most parasites do far less damage then a pregnancy and pose no real health risk. People don't die from ticks/leaches mosquitoes or what have you, and the risk of contracting disease is a moot point once your already a host to it (much how the risk of getting an STD from the sex that got you pregnant is a moot point once your already pregnant).
And no, I'm arguing that is patently ridiculous to say I have to let a parasite finish sucking my blood and drop off once I'm bitten and that campaigning to change the law so i can't kill insects is ridiculous, and that calling someone who campaigns for such a law a free rights activist would be ridiculous.
My apologies If I'm rehashing something we've been through.
Which again requires an increased pregnancy rate, which is addressed by the exact same argument as the idea that illegal abortion increases abortions. For children to be starving due to their great numbers, requires significantly more of them to be born.
Yes it does. And? It's not like anti-abortion legislation has historically done anything about contraceptives except make them less available.
I would contend that, although the second argument presented is trivial, an increase in pregnancy rate is by no means a necessity for an increased birth rate. Barring abortion, birth rate will increase by some fraction of ~1.25 million (numbers from the Guttmacher Institute). This number will be cut by natural miscarriage rates, and I would suggest that further reductions would occur from illegal abortion (at greater risk to the mother, clearly, simply by virtue of facilities). If abortion could be genuinely blocked, then birth rate could very well surge. The extent of this increase obviously depends on the typical point at which abortions presently occur.
Only if we assume that every single one of those unwanted pregnancies were in people who will still continue to not use contraception. I suggest that, in a society where womens rights are key, barring abortion would be accompanied by free access to the pill and other contraceptives alongside additional health classes for everyone to reinforce how vital it is to use contraception if you want to have sex and not have a child. I contend that it is perfectly rational to believe the total number of pregnancies would fall, by a statistic close to the number of pregnancies which end in abortion now.
Furthermore, the argument fails. Even if there are the same number of pregnancies, and even if a high number of the children who would otherwise be aborted are killed by their own parents for want of food, you only need a few % to survive and be fine and the total murder rate of the unwanted kids (abortions+beaten to death for food) will have fallen, since previously it was 100% abortions with 0% beaten to death for food.
most parasites do far less damage then a pregnancy and pose no real health risk. People don't die from ticks/leaches mosquitoes or what have you, and the risk of contracting disease is a moot point once your already a host to it (much how the risk of getting an STD from the sex that got you pregnant is a moot point once your already pregnant).
And no, I'm arguing that is patently ridiculous to say I have to let a parasite finish sucking my blood and drop off once I'm bitten and that campaigning to change the law so i can't kill insects is ridiculous, and that calling someone who campaigns for such a law a free rights activist would be ridiculous.
My apologies If I'm rehashing something we've been through.
However the point of this thread is that, lets say you do hold your "Don't kill parasites, you don't get to kill another animal for any reason" belief it doesn't immediately disqualify you from other beliefs. Could you believe this, and still believe in democracy, or individual rights? Sure. Could you still be a Christian, or a Buddhist? Sure. Could you still be a feminist? Sure. In fact, your 'absurd' logic is in fact a common practice in many buddhist monasteries. They don't swat flies, or kill rats, or leeches. They do their very best in all situations to kill nothing.
Your example proves our argument, not yours. We may think it is absurd, however, since it is a belief we can do nothing to genuinely prove that it is wrong since it represents a value judgment. It simply places a high weight on the statement "You shouldn't kill things that are just doing what they naturally do".
most parasites do far less damage then a pregnancy and pose no real health risk. People don't die from ticks/leaches mosquitoes or what have you, and the risk of contracting disease is a moot point once your already a host to it (much how the risk of getting an STD from the sex that got you pregnant is a moot point once your already pregnant).
And no, I'm arguing that is patently ridiculous to say I have to let a parasite finish sucking my blood and drop off once I'm bitten and that campaigning to change the law so i can't kill insects is ridiculous, and that calling someone who campaigns for such a law a free rights activist would be ridiculous.
My apologies If I'm rehashing something we've been through.
However the point of this thread is that, lets say you do hold your "Don't kill parasites, you don't get to kill another animal for any reason" belief it doesn't immediately disqualify you from other beliefs. Could you believe this, and still believe in democracy, or individual rights? Sure. Could you still be a Christian, or a Buddhist? Sure. Could you still be a feminist? Sure. In fact, your 'absurd' logic is in fact a common practice in many buddhist monasteries. They don't swat flies, or kill rats, or leeches. They do their very best in all situations to kill nothing.
Your example proves our argument, not yours. We may think it is absurd, however, since it is a belief we can do nothing to genuinely prove that it is wrong since it represents a value judgment. It simply places a high weight on the statement "You shouldn't kill things that are just doing what they naturally do".
You just reinforced my point, abortion (or not killing anything at all) is a religious issue and the government has no business making a law based on a religious belief.
And would you say it makes sense for someone to campaign for increased sport-hunting and call themselves a Buddhist"? No, they can't be both.
most parasites do far less damage then a pregnancy and pose no real health risk. People don't die from ticks/leaches mosquitoes or what have you, and the risk of contracting disease is a moot point once your already a host to it (much how the risk of getting an STD from the sex that got you pregnant is a moot point once your already pregnant).
And no, I'm arguing that is patently ridiculous to say I have to let a parasite finish sucking my blood and drop off once I'm bitten and that campaigning to change the law so i can't kill insects is ridiculous, and that calling someone who campaigns for such a law a free rights activist would be ridiculous.
My apologies If I'm rehashing something we've been through.
However the point of this thread is that, lets say you do hold your "Don't kill parasites, you don't get to kill another animal for any reason" belief it doesn't immediately disqualify you from other beliefs. Could you believe this, and still believe in democracy, or individual rights? Sure. Could you still be a Christian, or a Buddhist? Sure. Could you still be a feminist? Sure. In fact, your 'absurd' logic is in fact a common practice in many buddhist monasteries. They don't swat flies, or kill rats, or leeches. They do their very best in all situations to kill nothing.
Your example proves our argument, not yours. We may think it is absurd, however, since it is a belief we can do nothing to genuinely prove that it is wrong since it represents a value judgment. It simply places a high weight on the statement "You shouldn't kill things that are just doing what they naturally do".
You just reinforced my point, abortion (or not killing anything at all) is a religious issue and the government has no business making a law based on a religious belief.
And would you say it makes sense for someone to campaign for increased sport-hunting and call themselves a Buddhist"? No, they can't be both.
All laws are based on philosophical beliefs held by society. "Dont rob people" or "Don't kill people" or "No copyright infringement" are all laws derived from what society holds to be true. They are not fundamental truths. Buddhism, feminism, evangelism, racism, communism, they are all the exact same thing. Belief systems structured on ideas, weighting of values, and conclusions. None have any absolute truth.
"Women should be equal", is a belief, something decided upon by observing how people behave and drawing conclusions. "Don't kill people" is functionally identical, as is "Don't abort babies".
Someone who was for increased sport hunting would have a hard time being a buddhist true, since religions DO include a tenet for ideological supremacy and immutability in their core beliefs. They also have a far more exact set of instructions, THOU SHALT NOT and whatever. Belief systems stemming from human observations do not. This is the prime thing which dissociates them from other belief systems, like feminism.
However, there are definite advantages to basing your social/legal values on observation and reason rather than THOU SHALT NOT. If it's producing a bad result, you have more flexibility to prioritize values in order to pursue a better result.
However, there are definite advantages to basing your social/legal values on observation and reason rather than THOU SHALT NOT. If it's producing a bad result, you have more flexibility to prioritize values in order to pursue a better result.
Depends on your definition of bad. If you say, good is following the commandments, and bad is not following them (which religions do) then this doesn't apply. However, it's the very fact which feminism is not religion which allows it to be a system which can prioritize and change with far more flexibility than a religion should you wish to come to different conclusions as to what to do.
I have read that Judith Jarvis essay, and it is a good essay. However, as you note, her case is strongest when it comes to rape (that is the violinist parallel). It is less strong in the case where the woman had consensual sex in which pregnancy was a foreseen consequence.
