Down With Feminism

Totes!


Hope I don't regret this.

I’m making a hypothetical concession for argument’s sake. That’s why I said, “So we are talking about a potential human being at the least.” In other words I consider it more than just a potential human being, but I’m trying to find common ground. Can we both agree that it’s a potential human being?

It’s a reason to be modest and aware. If people don’t want to be modest that’s their choice, but as long as they understand the risk. A lot of women seem to be naive about it. I took martial arts because I know that at any point someone could try to hurt me for no good reason, and I take it up as my responsibility to protect myself. If women don’t protect themselves and just blindly go out dressed provocatively then something really awful can happen, and even though it’s not their fault that someone else decides to try and rape them, they do have to accept some responsibility for their own safety and well-being.

There are plenty of articles about tests done on babies in the womb feeling pain after 20 weeks, you can look them up if you want. If you don’t agree with any of them it was really just another example to show that you probably shouldn’t be so quick to assume it isn’t alive and you aren’t hurting anyone. For another thing the abortion operation could damage the woman’s uterus preventing her from having children in the future, so it can do harm to the mother also. I think it’s just something you should be more aware of before you lobby in favor of killing them.

Imagine you plant some flower seeds and then someone comes and digs them up and crushes them. I don’t think, “It’s not a flower yet,” is going to illicit a response from you like, “Oh yeah, okay then, nothing wrong with that since you weren’t hurting anyone.”


I didn't respond to the religious stuff because I'm trying not to take the thread in that direction. I can message you on facebook about it though.

Yeah. We just seem to disagree how important this to-be human's potentiality is when compared to the well-being of a grown-up human being, and also the life of people around her. And, as I made it clear in my previous post, I'm not supporting very late abortion when indeed, as Yoda pointed out, the fetus is hardly distinguishable from an infant.
Whether it's your intention or not, you sound like a radical imam. Following your train of thought, you shouldn't openly express your religious beliefs because the chance a bigot who disagrees with you and wants to stab you actually does it are higher than if you were keeping silent about it. But by denying you your right to openly express your beliefs, one would be taking away some of your personal freedom. And dressing immodestly is a part of any human's personal freedom.

You can take martial arts lessons, have a gas pistol in your bag, and dress they way you like.

Yeah, let's advice them to stay home, cover their entire bodies, and wear a spiked chastity belt with a mouse trap-like trap in the groin area. At first you are saying it's not their fault somebody else is going to rape them, but then you are saying it's actually their responsibility to prevent it.

(Gotta be careful with allegories, but let's risk again.) It's as if you were saying it's your responsibility to wear a bulletproof vest every time you are out in the street, because even though it wouldn't be your fault if a maniac decided to shoot you, it would still be your responsibility for your own safety. But behaving like this would mean you are essentially showing weakness and are intimidated by the criminal whereas it's the criminal that should be intimidated to commit the crime. And getting back to my allegory, you wearing a vest would only provoke a determined shooter to aim for your head.

Besides rape might be not about sexual satisfaction, but about demonstration of superiority. It's mainly the humiliation of the victim that gives the assaulter a kick. A Polish dres might be more willing to rape a modestly clad Muslim girl in a hijab than a vulgar, scantily dressed blond bimbo because the former is against his ultra-nationalistic, anti-immigrant xenophobic worldview.

Well, I wouldn't be happy, but I most definitely wouldn't call them murderers. EDIT: Actually, if I were the person to ask them to do this, it'd be weird to then cry about it.
That's okay. As I already said in my previous post, I'm tired of those discussions, so I'm going to try to steer away from them. At least for some time now. I'm just replying again to button things up. Thank you for the discussion.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

I am in favor of abortion when it comes to straw men. Did they really need to come into this cold cruel world just to die senselessly?

What about potential damage to the uterus caused by the abortion procedure?

Or the psychological trauma to the mother for killing her child?

Have you ever visited an abortion clinic or seen footage of abortions? I have, and I could clearly make out the human head, facial features, torso, and limbs. There were body parts and whole feti in the garbage bins. It made me sick.

Have you ever watched interviews of people who survived abortions, or people who had abortions and regretted it?

Many abortions cause a lot of pain and trauma. I’d like to see an interview of someone who actually benefited from having an abortion and felt good about it years later.

I think the point is that it exposes a double standard and shows that when A justifies B and C it demonstrates that A alone is not enough to draw B as a conclusion since it can also support C. What I find happens is that a lot of people use A to support B and apply a double standard to C, but A is not the real reason they believe in B. Often people don't know the real reason, or they are trying to hide some evil motive.

That's why I don't openly express my religious beliefs. I'm Canadian, we don't have free speech. My religious beliefs get accused of being hate speech. But I'm not denying anyone's rights. Women have the right to wear whatever they want.

Are you saying they aren't responsible at all for their own safety? Do you think they should be aware of the risks?

Looks like you're still going.

