Skip to main content

View Diary: Misogyny: The Real Root of Opposition to Late Abortion (99 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  why argue with you? (5+ / 0-)

    you've already decided that any contradiction to your beliefs IS a straw man

    "We struck down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering!" - The Shoveler

    by Pandoras Box on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 07:24:46 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  no, (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nightsweat, Pandoras Box, jhecht, Stroszek

      there are certain arguments and positions people acteually hold. THere are people who really believe that a 5 month old baby and a 5 day old embryo are morally equivalent.  If you say to these people "mysogyny" you are not addressiong their position. A better argument would be "well, don't you think consciousness is a sine qua non for moral worth, and there is not even a brain then. OR you could argue taht anyone who eats hamburger is involved in the death of beings much more person like than a fetus (at any stage) OR you could argue taht the pro life position fails to take into account the dependency relation the fetus has on the mother (having a right to life may not be teh same as having the right to use another person's body to remain alive

      And of course, tehre is the furtehr argument taht even if abortion is morally wrong, it does nto follow that it is morally right to make it illegal

      I can't stand watching political shows when abortion is debated, none of the actual issues are debated. One side assumes a sanctity of human life (biologically defined) view, the other thinks this this does not apply to the fetus, but they dont' argue about their premises.. just talk past each other

      •  the truth is that you can't win an argument (7+ / 0-)

        with someone who believes (whatever they believe) blindly.  I don't think the diary is discussing a way to convince people with extreme beliefs actually.  I just think it's true.

        and the logic of RH Reality Check's argument holds

        "We struck down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering!" - The Shoveler

        by Pandoras Box on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 07:42:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The problem with this point of view, other is its (4+ / 0-)

        newness and ahistoricity. There was a reason in the old days, say the 1920's, why babies were not baptised until their first or second year, because so many did not survive. They did not become people until it was clear that they were staying in life for awhile at least. And in the very old days, even born babies who were well could be rejected from human society and exposed to die or be taken by others who wanted them, but never back into the family into which they were born. As late as the 1850's, there were still recognized exceptions or mitigators for women whose lives would be destroyed by the addition of another member of the family, one common reason being cited being poverty.

        This passion for the long-time-to-go-before-actual-birth is a very modern thing, and runs along the same timelines as effective contraception.

        And leads to its own odd ideas, including the one that says those fertilized ova in reproduction clinics which are cold stored until use,and are thrown out or destroyed if not to be used, are also full persons with full rights and moral integrity, although the same rabid anti women demonstrators do not spend a fraction of the same energy mauling such fertility clinics with frozen ova, as they do the reproductive rights clinics where women are actually there to abuse. If the antis actually believed it, the same wrath Roeder and those who created him and flew him at his target like a hawk on a bird would be bombing the fertility clinics, same moral problem, but they aren't. The only difference is that the women and men who donated there are now divorced from the physicial ova, and not around anymore to abuse. If there weren't actual women to abuse around, no problem.

    •  I studied ethical theory extensively (0+ / 0-)

      as a graduate student. Late term abortion is a big issue in medical and bioethics... precisely because it revolves around those questions about the nature of consciousness and moral considerability that have yet to be resolved. I know many people, including many progressives (and even Marxists), who had honest ethical qualms about the procedure that weren't based in misogyny. It does us a disservice to toss everyone into black/white categories and dismiss millions of rational people as irrational, Falwell-esque extremists.

      •  since it is a procedure that is (6+ / 0-)

        rarely done and nearly always done to save the life of the woman, what are their possible qualms?

        "We struck down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering!" - The Shoveler

        by Pandoras Box on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 08:02:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How do those thinkers deal with the ethical issue (4+ / 0-)

          of the rights of the pregnant mother being changed and subordinated in all matters to the alleged welfare of a fetus which might or might not, without any human intervention, survive to be born? Part of the problem here is what the anti women forces seek is precisely that subordination, where there are not two morally active entities to be considered, but only one, the one who can't talk yet and may never be able to do so, and not the one who can talk and contribute to society, until the pregnancy kills or permanently damages her in a material enough number of cases to be considered as a relevant issue. And even when it gets that material, she is subordinated, even where the effect of the subordination is to kill both of them.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site