I don't know, aborting a baby that is viable (outside of the incest, rape, life of mother/baby) seems unnecessarily cruel to me. Before I see no moral issue with it if the woman chooses to not have the baby, but it it's a normal pregnancy and the baby is far enough along to survive. Just seems wrong to me.
Say that when you man who knocks you up walks out on you after 20 weeks.
What is being said is that you could feasibly be pro-life, and yet make an exception for rape because when pregnant through no action of your own, your right to freedom supersedes the unborn baby's right to life.
And that right to freedom dissipates when the sex was voluntary rather than forced....why? As the violinist example points out, if the right to freedom only exists when the pregnant woman is blameless, then we can get into all kinds of comparisons about her relative responsibility for being pregnant.
A simpler analogy might be that unintentional fathers are required to provide for their child or pay child support. And this too has no relationship to punishment, but is merely requiring that one deal with the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, intended or not.
Your analogy is faulty. Unintentional mothers are, likewise, required to provide for their children or pay child support. And this too has no relationship to punishment or slut-shaming; once there is a living child, its biological parents are responsible for it, unless and until some operation of law cuts off or transfers those parental rights and obligations (for example, adoption). And this is true regardless of whether the mother intended to have sex, much less become pregnant.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
A view on which abortion should be prohibited is fully consistent with the idea that there is nothing wrong with sex, and that human sexuality should be celebrated. For instance, were I to think fetal life were really significant (which I don't), my response would be to promote anal, oral, manual, and other non-procreative forms of sex. It may be a coincidence of American politics that many of the people who oppose abortion also believe in abstinence, but it is certainly not a necessity that the two go together. That is why this line of argument "infuriates and baffles" me. Abortion and 'slut shaming' are, intellectually, two entirely different issues. Conflating them is a mistake.
It is not a necessity that they go together, but the fact is that they do, and it is not a coincidence of American politics. In essence, you are being infuriated at people who recognize the reality that slut-shaming and opposition to abortion do, in American politics, go hand in hand; that is why no national anti-abortion organization is in favor of contraception. I believe earlier in the thread, somebody pointed to a secular pro-life group that is pro-contraception; they are pretty much a minority of one. National Right to Life, American Life League, Feminists for Life and so on are universally either anti-contraception or have "no position" on contraception - not really a position consistent with the view that "slut-shaming" is off the table.
It's especially hard to credit an argument that being anti-abortion is a "neutral" stance when it's framed in terms of consequences: that is, prohibiting women from obtaining abortion is simply making them accept the consequences of their actions, just as we would require a trap-maker to pay damages in a personal injury lawssuit.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
What is being said is that you could feasibly be pro-life, and yet make an exception for rape because when pregnant through no action of your own, your right to freedom supersedes the unborn baby's right to life.
And that right to freedom dissipates when the sex was voluntary rather than forced....why? As the violinist example points out, if the right to freedom only exists when the pregnant woman is blameless, then we can get into all kinds of comparisons about her relative responsibility for being pregnant.
A simpler analogy might be that unintentional fathers are required to provide for their child or pay child support. And this too has no relationship to punishment, but is merely requiring that one deal with the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, intended or not.
Your analogy is faulty. Unintentional mothers are, likewise, required to provide for their children or pay child support. And this too has no relationship to punishment or slut-shaming; once there is a living child, its biological parents are responsible for it, unless and until some operation of law cuts off or transfers those parental rights and obligations (for example, adoption). And this is true regardless of whether the mother intended to have sex, much less become pregnant.
As to the first, it would not help, and I certainly didn't make that assumption. I didn't address the post because it is full of analogies which fail to maintain the premise of the question: that there are two persons involved in the situation. Without that premise you are not addressing the question at hand; which involves a pro-life mindset.
As to the second, the right to freedom of choice never dissipates. In one case it supersedes the baby's right to life, while in the other case the baby's right to life supersede's the mother's freedom of choice. And yes, we could get into a nice long debate about the relative responsibilities of actions, but that's kind of an entirely different subject. As a general rule I am happy with the premise that victims of rape bear no responsibility, while people that engage in consensual sex share responsibility. If you aren't interested in conceding that I guess we could discuss it, but what a can of worms.
As to the third, it was not meant to be an analogy for abortion. Merely to show that we frequently hold people to the consequences of sex without malice, punishment, or judgement, and so the mere fact that someone wants to do so in the case of pregnant mothers is not sufficient evidence of misogyny.
A view on which abortion should be prohibited is fully consistent with the idea that there is nothing wrong with sex, and that human sexuality should be celebrated. For instance, were I to think fetal life were really significant (which I don't), my response would be to promote anal, oral, manual, and other non-procreative forms of sex. It may be a coincidence of American politics that many of the people who oppose abortion also believe in abstinence, but it is certainly not a necessity that the two go together. That is why this line of argument "infuriates and baffles" me. Abortion and 'slut shaming' are, intellectually, two entirely different issues. Conflating them is a mistake.
It is not a necessity that they go together, but the fact is that they do, and it is not a coincidence of American politics. In essence, you are being infuriated at people who recognize the reality that slut-shaming and opposition to abortion do, in American politics, go hand in hand; that is why no national anti-abortion organization is in favor of contraception. I believe earlier in the thread, somebody pointed to a secular pro-life group that is pro-contraception; they are pretty much a minority of one. National Right to Life, American Life League, Feminists for Life and so on are universally either anti-contraception or have "no position" on contraception - not really a position consistent with the view that "slut-shaming" is off the table.
