women are not some sort of separate species that MUST breed.  I have  never in my entire life felt the "need" to have a kid.  Never.  There are a lot of people who don't want kids, and it's not because we're "selfish".  I would want to have a stable home first of all - with a husband who will at least stick around for the 20 years or so it takes to raise a kid.  But many men want to keep on being adolescents and fool around on their wives, and dump them at the least provocation.  

I don't want or "need" to be pinned down to a home - this is not the way I am wired.  Start thinking of women as individuals and get off this grouping thing.

As for working women, somehow I never see men complaining if those women are working as 1) strippers 2) hookers 3) secretary/receptionists 4) nurses 5) teachers or 6) waitresses.  BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE DON'T "COMPETE" WITH MEN!  IN A CORPORATION!  WHERE YOU CAN MAKE A DECENT SALARY!

Isn't that what it boils down to?  Male insecurity?  Penis size?  Something?

As for the wisdom of David Duke, well, Eustace Mullins said he was a "great womanizer" (e.g. un-marriageable), gambler, drinker, and screwed Mullins out of his speaking engagement.  I am assuming that Duke is an addict, his racism (former and perhaps present) is a dead giveaway, along with the other behaviors.  Duke is like many alcoholics, charming, and in addition, lucky for him, also boyishly handsome.  I imagine he's successful at getting what he wants.  

Duke is not someone I'd be asking for advice on relationships.  Makow either.  These are two men who can't keep any woman happy (ok, well maybe Duke keeps a string of them happy) and they're giving advice on RELATIONSHIPS?  Blind leading the stupid?  

As for abortion, please define "baby".  Is a baby a fertilized egg?  Some people think so.  This is where the confusion on abortion comes in.

I am against late term and partial birth abortions.  I am not in favor of mid-term either.  However, the "fertilized egg as baby" which the pro-lifers seem to be pushing really gets on my nerves.   The "Every Sperm is Sacred" chorus from Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life" comes to mind when I think of the pro lifers.
[youtube:1j30yryr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8[/youtube]1j30yryr]

[Christopher Marlowe]

As for abortion, please define "baby". Is a baby a fertilized egg? Some people think so. This is where the confusion on abortion comes in.

I am against late term and partial birth abortions. I am not in favor of mid-term either. However, the "fertilized egg as baby" which the pro-lifers seem to be pushing really gets on my nerves. The "Every Sperm is Sacred" chorus from Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life" comes to mind when I think of the pro lifers.

I hope I don't need to explain the difference between a sperm and a fertilized egg.

As I pointed out above, the law recognizes a viable fetus capable of protection. From Planned Vampire Parenthood v Casey:

Thus, any later divergences from the factual premises of Roe have no bearing on the validity of its central holding, that viability marks the earliest point at which the State's interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on nontherapeutic abortions. The soundness or unsoundness of that constitutional judgment in no sense turns on when viability occurs. Whenever it may occur, its attainment will continue to serve as the critical fact.

Viability outside the womb will increase as science becomes more able to imitate the womb. It appears as though we are headed for a Brave New World: Women who don't want their babies will have to turn them over to the state to be raised in electronic wombs.

A fetus at 10 weeks of development has fully formed eyelids and well-formed digits and ears.  So I guess he can hear the vacuum sucking out his guts.

If the law were going to be consistent, they would use the same method of determining life that they use for death.  Currently, a person can be declared legally dead when there is an irreversible cessation of brain activity.  The human brain begins forming very early in prenatal life: just three weeks after conception!

The only logical place to say where life begins is at conception. There is something inhuman about wanting to kill the unborn. IMHO, it is sociopathic.

[veritasvincit]

Christopher Marlowe wrote:
If the law were going to be consistent, they would use the same method of determining life that they use for death. Currently, a person can be declared legally dead when there is an irreversible cessation of brain activity. The human brain begins forming very early in prenatal life: just three weeks after conception!

