Re: Hypocrisy

I was having a discussion with a young woman. More to the point, I was having a discussion with a young woman about the loosening of abortion laws in India. Now normally I never bring politics up. The majority of people, intelligent or not, are insufferable when the topic takes its inevitable down turn.

However, I was unable to keep my mouth shut when this fine young product of the American university system decried the fact that new Indian laws will mean more young girls will be aborted. But ma chere, I protested. I thought fetuses weren't people and therefore the prospective sex of this lump of amorphous cells is a non issue.

At which point this lovely young flowers face became red and she began to yell. Little does she know, I get yelled at all the time. So my eyes just sort of glazed over into the abyss as I was showered by her verbal tirade. She constructed her redoubt by claiming it wasn't the abortions she had issue with. Rather, it was the reasoning behind abortions.

My heart than had a palpitation. It then dawned on me that I would get no where with her. I nodded my head and said I understood and went back to the class on federal courts. So I guess the argument boils down to: "Woman's body, Woman's choice. Unless we don't like it, in which case choice will be dictated by us."

Now I am in favor of unfettered abortion all the way through the first trimester. If nothing else there is pragmatic social reasons for it and when kingdom come, I can just add it to the list of demerits against me. However, The logical inconsistency is mind boggling

Tl:dr I hope we all enjoy our fiery hell bath

Don't know what her problem was. Once all US employment is outsourced, she'll be able to grab a nice Indian husband with a good job and no bridal prospects due to the resulting demographic shift.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Nice classroom trolling :2thumbsup:

I support the abortion practices in both India and the US.

Isn't this topic about selective abortion based on gender?

Doctor: "It's a girl!"
Couple: "Drat, we want a son, flush it away"

There isn't a logical inconsistency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Isn't this topic about selective abortion based on gender?

Doctor: "It's a girl!"
Couple: "Drat, we want a son, flush it away"

There isn't a logical inconsistency.

---

In India that is also/largely a financial decision AFAIK (the whole thing about the girl's family having to bribe the man's family to take her/treat her well). So it may be comparable to a western woman deciding that a baby is too much of a financial burden or could get in the way of her career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

In India that is also/largely a financial decision AFAIK (the whole thing about the girl's family having to bribe the man's family to take her/treat her well). So it may be comparable to a western woman deciding that a baby is too much of a financial burden or could get in the way of her career.

---

Indeed; it is not abortion that is to blame, but rather those good, ol' family values.

I just thought it was interesting. It's not a person until abortion is legal. But once it is we can look down upon Indians for their practices.

I will admit it is probably not an inconsistency. I vaguely remember having a conversation about legal and person hood some time back. I just thought it was strange. I suppose it's a compartmentalization thing. Abortion is a womans right issue. However, sex selection is also a womens rights issue so the two have to be rectified.

It's equally morally abhorrent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I will admit it is probably not an inconsistency.

---

I'd say it's very inconsistent for an abortion supporter to look down their nose on Indian practices. I don't see how sex selection is any different than timing selection, which is the major reason for abortion in the Morally Superior West.


The Indian practice is, however, an example of the tragedy of the commons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I'd say it's very inconsistent for an abortion supporter to look down their nose on Indian practices. I don't see how sex selection is any different than timing selection, which is the major reason for abortion in the Morally Superior West.

---

I agree

Quote:

---

The Indian practice is, however, an example of the tragedy of the commons.

---

Well in theory the same is true in the west to an extent. Young girls cost more to raise young boys

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Well in theory the same is true in the west to an extent. Young girls cost more to raise young boys

---

What is true in the west as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

She constructed her redoubt by claiming it wasn't the abortions she had issue with. Rather, it was the reasoning behind abortions.

---

At that point you should have asked her if there was anything wrong with conservatives shaming women as they enter planned parenthood. If they don't agree with any reasoning for abortion, are they in the wrong morally for their actions? Better yet, ask her what the distinction is between restricting abortion due to the nature of the act and restricting abortion due to intent of the woman.

As has already been touched upon, sex-selective abortion is no problem until it constitutes a notable trend, in which case it becomes a matter of national security.

As for the woman you encountered, I don't think there's any inconsistency in her own position, mostly because I suspect she hasn't actually thought through a coherent position in the first place.

For instance, check out this amazing post explaining that feminists can not be considered humanists because Enlightenment humanism is no longer a widespread intellectual-philosophical movement.

Just like there are no more fascists because Hitler and Mussolini are dead.

Just like no philosophies can be described as Aristotelian, or Platonic, or Kantian, or so on, because all those guys are dead and their unique philosophical contributions are no longer present in the world in any extant philosophy.

It's not hypocrisy - it's just that some people literally don't know what they're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

For instance, check out this amazing post explaining that feminists can not be considered humanists because Enlightenment humanism is no longer a widespread intellectual-philosophical movement.

