again you pretend that the man is the creator where the woman is just the vessel of the mans creation
you really have never spoke to a female in your life have you..
i am not talking about your own mother, as its obvious by your experience that she is just a servant to your dad's orders/whims..
im talking about real women. actual women that you do not think about. beyond your servant mother experience.
a man has no control or decision about a womans choices. he is not the life support system of a fetus. he has no valid claim over decisions of the womans body.
its the womans body.
a fetus is not sustained by a melon growing in the tropics of brazil.. i know you want to deflect the womans power and influence by trying to say that life is caused by the nature of plants and fruits growing. blah.. but no.. its actually the mother that is the one sustaining a fetus while its not viable to sustain itself nor able to pick its own fruit. so the mother is the one that has custody and makes the decisions.
the funny thing about you is this.. you pretend to be "anti-gov" but you actually want the government to regulate and intervene and violate a womans rights/privacy/liberty.
you would love the government to routinely inspect a woman and invasively examine a woman and arrest her if she does not maintain weight or nutrition. where by you think governments should imprison women if they become anaemic or forget their supplements.
other funny thing is you think its ok for a man to have a gun and kill someone
Let's be generous in our talk. Let's give people the universe, the heavens and the earth. But take away the life support that all plants and animals (including birds, fish, and yeast) give, and mankind's life support would be gone. In fact, there wouldn't be any people without this continuing life support.
lets be honest and factual
no one is saying stop growing plants or to kill all the birds..
what you find in the whole "cycle of life" is that we humans do not give anything to that cycle of life of nature..
without humans. birds will still feed off of insects, insects will stil feed off plants. plants will still feed off the fertiliser of animal excrement.
if you took humans out of the equation.. nature continues.
also as humans. we are outside of the natural cycle. we are the predator. we are the user but not the provider. no animals diet is naturally consisting of human. animals wont die if we are not around.
so humans are not the important thing to serve to keep nature cycling.
..
humans are separate from the 'natural law' you speak of about birds and fish.
but im guessing your next going to tell me that you are vegan this year and no one should kill birds or fish.
When the man and the woman get together, it's a trust situation regarding the new life... man grantor, woman trustee, new life beneficiary. It might be fun having sex, but it is a contract if a new life is the result. Why? Because propagation of the race is the reason why sex is fun.
Nobody is taking away from the fact that most pregnancies are under the control of the woman to a great extent. Just like anybody can do wrong things, so can a woman by killing her new life. It doesn't have anything to do with a persons ability or control. It has to do with what is being done when the control is used.
If a woman goes downtown and applies for a job, and if she is hired, she has to do according to the terms under the condition of the hire. She gave up certain of her rights when accepting the job. She expects her pay, of course. But she better obey the terms and conditions.
In a similar way, the woman accepted the trusteeship for the beneficiary. She did it by signing the contract, not with pen, paper, and ink, but with something way more foundational than pen, paper, and ink. She allowed or invited the man to take part in setting up the trust with her for the beneficiary.
In other words, the woman exercised her freedom by giving up some of it to gain something else in some other way, just like anybody freely gives something up by signing a contract. If she breaks her trust contract through killing the beneficiary, not only did she break the trust, but she was at least a party to the murder of the beneficiary.
The funny thing about this is, you would rather let the woman break the contract and kill the "kid," but you want the government to help her rather than uphold life and contracts.
Another funny thing is that you suggest that you know what's in my thinking, and suggest that I am in favor of killing, like you know it.
How in the world do you know that "no one is saying stop growing plants or to kill all the birds.." Do you know what everyone in the world is saying all the time?
What I was talking about was that all human life is on natural life support. Go back and re-read it. Different people are on different forms of natural life support at different times of their lives. A new life in Mummy's tummy is on tummy life support while Mummy is on natural life support provided by the rest of nature.
Or are you able to stay alive indefinitely without plants and animals being part of your nutrition, directly or indirectly?
