Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 167

Thread: Women's Rights

  1. #1
    Part-Time Polemic Senior Member ICantSpellDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    7,237

    Default Women's Rights

    I was just listening to an argument that a woman was having, saying that the "safe, legal, & rare" political statement was damaging the pro-abortion movement because it implied that there was a desired low number of abortions and that was condescending to women. She was implying that women have a right to control their bodies completely, a fetus has no right whatsoever and women should proudly support abortion; not just the right, but the act itself.

    Although I disagree and believe that the saying has been effective in covering up the fact that there are inhuman trolls like this woman out there thereby making the pro-choice opinion more palatable to the electorate, I was thinking, and getting ready to troll.

    Taking the assumption that women have an inalienable right to control over their bodies for granted; including the termination of her pregnancy:

    When was this right bestowed on the individual woman?
    Was it before or after a young female went through puberty and had the physical ability to become pregnant?
    If earlier, was it at the time when the child hit the age of reason?
    Was it before that, when the mother named her daughter?
    Was it even before that - when the child was first born and left the womb?
    Was it during the first ultrasound when sex organs were discovered?

    What if a parent decided to sterilize their daughter in utero - would this be an unacceptable wrenching away of that right?

    Does it strike you as odd that you find the idea of something being taken away from this child more abominable than the act of dismembering them to death? Or that before the existence of the rights, you could have made a decision over your own body to sterilize your child? That, without the ability to conceive children before rights were bestowed, none could have been taken away? Someone can't say you have stolen something from them that they've never had.

    It is a disgrace that people can live in a world of such barbarism.
    But I'm glad that her overwhelming glee for the destruction of life is made public, calling the statement that "no one is pro abortion - just pro choice" a demonstrable lie.
    Last edited by ICantSpellDawg; 10-14-2014 at 04:34.
    "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
    -Eric "George Orwell" Blair

    "If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
    (Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  2. #2
    This comment is witty! Senior Member LittleGrizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    The wilderness...
    Posts
    9,215

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    TBH you probably wouldn't get such strong rhetoric from the pro-choice side if this hadn't been turned into such a passionate argument. The more the pro-life groups pull the more the pro-choice groups push away... eventually you get people to the point they will justify almost anything in order to back their 'side'. That goes both ways though to a certain extent.

    I am sure the irony of a pro-life member killing someone doesn't escape anyone...

    Your questions are tricky because a child can not make their own decisions, it is often the parents who do if they do not.

    I guess age of reason is good starting point, although realistically speaking it doesn't really matter if a girl who cannot get pregnant is allowed abortions. Age of reason if they could somehow get pregnant. Anything prior to that and I would say the decision needs to be made based on the doctors recommendations and the parents views.

    TBH with so many people dying around the world in horrible ways I have never found what happens to a fetus to be all that important...
    In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!

  3. #3
    Banned Kadagar_AV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In average 2000m above sea level.
    Posts
    4,176

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    Abortions is a really tough question to handle...

    There basically isn't a set line that everyone can agree on, so whatever line is drawn (and some sort of line needs to be drawn) will upset quite a lot of people tremendously.

    At the end of the day though, I think women should have the right to make abortions. BUT, it should never ever be seen as a contraceptive.

    IE:

    1) Woman get raped, decides to have an abortion.... Quite OK in my book.

    2.) Woman have sex, decides to have an abortion.... Not so OK in my book.

    Member thankful for this post:



  4. #4
    This comment is witty! Senior Member LittleGrizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    The wilderness...
    Posts
    9,215

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    So I assume Kad that if the contraceptive they do use fails, that having an abortion would be okay then?

    What about a young girl living in a religious area that doesn't like teaching kids about safe sex, would it be okay for her to have an abortion based on her ignorance (caused by others in her defence)

    Lastly if a girl gets drunk and has some sex she wasn't necessarily intending on having but she got drunk and things just happened. Should she be forced to have that baby because of her mistake?

    Although I have wrote all this and realised I am not sure what exactly you mean by no so OK in my book, does that mean should be illegal or just something you morally have a problem with but wouldn't make illegal?
    In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!

