Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Moderators: Enigma, Sonic#

Taurwen
member
member
Posts: 358
Joined: Sat Jul 2, 9:33 2016

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Taurwen » Mon Feb 19, 10:01 2018

Hey, I'd like to point out that we're on the interwebs. You probably shouldn't assume everyone you are talking to is in the States.

User avatar
Mordak

Posts: 125
Joined: Tue May 6, 6:20 2003
Location: The Outback

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Mordak » Mon Feb 19, 13:25 2018

To get back on topic, lets talk about the pro-choice movement. Women should have the right to decide whether they want to carry a pregnancy, or raise a baby or whatever they choose to do.

Women world wide should have access to birth control, plan-b, an abortion or adoption if they do not wish to raise a child or go through the risk of pregnancy. Women should have the choice to decide their options without interference from partners, family, doctors or politicians.

I'm pro choice. Women have the safety of technology and policy today to do what they want in most first world countries. But how many women in developing countries are still being held back by a lack of social progress, wishing they could have some control over a thing as big as pregnancy, childbirth and raising a human being for 18+ years?
:australia: :b2: :b3: :b4: :b1:

Plotthickens
member
member
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 17:21 2017

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Plotthickens » Mon Feb 19, 14:48 2018

DevilsAdvocate123 wrote: Again, I ask that users here stop attempting to throw character insults. Please continue the flow of debate here. I simply quoted your post as an example of how we should not engage each other, and I continued the flow of debate with my next post.
There have been no character insults yet in this thread. A character insult, AKA Ad Hominem attack, would be something like this example: "You are a barely literate, quite immature, anti-choice troll who is self-righteously trying to reframe the abortion conversation into this bullshit life vs death crap that's already been proven irrelevant. You throw "now, now, let's be nice" tantrums whenever you can't come up with a cogent answer. At this point it's just entertaining to see you proudly chomping at the hook and ignoring the worm. So chomp, little minnow, chomp. I got nothing better to do than practice yet again on another ignorant, self-righteous, misogynistic anti-intellectual."

But nobody's said anything like that example. Instead we've argued cogently. You, on the other hand, have thrown up this chastisement-as-diversion as a way to dodge four times so far, and the only other tactic you have is reframing. Reframing or dodging: neither is actual conversation. You're trying to just dominate the debate, silencing everyone else. That's pretty telling.

DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 14:28 2018
Plotthickens wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 14:06 2018
Actually it's completely within bounds. It's following the Roe V Wade arguments. That it's uncomfortable for you to consider is besides the point. Your logic leads to the rich harvesting the poor's organs, proven in multiple countries across the globe. That's hardly feminist, so knowing that, is your pro-life "baby's life is paramount" stance still something you're adhering to? The practical application of it is pretty fucking uncomfortable. Still standing firm?
I said nothing to do with mandatory organ harvesting. I'll repeat what I said: It is wrong to infringe on somebody else's life, unless they are wrongly infringing on the life of somebody else. What does this mean? You are free to do as you wish. However, as soon as you start wrongly infringing on the life of somebody else, people should take measures to stop you from doing so. If you apply this logic to mandatory organ harvesting, this is what the logic leads you to believe:

It is wrong to steal somebody's organs. It is okay to stop somebody from stealing a person's organs.

And so, I stand by this statement firmly: "It is wrong to infringe on somebody's life, unless they are wrongly infringing on the lives of others.
For the women who are pregnant and do not want to host another human inside one of their organs for nine months, that other person is "stealing a person's organ". Same as if I took a hank of your hair or a rich woman needed a lobe of your lung. Please explain why you do not see this truth only when applied to fetuses.

If you are suggesting that it's wrong to force a mother to have a baby use her organs, then you have to ask if it's wrong to force a baby to give up their entire body.
Nobody is entitled to someone else's organs. Not men, not women; not rich, not poor; not old, not young, not babies, not fetuses. To say otherwise is to abrogate bodily autonomy and advocate unwilling organ harvesting. Please explain why you do not see this truth only when applied to fetuses.

DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 13:45 2018
The pro-life stance is not sexist, because the philosophical reasoning behind the stance has nothing to do with sex. If you are suggesting that it's wrong to force somebody "to give up the use of one of their organs when somebody else needs it", I'd agree. Pro-lifers agree as well. This isn't what the conversation is about, however. We are talking about aborting babies. If you are suggesting that it's wrong to force a mother to have a baby use her organs, then you have to ask if it's wrong to force a baby to give up their entire body. This still has nothing to do with sexism, as this question would still be valid if the father was bearing the child.


You're dodging. The question is "why are women the only ones who are under threat of losing bodily autonomy, and not men too?" and the answer is "because pro-lifers don't yet understand that when you take away a citizen's right to bodily autonomy, shit like unwilling organ harvesting and forced abortions happens".

Stop threatening bodily autonomy. You won't like where it goes.

[Mod note: post edited direct images to links because they are NSFW and potentially disturbing. ]

http://hairstylegalleries.com/wp-conten ... ianmei.jpg

http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/10/04/for ... ld-policy/
https://pmchollywoodlife.files.wordpres ... 620&zoom=2


https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5gwv ... ning-lives
https://assets.vice.com/content-images/ ... 99aacf.jpg
https://assets.vice.com/content-images/ ... 940c36.jpg
https://assets.vice.com/content-images/ ... 2554d3.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-stVUl6OPvPs/T ... 60x345.jpg
DaHjaj 'oH QaQ jaj gerbils vISop

DevilsAdvocate123

Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 6:48 2017
Contact:

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by DevilsAdvocate123 » Wed Feb 21, 18:57 2018

Plotthickens wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 14:48 2018
DevilsAdvocate123 wrote: Again, I ask that users here stop attempting to throw character insults. Please continue the flow of debate here. I simply quoted your post as an example of how we should not engage each other, and I continued the flow of debate with my next post.
There have been no character insults yet in this thread. A character insult, AKA Ad Hominem attack, would be something like this example: "You are a barely literate, quite immature, anti-choice troll who is self-righteously trying to reframe the abortion conversation into this bullshit life vs death crap that's already been proven irrelevant. You throw "now, now, let's be nice" tantrums whenever you can't come up with a cogent answer. At this point it's just entertaining to see you proudly chomping at the hook and ignoring the worm. So chomp, little minnow, chomp. I got nothing better to do than practice yet again on another ignorant, self-righteous, misogynistic anti-intellectual."

But nobody's said anything like that example. Instead we've argued cogently. You, on the other hand, have thrown up this chastisement-as-diversion as a way to dodge four times so far, and the only other tactic you have is reframing. Reframing or dodging: neither is actual conversation. You're trying to just dominate the debate, silencing everyone else. That's pretty telling.


Again, I'm simply asking that nobody here makes posts like such. When I posted this before, I continued the flow of debate with the very next post I made. You have already tried to make my character out to be one that supports mandatory organ harvesting. You have also posted the following about me: "Keep on with your sniffy dismissing. . ."