The only logical place to say where life begins is at conception. There is something inhuman about wanting to kill the unborn. IMHO, it is sociopathic.

I am in total agreement.  This is not only a religious argument but scientific as well.

Another created lie they sold to women to make them feel empowered.  Ladies - wake up.  You've always had control over your body without bringing abortion into the equation - contraception gave you that control.  Who are the greatest advocates of abortion?  That is the question.

[Anonymous]

Christopher Marlowe.

It is the womans body and the woman owns the baby, it is upto her to decide what to do. You can say that the baby is an individual and that the woman has no right whatsoever, but really she is the one supporting it's life, using her body to feed and grow the baby. I look simply at the laws of nature, evolution and natural selection, not man made ideas of humanity and illusory human rights. If a woman has a baby and she doesn't want to bring it into the world, fine. What if she paid for some donor sperm and fertilized her own egg, she pretty much owns that baby 100% without a partner to complain about the abortion. What gives you the right sir to go up to the woman and tell her she can not terminate her baby? A man can't really lay claim anyway because he produces thousands of sperm per ejaculation and countless other times it is just simply wasted such as wacking off or using a condom. If the guy has a problem with it he really should have selected a better mate that would not terminate his/her's child.

Where do you stand on a woman aborting the child of someone who raped her? You mentioned before that a woman terminating a child because she is unsure of the genetic quality of the father as Eugenics. You simply blurted out that oh that's Eugenics as if it is a big no no. Through the laws of natural selection and evolution, successful rapes which produces offspring will lead to the offspring being prone to being a rapist as it has been able to reproduce in that fashion. The male children will have a genetic tenancy to be rapists.

Humans are still animals, they are the most advanced and evolved animal on the planet but that does not exclude them from the laws of nature. We are much more harsh on our pets, farm animals etc than we are on ourselves and I believe this must change. Humans desire specific traits in their pets, select & purchase expensive breeds. On the farm, only the best animals, the most healthy are allowed to reproduce. Any animal that showed a deformity, homosexual activity, dullness etc would be put down no questions asked, Yet people conveniently say they are different from animals and that those proven laws of nature do not apply to them because they are "above" animals, they reject the successful idealisms and followment of nature and her laws which man places on animals but reject it for himself. (I personally believe anti eugenic beliefs and promotion is a jewish psyop which is designed to over time destroy a society)

The people who oppose Eugenics are generally people who are ill informed or of poor genetic quality themselves. Jews are naturally opposed to the use of eugenics along with welfare people because a eugenicist would just see them as parasites who should be culled. Eugenics really is the answer to most of societies problems, the problems arise because the people that make up the society are simply not good enough to live in the society. The ancestors who first build a society are of very good genetic stock, but without culling (With culling I am referring to those people deemed unworthy and to limited their reproduction) the genetic quality degrades over time.

Christopher Marlowe, get a strong head on your shoulders and stop looking at things through colored glasses.

[veritasvincit]

Dear bluejelly:
Eugenics is comparable to playing God.  Who are you or any other man to decide who lives and who is taken out of the gene pool.  Eugenics is anti-Christian.  No man is superior to any other man.  Period.  God decides who lives, and how we are created including our imperfections.  Breeding by intelligence or any other criteria does not make for a utopian society.  What if we decided to weed out from our society, all people with the names of "bluejelly" or "veritasvincit"?  We are not the judge nor are we to play God.  It is our responsibility though, to protect society from rapists and pedophiles by locking them away in jail and/or castrating them but not to decide whether to take their lives - and to protect society from a den of thieves by communicating the truth to society. We are not the final judge of their lives though.  Only God decides our death  - just as he decides our life.

Matthew 10:30
But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

Matthew 19: 23-24
Verily I say unto you.  That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.  And again I say unto you,  It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

The greatest gift that God gave us and that differentiates us from every other living creature on this earth is the gift of freedom of choice.   It truly is what sets us apart from animals.  Our moral compass has control over our instincts.  If we don't want anyone else deciding our fate then we must walk the talk.  The end does not justify the means.

