Abortion – “My body My Right!” Why this argument fails to logic and reason.

o-ABORTION-facebook.jpg

Abortion.  Such a touchy subject and one that many women will scream about.   In fact with the current american election looming, the subject has come up due to Hilary’s opinion that the unborn have no rights in law until they are born.   Which means, in her eyes, that a child can be ripped apart via abortion right up until the time labor starts.

This has caused a debate on abortion to renew again.  I’ve seen this debate happen numerous times over  the past forty years.   However, now with age comes wisdom and understanding.

The understanding that “my body my right” is false.     I will list my reasons why.

Let’s begin with conception.    Life starts there.   The mother’s egg is dormant until the father’s sperm penetrates the egg and gives it the spark of life and energy it needs to start cell reproduction.

One of the arguments from women is that they give life or create life.   Technically this is incorrect.   At best you can call a woman an incubator.   They carry and gestate that child in their body but the “spark” that created that life, came from the father.

The cells reproduce and form a child.   During that process there are many stages.    Many argue that there is no “life” until there is a heartbeat or a brain etc.    This really is a strawman argument.  Since as I stated the spark started at inception.

Now, with that being said many argue that the fetus can be aborted right until week 31-35.  In Canada, this is 24 weeks.  This is what a fetus looks like at that time.

fetus24weeks

Now I don’t know about you, but this does not look like a bunch of cells that get scraped off the uterus wall.     Yet, the abortions can and do happen this late.

So the argument of “My Body, My Right” is false.  It disregards the life of the child as nothing.   So I can understand how some could see it as murder.

If anyone has watched the Videos from the investigation into Planned Parenthood, you would have seen the horrors that they present.   Selling the aborted baby parts for profit.   The staff separating brain, legs, arms as if they were never human life.

Then we have father’s rights.   Or rather, the lack of reproductive rights.    Many of the people who argue for abortion always mention that “If the father didn’t want a child, they shouldn’t have had sex”.     This argument is without any kind of reason, coherent thought or logic.    The reason being is, the same logic can be applied to the women.   “If she didn’t want a child she shouldn’t have had sex”.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I’m not against abortion completely.   I firmly believe there should be allowances in law for it.  Such as cases of women or girls getting pregnant from rape, or incest.   Or in medical needs, such as her life is in danger from the pregnancy.   Those to me seem to be reasonable.

We have had over 50 years in Canada of proper sex education, women have access to more than twenty kind of contraceptive options.   Everyone, and I mean everyone knows the pill is not 100 percent and yet we still have unwanted pregnancies.

So maybe it’s time ladies to stop blaming men for your pregnancy?   Men have 3 options to them.  A condom, Abstinence or a vasectomy.    The power, the choices and the rights are all yours.   So if you get pregnant and it is unwanted, then to me, it is your fault. At least, ninety percent on you.

As, I have written, men do not have rights when it comes to being a father or not.   You scoff and will rant, but it is true.

Men have zero choice in becoming a father.   Once the sperm, penetrates the egg and cell division starts then women have all the power and the choice in society.    If a woman gets pregnant here are her choices.

1.  She can choose to abort.  2.  She can choose to keep the child.  3. She can choose to give the child up for adoption.  4. She can choose to not name the child’s father on the birth certificate.   5. She can choose to force the father to pay child support.  6.  She can choose to let the father give up his so called “parental rights as father”.   7.  She can choose to deny the father any visits to the child.

All the choices are hers.     This is why,  I think the laws  in this country concerning abortion need to take a more balanced approach to, well, every aspect.

We need to have this discussion as a nation.   People need to be honest and less selfish about it and that will start with you ladies, cause we men, don’t have the rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Violating Rights in the Name of Safety?

Human-rights-violations

We all have rights.   Many of those rights are violated today under the guise of “for your safety” or for “public safety”.      Like the era of Hitler when he came into power, pro police and pro authority supporters encourage this.    They praise police when they very obviously have broken the law or violated someone’s individual human rights.
Today I read a very vague article in my local newspaper, that lead me to believe the person mentioned in it had her rights violated.   Which of course prompted a heated debate as I seemed to be the only one who recognized this.

Here is the article:

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6470583-drunk-woman-spits-in-police-officer-s-face-at-hamilton-hospital/

Now, after reading the article it does not say why she was in the hospital or why she was angry.     So we can only speculate.    I am someone who presumes innocence until proven guilty, so I will presume she is innocent of any crime.

Which leaves only a few reasons for her to act this way.  The most logical and basic is that she was forced there against her will, got angry and spit on the cop.   Who then proceeded to charge her for getting a little wet.

