|
It's not like I didn't make a long post on why I think the Pro-Life position is psychopathic and such. Far from flaming. Geez, what do you want from me?
A lot of people take the identity of Pro-Life without really considering these things. I understand that. Which is another reason why having forceful language can wake people up to reality, even if they initially are turned off by it.
Even if abortion actually is moral, it doesn't follow that people who are against it are misogynists or authoritarian or psychopathic so long as their reasons for opposing it are based on honest logical argument rather than a flawed ontology which demonizes sex and/or women.
Uhm. Demonizing women is like the definition of misogynistic. Their reasons for being misogynistic are a different concern.
|
On June 29 2013 03:03 DoubleReed wrote:It's not like I didn't make a long post on why I think the Pro-Life position is psychopathic and such. Geez, what do you want from me? A lot of people take the identity of Pro-Life without really considering these things. I understand that. Which is another reason why having forceful language can wake people up to reality, even if they initially are turned off by it. Show nested quote +Even if abortion actually is moral, it doesn't follow that people who are against it are misogynists or authoritarian or psychopathic so long as their reasons for opposing it are based on honest logical argument rather than a flawed ontology which demonizes sex and/or women. Uhm. Demonizing women is like the definition of misogynistic. Their reasons for being misogynistic are a different concern.
...Or people oppose abortion by considering the ideas you proposed and rejecting them, in the same fashion that I rejected your spurious example of miscarriage as an analogue of abortion.
Yes, demonizing women would qualify as misogyny, which is why I said that you can oppose abortion without demonizing women ergo you can oppose abortion without being a misogynist...
The problem with your forceful language is that it's generalizing. Yes, religious right-wing zealots who oppose abortion because they think sex is some shameful and sacred act or whatever and that women are basically defined by their vaginas are obviously misogynists. People who think that abortion is immoral because they consider pre-nates persons and because they think that consensual intercourse deals sufficiently with arguments regarding bodily autonomy are not misogynists because their argument has literally nothing to do with the ontological character of women.
Your use of capitalized Pro-Life also makes it hard to tell if you're talking about the political lobby group or the ethical position of believing abortion to be immoral.
|
On June 29 2013 03:03 DoubleReed wrote:It's not like I didn't make a long post on why I think the Pro-Life position is psychopathic and such. Far from flaming. Geez, what do you want from me? A lot of people take the identity of Pro-Life without really considering these things. I understand that. Which is another reason why having forceful language can wake people up to reality, even if they initially are turned off by it. Show nested quote +Even if abortion actually is moral, it doesn't follow that people who are against it are misogynists or authoritarian or psychopathic so long as their reasons for opposing it are based on honest logical argument rather than a flawed ontology which demonizes sex and/or women. Uhm. Demonizing women is like the definition of misogynistic. Their reasons for being misogynistic are a different concern.
Come one there is not just the "pro life" and "pro abortion" kind of thing but a lot of middle playgrounds.
Just like in a "social construct" vs "biodeterminism" discussion.
There isnt just black and white, but a lot of grey.
Just because someone isnt 100% on the "pro abortion" side doesnt mean he has to be on the 100% pro life side.
And IF someone is 100% pro life side it doesnt mean it is because of the very same reason the lobby uses.
Easy example: You can either say murder is wrong because the bible says so or you can use different reasons for saying murder is wrong without relating to the bible.
|
Also, on the forceful language point...I really don't think it works the way you hope it does. If two people hold different positions and one of them tries to convince the other of the superiority of his position yet begins his argument by accusing the latter of holding a "psychopathic" position, which response do you think is more likely?
1) Wow, that's a real wake-up call! I should really consider this argument seriously since obviously my opponent thinks it's really cruel and awful and psychopathic. I'm sure we will be able to have a fruitful discussion and arrive at the truth.
or
2) I am not a psychopath. Since I know this to be true, my opponent's entire argument is suspect from the outset. I am therefore skeptical of my opponent's willingness to engage in an unbiased and intellectually honest debate, as he has accused me of mental illness on the basis of upholding a different philosophical position without even hearing my justification for that position.
I'm gonna go ahead and say it'd be 2), as it should be. Call someone wrong, call them guilty of advancing an immoral perspective, but don't accuse them of things they aren't guilty of, like psychopathy or misogyny unless the position in question is "I think killing people is awesome and feel no remorse" or "I think women are inferior creatures."
It's kinda like making the following syllogism (hypothetically):
1) Homeopathy is a valid scientific theory
2) All men are mortal
3) Socrates is a man
C1) Socrates is mortal
Technically the relevant parts of this argument follow, but since the first premise is offensively false, nobody is going to take the rest of the argument seriously because the very first premise is coloured by ideology and bias.
|
Well, the idea of a "middling" pro-life position is a new thing. Perhaps I just haven't kept up with the times. Pro-life used to refer basically to fetal personhood. Rape/incest exceptions used to be as liberal and sane as pro-life referred to. I don't particularly understand why you would call yourself pro-life while maintaining a middle (and therefore pro-choice) position.
which response do you think is more likely?
