Now there’s an idea


Maybe every newspaper ought to adopt this editorial policy.

heidi

Comments

  1. Brother Ogvorbis, Fully Defenestrated Emperor of Steam, Fire and Absurdity says

    Who could be against it?

    The men who have gotten rich and powerful politicizing abortion, using abortion as a cudgel to keep the flock in line, and using the threat of eternally burning in a lake of gods’ love would certainly object.

  2. dianne says

    Good luck with that one. To get men to shut up about women’s body parts, you’d first have to get men to stop thinking of women as their property and that’s proved a harder problem than one might initially think.

  3. says

    While it might seem to be good idea, excluding people from voicing their opinions because they belong to some subgroup of humanity is a first step down a very slippery slop. If the comment had been that men should keep quiet about parenting , atheist about religion or anything similar, no one would (hopefully) agree with that.

    Better to let people with absurd ideas and notions out themselves…

  4. Saad says

    You’d think respecting someone’s medical privacy and medical decisions would be among the most uncontroversial things ever. The right wing assholes love to accuse progressives of “politicizing” things, but making a person’s medical decisions a matter of national politics is the worst form of politicizing.

  5. Saad says

    fredrikjanson, #4

    While it might seem to be good idea, excluding people from voicing their opinions because they belong to some subgroup of humanity is a first step down a very slippery slop. If the comment had been that men should keep quiet about parenting , atheist about religion or anything similar, no one would (hopefully) agree with that.

    Of course we won’t agree with that because they’re faulty analogies.

    Men are perfectly entitled to parenting because men can be parents.

    Atheists are perfectly entitled to talk about religion because religion isn’t a living thing and it doesn’t belong to anyone.

    Men are certainly not entitled to telling women what to do with their bodies because everyone should have bodily autonomy.

    Better to let people with absurd ideas and notions out themselves…

    But they’re not outing themselves. Being anti-choice is not considered a disgraceful and embarrassing view to take in society.

    And even if it was it wouldn’t be merely outing themselves, it would be ruining other people’s lives.

  6. says

    While it might seem to be good idea, excluding people from voicing their opinions because they belong to some subgroup of humanity is a first step down a very slippery slop.

    No, it’S an excellent idea. It’s an idea YOU in person should practise. Cis men’s voices have nothing useful to say when it comes to what a cis woman or any other person capable of pregnancy should be allowed to do or what to do.
    IT’s not something that happens to you, it’s not something that threatens your lives, it’s not something that physically affects your bodies for the rest of your lives so just take your faulty analogies and go home.

    Seriously, comment #4 is already “what about the poor oppressed menz”

  7. peggin says

    I’d take it even further than this. No man* should have the right to an opinion on the right to choose, and no woman should have the right to an opinion on the right to choose with regards to any pregnancy other than her own.

    *The exception being a trans-man who is, himself, pregnant — he has the right to an opinion on the right to choose with regards to his pregnancy, but not any other.

  8. Owlmirror says

    But there are plenty of women who are anti-abortion, who would presumably be glad to write anti-abortion editorials.

    Indeed, some of the women who are anti-abortion have gotten abortions and are still anti-abortion.

    (Where’s that list of anecdotes, including the one where the woman told the doctor right after her abortion “But you are still a murderer”, or something like that?)

  9. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    fredrikjanson, #4:

    Free speech, 1st Amendment, etc stuff does not apply here. The recommendation is that the newspaper itself refuse to publish letters from domineering assholes who want subjugated people to follow the domineers rules.
    There is no “laws” being suggested, just recommended editorial policy.
    My attempt at analogy:
    imagine a paper who’s letters section always has some bigoted flame about the homeless POCs. This OP suggests the paper not publish these letters, as being not only useless but harmful to the POCs struggling to get better employment.
    Imagine a local Pennsylvania paper refusing to publish the many letters it receives about the slums in NYC. Is that a problem?

  10. Saganite, a haunter of demons says

    Censorship wargleblargle thought-police urgleworgleborgle freedom flergleblergle Nazi Germany!

  11. chris61 says

    @everybody

    The question isn’t really a question of the right to choose but rather of the right to access to trained medical personnel and facilities. It isn’t about body autonomy; it’s about the provision of resources and so yeah, those without functional uteruses have a right to an opinion because they/we have the right to vote.

  12. Vivec says

    You have a right to an opinion, but you don’t have the right to a platform to give that opinion, nor do you have the right to not be criticized for voicing your opinion.

  13. Saad says

    chris61, #14

    The question isn’t really a question of the right to choose but rather of the right to access to trained medical personnel and facilities. It isn’t about body autonomy.

    Good point. All those anti-choice politicians and anti-choice voters are actually just concerned about medical facilities and are perfectly fine with the pregnant person deciding to get an abortion.

  14. says

    I think that men shouldn’t be totally excluded from having opinions about women’s reproductive and procreative bits; it’s just that without having those bits themselves, their (uh, I guess I mean “our”) opinions just shouldn’t be counted as much as the people’s who do have those bits. Maybe they should be counted at a fractional rate, say three-fifths?

  15. Hoosier X says

    … nor do you have the right to not be criticized for voicing your opinion.

    This will come as a surprise to almost every conservative I know. I have a feeling they won’t believe you.

  16. The Evil Twin says

    Have been told by a female relative: “All women love babies. The only reason a woman would get an abortion is if a MAN forced her to. Legal abortion is misogyny.”

  17. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    those without functional uteruses have a right to an opinion because they/we have the right to vote.

    Yes, but when you voice those opinions talking down to women you are mansplainin’, which is offensive.

  18. parrothead says

    @9 Giliell

    No, it’S an excellent idea. It’s an idea YOU in person should practise. Cis men’s voices have nothing useful to say when it comes to what a cis woman or any other person capable of pregnancy should be allowed to do or what to do.

    So you can guarantee that this means of silencing someone’s voice will never be applied outside of women’s choice rights discussions? While I agree in principle (I certainly am not qualified to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her body) I can also see how this could lead to the slippery-slope argument. You can open a floodgate for the right reasons but still result in a lot of damage downstream.

  19. chris61 says

    @19 Saad

    All those anti-choice politicians and anti-choice voters are actually just concerned about medical facilities and are perfectly fine with the pregnant person deciding to get an abortion.

    A fair number of them are as long as it doesn’t involve government funding.

    @23 Nerd
    The assumption that anyone without a functional uterus must be a man is offensive.

  20. Saad says

    chris61, #25

    A fair number of them are as long as it doesn’t involve government funding.

    The pro-choice side doesn’t want all abortion procedures to be government funded so that “fair number” doesn’t have a point.

  21. consciousness razor says

    The question isn’t really a question of the right to choose but rather of the right to access to trained medical personnel and facilities. It isn’t about body autonomy; it’s about the provision of resources and so yeah, those without functional uteruses have a right to an opinion because they/we have the right to vote.

    You think there’s a serious concern about the provision of these resources? You think a person in a democracy has the right to decide whether or not other people can access trained medical personnel and facilities when they need them? If it isn’t something a voter should be able to do, is it supposed to be relevant here?

    If being a voter doesn’t magically give you an excuse for basically any behavior, since there exist things that in some way pertain to that behavior and those things could conceivably be provided for by our government (even if in fact they’re not), then seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?

    By the way, you don’t actually need to offer any justification for a “right to an opinion.” Nobody could take your opinion from you, even if they wanted to do so (probably most would rather ignore it, because it sounds like too much work). So, probably you should just cut all of this transparent bullshit, not conflate voting with being opinionated, and not claim that it isn’t about women having autonomy over their own bodies (and the people who don’t like that) when it clearly is.

  22. Saad says

    parrothead, #24

    While I agree in principle (I certainly am not qualified to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her body) I can also see how this could lead to the slippery-slope argument.

    Do you have one or two examples of such a slippery slope in mind?

  23. consciousness razor says

    A fair number of them are as long as it doesn’t involve government funding.

    Thus, it isn’t about anything else, because there are “a fair number” of such people. Anything else is not really “the question.” Because democracy and freedom and things.

  24. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The assumption that anyone without a functional uterus must be a man is offensive.

    You would have to find something offensive there.
    Whereas I found this very offensive:

    The question isn’t really a question of the right to choose but rather of the right to access to trained medical personnel and facilities. It isn’t about body autonomy; it’s about the provision of resources and so yeah,

    It is about the right the choose and bodily autonomy. You don’t want to admit the truth. The safety issues are a red herring. It is about not trusting pregnant women to make the choice you want them to make.
    And this:

    A fair number of them are as long as it doesn’t involve government funding.

    A standard medical procedure should be covered by insurance, be it publicly or privately funded. It is offensive to think otherwise.

  25. Vivec says

    Nerd, I do agree with you on the whole, but I do also have to agree that responding to a post referring to “people without uteruses” with talk of mansplaining, makes it seem as if you equated lack of uteri with being a man.

  26. Saad says

    Vivec, #29

    Are you referring to pro-choice people who are also for universal healthcare? Because that’s a separate issue (which I agree with) and doesn’t take anything away from my #26.

  27. raven says

    Chris61 the troll lying.

    All those anti-choice politicians and anti-choice voters are actually just concerned about medical facilities and are perfectly fine with the pregnant person deciding to get an abortion.

    A fair number of them are as long as it doesn’t involve government funding.

    This is a flat out lie.
    The forced birthers are entirely motivated by religion and fascism, the idea that they can tell other people what to do and what not to do.

    Chris61 is just posting pure gibberish and lies but I’m too bored with dumb trolls to bother.
    Some of the other commenters at least caught it.

    Wikipedia:

    In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortion unless the pregnancy arises from incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother.[1][2] The Hyde Amendment is not a permanent law, but rather is a “rider” that in various forms has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976.[1] Legislation including the Hyde Amendment generally only restricts the use of funds allocated for the Department of Health and Human Services and primarily affects Medicaid.[1][2]

    It’s been illegal to use federal funds to pay for almost all abortions since 1976.

  28. Vivec says

    @33
    I was just kinda being snarky, because I’m of the opinion that all necessities should be handled by the government, and abortion falls in that bubble.

  29. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I admit I was wrong to think that Chris61 statement only applied to men. Mea Culpa.

    Now, If Chris61 wants to reduce the number of abortions, why not bribe the women with enough money, say about about $200,000 (middle class raising a child to 18 takes about $245,000 these days), which is put in escrow to be drawn on later as needed. Out of your money and other like minded individuals, not mine, of course. This is enough to keep the woman and her children off of welfare with most jobs.

  30. parrothead says

    @28 Saad

    Do you have one or two examples of such a slippery slope in mind?

    I don’t. I just get really uncomfortable when people appear to be pushing to suppress the rights of others that disagree with them, even if those others are vulgar in my opinion. I recall recently seeing a video of three Fox news types talking about an atheist billboard. Two of them were fully in favor of shutting the atheists up because Christian nation and other fallacies. The third was a bit more tolerant, thinking atheists would expose themselves so he could bring them the word or something like that.
    So don’t get me wrong… I would rather the forced-birthers shut the hell up. I just don’t like the idea of forcing them to or completely censoring their opinions.

  31. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    So don’t get me wrong… I would rather the forced-birthers shut the hell up. I just don’t like the idea of forcing them to or completely censoring their opinions.

    Neither does the OP or the letter posted in the OP. No one is asking for censorship. Just asking to modify their editorial policy. No one is forcing silence from the forced birthers. Their rights are not being impeded as no one has a right to be provided a platform. It is easy enough to find a paper to publish ones bigoted opinion. Requesting that a single paper refuse to do so, is far from asking for censorship or forcing the bigots to remain silent.

  32. says

    Appeals to a “slippery slope” are suggestions that there might be social momentum in a specific direction if an argument or strategy were to be adopted with respect to a social justice goal. In this case the suggestion that male people have little to nothing to offer with respect to views on what female people do with their bodies, especially in the context of reproduction.

    1) The social momentum is currently precisely in the opposite direction. People talking of “slippery slopes” are filling the communication space with the opposite information. What do you think that does to efforts to change the current social momentum?

    2) A social means of emphasizing the voices and views of female people and what they think of the way people try to control their bodies, especially on the issue of reproduction, is necessary to change the current social momentum.

    3) I’m see no evidence that the emphasis of voices of female people, even to the point of some media choosing to exclusively offer the perspective of female people, will somehow harm male people. I’m having trouble imagining the harm to male people even if that became a widespread social value.

    As a result it is difficult to express how little sympathy I have for people talking about “slippery slopes” in this thread.

  33. parrothead says

    @ 39 Slithy

    Neither does the OP or the letter posted in the OP. No one is asking for censorship.

    “cease publishing men’s letters about women’s bodies entirely”.

    I read that at censorship, am I reading too much into that?

  34. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I read that at censorship, am I reading too much into that?

    Yes, it is preventing male chauvinist pigs (a fav epithet from my college days) from preaching to women about their decisions. The newspaper would be requiring men to check their privilege before writing. Something many men can’t/won’t do.
    Nobody is required to everybody a forum, unless it is the government.

  35. parrothead says

    Yes, it is preventing male chauvinist pigs (a fav epithet from my college days) from preaching to women about their decisions.

    Yes, it is censoring male chauvinist pigs (a fav epithet from my college days) from preaching to women about their decisions.

    What’s the difference?

  36. says

    parrothead

    So you can guarantee that this means of silencing someone’s voice will never be applied outside of women’s choice rights discussions?

    Well, no.
    The principle “people whose body isn’t affected should stfu in discussions about private medical healthcare decisions” applies to other areas as well. Your opinion on which monthly hygiene product I use is equally not welcome. I can probably think of a few other cases where the principle applies.
    I am also sick and tired of being told that I must endure endless discussions about whether I am actually a human being with human rights or become a mere expendable incubator once I become pregnant for the sake of the theoretical possibility that some time some where some body might be unfairly told to shut up.

    I don’t. I just get really uncomfortable when people appear to be pushing to suppress the rights of others that disagree with them

    Good thing nobody’s doing that. Telling you to STFU about reproductive choice unless you’re directy affected isn’t taking away your rights. It’s telling you that you will be judged accordingly if you don’t. Asking newspapers to behave responsibly also isn’t affecting people’s rights.

  37. peggin says

    @43, maybe I’m missing something, but to me, there is a HUGE difference between a newspaper (a privately owned company) making a decision about what to print in their publication, vs. an attempt to legally prevent people from speaking out about unpopular opinions. In the case of a person who tries to publish an anti-choice screed in a newspaper, but is turned down because of newspaper policy, if that person still has legal means to publish his opinion elsewhere, or to start his own blog, or to stand on the street corners and shout his opinion to the world, then IMO he is NOT being censored.

  38. says

    I guess if I or the owner of a newspaper refused to host a male person’s views about the “benefits” of footbinding or punishing rape victims as if they were adulterers I would be engaging in “censorship”.

    Oh wait, it’s only censorship when it’s a part of the same culture as the female people criticizing male people. I forgot that it’s only appropriate to exclude disgusting views from people with less relevant perspectives if they are from an out-group.

    I’m going to break my sarcasm generator.

  39. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    What’s the difference?

    Censoring is only done the government. Nobody else is required to give you a forum. What part of that don’t you understand?
    I get the feeling you are a freeze peach absolutist. Anybody can say what they want anywhere at anytime. That has never been the case.

  40. says

    Brony

    I guess if I or the owner of a newspaper refused to host a male person’s views about the “benefits” of footbinding or punishing rape victims as if they were adulterers I would be engaging in “censorship”.

    THAT would of course be the grossest violation of human rights possible. We should demand that newspapers must publish the vilest shit possible to show their dedication to the rights of dudes everywhere, victims be damned.

  41. says

    OK, home now. This is also Parrothead. I have to log in differently from work, security stuff.

    I’m surprised that no one has mentioned that they already (most likely) filter out hate speech. I’m assuming they do at least. So if we were to be fleshing out an argument you could sell to an editorial staff, I guess a good question would be to ask why misogynistic statements aren’t considered hate speech or at least on par with hate speech. Instead of a race being attacked in this case it’s a sex. A lot of it would depend on the tone of the comments being printed I suppose. At least this could add justification to keep attacking and derogatory posts filtered out while a more innocuous one like “I believe life starts at conception” would still pass through. If someone is being attacked for being pro-choice an editorial page should recognize that as something that isn’t the type of speech that should be protected and is markedly different from simple opinions against abortion.
    The “you editors need to make men shut up” argument will likely fall on deaf ears. Perhaps a “recognize and stop this hate speech” approach would work better.

  42. says

    Grumpy Santa

    If someone is being attacked for being pro-choice an editorial page should recognize that as something that isn’t the type of speech that should be protected and is markedly different from simple opinions against abortion.

    Oh, right, it’s totally OK to discuss my very humanity and right to bodily autonomy if it’s done with long educated sounding words. Got that.

  43. says

    @Grumpy Santa/Parrothead
    >”The “you editors need to make men shut up” argument will likely fall on deaf ears. Perhaps a “recognize and stop this hate speech” approach would work better.”

    That’s some nice hyperbole you have there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it. Since choosing not to host a viewpoint is not relavently like applying force to prevent a male person from flapping lips or textually gesticulating in other forums. Like forums that they control for example.

  44. transgenderisomer says

    @47
    Do you understand where the term “freeze peach” comes from? Next time you try to defend a person’s autonomy, you may want to avoid using blatantly misogynistic terms.

  45. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Do you understand where the term “freeze peach” comes from?

    Yep, it means free speech without responsibility for what is said. You can say anything, anytime, anywhere, without criticism or “censoring”. The misogynists are simply an example. Any form of bigotry, or speech without responsibility fits the bill.

  46. says

    @transgenderisomer
    By all means, tell us of the misogynistic origins of “freeze peach”. That way when I get done with work I can be sure that you are not another advocate of the status quo trying to prevent a social opponent from using in-group terminology that expresses our viewpoints more efficiently.

  47. Usernames! (╯°□°)╯︵ ʎuʎbosıɯ says

    Do you understand where the term “freeze peach” comes from?
    — transgenderisomer (#53)

    Sure do! Allow me to elucidate; Adam Lee posted back in 2013 the difference between Free Speech and Free Peach:

    Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere ~ the right to be believed or to be taken seriously ~ the right to be listened to ~ [and] the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions.

    There are countless people who don’t understand this, or at least pretend not to understand it, and who insist that their free speech does include all these spurious rights ~. <b The social-justice community has a punning homophonic description of this whiny, entitled behavior: not free speech, but “freeze peach”. (emphasis mine)

    Hope that helps.

  48. F.O. says

    My understanding is that the bodily autonomy argument is countered with the bodily autonomy of the unborn baby.
    The counter works only under the assumption that a woman either 1) is directly responsible for being pregnant, or 2) has a duty to carry the pregnancy.
    It’s because of this counter that (I assume) men feel entitled to deliberate on women’s health.

    I do not understand why this counter isn’t directly addressed more often, at least in the online discussions and posts I follow, so maybe I’m missing something.

    Again, my understanding is that 1 is slut shaming, and 2 places a burden on women that is not placed on men, but I don’t think I understand these two arguments entirely.

  49. The Student says

    chris61:

    The question isn’t really a question of the right to choose but rather of the right to access to trained medical personnel and facilities. It isn’t about body autonomy; it’s about the provision of resources and so yeah, those without functional uteruses have a right to an opinion because they/we have the right to vote.

    Are you being disingenuous or are you really dumb?

    Are you actually trying to say that there’s no argument over the fact that people with uteruses have a right to get abortions, but you and the rest of the country can decide whether or not we get to use the tools we need to exercise our right?
    And you don’t see how that’s a problem?

    That’s like saying “You have a right to vote and all, but the rest of us have voted and we’re not going to spend money or resources we could use on other things setting up voting booths in your county. But you totally have the right to vote”

    If you take away the tools needed to exercise a right, that right has been effectively taken away.

    Finally an abortion is a medical procedure. You, your mother, your friend, and your politician don’t get to vote on whether or not I have one. That is decided by me, my doctor, and maybe I’ll invite my partner to help me make the decision.

  50. transgenderisomer says

    @55
    Dead wrong. I’ll sit here and explain what it means since you’re apparently too lazy or stupid to search the inernet before mansplaining to me what “freeze peach” means. The term “freeze peach” has origins going back at least to the 1920’s and is essentially a derogatory term for a woman who isn’t sexually receptive to a man. In case this doesnt make sense to you, consider that nowadays women who show no interest in sex at a given time are often insultingly called “cold” and that “peach” is still commonly used as a derogatory term for a woman or her vagina (or both to insinuate a woman is nothing more than her vagina).

  51. The Student says

    transgenderisomer @60

    I’m sure neither I nor anyone else had ever heard of that use. And I have yet to figure out a combination of words that will pull up that meaning of “freeze peach” on google. In contrast, the majority of links that appear when “freeze peach” is googled define it as a mispronunciation of “free speech” (or a few pages about freezing peaches for snacks).

    I’d personally be interested in a link about the more misogynistic term because old slang interests me. But I think it’s safe to say that this particular meaning has fallen out of use.

  52. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    My understanding is that the bodily autonomy argument is countered with the bodily autonomy of the unborn baby.

    How does the fetus, who isn’t born yet, have the same rights as the woman, who is definitely an adult with full adults rights and privileges? Show your work.

  53. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The term “freeze peach” has origins going back at least to the 1920’s and is essentially a derogatory term for a woman who isn’t sexually receptive to a man.

    Interesting, a lack of link to said term, and out of context with the usage about the rights of speech. Hmm…That kicks my skepticism into overdrive.

  54. transgenderisomer says

    Your skepticism could be solved by typing some words into a little box towards the top of your screen rather than continuing to mansplain. Plus, the fact that it’s usage was out of context is your fault for being a bigoted dope who used it out of context and does not give credence to your “skepticism” (read sexism).

  55. nelliebly says

    Hm. I Googled freeze peach 1920s slang and didn’t get anything either. But I have learnt that I should excuse myself to use the bathroom by announcing that I need to go iron my shoelaces – so time was well spent regardless.

  56. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Your skepticism could be solved by typing some words into a little box towards the top of your screen rather than continuing to mansplain.

    Gee, guess what I did. Exactly as you said, and came up with the present meme (link1, link2), and a couple of compilations (link3, link4) of 20’s slang, which unsurprisingly, did not contain your definition.
    Now it’s your turn to provide a link, or to admit you are nothing but a troll.

  57. A. Noyd says

    Another way to think about slippery slopes: The privileged are never the first to be subjected to a disadvantage. We’re not going to see some set of incremental changes whereby the privileged are silenced ahead of the rest of humanity. It goes the other way around.

    So if you’re really concerned, you should ask yourself whose voices you’re already not hearing. Because if you’re only motivated to speak out once you think the “rights” of the privileged are in jeopardy, then you’re either already too late or you’re actually invested in maintaining an unequal status quo.

  58. John Phillips, FCD says

    transgenderisomer, I did, and with my page set at fiftty results/per page, with the exceptions of the results having to with fruit/food, recipes or freezing things, all the others were using it in the way we are using it here as a term for someone advocating an absolutist term where any criticism is deemed as censorship. \I.E. as posted by Usernames! (╯°□°)╯︵ ʎuʎbosıɯ in comment #57. So again, if you care to post a link to your version of definition I would be genuinely interested in reading it. However, as the version already explained to you here is now by far the commonest modern usage, I imagine you will have some difficulty getting its usage changed.

  59. A. Noyd says

    FO (#58)

    My understanding is that the bodily autonomy argument is countered with the bodily autonomy of the unborn baby.

    Well, people do try, but it doesn’t work because, by definition, a fetus (not a baby) doesn’t have bodily autonomy. Its continued existence depends on using another person’s body. And that’s all that needs to be said about that.

  60. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    RQ, Wiki has this to say about bimbo.

    Bimbo is a derogatory slang term for an attractive but unintelligent female. The term was originally used in the United States as early as 1919 for an unintelligent or brutish male.
    As of early 21st century, the “stereotypical bimbo” appearance has become that of an attractive woman, often blonde and with a curvaceous figure and large breasts, possibly wearing heavy makeup and revealing clothing.[citation needed] However, none of these traits are strictly needed for a person to be considered a bimbo. It is sometimes associated with men or women who dye their hair blonde indicating that physical attractiveness is more important to them than other, non-physical traits[1] and as an extension to the “dumb blonde” stereotype.[1]…
    The word bimbo derives itself from the Italian bimbo,[2] a masculine-gender term that means “(male) baby” or “young (male) child” (the feminine form of the Italian word is bimba). Use of this term began in the United States as early as 1919, and was a slang word used to describe an unintelligent[3] or brutish[4] man.
    *History* It was not until the 1920s that the term bimbo first began to be associated with females. In 1920, composer Frank Crumit recorded “My Little Bimbo Down on the Bamboo Isle”,[5] in which the term “bimbo” is used to describe an island girl of questionable virtue. The 1929 silent film Desert Nights describes a wealthy female crook as a bimbo and in The Broadway Melody, an angry Bessie Love calls a chorus girl a bimbo. The first use of its female meaning cited in the Oxford English Dictionary is dated 1929, from the scholarly journal American Speech, where the definition was given simply as “a woman”.
    An unintelligent man can be referred to as a “himbo” or “mimbo” (a male bimbo), a backformation of bimbo.[2]

    Ah, the evolution of language.

  61. thelurkinator says

    Count me among those who’ve never heard the explanation for the origins of “freeze peach” given by transgenderisomer @60, did various google searches and could find no evidence for it, and think it would be swell if transgenderisomer would be willing to back up their claim with a link, book/article citation, etc.

  62. says

    Curious. I couldn’t find any source for that definition of freezepeach, but I did find another bit of ancient history–transgenderisomer was posting here earlier this month as npb7, in this thread. They seem to have a gift for putting up a pretense of ignorance and having secret knowledge, simultaneously.

  63. says

    It seems to be text book bigotry to exclude someone from moral discourse by virtue of their sex. Pro-life positions do not know a gender.

    Even if one grants men shouldn’t speak on abortion the underlying issues of the extent of bodily autonomy being protected clearly impacts men. Bodily autonomy is clearly not absolute; how else could we justly arrest someone? So the degree we allow for abortion given the stakes impacts a series of issues that are also the concern of men, ie legalization of sex work, drug war, assisted suicide. Etc.

    I’m pro-choice, any abortion at any time for any reason, but I don’t exclude that judgment from other areas.

  64. Snoof says

    Mike Smith @76

    It seems to be text book bigotry to exclude someone from moral discourse by virtue of their sex.

    On the contrary; input is welcome from any trans men or other men who are capable of getting pregnant.

    It’s the armchair obstetricians and other busybodies who should consider shutting up about an issue that can never directly affect them. Especially since they have nothing new or interesting to say.

  65. says

    @snoof I said sex for a reason.

    And, again, how we understand the underlying issues connected to abortion do effect men.

    I see no reason why if bodily autonomy allows for the termination of a human life (and I think it does) it shouldn’t also allow for recreational drug use or more to the point making nonconsentual male genital mutilation (phrase used because of spelling issues FGM is worse) grossly immoral.

    It’s grave mistake to gender the issue in this way.

    Our bodies are only our own; that’s the issue. Abortion is not a unique in this regard, at least not in kind. Abortion is only part of this.

    It should also be noted thata lot of pro life people are also rapidly anti-birth control which clearly effects men.

  66. says

    Liberals are super bad at incorporating their views on abortion into their overarching ideology.

    A lot of people on this site take the evictionist line, but only for abortion. That’s incoherent. I’m arguing against treating abortion as a unique moral/legal. It’s not.

  67. psanity says

    Why Google when I have a shelf full of reference books, including slang. transgenderisomer’s improvisational definition not only has no basis, it has that labored quality of a made-up definition, constructed to – surprise! – accuse feminists of misogyny.

    Wonder how long their little brain stewed about that hated term “freeze peach” and those awful FTB-ers, before coming up with that “Aha! perfect riposte!” moment. Poor thing.

  68. snuffcurry says

    Lard above, spare us these men who are Vurry Concerned about the “coherence” of our ethical positions. Who ask us to spare a moment in our, erm, “terminating” of “human life” to think about maybe prioritizing the legalization of weed first? Who object to framing anti-abortion rhetoric as gendered but who are glad to remind us of male bodily autonomy and the pressing need to secure it immediately. R-Amen, top noodles, etc.

  69. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    A lot of people on this site take the evictionist line, but only for abortion. That’s incoherent. I’m arguing against treating abortion as a unique moral/legal. It’s not.

    Gee, man/white/cis/het/splainin’. Check your privilege, if you can.

  70. psanity says

    Mr. Smith seems to be under the misapprehension that people here do not understand the concept of bodily autonomy. He also seems to think that the bodily autonomy issue we are discussing here is of far less importance than his personal bodily autonomy, which he would much rather discuss. People who always turn a conversation to themselves are so interesting, don’t you find?

    In my state, women have to drive several hours to get a legal, safe abortion; however, recreational drug use is not a terribly big deal, and doctors and midwives routinely counsel parents that circumcision is medically unnecessary.

    Mr. Smith, I’m sorry about your pee-pee, but I’m sure your parents made the best decision they could with the information they had at the time. If you are still upset with them, it might help to talk it over with a trained therapist. Please refrain from taking out your angst on people who have actual, widespread, dangerous threats to their health and welfare, based on certain influential people believing that all uterus-bearers should be legally chattel and under state control.

  71. Snoof says

    Mike Smith @ 81

    A lot of people on this site take the evictionist line, but only for abortion. That’s incoherent. I’m arguing against treating abortion as a unique moral/legal. It’s not.

    My god, you’re right! People are making incoherent arguments! THIS MUST BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY! It’s absolutely critical that we resolve this matter before we do anything else (like, say, making sure abortion remains legal and accessible to everyone who needs it).

    Because the anti-choice lobby will definitely be swayed by clear and inescapable logic, since they’re definitely not making decisions based on emotional reasoning, gut reactions and unexamined prejudice.

  72. says

    Also I would appreciate it if people can actually read what I write. For example, snuffcurry above strawmans me above by saying I’m arguing that we should prioritize drug legalization. I said nothing of the sort. What I did day was if our understanding bodily autonomy allows abortion it has to allow for drug use. And as such men have an interest in the discourse.

    In no way does that say, practically, abortion rights take second fiddle. Indeed the attacks on abortion rights by the pro life movement probably does prioritizes them. Through that is debatable given the insane level of damage the war on drugs does.

  73. says

    Lastly at Nerd

    If a straight white cis man takes the evictionist line only for abortion, it is also incoherent.

    Spare me the attempt to disqualify my argument by appeals to my social indentities, which as a matter of fucking fact you don’t know.

  74. chigau (違う) says

    re: transgenderisomer
    I’ve still got it.
    ….
    ‘strawman’ is a verb?

  75. Vivec says

    Wow, the person opposed to anti-discrimination laws (whom I still refuse to directly address) belongs to multiple groups that would benefit from it? That’s even sadder, like log cabin republican sad.

  76. says

    Vivec for like the 5th time: in the final analysis I’m probably do support anti-discrimination law. In the thread you keep refer to I was exploring the limits of racist/bigoted behavior that should be legal. As such I was taking a position for the sake of discussion.

    Again do you want to force a racist to date black people? No? Than you agree with the main point I was making in that thread.

  77. says

    @Mike Smith
    >”It seems to be text book bigotry to exclude someone from moral discourse by virtue of their sex. Pro-life positions do not know a gender.”
    Not really since bigotry has to do with irrational discrimination, this would be the rational variety. Male people not only have less relevant things to say when it comes to perspectives on female bodily autonomy, they are a huge part of the problem with respect to the current social dynamic. Providing forums that exclusively elevate the voices of female people is a rational means of countering the power imbalance.

    >”Even if one grants men shouldn’t speak on abortion the underlying issues of the extent of bodily autonomy being protected clearly impacts men.”
    Unless you are speaking of trans men and not ignoring the social context that has to do with control of female bodies in this social arena you are full of garbage. But given the below I seriously doubt that.

    >”Bodily autonomy is clearly not absolute; how else could we justly arrest someone?”
    So I assume that you will now get specific with respect to bodily autonomy, abortion and female people?

    >”So the degree we allow for abortion given the stakes impacts a series of issues that are also the concern of men, ie legalization of sex work, drug war, assisted suicide. Etc.”
    I guess not. How about you avoid being an utter coward and address the body autonomy issue at play in here? In fact I’ll make it more plain. In what specific way could body autonomy possibly not be an absolute with respect to abortion?

    >”I’m pro-choice, any abortion at any time for any reason, but I don’t exclude that judgment from other areas.”
    The drek that you just left up there leaves little indication that you are pro-choice.

    Fuck all those other issues you just brought up. Grow a spine and deal with the one under discussion and avoid the typical attempts to steer it anyway but towards abortion and body autonomy for female people. I don’t give a fuck what sex or gender you are, any confusion you might be causing is there for pretty good reason.

  78. psanity says

    Identifying with one’s oppressor is always sad. If one is. People who try to argue every side of a question, shift the subject to their own interest, and claim in their defense to be part of a marginalized group while arguing on behalf of the privileged are just extra sad.

  79. says

    @brony

    I’m on a phone. I have a lot more to say than what I’m going to write below but I wanted to get this out tonight because you annoyed me.

    1) I point blank said I’m pro choice. I further stated that any abortion for any reason was what I meant by that. If you are not going to believe me there is no reason to continue this conversation.

    2) don’t fucking demand of me something that I don’t think. I do think bodily autonomy is decisive in of itself. If you want to say a women’s autonomy is absolute in regards to abortion fine whatever. What interests me is why and how such a judgment arises from a more general theory of justice and/or our understanding of bodily autonomy. Abortion is a not unique moral issue that requires us to generate a special theory if justice. I resent such attempts.

    3) If you have not done so I suggest you read in defense of abortion by Thompson. What I’m about to say is greatly influenced by that.

    I don’t think any abortion is unjust, that is should be illegal.* It is however fairly easy to generate indecent cases of abortion. To wit: a rich white woman, she lives in a country with extremey liberal abortion laws, who had consensual sex sans protection gets an abortion in the late 8th month only because she wants to drink again. Such a woman has acted selfishly with great cruelty. Not unjustly mind you; she ought not be forced to carry the final month. But, It’s a indecent act.

    So indecent that people would be justified in treating her differently as a result. Ie the sperm provider breaking off contact, parents disinherit her etc.

    *unless one thinks dececy should be the basis of law, which I don’t.

  80. John Phillips, FCD says

    Mike Smith, nice derailing of the thread away from the OP, i.e. women’s bodily autonomy and abortion and for men to stay out of it. Yet here you come and go off on a tangent about men’s bodily autonomy, among other things, and are now getting upset at being called on your JAQing off. You are either a moron or yet another deliberate troll trying to derail a thread about women.

  81. Rowan vet-tech says

    Mike smith… you honestly think that a person with a uterus would wait until they were 8 months pregnant and then decide an abortion because they want some alcohol? What would prevent them from just… having a drink? Or why wouldn’t they have had an abortion much earlier? Your hypothetical falls completely flat.

    Your hypothetical really is just a rehash of the same old trope that anti-abortionists trot out that basically implies that people with uteruses are fucking fickle idiots.

  82. says

    @Rowan

    It’s a hypothetical to get at a reckless disregard of the seriousness of the decision and how an abortion can be indecent. It’s stilted and unrealistic. I don’t think the vast, vast majority of women (99.999999%) would ever consider doing such a thing. But no I don’t find it inconceivabl for a human to be that awful. If you find the drinking too flippant, feel free to switch out for another trivial reason, like going on vacation.

    My hypothetical doesn’t imply women are fickle idiots, it implies some women are capable if being cruel and selfish. This is absolutely the case.

    And given that people are incapableof reading what I write, let me repeat as a matter of law the womn in my hypothetical should not be forced to carry to term. As a matter of right she is entitled to an abortion.

    It’s just a profoundly indecent thing to do (in my hypothetical, not all late term abortions and certainly not all abortions). People are the right to react accordingly.

  83. rq says

    It’s stilted and unrealistic.

    Therefore, not applicable to the real world. So why bring it up?
    Also, you do realize that abortion just means a pregnancy is terminated, not that a fetus is killed. Right? There’s a difference.

  84. rq says

    Also, when I was eight months pregnant (all three times) and I wanted a drink, you know what I did? (Cover your eyes, oh ye of weak constitution!) I had a drink (give me all your disapproving looks, I don’t care). I still have three live children, too, I wonder how that works out, hm, no abortion required, funny, eh? (They do push their luck from time to time, but now I have to settle for the fact that they’re autonomous little beasts, no longer parasitizing my body and all that.) So your stilted and unrealistic example, Mike, is extremely stilted and unrealistic, and not worth discussing seriously.

  85. says

    @John Philips

    I have quite clearly argrued, through maybe not explicitly enough, that it is conceptual ly confused to speak of women’s bodily autonomy. There is no such thing. There is only bodily autonomy that we all have. Woman’s ability to have an abortion should not be impinged because of that.

    But given that the issue isn’t decided by something unique to women men have a vested interest in how the limits of bodily autonomy are decided.

    Another way of putting the point is while the abridgement of abortion rights primarily hurts wome, and we should focus on that practically, men should also be livid for it makes it the case that they don’t own their bodies.

    I’ll let my pro choice male friends know that they should stay out of this completely through. You don’t want male support right? Their views don’t matter.

    The OP is just basically demanding that pro life people shut up.

    Pro life arguments don’t get better when women say them

  86. says

    @rq

    1) I brought it as a means of clarifying our moral intuitions. I care about the conceptual aspects of normative theory. If you don’t fine whatever. I pulled my example(basically) from the aforementioned in defense of abortion. This is considered the definitive paper in the area and biomedical ethics still debates the case examples used. Take it up with normative ethics my example is well within the norms of the discipline.

    2) yes I’m aware that an abortion doesn’t necessary entail the death of the fetus (through it usually does). I didn’t stipulate that outcome because don’t nee it. Putting the fetus at risk even if it survives in that context is indecent.

    3) if you going to get hung up on the unrealis we can switch to abortions based on sex/ability/race. Ie. A woman should be allowed to have an abortion by law because she doesn’t want a girl (boy, direction of selection doesn’t matter). But still that is a gross indecent thing to do.

  87. says

    Or a white woman has an abortion after having consensual sex with black man only because she doesn’t want a black kid. That should be legal, her action is not unjust, but it’s racist/indecent as hell.

  88. Marc Abian says

    You don’t fool us Mike. Your crazily hypothetical are completely crazy and only exist to illustrate your arguments. Nice try, loser.

  89. rq says

    Or a white woman has an abortion after having consensual sex with black man only because she doesn’t want a black kid.

