The US state where women 'could be fired' for using contraception

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Kittamaru, Jun 29, 2017.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,387
    By whom?
    At any rate, the OP is verified - in Missouri one could, potentially at least and with many public advocates of making it reality, fire a woman (and evict her from rented premises, etc) for using contraception.
    You didn't. Your links don't provide any take on the State bill.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,821
    Which has what to do with denying housing to women who use contraception?

    And if the building I owned and was renting to "some Muslims" could be designated as a place of worship - such as a commercial space - and they had the required license to do so, yeah I'd be okay with that. Why wouldn't I be?

    Again though, what does that have to do with policing women's bodies about things like contraception or abortions? If you owned a house that you were renting, would it be your business if the woman who rented it from you used contraception? Would you feel obliged to ask her if she uses the pill, has an IUD, the cup or a condom? Would it be any of your business? How would you feel if your daughter was applying to rent a house or applied for a job, and she was asked those questions and then denied the right of employment or rental property if she said yes she used contraception?

    What does this have to do with women using contraception and being denied the right to rent a house or be employed if they use contraception?

    What the hell does any of this have to do with denying women the right to rent a property if she's on the pill or uses a condom?

    I'm pretty sure most thinking individuals would declare that denying women the right to rent a property if she uses any form of contraception is up there with something that one should not be allowed to do.

    How exactly are any person's rights "abrogated" if a woman uses a contraceptive or has had an abortion?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,380
    ^^^
    Yes. Of course. Other than possibly someone living alone in the wilderness, 1 person or group's rights are necessarily limited by the rights of others. No 1 has the right to do whatever they want, regardless of motives, with no concern for the rights of people they affect. There cannot be complete freedom for 1 person or group without others having very little or no rights.
    Part of the problem is many think everyone's rights should be decided by what that individual believes. "We all have the rights to do what I think we should have the rights to do & that is all there is to it." And many of those people contradict each other.
    Part of the problem is apathy & sometimes even hate. It is a crying shame that we must have laws to make hateful and/or apathetic selfish people treat others fairly.

    <>
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    sculptor is a strange one.
     
  8. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,936
    You must live a terribly angry life then, feeling your "rights" are being abrogated... after all, a woman has the right to say NO to your wish to mate with her, a person has the right to life, meaning you don't have the right to drive drunk or to kill them for upsetting you.

    How terribly irritating it must be for you, sculptor, to know the world DOES NOT, in fact, revolve around you...
     
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,436
    The existentialist part of me is fairly convinced that you are wrong here.
     
  10. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,936
    Then not only are you a terrible person and a troll, you are an ignorant one at that, and SciForums is worse off for having to read your posts.

    Seriously, I can only imagine the kind of twisted, sick, and deranged person it would take to literally believe they are so superior to someone else as to have the RIGHT to discriminate against them out of hand. I also imagine such a person would not have nearly such bravado in face to face conversations, and so takes out his frustrations online behind the veil of anonymity the Internet provides.

    In a word - pathetic. Utterly and completely pathetic.
     
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,436
    lol

    (thinking of one of the stories about Conchobar mac Nessa)
    (and how he turned a one year reign into a lifetime of rule)
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2017

Share This Page