💡 Trivia My Body, My Choice Until It's Suddenly Double Homicide? Pick One.

[Gildarts Tale]

A common argument for Pro-choice crowd is “my body, my choice. No one has the right to tell me what to do with my body.” That sounds strong at first, but it only works if there is one body involved. Pr3gnancy, by definition, involves two distinct organisms with separate DNA and biological development. So calling it purely “my body” is already incomplete.

If bodily autonomy were absolute, then no laws against harming others would exist as long as you used your own body to do it. That’s obviously absurd. You cannot justify harming another human just by saying “it’s my body doing it.” So the real issue is not autonomy alone, it is whether that autonomy includes the right to end another developing human life.

Now here’s where the inconsistency really shows. When a pr3gnant woman is killed, it is often charged as double homicide because the law recognizes two victims. That means the unborn child is treated as a separate human life. But when abortion is discussed, that same life is suddenly treated as if it does not count.

So which is it?

You cannot logically say it is just part of her body in one situation, then call it a second human in another. The nature of the unborn child does not change depending on who is doing the killing. Either it is a human life or it is not. You cannot switch definitions just because it is convenient.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Actually there is no conflict sa example mo. When a child is conceived, it starts as a "parasite" on its mother's body - in a sense that it uses the mothers resources for its own without the "host's" knowledge. But, when it comes to a point na the mother knows the existence of the child, and actively spending her and her partner's resources to raise it, it is now an investment with value - a human life.

So, going back to your example. When a third party takes the prégnant mother's life, there is a high likelihood that this parents are "investing" on this child at this point. Unfortunately, we cannot assign a monetRy value so we just vaguely describe this loss as "human life".

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Actually there is no conflict sa example mo. When a child is conceived, it starts as a "parasite" on its mother's body - in a sense that it uses the mothers resources for its own without the "host's" knowledge. But, when it comes to a point na the mother knows the existence of the child, and actively spending her and her partner's resources to raise it, it is now an investment with value - a human life.

So, going back to your example. When a third party takes the prégnant mother's life, there is a high likelihood that this parents are "investing" on this child at this point. Unfortunately, we cannot assign a monetRy value so we just vaguely describe this loss as "human life".

Calling the unborn a “parasite” is also scientifically inaccurate. A parasite is a different species exploiting a host. A fetus is a human organism, same species, with its own DNA, developing in the natural process of human reproduction. It is not an invader, it is exactly what the reproductive system is designed for. And the “awareness” argument does not solve the contradiction either. The value of a human life does not suddenly switch on based on whether the mother knows about it or feels attached to it. Reality does not change based on perception. The child’s biological existence is already there, independent of anyone’s feelings about it.

Your explanation also unintentionally proves my point. The law treats the unborn as a second victim not because of “investment,” but because there are objectively two human lives involved. The charge does not depend on whether the parents were emotionally or financially invested. It is based on the fact that two human organisms were killed. So the inconsistency still stands. You are assigning value based on choice, while the law recognizes existence based on reality. Those are not the same thing. Either human life has intrinsic value, or it is just a variable that changes depending on how convenient it is for someone.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Calling the unborn a “parasite” is also scientifically inaccurate. A parasite is a different species exploiting a host. A fetus is a human organism, same species, with its own DNA, developing in the natural process of human reproduction. It is not an invader, it is exactly what the reproductive system is designed for. And the “awareness” argument does not solve the contradiction either. The value of a human life does not suddenly switch on based on whether the mother knows about it or feels attached to it. Reality does not change based on perception. The child’s biological existence is already there, independent of anyone’s feelings about it.

Your explanation also unintentionally proves my point. The law treats the unborn as a second victim not because of “investment,” but because there are objectively two human lives involved. The charge does not depend on whether the parents were emotionally or financially invested. It is based on the fact that two human organisms were killed. So the inconsistency still stands. You are assigning value based on choice, while the law recognizes existence based on reality. Those are not the same thing. Either human life has intrinsic value, or it is just a variable that changes depending on how convenient it is for someone.

A tumor is your own DNA.

Well, you are merely arguing against it based on how you feel about my statements which brings us back to subjectivity. You are citing very specific philosophies (e.g. wether organs are by design), laws (which is why people are still arguing about this to change laws) and moral codes and without those the scientific facts dont mean anything.

Pero sige, lets accept that a human life has "intrinsic" value, like my house has a value to generally anyone. If I chose to destroy my house, should the law and anyone else punish me for it?

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Ang hilig mo sa argument. Hehehehe. It seems like there is a "situation" na meron ka gusto mabago dahil naniniwala ka sa katagang na ang "abortion" ay mali at masama. The reason why ganoon ang feeling sapagkat naniniwala ka na ang view mo ay iyon ang "truth" objectively dahil hindi nga siya subjective, sabi mo nga.

Ganito na lang ang e-solusyon. Ganito na lang ha?

