1
88
89

Liberal feminist don't know what they want. (Cartoon) (d14xe7javp064p.cloudfront.net)

submitted by lserbin

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ruskitaco -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

It saddens me that "freedom of the individual" seems to be "freedom of the powerful and devout to control minorities through faith." It seems more equitable and beneficial to all involved if the person whose health is in question gets to make their own decisions for their own body instead of their employer who can and will impose their religious beliefs regardless of the medical consequences.

By the way guys, it is textbook institutionalized sexism when a bunch of old white men get to decide (using faith) what millions of women get to do with their bodies and then being able to use the nation's law enforcement to enact such decisions. Besides, these people seem to have no problem supporting and providing vasectomies and Viagra, seems incredibly hypocritical to me.

[–]Drainedsoul 10 ポイント11 ポイント

Who's deciding what women get to do with their bodies?

[–]pintman 4 ポイント5 ポイント

This is reddit libertarianism. Don't even try.

[–]Trusselvurderingminarchist 7 ポイント8 ポイント

Individual freedom doesn't mean you have the right to make others pay for the decisions you make. Freedom just means absence of coercion. If you thought it meant something else, you're in the wrong sub.

[–]ruskitaco -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

Which is exactly what Hobby Lobby is doing. Making their individual employees pay for contraceptives because of a belief of a political and/or social group. I mean, should the individual's needs and rights take precedence over the state and/or social group? Because in this case every single individual woman's (that's an employee, obviously) access to contraceptives is being blocked because of a collective of people that are imposing their beliefs due to their superior numbers and financial capabilities.

[–]jared1981 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Whoa, whoa, nobody is blocking anyone from purchasing contraceptives. Hobby lobby has always and will continue to pay for 16 different forms of contraception. The ruling was that Hobby Lobby does not have to pay for abortifacients like Plan B and 3 other "morning after" pills.

Nobody is blocking a woman's right to go and buy plan b.

[–]Trusselvurderingminarchist -1 ポイント0 ポイント

This is just silly. The CEOs at Hobby Lobby aren't the ones who want or need contraceptives, so how are they making their employees pay anything? By your logic, an employer is coercive if he doesn't pay for all his employees wants, because this "forces" the employees to pay for it out of their own pockets.

[–]Librehombre 2 ポイント3 ポイント

"old white guys" why not stupid niggers or dumb broads or some other racial stereotypes?

Nobody should be able to force tohers to pay their way no matter their racial or sexual group.

[–]AllWrong74Realist -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Viagra is used to combat ED. This is not the same issue, and doesn't deserve to even be in the conversation. (FWIW, I think Viagra being covered by prescription is ridiculous.)

Vasectomies stop impregnation. All HL had an issue with were the 4 forms that could potentially be abortifacients. They aren't the same thing. Therefore, this is another strawman, and doesn't deserve to be in the conversation.

Lastly, no one is deciding what millions of women get to do with their bodies, except the millions of women. The old white men simply decided that the women would have to pay for it in this instance (which, as I've said previously is the right decision, but for the wrong reason).

All 3 of these points are strawmen.

[–]CaptainKoala 1 ポイント2 ポイント

it is textbook institutionalized sexism when a bunch of old white men get to decide (using faith) what millions of women get to do with their bodies

Ad Hominem fallacy

You're attacking the judges based on nothing but their gender and race. Go after their judgement, not the people who made it.

Arguments don't have penises, people do. Female judges could have easily made the same decision, and in that case your argument would no longer be valid.

If you're argument doesn't work equally against everyone it's probably not a valid argument.

[–]Ara854 1 ポイント2 ポイント

As a disclaimer, I think using "old white guys" is usually reactive and doesn't accomplish much. But, don't you think race and gender influence to some degree what we experience? It's hard not to notice that this ruling was divided by gender.

[–]CaptainKoala -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I completely agree, experience is a huge factor in these matters.

However I think this was taken 1 step too far when it was implied that they weren't qualified to make judgements because they're men. It would be fine to question based on these grounds but not discredit altogether.

