General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsprogressoid
(49,825 posts)Their argument is that the woman made a choice when she decided to have sex. End of story.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,297 posts)dchill
(38,321 posts)That choice was made by some male, who decided to, at the very least, to ejaculate inside her.
But to these people, that doesn't seem to matter.
dchill
(38,321 posts)Skittles
(152,964 posts)they are smug when they feel they can blame the woman
Freddie
(9,231 posts)Usually they have no answer to that
progressoid
(49,825 posts)As far as they are concerned as soon as you consent to have sex, you've decided to become a parent.
Of course, these are the same people that defend the p**** grabber so critical thinking isn't their forte.
Caliman73
(11,693 posts)It assumes that right wingers are arguing in good faith.
That is a fatal flaw of Liberalism. Liberalism and leftism are likely the most rational ideologies, but liberalism suffers from the belief that a good faith argument can be had with right wingers.
KPN
(15,587 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 5, 2021, 01:28 AM - Edit history (1)
cause if the Right wingers cared about the babies at all, they would support universal health care, education, child care and affordable housing.
nvme
(860 posts)The right wing shitbags not acted in good faith for as long as I can remember.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)They are convinced the holy poltergeist sprinkles magic fairy dust the moment after conception and suddenly human protoplasm is endowed with an immortal soul. As such they will never be satisfied with 6 weeks or any other arbitrary point past the point of conception. Next they will go after IUDs and plan B pills any any other contraception methods they think work post conception.
Logic and reason do not work on these people as their faith demands suspension of such things in order to work. Bear in mind also, none of this is really about human development at any stage. Their real motivation is to go after fornication in an attempt to manipulate sexuality and force women especially into their idea of servitude.
The problem with liberalism, or at least how it is presently implemented, is somehow faith is always placed into a protective shield with the misplaced idea that tolerance demands it. As such we cant attack faith itself which is the root cause of all of this nonsense. Until we do so we will always be chasing symptoms rather than the cause and they will use our own idea of tolerance against us over and over.
bringthePaine
(1,726 posts)leftstreet
(36,078 posts)Excellent find
LittleGirl
(8,261 posts)chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)Freddie
(9,231 posts)Because someone got offended when I asked a man how often have you been pregnant (although I was so angry at that point I may have called him something else to go along with it).
I can tell right away that you might as well talk to your dog about the stock market. To them we are NOTHING. Not humans, just vessels. Our minds and ideas have no value whatsoever. 4 cells in my uterus should completely obliterate all my rights.
MichaelSoE
(1,576 posts)Absolutely brilliant
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)Thank you for posting.
crickets
(25,896 posts)Women are still fighting to be seen fully and equally as people, with absolute rights over their persons.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/25/to-have-and-to-hold
Banning contraception at a time when the overwhelming majority of Americans used it was, of course, ridiculous. (Justice Potter Stewart, who dissented in Griswold, called the Connecticut statute an uncommonly silly law.) The law was little enforced. Condoms were openly sold in drugstores, and people of means could get other forms of contraception out of state. (Estelle Griswold once asked whether the police intended to put a gynecological table at the Greenwich toll station and examine every woman who crossed the state line.) The ban was a real hardship, though, for the poor, and especially for poor women in relationships with men who refused to use condoms. And if the law was ridiculous it was also intransigent. For decades, Planned Parenthood had tried to get it overturned in the Connecticut legislature, to no avail. So the question was: What legal argument could be used to challenge its constitutionality?
The Constitution never mentions sex, marriage, or reproduction. This is because the political order that the Constitution established was a fraternity of free men who, believing themselves to have been created equal, consented to be governed. Women did not and could not give their consent: they were neither free nor equal. Rule over women lay entirely outside a Lockean social contract in a relationship not of liberty and equality but of confinement and subjugation. As Mary Astell wondered, in 1706, If all Men are born free, how is it that all Women are born Slaves? [snip]
There is a lesson in the past fifty years of litigation. When the fight for equal rights for women narrowed to a fight for reproductive rights, defended on the ground of privacy, it weakened. But when the fight for gay rights became a fight for same-sex marriage, asserted on the ground of equality, it got stronger and stronger.