Imbis "kontrolin" ang katawan ng mga babae as a whole and imbis gawin "restrictive gender" sa mga babae as a whole, ang laws at kung papaano na social conditioning sa mga tao sa babae, eh e-reverse na lang siya like "kontrolin" ang behavior ng mga lalake as a whole and imbis gawin "freedom" kung ano meron sa lalake.

Ganun na lang.

Ang nakikita ko na sakaling e-reverse, ang ipinapangarap-pangarap ng mga tao as general as a whole na walang abortion na kailangan mag-exists to the maximum level ay matutupad siya. What I meant is hindi na nila maiisip kasi ang katagang "my body, my choice" pa, hindi na kailangan "ma-limit ang kanilang mga rights" na yes, binibigyan sila ng "rights" but andoon pa rin ang limit dahil depen-depende nga kung ano align na moral na acceptable sa mga tao.

Hindi na kailangan ang abortion dahil meron ng "freedom" ang babae, you know? Meron na po itinatawag na "self-ruling" or "autonomy" sa sarili nito katawan so, kung na reverse siya, like sa babae naman ang itinatawag na "freedom" in gender at sa lalake naman ang "restrictive", like babae naman ang active in gender at lalake ang passive, babae ang mamimili din kung sino ang gusto nito magiging partner......... I mean, mawawala ang abortion sa utak or hindi na makakaisip na maghabol ng maghabol ng rights or hindi na maiisip na keyso my body, my rights dahil nasa babae na ang lahat ng control eh.

You see, meron control ang babae sa sarili katawan nito dahil control niya sa sarili kung kailan niya gusto mabüntis o hindi. Siya ang may kontrol. Imbis kokontrolin pa ng babae ang sarili katawan kung kailan egeget rid ang kung ano man nasa womb nito o hindi sapagkat lalake ang may gawa dahil kinokontrol kasi siya ng mga tao kung ano dapat sa katawan nito na lalake ang may gawa. Lalake ang may gawa pagkatapos babae ang kinokontrol, ano kaya 'yun? Parang katulad lang na some guys want a vïrgin women pero lalake ang may gawa na bakit some women are not vïrgin anymore pero sabay naghahanap sila... ano kaya 'yun? Ang sabihin lang nila, favorable lahat kung ano man ang meron view anything from masculine perspectives or sabihin natin na favorable lahat to men siya.... well... 'yun na lang, kontrolin ang behavior ng lalake imbis kontrolin ang katawan ng babae. 'Yun na lang ang solusyon.

Halimbawa, kapag kaya naman tustusan ni babae na magkaroon ng anak, ready na siya, meron siya sexual freedom na choice niya na makipag-seks ng lalake, kapag not yet ready, hindi niya gagawin malamang.

Katulad ng matriarchal bees at matriarchal ants. Tingnan niyo, no abortion na nagaganap doon dahil ang strength nila is magprovide like the queen ant, the more, the powerful ang magparami na magparami ng anak. Sa queen bee, siya ang meron kontrol sa katawan. Pupunta lang siya sa group of drones which is lalake at magpapabüntis para magkaroon ng anak para sa hive nila. Meron abortion? Wala, dahil nasa kanila na po ang control.

So 'yung government na imbis nakatutok sa katawan ng babae kung ano dapat gawin, kaysa naman kontrolin ang katawan ng babae, tutukan na lang at kontrolin nila ang behavior ng lalake as in. Doon nila tutukan.

Ang problema, high percentage na nasa government na gumagawa ng laws is lalake. O? Yung kapwa lalake ba nila acceptable ba na e-restrict nila ang kapwa gender? Hindi. Hindi papayag sapagkat sila ang naghohold ng power. That means, sila ang meron kontrol sa katawan ng babae kung ano dapat.

Yung mga tao ang ayaw ng abortion, pagkatapos kapag e-restrict naman ang gender ng lalake dahil sa sexual behavior nila, saka nila aayawan. Ano kaya 'yun? That means... that means.... that means power talaga siya dahil sila talaga nagcocontrol sa katawan ng babae kung ano dapat....

....and then, dahil babae ang kinokontrol pagdating sa sarili nito katawan ay natural, hihingin ng rights ang babae po, eh ayaw naman ng mga tao or nalilimitahan pa rin.

Sabi ko nga, sa loob-loob ko nga, patriarchy talaga siya. As in. The social system is favorable to men.

Ayaw ng abortion? E-restrict ng government ang sexual behavior ng lalake. Kaya lang ayaw din, lalo na puros lalake ang nasa government. So palitan na lang ng puros babae, kung ganun. Magiging matriarchal na ang bansang Pilipinas iyan. Acceptable ba na ganun ang mangyari? Big 'no' sa kanila 'yun.

Hindi na problema sa babae 'yan. Problema na ng sistema natin na how it works dahil lahat nga ay favorable to men lalo na ang nakaupo sa government ay puros high percentage ay puros men.​

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Alam ko na majority or ilan-ilan is ayaw ng abortion galing sa mga tao dahil keyso, immorally wrong or sin or keyso meron buhay sa sinapupunan ng babae pero ito lang ang logic ha?

Bakit puros babae? Babae ang ini-educate pagdating sa sexual behavior niya like the vïrginity stuff, babae ang naka-condition sa utak na they are "passive" kuno, na condition sa utak ng babae na mag-ingat sa pananamit dahil baka mapalapit sa kanya ang mga predator at lalake na mang-aattack sa kanya at ang dami-dami na puros sa babae nakatutok..... dahil meron mentality like hindi raw gagawa ng masama ang lalake kung hindi sa babae, andoon ang nasa mentality na keyso tukso....... and then, kapag na r@pe ang isang babae for specific reasons like they blame her on how she dress up raw kuno, victim-blame pa siya pagkatapos, kapag na büntis pa na galing r@pist, kasalanan pa rin ng babae kapag ang dala ng bata sa sinapupunan nito ay hindi niya gusto kapag gusto e-abort huh?

I mean ay majority nakatutok sa babae pero sa lalake ay hindi ini-educate pagdating sa seks bagkus meron sexual freedom... I mean hindi lang sexual freedom but tipo people tolerate men na being flexible, being free, being the alpha, being the leader..... dami as in then kapag nang r@pe sila at hindi nabüntis or sabihin natin ipagmamalaki na keyso they are men na walang nawawalan daw sa kanila sapagkat hindi naman sila nabubüntis or ano....... I mean they blame women in general speaking like how they dress, ang sexuality ng babae is a root na bakit gumagawa ng masama si lalake and so on and so forth pero wala accountability or walang responsibility ang lalake ni isa. Wala. At the back of their mind kasi, babae ang eeducate. Hindi lalake.

Ngayon, pagdating sa abortion, nag-aayaw-ayaw sila dahil masama at mali samantalang ang may gawa is lalake kung saan ang flexible niya, kung saan meron siya sexual freedom, hindi restricted ang gender nila bagkus normalize pa nga ang lalake na panood-nood ng pörn pero sa babae ay quite meron negative impression kapag nanonood ng pörn saying na that is not how women behave, eh baka bansagan lang siya ng slüth at whöre..... I mean nakatutok sila sa babae at puros pagpipigil ng pagpipigil sa babae kung ano dapat pero wala naman ginagawa sa lalake.

Kaya nga napaisip ako, kaysa magkaproblema sila lahat sa babae dahil keyso meron pang ganyan issue like may abortion na keyso meron pang rights-rights na ganyan, masama naman morally, well, imbis babae ang na e-restrict, e-reverse na lang siya. Lalake ang e-restrict na lang like gawin curfew sa mga lalake na huwag lumabas ng bahay every night para safe ang babae sa labas ng gabi.

E-death penalty or ikulong sa lalake na mang-iiwan ng babae na nabüntis.

Ayaw naman nila. Hindi ba nila naiisip kung ano tawag doon? Powers iyan dude meaning na gusto nito na freedom sa lalake without accountability, hindi nila kasalanan ng lahat pero babae ang suppressed at oppressed, and restricted kung ano ang gusto ng babae para sa sarili nila.

Yun lang yun.

Power dynamics 'yan.

I mean you know, do everything they can to control men's sexual behavior. E-restrict ika nga. That is what I called, reverse na imbis e-restrict ang gender ng babae, sa lalake na lang. Sa lalake na lang para walang abortion at kontrol ng babae ang sarili niya kung gusto niya magkaroon ng anak o hindi. Kung baga, ibigay na lang sa babae ang sexual freedom. ​

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Wala naman equality to some experts. Ika nga, people must choose.

E-restrict ang gender ng lalake at ibigay ang self-ruling or autonomy ng babae para walang abortion? ...dahil babae na meron kontrol kung kailan nito gusto magkaroon ng anak o hindi. Wala din r@pe, why? Restricted kasi ang gender ng lalake.

~or let men have their freedom in anything like seks or kung ano pa man? ...but, asahan talaga na meron at meron ibang babae na hihingi at hihingi ng rights pagdating sa sarili nito katawan. Diyan na ang katagang my body, my choice. Kung baga, if men have this freedom so women can have freedom too by controling her own body, like its my choice because its my body. Gender equality ika nga to some na nakakaperceived.​

 

[GoatPhomator666]

I think we should legalize abortion kasi madami na rin ang population ng pilipinas.

 

[Derealization]

Kung may pakialam ka sa Life Quality ng isang tao pwes "Yes to Abortion!

Human Morality is garbage

 

[GoatPhomator666]

Kung may pakialam ka sa Life Quality ng isang tao pwes "Yes to Abortion!

Human Morality is garbage

Kahit siguro ako, kapag ako yung sanggol at nalaman ko na ipapanganak pala ako sa isang mahirap na family or kriminal na family, mas pipiliin ko nalang na i-abort kaysa mabuhay.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Ang weird nga. Yung lalake ang reason why nabubüntis ang babae, andiyan nang-iiwan sila ng babae, na hindi raw keyso sila nabubüntis or ano dahil lalake sila. Hindi raw sila kawawa at lugi. Pagkatapos babae ang nagsasuffered pagdating sa economy, sa financial or ano lalo na kung na r@pe ito pero tingnan niyo naman ang logic ha? They blame women na bakit gusto ng abortion na keyso its like pinatay daw ang bata sa loob ng tiyan. Busy sila sa kakatutok kung ano ang karapat-dapat na ebehave ng isang babae pero wala naman sila ginagawa sa behavior ng lalake.

O? Ano tawag doon? Lumalabas na the people ay supportive sa androcentric views at masculine views as a whole, na they give too much valueble pagdating diyan. Sasabihin na kasi, lalake sila. Normal raw keyso na mataas ang testosterone, keyso lalake raw ang natutukso sa babae and so, hindi nila kasalanan 'yun at maraming-maraming iba pa. Diba? Ano tawag doon? It means tolerable sa lalake galing sa society kung ano ang ginagawa nila, ke gumawa sila ng tama o keyso gumawa sila ng mali. Kung baga , tolerable ang lalake at na uunderstood nila dahil given na lalake sila as in kung kaya, not common or very unfamiliar na erestrict na erestrict ang gender ng lalake. Of course, ayaw ng tao gawin lalo na nasa government especially, majority na nasa government ay lalake.

No wonder why natawag talaga na Patriarchal talaga siya.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

A tumor is your own DNA.

Well, you are merely arguing against it based on how you feel about my statements which brings us back to subjectivity. You are citing very specific philosophies (e.g. wether organs are by design), laws (which is why people are still arguing about this to change laws) and moral codes and without those the scientific facts dont mean anything.

Pero sige, lets accept that a human life has "intrinsic" value, like my house has a value to generally anyone. If I chose to destroy my house, should the law and anyone else punish me for it?

A tumor is not an organism. It is a malfunctioning growth of your own cells. It has no coordinated development, no natural trajectory toward maturity, and no role in reproduction. It exists because something went wrong.

A fetus is the opposite. It is a whole, developing human organism. From fertilization, it is already organized, self directing, and progressing through the natural stages of human life. It is not just “your DNA.” It has a distinct genetic identity and a built in developmental path. Calling both “your DNA” is like saying a brick and a house are the same because they are made of the same material. That misses what actually matters which is structure and function.

On your second point, you are trying to reduce everything to subjectivity, but that does not work here. Science tells us what the entity is. A living human organism. That part is not opinion. The only question left is whether human beings have value. If you deny intrinsic value, then there is no real basis to say killing any human is wrong. It just becomes preference. And once you go there, you lose the ability to call anything objectively unjust.

Your house analogy also fails for the same reason. A house is property. It has extrinsic value because we assign value to it. A human being is not property. That is why destroying your house is not the same as destroying a human life. If your analogy were consistent, then harming another human would be no different than damaging someone else’s property. But we both know the law and basic moral reasoning treat those very differently.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Wala naman equality to some experts. Ika nga, people must choose.

E-restrict ang gender ng lalake at ibigay ang self-ruling or autonomy ng babae para walang abortion? ...dahil babae na meron kontrol kung kailan nito gusto magkaroon ng anak o hindi. Wala din r@pe, why? Restricted kasi ang gender ng lalake.

~or let men have their freedom in anything like seks or kung ano pa man? ...but, asahan talaga na meron at meron ibang babae na hihingi at hihingi ng rights pagdating sa sarili nito katawan. Diyan na ang katagang my body, my choice. Kung baga, if men have this freedom so women can have freedom too by controling her own body, like its my choice because its my body. Gender equality ika nga to some na nakakaperceived.​

That whole argument creates a false dilemma. It pretends the only options are either control men completely or allow abortion as a “balance.” That is not how justice works. We already have a principle that applies to both men and women: freedom is not absolute when it harms another human being. A man is not free to do whatever he wants sexually, that is why r@pe is already îllégâl. So the solution is not “restrict all men,” it is enforce laws against wrongdoing. You do not remove freedom from everyone just because some abuse it.

Now apply that same standard consistently. If there is already another human life involved, then “my body, my choice” is no longer just about one body. Freedom does not include the right to end another human life. Equality does not mean both sides get equal power to harm, it means both are equally bound by moral limits.

Also, notice the contradiction. You argue for autonomy, but then propose extreme control over men’s bodies. So is the principle really autonomy, or just selective autonomy depending on who benefits?

