|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:34 pm
I am going to make a pledge, a pledge that every time I must refer to a noun obtaining an abortion, that noun will be gender neutral, unless it's a specific individual.
Why, one might ask. It's very simple: I want to get it through the oppositions' very thick head that I am not against abortions because they are a woman's thing.
Furthermore, it makes clear that my principles and values are the same on the issue, regardless of the affected party.
Some might make the general statement that this must be a Woman's issue because only Woman can procure abortions. I think this is funny. Are they to argue men cannot?
Is a Pro-choice Supporter really going to say someone cannot get an abortion? I'd laugh at the logic.
Obviously, with a p***s, no, you can't give birth nor procure an abortion, but with the presence of transsexualism and sex-change surgery, it's a very possible future for many men.
But regardless, I'm going to try to do it because I think it sends the message across quite clearly. I'm advocating values, not decrying specific kinds of human beings.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:36 pm
When you consider that many men profit from the abortion industry (Henry Morgentaler? George Tiller? Either they're men or very, VERY ugly women...) and that not all people with female reproductive organs identify as female, it makes perfect sense...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:15 pm
I find it interesting that several women that are in the middle of the long transgendered process of becoming men will stop long enough to have a child. So, you'll have someone who, by all accounts looks male, give birth to a child!
It boggles my mind. I know it's not exactly on topic but something made me think of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 7:34 pm
See, I don't see the point. It's pretty common sense to me that women are people, and substituting the word people to make that absolutely clear seems like an insult to the other side, as if I need to clarify that yes, women are people. I guess I'm coming from a different position since I've got two times the X for awesomeness, but still, it seems like the only people that would placate are the ones who aren't really going to debate well in the first place, and it's easier to just weed them out at the beginning.
Anyone with a brain, with common sense, and the ability to open their minds to people with different viewpoints (not agreeing with them, just listening and trying to understand them) is going to figure out after fairly soon that it's not that you're a misogynist, it's that it's a human rights issue with you. If people can't understand that after talking to you, changing the noun to gender neutral won't do a thing. And those people who don't understand because their skulls are thick? Why bother? It's not going to get through to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:53 pm
lymelady See, I don't see the point. It's pretty common sense to me that women are people, and substituting the word people to make that absolutely clear seems like an insult to the other side, as if I need to clarify that yes, women are people. I guess I'm coming from a different position since I've got two times the X for awesomeness, but still, it seems like the only people that would placate are the ones who aren't really going to debate well in the first place, and it's easier to just weed them out at the beginning. Anyone with a brain, with common sense, and the ability to open their minds to people with different viewpoints (not agreeing with them, just listening and trying to understand them) is going to figure out after fairly soon that it's not that you're a misogynist, it's that it's a human rights issue with you. If people can't understand that after talking to you, changing the noun to gender neutral won't do a thing. And those people who don't understand because their skulls are thick? Why bother? It's not going to get through to them. It's mostly to ensure that people can't be stupid and ignore ideas on the grounds of misogyny. I find that if you happen to be winning at an argument, some choicers will look for any way to discredit you, including racism, misogyny, christian views over scientific, or by using poor biology in an attempt to grasp onto some kind of firm ground in their "facts".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:09 pm
I think her point is that, people who will stop arguing with you because you're being "misogynists" are idiots who will refuse to listen anyways, so ******** 'em.