Just like there are no more fascists because Hitler and Mussolini are dead.

Just like no philosophies can be described as Aristotelian, or Platonic, or Kantian, or so on, because all those guys are dead and their unique philosophical contributions are no longer present in the world in any extant philosophy.

It's not hypocrisy - it's just that some people literally don't know what they're talking about.

---

That reminds me of Bruno Latoure noting how it was meaningless to say that the pharaoh's died of tuberculosis(commenting on some recent mummy study) - because tuberculosis wasn't identified as a disease until millennia later....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

There isn't a logical inconsistency.

---

Either the foetus has personhood or it does not. So to say that the foetus does not have personhood and abortion is OK on the one hand, while protesting the abortion of girls on the other, is of course inconsistent.

Presuming, that is, that her objection arises from the murder of this foetal female life.

If her only objection is concerns about the sort of social engineering which Monty alludes to, then she wouldn't be being inconsistent.

But I presume from the OP her concern was more with the taking of the individual babies life, not with the wider social implications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Either the foetus has personhood or it does not. So to say that the foetus does not have personhood and abortion is OK on the one hand, while protesting the abortion of girls on the other, is of course inconsistent.

---

Having water means you drown, not having any means you dry up to a crisp. You either have or have not, there is no moderation. Suggesting that you only drink 2-3 litres on the other, is of course, inconsistent.

(tl;dr absolutes suck)

Quote:

---

If her only objection is concerns about the sort of social engineering which Monty alludes to, then she wouldn't be being inconsistent.

But I presume from the OP her concern was more with the taking of the individual babies life, not with the wider social implications.

---

Grey-area aside, this is exactly what the OP was referring to, or what I gathered. The OP was referring to how the families would be pressured to get rid of unwanted 'female children', akin to China's one-child system.

If lets say, Abortion was targeted towards black children, you wouldn't find it inconsistent someone disagrees with this racial policy, even though they might accept abortion in general? Replace 'black' with 'female', 'male' or other groupings you like.

Sure, exceptions that are broadly agreed on includes being forced to have a child against your will (akin rape-induced), where the development kills the mother (saving one life, over a proto-life), the child being so disabled due to alcoholic, genetic defects, or other anomalies which will heavily impact on its life. Yes, day-after pills or similar development during first trimester is broadly agreed too on the principle you don't want the child due to burdens said child would bring, not on the basis of sex, or unfair discriminatory practises, or lunatic like hair-colour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

If lets say, Abortion was targeted towards black children, you wouldn't find it inconsistent someone disagrees with this racial policy, even though they might accept abortion in general? Replace 'black' with 'female', 'male' or other groupings you like.

---

It already does target black children, because black households are more likely to seek abortion services due to socioeconomic conditions. Rich households can afford better and more frequent contraception as well as having better sex education.

The height of hypocracy is not acknowliging that you are a hypocrite. I certainly am a hypocrite because I can't defend my views on some things but still pretend they are rational, I know fully well they aren't rational at all and that it is just me not liking some things. Let's start from there, admitting you are hypocrite, and have absolutily no problem with knowing you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The height of hypocracy is not acknowliging that you are a hypocrite. I certainly am a hypocrite because I can't defend my views on some things but still pretend they are rational, I know fully well they aren't rational at all and that it is just me not liking some things. Let's start from there, admitting you are hypocrite, and have absolutily no problem with knowing you are.

---

Actually the height of hypocracy is knowing you are one and making absolutely no attempts to rectify your condition, even taking pride In such stubbornness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Actually the height of hypocracy is knowing you are one and making absolutely no attempts to rectify your condition, even taking pride In such stubbornness.

---

The joke is on you, I change my positions all the time, I am perfectly capable of completily changing my mind. I don't mind being called a hypocrite, as there is no vanity to be found here. I am a perfectly comfortable hypocrit, at least I know I am setting double standard and at least I know I can be absolutily wrong about things, and I really don't mind admitting that I was wrong. Problem is that people do a very poor job at convincing me I am wrong. When I am, I will be the first to admit it. Bring the tools if you want to have something fixed, and you come empty handed mia muca. You disliking me is just a badge of honour. I couldn't care less. Actually supports my idea that I got things right. So thanks.

I would have grabbed her and kissed her... Yeah, I'm really like that.

On topic, it seems to me that the issue is that the women are not "free to choose" and therefore all the abortions are not "free".

