Steve James wrote:...my point had nothing to do with"slavery." I didn't even mention it. I said that white men voted to allow themselves to own other men.
I scoff at men's arguments about what women want or why they want it.
The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) has reacted fiercely to recent parallels drawn between abortion and slavery, calling the comparison “shameful & vile.”
NARAL’s tweet Sunday that abortion “is a basic human right—not slavery” and slamming comparisons between the two institutions came in reaction to a Huffington Post article attacking Judge John K. Bush, newly appointed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who has compared abortion to slavery.
What is the logic or the principle of why men can't make arguments about abortion? It affects men. Each pregnancy was started by a man.
It's easy to post videos and make jokes. Easier still to play the victim when it's not even about you.
Steve James wrote:the "white men" seem to come up in more and more places in the media. are there any more specific way to recognise them, for example - blond, blue eyed, scandinavian
Naw, white men only refers to the one group that has always been allowed to vote for most of the history of this country. That's not hate speech or an opinion, that's just the fact. Women didn't get the right to vote until the 1920s in the US and in Sweden. A Voting Rights Act was put in place during the 1960s to (attempt to) ensure the rights of black Americans to vote.
yes thats right, the "white" and "men" issues belong to the past, at least in the developed world.
edededed wrote:Human childbirth is a special case - the only way we can have life is via initial long gestation within the womb - and so requires special consideration. I think that your "absolute" reasoning is too binary (black or white) - not everything is so simple.
- Does anyone have the right to kill another person without that person's consent?
I like the Indian idea of ahimsa - "non-harm." That is, I think, the most basal, fundamental moral of all. Although shared by most cultures in a basic way, most disagree on who is included in the list of those not to harm. Benign humans are usually included, animals may not be. What about human babies, born or unborn? What allows them to get onto the list?
Michael wrote:Okay Shylock. Your Confederacy of Dunces legal theory is that prohibition of abortion is actually slavery? That's some fancy pinch hitting for Steve-o, I'll grant you, but I'm gonna throw you out rounding second with some Shakespeare.
All these discussions grant abortion exceptions for rape and incest, so...
The child was not made from barren metal, 'twas made with the consent of two people and set to multiply cell by cell within the womb, even faster than ducats in a Jew's register.
And the consequences of their consent is the child therein, with no power to enslave that which granted it lease of forty weeks. 'Tis merely a bargain between them all, a contract, enforced not by the coercion of the belly, rather by prevention of the baby's death, a just and moral aim.
But if you think like Shylock that you can have your pound of flesh, then take it without shedding a drop of the baby's blood and there will be no need of law to constrain you.
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Very strange to bring in two things that don't help your argument. Those being antisemitism and Elizabethan sensibilities (buggery was punishable by death). Neither of these things has a place in our modern society, found in the Merchant of Venice or not.
none of the [men on RSF] has or will ever be pregnant or a woman
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests