Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean
Well one, he's not "eliminating women's access to healthcare". He's equating birth control with abortion, which I agree is stupid, but that's a much narrower act than your broad statement implies.
Two, I know it may seem like semantics, but I always have a problem when anyone assumes that x must mean y, even if there is no direct correlation between the two. That's what frequently leads to things like unfounded charges of racism, or sexism, or the majority of stupid "gaffes" made by political candidates, etc. And even in Bush's case, while there are clearly many reasons to dislike him, I think we should still limit our reasons to factual issues rather than assumptions. I'm a big fan of accuracy, and it's simply inaccurate and unfounded to conclude that Bush equating birth control pills with abortion must mean that Bush hates women. But then maybe I'm wrong - can you illustrate the direct connection that would prove the accuracy of your conclusion?
|
i already illustrated my proof. restricting or eliminating women's access to health care = policy that is detrimental specifically to women. it solely discriminates against women, it solely keeps women in a place of poorer health care access than men. you cannot be interested in preserving the rights or welfare of women if this is your idea of fair policy. thus, it is a woman hating policy.
ipso facto.
if bush were to enact a policy that specifically and solely restricted or eliminated african americans' access to health care we wouldn't be having this discussion. but once again we're going to quibble over it because hey, it's just chicks.