It's especially hard to credit an argument that being anti-abortion is a "neutral" stance when it's framed in terms of consequences: that is, prohibiting women from obtaining abortion is simply making them accept the consequences of their actions, just as we would require a trap-maker to pay damages in a personal injury lawssuit.
Except that you're talking about groups that reject utilitarianism entirely. Meaning that they would absolutely not encourage a lesser evil to reduce the instances of a greater evil. They also have decades (or centuries) long histories of moral objection to contraception. Given those two facts you would never expect them to encourage contraception in order to reduce the instances of abortion, even if they were dogmatically misandrist. In fact it would be quite hypocritical.
edit: and this still is not to say that some or all of those groups may not be misogynistic. Only that they are not necessarily misogynisitc.
You know what, I've let this all get much too complicated.
Just the existance of the violinist thought experiment shows that you could have a rape exception without slut-shaming. Because you need not even agree with it. All you need to agree is that the experiment itself is not in any way motivated by slut-shaming, and that it could convince a purely pro-life person to make an exception for rape.
That is literally all it takes to realize that someone could be pro-life with a rape exception without being motivated by slut-shaming.
All you need to agree is that the experiment itself is not in any way motivated by slut-shaming, and that it could convince a purely pro-life person to make an exception for rape.
That is literally all it takes to realize that someone could be pro-life with a rape exception without being motivated by slut-shaming.
This sounds like the sort of mentality found in "I'm not racist, but [insert racist comment]."
Because I'm not slut-shaming, but [argues in favor of a policy that is slut shaming].
As to the first, it would not help, and I certainly didn't make that assumption. I didn't address the post because it is full of analogies which fail to maintain the premise of the question: that there are two persons involved in the situation. Without that premise you are not addressing the question at hand; which involves a pro-life mindset.
As to the second, the right to freedom of choice never dissipates. In one case it supersedes the baby's right to life, while in the other case the baby's right to life supersede's the mother's freedom of choice. And yes, we could get into a nice long debate about the relative responsibilities of actions, but that's kind of an entirely different subject. As a general rule I am happy with the premise that victims of rape bear no responsibility, while people that engage in consensual sex share responsibility. If you aren't interested in conceding that I guess we could discuss it, but what a can of worms.
As to the third, it was not meant to be an analogy for abortion. Merely to show that we frequently hold people to the consequences of sex without malice, punishment, or judgement, and so the mere fact that someone wants to do so in the case of pregnant mothers is not sufficient evidence of misogyny.
As to the first, "a pro-life mindset" is awfully vague; it can mean anything from someone who thinks it would be better to avoid abortion when possible (say, by careful use of contraception) to someone who believes in an outright ban on abortion.
As to the second, it is a can of worms, and you opened it. The premise of the rape exception is that the mother bears no moral responsibility for the fact of her pregnancy. You must, therefore, be willing to consider whether a) rape is the only situation where she bears no moral responsibility for being pregnant and b) whether rape is always a situation where she bears no moral responsibility, etc.
As to the third, again, you are missing the point that child support is not a "consequence of sex". It doesn't require sex at all, only the fact of parenthood. You're also missing that "holding people to the consequences of sex", here, means holding women to one specific consequence of sex (pregnancy and childbirth) and pretending that other consequences (abortion) do not exist; that is pretty strong evidence of misogyny.
You seem to be drawing a line between an anti-abortion view that is slut-shaming ("slut deserves to be knocked up!") and one that is utilitarian ("she accepted the risks of becoming pregnant and therefore should be forced to continue the pregnancy until it ends on its own"). The latter is so illogical and riddled with contradictions that I'm having trouble understanding why, absent misogyny, anyone would hold such a view. (Really poor logic skills?) As a practical matter, at least in the US, abortion bans with rape exceptions are deeply premised in slut-shaming, not utilitarianism.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
All you need to agree is that the experiment itself is not in any way motivated by slut-shaming, and that it could convince a purely pro-life person to make an exception for rape.
That is literally all it takes to realize that someone could be pro-life with a rape exception without being motivated by slut-shaming.
This sounds like the sort of mentality found in "I'm not racist, but [insert racist comment]."
Because I'm not slut-shaming, but [argues in favor of a policy that is slut shaming].
:eyeroll: I haven't argued for any policy. Merely that the premise, "The only motivation for being pro-life but making an exception for rape is slut-shaming," which is an incredibly stupid premise.
As to the first, it would not help, and I certainly didn't make that assumption. I didn't address the post because it is full of analogies which fail to maintain the premise of the question: that there are two persons involved in the situation. Without that premise you are not addressing the question at hand; which involves a pro-life mindset.
As to the second, the right to freedom of choice never dissipates. In one case it supersedes the baby's right to life, while in the other case the baby's right to life supersede's the mother's freedom of choice. And yes, we could get into a nice long debate about the relative responsibilities of actions, but that's kind of an entirely different subject. As a general rule I am happy with the premise that victims of rape bear no responsibility, while people that engage in consensual sex share responsibility. If you aren't interested in conceding that I guess we could discuss it, but what a can of worms.
