Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Moderators: Enigma, Sonic#

DevilsAdvocate123

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

Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by DevilsAdvocate123 » Thu Feb 8, 21:21 2018

Hi everybody, I wanted to ask if you can be a feminist and be pro-life at the same time.


Personally, I'm pro-choice, but I've seen some really bad arguments for being pro-choice. Let me elaborate on the worst arguments I've heard for being pro-choice:


1) "What if the mother can't to take care of the child?"

While that is an unfortunate situation, the financial status of the mother has nothing to do with the baby being a life or not.


2) "What if the mother was raped?"

Rape is horrible. Rapists are horrible. They have no place in our society. However, that being said, the fact that the mother was raped has nothing to do with the baby being a life or not.


3) "A fetus can't survive on its own. It is fully dependent on its mother's body, unlike born human beings."

-If somebody were temporarily on life support, that doesn't mean it's okay to kill the person. It's important to make arguments that are philosophically consistent.

4) "The mother has the right to do what she wants to with her body. The government can't infringe on her freedom like that."

-It's actually a matter of the baby's body that people are concerned with. Of course people shouldn't infringe on other people's lives. The exception is when they are infringing on somebody else's life.

5) "What if the baby has down syndrome?"

-Down syndrome is not a life threatening condition. Case closed. And yet, Denmark aborts over 90% of children with down syndrome.




Basically I think the only exception for abortion is when a life-threatening condition enters the picture, or if the baby isn't considered a life yet. Some consider me pro-choice up until a certain point in time, and others call me pro-life after a certain point in time. Either way, I wanted to ask a question that actually looks out for "pro-lifers". I've seen so many feminists lately try to revoke these people's "feminist cards" it seems like.

Can these people be considered feminists?
Last edited by DevilsAdvocate123 on Thu Feb 8, 21:28 2018, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
geldofc
member
member
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun Apr 3, 2:00 2016
Location: California

Re: Abortion

Post by geldofc » Thu Feb 8, 21:23 2018

no.
:gf: :devil: :syringe:

DevilsAdvocate123

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

Re: Abortion

Post by DevilsAdvocate123 » Thu Feb 8, 21:25 2018

geldofc wrote:
Thu Feb 8, 21:23 2018
no.
Why not?


People say that to be a feminist, "all you have to do is believe in the equality of men and women". Signing up for that doesn't mean you sign up for being pro-choice. Could you elaborate?
Last edited by DevilsAdvocate123 on Thu Feb 8, 21:41 2018, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Taurwen » Thu Feb 8, 21:36 2018

Hi mate, there was a thread about this last year I think. viewtopic.php?f=28&t=49905

Personally, I don't consider it to be a feminist issue, but a human one. Bodily Autonomy (which I realize you touched on and dismissed for reasons you did not express in any convincing way). I don't think less of someone as a feminist if they are Pro-Life, I think less of them as a person.

DevilsAdvocate123

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

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by DevilsAdvocate123 » Thu Feb 8, 21:42 2018

Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

So far we have the following:

"no."

and we have a

" I don't think less of someone as a feminist if they are Pro-Life, I think less of them as a person."




Does this mean that "believing in the equality of men and women" isn't what it takes for somebody to be a feminist? Is supporting abortion a requirement for being a feminist?
Last edited by DevilsAdvocate123 on Thu Feb 8, 21:47 2018, edited 5 times in total.

DevilsAdvocate123

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

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by DevilsAdvocate123 » Thu Feb 8, 21:42 2018

Taurwen wrote:
Thu Feb 8, 21:36 2018
Bodily Autonomy (which I realize you touched on and dismissed for reasons you did not express in any convincing way). I don't think less of someone as a feminist if they are Pro-Life, I think less of them as a person.

Could you elaborate?