Matthew 23:3-4
All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do: but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

[Christopher Marlowe]

It is the womans body and the woman owns the baby, it is upto her to decide what to do. You can say that the baby is an individual and that the woman has no right whatsoever, but really she is the one supporting it's life, using her body to feed and grow the baby.

That completely ignores that issue of viability, doesn't it? i.e. If the baby can live outside the womb, then it's a person. Just because a baby happens to be inside of the womb of an incredibly selfish woman, who doesn't want to keep the baby in her womb because she wants to go out clubbing, so that she can drink apple martinis and have sex with strangers, then there is no reason to suck the guts out of a baby and tear its limbs off, right?  I mean a woman is not killing the baby just to cause pain, right? She's killing the baby because she wants men to mount her when she gets in heat, right? So, if the baby can live outside the womb, why kill it? Giving a woman the power of life and death over another human being would be insane.  For example, let's say a woman is due to give birth on July 4, 2010. Then on July3, she calls up the hospital to postpone. They ask why.
     "Because I want to kill the baby instead.  I want to stuff it and put it on my mantle.  I'm an artist.  And I own the baby because it is in my body. Possession is 9/10 of the law. I even bought the sperm that would have just been wasted wanking off.  In fact, that is how I got it."
     The hospital would rightly think that she is insane because the baby could easily live outside the womb.  There is no reason to kill it.  Viability.  

I look simply at the laws of nature, evolution and natural selection, not man made ideas of humanity and illusory human rights.

What are illusory human rights?  What is the difference between your "ownership" rights and a baby's right to life? You say that you are simply looking at the "laws of nature", but I don't think those are written down anywhere. What prevents an arbitrary interpretation and enforcement of the "laws of nature".  What would stop someone from saying that abortion is "against the laws of nature" and killing people who perform abortion?

I'm basing my reasoning on the US Constitution, which is a written document. It was based on prior common law ideas, among which is the idea that Our Creator endowed us with the right to life, liberty, and property. These are self-evident, in that a person is his natural state is alive and has no bonds restraining him. If that person should mix his labor with an object, he has created property, and he has rights of ownership.  That is logical.  (Notice that a woman is not the "Creator" of a baby. The Creator is God. A woman is merely blessed with the grace of having a baby within her womb.)

People give their power over to the courts to decide matters with the understanding that the courts will not be arbitrary. The laws that run society must be written down before they can have effect, and they must apply to everyone in the same manner. The law protects human life. Therefore, if the law sees a baby as human life, then no one may cause harm to the baby without punishment under the law.    

Where do you stand on a woman aborting the child of someone who raped her? You mentioned before that a woman terminating a child because she is unsure of the genetic quality of the father as Eugenics. You simply blurted out that oh that's Eugenics as if it is a big no no. Through the laws of natural selection and evolution, successful rapes which produces offspring will lead to the offspring being prone to being a rapist as it has been able to reproduce in that fashion. The male children will have a genetic tenancy to be rapists.

I don't think a baby should be shredded with a vacuum cleaner even though it was created by a violent act against an innocent woman.  Shredding the baby would not take away that woman's pain or restore her dignity.

And having an abortion might make the woman's situation worse...

It has been discovered that there are many emotional aspects that can effect the psychological well being of women who undergo an abortion. These emotions include guilty feelings, anxiety, depression, loss, anger, and even suicide. ...
Unfortunately there are some rather serious physical problems that may result from an abortion. There is a wide range of complications that can result from abortions, such as, future miscarriages, infertility and ectopic pregnancies, and even breast cancer....
There is relatively a 3 to 4 fold increase in the chance on miscarriage among women who have had an abortion, as those who have not had an abortion.
According to studies done by Dr. Janet Daling there is reported fifty percent increase of breast cancer among women under forty five who had induced abortions.
http://www.cirtl.org/syndrome.htm

I don't believe there is any proof that the "male children will have a genetic tenancy to be rapists."