I see the argument, but on the other hand there are also Indian women who just want boys and not girls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The joke is on you, I change my positions all the time, I am perfectly capable of completily changing my mind. I don't mind being called a hypocrite, as there is no vanity to be found here. I am a perfectly comfortable hypocrit, at least I know I am setting double standard and at least I know I can be absolutily wrong about things, and I really don't mind admitting that I was wrong. Problem is that people do a very poor job at convincing me I am wrong. When I am, I will be the first to admit it. Bring the tools if you want to have something fixed, and you come empty handed mia muca. You disliking me is just a badge of honour. I couldn't care less. Actually supports my idea that I got things right. So thanks.

---

Christ. I would respond but I am being overwhelmed by the same feelings I got when I was forced to interact with mentally disabled kids in school. There's literally no way to not feel discomfort and I feel shame when it inevitably shows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Christ. I would respond but I am being overwhelmed by the same feelings I got when I was forced to interact with mentally disabled kids in school. There's literally no way to not feel discomfort and I feel shame when it inevitably shows.

---

Nah you couldn't respond, but you are good at creative insult I'll give you that. Still terrible at life though.

Quote:

---

On topic, it seems to me that the issue is that the women are not "free to choose" and therefore all the abortions are not "free".

---

If you mean this the way I think you do, then this is the issue literally everywhere. :uneasy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Either the foetus has personhood or it does not. So to say that the foetus does not have personhood and abortion is OK on the one hand, while protesting the abortion of girls on the other, is of course inconsistent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Having water means you drown, not having any means you dry up to a crisp. You either have or have not, there is no moderation.

---

Sometimes it is both. Like light is both a wave and a particle, mushroom is both a plant and an animal, language ability is both nature and nurture. Known as antinomy. Perhaps this was the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Sometimes it is both. Like light is both a wave and a particle, mushroom is both a plant and an animal, language ability is both nature and nurture. Known as antinomy. Perhaps this was the case.

---

It's not both a wave and a particle, wave and particles are just two models we can use to describe/explain light depending on the circumstances we want to explain.
You can also calculate a wavelength for a moving truck. I forgot how or why, but we did it in our high-school physics class. Something about matter being a form of energy IIRC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

It's not both a wave and a particle, wave and particles are just two models we can use to describe/explain light depending on the circumstances we want to explain.
You can also calculate a wavelength for a moving truck. I forgot how or why, but we did it in our high-school physics class. Something about matter being a form of energy IIRC.

---

AFAIK light consists of particles that have the shape and the properties of waves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2...rticle_duality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Having water means you drown, not having any means you dry up to a crisp. You either have or have not, there is no moderation. Suggesting that you only drink 2-3 litres on the other, is of course, inconsistent.

(tl;dr absolutes suck)

---

I was careful to say personhood rather than life precisely because I thought somebody would say something like this. Personhood is a legal status and a person will either have it or they will not - if they are granted it, then the right to life is the most basic of the rights that it confers, and therefore if a foetus has any sort of personhood, its right to life must be protected.

tl;dr you can't relativize everything

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Grey-area aside, this is exactly what the OP was referring to, or what I gathered. The OP was referring to how the families would be pressured to get rid of unwanted 'female children', akin to China's one-child system.

If lets say, Abortion was targeted towards black children, you wouldn't find it inconsistent someone disagrees with this racial policy, even though they might accept abortion in general? Replace 'black' with 'female', 'male' or other groupings you like.

Sure, exceptions that are broadly agreed on includes being forced to have a child against your will (akin rape-induced), where the development kills the mother (saving one life, over a proto-life), the child being so disabled due to alcoholic, genetic defects, or other anomalies which will heavily impact on its life. Yes, day-after pills or similar development during first trimester is broadly agreed too on the principle you don't want the child due to burdens said child would bring, not on the basis of sex, or unfair discriminatory practises, or lunatic like hair-colour.

---

We didn't get the whole story from Strike but this bit:

"My heart than had a palpitation. It then dawned on me that I would get no where with her. I nodded my head and said I understood and went back to the class on federal courts. So I guess the argument boils down to: "Woman's body, Woman's choice. Unless we don't like it, in which case choice will be dictated by us."

led me to the conclusion that the girl in question wanted to protect the life of female foetuses for their own sake in and of themselves. It suggests intervention to prevent the abortion of female foetuses, rather than just protecting the mothers from coming under pressure to abort female foetuses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

AFAIK light consists of particles that have the shape and the properties of waves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2...rticle_duality

---

From that Wikipedia entry:

Quote:

---

It addresses the inability of the classical concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects. As Einstein wrote: "It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do".

---

Those concepts can be used to describe light, to predict what it does if you use the right concept for the right situation etc. But that does not necessarily mean that light actually is either of those. the combination of the two may accurately describe how light behaves, but not necessarily what it actually is. As the entry says, the theory applies to all quantum-scale objects, so it doesn't explain what any of them are, it just describes how they all behave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

mushroom is both a plant and an animal

---

Mushrooms are in their own kingdom and neither plants nor animals.