|
I don't know why we are even arguing about women being oppressed in history, lots of groups were oppressed during human history, including women, however arguing that women as an entirety were oppressed during history is stupid on all accounts.
On topic though, abortion is legal providing its fairly early on, saying women are not allowed to abort for whatever religious or philosophical beliefs you may hold is in fact oppressing women, because if a woman does not want a baby and you force her to have it (due to imposing a law) then you are indeed exercising authority in a cruel or unjust manner.
Society will always frown upon women who abort during late stage pregnancy because it is unethical and as such is a large deterrent to abortion, it is also not a pleasant procedure so its not like women are eager to snag up those abortions.
As for the incest/rape, I don't see how that is applicable at all, its not like a woman is about to give birth then only then she realizes that her bro/dad boned her or she was raped, odds are if she doesn't want the baby, she will abort it as soon as she knows about it.
|
I have thought long and hard about this question. First, I am going to approach this from a pro-life perspective, despite being pro-choice because the question is trivial if you are pro-choice.
I am assuming that the unborn child should have rights.
When I say incest, I am referring to incest that is not rape where both parties were consenting adults.
While a child has rights in general those rights do not extend to her mother's body. For instance if a child loses both kidneys and needs a kidney transplant, and one of the mother's two kidneys could save the child's life the state cannot take the kidney from the mother without the mother's permission to save the child's life. Those kidneys are the mother's. Therefore, while intentionally killing a child while still in the womb, might be construed as murder, an early forced delivery would be within the mother's rights even if the the child had no chance of surviving. This assumes that pregnancy carries no additional responsibilities. Does it?
Someone who is pro life would point out that when you become pregnant or engage in activities that may result in you becoming pregnant that you are taking on additional responsibility. Just as a man may be forced to pay child support for 18 years for a child he does not want, it is reasonable for a mother to be forced to carry a child in her womb for 9 months and go through delivery for a child she does not want. In the case of rape this claim is irrelevant, since the mother never consented to engage in the activity that resulted in her pregnancy. If someone were to steal a man's DNA and clone him 10 times over they could not force him to pay child support for the clones. Likewise it would be unreasonable to claim that a mother has a responsibility to carry a child that was forcibly put in her. She never choose to take responsibility.
For these reasons I think rape is a justifiable excuse for terminating a pregnancy.
In the case of incest, where the adult mother did consent to engage in the activity that produced the pregnancy, the primary justification for an abortion at this point would be that the child has in increased risk of birth defects. That a child's probability of survival is a few percent lower than normal is not an excuse to lower its probability of survival to zero. For someone who is pro-life the child would still retain its rights and the mother would still retain her responsibility.
EDIT: I want to clarify incest. What I wrote above applies if the health of the unborn child remains a mystery.
If a severe health issue is detected in the unborn child, then that could justify an abortion depending on one's beliefs. In this case I would say the reason is the known birth health issue, not the incest even though the incest likely caused the health issue.
If it were possible to test for all health issues and the unborn child were shown to be healthy, then I do not see incest as a justification for the abortion.
|
On June 16 2013 17:45 Kazius wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 17:25 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
Yes! of course! Abortion should always be allowed, who am I to force somebody else into having a child that isnt wanted? How is that not a horrible thing to do? Because the rights of women are less important than God, of course. An egg is not a chicken, even according to the strictest interpretations of the old testament, but of course when it comes to women, people know better than the written word of God, and can explain what "God actually meant". And remember, if you do subscribe to that kind of ideology then masturbation is an equal sin to abortion; you are killing unborn children every time you jack it. The real basis for this is quite simple. Every type of animal has both male and female names for it. Except for God. He was a dude.
what? Incase you didnt get it, im pro abortion, not against it, forcing somebody into having children is a horrible thing to do.
|
|
|
On June 19 2013 00:23 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 23:59 Dark_Chill wrote:
I don't think the idea of consciousness should really be applied to animals and beings other than humans. As far as I know, the definition of consciousness was reworked to be able to include only humans and partially exclude other animals. Could you elaborate a bit on why you think so? I mean if traits that were once thought to be vital or indicative of consciousness are found in other animals as well, why would there be a need to "rework" the concept rather then concluding that said animals possess some form of consciousness too!?
