• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

Roe vs Wade overturned

No, i don't think cis men should be making decisions on trans women's bodies and cis women making decisions on trans men's bodies, hth you @El_Machinae

As a general principle let the people affected make the decisions seems good to me.
 
As a general principle let the people affected make the decisions seems good to me.
The problem with that is that it newer happens because the disparity in wealth and thus social position between those making the decisions and the rest of society prevents it. And that disparity is far greater and more influential than the one between genders, sexual orientations, race or any other such factor when it comes to determining ones experience in life.
 
As a general principle let the people affected make the decisions seems good to me.
I think nearly everyone agrees on that, except for a circling cohort with other agendas. Heck, even the name of the film Silent Scream is drawing upon the image that the fetus has an opinion, so the maker knows that people agree with your statement. There definitely is a group that thinks there are people involved who currently cannot make decisions, which makes the sentence you wrote hard to agree with. And they will never stop fighting, which means that the defense can never end.

There really is a second stage, who do you stop from interfering. There's a matrix of moral intuitions here, and I don't think they're easy to describe.
 
Right, but I agree that women can be conceived of as a class, I'm just saying in the context of pro-abortion-rights political activity I think it is a mistake to treat them as a class, at least insofar as the idea that they are a class implies that they will necessarily take certain political actions.
I don't think that was the context though - the discussion (at that time) was simply that any transferal of power in the direction of women, generally, aligns with an improvement in the state of affairs (however generally). It didn't speak to the voting habits beyond noting that a 5% difference was significant. It doesn't mean you can predict the entire bloc, it all just came out of "there's not much difference" vs. "the difference of 5% is material". And I'd lean to the latter myself.
 
Right, but I agree that women can be conceived of as a class, I'm just saying in the context of pro-abortion-rights political activity I think it is a mistake to treat them as a class, at least insofar as the idea that they are a class implies that they will necessarily take certain political actions.
Of course it's a mistake to treat women in a class in this issue, because it's obviously not correct that all women support all other women's beliefs and stances on this matter. There's a woman running for leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada who has openly stated that she wants to put in anti-abortion laws. To make it clear, whoever ends up as leader of that party has a possibility, in the next federal election, of becoming the Prime Minister.

An anti-choice PM, leader of a party that lacks the ability to understand that politicians need to leave their religious beliefs at home and/or their places of worship, could easily stir up so much trouble here...
 
As a general principle let the people affected make the decisions seems good to me.
While that is good as a general principle, & I agree with that principle, the problem is: "people affected" are often not the ones in charge of decisions, or at least are not the majority of people in charge of such decisions. It is necessary to convince people not affected as well. Sucks, but true.
 
Of course it's a mistake to treat women in a class in this issue, because it's obviously not correct that all women support all other women's beliefs and stances on this matter. There's a woman running for leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada who has openly stated that she wants to put in anti-abortion laws. To make it clear, whoever ends up as leader of that party has a possibility, in the next federal election, of becoming the Prime Minister.

An anti-choice PM, leader of a party that lacks the ability to understand that politicians need to leave their religious beliefs at home and/or their places of worship, could easily stir up so much trouble here...

Being a member of a class does not mean everyone has the same opinions. Conservative and reactionary parties always relied on receiving at least some working class votes..

While that is good as a general principle, & I agree with that principle, the problem is: "people affected" are often not the ones in charge of decisions, or at least are not the majority of people in charge of such decisions. It is necessary to convince people not affected as well. Sucks, but true.

Yes, that is the problem. One question is do we have to convince them of the particular issue or the general principle? Another is do we just accept that or do we change that?
 
Another is do we just accept that or do we change that?
I don't think a system in which only the affected decide is feasible. It would be virtually impossible to accurately determine who is affected for any issue.
 
I knew these things already, thanks. :coffee:

So why do you think women can't be a class because they don't all support the same things?

I don't think a system in which only the affected decide is feasible. It would be virtually impossible to accurately determine who is affected for any issue.

Really? How are you affected by abortion?
 
I don't think a system in which only the affected decide is feasible. It would be virtually impossible to accurately determine who is affected for any issue.

I veto your decisions wrt your own body, as it might affect me in some strange way so please do not take any medication nor have any surgeries, even life saving ones
 
Really? How are you affected by abortion?

About as much as a woman who cannot have children (any more). Sure, it would be relatively easy to exclude me, but how do you decide the not so obvious cases? Fertility test?
 
And they will never stop fighting, which means that the defense can never end.
You can stop when you're dead. Which is a sort of selective goal, really. Some for self. Mostly for others.
 
By leaving the decision to woman who are pregnant.

But there will be more parties than that affected. But I strongly agree with your principal, where limiting the sphere of consideration works as a solution here.

There are many times it does, limiting veto power to the smallest circle possible. Just as an observation, it helps people seem coherent if they try to use a similar standard in different situations. Otherwise, it always looks like people are results shopping with their rationalization
 
They are.
 
By leaving the decision to woman who are pregnant.

There need to be decisions beforehand so that the pregnant woman actually has a choice to make. Access needs to be provided, funding secured, legal boundaries set, etc.
 
So why do you think women can't be a class because they don't all support the same things?

The point was specifically being made that if you only allowed women a say on the issue, abortion rights would be guaranteed more strongly than if both men and women had a say. This is true (5% greater support for legal abortion among women than among men) but there are substantial numbers of women who do not support abortion rights at all.
I don't think the assertion that women are a class, in this context, is relevant unless the implication is that their membership in this class would lead them to support abortion rights. Which is already not true.

More broadly I think there is tendency to over-broadly apply the idea of identity groups facing such acute oppression that their political interests are largely identical; this case applies to black Americans up until about 1965 or so but I think it is a strained analogy in most other contexts.

It's conceivable that more women (and men; fwiw) will be pushed into abortion-rights support as the manifest injustice of abortion bans (particularly those without exceptions for rape or health of mother etc) become clearer.
 
I don't think a system in which only the affected decide is feasible. It would be virtually impossible to accurately determine who is affected for any issue.
Nonsense. If it's possible for the system to decide who gets a pension and how much, it's possible to introduce new laws and staff new committees and establish new bureaus. There will always be holes in the cracks but the point is to define standards and attempt to live up to them.
 
There need to be decisions beforehand so that the pregnant woman actually has a choice to make. Access needs to be provided, funding secured, legal boundaries set, etc
Conservatives atm aren't set on restricting choice (which is what the above do), they are set on eliminating it.
 
Top Bottom