    The stage where a woman is choosing abortion based on race is not the stage where you want to be discussing racism, because it is merely a symptom of a far, far deeper issue within the fabric of society. You need to move about several million steps back before you can talk about this.
    Same with sex: is it indecent to abort a female fetus? Or is it indecent to raise a female child in a society that will never value her or her contributions?

    So no, neither of those is a better example.

    Also,

    Putting the fetus at risk even if it survives in that context is indecent.

    Giving (natural, I would assume this matters to you) birth at the full 9 months also puts the fetus at risk. Perhaps even more so than, say, a Caesarian at 8 months. So your ‘even if it survives’ (at 8 months, seriously?) is invalid.

  90. rq says

    All hypotheticals only exist to illustrate the underlying arguments.

    Only the good hypotheticals. The stilted, unrealistic ones (like yours!) – no.

  91. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The OP is just basically demanding that pro life people shut up.

    Wrong. It is about those who mansplain’/religioussplain’ to stop talking down to women. Basically in stead of preaching, they should be listening. But their privilege gets in the way. If you refuse to understand that, all you have is strawman bullshit. Gee, that’s what I saw after your second post.
    Unrealistic hypotheticals are dismissed for what they are–bullshit.

  92. Vivec says

    Gotta love those Harris-ish hypotheticals

    “What if a terrorist had a bomb set up that couldn’t be manually defused and torture totally worked and you had the ability to torture the information out of him in time to input the defusal code and could be absolutely sure he didn’t lie about any of it? Would torture be okay then? Gotcha regressive libs.”

  93. Rowan vet-tech says

    @Mike Smith…

    Nope. Still treating people with uteruses (please stop erasing trans men and non-binary people) like fickle idiots.

    “Oh, I have this vacation planned, and now I’m pregnant and I don’t wan to be pregnant for my vacation. Guess I’ll wait 8 months to have that easily accessed abortion!” or “Oh no! I totally forgot I had a vacation planned and here I am all 8 months pregnant, and no one ever goes on vacation while pregnant so guess I’ll just go get that abortion now!”

    The only underlying argument you are illustrating is LITERALLY THE SAME as an anti-choice, pro-forced-birth one. You can couch the end in “they should have access” all you want, but the hypothetical is still LITERALLY THE SAME.

  94. raven says

    Mike Smith:

    Or a white woman has an abortion after having consensual sex with black man only because she doesn’t want a black kid. That should be legal, her action is not unjust, but it’s racist/indecent as hell.

    Well sure it’s racist. Indecent is arguable though. Do we really want very racist people raising half black children?

    But what does this hypothetical and improbable case have to do with anything on this thread?

    The way your arguments wander and have little connection to reality makes one suspect some sort of cognitive problem, perhaps too much alcohol or marijuana.

  95. raven says

    Mike Smith:

    All hypotheticals only exist to illustrate the underlying arguments.

    This is wrong!!! But you just outed yourself here as some sort of troll or substandard intellect.

    This is the Sam Harris trick, make up wildly improbable hypotheticals and claim they prove anything. It’s one of the reasons why Sam Harris is a waste of space and time.

    If hypotheticals are too convoluted and improbable they are useless and designed only to mislead.

  96. ledasmom says

    Mike Smith:

    2) yes I’m aware that an abortion doesn’t necessary entail the death of the fetus (through it usually does). I didn’t stipulate that outcome because don’t need it. Putting the fetus at risk even if it survives in that context is indecent

    Does this judgment apply to anything that puts the fetus at risk, or only to your hypothetical eighth-month abortion?

  97. psanity says

    And, not by the way, what sort of a word is “indecent” to use in this context? What does “indecent” mean? What a delicately gutless, mean-what-you-will word. If you mean “unethical”, say so. If you don’t mean “unethical”, any substance your argument might have had evaporates. Should a woman have the bodily autonomy to show her ankles? Or would that be indecent? What pap.

    Is it unethical for someone who is 8 months pregnant to have to have what M Smith calls an abortion? Here in the real world, what you have at that point in a viable pregnancy is an induced birth. Here in the real world, late-term abortions occur when the fetus has died or has profound defects, or continued pregnancy immediately endangers the pregnant person’s health or life. So, no, it is not unethical.

    Here’s a wild hypothetical. WHAT IF an alien parasite dropped from somewhere and attached itself, completely hypothetically, to M Smith’s spinal cord, deriving its nourishment therefrom? 1) Would it be ethical, once the creature is established, to remove it? 2) In this particular, hypothetical of course, case, is the challenge to M Smith’s bodily autonomy as worthy, more worthy, or less worthy than, say, the challenge to bodily autonomy of spottily-enforced laws against recreational drugs? 3) Would it be unethical, nay, indecent, for M Smith to endanger the parasite by using recreational drugs? 4) Gosh, isn’t this is a difficult dilemma?

    Oh, wait, no it isn’t. It is no dilemma. Ethically, the choices are very clear. Even in a wild, far-fetched, impossible hypothetical. I guess I’m not as good at hypotheticals as Sam Harris or Mike Smith. Maybe I’m not using adequate recreational drugs.

  98. Vivec says

    Maybe we can combine the two to make some kind of omni-hypothetical.

    A terrorist has rigged up a nuclear bomb, and somehow (don’t ask, it’s hypothetical) written the bomb code inside a woman’s 8 month old fetus. If the bomb detonates, it will kill five million people. You can either torture the terrorist to find out the code, or abort the fetus to get the code, or do neither and allow five million people to die. Which one?

  99. says

    @rq

    1) I am not thinking of a person who doesn’t have a female fetus because they don’t want to be unfair to a girl by raising them in a sexist society. I’m thinking of a person who is sexist; they are aborting because they believe girls are worthless. I’m perfectly willing to call that what it is- awful.

    2) why yes natural birth carries risk (and no it doesn’t matter to me how a woman gives birth); the issue isn’t the woman subjects the fetus to risk, its how and why she does so. It is gross to risk a life just so you can get blizted.

  100. says

    @psanity
    I’m using indecent because for the third time of a very important paper on this topic called in defense of abortion written by a woman named Thompson. Yes it means immoral but it is a different violation than injustice.

    Second sure we can talk about alien parasites or violinists being attached. Let’s say I find myself attached to a violinist and he needs my body for 9 month to cure, oh don’t know, failing kidneys. I’m of the opinion I can detach myself from a violinist at anytime for any reason; it’s my body. It would be nice for me to do this but it’s not required. If I go upon learning of the situation “I’m not giving up 9 months of life ” and detach myself, that’s no foul.

    If on the other hand I sit around for 8 months and letting the violinist use my body but then go “I wanna go see the Cubs” and detach myself; I’m an asshole. I have behaved selfishly and indecently but not unjustly it’s still my body.

  101. Vivec says

    “If you didn’t like my previous inane hypothetical, don’t worry, I have plenty more on the backburner”

  102. Rowan vet-tech says

    So what you’re saying, Mike, is that you’re a judgemental asshole who thinks that people with uteruses (STOP ERASING TRANS MEN AND NON-BINARY INDIVIDUALS) are selfish idiots who want to ‘get blitzed’ super late in a pregnancy and will therefore abort fetuses because they only want to ‘get blitzed’ super late in a pregnancy and never earlier and remained pregnant up to that point instead of aborting earlier because of handwaved reasons.

  103. says

    @Rowan

    I’ll let the world know that Thompson is actually pro life. Despite that she literally wrote the pro choice paper.

    You are a fucking idiot. At no point have I either A) said abortion should be restricted or B) all pregnant people behave a certain way.

    Are there some women who are capable of being cruel?

  104. Rowan vet-tech says

    Technically, yes there are PEOPLE WITH UTERUSES (you are such an asshole) that are cruel… but I doubt there are all that many that are STUPID enough to be pregnant for 8 MONTHS and then on a whim decide to abort, instead of aborting earlier and thus not be forced to deal with the dangers and changes involved in pregnancy.

    I’m not a fucking idiot. Your hypotheticals are so goddamned fucking stupid and in denial of reality that it should be painful for you to write them.

  105. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Are there some women who are capable of being cruel?

    Are there some people, like you, who are capable of being inane and an asshole?

  106. Vivec says

    I feel like we’re not maximizing our dumb hypothetical allowance.

    How about a pregnant person that waits eight months, and then aborts the fetus because they want to go get drunk at a cubs game and also because they’re a racist misogynist and the fetus is both mixed-race and female? Would that be indecent then? Checkmate.

  107. says

    @Rowan

    No I don’t think pregnant people are any one thing. Nor do I think any particular pregnant person decision reflects on everyone else. (Or anyone else either)

    As I said before the vast vast majority probably do not do stuff like this.

    But I see no reason to think pregnant people have to be angels.

    I’m perfectly fine judging how others use their body. I like being able to say that going to a fundamentalist church is indecent.

  108. rq says

    Second sure we can talk about alien parasites or violinists being attached. Let’s say I find myself attached to a violinist and he needs my body for 9 month to cure, oh don’t know, failing kidneys. I’m of the opinion I can detach myself from a violinist at anytime for any reason; it’s my body. It would be nice for me to do this but it’s not required. If I go upon learning of the situation “I’m not giving up 9 months of life ” and detach myself, that’s no foul.
    If on the other hand I sit around for 8 months and letting the violinist use my body but then go “I wanna go see the Cubs” and detach myself; I’m an asshole. I have behaved selfishly and indecently but not unjustly it’s still my body.

    No, the hypothetical is an alien. You can’t change the rules of the hypothetical. It is an alien feeding on your spinal cord. No violinists allowed. Besides, violins never solved anything. Also, there’s this thing called on-going consent; also, consent can be revoked. Decent or indecent doesn’t have anything to do with it (besides, terminating a pregnancy at 8 months for ‘frivolous’ reasons does not, as a rule, end in death, unlike your violinist alien scenario, so your analogy fails on a rather important point – because an 8-month-old fetus is perfectly viable, might still be wanted, and will almost certainly grow up to be a proper human being, so no harm, no foul, right?).

    I am not thinking of a person who doesn’t have a female fetus because they don’t want to be unfair to a girl by raising them in a sexist society. I’m thinking of a person who is sexist; they are aborting because they believe girls are worthless.

    Which is exactly what I meant: would a person like that be a good parent to that ostensibly girl baby? Is that a decent kind of parent? Is that fair, do you think, to force that person to raise an ostensibly girl-child, knowing that they believe girls are worthless? Is it fair to the ostensibly girl-child to be raised by that person? The point, it’s over there.

    Vivec
    I suppose it’s indecent that I laughed at your scenario.

  109. rq says

    Vivec
    You forgot aliens.
    And oh hell the violinist, too.

    Mike
    A person’s capacity for cruelty is not under discussion here (except for maybe yours, since it seems you discount the potential suffering of a mixed-race child being raised in a racist household, or a female child being raised in a sexist household, because apparently it only matters that the bearer of said children was decent enough not to abort for racist or sexist reasons – how is this not cruel?).

  110. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    What if we discover that the government made and AI that can predict future and a pregnant woman discovers, at 38 months, that she’s carrying the future Hitler?

  111. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    What if the violinist gets pregnant and finds out the child is going to become a drummer? At 37,5 months?

  112. Vivec says

    Okay so an alien violinist terrorist implants itself in a person’s womb and becomes dependent on them to survive. Said alien then rigs up a nuclear bomb that will kill five million people if it detonates, eight months into the pregnancy. Your options are either to abort and torture the alien fetus after eight months or allow the nuke to detonate.

  113. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    What if an alien manages to get impregnated by a human, but doesn’t realize it until the last moment because he didn’t believe it possible but is too disgusted by us to keep the thing?

  114. Vivec says

    The alien rigged the nuke up telepathically by the way. I can do that, because this is a hypothetical.

  115. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    What if I keep making really really dumb hypotheticals because I like to debate while women in the world are still forced and/or coerced to keep pregnancies they don’t want?

  116. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    What if I actually were a hybrid baby of a drummer and an alien violinist, who hadn’t been aborted only because a Mike Smith soundalike told the violinist the abortion would be indecent? What would I have to say about abortion then, huh?

  117. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Oh yeah, in all these cases the woman/violinist/alien would just have an elective delivery and we’d still get little Hitler/drummer/alien hybrid. Darn.

  118. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Vivec,
    Hm, I don’t know. Shouldn’t a good hypothetical also include the provision that someone gets raped?

  119. Vivec says

    I mean, if an alien forcibly implanting itself in your womb doesn’t count as rape, I think we need to broaden the definition a bit.

  120. Rowan vet-tech says

    If the vast, vast majority aren’t that stupid, then why the ever loving fuck are you HARPING on it? “Waaaaah! I wanna call someone who has an abortion a bad person! WAAAAAAAAAAAAH!”

  121. says

    @rq we can change the violinist/alien case to carry whatever risk that make identical to late-term pregnancy. I find it indecent because if the extreme mismatched between the decision and the risks. Even if the violinist has a 1% of dying and survives, I’m still an asshole if I only detach after 8 months to see a Cubs game

    Also yes consent can be withdrawn, I have not disputed this. Why ate telling me?

    2) a sexist carrying a girl fetus to term does not entail said sexist raising the girl. I’m perfectly fine saying it is both indecent to abort for that reason and it is indecent for that person to be raising girls. Why are you treating this as an eithe/or?

  122. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Vivec,
    Sorry, I missed that one. We’re all complete then.

  123. says

    Furthermore on the sexist/racist case it doesn’t follow cleanly that child would be worse off by being raised in that situation. It is possible that they will have a good life.

    Oh and given that RQ asked me if I think the sexist should be forced to carry to term no of course not. No pregnant person should be forced to carry at any time for any reason. I have said this 7ish times. But still that’s a shitty awful reason to have an abortion. I wouldn’t be around such a person.

  124. rq says

    extreme mismatched between the decision and the risks

    Eh?

    I’m perfectly fine saying it is both indecent to abort for that reason and it is indecent for that person to be raising girls.

    Terrible person is terrible and can’t win, I guess, which is fine, but you will never know all the circumstances that lead someone to any kind of abortion, so all you’re doing is creating fantasy scenarios where you get to label someone indecent and justify terrible behaviour against them in turn.
    I’m still not sure what your point is, then – you seem intent on wanting to call a certain type of person indecent. Why do you care so much whether (this admittedly (by you) small minority) is indecent or not? Why does it matter? You’re still expressing an opinion on what people should or shouldn’t be doing (excuse me, what is or isn’t indecent to do) with their own bodies. Why is that so important to you?

  125. says

    @Rowan

    I’m “harping” on it because I care about the general outlines of normative theory. If you don’t fine whatever.

    I find the tension interesting and I think it matters a great deal how we resolve it.

  126. rq says

    But still that’s a shitty awful reason to have an abortion.

    Is this your entire argument? That there are awful reasons and good reasons to have an abortion?
    What’s a decent reason to have an abortion, then?

  127. psanity says

    By pure deductive reasoning, I conclude that, regarding M Smith, three (3) possibilities exist:

    1: M Smith is a troll, constructing “arguments” simply to generate a hoped-for response
    2: M Smith is a clueless git. A very persistent, willfully obtuse clueless git
    3. M Smith is a hypothetical

    Regarding Thomson (not Thompson, just maybe identical bowler hats): there’s a lot of water under the bridge since 1971. M Smith has apparently got hold of an Intro to Philosophy textbook. Aren’t thought experiments the neatest thing since sliced bread?

    I used to live in 1971. I don’t live there anymore. Could we just, hypothetically, tie a fetus and an atomic bomb to a trolley track, and tie five violinist philosophy undergraduates to the other track, and if the switch is moved to either side, the spy will escape to gas the football stadium and escape on an airship full of babies who will all grow up to be Hitler? Meanwhile, in a hypothetical underwater stronghold, M Smith is forced to make convoluted arguments equating vastly different hypothetical ethical decisions while ignoring the hypothetically actual world with hypothetically actual human behavior, while a hypothetical laser beam —

    Oh, never mind. Mike Smith has enough problems already, what with the spinal cord alien and all. Which would explain a lot, come to think of it.

  128. rq says

    Normative theory?
    You’re here harping on because of the general outlines of normative theory? And the tension is interesting? Frankly, it’s not something I want to resolve with you. Let the tension stand, then.

  129. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Shitty reasons for abortion actually have little to do with abortion and a lot to do with social circumstances, biases and bigotries. Why are we discussing them on a thread about abortion?

  130. Rowan vet-tech says

    The only ‘tension’ is that the hypothetical treats pregnant people as being stupid and shallow and I’m sooooooo sorry that I’m not going to play along with an asinine mental wank-fest that ignores reality or focuses on such an obscure possibility that to treat it as serious is plain idiotic.

    You’re also derailing the topic at hand, which deals with the REAL LIFE issues that people face getting prompt and easy access to abortions, with your pet hypothetical about the evil, selfish, shallow, stupid person and their 8 month pregnancy termination. This makes you an *asshole*.

  131. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I find the tension interesting and I think it matters a great deal how we [I] resolve it.

    Fixed that for you. We, at Pharyngula have already resolved the issue to our satisfaction. YOU are the one having the problem, as you have no place in any decision a person with a uterus makes about abortion. That is your problem, your views are irrelevant to them. And YOU are irrelevant to our decisions, which are based on empirical evidence, not fictional inane hypotheticals.

  132. psanity says

    Thank you, Rowan. At this point, I think we can also deduce the fourth possibility, “M Smith is an asshole”, which may or may not be a subcategory of 1).

    “Tension”, indeed.

  133. says

    @RQ

    What I meant was when I detach, especially at 8 months, I’m risking the others death despite granting access for most of the time needed…for a thing that happen more than 162 a year and doesn’t matter anyway. It’s just assholish to weigh a Cubs game as more important than a person possiblely dying. Especially after all that time.

    I care about the issue for three reasons. If it is granted that some abortions are immoral, what I have been tagging as indecent, That’s interesting. It requires us to explain why that tensions exists. Second, I have been agruing that men have a stake in the discussion of abortion; while we know that a woman shouldn’t be forced to carry, it doesn’t follow that, say, the sperm provider is an asshole if he breaks contact over the abortion. (Obviously he might be). And third the just/decent distinction if viableis eextremely useful on other moral/legals issue.

    Should a woman be allowed to treat herself as a mere sex object? If yes, is it a moral thing to do?

    Again my whole point in this thread is abortion needs to be integrated into general normative theory. It is for that reason men have a stake here.

  134. Rowan vet-tech says

    Mike.

    Piss. Off. With. Your. Mental. Wankery. About. My. Body. And. My. Rights. You. Pretentious. Fucknugget.

  135. says

    @rq

    A pretty unassailable decent reason to have an abortion is the pregnant person’s life is in danger because of medical issues. There are othersof course.

    @Psanity

    I have an MA from the university of Chicago in philosophy. Oh and Thomson’s paper is almost never taught in philo 101.

  136. says

    @nerd

    I meant we as in humanity. If you folks have reached a consensus, fine whatever. We haven’t.

    2) if a woman has an abortion and her husband then divorces her over it is he an asshole? I’m inclined to say not enough information.

    3) if it has been resolved that men stay out if the topic, have you written pro choice politicians saying so? Have you chastised your male friends if they have denoted to planned parenthood? I’m usually give all give all my charity to pp. But if men shouldn’t be involved, I’ll stop.

  137. rq says

    A pretty unassailable decent reason to have an abortion is the pregnant person’s life is in danger because of medical issues.

    Of course. Of course. Of course. The reasons you define as decent.

    If it is granted that some abortions are immoral, what I have been tagging as indecent, That’s interesting.