Alright so, first to answer this. The reason there is debate on whether animals have consciousness or not is because an exact definition of consciousness did not fall from the sky. We created it. And we also worked it around the premise that we have consciousness. Then we worked off of the observation that animals had behavior that was different to our own, and we also could not see signs that animals thought or pondered things (which we still can't really prove 100%). So, we created our definition of consciousness assuming that we were conscious and all other animals might have certain aspects of what we have, but also lack certain aspects of what we have.
Now, the much bigger problem which derailed the thread: this whole oppression and women-hating or whatever thing. I'm sure it's pretty obvious that this is never going to get solved because both sights are pretty much right.
If you take it from Sunprince's perspective, he's right because he's reworking the definition of oppression to be more in line with oppressing a population who knows they're being oppressed, or acknowledge that they're at a disadvantage. If I'm correct, he would argue that North Koreans who are willing to be brought under servitude due to their beliefs are not being oppressed. To put it simply for everyone to understand, should a person be happy or content to do something, then no matter what they are doing they are not being oppressed. He does, however, have to take into account that being weak is not the same as being denied knowledge. No matter how smart a person is, if you don't give him information, he's not going to get anything. Newton would not have come up with certain concepts had he no knowledge of physics or mathematics in the first place (most likely). It would be more valid to say that someone with no senses whatsoever would never come up with anything. You can keep saying that they're demeaning women, but in reality they are simply stating why they've been socially conditioned to not fight against it. There are obvious problems with this, which they have chosen to ignore in your argument. Being that they did not accept this. The simple reason that North Korea will take incredibly long to have any sort of revolution is that they much less of an upper class to look to. Black slaves had their masters to look to and say "that's the good life". Women had men to say "that's the good life". Sunprince is partly right. Women were not living in terrible conditions or worse conditions than men to have to take a stand. Until they found that they were unsatisfied because it was favorable for them to aim for equal rights and get a career, they barely organized together to get anything. Saying that they didn't have the resources doesn't make any sense, as they were in favorable conditions than other minorities and groups who were actually oppressed (according to Sunprinces's definition) and they managed to break through.
Now Shiori and Kwi are right because he's taking oppression to mean something a bit different: you have to literally know everything and then make a non-forced decision in order to not be oppressed. You have to have both the freedom to make a choice as well as have knowledge of the circumstances involved. I understand this stance, though I don't like it because it implies there's no such thing as not being oppressed unless you're a god-like being; there's only different degrees of oppression. Now then you're constantly saying that Sunprince is ignoring your arguments, and he is perfectly right to do so. You have no arguments to support why he'd change his first premise about what constitutes oppression (because there are plenty of logical problems with someone who is happily living their life and being oppressed because of the negative connotation that have) and you have no actual evidence to support your claim that women were unhappy other than referring to common theories that women would have thrown off their shackles at any time if they had the resources to do so. Sunprince uses examples from history for both women and groups (and while it's not the end all be all), which is much more convincing than any reason you've brought up to convince people otherwise. When you're having an argument with someone. one of the most effective ways to win is convince them that their premises are wrong. To do that of course, you need solid reasons of your own, not just saying "that's not true". Unless you want to bring in documented evidence of women throughout history (and not just one or two really famous figures) saying that they want freedom from their chains put down by the patriarchy.
So now that that's cleared up, can we get back to the actual purpose of the thread? A mod should probably come in here to make sure that soon we have no more debate on this issue, or at least have it moved to a new thread, as it does have potential for an interesting discussion.
So, concerning abortion. I really dislike the measurements going on to see if it's okay for it to happen at whatever time. It definitely feels so strange to say at which point something stops being just some cells and becomes a human being, and it feels entirely pointless to me. Morality and ethics should substitute for logic and reasoning only when we have no idea about things, since they can lead us to a usually safe route for humanity.
If we were to change the measurements to make it so that what was taken into account was the safety of the person carrying the child, then things would be much easier. For instance, what if was made so that the limit for abortion times were based on the safety of the mother? If we were to establish a certain risk threshold at some value (again just drawing a line in the sand but I can't really think of anything better) that would give a flexible way to judge whether abortions are okay. If the threshold was passed, then the safer option of having the child and putting it up for adoption would come.
|
If we were to change the measurements to make it so that what was taken into account was the safety of the person carrying the child, then things would be much easier. For instance, what if was made so that the limit for abortion times were based on the safety of the mother? If we were to establish a certain risk threshold at some value (again just drawing a line in the sand but I can't really think of anything better) that would give a flexible way to judge whether abortions are okay. If the threshold was passed, then the safer option of having the child and putting it up for adoption would come.