I also bolded the statements above, where you accused me of trying to "dominate the debate, silencing everyone else" and how "that's pretty telling" of my character. I could make a case that you disguised an insult towards me, with the first part in bold, but I am going to let that slide.


Again, I ask that this not be a conversation about anybody's characters. I'm not offended. I'm simply saying that nobody cares about my character. Nobody cares about your character. All that's important here are the ideas that we are all discussing. Please do not make this a conversation about anybody's character.


Plotthickens wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 14:48 2018
DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 14:28 2018


I said nothing to do with mandatory organ harvesting. I'll repeat what I said: It is wrong to infringe on somebody else's life, unless they are wrongly infringing on the life of somebody else. What does this mean? You are free to do as you wish. However, as soon as you start wrongly infringing on the life of somebody else, people should take measures to stop you from doing so. If you apply this logic to mandatory organ harvesting, this is what the logic leads you to believe:

It is wrong to steal somebody's organs. It is okay to stop somebody from stealing a person's organs.

And so, I stand by this statement firmly: "It is wrong to infringe on somebody's life, unless they are wrongly infringing on the lives of others.
For the women who are pregnant and do not want to host another human inside one of their organs for nine months, that other person is "stealing a person's organ". Same as if I took a hank of your hair or a rich woman needed a lobe of your lung. Please explain why you do not see this truth only when applied to fetuses.
It's inaccurate for one to suggest that bearing an unwanted child is the same wrongdoing as somebody harvesting and stealing another person's organ. During a pregnancy, the developing human is dependent on the mother's body. This is simply how reproduction works. It's not wrong for the baby to do this, even if the baby is unwanted.

Plotthickens wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 14:48 2018


Nobody is entitled to someone else's organs. Not men, not women; not rich, not poor; not old, not young, not babies, not fetuses. To say otherwise is to abrogate bodily autonomy and advocate unwilling organ harvesting. Please explain why you do not see this truth only when applied to fetuses.
I agree that a born individual is not entitled to anybody's organs. I disagree in regards to babies and fetuses that have not been born yet. The unborn human is dependent on the mother during pregnancy. This is how mother nature has made reproduction. It's nature. It's reality. If one were to prematurely seperate the unborn human from the mother, this would be killing the unborn child.

Imagine if we lived in a world, where 7 months into pregnancy, a pregnant mother said "I do not want this unborn human to use my organs any longer. I can terminate this unborn human's life, since it is not entitled to my organs." This is dangerous, and it's important that we never allow our society to reach this point.



Plotthickens wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 9:52 2018


My answer is because men have full bodily autonomy. Women do not. If you're for full equality of the sexes, then you want everyone to have the same opportunities, including bodily autonomy.
DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 13:45 2018


Pro-lifers aren't sexist, in the sense that their stance has nothing to do with sex. Their stance has nothing to do with the sex of the baby, nor does it have anything to do with the sex of the person that is giving birth.
--Pro-lifers want to prevent abortions for babies that are both male and female.
--If men could give birth to children as well, the pro-life stance would be exactly the same.
Plotthickens wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 9:52 2018


Men aren't required to give up a testes when another man needs the Testosterone. Nor a liver lobe when a rich dude drank too much, nor a kidney when someone is just tired of Dialysis. Yet you want to require women (and only women) to give up the use of one of their organs when someone else needs it?

How is that not sexist?
DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 14:28 2018
The pro-life stance is not sexist, because the philosophical reasoning behind the stance has nothing to do with sex. If you are suggesting that it's wrong to force somebody "to give up the use of one of their organs when somebody else needs it", I'd agree. Pro-lifers agree as well. This isn't what the conversation is about, however. We are talking about aborting babies. If you are suggesting that it's wrong to force a mother to have a baby use her organs, then you have to ask if it's wrong to force a baby to give up their entire body. This still has nothing to do with sexism, as this question would still be valid if the father was bearing the child.
Plotthickens wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 14:48 2018
You're dodging. The question is "why are women the only ones who are under threat of losing bodily autonomy, and not men too?" and the answer is "because pro-lifers don't yet understand that when you take away a citizen's right to bodily autonomy, shit like unwilling organ harvesting and forced abortions happens".

Stop threatening bodily autonomy. You won't like where it goes.

[Mod note: post edited direct images to links because they are NSFW and potentially disturbing. ]

http://hairstylegalleries.com/wp-conten ... ianmei.jpg

http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/10/04/for ... ld-policy/
https://pmchollywoodlife.files.wordpres ... 620&zoom=2


https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5gwv ... ning-lives
https://assets.vice.com/content-images/ ... 99aacf.jpg
https://assets.vice.com/content-images/ ... 940c36.jpg
https://assets.vice.com/content-images/ ... 2554d3.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-stVUl6OPvPs/T ... 60x345.jpg
I just quoted the entire exchange we've been having about this. (This forum only allows us to nest so many quotes inside one another, so instead of trying to do that, I simply ordered the exhange).

As you can see, your question was not asked. I have not dodged your question.

I was addressing the idea of sexism and being pro-life.

I can answer your question now, however. If you are wondering why women's bodies are impacted by the pro-life stance, the answer is that women are the sex that bears children. Again, this is mother nature deciding this. Not the pro-life stance. The pro-life stance would be exactly the same if men were the sex that got pregnant. If such a day comes where a medical breakthrough allows any sex to bear a child, the philosophical reasoning behind the pro-life stance will not change. With their stance, pro-lifers are solely concerned about the body of the unborn child.

For that reason, alone, I do not see any reason why people must require somebody to be "pro-choice" in order to be called a "feminist".

Plotthickens
member
member
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 17:21 2017

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Plotthickens » Fri Feb 23, 8:59 2018

DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 18:57 2018
Again, I ask that this not be a conversation about anybody's characters. I'm not offended. I'm simply saying that nobody cares about my character. Nobody cares about your character. All that's important here are the ideas that we are all discussing. Please do not make this a conversation about anybody's character.
I haven't. You are apparently unable to tell the difference between:
* An actual Ad-Hominem attack, which you insist on using the wrong words for. Here is some help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (Example: You must be stupid to make such dumb arguments)
* Insults (Example: You are stupid)
* Characterizations of your logic (Example: Your logic is stupid )
* Characterizations of your lack of logic (Example: Your arguments utterly lack logic)
* Characterizations of your inability to respond cogently to arguments (Example: It's stupid to pretend that ad-hom attacks are the same as pointing out your idiotic arguments' poor or utter lack of logic. )

I suggest you look carefully at these to understand what you logically can and cannot dismiss. Determine the subject of the sentence: if it is you, it's probably an ad-hom and should be called out. An ad-hom attack is a type of fallacious logic. It's a bad argument. Fallacious arguments are the only arguments that can logically be dismissed out of hand. If the subject of the sentence is your logic, lack of logic, or other issues, determine if this argument, which is probably a legitimate argument, is actually correct and address it. You cannot dismiss legitimate arguments and be taken seriously.