    No, it isn’t interesting, because nobody here is granting that some abortions are immoral (or indecent, in your words). Therefore no tension exists except the one you are creating for yourself by continuing this awful discussion of weird stilted and unrealistic hypotheticals while ignoring reality.

    Second, I have been agruing that men have a stake in the discussion of abortion; while we know that a woman shouldn’t be forced to carry, it doesn’t follow that, say, the sperm provider is an asshole if he breaks contact over the abortion.

    Nobody has even touched on this, why is this one of your arguments? The initial discussion was about men commenting on people’s reasons for obtaining an abortion, on people making choices about their own bodies, not about those men having a potentially personal stake in the matter (and it’s still not their body, so they can react how they want to react, it changes nothing about the right to decide belonging to the person with the undesirably full uterus). Why are you bringing this up? Did somebody once call you an asshole for something similar?
    As for your third point, the discussion here is abortion. Start your own blog about how bodily autonomy applies to other moral and/or legal issues. Don’t even with the sex object stuff. Just don’t. Not relevant. Get out. (I’m sorry, is that censorship?)

    You’re also derailing the topic at hand, which deals with the REAL LIFE issues that people face getting prompt and easy access to abortions, with your pet hypothetical about the evil, selfish, shallow, stupid person and their 8 month pregnancy termination. This makes you an *asshole*.

    That’s Rowan laying it out for you in no uncertain terms. You are an asshole.

  138. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    We haven’t.

    NO, YOU HAVEN’T.

    if a woman has an abortion and her husband then divorces her over it is he an asshole?

    Yep, he is. Typical stupid question from a pro-lifer, not one honestly thinking about the situation. It’s just another asshole question.

    But if men shouldn’t be involved, I’ll stop.

    Asshole response. Look at the work they do. If you approve, keep funding. If you don’t, stop funding. Either do or don’t. But I don’t give a fuck about your reasoning either way.

  139. psanity says

    And “normative theory”? In a discussion of an actual problem with actual devastating consequences to actual people? If only it were the hypothetical alien parasite talking; but, as we are sadly aware, way too many humans exhibit that lack of humanity.

    My, what a nice club you choose to be a member of, Smith. And credentials! How undeniably superior. It is unfortunately not rare for a great thinker like yourself to claim an advanced degree while demonstrating, take your pick, a) no grasp of an issue, or, b) dishonesty, deflection, misappropriation, and detachment that aspires to be Spockian.

    Your commitment to derailing the topic to your own interests, dishonest technique of arguing one side while laying claim to high ground on the other, and the interesting way you bring up your alleged attributes when you think they serve your argument demonstrate that if your degree is not from Wikipedia U, you do no credit to your education.

    Oh, and Thomson’s article has been well known to the general public for the last 45 years, and has been cited in Intro texts. So, since what you really meant to say there was “nyaah, nyaah, pooh-bah!” you’ve succeeded in an immature display commensurate with your other efforts here..

  140. says

    @RQ

    No the life of the mother is pretty much granted by all normative theory.

    2) sex selected and other quasi-eugentic abortions fi in fact happen. So let’s go with that. Is it moral for a woman to abort only because the fetus is a social identity that they hate? (Sex, ability race, lgbt). Yes or no? I’m not asking if such an abortion should be legal, I’m granting it should be. Is it moral? Yes or no?

    3) I brought up men’s reactions because even once it is granted that abortion is a right (well an expression of a right) as I have fine from the beginning, it does not settle the adjunct moral issues. I think a boyfriend who breaks contract over abortions done for medical reasons is an asshole (I thin you’ll agree). I can only make such a claim if I have a framework that grants some abortions are moral and some are not. Even through all should be legal.

    Analogy: giving money to the Catholic Church is very indecent. But it is not unjust.

    As for the third point have been up front from that my interest/position was abortion needs to not be thought ad unique. So yes I don’t see how a woman selling her sexuality can be illegal while abortion isn’t. If you think otherwise why us that an expression if bodily autonomy? Who are you to tell others what to do with their body?

  141. rq says

    Is it moral?

    Who the fuck gives a shit? Go discuss it in your own space.

    it does not settle the adjunct moral issues

    So go discuss it in your own space.

    Once again, via Rowan:

    You’re also derailing the topic at hand, which deals with the REAL LIFE issues that people face getting prompt and easy access to abortions, with your pet hypothetical about the evil, selfish, shallow, stupid person and their 8 month pregnancy termination. This makes you an *asshole*.

    Did you get that the third time?

  142. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Is it moral? Yes or no?

    Are you moral, yes, or no? What a fuckwitted loser question.
    Stop with the fuckwitted questions, and do what is necessary to get our attention:
    This is what I think, and this is the empirical evidence to back it up.
    All else is bullshit, and your continued bullshitting makes us even more skeptical of your honesty and integrity. In fact, without third party evidence, I don’t believe a word you say by now.

  143. Brother Ogvorbis, Fully Defenestrated Emperor of Steam, Fire and Absurdity says

    Mike Smith @154:

    If it is granted that some abortions are immoral, what I have been tagging as indecent, That’s interesting.

    When the government or a church are given the veto power over whether or not a woman can end a pregnancy, women die. When people view the decision to end a pregnancy as indecent, or immoral, or wrong, women die. They die from infections. They die because they are unable to take medicines necessary for their survival when ill. They die from uncountable complications that can show up late in pregnancies.

    And don’t you dare claim, “Oh, I’m not talking about medically necessary abortions, only the icky ones!”, consider this. A few years back, in a Catholic-dominated country, a pregnant woman was diagnosed with a type of cancer. The doctors could not give her the chemo- or radiation-therapy while she was pregnant. The courts told her she could not get an abortion.

    The decision to end a pregnancy prematurely should be a decision made by the woman who is pregnant and her doctor. Any interference kills women.

  144. says

    @psanity

    I don’t know if a single textbook for intro to philo that uses Thomsons paper. I know of a couple intro to ethics that do. I don’t know a single person who eencountered it in philo 101.

    If all you meant was the paper has a deep influence. Yes it does. I said it that when I first brought it up. Thanks.

    Piss off on the rest. I see no reason to engage with someone who refused to believe what I’m saying.

    @nerd

    1) everyone is pro choice? Wow didn’t know that!

    2)is the man an asshole even if the woman had an abortion to hurt\spite him ala Kay in the godfather?

    3) fucking hypocrite. Either you are OK with men being involved or you are not. If it is the consensus is for males to stay out of it apply that universally.

  145. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Wow didn’t know that!

    No, but you are ignorant.

    Either you are OK with men being involved or you are not.

    Sorry asshole, men need to stand aside and let the person with the uterus make the decision. You, and your ideas, are irrelevant to the person with the uterus. You and your fuckwittery are totally irrelevant to the decision.
    Those with privilege, like myself, an old fat bald-headed man, need to listen instead of preaching or trying to tell morality those with less privileges, which includes women, PoC, LGBTQ, etc..
    It’s hard to shut the fuck up and listen. You are incapable of doing so, based on the evidence you have shown on this thread.

  146. Rowan vet-tech says

    People without uteruses are totally okay to support organizations that help people with uteruses. What people without uteruses do NOT get to do is have any say in whether a person with a uterus gets to have an abortion because it’s not their body and not their decision. This is very simple. There is no hypocrisy involved.

  147. says

    @rq

    Quasi eugentic abortion are totally a thing. Something like 90% of all fetuses with Down Syndrome are aborted. I think ths is common knowledge but I can bring up a link if need. In both China and India sex selections happen. But its nice to know that you don’t give a shit about that. Fuckibg terrible asshole. As least I’m trying to reconcile what I feel about it.

    But of course let’s simply pat ourselves on the back for being good progressives.

    @nerd

    Moral issues are not decided by empirical evidence. It is so embrassing that you are demanding data for what people ought to.

    I mean unless you know how to derive ought from is, please share if you do.

    Human rights are not observable nor are they founded on science.

    @brother

    Find one place in which I have agrued women should be interfered with in regards to abortion. Thanks.

  148. Rowan vet-tech says

    Well, you said they should be judged. Social stigma will prevent people with uteruses from seeking abortions they want, or getting a safe one which results in injury and death. Social stigma will encourage people to do things like… oh… form protest corridors outside abortion clinics calling the people there for abortions ‘murderers’, or breaking the locks so no one can enter, or bombing the clinics… You know, actual real life things that happen because some, many, most abortions are viewed as ‘indecent’ even if they’re legal.

  149. says

    @rowan

    Providing the means to have an abortion. Pp is in effect saying if want an abortion come gave one. Men who fund are saying that as well

  150. rq says

    ala Kay in the godfather

    Now going straight to the fictional examples. Nice! Well done.

    Find one place in which I have agrued women should be interfered with in regards to abortion. Thanks.

    See Rowan @170. Not so moral now, are you?

  151. Vivec says

    “No guys see, it’s important that men be allowed to JAQ off on discussions of abortion, because how else will we answer our silly philosophical questions?”

  152. rq says

    Also,

    Quasi eugentic abortion are totally a thing.

    Instead of wondering whether it is moral or not, you should first wonder why it is a thing.

  153. Rowan vet-tech says

    People without uteruses do not get to DECIDE if people with uteruses get to have an abortion. It is purely, 100% the choice of the person with the uterus. Donating to planned parenthood does NOT tell OR demand that people with uteruses get abortions. It gives them access to both abortion AND pre-natal care, depending on wht they choose to do with their bodies. NO ONE ELSE, not even another person with a uterus, gets to have a say in whether or not another person has an abortion or carries a pregnancy to term.

    This is NOT HARD. There is NO HYPOCRISY. STOP MANUFACTURING FALSE “MORAL” DILEMAS. You are an ASSHOLE.

  154. says

    @Rowan

    I have said certain types of abortions should be judged harshly. The class I have picked out is an extreme minority. I also said that abortion for any reason should be legal. I Will go onto say the vast majoriy if abortions are decent. Given the current politics most of our effort should be spent destigmatizing abortions.

    Nonetheless there are abortions that are indecent and I reserve the right to call them such and react accordingly.

    Oh and men can act indecent as well in this area and I reserve the same rights for them.

    If I’m not allowed to judge in this area I’m not going to call the boyfriend who leaves over a medical abortion an asshole.

  155. Rowan vet-tech says

    1- Except that everyone is going to judge differently, and what you consider okay, some people will not. Which is why we have people murdering doctors at planned parenthood every now and then. If you and others ‘judge harshly’, there will be people afraid of that judgement and they will do at-home abortions… and some will die. And your attitude is the sort that will cause deaths.

    2- Of course you have the right to be an asshole. And we have the right you call you a pretentious fucknugget for it.

    3- wtf, this makes no sense.

    4- If person A leaves person B because person B needed an abortion to NOT DIE, then person A is an asshole. If person A leaves person B because person B did not want to be pregnant, then person A is an asshole. Person A gets no say in person B’s uterus. Person A will, despite being an asshole, have actually done a good thing because person B doesn’t need an asshole in their life and with such fundamental differences of opinion, a relationship would not have worked out long term.

  156. Rowan vet-tech says

    Also, congrats, we’ve now gone full circle. You’re still an asshole. You still get no say and neither do people other than the individual involved. Your hypothetical STILL paints the pregnant person as shallow, fickle, and stupid and in no way reflect reality and it should STILL cause you pain to type something so dumb. You still blatantly want to be able to point at some people and say “You’re a BAD PERSON FOR HAVING AN ABORTION!” and are throwing a tantrum because we’re calling you out on your self-righteous assholery.

    As you have nothing new to say, and are chasing your own tail, please feel free to leave at any time.

  157. says

    @rq

    It is utterly believable that some wife had an abortion to spite her husband. I used Kay because common touch point in culture. I’m willing to bet any amount of money I could find a documented case some where.

    2) it doesn’t matter to the moral question why quasi-eugentic abortion is a thing. Even if we remove what causes it I’m eexplicitly saying our notions of justice allow for it despite being clearly immoral. It fucking maddening you won’t answer the question.

    I know why you won’t through…

    Oh and Rowan is confusing soft pressure with interference.

  158. says

    Am I an asshole for thinking people who support the Catholic Church are bad people and saying such every chance I get?

    Oh Rowan why is the boyfriend who leaves an asshole? On what grounds are you judging that? The boyfiend’s actions are and shouldve legal as such by the standard you are follow we should not judge.

    So what is it? Are we allowed to judge legal behavior as immoral? Why or why not? If we are why does abortion get a pass?

  159. says

    So what if a female person can get an abortion to spite a male person? So fucking what? A male person can key a female person’s car out of spite. I guess male people should have their right to sharp objects limited.

    Petty, meaningless, abstractions with no useful connection to reality that helps anyone, except someone motivated to prevent people from providing forums that elevate the voices of female people over male people. Which is rational when trying to shift the cultural momentum.

    Mike is not just a fundamentally useless piece of shit to female people claiming their right to personal autonomy, they are actively obstructing that effort.

  160. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    So what is it? Are we allowed to judge legal behavior as immoral? Why or why not? If we are why does abortion get a pass?

    Who gives a shit what YOUR idea of moral behavior is? There are no moral absolutes, especially when talking about abortion.

    Oh and Rowan is confusing soft pressure with interference.

    No, you are confusing interference with none of your business.

  161. says

    @brony

    Jesus fucking Christ I am not arguing, ever, that access should be curtailed. I’m arguing that certain abortions are immoral and as such it influence how we ought to act.

    Case in point: if I have friends breakup over an abortion it really fucking matters to me who is being an asshole. If he left because he is pro life than he is an asshole and I don’t want him in my life. Conversely if he left because she only had the abortion to hurt him, than my sympathy lie with him and I more reluctant to remain her friend. Because that is utterly assholish thing to do.

  162. unclefrogy says

    Thanks for this I am still dislike hypothetical arguments.
    Isn’t the idea that it is only women’s opinion on abortion be listened to the question at hand?
    Then we hear the freeze peach crap which is dismissed then we get I am not sure what counter point exactly .
    I can see the understand the slippery slope argument to a point buy……
    My take on the question is a little different maybe.
    It is it not similar to loving parents listening to their children and encouraging them to be involved in making decisions but they are not making the decisions about things not directly concerning them. All of that is age and maturity related and is not meant to be a blanket statement.
    I do not mean it to sound condescending but in many questions some opinions have naturally more weight than others. The resistance to that seems to be coming from those who tend to support the establish order and resent the idea of questioning authority and individual autonomy if it disagrees with them

    uncle frogy

  163. says

    @nerd

    I care deeply about whether my behavior and my friends’ behavior.

    Second, to say there is no moral absolutes is a contradiction. The statement is itself an absolute. So try again

    Less flippantly if there is no objective morality than we live in a world of naked self interest. As a white person then I ought to ensure racism remains a thing. You see I benefit greatly from white privilege and without objective morality I see no reason to give it up.

    Yes I’m explicitly saying I’ve got mine and screw you. Call me asshoke fine your judgment us rendered void as you just admitted it has no basis.

  164. says

    This is not about what you think you are doing or think you are not doing. This is about the effect you are actually having on social spaces trying to ensure female people get to exercise your rights. I don’t give a tenth of a fuck that you aren’t trying to curtail access. I give a fuck about the effect you have that makes it easier for others to maintain the ability to curtail access. You have no fucking clue how common your brand of useless, symbolically obsessed, reality incompetent, speed bump on the justice is.

    I don’t care about your pathetic personal hypothetical. Any rudeness in such a spiteful act pales in comparison to the self-absorbed, petty, noise you raise in a conversation space that could contain something actually useful to female people who actually experience social pressure worth talking about.

    If I knew you I would shun you.

  165. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I care deeply about whether my behavior and my friends’ behavior.

    No, you only care that you are listened to.

    The statement is itself an absolute. So try again

    I’m a scientist, show me your evidence for moral abolutes, or shut the fuck up about them. No evidence, your claim is dismissed as fuckwittery, which it is. Your ignorance and ego are showing, and they are ugly.

    Yes I’m explicitly saying I’ve got mine and screw you. Call me asshoke fine your judgment us rendered void as you just admitted it has no basis.

    Why should I say anything? You condemn yourself with your own words as being an asshole. Very liberturd of you, emphasis on the turd.

  166. unclefrogy says

    that was even unclear to me.
    It is good to encourage children to engage with what the family does but they do not dictate what the family does. Same applies to abortion, it is nice to involve the males/fathers into the discussion but since women are to carry the majority of the load they get to make the decisions .Their opinion carries more weight on the question. They are under no obligation to do what others say just because they say it.
    Just as it would be perfectly correct to say to a 3 year old we are not having ice-cream and cake for dinner to night you have to eat your roast lamb and steamed vegetables.
    No would anyone want to make up a wild hypothetical to make it appear it was some form of child abuse (may be here some would).
    uncle frogy

  167. unclefrogy says

    Less flippantly if there is no objective morality than we live in a world of naked self interest. As a white person then I ought to ensure racism remains a thing. You see I benefit greatly from white privilege and without objective morality I see no reason to give it up.

    if you mean by objective morality you mean one that comes from some where not human I would like to know what that might be.

    racism is irrational and in the long run a self defeating practice. it has been discussed to death at this point other places and used by you here because you backed yourself into a corner.
    Naked self interest is ignorance on top of egocentric greed. The way you use it implies it and in the end is self-destructive.
    We generally treat those who exhibit extremes of this behavior rather roughly pretty much all over the world and in all sub groups the difference being how extreme is defined locally.
    Enlightened self interest implies understanding of the social nature of our existence. The participation of all is needed for long tern survival of the group and if the group does not survive neither will the individual for long.
    so back to the original question why should not women’s opinion on abortion and other women’s issues be listened to with more attention and given more weight that men’s opinions on women’s issues?
    uncle frogy

  168. John Morales says

    Mike Smith, you have more than had your say about your opinion, silly, confused and contradictory as it is.

    (In passing, your self-purported philosophical expertise is risible — for example, your claim that “… to say there is no moral absolutes is a contradiction. The statement is itself an absolute.” is particularly stupid, since that is not a moral claim.)

  169. says

    @brony

    I will not “shut up and listen” about morals issues given that I have been trained to work on these issues. Women do not have special knowledge about ethics; it’s frankly grating that seems to be the argument here.

    The average women’s opinion carries no extra weight on the ethical questions of abortion only because they are women. A man trained in normative theory is better informed about the issue. (It should go without saying that a woman informed in normative theory is ideal which is probably why Thomson us the classic here)

    Abortion is not unique; it’s gross to treat it as such.

    What you call “reality incompetent” call taking the necessary time to make sure we get conceptual clarification so we don’t run roughshod over people. So much damage has been done by those who demand conformity if thought and action.

    I am not supporting people who wish to curtail access. I give to PP, I only vote for pro choice politicos. When I’m among more pro life people I do speak far more forcefully about why abortion should be accessible.

    But I’m glad you would shin me I can’t stand people unable to tell the difference between legal and moral; who further demands conformity of speech and belief on matters of grave importance.

    I’m not blocking women from speaking up; and if I am professor Myers can ring down the ban hammer.

  170. says

    @john

    You know what that is correct it isn’t a moral claim but a metamoral one. Now excuse me for making a catergorical when starting off with a sarcastic jab.

  171. unclefrogy says

    I will not “shut up and listen” about morals issues given that I have been trained to work on these issues. Women do not have special knowledge about ethics; it’s frankly grating that seems to be the argument here.

    The average women’s opinion carries no extra weight on the ethical questions of abortion only because they are women. A man trained in normative theory is better informed about the issue.

    thank you for clarifying the fact of your authoritarianism it was kind of looking that way but it is nice that you removed any doubt.
    you sound just like the religious brothers I had in high school religion class.

    uncle frogy

  172. says

    @nerd

    That you are a scientist as fuck all to do with the conversation at hand. Science has nothing to say about normative theory. You can’t derive ought from is. Don’t try to claim the mantle if expertise here. You are not the expert. I am.

    I don’t tell professor Myers how zebra fish develop.

    Anyway given that ought is not observable what would even ccount as evidence?

    I already gave my evidence if we deny objective morality, then we only gave naked self interest. As such you’re not in a position to call a whole slew of behavior immoral that you wish to condemn. Without objective morality racism, sexism etc is not wrong because nothing is. Greed is not wrong because nothing. Trump is not a bad person because no one is.

    Call me asshole fine whatever without objective morality and all we have left is the will to power. And know what? Straight white men have done a damn hood job keeping the rest of us fuckers in line. I wish I could say that is wrong but alas I have only mere opinion.

    PS science is actually quite it doesn’t tell us anything fundamentally important about reality.
    .

  173. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I will not “shut up and listen” about morals issues given that I have been trained to work on these issues. Women do not have special knowledge about ethics; it’s frankly grating that seems to be the argument here.

    Gee, your opinion of your training is not supported by your fuckwittery. I see no evidence for your claim of expertise. Your evidenceless claim is dismissed without evidence.
    Try taking your arguments outside of yourself to empirical evidence. But you don’t have the training to do that from what I see.

  174. says

    Unless Frogy most make ethicists are pro choice on the order of like 85% . so what authoritarian ism(

    To be fair I don’t think average men’s opinion carries any more weight. Indeed the average women certainl does out weighs the average.

    Bu I wasn’t comparing the averages.

  175. John Morales says

    Mike Smith, it is telling you address my parenthetical but not my point.

    Again: you’re more than had your say already.

    (Another philosophical stupidity: “I already gave my evidence if we deny objective morality, then we only [have] naked self interest.”)

  176. says

    Oh it’s been obvious that you and listening don’t have much of a relationship Mike. At this point it’s a matter of how useful you are as an object lesson in the social forces that make it harder for female people to exercise their rights.

    As for shutting up, for people such as yourself it more a matter of excluding you from the social spaces of other’s. You are free to speak in the abstract, but no one has an obligation to tolerate your behavior so at some point you will very likely be ejected from here. And thanks to your own behavior no one is even theoretically obligated to consider the specific in reality that is you.

    Enjoy eating your own bullshit.

  177. John Morales says

    The topic:

    It’d be nice if men would shut up and editors would help them
    “Unless you have a woman’s body, I don’t want to hear your opinion on what women’s bodies should or should not do. In fact, it would be a delight if the Star Tribune Editorial Board ceased publishing men’s letters about women’s bodies entirely. Perhaps newspaper readership among young people would grow if every time we opened a paper, we didn’t have to read old men’s fusty opinions about uteri.”

    An expression of frustration and of yearning.

  178. says

    To be clear, I do think women have specialized knowledge in regards abortion. Men ought shut up and liten about such things as the social pressure to remain pregnant, why women choose, how best practicaly to support them. But that is secondary after the primary moral questions

  179. says

    @john

    I didn’t address your point because you don’t have one. Unless you are moderator you have no authority to tell me to move on. Until such time a moderator tells me to stop, or I get bored, people stop responding I’m going to say my fill.

    If you are a moderator and you are telling fine. I’ll go. But if you just fine me boring or whatever ignore me. I usually ignore vivec for example.

    Please tell me how if morality is subjective. How we are not in a Hobbesian universe?

  180. Rowan vet-tech says

    Person A does not desire to be pregnant. Person A gets an abortion. This is good, because person A has bodily autonomy and gets to decide what gets to inhabit their body.

    Person B desires to call Person A a shallow, selfish, fickle idiot. Person B comes up with convoluted and extremely improbable scenarios in order to accomplish this ‘morally’. Person B is an asshole and boring.

  181. Rowan vet-tech says

    All morality is subjective because there is no outside force saying “don’t do this”. We may have personal moral absolutes, but they are not universal across our species. There are people, for example, who do not see rape as wrong.

  182. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Until such time a moderator tells me to stop, or I get bored, people stop responding I’m going to say my fill.

    Egotistical are you? You haven’t made a point in many posts, other than your ego. You have presented no third party evidence.
    Until you are going to change your methods, you might as well shut the fuck up. You have nothing cogent to say.

  183. says

    @brony

    Professor Myers can bring down the ban hammer any time he wants. If I am so outside the norms here let him ban me. His house, his rules. What the hell do I care? I for one am enjoying this discussion.

    Shun away!

  184. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    What the hell do I care? I for one am enjoying this discussion [trolling].

    Fixed that for you. Unless you are able to admit you are wrong, you aren’t discussing, you are preaching. Your ego won’t allow you to be wrong….

  185. says

    @rowan

    But given that on what basis do we jail rapists? My point is our social practices presuppose some sort of objective/ universal morality. And we are right to do so because otherwise we have no grounds to have any if them

    No objective morality than rape is not wrong, but clearly rape is wrong thus there must be some firm of objective morality.

  186. says

    @nerd

    I don’t believe you are reading what I’m writing or at least understand it. In post 194# I flatly conceded a point to John as why yes he caught me making a careless error.

  187. says

    @nerd

    For the last gid damn time there is no empirical evidence on this topic. Demonstrate you can derive ought from is or stop demanding third party evidence.

    This ethics not scuence

  188. chigau (違う) says

    Mike Smith #156

    I have an MA from the university of Chicago in philosophy.

    #296

    Don’t try to claim the mantle if expertise here. You are not the expert. I am.

    teehee

  189. chigau (違う) says

    Mike Smith #211
    My point is our social practices presuppose some sort of objective/ universal morality.
    That is ridiculous. That is a religious argument, not a philosophical one.

  190. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    This ethics not scuence

    No, it is YOUR ego, and the lack of ethics of YOUR ego. Time to go.
    You aren’t capable of making any point with evidence, which is what I used to make my decision about abortion back in the early ’70s, before Roe v. Wade was decided. Only new evidence will make me change my mind.
    Your ethics are irrelevant to the evidence. Especially the evidence that people with a uterus don’t give a shit about your conclusion on their ethics.

  191. says

    207
    Where have we heard that before? “Female people* should be listened to, right after they do what I say they need to.”

    In this case endless and usually catastrophic philosophical abstracts that are never usefully rooted to concrete reality for the female people actually present.

    *substitute with other disadvantaged groups as needed.

  192. says

    @chigau

    It’s a form of a transcendental argruement that is probably rooted in Kantian ethics.

    Last a look Kant is a philosopher.

  193. John Morales says

    So, to summarise:

    A woman: “I wish men didn’t keep doing this thing that causes women grief”

    Mike Smith: “Ah, but your moral right to that desire necessarily entails men have a moral right to keep doing that thing that causes women grief! (trust me, I’m a philosopher)”

    Peanut Gallery: “Fuck you, Mike Smith!”.

    Mike Smith: “But… but… Philosophy!”

  194. says

    @brony

    No woman are completely free to ignore me. If a woman wants to have an abortion to spite the sperm provider, she is in her rights to do so. If she wishes to explain why she doesn’t think that is a complete asshole thing to do I’ll listen. She might even convince me otherwise. But she doesn’t get a free pass by citing a right I’m not disputing.
    Conversely if she doesn’t want to justify her actions to me, fair enough. She is not obligated to do so and her legal right to such a abortion us free standing from this conversation.

    But I retain the right to judge her behavior to be awful. You can be an enormous ass within the bounds of your legal rights, it doesn’t follow that something being legal to it being moral.

    Look I’m queer; do I emotionally wish straight conservatives didn’t discuss the morality of sodomy? Oh hell yes, the arguments are boring and terrible.

    But it is not proper for me to tell them to shut up and listen because why yes they have an interest in whether or not sodomy is moral and my opinion on the matter carries no special weight just because I happen to be queer.

    The first pass on moral theory should be divorced from lived reality as we are discussing highly abstract notions.

  195. chigau (違う) says

    Mike Smith #217
    @chigau
    It’s a form of a transcendental argruement that is probably rooted in Kantian ethics.
    Last a look Kant is a philosopher.

    “probably”?
    I thought you were an expert.
    Kant has been dead for over 200 years and he wasn’t even an American.

  196. says

    @John

    God forbid I ask a person to justify a moral demand she is plaibg on others.

    Hey straight people will please stop trying to use Orlando to justify gun control? As a queer person I find such attempts to be asinine, hurtful and yes punching down. I don’t need straight people opining about this as it has nothing to do with you. Good standard? Are you going shut up and listen to me? I’m queer!

  197. chigau (違う) says

    Mike Smith #222
    That hole is deep enough.
    Stop digging.

    so far I have been able to translate but not “plaibg”

  198. says

    @Chigau

    1) I said probably because I haven’t fully developed the arguments in this thread. I’m almost certainly thinking of Kantian transcendental considersations. But as it really a side point its possible I’m hitting other things.

    2) hey dumb ass when I say Kant I don’t mean the fucking German from the 17/1800’s. I mean the texts that are labeled Kant. Who actually wrote those texts are irrelevant.

    @Brony

    No I don’t care who said it nor am I saying because Kant said it its true. What I’m saying is here an argument it seems right to me its rooted in Kantian concerns. Ball to you.

  199. says

    I see. You have the right to judge, they don’t have the right to ignore you. They should be listened to, but only after they do what you tell them. You have functionally replaced that which wants you in the closet as you add to the social momentum that denies female people personal autonomy.

    Yeah, you’re all about morals. I can tell by how you care about the actual people that the abstracts are supposed to be applied to.

    And on top of that you you want others to justify thier morals. You are a clown shoe at this point.

    *Squeak squeak*

  200. John Morales says

    Mike Smith:

    God forbid I ask a person to justify a moral demand she is [placing] on others.

    There’s a shitload of unpacking possible here, but I’ll touch just some salient points:
    * The expression of a desire (“It would be nice if…”) is not a moral demand.
    * That the desire exists is its own justification (i.e. a brute fact).
    * You have shifted ground from disputing the expressed desire to justifying your own desire to dispute the desire.
    * You instantiate an instance of Lewis’ Law.

  201. chigau (違う) says

    Mike Smith #225
    1) I said probably because I haven’t fully developed the arguments in this thread. I’m almost certainly thinking of Kantian transcendental considersations. But as it really a side point its possible I’m hitting other things.
    gibberish
    Is your Masters thesis available on line?
    2) hey dumb ass when I say Kant I don’t mean the fucking German from the 17/1800’s. I mean the texts that are labeled Kant. Who actually wrote those texts are irrelevant.
    Are you fucking serious?

  202. says

    @brony

    Stop the presses! You have some how managed to redefine “no, women are completely free to ignore me” and “women are not obligated to justify their actions to me” and”a woman’s legal right is freestanding from this conversation ” to women are not free to ignore me. You are either not reading what I am saying or you are not understanding what I’m saying.

    But yes I fully expect of being able to justify their morals to me and I fully expect others to make the same demand on me.

    I don’t get a free pass to justify sodomy only because I’m queer.

    I’m being perfectly consistent here.

  203. unclefrogy says

    The first pass on moral theory should be divorced from lived reality as we are discussing highly abstract notions.

    well there you go no wonder you have problems you try to live in a place that does not exist talking about actual people who are living an actual life.
    Just an abstract game like Doom or Supper Mario Bro.

    that conflict about the morality of sodomy you seem to have must be pretty uncomfortable at times. To bad it is not one of your moral absolutes as it has changed it’s status over time and appears to be changing still. In fact it appears to be a wholly cultural phenomena unrelated to anything transcendent.
    speaking of which what is it that transcends and and what does it transcend. is it like TM (Transcendental Meditation) ?

    uncle frogy

  204. says

    It’s not like I don’t have a good reason for the interpretation or anything. Filling a conversation space contextualized by the topic of social forces that prevent female people from being heard about their their perspectives about themselves is not too far off from asserting that they can’t prevent you from leaving them alone. Actions implying beliefs and all.

  205. unclefrogy says

    sorry about that I forgot to close the blockquote properly

    this is my part
    well there you go no wonder you have problems you try to live in a place that does not exist talking about actual people who are living an actual life.
    Just an abstract game like Doom or Supper Mario Bro.

    that conflict about the morality of sodomy you seem to have must be pretty uncomfortable at times. To bad it is not one of your moral absolutes as it has changed it’s status over time and appears to be changing still. In fact it appears to be a wholly cultural phenomena unrelated to anything transcendent.
    speaking of which what is it that transcends and and what does it transcend. is it like TM (Transcendental Meditation) ?

    uncle frogy

  206. says

    @john

    1) given that the phrase “it would be nice…” occurs in an editorial and the notion of niceness usually does carry a conation of morality I would argue that yes it us a moral injunction.

    2) if it is not a moral injunction but a mere brute fact that requires no justification, it just is. I see no reason to take it into account as such. It may not be nice for men to opine here but given the stakes I fail to see why niceness should be overriding concern.

    3)I certainly have shifted ground in this thread. Thank you for pointing it out. But that the desire is not sufficient grounds to care about it.

    4) oh yes Lewis law silly of me if putting equal demands on men and women /sarcasm

  207. says

    @chigau

    1) maybe? It’s on Hobbes. I’m not giving my real name through.

    2) yes deadly so. No one in philosophy cares about the actual guys who wrote the texts. The texts are the only objective thing we have; we discuss only the words on the page. For all it matters they could have just appeared from nothing.

    Hell we don’t know if Socrates was even a real guy…

  208. says

    @brony

    Comma typo or not you have systematically intrepreted my posts in the worse way possible. Basic charity would have lead you to ask for clarification. But you know just skim what I’m saying.

  209. says

    It sure would be nice if straight Christians stop arguing that sodomy is immoral.

    To bad it is unreasonable for me to actually expect that. I’m queer.

  210. chigau (違う) says

    Mike Smith
    I don’t want you to reveal your identity.
    I’m just curious if your thesis is as incoherent and badly written as your comments here.

    If you are not speaking of the actual writings of the actual Kant-person, then an adjectival form is better.
    Kantian.

    No one is taking the bait about sodomy.
    What do you really want?

  211. snuffcurry says

    I’m queer.

    Yeah. You said.

    But yes I fully expect of being able to justify their morals to me […] I’m being perfectly consistent here.

    You’re demanding a Grand Unified Theory characterized by Rational Actors, a premise favored by all armchair Vulcans who desire symmetry before reason, tidy fantasy over messy reality. The world doesn’t operate that way. You are not interesting, your opinions are not novel, your needs are trivial and unimportant.

  212. says

    I should give personal consideration to the person unwilling to personalize their abstractions in a manner that solves the social problem before us before listening to the experiences of others? I’m disinterested in being charitable towards people that are a de faco part of the problem. It does not seem to matter what the issue relevant to female people is, harassment, sexual assault, personal autonomy…there’s virtually always someone filling the space with abstractions useless to solving the immediate problem. When you don’t look like philosophy/legal drone #63975 to satisfaction of the female people present I’ll change my tune. I’ve seen your tune and I’m tired of it.

  213. snuffcurry says

    As for your rich white strawlady and your racist white strawlady and your scorned strawlady wishing to harm her male “sperm donor” and their many shared “indecencies” that, no doubt, are fainting couch-worthy, you are being awfully coy. You urged us earlier to view the restriction of pregnant people’s civil rights at the behest of anti-abortion culture, the mutilation of children’s penises, and the imprisonment of drug users under unjust laws, as equally “grossly immoral” one and all. Then comes along this notion that the persecution of a person having an abortion under circumstances you don’t approve of is important to the point you’re trying to make. Operating under the assumption that you still think cismen have a rightful place in this discussion (because Unified Theory), you want men to have the right to scoff at or brand with a red A pregnant people who disgust them. Fine. You already possess that right. Now run along.

  214. snuffcurry says

    No doubt, of course, Mike Smith, following this tortuous reasoning to no particular end, has in his back pocket examples of when it would be grossly “indecent” to prevent a child’s penis from being mutilated, a nice college boy, maybe a philosophy major, from being allowed to smoke weed. Please, Mike Smith, keep the former, anyway, to yourself.

  215. says

    @chigau

    No. I didn’t write it on a phone. Also fuck you.

    2) umm sure whatever. Excuse me if I’m use to a certain level of background knowledge if my interlocutors.

    3) I want someone to explain why abortion should be treated as unique. That what driving this I don’t see why it is and I don’t see why my sodomy analog doesn’t demonstrate that.

  216. says

    @brony

    I’m not expecting personal consideration; I’m expecting what any interlocutor should get. I’ve been doing my best to read you charitably.

    We can’t solve the practical problems until are clear on what the conceptual framework actually demands.

    Look violence against lgbt folks would greatly lessen if we banned religious speech and practices that condemn homosexuality. If we don’t worry about the abstractions there’s very little stopping us from doing that. It does matter what abstractions say because they order what we should do in practical reality.

    If you don’t care to work this issues fair enough. But I do.

  217. chigau (違う) says

    Mike Smith #244
    A} writing on a phone makes you incoherent? srsly?
    二]did you write your thesis in English? Did you have an editor?
    4) abortion rights are not related to consensual sex.

  218. says

    @snuffcurry

    Why yes I am denanding a grand unified theory of morality. If you don’t think this is worthwhile you are a hypocrite and we’ll stupid. Our behavior ought to be able to be justified. Our justifications should be coherent and intelligible.

    To behave otherwise is to allow our passions a free reign. Irrational moral judgments are not valid.

    Yes yes this stuff is hard and yes a lot of times it tracks badly with practical reality. But forgoing the hard work of trying to find the grand theory makes life even messier.

    And no I have not called for women to have indecent abortions to be punished. Even in the spiteful wife case I would separate myself from her because I don’t want an asshole in my life. I don’t have the right to brand with a scarlet letter and nothing I have said can be twisted to mean that.

  219. says

    3) I want someone to explain why abortion should be treated as unique. That what driving this I don’t see why it is and I don’t see why my sodomy analog doesn’t demonstrate that.

    It shouldn’t be treated as unique. That is the whole crux of the problem – why is it anyone else’s business whether or not a woman undergoes a medical procedure at all? What other procedure requires this much ‘weighing in’ by society? Why are we worried about who gets abortions, why they get them, when they get them and what they do later on that night or the week after, anyway?

    Why do you care?

    Isn’t there enough tawdry meaningless gossip provided by reality T.V. for your entertainment?

    You seem fond of analogies so here’s one: plastic surgery.

    It’s elective. There are cases that almost every person (and even insurance companies) would say are compellingly agreeable (moral) such as reconstructive surgery or corrective surgery. There are cases where more regulation is desired such as cases of cosmetic surgery addictions. And there is the wide spectrum in between.

    What we don’t find, however, is endless, relentless, tedious banter on what anyone (everyone/society) should think/feel/do about the perceived problem with regard to regulation and/or legislation. Sure, some of the reasons might be considered more ‘wise’ than others (and even covered by health insurance) and some leave us shaking our heads.

    You support abortion on demand regardless of the reasons? Good for you.
    You monetarily support PP? Good for you.
    You somehow feel the pressing need to ‘understand’ some stranger’s medical history – get a different hobby.

    Abortion shouldn’t be unique. It should be like a pap smear or a prostate exam or a colonoscopy or a nose job or a face lift or a breast reconstruction or knee replacement or cleft palate surgery or allergy shots or dental cleaning …. completely private, safe, and accessible.

