Predictable. The premise of the OP is questioning exactly that. Slavery is evil because it denies the basic humanity of people. Giving women the right to vote has no moral equivalency to slavery. Women didn't even want the right to vote during the suffrage movement because they didn't want the other responsibilities that came with active participation in government.
Its a pointless argument as it's a theoretical argument anyway. No one is going to take women's right to vote away.
How many women would gladly relinquish the right to vote if their prospect was to head to Vietnam in the 60's? I bet it would have been nearly 90%.
The right to vote shouldn't be based on any class, I agree with you on that. I think it needs to be restricted to people who serve in the military or local police, net tax payers, etc. If you're receiving benefits you shouldn't have a vote. If you're unwilling to die for your country you shouldn't have a say in sending others to die for it. Merit based voting is the way a new government should be molded.
I can agree with you on that, the opportunity to vote should be exclusive to those with the greatest responsibilities in a society, regardless of sex, race or background.
Also you may have misunderstood why I referred to slavery, it was addressing how simply because founders didn't properly address it or put it in constitution doesn't mean it isn't an important issue that should have been addressed. Like the 3/5 clause postponed the issue of slavery.
Also the question you previously responded with didn't address topic of individuality it merely detracted.
Responding with a question like that is quite idiotic... observe!
Is that why we had slavery for the first century of our country?
Predictable. The premise of the OP is questioning exactly that. Slavery is evil because it denies the basic humanity of people. Giving women the right to vote has no moral equivalency to slavery. Women didn't even want the right to vote during the suffrage movement because they didn't want the other responsibilities that came with active participation in government.
Its a pointless argument as it's a theoretical argument anyway. No one is going to take women's right to vote away.
Right about it being pointless argument.
Although I would agree if you want the right to vote you need to have all the responsibilities that come with it.
How many women would gladly relinquish the right to vote if their prospect was to head to Vietnam in the 60's? I bet it would have been nearly 90%.
The right to vote shouldn't be based on any class, I agree with you on that. I think it needs to be restricted to people who serve in the military or local police, net tax payers, etc. If you're receiving benefits you shouldn't have a vote. If you're unwilling to die for your country you shouldn't have a say in sending others to die for it. Merit based voting is the way a new government should be molded.
I can agree with you on that, the opportunity to vote should be exclusive to those with the greatest responsibilities in a society, regardless of sex, race or background.
Also you may have misunderstood why I referred to slavery, it was addressing how simply because founders didn't properly address it or put it in constitution doesn't mean it isn't an important issue that should have been addressed. Like the 3/5 clause postponed the issue of slavery.
Also the question you previously responded with didn't address topic of individuality it merely detracted.