So far you've attempted to just dismiss everything you don't agree with, and that's ridiculous.

Do better.

Plotthickens wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 14:48 2018
For the women who are pregnant and do not want to host another human inside one of their organs for nine months, that other person is "stealing a person's organ". Same as if I took a hank of your hair or a rich woman needed a lobe of your lung. Please explain why you do not see this truth only when applied to fetuses.
It's inaccurate for one to suggest that bearing an unwanted child is the same wrongdoing as somebody harvesting and stealing another person's organ. During a pregnancy, the developing human is dependent on the mother's body. This is simply how reproduction works. It's not wrong for the baby to do this, even if the baby is unwanted.
A person dying of liver failure is dependent on the donor's body. A child is dependent on the mother's body. They will both die without the use of the other person's organ. How is this not equivalent? Please note: "Because BABY!!!!!" is not a logical rebuttal.

I agree that a born individual is not entitled to anybody's organs. I disagree in regards to babies and fetuses that have not been born yet. The unborn human is dependent on the mother during pregnancy. This is how mother nature has made reproduction. It's nature. It's reality. If one were to prematurely seperate the unborn human from the mother, this would be killing the unborn child.
A person dying of liver failure is dependent on the donor's body. A child is dependent on the mother's body. They will both die without the use of the other person's organ. How is this not equivalent? Please note: "Because NATURE!!!!!" is not a logical rebuttal.

Imagine if we lived in a world, where 7 months into pregnancy, a pregnant mother said "I do not want this unborn human to use my organs any longer. I can terminate this unborn human's life, since it is not entitled to my organs." This is dangerous, and it's important that we never allow our society to reach this point.
She's the only one with any right to make any such decisions. Women don't do this pretty much ever, so your example is a typical right-wing bullshit fantasy, but okay. Who's to say you have more rights over her body than she? Where do you (or anyone) get the rights to dictate what is done to her body?

I can answer your question now, however. If you are wondering why women's bodies are impacted by the pro-life stance, the answer is that women are the sex that bears children. Again, this is mother nature deciding this. Not the pro-life stance. The pro-life stance would be exactly the same if men were the sex that got pregnant. If such a day comes where a medical breakthrough allows any sex to bear a child, the philosophical reasoning behind the pro-life stance will not change. With their stance, pro-lifers are solely concerned about the body of the unborn child.
Abrogation of bodily autonomy for one sex and not the other, when it is targeted at just the female reproductive system, is sexist. The name of many such campaigns literally has the name "TARGET" in it. If they were only focusing on lobes of lung or bone marrow, you'd be right. I'd be right (again) if they were focusing only on testes: that would be sexist. You're welcome to pretend that focusing on the female reproductive system isn't sexist, but that's a self-evident lie.

For that reason, alone, I do not see any reason why people must require somebody to be "pro-choice" in order to be called a "feminist".
That's okay, the rest of us do.
DaHjaj 'oH QaQ jaj gerbils vISop

DevilsAdvocate123

Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 6:48 2017
Contact:

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by DevilsAdvocate123 » Fri Feb 23, 19:20 2018

Plotthickens wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 8:59 2018
DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 18:57 2018
Again, I ask that this not be a conversation about anybody's characters. I'm not offended. I'm simply saying that nobody cares about my character. Nobody cares about your character. All that's important here are the ideas that we are all discussing. Please do not make this a conversation about anybody's character.
I haven't. You are apparently unable to tell the difference between:
* An actual Ad-Hominem attack, which you insist on using the wrong words for. Here is some help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (Example: You must be stupid to make such dumb arguments)
* Insults (Example: You are stupid)
* Characterizations of your logic (Example: Your logic is stupid )
* Characterizations of your lack of logic (Example: Your arguments utterly lack logic)
* Characterizations of your inability to respond cogently to arguments (Example: It's stupid to pretend that ad-hom attacks are the same as pointing out your idiotic arguments' poor or utter lack of logic. )

I suggest you look carefully at these to understand what you logically can and cannot dismiss. Determine the subject of the sentence: if it is you, it's probably an ad-hom and should be called out. An ad-hom attack is a type of fallacious logic. It's a bad argument. Fallacious arguments are the only arguments that can logically be dismissed out of hand. If the subject of the sentence is your logic, lack of logic, or other issues, determine if this argument, which is probably a legitimate argument, is actually correct and address it. You cannot dismiss legitimate arguments and be taken seriously.

So far you've attempted to just dismiss everything you don't agree with, and that's ridiculous.

Do better.
(Mediator note: For those who are reading the debate, please skip this paragraph and continue reading the remainder of this post).

Again, please stop making this a discussion about anybody's character.

This behavior has continued further with the post you just made, where you just tried to make it out that I don't know the definitions of certain words, and also where you say, "So far you've attempted to just dismiss everything you don't agree with, and that's ridiculous. Do better." I could also, again, make the case that you disguised insults towards me in the examples you have provided.

Please, simply stop making this a discussion about anybody's character. Stop pulling such cards in debate.

The format "You are ______" is an artificial goalpost that you have created. I'm genuinely and civilly asking for this to not be a discussion about anybody's character, and that we leave each other's characters out of this discussion. Please refer to my original post:

"Hey everyone -I am going to play mediator here for a bit and ask that people stop making this a conversation about each others' characters. The objective of this thread is to discuss whether or not pro-lifers can be feminists. Please do not insult anybody's character or try to make it out that they are saying something that they are not saying."

Please understand that this is a very genuine, honest, and civil thing to ask from a mediator's perspective.

Making it out that I am in favor of mandatory organ harvesting is an extreme example of what I've asked to not have happen. Telling me to "Keep on with my sniffy dismissing" is an example of what I've asked to not have happen. Posting "you, on the other hand, have thrown up this chastisement-as-diversion as a way to dodge four times so far, and the only other tactic you have is reframing" is an example of what I've asked to not happen. Posting "You're trying to just dominate the debate, silencing everyone else" and how that is "pretty telling" of my character is, again, an example of what I've asked to not have happen.

Please do not continue to make this a discussion about anybody's character. The only relevant details that are important are the exchange of ideas that are in regards to the topic. I do not wish to have to say this again; I'm sure you can understand.



Remainder of post:
Plotthickens wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 8:59 2018
Plotthickens wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 14:48 2018
For the women who are pregnant and do not want to host another human inside one of their organs for nine months, that other person is "stealing a person's organ". Same as if I took a hank of your hair or a rich woman needed a lobe of your lung. Please explain why you do not see this truth only when applied to fetuses.
It's inaccurate for one to suggest that bearing an unwanted child is the same wrongdoing as somebody harvesting and stealing another person's organ. During a pregnancy, the developing human is dependent on the mother's body. This is simply how reproduction works. It's not wrong for the baby to do this, even if the baby is unwanted.
A person dying of liver failure is dependent on the donor's body. A child is dependent on the mother's body. They will both die without the use of the other person's organ. How is this not equivalent? Please note: "Because BABY!!!!!" is not a logical rebuttal.

