Women and Rape?


Ive read alot of posts that keep saying how all man kind is evil and would rape a women if the situation arose. What ive been pondering is in the movie,Was it a women and was it rape!. Can anyone call a zombie a person let alone a women and rape? it would be better to say necrophilia. I dont know i just think people are using words that dont really apply to this Movie.


Tonight i will dine on Frogs and Mice

reply

It was rape- most of the guys did her before they knew she was a zombie, and were happy to take her and beat her at whim. Men are animals hiding behind a thin veneer of civilization for fear of consequences/backlash. Take away societal control mechanisms, and women are in trouble :(

reply

Take away societal control mechanisms, and women are in trouble
Oh, but I thought women were oppressed in society...


"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

reply

[deleted]

what societies are those? No society has been ruled by women, ever. Unless you're counting mythology.

reply

[deleted]

You've cited examples of a single woman in a position of power - and even then Queen Elizabeth hardly qualifies since the british royals are barely more than figureheads today. That is far from being ruled by women, what is otherwise known as a matriarchy, and certainly none of your examples even come close to a "mother goddess" situation.

I say you are making up your claims of ruthless matriarchies from whole cloth.

reply

[deleted]

You are correct, I cited examples of women in charge, which supported my argument.
Ah, semantics. The last refuge of the scoundrel on the internet. But you are doing it wrong - the examples you cited were of societies with a woman in charge not "societies with women in charge."

But I'm a big proponent of letting people have a second chance to explain what they really meant. We all make typos.

So I'll take you at your word:

Let's see if I get your argument: the simple fact of a woman holding the executive office causes a society to become ruthless. James Callaghan - UK was quite amicable, Margaret Thatcher - UK is now one of the "most ruthless ever," John Major - UK returns to its former cuddly self.

These societies that are male dominated in all other offices and so are not matriarchies (because that was my misguided argument, not your actual one), some of them follow a "mother goddess" and are thus extremely ruthless. Which of these come to mind, exactly?

reply

[deleted]

How is it semantics if I started the conversation?

How does that make an iota of difference? You decided to try claiming the most narrow literal interpretation of your words as your intended meaning. The problem was that even then your literal words didn't mean what you claimed they did.

Still waiting for a response of substance -- but what I expect is another non-answer, probably a veiled insult. How about you go ahead and try to insult me and we'll all just take that as your way of trying to save face while admitting that you've been talking out of your ass from your very first post. OK?

reply

[deleted]

Well your claim really did suggest matriarchal societies with your 'mother goddess' quote. There really isn't much evidence of those actually ever existing. There's no shame in admitting an error on your part.

That said, I would agree with your hypothesis that a society ruled by women could be just as cruel and unjust if not more than ones ruled by men.

reply

[deleted]

Well, aren't you a lying, deceitful, malicious one? Forget what I said, you got pwned and tried to find whatever you could to weasel your way out. Judgement goes to DaliParton as winner. Sore loser badge goes to you.

reply

Have to agree with everyone else. You're a tool that was talking out of your ass.

reply

[deleted]

LOL! Still humiliated over making a fool out of yourself huh?

Get used to it, you've got a long life ahead of you.

reply

[deleted]

If that's the fantasy you need to tell yourself after getting schooled for babbling nonsense, you do what you have to do. Nice escape hatch. But reality dictates otherwise and you shouldn't expect anyone else to relate to your broken dreams. I have pity though.

reply

Hildovar are you serious? You claim men are evil, when in fact it is due to women that evil exists. All over the world, every single culture, they all say the same thing. Eve, Lilith, Pandora, Izanami-no-Mikoto, we men are at the mercy of the evil that women allowed into the world.

reply

That is because History is written by men.


----
LLS
If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!

reply


You know how I know women are evil? Title IX and fathers' lack of rights in abortion.
The End.
--------------------------------
I did sixty in five minutes once...

reply

I'm trying to get through this movie..it's pretty disgusting not to mention disturbing. I agree, it's definitely rape, even if she was a damned zombie. Necrophilia is a form of rape..the other party is NOT participating willingly, wtf.

I'm sarcastic..judge this.

reply

This is sort of the abortion question in reverse isn't it? When does a body stop being a person? The minute it stops breathing. Necrophilia is not rape because there is no possibility of "it" giving or not giving consent. What if it were a person having sex with a skeleton? Is that rape? I think we care for only as long as the body looks like the person we remember. When the body begins to decompose, seep liquids and gas, we stop thinking of it as a person. We then call it the Body and we do all kinds of things to a body that a living soul would not consent to: autopsy it, inject it with preservatives, burn it, etc. So, as gross as it is, it's still not rape.

reply

his is sort of the abortion question in reverse isn't it? When does a body stop being a person? The minute it stops breathing. Necrophilia is not rape because there is no possibility of "it" giving or not giving consent. What if it were a person having sex with a skeleton? Is that rape? I think we care for only as long as the body looks like the person we remember. When the body begins to decompose, seep liquids and gas, we stop thinking of it as a person. We then call it the Body and we do all kinds of things to a body that a living soul would not consent to: autopsy it, inject it with preservatives, burn it, etc. So, as gross as it is, it's still not rape.


Let's agree to disagree on this. I find that having one way sex without two willing participants IS rape. It's a human being; dead or not. Your point about the skeleton was..well far fetched, but I'd still consider it a form of violation nonetheless.

Excuse me--ya'll lookin' for a dead body??

reply

"will" is the key word here. Does a dead body have will? I think not. A corpse is not a human being because it is no longer being. It is a human thing, a human form and shape. The skeleton thing was an extreme case but I stand behind the point I was trying to make with it. Sure, having sex with a skeleton is silly but what is a corpse but an inert dead thing rapidly on it's way to becoming a skeleton? At what point does it go from rape to silly? When the eyeballs dry up? When the gums recede? When the body dries up and the bones poke through? When the skin draws tight around the skeleton? My point is: whether a skeleton or a fresh corpse the person is just as dead and just as incapable of having will.

reply

necrophilia is rape. If i wanted you to have sex with my dead body i'll tell you before i die, "hey i give you permission to have sex with my dead body". But if i die without giving you permission then YES it is rape. I never agreed so yes it is rape. You say "well the corpse can't talk", well then if a mute can't say no then having sex is okay to you huh? Sorry but you don't have the freedom to go around having sex with any BODY without permission. It's understood, i.e. I don't have to go out of my way to tell all 100,000,000 billion people living on Earth, "hey you don't have my permission to rape my corpse when i'm dead" before I die so no one will touch my corspe. It's understood by everyone.

reply

You must be raping your hand/fingers every single day then, child. Very bad. Very bad.

Hama cheez ba-Beer behtar meshawad!

reply

You know how I know you're a moron? This post.

Oh yes, requiring schools to actually treat women equally is surely evil. Go f--k yourself.

And "fathers' lack of rights in abortion"? That would be funny if it wasn't so completely idiotic. First off, many men just want to have sex and if the women gets pregnant, they disappear because all of a sudden they don't want to deal with her once a problem presents itself.

Secondly, in my opinion and many other women's opinions, men have no right to talk about abortion or birth control whatsoever. If you are incapable of being in that situation, you are incapable of understanding the complexities of it. I'm sorry, but you have no right to tell someone that she has to grow something in her body when she doesn't want to. That's a big, big deal, and for you to try to force your moronic personal morals onto every single other person's situation is beyond self-absorbent and narcissistic. It's none of your business and you can never understand what it's like to be faced with that reality.

And what about fathers' "rights" in child support cases? If he didn't want her to have the baby, does that mean he doesn't have to support it? I agree that it's inherently unfair for the father to be forced to go along with the woman's decision either way, but I'm sorry, that's just the way it is and the way it has to be. It's HER body, she gets to decide what happens inside it.

As a man, if you don't want her to have an abortion, don't get her pregnant. If you don't want her to have a kid you don't want, don't get her pregnant. You don't have to have sex with anyone, particularly someone who doesn't agree with your personal values on these things, but you're just going to have to accept that if you do, you run the risk of being forced to abide by a decision that you don't agree with. If you don't like it, don't put yourself in that situation to begin with.

And you personally need to get a handle on your sexist, misogynistic, self-important attitude, because as it stands, you're a massive POS.

reply

Woohoocations, I think I just fell in love with you a little bit. : )

"Wang Chung or I'll kick your ass!"

reply

It winds me the hell up when men stick up for each other so much. If women are so evil, why do men all over the world mate with women and have children with them? Why don't they just mate with men and then together, with their male doctors, come up with a solution as to how to reproduce using two sperms... after all, everything's possible in this man's world we're living in, right? You're mum had the option to abort you, thank the Lord she let you live.

Hamburgers. The cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast.

reply

The same works in reverse. Think a bit.

reply

First of all, you need to cool it. This isn't the place for this bogus discussion, which you are obviously closed minded about. You seem to think you can have it both ways and absolve women of any responsibilities.

Anyway, go start a thread on the "I'm going to gripe about society and how its unfair because it doesnt do as I say" message board. We'd like to talk about a movie.

reply

What if a couple plan to have a child, and the man absolutely wants to be a father, but partway through the pregnancy the woman changes her mind and decides to abort? Do you think a father should have no right to stop a woman who wants to kill his child?

I agree with most of your points, I'm just saying that not every man on earth wants to *beep* and run. That's an insulting stereotype too.

reply

it doesn't matter what the father wants. it's not 'his child'. it's in her body. it's only after birth when a sentient baby is born that the father is an equal parent. men have no biological role in pregnancy, only conception. every human being has a fundamental right to have autonomy over their own bodily integrity. the question is just selfish male privilege rearing it's ugly head again.

the more discerning of readers will recognise that it's only been men who've questioned whether the unprovoked violence was wrong and whether the sexual violation of a sentient creature (and she was aware and intelligent enough to fight and escape) is rape and will draw their own conclusions on that. rape culture, gender roles and sociopathy in full evidence.

reply

asriel-1 "the more discerning of readers will recognise that it's only been men who've questioned whether the unprovoked violence was wrong and whether the sexual violation of a sentient creature (and she was aware and intelligent enough to fight and escape) is rape and will draw their own conclusions on that. rape culture, gender roles and sociopathy in full evidence."


You know, I still can't even believe a human being asked this question. I just CANNOT BELIEVE IT! I am soooo stunned by this! I mean, WOW!! And yet women are to blame for all things evil? How much more evil can it get when you can't even recognize such revolting brutality for what it is, when you have to question the semantics of it as if it somehow makes it more acceptable?

reply

If every human being has a fundamental right to autonomy over their own body, how come I cant smoke spliffs when i want?

reply

I 100% agree with everything you said, asriel.

reply

" every human being has a fundamental right to have autonomy over their own bodily integrity"

Fair enough. However men should have the right to opt out of paying child support if they wish not to have the child and the mother does. No one should be able to force another into financial slavery for 18 years.

reply

,What if a couple plan to have a child, and the man absolutely wants to be a father, but partway through the pregnancy the woman changes her mind and decides to abort? Do you think a father should have no right to stop a woman who wants to kill his child?,


well ofcourse the men has a say in this if its his child and he wants it, but he is not the one who needs to give birth to it, so NO he doesnt decide, and it is only natural for it to be this way.
in the end its the woman's decision obviously because its her body, its literaly a living thing GROWING INSIDE OF YOU.
you really think another person can tell someone NOW YOU WILL GROW A CREATURE INSIDE YOUR BELLY AND GIVE BIRTH TO IT BECAUSE I WANT IT ??
a person cannot tell you what to do with your own body. especially when men cant be in this situation, they cant have a word on pregnacy because they are incapable of it.

reply

woohoocations - I agree with everything you said 100%!!! Very well said!

Oh yeah and to whoever questioned if this was rape or not is an idiot, of course it was!!! Wow I really fear for society if some people can't see that it was rape.

reply

My sentiments exactly!! Just so shocking!!

reply

Secondly, in my opinion and many other women's opinions, men have no right to talk about abortion or birth control whatsoever. If you are incapable of being in that situation, you are incapable of understanding the complexities of it. I'm sorry, but you have no right to tell someone that she has to grow something in her body when she doesn't want to.


Same thing goes for you. I'd swap places with you if I could. All I have to do is spread my legs, get pregnant, and then I can force the biological parent to give me childcare paychecks for life: woohoo!

I think this is perfectly fair: if a man wants an abortion and a woman doesn't, he doesn't have to stick around or pay anything after the child is born. The woman has been blessed with a child she can look after on her own if she wants it so badly.

Forcing people to do something they don't want to do is a form of rape in itself. If a man doesn't want to have a child, don't involve him in the process. If he's involved financially or bears any kind of life-long responsibility, he should have a say in the matter. It's simple as that.

If you want men to stick around and take care of the child, choose a little more wisely and responsibly.

As for the whole notion of equality and fair treatment, women often treat their bodies as sacred. To give it up often requires men to pay for things whether it's dinner or flowers or something else. Many women are glorified hookers in some form or another. It's the man that usually has to work hard to get a girl to give up her body and then if she gets pregnant, even if she shows no commitment or love for the man, she wants him to stick around and have his life permanently affected by the child with no say at all in whether to keep the child. How fair is that?

in the end its the woman's decision obviously because its her body [...]


That's not really the issue. You have a right to do whatever you want with your body. Men should have no right to tell you what to do with it, agreed, but if the man has no right to be involved in the decision, he should have no obligation. That's the issue. Women don't want men to have any right in the decision-making process but at the same time pay for the result. Come on, that's BS. Stop leeching.

There are promiscuous women having sex with other men while they expect the original biological father who didn't even want the child to still pay for childcare. It's ridiculous.

reply


Forcing people to do something they don't want to do is a form of rape in itself.


Like, totally. Doing chores? Rape. Taxes? Rape. Sending a criminal to jail? Totally rape. Standing in line at the DMV? Rape rape rape. Jury duty? Rape!

If a man doesn't want to have a child, don't involve him in the process.


More like, if a man doesnt want to have a child, he can stop having sex with everything that moves.

reply

Haha, don't you just love it when people belittle rape by likening it to pretty much ANYTHING that is even slightly unpleasant/uncomfortable?

reply

More like, if a man doesnt want to have a child, he can stop having sex with everything that moves.


If you want to turn all forms of sex into something that requires a life-long commitment, better involve a contract before the sexual act (i.e., marriage). Good luck trying to force that on the world. Regardless of the circumstances under which a woman gets pregnant, the decision to keep the child is a *major life decision*. The fact that a woman can keep the child against the father's will to me seems fair, provided the father is permanently held responsible for that decision in which we had no say whatsoever.

What seems perfectly and legally fair to me is that if a man gets a woman pregnant and he does not want the child, he has two options:
1. Pay for the abortion.
2. Let the woman have the child against his will but not be forced into a life-long contract because of it.

You're also making black and white cases out of this. A man could genuinely love a woman only to find she grows ever more neglectful and intolerant towards him, cheats on him with another man, and yet expects him to, from a distance, financially bear the responsibility of the child while refusing to have an abortion. These are perfectly legitimate cases, and it is *clearly* unjust to the push the man away like this and cause him to bear responsibility.

You're implying that all cases involve some negligent, irresponsible man who doesn't care about the woman or the child. This might even be the majority of cases, but we can't lump everything together.

Do you think a woman bearing the child of a man should have no responsibility towards the original man either? That she can just forget about him and take his money and cause him to pay for the rest of his life? That's the issue I see is clearly wrong, because it clearly and undeniably is wrong in a case like this, and these cases obviously exist.

reply

Thank you englisher101...very,VERY well said

SARAH PALIN. Hero of the stupid.

reply

You are completely daft if you think child support is like winning the lottery or something.

Child bearing and birth is an agonizing process which ruins your body.
Child care is a 24/7 job. No clocking out at 5pm. No good night's sleep. And no more financial freedom because the child's needs come first.
Average child support payments don't even cover half the actual expense of the child. So the custodial parent is still incurring a financial loss.

Doing something you don't want to do is not a rape, rape is rape. You are willfully obtuse and completely lack empathy for the experiences of others. I really hope you never get a woman pregnant because you think it's too important to be able to get off and run leaving a living, breathing child without adequate food, shelter, and clothing. What a classy gent we got here.

reply

I think the core issue that this particular poster was conveying is that females are not forced into parental responsibility at all while men are, not some idea that child support is like winning the lottery (I look at that comment as sarcasm).

A woman and a man create a child, she has absolute right over what happens while that child grows inside her. No one is arguing that (well, some are but it's a pointless argument to make). However, a woman has every opportunity, especially now, to avoid any parental responsibility.

Abortion: her right and inarguable as things stand; it should be cut and dry. The father has no choice in the matter.

Adoption: while things have matured in family court on this issue, it isn't a given that if the father wants the child he'll get it should she simply refuse to let the natural father have the child. A few years back there was a big ruckus when Florida tried to pass a law stating any woman giving a child up for adoption had to at least make good faith attempt to contact the father (in case he was willing to take on his parental role). Women howled and gnashed their teeth. The law obviously didn't pass.

Safe-Haven: women can just up and leave the child at an authorized drop-off, no questions asked and no consequences. This can also be done without the father's consent or say so. Imagine what would happen if the father tried doing this without the mother's say so.

What choice does a man have? None. He is forced by law under threat of prosecution to provide care for the child should she decide to keep the child.

What I think the person above was getting at is IF the father has no say, and IF the father doesn't want the child but she decides to give birth anyway, THEN he should be afforded the same option out of parenthood that she has during, through, and after the pregnancy by allowing him to sign off on those rights before the child is born.

The only statement made above counter to this was the woman who said: "That's just the way it is, so live with it". Funny how that wasn't an attitude she'd likely support when people weren't happy with not being able to have their choice of what to do with their body.

That being said, I don't even know why people bother with these kind of debates as one rarely gets any actual debate or logical statements to support the populist side of the debate; they just get a series of logical fallacies and thought-terminating cliches repeated ad infinitum so those holding that viewpoint can be dismissive of any opposing view.

reply

Women don't like hearing the male side of the matter, and that's the problem.

Let's flip the situation for a moment. What if the woman does not want the child, but the man does? Should the man not be able to pay for the birth and keep the child, take care of it, while the women sends life support payments?

*** How is that not fair and just? ***

Clearly we have these biological issues of child-bearing which make this subject a lot more complicated along with gender inequality issues, but at the end of the day, why does a woman hold all the power in these matters? I am clearly talking about the majority of cases where the sex was a *consensual* act. It is not like the woman was any more powerless in preventing the consequences than the man in these cases, yet the man has no decision whatsoever. Both have equal responsibility for the consequences, and both should have equal power in deciding what to do about it.

As far as I see, this is a subject of total insensitivity on *both sides*, not just men towards women about the biological and psychological aspects of pregnancy but also women towards men about their roles as parents or even their own feelings and psychologically impact towards this subject.

I won't stoop to making any assumptions about you or your character, but I happen to be a married man. Feel free to call me a misogynist all you like, but if there's one thing that has become painfully obvious through my relationships with women, it's that men and women are very different: psychologically, biologically, and sociologically. And yet we seem to be very clueless about each other: women being at least equally as clueless about men as men are about women. If we want to shape a better world, I think we have to start understanding and communicating the differences better, and I can't help but think that this particular issue alienates men a bit too much by completely leaving them out of the decision-making process and yet placing significant burden and responsibility in spite of it.

Going with the reverse situation, if a man seriously loves a woman and wants a child, and the woman aborts *his* baby in spite of it, that can also be a lifelong, crippling situation. I know firsthand because I have a friend who went through this situation during high school, and over a decade later now, he's still not over it. He still thinks about the child he could have had, so it's not like any decision made about whether or not to keep a child won't have lifelong impact on both parties. If we're to be sensitive about this particular case, I can't help but wonder why he couldn't simply pay for the birth and take care of the child, freeing the woman of all responsibility for the child she didn't want. Oh wait, that's exactly what I'm arguing for.

reply

Upon thinking of this subject some more, let me try to put my thoughts in a way where I'm not using any sarcasm or exaggeration.

One part of this issue that I find troublesome is that the responsibilities don't seem to even out.

For example, take the typical reply that a man should choose his partners more carefully or that he should have used a condom. This seems to imply that the responsibility of choosing sex partners and exercising birth control rests solely on the man. If that's the case, shouldn't he have the ultimate authority on the child's fate? Why is it that a woman is portrayed to be a helpless victim who is incapable of choosing her partners or preventing pregnancy when it's usually the women who have the ultimate say on who they sleep with and when the most effective, non-surgical means of birth control are designed for women (almost twice as effective as a condom)? If women were such helpless sheep in this matter as they often make themselves out to be, it'd be hard to justify equal rights. It seems as though it's always the man's fault when a woman gets pregnant when it really should be a mutual responsibility.

The other side of this issue that bothers me is that when we start introducing laws into these affairs, we rarely get justice. I agree that a responsible man should try his best to support his child, but introduce some higher authority between the parents and what we end up with is battling, struggling, lack of practical compromises, and a child caught in the middle of it all.

I was the 'victim' of a divorce. My mother took custody and my father earnestly paid child support. I missed his presence most of my life while my mother brought in some really strange boyfriends to the house, including one who liked to watch porn at midnight with the volume so loud that my sister and I could hear it all through the house and were too afraid to go downstairs to even get a glass of water. I needed my father there but he was too busy working two jobs to pay for the child support. I don't know if my case was exceptional or not, but I know it was wrong. In my case, abortion and birth control wasn't a part of it; my parents wanted children, but the child support and all the legal affairs still put a huge wrench between us.

Ultimately I just think two grown adults should share responsibilities. If we can put all the gender and biological differences aside, we might realize that the best thing for a child is mutual cooperation between parents, and that generally comes from sharing responsibilities and working out differences together. Appealing to a higher authority and trying to force one party to do this or that just has this kind of alienating effect of pitting both parties against each other to the point where the children are just left in the middle of the battle. There are some things that money can't buy that two adults should just seek to work out properly instead.

reply

[deleted]

As a man, if you don't want her to have an abortion, don't get her pregnant. If you don't want her to have a kid you don't want, don't get her pregnant.

