Because 50% of the population is struggling due to people that have no fucking clue what they're dealing with. It's not a logic I use in all situations but I definitely apply it here. I don't believe one religion has a right to practice, I don't believe men have the right to tell women what they can and can't do with their uterus. Everyone else is free to disagree but if you want to convince me otherwise then please don't waste your time. Downvote me or whatever but if there's going to be things like religion factored into this debate then it's going to be between women, men should be out of this one.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m actively pro-choice. I don’t think anyone, man or woman, should be able to tell an individual what they can’t do with their body. I’m just questioning the wisdom of alienating a segment of the population from the subject. The precedent set leads us towards the idea that women should have no opinion in men’s matters or Asian’s should not be allowed opinions about Latino matters. I think it adds more fractures in a society that should be trying to come together for the common good.
I do think there are certain issues that require segmentation. You don't use it as precedent for every single matter that comes up, but on a case by case basis
you also dont get to decide what precedent you are setting by doing something. If you actually segregate men from being allowed opinions on a women's issue people WILL use it as evidence that those not directly affect by something should have 0 say in it in ALL cases.
with that in place if that actually was how the law was put into writing it would be legal precedent whether you like it or not.
We have issues that require segregated decision making all the time, it's how we get rid of things that are beneficial to a majority at the expense of a minority. It's not even an opinion, it's a fact.
1
deleted
· 4 years ago
Following that logic, people who don't own property shouldn't be allowed to vote for any political representative who might potentially influence a decision about property.
Wait...
Don’t let a human without a uterus make laws or choose the rights of those who do. And don’t let a human without a dick make laws or choose the rights of those who do. It’s the 21st century and it’s time we think things through
Yea they should. If you wanna be a father find a willing partner or orphan. If you’re a male doctor walk away because you may know the medical side of the situation but you can’t know the mental side and there’s plenty of female doctors who can handle it
deleted
· 4 years ago
As I've said in other comments, this is clear discrimination.
To claim that a man can't be 100% as qualified as a woman for any job, opinion, right to vote, etc, just because he's male— That's sexist and regressive. It seeks to tear men down, and that won't actually build up women at all.
with that in place if that actually was how the law was put into writing it would be legal precedent whether you like it or not.
Wait...
Tearing men down won't build women up.
I never advocated for the draft.
To claim that a man can't be 100% as qualified as a woman for any job, opinion, right to vote, etc, just because he's male— That's sexist and regressive. It seeks to tear men down, and that won't actually build up women at all.