Re: Hypocrisy

[Strike For The South]

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

[drone]

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

[HoreTore]

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

[Beskar]

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.

[Husar]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[Beskar]

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)

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Montmorency]

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.

[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.

[HoreTore]

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....