The evolutionary benefits of forcing women to give birth

Sep 2019
115
5
Evolution's bosom
As we all know now, the myth that women or men "have rights" at all, beyond what comes out of the barrel of a gun or the hilt of a knife, is, evolutionarily speaking, a fairy tale on par with young earth creationism.

From a secular perspective, women therefore might fall into 2 main camps - fit ones who prove their utility to society - like Marie Curie, or Joan of Arc.

And degenerate or unintelligent ones, such as drug addicts who have illegal abortions to support their drug habit.

While the "religious" might appeal to Judeo-Christian values, chivalry, their silly Constitution, or other archaic and nonscientific notions - evolution doesn't care, and no one can provide any empirical evidence, or testability of women's rights at all - the American Constitution itself is an evolutionary heresy, founded on myths and unscientific notions to begin with, and should eventually have no place in an evolved society.

I would argue, therefore, the state would have a vested interest in forcing women of the non-productive variety to give birth, in order to sustain the population, as well as forcing men who father children with them to atone for this - perhaps castrating them if they are serial offenders who impregnate multiple women irresponsibly - since these defective males imagine they have any "rights" as well.
 
Dec 2018
6,611
4,301
the Heart of America
As we all know now, the myth that women or men "have rights" at all, beyond what comes out of the barrel of a gun or the hilt of a knife, is, evolutionarily speaking, a fairy tale on par with young earth creationism.

From a secular perspective, women therefore might fall into 2 main camps - fit ones who prove their utility to society - like Marie Curie, or Joan of Arc.

And degenerate or unintelligent ones, such as drug addicts who have illegal abortions to support their drug habit.

While the "religious" might appeal to Judeo-Christian values, chivalry, their silly Constitution, or other archaic and nonscientific notions - evolution doesn't care, and no one can provide any empirical evidence, or testability of women's rights at all - the American Constitution itself is an evolutionary heresy, founded on myths and unscientific notions to begin with, and should eventually have no place in an evolved society.

I would argue, therefore, the state would have a vested interest in forcing women of the non-productive variety to give birth, in order to sustain the population, as well as forcing men who father children with them to atone for this - perhaps castrating them if they are serial offenders who impregnate multiple women irresponsibly - since these defective males imagine they have any "rights" as well.
Disagreed, but you're not the first atheist authoritarian who advocates treating people like animals. Both Stalin and Mao murdered dozen of millions of their own people for a political agenda just as you are advocating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OlGuy and ripskater

CtC

Mar 2019
10,242
3,548
California
As we all know now, the myth that women or men "have rights" at all, beyond what comes out of the barrel of a gun or the hilt of a knife, is, evolutionarily speaking, a fairy tale on par with young earth creationism.

From a secular perspective, women therefore might fall into 2 main camps - fit ones who prove their utility to society - like Marie Curie, or Joan of Arc.

And degenerate or unintelligent ones, such as drug addicts who have illegal abortions to support their drug habit.

While the "religious" might appeal to Judeo-Christian values, chivalry, their silly Constitution, or other archaic and nonscientific notions - evolution doesn't care, and no one can provide any empirical evidence, or testability of women's rights at all - the American Constitution itself is an evolutionary heresy, founded on myths and unscientific notions to begin with, and should eventually have no place in an evolved society.

I would argue, therefore, the state would have a vested interest in forcing women of the non-productive variety to give birth, in order to sustain the population, as well as forcing men who father children with them to atone for this - perhaps castrating them if they are serial offenders who impregnate multiple women irresponsibly - since these defective males imagine they have any "rights" as well.
DuckSpeak. Don't know what you are getting at ,but it sounds pretty commie.
 
Sep 2019
115
5
Evolution's bosom
Disagreed, but you're not the first atheist authoritarian who advocates treating people like animals. Both Stalin and Mao murdered dozen of millions of their own people for a political agenda just as you are advocating.
What I'm waiting for is for someone to show me proof that "rights" exist, or how believing in them based on faith, as opposed to empirical evidence is any different than believing in Jesus, or Allah.
 
Dec 2018
6,611
4,301
the Heart of America
What I'm waiting for is for someone to show me proof that "rights" exist, or how believing in them based on faith, as opposed to empirical evidence is any different than believing in Jesus, or Allah.
Keep waiting. In fact, please hold your breath until you are given an answer.

Nonetheless, what you suggest is barbarism, slavery and an authoritarian government.
 
May 2012
70,176
14,165
By the wall
Rights exist and they don't.

They are given by a society but they are not inherent. Currently, in US society, women have rights because society agrees they do, the same for men and children, but if society were to change it's mind then there is nothing written in the Cosmos or on the bottom of a boulder that would disagree with that. Unless you want to bring religion into the discussion then rights only exist because others agree with you that you all have rights to something or other.
 
Dec 2018
6,611
4,301
the Heart of America
Rights exist and they don't.

They are given by a society but they are not inherent. Currently, in US society, women have rights because society agrees they do, the same for men and children, but if society were to change it's mind then there is nothing written in the Cosmos or on the bottom of a boulder that would disagree with that. Unless you want to bring religion into the discussion then rights only exist because others agree with you that you all have rights to something or other.
Ahh, all godless Russians would agree with you.

In America, we believe differently: The Declaration of Independence: Full text
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OlGuy
May 2012
70,176
14,165
By the wall
Ahh, all godless Russians would agree with you.

In America, we believe differently: The Declaration of Independence: Full text
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Like I said, those only exist because a bunch of people agree they exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Davocrat
Dec 2018
6,611
4,301
the Heart of America
Like I said, those only exist because a bunch of people agree they exist.
Which may explain why the US is the world's most powerful nation economically and militarily while Russia is barely above Third World Shithole status.