Feminism

[Flying Pig]

We do make distinctions between killing in certain circumstances, though - for example, we don't condemn Simon Yates for cutting Joe Simpson loose to save his own life rather than letting them both die. So it's not obvious that there should be no distinction here: it does, at least, need to be argued out.

 

[luiz]

We do make distinctions between killing in certain circumstances, though - for example, we don't condemn Simon Yates for cutting Joe Simpson loose to save his own life rather than letting them both die. So it's not obvious that there should be no distinction here: it does, at least, need to be argued out.

I agree, I think it's entirely possible to convincingly argue against abortion in general while still maintaining it should be legal in case of rape.

I'm just pointing out that some pro-life groups do indeed take their opposition to the full logical conclusion: all abortion should be banned, period.

 

[Oruc]

Abortion can be a wrongness, and forcing raped women to bear young resulting from sexual violence can be a greater wrongness. We can make meaningful choices between bad options without degenerating into puddles "oh woe, I can't think for the horror."

Only horrible people compromise.

 

[Farm Boy]

No, it can't. If abortion is murder then you don't kill person B because person A was raped.

Yes, it really can. We kill people, or let people die, for a wide variety of reasons. Welcome to this world. Welcome to human society. We can, and do, make the judgement that disallowing abortions in case of rape empowers naked violence and reduces in a fundamental way the role of a woman to a breeding chattel. We can make the moral distinction that half our population is worth enough to allow qualified killings if it lifts us above that.

This reveals another aspect of the pro-life sides interest in regulating action. They "forgive" a woman if her sexual activity was involuntary.

Again, no.

Only horrible people compromise.

The world is a horrible place, frequently enough. Insisting on purity might lead one away from being messily horrible and more simply to being a purely acting malefactor.

 

[Senethro]

I agree, I think it's entirely possible to convincingly argue against abortion in general while still maintaining it should be legal in case of rape.

Do so then.

The same physical and mental consequences can arise from pregnancy caused by voluntary sex as that of rape. Arguments you make for an exception for rape are all pro-choice arguments.

Addiitionally, who decides what is rape? The woman? Her doctor? A court conviction? (court conviction in a sufficiently short timeframe? Small chance of that.)

I'm just pointing out that some pro-life groups do indeed take their opposition to the full logical conclusion: all abortion should be banned, period.

As someone said on the previous page, morally ironclad and unfair to women.

Yes, it really can. We kill people, or let people die, for a wide variety of reasons. Welcome to this world. Welcome to human society. We can, and do, make the judgement that disallowing abortions in case of rape empowers naked violence and reduces in a fundamental way the role of a woman to a breeding chattel. We can make the moral distinction that half our population is worth enough to allow qualified killings if it lifts them above that.

You speak of breeding chattel while arguing for restrictions on a woman regulating her own reproduction.

As above, any arguments for exceptions are pro-choice arguments.

 

[Tahuti]

Let's not threadjack, but ultimately all the debate about abortion centers on whether or not the fetus is a human life with rights.

Not necessarily. Abortion may or may not be justified on societal grounds alone (i.e. we are overcrowded or underpopulated).

 

[Farm Boy]

You speak of breeding chattel while arguing for restrictions on a woman regulating her own reproduction.

You are correct, I damned well do. A chattel has no agency in its, his, or her actions. A victim of sexual violence has no agency in the act that creates a pregnancy. To then enforce bearing of live young from such a situation says, at a base level, that women have less worth as people than they do as reproductive tracts. That the uterus trumps the brain, agency is besides the point. That situation does not hold up when you involve voluntary breeding that results in... breeding. You can make arguments if somebody is deprived of education, and I would find those well founded. But barring somebody so uneducated that they don't realize sex is how babies are made, and those who had no choice in engaging in sex, pregnancy is the result of a voluntary choice. I also support men being responsible for child support. That too, was a choice on his part.

As above, any arguments for exceptions are pro-choice arguments.

So what? The world isn't black and white. I've long ago given up on pretending that it is.

 

[Zack]

Well, I think it's pretty immoral to not donate blood when you are capable and healthy. Though the increased gain/loss of being hooked to a violinist is paired with the increased investment required. Hence my not being sure.

What about a drummer?

 

[Senethro]

To then enforce bearing of live young from such a situation says, at a base level, that women have less worth as people than they do as reproductive tracts. That the uterus trumps the brain, agency is besides the point.

Are you even reading what you're writing here?

That situation does not hold up when you involve voluntary breeding that results in... breeding. You can make arguments if somebody is deprived of education, and I would find those well founded. But barring somebody so uneducated that they don't realize sex is how babies are made, and those who had no choice in engaging in sex, pregnancy is the result of a voluntary choice. I also support men being responsible for child support. That too, was a choice on his part.

This is what I was saying earlier. You're not remotely interested in the personhood of the embryo when it is inconvenient. And as I pointed out you deprive women who engage in voluntary sex of agency while permitting it to women who become pregnant through an involuntary act.

So what? The world isn't black and white. I've long ago given up on pretending that it is.

So you're making arguments that better support the pro-choice position while maintaining your pro-life position. This is silly.

In fact your whole post reads as "pro life for consensual sex, pro-choice otherwise" which undermines any supposed sanctity of life and just seems to place the emphasis on whether the woman obeyed what you think are correct sexual norms.

 

[Oruc]

The world is a horrible place, frequently enough. Insisting on purity might lead one away from being messily horrible and more simply to being a purely acting malefactor.