Number Two position immediately. Number One position after a day or two, though not as silly.
Edit: It's more like "Gee, that guy got pissed off and called me a bad guy. I better make sure I'm not a bad guy by understanding the issue better and finding out more about it." But people don't think that kind of thing immediately.
|
On June 29 2013 03:27 DoubleReed wrote:Well, the idea of a "middling" pro-life position is a new thing. Perhaps I just haven't kept up with the times. Pro-life used to refer basically to fetal personhood. Rape/incest exceptions used to be as liberal and sane as pro-life referred to. I don't particularly understand why you would call yourself pro-life while maintaining a middle (and therefore pro-choice) position. Number Two position immediately. Number One position after a day or two.
My position is that abortion is broadly speaking immoral unless the woman's life is seriously (as in adjudged by unaffiliated medical professionals etc.) in danger, if the pre-nate suffers from a defect that prevents it from ever acquiring sapience (or if it will necessarily die, although these two are basically equivalent) or if the woman is a victim of rape.
I don't really see how that's a pro-choice position. The first situation is justifiable because it's one life versus another. The second situation is justifiable because the fetus is not a person on the grounds that it will never acquire sapience. The third position is justifiable because the woman was made pregnant as the result of an act that she did not consent to.
As for your optimism about 1) vs 2), consider that the abortion debate has raged for half a century with unbridled use of "forceful language" (as well as violence, open hatred, and slander) and yet there are still huge numbers of people on each side of the fence.
I mean, it's pretty clear that decades of militant protesters on both sides, who refer to their opponents as all manner of terrible things, have not achieved any substantial consensus.
|
Shiori, do you think government should enforce your position through the law? If yes, then feel free to include yourself in the people I am attacking.
I find that position directly harmful to women's health, a gross invasion of privacy by the government, and a terrible precedent for women's rights.
|
On June 29 2013 03:27 DoubleReed wrote:Well, the idea of a "middling" pro-life position is a new thing. Perhaps I just haven't kept up with the times. Pro-life used to refer basically to fetal personhood. Rape/incest exceptions used to be as liberal and sane as pro-life referred to. I don't particularly understand why you would call yourself pro-life while maintaining a middle (and therefore pro-choice) position. Number Two position immediately. Number One position after a day or two, though not as silly. Edit: It's more like "Gee, that guy got pissed off and called me a bad guy. I better make sure I'm not a bad guy by understanding the issue better and finding out more about it." But people don't think that kind of thing immediately.
THAT is the crux. There arent just two sides, and because i dont agree 100% with one side doesnt automatically make me 100% of the other side. And it is also not called "pro life" or "pro abortion" then, i just used this two extremes since you put people in either of these categorys.
Just like that biodeterminism thing, if you belive there is a biological factor it doesnt mean "omfg everything is biological and there is no such thing as society having an impact".
There isnt just two sides of a discussion.
And no, nobody will think different when you call them a "bad person" since it just fortifies their point of view. Because then you and your position automatically has a bad connation since people will most likely not seperate these things.
On June 29 2013 03:38 DoubleReed wrote:
Shiori, do you think government should enforce your position through the law? If yes, then feel free to include yourself in the people I am attacking.
I find that position directly harmful to women's health, a gross invasion of privacy by the government, and a terrible precedent for women's rights.
How else do you enforce something if not by law? Society couldnt work if there arent any rules that everybody has to follow.
It is not as if you decide what you eat for dinner.
And then again to your 2nd point: It is not just about womens right, because the coin has to sides: The womens right (right of the own body, pricacy) and the right of the unborn child (whatever you define as a human being here).
So you have to take both sides into account that makes it really difficult + some other factors (when can the fetus be considered a human being etc.).
|
On June 29 2013 03:38 DoubleReed wrote:
Shiori, do you think government should enforce your position through the law? If yes, then feel free to include yourself in the people I am attacking.
I find that position directly harmful to women's health, a gross invasion of privacy by the government, and a terrible precedent for women's rights.
I don't think the government should enforce my position in law at the moment. I think there may be a point in the future at which revisiting the legal aspect of abortion would be a good idea, though. Right now, the issue is too divisive for merely changing the law to do anything but stir up more violence.
|
See, Shiori, I find that to be an inconsistent position. Cowardly, even, as it sounds like you just won't stand up for what you believe.
But maybe it's just that you realize that the Pro-Life position is unpopular and want to justify not truly supporting it. Shrug.
Just like that biodeterminism thing, if you belive there is a biological factor it doesnt mean "omfg everything is biological and there is no such thing as society having an impact".
And just like that conversation, this is not actually nature vs nurture. That's not what I argued if you paid attention. It was a Science vs Bullshit-that-justifies-sexism argument. Seriously, learning about the biological differences between the sexes is fascinating.
No. There actually are two sides. This is Scientific Racism vs Darwinism. This is Creationism vs Evolution. This is Just-World vs Real-World. This is Kittens vs Puppies.
