Wow, am I really seeing #CurfewForMen trending on Twitter

[Kovoet]

Really?
I used it just last week - There's a shop in Maidenhead, where I get my Ouma, Robertson's spices, TV bars, Tennis biscuits and all the other yummy stuff produced in SA. I know there are decent SA shops in London, but this one is closer and always has fully stocked shelves!

Just ordered Mrs Ball today along with biltong. Snoggy's in Putney absolute awesome stuff. But trying to get Anchovy paste for my toast in the mornings.

[Scuber]

Really? Hypocritical? Which reactions and how have they been hypocritical?

I was referring to how a proposed solution, to a particular gender not feeling safe in public after dark, was to bar the other gender from going outside. As though one gender has more of a right to freedom and taking away freedom from the other gender is justifiable.

The forced vasectomy case was an alternative take on U.S. states imposing laws that make abortions, regardless of the scenario, illegal. Both are an act of taking away freedom of choice ("pro choice movement"), however the vasectomy case sparked mass social media outrage whilst little is being done to tackle the other.

[ik9000]

I was referring to how a proposed solution, to a particular gender not feeling safe in public after dark, was to bar the other gender from going outside. As though one gender has more of a right to freedom and taking away freedom from the other gender is justifiable.

oh sry I thought you were responding to a different comment, that makes more sense.

The forced vasectomy case was an alternative take on U.S. states imposing laws that make abortions, regardless of the scenario, illegal. Both are an act of taking away freedom of choice ("pro choice movement"), however the vasectomy case sparked mass social media outrage whilst little is being done to tackle the other.

It's a bit different comparing vasectomy (preventing conception/life) to abortion (terminating foetuses - i.e. taking life). To just look at it as choice is perhaps skewing their (pro-life) argument: is it right to take the life (i.e. by definition murder) because someone wants the convenience? We don't allow people to take the life of their spouse/grandma/that annoying guy revving his engine every weekend etc for convenience, so why is doing that to unborn babies ok?

The debate then comes down to when does life actually start, and they point to the bible and say "life begins at conception" with some justification to do so (it's not baseless/distorted so far as I understand). Everyone is pro-choice, but we all accept there is a limit to our freedom to choose in certain circumstances. I've always been confused by the pro-choice anger towards pro-life. If they just sat down and worked through the real issue - not wanting to limit choice but agree where life starts it would make things clearer. Equally pro-life don't help themselves when they go all schizo and blanket say no abortion even when there is medical need to preserve mother's life and the "what if she was raped" argument is never going to be a simple thing, certainly not as black and white as some pro-life want to make it, etc.

It is further muddied by court cases where sentences and damages are awarded for accidents inducing miscarriage etc essentially saying in the court ruling the baby was alive and your actions Mr Defendant took that life so here's your punishment... It's like the legal establishment can't even agree within itself, so no wonder the debate rumbles on.