  5. #5
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,369

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    Abortion threads turn into everyones favorite strawman

    It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
    A fetus is an innocent human being.
    Therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus

    People attack the second prong when they should attack the first.
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

    Members thankful for this post (3):



  6. #6
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly View Post
    does that mean should be illegal or just something you morally have a problem with but wouldn't make illegal?
    That's pretty much how I look at it. It should be allowed, but don't get all too militant about it please, feminism gone too far if you ask me. It's the attitude that greatly annoys me. Feel free to do an abortion, but don't demand from me to understand you.
    Last edited by Fragony; 10-14-2014 at 06:41.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,523

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    Feel free to do an abortion, but don't demand from me to understand you.” I could do the same with “feel free to have gay sex but don't demand from me to do it”.

    It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
    A fetus is an innocent human being.
    Therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus
    ”: Nice but your pre-supposed are syllogisms. Foetuses are not human beings, nor are spermatozoids and an egg.

    Lastly if a girl gets drunk and has some sex she wasn't necessarily intending on having but she got drunk and things just happened. Should she be forced to have that baby because of her mistake?” Funny that no one in the anti-abortion (err, not saying you are part of it, just bouncing on your sentence) clan never speak of the father, drunk, who had sex with a woman and became a father? Should be forced to pay for an unwanted baby? Only what he wanted was a little bit of fun… Or should he be forced to take and raise the baby?

    When was this right bestowed on the individual woman?” In France, in 1974, I think.
    Was it before or after a young female went through puberty and had the physical ability to become pregnant?” To terminate a pregnancy before you have the possibility to become pregnant is err, impossible. So, can you refine your question, as I have a little bit of trouble to understand it? Are you speaking of sterilisation, which is far from the right of abortion?
    If earlier, was it at the time when the child hit the age of reason?” Same remark, I don’t get the question, sorry.
    And quite frankly, I understand none of your question following these two as related to abortion.

    So you are against-abortion. Be free to have as many kids you want (or don't want).

    the act of dismembering them to death” What do you speak about? XVI century intervention?

    Or that before the existence of the rights, you could have made a decision over your own body to sterilize your child?” Which is not a child until birth, of course, just a detail of course. Sterilize?

    Woman have sex, decides to have an abortion.... Not so OK in my book.” Not you problem as you won’t deal with the consequences whatever the woman’s choice would be. Are you ready to pay for the (potential) child to be raised? To be Ok in your book is not the woman problem.

    feminism gone too far if you ask me.” Not far enough if you ask me.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

    Member thankful for this post:

    Hax 


  8. #8
    has a Senior Member HoreTore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    12,014

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    "Pro-choice" is newspeak.

    I am pro-abortion. I am not in favour of choice.
    Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  9. #9
    Banned Kadagar_AV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In average 2000m above sea level.
    Posts
    4,176

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly View Post
    So I assume Kad that if the contraceptive they do use fails, that having an abortion would be okay then?

    What about a young girl living in a religious area that doesn't like teaching kids about safe sex, would it be okay for her to have an abortion based on her ignorance (caused by others in her defence)

    Lastly if a girl gets drunk and has some sex she wasn't necessarily intending on having but she got drunk and things just happened. Should she be forced to have that baby because of her mistake?

    Although I have wrote all this and realised I am not sure what exactly you mean by not so OK in my book, does that mean should be illegal or just something you morally have a problem with but wouldn't make illegal?
    Sorry, I should have been more clear...

    I meant the latter, it's something I have a moral problem with but wouldn't make illegal.


    IMHO, and this is quite frankly speaking:

    I think abortions should be legal, but I also think there should be a big shame-stick attached to it by society.

    Working in schools in Sweden, where legal sex-age is 15... I have come upon countless girls/women who shrug away the effects of not using a condom with "I can always have an abortion".

    When pro-choice has come to THIS level I can't help but to have a bad feeling in my stomach...

  10. #10
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    “Feel free to do an abortion, but don't demand from me to understand you.” I could do the same with “feel free to have gay sex but don't demand from me to do it”.

    Well feel free to have gay sex, I don't mind. I just don't aprove abortion as a morning after-pill for the careless. It's really easy to not get pregnant, and yeah sometimes accidents happen of course, different matter then. Perfectly fine with abortion being perfectly legal, but that doesn't mean that I aprove it. If someone wants me to have any sympathy or understanding for them if they were just stupid they are talking to the wrong person.
    Last edited by Fragony; 10-14-2014 at 08:52.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    Does it strike you as odd that you find the idea of something being taken away from this child more abominable than the act of dismembering them to death?
    Typical lunatic thinking from anti-abortionists.

    Obviously to maim a fetus and then carry it to term would be considered worse than merely aborting it. At any rate, fetuses at that stage are virtually-never aborted except in dire medical emergencies.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 10-14-2014 at 11:13.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  12. #12
    Part-Time Polemic Senior Member ICantSpellDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    7,237

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Abortion threads turn into everyones favorite strawman

    It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
    A fetus is an innocent human being.
    Therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus

    People attack the second prong when they should attack the first.
    Its not a straw man. To commit a homicide you must be able to justify it. There are some types of justifiable homicides. You can't just kill a human and say "it can't speak and was inside of my fleshbag, so I can do whatever I want"

    As always - I'll leave the arbitrary metaphysical distinctions to the pro-abortion side. I say human, you say "but not a being"
    Last edited by ICantSpellDawg; 10-14-2014 at 11:15.
    "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
    -Eric "George Orwell" Blair

    "If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
    (Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  13. #13

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    You can't just kill a human and say "it can't speak and was inside of my fleshbag, so I can do whatever I want"
    What you take as a starting point should be a philosophical question, at best, and a worthless red herring at worst.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  14. #14
    Dragonslayer Emeritus Senior Member Sigurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Norge
    Posts
    6,877

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    We just had this discussion.
    We need a religious thread. Unitarianism vs Trinitarianism or King James version onlyism or the evolution thread we are waiting for (at least I am).
    Status Emeritus

  15. #15
    Ranting madman of the .org Senior Member Fly Shoot Champion, Helicopter Champion, Pedestrian Killer Champion, Sharpshooter Champion, NFS Underground Champion Rhyfelwyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a hopeless place with no future
    Posts
    8,646

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    If people seriously want to do what Strike is suggesting then that would destroy any public credibility for the pro-choice/pro-abortion movement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    We just had this discussion.
    We need a religious thread. Unitarianism vs Trinitarianism or King James version onlyism or the evolution thread we are waiting for (at least I am).
    I'll try to deliver something - Sola Scriptura perhaps?
    At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.

  16. #16
    Dragonslayer Emeritus Senior Member Sigurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Norge
    Posts
    6,877

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
    I'll try to deliver something - Sola Scriptura perhaps?
    As long as you define what you mean by Sola Scriptura, I am game.
    Status Emeritus

  17. #17

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    If people seriously want to do what Strike is suggesting then that would destroy any public credibility for the pro-choice/pro-abortion movement.
    Fundamentally, what must change is the approach to "man". This is what is at the root of most of our political, economic, scientific, and philosophical conundrums.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  18. #18
    Ranting madman of the .org Senior Member Fly Shoot Champion, Helicopter Champion, Pedestrian Killer Champion, Sharpshooter Champion, NFS Underground Champion Rhyfelwyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a hopeless place with no future
    Posts
    8,646

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Fundamentally, what must change is the approach to "man". This is what is at the root of most of our political, economic, scientific, and philosophical conundrums.
    In what way would you change our existing approach? What, generally speaking, is our existing approach?

    ps - please don't use words like "deanthropized" in your answer
    At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    Our current approach is the same as was postulated in ancient times, in prehistoric times: Anthropic exceptionalism.

    ps - please don't use words like "deanthropized" in your answer
    Why not?