It's not a coincidence that the right-wing adopts the Pro-Life position (and hates kittens).
|
men being different then women is not sexism.
|
Life surely must be easy to see when you cleanly dichotomize and essentialize it. How enlightened.
|
And xM(Z, you went much further than "men are different than women."
|
Let us not start that discussion all over again.
|
If you make abortion illegal, you will just force women to go through illegal means, which can be harmful and even lethal. We've seen this before. Better instead that the government makes sure through regulations etc that abortions are carried out safely and responsibly (that is, not lightly or flippantly).
It is always up to the individual woman in the end, since it's her body. Instead, the focus should be to inform her and to make sure that whatever happens, she has the final say over something that has such life-changing consequences for her, and that she understands her choices.
The state making laws against something like this is highly inappropriate, since it is not the state's business to make restrictive laws made on the basis of beliefs or religions. If the woman isn't christian and doesn't believe that "life is holy", there should not be someone saying that she's wrong and life is holy anyways.
|
On June 29 2013 04:41 Reggiegigas wrote:
If you make abortion illegal, you will just force women to go through illegal means, which can be harmful and even lethal. We've seen this before. Better instead that the government makes sure through regulations etc that abortions are carried out safely and responsibly (that is, not lightly or flippantly).
It is always up to the individual woman in the end, since it's her body. Instead, the focus should be to inform her and to make sure that whatever happens, she has the final say over something that has such life-changing consequences for her, and that she understands her choices.
The state making laws against something like this is highly inappropriate, since it is not the state's business to make restrictive laws made on the basis of beliefs or religions. If the woman isn't christian and doesn't believe that "life is holy", there should not be someone saying that she's wrong and life is holy anyways.
by that logic why not make suicide legal too?. after all, it's their body ...
|
On June 29 2013 05:04 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 04:41 Reggiegigas wrote:
If you make abortion illegal, you will just force women to go through illegal means, which can be harmful and even lethal. We've seen this before. Better instead that the government makes sure through regulations etc that abortions are carried out safely and responsibly (that is, not lightly or flippantly).
It is always up to the individual woman in the end, since it's her body. Instead, the focus should be to inform her and to make sure that whatever happens, she has the final say over something that has such life-changing consequences for her, and that she understands her choices.
The state making laws against something like this is highly inappropriate, since it is not the state's business to make restrictive laws made on the basis of beliefs or religions. If the woman isn't christian and doesn't believe that "life is holy", there should not be someone saying that she's wrong and life is holy anyways. by that logic why not make suicide legal too?. after all, it's their body ...
Indeed, why not?
Suicide isn't illegal in most of the world by the way.
|
On June 29 2013 05:08 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 05:04 xM(Z wrote:On June 29 2013 04:41 Reggiegigas wrote:
If you make abortion illegal, you will just force women to go through illegal means, which can be harmful and even lethal. We've seen this before. Better instead that the government makes sure through regulations etc that abortions are carried out safely and responsibly (that is, not lightly or flippantly).
It is always up to the individual woman in the end, since it's her body. Instead, the focus should be to inform her and to make sure that whatever happens, she has the final say over something that has such life-changing consequences for her, and that she understands her choices.
The state making laws against something like this is highly inappropriate, since it is not the state's business to make restrictive laws made on the basis of beliefs or religions. If the woman isn't christian and doesn't believe that "life is holy", there should not be someone saying that she's wrong and life is holy anyways. by that logic why not make suicide legal too?. after all, it's their body ... Indeed, why not? Suicide isn't illegal in most of the world by the way.
Why are there involuntary psychiatric holds for suicidal people, if that is our principle?
|
On June 29 2013 05:15 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 05:08 Crushinator wrote:On June 29 2013 05:04 xM(Z wrote:On June 29 2013 04:41 Reggiegigas wrote:
If you make abortion illegal, you will just force women to go through illegal means, which can be harmful and even lethal. We've seen this before. Better instead that the government makes sure through regulations etc that abortions are carried out safely and responsibly (that is, not lightly or flippantly).
It is always up to the individual woman in the end, since it's her body. Instead, the focus should be to inform her and to make sure that whatever happens, she has the final say over something that has such life-changing consequences for her, and that she understands her choices.
The state making laws against something like this is highly inappropriate, since it is not the state's business to make restrictive laws made on the basis of beliefs or religions. If the woman isn't christian and doesn't believe that "life is holy", there should not be someone saying that she's wrong and life is holy anyways. by that logic why not make suicide legal too?. after all, it's their body ... Indeed, why not? Suicide isn't illegal in most of the world by the way. Why are there involuntary psychiatric holds for suicidal people, if that is our principle?
Because some people's wish to die is caused by some psychiatric disorder that is treatable, or temporary in some way. Psychotic people go through periods where they feel very differently about life than during other periods for example. People who have serious personal issues may not be able to see that their condition may be improved etc. etc. In any case involunatry psychiatric care is not meant as punishment for a perceived offense, nor is having a death wish sufficient grounds for being commited to such an institution.
|
pregnancy is temporary too yet those who aid suicidal persons, go to jail for murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