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

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Taurwen » Thu Feb 8, 22:18 2018

I believe in the right of bodily autonomy is a basic right that shouldn't be compromised, least of all by a government. You might think abortion has to do with a baby and not the woman, but what someone does with their uterus is completely their decision. Furthermore, pregnancy and birth are not risk free endeavours, and the hormones can wreak havoc on a person's body, so not only is it an issue with what someone does with their uterus, but what they do with their whole body, including their mental health.
Donating a liver is much less of an intrusion, and saves a life that society has already invested in. But if the police started rolling up to people's doors and demanding they undergo liver donation people would (rightfully) riot. Hell, even making blood donation mandatory would be atrocious, and that'll just make you weak for a couple days.

If you want to make it a feminist issue, and your goal is to protect innocent life then you're better off with prevention and education. Making birth control easily available, teaching people about their bodies.
Which also leads to the fact that making abortion illegal won't stop it from happening, it'll just make women more likely to die in the process. So AGAIN you're better off with prevention and education. The fact that so many reject that leads me to believe Pro-Life people really just want to control women.

So yes, I think to be pro life one either has to be morally corrupt, or idiotic.

User avatar
Storage and Disposal
member
member
Posts: 6301
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 5:31 2004
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Abortion

Post by Storage and Disposal » Sat Feb 10, 0:21 2018

DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Thu Feb 8, 21:21 2018
4) "The mother has the right to do what she wants to with her body. The government can't infringe on her freedom like that."

-It's actually a matter of the baby's body...


If you feel the need to start a topic concerning a woman's body with, "It's actually a matter of..." then you probably aren't worth a debate. You've said your overly simplistic view and no argument is going to change that.
DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Thu Feb 8, 21:25 2018
People say that to be a feminist, "all you have to do is believe in the equality of men and women".
And these people don't know what they're talking about. To me, saying such things is just an attempt to prove that everyone should be a feminist. It's like saying, "If you crave meat, then you shouldn't be a vegetarian!" In what world are things that simple?

Having said that, I think a feminist can be pro-life much like a shitty work of art can still be considered art. Just because it's art doesn't make it good art.
"He weeps for he has but one small tongue with which to taste an entire world." - Dr. Mungmung

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 10, 1:51 2018

I personally don't have an opinion on this topic. As much as I know for a fact that I will never be pregnant.

In some way I feel fortunate that I will never find myself in a situation where I have to make such decision.

The only thing that kinds of bugs me, is the part of who should pay for the abortion... There is compelling arguments in favor and in opposition of making taxpayers foot the bill...

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

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Taurwen » Sat Feb 10, 7:47 2018

If tax money can be used on war, it can be used on abortion. And I'd argue if one has issues with tax money being used to end lives they should start with the former concern first.

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 10, 9:44 2018

Oh, my "concerns" are not about ending lifes... are mostly about... paying for other people bad decisions... In the same fashion of "my body, my choice"... I would say: "My money, my decisions"???

Even though there is so many options for not getting pregnant, like the so call next day pill, or the so... But I don't really have any research on that, so I don't really know... wasn't that pill the whole deal about the sexual revolution?

Anyway, In the OP there are mentioned different situations that end in abortion... the case where it is determined that the creature is coming defective, like down syndrome... I think the society should help pay that bill. As well as the rape one...

Back to my argument... to give some framework, I do not oppose gay marriage, I actually don't care at all for it, so if gays want to married, that is none of my business. Now, if for some reason they decided that it is their right to make me pay for their weddings... well... that will definitely change my point of view on it...

About wars... I personally find most of them stupid, and yes, I should not be made pay for them, or even made to fight them... when I am not getting any benefit out of the whole exercice... I am a bit cynical on this topic, as I think that the reason why most of the wars are fought is basically for money, so... how come the people that don't fight them but send others to fight are the ones that end up with the money? I would not support a money war specially If I am the one paying with cash and blood, while at the end I never get to see any booty.

I am more OK with non for profit wars.

That is it...

Ah... if you donate a liver you know you will die? anyway I get what you said, but I just have to imagine it with a kidney instead.

User avatar
Mordak

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

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Mordak » Sat Feb 10, 10:04 2018

SimpleMan wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 9:44 2018


Anyway, In the OP there are mentioned different situations that end in abortion... the case where it is determined that the creature is coming defective, like down syndrome... I think the society should help pay that bill. As well as the rape one...

