Re: Delaying babies 'defies nature'


Ben wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > Ben wrote:
> > > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > > Ben wrote:
> > > > > Aunt Gabby wrote:
> > > > > (edit)
> > > >
> > > > > > What is it your business what a woman does or doesn't do with her own body
> > > > > > and life? If she she wants to have a baby like that woman in Romania at age
> > > > > > 62, that's her business. If she wants to have 100 abortions, that's her
> > > > > > business. If she wants to become a cloistered nun, that's her business. Mind
> > > > > > yours!
> > > > >
> > > > > Would you rather women make life decisions based on the best
> > > > > information, or would you prefer they remain uneducated?
> > > >
> > > > Well, let's consider that for a moment. Women who have breast cancer
> > > > on both sides of the family should be advised that they may also be
> > > > subject to breast cancer, but I would NOT advise them to go have both
> > > > breasts cut off just to make sure. :-)
> > >
> > > Well, *all* women may be subject to breast cancer, but apparently, you
> > > wouldn't warn someone if they had an elevated risk.
> >
> > I wouldn't send Jack the Ripper to "warn" anyone, Ben, just as I
> > wouldn't trust a sexist pig, dedicated to his own agenda to
> > propagandize. :-)
>
> Oooo, unfounded hysterical hyperbole--the last resort of those who know
> they have no foundation. :) In other words, typical feminist leftist
> socialist nonsense.

What are you on about? I'm simply suggesting that women don't have the
DIRE choices you think they have to make. A woman can certainly have a
child, if she chooses, in her twenties, with or without an idividual
man in her life. Or, she can freeze her reproductive products for use
at a later time or she can risk what she will and still be able to give
birth. Men's ability to produce healthy children also wain AS they
age.
>
> > And the science is there that can show all women
> > (and all men) the risks they face when delaying childbirth. HOwever,
> > science can also provide solutions so that women need not marry an
> > *** OR give up a lucrative career simply because some men are that
> > insecure.
>
> Science is expensive and inexact, but at least tell them that, both
> genders. Let them make their own decisions.

Sure, but this particular group has an agenda, and THAT is my comment
on it. Look at the header, "delaying babies defies nature". No, it
no more defies nature than any other scientific advance, which is what
women have today in matters of procreation.

>>
> > > > Nor would I suggest that women
> > > > cut off their career ops just to marry some sick sexist *** who
> > > > will ALSO help end their lives earlier, just so they can gestate and
> > > > deliver. Does THAT answer your question?
> > >
> > > No, but it *does* go to establish my claim that you're a sexist...you
> > > know, the claim that you keep denying. :) Oh, and you're bitter, too.
> > > :)
> >
> > Telling the truth, that women need not give up their own opportunities
> > to marry sexists is not bitter at all.
>
> It's all in the phrasing, isn't it?

No, because I'm not suggesting that all women who marry, marry sexists.
Heck, I know many, many women who married their equal partners.


You can try sugar-coating your ***, but in the end, all you have is a
frosted turd. :)
>
> > After all, there are some men
> > out there who are NOT sexist, and marriage is still available there.
>
> Given your definition of sexist, neither I nor any other man would
> really worry about it.

Who is asking you to "worry"? Certainly, you don't think I'm chasing
you, do you Ben? :-)

There are plenty of RL men and women who think
> you're just silly, and they manage to get along without all the
> hyperventilation.

Well, this is your last resort when you can't argue the debate points,
eh...just resort to denigration alone. Not surprising.

.

Quantcast