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Kung may pakialam ka sa Life Quality ng isang tao pwes "Yes to Abortion!

Human Morality is garbage

If “life quality” determines who deserves to live, then who gets to decide the cutoff? Poverty? Disability? Unwanted status? That logic does not stay limited to the unborn. It applies to anyone whose life is judged as “low quality.” That is not compassion, that is just discrimination with a softer label.

Also notice the contradiction. You say morality is garbage, but then make a moral claim that abortion is “good” because of life quality. If morality is meaningless, then “good” and “bad” are meaningless too. You cannot reject morality and then immediately rely on it to justify your position.

Caring about life quality should lead to helping people, not eliminating them. If someone is suffering, the solution is to improve their condition, not remove them from existence. Otherwise, the standard becomes simple: the harder your life is, the less right you have to live. That is a dangerous line no one can consistently defend.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Kahit siguro ako, kapag ako yung sanggol at nalaman ko na ipapanganak pala ako sa isang mahirap na family or kriminal na family, mas pipiliin ko nalang na i-abort kaysa mabuhay.

That is not compassion. That is deciding, in advance, that some people are better off dead. History has already tested that idea and it never ends well. The Nazi eugenics programs justified killing the “unfit” because their lives were seen as low quality. The Aktion T4 targeted the disabled, the poor, and those labeled burdens to society. Same logic. “They are better off not living.” It was called mercy. It was not.

If poverty or a bad family is enough reason to erase a life, then be consistent. Should every child in slums be killed? Should orphans be eliminated? Should people born into crime ridden areas be removed because their future looks hard? If your answer is no, then your principle already collapses. This is not about what the child “would choose.” The child cannot choose. It is about other people deciding that certain lives are disposable.

Once you accept that, the line does not stop at the unborn. It never has.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Ang weird nga. Yung lalake ang reason why nabubüntis ang babae, andiyan nang-iiwan sila ng babae, na hindi raw keyso sila nabubüntis or ano dahil lalake sila. Hindi raw sila kawawa at lugi. Pagkatapos babae ang nagsasuffered pagdating sa economy, sa financial or ano lalo na kung na r@pe ito pero tingnan niyo naman ang logic ha? They blame women na bakit gusto ng abortion na keyso its like pinatay daw ang bata sa loob ng tiyan. Busy sila sa kakatutok kung ano ang karapat-dapat na ebehave ng isang babae pero wala naman sila ginagawa sa behavior ng lalake.

O? Ano tawag doon? Lumalabas na the people ay supportive sa androcentric views at masculine views as a whole, na they give too much valueble pagdating diyan. Sasabihin na kasi, lalake sila. Normal raw keyso na mataas ang testosterone, keyso lalake raw ang natutukso sa babae and so, hindi nila kasalanan 'yun at maraming-maraming iba pa. Diba? Ano tawag doon? It means tolerable sa lalake galing sa society kung ano ang ginagawa nila, ke gumawa sila ng tama o keyso gumawa sila ng mali. Kung baga , tolerable ang lalake at na uunderstood nila dahil given na lalake sila as in kung kaya, not common or very unfamiliar na erestrict na erestrict ang gender ng lalake. Of course, ayaw ng tao gawin lalo na nasa government especially, majority na nasa government ay lalake.

No wonder why natawag talaga na Patriarchal talaga siya.​

If a man is irresponsible, punish the man. Enforce child support. Strengthen laws. Hold him accountable. If there is r@pe, punish the criminal severely. But how does killing the child correct the man’s behavior? It does not. It just removes evidence of the problem and leaves the root untouched.

Real equality is not “men can do wrong, so women should be allowed to end a life.” Real equality is this: both are responsible for their actions, and neither has the right to harm an innocent human being to solve a problem created by someone else.

And one more thing. If your standard is suffering, then logically the child is the one who suffers the most in abortion. Permanent. No second chance. So if the goal is to reduce harm, abortion does not solve injustice. It just redirects it to someone who cannot fight back.

 

[Derealization]

Caring about life quality should lead to helping people, not eliminating them. If someone is suffering, the solution is to improve their condition, not remove them from existence. Otherwise, the standard becomes simple: the harder your life is, the less right you have to live. That is a dangerous line no one can consistently defend.

Hindi ba pumasok sa isip mo na "Killing someone is also caring?" Kaysa naman mabuhay sya na puno ng pagdurusa.

Base on my observation, gumagamit ka ng A.I. sa pag-construct ng mga basurang mong opinion. Nakakadiri ka At kung hindi mo kayang gamitin ang sariling mong utak para makabuo ng sariling mong argument pakiusap lang tumahimik na lang tayo.

And in case you didnt know, in some places out there "Legalized éùthenasia" para sa mga taong gustong makalaya mula sa kanilang agonizing life.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Hindi ba pumasok sa isip mo na "Killing someone is also caring?" Kaysa naman mabuhay sya na puno ng pagdurusa.