You're gonna want to change that "creature" euphamism dude. People born with down syndrome are not defective in any way, shape or form. My uncle had down syndrome, quite severely, for nearly 70 years before he passed away happy and loving life in his sleep in the nursing home he went to after his carer (his sister) passed away herself. He was a brilliant man. Couldn't speak a word of english, had facial deformities but he was still a person and he taught me so much about appreciating the small things, the things that normally wouldnt catch the eye of another person.

What you're saying is close to hate speech for millions of people around the world who embrace and nurture their disabled loved ones.

My uncle taught me to love music, how to do arts and crafts and how to stir up mischeif as a kid. He knew exactly how to get his sister to do anything for him. We used to sit and play records and pretend to prank call on his old little telephone, and even though his english words for me and my mum and sister were "caa, taa and saa" his ability to convey meaning through gestures did NOT make him simply a "creature".

What are you aiming to achieve by posting this stuff, mate? Are you just here to hurt peoples feelings? Theres only so much argueing people can do before they just get bored of it.
:australia: :b2: :b3: :b4: :b1:

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 10, 10:37 2018

When I said "creature"... I was talking about the fetus, because I just don't feel like calling it a "baby"... and Fetus is kind of a weird sounding word....

So... if the fetus come defective, then flush it.... that is pretty much what I wanted to say.

What I find interesting about your post here, is that so far you're the first feminist in this debate making a point against abortion...

So, what about the other examples giving on the OP? Is it OK to abort poor people? I can see the point why rich people want to pay for poor people abortions... what's your take on that? I have an uncle that was poor, and he was such a great human creature... ;)

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Sonic# » Sat Feb 10, 10:47 2018

SimpleMan, you're breaking the guideline for personal conversations - you've posted 3 times within a 5 post stretch, which twists the conversation to center too much on you. Try to give the conversation some time (a day or so or a couple of replies) before replying again.

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

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Taurwen » Sat Feb 10, 13:22 2018

SimpleMan wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 9:44 2018


Ah... if you donate a liver you know you will die? anyway I get what you said, but I just have to imagine it with a kidney instead.
Just an aside, I chose liver because livers regenerate, you donate a kidney and you're down to one kidney. You can absolutely become a living donor by donating (half of) your liver. Here's the FAQ from the main place that does it in my city http://www.uhn.ca/MOT/Living_Donor_Prog ... #questions
I think it's something everyone should consider because I think it's super cool that we can do stuff like this. Science! Medicine! Huzzah!

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 » Sun Feb 11, 23:48 2018

Anyway... to wrap this up...

I was making a point between the different circumstances of abortion... and I mention that if the creature is coming defective I think society should help pay the bill..

I mentioned down syndrome, because that is what it is mention in the OP... but anyway... if down syndrome is not a defect, then simply... society should not help pay for aborting such healthy person, let the woman figure out that bill.

Then again all the arguments about abortion being genocide, and murder, and hate crimes and what not... I let those for religious ignorants, I guess it is their freedom of believing whatever nonsense they like... But just for the records, this kind of righteousness morally superior arguments don't sit well with me, this kind of arguments have never worked with me in the pass and there is not reason why it should work with me now...

I am not opposing abortions I just say I don't think I should pay for them... then I mentioned some abortion situations where I think my tax money should be invested on... So to make it clear one last time.... I think everybody can get aborted, healthy or not, but in some cases society should help pay for it... and in aborting down syndrome... screw them, society should not pay for that because somebody's uncle...

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

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Plotthickens » Mon Feb 12, 9:52 2018

DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Thu Feb 8, 21:21 2018
-It's actually a matter of the baby's body that people are concerned with. Of course people shouldn't infringe on other people's lives. The exception is when they are infringing on somebody else's life.
So you're OK with mandatory organ harvesting? China has it. Get arrested, go to jail... come out minus a kidney, a liver lobe, a good stretch of skin, and your health and vitality. But some rich person's life was saved, they don't have to be "infringed" upon. So that's okay to you?

DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Thu Feb 8, 21:25 2018
geldofc wrote:
Thu Feb 8, 21:23 2018
no.
Why not?
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.
Last edited by Plotthickens on Mon Feb 12, 10:02 2018, edited 1 time in total.
DaHjaj 'oH QaQ jaj gerbils vISop

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

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Taurwen » Mon Feb 12, 11:48 2018

@SimpleMan, you insist on using the term creature after being asked not to because you don't like the word foetus. Maybe if you can't handle the terminology you shouldn't join in on the conversation especially when you're talking about something only strenuously tenuously attached to the topic actually under discussion.

(edited because my auto correct hates me recently and I don't know what I did to offend it.)

DevilsAdvocate123

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

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by DevilsAdvocate123 » Sun Feb 18, 13:21 2018

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.

Remember, a user's level of outrage does not correlate with the validity of their argument.



Observe this exchange:

Plotthickens wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 9:52 2018
DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Thu Feb 8, 21:21 2018
-It's actually a matter of the baby's body that people are concerned with. Of course people shouldn't infringe on other people's lives. The exception is when they are infringing on somebody else's life.
So you're OK with mandatory organ harvesting? China has it. Get arrested, go to jail... come out minus a kidney, a liver lobe, a good stretch of skin, and your health and vitality. But some rich person's life was saved, they don't have to be "infringed" upon. So that's okay to you?

This is entirely off the rails. I don't need to explain why.




Observe another.
Storage and Disposal wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 0:21 2018
DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Thu Feb 8, 21:21 2018
4) "The mother has the right to do what she wants to with her body. The government can't infringe on her freedom like that."

-It's actually a matter of the baby's body...


If you feel the need to start a topic concerning a woman's body with, "It's actually a matter of..." then you probably aren't worth a debate. You've said your overly simplistic view and no argument is going to change that.

This is an example where an insult-attempt is made rather than a continuation of the debate/discussion at hand. Let's continue without this sort of thing going on, for the sake of people reading and trying to comprehend new ideas.


Anyways, I'll get back to addressing those who have responded to me.

DevilsAdvocate123

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

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by DevilsAdvocate123 » Sun Feb 18, 13:45 2018

Taurwen wrote:
Thu Feb 8, 22:18 2018
I believe in the right of bodily autonomy is a basic right that shouldn't be compromised, least of all by a government. You might think abortion has to do with a baby and not the woman, but what someone does with their uterus is completely their decision.
Pro-lifers are concerned about the baby. That's the grounding for their stance. You claim that "what someone does with their uterus is completely their decision", however, this isn't actually a matter of the mother's uterus. This is a matter of what's inside of the uterus: the baby.

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.
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.





I will address this point as well.
Taurwen wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 7:47 2018
If tax money can be used on war, it can be used on abortion. And I'd argue if one has issues with tax money being used to end lives they should start with the former concern first.
It's necessary that tax money be used to protect the freedom of our country. This country is wonderful in that we have forces that regulate externalities that could potentially infringe on the freedom of our citizens. We have the military, we have the police, etc. In order for our freedom to be safe, we all must contribute to the forces that protect it. The United States is a country where somebody can literally go live alone in the mountains and have nobody get involved with their business, as long as they do their fair share and contribute to the force that is allowing them to do so, and as long as they don't wrongly infringe on the freedom of somebody else.

Pro-lifers believe that abortion is a force that's actually against freedom, in the sense that abortion is infringing on the lives of babies.
Last edited by DevilsAdvocate123 on Sun Feb 18, 13:59 2018, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Sun Feb 18, 13:56 2018

This why I care so much about language...

You keep calling it a baby... it is not a baby...

At least the implication of my word "creature" means that it does not have a soul... I think this is the reason why it impacted so much in some members of this forum... But on the same hand, the christian argument on this is based on the fetus having a soul, I flat out use the word that claims that it doesn't have a soul... So I think my approach is the right one in order to get the point across religious fanatics...

So to the point you made here...

"It's actually a matter of the baby's body..."

There is not baby body.

Legacy it is a baby after birth. Theologically it would have a soul after baptism.