As to the third, it was not meant to be an analogy for abortion. Merely to show that we frequently hold people to the consequences of sex without malice, punishment, or judgement, and so the mere fact that someone wants to do so in the case of pregnant mothers is not sufficient evidence of misogyny.
As to the first, "a pro-life mindset" is awfully vague; it can mean anything from someone who thinks it would be better to avoid abortion when possible (say, by careful use of contraception) to someone who believes in an outright ban on abortion.
As to the second, it is a can of worms, and you opened it. The premise of the rape exception is that the mother bears no moral responsibility for the fact of her pregnancy. You must, therefore, be willing to consider whether a) rape is the only situation where she bears no moral responsibility for being pregnant and b) whether rape is always a situation where she bears no moral responsibility, etc.
As to the third, again, you are missing the point that child support is not a "consequence of sex". It doesn't require sex at all, only the fact of parenthood. You're also missing that "holding people to the consequences of sex", here, means holding women to one specific consequence of sex (pregnancy and childbirth) and pretending that other consequences (abortion) do not exist; that is pretty strong evidence of misogyny.
You seem to be drawing a line between an anti-abortion view that is slut-shaming ("slut deserves to be knocked up!") and one that is utilitarian ("she accepted the risks of becoming pregnant and therefore should be forced to continue the pregnancy until it ends on its own"). The latter is so illogical and riddled with contradictions that I'm having trouble understanding why, absent misogyny, anyone would hold such a view. (Really poor logic skills?) As a practical matter, at least in the US, abortion bans with rape exceptions are deeply premised in slut-shaming, not utilitarianism.
You have officially worn me out. Your complete disinterest or inability to understand or stick to a premise is exhausting. I have yet to see you paraphrase something and come even close to the argument being made. I am officially out of interest for the time being.
I haven't argued for any policy. Merely that the premise, "The only motivation for being pro-life but making an exception for rape is slut-shaming," which is an incredibly stupid premise.
What is another premise that could explain a person who is pro-life, but makes an exception for rape?
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Y'know, abortions would probably happen a lot less if not only did we give better education on contraception, but also didn't make having a child in a first world country some sort of massive life destroyer (at times).
Y'know, abortions would probably happen a lot less if not only did we give better education on contraception, but also didn't make having a child in a first world country some sort of massive life destroyer (at times).
I haven't argued for any policy. Merely that the premise, "The only motivation for being pro-life but making an exception for rape is slut-shaming," which is an incredibly stupid premise.
What is another premise that could explain a person who is pro-life, but makes an exception for rape?
One can be a misogynist without actually slut-shaming, I suppose. One could also have really poor reasoning skills.
You have officially worn me out. Your complete disinterest or inability to understand or stick to a premise is exhausting. I have yet to see you paraphrase something and come even close to the argument being made. I am officially out of interest for the time being.
Meaning, you're unable to respond meaningfully to any counterargument, so you'll flounce off and come back when you think the thread's moved on enough for it to be less noticeable. Your prerogative, of course.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I haven't argued for any policy. Merely that the premise, "The only motivation for being pro-life but making an exception for rape is slut-shaming," which is an incredibly stupid premise.
What is another premise that could explain a person who is pro-life, but makes an exception for rape?
One can be a misogynist without actually slut-shaming, I suppose. One could also have really poor reasoning skills.
heh.
So, if you're pro-life, but permit abortions for rapes, you're still probably a misogynist, and might be stupid.
Y'know, abortions would probably happen a lot less if not only did we give better education on contraception, but also didn't make having a child in a first world country some sort of massive life destroyer (at times).
A thousand times yes to the contraception part.
What, being a parent being a massive life-destroyer is OK?
Setting that aside, not just education about contraception, but inexpensive, widely available, safe and effective contraception. And a cultural atmosphere that accepted sex as a normal part of life would help.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Y'know, abortions would probably happen a lot less if not only did we give better education on contraception, but also didn't make having a child in a first world country some sort of massive life destroyer (at times).
A thousand times yes to the contraception part.
What, being a parent being a massive life-destroyer is OK?
Setting that aside, not just education about contraception, but inexpensive, widely available, safe and effective contraception. And a cultural atmosphere that accepted sex as a normal part of life would help.
Hmm?
I was saying "yes" to the idea that we need better contraception education.
So, if you're pro-life, but permit abortions for rapes, you're still probably a misogynist, and might be stupid.
If by "pro-life" we mean someone who believes abortion should be prohibited, probably a misogynist; if not a misogynist, then just really bad at logic. The whole faux-utilitarian "pregnancy is a natural consequence one must accept if one fucks on purpose" makes no sense whatsoever.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
There were two parts in my post, was their point.
The fact is, to a lot of people being a parent is a much bigger burden than is (in my opinion) reasonable. Especially considering we're supposed to be super America number one, fuck yeah and all.
'Love the sinner, hate the sin' but reversed? Ha! I suppose that'd be similar to what's been done to Americans smokers over the past 15 years, shaming them to the point they can't comfortably smoke in public or in private.
So, if you're pro-life, but permit abortions for rapes, you're still probably a misogynist, and might be stupid.
If by "pro-life" we mean someone who believes abortion should be prohibited, probably a misogynist; if not a misogynist, then just really bad at logic. The whole faux-utilitarian "pregnancy is a natural consequence one must accept if one fucks on purpose" makes no sense whatsoever.
