Wouldn't that make her an especially good candidate to talk about it, having seen and lived on both sides? It seems to me that being both subjugated and subjugator is an especially unique and valuable point of view, as she can focus on issues that one or the other has too much experience bias to see.

For the first: while true that it's problematic for some women, the bigger issue there, I believe, is that they don't want private businesses to be *forced* to sell a product they don't wish to sell(of course, this whole issue could be avoided via government-run healthcare, but that's an issue for another day).

For being a parasite: sure. You're not really expanding this in any way by giving that terminology other than appearing to try to use a non-sympathetic term in order to be able to more easily dismiss the death of the "parasite", but any rational person's views won't be tainted by the term used, so I'm fine with it.

THIS is the type argument I was hoping for.

Where are these laws that prevent women from getting contraception, or make it legal for doctors to lie to them? I know for certain that the former hasn't passed since women are still well within their rights to go out and buy virtually any form of contraception they want.

True, sorry, I hail from California so any citation of anything in state law is going to be colored by that. That said, in *many* states, this dichotomy exists.

"Except they're trying to control it even in cases of rape."

Interesting, a comment based on the application of straightforward logic and reasoning gets a C-, while one based on a set of ad hominems gets an A. I wonder if this is biased at all... hmmmmmm

Never said you were.

Reading through the second part, I'm not really seeing how that deals with my comment at all. I'm not supporting any argument made on the part of other people here(or my own for that matter), and certainly not any that fall into the categories he lays out.

For slavery, you're correct. The issue there is that there were always slaves, so nobody saw anything wrong with continuing to have them. Of course, that bolsters my argument, since there was no gradual erosion of rights; said rights just never existed.

Ironically, that comment is actually suggesting that someone should look out for everyone here who *isn't* a white man.

So why bother writing out that comment to begin with? If you're not trying to add to a conversation, or convince anyone, why post the same ad hominems we've all seen a ridiculous number of times before?

"But completely true."

I've noticed this style of argument a lot in discussions like this. If you want to actually have people pay attention to what you're saying and give it any credence, you really need to cut with the ad hominems. You aren't convincing anybody who isn't already on your side by just going straight to claims that what they…

"The erosion of all rights begins with the erosion of one."

"And with the constant media reminders of politicians who seem keen on mandating the ways a woman can be in charge of her own body, fearing a future where similar basic human rights are stripped from women is not wholly outlandish."

"at worst its a minor annoyance."

Oh, I agree. For a tablet/touchscreen device, it seems legitimately useful. The problem I(and I think most people) have is that they're forcing it on devices that don't have touchscreens.

That's only progress if "the new" is an improvement. If you just add stuff that makes no improvement, that isn't progress. Especially when you force people to use that stuff that makes no improvement.