I agree that a born individual is not entitled to anybody's organs. I disagree in regards to babies and fetuses that have not been born yet. The unborn human is dependent on the mother during pregnancy. This is how mother nature has made reproduction. It's nature. It's reality. If one were to prematurely seperate the unborn human from the mother, this would be killing the unborn child.
A person dying of liver failure is dependent on the donor's body. A child is dependent on the mother's body. They will both die without the use of the other person's organ. How is this not equivalent? Please note: "Because NATURE!!!!!" is not a logical rebuttal.
Again, just to reiterate what you are claiming. You are claiming that a person stealing another person's organs is the same wrongdoing as an unwanted baby being dependent on its mother's body during pregnancy.

This is comparing apples to oranges. Pregnancy is, by design, a life process where the developing child shares the nutrients and resources in a mother's body. This is what is supposed to occur during pregnancy. It's the life process of how humans develop before they are born. This is a valid rebuttal of what you are claiming by the way.

If you still claim that it is wrong for an unwanted baby to use the mother's organs, ask yourself this: is killing the child better? It seems that the cure is actually worse than what you are claiming as a wrongdoing.


Plotthickens wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 8:59 2018
Imagine if we lived in a world, where 7 months into pregnancy, a pregnant mother said "I do not want this unborn human to use my organs any longer. I can terminate this unborn human's life, since it is not entitled to my organs." This is dangerous, and it's important that we never allow our society to reach this point.
She's the only one with any right to make any such decisions. Women don't do this pretty much ever, so your example is a typical right-wing bullshit fantasy, but okay. Who's to say you have more rights over her body than she? Where do you (or anyone) get the rights to dictate what is done to her body?
A pregnancy of 7 months is a valid use case to apply your logic to. I believe you are starting to understand that the logic you have presented is not the logic we should go by.

You've asked a new question. "Who's to say you have more rights over her body than she?". With that question being asked, I ask a bigger question: In what world do your rights allow you to kill another human being?

Plotthickens wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 8:59 2018
I can answer your question now, however. If you are wondering why women's bodies are impacted by the pro-life stance, the answer is that women are the sex that bears children. Again, this is mother nature deciding this. Not the pro-life stance. The pro-life stance would be exactly the same if men were the sex that got pregnant. If such a day comes where a medical breakthrough allows any sex to bear a child, the philosophical reasoning behind the pro-life stance will not change. With their stance, pro-lifers are solely concerned about the body of the unborn child.
Abrogation of bodily autonomy for one sex and not the other, when it is targeted at just the female reproductive system, is sexist. The name of many such campaigns literally has the name "TARGET" in it. If they were only focusing on lobes of lung or bone marrow, you'd be right. I'd be right (again) if they were focusing only on testes: that would be sexist. You're welcome to pretend that focusing on the female reproductive system isn't sexist, but that's a self-evident lie.
I have explained that the philosophical reasoning behind the pro-life stance is made solely in regards to the unborn child, not the sex of the person that is carrying the child. If you want to make the case that mother nature is sexist, in regards to how nature has deemed women to be the sex that bears children and not men, then that is a different discussion. The pro-life stance did not dictate such constraints.

Again, I need to mention that the philisophical reasoning behind the pro-life stance would apply to men if they could bear children. If such a medical breakthrough comes where any sex could bear children, the pro-life stance would not change. It would be sexist to say, "I don't believe women should be allowed to get abortions. However, if men could get pregnant, I believe they should be allowed to get abortions." That's sexism, and that's not what the pro-life stance supports by any means.

Plotthickens wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 8:59 2018
For that reason, alone, I do not see any reason why people must require somebody to be "pro-choice" in order to be called a "feminist".
That's okay, the rest of us do.
I'm not going to bother addressing this. Let the logic speak for itself.
Last edited by DevilsAdvocate123 on Fri Feb 23, 22:55 2018, edited 1 time in total.

Taurwen
member
member
Posts: 358
Joined: Sat Jul 2, 9:33 2016

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Taurwen » Fri Feb 23, 21:16 2018

Let me put it this way. I don't care if you don't equate forced pregnancy with forced organ donation. The fact remains bodily autonomy let's me do what I want with my organs. If I don't want to host life in my body (and to be clear pregnancy doesn't just effect the uterus, it fucks up your whole body, including often your brain) my rights to bodily autonomy let me rid myself of it.
The philosophy is sound. Just because someone else doesn't care about the woman's body and is only concerned with the unborn life within doesn't change anything about the equation.

DevilsAdvocate123

Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 6:48 2017
Contact:

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by DevilsAdvocate123 » Fri Feb 23, 22:36 2018

Taurwen wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 21:16 2018
Let me put it this way. I don't care if you don't equate forced pregnancy with forced organ donation. The fact remains bodily autonomy let's me do what I want with my organs. If I don't want to host life in my body (and to be clear pregnancy doesn't just effect the uterus, it fucks up your whole body, including often your brain) my rights to bodily autonomy let me rid myself of it.
The philosophy is sound. Just because someone else doesn't care about the woman's body and is only concerned with the unborn life within doesn't change anything about the equation.

What's worse, having a pregnancy affect a woman's body, or killing a human being?

We should not disregard the unborn child's body if you believe it is a life.

Taurwen
member
member
Posts: 358
Joined: Sat Jul 2, 9:33 2016

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Taurwen » Fri Feb 23, 22:38 2018

It's worse to decide there are cases where bodily autonomy doesn't matter.
The idea that we should disregard the woman's body and her rights to it is naive.

ETA: I can and will disregard the life of the unborn child, the same way I disregard the lives of those needing easily attainable organ transplants.

DevilsAdvocate123

Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 6:48 2017
Contact:

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by DevilsAdvocate123 » Fri Feb 23, 22:51 2018

Taurwen wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 22:38 2018
It's worse to decide there are cases where bodily autonomy doesn't matter.
The idea that we should disregard the woman's body and her rights to it is naive.

ETA: I can and will disregard the life of the unborn child, the same way I disregard the lives of those needing easily attainable organ transplants.
In what world do your rights allow you to kill another human being?

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5590
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Sonic# » Sat Feb 24, 6:43 2018

Devil's Advocate, stop trying to moderate (or "mediate") this thread. You are not a moderator. Your efforts come across as tone policing.

And Plotthickens, please don't use your examples of personal attacks in such an applicable way.

Plotthickens
member
member
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 17:21 2017

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Plotthickens » Sat Feb 24, 11:00 2018

The only relevant details that are important are the exchange of ideas that are in regards to the topic.
Untrue and sophomoric. I could proffer the idea that all earthworms are purple, but that's both irrelevant and wrong. To be valid, ideas must be relevant, true, and logical.

DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 19:20 2018
Please understand that this is a very genuine, honest, and civil thing to ask from a mediator's perspective.
1) You're not a mediator, you're a partisan.
2) You're contravening the existing basics of logical arguments. You're making up rules that just so happen to help you win. How 'bout you follow the existing laws, instead of your made-up ones, and we'll see what happens. Here's a good place to start to learn about them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument .

If you need to change the rules before you'll play, you're probably not that good at playing. Therefore your request is neither genuine, honest, nor civil. In fact, as we will see later, your responses are deceitful, dishonest, and uncivil along with being illogical, irrelevant, and false. You apparently can't follow either the rules of logic nor your own rules.

Plotthickens wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 8:59 2018
A person dying of liver failure is dependent on the donor's body. A child is dependent on the mother's body. They will both die without the use of the other person's organ. How is this not equivalent? Please note: "Because BABY!!!!!" is not a logical rebuttal.
I agree that a born individual is not entitled to anybody's organs. I disagree in regards to babies and fetuses that have not been born yet. The unborn human is dependent on the mother during pregnancy. This is how mother nature has made reproduction. It's nature. It's reality. If one were to prematurely seperate the unborn human from the mother, this would be killing the unborn child.
This is "because baby", exactly what I predicted you would plead. You are pretending that a baby is somehow worth more than a non-baby. Now you must either explain this logically or have the "because baby!!!" plea branded as an Appeal to Emotion.

Appeal to Emotion arguments are a logical fallacy and your argument fails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

A person dying of liver failure is dependent on the donor's body. A child is dependent on the mother's body. They will both die without the use of the other person's organ. How is this not equivalent? Please note: "Because NATURE!!!!!" is not a logical rebuttal.
Again, just to reiterate what you are claiming. You are claiming that a person stealing another person's organs is the same wrongdoing as an unwanted baby being dependent on its mother's body during pregnancy.

This is comparing apples to oranges. Pregnancy is, by design, a life process where the developing child shares the nutrients and resources in a mother's body. This is what is supposed to occur during pregnancy. It's the life process of how humans develop before they are born. This is a valid rebuttal of what you are claiming by the way.
This is "because nature", exactly what I predicted you would plead. You are pretending that gestation is somehow more worthwhile than continuing a life. Now you must either explain this logically or have the "because nature!!!" plea branded as an Appeal to Nature.

Appeal to Nature arguments are a logical fallacy, therefore this argument of yours fails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

If you still claim that it is wrong for an unwanted baby to use the mother's organs, ask yourself this: is killing the child better? It seems that the cure is actually worse than what you are claiming as a wrongdoing.
Since one life is equivalent to another life, this can be rephrased If you still claim that it is wrong for a patient to use a donor's organs, ask yourself this: is killing the patient better?

This is exactly the argument used to harvest unwilling people's organs. Your bad logic led you here. You will, no doubt, complain about how evil it is that I assassinate your character or whatever... but you yourself just explained how it's better unwillingly use someone's organs to keep someone else alive than to let the patient die. You advocated unwilling organ harvesting.

Because it goes against your own point, this argument of yours fails.

Imagine if we lived in a world, where 7 months into pregnancy, a pregnant mother said "I do not want this unborn human to use my organs any longer. I can terminate this unborn human's life, since it is not entitled to my organs." This is dangerous, and it's important that we never allow our society to reach this point.
She's the only one with any right to make any such decisions. Women don't do this pretty much ever, so your example is a typical right-wing bullshit fantasy, but okay. Who's to say you have more rights over her body than she? Where do you (or anyone) get the rights to dictate what is done to her body?
A pregnancy of 7 months is a valid use case to apply your logic to.

7mo elective elective abortions are not actually a thing. I stand by my "typical right-wing bullshit" characterization of this deceit of yours. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/i ... ted-states

Your example is deceitful, wrong, and irrelevant, therefore this argument of yours fails.

NOTE: Your inability/unwillingness to answer my question is noted. Since you attempted to dishonestly distract through the following two ad-homs, it is a Red Herring fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

I believe you are starting to understand that the logic you have presented is not the logic we should go by.
Wasn't someone complaining about lack of civility? I believe you are starting to understand that the rules you have presented are not the ones that will help you... so you're breaking them.

Both a logical fail and, perhaps, a personal one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You've asked a new question. "Who's to say you have more rights over her body than she?". With that question being asked, I ask a bigger question: In what world do your rights allow you to kill another human being?

Well, unless you're donating blood, kidneys, uterus as surrogate, liver lobes, lung lobes, and blood marrow, you're one of the people who are killing others right now. This is going by your own logic, by the way. Your logic makes you a murderer. Your world, my world... same world.

As it goes against your own point, this argument of yours fails.

Since you uncivilly intimate that I'm happy with murder, it's also an ad-hom logical fail and again, perhaps a personal fail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I have explained that the philosophical reasoning behind the pro-life stance is made solely in regards to the unborn child, not the sex of the person that is carrying the child. If you want to make the case that mother nature is sexist, in regards to how nature has deemed women to be the sex that bears children and not men, then that is a different discussion. The pro-life stance did not dictate such constraints.

Again, I need to mention that the philisophical reasoning behind the pro-life stance would apply to men if they could bear children. If such a medical breakthrough comes where any sex could bear children, the pro-life stance would not change. It would be sexist to say, "I don't believe women should be allowed to get abortions. However, if men could get pregnant, I believe they should be allowed to get abortions." That's sexism, and that's not what the pro-life stance supports by any means.
The philosophical reasoning behind your pro-life stance is bullshit.

Forcing only one sex to give up their right to privacy and bodily autonomy is, by definition, sexist. You obviously hate the term and fight it mightily, but facts are facts. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexist

I stand by my statement that the pro-life movement is sexist. Because words mean actual, pre-defined things no matter how much you'd like to redefine them, your dishonest argument is not true, and therefore fails.

Please note that this answers your original question: can you be pro-life and feminist? Since the pro-life movement is by definition sexist, and it is pretty impossible to be both sexist and feminist, then no you cannot be both pro-life and feminist.

For that reason, alone, I do not see any reason why people must require somebody to be "pro-choice" in order to be called a "feminist".
That's okay, the rest of us do.
I'm not going to bother addressing this. Let the logic speak for itself.
My logic's fine. My sources are impeccable.

Your logic is shit, you have no sources, and you even broke your own rules.

Do better.
DaHjaj 'oH QaQ jaj gerbils vISop

Plotthickens
member
member
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 17:21 2017

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Plotthickens » Sat Feb 24, 11:03 2018

Sonic# wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 6:43 2018
Devil's Advocate, stop trying to moderate (or "mediate") this thread. You are not a moderator. Your efforts come across as tone policing.

