Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "...except in the case of rape or incest."
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 63 of 301 (295529)
03-15-2006 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by ringo
03-15-2006 11:48 AM


this debate is about the hypocrisy of the right wing. They claim that abortion is murder, yet it is "okay" in some way if the fetus is the result of rape or incest.
I'm not sure if this can be said to be "the hypocrisy of the right wing", especially in light of recent events. I've known people that were against abortion under all circumstances and the South Dakota legislation banning almost all abortions, did NOT allow it for rape or incest.
And on the subject of SD's legislation, there were people on the left who were decrying the fact that they did not allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest. That is to say at the very least that should be allowed along with cases to save the mothers' life.
I think the question is valid (what criteria is being used to allow abortion in those cases but not others?), yet it seems to be a feeling shared on both sides in this debate.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ringo, posted 03-15-2006 11:48 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 03-15-2006 12:26 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2006 12:46 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 82 of 301 (295565)
03-15-2006 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by crashfrog
03-15-2006 12:46 PM


You know what I mean?
Absolutely, your breakdown of the issue is great.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2006 12:46 PM crashfrog has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 201 of 301 (296135)
03-17-2006 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by crashfrog
03-16-2006 5:11 PM


Holmes made much the same point
Ehhhh... I went back and looked at his post and see very little that I'd agree with. My point was only that members of both sides agree to the same exception.
I agreed completely with your assessment that it is because people aren't thinking much about what they are saying and there is a scale or spectrum of desirability which will include that exception, despite their being no logical reason/criteria for its existence.
He seems to be arguing that you have misunderstood the argument that anti-abortionists make, and that if a double standard exists for them it has a logical defense, being the hatred of sin and such.
Not saying he is correct or your post doesn't affect his argument, just placing a humongous wall between the points he raised and what I raised. I had actually thought of replying to that post (earlier) due to some odd points he tried to make.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2006 5:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by crashfrog, posted 03-17-2006 10:03 AM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 202 of 301 (296137)
03-17-2006 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by ringo
03-16-2006 6:13 PM


ringo goes off half-cocked
I generally like your posts, so I was sort of disappointed to see you not acknowledge that your couch analogy was adequately refuted. CS had a strong counter, and your reply was only to suggest a gov't wouldn't be acting within reason or responsibly to pass such a law. But that's just name-calling or an assertion.
If for some reason people were making and buying couches and throw them out every few months (lets say it became some fad) and this was seriously affecting garbage disposal services, waste containment facilities, and sightliness of the city, why would that not be reasonable or responsible?
And in any case his point stands, if such a law passes then it is on the citizen's head not to get a couch unless they know they want to keep it. Given that I am wholly prochoice, I thought this was an interesting challenge.
What's worse, you move on to a logical inconsistency...
I'm just in favour of minding my own @#$% business. I don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry telling me how to run my life, so I extend the same courtesy to them.
and
If a woman is pregnamt and doesn't want to be, you have no "moral" right to tell her what to do. Your morals apply to your own life, not anybody else's.
yet...
We do have a moral resposibility, as a society, to take care of our weaker members. If we take away an option, we must provide an alternative.
and
It's the woman's decision. It's everybody's responsibility.
This is completely contrary. Either we have a moral obligation/responsibility to everyone, including the weaker members, and so have the moral right to tell someone what to do, or we keep our moral noses out because it is no one's business. You cannot have it both ways.
Indeed my eyebrows shoot up at being told the results of a woman's decision, which I have no right to interfere with, is equally my responsibility. Really? So her moral decision can result in a moral obligation on my part?
And as far as alternatives go, society IS presenting an alternative. They do not say that she must raise the child, only that she must continue the pregnancy to deliver the child, because it is alive and a weaker member of society. If you argue that WE must be responsible for a woman and child once she finds herself pregnant, then there is no sense you can argue she cannot be held responsible to have a child after implantation/gestation begins.
Okay, now don't take this as mean spirited. The subthread title is meant jokingly and though I am being forceful in my argument, I am hoping to arouse a better response than what you gave CS. I agree in people minding their own business, and am prochoice, so I want people on my side picking up their game.
This message has been edited by holmes, 03-17-2006 11:51 AM

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by ringo, posted 03-16-2006 6:13 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by ringo, posted 03-17-2006 10:58 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 209 of 301 (296304)
03-17-2006 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by ringo
03-17-2006 10:58 AM


