Bridal books, engagement rings, and other wicked little things
or, "I can't think of a snappy yet apropos title"
Yeah, so I wanted to post a comment in response to a comment posted in response to this blog post,* but for some highly irksome reason, my post would not go through--that is, it seemed to, but then it didn't show up. After trying this three times, I was forced to give up. And I was annoyed, because I was responding to a blatantly wrong line of reasoning that I've seen a lot lately vis-à-vis the possibility of the supreme court overturning Roe v. Wade. So I'm going to post this here, where the guy who made the comment will never, ever see it. Score?
In response to this rubbish...:
What happens if Roe gets overturned?
1) Utah and Alabama ban abortion completely.
2) Lots of southern and western states, and a few midwestern states, ban third-trimester abortions and require parental
consent for minors.
3) Nothing changes in California or Nevada, or anywhere in the Northeast.
This is where I differ from almost everyone in both parties. I just don't care whether Roe gets overturned, since 95% of people who get abortions today will still be able to without Roe. Other issues here will have a far greater affect on
people than the totally symbolic fight over Roe. Get real, people.
...I have this to say:
With all due respect, fuck that noise. Firstly, you're making some awfully damned big assumptions about what states might or might not do, miminizing potential impacts so as to improve your case. Secondly, and more importantly, "it doesn't matter because it will only hurt poor women in some states" is the biggest load of empathically-stunted bullshit I've ever seen--and mad undemocratic as well. You don't get to decree that certain groups of citizens are less deserving of basic rights than others, no matter how small the group in question may or may not be. Would slavery be okay if it was only targetted at the economically disadvantaged in a few states? If not, then what's the difference here? Okay, maybe slavery seems hyperbolic: how about anti-miscegination laws? Would you be cool with those, under the circumstances? I suspect not, and the reason for this is clear: consciously or not, you are applying a lesser value than you would to other issues to women's right to control their own bodies. Not cool.
Goddammit, some people, I ask you.
*Warning: this level of intense intertexuality should not be attempted by children, pregnant women, or people with pre-existing heart conditions.
Yeah, so I wanted to post a comment in response to a comment posted in response to this blog post,* but for some highly irksome reason, my post would not go through--that is, it seemed to, but then it didn't show up. After trying this three times, I was forced to give up. And I was annoyed, because I was responding to a blatantly wrong line of reasoning that I've seen a lot lately vis-à-vis the possibility of the supreme court overturning Roe v. Wade. So I'm going to post this here, where the guy who made the comment will never, ever see it. Score?
In response to this rubbish...:
What happens if Roe gets overturned?
1) Utah and Alabama ban abortion completely.
2) Lots of southern and western states, and a few midwestern states, ban third-trimester abortions and require parental
consent for minors.
3) Nothing changes in California or Nevada, or anywhere in the Northeast.
This is where I differ from almost everyone in both parties. I just don't care whether Roe gets overturned, since 95% of people who get abortions today will still be able to without Roe. Other issues here will have a far greater affect on
people than the totally symbolic fight over Roe. Get real, people.
...I have this to say:
With all due respect, fuck that noise. Firstly, you're making some awfully damned big assumptions about what states might or might not do, miminizing potential impacts so as to improve your case. Secondly, and more importantly, "it doesn't matter because it will only hurt poor women in some states" is the biggest load of empathically-stunted bullshit I've ever seen--and mad undemocratic as well. You don't get to decree that certain groups of citizens are less deserving of basic rights than others, no matter how small the group in question may or may not be. Would slavery be okay if it was only targetted at the economically disadvantaged in a few states? If not, then what's the difference here? Okay, maybe slavery seems hyperbolic: how about anti-miscegination laws? Would you be cool with those, under the circumstances? I suspect not, and the reason for this is clear: consciously or not, you are applying a lesser value than you would to other issues to women's right to control their own bodies. Not cool.
Goddammit, some people, I ask you.
*Warning: this level of intense intertexuality should not be attempted by children, pregnant women, or people with pre-existing heart conditions.
posted by GeoX, one of the GeoX boys. at 10:02 AM
I was looking for something elegant and classy at a good price. This dress is exactly that. I was super excited to try it on when I did it was stunning, the fit was perfect.