Feminism

[Farm Boy]

This is a poor analogy. It would be closer if you forced your child to bring up another child for playing socially, and did nothing if they stayed at home.

You talk about sex having consequences and keep going on about responsibility but that stopped being true in the 1960s. Now the consequences are solely the ones you are able to enforce.

We're getting close now. You're very nearly ready to admit that its about punishment.

Willfully blind, you are. That's fine. If it hurts to think about, most people won't.

 

[Senethro]

Well a) This isn't even my opinion, I'm about as pro-life as you can get, bordering on pro-death actually, I'm simply explaining the argument that is being made.

b) If it seems that way to you then you're obviously projecting your own prejudices rather than reading the words and what they're saying.

It's got nothing to do with sex, or rape or crime. It's a much more general premise - one is beholden to the consequences of an informed, deliberate action to a much greater extent than one is beholden to the consequences of an event that is forced upon them. It's a pretty universal concept that is at the heart of many laws and social mores, and it's perfectly simple to see how it applies to abortion when the pregnancy in question stems from either an informed choice or a non-consensual act.

Yeah, sure, thats all very general and unobjectionable, but how does the non-consensual act justify murder of a third party? Thats been handwaved away a few times now.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yeah, sure, thats all very general and unobjectionable, but how does the non-consensual act justify murder of a third party? Thats been handwaved away a few times now.

By weighing the two "bad things" against each other. The destruction of a life, vs the forcing of the responsibility for that life on an unwilling and unconsenting person.

In the other case you're weighing the destruction of a life against the forcing of the responsibility for that life onto a person who is already responsible, or at least complicit, in its creation.

Like I say, this isn't how I see things, but even I can see how the scales balance differently in the two cases. It depends what weights you assign to the three things, but it's perfectly understandable that for some people, the tipping point falls different ways for the two cases.

 

[Perfection]

Yeah, sure, thats all very general and unobjectionable, but how does the non-consensual act justify murder of a third party? Thats been handwaved away a few times now.

The presumption that a fetus constitutes a party is not a given IMO.

Overall, I don't think a person who is against legal abortion is misogynistic, but I think they undervalue the importance of women's autonomy in relation to any fetal rights.

 

[Senethro]

By weighing the two "bad things" against each other. The destruction of a life, vs the forcing of the responsibility for that life on an unwilling and unconsenting person.

It appears to me that the destruction of the life does not weigh so heavily on pro-lifers adopting this position, thus making the weighing is not so very different should the sex act have been consensual.

In the other case you're weighing the destruction of a life against the forcing of the responsibility for that life onto a person who is already responsible, or at least complicit, in its creation.

From the Cambridge dictionary,
Complicit; involved in or knowing about a crime or some activity that is wrong.

Interesting word choice.

Like I say, this isn't how I see things, but even I can see how the scales balance differently in the two cases. It depends what weights you assign to the three things, but it's perfectly understandable that for some people, the tipping point falls different ways for the two cases.

Well, I'm not going to force you to carry the flag for it. If its not your position then maybe just let it slide.

The presumption that a fetus constitutes a party is not a given IMO.

This has been exactly my point for a few pages. Pro-lifers are inconsistent about when fetuses get to be a significant 3rd party.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It appears to me that the destruction of the life does not weigh so heavily on pro-lifers adopting this position, thus making the weighing is not so very different should the sex act have been consensual.

Well yes, it's clearly true that pro-lifers (or people if you like) who see the two cases as different DO see that the destruction of the life doesn't weigh as heavily as the forcing of the consequences on the unwilling woman. Whereas they see that it weighs MORE heavily than the forcing of the consequences on the woman who made a willing decision that led to those consequences. It's self-evident from the argument that the weightings are different, and the conclusions are different. You must just be being wilfully obstinate to still not see what the stance is and how it's perfectly logically sound.

From the Cambridge dictionary,
Complicit; involved in or knowing about a crime or some activity that is wrong.

Interesting word choice.

Well done. You score points for picking apart one word choice, at the expense of not addressing the actual point. I guess you win or something.

 

[BenitoChavez]

To sum up the last couple of pages of this thread: Senethro sees in black and white and nobody can convince him that grey exists.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This has been exactly my point for a few pages. Pro-lifers are inconsistent about when fetuses get to be a significant 3rd party.