Re: ringo goes off half-cocked
inconsistently.
Did you make that word up intentionally? I think its a great descriptor for some people around here (not you).
Those laws were removed because they were deemed unreasonable by the legislatures and/or the courts, presumably in agreement with society. I don't see how the hypothetical re-introduction of a law already deemed unreasonable is a "strong counter".
Whoaa there! In the US they were not removed because they were deemed unreasonable by anyone. They were removed by the US Supreme Court because it was decided such laws were inconsistent with certain items within the constitution. Another court could rule that they are consistent and we could get them back, or alterations could be made to the constitution to remove any inconsistency.
Those possibilities are looking more likely all the time.
I can not begin to fathom how it is "on my head" to follow an unreasonable law.
Being a believer in civil disobedience I do agree that one does not have to follow what one believes is an unjust law. Not sure if that always extends to unreasonable laws, but we can agree for sake of argument.
This does not change the fact that it is on your head to follow the law so as not to run afoul of it. Demands of society may always be different than demands of conscience.
How does a moral responsibility for somebody give you a right to tell them what to do?
Call me crazy but I don't believe one can have responsibility for something that one does not have any control over. If I believe X is another person's business, then I have no responsibility for X or anything coming from it.
Our moral responsibilities are to everybody else, not to ourselves. We have a responsibility to our fellow men when they screw up. We have no moral "rights". The responsibility to help others includes advising them on how not to screw up - it does not include removing their right to screw up.
My only moral responsibility is to myself. If I have responsibility for someone else then I gain an added level of control, beyond just "advising". Certainly we don't expect parents to remain in just an advisorial role to their kids. And we don't have police advising thieves and murderers to stop screwing up.
I might add that you have bumped into another issue. If we do have responsibility for others, then what of the woman's responsibility for the fetus? Or society's responsibility? It is not so much that they are telling the woman she is not allowed to screw up, they are actively trying to protect a member of society. Remember to them it is just like murder, and I assume you would not suggest police should not interfere with a murder in progress, right?
Your moral obligation depends on the condition she is in, not on how she got into that condition.
Of course we may be finding a theoretical divide between us, with neither of us being right or wrong, just different. I simply cannot accept responsibility for her or any of her choices or any of the consequences of her choices, if I am told I cannot affect anything she does or decisions she makes. That would be pretty unjust.
Either force her to raise a child for eighteen years or turn it out into the world where it might be adopted?
Despite being for abortion rights, I do not see it as unreasonable to allow a person to live under perhaps less than optimal conditions, instead of letting them be killed. Indeed your criticism at best argues that we should invest more in childcare so that even the children who are not adopted, get good care.
Carrots are alive too. Neither a carrot nor a fetus is considered a "member of society".
Ahhhhhh, but THAT is a different argument. Assuming their viewpoint on life and personhood is valid/applicable, the argument presented and such laws are NOT unreasonable. It is only if their view of life and personhood are not appropriate that such laws begin to seem unreasonable.
This gets to the basics of breaking down an argument. Your position had hidden premises, which are not inherently true.
If a woman is forced to carry a pregnancy to term, society is forcing the pregnancy on her. She is being raped by society.
That's not quite true. They aren't raping her, they are protecting what they view as a life. I do agree that they have an obligation to that life if they protect it and she does not want it. I don't see how that acts as an argument that they cannot protect it.
So, how's it going over there? Are the dykes holding up? I like dykes.
Its rainy, cold, and still heading fascist (despite the recent left victories). The dykes seem to be holding though.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by ringo, posted 03-17-2006 10:58 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by ringo, posted 03-17-2006 3:44 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 214 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-17-2006 6:43 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 212 of 301 (296336)
03-17-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by ringo
03-17-2006 3:44 PM


Re: ringo goes off half-cocked
But if she complies with the law and has the baby, she's punished anyway? She's forced to raise the child? (Or give it up - which could also be considered a punishment.) It seems to me that "justice" would require something on the plus side for her - say helping her take care of the baby.