To take it a step further why do we quibble about tacit acceptance if we can just ask the mother if she wants the fetus there or not? Why do we make sex = consent to organ donation when we can just ask the mother if she consents?
It's not consent that's important here, it's responsibility. It is the woman's fault (as well as the man's, of course), that this highly dependent new life exists. To rework the violinist analogy from Jarvis to fit: suppose that she had me over for dinner and served me a cup of coffee, knowing that said cup of coffee was contaminated with industrial solvents that had a chance of destroying my liver. My liver is then destroyed. Do I have the right to demand bodily life support from her until it recovers?
Your argument really speaks volumes about your views on sex...
Care to share with the class?
Simply the fact that you compare sex to lethal poison should set off a few alarms.
Posts
And no, I'm arguing that is patently ridiculous to say I have to let a parasite finish sucking my blood and drop off once I'm bitten and that campaigning to change the law so i can't kill insects is ridiculous, and that calling someone who campaigns for such a law a free rights activist would be ridiculous.
My apologies If I'm rehashing something we've been through.
Only if we assume that every single one of those unwanted pregnancies were in people who will still continue to not use contraception. I suggest that, in a society where womens rights are key, barring abortion would be accompanied by free access to the pill and other contraceptives alongside additional health classes for everyone to reinforce how vital it is to use contraception if you want to have sex and not have a child. I contend that it is perfectly rational to believe the total number of pregnancies would fall, by a statistic close to the number of pregnancies which end in abortion now.
Furthermore, the argument fails. Even if there are the same number of pregnancies, and even if a high number of the children who would otherwise be aborted are killed by their own parents for want of food, you only need a few % to survive and be fine and the total murder rate of the unwanted kids (abortions+beaten to death for food) will have fallen, since previously it was 100% abortions with 0% beaten to death for food.
However the point of this thread is that, lets say you do hold your "Don't kill parasites, you don't get to kill another animal for any reason" belief it doesn't immediately disqualify you from other beliefs. Could you believe this, and still believe in democracy, or individual rights? Sure. Could you still be a Christian, or a Buddhist? Sure. Could you still be a feminist? Sure. In fact, your 'absurd' logic is in fact a common practice in many buddhist monasteries. They don't swat flies, or kill rats, or leeches. They do their very best in all situations to kill nothing.
Your example proves our argument, not yours. We may think it is absurd, however, since it is a belief we can do nothing to genuinely prove that it is wrong since it represents a value judgment. It simply places a high weight on the statement "You shouldn't kill things that are just doing what they naturally do".
You just reinforced my point, abortion (or not killing anything at all) is a religious issue and the government has no business making a law based on a religious belief.
And would you say it makes sense for someone to campaign for increased sport-hunting and call themselves a Buddhist"? No, they can't be both.
All laws are based on philosophical beliefs held by society. "Dont rob people" or "Don't kill people" or "No copyright infringement" are all laws derived from what society holds to be true. They are not fundamental truths. Buddhism, feminism, evangelism, racism, communism, they are all the exact same thing. Belief systems structured on ideas, weighting of values, and conclusions. None have any absolute truth.
"Women should be equal", is a belief, something decided upon by observing how people behave and drawing conclusions. "Don't kill people" is functionally identical, as is "Don't abort babies".
Someone who was for increased sport hunting would have a hard time being a buddhist true, since religions DO include a tenet for ideological supremacy and immutability in their core beliefs. They also have a far more exact set of instructions, THOU SHALT NOT and whatever. Belief systems stemming from human observations do not. This is the prime thing which dissociates them from other belief systems, like feminism.
Depends on your definition of bad. If you say, good is following the commandments, and bad is not following them (which religions do) then this doesn't apply. However, it's the very fact which feminism is not religion which allows it to be a system which can prioritize and change with far more flexibility than a religion should you wish to come to different conclusions as to what to do.
Simply the fact that you compare sex to lethal poison should set off a few alarms.
Steam: pazython