Sorry, are you saying if a woman gets pregnant, it's the guy's fault? It's solely HIS responsibility that she NOT get pregnant? I always thought it was a two-way street (not counting pregnancy by rape, of course).

reply

I don't want to justify your self righteous comments with a long reply but your abortion rights sermon is just as extreme and intolerant as the very people you claim to hate.

Get informed, stop pretending to know it all and then I doubt you will make such provocatively ignorant statements.

reply

You know how I know women are evil? Title IX and fathers' lack of rights in abortion.


You will have rights... when you carrying the baby yourself is an option.

The wild, cruel animal is not behind the bars of a cage. He is in front of it.

reply

Technically I carry the baby before the mother does.
Also, don't tell me "It's my body it's my choice" while you are pregnant and then when the baby comes it is "I didn't make this baby alone. Give me money." Also, if you say the father isn't allowed to be a father I dare you to tell my brother he has no say in whether his kid lives or dies. I'll be sure to wear my protective glasses to shield my eyes from your teeth getting knocked out of your head.

--------------------------------
I did sixty in five minutes once...

reply

Technically I carry the baby before the mother does.


Technically, that's a birth control issue.

And BTW, I do not think women are ALWAYS entitled to child support. If the mother is pregnant because she was careless with her birth control, it is her problem. If the father has made it very clear from the beginning he does not want children and she ignores his wishes, she is responsible. If she will not allow the father to be a part of the child's life (with exceptions for abuse), he should not be expected to support that child. Those are just a few examples, but IMO all circumstances need to be considered when it comes to child support.

There are some abortion cases that the father should have some say in. I have seen women who have no abnormal health risk with a pregnancy, but just do not want the child, but the father is telling her 'I want it, I will take it home and raise it and you can just walk away forever'. In that case, she is pretty much a selfish bitch if she goes through with the abortion and the father really should have some rights. If she despises the idea of even being an absentee mother, call it a damn surrogacy. But the law just doesn't agree.





The wild, cruel animal is not behind the bars of a cage. He is in front of it.

reply

Wow. I really like that answer. I'm not mad anymore!

--------------------------------
I did sixty in five minutes once...

reply

In my first post it was not worded well. Not all laws are right, and there are too many grey areas. I work in animal rescue, and at times I have blatantly broken the law; so far I have just not be caught, but I can honestly say that while it is illegal, to choose to obey would be immoral. It funny, though. I can commit a crime and never feel guilty, but if I don't do everything I can to help that animal I would loose a lot of sleep.

It's one of the major flaws in our legal system... obeying the law is immoral, but the moral action can put you behind bars.

When it comes to abortion I am pro-choice, but my main reason is not that I like the idea of it, but that I know it is a necessary evil at times. There are some women who can blow off their decision as nothing, but in general it not not a choice we make lightly and it never should be.

But I do tend to get defensive after a couple of heated confrontations with militant pro-lifers.

The wild, cruel animal is not behind the bars of a cage. He is in front of it.

reply

It is odd. My brother's wife was pregnant earlier this year but around 7 months in found out it was going to be deformed. It had no genitals and clubbed feet and some other organ issues. It was going to die as soon as it was born so they decided to terminate. It was really hard for them, and for all of us really. I'm sure some militant pro lifers would say to have it anyway but how could you carry a child for a few months knowing as soon as it is born it will die? So I'm not totally against abortion I just wish the father had more say. I myself do not have a kid yet but want one. It would kill me if I found out my girlfriend was pregnant and she terminated it behind my back.
See what I mean?

--------------------------------
I did sixty in five minutes once...

reply

I do see your point, and I also agree.

I know how difficult a decision your brother and his wife made, but IMO they did the right thing. It may have spared them at least a little pain, but it likely spared the child a great deal. Please do not be offended by this comparison, but I have to base things on my personal experiences: I work in animal rescue, and while our hope and intent is to save their lives, at times the kindest thing we can do is give them a painless death. It is the first and hardest lesson we learn. In my cases like that it is like the nightmare King, in other contexts, puts it bluntly: "Sometimes, dead is better".

Anyone in a non-abusive relationship should always consult the other with a decision like that.

The militants anger me a lot, mainly because they just don't listen to people. Sure, there are women that see abortion as no big deal, but they really are a minority. My most heated face-to-face nearly got physical; I was in college and a girl in one of my classes was drugged and gang-raped at a party. I went with her because she was so scared, mainly of the picketers. I really didn't know her well, but I had a reputation for being honest and very outspoken. She told me later she knew I would either refuse and tell her how wrong she was, or agree and hold off overzealous picketers. I felt that she should not be judged that way; she had enough to handle already.

I did also manage to make a friend of another of the picketers that day, though. The girl I went with was visibly in really bad shape emotionally when we left, and one woman took time out to ask if she was going to be OK. Later she went in the clinic and started talking to girls in the waiting room; two of them were very young, only 13 & 14. . She called us later and said talking to those little girls made her see not all women made that choice for selfish reasons. She also saw that the clinic counselors make sure they are aware of all options and they will refer anyone interested to an adoption center. She is more like me now. I really, really don't like abortion, but there are cases when it is still the better choice when neither choice is good.

Besides, outlawing abortion doesn't lower abortion rates, it just increases death or infertility rates in desperate women.

I am strong in my beliefs, but I also try to be open-minded. But I am also human, and there are still some things I never give on and will never even listen to attempted justification, much less consider it.

The wild, cruel animal is not behind the bars of a cage. He is in front of it.

reply

Unknown check your personal messages

--------------------------------
I did sixty in five minutes once...

reply

"And BTW, I do not think women are ALWAYS entitled to child support."



No, but ALL children are ALWAYS entitled to child support.


"If the mother is pregnant because she was careless with her birth control, it is her problem."


In the case of single people that are simply "hooking up," I believe that each party should act as responsibly as possible on their own behave. In other words, the woman should have some form of birth control in place, (ex: pill, the shot), in purse, (ex: condoms) or literally "Plan B," (ex: trip to get the morning after pill). The man should always have condoms. Both men and women should also make certain that said condoms are not expired or compromised in any way, (like heat damage, etc). In the case of a monogamous couple, I feel that the birth control responsibility should be carried as equally as possible. Unfortunately, it's often the woman that is faced with it all. It's really easy for men to declare that a woman should simply "go on the pill," without realizing that it isn't always frickin' fantastic to be pumped full of synthetic hormones that alter our body's natural cycle and can often have undesirable side effects: loss of sex drive, painful/sore/swollen breasts, water retention, headaches, mood swings, changes in appetite, weight gain, possible mental changes, increased risk of blood clots. I am not saying that this happens to all women but for those that are affected, think about it. Men, how would you like it if you lost your ability to get it up or orgasm? What about having your balls swell up, feel like they weigh 10 pounds and have been used as punching bags? What if you worked very hard to keep your body looking as great as possible but your birth control caused you to carry around an extra 10-20 pounds of overall bloat and especially right in your gut? What about feeling pissy and sad like you would like to punch someone and cry at the same time? Finally, how would you feel knowing that you do run the increased risk of a potentially serious or deadly blood clot, especially if you are over 35 and/or smoke? Just some things that I feel men should consider prior to being so flippant about telling chicks to "just take the pill." Also, in the case of the monogamous couple that decides that the woman should be on the pill or shot, the very least the man could do is offer to pay for half of the costs.


"If the father has made it very clear from the beginning he does not want children and she ignores his wishes, she is responsible."


Naw, sorry dude. If the "father" has made it very clear that he does not want children, he should take responsibility for his junk and make a VERY CLEAR statement- get a frickin' vasectomy! That's about as clear and homefree as a man can get, (in regards to birth control). It's minimally invasive, a lot less expensive than a kid will cost you and depending on circumstances, it can be reversed. If you are on the fence and think you may want kids someday, get your sperm frozen and held at a bank. Regardless, you guys do have options that exceed "pulling out," condoms and trusting your sexual partners to simply "be on the pill." Got that? If you aren't willing to do these things and you put a bun in her oven, you don't have to be a Father. No one can force you to actually be in the kid's life, but if you weren't willing to cover your arse, then you should have no choice but to financially support the innocent offspring. It isn't the kid's fault that Mom and/or Dad mucked up.


"There are some abortion cases that the father should have some say in. I have seen women who have no abnormal health risk with a pregnancy, but just do not want the child, but the father is telling her 'I want it, I will take it home and raise it and you can just walk away forever'. In that case, she is pretty much a selfish bitch if she goes through with the abortion and the father really should have some rights. If she despises the idea of even being an absentee mother, call it a damn surrogacy. But the law just doesn't agree."



To have a man tell me that if I don't want to have a child, I can simply carry it, birth it and hand it over to him as if I am some sort of human incubator incapable of feelings?!!? ABSURD. I may not want a kid, but I damn sure know that after 9 months of feeling something take over my body, grow inside me...to feel all of the kicks, see the ultrasounds, experience the hormonal ups and downs, get fat, feel sick, lose nearly a year of my life, go through labor, see my offspring and just give the man the kid? I would ask if you are insane, but that would be as insensitive as you believing that a woman could detach herself completely from all that a pregnancy and childbirth entails. Again, she may not want a baby, but REALLY think about that. Maybe you still won't get it because, (and I am not male bashing), MOST men are quite capable of compartmentalizing nearly every single aspect of their lives. For example, this is why you could even propose such a thing and actually see it as a viable option or even call it "surrogacy." Surrogacy is done by very amazing women that a.) Feel a calling to help couples that want children AND b.) Most surrogates go through a lengthy process to prepare them mentally and emotionally for the ordeal of carrying and birthing a child for someone else. Oh, and most surrogates are paid at least $30,000, have all of their medical expenses covered, as well as their shelter and food. So, sure a man could propose this "option" and in the unlikely event that the woman would agree to carry and birth his child, walk away like she just dropped off a package for UPS, the man should be prepared to pay that 30 Grand, cover her rent, food and all of those expensive medical bills. Again, I'll repeat that a vasectomy would be the man's best bet.

reply

@c_hart

I am a woman, and I do know that it isn't easy for most women to give up a child, but a woman that will have an abortion for spite isn't likely to develop maternal instinct.

The wild, cruel animal is not behind the bars of a cage. He is in front of it.

reply

@unknown soul278

I only just read your message, so I apologize for this late response. Obviously, I cannot speak for all women that have had abortions. But I can offer some personal insight. Off the top of my head, I know nearly a dozen women that have had abortions. These are not all best friends of mine, but when this subject was discussed, I can say with full certainty that not one of them made the choice out of "spite." Again, I cannot say that it NEVER happens, but it would take a very specific personality type (sociopath or borderline personality), to actually base such a monumental choice on "spite." Some of the women I've talked to were oddly casual about the whole thing (which I found odd but realize it could either a defense mechanism or perhaps they really didn't see it as a big deal), but even those ladies insisted that their choice was a decision based out on THEIR personal feelings. Of the women that spoke of how difficult and frightening the whole experience was, they also insisted it was the best choice for them. None of these women live with regret. None of these women were acting out of spite.

