Is the Pro-Choice Argument a Dominatrix Tease?

[Daktoria]

Pro-choicers will argue the goal of male pro-lifers is to control women.

This isn't true.

However, dominatrix pro-choicers have an interest at stake in arguing such.

If the goal is NOT to control women, that makes pro-life men seem weak and unimpressive.

Therefore, dominatrix pro-choicers can tease pro-life men into a Cache 22. Either submit to torture, or get ignored.

_________

EDIT: Can a mod add "yes" and "no" poll options and repeat the thread title for the poll question? I hit "enter" too early. :-(

 

[spud_meister]

Pro-choicers will argue the goal of male pro-lifers is to control women.

I will?

 

[joko104]

You should have then deleted the thread. Regardless, this should be moved to the abortion board.

 

[Daktoria]

I was thinking about deletion, but spud responded, so I couldn't. :-\

Anyway, no, this is meant to be a response to your poll and the other one.

 

[joko104]

The "goal" doesn't matter, only the effect. Pro-lifers want the debate limited to the "goals" they want, not the realities of what the real effects would be.
Regardless of the goal, the effect would be controlling women in the most profound way, while having no liabilities themselves.

 

[Pinkie]

Where is this secret cache of dominatrixes?

Okay, that was fun.

Arguing with men about abortion rights is akin to arguing with them about childbirth techniques. They can get it intellectually, but not emotionally. They are on different ground...and perhaps it is weaker.

 

[Daktoria]

The "goal" doesn't matter, only the effect. Pro-lifers want the debate limited to the "goals" they want, not the realities of what the real effects would be.

See, this is the exact attitude which convinces me the pro-choice position is a dominatrix tease. Dominating personalities only care about the effect of being on top of society. They don't care about the goal of building yourself up only to have someone else stand on top of you.

Effects can't happen without goals, so if you're ignoring goals, you're being negligent.

Furthermore, as it applies to abortion itself, HAVING goals is not the same thing as EXPRESSING goals. Pro-choice advocates seem to literally conflate having with expressing in how a preborn doesn't express rationality (to impressive effects).

 

[Risky Thicket]

I think Sen. Dale Vitter should be consulted. He has experience being a pro-life, family values guy and he has also had his diaper wearing ass whipped by a dominatrix. On top of that he was re-elected in 2010 in a political contest that was clearly an abortion of democracy.

 

[joko104]

See, this is the exact attitude which convinces me the pro-choice position is a dominatrix tease. Dominating personalities only care about the effect of being on top of society. They don't care about the goal of building yourself up only to have someone else stand on top of you.

Effects can't happen without goals, so if you're ignoring goals, you're being negligent.

Furthermore, as it applies to abortion itself, HAVING goals is not the same thing as EXPRESSING goals. Pro-choice advocates seem to literally conflate having with expressing in how a preborn doesn't express rationality (to impressive effects).

No, your OP is just bizarre. Pro-lifers don't want to talk in terms of realities of unwanted pregnancies post-birth. Rather, they want to argue religious or ideological theory over children - all that ends on the birth of children. They want control ONLY so long as that control has no effect or liability to them.

"Its your decision" is the definitional antithesis of being a dominatrix.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Well I'm liking all this talk of dominatrix... but I lul wat to the rest.

Is it possible just to have the dominatrix part?

 

[Daktoria]

No, your OP is just bizarre. Pro-lifers don't want to talk in terms of realities of unwanted pregnancies post-birth. Rather, they want to argue religious or ideological theory over children - all that ends on the birth of children.

Well yea, you can't participate in reality without ideology.

Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. - Kant​

They want control ONLY so long as that control has no effect or liability to them.

"Its your decision" is the definitional antithesis of being a dominatrix.

I really don't know where you come up with this from. The pro-lifers I know, myself included, emphasize only having intercourse after marriage. If anything, that ensures the father will socially support the mother and child.

 

[Sunbelt]

Pro-choicers will argue the goal of male pro-lifers is to control women.

This isn't true.

However, dominatrix pro-choicers have an interest at stake in arguing such.

If the goal is NOT to control women, that makes pro-life men seem weak and unimpressive.

Therefore, dominatrix pro-choicers can tease pro-life men into a Cache 22. Either submit to torture, or get ignored.

_________

EDIT: Can a mod add "yes" and "no" poll options and repeat the thread title for the poll question? I hit "enter" too early. :-(

My goal is to protect human life and throw the rabid pro-choice nuts into prison for murder.

 

[joko104]

Well yea, you can't participate in reality without ideology.

Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. - Kant​

I really don't know where you come up with this from. The pro-lifers I know, myself included, emphasize only having intercourse after marriage. If anything, that ensures the father will socially support the mother and child.

That doesn't really insure that result. Nor prevents abortions. Check the stats on abortion and married women. And divorce.

A better rationale is simply to oppose unwanted pregnancy. That would seem to reach your goal more closely. But a woman on birth control having sex for the pleasures of sex and outside of marriage is probably outside other ideologies you have unrelated to abortion.

 

[Daktoria]

That doesn't really insure that result. Nor prevents abortions. Check the stats on abortion and married women. And divorce.

A better rationale is simply to oppose unwanted pregnancy. That would seem to reach your goal more closely. But a woman on birth control having sex for the pleasures of sex and outside of marriage is probably outside other ideologies you have unrelated to abortion.

Remember, this thread is about control, not pregnancy prevention. A couple can do everything possible to prevent pregnancy, but it has to have a safety net in place for when prevention doesn't work.

In the case of not pursuing children, marriage is like car insurance. You hope you don't need it, but it's there just in case, ensuring the father stays around. It's nobody's right to have pleasure at the expense of someone else's dignity. This includes the circumstance when we don't know if someone exists or not. I'm not just talking about abortion here, but abortion reiterates the attitude.

In the case of raising children, the difference between marriage and child support is marriage is an explicit agreement made in advance of experience. Child support treats sex... very superficially, and it controls the father where no unified household is guaranteed. It even creates a distant and insecure environment where the partners involved can't fully enjoy themselves because there's a possible "What if?"...

...and social programs? Whether it's health care, education, media regulation, or the military, they're all the equivalent of political cuckolding. Social programs completely teasingly dominate men, expecting men to be sexually hypercompetitive and simply trusting women's judgment. You're damned if you are competitive because you're taking the risk of women raising children or not beyond your control. You're damned if you're not competitive because you pay taxes and adhere to laws which take care of others' children.

 

[Risky Thicket]

My goal is to protect human life and throw the rabid pro-choice nuts into prison for murder.

Thanks for sharing that. Your charm and intellect is duly noted, footnoted.