"natural consequence" arguments are nigh-always stupid.
If only because they render seatbelts and umbrellas to be unethical.
"natural consequence" arguments are nigh-always stupid.
If only because they render seatbelts and umbrellas to be unethical.
Pretty much, but MrMister/Mental Exercise/whoever seem to think that it's OK to bar women who fucked on purpose from having abortions because if you step in the bear trap on my lawn, you might be able to successfully sue me.
And "consequence" arguments in regard to childbirth are definitely in that category of "I'm not misogynist, but I'll make an argument indistinguishable from misogyny." It analogizes voluntary sex to wrongdoing (i.e. building deathtraps), and it treats abortion as escaping the appropriate consequences of one's actions - like hurting another person and not having to pay for their medical care.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Yeah, maybe this makes me an out of touch Republican who hates women, but if you wait until you're in your eighth month to decide you don't want to have a kid, that seems like sketchy territory to me.
I don't find it too hard to imagine. What if your partner runs off in the eighth month?
What if your partner runs off after birth? I don't see a logical distinction unless you consider the presence of a partner to be a crucial role in alleviating the stress, dangers and other issues with giving birth.
I'm not arguing that birth makes a big difference here. All I'm saying is that I can see how someone's attitude toward being a parent could rationally change very quickly, even in the 8th month--someone could lose their partner, get fired, be diagnosed with a serious chronic illness, or whatever, and suddenly think that being a parent would be a terrible idea. Whether that justifies abortion is a separate question. I'm just saying it's not necessarily a result of flighty irresponsibility.
Point taken.
I just finished catching up on the rest of this thread and it looks like things went from what initially looked to be a pretty interesting discussion to a much more...binary state. I had intended to elaborate certain items as I was in a rush this morning but I think I'll just leave it for now.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
I don't know, aborting a baby that is viable (outside of the incest, rape, life of mother/baby) seems unnecessarily cruel to me. Before I see no moral issue with it if the woman chooses to not have the baby, but it it's a normal pregnancy and the baby is far enough along to survive. Just seems wrong to me.
Say that when you man who knocks you up walks out on you after 20 weeks.
I'm not going to disagree with you, a woman should be able to change her mind and get an abortion.
I'm more referring to, at what point to we consider a baby a person? The moment of birth? What about one day before birth? It's still in the womb, but it's also viable. What about two weeks prior?
We don't condone the killing a one day old, I don't see a difference between that and baby that will be born the next day.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I'm not going to disagree with you, a woman should be able to change her mind and get an abortion.
I'm more referring to, at what point to we consider a baby a person? The moment of birth? What about one day before birth? It's still in the womb, but it's also viable. What about two weeks prior?
We don't condone the killing a one day old, I don't see a difference between that and baby that will be born the next day.
That's true of lots of things, isn't it? Somebody who is 17 years and 364 days old isn't an adult, but the next day they are. Someone who is 20 years and 364 days old isn't old enough to drink in the US, but the next day they are.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
So is a 30 week premie "older" than an overdue baby born the next day?
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'm not going to disagree with you, a woman should be able to change her mind and get an abortion.
I'm more referring to, at what point to we consider a baby a person? The moment of birth? What about one day before birth? It's still in the womb, but it's also viable. What about two weeks prior?
We don't condone the killing a one day old, I don't see a difference between that and baby that will be born the next day.
That's true of lots of things, isn't it? Somebody who is 17 years and 364 days old isn't an adult, but the next day they are. Someone who is 20 years and 364 days old isn't old enough to drink in the US, but the next day they are.
There are many problems with the logic of this statement.
I'm more referring to, at what point to we consider a baby a person? The moment of birth? What about one day before birth? It's still in the womb, but it's also viable. What about two weeks prior?
We don't condone the killing a one day old, I don't see a difference between that and baby that will be born the next day.
If you jump on that train you either ban abortion of a single cell or allow it for a fully grown adult. Is there any reason we can't just say that birth is a useful place to draw the line?
Or maybe we could leave the whole "baby" part out of it and come up with a general definition of "person", and then see when it applies in this case.
I was thinking more along the lines of the current law of third trimester. I was just doing an extreme example.
There are always exemptions to be sure. Laws should be flexible to account for extenuating circumstances, but I disagree with both extremes, ie; both no abortion ever because life starts at conception and abortions up to birth, respectively. Both ends of the extremes are morally wrong IMO. A woman early in her pregnancy should have the right to control her body, but a baby who is late stage and can live healthily outside of the womb should also have some means of protection.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I was thinking more along the lines of the current law of third trimester. I was just doing an extreme example.
There are always exemptions to be sure. Laws should be flexible to account for extenuating circumstances, but I disagree with both extremes, ie; both no abortion ever because life starts at conception and abortions up to birth, respectively. Both ends of the extremes are morally wrong IMO. A woman early in her pregnancy should have the right to control her body, but a baby who is late stage and can live healthily outside of the womb should also have some means of protection.
The Overton Window strikes again. The extreme counterpart to "total ban starting at conception" isn't third-trimester abortion, it's legalized infanticide.
I'm more referring to, at what point to we consider a baby a person? The moment of birth? What about one day before birth? It's still in the womb, but it's also viable. What about two weeks prior?
