Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I think you are a person of high principal but I am at odds with you all the same.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Applying the murder label to women who choose to have abortions (for any number of reasons) is inherently dodgy.

No, it's just being honest. If it wasn't livig, killing would be unneccesary. I'm willing to risk hurt feelings to admit that.

Not shooting the messanger. Just wondering how sexual equality is to be achived when men and women are inherently sexually unequal due to biology and physiology. Is the premise a platitude or a legitimate goal?

i don't think it's referring to to the body, just equalities in life?

You have to understand that VW is looking at this from the perspective of one who adheres to a religious view that is at odds with the notion that women can have postive life goals that don't involve reproduction and marriage.

Actually, I'm not. That's another projection and stereotype on your part. You need to work on that.

I was wondering about that bit - how can you equalize biological differences? Wouldn't that imply that one biology is somehow inferior to begin with?

Socially assigned gender roles are not biology.

Ding! Ding ! Ding! Feminism leftist style also assumes women's biology to be inferior and, terefore, in need of regularizing to men, who are the measure of normal.

Well men ARE the measure of normal - given that in our traditionally patriarchal society they are the ones who held and exercised power. But that dominance is entirely social, it doesn't really have much to do with women's biology itself being inferior.

No argument here, but women, even feminists, buy into that paradigm to the extent that women's ability to reproduce is viewed as an impediment to their being wholely fulfilled. Pregnancy is an impediment to equality with men, that makes biology the enemy.

Sure - in a society where the rules of its construction were written by men.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Sure - in a society where the rules of its construction were written by men.

Convert to Islam, problem solved.

[Peikko 1,575]

I think you are a person of high principal but I am at odds with you all the same.

Not more of those 'love me, love my doll' figures? They are really very spooky.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure - in a society where the rules of its construction were written by men.

Convert to Islam, problem solved.

Well the contrast would certainly be a lot starker...

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Murder is a 'social contstruct', death isn't. Which 'rights' do other animals have? I wasn't aware they had any. Last I heard one could kill and eat all the animals one liked, so long as one didn't do so with unusual cruelty. Of course, you had better keep quiet if you shoot something on the endangered species list, but then that's not because the individual animal has any rights. How spurious can your arguments get VW?

Murder isn't a social construct, but the consequences of murder are.

My arguments aren't spurious, but that's rich coming from someone who won't admit abortion is murder and is doing whatever semantic slight of hand serves you to prevent that o so obvious fact.

[rebeccajo 14]

I think you are a person of high principal but I am at odds with you all the same.

Not more of those 'love me, love my doll' figures? They are really very spooky.

I think it's just AJ's way of showing us how much he loves a virtual mud-wrestling match.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I think you are a person of high principal but I am at odds with you all the same.

Not more of those 'love me, love my doll' figures? They are really very spooky.

I think it's just AJ's way of showing us how much he loves a virtual mud-wrestling match.

Which of those two do ya reckon PH looks like?

Edited September 16, 2008 by A.J.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Sure - in a society where the rules of its construction were written by men.

Convert to Islam, problem solved.

Catholicism will do, too.

Which society doesn't have social norms constructed by men?

[Peikko 1,575]

My religion allows abortion. How does that comport with your assumptions regarding my religiousity? I can be pro-choice, but not believe that abortion would serve my society well. I'm not an abolutist, nor am I in denial about how causing death of a defenseless living thing is murder. A fetus is non-viable outside of the womb, but viable inside the womb. To tearit from the womb in order to terminate the pregnancy is murder, no doubt. I don't know why that is such a tough acknowledgment for pro-choice people to make. Some would grant more rights to an animal than to a fetus.

I've raised a baby. Lots of ladies here have. (Guys too - not to leave them out).

Here's just something I've always wondered whenever the discussion comes up about viability of the fetus.