Base on my observation, gumagamit ka ng A.I. sa pag-construct ng mga basurang mong opinion. Nakakadiri ka At kung hindi mo kayang gamitin ang sariling mong utak para makabuo ng sariling mong argument pakiusap lang tumahimik na lang tayo.

And in case you didnt know, in some places out there "Legalized éùthenasia" para sa mga taong gustong makalaya mula sa kanilang agonizing life.

“Killing is caring” only works if you assume suffering makes someone’s life worthless. That’s a dangerous idea. By that logic, anyone poor, sick, or struggling should be eliminated too. We don’t solve suffering by deleting the person.

éùthanasia is not the same either. That involves a conscious person choosing for themselves, not someone else deciding for a voiceless human who cannot consent. And the insult part does not really address the argument. If the reasoning is wrong, show where. If not, calling it “AI” does not make it false.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

If a man is irresponsible, punish the man. Enforce child support. Strengthen laws. Hold him accountable. If there is r@pe, punish the criminal severely. But how does killing the child correct the man’s behavior? It does not. It just removes evidence of the problem and leaves the root untouched.​

Hindi mo naiintindihan ang sinabi ko. Ang sinabi ko e-restrict ang lalake. Hindi ganyan. Kapag e-rerestrict ang gender ng lalake as a whole is equivalent lang 'yun is kung papaano e-rerestrict din ng gender ang mga babae in a society po and from a government. Iyon nga lang, e-reverse na lang siya from men gaining freedom dahil keyso sila daw ang mga gender na "free" kuno dahil lalake raw sila to a restricted gender by social conditioning like simula ipinanganak ang bata plus enforcing the law from government.

Example. Put curfew or strict laws to all men na nasa labas ng bahay like pagdating ng gabi ay dapat nasa bahay na lahat ng mga lalake as in ni isang katiting, hindi na makitaan ba meron lalake na naglakakad-lakad sa kalsada or outside the house. Ang hindi sumunod, e-death penalty or ikulong. Ang result ay nasa labas man ang babae kahit buong magdamag ng 24 hours as in, walang r@pe na magaganap dahil safe ang babae po kahit gabi pa.

Next, social conditioning like instead active role ang lalake at passive role ang babae, e-reverse po like e-social conditioning na hawakan nito ang active role ng babae as a gender and ibigay ang passive role sa lalake as a gender. It means, when it comes to seks ay naturally, men are not active. Nag-aantay lang ang lalake kung sino babae ang gusto makipag-seks sa kanya. Ang result, since babae ang meron control, nasa kanya ang itinatawag na "self-ruling" or "autonomy" ay 100 percent absolutely, walang r@pe at walang abortion po. Babae na kasi ang may control kung kailan at ayaw niya magkaroon ng anak or kung kailan gusto ng seks or ayaw.

Its like the pattern of matriarchal social system of bees and ants. Example. Ang mga lalakeng drone ay meron ito specific na lugar as in. Wala silang role as in. Kakain lang sila then, tulog. Wala. Nag-aantay lang sila ng queen bee na makikipag-seks sa kanila. Kapag naandiyan na ang queen bee, meron pa competition kung sino makikipag-seks sa queen bee at kung sino ang nalalo sa competition, iyon na ang ka-seks ng queen bee and after ng mating , ang lalake drone na ka-seks ng queen bee ay mamamatay. Nature based na destine na lalakeng drone na mamatay after ng mating sa queen bee. Ang aim ng queen bee kasi is to produce sa beehive nila na 90% workers are female.

Sa matriarchal ants, the same social system katulad na ang mga male ants ay walang role. Kain at tulog lang ang alam. Nag-aantay lang sila sa female ant kung sino makikipag-seks sa kanila. Ang social system nila is the more, the powerful so if the queen ant nakapagproduce na malawak na colony than the other colony, powerful sila. Walang abortion or r@pe dahil babae na po ang may kontrol.

Hindi ganyan na nakakalabas ng bahay pa rin ng bahay ang lalake, but of course, hindi ganyan eksaktong social system na ni isa ay wala ng role ang lalake. Nakakapagtrabaho pa rin sila in the morning or work at home, and of course, after ng mating ay alive po sila unlike na ka-mate ng queen bee, lahat ng lalakeng drone ay walang role as in pagkatapos after ng mating, they will die in the end. Kaya lang, sabi ko nga, since high percentage, lalake ang nasa government ay papayag ba sila na ganun ang scenario? Ang sagot diyan ay hindi. Hindi papayag. Kung hindi papayag ay palitan ang mga lalake ng babae in the government which is of course, magiging matriarchal na ang labas at magiging big "no" sa mga tao po.

Kaya sabi ko kanina is "...busy sila sa kakatutok kung ano ang karapat-dapat na ebehave ng isang babae pero wala naman sila ginagawa sa behavior ng lalake. " ~ dahil in general as a whole, wala naman talaga ginagawa as in.