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

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by Plotthickens » Sun Feb 18, 14:06 2018

DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 13:21 2018
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.
Plotthickens wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 9:52 2018
DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Thu Feb 8, 21:21 2018
-It's actually a matter of the baby's body that people are concerned with. Of course people shouldn't infringe on other people's lives. The exception is when they are infringing on somebody else's life.
So you're OK with mandatory organ harvesting? China has it. Get arrested, go to jail... come out minus a kidney, a liver lobe, a good stretch of skin, and your health and vitality. But some rich person's life was saved, they don't have to be "infringed" upon. So that's okay to you?
This is entirely off the rails. I don't need to explain why.
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?

This is an example where an insult-attempt is made rather than a continuation of the debate/discussion at hand. Let's continue without this sort of thing going on, for the sake of people reading and trying to comprehend new ideas.
You've just dodged two counterpoints as beneath you using the informal logical fallacy "Appeal to the Stone". Keep on with your sniffy dismissing, I'm sure that the enormous audience of silent, invisible lurkers is just captivated with your unwillingness/inability to continue a conversation you yourself started.


DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 13:45 2018
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.
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.
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?
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 » Sun Feb 18, 14:10 2018

SimpleMan wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 13:56 2018
This why I care so much about language...

You keep calling it a baby... it is not a baby...

At least the implication of my word "creature" means that it does not have a soul... I think this is the reason why it impacted so much in some members of this forum... But on the same hand, the christian argument on this is based on the fetus having a soul, I flat out use the word that claims that it doesn't have a soul... So I think my approach is the right one in order to get the point across religious fanatics...

So to the point you made here...

"It's actually a matter of the baby's body..."

There is not baby body.

Legacy it is a baby after birth. Theologically it would have a soul after baptism.
A human passing through a vagina is not something that decides whether a human is a life or not. Neither does baptism.
Last edited by DevilsAdvocate123 on Sun Feb 18, 15:03 2018, edited 2 times in total.

DevilsAdvocate123

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

Re: Can Pro-Lifers Be Feminists?

Post by DevilsAdvocate123 » Sun Feb 18, 14:28 2018

Plotthickens wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 14:06 2018
DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 13:21 2018
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.
Plotthickens wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 9:52 2018


So you're OK with mandatory organ harvesting? China has it. Get arrested, go to jail... come out minus a kidney, a liver lobe, a good stretch of skin, and your health and vitality. But some rich person's life was saved, they don't have to be "infringed" upon. So that's okay to you?
This is entirely off the rails. I don't need to explain why.
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."



If you are suggesting that my logic supports this next statement, "it is okay to steal a criminal's organs", I'd tell you that this is incorrect. People should only take measures to stop those that are wrongly infringing on the lives of others, nothing more. Stealing a criminals organs is passed the point of just taking preventive and stopping measures. That has reached the point of wrongly infringing on the criminal's life.

Plotthickens wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 14:06 2018
DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 13:45 2018
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.
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.
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?
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:
Sun Feb 18, 14:06 2018
You've just dodged two counterpoints as beneath you using the informal logical fallacy "Appeal to the Stone". Keep on with your sniffy dismissing, I'm sure that the enormous audience of silent, invisible lurkers is just captivated with your unwillingness/inability to continue a conversation you yourself started.
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.

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 » Sun Feb 18, 18:47 2018

DevilsAdvocate123 wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 14:10 2018
A human passing through a vagina is not something that decides whether a human is a life or not. Neither does baptism.
There is not human at all, mate... 2 weeks bundle of cells is by not definition at all a "human" or a "baby"... you will not be able to differentiate it from a dog fetus.
Plotthickens wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 14:06 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?
I agree with you here...

I just like to point out that only men are required to register for the draft, and that the government can call the draft if they think necessary, and then the whole body of the man belong to the government...

Women are exempt of this, ironically, because their role in societe of having babies...

But yes, men does not have half the body autonomy you claim here.

I am not making an argument against abortion. I am making an argument against drafting, child support and many more other things.

Locked