  220. chigau (違う) says

    Mike Smith #247
    You need to go back to your church.
    Get right with God™.
    I’m sure Jesus still loves you.

  221. says

    @chigau

    I’m not going to entertain any more question about my alledged coherence.

    Second whether or not abortion rights are related to sodomy is besides the point. My analogy rests on a similar social dynamic. As far as I can the general thrust of thread is men should STFU about abortion as it practically has nothing to do with them; at best (at worst?) Men should say her body her choice and get out of the way. Feel free to correct me if that is wrong.

    Now it is also largely true that sodomy has nothing to do with straight people (of course some straight people engage in it). So if we take the reasoning above to be universal than by far and large straight should STFU about sodomy as it does not effect them.

    But strikes me as unfair/unreasonable; of course straight people can opine on the morality of sodomy.

    If don’t like that example, many many second wave feminists (and others) have many opinions about BDSM being wrong. Thee most extreme views is that BDSM isjust ritualized abuse and rape. Given that most of those writers are not involved in kink they should STFU about kink if the reasoning above applies.

    What I want us some reason why the reasoning if it doesn’t effect you practically STFU about it only applies in abortion or if the thread is willing to extend it to other areas.

    I’m fine with 2nd wave feminist giving out ignint opinions about kink. I don’t see on what basis I have that they don’t.

  222. says

    You aren’t like any other interlocutor, see my previous comment. I don’t care how you are reading me, see my previous comment. You, and society, can’t practically solve a problem without listening to the perspectives of the people with the problem. And you definitely can’t solve it if you can’t tie philosophical abstractions to the reality in front of you.

    The first fucking step to creating your framework should be making sure the people with the problem are heard, think of it as data collection. Such requires selectively listening to people with the most relevant perspective, which is a decent synonym for rational discrimination. Less male person voices, more female person voices. Given the hostility of some quarters of society have towards personal autonomy for female people, and the de facto effect of people spewing useless abstracts with no relevance, having that exclusively elevate the voices of female people is rational.
    You are not useful, and are an active hindrance.

  223. chigau (違う) says

    Mike Smith #250
    @chigau
    I’m not going to entertain any more question about my alledged coherence.

    *sigh*
    It’s late.
    I’m for bed.
    What will the morrow bring?

  224. says

    @Julie

    There is a shit ton of moral discourse on the permissibility of plastic surgery, much of it feminist given the pressures on women to conform to cultural beauty standards.

    There is a mind field of legitimate concerns when a person alters thier body as it relates to tge nonconsenual preddures of the male gaze and sexual objectification.

    So yeah…
    I don’t see the point of the analogy. People do opine there.

    But yes our society does treat abortion as unique and the forced birthers are much worse in that regard which is why u spend most the time attacking the anti choice side.

    And I have repeatedly explain why I care.

  225. says

    @Brony

    1) even interlocutor s that in consider active problems get the same treatment from me. It speaks I’ll of your character that mere disagreement is basis for substandard treatment. Especially as there really isn’t a lot of distance between us. We are 95% on the same page.

    2) every thing you just said is predicated on abortion access being moral…if the pro-life position is correct (it’s not) that doesn’t follow. You are only able to say that women’s voices are more relevant because of the underlying prioritizing of bodily autonomy. You don’t build moral theory from the ground up.

  226. says

    It is a pitty I cannot read all comments thoroughly for time reasons. After skimming I would like to ad this to consideration to you Mike Smith nevertheless:

    I think hypotheticals do have their place in arguments (about morality) despite PZs dislike of them. Sometimes they provide usefull analogies stripped of unnecessary confounding variables that allow better to understand the underlying problem. Sometimes they can make people think about their biases and about how they artificially draw sharp dividing lines where none exist in reality. Sometimes they allow us to better understand ourselves or to create hypothesies for testing later on.
    But most hypotheticals are not usefull in discussion about real life policies, because it is possible to concoct endless amounts of “what if” scenarios by endlessly tweaking variables, but our time for decision making (and living, both as individiuals and as societies) is finite, as well as the amount of variables and how much they can change.

    You are not presenting usefull hypotheticals, you are presenting convoluted overcomplicated unrealistic “what if” scenarios so you can graft the answer you wish to get onto the reality based reasoning of others. You are not using hypotheticals to get people (including yourself) to think about their biases, you are using them as an attempt to confirm your preconcieved notions.

  227. says

    @Mike

    I’m going further than this thread to say that the only voice that matters is that of an individual with regard to that person’s medical choices. Abortions should be accessible, safe, and completely screened (individually) from prying ‘judgements.’ I simply fail to see any point in opining in general about situations which are always individual and specific.

    You seem to agree that we must keep abortion:
    – safe
    – legal
    – accessible
    – private

    If anonymized data are collected for statistical reasons (such as for the CDC), then so be it. Provided the above requirements are kept – then opinions on morality don’t affect individual freedoms or outcomes. I fail to see the point of discussing someone else’s medical choices … moral or not … when I do not have a stake in the issue.

    Even if I feel someone’s choice is ‘wrong’ or ‘indecent’ — what of it? Once it has happened, it can’t be changed. I am not willing to be a party to changing someone’s choice (forced birther) and you repeatedly state that you wouldn’t try to change actions (forced birth or subsequent punishment). So, again, what’s the point of the discourse if it leads to no actions other than … what? If we talk about the morality and it leads to null action then how is that a productive use of time? If we agree that the only moral thing to do is to allow freedom of choice .. then what, exactly, is the point of further contemplating morality of the action?

    As for determining whether or not someone is the ‘asshole’ in some situation involving abortion – I don’t think that one act is enough information. Being an asshole is not mutually exclusive – maybe both parties are assholish.

    Abortions should not at all be unique since they are simply a medical procedure that should be fully protected and private.

  228. rq says

    yes I fully expect of being able to justify their morals to me

    Why, though? Why should anyone have to justify their morals to you, Mike?

    “it would be nice…” occurs in an editorial and the notion of niceness usually does carry a conation of morality

    Well, it would be nice if we had some sunshine today. Therefore the sun is being immoral by not shining. This is an absolute, even though there are no moral absolutes. Actually, we needed some rain, so the sun is also probably being moral by not shining; this is also an absolute. I see no contradiction in this scenario. Hey, look, a master’s thesis!
    It would also be nice if I was a millionaire, and it is utterly immoral (any way you look at it) that nobody is giving me money to become one.

    The average women’s opinion carries no extra weight on the ethical questions of abortion only because they are women. A man trained in normative theory is better informed about the issue.

    Glad we cleared that up. But you’re still not the boss of me: my body, my choice, and fuck the ethics, because abortion is a decision that applies to me and me only. (So I did it out of spite? Mm, that’s not a healthy relationship, so no problem. (You keep going on about this spiteful abortion thing, though, it’s really worrying.)) You can opine about it, but that is your personal opinion, not a great moral philosophy to be followed by everyone, and I am certainly under no obligation to take you seriously nor to justify anything to you, least of all my morality (and hey, my morality comes down to ‘my body, my choice’, wow!). It’s a discussion you can have with yourself – I bet it would be hugely entertaining, for you.
    Speaking of spite,

    Case in point: if I have friends breakup over an abortion it really fucking matters to me who is being an asshole. If he left because he is pro life than he is an asshole and I don’t want him in my life. Conversely if he left because she only had the abortion to hurt him, than my sympathy lie with him and I more reluctant to remain her friend. Because that is utterly assholish thing to do.

    You know what? Since when is it her responsibility to bear a child for your friend? Oh, they had an agreement? Right, they (not you three, but they) had an agreement for a life-changing choice, and then she just decided not to go through with it, ‘to spite him’. If she’s such a close friend to you, you might want to ask her why she changed her mind – but if you’re even half the asshole in real life as you are here, I doubt she’d want to talk to you about it, and she’ll let you keep your spiteful theory because it’s easier than actually having a conversation with you.

    Back to the other question:

    it doesn’t matter to the moral question why quasi-eugentic abortion is a thing. Even if we remove what causes it I’m eexplicitly saying our notions of justice allow for it despite being clearly immoral

    Well, if something is immoral, even if it’s legal, surely you don’t want people doing it, for some deep philosophical reason like the greater good or moral absolutes or something like that, right? (Or are you just looking for more reasons to label some people assholes for fun?) So it does matter, and it is important to discover the roots of quasi-eugenic practices in order to exterminate them, since they’re so immoral, right? Make sure the world that greets these currently-unwanted children treats them as full human beings, otherwise you’re just forcing a human being to do something dangerous and against their will in order to put another eventual human being into a shitty life situation (you have to remember, Mike, if you don’t have an abortion, there’s a child at the end of that process, a human being). In the meantime, not your body, not your choice, not your business why someone chooses an abortion. I refuse to condemn anyone making a personal medical decision based on factors that I will never fully know, because it is not my business, just as it isn’t yours, Mike.
    Your obsession with other people’s morality (and their requirement to justify this to you) is awfully, awfully religious (I know, this has been mentioned before) – with an evangelistic flavour, really (everything everybody does is my business because I have to save them!! – except without the saving people part, you just want everything to be your business).

  229. Vivec says

    I’m with John in that the repeated claim of philosophical proficiency seems to contrast rather hard with the weird view on moral absolutism. It’s certainly not the way I’ve heard it from any of the classes I’ve taken. But then, he seems to have some weird obsession with Kant, to the exclusion of any other ethical framework.

  230. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    So… PZ saying that it would be nice if men who can’t get pregnant shut the fuck up abortion carries a notion of morality and therefore Mike feels affronted by this.
    At the same time, other commenters are being irrational when they note that his pseudo-philosophical wankery about badness and immorality of some reasons for abortion is in fact detrimental to the cause of abortion rights.
    Did I get this right? It’s a Sunday morning and I had some trouble concentrating, being totally blinded by adoration of MIke’s degrees.

  231. says

    @rq

    1) it isn’t about justifying to me mike. It’s about being able to justify their behavior to a reasonable third party, that they can demonstrate that they have thought about this stuff and not just doing things willy nilly. No person owes any other particular person a justification but yes I think that it is a moral duty to be able solid reasons foryour bbehavior. Because your behavior effects other people.

    2) in the case I am drawing I am stipulating I know for a fact that the women aborts in order to hurt her boyfriend. That she does to spite him because she knows he wants a child and she wants to hurt him for some reason (we can say revenge for cheating ) I know this because she told me that and I have no reason to think it is not true.

    Such an action is cruel and vindictive. I can condemn it on those grounds even through yes she is well within her rights to do such a thing. And he us not entitledat all to have carry to term. (And yes both people aare assholish in this case)

    3) re sun. Nice straw man. I said usually not exclusively.

    4) you can only care about the roots of quasi eugenic abortions if you think they are immoral. You are trying to have it both ways; you are refusing to condemn them while trying to condemn the structures that cause them. I can and do condemn both. We should fight against structures that generate such abortions while be completely up front that such abortions are gross, cruel, vicious. They are indecent.

    You are right I do want to see such abortions go away , they are deeply immoral. I’m unwilling to use the power of the state to accomplish this however. Her body her choice. But don’t expect me to associate with people who thinks aborting a girl fetus because girls are worth less. I don’t like sexists and want them the fuck out if my life.

    You keep harping I don’t fully know the factors for why a person gas had an abortion; you are right if I don’t know all the relevant factors I am not in a place to judge which is I have tried to control those factors by fiat. As a matter if practically reality I’m rarely in a position to judge, fully, the context. But I will not grant all abortions are moral conceptually. It’s far too easy generate tough cases.

    And I care what other people do because by far and large it effects me and if an action doesn’t than the underlying attitude-belief does.

    General question: can a person use their body wrong?

  232. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    You said something smart here, Mike:

    Because your behavior effects other people.

    I advise some silent contemplation on it.

  233. rq says

    Beatrice

    I advise some silent contemplation on it.

    I think you’re in hypotheticals there again. :P

  234. says

    Julie I care about what sorts if abortions we ought to consider immoral because if I happen to have a friend that had one, its going to end tgd friendship.

    I don’t mean I’m going to condamn her action to her face and get into an argument. I probably wouldn’t even explain why I’m breaking it off.

    But as a matter a practical reality I don’t want to associate with people who would do the sorts of things I have been flagging as indecent. Further given the example I have been thinking off and using in this thread I don’t think I’m capable of being friendly terms with a person who would such a thing. It would sour the relationship.

    Note I don’t mean this as punishment. I would do my best to separate without putting any pressure on the choice she made.

    I find it difficult to be friends with fundamentalist Christians for the same sorts of reasons. Which is why I’m don’t ho out of my way to be friendly to people if that group.

    Note this isn’t confined to abortion. I have ended two friendships this year because my ex-friends are voting for Trump.

  235. says

    Also,i don’t care because i have to save other people I care because I don’t want to deal with certain things and certain types of people.

    Case in point: meth heads. People can be method heads and overdose for all I care but don’t expect me to be around them because I flatly dislike recreational drug use.

  236. says

    NIke Smith

    Putting the fetus at risk even if it survives in that context is indecent.

    When I was 5 months pregnant I fell down the stairs. Even though the fetus survived, how was it decent of me to put it at risk for a purely fun trip to visit my friend?

    Every embryo/fetus damages the pregnant person’s body and puts them at risk of death. How is that decent?

    Every vaginal delivery carries a greater risk for the fetus than a c-section. How is that decent?

    Every c-section for a breech position puts the woman at risk, how is that decent?

    The average women’s opinion carries no extra weight on the ethical questions of abortion only because they are women.

    You’Re completely right. The average person who can be physically affected by pregnancy’s opinion carries absolute extra weight on abortion because they’re the ones paying the price of pregnancy.

    Abortion is not unique; it’s gross to treat it as such.

    Really? Give me another situation where one (potential) person uses the organs of another person for survival?

    To be clear, I do think women have specialized knowledge in regards abortion.

    Assuming you meant “people capable of being pregnant” when you say “women”: Can cis men lnow how it feels when your period is late? Can they know the rollercoaster you’Re on when you’re googleing how to get an abotion while waiting for the pregnancy test to show you if you’re deep in shit? Can they know how it feels when your fucking dam tears during labour?

    Last a look Kant is a philosopher.

    And a misogynist to boot.

    Who actually wrote those texts are irrelevant.

    So it’s at the same time totally important that the person who wrote the text was a qualified philosopher and totally irrelevant who wrote it.
    I admit my silly pink ladybrains don’t get that high philisophy.

  237. says

    @gilelwhatever

    Did you you purphosely fall down the stairs in an attempt to terminate the pregnancy? No? Then I fail to see the relevance.

    As for the rest of the risk factors, the fetus is not intentionally putting the women at risk. The fetus has no control of the situation so moral obligation doesn’t come to bear. But sure if a woman wished to terminate because she finds the risks too high that is a perfectly decent reason.

    It’s late. I’m not following your sarcasm around the knowledge issues. My position is abortions rights are an expression of bodily autonomy rights and as such they are not unique. As a matter of justice a woman should be able to abort at any time for any reason. Her body her choice. But in so far as this pegged to a more general right that applies to all women do not have a specialized knowledge that justifies abortion rights. They do have special practical knowledge however.

    When I referred to Kant the philosopher I wasn’t referring to the actual guy. I was referring to the set of arguments contained in the text labeled Kant. It doesn’t matter what the actual guy was like. What matters us the see if philosophical arhuements we have. I fully grant I’m have not been clear on this. And my expression on this point was muddled. But it is like sub point 26 in side issue 3 so no I haven’t given it my full attention.

    And yes Kant the actual guy was deeply misogynistic. Which has fuck all to do with the Kantian philosophy or why Kant the texts got brought.

    Indeed Kant is probably the most feminst friendly texts in the western canon. Which is why there is a metric ton of Kantian feminist scholarship out there. One quick name: Molly Susan Okin.

    Hell the very notion of respecting bodily autonomy is rooted in Kant’s influence in normativ theory.

    But let’s dwell on irrelevant details like the actual guy from 200 years ago being a massive hypocritcal dick about women. /sarcasm

  238. says

    Above it should read what matters is the set of arguments we have from the text.

    I fucking hate my new phone. The keys are too damn small.

  239. chigau (違う) says

    Could you stop bragging about your new phone and just learn to use the fucking thing?

  240. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    Mike Smith,
    your dominance of this thread is getting me lost. It seems to wander into uncharted territory. Your first post in this was to say that one should not tell a single sex to not write letters about a particular subject because that would be a sexist thing to do that this community otherwise abhors.
    which completely ignores the larger point that a pregnant person is tired of reading all the mansplaining bout how abortion is a bad thing. Which leads you to arguing repeatedly that a man’s opinion about abortions is just as valid as someone who is considering the procedure; by throwing in unrealistic hypotheticals of badly decided abortions.
    One unrealistic hypothetical being a racist woman wanting to abort a half race fetus after consensual sex with a black man. Would a woman that racist really have consensual sex with a black man?
    You then go into sodomy as also an aspect of bodily autonomy. wha? so, to bring this back to the OP, do you really want to see letters every week in your newspaper of how damaging sodomy might be written by people who clearly never indulge in such behavior?

    and then the point about “absolute objective morality” while disclaiming theism sounds contradictory. Throwing Kant into the argument with Objectivism is also contradictory as Objectivism strongly opposes Kantianism and declares him the worst trap to fall into. I think you did not intend either of those conclusions to be inferred yet that is part of my confusion of your argument.
    Before I fill too many pages, in conclusion: please post a terse comment summarizing your point.

    you wrote, Nonetheless there are abortions that are indecent and I reserve the right to call them such and react accordingly.
    This sounds like you saying you are allowed to judge anything, and your opinion is worth being published for others to read.
    To say your opinion about whether someone should undergo a medical procedure (not being an MD) is worth being published, the same as all the opinions against religion by non priests are worth being published. It sounds like an ego problem to me. Dissuade me of that opinion of you.

  241. Rowan vet-tech says

    Actually Mike, the fetus does purposefully put the person it is inside at risk as it lowers the persons immune system so it isn’t attacked. Plus it basically hijacks other organs. It may not be consciously doing so but it’s still purposeful.

    Also, you keep doing that gender essentialism thing. So I’ll ask you bluntly. Are trans men men to you? Do non-binary people actually exist to you? You said you are queer, so your insistence that uterus=woman is very odd to me.

  242. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Mike Smith, my definition of a responsible adult is someone who makes a decision, and lives the consequences of that decision. Women who consider or have an abortion are being responsible adults, as they must live with the consequences of their decision. It is not my place to preach to them about their decision.
    You are irrelevant to their decision. They dont’ have to justify their morals to you. You are irrelevant.
    I know women who have had abortions. Your fucking ethics were not even on their minds when they made their decision.
    You just can’t stand the fact nobody cares about your irrelevant opinion on their ethics.

  243. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    As John Morales already implied, we can consider this thread proof of a corollary of Lewis’ law.

  244. says

    Mike Smith

    When I referred to Kant the philosopher I wasn’t referring to the actual guy.

    You actually wrote that?
    That’s like saying “when I referred to Napoleon Bonaparte I didn’t actually talk about Napoleon Bonaparte but about the aftermath of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars”.
    Language, how the fact does it work?

    I was referring to the set of arguments contained in the text labeled Kant. It doesn’t matter what the actual guy was like.

    Of course it does. Somebody who considers half the human race to be actually subhuman cannot develop philosophical arguments that cover a unique situation that only can happen to that half of the human race because he’s lacking the data.