    Let's call it the intentional-volitional intuitional complex, then.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  20. #20
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Why not?
    Because it ends threads since noone understands what you're talking about.

    Not to say that what you say is wrong, you're just on a much higher intellectual level than myself and probably even the others here who are much higher than myself as well. If I have to look up every second or third word of a post in a dictionary, my instant gratification-oriented mind loses iterest and switches to a different thread to discuss in simple laymans terms whether black people are intellectually closer to monkeys or white people. Not because I think that is a more worthy topic for a debate, but because everybody uses simple terms that monkeys like myself can understand.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  21. #21

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    So what you're saying is, I should publish a book and forward everyone here a copy?

    Also, wait: I'm on a higher intellectual level because I use words you don't understand?

    Last edited by Montmorency; 10-14-2014 at 15:35.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  22. #22
    Ranting madman of the .org Senior Member Fly Shoot Champion, Helicopter Champion, Pedestrian Killer Champion, Sharpshooter Champion, NFS Underground Champion Rhyfelwyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a hopeless place with no future
    Posts
    8,646

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Our current approach is the same as was postulated in ancient times, in prehistoric times: Anthropic exceptionalism.
    Coudn't help yourself, could you! I can just about grasp that this means but am left wondering how exactly it relates to what we are talking about. What argument are you making by criticizing it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Why not?
    Because of what I just said above. Plus, Husar summed things up well.
    At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.

  23. #23
    In the shadows... Member Vuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    R.I.P. TosaInu In the shadows...
    Posts
    5,992

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    Women's rights? Women don't have rights. We are living in a patriarchal, racist, homophobic, gender-defining society that gives no rights to women, minorities, gays, or transgender/pangender/polygender people and that defines every thing through the lens of rich, evil, white men. If women had rights, they would be able to kill anyone (except other women, minorities, gays, or trans) at will, not just babies. If a woman's eight year old son is making her life miserable (as all males invariably do to females), why should she not be able to stick a shiv in his temple? And if her husband protests, why shouldn't she be able to neuter him and make him a floor-cleaning slave for the rest of his life?
    If minorities had rights, they would be able to take whatever they wanted from those entitled WASPS whenever they wanted...including their lives. They have been put down for long, it is time for a little justice.
    If gays truly had rights, they would not be punished when they forcibly convert disgusting and judgemental straight people and their children to their better way of life. Instead of just denying it happens as we do, we would celebrate it and thank them!
    If trans had any rights, the word transgender would not exist. Neither would male, female, gender, adult, child, his, hers, him, her, man, woman, etc! Who are we to confine people with those terms?
    On a similar topic, who are we to deny the rights of the animal-love crowd? If someone loves their dog, why shouldn't they be able to sleep together?! Why are we even discriminating against some being by classifying them as dogs? If there was any justice, we would remove not just sex, race, and gender distinctions, but special distinctions as well! Medicine may suffer a bit, but that is ok, because we would all suffer equally and there would be justice in the world.

    The Vuk has become a far-left liberal, and will be voting either Democrat or Communist Party this election.
    Hammer, anvil, forge and fire, chase away The Hoofed Liar. Roof and doorway, block and beam, chase The Trickster from our dreams.
    Vigilance is our shield, that protects us from our squalid past. Knowledge is our weapon, with which we carve a path to an enlightened future.

    Everything you need to know about Kadagar_AV:
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV View Post
    In a racial conflict I'd have no problem popping off some negroes.

  24. #24

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    OK, let's look at it:

    Virtually all philosophy, religion, and ideology has as an underlying assumption - one that contributes a lot to other underlying assumptions - is that humanity is an exceptional case in nature and is somehow apart from the natural order. Usually this manifests in a sense that humans are "where the buck stops" in terms of causality, meaning that humans can be original sources for human actions. This then projects into positions that humans ought to act in this way or that way. Crucially, though, it also projects into attempts at explaining existing or past actions. Ultimately, much of the discussion on human nature or conduct takes for granted this exceptionality, in the content of the discussion itself, as well as in the terms in which the discussion is framed and how it is put together. (By the latter, I mean the "meta-discourse".)

