Posts by B Jones
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
autonomy ≠ anatomy
-
They come in patent leather, too.
Honestly, on what basis can someone who writes this sort of nonsense:
two weeks later his wife watches a moving episode of oprah, rushes out for another abortion
expect the compliment of rational opposition?
-
Not only a troll, a patronising one.
I'm sure there are places where people are happy to debate on ideas they don't actually hold. I've never thought of Public Address is one of them. It's not my cup of tea, in any case.
-
Mark, yes. That is entirely a non-sequitur, however, unless you forgot to type "and therefore she should face all the risks resulting from that, medical technology to avoid this notwithstanding, but only have half the say in whether or not that's used." With which I'd disagree.
-
Who has compulsory vaccination?
The minute men have to decide whether or not to support another life inside their own bodies, with the accompanying discomfort and medical risks, then I'd be the first to stand up for their rights to choose.
It's not about your genetic relationship to the fetus, it's about your right to make decisions about what happens to your own body. Abrogations of that right tend to be justified on the basis of harm. There's a lot of focus made by pro-lifers on the harmful effects of abortion, but they pale in comparison to the risks involved in pregnancy and illegal abortion.
-
It's always amazed me that the campaign for rights over ones body wasn't extended to euthanasia.
They're logically consistent positions, and you'll find the same pro-life people opposing both abortion and euthanasia. From the pro-choice perspective, though, abortion is largely an issue that affects young women over and above anyone else, whereas euthanasia affects the elderly and those who care for them more than the rest of the population. It makes sense that the campaigners are different people.
Back in the 70s it was young women who led the pro-choice movement, with the impressive demographic advantage and record of activism that baby boomers had in those days. Today's young women are smaller in number and less practiced at political advocacy, but I'd like to think that a threat to rights you've grown up with is an easier thing to defend than a radical change to the status quo.
-
Andrew - The feminist angle didn't come through in your original post - you referred simply to the "Fairer Sex", a phrase which in my experience is usually used rather ironically.
I think more evidence of feminist intentions of magazine editors would need to be presented to support the reframed version.
-
I could have expanded on that better. It's a term that's not always used honestly. See "I'm not a feminist but I believe in equal rights" and bikini empowerment. And, for that matter, Jo Cotton's immortal shout-out to her foremothers: "thank you, you bunch of hairy legged freaks."
-
Good lord, you're linking to an article about opposition to feminism to illustrate that feminism isn't an ideological consensus?
I don't think anyone here would argue that calling yourself a feminist means that you are one. Or that it's a uniform movement, for that matter. Neither of which makes the "women are the authors of their own misfortune" argument any more valid.
-
Exactly, Stephen, and if you were really good at it, your front-Xes would start to believe that they were more deserving of those privileges, and criticise the others for not pulling their socks up.