Uhm... I think you're forgetting something. Legal abortion is always safer than illegal abortion.
Besides, shouldn't the mother be the one deciding what risk she wants to take? Certainly politicians should have no role in such a decision.
|
On June 20 2013 00:05 Dark_Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 00:23 MiraMax wrote:On June 18 2013 23:59 Dark_Chill wrote:
I don't think the idea of consciousness should really be applied to animals and beings other than humans. As far as I know, the definition of consciousness was reworked to be able to include only humans and partially exclude other animals. Could you elaborate a bit on why you think so? I mean if traits that were once thought to be vital or indicative of consciousness are found in other animals as well, why would there be a need to "rework" the concept rather then concluding that said animals possess some form of consciousness too!? |...] Now Shiori and Kwi are right because he's taking oppression to mean something a bit different: you have to literally know everything and then make a non-forced decision in order to not be oppressed. You have to have both the freedom to make a choice as well as have knowledge of the circumstances involved. I understand this stance, though I don't like it because it implies there's no such thing as not being oppressed unless you're a god-like being; there's only different degrees of oppression. Now then you're constantly saying that Sunprince is ignoring your arguments, and he is perfectly right to do so. You have no arguments to support why he'd change his first premise about what constitutes oppression [...]
I don't think you understood my argument. I am not asking him to change his definition of what constitutes oppression. My argument wouldn't change one bit if I was to agree with his diagnostic of the historical place of women in society - he already admitted it was an inferior place with regards to rights and responsibilities (in that he said they were treated like children), and so what is being discussed here is the role of choice with regards to that position. He argued that women deliberately chose to be treated like children, and I dispute that.
My argument is not what you said it was, namely that not having the resources to exercise your choices and not being completely independent from social norms and structure is equal to being oppressed. You can even very well be in a dominant, enviable position (even in the oppressor position) and still be constrained in your choices for the same (or some of the same) reasons. That's why I'm insisting on keeping our exchange on the issue of choice and not on the issue of status. In this exchange, I am disputing his assertion regarding the choice supposedly made by women with regards to their place in society, not the details of their place in society.
|
On June 20 2013 01:14 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +If we were to change the measurements to make it so that what was taken into account was the safety of the person carrying the child, then things would be much easier. For instance, what if was made so that the limit for abortion times were based on the safety of the mother? If we were to establish a certain risk threshold at some value (again just drawing a line in the sand but I can't really think of anything better) that would give a flexible way to judge whether abortions are okay. If the threshold was passed, then the safer option of having the child and putting it up for adoption would come. Uhm... I think you're forgetting something. Legal abortion is always safer than illegal abortion. Besides, shouldn't the mother be the one deciding what risk she wants to take? Certainly politicians should have no role in such a decision.
If abortions are a medical procedure, then the child or guardian of the child makes the decisions. Being that at least one parent of the child of a pregnant woman is the woman herself--she makes the decision. Because it's her kid, she calls the shots on what procedures gets done.
This then, supposedly, comes around to arguments between husband and wife. What if the husband wants to keep the baby (blah blah blah).
We already have rules for that. Abortion procedures have the child as the patient but the mother as the recipient of care. In other words, even if the procedure is directed toward the child, it is the mother who has to bear the brunt of the procedure making her as much as a patient as the child is.
Only one person has the rights to dictate medical procedures to an adult, and that is the adult herself.
She also happens to a parent of the child as well, and so both the requirements of the procedure getting consent from a parent and getting consent from the pregnant lady herself are achieved.
There is no "moral standing" when we already have rules set up that supports a woman's right to choose by simply following medical procedure. Morals only get in the way because the government and, in part, the people supporting that government do not want to give the woman that ability to dictate medical consent.
That means that medically, there is no grounds for pro-life people to stand on.
However, that means they have to access the debate in a different way--infanticide.
Thus, the debate, can be broken down not in political catch phrases but in two diametrically opposed viewpoints.
Medical Consent vs Infanticide
Pro-Lifers will ask you "how much liberty will you sacrifice for security"
Pro-Choicers will as you "why must the government infringe my liberties?"