[–]Ara854 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Thanks for clarifying. I agree.

[–]matts2 1 ポイント2 ポイント

It is not ad hominem, it is not saying they are wrong because they are men. The argument is that because they are men they came to a particular decision, the claim is that the gender is relevant. The argument may be wrong, it is not fallacious.

What they are doing is saying there is a pattern of decisions that make issues involving women less significant than issues involving men. The decision actually put scare quotes around "reproductive rights", saying that these are just not really important things.

[–]madisoncabbie -1 ポイント0 ポイント

The argument though, is valid because the three female justices didn't make the same decision.

[–]CaptainKoala -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Then by your logic, you should refute the judgement in Roe v. Wade because it was reached by nine men (7-2).

What business do they have, according to your logic, dictating what happens to a woman's body?

[–]madisoncabbie -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Then by your logic, you should refute the judgement in Roe v. Wade because it was reached by nine men (7-2).

I cannot refute it just because no woman voted. It's a null argument.

What business do they have, according to your logic, dictating what happens to a woman's body?

They are Justices, it's their job. However, they might not have been fully informed. That includes anybody on any issue that inherently doesn't personally affect them.

[–]CaptainKoala 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I cannot refute it just because no woman voted. It's a null argument

Two comments up you defended the post saying the Hobby Lobby ruling was stupid because men were the deciding vote. I bring up an example of exactly the same thing (Roe v. Wade) and suddenly it's okay?

So, what, old white men can make judgements about women as long as you agree with them? Otherwise they're not qualified to do so?

EDIT: Also,

it's a null argument

It's the argument you made

[–]madisoncabbie -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

You are confusing me for someone else. Please read usernames.

[–]CaptainKoala 1 ポイント2 ポイント

My mistake, the replies were so close together I assumed they were the same person.

[–]jeremt22344 0 ポイント1 ポイント

what a fucking load of shit straw man argument, this ruling had zero effect on a woman's right to make decisions about her own body. ZERO. An employer both before and after this decision can not impose their religious beliefs on their employees medically. In fact HIPAA regulations and the professional relationship between you and your doctor make it so your employer doesn't even know your medical decisions, let alone dictate them. I am so tired of hearing this fake argument. The supreme court decision did not even remotely touch such an issue.

[–]winstns 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Your definition of freedom is fairly hilarious.

Let's try this: Hobby lobby is free to offer their employees whatever benefits and compensation they choose.

People are free to choose whether they would like to work for hobby lobby in exchange for those benefits and compensation.

People who become employees are free to use their own means to purchase any legal form of birth control.

What you want isn't freedom - at least admit that.

[–]matts2 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Let's try this: Hobby lobby is free to offer their employees whatever benefits and compensation they choose.

Hobby Lobby is more free than corporations owned by non-religious people.

[–]osheninja2 0 ポイント1 ポイント

See here's the thing. Women can still buy birth control pills. The government not buying them for them / forcing their employer to buy them is different from them not letting women have them. All the "old white men" decided was that Christians aren't going to pay for contraceptive.

[–]TheLateThagSimmonsLeft Libertarian 2 ポイント3 ポイント

The government not buying them for them / forcing their employer to buy them is different from them not letting women have them.

The difference is that that same government is still taxing me to pay for the protection of private property rights and therefore the interests of private businesses.

And, Hobby Lobby was still providing these services before the ACA; on top of the fact that they pay for male reproductive services. Not to mention, one of the bigger issues is that Hobby Lobby was hiding behind "religious freedom" to justify their being excepted from a law that they disagreed with. They're a private business, not a church. Then again, that just highlights more hypocrisies involving government interventionism involving religion too.

It's extremely hypocritical from multiple angles.

While the simple issue of "government shouldn't force private businesses to do anything" is an issue, it is just one small side of a very complex issue that highlights a lot of hypocrisies on all sides.

Basically, everyone is being assholes about this issue while (technically, rightfully) claiming that everyone else is being an asshole.