The comment section heated on social media when I mentioned that her rights had most likely been violated by the cops, the medical professions and possibly the paramedics if they used them.

This caused a stir.   People stood up and commented that the cops was assaulted, but really were they?

If you are taken against your will to someplace you didn’t want to go, just because you were drunk, isn’t that kidnapping?   I would think so.  In fact the Legal definition of kidnapping is:

Kidnapping

The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or Fraud, or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will with an intent to carry that person away at a later time.

This is what they did. That is again assuming that she didn’t want to go and didn’t commit any crimes while drunk.

Many would say that it was for her safety and that makes it right.     Actually no it doesn’t.  The only person who can make that decision is the person in question.    The only time that doesn’t apply is when they are unable to due to mental illness or they are unconscious.

In the 90s, I lived in BC and at that time there was a serious heroin problem.  100% pure heroin was being sold on the streets and anyone who would inject themselves with it would overdose and die within 3o minutes.   This was such a major problem that they had paramedics driving ambulances in the alleys and looking for unconscious drug addicts.

When they found a conscious drug user, they would offer help, and if they person said no they legally could not do anything.    If that happened they would wait until that person lost consciousness and then act.

When I asked the  authorities about that, they said that by law they cannot force a medical treatment against someone’s will unless they were unable to make that decision themselves.   That is to me the right thing to do.

Now back to the woman in the article, if she was drunk and they transported her to the hospital and she refused medical treatment, then forcing her to have it would have made the medical staff at fault.  And the police trying to “deescalate” the situation would not have made it any better.     No means no.     And since the police in this age are not known to be gentle or nice , we can only assume their idea of deescalate was to use force on her to hold her down.   To which the only thing the woman could do to defend herself would be to spit on the cop.

Some paramedics piped up and stated they deal with drunk people all the time who don’t want help and have to “deal” with the violence all the time.  Same with some nurses at the hospitals.     Here is my message you to and to any of these people who think they are helping someone.   “NO MEANS NO.”  Drunk or sober, you do not have the right to force a medical treatment, force someone to go somewhere, without their consent or against their will.   NEVER!   If they attack you in anyway it is within their right to defend themselves because regardless of your intent, you are violating their rights and attacking them”.

Can people understand this?    If a drunk driver is held accountable for their actions of getting in the vehicle and driving while drunk then they have the ability to say no to unwanted help.    If you violate this and take them to a hospital and try to perform a medical procedure, any medical procedure then you are at fault and not the drunk person.

Pass this on and share this.   The more people that get educated on rights, then maybe we can fix this from happening to others.

 

 

Feminism is an Ideology based on Hate.

woman-hitting-man-2915823

I will say this over and over, until feminism ideology is treated by society, exactly what it is, which is an ideology of hatred of men.   Period.   People are leaving feminism ideology in droves but it won’t be finished unless it is legally recognized as a hate group.  Much like Neo-Nazi’s are treated.

I’ve heard the arguments from pro-feminists who give this world view description of it that is pure fantasy and not based on reality.   Even from the so called men, who support feminism, have been brainwashed in this ideology of hate, that they cannot even see it.

Here are some common arguements and lies that pro-feminists use to defend the hate group ideology.

1.  Feminism is about equality for all.

Yes we have all heard that one, and we all know it isn’t true.   The dictionary is a book that has the definitions of words in the english language and it tells a different definition.

Here it is: Feminism

The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Now this reads like it is about equal rights but it isn’t.    Here is a real definition of equality.

Egalitarianism

The doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

Notice the difference feminists?   No?  Let me “mansplain” for you.

The first definition devotes the energy to supporting women’s rights only.    It operates on the assumption they are treated less than men.

Egalitarianism however, is one of equality, for everyone.   Not based on gender, not based on race, or sexuality.     In other words, it doesn’t give special treatment for one group.

Back to common arguments in the defense of feminism:

2. Feminism cares about men!

No actually it doesn’t.   It is a sexist, bigotted and homophobic ideaology.   It is a facist movement that was co-oped back in the 60s, by angry women.   They teach in gender studies courses the division of people.  It classifies them and puts them into victim groups with white men being the oppressors.

Let’s delve further into this. intersectionality:

The interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage:
through an awareness of intersectionality, we can better acknowledge and ground the differences among us’

The whole definition is about separating and categorizing based on oppression.   This ideology is taught in gender studies courses and taught this is still happening in western culture and society.    It teaches that we need to label ourselves and plot our victim hood on some scale of privilege vs oppression.

The final thing about intersectionanilty is that is doesn’t include white males.   Not one feminist, or their supporting men, will say that white men are an oppressed class and part of this intersectionanility.   In fact they will go out of their way and angrily pronounce that white men are the most privileged people in society, who oppress everyone else.

