Why do women want gender equality in the workplace, but not in dating?

That’s your opinion, in reality there is no ‘social contract’. Especially if the two consenting adults use contraception.

The idea that sex is only for creating a child is outdated and luckily no longer stands in modern culture. Yay orgasms!

You manage to avoid the rape point every time it is brought up, that’s certainly not agreeing to have a child. Using contraception is not agreeing to having a child. Engaging in sex, whether you like it or not, is NOT agreeing to have a child.

If you personally only have sex to conceive, that’s fine. If you tell people they’re murders and should go to prison for terminating an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy, that’s nowhere near fine. You’re entitled to your opinion but don’t expect kind words or ‘agree to disagree’ when you judge people to your personal moral standards.

Wasn’t the question.
Do you still believe that we do not have the right to do what we want with our own bodies where someone else’s life is at risk?
Because if you do believe this then shouldn’t we all be placed on the donor list against our wishes?

So should they get life imprisonment for murder if they refuse and the person dies because they couldn’t find another donor in time?

Well no because if it’s before conception, nobody will die if she changes her mind.

Now had conception already occurred and she then refused to have the fertilised eggs implanted into her womb then wouldn’t she be a murderer in your pro life view? Life imprisonment for her too?


She accepts responsibility for the possibility of pregnancy/STDs as a result of her negligence sure but she didn’t sign up to endure a pregnancy, risk her life in the process or become a mother for the rest of her life.


Don’t you accept to donate your organ when you put yourself on the list? That means that (according to you, fortunately the law doesn’t agree) if anyone is in desperate need for a donor, you have to give it to them. Even if you change your mind, you no longer have the right to keep your own kidney. It doesn’t matter if you have new medical conditions that could worsen as a result of the kidney transplant. You should be forced to risk the dangers of surgery and if you die as a result despite you not wanting to do it in the first place, so be it. Nobody will be held responsible for your death. You shouldn’t have put yourself on the list. RIP.

You are still making an argument on something that is a different to the main argument.

Nobody is forcing a woman to get pregnant. A woman got pregnant on her own accord. Now she is pregnant, there is another life involved.

This is very different to going on the donor list. There are two types of organ donation, during life and after death. If an organ donor expressed to donate their organ when they die, nobody can change the decision because thos were their wishes.

During life, this is another issue entirely, organ donors have a responsibility to donate if they have agreed to donate in the first place. There is no law that stops them from rescinding that agreement. This is completely different to a pregnant woman with an unborn child. The woman is not a volunteer in an organ donation programme. She does not have any right to accept or reject the pregnancy. She is responsibility for the protection and safety of the unborn child until delivery and beyond.

Not really. You said that we shouldn’t get autonomy over our bodies where another life is at risk. It appears you only agree with that when it comes to abortion.


Nobody is forcing a donor to put themselves on the list. A donor put themselves on the list on their own accord. Now someone needs their organ, there is another life involved.


I’m clearly not referring to donation after death so this is irrelevent.



Let’s not bring the law into this, because in both cases, the law allows the individuals to retract from their ‘contract’ for whatever reason. The law respects an individuals right to what happens to their body.
And if life begins at conception then a surrogate mother who changes her mind should be sentenced to life imprisonment for murder should those fertilised embryos in the Petri dish die.
If she has no right to accept or reject the pregnancy, a donor shouldn’t have the right to accept or reject donation. Because in both of these cases, another life is at risk. In both of these cases, the individuals volunteered to be in the position they are in. In both of these cases, person A is the only one who has the ability to save that life yet according to you, only one warrants a hefty prison term. If that’s your stance then ok, stick to your contradictory view. I’m fed up of going back and forth with you about this and we’re certainly not going to agree.

...Life begins at conception and not birth.

You are getting things very confused.

Organ donation is different to pregnancy. Many people DO NOT sign up to major organ donation during their lifetime because it does not work out, e.g. brain, heart etc. These are mostly done after death.

For life organ donations, when a person decides to be a donor then there is a responsibility to donate when the time comes.

This is different to a woman is pregnant with child. She is not donating any of her organs to her child, she is just required to keep the baby alive with all things being equal.

You keep on conflating two very different arguments in the hope that one can disqualify the other, but you fail to realise these are two separate arguments.

This depends on how you are using the term 'life'. At the point of conception there is certainly no physiologically independent living entity, hence the generally accepted use of 'foetus'. It's easy to argue that the fertilised egg goes through a long process of eventually becoming something that 'lives', most obviously as birth approaches or, indeed, takes effect..

As for abortion, aside from it being legal it would appear that a majority of UK citizens accept it, if it were otherwise then there'd surely be a huge movement that translated into a change in the law.

If you look at all other parts of society, there is no other section where it is okay for someone to kill another person under their protection. Sadly, it is okay for a woman because “it is her body”, which I strongly disagree with.

The fact that many people, myself included, don't regard a foetus as a 'person' goes some way to explain why people don't agree with you. Until a foetus can be regarded as having something that corresponds to physiological independence then it is, ultimately, an organ of the pregnant woman.

To your point, there is a school of thought that believes life begins at conception, while another that believes something else. There is no unanimous agreement on this topic.

Ok, but given that, as things stand, abortion is legal, the pressure is on you to persuade people like me that a fertilised egg is a person, just saying you disagree with us isn't going to be enough.

I don't have to persuade you...

Then I guess we're both happy. Abortion is legal (I'm happy with that) and you don't feel any pressure to persuade me of your view (you're happy with that).

Wow, you just took the first point and did not even acknowledge the rest of my argument....

Of course I did, you pretty much compelled me do that to by starting out to the effect that you didn't need to persuade me of anything. You can't have it both ways.

Don't get me wrong - sexual abuse is wrong and men should be punished if they do it. But also don't put yourself in situations where it could potentially happen.

Don't put yourself in situations where it could potentially happen..? Ok, let me just lock myself up at home. Oh wait, it could potentially happen there as well. In fact, it could potentially happen anywhere, seeing as it's caused by the actions of another person (which you in most cases can't control).

It doesn't just happen by itself, you know that right? It's an act (crime) committed by somebody else.

Sexual abuse is wrong and it should be punished. The end.