To recent brouhaha at IOZ.
montag: no, a person oughtn't have dominion over their own mind and body. All of the world's problems that most of us IOZ readers agree upon stem from this insidious concept of ownership, which persists, unchallenged even to so many radicals, in the idea that we control "our" own bodies and minds. Ownership is the attempted control of the fearful mind.
Saurs: what you expressed at 12:24 was as sexist as anything Grandpa ever said about dames belonging in the kitchen. And, to say "barest of feminist theory" is as worthwhile as saying "barest notions of history" or "barest notions of common sense" or "go read the Bible"--it attempts to condense a vast network of conflicting ideas into a single dismissive statement.
Saurs speaks: "[T]heir infantile armchair hypotheticals..."
How kind. For comparison, try, "We had those slow-minded dames in the right place for centuries, but then they got uppity 'cause they wanted to go to the office..."
Saurs, you seem to have a problem with the idea of "men" that makes you froth at the mouth, type rude generalizations, and then treat "abortion" as a trigger issue to characterize anyone who disagrees with you as sexist. Which is ironic, hypocritical, and more importantly, wrong. This one seems to agree with you on abortion policy, but you're making your arguments in conjunction with such poor and incorrect treatment of others that you are exemplifying why conservatives are able to accurately critique the bad behavior and motivations of many abortion-defenders.
AMAnonymous seems similarly guilty of coming up with strawman dialogues. There's an opening there to say, "Here's a question for the rest of the girls who..." But that would be as inappropriate as Saurs' earlier demand of men. Rather, for Saurs and AMAnonymous, the question is, "Why do you want to so viciously insult and draw poor assumptions about those who disagree with you, rather than engaging their ideas directly?"
The answer is that you're spoiling for a fight. You feel mistreated by society at large, and so threatened by corporate media's anti-abortion talking points that, when someone even gives a whisper about "personal responsibility," you're unable to address personal responsibility as a separate topic--instead, you counterattack those same phantoms who've been troubling you previously.
What has happened, there, is that you've allowed the teevee to define for you what personal responsibility is. Why not listen to demize's view, instead? And address THAT view, rather than the teevee conservative view? You might learn; you might grow; you might prove demize wrong and teach him something, rather than exemplifying a talking-points teevee hyperfeminist who can't better explain why abortion is necessary.