I know one woman very well and her story of abortion is painful. She was deeply in love with her boyfriend of several years and she became pregnant. There were a lot of factors...too many to list all of them here...but mostly, she's never wanted kids, she was too young at the time to even consider it and she was in college barely scrapping by. But she is a smart woman that knows her body. She discovered her pregnancy when she was only about 2-3 weeks along. Before she even saw the positive on the stick, she had made her mind up. She had a medical abortion, which is done very early (in her case under 4 wks). Her boyfriend always wanted children. When she told him of her decision, he begged and pleaded for her to not go through with it. She begged and pleaded with him to support her and help her through it. Not only did he not support her but he cruelly berated her, called her a "baby killer." He berated her and accused her of cheating (after all, his ego could only fathom she would choose an abortion because he may not be the father)! So, by herself, she took all of her vacation days from work and every drop of money she had to her name and she drove several hours away to the clinic. She suffered through it all alone. When she needed that man the most, he was horrible to her. As if it weren't a terrible, painful experience already. My point is this...she truly loved that man and didn't want to hurt him or loose him, but she was brave and made the best choice for HER. And in her heart, she did the best thing for what would've possibly been a child. Of everything she felt, spite wasn't one of them.

Of those women I know that have had abortions, most of them are now mothers or trying to become mothers. The other few still don't want children and work hard to ensure that they won't have to ever go through another abortion. Regardless, I'm 100% certain that those that have kids developed maternal instinct...those that are trying are capable of maternal instinct...and even the women that do not want kids- I am someone that doesn't want children, but if I carried a fetus or a baby, I would feel a lot of things. Hormones would play a huge part and so would my heart.

reply

I'm curious after you stated:

Naw, sorry dude. If the "father" has made it very clear that he does not want children, he should take responsibility for his junk and make a VERY CLEAR statement- get a frickin' vasectomy!
and how it's absurd for a man to expect a woman to hand over a child, what your opinion of adoption and safe-haven laws are.

I'm legitimately curious, as with both of these options a woman can legally hand over a child to someone after birth, forgoing any parental responsibility, where the body/choice argument doesn't even come into play. What's more, the father is still left by the wayside in the decision (more so the latter than the former) even if they want the child themselves.

reply

Very well said all around, especially about how child support is for the benefit of the child, not the mother. So many people treat child support like the mother is making a killing off the father, when, realistically, average child support payments don't even cover half the child's expenses.

reply

When strictly child support you could certainly make that argument, but I know plenty of people that pay more in child support than even half what they ever spent on the child as a couple while they were together.

Also, when people make this argument they tend to either forget or flat out ignore the other components to child support arrangements such as the CS payee being able to claim the exemptions on the child, eligibility for earned income credit, the payer being taxed on income they never received while the payee does not have to disclose this added income on their taxes, and numerous other inherent benefits including eligibility for state aid, which the state can also force out of the paying parent to reimburse the state. That's not to mention how the states listed expense of what it costs to raise a child per month is over inflated to include what amounts to a hidden alimony.

Actually, I know someone who pays CS to the mother of their children while the children they have don't even live in that house. He's basically paying toward her and her third husband's rent (and the husband's three other kids) while his kids had been sent off to live with her deceased 2nd husband's sister, who isn't getting any of the support payment.

Why not fight that in court? Well, because the state they lived in allowed her to move halfway across the country with the kids and he can't afford the attorney or travel expenses to fight it there because all his money goes to her other family and not even his own kids.

So yes, sometimes child support *is* for the benefit of the mother and it's not so rare a case as you may think.

reply

You think women should be forced to completely ruin their bodies and possibly die in child birth because the father is willing to care for the child? You think that should ever be anyone's decision but hers?

reply

Do you understand biology at all? A sperm is not a child just as an egg is not a child. Neither can become a child without joining with the other. So you're not carrying anything significant. The mother is the only carrier of the joining of the two pieces that make the puzzle. You will never have a child in your body, you will never understand what it's like to carry one. Your body and life will never be put at risk in the process of baring a child. So no, you cannot use a woman's body as a walking womb.

PLEASE DON'T HAVE SEX!

Also, if your brother is that prone to violence, I really hope if he ever has children, they'll be promptly taken away.

reply

^EXACTLY!

We've met before, haven't we?

reply

You know why history is written by men? because women dont care about history...

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

YOU cannot be serious. If you have to rely on mythology and fairy tales to support your point, YOU DON'T HAVE ONE.

reply

[deleted]

Are you serious, bryguy615? I can't believe you just brought up Pandora for your argument. The myth? In the real world, there are millions of women who were for centuries and are currently victims of the evils of men: sex slavery, physical abuse, rape, etc. A lot of women have only recently gotten their human rights, while some are still left at the mercy of men. Men have never had to worry about being at the mercy of the opposite sex like women have. Not to mention the evil inequality that extends to aspects everyday life including school and the workplace. I'm not saying that only men or only women are inherently evil - because women do evil things as well, but don't say stupid crap like, "when in fact it is due to women that evil exists." It is not a fact and it is incredibly ridiculous. Try to put yourself in someone else's shoes before you judge an entire gender.

reply

You named a bunch of fictional women as proof of the historical evil of women? Are YOU serious?

reply

why not use some examples that are not ancient mythology. but for sh'ts and giggles, it was a man disguised as a snake who planted the seeds of doubt.

reply

And women haven't been known to molest and rape children?

Humankind itself is less than kind, humankind itself is fundamentally insane. It doesn't matter if you're male or female. We live in a world full of dilemmas created by both men and women, (mostly men) where people were and still are blamed for their race, ethnicity, culture and religions, and even demonizing same sex marriages. Like some women didn't have a part in demonizing blacks during slavery, like some of them didn't indoctrinate their young ones not to mix with other ethnic groups or use fanatic religion to enforce their views onto other women, like some of them didn't mistreat their slaves in ancient Rome and take part in cheering and taking pleasure while men killed each other in the stadiums. Oh, "men are animals hiding behind a thin veneer of civilization for fear of consequences and backlash". Yes, blame men for the worlds woes, because women doesn't take part in them, oh no, they are the victims manipulated by men, that's just the same what men think of women.


Honestly, who in their right minds would create a movie about raping a female zombie? that's *beep* disgusting. You got to be *beep* animals to enjoy this *beep* I can't believe anyone is trying to justify it by saying she's a *beep* zombie, or argue that they even raped her before they knew she was a zombie, or even mentioning necrophilia, like serious, that's sick. The female is conscious throughout the ordeals while some *beep* guy is ramming her over and over again for weeks without end. This isn't a zombie film, it's a rape film.

What's the moral of the story? If you don't bathe your rape victim, she will spoil? wtf?

reply

i don't think anyone said women were perfect. they just said men as a dominant, privileged group are more harmful. all forms of physical and sexual violence are committed disproportionately by men against all other genders in every society throughout recorded history. in that sense we aren't equal, but that doesn't mean anyone has an intrinsic nature.

reply

I got the impression that it was generalizing 'all' men. I agree that men have the highest track record in committing physical and sexual violence throughout history, after all they made most of the decisions while apparently women were regarded as unreliable as leaders due to women being more inclined in making ethical choices.

reply

We've already seen what men do en masse in places like India where the male population is in high ratio to women; or, hell, at any frat party.

reply

Oh *beep*

Male and female are both just home sapiens, a species of animal. One is no more or less evolved than the other.

reply

Was I the only one who noticed she seemed to like the sex but not when they were cruel to her?

reply

I don't know what movie you were watching, buddy. She liked the sex? When did the movie ever show her enjoying the sex? In fact I don't think they ever even showed her face while she was being raped. She just laid there and let it happen, because she was tied down. That's not the same thing as ENJOYING something. You seem pretty *beep* up.

reply

Rape is basically a forced sexual act without prior consent (or in the cast of Statutory, where the law decides the cutoff age at which consent can be given).

Was consent given? Was the individual capable of giving it? (example, when someone is too impaired or is unable to communicate (like an animal or infant or a person in a coma etc.))

It's been a ploy for millennia to reclassify people as property, an enemy, a spoil of war, or otherwise insignificant, to ignore the issue of consent altogether (as in the case of raping one's slaves, children, wives, or segment of an "enemy" population.)

Dehumanising language such as "bitch" , "chick", "doll", or other labels that depersonalise "slut", *beep* "ho", or here, "zombie", can be used to make the victim appear exempt from any respect of personhood or law.

Mythical figures of "evil" women (for example, Lilith, Eve, Pandora, Bathsheba, etc.) as "temptresses" or full of "sin" help perpetuate justification to classify a huge segment of human population as installed with a defect that makes it OK to treat them criminally without the usual justice that would be afforded (I guess some cultures are poor critical thinkers in this regard).

No surprise that so many justifications are religiously-based.

reply

Interesting questions, which lead to few answers and more questions.

Its not rape. She's not a person, she's a corpse that moves. Which means necrophilia, which is NOT rape. Sure the other party is not consenting, but it's not really a party anymore is it? It's like raping a rock or a pie. Inanimate objects do not have a say, legally, in sexual intercourse, regardless of what they used to be. Morally: reprehensible, Legally: not rape.

however, if these guys found a live, sentient girl, would they have gone the same route? I think so. If she was live and mute or retarded or permanently dazed or something, for sure.

But what if she was just dead? just regular old dead. Not a zombie, not even remotely resembling a living body? Would it even be appealing to have sex with a dead body? just because it was a teenage girl who was naked and chained to a table and reasonably fresh? I'd like to think that would change things for these guys, but I doubt it. They are truly *beep*

Of course, this doesn't apply to all mankind. And I think this is where the movie lost it. The popular jocks who are having their way with real live girls would most likely beat the crap out of these guys rather than pay them for a chance to *beep* a zombie. Even people who are total a-holes are not morally dead and the opportunity to boink, whether corpse, zombie or chained sex slave, isn't enought to turn them into such monsters.

reply

I read a statistic that said 50-60% of men would rape a woman if he could get away with it.

http://web.mit.edu/stop/www/statistics.htm

reply

I read a statistic that said 50-60% of woman would kill a man if they thought they could get away with it.

That's why we have laws. Morals are not inherant. Most people learn not to do bad things because its illegal. If somone told you could walk out with all your goceries and not pay what's stopping you? The knowledge that theft is wrong, or that its illegal?

People only think something is wrong if doing it comes with a penalty, even if the penalty is self inflicted, or what is called "guilt". Was feeling guilty included any way in your statistics. Stats are BS anyway. You are telling me that more than half of my friends are rapists. I'm positive that's not true. That isn't even plausible.

reply

I don't agree with that statistic either. I don't think men are THAT bad. The statistic was posted in my college too so it made it more horrifying to look at. I wonder how men felt when they seen it.

reply

The statistics tell you that the sample WITHIN your college can't be trusted when the world goes to *beep* Such studies are also dishonest and untruthful, so the numbers could be a lot higher. Scary.

reply

I don't agree with that statistic either. I don't think men are THAT bad. The statistic was posted in my college too so it made it more horrifying to look at. I wonder how men felt when they seen it.


Men are too that bad. Take this situation: Jessica Alba is in a coma inside your house and she's nude under the covers. You're a 16-year old virgin with an insatiable libido. No one else is in the house. It would be hard to find someone who isn't at least tempted to do something really naughty here in this situation. Hell I'm way past my teenage hormone-crazy days and I've slept around and know how women look and feel like (all shapes and sizes) but I'd probably still sneak a peek.

