Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



11/27/2017 8:43 pm  #1


Stubborn feminist and abortion

I'm currently in a debate with a feminist online over abortion. How do you shake someone free of the notion that one's bodily autonomy is precious and the unborn infringe upon this autonomy? She is partly arguing that the woman has the right to 'refuse' to provide her body to the unborn who is infringing upon her bodily autonomy. We keep going in circles and I'm starting to get sick. Every time we take a step forward, she goes two steps back, always resorting to bodily autonomy as the sacred cow that trumps everything else. I also think she may start entertaining ideas of infanticide if show her the logical implications of her moral standard. 

 

11/28/2017 2:51 am  #2


Re: Stubborn feminist and abortion

Apart from suggesting that you should probably evaluate whether the argument with that person is at all worth it (as someone who debated the topic fairly often on social media I can testify that this is something to consider), I suggest employing examples that would probably cause her to reflect on the nature of her commitment to the principle. David Oderberg's modest proposal about legalising contract killings as an answer to the backstreet abortions argument, for example, does a fairly good job, in my experience.

I suppose an absolute commitment to bodily autonomy in cases such as that of pregnancy makes sense given our contemporary cultural emphasis on desire as the most important thing in all things sexual. What I think is important to highlight is that duties don't actually have to arise out of voluntary contracts, and I think this truth is largely still retained (even?) in contemporary West.

Suppose, for example, you're ice skating in a park. Then, all of a sudden, a little girl next to you falls through the ice (which for some reason turned out to be thin or melted) and grabs your leg so as to hold on to something. Now, the little girl is indeed little, and you are not in any immediate danger of being dragged into the pond and subsequently drowning. The poor thing did, however, it would seem, violate your bodily autonomy: she hadn't been given explicit permission to grab any part of your body prior to that. Suppose also that park rules don't explicitly state that skaters are bound to help each other in periculo mortis. The situation clearly calls for action to resolve it. However, pulling the child out of the hole, apart from saving it, means sweating, exposing oneself to ice, snow and cold water, which probably means you'd have to go home to change your clothes. Then there's the risk of catching a cold and missing a cinema reservation later this evening. So not only does the child infringe upon your bodily integrity, it would probably claim the entirety of your sovereignly decreed evening, too. 

All things considered, however, surely you're not entitled to forcing the poor girl into letting go of your leg. I wager its the comically absurd disproportion between the respective needs and potential losses of the two parties in my example that makes the contrary baffling. But if bodily autonomy per se is of such paramountcy that it legitimates (as means) killing innocent humans when infringed, I maintain it should also apply to the situation described in my scenario.

Last edited by GeorgiusThomas (11/28/2017 4:44 am)

 

11/28/2017 3:19 am  #3


Re: Stubborn feminist and abortion

RomanJoe wrote:

How do you shake someone free of the notion that one's bodily autonomy is precious and the unborn infringe upon this autonomy?

Are you sure that this particular individual needs this, deserves this, or is capable of this? And that you are the worthy evangelist for her?

More generally, why do you see debate as a way to change someone's opinion of something? At least equally much, debate is a way for you to learn to defend your opinion.

RomanJoe wrote:

I also think she may start entertaining ideas of infanticide if show her the logical implications of her moral standard. 

Let's get real: Many aspects of life are not logical. I'd pretty broadly include women as such an aspect of life. Moreover, it would be terrible if women were logical, because this would give many men a strong excuse to be unpractical and anti-social.

When a male and a female debate abortion (and the male is anti-abortion and the female is pro-abortion), this is an untenable social situation. Why? Because only females get pregnant and give birth. The male is not in a position to dictate stuff on this topic, no matter how logical he may be. Socially and pragmatically, the situation is very skewed and the smarter person should stop it.

Take a break and think through your message once again, if you have one. Given the nature of the situation, you must be able to deliver it briefly and very effectively (and don't expect any results a la conversion) next time. There may not be a next time, but that's life. Debates are not primarily to convert other souls. They are also to help you preserve your own, to find more effective formulations for your own positions for later use, or to consider if debating is good for you at all.

Personally, my emphasis in the abortion topic is responsibility. Getting pregnant and having another life grow inside you is a matter of responsibility. A responsible person would attempt a healthy natural birth and then give one's best to be a responsible parent. Unfortunately, for modern women, responsibility is the same as accusation against them and men's way of laying all the burdens of guilt and work on women. This is why, when I make this point, the debate must not linger, unless you are comfortable covering each and every aspect of responsibility under the sun, proving yourself the world heavy-weight champion of virtues in the process. This is hardly doable.

Last edited by seigneur (11/28/2017 3:23 am)

 

12/01/2017 1:10 pm  #4


Re: Stubborn feminist and abortion

romanJoe #1
"I'm currently in a debate with a feminist online over abortion."
--Really?  And you have not been moderated, deleted, or banned?  Few feminist sites allow even the most carefully worded disagreement.

"She is partly arguing that the woman has the right to 'refuse' to provide her body to the unborn who is infringing upon her bodily autonomy."
--That is homicide by depraved neglect if the child dies.  The same applies to fathers or anybody else responsible for the sustenance of a helpless child. 

If a father is alone with his child he is required to provide life preserving sustenance to that child even if it infringes on his bodily whereabouts, his bodily actions, and his otherwise bodily freedoms. Failure to place other desires as secondary to sustaining the life of the child that results in the death of the child is a very serious crime, as well it should be.

The right to life of a child and the responsibility of a parent to sustain that life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy of the parent.

Last edited by StardustyPsyche (12/01/2017 2:54 pm)

 

12/01/2017 3:13 pm  #5


Re: Stubborn feminist and abortion

Good points SP. Part of the difficulty debating with some feminists is that they rarely accept the underlying premise that the unborn are human persons. The one I debated said that she doesn't know whether they are or not. She concluded that we should protect the rights of known humans persons instead of protecting the rights of possible human persons. I told her that that position is incoherent because, if anything, skepticism over whether or not some living thing is human should be a strong motivator NOT to kill it. She never responded to that directly.

     Thread Starter
 

12/01/2017 5:11 pm  #6


Re: Stubborn feminist and abortion

"Part of the difficulty debating with some feminists is that they rarely accept the underlying premise that the unborn are human persons."
--One approach in that case is to start at birth and work backwards.  Is it wrong to withhold sustenance to a newborn baby such that she dies?

How about when the baby is part way through the birth canal?  Is there a change in the intrinsic humanity of the child that happens when the cord is cut?

How about 1 hour prior to birth?  1 day?  1 week? 1 month?  At what point does an individual gain her humanity?

I say it is at brain function.  When the brain begins to function roughly at the level of an adult in a coma then that is a human being.

 

12/04/2017 10:59 pm  #7


Re: Stubborn feminist and abortion

@RomanJoe,

RomanJoe wrote:

She concluded that we should protect the rights of known humans persons instead of protecting the rights of possible human persons.

Well, I as an owner of a building have the right to burn it down.  I don't know if there are people in there or not.  So it's OK for me to burn it down since I don't know if there are people in there or not with rights, but I'm certain I have *rights*.  After all, someone told me there were no people in there.

When we want to avoid responsibility for our actions we make all sorts of rationalizations.

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum