If you don't realize it is about human rights, not just reproductive rights, you are in trouble.

@glennlab I'm confused, the meme there specifically states that only people with a reproductive organ should be allowed to speak, through implying that everyone without that reproductive organ(uterus) should shut up. I'm referring to the meme above, not the whole situation.

@BounceBack and this meme is about camping

@glennlab Address what part of the question, exactly?...........

It's hard to argue against that. It's like if slaves were allowed to vote, and emancipation was on the ballot, but also some other stuff that they kinda wanted on the other side of the ticket and they didn't see freedom as the clear and obvious choice. While it's true slaves shouldn't have to compromise voting for things they want simply because the establishment is forcing them to vote for something they should freely be given, it doesn't change the fact that there's still a right answer. Women losing control of their reproductive rights was very clearly on the ballot in '16. You had to be a moron not to see it. Almost every single elected Republican for the last 50 years has had a stated or inferred goal of taking away women's reproductive rights, and they've made repeated advancements toward that goal at an exponential rate. So, yes, women could vote as a block, and given their majority, could do anything they wanted. They could take over every single government position if they wanted. They could write any laws, install every judge, do anything they wanted. Hopefully now that they're seeing their rights actually being taken away they'll start voting accordingly... but probably not.

@ChestRockfield After Viet Nam, after Nixon, Reagan, Iran-Contra, Bush, Clinton's impeachment, Iraq, and all the bullshit in-between, I long ago lost any confidence that the American people could be trusted with anything. That W could be re-elected after Abu Graib ???? Ugh. And now Trump. Yeah, I'm numb. The depravity of Christianity is very much at the center of it all.

@racocn8 Uugh, the reelection of Bush hit me real bad. I imagine it would still have been harder on me than if Trump had because I no longer had any faith in the integrity or intelligence of Americans by then.

@glennlab That's irrelevant. Your reasoning is still bad.

@glennlab The argument should simply be that no one (regardless of their sex, gender, or internal organs) should be able to have, or legislatate that another can have, a greater claim to an individual's body than the individual.

@glennlab I regard all hypotheticals which ignore the facts as being diversionary wastes of time.

@ChestRockfield You have completely missed the point of the OP. /@glennlab

@anglophone I understand the sentiment. It's still a fallacious argument. Let's not even start with the fact that women who've had hysterectomies are being told to shut the fuck up, too. So ask yourself, who really needs to shut the fuck up, is it...

• People with a uterus that want to ban abortion.
• People without a uterus that want to ban abortion.
• People with a uterus that want to keep abortion legal.
• People without a uterus that want to keep abortion legal.

Do you notice a trend? It has NOTHING to do with the organs the person has and ONLY to do with their desire to take away rights.
I'm not trying to be an asshole, but Jesus. No wonder the pro-choice crowd is getting their asses kicked all over this fucking country; the members can't even understand basic fundamentals and agree on messaging.

@ChestRockfield You have again demonstrated your failure to understand the OP.

@anglophone Why don't you explain it then...

@ChestRockfield It is a lampooning of every male who thinks he has a right to dictate to any woman what she does with her own pregnancy.

@anglophone Which begs the question: Why wouldn't a woman who thinks she has the right to dictate to any woman what she does with her own pregnancy be just as deserving of a "lampooning"? You're basically committing a Red Herring or false emphasis fallacy by attributing this negative aspect about a group of people to their lack of uterus (or possession of a penis) instead of citing the actual culprit, their desire to control others' bodies, which, obviously, transcends gender, sex, race, religion, or any other category you can name. How are you not getting this??

@ChestRockfield Your continued failure to understand the OP and your attempt to hijack the conversation to your personal issues is pathetic. YOU are the one introducing red herrings and committing other logical fallacies.

Goodbye.

@anglophone Congratulations, you're part of the problem.

@ChestRockfield I have no time for aggressive mental defectives.

Goodbye.

@anglophone I never pegged you for someone that was illogical before. I laid out my argument clearly and you haven't been able to refute it. You just called me names and told me I "didn't get it". You should reexamine your process.

@ChestRockfield ^^^ More aggression from the mental defective.

@anglophone How is that aggression?!?

@ChestRockfield ^^^ Yet more aggression from the mental defective.

@anglophone

@ChestRockfield ^^^ Even yet more aggression from the mental defective.

@anglophone It seems more as a say, that the induvial should decide, rather then a group deciding for all induvials. Even if, as in this case, those induvials are of the same sex.

Abortion would then be a choice of the induvial(s), and not of law.