And Plotthickens, please don't use your examples of personal attacks in such an applicable way.
Thank you, I won't. And thanks for the call of tone policing, I wasn't sure exactly which logical fallacy that fell under. That's much more clear. :)
DaHjaj 'oH QaQ jaj gerbils vISop

DevilsAdvocate123

Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 6:48 2017
Contact:

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by DevilsAdvocate123 » Sat Feb 24, 11:29 2018

Sonic# wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 6:43 2018
Devil's Advocate, stop trying to moderate (or "mediate") this thread. You are not a moderator. Your efforts come across as tone policing.

And Plotthickens, please don't use your examples of personal attacks in such an applicable way.
I'm sorry, but for the sake of civil debate, it is absolutely necessary that I ask for this to be a civil discussion that isn't insulting, nor about anybody's character.

User avatar
SimpleMan
member
member
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 10:49 2017
Location: US

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by SimpleMan » Sat Feb 24, 12:41 2018

DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 11:29 2018
I'm sorry, but for the sake of civil debate, it is absolutely necessary that I ask for this to be a civil discussion that isn't insulting, nor about anybody's character.
How do you handle the fact that you basically call pro-choice, killing babies... but take offence of "attacks on character"?

What I see is this is a very emotional topic, by both sides... on one side there is religious dogma, and in the other... feminism doctrine... there is not way to have this debate in a cold impersonal tone... I just don't see it happening that way...

Perhaps the only people that can really be that cold, is people that will never be affected by any of it... for instance my case.... I will never find myself in the situation of making such decision... I am also not planing to have kids, so then again I am not affected if woman can make this decision without asking the man...

I do try to imagine myself in the situations giving in the OP... for instance if I am raped and then get pregnant from it.... It is hard to say... but I think I would have an abortion in that case.... myself... imagining myself in the situation... Having someone telling me that it is not the baby's fault and trying to reason this stuff.... will not help... That fact that the mother was raped have everything to do with the pregnancy... at least from my point of view.

It is emotional, I can agree with that, it is irrational, yeah sure... still I would go for the abortion, if I find myself in that situation.

I do see your point that harvesting organs is an active endeavour.... you have to move to archive it... while letting a pregnancy continue, looks more of a passive activity.... aborting looks more of an activity... Then again it can be questioned what is more of an activity... interrupting a pregnancy? or letting it continue?... I honestly have no idea... in appearance it looks on way... but in reality it can be a whole different deal.

It is the fine difference between not stopping someone from suicide, or actively convincing someone to suicide... kinda deal... but not sure if it applies that easy here.

I just wish we have an economical abortion... like woman decide to have a baby and her decision affects the economic situation of the man... honestly... taking his money is like taking his blood... I agree a man should not be able to decide if the woman have an abortion or not... but at least he should be able to decide if he wants to feed the baby or not...

DevilsAdvocate123

Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 6:48 2017
Contact:

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by DevilsAdvocate123 » Sat Feb 24, 13:34 2018

Plotthickens wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 11:00 2018
The only relevant details that are important are the exchange of ideas that are in regards to the topic.
Untrue and sophomoric. I could proffer the idea that all earthworms are purple, but that's both irrelevant and wrong. To be valid, ideas must be relevant, true, and logical.

DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 19:20 2018
Please understand that this is a very genuine, honest, and civil thing to ask from a mediator's perspective.
1) You're not a mediator, you're a partisan.
2) You're contravening the existing basics of logical arguments. You're making up rules that just so happen to help you win. How 'bout you follow the existing laws, instead of your made-up ones, and we'll see what happens. Here's a good place to start to learn about them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument .

If you need to change the rules before you'll play, you're probably not that good at playing. Therefore your request is neither genuine, honest, nor civil. In fact, as we will see later, your responses are deceitful, dishonest, and uncivil along with being illogical, irrelevant, and false. You apparently can't follow either the rules of logic nor your own rules.
I have simply been asking that this not be a conversation about anybody's character. When I say this, you continue to respond by insulting, accusing, and making this about my character. Plotthickens, I believe we are done discussing this, as I do no longer wish to repeat myself, and you have left out the rest of what I had to say in your quoting of me.



Plotthickens wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 8:59 2018
A person dying of liver failure is dependent on the donor's body. A child is dependent on the mother's body. They will both die without the use of the other person's organ. How is this not equivalent? Please note: "Because BABY!!!!!" is not a logical rebuttal.
I agree that a born individual is not entitled to anybody's organs. I disagree in regards to babies and fetuses that have not been born yet. The unborn human is dependent on the mother during pregnancy. This is how mother nature has made reproduction. It's nature. It's reality. If one were to prematurely seperate the unborn human from the mother, this would be killing the unborn child.
This is "because baby", exactly what I predicted you would plead. You are pretending that a baby is somehow worth more than a non-baby. Now you must either explain this logically or have the "because baby!!!" plea branded as an Appeal to Emotion.

Appeal to Emotion arguments are a logical fallacy and your argument fails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
This is a dishonest. You just found an earlier post of mine and re-quoted it, rather than quoting the response that I just made to address this. You quoted the incorrect post to purposely make it look like you predicted what I would say. You can scroll up to my post, or look at the screenshot of the actual exchange: https://imgur.com/eCzQThS

As you can see, you reordered the conversation to make it look like your "prediction" was correct.

Plitthickens, please do not do this any longer. It is dishonest.

Plotthickens wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 11:00 2018
Again, just to reiterate what you are claiming. You are claiming that a person stealing another person's organs is the same wrongdoing as an unwanted baby being dependent on its mother's body during pregnancy.

This is comparing apples to oranges. Pregnancy is, by design, a life process where the developing child shares the nutrients and resources in a mother's body. This is what is supposed to occur during pregnancy. It's the life process of how humans develop before they are born. This is a valid rebuttal of what you are claiming by the way.
This is "because nature", exactly what I predicted you would plead. You are pretending that gestation is somehow more worthwhile than continuing a life. Now you must either explain this logically or have the "because nature!!!" plea branded as an Appeal to Nature.

Appeal to Nature arguments are a logical fallacy, therefore this argument of yours fails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
So it looks like here you quoted the correct post of mine, in the correct order.

I am not pretending what you are claiming I am. Pro-lifers put life above everything.

And again, pregnancy is by design a life process where the developing child shares the nutrients and resources in a mother's body. Those nutrients and resources are to be shared between the two of them. It is incorrect to suggest that either the mother or the baby is more entitled to those resources. Pregnancy consists of two people working together, the mother and the developing unborn child. These two lives are simply sharing, which is what our species is designed to do during our reproduction. This is, again, a valid rebuttal of what you are saying. I'm not simply saying "NATURE!!1!". No. I'm saying that these resources are rightfully to be shared, and that neither life is more entitled to these resources.


Again, I have not advocated unwilling organ harvesting. I have excessively explained this. You can't deny that I have excessively repeated this throughout our discussion. Please stop making it out that my character is one that advocates for unwilling organ harvesting.

My question still stands: What is worse? A woman's body going through the negative effects of pregnancy, or killing a human being? Clearly, killing a human being is worse than the negative effects of pregnancy. You cannot debunk this.


You try to compare this to mandatory organ harvesting, but my question regarding abortion still stands. And the two are, again, different things. When you refuse to donate your organs to somebody, you are indirectly and passively killing them (that's if nobody else is there to donate their organs). The cause of death for them is organ failure. When you abort a life, you are actively murdering them. You directly murder the child. The cause of death is murder.

Plotthickens wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 11:00 2018

7mo elective elective abortions are not actually a thing. I stand by my "typical right-wing bullshit" characterization of this deceit of yours. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/i ... ted-states

Your example is deceitful, wrong, and irrelevant, therefore this argument of yours fails.

NOTE: Your inability/unwillingness to answer my question is noted. Since you attempted to dishonestly distract through the following two ad-homs, it is a Red Herring fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring


It is absolutely a use case to take into account. Again, this is the logic that we are discussing: "I do not want this unborn human to use my organs any longer. I can terminate this unborn human's life, since it is not entitled to my organs."

The use case is applicable here, and it's important to take it into account for the sake of coming up with logic that is philosophically consistent for all use cases where the baby could potentially not survive outside of the mother's body. If you want to spit out "7 months", then I ask "6 months", "5 months", and so forth. Any point in time where it is considered a life and where separating it from the mother's body would be killing the child.

I firmly stand by this: it is important that we never allow our society to reach the point where this is the logic we go by.

Plotthickens wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 11:00 2018

Well, unless you're donating blood, kidneys, uterus as surrogate, liver lobes, lung lobes, and blood marrow, you're one of the people who are killing others right now. This is going by your own logic, by the way. Your logic makes you a murderer. Your world, my world... same world.

As it goes against your own point, this argument of yours fails.

Since you uncivilly intimate that I'm happy with murder, it's also an ad-hom logical fail and again, perhaps a personal fail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I explained above the difference, but I'll put it here as well. When you refuse to donate your organs to somebody, you are indirectly and passively killing them (that's if nobody else is there to donate their organs). The cause of death for them is organ failure. When you abort a life, you are actively murdering them. You directly murder the child. The cause of death is murder.

And so, because you ask ,"Who's to say you have more rights over her body than she?", I ask this larger question, "In what world do your rights allow you to kill another human being?"

I also have not claimed that you are one that supports murder.
Plotthickens wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 11:00 2018


The philosophical reasoning behind your pro-life stance is bullshit.

Forcing only one sex to give up their right to privacy and bodily autonomy is, by definition, sexist. You obviously hate the term and fight it mightily, but facts are facts. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexist

I stand by my statement that the pro-life movement is sexist. Because words mean actual, pre-defined things no matter how much you'd like to redefine them, your dishonest argument is not true, and therefore fails.

Please note that this answers your original question: can you be pro-life and feminist? Since the pro-life movement is by definition sexist, and it is pretty impossible to be both sexist and feminist, then no you cannot be both pro-life and feminist.
You can't just call my philospohical reasoning "bullshit" without logically explaining why. Again, I ask that you stop trying to attack.

Please address these:
  • The pro-life stance would be exactly the same if men could bear children
  • If a medical breakthrough occurs where any sex can bear children, the pro-life stance will not change
You keep trying to say, "forcing only one sex to give up their right to privacy and bodily autonomy is, by definition, sexist.", when in reality I have explained how the philospihical reasoning behind the stance still stands no matter what the sex is, and that nature is the force that has decided that only women can bear children, not the pro-life stance.

Please address the points I listed.


Plotthickens wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 11:00 2018

My logic's fine. My sources are impeccable.

Your logic is shit, you have no sources, and you even broke your own rules.

Do better.
Again, address rather than insult, Plotthickens.
Last edited by DevilsAdvocate123 on Sat Feb 24, 13:40 2018, edited 1 time in total.

DevilsAdvocate123

Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 6:48 2017
Contact:

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by DevilsAdvocate123 » Sat Feb 24, 13:40 2018

SimpleMan wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 12:41 2018
DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 11:29 2018
I'm sorry, but for the sake of civil debate, it is absolutely necessary that I ask for this to be a civil discussion that isn't insulting, nor about anybody's character.
How do you handle the fact that you basically call pro-choice, killing babies... but take offence of "attacks on character"?
I do not take offense. I'm saying that our characters are irrelevant to the conversation. I'm also not citing religion.

Plotthickens
member
member
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 17:21 2017

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Plotthickens » Sat Feb 24, 16:12 2018

DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 13:34 2018
I have simply been asking that this not be a conversation about anybody's character. When I say this, you continue to respond by insulting, accusing, and making this about my character. Plotthickens, I believe we are done discussing this, as I do no longer wish to repeat myself, and you have left out the rest of what I had to say in your quoting of me.
You're "done discussing this"... yet you continued. This is a common Red Herring tactic; in this case, you're avoiding both the fact that you were told not to tone-police, and the every other fact I pointed out in my opening volley. Since that's not one but two logical fallacies, this whole paragraph of yours is a logic fail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing
See note at end of post

This is a dishonest. You just found an earlier post of mine and re-quoted it, rather than quoting the response that I just made to address this. You quoted the incorrect post to purposely make it look like you predicted what I would say. You can scroll up to my post, or look at the screenshot of the actual exchange: https://imgur.com/eCzQThS

As you can see, you reordered the conversation to make it look like your "prediction" was correct.

Plitthickens, please do not do this any longer. It is dishonest.
No, I just hit QUOTE and pointed out your logic fail. Even I was all shitty and dishonest to look cool, you still had a logic fail. Which you've attempted to distract from by accusing me of being dishonest, and failed to actually rebut my pointing out your previous logic fail via Emotional Appeal. So that's a brand-new Red Herring and an Ad-Hom logic fail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
See note at end of post

I am not pretending what you are claiming I am. Pro-lifers put life above everything.

And again, pregnancy is by design a life process where the developing child shares the nutrients and resources in a mother's body. Those nutrients and resources are to be shared between the two of them. It is incorrect to suggest that either the mother or the baby is more entitled to those resources. Pregnancy consists of two people working together, the mother and the developing unborn child. These two lives are simply sharing, which is what our species is designed to do during our reproduction. This is, again, a valid rebuttal of what you are saying. I'm not simply saying "NATURE!!1!". No. I'm saying that these resources are rightfully to be shared, and that neither life is more entitled to these resources.
This paragraph pretends that pregnancy is a magic beautiful natural thing (2,3) that is designed (by a god) (1). It also pretends that a patient/fetus is "entitled" to the resources of the donor/mother(4). I'm disappointed in you, you brought up MORE logical fallacies than you had to contend with before.