People did talk about compromise being a good thing and wanting to see more of it. But look at crezth and senethro to them compromise is something other people do, the liberals and the left don't compromise.

 

[Senethro]

People did talk about compromise being a good thing and wanting to see more of it. But look at crezth and senethro to them compromise is something other people do, the liberals and the left don't compromise.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Compromise is pretty sweet and more compatible with the pro-choice position than the pro-life one. After all, you're still permitted to be pro-life for yourself in a pro-choice society. Much more compromising than vice versa.

 

[Farm Boy]

Are you even reading what you're writing here?

Yes. Though while I'm convinced you are reading it, I'm not convinced you've given it any meaningful thought.

In fact your whole post reads as "pro life for consensual sex, pro-choice otherwise" which undermines any supposed sanctity of life and just seems to place the emphasis on whether the woman obeyed what you think are correct sexual norms.

I have no idea what you even think correct sexual norms are. Or what you think that I think they are. They're neither here, nor there, except that you keep trying to awkwardly put them in(that's what she said, zing!). What norm could even be applying here, whether or not consent should be required for sex? Seriously.

The fact that I am willing to accept as cost the death of some innocent human life to avoid condemning half of the human race to non consensual reproductive servitude should not be terribly shocking. I also don't support disbanding the military or disarming law enforcement and those things do not render my interpretation of life as not sacred.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Compromise is pretty sweet and more compatible with the pro-choice position than the pro-life one.

This seems odd, coming from you, given the current exchange we are having.

 

[Oruc]

Please don't put words in my mouth. Compromise is pretty sweet and more compatible with the pro-choice position than the pro-life one. After all, you're still permitted to be pro-life for yourself in a pro-choice society. Much more compromising than vice versa.

I wasn't talking to you.
But that is not a compromise, that is getting exactly what you wanted, society bent exactly to your wishes.

 

[luiz]

Do so then.

The same physical and mental consequences can arise from pregnancy caused by voluntary sex as that of rape. Arguments you make for an exception for rape are all pro-choice arguments.

Addiitionally, who decides what is rape? The woman? Her doctor? A court conviction? (court conviction in a sufficiently short timeframe? Small chance of that.)

The argument goes something like this:

-A fetus has rights and killing it is wrong;
-If you engage in consensual sex you know there is a risk it may result in pregnancy. This risk can be virtually eliminated with proper precaution, but it will always be there. Having sex is accepting this risk (whether it is big or almost non-existent depends on how careful the partners are). Both partners must deal with the consequences of their voluntary actions and the risks they took; there is no justification for trumping the fetus's rights.
-In case of rape there was no choice involved, and as such the woman cannot be forced to "deal with the consequences" of her acts. While the abortion is still regarded as regrettable, and may even be discouraged, ultimately the mother cannot be forced to host a fetus that is there through no action of her own.

Agree or disagree, it's not logically incoherent.

As someone said on the previous page, morally ironclad and unfair to women.

Yep, but in their view protecting life trumps "unfairness". Life is always unfair anyway.

 

[Senethro]

-In case of rape there was no choice involved, and as such the woman cannot be forced to "deal with the consequences" of her acts. While the abortion is still regarded as regrettable, and may even be discouraged, ultimately the mother cannot be forced to host a fetus that is there through no action of her own.

Agree or disagree, it's not logically incoherent.

It is logically incoherent with the position of protecting life, but logically coherent with the punishment of consensual sex.

 

[Senethro]

I wasn't talking to you.
But that is not a compromise, that is getting exactly what you wanted, society bent exactly to your wishes.

You posted my name, you're talking to me.

Also you don't seem to understand what compromise is.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It is logically incoherent with the position of protecting life, but logically coherent with the punishment of consensual sex.

It's not the punishment of consensual sex, but rather the recognition that it was a choice and people are usually held accountable for the consequences of their choices. Much less so when it's something forced upon them.

luiz is clearly pro-life (or arguing that point of view at any rate), but not insisting that it trumps everything.

It's quite logically consistent to weight up various factors and support different actions in different circumstances.

 

[Oruc]

You posted my name, you're talking to me.

Also you don't seem to understand what compromise is.

Nope, as you can see from my last post I didn't even mention your name, yet I was talking to you in that post. In the previous post I was talking about you, I was talking about you. About.

Are you not English? Although saying that non-natives generally have a better understanding of the rules then native speakers. Certainly better then my own.

Also you don't seem to understand what compromise is.

I would say the same about you, how is it compromise if you've gotten everything you've wanted on this issue. It's as I said earlier your kind don't compromise.

 

[Senethro]

Nope, as you can see from my last post I didn't even mention your name, yet I was talking to you in that post. In the previous post I was talking about you, I was talking about you. About.

Talking about me by name in a public place where I am present and even nearby is very nearly the same as addressing me directly. Perhaps you should have made your comment on a private channel of communication?

I would say the same about you, how is it compromise if you've gotten everything you've wanted on this issue. It's I said earlier your kind don't compromise.

If you don't prevent me from acting as I wish and I don't prevent you from acting as you wish, thats a pretty good compromise. Enacting pro-life legislation infringes on the actions of pro-choice people, but the reverse situation does not.

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

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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

It's obviously not a very good compromise if it means that some people can legally behave in a way that others find to be morally abhorrent and think shouldn't be allowed. Getting everything you want, while the other side gets no hint of what they want, isn't compromise at all.