If women can’t be trusted with personal decisions, how can they be trusted with political decisions? To be anti-abortion is necessarily to be anti-franchise. Don’t let females vote! Their vaginas will drive them mad and ruin the nation!
Sorry, that’s the irreducible logic. Without choice, women are breeding sows, no more.
Yes, it’s all about power, control… ownership. Slavery. Are you owned, or an owner?
Yes, the overlap in simple income or wealth is extreme, but there are still ways to adjust the tax code to help Republicans, and they pulled out all the stops to do this in their 2017 tax code.
As a picayune but obvious example, a tiny tax benefit for riding bicycles to work was repealed. Liberals are more likely to be respectful of the environment.
Your own cite shows that they not only tried but, following a recent judicial decision, have succeeded.
Mortgage interest on suburban homes is no longer a useful deduction for most people, while mortgage interest on farms is deducted before the income even appears on Form 1040.
Yes, there’s huge overlap between the two parties’ supporters, but there are also clear differences. Conservatives go to church; liberals go to university. Now look at recent changes affecting religious schools or tax-free religious organizations; look at changes affecting colleges and student debt.
St. Paul himself wrote that "women will be saved through childbearing (1 Timothy 2:15 ►).
That is the worst strawman I have ever seen and I have been on safari.
I hope that is satire.
I’ll ask again: If women can’t be trusted with their own bodies, how can they be trusted with political power?
Why not? Nations such as the Philippines and Poland ban abortions, and allow women to vote and hold political office.
Because we aren’t the Philippines or Poland.
That seems to be enough when the topic is why we can’t have Universal Healthcare when so many other western democracies have it. So I assume that same answer should suffice here.
Every position reduces to peace of mind, but I’m not about to accept any Haider-esque analysis that strives to be maximally charitable to positions that are transparently not charitable.
For pro-lifers, they want the peace of mind of knowing that, when a man ejaculates inside a woman (always due to his own negligence or malice), the woman must pay for it through a lifetime of parental servitude (or at least serve a 9 month sentence culminating in the trauma of childbirth and separation via adoption). There might be a weak penalty for the man, but only if he’s black, bonus points if he’s an entertainer or athlete. But the woman definitely has to pay, this is non-negotiable.
This is a manifestation of the greater conservative fear of losing their peace of mind as the dominant ethnicity. To maintain this state they invent arbitrary rules and selectively enforce them on people not like them, and try to frame it as concerns about law-and-order or morality. One need only look at the current executive branch in 2019 to see that this is complete and utter horseshit.
No, it doesn’t suffice. Women in the US had the vote long before Roe v. Wade, so your answer makes no sense.
Regards,
Shodan
So we can reference other countries when it benefits Republicans to do so, but we cannot when it puts to lie their arguments?
This is what makes zero sense. It’s amazing how dumb the GOP thinks Americans are that this sort of logic, if you want to call it that, carries any water whatsoever.
In the response to what you quoted, Shodan makes no mention of any other country …
Logic? Dumb. Yes, but not who you thought it was intended for.
And what was he responding to? This is Great Debates, we need to be able to follow a conversation beyond one post or how is discussion even possible?
I’m most afraid of “losing” on the issue of how women and girls are treated. We finally seem to have a chance to make progress in dismantling our culture of rape-enabling, victim-blaming, misogyny. To miss this opportunity would be an unimaginable tragedy, and would result in immeasurable suffering and trauma against women and girls.
Allow me to take a more cynical, DC-oriented approach.
Both sides, those actually on the front lines not the people out in the hustings, have a vested interest in keeping the debate going. There’s a lot of money in endlessly discussing and fighting over certain hot-button topics and, by and large, the lobbyists are really in it to keep the gravy train flowing. Mercedes Benzes and expensive dinners at The Willard don’t pay for themselves, after all. Getting treated as a big shot on CNN or FoxNews doesn’t happen if everything gets resolved amicably and reasonably.
So the people in Omaha might have something to gain or lose should an issue get resolved, I agree. But the people controlling whether that issue gets resolved have a lot more to lose - from their point of view - IF it gets resolved.
This is not an argument it is a non sequitor. Abortion is about killing the baby growing inside a woman’s body, not the body itself. Besides all kinds of laws govern what people can do with their bodies. I can’t take my body and use it to beat an old lady to death, I can’t get drunk and use my body to drive a car, I can’t use my body to dance naked in a court of law, etc. Does that mean I am a slave? Totally ridiculous.
You can post whatever argument you want, but if it doesn’t make sense, it will get shot down.
As Kearsen1 points out, “if we outlaw abortion women won’t be allowed to vote or hold office” is a silly argument, because women in the US voted and held office long before Roe v. Wade. No references to other countries is necessary - the argument is disproven for the US specifically.
Because, in that sense, the US before Roe was not different from Poland or the Phillipines today. Women can and did and do vote and hold office even when abortion is or was outlawed.
I was responding to your post. That’s why I quoted it.
RioRico’s post was silly and inflammatory, of course. But it was silly, inflammatory, and easily disproved. As you point out, this is Great Debates. Disproving silly arguments is what we do here.
Regards,
Shodan
Well the problem is you mistook what he said and took it very literally when he was making a rhetorical point of asking how you can justify not trusting a woman to make choices for her own body but you can trust her to help make choices for society. Seems like it went way over your head. He wasn’t literally saying that if we outlaw abortion that would automatically outlaw women from voting or running for office. I have no idea where you got that from.
That’s ok though, we all miss the point sometimes.
Sure, sometimes we miss points. Sometimes we backpedal furiously after embarrassing ourselves.
Regards,
Shodan
Well whatever you feel you have to do. No judgement here.
And MY take on Affirmative Action is that it was created as a bandaid solution until everyone was on a level playing field. Leveling the playing field would, however, mean expensive and extensive changes. There are people who prefer to avoid those changes because they don’t want to pay higher taxes unless they, themselves, directly benefit from them. Most of them apparently also prefer to bitch about Affirmative Action.