dw wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:43 am
Renascent wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:38 am
dw wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:25 amAre they acting as
religious fanatics against the non-fanatics or as
men against women? (Which would be odd as genders are mixed on both sides of the court opinion.)
I can never tell when you're being serious or just contrarian for the hell of it.
Do you honestly feel that it must be either/or? No one is likely to doubt that there are voices on
both sides of the issue from more than one gender pool.
But the matter of abortion -- whether someone wants to pedantically argue its legal/moral/biological merits or perils -- is still being discussed by a lot of loud-ass dudes in positions of power and influence who want a say in what to do with the
Negroes (whoops)
farm equipment (oops),
baby-making machines (well, shit), uteresus of America.
I'm sure they are all speaking from a very well-meaning place. Polls and ...
science.
Yea.
I honestly don't understand what you're suggesting here. If you think only a trifling minority of people at all levels of the pro-life movement are women you are wrong.
Is this something pro-choice people believe?
No, we're not quibbling over whether or not there are women who oppose abortion for whatever reason.
We're quibbling over whether or not the fact that said anti-abortion women exist (which no one involved in this thread has disputed, so far) negates the arguable possibility that, on some level, abortion
is a men versus women issue for a lot of people. It is also a "religious" issue because a lot of people deem it so. It is a multi-faceted issue, but -- much like the Civil War -- pretending that it is/was solely a matter of states' rights (or merely a logistical dispute, or a thinking man's philosophical question) seems willfully tone-deaf.
I was alluding to your take on
@murphyreedus's observation about your comment. Whereas you don't feel the comparison to the states' rights argument -- in the context of the Civil War -- was warranted, I'd beg to differ.
Suggesting that there is no "men versus women" component to abortion rights, as they exist(ed) in the United States, is a lot like suggesting the Civil War was really about whether men from the North had the right to tell men from the South how to harvest their crops and what kind of machinery they could use. The whole conflict just introduced problems that didn't exist previously, such as whether or not the Negroes knew what to do with pesky shit like "freedom" that might otherwise have been too burdensome for their bodies to bear.
Denying the lived reality for a lot of people out there by saying that abortion rights has nothing to do with men's collective dominion over uteruses -- just because you, in your assumed magnanimity, are only worried about the scientific ethics of abortion (I'm only using you as an example here) -- really stinks of some high-horse, tone-deaf silliness.
I'll use my imagination here and guess that it's gotta suck for a lotta women to hear some dude -- whether a senator, judge, local dickhead pastor, or whatever -- weigh in (with authoritah!) on when and how their vaginas should be policed because of some fucking beliefs about God (for example).
It's probably not dissimilar to listening to white dudes ramble on about what poor Blacks should do to better themselves, in other corners of the internet.