As I recall (from having raised an infant) a newborn child is pretty much non-viable AFTER birth. I mean - they can't do anything for themselves. Sure they breathe, see, cry, fart, poop. But they can't feed themselves. They can't defend themselves. They can't do anything that Mother Nature (or God or whatever or whomever you believe) gives to us as a means of being 'viable'.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I've always felt there's a reason that all creatures of the earth are able to reproduce with such voracity. Because youngsters (of all species) are NON VIABLE for quite some time - not just while in the womb or pouch or egg, but afterwards also.

Non viable as in it would simply die outside the womb no intervention of any kind could save it. There isn't even a machine that can mimic the womb until very late in pregnancy. Yes, babies are vulnerable but not non viable.

[rebeccajo 14]

I think you are a person of high principal but I am at odds with you all the same.

Not more of those 'love me, love my doll' figures? They are really very spooky.

I think it's just AJ's way of showing us how much he loves a virtual mud-wrestling match.

Which of those two do ya reckon PH looks like?

Now how the hell should I know.

It's your fantasy, not mine.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Which society doesn't have social norms constructed by men?

[Peikko 1,575]

Murder is a 'social contstruct', death isn't. Which 'rights' do other animals have? I wasn't aware they had any. Last I heard one could kill and eat all the animals one liked, so long as one didn't do so with unusual cruelty. Of course, you had better keep quiet if you shoot something on the endangered species list, but then that's not because the individual animal has any rights. How spurious can your arguments get VW?

Murder isn't a social construct, but the consequences of murder are.

My arguments aren't spurious, but that's rich coming from someone who won't admit abortion is murder and is doing whatever semantic slight of hand serves you to prevent that o so obvious fact.

Are you serious? You are aren't you? Murder is unlawful killing, why is that hard for you to understand? Murder isn't simply a description of death that is distasteful in some way.

[rebeccajo 14]

My religion allows abortion. How does that comport with your assumptions regarding my religiousity? I can be pro-choice, but not believe that abortion would serve my society well. I'm not an abolutist, nor am I in denial about how causing death of a defenseless living thing is murder. A fetus is non-viable outside of the womb, but viable inside the womb. To tearit from the womb in order to terminate the pregnancy is murder, no doubt. I don't know why that is such a tough acknowledgment for pro-choice people to make. Some would grant more rights to an animal than to a fetus.

I've raised a baby. Lots of ladies here have. (Guys too - not to leave them out).

Here's just something I've always wondered whenever the discussion comes up about viability of the fetus.

As I recall (from having raised an infant) a newborn child is pretty much non-viable AFTER birth. I mean - they can't do anything for themselves. Sure they breathe, see, cry, fart, poop. But they can't feed themselves. They can't defend themselves. They can't do anything that Mother Nature (or God or whatever or whomever you believe) gives to us as a means of being 'viable'.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I've always felt there's a reason that all creatures of the earth are able to reproduce with such voracity. Because youngsters (of all species) are NON VIABLE for quite some time - not just while in the womb or pouch or egg, but afterwards also.

Non viable as in it would simply die outside the womb no intervention of any kind could save it. There isn't even a machine that can mimic the womb until very late in pregnancy. Yes, babies are vulnerable but not non viable.

I know I went way around the bend with that one.

It's just my way of saying that I don't think all babies were ever MEANT to survive.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Murder is a 'social contstruct', death isn't. Which 'rights' do other animals have? I wasn't aware they had any. Last I heard one could kill and eat all the animals one liked, so long as one didn't do so with unusual cruelty. Of course, you had better keep quiet if you shoot something on the endangered species list, but then that's not because the individual animal has any rights. How spurious can your arguments get VW?

Murder isn't a social construct, but the consequences of murder are.

My arguments aren't spurious, but that's rich coming from someone who won't admit abortion is murder and is doing whatever semantic slight of hand serves you to prevent that o so obvious fact.

Of course it is - you can kill in any number of contexts without it being "murder".

Human beings kill in war.

Human beings execute other human beings for crimes.

Ventilators are turned off in hospitals.