Humans are still animals, they are the most advanced and evolved animal on the planet but that does not exclude them from the laws of nature. We are much more harsh on our pets, farm animals etc than we are on ourselves and I believe this must change.

Yes, you are right. We should treat ourselves more like farm animals.  

Humans desire specific traits in their pets, select & purchase expensive breeds. On the farm, only the best animals, the most healthy are allowed to reproduce. Any animal that showed a deformity, homosexual activity, dullness etc would be put down no questions asked, Yet people conveniently say they are different from animals and that those proven laws of nature do not apply to them because they are "above" animals, they reject the successful idealisms and followment of nature and her laws which man places on animals but reject it for himself.

But WHO would decide which specific traits are desirable? What is a deformity? And what is the true "followment" of nature?  
[youtube:3qlg1wcn]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QfKCGTfn3o[/youtube]3qlg1wcn]
Talk about inferior genetic quality.  That guy's eyes don't even work.  
Here's another interesting story:

A women has tuberculosis, and the father has syphilis.
Together they had four children.
            * Their first child was born blind...
            * The second child was stillborn...
            * The third child was deaf & dumb...
            * and their fourth was born with tuberculosis.
They're now pregnant with their fifth child.
Would you recommend that they abort this child?
-------------------
If so, you just killed Beethoven.Da Da Da DAAAAAAA!

The people who oppose Eugenics are generally people who are ill informed or of poor genetic quality themselves. Jews are naturally opposed to the use of eugenics along with welfare people because a eugenicist would just see them as parasites who should be culled. Eugenics really is the answer to most of societies problems, the problems arise because the people that make up the society are simply not good enough to live in the society. The ancestors who first build a society are of very good genetic stock, but without culling (With culling I am referring to those people deemed unworthy and to limited their reproduction) the genetic quality degrades over time.

Here is another take:

* JEWISH INVOLVEMENT IN ABORTION INDUSTRY *

By Jayne Gardener
"Who drives the abortion industry in the United States? Want to hazard a guess?
If you said that the main movers and shakers behind the pro-abortion movement in the U.S. are Jews, you win the grand prize.

While there are, of course, some pro-life Jews who are disturbed by the abortion rates in both the United States and Israel, I would venture to say that they are certainly in the minority, especially in the U.S. Their low regard for Gentile life at any stage of development is reflected in the number of abortions performed by Jewish doctors (about half of all abortion providers are Jewish) in Jewish owned "women's clinics" (about a half of all such clinics are owned by Jews) which is way out of proportion when you consider what a small percentage of our population Jews comprise.

Various people have commented publicly about the disproportionate number of Jews in the abortion rights movement. For instance, Kenneth Mitzner, founder of an organization entitled The Pro-life League Against Neo-Hitlerism said:
First, let's take a look at the Jewish Talmudic view on abortion. The Mishnah, comprising the first part of the Talmud, provides a source for understanding the Jewish position which assumes that life arises only at birth which is when they believe that ensoulment takes place. So long as the fetus, or the most important part of it, its head, has not come out into the world, it is not called nefresh (a human soul) and therefore an unborn fetus is not to be considered a living being until birth.

    "It is tragic but demonstrably true that most of the leaders of the pro-abortion movement are of Jewish extraction." ....
http://ashkenazijews.blogspot.com/2010/ ... -love.html

Christopher Marlowe, get a strong head on your shoulders and stop looking at things through colored glasses.

Speaking of rose colored glasses, how did this guy escape the followment of nature?

[Anonymous]

Christopher Marlowe, you do make some interesting points and so have I, I believe, so I will leave it here.

You did ask me where I got my idea of human rights from, I got them from the protocols. The protocols is a true book and there are alot of truths in it about human nature.