I therefore conclude, ang problema ay hindi na po sa babae sapagkat babae po sila na nagsusurvive lang in the harsh environment within the social system of the patriarchal culture. Ang problema ay ang social system natin na papaano ito gumagana and especially, people give too much valueble when it comes to masculine views bilang normal sa lahat. Dagdag na high percentage, ang lalake ay puros nakaupo sa government. Hindi na problema sa babae 'yan. Hindi na problema. Dagdag, problema din sa mga tao na they give favor na men daw ang influential role or have the important role in society.

So sabi ko nga, if sobrang obsessed ang ibang mga tao na kaka-dikta-dikta na mali or masama or hindi dapat, since gusto nila na walang abortion to the maximum level, imbis e-restrict ang gender ng babae at puros panay tutok sila ng tutok sa babae on how she must behave, e-reverse na lang po. Lalake ang e-restrict na gender. Hindi na lang babae since ang mga tao din na ayaw ng abortion.

Iyon ang akin.​

​

Real equality is not “men can do wrong, so women should be allowed to end a life.” Real equality is this: both are responsible for their actions, and neither has the right to harm an innocent human being to solve a problem created by someone else.​

So ano ang solusyon sa mga tao na ayaw magkaroon ng anak o sabihin natin na nagkamali or nadisgrasya from a r@pist? Meron ba solusyon ang tao para doon realistically? Hindi idealistic ha dahil hindi siya adaptable in a real world.

How about creating a businesses and/ or creating lots of adoption center po na imbis abortion ay meron mapag-iiwanan na bata na andoon. Payag ka doon?

Nalimutan ko kung ano country. Yung social system nila is walang abortion pero malawak ang businesses nila pagdating sa iwanan ng baby or mga bata na andoon. Matriarchal siya dahil high percentage ay 90% doon ay puros wife ang nagtatrabaho as in. Choice nila kung gusto ng bata o hindi dahil sa lawak ng businesses nila at meron taga-alaga ng mga kids.​

​

And one more thing. If your standard is suffering, then logically the child is the one who suffers the most in abortion. Permanent. No second chance. So if the goal is to reduce harm, abortion does not solve injustice. It just redirects it to someone who cannot fight.​

The world is not perfect. We need to choose. A woman must suffered or the child must suffered if you believe about zygote na may buhay agad. Sa akin kasi, wala pang buhay ang zygote in the womb kaya pwede pa siya ecancel, kaya nga subjective na sa tao kung gusto niya na bigyan ng life o wala ang katagang zygote in the womb.

Sa bagay , in the abrahamic beliefs, meron sila katagang, "ipinagpala ang mga naaapi " and since in the bible, ang sabi, women must be submissive and subservient to men daw kuno , ang pagbubüntis ng babae is part of suffering daw and its because na patriarchal bible nga siya, its obvious ang nakikitaan is favorable na women to acquire suffering kaysa sa child na nasa loob, bagkus if women suffered a lot and die, they will go to heaven raw.

So no questions ask, it is common na women must suffer because its favorable talaga siya rather than meron gawin sa loob ng womb.​

​

 

[GoatPhomator666]

Hindi mo naiintindihan ang sinabi ko. Ang sinabi ko e-restrict ang lalake. Hindi ganyan. Kapag e-rerestrict ang gender ng lalake as a whole is equivalent lang 'yun is kung papaano e-rerestrict din ng gender ang mga babae in a society po and from a government. Iyon nga lang, e-reverse na lang siya from men gaining freedom dahil keyso sila daw ang mga gender na "free" kuno dahil lalake raw sila to a restricted gender by social conditioning like simula ipinanganak ang bata plus enforcing the law from government.



Example. Put curfew or strict laws to all men na nasa labas ng bahay like pagdating ng gabi ay dapat nasa bahay na lahat ng mga lalake as in ni isang katiting, hindi na makitaan ba meron lalake na naglakakad-lakad sa kalsada or outside the house. Ang hindi sumunod, e-death penalty or ikulong. Ang result ay nasa labas man ang babae kahit buong magdamag ng 24 hours as in, walang r@pe na magaganap dahil safe ang babae po kahit gabi pa.



Next, social conditioning like instead active role ang lalake at passive role ang babae, e-reverse po like e-social conditioning na hawakan nito ang active role ng babae as a gender and ibigay ang passive role sa lalake as a gender. It means, when it comes to seks ay naturally, men are not active. Nag-aantay lang ang lalake kung sino babae ang gusto makipag-seks sa kanya. Ang result, since babae ang meron control, nasa kanya ang itinatawag na "self-ruling" or "autonomy" ay 100 percent absolutely, walang r@pe at walang abortion po. Babae na kasi ang may control kung kailan at ayaw niya magkaroon ng anak or kung kailan gusto ng seks or ayaw.