I don't believe raising a child if that is what one chose, or giving it up for adoption (if one did not choose to raise a child), is a punishment. That said, I totally agree with your point that as gov't steps in to say all pregnancies must go to term, that it should help provide care.
If a flood deposits a foot of silt in my basement, I have no control over that - but it's still my responsibility as a homeowner to clean it up. Similarly, it is my responsibility as a citizen - and a human being - to take care of any "weaker member of society" who needs my help.
Heheheh... You have control over the basement, that's why you have responsibility to clean up anything that happens to it. You don't need to have control over nature to gain that responsibility.
And I still do not believe I have a responsibility to take care of any "weaker member" of society. I would want my gov't to do so, but I don't believe it is necessary. There are no absolutes for me, and societies have survived without such ideas. What are such societies like? Well as far as I can tell every society has some weaker members they do not protect. The prolifers are specifically making the same argument you are, and saying you are ignoring a certain class.
We took on that responsibility when we promised to love, honour and cherish "in sickness and in health", blah blah blah.... Does that give us "control" over our spouses?
Uhhhh... actually you do. You have the ability to make life and death decisions for them, as well as sanction them in ways you cannot do if they were not your spouse.
In what way does that give parents an added level of "control"?
Parents have control over pretty much every aspect of a child's life. They decide where kids can go and not go, who they can hangout with or not, they can inflict corporal punishment as well as confine them.
The woman who makes a decision to abort has taken responsibility. If society won't allow her to take responsibility in her own way, then the responsibility falls on them. Let's look at the kids again: Junior wants a hamster and he swears blind he'll take care of it. After a week, the hamster is hungry and thirsty in a dirty cage. Do the parents say, "It's your responsibility, not mine," or do they feed the hamster
Okay let's put one point to bed. We both agree that if laws are in place making sure that women give birth, a duty falls on the gov't to provide care for the child.
However, that does not mean that a woman aborting a child has "taken responsibility". Let's use your same example. If the parents give the kid a hamster and he kills it saying he knew he wouldn't have wanted to take care of it, no one would say the kid "took responsibility". What he did was void himself of having to take responsibility.
I'm talking about the moral responsibility of society as a whole - and that society as a whole has decided that it is not murder. The attempt by any segment of society to force its own "moral" ideals on society does not change the real moral responsibilities of that society.
Society as a whole has decided that? You could have fooled me on that one. And even if it did that is something that can change as society changes. Society at one time believed killing a black wasn't murder... did that void such concerns from "real" moral responsibility. I think you are confusing popularity with some form of absolutism regarding moral responsibility here. It almost smells of a no true scotsman.
That doesn't give you the right to decide who can park on my street and it doesn't give me the right to decide who you do let through your gates.
Actually it does. I find this funny as the people of Amsterdam have just done that very thing! This week they installed popup "gates" on several blocks (including mine) to keep out certain elements and stop certain types from parking on my street.
If society doesn't reassure her that the child will have the best life possible, she is more likely to abort, not less.
Heheheh... sometimes what society does to assure children have the "best life possible" makes a person want to abort.
It is society as a whole that decides what is "reasonable" within that society. If a segment of society believes it is moral to sacrifice virgins, that doesn't make it reasonable.
I don't think moral and reasonable are interchangable. But assuming they are, all this suggests is that abortion prohibition can be reasonable and was right up until the SC made a very controversial decision which allowed an unreasonable practice (abortion) to begin, which eventually became tolerable.
It's her choice. She says, "No." She's forced against her will. That's rape.
Okay that's a bit too hyperbolic for my tastes. Anything against one's will is not "rape".
And no I was not saying she was begging for it. I'm saying sometimes people find themselves in a position where they are not free to choose, and have responsibilities to do things they may not want to do. There is a valid question if she has such a choice, just as its not obvious parents have a choice not to feed their kids, or a pet owner to neglect their pet.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by ringo, posted 03-17-2006 3:44 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by ringo, posted 03-17-2006 5:48 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 217 of 301 (296430)
03-18-2006 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by ringo
03-17-2006 5:48 PM