3.  Feminism loves men:

Sure they do, because this is their main scapegoat for all their projection of self hate.

Here is a classic example of blaming men by a blogger who wrote an article about why the world needs feminism.

https://andienns.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/77-reasons-we-still-need-feminism/

The gist of the article is that men are still the oppressors and still   I will follow up on this article with a list of my own to counter this one because this is the type of nonsense we need to speak out against.

4.  Feminism isn’t about hate.   It’s about love!

I heard this one by so many feminists, that it makes me so angry every-time I hear it.   It also shows they are down syndrome retarded in their thinking.     Here are some quotes by feminists that show the love!

“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.”
Catherine MacKinnon

“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.”
Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.

“Men’s sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can ‘reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.’ Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women’s own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, ‘even if she does not feel forced.’
Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.”
Andrea Dworkin; from her book Ice and Fire .

“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.”
Robin Morgan

 

From ‘A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:

MALE:…represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants…the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.

MAN:…an obsolete life form… an ordinary creature who needs to be watched…a contradictory baby-man…

I could go on and on but you get the idea.  Feminism is about the hatred and subjugation of men.   It teaches men they are evil and that women are best people.

It is time we denounce feminism, challenge it’s conceptions and presume it is gospel truth and fight the hatred of it.

We have allowed feminist ideology to infect society in such a way it is now affecting everyone as a whole.   It is a lie that teaches hate.   It infects our schools, our government, our jobs, even our homes.

Stand up.  Say no to feminism and challenge anyone who supports it.   It will be the only way we can stop this hate group.

Free Speech vs Hate Speech

I recently got into a debate on this (again), and for some reason people cannot fathom that hate speech laws are a form of censorship.     Worse yet.   We have the mayor of Ottawa Jim Watson, who has been in his office since the beginning of time, who openly now tweets and states that he is for the stiffing of speech because he finds it “vile”.

Mayors blast ‘pro-rape’ men’s meetings planned for Canadian cities

I tweeted him and stated that wanting to censor free speech is wrong, and he responded by calling me vile for supporting the guy  who wants to open a dialog about the rape laws.

Reasonable people understand that rape is bad.  We all know this.  No one condones rape.   The problem lies with the idea and definitions of rape.

Feminist supporters think rape can be this magical thing that can happen at any point.     Let me explain.

They (Liberals and Feminists) believe that (I’ve written about this before),

  1.  A man and a woman who BOTH get drunk, BOTH consent to sex and have sexual intercourse is rape.    Why?  A woman is apparently unable to consent while drunk.
  2. A woman who goes home with a strange man, gets drunk, takes drugs and gets naked, has sex with the strange man but doesn’t remember having sex has been raped.
  3. A woman who consents to having sex even when sober and then regrets the experience a week later, has been apparently been raped.

Do you notice the trend here?     Women are not responsible for their actions but men are despite being equal in things.

So this Return of Kings guy is calling for a debate and discussion about the rape laws if it occurs in your own home.

I get what he is saying and while I don’t agree entirely, with much of what he says, I understand that freedom of speech means being able to talk about things that people may find vile or abhorrent without repercussions from government.

As far as Mayor Jim Watson is concerned the idea of questioning the idea of rape laws is abhorrent.    This is the type of people in power and have been in power for a very long time.

I tweeted back the mayor stating the differences, that hate is the calling for 90% of men to be castrated or killed via the #killallmen hashtag.   Or the Drinking Male Tears meme which is common among rich white sorority girl feminists who do not understand basic concepts of freedom of speech.

Using these laws to shut down talk and discussion that you “FEEL” is wrong is not a valid reason.   Free Speech is a double edged sword.    I’m gay and I’ve heard the debate and discussion when gay marriage and even back when gays were not accepted as they are now.    I may not have liked what was being said but I never wanted to stop people from speaking their minds on subjects and having rational discussions.

Jim Watson, Justin Trudeau, if a woman or a man goes home with a stranger, and has spent a night flirting and implying they are interested in having sexual intercourse, and they go to either one’s home, get drunk or even not.    Get naked and have sex, and one party regrets it the next day, that is not rape.     Neither is it when you get drunk, and get naked in someone else’s bed.   That is called implied consent.   I know this concept is foreign to you but it is a real thing.    Penalizing someone for wanting to speak their mind on the subject or banning someone from speaking is called censorship.

And censorship is a form of oppression and hate.    Hate of true freedom.

Differences in Law – Explained.

I recently had a discussion with a group of people online about the differences in law.   The majority of people believe that law has different categories with their own rules and regulations.