Women don't understand how powerful a man's sexual urges can be except for women who have undergone a sex change operation and have had testosterone treatments. The ones that do usually end up becoming so obsessed with sex that they could not even remotely imagine what it was like being a man before the operation. Women will never truly understand the male libido and men will never truly understand all the emotions and sense of vulnerability that women feel when it comes to sex. We're completely different creatures in this regard: equally important but that doesn't mean same.

reply

Just because women have been trained to act as though they do not want sex does not mean that they don't. Congrats, you've bought into the stereotype that women don't want, enjoy, or desire sex, and that men are insatiable nymphos. You completely ignore the differences in libido that all people have (some need sex all day, every day, others are asexual). All you have to do is spend time with women who are comfortable enough being frank with each other to learn how often women think about and lust after sex. The reason they are less open about it is because societal pressure shames them into putting on the sweet, innocent virgin act.

Just because women don't want to have sex with every single man that exists (which, tbh, men don't want to have sex with every single woman that exists either) doesn't mean they don't want it. Just because they say no doesn't mean they aren't tempted. But we're pressured to exercise more self control lest we be labeled sluts.

reply

Congrats, you've bought into the stereotype that women don't want, enjoy, or desire sex, and that men are insatiable nymphos.


Absolutely not; feel free to ask my wife who sometimes half-rapes me when I'm trying to sleep. I am fully aware of the power of the female libido, and how surprisingly often a woman can think about sex. I will make the claim that the female sex drive is weaker (or at least less influential on behavior), and not merely due to the sociological reasons you pointed out, but biological ones as well.

The best evidence can be found by researching cases where females underwent a sex change and were given testosterone treatments. With every reported case, their sex drive went from like a 5/10 to 100/10 merely by the process of adjusting their hormone levels to match that of a man. A lot of them actually turned into sex addicts obsessed about sex. We're talking biological differences and sex hormones here.

That's not to neglect the female sex drive, and I do love a woman who craves sex, but I will make the generalization that a man's sex drive is generally going to be stronger than the female counterpart because all evidence supports this claim so far.

But we're pressured to exercise more self control lest we be labeled sluts.


Keep in mind that I am not attempting to say anything about the importance of one gender or another, but there *are differences*. If we want equal respect and equality between men and women, we have to first appreciate the fact that men and women are quite different: psychologically, biologically, and sociologically. It has been demonstrated time and time again when feminists try to claim that the differences are entirely sociological that this is a completely absurd assumption, even by female geneticists.

Again the sex change research suggests this to actually be the opposite. If we're to make a correlation from the evidence (though not very scientific), women would appear to have *less* self-control when it comes to not giving in to their urges. They merely have a lower sex drive. The ultimate result of women who underwent testosterone treatments for a sex change was that they completely lost self-control; many became sex maniacs.

But we can also put aside the research and science for a moment and just apply basic common sense. Take the average woman and average man. Which one has a tendency to get irritable faster when hungry or sleep-deprived? The answer should be obvious to most of us based on our experiences, and I've traveled the world and found this to be true of all types of different cultures. Is it because men have more self-control when it comes to resisting their urges? I wouldn't conclude that either; it would be unscientific. It's possible that women actually do have a stronger craving for food and sleep than men.

To understand each other better, we can't just judge the opposite gender based on what we feel and know. We've never walked in each other's shoes, never known what it's like to see things from the other side or feel things the way each other do (and we do know for sure that male and female brains function quite differently and go through different sets of emotions)... But the closest people to having done that are those who underwent sex change operations. There's a lot to be learned about gender differences there.

reply

The study was done on Massachusetts, a state notorious for it's rich and/or d-bags who think they can do what they want. MA is not a good sample pool for the rest of the country.

reply

Rape is for the weak minded, it's quite pathetic that men can lose control of themselves and do such things, resorting to behaving as an inferior being because their penises overrides their mental functions.

reply

The movie doesn't make it that easy. I don't want to give spoilers, but it is very VERY clear, that she is most definitely *not* a "normal" zombie.

This is a much deeper debate, in the context of this film, than "zombie = corpse thus case closed"

Without spoilers, assuming you actually watched the film (which I have to wonder actually based on the first paragraph), watch then end of it again. "Deadgirl" isnt remotely a run of the mill zombie. (this is obviously intentional precisely to short circuit the points being made in this thread about "necrophelia", but apparently the point wasnt made strongly enough for some)

As for the broader discussion, it's idiotic. If humanity was as bad as people are making it out to be here (extremists on both sides in this thread) we would have no civilization.

People need to use some common sense and analytical thought before flying off on emotional tangents. If a *majority* of men, in the absence of rule of law, are demonic, raping, marauding, psychopaths, then HOW do we have rule of law to begin with?

It's too idiotic to discuss.

reply

jefflehem,

Unfortunately, you are not completely correct in your answer about rape. Necrophilia IS illegal in all States and in some States, it can be considered rape. Regardless, it IS a sex crime. Sex with a corpse is more than morally wrong, it is illegal. And it happens a lot more than people think.

reply

All I want to add to this discussion is... the pie had it coming, it was begging for it. That is all.

reply

They did rape her in every sense of the word. I wonder if this was written by a woman to push the "all men are pigs" angle to the extreme!
Would have loved for zombie girl to get up and rape JT with one of those pipes lying around.

Lois Lane=Leia Lane

reply

She was NOT a corpse, you moron. She was breathing and she was NOT decaying. A corpse rots and decays. She did not. A corpse doesn't breathe. She did. She was more of an invincible being that couldn't be killed. But she was alive and she had NOTHING in common with a corpse. Of course it was rape. Of course it WASN'T necrophilia. How many necrophiliacs do you know that had to keep their victims tied down? She did NOT want or enjoy having sex with them. Every chance she got, she tried to attack them and escape.

reply

No it was very clear she was a supernatural zombie like thing.

You'd have a point if she could speak or make any type of human contact but all you actually saw was zombie like behavior.

reply

I never argued she was a normal person. I was just arguing that she was not a dead corpse, and what they did was not necrophilia, it was rape. Necrophilia is having sex with a dead and unconscious body. Clearly she couldn't be classified as actually dead since her body wasn't rotting.

And btw, there were quite a few clues that she was not a typical zombie at all, she was different and she WAS aware of things on a whole different level. A zombie just mindlessly devours any living thing it can get its hands on. Notice how in the end she did not attack Rickie even though she had the chance. Instead she made a run for it. It's because somewhere she knew and understood that he had been trying to help her. A zombie never would have done that. She could discern good people and bad people.

reply

She was a kind of zombie, you can nit pick lore all you want but one thing was certain, she wasn't quite human anymore. At the very least she was a monster...which would basically make it bestiality.

reply

It was still rape. She did not enjoy being tied up and *beep* by several different guys. They did it against her will = rape.
The fact that she took the first chance she got to kill them but didnt' touch any of the people that hadn't raped or hurt her pretty much shows that she wasn't just a mindless monster. She was supernatural and not human, but it doesn't change the fact that it was rape.

I'm not nit picking, just making observations that you missed or chose not to see.

reply

You are choosing to miss the point.

Basically you can go around and claim that killing zombies and monsters is murder, and slaughtering zombies is genocide if you want, but that is misusing terminology to miss the point.

You might as well call buffy the vampire slayer a nazi, she was trying to wipe out anyone not like her favored people. That is the level of absurdity you can get to when you misuse concepts to fill your need for some specific outrage.

reply

There's a difference between killing zombies or vampires in self defence and RAPING zombies or vampires for pure pleasure.

You are just choosing to not understand that difference. Now THAT is absurd.

reply

Actually you are choosing not to see the difference, by your reasoning van helsing hunting down vampires in their sleep is like the nazis hunting down anne frank. Its all genocide!!!

If you want to take it to the level of absurdity, that is where it will get you.

reply

Van Helsing kills vampires because they are killing people. His killing the vampires saves humans from being killed by them. They can't be reasoned with and their only purpose is to kill humans.
Therefore Van Helsing is NOT comparable to a nazi, he isdefending the human species against a dangerous threat.
Now if Van helsing was RAPING vampires, I think we could both agree that would not be helpful to anyone, it is just an evil act of self gratification. So how is it heroic or helpful to anyone to rape a zombie that is tied up in a basement?

Comparing the slaying of vampires (a serious threat in Van helsing's imaginary world) agains the Holocaust (the murder of millions of innocent people that posed no harm or threat to ANYONE) is the dumbest argument I've ever heard. I've been very clear and consistent, and your trying to argue that according to my logic I think those things are comparable to one another (third reich and van helsing) is just you desperately grasping for straws.

At this point you're just being stubborn and stupid.

reply

Honestly you typed all that for nothing, because it boils down to this, you ignore any details so you can cry rape, so I apply that same principle to others and you end up with absurdities murder and genocide being attributed to van helsing or buffy.

At this point you failing to see your own inconsistency is your own undoing.

reply

No one cares if you die.

reply

So you believe that it's only rape if it's a person? Are animals fair game to you? It seems that she felt, and she was conscious. She was not an inanimate object like a blow up doll. Just because she wasn't human per se does not mean she was not experiencing trauma.

reply

I don't know why everyone on these posts are trying to be so intellectual in their thinking. The guys didn't know she was a "zombie" in the beginning just a woman chained to a table. Its rape. So you can theorize all you want but I work in a law office and the first thing they would ask is "Why didn't you release her when you first saw her (which is what morally correct people would have done) and then call the police? Duh? This isn't rocket science.

reply

yo, sexism debates aside, the moment that she lashed out and they tied her back down to have sex with her is when it crossed the line of question.

reply

Having sex with a brain-dead woman in a nursing home would count as rape...even though most people would agree that killing her wouldn't be murder. A better analogy would be a female slave. And, yeah, most guys would hit that (literally and figuratively). Women wouldn't behave too differently in the same position, though they are limited in their options in forcing sex upon someone. Man isn't any more evil than any other type of animal, though society probably tends to redirect his impulse to battle other men for mating privileges to battling women directly (especially since society limits the amount of sex available).

reply

by james-king-of-the-forest (Sun Dec 5 2010 11:53:55)
"Ive read alot of posts that keep saying how all man kind is evil and would rape a women if the situation arose. What ive been pondering is in the movie,Was it a women and was it rape!. Can anyone call a zombie a person let alone a women and rape? it would be better to say necrophilia. I dont know i just think people are using words that dont really apply to this Movie."


Wow! I can't even believe a human being asked this question. Necrophilia is a form of rape (can the dead give consent?) and they were already having their way with her before knowing she was a zombie not that it should make any difference. Dead or alive, human or not, IT IS STILL RAPE!!! It is WITHOUT consent.

If your wife doesn't want sex and you force your way: RAPE.

If you are making out with some random girl AND she is enjoying it BUT THEN wants to stop but you forge ahead, that's right: RAPE!

Rape is as clear as night and day. Stop trying to complicate something so clear cut: IF THERE IS NO CONSENT, IT IS RAPE. Geez!!

reply

[deleted]

conception isn't pregnancy. it takes two people to conceive, but only women bear pregnancy. if you can't handle that fact then don't have sex. ten seconds of ejaculation doesn't equate to nine months of gestating a foetus inside a womb or risking your life in childbirth. it isn't 'your' seed the moment you put it inside a woman's body. a man should absolutely not have a say in a woman's bodily decisions any more than a woman should have a say in whether a man has an operation or not. patriarchal forced birther scum. you aren't any different to the people you cited. you believe you have a right to control women. to label you a 'real man' would be to claim that all men have an intrinsic nature to act so selfishly and that would be an injustice.

reply

[deleted]

So, according to you a woman's just a worthless drone with no moral obligation then? She can just open her legs up and get busy, and sh!t the thing out before it develops fully to absolve herself of all responsibility? If so, then yes, women are extremely dangerous; especially with the kind of power people like you have given them (be you male or female). "If you can't handle that, then don't have sex?" Do you really want to go there? The same could be said of women on almost any scenario and to an even greater extent, according to your own morals.


i neither said nor implied women were either worthless or drones. it's telling how your mind works though. every woman has the fundamental human right to control her own reproduction. men and women are biologically not equals so the logic is relative. women have the right to autonomy regarding bodily decisions, the same as men, but only women get pregnant therefore they're the only ones to decide on their pregnancy.

Ah. But it does. The moment a WOMAN consents to sex, she, like the man, is also immediately responsible for anything that comes with it, including childbirth and the FACT that the MAN contributed to the fetus's creation.


consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy. consent to driving a car isn't consent to getting in an accident. i never said men didn't contribute to conception. i said they don't get pregnant.

If women really have that much more power over life than men, as your idiotic viewpoint seems to suggest, then they should think on what they're doing MUCH MORE than a man should (which I'm willing to bet 99.9% of them don't). Like it or not, it takes two people to conceive; it takes one person to begin conception; it takes one to develop the fetus. When women are able to have babies by themselves -- that's the only time men would and should have no say in the matter.


nonsense. conception is when an egg is fertilised by sperm. where does sperm come from? equal causation of pregnancy means equal responsibility.

If a woman is stupid enough to get pregnant without wanting to (absolutely inexcusable given options of birth control and protection today) then she should have the responsibility of at least going through childbirth if the man really wants the baby and seems fit to care for it.


a woman's body is her own. she's not a man's womb to be forced to give birth from. which is your entire argument.

Even on the flipside, if a man does NOT want the baby but the woman does, a man is still REQUIRED and EXPECTED to care for the child even if he doesn't want it. Now, why is that? Are women too stupid and frail to care for it themselves? If they wanted it so much and they KNEW their mate didn't, they SHOULD care for it themselves with no forced financial support from the mate whatsoever. Because HE DID NOT WANT IT. Next you're gonna talk to me about how women can't take care of a child because men make more money than them in this "patriarchal society(which is a LIE nowadays in many states, as recent statistics seem to suggest);" but if that's the case, and women either simply don't have the skill to care for a child on their own or if this big-bad supposedly patriarchal society of ours won't let them, then wouldn't you say THEIR responsibility to either abstain from sex or engage in it should be that much greater?

If a woman can choose to abort a child without her partner's input, violating his rights and dignity, then shouldn't the partner be given the right to abort fatherhood? After all, the woman doesn't make all that money, right? She has no right to demand support from him whatsoever if he did not want the child. It is only fair if we go by your rules.


for single parents child support is taken from both parents, regardless of whether either parent wants to give it. that's because a child deserves the support of both parents. it doesn't favour either gender, it's done in the best interest of the child. also men shouldn't be able to coerce a woman into aborting a foetus which would occur sometimes if men were able to financially abuse their partners by withholding their support. that would violate her reproductive rights.

And people like you keep wondering why abusive fathers exist; you just love women asking for their cake and eating it too. You never like to think outside your PC-Bullsh!tting little box for even a second and then you get mad when it blows up in your face.


there is never an excuse for abuse of children. society only requires parents to support their children financially. no one is forced to have a relationship. also, a parent abusing a child affects it directly and the other parent is only affected indirectly. blaming women for actions men voluntarily choose to take, against their own children is ridiculous. men aren't absolved of all responsibility to not harm another just because they get angry.

reply

every woman has the fundamental human right to control her own reproduction. men and women are biologically not equals so the logic is relative. women have the right to autonomy regarding bodily decisions, the same as men, but only women get pregnant therefore they're the only ones to decide on their pregnancy.


I could write an entire book on how the woman does indeed have a right (socially-engineered, NOT fundamental) to control her reproduction. However, your logic is limited and it only covers one portion of the issue. Men and women aren't biologically equal, that is right, but if that gives them the right to abort -- or not abort -- without the man's say, or AGAINST his say, then why should he take responsibility for a kid he does not want, and why would he be forced to send a baby he DOES want to its death? That is not accepting the consequences of one's actions; it's giving women power over men they do not deserve and it borders on bigotry. If they want a child that their partner doesn't want in any way, they have the power to choose whether to have the baby or not; why should the man be responsible for that child then? Men literally become slaves the moment they are FORCED, not obligated, to care for something they didn't want. If a woman can make such a decision BY THEMSELVES then it is only logical that she should be EXPECTED and able to care for the child by herself in the first place. Women can absolve themselves of all responsibility by having abortions; why can't men do the same? If a child is born without the man's approval, he should be able to sign his rights away from parenthood with no issues. But of course, women brainwashed by PC agendas like to drag men down with them when they can't handle things by themselves.

The same thing applies for the flipside: man wants it, woman doesn't -- she can literally abort her responsibility against the man's wishes, scarring him for life.

nonsense. conception is when an egg is fertilised by sperm. where does sperm come from? equal causation of pregnancy means equal responsibility.


You just proved my point. You are NOT giving them equal responsibility. You're giving women MORE responsibility by forcing their men to comply with a woman's choice which might destroy (or make -- never said it had to end badly) his life foreverl and at the same time you're giving men more consequences that women can override or don't have to deal with. Women don't seem to be aware of this GREATER responsibility that they have; that they are shaping the life of their husbands or partners either for or against their wishes -- which may either turn them into great fathers or abusive fathers. The latter is more common.

a woman's body is her own. she's not a man's womb to be forced to give birth from. which is your entire argument.


No. That's not my argument at all. My argument is that what's growing inside the womb is a creation of them both; thus, men should have a say in what is done with that SECOND BODY -- not her own -- inside the woman, even if it is, ultimately, the woman's choice. The moment a woman is pregnant there is something inside of her that belongs to the father as well, and it is disgusting that people like you do not acknowledge that; even more disgusting is the fact that you seem to think only about the woman's well-being and the child's. Not once once do you think of the man; not once.

for single parents child support is taken from both parents, regardless of whether either parent wants to give it. that's because a child deserves the support of both parents. it doesn't favour either gender, it's done in the best interest of the child. also men shouldn't be able to coerce a woman into aborting a foetus which would occur sometimes if men were able to financially abuse their partners by withholding their support. that would violate her reproductive rights.


No, it would not. Simply reaching a consensus does not equal coercion (though in some cases, it does). If a woman has a baby that she KNEW her partner did not want or wasn't fit to care for, no rights are violated, espceially not reproductive rights if she's had the baby already; she should be able to care for it herself, or else why have it in the first place? Because it's her choice. Fine, but by making such a reckless, stupid decision, she's accepted the responsibility of caring for that kid ALONE, just as she would make the decision to have it or abort it ALONE. Men should be able to sign their rights and financial obligations away in cases like that. Of course, it's not like many men would do it out of simple compassion for the child involved; but the option should be there (it currently exists, but it is worthless because the man still has to pay child support unless -- you guessed it -- the woman says he doesn't need to).

there is never an excuse for abuse of children. society only requires parents to support their children financially. no one is forced to have a relationship. also, a parent abusing a child affects it directly and the other parent is only affected indirectly. blaming women for actions men voluntarily choose to take, against their own children is ridiculous. men aren't absolved of all responsibility to not harm another just because they get angry.


But the fact that children are being born against their father's wishes is fuel for such destructive relationships. I am not disagreeing with you, by the way; I do think there's never an excuse to abuse a child, but the fact is that it happens, and a lot of the time it happens because of cases like this -- because of the illusion of an unjust patriarchy, which is in fact a thinly-veiled matriarchal system.

Blaming women for men's actions, you say? Are you serious?

Blaming men for actions women voluntarily choose to take (abort or not abort) without the man's opinion is just as ludicruous! Women harm men every time they make a decision about having a child or not having a child. But they're absolved of THAT responsibility, right? Hell, women don't even tend to get jail time for failing to pay child support in the rare case that a man is given full custody! How *beep* pathetic is that? the system is a matriarchy, I'm telling you; it's only called patriarchal so that extremist-feminists still have something to moan about.


reply

I could write an entire book on how the woman does indeed have a right (socially-engineered, NOT fundamental) to control her reproduction. However, your logic is limited and it only covers one portion of the issue. Men and women aren't biologically equal, that is right, but if that gives them the right to abort -- or not abort -- without the man's say, or AGAINST his say, then why should he take responsibility for a kid he does not want, and why would he be forced to send a baby he DOES want to its death? That is not accepting the consequences of one's actions; it's giving women power over men they do not deserve and it borders on bigotry.


all human rights are social constructs. they're engineered out of critical thinking. if you believe an individual has the right to harm others then logically you can't complain when others harm you. likewise if you believe an individual has the right to control their own bodies then you can't complain when another person acts out of their own conscience in regards to their own bodies.

every individual has the indivisible right to bodily autonomy. which means women make decisions regarding pregnancies which occur inside them. that isn't equal, but men and women are biologically unequal as women give birth and men don't. the needs of both women's reproductive rights and born children's right to have the financial support of both parents quantitatively and qualitatively outweigh the man's right to part of his future income. you can support either side, but both outcomes are unequal so attacking women for this is hypocritical.

You just proved my point. You are NOT giving them equal responsibility. You're giving women MORE responsibility by forcing their men to comply with a woman's choice which might destroy (or make -- never said it had to end badly) his life foreverl and at the same time you're giving men more consequences that women can override or don't have to deal with. Women don't seem to be aware of this GREATER responsibility that they have; that they are shaping the life of their husbands or partners either for or against their wishes -- which may either turn them into great fathers or abusive fathers. The latter is more common.


i'm not giving women any responsibility, it's what can be deduced logically and objectively. as soon as conception occurred it was never a man's decision whether a woman should have a child or not.

No. That's not my argument at all. My argument is that what's growing inside the womb is a creation of them both; thus, men should have a say in what is done with that SECOND BODY -- not her own -- inside the woman, even if it is, ultimately, the woman's choice. The moment a woman is pregnant there is something inside of her that belongs to the father as well, and it is disgusting that people like you do not acknowledge that; even more disgusting is the fact that you seem to think only about the woman's well-being and the child's. Not once once do you think of the man; not once.


a foetus is within a woman's body therefore it comes under her purview in regards to bodily autonomy. a foetus isn't sentient or aware and therefore has no rights until birth. a man has no right to make decisions in pregnancy, despite causing conception as it occurs within the woman's body and only she has to face the medical consequences of both pregnancy and childbirth. i never said he couldn't talk to her about keeping the baby, but the final choice is hers. it's your argument against this which regards women as men's wombs to be forced to give birth from.