They both, literally, want the same thing--civic liberty and safety. However, their definitions of it do not intersect. The reason an agreement cannot be reached is because a discussion is not happening. There is no debate, just political (and at times, literal) yelling.
|
Nah, magpie. It's not a coincidence that right wingers and religious ideologues are on the pro-life side and the secular pragmatists are on the other. I wouldn't characterize it like that simply because it gives far too much legitimacy to the pro-life position. Even pro-choice positions which try to remove the woman from the equation are completely illegitimate (like when Dawkins compared fetal death to killing a pig).
And if there is a legitimate side and an illegitimate side, then the agreement should eventually yield to the legitimate side.
|
On June 20 2013 01:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Nah, magpie. It's not a coincidence that right wingers and religious nutcases are on the pro-life side and the secular pragmatists are on the other. I wouldn't characterize it like that simply because it gives far too much legitimacy to the pro-life position. Even pro-choice positions which try to remove the woman from the equation are completely illegitimate (like when Dawkins compared fetal death to killing a pig).
And if there is a legitimate side and an illegitimate side, then the agreement should eventually yield to the legitimate side.
Problematic, as depending on your system of beliefs, the legitimate side and illegitimate sides are not the same. Which is basically the problem. Since I doubt that either side will change their opinions in anything short of a miracle, the solution, as we've seen already, is basically a compromise to satisfy both parties.
|
On June 20 2013 01:23 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 00:05 Dark_Chill wrote:On June 19 2013 00:23 MiraMax wrote:On June 18 2013 23:59 Dark_Chill wrote:
I don't think the idea of consciousness should really be applied to animals and beings other than humans. As far as I know, the definition of consciousness was reworked to be able to include only humans and partially exclude other animals. Could you elaborate a bit on why you think so? I mean if traits that were once thought to be vital or indicative of consciousness are found in other animals as well, why would there be a need to "rework" the concept rather then concluding that said animals possess some form of consciousness too!? |...] Now Shiori and Kwi are right because he's taking oppression to mean something a bit different: you have to literally know everything and then make a non-forced decision in order to not be oppressed. You have to have both the freedom to make a choice as well as have knowledge of the circumstances involved. I understand this stance, though I don't like it because it implies there's no such thing as not being oppressed unless you're a god-like being; there's only different degrees of oppression. Now then you're constantly saying that Sunprince is ignoring your arguments, and he is perfectly right to do so. You have no arguments to support why he'd change his first premise about what constitutes oppression [...] I don't think you understood my argument. I am not asking him to change his definition of what constitutes oppression. My argument wouldn't change one bit if I was to agree with his diagnostic of the historical place of women in society - he already admitted it was an inferior place with regards to rights and responsibilities (in that he said they were treated like children), and so what is being discussed here is the role of choice with regards to that position. He argued that women deliberately chose to be treated like children, and I dispute that. My argument is not what you said it was, namely that not having the resources to exercise your choices and not being completely independent from social norms and structure is equal to being oppressed. You can even very well be in a dominant, enviable position (even in the oppressor position) and still be constrained in your choices for the same (or some of the same) reasons. That's why I'm insisting on keeping our exchange on the issue of choice and not on the issue of status. In this exchange, I am disputing his assertion regarding the choice supposedly made by women with regards to their place in society, not the details of their place in society.
You ignored the other part of my argument. You did indeed argue against his assertion that women did not have the choice. Where was your proof of this? His was looking through history and comparing different groups with women, and even when these groups were in worse conditions, they still made the choice. Even if many generations had been born into it, they still made the choice eventually. While this definitely does not give absolute evidence, it is something. I have not seen your reasons for your stance outside of "you're wrong, Sunprince". If you did, I might have missed it and I would appreciate if you were to show me you doing this. Thank you.
|
On June 20 2013 01:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Nah, magpie. It's not a coincidence that right wingers and religious nutcases are on the pro-life side and the secular pragmatists are on the other. I wouldn't characterize it like that simply because it gives far too much legitimacy to the pro-life position. Even pro-choice positions which try to remove the woman from the equation are completely illegitimate (like when Dawkins compared fetal death to killing a pig).
And if there is a legitimate side and an illegitimate side, then the agreement should eventually yield to the legitimate side.
I personally hate pro-lifers. But that's the only way I've been able to make sense on why people are pro-life. I don't believe that people knowingly make women the enemy--unless they're the MRA types. From that standpoint, the only things I can conclude is that they don't believe in infanticide.