We don't condone the killing a one day old, I don't see a difference between that and baby that will be born the next day.
Welcome to the problem of arbitrary lines.
Given that we can set arbitrary lines for many things (age of consent, legal intoxication limits, driving age, etc.) I'm not sure why it is a problem for abortion.
The only reason the arbitrary limit for abortion is so difficult, is because the anit-abortion crowd do not want to pay the taxes required to support their position. Otherwise the viability limit would be very reasonable, because the state could take over the responsibility (and cost) of supporting the further devolopment of the child (Premies are super expensive).
Since no one wants to pay for all the (2% or less) of these late term abortions (all of which are medically necessary and most of these are due to fetal non-viability), the rhetorical arbitrary line is then moved to birth or near birth.
I'm also always amused how many people bring up the canard of pregnancy being a possible consequence of sex, but seem to stop their rhetoric short of abortion being a possible consequence of pregnancy.
MWO: Adamski
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
A view on which abortion should be prohibited is fully consistent with the idea that there is nothing wrong with sex, and that human sexuality should be celebrated. For instance, were I to think fetal life were really significant (which I don't), my response would be to promote anal, oral, manual, and other non-procreative forms of sex. It may be a coincidence of American politics that many of the people who oppose abortion also believe in abstinence, but it is certainly not a necessity that the two go together. That is why this line of argument "infuriates and baffles" me. Abortion and 'slut shaming' are, intellectually, two entirely different issues. Conflating them is a mistake.
It is not a necessity that they go together, but the fact is that they do, and it is not a coincidence of American politics. In essence, you are being infuriated at people who recognize the reality that slut-shaming and opposition to abortion do, in American politics, go hand in hand; that is why no national anti-abortion organization is in favor of contraception. I believe earlier in the thread, somebody pointed to a secular pro-life group that is pro-contraception; they are pretty much a minority of one. National Right to Life, American Life League, Feminists for Life and so on are universally either anti-contraception or have "no position" on contraception - not really a position consistent with the view that "slut-shaming" is off the table.
What exactly are we supposed to be talking about here? Are we talking about who we like and don't like in American politics? If so, then sure: there are a lot of misogynists on the right, and they suck. But I thought we were have a different conversation. I thought we were discussing the intellectual merits of various positions one could hold with respect to abortion. If that's the conversation we're having, then the fact that many misogynists are anti-abortion, and vice versa, is simply beside the point. After all, behaviorist psychology and extrasensory perception have nothing at all to do with one another, despite the fact that Alan Turing believed in both. "Some people hold both these views (in this case, that sluts ought to be shamed and that abortion ought to be illegal), therefore both these views must necessarily go together" is a terrible inference.
It's especially hard to credit an argument that being anti-abortion is a "neutral" stance when it's framed in terms of consequences: that is, prohibiting women from obtaining abortion is simply making them accept the consequences of their actions, just as we would require a trap-maker to pay damages in a personal injury lawssuit.
Pretty much, but MrMister/Mental Exercise/whoever seem to think that it's OK to bar women who fucked on purpose from having abortions because if you step in the bear trap on my lawn, you might be able to successfully sue me.
And "consequence" arguments in regard to childbirth are definitely in that category of "I'm not misogynist, but I'll make an argument indistinguishable from misogyny." It analogizes voluntary sex to wrongdoing (i.e. building deathtraps), and it treats abortion as escaping the appropriate consequences of one's actions - like hurting another person and not having to pay for their medical care.
This is very silly. First, I have not actually argued that abortion should be illegal, as you seem to suggest. My point was minimal. It was just that there are objections to abortion that do not hinge on a misogynistic or puritanical sexual morality; as I mentioned, were I to oppose abortion (which I do not), I would do so by way of promoting oral, anal, and manual sex. It is hard to see how that is sex-negative. And as far as I can see, you are not actually providing any argument to the contrary--the closest I'm getting here is the claim that it's somehow misogynistic to 'analogize voluntary sex to wrongdoing.' But if all it takes to analogize voluntary sex to wrongdoing is to suggest that there might be other-regarding reasons or duties we should take into account when deciding when, where, and how to have sex, then I see nothing wrong with that. It seems not only true, but trivial: is there anything we do where we aren't obligated to think about its impact on others? Opponents of abortion think that one of those relevant others is the newly or soon-to-be conceived child. Seems straightforward enough, and, importantly, has nothing whatsoever to do with shaming sluts, nor is it 'indistinguishable from misogyny.'
MrMister, I really am not interested in playing chase-the-goalposts with you. Both _J_ and I have set out counterarguments to your position above, and your response is to loop back and repeat yourself, ignoring anything subsequent. If you are now trying to argue that misogyny and illogical force-her-to-keep-it arguments are non-overlapping sets, I have to conclude you're just being stubborn for its own sake. The short version, again, is that "she should accept the consequences, i.e. childbirth, except in the case of rape" is illogical at best and slut-shaming at worst. I'm sorry if that still infuriates you, but there it is.
MrMister, I really am not interested in playing chase-the-goalposts with you. Both _J_ and I have set out counterarguments to your position above, and your response is to loop back and repeat yourself, ignoring anything subsequent. If you are now trying to argue that misogyny and illogical force-her-to-keep-it arguments are non-overlapping sets, I have to conclude you're just being stubborn for its own sake. The short version, again, is that "she should accept the consequences, i.e. childbirth, except in the case of rape" is illogical at best and slut-shaming at worst. I'm sorry if that still infuriates you, but there it is.