What about delivery complicatons? What about a slip of surgeon's hand during (any other) operation? What about an operation with a high risk of death? Besides if we make abortions illegal there is a higher chance people will try performing them secretly which increases the chance of such complications.
How about the psychological trauma to the mother due to bringing up a child she doesn't want and doesn't love? What about the psychological trauma to the child who rejected by the mother ends up in an orphanage?
Sure, that's my hobby. Every day after work I visit abortion clinics for entertainment.

Okay, but how many people were happy with it, and how many regretted it? If I sent you a link to a study which proved there are many more women that don't regret abortion than those that do, your argument would most probably be: "they are ignoring their conscious/are bad people".
Not an interview, but: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128832#sec013.
Why is that? xD
EOT.

Oh, wait...

They should use common sense just like any person. That is, they shouldn't e.g. drive under the influence because then they pose danger to others (and additionally to themselves). They also shouldn't run around hoods screaming the n word and starting fights. That's just freakin' stupid. Deliberately not dressing the way you like because you are afraid of potential repercussions is mad. Where do we live, Saudi Arabia?


My guess is it's not really the rape thing that rubs you the wrong way (iirc it was me who gave this example). You are simply a believer of a religion who, while trying to abide by all its rules, is mad at the entire world (or rather all women) for making it harder for you. :P

I will ignore any further discussion in this topic. BYE!

Huh?

That makes no sense. According to you, if I feel happy, but someone tells me I am unhappy, ergo I am unhappy?

You seem very fond of quoting others, so show me the exact quotes where I have laughed at you, insulted you or been rude to you. When you make accusations like this, you must show proof.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

But if 1) X is accusing Y of the double standard of holding B but not C even though A justifies both, and 2) X themselves holds C but not B, then X should have to explain why they are not guilty of the double standard of holding C but not B though A would justify both.


Or if they are saying A is just bad reasoning, they often don't take the extra step of saying that it shouldn't be used to justify C.



So if the double standard exposes that they really aren't holding their belief because of A, but both sides are participating in a double standard, BOTH sides are hiding a motive (evil or not, unconsciously or not).


Basically, I see a lot of Xs accusing Ys of double standards and not doing the basic reflection of seeing if the reversal exposes a double standard on the part of X.


If both sides ARE holding a double standard, both X and Y are wrong. But I'm finding myself more annoyed with Xs because they are going through the trouble of making a double standard argument without taking a necessary continuation.

Theres way too much algebra in this thread.

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

He's saying that being female does not give someone an inherently increased ability to determine when someone becomes a person. Which is true.

There are many examples of this. So many that I did a double-take when you later accused him of being "negative." Here are some examples:

That’s not what he said. He said a woman doesn’t know her body as well as a male doctor. Even leaving aside the absurdity of mentioning the gender of the doctor, that makes no sense at all.

That was nice of you to do all the work for him. Like a judge in court who presents the prosecutor’s case for her.

Technically he said it didn't make her a "higher authority" on her body. Though I'm pretty sure both are true.

How do you figure that? The entire dispute is about men having opinions on women's bodies. He gave you a simple, relevant example demonstrating that simply being a woman doesn't magically grant someone expertise or authority on these sorts of questions.

It's more like a lawyer doing it.

Not that who demonstrates something has any bearing on the fact that it's true.

Neither of you has explained the relevance of the doctor being male.

Let’s go back to Monday (?) when I said neither me nor anyone else can force a woman to birth a child if she doesn’t want one. That’s my stance. Have as many opinions as you wish, but, in the end, the woman decides.

But you’re not a lawyer. You’re the owner of this website. If you thought I was out of line you could have messaged me. (We have had one or two conversations in the past.) You could have told me that I am going too far. I would respect that, but, in this instance, you have taken his side. When he called me a liar, you simply told him to be civil.

I am going to apologize to Zotis in a PM. Seeing it all laid out, I see that I went too far.

Awe... Well, thanks for the discussion so far Mr. Minio. I’ll respond anyway. You don’t have to read it if you don’t want I guess, but maybe it’ll benefit others.

That made me laugh. I don’t care what the world does. If women want to dress like whores that’s their business. I’m not trying to stop them. I’m just advocating awareness and responsibility for one’s own safety, and you act like I’m trying to incite Sharia law. Advocating modesty is not advocating Birka’s. It seems like you don’t even want to consider my actual position.

I’m not sure what your point is here. I’m not advocating ignoring risks in other operations. I just wanted to know what you thought of the risk to damaging the mother’s uterus. Do you think it’s inconsequential? Do you think those risks could be a good reason to not go through with an abortion? If you’re talking about them going through with the birth and the risks of that compared to the risks of an abortion, the abortion risks are greater. I do not condone sex outside of marriage at all. People shouldn’t have sex if they don’t intend to raise a child. It’s called reproduction and making love. The problem is people want the pleasure without the responsibility. I have a huge problem with justifying killing a babie just because they didn’t think sex through and don’t want the responsibility. I’m not trying to argue that there’s never any situation where it could be acceptable, but generally no I don’t agree with it morally and I don’t think it should be legal except to save the mother’s life.