    Did you you purphosely fall down the stairs in an attempt to terminate the pregnancy? No? Then I fail to see the relevance.

    Well, I purposefully walked down the stairs knowing that this had a non-zero risk of doing great harm to the fetus and I did it just for my fun. Not unlike having an induced birth at 8 months because you want to get drunk at a rock festival.

    As for the rest of the risk factors, the fetus is not intentionally putting the women at risk. The fetus has no control of the situation so moral obligation doesn’t come to bear. But sure if a woman wished to terminate because she finds the risks too high that is a perfectly decent reason.

    Well, the women who die in childbirth/pregnancy are surely relieved that this is the most important thing about the whole situation.
    Also, since “danger” applies to every pregnancy/birth it’s obvious that every abortion is “decent” because the woman is always lowering her personal risk.

    It’s late. I’m not following your sarcasm around the knowledge issues.

    It’s funny how you think that women’s and other people capable of pregnancy’s lived experiences are “sarcasm”. Quite telling.

    My position is abortions rights are an expression of bodily autonomy rights and as such they are not unique.

    You keep stating that. You keep failing to provide any examples (which I explicitly asked for). I can therefore conclude that you’re simply asserting this without evidence, aka pseudo-intellectual wankery.

  245. says

    Julie I care about what sorts if abortions we ought to consider immoral because if I happen to have a friend that had one, its going to end tgd friendship.

    If you had a friend who had an ‘immoral’ abortion — how do you expect to find out about it?

    If you did find out about it (somehow or other) and ended the friendship then what of it to anyone but you, her and perhaps your wider social circle? It seems to be a personal choice (yours) that does not need to be discussed by a wider group since other people shouldn’t have a say in who you choose to associate with and/or why.

    If your friendship or association is the only consequence you are looking for then, by all means, use that as your own, personal litmus test.

  246. says

    *adding to the above

    To bring it back to the topic of this discussion – your personal choice to end a relationship with someone who you found out had an ‘immoral’ abortion is not something that should appear on an editorial page in a newspaper or anywhere else since it contains private information about another individual’s health.

    Leave that between the two of you – consider the friendship gone – and water under the bridge.

    If that’s the type of permission you are looking for (ending your personal friendships) then I think we can all agree that you can stop being friends with whomever, whenever and there is simply nothing left to see here.

  247. says

    Julie T
    I have the nagging feeling that Mike Smith would see it as his moral duty to inform the world about this immoral abortion so that everybody can make the moral choice to punish that person as heavily as possible (because that’s decent, apparently)

  248. Rowan vet-tech says

    Giliell, Mike Smith has claimed to be not a man (or at least, not have a cock in post #87) up thread when earlier called a man. More gender essentialism from them.

  249. Vivec says

    I’m just kind of astounded by his argument for moral absolutes, which as of yet just seems to be an appeal to adverse consequences.

    Sure, it might suck (although I think we get along just fine without them) if we don’t have some kind of definitive moral framework handed down from on high, but I see no reason to presuppose that.

    Especially for a reason as poor as “well, it would suck if it were otherwise”.

  250. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Giliell #282

    I have the nagging feeling that Mike Smith would see it as his moral duty to inform the world about this immoral abortion so that everybody can make the moral choice to punish that person as heavily as possible (because that’s decent, apparently)

    Hmm, where do we see that attitude here in the US. And they talk about Absolute Morals. From religio-fascists, who want to impose their religious beliefs upon society. Chigau at #249 also pointed out the theistic reasoning.

  251. Vivec says

    There’s also like 200 years of responses and criticisms to Kantian ethics and to just doggedly stick to that despite the fairly compelling arguments against it (see: murderer at the door and kant’s handwave answer) does seem to mirror that of a Christian going “don’t care what arguments you say, I’ll take god over logic any day”

  252. says

    @Rowan

    Oh for fucks sake yes trans men are men. Yes non binary people exists. Both groups effected by abortion.

    I have not insisted otherwise. What I have done is used lazy constructions throughout the thread. Because I frankly ddon’t care enough to use the most inclusive languarge possible when nothing of import hangs on it.

  253. says

    @tove.

    Do I want to see letters decrying sodomy in news papers every week? No it would be super nice if straight Christians shut the hell up about it. But that desire is morally irrelevant. I have no basis or authority to ask for that. It’s an unreasonable request. Straight Christians have stake in the discourse.

  254. rq says

    I frankly ddon’t care enough to use the most inclusive languarge possible when nothing of import hangs on it

    Nothing much, just including people potentially affected by abortion and people’s attitudes towards it who are traditionally left out of the discussion, but nothing of import, really. Your thoughtlessness in using lazy construction has been deemed indecent therefore immoral by me. Woot!

    Straight Christians have stake in the discourse.

    Really? They do? News to me.

  255. says

    @gil

    1) yeah it’s weird and yeah it doesn’t make sense outside of discourse I’m use too. Sue me. I explained what I meant and flatly owned up to it. Drop it. It’s boring.

    2) no it doesn’t matter what the actual guy was like, nor does it matter that he wrote things that related women to children. What matters is the set of arguements us absurdly feminist friendly.

    The very thing we are debating, bodily autonomy, derives from Kant.

    Again there are a skew of feminists Kantians.

    Oh abortions rights can be supported via Kantianism. Again: Molly Susan Okin. She’s pro choice, a feminist and a Kantian/rawlsian.

    1)re walking down the stair, the nontrivial risk is unavoidable and not the aom of the action anyway. I still fail to see the relevancy.

    2) nope. Even through all abortions lowers health risks to be decent they have to be taken because they lower risks.

    3) bodily autonomy is the right to control what happens to and with you body. Do you agree with this definition?

    If so than forcing a woman to carry to term and raping her are the same sort of violations; they are abridging her decision of what happens to her body.

    Not be assaulted, being able to use recreational drugs, not havin FGM occur are all expressions of the same basic right! The right to control what happens to and with your body.

    When I say abortion is not unique that is what I mean
    It might be more intense in degree but it is the same in kind.

  256. says

    What I have done is used lazy constructions throughout the thread.

    Some philosopher

    I frankly ddon’t care enough to use the most inclusive languarge possible when nothing of import hangs on it.

    As deemed by Mike Smith, some philosopher

    Straight Christians have stake in the discourse.

    Because consensual gay sex totally affects them.
    Some philosopher

  257. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Gil,

    everything affects everything else, man. Especially when the second everything are busybodies who like to be a judge and jury for the rest of us. Mik is one of the examples of pretentious, spotlight-grabbing wankery that so often gives philosophers a bad name.

    rq,
    Aha! You got him there. Mik, you are now bound to explain your immorality to rq, to her satisfaction. I frankly don’t care isn’t good enough. Would it be good enough if a woman described the reasoning for her abortion to you with that? Nope. Therefore, it’s not good enough for you either.

  258. says

    @Vivec

    You are fucking adorable. Every single major family of views in normative theory has a long traditionof criticism and responses. For every objections to Kantian ethics there are objections t oh Mill

    I don’t doggly stick to what us contained in the groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. For example Kant holds that the three formulas of the Categorical Imperative ar identical. I think that is wrong.
    Trust me I’m far more aware if this scholarship than you.

    Case in point: there are several papers that argue rather strongly that the CI requires you to lie to the murderer at the door.

    But by all means try to ambush me with basc crap that I teach.

  259. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    You know, PZ is the editor of this blog. I wouldn’t mind at all if he helped Mike shut up.
    Just saying.

  260. Vivec says

    Haha, got him to break the self-enforced ignore list.

    Now maybe I’ll actually address him if he can provide a non-fallacious argument for moral absolutes, because “it would suck if there were no moral absolutes” is 100% fallacious.

  261. Vivec says

    Or alternatively, he could take his off-topic natter somewhere it’s more wanted.

  262. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    But by all means try to ambush me with basc crap that I teach.

    You’re a bad teacher, if I were to believe you. Which I don’t. I taught for years and know better. You are one incoherent asshole. I would pity your students, if they existed.
    Still no evidence for YOUR Absolute Morality. If you don’t have deity, they can’t be absolute, as they are derived from imperfect humans. Which is actually the case even with biblical morality.

  263. says

    Sure my construction in this thread have engaged in erasure and are super lazy as they are indecent. I’m not perfect. This is not a hill I need to die on.

    Folk straight Christians can also engage in sodomy; that’s why the have a stake in the argument.

    There are also place where people should be free to exclude queer. I should not able to force Tony Perkins to have me over his house for dinner. So again its relevant to them how the question gets decided

  264. says

    @vivec

    Learn the definition of usually. I said I usually ignore you. I’ll respond when you post something delightfully stupid. Like pointing out gasp there are objections to Kant.

    Yeah no shit there is objections to everything.

    Nerd I’m ignoring completely because are they boring. Is there a block function? If so how do I use it?

  265. The Mellow Monkey says

    I frankly ddon’t care enough to use the most inclusive languarge possible when nothing of import hangs on it

    What trans people mean when we say “misgendering is violence.”
    From Siobhan’s post:

    When I see someone misgendering me, I see not just that they already sit at the base of the pyramid–I see the possibility of them escalating. They’ve denied my humanity, which seems to be the prerequisite to discriminatory behaviour, and now I’m supposed to trust that they’re not going to creep up the pyramid the way the above comments do. And the best part? If I object to their misgendering, if I call out the insistence on using the male pronoun and tell them they’re denying my identity–they don’t fucking care. They flatly deny it. “No I’m not, stop being over-dramatic.”

    By equating the ability to become pregnant with womanhood over and over and over, you are a) denying womanhood to all the women or feminine spectrum non-binary people who cannot become pregnant and b) forcing womanhood upon all the people who are not women who can become pregnant, You’re denying our humanity. You’re denying our place in this conversation. It’s important.

  266. Vivec says

    It”s funny, then, being aware of objections and continuing to throw out points that are very nearly PRATTs by this century. But hey, I’m not the one throwing my weight around based on my dubious philosophy degree.

  267. says

    Mickey

    Drop it. It’s boring.

    Why? You keep discussing my humanity, I keep discussing your stupidity.

    no it doesn’t matter what the actual guy was like, nor does it matter that he wrote things that related women to children.

    Because we all know that human actually means white men.
    But apparently Kant is like the fucking Bible: it means whatever the person talking about it wants it to mean.

    walking down the stair, the nontrivial risk is unavoidable and not the aom of the action anyway.

    But it was totally avoidable. I could have stayed at home. I didn’t have any excuse except from my own fun! Imagine, a woman putting her fun before the well-being of the fetus!!!

    Even through all abortions lowers health risks to be decent they have to be taken because they lower risks.

    Intent apparently IS fucking magic.

    When I say abortion is not unique that is what I mean
    It might be more intense in degree but it is the same in kind.

    So why keep bringing up the fetus? You can’t have your cake and eat it. You can’t claim that some abortions are “indecent” because they frivolously terminate the fetus while simultaneously claiming that an abortion is the same as getting a tattoo.

    It might be more intense in degree but it is the same in kind.

    Lemme guess, you’ve never been pregnant and given birth, right?

    Also, unlike you, I was very precise in what I wrote (some philosopher):

    Give me another situation where one (potential) person uses the organs of another person for survival?

  268. rq says

    Or alternatively, he could take his off-topic natter somewhere it’s more wanted.

    Yeah, Vivec, don’t censor. :P

    Sure my construction in this thread have engaged in erasure and are super lazy as they are indecent. I’m not perfect. This is not a hill I need to die on.

    Not you, apparently, but it sure as hell matters to other people, including some on this thread. Moral your way out of your own laziness, please. Also read The Mellow Monkey @300 several times until it sticks to your morality, please.

    *waves at Gil* *snicker*
    Well done on making a try for this sentence:

    Even through all abortions lowers health risks to be decent they have to be taken because they lower risks.

    For a minute there I thought it means abortion is actually decent (all the time) because it lowers health risks, but the second ‘risks’ isn’t qualified by ‘health’ so I’m probably missing some major aspect of true moralistic philosophy here.

  269. rq says

    Also (haha!):

    Folk straight Christians can also engage in sodomy; that’s why the have a stake in the argument.

    By this analogy, Micke, apparently people without uteruses can now get pregnant, too. I checked several known news channels just now, and none are actually reporting this, so… how exactly do non-uterus-bearers have a stake in the question of abortion?
    And you can’t just say ‘hurt feelings’ because that is totally not the same.

  270. sregan says

    ‘Freezepeach’ is intended to specifically impugn the intelligence of those who appeal to ‘free speech’ as necessarily meaning that someone is legally required to give you a platform, however it usually just comes across as mocking the idea of free speech in and of itself, and the efforts required to obtain it for the person making the taunt. As such I find it distasteful, just as I would find ‘rite to chuuz’ distasteful.

    That said, there are serious implications to arguing that certain people are either:
    a.) Biologically incapable of determining the true state of affairs and its implications for other human beings; or
    b.) Should on the basis of a biological status they cannot change be prevented by society at large, wherever possible, from stating the true state of affairs and its implications for other human beings.

    Because that is how the letter is phrased – if Seldz were instead arguing that certain views are de facto harmful to society and should not be permitted air time in newspapers, it seems to me the argument should be phrased “Anti-abortion letters, such as those published on June 28, should not be published at all.” That seems to be perfectly fair – Seldz is arguing for something true – namely, bodily autonomy – and that, while free speech allows for false speech, such as anti-abortion rhetoric, newspapers should exercise moral judgement and choose not to publish hateful/harmful letters. Instead, she seems to be arguing that anti-choice speech is fine – if expressed by someone who is biologically qualified to hold that view.

    +Peggin’s comment misses the mark. There is and can be no such as thing as a ‘right to hold an opinion’, because an opinion is simply what someone considers to be true. Peggin’s suggestion amounts to saying that certain human beings, for biological reasons, should not be allowed to determine the truth on certain matters. That seems, frankly, evil.

    Even as I wrote that I hesitated because I anticipate the rebuttal (‘Evil? What about millennia of oppressing half the human race, buttface?’), but a.) that such a rebuttal should be made tells you something troubling about what the person who makes it believes, or should consistently believe (the end justifies the means, individuals should be treated differently based on biological differences, oppression should be ‘paid back’ rather than stopped, gender is biological and leads to fundamental differences in thought and behaviour) and b.) proposals to limit the ‘rights’ of people to recognise the truth on certain matters is philosophically insane in ways that ‘wrong’ constructs such as sexism, racism, etc. (which after all might have been based on the truth but turned out not to be) are not.

    Nb. PZ, of course, has every right to delete this comment, for any reason he chooses.

  271. says

    Christ. It really is the death of expertise.

    Anyone can have an opinion. The question is whether everyone has opinions that deserve respect, and whether the media should be honoring everyone’s opinions equally. There are opinions that are driven by legitimate need, and there are opinions backed by legitimate qualifications. Being male is not sufficient for either, in the case of abortion. Being Christian and having fervently held beliefs does not legitimize your ideas about abortion, either.

    This is a case where the media seems to act as if being a man with deep religious convictions automatically makes your opinion newsworthy. It does not. All the men having hissy-fits about their opinions being deemed less valuable than those of women or genuine experts need to get over themselves and shut the fuck up.

    Your penis is not being disrespected. You are being told that your penis does not automatically warrant your ideas as worthy.

    I know. That’s shocking. It’s given you bonus points throughout your life, and it’s rough being told that it doesn’t really count for anything significant in this debate.

  272. thelurkinator says

    There once was a poster @60
    Whose handle was just a bit shifty
    They made a bold claim
    Which most others found lame
    If they backed it up that would be nifty

    Now back to Mike Smith’s regularly scheduled wankery.

  273. What a Maroon, living up to the 'nym says

    Mike Smith,

    I only have an AB from UC, and it’s in Linguistics, but I think I’m on safe ground when I say that abortion doesn’t effect anyone.

  274. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Sregan, your fee-fees are hurt because you fail to shut the fuck up and listen to those less privileged than you, and that is exactly what the letter writer was calling out.
    You can’t talk intelligently about issues of another sex/gender/race/etc., unless you are aware of what those who are not your sex/gender/race/etc. think about your treatment of them. All you can do is pontificate from ignorance, and letters like the OP will be written.
    Shut up and listen to those with less privilege than you. You might find out you are full of opinions that don’t agree with their reality. Which makes you wrong.

  275. chigau (違う) says

    Brony #277
    I apologise. I meant to use you as an example of someone commenting by phone and still managing to spell and format correctly.

  276. kodiak says

    To go back a little in the thread… I always thought that the story of the abortion in the Godfather was about how – after raising two children surrounded by a violence that he had promised he was totally done with and would never subject her or the kids to – she realized that nothing was ever going to change and one more child would be one more person suffering under the conditions and risks of living in a mob family, and she couldn’t bring herself to raise another child that way.

    So while one of the end results was that there was pain caused and there was lashing out “in spite”, the proximate cause of the abortion wasn’t spite, it was a full consideration of the circumstances and the knowledge that one more child would trap her with him forever… and yes, her emotionally abusive husband would prefer that she was trapped… but why is it considered spiteful for a woman who we watch fall into a bad situation that she wanted no part of to make the choices she needs to that allow her to leave that situation?

    Maybe my memory is faulty and I was “reading” the movie situation charitably when I saw it in my late 20’s, but I think if you consider more broadly you’ll see that spite isn’t the primary motivator of her actions, and is more likely just what was seen on screen at the final point when she was able to break away from her abuser and all his broken promises.

    So I think that even the fictional analogies Mike has brought up fail. (also, apparently this was the thing that caused me to finally register after years of reading… weird!)

  277. garysturgess says

    @Mike Smith:
    At the risk of engaging, one of your frequent points is, “I don’t think it should be illegal. But I think there are cases where it might be immoral”.

    I must say I don’t really understand that. If something is immoral, it is bad. That’s what it means. If you think something is immoral, I must ask the obvious question, “Why shouldn’t it be illegal?”

    The reason I tend to think that cis-men shouldn’t be interfering with abortion isn’t because I think it is immoral but legal – it’s because I don’t think it’s immoral. Pregnant person’s body, pregnant person’s choice, end of. Likewise, I don’t think sodomy is immoral, recreational drug use is immoral, or liking the game Monopoly is immoral (though I don’t do any of these things personally – and I certainly would try to change your mind in the latter case, at least).

    I hold this position regardless of whether the pregnant person did it to “spite her boyfriend”, or because ze didn’t want to raise a Downs Syndrome child, or because ze wanted to get drunk, or because ze didn’t fancy for whatever reason carrying the pregnancy to term. It is none of my business. It remains none of my business if I am a close friend of the pregnant person, it remains none of my business if I am married to the pregnant person. The only way it becomes my business is if the pregnant person in question decides to make it my business, and even then should they decide to disregard my advice or even outright do the opposite, that’s still their choice, and still none of my business.

    I really don’t get why this is so hard to understand, or why a request from a frustrated reader of a newspaper to maybe stop publishing ignorant crap is really such a controversial letter to publish.

  278. Silentbob says

    @ 314 garysturgess

    (off topic)

    I must say I don’t really understand that. If something is immoral, it is bad. That’s what it means. If you think something is immoral, I must ask the obvious question, “Why shouldn’t it be illegal?”

    My answer would be that the purpose of law is not to police morality, but to prevent significant harm (via a disincentive).

    The first example that comes to mind is “adultery”. Suppose I am in a relationship with a partner in which I promise to be monogamous. And then I go and cheat on my partner behind their back. My partner finds out and is very upset.

