Modern Feminism - What's the deal?

[Wells]

So everyone who is pro-life is a misogynist? Because whether the woman was raped or not should really play no role. Either the fetus is a person, and its right to life supercede than right to choose of the mother - or the fetus is not a person and abortion is allowed in any circumstances. This is not necessarily a religious position either.

Maybe you're not familiar with the far right pro life movement in our country.

[Deleted]

the whole "pro life" movement is based on the idea that womens bodily autonomy is irrelevant.

No it's not. Pro lifers do not think that rape, which is a violation of that, is okay.

They simply think that bodily autonomy comes second to the right to life, which I'd say is the correct stance. Their flaw is that they consider the fetus to have a right to life. Not exactly "hate of women".

Maybe you're not familiar with the far right pro life movement in our country.

Maybe comments like this aren't really worth a proper answer.

[Wells]

No it's not. Pro

When you're saying that in all cases the rights of a few cells that arne't legally a person trump the rights of the mother that's exactly what you're saying.

[Spectral]

So everyone who is pro-life is a misogynist?

Let me back peddle slightly. I don't generally like the idea of labeling people as "a racist" or "a misogynist". It's easy shorthand for "someone who regularly expresses misogynist ideas", but it's less useful than talking about behaviors and ideas. Pro-life ideology is inherently a misogynist set of ideas though, as it denigrates women and their bodily autonomy.

Because whether the woman was raped or not should really play no role. Either the fetus is a person, and its right to life supercede than right to choose of the mother - or the fetus is not a person and abortion is allowed in any circumstances. This is not necessarily a religious position either.

I disagree that it's not a religious position; an embryo is objectively not a person. Believing it to be a person relies purely on ensoulment as a concept, everything else is rationalization. The reason rape is relevant is that it puts in a stark light just how willing these people are to inflict misery on a woman.

I'm just guessing, but I think he was trying to find a way to avoid answering the question about rape and abortion. And he came up with the most retarded smokescreen ever.

I think he said what he actually thinks.

[starlord]

Yes, an investigation is is a good idea. That doesn't change the fact that someone is still arrested until they complete said investigation.

One could call that rape, absolutely. However, I'm not referring to that at all in my post. I was referring to pure accusation that was preceded by nothing.

i dont know, i guess the police think its best to err on the side of caution. better inconvenience a few than let violent criminals potentially escape.

[Radux]

i dont know, i guess the police think its best to err on the side of caution. better inconvenience a few than let violent criminals potentially escape.

Right. If they actually jail and punish a rapist, that's wonderful. It's the false accusations that bother me to no end, since the label (again, at least in a university setting) is already associated with that person as soon as they go to jail.

I have huge issues when there isn't a punishment to go along with a false accusation.

[Deleted]

Let me back peddle slightly. I don't generally like the idea of labeling people as "a racist" or "a misogynist". It's easy shorthand for "someone who regularly expresses misogynist ideas", but it's less useful than talking about behaviors and ideas. Pro-life ideology is inherently a misogynist set of ideas though, as it denigrates women and their bodily autonomy.

Pro-life means you think fetuses have a right to life. And the right to life does go before bodily autonomy.

I disagree that it's not a religious position; an embryo is objectively not a person. Believing it to be a person relies purely on ensoulment as a concept, everything else is rationalization. The reason rape is relevant is that it puts in a stark light just how willing these people are to inflict misery on a woman.

The definition of a person isn't really an objective matter. It's a legal concept that can be changed with a few strokes of a pen, thus it depends on the society defining it. These people think the current definition is wrong, and try to change it through a democratic process to be closer to what they feel it should be.

I mean, rights are given to a child at birth, but it's not much different biologically than it was a day before while still unborn.

I think he said what he actually thinks.

Right, but you don't know.

[starlord]

Right. If they actually jail and punish a rapist, that's wonderful. It's the false accusations that bother me to no end, since the label (again, at least in a university setting) is already associated with that person as soon as they go to jail.

I have huge issues when there isn't a punishment to go along with a false accusation.

i dont know how you would prove that in a reliable manner.

[Wells]

Pro-life means you think fetuses have a right to life. And the right to life does go before bodily autonomy.

Not always. I'm under no obligation to donate organs.

So to a pro lifer my autonomy trumps the right to life of a grown adult, but the right to life of a clump of cells trumps a woman's bodily autonomy.

Yeah I can see the misogyny there.

[Spectral]

Pro-life means you think fetuses have a right to life. And the right to life does go before bodily autonomy.

The idea that an embryo, which has no thoughts, feelings, skills, or even senses is has rights that supersede those of a woman is misogyny. I could barely come up with a more clear example.