ALL CIVIL LAWS ARE CONTRACTUAL IN NATURE

Here is how law works.  I’ll start off with the top level.

Criminal vs Civil.

Criminal Law deals with crimes that have victims.  Like rape, robbery, property damage or murder.   These fall under a crime with a victim because someone was always hurt or damaged by another’s actions.  And in most cases there is reparations or jail or both.

Civil cases are all contract cases.   This is where the above mentioned discussion got heated, and I understand why.   In Civil Law there are sub categories.

Family Law, Divorce Law, Personal Injury Law, Traffic Tickets, Small Claims, and more.

So I can see why many people would confuse these as being totally separate and have nothing to do with civil cases.   However all these things are contractual and fall under civil courts and that is why they handle them.

Divorce Law.     This deals with with break up of the marriage contract either due to a violation of one or both of the parties or just a mutual amicable split.

The contract was the marriage contract you signed when you got married that allowed the government to have authority over your divorce should you get divorced and as well to define your marriage with rules. (there are laws for marriage you can look up online, results vary depending on your government).

Traffic Court – These deal with fines or violations of the contract you have with the government that you signed when you got your drivers licence concerning the rules of the road.   This is also why they call any breach of the contract a “violation” and not a crime in court.  Simply because it is a violation of a contract.

Small Claims while not always dealing with contracts between parties, the parties in court at some point individually have signed a contract somewhere that gave the government authority over the situation.   For example, two neighbors having a dispute over a fence line.     Seems innocuous and doesn’t sound like it involves contracts, but each property owner signed documents with lawyers when they purchased their property and in those documents they agreed to abide by the laws governing the area concerning the property and agreed that the government would have final say.     That was part of the land deed you signed for.   A contract.

As well to note some contracts are verbal –   If you asked to borrow my car and I said only if you filled the tank of gas, and you agreed, that is considered a verbal contract.  Because this falls on the property or even public property (which the government owns) then they have jurisdiction.

Personal Injury law is also contractual in much the same way that small claims is.   It’s part of the whole land deed contract rules as well as public land rules.    The agreement was made  when you signed the deed papers for your property.  Or if you fall on public property you would take the city to court and the court would determine if the city is liable under the contract due to a violation, like not keeping a sidewalk in proper repair and it collapses under you into a sinkhole.   That would make the government in breach of the contract by virtue of the public trust and property owners who pay taxes for the repair and upkeep.

One gentlemen claimed that this simply wasn’t true that any contract isn’t valid if your “tricked” into signing it without full disclosure.   However, the government fully discloses everything and calls it Acts or Statutes or Code.    The majority of people aren’t educated in this and assume these sub categories are all different, when essentially they are all the same.  Just the terms for each contract are different.

Think about how many times you sign documents with a government agency.  Those are all contracts friends.

We live in a “Democratic” (I use the term loosely), society.   In a democracy, we are ruled by consent of the governed.  They get that consent in different ways.   One way and the most commonly known way is the voting process.  We give our consent by voting in the person who we think should govern.   What they don’t tell you is all the other ways that they gain your consent.    And that is via the contract.    They have to do it this way because then we wouldn’t be living in a “Free” country.  We would be openly be slaves.

They need you to consent to abide by their rules for the road for example.  They have to because everyone has the right to use those roads as they are paid for by taxes when you fill your tank of gas.    So you and everyone has the right.  Which is why they are called public roads.   They use the licence system to convince people that it’s for safety and it weeds out the unsafe drivers and you sign the documents, go through some rudimentary testing and sign some documents and you get a plastic card with your photo for the privilege of using the roads by their rules instead of just using them to begin with.

And when something happens, and you end up in court, it is called a violation and comes with a fine.   The fine is a penalty for violating the contract.  Refusal to pay that fine ends in jail time or your property taken.  Remember you agreed to this when you signed that contract.

Let’s look at it this way.   IF all these laws apply all the time to everyone then why do they need you to sign forms in order to get a licence ?   Why do they need you to sign a marriage licence?

If you think about it, you realize the laws don’t apply all the time and if they don’t apply all the time, then when do they apply.  They only apply during certain circumstances and only if you gave your consent.  That is the only logical answer.

If I’m walking on the sidewalk and a cop arrests me for a violation under the highway traffic act and I didn’t have a licence or even if I had a licence. would that act apply to me if I was walking on the sidewalk?

The simple answer would be no.  It would not, simply because the highway traffic act applies to people who signed the contract and the terms deal with people who are “drivers”.   Not a pedestrian walking on a sidewalk.

So in reality all civil cases are contractual.  They have different names that even lawyers who specialize in the sub categories can’t see it.   It’s no wonder the general public can’t.