Not to mention that, regardless of whether we use the term woman or person, they still see it as us trying to take away a woman's right to have an abortion; Men don't have the right, because they can't get pregnant. So getting into semantics like that is silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:16 am
I.Am I think her point is that, people who will stop arguing with you because you're being "misogynists" are idiots who will refuse to listen anyways, so ******** 'em. Not to mention that, regardless of whether we use the term woman or person, they still see it as us trying to take away a woman's right to have an abortion; Men don't have the right, because they can't get pregnant. So getting into semantics like that is silly. If they will play semantics, then why can't we n** it in the bud?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:02 am
You don't get it, changing the word will do nothing. Whether you say woman or person, they will say, "You just hate women," because they're not stupid; They know that women are the only ones who can get abortions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:04 am
I.Am You don't get it, changing the word will do nothing. Whether you say woman or person, they will say, "You just hate women," because they're not stupid; They know that women are the only ones who can get abortions. But not using the word allows them less gratification from it. If I say "Women" or "Black people" or "Men", it implies a singling out of that group, even if the issue is directed ONLY at that group anyway. Effectively it changes nothing, but it helps to take away their gratification and smugness in making such an argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:08 pm
lymelady See, I don't see the point. It's pretty common sense to me that women are people, and substituting the word people to make that absolutely clear seems like an insult to the other side, as if I need to clarify that yes, women are people. I guess I'm coming from a different position since I've got two times the X for awesomeness, but still, it seems like the only people that would placate are the ones who aren't really going to debate well in the first place, and it's easier to just weed them out at the beginning. Anyone with a brain, with common sense, and the ability to open their minds to people with different viewpoints (not agreeing with them, just listening and trying to understand them) is going to figure out after fairly soon that it's not that you're a misogynist, it's that it's a human rights issue with you. If people can't understand that after talking to you, changing the noun to gender neutral won't do a thing. And those people who don't understand because their skulls are thick? Why bother? It's not going to get through to them. This is about making a point and expressing what I'm really thinking more effectively. If they can't get it, they are twice as thick then once thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:27 pm
I don't think it is, though. Instead of it getting across more effectively, you're gonna be saying, "A pregnant person doesn't have more rights than a fetus," and they're going to be like, "Person? You make it sound like it's -not- just women."
As opposed to pointing out that we're not concerned with who is pregnant, you're drawing attention to the fact that it -is- a woman. It makes it sound like you're, well, doing exactly what you're trying to do; Drawing the debate away from the fact that it's women getting abortions. Since Pro-Choicers consider it a Women's Rights issue, this will just confuse them at best, and make them angry at worst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:52 pm
That's the thing.
If a Pro-choicer isn't able to take their little lovely brains and expand their thoughts PAST the realm of women's, men's, or trangender's rights, they aren't really all for rights now are they? This is a PERSON'S right but most notably a WOMAN'S ISSUE. This is evident elsewhere. It is also socially and contextually accurate to say Breast Cancer is, notably and primarily, a WOMAN'S ISSUE, as if to say Woman should be much more concerned. But Breast Cancer affects BOTH genders.
Question: Is the statement "People deserve Health Care" accurate? Of course! But is the statement "The sick and liable deserve Health Care" much more accurate? Oh absolutely. But if you can't expand your thinking and apply, more accurately your beliefs then you just aren't thinking hard.
Obviously, the sick, or those in concern of sickness deserve Health Care, but in reality, all people deserve Health Care. That's the standing principle behind the sentiment. But, functionally speaking, only the more sick, or those say getting a dirth of vaccinations 'utilize' Health Care.
But all people deserve it.
If a Choicer calls me out on it I'll call them out on it as well. "So, I see men are not endowed similar reproductive rights and autonomous bodily control?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:38 pm
But that's a fallacious comparison. If you will -never- get sick, of course you don't need health care.
If you will -never- get pregnant, of course you don't need an abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:14 pm
I.Am But that's a fallacious comparison. If you will -never- get sick, of course you don't need health care. If you will -never- get pregnant, of course you don't need an abortion. But this isn't about needing. That's the thing. If that were the case, then many of the "Pro-choice, but I won't get one" crowd would be pro-life. And that'd be a whole heck of a lot of them. This isn't about needing. This is about entitlement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 6:48 pm
...Okay, I'm sorry for using those terms.
If you will never get sick, of course you're not entitled to health care. If you absolutely have definite evidence you will never ever get sick, there's absolutely no goddamn reason you should need health care.
As we men will never get pregnant, and could not have an abortion if we wanted to, of course we're not entitled to an abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