No, it would not. Simply reaching a consensus does not equal coercion (though in some cases, it does). If a woman has a baby that she KNEW her partner did not want or wasn't fit to care for, no rights are violated, espceially not reproductive rights if she's had the baby already; she should be able to care for it herself, or else why have it in the first place? Because it's her choice. Fine, but by making such a reckless, stupid decision, she's accepted the responsibility of caring for that kid ALONE, just as she would make the decision to have it or abort it ALONE. Men should be able to sign their rights and financial obligations away in cases like that. Of course, it's not like many men would do it out of simple compassion for the child involved; but the option should be there (it currently exists, but it is worthless because the man still has to pay child support unless -- you guessed it -- the woman says he doesn't need to).


the child's rights to having the support of both parents are most definitely violated. your support of deadbeat parents is punitive against both women and children under the care of single parents.

But the fact that children are being born against their father's wishes is fuel for such destructive relationships. I am not disagreeing with you, by the way; I do think there's never an excuse to abuse a child, but the fact is that it happens, and a lot of the time it happens because of cases like this -- because of the illusion of an unjust patriarchy, which is in fact a thinly-veiled matriarchal system.

Blaming women for men's actions, you say? Are you serious?

Blaming men for actions women voluntarily choose to take (abort or not abort) without the man's opinion is just as ludicruous! Women harm men every time they make a decision about having a child or not having a child. But they're absolved of THAT responsibility, right? Hell, women don't even tend to get jail time for failing to pay child support in the rare case that a man is given full custody! How *beep* pathetic is that? the system is a matriarchy, I'm telling you; it's only called patriarchal so that extremist-feminists still have something to moan about.


the illusion is of unjust matriarchy, not unjust patriarchy. you're rationalising child abuse again. just because a woman has reproductive rights doesn't mean a man has a right to abuse their child any more than a woman having the right to choose when she wants to have sex doesn't give men the right to abuse them because it makes men angry. most obligatory parents don't fulfill their responsibility to support their children anyway whether they're male or female. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-234.pdf pg.2 regarding the USA and http://www.csa.gov.uk/en/about/facts-and-figures.asp#cases regarding the UK)

patriarchy is when men disproportionately dominate all spheres; economic, military, government, social, reproductive (in most countries/states) and religious. when women are still blamed in rape for having the audacity to walk the streets at night, for being drunk or for how they appear. when they're marginalised as involuntary sex workers. when they're vulnerable to being labelled as sluts, whores, tramps, etc, after sleeping with a single person due to the hypocritical madonna/whore complex inherent in patriarchal gender roles. when men are discriminated against for the supposed 'effeminacy' of being homosexual. when men are discriminated for acting weak, uncompetitive, unaggressive, sensitive, etc, which are labelled as lesser feminine traits. when women who are assertive or confident are labelled bitches or dykes. when women's competency and value outside of being a womb, vagina or servant are constantly in question and diminished due to patriarchal gender roles. when men are denied paternity leave due to the expectation that men continue work and women leave their jobs or sacrifice their careers to support their families. when women's contributions such as childcare, caring for the elderly, cooking, cleaning, shopping for others are devalued and not seen as work. when women are denied reproductive rights due to conservative masculist views. when men disproportionately cause physical and sexual violence against women by both numerical measures and the severity of actions (CDC, UN, various national crime statistics and surveys). when conviction for those assault rates are punitively low (UK, US, EU tribunal statistics). when women are paid and valued less for equal work due to discrimination and sexual harassment despite some legislation prohibiting this (according to the US department of labor, UK equalities commission, ILO, UN, LSE, GAO, etc) and women's higher performance in all levels of education (according to the OECD), etc. when women are barred by men from religious and military duties. when women are disproportionately disempowered by lack of representation in all bodies of power.

reply

all human rights are social contructs


a fetus isn't sentient or aware and therefore has no rights until birth.


the child's rights to having the support of both parents are most definitely violated. your support of deadbeat parents is punitive against both woman and children under the care of single parents


I thought a fetus wasn't sentient so it doesn't have any rights? Meaning it doesn't matter what the mother and father decide before it is born by your reasoning. And you also think all human rights are social constructs so why does it matter? Also meaning that marraige/two parents is a social construct so it doesn't matter if the child has one or two parents by your philosophy, because a woman is just as good as a man and doesn't need one to make a decision so she shouldn't need one to help raise a child. Your philosophy is full of inconsistancies.

reply

I thought a fetus wasn't sentient so it doesn't have any rights? Meaning it doesn't matter what the mother and father decide before it is born by your reasoning. And you also think all human rights are social constructs so why does it matter? Also meaning that marraige/two parents is a social construct so it doesn't matter if the child has one or two parents by your philosophy, because a woman is just as good as a man and doesn't need one to make a decision so she shouldn't need one to help raise a child. Your philosophy is full of inconsistancies.


why are you repeating what i've specifically written at various points of that post? you're confusing the rights of born children and the rights of foetuses. the former being sentient and having human rights, the latter not being sentient and therefore not having human rights. it's not whether i think human rights are human constructs, it's a fact. LOL. human rights matters if you believe you should treat others as you would be treated. i've never said or implied social constructs were either intrinsically positive or negative. it's ideas like justice and equality which created civilisation and have progressed humanity. a single parent can be just as good as two parents. two uncaring parents can be worse than one loving parent. there's no inherent outcome. whereas if you remove the income of one parent there is a measurable real world outcome in the born child's life chances which is most often negative. so they're not comparable.

reply

A right of a child and the right of a fetus are the same thing whether they are sentient or not they are the same person and no where is it written that a non sentient being has no rights and a sentient one does (at least not in my country). Human beings have rights and whether or not it is a sentient human being doesn't matter just because science has labled it a fetus. A newborn baby can make no decisions or communicate what it wants in the way of rights when it comes out anyway so it's really no different than the fetus other than that it can now be seen with the naked eye. Sentient is just a word people who support abortion use to get away with murder. If you have ever looked at a screen of a sonogram at eight weeks gestation and seen the heart "flicker" and heard it beating you'd know just how alive that CHILD is, "sentient" or not it's murder.

But if you don't want to talk about that post let's talk about another...

"consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy. consent to driving a car isn't consent to getting in an accident."

That comparrison is false because the primary purpose for driving a car is not to get into an accident it's to get from place to place, where as the primary purpose for sex is procreation/pregnancy no matter what society has perverted it to. Having sex is knowing that there is a possibility of getting pregnant therefore consenting to pregnancy as there is no way to 100% prevent it from happening. "consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy" is like saying I consent to you spraying me with a water hose, but I don't consent to getting wet. As you said, "if you can't handle that then don't have sex."

BTW... You are incorrect to say a "fetus" isn't sentient as a fetus is an unborn baby eight weeks after conception all the way up to birth. At certain weeks a fetus can hear and react to it's mother's voice and react to the stomach of the woman being touched.

reply

A right of a child and the right of a fetus are the same thing whether they are sentient or not they are the same person and no where is it written that a non sentient being has no rights and a sentient one does (at least not in my country).


capital punishment and carnism both kill sentient creatures with more intelligence than foetuses. in america anti-choicers are against free medicaid which would save the lives of millions of sentient people. around the world people die all the time through poverty and people's wilful inaction. which isn't any different to withholding a lifesaver from a drowning person. yet the issue of abortion is controversial because it gives women a right which men believe they're naturally entitled to and would rather involuntarily force and which they don't have to suffer from. pro-life? yeah, right forced-birther.

Human beings have rights and whether or not it is a sentient human being doesn't matter just because science has labled it a fetus.


science and rationality matter a lot more than the dogmatic, biased assertions of masculists and religious zealots.

A newborn baby can make no decisions or communicate what it wants in the way of rights when it comes out anyway so it's really no different than the fetus other than that it can now be seen with the naked eye. Sentient is just a word people who support abortion use to get away with murder. If you have ever looked at a screen of a sonogram at eight weeks gestation and seen the heart "flicker" and heard it beating you'd know just how alive that CHILD is, "sentient" or not it's murder.


it's human life at a different stage of development before it can survive independently or has developed awareness. a newborn baby is conscious and can voluntarily react to stimuli, a foetus isn't and can't. appeal to emotions. you're being disingenuous. i didn't say the foetus wasn't alive, but i said a foetus isn't the same as a born human. a foetus is no different in awareness than a plant, rock or other non-sentient object. just because a foetus has the potential to be aware after birth doesn't mean it should be treated as something which has the current ability to be or has ever been sentient. if it isn't born then it never achieves personhood. if a foetus has a greater right to life than a woman's right to bodily autonomy, then why aren't parents forced to donate their organs when their dying sentient children are in need of them? it doesn't benefit men to oppress themselves.

BTW... You are incorrect to say a "fetus" isn't sentient as a fetus is an unborn baby eight weeks after conception all the way up to birth. At certain weeks a fetus can hear and react to it's mother's voice and react to the stomach of the woman being touched.


prove which authoritative, objective body believes that foetuses are sentient. anti-choicers also tell women who want to have abortions they can hear their foetuses screaming during the act. perpetuating fraud to force women to involuntary consent, once again.

not according to the beliefs of mainstream medical science and studies by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, University of California, University of Birmingham and other OBGYNS/neuroscientists who all say that a foetus is non-sentient. just because a baby kicks doesn't mean it's conscious. people don't control whether their hearts beat, it's involuntary and not a sign of sentience.

http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice (with link to the study on the page)

pg.34 "the fetus never experiences a state of true wakefulness in utero and is kept, by the presence of its chemical environment, in a continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation."

That comparrison is false because the primary purpose for driving a car is not to get into an accident it's to get from place to place, where as the primary purpose for sex is procreation/pregnancy no matter what society has perverted it to. Having sex is knowing that there is a possibility of getting pregnant therefore consenting to pregnancy as there is no way to 100% prevent it from happening. "consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy" is like saying I consent to you spraying me with a water hose, but I don't consent to getting wet. As you said, "if you can't handle that then don't have sex."


sex has no intrinsic purpose in itself. only what people knowingly ascribe to it. it can get people pregnant with differing chances of probability at different times (never at 100% even with IVF) and it can be for fun. people have recreational sex without intending or wanting pregnancy all the time and have done so throughout all human history. your belief to the contrary is dogma. just because it can do either doesn't mean people who have recreational sex must intend to do both. driving a car knowing that there's a possibility of getting in an accident isn't consenting to having an accident as there's no way to 100% prevent it from happening. also society doesn't withhold treatment from people who get in car accidents.

reply

Everyone knows that it will one day be a human so to take it's life is wrong. After a woman has a miscarraige go ahead and tell her "it's okay it wasn't 'sentient'" I bet and hope she'll give you a piece of her mind.