These are the applicable the logical fails that you will either need to explain or concede defeat on this point:

1) Naturalistic Fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
2) Appeal to Nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
3) Appeal to Emotion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
4) Appeal to Emotion, specifically Wishful Thinking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

Again, I have not advocated unwilling organ harvesting. I have excessively explained this. You can't deny that I have excessively repeated this throughout our discussion. Please stop making it out that my character is one that advocates for unwilling organ harvesting.
You're refusing to understand the consequences of legally abrogating Bodily Autonomy, yes. But that's the logical extension of the anti-choice logic. It's nice that you think that just outlawing abortion is where it will stop, but we've already seen it doesn't. Allowing limits on abortion led to legalized rape via forcible transvaginal wanding. And it gets worse from there. Forcing women to carry children leads to women being jailed for miscarriages. Your logic creates unconstitutional horrors. It's reprehensible.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ ... eason.html
https://www.thelostogle.com/2013/11/13/ ... -its-done/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/ ... 07422.html

https://www.alternet.org/civil-libertie ... women-were

How far from legally-required sexual assault and jail time is organ harvesting? That is where you logic leads. Abrogating bodily autonomy does not end well for women (it frequently kills both the mother and the child), and as we've seen in other countries, it soon is bad for everyone.

My question still stands: What is worse? A woman's body going through the negative effects of pregnancy, or killing a human being? Clearly, killing a human being is worse than the negative effects of pregnancy. You cannot debunk this.


If you think this way, why haven't you donated a kidney? You're killing people who are in desperate need of kidneys by not doing so. Why aren't you a surrogate for someone's fetus? If you haven't donated a major organ or part thereof, and/or been a surrogate for no pay, then you yourself are the argument against your argument.

See note at end of post

Also, who are you to say what is "worse"? What is your definition of "worse"? There are actual court cases where people have sued their parents for allowing them to be born.

See note at end of post

You try to compare this to mandatory organ harvesting, but my question regarding abortion still stands. And the two are, again, different things. When you refuse to donate your organs to somebody, you are indirectly and passively killing them (that's if nobody else is there to donate their organs). The cause of death for them is organ failure. When you abort a life, you are actively murdering them. You directly murder the child. The cause of death is murder.


Ah, here's the meat of your argument. It's the Trolley Problem. I see where you stand, but you're unable to see any other stance. Here, read up on it, it may help you understand that there are other points of view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

When you're done reading it, please explain how murder via action and murder via inaction is so starkly different to you that one is perfectly OK and the other requires sexist, often unconstitutional, government intrusion and violation of the fourth amendment.

It is absolutely a use case to take into account. Again, this is the logic that we are discussing: "I do not want this unborn human to use my organs any longer. I can terminate this unborn human's life, since it is not entitled to my organs."

The use case is applicable here, and it's important to take it into account for the sake of coming up with logic that is philosophically consistent for all use cases where the baby could potentially not survive outside of the mother's body. If you want to spit out "7 months", then I ask "6 months", "5 months", and so forth. Any point in time where it is considered a life and where separating it from the mother's body would be killing the child.

I firmly stand by this: it is important that we never allow our society to reach the point where this is the logic we go by.
It's not a use case, it's a right-wing fantasy. It literally never happens. If you're so insistent on calling it a "use case", then go ahead and give me the stats for how often this case is used.

Please note that you're still not answering my original question farther up this string. Therefore your insisting on going back over and over this fantasy is a Red Herring logical fallacy.

Also, thank you for finally formally admitting you're a right-wing pro-lifer. Honesty feels good, even when it's so delayed, doesn't it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
See note at end of post

I explained above the difference, but I'll put it here as well. When you refuse to donate your organs to somebody, you are indirectly and passively killing them (that's if nobody else is there to donate their organs). The cause of death for them is organ failure. When you abort a life, you are actively murdering them. You directly murder the child. The cause of death is murder.

And so, because you ask ,"Who's to say you have more rights over her body than she?", I ask this larger question, "In what world do your rights allow you to kill another human being?"

I also have not claimed that you are one that supports murder.
This is just a reiteration of your previous points, without elaboration or any attempt to answer my questions. You're just repeating your memorized dogma now. Borrrrrrring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_repetition
See note at end of post

The philosophical reasoning behind your pro-life stance is bullshit.

Forcing only one sex to give up their right to privacy and bodily autonomy is, by definition, sexist. You obviously hate the term and fight it mightily, but facts are facts. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexist

I stand by my statement that the pro-life movement is sexist. Because words mean actual, pre-defined things no matter how much you'd like to redefine them, your dishonest argument is not true, and therefore fails.

Please note that this answers your original question: can you be pro-life and feminist? Since the pro-life movement is by definition sexist, and it is pretty impossible to be both sexist and feminist, then no you cannot be both pro-life and feminist.
You can't just call my philospohical reasoning "bullshit" without logically explaining why.
Sexism=bullshit. Let me know if you have a problem with this.
Pro-life=Sexism. As per the word's definition from Mirriam-Webster.
Therefore, Pro-life=bullshit.

Also, see note at end of post.

Please address these:
The pro-life stance would be exactly the same if men could bear children
If a medical breakthrough occurs where any sex can bear children, the pro-life stance will not change
I'll be glad to address them when they happen. Since they're fantasy, they're irrelevant to the discussion. I could bring up artificial wombs, and therefore handily win this conversation, but that's irrelevant too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

You keep trying to say, "forcing only one sex to give up their right to privacy and bodily autonomy is, by definition, sexist.", when in reality I have explained how the philospihical reasoning behind the stance still stands no matter what the sex is, and that nature is the force that has decided that only women can bear children, not the pro-life stance.
More reiteration. Don't you get tired of the same tune, over and over?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
See note at end of post

My logic's fine. My sources are impeccable.

Your logic is shit, you have no sources, and you even broke your own rules.

Do better.
Again, address rather than insult, Plotthickens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing

Different types of logical fallacies DevilsAdvocate has committed: 8
Number of times DevilsAdvocate has failed to respond to a question in this post: 8
Number of times DevilsAdvocate has failed to respond to a question in previous post: 1
Total number of times DevilsAdvocate has failed to respond to a question in this conversation: 9
DaHjaj 'oH QaQ jaj gerbils vISop

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5590
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Sonic# » Sat Feb 24, 17:13 2018

DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 11:29 2018
Sonic# wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 6:43 2018
Devil's Advocate, stop trying to moderate (or "mediate") this thread. You are not a moderator. Your efforts come across as tone policing.

And Plotthickens, please don't use your examples of personal attacks in such an applicable way.
I'm sorry, but for the sake of civil debate, it is absolutely necessary that I ask for this to be a civil discussion that isn't insulting, nor about anybody's character.
Not your place to ask. If you have an issue, let a mod know. You've called your interlocutor dishonest since, so you don't have the ground to both tone police and argue.

Thread locked.

Locked