Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Notwithstanding the cosmic wrongness of the fiduciary analogy, sex is not the same as any other human activity for which a person may be held responsible. As you and I both know, once you hit 14, its a biological urge that can all but overwhelm ones life. To hold women hostage to a quirk of nature (not getting that Y chromosome you and I did) is not the same as holding them accountable when they drive drunk.
This is where the need for progressive interpretation of rights runs headlong into conservative rigidity. I am staunchly social Darwinist on 99% of these matters. I don't agree with many govt social safety nets. BUT, I think progressive policies which try to equal the rights and burdens of the sexes are fair and proper in a free market society. We can't have a fair playing field where one side pays a draconian penalty for a biological urge (or broken condom) and the other gets to walk away from it (I suggest you not even attempt to make the argument that are equally responsible because they have to pay paternity... thats a dead lock loser for innumerable reasons).
I can appreciate what I know your comeback will be - "people must play the cards they're dealt... women included." I agree with that on all things but reprdocutive rights. I think such a belief would keep women out of productive jobs, thus holding back our society and our markets. Nobody benefits where half the workforce can be taken out of commission because of a biological urge or malfunction of birth control.
Again, you're not anti-woman. You're rigidly libertarian. The pro-lifers, however, are absolutely, 100%, card carrying anti-woman.
|
I agree with what most everything Slave said last night. I am 100% pro-personal responsibility. Unless we decide as a society that we all get do overs for the negative consequences of our behaviors then I don't conception requires a special dispensation. Further, I believe that the unborn child has the same rights a born child much earlier than current law accounts for. First trimester I am willing to give an out, although I am still off put by the
choice. After that I view it as a separate life, dependent but separate. Possibly inconvenient but separate.
In the alternative universe that you live in I don't understand why you characterize yourself as pro-woman, how about pro-parents who want to shirk their responsbility? When I was first a parent there were nights when I was up all night because the kid was awake crying and your mind starts to wander......wasn't life easier before this
thing....i want to do what i want to do when i want to do it......this
thing is drag........fuck it, i want
my life back!!! A six month old is not independent, in fact they are fully dependent so it's not like its really an
independent life. In those cases at those times why shouldn't a dad or a mom (I'm equally opportunity pro-parents who want to shirk their responsibility) be able to pillow smother the inconvenient kid (rather than place it into social services where it would burden society/taxpayers)??
Or better yet, just stop feeding and hydrating it, the liberals told me that such a method of killing was the most humane form of death possible when the state of Florida sanctioned the murder of Terri Schiavo.
Threaded Mode