Now, personally speaking, if they truly wanted to reduce infanticide then they should increase government support of both the foster system as well as the adoption system even providing extra tax-breaks to people who adopt in order to create a culture where a woman who is unable to raise a child has the option of putting the child into foster care/adoption without the fear of them getting lost in the system, trapped by red tape. If an environment was created wherein the prospect of being a single mother was not so dire, and the prospect of being trapped in poverty with a child not so grim, if there was a safety net to catch all those babies without mothers/fathers who can take care of them, then they wouldn't need to attack women's rights to begin with since abortion rates would be so low that it becomes a non-issue.
Which leads me to believe they're not in it for infanticide--but! I will give them the benefit of a doubt because I have faith that they're not stupid/misogynistic on purpose.
|
On June 20 2013 01:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 01:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Nah, magpie. It's not a coincidence that right wingers and religious nutcases are on the pro-life side and the secular pragmatists are on the other. I wouldn't characterize it like that simply because it gives far too much legitimacy to the pro-life position. Even pro-choice positions which try to remove the woman from the equation are completely illegitimate (like when Dawkins compared fetal death to killing a pig).
And if there is a legitimate side and an illegitimate side, then the agreement should eventually yield to the legitimate side. I personally hate pro-lifers. But that's the only way I've been able to make sense on why people are pro-life. I don't believe that people knowingly make women the enemy--unless they're the MRA types. From that standpoint, the only things I can conclude is that they don't believe in infanticide. Now, personally speaking, if they truly wanted to reduce infanticide then they should increase government support of both the foster system as well as the adoption system even providing extra tax-breaks to people who adopt in order to create a culture where a woman who is unable to raise a child has the option of putting the child into foster care/adoption without the fear of them getting lost in the system, trapped by red tape. If an environment was created wherein the prospect of being a single mother was not so dire, and the prospect of being trapped in poverty with a child not so grim, if there was a safety net to catch all those babies without mothers/fathers who can take care of them, then they wouldn't need to attack women's rights to begin with since abortion rates would be so low that it becomes a non-issue. Which leads me to believe they're not in it for infanticide--but! I will give them the benefit of a doubt because I have faith that they're not stupid/misogynistic on purpose.
Well, then how do you explain republicans questioning the whole rape/incest thing or even the republicans who question whether the life of the mother being in danger?
I think it might be more depressing than you think.
|
On June 20 2013 01:58 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 01:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 20 2013 01:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Nah, magpie. It's not a coincidence that right wingers and religious nutcases are on the pro-life side and the secular pragmatists are on the other. I wouldn't characterize it like that simply because it gives far too much legitimacy to the pro-life position. Even pro-choice positions which try to remove the woman from the equation are completely illegitimate (like when Dawkins compared fetal death to killing a pig).
And if there is a legitimate side and an illegitimate side, then the agreement should eventually yield to the legitimate side. I personally hate pro-lifers. But that's the only way I've been able to make sense on why people are pro-life. I don't believe that people knowingly make women the enemy--unless they're the MRA types. From that standpoint, the only things I can conclude is that they don't believe in infanticide. Now, personally speaking, if they truly wanted to reduce infanticide then they should increase government support of both the foster system as well as the adoption system even providing extra tax-breaks to people who adopt in order to create a culture where a woman who is unable to raise a child has the option of putting the child into foster care/adoption without the fear of them getting lost in the system, trapped by red tape. If an environment was created wherein the prospect of being a single mother was not so dire, and the prospect of being trapped in poverty with a child not so grim, if there was a safety net to catch all those babies without mothers/fathers who can take care of them, then they wouldn't need to attack women's rights to begin with since abortion rates would be so low that it becomes a non-issue. Which leads me to believe they're not in it for infanticide--but! I will give them the benefit of a doubt because I have faith that they're not stupid/misogynistic on purpose. Well, then how do you explain republicans questioning the whole rape/incest thing or even the republicans who question whether the life of the mother being in danger? I think it might be more depressing than you think.
But... but...
+ Show Spoiler +
I'm hoping that they're simply mis-stating what they're saying 
It's a very "grasping at straws" type of hope
|
man this thread title... keep thinking its "rape and incest - justified" when looking at it in the sidebar
|
On June 20 2013 00:05 Dark_Chill wrote:
So, concerning abortion. I really dislike the measurements going on to see if it's okay for it to happen at whatever time. It definitely feels so strange to say at which point something stops being just some cells and becomes a human being, and it feels entirely pointless to me. Morality and ethics should substitute for logic and reasoning only when we have no idea about things, since they can lead us to a usually safe route for humanity.
If we were to change the measurements to make it so that what was taken into account was the safety of the person carrying the child, then things would be much easier. For instance, what if was made so that the limit for abortion times were based on the safety of the mother? If we were to establish a certain risk threshold at some value (again just drawing a line in the sand but I can't really think of anything better) that would give a flexible way to judge whether abortions are okay. If the threshold was passed, then the safer option of having the child and putting it up for adoption would come.
But the risk for a woman bearing an unwanted child (whether she is a rape victim or not) is no larger than the risk for any other pregnant woman. We're not talking about abortion for medical reasons here, which (correct me if I'm wrong) even pro-lifers agree with. We're talking about the choice of aborting pregnancy DESPITE there being no (abnormal) risk to the mother, because the mother (or parents) do not want the child.
In this case the ethical viewpoint is necessary, because there IS no objective way of qualifying the risk to either the mother or the child and deciding a priori what is best (the child isn't born yet. Maybe you're aborting the next Einstein, Van Gogh or Ghandi). All you can do is decide who has what rights, and why, and that is precisely where ethics enters with such questions as what constitutes a human being, where does one's right to bodily autonomy begin/end and should we differentiate between different reasons for aborting a pregnancy (rape, genetical defects, poverty, underaged, simply not wanting a baby, etc. etc.).
|
On June 20 2013 02:21 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 00:05 Dark_Chill wrote:
So, concerning abortion. I really dislike the measurements going on to see if it's okay for it to happen at whatever time. It definitely feels so strange to say at which point something stops being just some cells and becomes a human being, and it feels entirely pointless to me. Morality and ethics should substitute for logic and reasoning only when we have no idea about things, since they can lead us to a usually safe route for humanity.
If we were to change the measurements to make it so that what was taken into account was the safety of the person carrying the child, then things would be much easier. For instance, what if was made so that the limit for abortion times were based on the safety of the mother? If we were to establish a certain risk threshold at some value (again just drawing a line in the sand but I can't really think of anything better) that would give a flexible way to judge whether abortions are okay. If the threshold was passed, then the safer option of having the child and putting it up for adoption would come. But the risk for a woman bearing an unwanted child (whether she is a rape victim or not) is no larger than the risk for any other pregnant woman. We're not talking about abortion for medical reasons here, which (correct me if I'm wrong) even pro-lifers agree with. We're talking about the choice of aborting pregnancy DESPITE there being no (abnormal) risk to the mother, because the mother (or parents) do not want the child. In this case the ethical viewpoint is necessary, because there IS no objective way of qualifying the risk to either the mother or the child and deciding a priori what is best (the child isn't born yet. Maybe you're aborting the next Einstein, Van Gogh or Ghandi). All you can do is decide who has what rights, and why, and that is precisely where ethics enters with such questions as what constitutes a human being, where does one's right to bodily autonomy begin/end and should we differentiate between different reasons for aborting a pregnancy (rape, genetical defects, poverty, underaged, simply not wanting a baby, etc. etc.).
There are two patients.
Child and Mother.
Child is not of age, so mother has say on his medical procedures.
Mother has say on her own medical procedures.
Father has no say on the mother's medical procedures.
Father *could* have say in the child's decisions--but not the mothers.
Mother gives the yes/no for the child and for herself--father unnecessary.
|
On June 20 2013 01:50 Dark_Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 01:23 kwizach wrote:On June 20 2013 00:05 Dark_Chill wrote:On June 19 2013 00:23 MiraMax wrote:On June 18 2013 23:59 Dark_Chill wrote:
I don't think the idea of consciousness should really be applied to animals and beings other than humans. As far as I know, the definition of consciousness was reworked to be able to include only humans and partially exclude other animals. Could you elaborate a bit on why you think so? I mean if traits that were once thought to be vital or indicative of consciousness are found in other animals as well, why would there be a need to "rework" the concept rather then concluding that said animals possess some form of consciousness too!? |...] Now Shiori and Kwi are right because he's taking oppression to mean something a bit different: you have to literally know everything and then make a non-forced decision in order to not be oppressed. You have to have both the freedom to make a choice as well as have knowledge of the circumstances involved. I understand this stance, though I don't like it because it implies there's no such thing as not being oppressed unless you're a god-like being; there's only different degrees of oppression. Now then you're constantly saying that Sunprince is ignoring your arguments, and he is perfectly right to do so. You have no arguments to support why he'd change his first premise about what constitutes oppression [...] I don't think you understood my argument. I am not asking him to change his definition of what constitutes oppression. My argument wouldn't change one bit if I was to agree with his diagnostic of the historical place of women in society - he already admitted it was an inferior place with regards to rights and responsibilities (in that he said they were treated like children), and so what is being discussed here is the role of choice with regards to that position. He argued that women deliberately chose to be treated like children, and I dispute that. My argument is not what you said it was, namely that not having the resources to exercise your choices and not being completely independent from social norms and structure is equal to being oppressed. You can even very well be in a dominant, enviable position (even in the oppressor position) and still be constrained in your choices for the same (or some of the same) reasons. That's why I'm insisting on keeping our exchange on the issue of choice and not on the issue of status. In this exchange, I am disputing his assertion regarding the choice supposedly made by women with regards to their place in society, not the details of their place in society. You ignored the other part of my argument. You did indeed argue against his assertion that women did not have the choice. Where was your proof of this? His was looking through history and comparing different groups with women, and even when these groups were in worse conditions, they still made the choice. Even if many generations had been born into it, they still made the choice eventually. While this definitely does not give absolute evidence, it is something. I have not seen your reasons for your stance outside of "you're wrong, Sunprince". If you did, I might have missed it and I would appreciate if you were to show me you doing this. Thank you.
Just in case, I think there's a typo in your second sentence, since his assertion was that women did have a choice and exercised their choice, and I was disputing that.
Now, to answer you, he is the one making the claim, meaning the burden of proof lies on him. The points I was making (in terms of resources and ideas/norms) were there to underline that it can't simply be assumed that women ever had a choice, made it independently and deliberately and exercised it - meaning he has to substantiate and provide evidence for his idea that women actually did (and repeatedly so). I don't see how his mention of African-American history has anything to do with this - he admitted himself the respective conditions of African-American and women were and have been extremely different throughout history, and there are dozens of factors which influenced their respective struggles (in terms of the relevant social and legal norms, the visibility of the situation, the legitimacy of the idea of change in the situation among the general population, the relevant external examples in other countries, the origins of the situation, etc.) that make their transitions from the status of oppressed so different with regards to the debate at hand that I fail to see where exactly the comparison is supposed to be fruitful. What is, however, interesting to notice, is the fact that it is during the twentieth century that both movements for equality really progressed in terms of access to equal rights and popular support/changes in social norms. This possibly underlines precisely what I've been saying in terms of the structural obstacles that previously prevented women from accessing, and exercising, deliberate choice.
|
On June 20 2013 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 02:21 Acrofales wrote:On June 20 2013 00:05 Dark_Chill wrote:
So, concerning abortion. I really dislike the measurements going on to see if it's okay for it to happen at whatever time. It definitely feels so strange to say at which point something stops being just some cells and becomes a human being, and it feels entirely pointless to me. Morality and ethics should substitute for logic and reasoning only when we have no idea about things, since they can lead us to a usually safe route for humanity.
If we were to change the measurements to make it so that what was taken into account was the safety of the person carrying the child, then things would be much easier. For instance, what if was made so that the limit for abortion times were based on the safety of the mother? If we were to establish a certain risk threshold at some value (again just drawing a line in the sand but I can't really think of anything better) that would give a flexible way to judge whether abortions are okay. If the threshold was passed, then the safer option of having the child and putting it up for adoption would come. But the risk for a woman bearing an unwanted child (whether she is a rape victim or not) is no larger than the risk for any other pregnant woman. We're not talking about abortion for medical reasons here, which (correct me if I'm wrong) even pro-lifers agree with. We're talking about the choice of aborting pregnancy DESPITE there being no (abnormal) risk to the mother, because the mother (or parents) do not want the child. In this case the ethical viewpoint is necessary, because there IS no objective way of qualifying the risk to either the mother or the child and deciding a priori what is best (the child isn't born yet. Maybe you're aborting the next Einstein, Van Gogh or Ghandi). All you can do is decide who has what rights, and why, and that is precisely where ethics enters with such questions as what constitutes a human being, where does one's right to bodily autonomy begin/end and should we differentiate between different reasons for aborting a pregnancy (rape, genetical defects, poverty, underaged, simply not wanting a baby, etc. etc.). There are two patients. Child and Mother. Child is not of age, so mother has say on his medical procedures. Mother has say on her own medical procedures. Father has no say on the mother's medical procedures. Father *could* have say in the child's decisions--but not the mothers. Mother gives the yes/no for the child and for herself--father unnecessary.
There are no patients, because there is no illness. There is a choice to be made, and it is an ethical choice. The father (as long as he isn't a rapist) has a say in the matter, although I agree with you that the mother has more say, because it is 9 months of her life that are being spent to bear the baby, even if she after that gives it to the father and never sees it again.
It takes two to tango. You have to be a special kind of feminist to ignore that fact.
EDIT: to clarify. It is the woman's body and the ultimate choice is hers. She takes the risk of abortion (or the risk of carrying the baby to term). The reason I put "parents" between brackets in my original post is because ideally the father's rights are protected too: if the sex was consensual he should ideally have some say in the matter. If only it is the right to talk to the woman and discuss it with her.
|
On June 20 2013 02:43 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 20 2013 02:21 Acrofales wrote:On June 20 2013 00:05 Dark_Chill wrote:
So, concerning abortion. I really dislike the measurements going on to see if it's okay for it to happen at whatever time. It definitely feels so strange to say at which point something stops being just some cells and becomes a human being, and it feels entirely pointless to me. Morality and ethics should substitute for logic and reasoning only when we have no idea about things, since they can lead us to a usually safe route for humanity.
If we were to change the measurements to make it so that what was taken into account was the safety of the person carrying the child, then things would be much easier. For instance, what if was made so that the limit for abortion times were based on the safety of the mother? If we were to establish a certain risk threshold at some value (again just drawing a line in the sand but I can't really think of anything better) that would give a flexible way to judge whether abortions are okay. If the threshold was passed, then the safer option of having the child and putting it up for adoption would come. But the risk for a woman bearing an unwanted child (whether she is a rape victim or not) is no larger than the risk for any other pregnant woman. We're not talking about abortion for medical reasons here, which (correct me if I'm wrong) even pro-lifers agree with. We're talking about the choice of aborting pregnancy DESPITE there being no (abnormal) risk to the mother, because the mother (or parents) do not want the child. In this case the ethical viewpoint is necessary, because there IS no objective way of qualifying the risk to either the mother or the child and deciding a priori what is best (the child isn't born yet. Maybe you're aborting the next Einstein, Van Gogh or Ghandi). All you can do is decide who has what rights, and why, and that is precisely where ethics enters with such questions as what constitutes a human being, where does one's right to bodily autonomy begin/end and should we differentiate between different reasons for aborting a pregnancy (rape, genetical defects, poverty, underaged, simply not wanting a baby, etc. etc.). There are two patients. Child and Mother. Child is not of age, so mother has say on his medical procedures. Mother has say on her own medical procedures. Father has no say on the mother's medical procedures. Father *could* have say in the child's decisions--but not the mothers. Mother gives the yes/no for the child and for herself--father unnecessary. There are no patients, because there is no illness. There is a choice to be made, and it is an ethical choice. The father (as long as he isn't a rapist) has a say in the matter, although I agree with you that the mother has more say, because it is 9 months of her life that are being spent to bear the baby, even if she after that gives it to the father and never sees it again. It takes two to tango. You have to be a special kind of feminist to ignore that fact.
It takes two to fertilize a baby, it takes one to be operated on. People take preventive and aesthetic surgeries all the time. It only takes one, for example, to sign a do no resuscitate clause. So it's not like we've ever had the requirement for 2 yes votes to kill someone.
The father does not have a right to dictate what procedures the mother gets. It also only needs one of the guardians to give consent for a child. Hence, by the current laws already in place in medical practice today, the father has no say on why the mother goes to see a doctor.
This isn't "special brand of feminism" this is what the medical rules currently are.
EDIT:
I just saw your edit; in my opinion, there is a theoretical need to give a father some say--but that's between the two of them to discuss, not the government. I would assume that if they liked each other enough to fuck that they'd like each other enough to talk about it among themselves. Having a legal hand butt into that private matter seems too invasive to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/b/ba/Scanners.gif)