It's only inconsistent if you insist that "significant" is synonymous with "must trump all other concerns without exception". Which it isn't.

 

[Perfection]

I don't think it's inconsistent to say that some sort of fetal right to existence can be overridden in some circumstances but not others.

 

[Senethro]

To sum up the last couple of pages of this thread: Senethro sees in black and white and nobody can convince him that grey exists.

Hey, I live in a country where abortion is safe, legal and relatively rare compared to America. What do I know?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Hey, I live in a country where abortion is safe, legal and relatively rare compared to America. What do I know?

Not how to assign gradations of importance apparently.

 

[Senethro]

Not how to assign gradations of importance apparently.

Rape justifying murder is a hell of a gap to jump.

 

[Crezth]

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.

This is true, but it's being asked why abortion is wrong. Farm Boy's point addresses this question in exactly no way whatsoever, except to sanctimoniously insist that stuff is bad sometimes.

And if abortion is murder, it must be pointed out that not even "our" justice system permits the killing of innocents to save others, because we don't believe in human sacrifice.

 

[Senethro]

This is true, but it's being asked why abortion is wrong. Farm Boy's point addresses this question in exactly no way whatsoever, except to sanctimoniously insist that stuff is bad sometimes.

And if abortion is murder, it must be pointed out that not even "our" justice system permits the killing of innocents to save others, because we don't believe in human sacrifice.

Seriously. I'm kind of creeped out to hear supposedly moral people justify what they know to be murder. I mean at least I can offer reasons why an embryo has little in common with a person.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Rape justifying murder is a hell of a gap to jump.

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.

 

[Farm Boy]

This is true, but it's being asked why abortion is wrong. Farm Boy's point addresses this question in exactly no way whatsoever, except to sanctimoniously insist that stuff is bad sometimes.

And if abortion is murder, it must be pointed out that not even "our" justice system permits the killing of innocents to save others, because we don't believe in human sacrifice.

We don't? We sure as hell do kill innocents to save others, or to try and create a world we think is better. We throw young men and women into combat. We draft them for the infantry if we think it's necessary. We accept collateral damage in military operations. We tolerate a certain amount of deaths on the road because we allow people to drive for any reason at all, just just because they absolutely have to get somewhere. We tolerate a certain amount of intoxication behind the wheel even, and only draw lines when the cost/benefit becomes remarkably skewed. Accessible transportation and mobility is worth it to us as a society. Not subjugating half our population to reproduction by force seems like it just might be worth some deadly serious sacrifice and compromise. If that compromise takes the form of acknowledging that we have not been able to stop all impregnation by rape and therefore allowing conditional destruction of life then that is hardly the only situation in which we make such choices.

 

[Senethro]

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.

You're still justifying what you believe to be murder. Great moral highground there chief.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Hey, I live in a country where abortion is safe, legal and relatively rare compared to America. What do I know?

I'm glad to hear you boast about this last part, because it helps me believe we might yet find common ground.

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.

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.

I don't think people are trying to take the moral high ground relative to you. I think they're trying to think themselves past the pro-life/pro-choice binary toward a "how can we ensure as few abortions as possible?" position. At least that's what motivates me.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You're still justifying what you believe to be murder. Great moral highground there chief.

You're still insisting on reducing what I've clearly outlined as being a weighting of different gradations of badness to a binary choice. This is a blatant misrepresentation of what I've said and I would say obstinate stupidity.

Also worth pointing out again that these are not my views at all, I'm just trying to describe how these views work and are logically consistent because you don't seem to be able to get it. Also worth pointing out that, even in that context, I've never said anything about "murder", let along that "I believe this to be murder". Seeing the willing destruction of life as something that is regrettable and to be avoided in anything other than the worst circumstances, is not the same as seeing it as "murder" and as an utterly irredeemable act.

I'm starting to think you're just trolling now.

 

[Rashiminos]

Please don't put words in my mouth.

You protest too much:

And here we find the primary interest of the pro-life crowd - the regulation of a particular action.

The hypocrisy on related issues starts to make sense. The personhood argument is purely of convenience.