I’ve never heard of someone experiencing psychological trauma from having to raise a child who was unwanted or a product of rape. Also, I never advocated that they should have to raise the child, although I do think that’s the best case even in rape. I suggested adoption as an alternative, especially for women who are too young or can’t financially support a child. I have heard many women give their testimonies about struggling with depression and guilt for having murdered their baby. I don’t think psychological trauma to a child rejected by the mother and ending up in an orphanage is a valid argument in favor of abortion as a better alternative. How can you think the psychological trauma of that would be worse than death?

The article you posted said this: “In support of a state-level ban, a researcher testified that abortion ‘carries greater risk of emotional harm than childbirth.’”

Well like you said earlier you don’t support late term abortion. You may want to see what actually goes on in abortion clinics, because I think you imagine something very different from the reality of the situation.

I already assume most people who make any choice don’t regret their choice most of the time and are happy with it. If you’re using majority rule I don’t think the number of women who decide to have abortions are the majority. Also the majority of women who go through with childbirth agree that they made the right decision. Even though your article states that, “The predicted probability of reporting that abortion was the right decision was over 99% at all time points over three years.” There are a few things to consider. First of all it’s a predicted probability, not an actual result. Second of all the article also says, “A variety of emotional responses were elicited, but the predominant reaction was relief, which was reported by three-fourths of all patients. Guilt and depression occurred in about 15% of patients. Only 10% described the overall experience as negative.” Only three quarters expressed relief, and 15% had guilt and depression. The article also says, “Despite these arguments, questions about long-term abortion regret and emotional harm remain unresolved.” And it says, “While research has found that women’s short-term emotions post-abortion can vary substantially.”

So consider that the majority say it was the right decision, but the ones that decide to go through with childbirth experience less emotional trauma. Just because they say it’s the right decision doesn’t mean it was. Obviously most people are going to think it’s the right decision or else they wouldn’t choose it, and I’m sure people tend to rationalize too in order to avoid the trauma of realizing they made a terrible mistake.

It should also be noted that it’s a study done on participants who agreed to do the study. I imagine that women with more trauma and regret would be less inclined to participate in a survey after their abortion. Sometimes it takes many years before people open up about their experiences and come to terms with their trauma and depression, as I’ve observed in a number of interviews.

I think the followup is the responsibility of Y though. If they say, "Okay I see what you mean about A justifying B and C, but now why isn't it a double standard for C?" Then we can make progress in the debate, but that rarely happens. If the purpose is just to show the flawed logic of Y then it succeeds. If the purpose is to show that A isn't enough to support B since it also supports C then it also succeeds. Since we were using Yoda as an example I think he's very good at avoiding double standards and exposing logical fallacies this way. He's also usually willing to follow up, especially if he gets an intelligent response. Sadly he usually gets a diversionary tactic or straw man as a response. It's a lot of work to have these debates. I'd say it would be necessary to include the follow up if it was a research paper or an academic journal, but I think for an internet forum including the follow up can wait until Y at least acknowledges the point X is making.

Edit: If Y presents their position and X comes along and exposes it's logical fallacies, then Y can assess their logical fallacies and strengthen their position. X's position, why he holds it, and whether he's committing logical fallacies himself is it's own separate issue.

If men should stay out of the abortion debate then what about male medical doctors who are experts on abortion? When you go to the hospital do you disregard what male doctors have to say about your body and your health?

Do you know what an appeal to authority fallacy is? Saying that women are a higher authority on abortion than men just because of their sex isn't a logical argument. Saying someone is a higher authority on their body just because it's their body isn't a logical argument either.



That's not what I'm saying at all. You forgot the essential word, "seem." If it seems to someone that you're angry then that is how you're coming across to them even if that isn't how you actually feel. Listening to them could give you insight to avoid coming across in a way you don't intend in the future. It's at least worth listening to even if you don't agree.


Thanks Yoda for going ahead and laying things out with regards to this, and thank you Stirchley for your apology.

Every abortion potentially deprives the human race of a future Shakespear or Mozart.

Or (and purely saying this for balance) a future Hitler or Pol Pot.

I think it's self-evident, but I actually did explain it in the very next part of the post:

The entire dispute is about men having opinions on women's bodies. He gave you a simple, relevant example demonstrating that simply being a woman doesn't magically grant someone expertise or authority on these sorts of questions.

Nobody disputes that that is the legal reality. This is a discussion about what should be.

The dissonance between the way you talked to him and your comments about negativity was so extreme that I figured you were pretty much just messing with him/pretending not to know what he meant. We have had one or two conversations in the past where that was the case, too, I think.

I've made a deliberate point to stay out of most of this, though I think just quoting things back to people is a pretty mild form of intervention that stops well short of really taking sides. Especially if it's just to point out that someone is really heaping abuse on someone else.

That's very big of you, and I appreciate it.