Feminism

[Senethro]

I am not simply pro-choice, full stop (and have here inclined toward certain dimensions of what you would regard as the pro-life position), because, in addition to wanting abortion to be safe and legal, I would like it to be as rare as it can possibly be. Encouraging a mode of thinking about sex in which sexually active adults realize that their actions could start a biochemical process leading to human life (if you must have it phrased that way) and are responsible about doing so only if they are prepared to nurture that life seems to me a step toward increasing the rarity of abortion, and so seems to me a mindset worth arguing for.

I rather suspect better sex education, a more open attitude and easy/cheap provision of the contraceptive technologies available would be more successful.

When you regard the thought that we might as a culture hold people accountable in this way as being tantamount to punishing them, that line of thinking seems to me and others here as bespeaking a kind of cavalier, consequences-be-damned kind of thinking. It's that that some of us would like to resist.

Or we could just use the technologies available.

 

[Rashiminos]

With pro-choice legislation everyone gets to act as they want. A very good compromise.

Everyone* - not including the unborn.

It is the punishment of consensual sex because the permission to consider the welfare of the woman ahead of the embryo shouldn't depend on whether the man was committing a crime.

As opposed to considering the welfare of the woman over the embryo as it suits her whims. There is also a lack of a gradient between being absolutely pro-life and entirely pro-choice in Senethro's greyless brain.

It is sexist because it is putting two individuals concerns ahead of the woman's and logically screwy because one rape doesn't justify a further murder.

'2 out of 3? Not sufficient.'
'The fetus's (future) concerns of livelihood is (or will be) less important than a woman's time and resources.'

It isn't the same as directly addressing you, it's talking about you to someone else, you just chose to butt in, be rude and throw a tizzy. This has happened before and it will happen again and their is nothing you can do about it.

Talking about a third person in a forum post will probably be seen as an invitation for that person to comment, if that situation is seen favorably.

 

[Senethro]

Everyone* - not including the unborn.

{reserved in case Senethro continues to put words in people's mouths}

{reserved}

I think those are some great quotes worthy of being dipped in tree sap or something and preserved in amber.

 

[Rashiminos]

I think those are some great quotes worthy of being dipped in tree sap or something and preserved in amber.

Well as long as you keep saying things you mean and call upon others to do likewise, that sounds fine by me.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I rather suspect better sex education, a more open attitude and easy/cheap provision of the contraceptive technologies available would be more successful.



Or we could just use the technologies available.

Oh yes I'm all for sex ed and easy availability of contraception. But also the attitude I've been arguing for.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh yes I'm all for sex ed and easy availability of contraception. But also the attitude I've been arguing for.

Indeed.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I wasn't using it as an insult. I was trying to be accommodating, more inclusive. Online doesn't have the social rules real life does, we even have a rule on this forum that people are fair game if they are in the thread itself. But if they aren't in you can't mention them, bad form.

Moderator Action: Certainly talking smack about those not present is frowned upon. People posting are not fair game. Their arguments are. The goal is civil discussion and not bare-fisted aggression against others. So please go after their arguments forcefully, but leave them unscathed. Thanks.

 

[Crezth]

Yeah. As I said, it's not about the rape, it's about the lack of choice in the part of the woman. Anyway, it's been explained multiple times now and if you still don't get it, that's your choice. And I'm pretty sure it is a choice.

Yes, but what exactly does the woman's choice or not have to do with whether or not it's an innocent human life being snuffed out in the act of abortion?

 

[Senethro]

Sup.

Ok, so, you're dying. You are declared braindead. Before the doctors can whip out all your organs and use them they still need your written consent (your local law may vary).

Other people can be dying but they still need your express permission to use your cadaver for transplants. Its very respectful like that.

And in this way we can see that pro-lifers are arguing that a woman should have less control over what her body gets used for than we currently grant to a corpse.

 

[useless]

As we all know a fetuses rights override's a womans, this isn't at all disturbing or inherently misogynistic, reducing an entire gender's reproductive rights to cater to an entity that isn't even born yet.

It's almost as if they believe women primarily exist to give birth, screw their individual agency

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yes, but what exactly does the woman's choice or not have to do with whether or not it's an innocent human life being snuffed out in the act of abortion?

I've already explained it about 5 times in previous posts.

IT'S A WEIGHING UP OF NEGATIVES AND CHOOSING THE LEAST WORST OPTION.