"Sex has no intrisic purpose in itself" wow you're naive. I never said it couldn't be for fun I only said the PRIMAY purpose it was created/evolved whatever was for procreation. It's "fun" so people will do it which keeps our species alive. Society doesn't withhold treatment from people who get in car accidents, because they are either going to die or have some sort of bodily injury. Are you calling child bearing an injury? If a women is going to die from her pregnancy then I could see abortion being neccesary for self defense.

However I really didn't come here to start an on going argument that will last forever. I only noticed how you use "sentient" to describe how non human animals and human ones should have the same rights and then turn it around and say a fetus (which essientally is human offspring therefore a human) shouldn't have the same rights as a human because it's not sentient. To me that just doesn't line up, but if it does for you you have every right to think that way. So have a nice day I'd like to go back to talking about just movies.

reply

Everyone knows that it will one day be a human so to take it's life is wrong. After a woman has a miscarraige go ahead and tell her "it's okay it wasn't 'sentient'" I bet and hope she'll give you a piece of her mind.


nonsense. appeal to majority. just because it will become sentient in the future doesn't mean it should be treated as sentient in the present when it isn't. it only becomes sentient and therefore deserving of rights if the mother allows it to be, if she doesn't then it won't. potential only has value when it's realised. also, believing that doesn't mean a person has to tell grieving women that.

killing foetuses which have never known conciousness is better than giving birth to unwanted babies so they can populate adoption centres/foster care systems which have never been able to match demand for new homes. especially in a world which already has an unsustainably large population. it's rational, responsible and compassionate. unlike the anti-choice stance of "protect the sacred human life-force, chuck them in an adoption centre and there are no bad outcomes." no foetus, no problem.

"Sex has no intrisic purpose in itself" wow you're naive. I never said it couldn't be for fun I only said the PRIMAY purpose it was created/evolved whatever was for procreation. It's "fun" so people will do it which keeps our species alive. Society doesn't withhold treatment from people who get in car accidents, because they are either going to die or have some sort of bodily injury. Are you calling child bearing an injury? If a women is going to die from her pregnancy then I could see abortion being neccesary for self defense.


i'm not naive simply because i don't agree with you. there's isn't any primary or secondary. sex may cause procreation, but that doesn't mean it can't exclusively be recreational. people have free will and are able to knowingly decide whether they want children or not. a person is far more likely to have an orgasm than to conceive due to the unpredictable nature of fertilisation.

i'm absolutely calling childbearing an injury although it can be wilful if the mother wishes it. every woman in pregnancy will suffer decreasing capability to act as her foetus grows. pregnancy puts great strain on it's mother's body and childbirth is INHERENTLY risky both physiologically and psychologically. post-partum depression and PTSD affects 10-15% of all pregnant women. every time a woman dies due to being involuntarily withheld a safe abortion that's MURDER. no different to withholding treatment from people in car accidents.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/demand-dignity/maternal-health-is-a-human-right/the-united-states/page.do?id=1351091 (the study is linked on the page)

pg.13 "Severe complications that result in a woman nearly dying, known as a “near miss”, increased by 25 per cent between 1998 and 2005. During 2004 and 2005, 68,433 women nearly died in childbirth in the USA. More than a third of all women who give birth in the USA – 1.7 million women each year – experience some type of complication that has an adverse effect on their health"

this is despite the USA being the highest spender on healthcare in the world per capita and overall.



reply

In aaaall your lenghty posts defending women's choice, not even ONCE read the word "anti conceptive".

killing foetuses which have never known conciousness is better than giving birth to unwanted babies so they can populate adoption centres/foster care systems which have never been able to match demand for new homes. especially in a world which already has an unsustainably large population. it's rational, responsible and compassionate. unlike the anti-choice stance of "protect the sacred human life-force, chuck them in an adoption centre and there are no bad outcomes." no foetus, no problem.


Excluding rape, the "rational, responsible and compassionate" is using BIRTH CONTROL. Honestly, when some irresponsible women STOPS using abortions as anti conceptive method, we'll leave that horrible and traumatic procedure (yes, abortion also is "INHERENTLY risky both physiologically and psychologically")behind and use it only in health risk and rape cases.

I'm pro-choice, but just got tired of idiotic women (and I'm a female)getting abortion just due to plain stupidity. No stupid women without birth control, no problem.

reply

In aaaall your lenghty posts defending women's choice, not even ONCE read the word "anti conceptive".

killing foetuses which have never known conciousness is better than giving birth to unwanted babies so they can populate adoption centres/foster care systems which have never been able to match demand for new homes. especially in a world which already has an unsustainably large population. it's rational, responsible and compassionate. unlike the anti-choice stance of "protect the sacred human life-force, chuck them in an adoption centre and there are no bad outcomes." no foetus, no problem.


Excluding rape, the "rational, responsible and compassionate" is using BIRTH CONTROL. Honestly, when some irresponsible women STOPS using abortions as anti conceptive method, we'll leave that horrible and traumatic procedure (yes, abortion also is "INHERENTLY risky both physiologically and psychologically")behind and use it only in health risk and rape cases.

I'm pro-choice, but just got tired of idiotic women (and I'm a female)getting abortion just due to plain stupidity. No stupid women without birth control, no problem.

Oh, and BTW, the movie is repulsive, and is rape, not much different from raping an unconscious person or an animal. Period.

reply

Ahhhh THANK YOU asriel-1!!!! I am so sick of these idiotic anti-choicers (or as they like to call themselves, pro-lifers, as to hide their true meanings)spewing their *beep* about "murdering" some poor little innocent baby yet they seem to be perfectly fine when soldiers in the war kill people or when capital punishment is done, and yes especially when they are so against free healthcare and couldn't care less if thousands of innocent people with cancer and other deadly diseases will die because they are so damn selfish, but once you bring up the topic of some damn sentient fetus they get all high and mighty about how it's murder and not fair to the baby and that the babbbbby has a right to life. Yet they don't give a *beep* about that baby once it is actually born and whether or not it will have health care or be loved or cared for or taken care of properly. They are so full of *beep* all they really truly care about is controlling women and giving them even less rights than they already have. So thank you asriel-1 for actually being intelligent enough to realize this because most people are too stupid and brainwashed to do so. There's so much more I want to say but honestly, you've said it all perfectly! Thank you!

reply

[deleted]

then why should he take responsibility for a kid he does not want, and why would he be forced to send a baby he DOES want to its death?


Then why should a woman have to take responsibility for a kid she doesn't want just because the man does? Are you also saying that these men should be required to take sole custody of these children after their born?

You just proved my point. You are NOT giving them equal responsibility.


A choice isn't responsibility. An abortion isn't responsibility, it's relinquishing it.

you're giving women MORE responsibility by forcing their men to comply with a woman's choice which might destroy (or make -- never said it had to end badly) his life foreverl



And you're giving women more responsibility by forcing them to have a child by complying with a mans choice that could destroy her life forever. But clearly it matters very little to you how a woman is effected in this situation.


she should be able to care for it herself, or else why have it in the first place? Because it's her choice.


Lmao, except you just said men and women have "equal ownership" over what's in the womb ...does that suddenly stop at birth? Your logic makes no sense here.


it's giving women power over men they do not deserve


Ding ding ding, we have a winner! And a woman having any kind of "power" over a man is unnatural, right? A man should always have power over a woman, and not vice versa, which is why you're so pressed about this. How does it feel to get the short of the stick for a change :)

reply

she should be able to care for it herself, or else why have it in the first place? Because it's her choice.

Lmao, except you just said men and women have "equal ownership" over what's in the womb ...does that suddenly stop at birth? Your logic makes no sense here.

He did say men and women should have equal ownership over what's in the womb. But nowhere does he say it stops at birth. What he said was, men should also have the right to relinquish that ownership if they so choose, just as a woman has the right to decide whether or not to push through with a pregnancy. I agree with him. I think it's only fair. If a woman shouldn't be forced to have a child she doesn't want, why should a man be forced to support a child he never wanted either? Moral of the story? If neither of you want a child, take all necessary precautions so pregnancy doesn't occur in the first place. I know birth control methods aren't always foolproof, but it does lower the chances of unwanted pregnancies considerably.

it's giving women power over men they do not deserve

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! And a woman having any kind of "power" over a man is unnatural, right? A man should always have power over a woman, and not vice versa, which is why you're so pressed about this. How does it feel to get the short of the stick for a change :)

I don't think he's advocating that men should always have power over women and never the other way around. What he's actually saying is that neither should have power over the other. I've read both sides of arguments and I gotta say, he's the one who actually comes closest to advocating equal rights between genders. Meanwhile, the feminists on here are the ones demanding greater--and therefore, unequal--rights.

Just my two cents.

reply

Bla bla bla... Just use a *beep* condom and stop whining for your "obligated paternity duties". Your responsability as MAN starts right there, taking care of yourself and your "precious seed", so evil women can't scar you for life. *rolling eyes*
You want to force a woman to have your child? Why didn't TALK to her first, you know, just to find out if she wants to have a baby with you, because, right now, women should be really afraid to get pregnant by someone with that kind of point of view.

reply

FYI, you don't have a say in whether a woman has an abortion or not. Sucks to be you :*

reply

asriel-1 I agree with your entire argument with GoodRed 100%. You're completely right and GoodRed comes off as so unbelievably sexist in all of his/her (probably a guy) statements that it is ridiculous! NO ONE has any right to tell a woman what to do with her body or to force her to give birth against her will, that is completely barbaric and disgusting to even suggest. Ahhh

reply

[deleted]

I don't even know where to start here, @iceplanet. Firstly, if you knew anything at all about true feminists, you wouldn't have described them as "stupid ignorant douche bags." A true feminist does not hate men, nor will she stereotype men to suit some sort of heavily-biased opinion. Somewhere along the line, the definition of a "feminist" has been flipped & contorted. Assumptions have created stereotypes. Things like feminists are "dykes" or lesbians...or feminists are male-bashing tree huggers that hate men because they are too ugly to get a man, etc. Firstly, both ignorant stereotypes are infuriating because both attempt to make feminism about- YOU GUESSED IT- Men! haha! A true feminist is about women's rights, support and love for our fellow women. Its unfortunate that this misconception has happened, but do you realize that such bull$*it was likely created by angry, woman-haters? And hey, there are just as many of my fellow women that are woman haters as there are men, so I'm NOT putting this all on men.

Compare it to religion or politics, if you will. There are some so-called Christians that are EXTREMISTS and they aren't doing anything in the "name of God." Or extremist anti-government crazies! Any extremist generally scares the hell out of me. And for the record, I used to male bash with my straight best friends. We loved men but we hated men. We were not being fair and we were not being feminists. It took me befriending a very butch lesbian to discover the true meaning of feminism. Her two best friends in the world are men that she refers to as her "brothers." She loves the men in her life, even though she is attracted to women. I learned that perhaps I am more to blame for the HORRIBLE experiences I've had with men! That was a bitter pill to swallow. What did it say about ME that I selected such crummy jerks for boyfriends? Anyway, through my friendship with a lesbian that doesn't really claim to be a feminist or not, I learned the first TRUE bits of feminism.


Now, as far as your last couple of sentences...you sound just like one of my selfish, narcissistic ex boyfriends. "Murder his seed"?!!? Murder? Really? HIS? WTF?!? Seed? Jesus...honey, its not always all about you, okay.

reply