This message was self-deleted by its author

[Tsiyu]

72. This is the way I view what is being argued here

I am not trying to bash anyone, derail your thread or taint your group. Promise.

This will be the last post here so pay attention:

Let's pretend - for the sake of argument - that Mitt Romney and one of the Firefighters who has just been told he will only make miminum wage are having an argument:

Mitt: "There's no war against public sector workers or the working class! What bunk! How paranoid can you get! Luls!"

Firefighter: "Beg to differ, Bucko. The Republican mayor just cut my pay to $7.25 an hour! How am I supposed to raise my three kids on that pay?"

Mitt: "He He He. Just be glad you still have a job! Why, I've read several internet posts where people say they want me to lose all my money and have absolutely NO pay!"

Firefighter: "Huh? Are you serious?"

Mitt: "Of course I am! Can't you admit that me losing all my money someday would be far, far worse than you only making minimum wage today? I mean, really. I feel so threatened!"

Firefighter: "Wait. What? You're saying you're at an equal disadvantage to me? That some nebulous threat on someone's blog somewhere in cyberspace is exactly the same as my pay being cut yesterday?"

Mitt: "Why yes, and you should be happy you're not me! I could lose everything! At least you get $7.25 an hour!"

That's the way I view the arguments here. False equivalence in its purest state.

Here's where we women stand:

2011 marked a banner year in the Republican war on woman’s health. Close to 1,000 anti-abortion bills sped through state legislatures as the GOP-led House led a “comprehensive and radical assault” on a federal level. But in surveying their arsenal this year, 10 bills stood out as particularly perturbing and far-reaching efforts to stymie women’s access to abortion services, birth control, and vital health services like breast cancer screenings. Here are ThinkProgress’s nominations for the most extreme attacks on a woman’s right to choose:

Redefining Rape: Last May, every House Republican and 16 anti-choice Democrats passed H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act. Anti-choice activists Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) tried to narrow the definition of rape to “forcible rape,” which meant that women who say no but do not physically fight off the assault; women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped; and minors impregnated by adults would not qualify for the rape and incest exception in the Hyde Amendment. Smith promised to remove the language but used “a sly legislative maneuver” that essentially informs the courts that statutory rape cases will not be covered by Medicaid should the law pass and be challenged in court.

– Abortion Audits: The No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act also bans using tax credits or deductions to pay for abortions or insurance. Thus, a woman who used such a benefit would have to prove, if audited, that her abortion “fell under the rape/incest/life-of-the-mother exception, or that the health insurance she had purchased did not cover abortions.” This requirement turns the Internal Revenue Service into “abortion cops” who, agents noted, would have to force women to give “contemporaneous written documentation” that it was “incest, or rape, or [her] life was in danger” which made an abortion necessary.

– Let Women Die: This October, House Republicans also passed the “Protect Life Act”, known by women’s health advocates as the “Let Women Die” bill. The measure allows hospitals that receive federal funds to reject any woman in need of an abortion procedure, even if it is necessary to save her life. Though federal law already prohibits federal funding of abortions, the GOP insisted that the health care law “contains a loophole that allows those receiving federal subsidies to use the money to enroll in health care plans that allow abortion services.”

snip: More at:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/12/27/395239/the-gops-10-most-extreme-attacks-on-a-womans-right-to-choose-an-abortion/


If you're maintaining here that male sexuality is in as much peril as female reproductive choice, you will have to do a far better job convincing women. Merely quoting Dworkin is not gonna cut it.

And for those saying I "brought up hetero just to divide" that is horse shit. I brought up the distinction because homosexual male (and female) sexuality is legislated against often, so one cannot say the threat against homosexual males is nil. It's very real. That's all there was to to that.

Carry on.