Re: ringo goes off half-cocked
To Others... I just want to make clear I am actually on the same side of the abortion debate as ringo. I am only discussing what I see to be flaws in his argument. And I am certainly not trying to be mean to him. The subthread title was a jokey thing riffing on the fact that his avatar is a gunslinger. Not sure how I engendered such wrath from someone I wasn't even talking to, but wish to defuse any misunderstandings now.
To Ringo... Just let me know if this is getting boring or unproductive. I actually felt like it was relatively productive. Testing arguments and all. Don't want to make this a huge issue or something.
But I'm saying specifically that that is not what she chose. She chose to abort. If the law won't let her do it, she is being punished.
Okay let's think about this carefully. She did not "choose" for an abortion either. Regardless of what happened, she found herself in a position where she was pregnant and did not want a child. Thus she was faced with three odious choices: destroy the fetus so it will not go to term and not have to be cared for by anyone, go to term and let someone else take care of the baby, or go to term and take care of it herself.
Anti-abortion laws remove one of those odious choices based on the concept that that choice involves harming (killing) another living being. Arguments of whether a fetus is a living being aside, we accept such limitations by law on our behavior in other circumstances. Thus it is not a punishment, it is an elimination of a choice which involves the violation of another being's rights.
She is left with choices that do not violate the rights of another.
I'm hoping that I am drawing out why this is not really an argument of punishing a person or forcing something on someone, the underlying element which decides everything is whether the fetus is a living being.
I am basically pro-life. I'm also pro-choice.
I never know what to put for any side. I'll stick with AA (for anti-abortion) from now on.
Society won't let them do that any more. See, society has more control over the parent than the parent has over the child.
First of all that a child can attempt to go around the will of parents does not mean that parents are not given legal control over their children and can force many different decisions upon them. Second I am not sure about Canada but I know that the US and Europe still allow parents to engage in corporal punishment and physical detention of their children. Third, while there are limits you are only proving my point as society is shown to have control over the actions of a parent for the perceived welfare of the child.
That last point really has to be understood, that society might have more control than a parent does not argue that society has less control over the actions of an individual.
What if he took the hamster to a vet and had it euthanized? (Remember, we're not talking about a woman beating her child to death. We're talking about a medical procedure.) That is a way in which people take responsibility for their pets all the time.
Definitely fine to go with having it euthanized. I think my point remains. If the child had it euthanized because he didn't want to care for it he would not be considered "taking responsibility" for it. It is avoiding responsibility. Many people do this but it does not change what is being done. I had a gf that was in a job where he euthanized animals for this very reason, it was definitely NOT considered "care" by those doing the procedure.
The only time euthanasia is considerd "care" is when an animal is in pain, and will likely die that way.
Yeah. Pretty much. (I'm not as familiar with your society as I am with my own, of course.)
I don't know much about Canada, but from what I hear it is beginning to trend right, just like the rest of the west. In any case abortion is definitely NOT a decided issue in the US or Europe or it wouldn't be topical. Heck, the dutch have an abortion ship that they place off coasts of other nations that don't allow abortion (including EU nations) so that women can get the procedure done in int'l waters.
I think there is a pretty-damn-near absolute responsibility to take care of the weaker members.
I don't think this is true at all. I feel a personal desire to help those in need, but recognize that this is not a universal feeling and that whole societies have operated just fine without such ideas. In some cases it is a detriment to have such policies.
Think of the animal kingdom, the weaker members may be cared for to some small degree but in the end most of them are shunned and left behind. That results in strength for the rest of the members.
Only our technological ability has given nations with such technology an ability to care for weaker members that is not practical for other nations.
To a large extent, there is "no going back". Slavery won't likely be re-introduced. Women will likely retain the vote.
Ahhhh... this is definitely a point of disagreement. Doesn't history show that there is most certainly "going back". As far as I can tell history is essentially a story of humanity ebbing and flowing on all issues. Look at the mideast for a good example, or the rise of fundamentalism within the US.
As far as I can tell we are actively re-inventing slavery. Temp work is replacing real work (so humans are shuffled around as unimportant cogs), and debt is becoming mandatory while also harder to escape. As far as women retaining the vote, there is a party here in Holland that wants to change that, and I believe they got a slight boost in the next election.
I might add there is already less freedom of communication and to act than there was. There were stict laws, they were lessened, and now they are more strict (with no rational basis for having reintroduced restrictions).
I said it doesn't give them the right.
But logically it can give them the right. You mentioned a social contract, but that is an amorphous thing. You can say it doesn't give them a right, but if consensus is that it does, then it does.
Of course if you disagree you can always try and opt out of that contract, or get them to change their minds, but that is different than there being some absolute sense that they don't get such rights.
But the ongoing moral consensus eventually removes the worst and most oppressive.
That seems an idealism which is not matched by historical example. The US is engaged in activities which had been banned and thought incapable of a free democratic nation not 20 years ago. Hitler rose amongst a relatively democratic nation.
There was once a trend that was for removing restrictions on humans, but that can be seen as having happened in the past, only to be reversed, and it appears to be reversing once again.
violation of one's "body autonomy" is rape.
Well you can use that terminology if you want, but it is not currently correct, and I dislike such usage. It appears part of a trend of making anything connected with sex a negative thing, pretty much the worst thing in the world. Its not bad enough to say a person has been forced to do something against their will, we must connect it to terms involving sex against will because that makes it worse.
Rape is a category of violation. Violation or forced activity is bad enough and indeed as bad as it gets, whether sex is involved or not.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ringo, posted 03-17-2006 5:48 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2006 11:38 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 220 by ringo, posted 03-18-2006 11:38 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 223 of 301 (296565)
03-19-2006 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by ringo
03-18-2006 11:38 AM