Its like the pattern of matriarchal social system of bees and ants. Example. Ang mga lalakeng drone ay meron ito specific na lugar as in. Wala silang role as in. Kakain lang sila then, tulog. Wala. Nag-aantay lang sila ng queen bee na makikipag-seks sa kanila. Kapag naandiyan na ang queen bee, meron pa competition kung sino makikipag-seks sa queen bee at kung sino ang nalalo sa competition, iyon na ang ka-seks ng queen bee and after ng mating , ang lalake drone na ka-seks ng queen bee ay mamamatay. Nature based na destine na lalakeng drone na mamatay after ng mating sa queen bee. Ang aim ng queen bee kasi is to produce sa beehive nila na 90% workers are female.



Sa matriarchal ants, the same social system katulad na ang mga male ants ay walang role. Kain at tulog lang ang alam. Nag-aantay lang sila sa female ant kung sino makikipag-seks sa kanila. Ang social system nila is the more, the powerful so if the queen ant nakapagproduce na malawak na colony than the other colony, powerful sila. Walang abortion or r@pe dahil babae na po ang may kontrol.



Hindi ganyan na nakakalabas ng bahay pa rin ng bahay ang lalake, but of course, hindi ganyan eksaktong social system na ni isa ay wala ng role ang lalake. Nakakapagtrabaho pa rin sila in the morning or work at home, and of course, after ng mating ay alive po sila unlike na ka-mate ng queen bee, lahat ng lalakeng drone ay walang role as in pagkatapos after ng mating, they will die in the end. Kaya lang, sabi ko nga, since high percentage, lalake ang nasa government ay papayag ba sila na ganun ang scenario? Ang sagot diyan ay hindi. Hindi papayag. Kung hindi papayag ay palitan ang mga lalake ng babae in the government which is of course, magiging matriarchal na ang labas at magiging big "no" sa mga tao po.



Kaya sabi ko kanina is "...busy sila sa kakatutok kung ano ang karapat-dapat na ebehave ng isang babae pero wala naman sila ginagawa sa behavior ng lalake. " ~ dahil in general as a whole, wala naman talaga ginagawa as in.



I therefore conclude, ang problema ay hindi na po sa babae sapagkat babae po sila na nagsusurvive lang in the harsh environment within the social system of the patriarchal culture. Ang problema ay ang social system natin na papaano ito gumagana and especially, people give too much valueble when it comes to masculine views bilang normal sa lahat. Dagdag na high percentage, ang lalake ay puros nakaupo sa government. Hindi na problema sa babae 'yan. Hindi na problema. Dagdag, problema din sa mga tao na they give favor na men daw ang influential role or have the important role in society.



So sabi ko nga, if sobrang obsessed ang ibang mga tao na kaka-dikta-dikta na mali or masama or hindi dapat, since gusto nila na walang abortion to the maximum level, imbis e-restrict ang gender ng babae at puros panay tutok sila ng tutok sa babae on how she must behave, e-reverse na lang po. Lalake ang e-restrict na gender. Hindi na lang babae since ang mga tao din na ayaw ng abortion.



Iyon ang akin.




So ano ang solusyon sa mga tao na ayaw magkaroon ng anak o sabihin natin na nagkamali or nadisgrasya from a r@pist? Meron ba solusyon ang tao para doon realistically? Hindi idealistic ha dahil hindi siya adaptable in a real world.



How about creating a businesses and/ or creating lots of adoption center po na imbis abortion ay meron mapag-iiwanan na bata na andoon. Payag ka doon?



Nalimutan ko kung ano country. Yung social system nila is walang abortion pero malawak ang businesses nila pagdating sa iwanan ng baby or mga bata na andoon. Matriarchal siya dahil high percentage ay 90% doon ay puros wife ang nagtatrabaho as in. Choice nila kung gusto ng bata o hindi dahil sa lawak ng businesses nila at meron taga-alaga ng mga kids.




The world is not perfect. We need to choose. A woman must suffered or the child must suffered if you believe about zygote na may buhay agad. Sa akin kasi, wala pang buhay ang zygote in the womb kaya pwede pa siya ecancel, kaya nga subjective na sa tao kung gusto niya na bigyan ng life o wala ang katagang zygote in the womb.



Sa bagay , in the abrahamic beliefs, meron sila katagang, "ipinagpala ang mga naaapi " and since in the bible, ang sabi, women must be submissive and subservient to men daw kuno , ang pagbubüntis ng babae is part of suffering daw and its because na patriarchal bible nga siya, its obvious ang nakikitaan is favorable na women to acquire suffering kaysa sa child na nasa loob, bagkus if women suffered a lot and die, they will go to heaven raw.



So no questions ask, it is common na women must suffer because its favorable talaga siya rather than meron gawin sa loob ng womb.

​

I guess tama ka