Reply #77: Yuppers

[iverglas]

And, if you notice, this is a DU topic forum devoted to Reproductive Choice, not a DU group limited to women.

Absofuckinglutely.

And nothing to do with guns. Regardless of whether you or the OP author or the man in the moon wants to pretend it is.

Analogies are good methods of reasoning. Specious analogies are stupid and in many cases obnoxious. This particular one is sick, and I'm tired of it.


Refer to the DU Rules if you have a problem with "menz" posting in the Choice forum

Refer back to my post if you actually had some difficulty grasping what I really said.

If you prefer to pretend I said something I didn't, have a picnic.

What I have a problem with is people bringing their obnoxious, misogynist firearm "analogies" to a forum about women's reproductive rights.

It's just a big coincidence that the ones who do it are men, I know.


It IS the height of misogyny to tell women that our right not to be compelled to do something that carries risks of death and serious physical and/or psychological injury is analogous to your right to stockpile weapons.

There are actually analogies to the situation at hand -- a military draft being about the closest analogy I know of. Even it loses force when the question of justification for the coercion involved is considered.

A military draft is imposed -- people are compelled to do something that carries risks of death and serious physical and/or psychological injury -- to address a serious threat to the survival of a society and its individual members. There is arguable justification. (If it's imposed for some other reason, of course it is unjustified.)

There is more than arguable justification for REGULATING access to firearms, and in fact denying access to firearms to some people. As far as I know, even bloody you take that position.

The human race is not in any danger of extinction, and no individual is endangered by another individual's abortion. So there is NO justification for denying access to abortion, or for regulating access beyond any regulation that applies to medical services generally.


This constant attempt BY MEN at this site to portray their desire for firearms, whatever lies behind that desire, as analogous to a woman's choice not to carry a pregnancy to term is so foul it almost leaves me speechless.

It trivializes women's core interests. It trivializes women's fundamental rights. It trivializes women.

It really is just one more in the many ways that men use firearms to intimidate and control women.



And by the way:

The individual right to privacy, NOT perceived social benefits, was the legal and moral foundation of Roe v. Wade, as you also well know, and that is still the case both judicially and morally.

I don't give a flying fuck what the foundation of Roe v. Wade was, and I happen to think it is a bullshit decision. Where I'm at, which happens to be part of the same world you live in, equally important and more advanced both "judicially and morally", the foundation of women's right to choose is this:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

-- and maybe someday women in the US will have the same recognition of their rights.

"Morally", women are human beings with human rights, fundamental among which are life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof either without due process and the other requirements of fundamental justice or without the justification that is required in a free and democratic society to do that.

And what the fuck a "perceived social benefit" might be, I wouldn't know. Except another revolting attempt to trivialize women by calling women's life, liberty and security of the person "perceived social benefits".