Re: ringo goes off half-cocked
Suppose she goes into a restaurant and the choices of entree are chicken and crab. She's allergic to shellfish - the waiter tells her they're out of chicken. Does she really have a choice?
Argggggh! More analogies! Unfortunately this one was loaded. Her being allergic is something vastly different than her simply not liking shellfish (let's say she's jewish). Raising the kid or giving it to foster care is not the same as having to do something which will certainly adversely effect you in a physical way.
A more appropriate analogy is that she really likes meat, she wants a thick juicy steak or slab of ribs or a nice char broiled chicken. She decides to go out with a bunch of friends for a nice dinner at a really nice restuarant (or maybe she gets dragged there). Instead of what she wanted, she winds up being taken to a vegetarian restuarant. Everything sucks. She orders a fish entree, the least repugnant of the choices, and is told that the new management is pure vegan and so it no longer exists on the menu.
Yes, she has a choice, though bounded by restrictions set by others. That happens all the time.
She is left with a choice that violates her rights.
Ahem... I have a choice of paying for a meal, or shooting the cashier and taking it for free. It is not a violation of my rights to mandate I can't shoot the cashier. When there are two individuals, there is a competition of rights and the right to live is almost always the trump card, most especially if the other is simply "the right to do what I want with my body".
The only time she could make such a claim is if the fetus does not have rights. Which is what I keep pointing to is the crux of the whole argument.
It looks like a life sentence - or even a death sentence.
Well that is just as irrational as an AA protester viewing a fetus as if it is an actual baby that wants to live and has expressive thoughts.
As soon as one is pregnant there is a risk of death, no matter what you decide. Thus the concept that a restriction on abortion is a death sentence for the mother is absurd. And ironically abortion is most certainly a death sentence for the fetus (which you don't seem to mind).
If you view raising the kid as a life sentence, then give it up for adoption. That intrinsically neither kills you nor chains you (except for the period till birth).
The child - having no responsibilities at all - would seem to be the least "controlled" of all.
??? Children have almost no rights. They are the most controlled, besides animals. I have no clue what you are talking about. Still their right to life and health is enforced by society over the rights of the parents to do what they want. That would hold for abortion too, unless the fetus is not considered a child.
You're a bit heavy-handed in deciding for everybody else what they consider "care", aren't you?
No. I just said I knew people that worked doing the very thing you were talking about. A kid having his hamster euthanized, because he doesn't want to care for it is not considered "care" by at least some (all the people I knew) in that field. It was repulsive and a lack of care. A person that cared would have provided care until someone else could be found that would take over.
Let me ask you this, if you have a different definition of "care" such that it extends to euthanasia when an individual chooses not to provide for a weaker being under his/her immediate control, then would euthanasia of an ailing relative or an irritatingly spongy relative be considered "care"? Wouldn't infanticide be considered "care"?
The analog (aaarrrghh!) with abortion would be saying that it is only "responsible" if the fetus would likely die anyway.
Or would be suffering in life, yes. Well, I feel that there has been a shift made here. It can be a responsible decision to abort for many other reasons, but that is not the same thing as "taking responsibility for" the fetus.
I'm optimistic that the rest of the world will catch up eventually.
I wish I was optimistic that I could move to Canada.
I heard about a new-fangled invention called the "Internet", or something like that, that was supposed to allow instantaneous communication around the world. We never had that when I graduated from fetus to baby.
Oh, bad bad bad. Distance and number of people one can talk to due to technology advance =/= freedom. That can certainly be a form of freedom, but is not sufficient. China has the internet, they are regulating it. We have the internet, we are now regulating it. Less freedom regarding content all the time.
I suppose one day when China rules the world, they'll come up with a great device allowing instant thought communication to absolutely everyone in the world (especially all those in gov't). If all I get to say/think is "I like chinese, long live little red book" there is no increased "freedom" of communication.
I wonder how this "Internet" will reduce our freedom of communication?
The internet has already created less freedom to communicate, because of local concern over content. More laws are being introduced all the time to effect how and what people can communicate, even outside the internet, based on the numerical/spatial freedom that the internet gave us.
I have never heard of a human society that had no such standard at all. By definition, it can't be a "society" unless the members take care of each other.
That they must help the weakest? Are you kidding? Let's start with Sparta. I agree that societies are by definition groups of people that provide some level of support or regulated interaction between them. But that says nothing about who gets focused on for care.
There were many societies, especially pre tech civilizations, which could not afford care for the weakest. You put your care for those that were strongest and most likely to benefit the group as a whole. Weaklings were left to die, if they were not killed outright. I suppose if you want to call that "care" you can, but those that remained alive were usually ostracized and victimized, usually believed to be cursed and certainly a burden. That does not suggest the neglectful and violent deaths were a form of tender mercy.
It's just insulting to compare that to slavery.
I didn't say we had slavery yet, I said we were reinventing it. I described the paths we were going down to reintroduce it. That said, you do understand there are still slaves and slavery in the world, even in the west? You even have liberals arguing that illegal aliens should be allowed to be in the US to do the work regular americans would not want to do... ignoring that they are fighting for slave wages and treatment for this underclass. They aren't arguing to make them full citizens of equal wage and rights, otherwise they'd have hired americans.
The US Constitution... speaks of "inalienable" rights. The UN has a "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". No consensus can remove those rights - it can only pass laws that violate those rights.
Do you honestly believe that the above mentioned documents set out actual "rights" that we really possess, and cannot be change by consensus? While their hyperbolic language is inspiring, they are simply lists that certain members of the societies from which they emerged set for themselves. I find the UN declaration somewhat loathesome and dictatorial even.
The fact is that there are more rights than those enumerated, and yet not recognized by either the US or the UN, based on popular social consensus of what is NOT a right. By interpreting written rights differently (same words different meaning) we can and have gotten different results, with no need or ability to create laws which violate these rights.
Rights do not come from Gods. You must fight against the society around you for every right you demand. Your success determines what rights you will enjoy. Thankfully there is some general common consensus at this time on a few, but they are already changing... just as the drafters of the Constitution warned would happen.
Nonsense. (And you are aware, of course, that the first one to mention Hitler automatically loses the debate
Uhhhh... Hitler DID rise to power from within a democratic nation. That they clamored for or knuckled under to a tyrant does not change the fact. The point is that free people have often taken steps backward and gladly put the yoke on their own necks.
There's a new rule if you hadn't heard: the first person to mention that the first person to mention hitler loses, when mentioning Hitler actually applies to the argument at hand, loses. Heheheh.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by ringo, posted 03-18-2006 11:38 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by ringo, posted 03-19-2006 2:25 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 224 of 301 (296567)
03-19-2006 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by crashfrog
03-18-2006 11:38 AM


labelling everything rape is not healthy
I want to start by stating that feelings and opinions are not objective and so I can't really argue against them. All I can do is point out when they involve factual inaccuracies, logical inconsistencies, and failing that or in addition to that explain how another view point might have a greater emotional appeal to a person.
Thus the following is not to say you or anyone else cannot feel the way you do about sex or violation, or how terms should be used, in some objective sense. There is nothing objectively "wrong" or "invalid" about it, beyond factual inaccuracies or inconsistencies I mention.
I will greatly abbreviate this, because I suspect it is OT, and more or less is a conflict of opinion.
In our culture our genitals are hidden from view and held to be something deeply intimate and close to ourselves.
I don't know what you mean by "our" culture. The entire world does not look at it that way at this time, certainly hasn't in the past, and is not even uniform throughout the US. What can be said is that those who have ascribed to a particular brand of Abrahamic (and almost especially later Xian and Islamic) dogma regarding sex and body view it that way. That would be the same for those members of cultures influenced/dominated by such doctrines. Such concepts are readily trackable, and not inherent to humans nor uniform throughout any nation, or set of nations.
I can't remember if you said you had been to mainland Europe, but the body phobia many US citizens have is not present there (I guess I should say here). Genital exposure does not have the same meaning or level of meaning. Nudism is much more common as well as nude imagery.
That genitals are personal (part of one's body and sensual moments) and important is one thing, that that has anything to do with being hidden is something else entirely. That is a duplicity born of ascetic religious, usually abrahamic principles (and specific strains at that) regarding the body and I do not personally understand why any seriously introspective free thinker would choose to hold or promote such understandings.
There is no question that such views are growing in popularity with the rise of abrahamic fundamentalism and popular liberal ideology based on certain feminist doctrines (ironically having accepted the same abrahamic standards as a foundation for social theory). And it indeed has been very well played in US media. I find this disheartening, but it does not make it real or a standard for any culture much less "our culture".
Rape isn't just a violation of one's space, or of one's will, or of one's rights, but of one's very self.
While that is a valid personal opinion/feeling, it is not factually true, and a viewpoint I would argue against. Rape really is just a forced sexual encounter, a breaking of another's will, which may or may not be a violation of one's rights (that depends on the society's laws). The only way it can become a violation of one's self is to the degree that one views sex as the entirety of one's being, and more to the point one's unchallenged sexual power as the entirety of one's being.
This is unhealthy as sex (though important) is not all there is to a person's life, and tying one's "self" to some mythical "flawless" condition will only cause more harm. Those that have been victimized are further victimized, by being told that their very self has somehow been damaged. That is the very thing that the rapist was trying to do, and thus one empowers and justifies the rapist. It also justifies the image of the victim of a singular crime, as an eternal victim or "damaged goods".
Those that have yet to encounter such a situation are prepared to make it worse psychologically than it has to be, or factually would be.
And for those that have encountered other brutal crimes, it invalidates their experience as not being as bad for lacking a sexual dimension.
I think that's a worse crime; I think the intimate, sexual aspect of the violation makes it much, much worse.
This is going to sound really insulting, and I don't mean it to be. I think this kind of attitude is only possible from a standpoint of someone who has not enountered crime, and I mean real crime first hand. And thus judges it from unreflective popular social expectations, or only having experienced rape and accept popular social expectation. Sort of an ivory tower approach.
From a personal viewpoint ranging in encounters from sexual assault (which most would call rape), to nonsexual child abuse, to fights and robberies, to (brutal) attempted and actual murders, I have no clue what you are talking about.
While sex is "initimate", a rape is not. It is a forced use of one's body. Violence and fear is the key factor for horror and violation and damage. That a penis forced into a vagina (or other orifice) under threat of stabbing can be considered more of a personal violation than a knife actually pushed into your body cavity with no sexual overture and no way to possibly passify the attacker accept your own death, I am left scratching my head.
From a scientific aspect, it has been found that despite popular opinion sex and violence are not synonymous. Violence and threat of violence is the primary source for longterm physical and psychological trauma. Rapes can be extremely damaging, but are generally keyed to the level of violence or threat of violence and not the level of sexual intimacy (which itself is usually culture specific) involved. Of course length of the incident(s) may also be a factor, thus repeated crimes can be potentially more damaging psychologically than a singular crime of greater violence.
Of course expectations and pronouncements that rape victims must be "more damaged" in some intrinsic way by family and friends has been noted to not be helpful for people trying to recover and move on. It stops being a singular incident like a mugging, and becomes a lifelong badge of identity. In a way the "friends" extend the crime.
But I guess our opinions on that can differ.
If I have not been persuasive, then you can of course differ in your opinion and not be "wrong".
That said, and I already have said way more than I intended to, this came up not in the context that rape should be considered a worse violation than other crimes, but because Ringo suggested that all violations of will should be called rape. He said you have suggested this though I do not know this to be true.
The idea that every violation of will should be called rape, because rape is the worse thing that can happen, and so we should hyperbolize everything to the worst thing that can happen, is less than useful or healthy sounding to me.
Among other issues, I doubt most rape victims want to be used as the category of the "worst thing that has ever happened", and even if true have other lesser issues be called rape just to make it sound bad. That's abusing a class of people for propaganda. And as I suggested this is simply part of the culturally recent trend to spice everything with sex if they want to make it seem worse, and in the process (part of the cycle) further defame sex.
Sorry about the length of the post.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2006 11:38 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by nator, posted 03-19-2006 9:27 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2006 11:27 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 226 of 301 (296573)
03-19-2006 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by nator
03-19-2006 9:27 AM


Re: labelling everything rape is not healthy
All person to person, hands-on violence is incredibly intimate.
I think an equivocation is going on with that. Its incredibly personal, but not intimate. A candle lit dinner for two can be intimate. Which I take to mean personal in the sense of getting to know about another person. A rape is not.
A person that rapes me does not get to know who I am as a sexual or loving being, though they get to know personal facts about my body.
In any case, crash was arguing a difference between violence with sex and violence without sex based on a concept he called intimacy. It would seem you are more or less agreeing with what I was trying to say. Violence against a person regardless of sexual nature is not differentiable based on a concept such as "intimacy".

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by nator, posted 03-19-2006 9:27 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by nator, posted 03-19-2006 10:37 AM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 229 of 301 (296599)
03-19-2006 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by crashfrog
03-19-2006 11:27 AM


Re: labelling everything rape is not healthy
NOTE: Crash had a long post and deleted it while I was writing a long reply. After I posted my reply I noticed his deletion. He requested I delete out at least his portions. I've decided to keep in one quote of his and my answer to that quote so we can end on a happier note (and make us look good).
I'm not trying to make rape out to be the worst crime possible. It's not as bad as murder, for instance. But it's a lot worse than, say, an embarassing or unpleasurable sexual experience. It's worse than being robbed. But again, that's just my opinion. And it's possible that a specific sexual assault could be objectively less severe than a specific robbery. Can we accept that it's case-by-case?
I am in absolute agreement with what you stated in the quote above. It certainly did look like you were saying rape was the worse crime possible, and I apologize for any error on my part for the miscommunication, if that was not your intent.
But then this does go back to the issue of what Ringo was doing and said you had said. Why call all instances of where a person's will has been overcome as rape?
This message has been edited by holmes, 03-19-2006 11:57 PM

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2006 11:27 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2006 1:59 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 235 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2006 9:58 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 230 of 301 (296600)
03-19-2006 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by crashfrog
03-19-2006 11:27 AM


Re: labelling everything rape is not healthy
I'd like to return to the original topic, not spiral out of control with Holmes.
Damn... I was writing and posting before I saw you erased your post. I agree it is generally OT, so you can read it or ignore it. Despite some disagreements it seems to end in a general agreement rather than a spiral.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2006 11:27 AM crashfrog has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 233 of 301 (296650)
03-19-2006 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by ringo
03-19-2006 2:25 PM


Re: Ringo Reloaded
Have you forgotten about he risks of pregnancy before the child is even born?
No, I thought I had mentioned them in my post. A woman risks injury and death via abortion or pregnancy. It is true that abortion poses a statistically lower risk in the first two trimesters, but that does not change the fact that either way is risk. She is already in a bad position, and carrying to term is not something that will CERTAINLY adversely effect her in a physical way.
some of those restrictions are not deemed "reasonable" by society.
Once again I am forced to point out that "reasonable" was not the issue, not all western nations think this even now. I will add to that the fact that restrictions were considered okay right up till Roe v Wade in the US, then it changed by will of fewer people than actually agreed with that decision (it was position of the court which gave that power), a majority still want some restrictions if not full restriction, and they are presently working to get it back in place.
If history ends up with a long segment of abortion being illegal followed by a relatively short segment of abortion being legal followed by abortion being illegal again, what does that say?
And the argument has been settled - the fetus does not have "rights" which trump those of the woman. All you have done is speculate that those "rights" might some day be recognized.
Ugh, please don't say speculate. Faith has been killing that term for me. I don't know how you can argue that the argument has been settled. Maybe in Canada it has for now, but it sure isn't anywhere else and I think I've proven that point already. I am not speculating, I am telling you factually that it has once been illegal, still is illegal in some parts of the western world, and there are forces trying to make it illegal again.
It certainly has been a death sentence for women in the past. Facts ain't absurd.
What are you talking about? You mean women that choose to have a back alley abortion? That does not make laws against abortion a death sentence.
What's the difference between making a "responsible decision" and "taking responsibility"?
A responsible decision is one where a person uses reason to work through all the elements that go into a decision. Not simply doing what one feels at the moment. Taking responsibility for something means one gains duties beyond consideration for just the self and may have to sacrifice ones own desires to aid or preserve that something.
I'm going to leave out discussing the Internet, since it's off-topic - and your argument against yourself is better than anything I could come up with.
Actually the internet thing was sort of on topic. You suggest that society moves forward and don't change back. The internet was your example of freedom of communication increasing as a challenge to my comment that freedom of communication is actually decreasing. Not sure what you thought was my arguing against myself. We really can't communicate as much content (as broad of topics) now as we had in the past, despite being able to talk to more people. More people to talk to on less topics than you had before does not mean an advance in freedom of communication, it is an advance in technology. Its like saying that I have a machine which can increase the pitch of people's voices has somehow increased the freedom of their communication.
The weakest are invariably the newborn. If any society did not take care of them, that society would be extinct.
The sick and dying are as weak as if not weaker than newborns. They generally need more attention too. I admit that children need more attention than adults. That does not mean care was equal among children.
The consensus being that a fetus is not a person and is therefore not entitled to the "rights" defined therein.
You know as much as I was and am for Roe v Wade, it was in no way shape or form a consensus decision of the population. The only consensus was not to topple the gov't over this decision which was made by a small group, which may have already been replaced such that it can be overturned. And again, in some European nations it is still wholly illegal.
I don't "demand" any rights. I form a consensus with the rest of society about what rights we agree should be extended to whom.
Oh my, you have not read the writings of the authors of the constitution have you?
Weimar Germany was never democratic except in name only.
I don't believe that was the case, but for sake of argument I'll let it slide.
Life is about choices. Security versus freedom. Security against being blown up versus freedom to drive around with a bomb in your car.
Oh man, you REALLY have never read writings by the authors of the Constitution. One of the more popular quotes from Franklin is against that very sentiment.
I can't speak for the UN HR authors, but the sentiment of the US constitution authors is that you had to fight for your rights, and not make the mistake of sacrificing freedom for the sake (lure) of security. Eventually and naturally all gov'ts will erode rights under that flag and the populace will have to fight it.
And history is the story of populations going back and forth on topics. I just don't see how you can feel confident suggesting that abortion laws can't come back into popularity at all. I mean I hope they don't, but I see no bar to it.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by ringo, posted 03-19-2006 2:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by ringo, posted 03-19-2006 7:29 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 239 by ramoss, posted 03-20-2006 11:24 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 236 of 301 (296745)
03-20-2006 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by ringo
03-19-2006 7:29 PM