Your link says it took place in Alabama, not Arizona. Interesting case, although the details are a bit brief. I have my doubts she did meth "just once" if she tested positive immediately after the delivery.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
MrMister, I really am not interested in playing chase-the-goalposts with you. Both _J_ and I have set out counterarguments to your position above, and your response is to loop back and repeat yourself, ignoring anything subsequent. If you are now trying to argue that misogyny and illogical force-her-to-keep-it arguments are non-overlapping sets, I have to conclude you're just being stubborn for its own sake. The short version, again, is that "she should accept the consequences, i.e. childbirth, except in the case of rape" is illogical at best and slut-shaming at worst. I'm sorry if that still infuriates you, but there it is.
Your link says it took place in Alabama, not Arizona. Interesting case, although the details are a bit brief. I have my doubts she did meth "just once" if she tested positive immediately after the delivery.
You're right. My brain just defaulted to Arizona for "crazy state government fuckuppery"; I'll edit.
The issue isn't that she did meth a bunch of times - she may be lying, she may be telling the truth and the test is wrong - but that the law was meant to prohibit bringing children into a meth lab or a crack house, and (surprising nobody, really) prosecutors are analogizing 'crack house' to 'uterus'.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
If not for an odd confluence of events that included a car accident, a small-town festival, a GPS unit that could not spot street closures, and a wrong-way drive down a one-way street, the Norwegian man and his mother would have had an uneventful drive from Los Angeles to Chicago.
Instead, John Kristoffer Larsgard, 33, faces 7 1/2 years in an Arizona prison, largely as a result of some erratic driving that frightened and angered people at the Winslow street festival. Prosecutors said Larsgard turned his car into a weapon, hitting one woman, causing minor injuries and narrowly missing many others.
My point was minimal. It was just that there are objections to abortion that do not hinge on a misogynistic or puritanical sexual morality; as I mentioned, were I to oppose abortion (which I do not), I would do so by way of promoting oral, anal, and manual sex. It is hard to see how that is sex-negative.
It's sex-negative since you're contrasting "oral, anal, and manual sex" with other kinds of sex. Since you promote "oral, anal, and manual sex", you've demoted all other forms of sex. The sex you promote is the "good kind" while others are the "bad kind".
Bad is negative, so you're arguing a point that is sex-negative. Or, if not "sex-negative" then "particular-kinds-of-sex-negative".
It seems not only true, but trivial: is there anything we do where we aren't obligated to think about its impact on others? Opponents of abortion think that one of those relevant others is the newly or soon-to-be conceived child.
Those persons are making a category mistake. Moreover, they are making that category mistake as a result of misogynistic and slut shaming attitudes.
If not for an odd confluence of events that included a car accident, a small-town festival, a GPS unit that could not spot street closures, and a wrong-way drive down a one-way street, the Norwegian man and his mother would have had an uneventful drive from Los Angeles to Chicago.
Instead, John Kristoffer Larsgard, 33, faces 7 1/2 years in an Arizona prison, largely as a result of some erratic driving that frightened and angered people at the Winslow street festival. Prosecutors said Larsgard turned his car into a weapon, hitting one woman, causing minor injuries and narrowly missing many others.
"Oh, just out of instinct I just hit him," Mendoza said, according to court documents. "I punched him with a closed left hand ... right in the face."
Posts
Say that when you man who knocks you up walks out on you after 20 weeks.
It would help if you actually considered and addressed the post, instead of simply assuming that anyone who disagrees with Mr.Mister is wrong.
The "strawman" is slut-shaming: precisely the phenomenon Mr.Mister claims he found infuriating.
And that right to freedom dissipates when the sex was voluntary rather than forced....why? As the violinist example points out, if the right to freedom only exists when the pregnant woman is blameless, then we can get into all kinds of comparisons about her relative responsibility for being pregnant.
Your analogy is faulty. Unintentional mothers are, likewise, required to provide for their children or pay child support. And this too has no relationship to punishment or slut-shaming; once there is a living child, its biological parents are responsible for it, unless and until some operation of law cuts off or transfers those parental rights and obligations (for example, adoption). And this is true regardless of whether the mother intended to have sex, much less become pregnant.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
It is not a necessity that they go together, but the fact is that they do, and it is not a coincidence of American politics. In essence, you are being infuriated at people who recognize the reality that slut-shaming and opposition to abortion do, in American politics, go hand in hand; that is why no national anti-abortion organization is in favor of contraception. I believe earlier in the thread, somebody pointed to a secular pro-life group that is pro-contraception; they are pretty much a minority of one. National Right to Life, American Life League, Feminists for Life and so on are universally either anti-contraception or have "no position" on contraception - not really a position consistent with the view that "slut-shaming" is off the table.
It's especially hard to credit an argument that being anti-abortion is a "neutral" stance when it's framed in terms of consequences: that is, prohibiting women from obtaining abortion is simply making them accept the consequences of their actions, just as we would require a trap-maker to pay damages in a personal injury lawssuit.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
As to the first, it would not help, and I certainly didn't make that assumption. I didn't address the post because it is full of analogies which fail to maintain the premise of the question: that there are two persons involved in the situation. Without that premise you are not addressing the question at hand; which involves a pro-life mindset.
As to the second, the right to freedom of choice never dissipates. In one case it supersedes the baby's right to life, while in the other case the baby's right to life supersede's the mother's freedom of choice. And yes, we could get into a nice long debate about the relative responsibilities of actions, but that's kind of an entirely different subject. As a general rule I am happy with the premise that victims of rape bear no responsibility, while people that engage in consensual sex share responsibility. If you aren't interested in conceding that I guess we could discuss it, but what a can of worms.
As to the third, it was not meant to be an analogy for abortion. Merely to show that we frequently hold people to the consequences of sex without malice, punishment, or judgement, and so the mere fact that someone wants to do so in the case of pregnant mothers is not sufficient evidence of misogyny.
--LeVar Burton
Except that you're talking about groups that reject utilitarianism entirely. Meaning that they would absolutely not encourage a lesser evil to reduce the instances of a greater evil. They also have decades (or centuries) long histories of moral objection to contraception. Given those two facts you would never expect them to encourage contraception in order to reduce the instances of abortion, even if they were dogmatically misandrist. In fact it would be quite hypocritical.
edit: and this still is not to say that some or all of those groups may not be misogynistic. Only that they are not necessarily misogynisitc.
--LeVar Burton
Just the existance of the violinist thought experiment shows that you could have a rape exception without slut-shaming. Because you need not even agree with it. All you need to agree is that the experiment itself is not in any way motivated by slut-shaming, and that it could convince a purely pro-life person to make an exception for rape.
That is literally all it takes to realize that someone could be pro-life with a rape exception without being motivated by slut-shaming.
--LeVar Burton
This sounds like the sort of mentality found in "I'm not racist, but [insert racist comment]."
Because I'm not slut-shaming, but [argues in favor of a policy that is slut shaming].
As to the first, "a pro-life mindset" is awfully vague; it can mean anything from someone who thinks it would be better to avoid abortion when possible (say, by careful use of contraception) to someone who believes in an outright ban on abortion.
As to the second, it is a can of worms, and you opened it. The premise of the rape exception is that the mother bears no moral responsibility for the fact of her pregnancy. You must, therefore, be willing to consider whether a) rape is the only situation where she bears no moral responsibility for being pregnant and b) whether rape is always a situation where she bears no moral responsibility, etc.
As to the third, again, you are missing the point that child support is not a "consequence of sex". It doesn't require sex at all, only the fact of parenthood. You're also missing that "holding people to the consequences of sex", here, means holding women to one specific consequence of sex (pregnancy and childbirth) and pretending that other consequences (abortion) do not exist; that is pretty strong evidence of misogyny.
You seem to be drawing a line between an anti-abortion view that is slut-shaming ("slut deserves to be knocked up!") and one that is utilitarian ("she accepted the risks of becoming pregnant and therefore should be forced to continue the pregnancy until it ends on its own"). The latter is so illogical and riddled with contradictions that I'm having trouble understanding why, absent misogyny, anyone would hold such a view. (Really poor logic skills?) As a practical matter, at least in the US, abortion bans with rape exceptions are deeply premised in slut-shaming, not utilitarianism.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
:eyeroll: I haven't argued for any policy. Merely that the premise, "The only motivation for being pro-life but making an exception for rape is slut-shaming," which is an incredibly stupid premise.
You have officially worn me out. Your complete disinterest or inability to understand or stick to a premise is exhausting. I have yet to see you paraphrase something and come even close to the argument being made. I am officially out of interest for the time being.
--LeVar Burton
What is another premise that could explain a person who is pro-life, but makes an exception for rape?
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
A thousand times yes to the contraception part.
One can be a misogynist without actually slut-shaming, I suppose. One could also have really poor reasoning skills.
Meaning, you're unable to respond meaningfully to any counterargument, so you'll flounce off and come back when you think the thread's moved on enough for it to be less noticeable. Your prerogative, of course.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
heh.
So, if you're pro-life, but permit abortions for rapes, you're still probably a misogynist, and might be stupid.
What, being a parent being a massive life-destroyer is OK?
Setting that aside, not just education about contraception, but inexpensive, widely available, safe and effective contraception. And a cultural atmosphere that accepted sex as a normal part of life would help.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Hmm?
I was saying "yes" to the idea that we need better contraception education.
If by "pro-life" we mean someone who believes abortion should be prohibited, probably a misogynist; if not a misogynist, then just really bad at logic. The whole faux-utilitarian "pregnancy is a natural consequence one must accept if one fucks on purpose" makes no sense whatsoever.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
The fact is, to a lot of people being a parent is a much bigger burden than is (in my opinion) reasonable. Especially considering we're supposed to be super America number one, fuck yeah and all.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
"natural consequence" arguments are nigh-always stupid.
If only because they render seatbelts and umbrellas to be unethical.
Pretty much, but MrMister/Mental Exercise/whoever seem to think that it's OK to bar women who fucked on purpose from having abortions because if you step in the bear trap on my lawn, you might be able to successfully sue me.
And "consequence" arguments in regard to childbirth are definitely in that category of "I'm not misogynist, but I'll make an argument indistinguishable from misogyny." It analogizes voluntary sex to wrongdoing (i.e. building deathtraps), and it treats abortion as escaping the appropriate consequences of one's actions - like hurting another person and not having to pay for their medical care.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Point taken.
I just finished catching up on the rest of this thread and it looks like things went from what initially looked to be a pretty interesting discussion to a much more...binary state. I had intended to elaborate certain items as I was in a rush this morning but I think I'll just leave it for now.
I have no game and I don't believe in abstinence only education
Besides those guys are always caught in sex scandals
Yeah, but you are cuddly, chicks dig that.
I'm not going to disagree with you, a woman should be able to change her mind and get an abortion.
I'm more referring to, at what point to we consider a baby a person? The moment of birth? What about one day before birth? It's still in the womb, but it's also viable. What about two weeks prior?
We don't condone the killing a one day old, I don't see a difference between that and baby that will be born the next day.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
That's true of lots of things, isn't it? Somebody who is 17 years and 364 days old isn't an adult, but the next day they are. Someone who is 20 years and 364 days old isn't old enough to drink in the US, but the next day they are.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
There are many problems with the logic of this statement.
If you jump on that train you either ban abortion of a single cell or allow it for a fully grown adult. Is there any reason we can't just say that birth is a useful place to draw the line?
Or maybe we could leave the whole "baby" part out of it and come up with a general definition of "person", and then see when it applies in this case.
There are always exemptions to be sure. Laws should be flexible to account for extenuating circumstances, but I disagree with both extremes, ie; both no abortion ever because life starts at conception and abortions up to birth, respectively. Both ends of the extremes are morally wrong IMO. A woman early in her pregnancy should have the right to control her body, but a baby who is late stage and can live healthily outside of the womb should also have some means of protection.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
The Overton Window strikes again. The extreme counterpart to "total ban starting at conception" isn't third-trimester abortion, it's legalized infanticide.
Welcome to the problem of arbitrary lines.
Given that we can set arbitrary lines for many things (age of consent, legal intoxication limits, driving age, etc.) I'm not sure why it is a problem for abortion.
Since no one wants to pay for all the (2% or less) of these late term abortions (all of which are medically necessary and most of these are due to fetal non-viability), the rhetorical arbitrary line is then moved to birth or near birth.
I'm also always amused how many people bring up the canard of pregnancy being a possible consequence of sex, but seem to stop their rhetoric short of abortion being a possible consequence of pregnancy.
MWO: Adamski
What exactly are we supposed to be talking about here? Are we talking about who we like and don't like in American politics? If so, then sure: there are a lot of misogynists on the right, and they suck. But I thought we were have a different conversation. I thought we were discussing the intellectual merits of various positions one could hold with respect to abortion. If that's the conversation we're having, then the fact that many misogynists are anti-abortion, and vice versa, is simply beside the point. After all, behaviorist psychology and extrasensory perception have nothing at all to do with one another, despite the fact that Alan Turing believed in both. "Some people hold both these views (in this case, that sluts ought to be shamed and that abortion ought to be illegal), therefore both these views must necessarily go together" is a terrible inference.
This is very silly. First, I have not actually argued that abortion should be illegal, as you seem to suggest. My point was minimal. It was just that there are objections to abortion that do not hinge on a misogynistic or puritanical sexual morality; as I mentioned, were I to oppose abortion (which I do not), I would do so by way of promoting oral, anal, and manual sex. It is hard to see how that is sex-negative. And as far as I can see, you are not actually providing any argument to the contrary--the closest I'm getting here is the claim that it's somehow misogynistic to 'analogize voluntary sex to wrongdoing.' But if all it takes to analogize voluntary sex to wrongdoing is to suggest that there might be other-regarding reasons or duties we should take into account when deciding when, where, and how to have sex, then I see nothing wrong with that. It seems not only true, but trivial: is there anything we do where we aren't obligated to think about its impact on others? Opponents of abortion think that one of those relevant others is the newly or soon-to-be conceived child. Seems straightforward enough, and, importantly, has nothing whatsoever to do with shaming sluts, nor is it 'indistinguishable from misogyny.'
On the actual topic of the thread, Arizona just sentenced a pregnant woman to 10 years in prison for using meth once during her pregnancy, under statutes meant to punish people for bringing children into meth labs.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Your link says it took place in Alabama, not Arizona. Interesting case, although the details are a bit brief. I have my doubts she did meth "just once" if she tested positive immediately after the delivery.
You're right. My brain just defaulted to Arizona for "crazy state government fuckuppery"; I'll edit.
The issue isn't that she did meth a bunch of times - she may be lying, she may be telling the truth and the test is wrong - but that the law was meant to prohibit bringing children into a meth lab or a crack house, and (surprising nobody, really) prosecutors are analogizing 'crack house' to 'uterus'.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2012/04/25/20120425winslow-wrong-turn-prison-norwegian-man.html
It's sex-negative since you're contrasting "oral, anal, and manual sex" with other kinds of sex. Since you promote "oral, anal, and manual sex", you've demoted all other forms of sex. The sex you promote is the "good kind" while others are the "bad kind".
Bad is negative, so you're arguing a point that is sex-negative. Or, if not "sex-negative" then "particular-kinds-of-sex-negative".
Those persons are making a category mistake. Moreover, they are making that category mistake as a result of misogynistic and slut shaming attitudes.
The impetus to make the argument is slut shaming and misogynistic.
God bless America.