    Do you consider my behaviour immoral?

    If you do consider it immoral, do you think it should be illegal?

    Should I be arrested, charged, tried, convicted and punished by the state for the crime of having sex with someone other than my partner?

    (This has nothing to do with Mike Smith, I’m adressing the question in the general case.)

    (/off topic)

  279. garysturgess says

    @Silentbob:
    Yes, I see your point. The specific example you’ve chosen is not a particularly strong one (my answer would be that in cases of adultery, it’s really none of my business – there are plenty of cases where even if I knew all the details I wouldn’t think it immoral, but in practice I almost never would), but I can certainly see what you’re getting at.

  280. Silentbob says

    @ 314 garysturgess

    … Incidentally, the request was not to “maybe stop publishing ignorant crap”, it was to “cease publishing men’s letters about women’s bodies entirely”. (Unless you consider the two equivalent, in which case any man writing, “women should have bodily autonomy” is writing “ignorant crap”. ;-) )

  281. garysturgess says

    Silentbob@317
    Eh, I consider my paraphrase more or less accurate, but I do see your point.

  282. Ichthyic says

    it was to “cease publishing men’s letters about women’s bodies entirely”. (Unless you consider the two equivalent, in which case any man writing, “women should have bodily autonomy” is writing “ignorant crap”. ;-) )

    you know what? even though i personally know that we all have bodily autonomy, given the fact that it is indeed 99.999999% MEN that have been making legal decisions about what women should do with their bodies… for hundreds of years…. I strangely do not feel offended that women don’t want to hear my fucking opinion, even if it does agree with theirs.

    perhaps the problem is NOT that they think your opinion disagrees with theirs… maybe they’re just tired of hearing men dominate the conversation… about women.

    I’m ok with that.

    why shouldn’t I be? why shouldn’t any man be?

    I’m so tired of insecure men feeling they CONSTANTLY need to bleat: #NOTALLMENZ!!!!

    fuck that shit.

    I’d be happy to not hear another man’s voice debating the issue of women’s reproductive rights for ten years, since frankly the ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED. But no… controlly menz has to be controlly, or they won’t feel like teh MENZ.

  283. lotharloo says

    A lot of people here are confused and they are really missing the point.

    The OP is basically a well-justified rant against men who are against abortion. It is well-justified because anti-choice men are holding a doubly offensive position compared to anti-choice women:

    1) They are anti-choice, meaning, they want to dictate what other humans are to do with their bodies.
    2) They are men and thus they are never ever going to be personally physically affected by the law they want to impose on other people.

    Also, there is absolutely nothing worth-while that can be said from an anti-choice POV. We have heard every argument a million times, and they all have been trashed a million times as well. Not only these men are stating a doubly offensive argument but they are repeating the same bullshit arguments over and over again. There is no point in a newspaper to waste ink in publishing those stupid arguments.

  284. lotharloo says

    Also, it is very disappointing that Jerry Coyne also covered the same issue but missed the point by a mile. And his comment section is full of silly (but polite!) commenters who do that same thing.

  285. chris61 says

    @320 lotharloo
    <Also, there is absolutely nothing worth-while that can be said from an anti-choice POV. We have heard every argument a million times, and they all have been trashed a million times as well.

    That is very true. Of course the same thing is about the pro-choice POV and arguments.

  286. lotharloo says

    @chris61:

    You are very right. I mean, how come I did not see that? I apologize.

    I mean, except for the minor issue that all anti-choice arguments are bullshit and pro-choice arguments are often humane and moral, except for this very minor issue, they are exactly the same! You are very smart indeed!

  287. chris61 says

    @323 lotharloo

    I mean, except for the minor issue that all anti-choice arguments are bullshit and pro-choice arguments are often humane and moral, except for this very minor issue, they are exactly the same!

    The problem with discussing any ethical issue – each side sees their own arguments as humane and moral while the other sides arguments are bullshit.

  288. says

    The problem with discussing any ethical issue – each side sees their own arguments as humane and moral while the other sides arguments are bullshit.

    And it’S not like there’s something called “the real world” where we could see the effects and test the hypothesis.

    Chris61, brave defender of the oppressors everywhere.

  289. chris61 says

    @ Giliell

    brave defender of the oppressors everywhere

    No more so than yourself.

  290. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    No more so than yourself.

    Yep, a brave oppressor of the pregnant you are, and protector of no one.

  291. Ichthyic says

    No more so than yourself.

    OH NOES!!! the Rubber-Glue argument!

    WEZ DEFEETED!

  292. says

    @gary

    To make something illegal is to say people should have violence brought against them to force compliance. As such the justification bhas to be fairly high to warrant it. There are different views on the matter but obvious harm to third parties is a good starting place.

    All human action have an ethical aspect. An action can only be obligatory, forbidden or permissible. As such all action can be (will be) judge. People have a right to use their bodies as they wish but some of the will use them immorally. I get to call a spade a spade.

    What pisses me off is pro choice some how think abortion is exempt from this only because the political right is unassailable.

    Case in point: a few weeks back Professor Myers quasi-seriously called for football to be banned. That’s a hypcritical impluse. The same thing, bodily autonomy, that generates a woman’sright to choose also generates a man’s right to play football or other violent sports.

    I certaily recall alot of nonmales commenting in that thread even the issue “was none of their business.”or to use another example.white people should not be forced to have black friends even through refuses to have black friends

    @gil

    A big post of mine yesterday to whole bunch of feminists who are also Kantians got eaten. You are just flatly wrong on this. The standard view is the arguements in the groundwork demonstrate why Kant the guy’s view on woman are wrong. The categorical imperative includes women and really helps why rape is such an awful violation.

    I’m not going to bother rewriting just google it. There are literal books on the subject.

    Second I know it is consider a trump card that intent is not mgic on this site. But it is not given that intent is irrelevant to moral decisions. I for one think it is the man thing that matters, not outcome. We can argue this I guess but I don’t think you have any idea how to deny that intent is magic

  293. says

    @211, Mike Smith

    there is no empirical evidence on this topic. Demonstrate you can derive ought from is or stop demanding third party evidence.

    This ethics not scuence

    Goals allow us to get an ought from an is. You just need to figure out what is your overriding goal (fact about our minds), and what is the best way to achieve it. Here’s wikipedia on the subject. Getting a “moral ought” requires figuring out which goals conflict and then which would be more preferred (thus which are correct and which are incorrect).

    You might also be interested in learning that all of the major meta-ethical systems in philosophy amount to the same thing (once you think them through and eliminate the false bits). This includes Kant and Consequentialism.

  294. says

    The categorical imperative includes women and really helps why rape is such an awful violation.

    There you have it, ladies. It took a manly man, Kant (or just a metaphysical concept called “Kant”) to tell us that rape is an awful violation. Our lived experiences prior to that, the trauma, the pain, the involuntary pregnancies, all that, totally not of interest. NOnono, it needs a man on a high philosophical horse to understand that.
    That’s also why the empirical data on coathanger and back alley abortions, the lived experiences of millions of AFAB people, why Savita Hallapavanar are totally not important.
    What did we think we were, people who mattered or what?

  295. says

    @brian

    What goals should I pursue?
    How do you know that by observation?

    I’m aware that ethical naturalist exist, GE Moore is like the most famous one, but they 1) a minority position within the girls and 2) wrong.

    As for Carrier’s argument that deontology collapses into consequencentialism because the categorical imperative collapses into a hypothetical imperative. It’s wrong; I’ve actually read the paper by Foot. Most philosopher basically went “that’s nice” and ignored it.

    I’m not interested in having that conversation here, much the same way I’m sure Professor Myers has no desire to disabuse some one of Larkinism (so?).

    I’ll give you a hint when someone begins an article with No expert in this field as notice this really simple solution. They are about to spout some bullshit.

  296. rq says

    Hey Mike

    @gil

    I believe the full ‘nym (please use it until you have permission to do otherwise) is Giliell. Using a short form unasked is highly indecent in my world; please stop being so immoral.

  297. rq says

    NOnono, it needs a man on a high philosophical horse to understand that.

    Ladeeebrainz is too pink and fuzzy to work this out on their own!

  298. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    wrong.

    No, you are wrong unless you show third party evidence to back your claims. You have trashed what honesty and integrity you might possess. Consider your word alone worthless in any arguments, and your begin to see your problem.
    Many too many bullshits.

  299. kodiak says

    @ Mike Smith 332. “To make something illegal is to say people should have violence brought against them to force compliance.”

    I don’t think that’s correct. If anything there is violence (and sometimes very non-“violent” violence in the form of a fine or injunction) used in the case of non-compliance. But violence isn’t used to FORCE compliance.

    For example, no one has ever behaved violently towards me to keep me in compliance with the law that prohibits murder. While it’s true violence (restriction of rights and movement) is used when people violate this law, it is not what ensures compliance in the vast majority of people. If you told a majority of the population that they could get away with murder without being caught, it is not likely that the murder rate would increase significantly (as proof, check the number of unsolved v. solved murders where you live… in most place the majority of murderers get away with it).

    What law is enforced with violence prior to it being broken? Also, as I stated above, many laws do not have a strong “violent” outcome even when broken*, speeders sometimes get warnings instead of tickets, trespassers are often reminded where the proper path is instead of being shot, etc.

    *I acknowledge that as a white person my interaction with police is not typical of everyone, and while I understand that there is a very different lived experience that I try to keep in mind, I sometimes see things too optimistically, if I overstepped please let me know.

  300. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    rq,

    Technically, lady brains can figure this out, but it takes some formal education in philosophy or at least a casual read of some philosophy books. None of this empathy and personal experience stuff. That counts for very little until a couple of important philosophers can agree that, for example, it can be said that rape is bad and ethically impermissible. Without such dictate from authority, it is just irrational and irresponsible to make sweeping claims like that.

  301. rq says

    Beatrice
    Before I can agree that you are right, please present me with a Certificate of Proper Education and at least one Diploma in the Appropriate Philosophy. In duplicate and notarized, of course.

  302. rq says

    Damn, CaitieCat, I probably wouldn’t, since I have none of my own.

    Damn you, pink fuzzy ladybrainz! Is there a maybe a man around who can help me out with his smartz?

  303. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    I don’t suppose having read Sophie’s world counts?

  304. rq says

    Beatrice
    … In which case I don’t need your credentials because I have that credential all on my own.
    Huh. Something isn’t quite working here, I wonder what it is.

  305. says

    @335, Mike Smith

    First, I hope you are agreeing that the is-ought “gap” is bridged by goals. Because that’s what I was responding to.

    What goals should I pursue?

    I just told you.

    How do you know that by observation?

    Every step I described is observable.

    The rest of your post #335 presents no arguments or questions for me to address.

  306. rq says

    Giliell
    To be completely fair, both of your examples are at least two letters shorter than Giliell.

  307. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Funny how my University considered mathematics and philosophy as both being training in logic. Funny how minoring in mathematics means I have no training in logic, according to asshole philosophers.
    The one thing my science training (remember MS, science is the successful spin-off of philosophy), is that reality checks are required for anything to be accepted as anything other than bullshit.
    Mike Smith has a deep, deep, trouble with reality checks. In fact, they appear to be irrelevant to their thinking. Which mean their *snicker* thinking is irrelevant to anything I consider significant.
    MS, either take it outside of yourself or shut the fuck up. You haven’t defined Absolute Ethics (which by the way, must be derived from imaginary deities, or it must be be labeled as Universal Ethics, a huge problem with your unthinking processes, as your label is utter bullshit).
    Get with what it needed, and start linking to what you mean. Third party evidence is your friend. If you won’t go there, fuck off, as everything you say without links is considered so much bullshit.

  308. says

    @Brian

    No I don’t agree that goals fill the is-ought gap. All the do is push the question back.

    Example:

    Goal 1: get Clinton elected
    Goal 2: get Trump elected

    Observable data is helpful to decide how to reach a goal (Vote denote money) it says nothing about which goal I should select.

    So demonstrate with empirical data which goal I should select.

    Hark at the rest.

  309. says

    @giliell

    I have two response to that bit of uncharitableness.

    2) nothing I said discounts the lived experience of rape victims. Even if I grant that lived experience are sufficient to decide moral questions. Why people react the way they do. I agre, for many reason including how best to support them, that victims should be supported. And yet I still find Kant’s work insightful. It doesn’t follow from valuing one perspective your discount all others.

    I have repeated stated when I speak of Kant I mean only a collections of texts labeled as such. For all I care they could have been written by a woman. There’s nothing in the groundwork that is more important because it was written by a guy and nothing would be less important if Kant the guy was actually Emma. The groundwork is the groundwork.

    Again there’s a metric boat load if pro-Kant feminists scholarship

    2) I’m generally reluctant to use lived experience as decisive determination for ethical issues. While something like rape us crystal clear ly immoral just by what the victims say about it, not everything works that way and lived experience can be highly misleading. I’m going to use a very personal example.

    I’m 32 years old. I experienced my first same sex attraction at age 8 or 9. I didn’t fully accept my sexuality until last year in 22isj years in between it was an endless cycle if self-loathing, trying to live a proud out existence. But still I experienced near constant moral abhorrence and disgust at homosexuality, sodomy,lgbt rights etc.

    What got me out if this was not living out gay experience, even positive ones,. No it was a 17 hour marathon argument I had in grad school about the topic with me taking the anti-gay side.

    If all I did was listen to my lived experience to decide the moral question; I would be in ex gay “therapy” now.

    I’m not saying that experience us like a victim of any crime let alone rape. But no i don’t trust lived experiences because my own lived experiences misled me for 22ish years.

    gah

  310. says

    @professor Myers

    If want to stop I’ll stop. Your house your rules.

    But someone please tell me if I should shut up and listen to pro life people who are capable of being pregnant or if I should shut up and listen to pro choice people who are capable of bein pregnant.

    I’m afraid I don’t know which data setis definitive here.

  311. says

    To whom should I listen?

    If want me to listen to people who are capable of being pregnant to know why it is such a bad idea to force people to term i agree.

    I’m pro choice. Any time for any reason!

    If you want me to listen to people who are capable if being pregnant how it follows from other political values that abortion, I agree.

    I’m pro choice. abortion any time for any reason.
    If I need to listen to people who are capable if being pregnant to learn practicalities I will.

    If a person who is capable of being pregnant wants yo explain third moral reason behind getting an abortion I all listen. And 99.99% of the time I’ll agree. And the .01 i don’t will not result will be nothing 99.99% of the time.

    But no people capable of being pregnant do not have special access to moral knowledge vis a vis abortion (neither do people not capable). So if I’m expected to merely listen to argruements that find all abortions moral than no I won’t.
    There are people capable of being pregnant on either side here.

    And with that I’m done. Have a nice day.

  312. unclefrogy says

    you say you were very conflicted about sexuality for many years. I still think you are showing signs that you are still conflicted with the absolutes that you have internalized.
    One of which is you reserve the right to continue to judge other people for what they do regardless of any statement from you that it is OK to do it.
    The idea of listening to other people and other voices requires a degree of humility you have not demonstrated at all. You will only listen to those who have a similar degree of education and have similar views and make similar conclusions for the same reasons you do.

    no one has any need to listen to what I say of course.
    It would be nice if there were nice accessible absolutes to order our lives by but there ain’t at least I sure have not found any.
    There is only the things science have detailed so far and the time we have between our birth and our death for any reality to go by.
    Your incorporeal abstract ethics are cold, they are indifferent to people and are useless at best and in the long run as applied cruel and lead to pointless suffering and are a dead end.
    uncle frogy

  313. Saad says

    Mike Smith, #355

    But someone please tell me if I should shut up and listen to pro life people who are capable of being pregnant or if I should shut up and listen to pro choice people who are capable of bein pegnant.

    Should I listen to a black person who is racist or should I listen to a black person who is against racism?

    Very easy stuff.

  314. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    But no people capable of being pregnant do not have special access to moral knowledge vis a vis abortion (neither do people not capable). So if I’m expected to merely listen to argruements that find all abortions moral than no I won’t.

    That sexism/genderism is why I consider you a fuckwitted idjit. Learn to shut the fuck up and listen, when you don’t a very personal problem due to your sex/color/gender/etc. with the outcome. It will make you better person. But you are to egotistical to understand that.

  315. chigau (違う) says

    Let us all just give thanks that Mike Smith is gone.
    Bless his heart.

  316. says

    nothing I said discounts the lived experience of rape victims. Even if I grant that lived experience are sufficient to decide moral questions. Why people react the way they do. I agre, for many reason including how best to support them, that victims should be supported. And yet I still find Kant’s work insightful. It doesn’t follow from valuing one perspective your discount all others.

    Can someone translate this into standard grammar and would it make any sense if you did?

  317. says

    @Giliell
    I think there are more places that need commas, in place of periods for example. And that there may be some attempts to look like they are listening to victims while also letting philosophy affect what they think of what victims are saying.

    Here is my take on it.

    nothing I said discounts the lived experience of rape victims.

    “I didn’t devalue the lived experience of rape victims.”

    Even if I grant that lived experience are sufficient to decide moral questions. Why people react the way they do. I agre, for many reason including how best to support them, that victims should be supported.

    “Even though I disagree that experience can decide moral questions, and why people react the way they do, I still agree for many reasons that victims should be supported.”

    And yet I still find Kant’s work insightful. It doesn’t follow from valuing one perspective your discount all others.

    “But I still let Kant tell me what I should think of what victims are saying.

    In the first they are ignoring the effects of the presence of their account on the social space, and flatly ignoring the fact that having any non-female person/non-victim person on the same stage as them IS devaluing them by dilution. There is little functional difference between Mike filling the social space with his views or a pro-life person filling the space in terms of less relevant perspectives hogging the attention.

    The second is ignoring that the experiences of female people and victims have to be the primary information that his philosophy must be applied to. It does not do much to say that they should be supported, and then proceed to ignore a critical part of that support. To show support they should have already listened to people, figured out how their philosophy might be applied to society in real-world terms and be asking people in the right forms if the potential solutions would actually be things that would help them. To me this is like someone spewing a bible verse at me and being unable to show how it connects to the reality in front of me.

    In the context of the first two and their behavior the third leaves me convinced that Kant has more value to them than what female people/victims are saying.

  318. Crimson Clupeidae says

    @ Mike Smith 332. “To make something illegal is to say people should have violence brought against them to force compliance.”

    Oh, a libertarian. That explains all the mental wanking.

  319. Vivec says

    @365
    I think he prefers ~classical liberal~

    But yeah our Kant-wanking friend up there fits all the major liberturd checkboxes, up to and including opposing anti-discrimination legislation because categorical imperative mumble mumble violence mumble kant.

  320. says

    @353, Mike Smith

    No I don’t agree that goals fill the is-ought gap. All the do is push the question back.

    Maybe at first (depending on which goal you start considering in your analysis). But not endlessly. You eventually reach the overriding motivations of the brain (which I also call goals, fyi). The regress ends. And it ends with a factual “is”: that is what your brain will do, because of the laws of physics acting upon it.

    There’s lots more to say, of course, since you probably think you have an objection to this somehow.

    Example:

    Goal 1: get Clinton elected
    Goal 2: get Trump elected

    Observable data is helpful to decide how to reach a goal (Vote denote money) it says nothing about which goal I should select.

    It says plenty. Everyone knows how this is handled in real life. We do our best (using empirical data!) to predict the outcome of achieving either goal, and then (just like I said) we choose the one that we predict we would like/prefer more (a fact about our brains, and how we would experience the results).

    Again, I just told you how to do this.