Re: Ringo Reloaded
Heheheh... very cool subthread title.
All the more reason for the choice to be hers.
You are preaching to the choir, because I hold the same belief regarding the status of the fetus. But you can't use that (such an assumption to be true) in an argument against someone who is AA. It becomes a circular argument.
If we go back to geocentrism or witch-burning, what does that say? It's all idle speculation.
Again I am not certain how you can claim speculation when nations have such laws today, and we have seen reversal of freedoms in the past. You are the one speculating that society has actually made a consensus agreement and it will somehow never change, or should be thought that (even if it does change) that this was the real and true consensus, and others are mistakes.
It is certainly a potential death sentence.
Wayyyy too watered down. That makes everything a court decides a death sentence. Heck getting a traffic ticket could be a death sentence.
So now you're dictating how "responsible" decisions must be made?
I thought you asked me for the definitions I was using for two different items. I gave you my definitions. No one has to accept them, but if you want to understand what I am saying they sure would help. I don't think they were way outside popular conceptions/usage.
Which is what I'm saying about society's responsibility for the "unwanted" child.
That wasn't the topic. I think this line by line thing is creating a fog of war. The responsibility for issue was from your (or was it my?) analogy to the kid and the pet hamster. I already agree with you that if society ensures that babies are born it must become responsible for those children. The point here was that a child euthanizing a hamster to avoid raising a hamster would not be considered "taking responsibility for".
A consensus is a consensus. I've tried to tell you it isn't just about counting noses.
My suggestion is that the consensus was not regarding abortion. A temporary truce so that sides can buy time to defeat an enemy is not consensus on the issues which divided them.
Are you under the impression that anybody outside the US cares about the US constitution?
Yes, I thought you did. You mentioned what it said and what it was meant to be. That gave me an impression you knew what you were talking about, which made me believe you had an interest. I certainly DON'T expect nonUS citizens to know about our constitution, unless they start discussing it.
And yet we Canadians have the abortion rights, we have the same-sex marriage rights, we have the more lenient drug laws....
Actually what do you guys have in the way of a constitution? Do you have one and does it have a Bill of Rights of some kind? That there aren't major fights going on only says that there is less division right now. Individuals wanting such rights more than likely did have to fight for them. If I remember right gay marriage was very recent, right? That means someone was fighting for something that had not existed yet. And from what I understand it is still controversial and may be limited or nixed in some way.
I think it's unlikely I'll ever be able to go down to Wal-Mart and buy a black guy to pick my cotton.
No but if you do go to WalMart you might very well be served by a brown person who they shipped in and lock overnight to keep their store's running.
I should say I'm not trying to claim the sky is falling and we are on the brink of all of this happening. All I am saying is you seem a bit overconfident that progress is a real part of society. I'm saying history shows otherwise and certain trends (though maybe not Canada) are heading backward toward less freedom.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by ringo, posted 03-19-2006 7:29 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by ringo, posted 03-20-2006 9:59 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 238 of 301 (296781)
03-20-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by ringo
03-20-2006 9:59 AM


Re: Ringo Reloaded
The anti-abortionists claim that the fetus is human and therefore has rights - yet it is somehow "okay" to abort it in the case of rape (or incest)... Clearly, there is a consensus - even among anti-abortionists - that a fetus is not (fully) human, that a fetus does not have (full) human rights.
Hey, we've gone in a circle. Remember I already addressed this. I agree that any AAs who do hold this duality are facing a problem (indeed a possible hypocrisy).
Unfortunately there is no such consensus, and indeed the latest "consensus" from AAs to hit the lawbooks is exactly the opposite. The AAs specifically said there is NO exception for rape or incest. And for some reason prochoice people criticized them for NOT holding such an exception.
Damned if they do and damned if they don't.
And my suggestion is that you can't call a truce "temporary" until it's over.
Uh... it's over. The AAs have finally placed two members on the court they feel will reverse public policy, and immediately got an AA law on the lawbooks. See they decided not to have a revolution to overthrow the gov't based on a decision they thought was bad, and instead bided their time and grew in power until they felt they had a good shot.
The consensus was NOT that abortion was okay.
I used both buzzwords as a suggestion that there is a (more-or-less) universal consensus on the subject of inalienable human rights. I did not present it as a treatise on constitutional law.
I'm not sure why those buzzwords would indicate you did not know anything about the specific documents you were discussing. I took it to mean you did not know exact language.
There is no universal consensus on the subject of inalienable rights. Your own commentary conflicts with some of the founding theories on it. Indeed the concept of such rights was relatively recent in history and are still not held as acceptable across the world today.
Who would have thought the Mighty holmes would have reading comprehension difficulties?
Oh please, I've made some doozies. I still get the shakes thinking of one I made with Jar. Brrrr.
This message has been edited by holmes, 03-20-2006 04:49 PM

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by ringo, posted 03-20-2006 9:59 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by ringo, posted 03-20-2006 1:47 PM Silent H has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024