    So at the most basic level, there is an assumption that humans are special in some way, and so all notions like "justice", "the good", "morality", "knowledge", "being", "action", and so-on are directly dependent upon it , and, often, dependent on each other (including ones that may not be listed just there). For example, see how in a discussion of the effectiveness of this or that political institution:

    1. It is taken for granted that humans have some ability to be "rational". In other words then, there must be some "right reason", some way of acting that is "correct" in some regard. This goes hand-in-hand with the assumption that human actions can be variously valuated, and thus with the notion of morality. Additionally, it is associated with the assumption that humans can act "privately", or have "internal attitudes/dispositions", which is associated with notions of the self, and so with the source of human actions, and so with morality. I could go on - and this is just on a very basic level. If we were to make explicit all of the fine-grained distinctions and conditions that would go into some argument, or even basic formulaic human interactions between each other, then a chart of the interlinking assumptions would, as opposed to some parallel-serial flow, have the look of a flow-chart of Wiki hyperlinks.

    This is all to say nothing of the associations with how "nature" works apart from humans, meaning metaphysics and ontology: enter so-called "abstract" objects.

    Really, all of these concepts, though at first glance the connections may not be obvious, feed off of and support each other, like a perpetual-motion machine borne of and kluged upon by intuition.

    If you pull on the thread of exceptionalism, then it all unravels. But very few do this, such that even most individuals who argue against the existence of "free will" tacitly endorse most of its associates, correlates, and, notice, derivatives.

    One observation that encapsulates some of this point, but not all, is that there is no "objective subject" or "subjective object". In other words, as with many other things, it comes down to monism.

    But in the end, it's wholly inevitable that the picture is such, and not something that can change so long as the espouser-system remains the same in key ways. However, such a change may prove to be a necessary outcome from the properties of the current system, which would at least be ironic in the last moments...

    Edit: See above post...
    Last edited by Montmorency; 10-14-2014 at 17:00.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  25. #25
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    Don't be a fool and wrap your tool.

    Abortion should be legitimate for the handful of cases where it is justified or makes good sense, like 'rape-babies' (when the pill failed) and this ideally should be early on when it is a handful of cells. Late-term is only when loss of life is inevitable "got to kill the fetus or both die", and other such situations).

    There also is a need to prevent the horrible fate of back-alley abortion clinics too, due to women unable to take care of their bodies due to oppression of those around her, who forced her into that situation. That is where Women's Rights come into it.

    I think the 'pro-life' skews the perspective of it all so much, that it is just extreme and disgusting. I remember at my catholic school they had a video where they had mutilated fetuses in KFC buckets going "ABORTION IS BAD". No sane individual in relationship decides "I know, knock me up so I can destroy a fetus in a couple of months, so fun!". If someone actually ends up knocked up by accident, they usually end up giving birth to the child, even if it is to give it up for adoption or to a foster home at the end of it.

    Abortion is something serious, it is something which is not done lightly or without much thought. A well regulated and legal option is by far the safer option, the lesser of two-evils. It is something which isn't commercialised or easy to access like a take-away and contraception is what is taught and advertised for those who want to do activities which might end up with children.
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  26. #26
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    So what you're saying is, I should publish a book and forward everyone here a copy?

    Also, wait: I'm on a higher intellectual level because I use words you don't understand?

    I didn't even demand anything for free, why can't you just accept a most humble compliment from me?
    Personally, I don't even read books, I know nothing, I couldn't even define anthropology right now.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  27. #27

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    Making abortion difficult to access is tantamount to a restriction on abortion.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  28. #28
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Making abortion difficult to access is tantamount to a restriction on abortion.
    I never said make it difficult. My simile was pulling up to a take-away and ordering one abortion.

    This is different than going to a clinic to see a specialist and a doctor, then making an informed decision on what you would like to do, then arrange for an appointment to have it done.
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

    Member thankful for this post:



  29. #29
    has a Senior Member HoreTore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    12,014

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    I see absolutely nothing wrong at all with chewing down morning after-pills like they were candy.