The woman making a conscious decision, knowing the risks, means that there is less justification for excusing her the consequences than if she had no choice. This alters the weighting of considering her hardship and the impact on her life. That altered weighting can affect the decision "society" chooses. It's really not hard to understand.

It's only hard to understand if you're insisting (or insisting that I'm insisting) that the snuffing out of the fetus's life is the ultimate unsanctionable evil. It's perfectly possible to see it as bad and undesirable, but not necessarily the worst thing in the universe ever.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sup.

Ok, so, you're dying. You are declared braindead. Before the doctors can whip out all your organs and use them they still need your written consent (your local law may vary).

Other people can be dying but they still need your express permission to use your cadaver for transplants. Its very respectful like that.

And in this way we can see that pro-lifers are arguing that a woman should have less control over what her body gets used for than we currently grant to a corpse.

Corpses have no rights. The dead have no rights. The braindead have delegated rights up until physical death through power of attorney. You've swung wide, bat again.

 

[Crezth]

I've already explained it about 5 times in previous posts.

IT'S A WEIGHING UP OF NEGATIVES AND CHOOSING THE LEAST WORST OPTION.

I'm sorry, but this does not qualify as a rigorous ethical epistemology. Pick the "least worst option?" Well, what defines good or bad here in the first place? Why exactly is murder wrong if it's sometimes right?

I don't expect you to have a good answer because ethics is kind of like an open question after thousands of years of study. But if anything that should illuminate why exactly I don't truck with the "murder is wrong except when something is wronger" argument.

 

[Senethro]

Corpses have no rights. The dead have no rights. The braindead have delegated rights up until physical death through power of attorney. You've swung wide, bat again.

Okay. Ooooookay. So you're saying the corpse doesn't actually have rights, we're just respecting the wishes of the deceased person. Thats fair.

And in this way we can see that pro-lifers are arguing that a woman should have less control over what her body gets used for than we currently grant to a person.

 

[Farm Boy]

Okay. Ooooookay. So you're saying the corpse doesn't actually have rights, we're just respecting the wishes of the deceased person. Thats fair.

And in this way we can see that pro-lifers are arguing that a woman should have less control over what her body gets used for than we currently grant to a person.

Thank you. The second paragraph is untrue. Which is the very point you've been picking at for several pages now. I've been arguing that people very much deserve rights and control over their bodies. So much so that, like your "you can't use my organs" analogy, it is better on the macro level that we let some lives die in order to maintain that control, that integrity. To which it seems like the primary response has been to fill in the blanks with an argument you want to disagree with.

 

[Senethro]

it is better on the macro level that we let some lives die in order to maintain that control, that integrity.

This is not a pro-life position. Even Texas only puts people to death who are convicted of capital murder and go through an appeals process.

Are you worse than Texas?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm sorry, but this does not qualify as a rigorous ethical epistemology. Pick the "least worst option?" Well, what defines good or bad here in the first place? Why exactly is murder wrong if it's sometimes right?

I don't expect you to have a good answer because ethics is kind of like an open question after thousands of years of study. But if anything that should illuminate why exactly I don't truck with the "murder is wrong except when something is wronger" argument.

It doesn't matter what you think or what I think, the only point is that it's possible for someone to grade various different things at different levels of "badness" and for them to let that inform their decisions. We all do it all the time about different things. You don't have to agree with someone about how they're balancing things up, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for you to even comprehend the concept of how their thoughts are working.

And again, you said murder. I've never said anything about murder.

 

[Farm Boy]

This is not a pro-life position. Even Texas only puts people to death who are convicted of capital murder and go through an appeals process.

Are you worse than Texas?

Troll better man. That's kinda mealy.

 

[Senethro]

It doesn't matter what you think or what I think, the only point is that it's possible for someone to grade various different things at different levels of "badness" and for them to let that inform their decisions. We all do it all the time about different things. You don't have to agree with someone about how they're balancing things up, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for you to even comprehend the concept of how their thoughts are working.

And again, you said murder. I've never said anything about murder.

Can you stop this devils advocating where you keep insisting its possible to hold a position and then retreating from the position when its convenient to do so?

 

[Senethro]

Troll better man. That's kinda mealy.

Hey, you're the one saying its sometimes ok to put innocents to death. If that position isn't so outrageous as to be a troll, I don't know what is.

Anyway, heres another issue.

At what point in fetal development of a child conceived by rape does abortion stop being permissible? And why? When does personhood increase such that it overtakes autonomy again?