The definition of a person isn't really an objective matter. It's a legal concept that can be changed with a few strokes of a pen, thus it depends on the society defining it. These people think the current definition is wrong, and try to change it through a democratic process to be closer to what they feel it should be.

I mean, rights are given to a child at birth, but it's not much different biologically than it was a day before while still unborn.

Nonsense, there's no objective argument that an embryo is a person. It's emotion, all the way down.

Right, but you don't know.

I give people the benefit of the doubt. When someone says something, I'll assume they're telling me what they honestly believe.

[jreg]

When you're saying that in all cases the rights of a few cells that arne't legally a person trump the rights of the mother that's exactly what you're saying.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that in the US, the moment the sperm and egg conjoin, it is legally a living being? I might be outdated since I haven't really followed any abortion debate for years.

Let me back peddle slightly. I don't generally like the idea of labeling people as "a racist" or "a misogynist". It's easy shorthand for "someone who regularly expresses misogynist ideas", but it's less useful than talking about behaviors and ideas. Pro-life ideology is inherently a misogynist set of ideas though, as it denigrates women and their bodily autonomy.

Some people hold the sanctity of life far above one's own autonomy. Same goes for men regarding euthanasia. I'm not saying I agree with this but it's surely a point of view you can at least understand without deciding it's inherently misogynistic. It seems pretty disingenuous when you say that.

[Deleted]

Not always. I'm under no obligation to donate organs.

The difference here is that you're not allowed to take action that causes others to die involuntarily (except in self-defense situations where you save your own or others' lives).

[Radux]

i dont know how you would prove that in a reliable manner.

I won't go so far as to mention how. I'm not sure how they investigate these sorts of things outside of things like Law and Order: SVU, so yeah - not entirely sure.

[Kasierith]

Right, but you don't know.

And you don't know either. While the reasoning is of course more important than the face value of a statement, if said reasoning is unavailable apart from conjecture attempting to guess the reasoning is a purely subjective and malleable interpretation. Objectively, you have no choice but to go by the face value of the statement.

[Wells]

The difference here is that you're not allowed to take action that causes others to die involuntarily (except in self-defense situations where you save your own or others' lives).

I don't see any meaningful distinction between the two. In one case you're placing autonomy above life and in the other you're placing life above autonomy. Its as simple as that.

[Deleted]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that in the US, the moment the sperm and egg conjoin, it is legally a living being? I might be outdated since I haven't really followed any abortion debate for years.

As far as I'm aware it doesn't have any rights at that point. Others only have an obligation not to harm it (for example its criminal for a third party to kill the fetus without the consent of the mother). A bit like how animal protection laws work.

[Spectral]

Some people hold the sanctity of life far above one's own autonomy. Same goes for men regarding euthanasia. I'm not saying I agree with this but it's surely a point of view you can at least understand without deciding it's inherently misogynistic. It seems pretty disingenuous when you say that.

Well, no, the "sanctity of life" is a nonsense concept that no one believes in. Everyone's comfortable with ending all sorts of cellular life all the time, and it doesn't bother them a bit.

---------- Post added 2013-02-18 at 01:48 PM ----------

So, the real point is, this shit is why feminism is still necessary. That we're still sitting here arguing whether women should be forced to carry pregnancies to term and jailed if they choose not to is why we're not even close to the end of a use for feminism.

[Deleted]

I don't see any meaningful distinction between the two. In one case you're placing autonomy above life and in the other you're placing life above autonomy. Its as simple as that.

There's a huge distinction actually. The right to life doesn't mean that society has the obligation to keep you alive no matter what. It does however mean that society can't kill you off without your consent (except in circumstances where you're trying to kill them).

This is how pretty much all western societies work, and this logic translates to the situation we discussed earlier.

[Kasierith]

There's a huge distinction actually. The right to life doesn't mean that society has the obligation to keep you alive no matter what. It does however mean that society can't kill you off without your consent (except in circumstances where you're trying to kill them).

This is how pretty much all western societies work, and this logic translates to the situation we discussed earlier.

The logic only translates if you assume a key aspect in this debate to be an absolute truth, that life and protection by the law as an individual being begins at birth. So in that case... would a mother who drinks during her pregnancy be vulnerable to legal action for attempting, intentionally or no, to harm the unborn child?

[Spectral]

So in that case... would a mother who drinks during her pregnancy be vulnerable to legal action for attempting, intentionally or no, to harm the unborn child?

There's all sorts of weird consequences that stem from the nonsense idea that an embryo and/or fetus is a person. They'd have to be counted in a census, for example.