    More extensive abortions, however, is something I would like to see fewer of. Mainly because surgery presents a risk to the mothers health.
    Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  30. #30
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: Women's Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    OK, let's look at it:

    Virtually all philosophy, religion, and ideology has as an underlying assumption - one that contributes a lot to other underlying assumptions - is that humanity is an exceptional case in nature and is somehow apart from the natural order. Usually this manifests in a sense that humans are "where the buck stops" in terms of causality, meaning that humans can be original sources for human actions. This then projects into positions that humans ought to act in this way or that way. Crucially, though, it also projects into attempts at explaining existing or past actions. Ultimately, much of the discussion on human nature or conduct takes for granted this exceptionality, in the content of the discussion itself, as well as in the terms in which the discussion is framed and how it is put together. (By the latter, I mean the "meta-discourse".)
    Yes, now those are simple terms that I can understand. I cannot shake the feeling that all this always goes back to your topic about Bakker's ideas on TTBS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    So at the most basic level, there is an assumption that humans are special in some way, and so all notions like "justice", "the good", "morality", "knowledge", "being", "action", and so-on are directly dependent upon it , and, often, dependent on each other (including ones that may not be listed just there). For example, see how in a discussion of the effectiveness of this or that political institution:

    1. It is taken for granted that humans have some ability to be "rational". In other words then, there must be some "right reason", some way of acting that is "correct" in some regard. This goes hand-in-hand with the assumption that human actions can be variously valuated, and thus with the notion of morality. Additionally, it is associated with the assumption that humans can act "privately", or have "internal attitudes/dispositions", which is associated with notions of the self, and so with the source of human actions, and so with morality. I could go on - and this is just on a very basic level. If we were to make explicit all of the fine-grained distinctions and conditions that would go into some argument, or even basic formulaic human interactions between each other, then a chart of the interlinking assumptions would, as opposed to some parallel-serial flow, have the look of a flow-chart of Wiki hyperlinks.

    This is all to say nothing of the associations with how "nature" works apart from humans, meaning metaphysics and ontology: enter so-called "abstract" objects.
    So basically if we can prove to or convince people that human exceptionalism is a false idea, an illusion we created ourselves, then all these concepts fall apart. But is that even feasible given that these notions could be said to form the basis of how we view ourselves, how we give our lives meaning and what prevents a lot of us from becoming "defunct" for lack of a better term? And if this is so rooted in our being as humans, how many people could one actually convince that human exceptionalism is not real? How many would refuse to believe that anyway and wouldn't it be just natural and normal for them to reject that notion given their innate wiring? It's not like one can actually decide to believe something or not, if what you say is true, no? And you're not the first to come up with this, yet most of humanity ignores it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Really, all of these concepts, though at first glance the connections may not be obvious, feed off of and support each other, like a perpetual-motion machine borne of and kluged upon by intuition.

    If you pull on the thread of exceptionalism, then it all unravels. But very few do this, such that even most individuals who argue against the existence of "free will" tacitly endorse most of its associates, correlates, and, notice, derivatives.

    One observation that encapsulates some of this point, but not all, is that there is no "objective subject" or "subjective object". In other words, as with many other things, it comes down to monism.

    But in the end, it's wholly inevitable that the picture is such, and not something that can change so long as the espouser-system remains the same in key ways. However, such a change may prove to be a necessary outcome from the properties of the current system, which would at least be ironic in the last moments...

    Edit: See above post...
    You lost me somewhere around monism to be honest. I'm not sure whether you talk about the system of male-female relationships or whether you mean the system of ideas based on human exceptionalism, in which case the relevance to the topic also escapes me.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoreTore View Post
    I see absolutely nothing wrong at all with chewing down morning after-pills like they were candy.

    More extensive abortions, however, is something I would like to see fewer of. Mainly because surgery presents a risk to the mothers health.
    Yeah, well, the morning after pill is a bit like boiling an egg, which is also an abortion of a little bird, strictly speaking.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO