Roe v. Wade for Men
-
fleaflicker
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 1947
- Joined: March 13th, 2004, 12:32 am
It is a sexist topic. Like I said, if men were having the babies, men would be able to get abortions whenever and wherever they wanted to, because they are men.
Maybe I was off about the exact same job thing, though I am sure it happens. The average female still makes 75 cents to the average male's dollar, and there is a 'glass ceiling' where many cannot go, such as executive management. There may be a few there, but there are a LOT more that get rejected or passed on for promotions to the really high levels.
And what about the old white guy generalization? Look at the people in the national government. Are there not a disproportionate amount of white men over the age of 50 there? And aren't women seriously underrepresented, considering that they make up 50% (or more) of the population? Or did Washington add about 185 Congress women and 35 women senators when I wasn't looking?
And face it, politicians are rich, and most all of them, in regards to antiabortion laws, will not have to reap what they sow. Most won't even come close. The closest one might come is like I said, paying somebody a lot of money to discreetly give their daughter (or mistress, in some cases) an abortion, or travel to Canada, where they would have little problem getting an abortion. Most poor women, which is the group that would be disproportionately affected by this legislature, would not be able to afford those perks. They would, if desperate enough, resort to backstreet abortions or an old fashioned clothing hanger, both of which could produce deadly results for the mother as well. Or maybe you think she deserves it?
Maybe I was off about the exact same job thing, though I am sure it happens. The average female still makes 75 cents to the average male's dollar, and there is a 'glass ceiling' where many cannot go, such as executive management. There may be a few there, but there are a LOT more that get rejected or passed on for promotions to the really high levels.
And what about the old white guy generalization? Look at the people in the national government. Are there not a disproportionate amount of white men over the age of 50 there? And aren't women seriously underrepresented, considering that they make up 50% (or more) of the population? Or did Washington add about 185 Congress women and 35 women senators when I wasn't looking?
And face it, politicians are rich, and most all of them, in regards to antiabortion laws, will not have to reap what they sow. Most won't even come close. The closest one might come is like I said, paying somebody a lot of money to discreetly give their daughter (or mistress, in some cases) an abortion, or travel to Canada, where they would have little problem getting an abortion. Most poor women, which is the group that would be disproportionately affected by this legislature, would not be able to afford those perks. They would, if desperate enough, resort to backstreet abortions or an old fashioned clothing hanger, both of which could produce deadly results for the mother as well. Or maybe you think she deserves it?
"To give anything less than the best is to sacrifice the gift." -Steve Prefontaine