william_kent

Well-known member
have any of you watched "10 Rillington Place"? that's what you end up with with when you deny a woman autonomy over her own body
 

william_kent

Well-known member
@sufi - any chance of getting the thread title changed to "anti-choice misogyny" ?

apologies to @Clinamenic - I've nothing but love for you, but "pro-life" is such right wing / religious zealot bullshit that I can't let it lie - but I'm convinced in the future there will be a religious war between the "ConStans" and the "Clinemenetics", two competing sects both based on the teachings of the one and only true prophet of Dissensus - I envisage a future where the "ConStans" will revere the postings of @constant escape as the one and only true gospel, but they will need interpretation mediated by biased scholars, each with their own agenda to pursue, due to the impenetrable language employed, leading to schisms and divisions, eventually leading the Clinemetenics to prevail due to the gradual rationalisation of abstraction to polymorphism employed by the Messiah

edit: I wrote this when I was a bit drunk, but @Clinamenic you're a star
 
Last edited:

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
The whole argument falls flat here - ever heard of Rosemary West? fetal alcohol spectrum disorder? crack? smack? meth? incest? family photo albums where a two year old is sucking off grandad? two year olds dying from drinking mummy's methadone? rape? child abuse? neglect? poverty?

yeah, "valuable futures", ffs
= same considerations for euthanasia of the born; one has to be very sure in either case
 
Last edited:

linebaugh

Well-known member
Its not a question of morality though. Basing justice on a moral/non moral binary is how you get the totalitarian fascist liberal media main stream soros network.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
No! Look at the history of 60s communes, without an emotional connection child rearing does not work - you end up with kids in cages because they didn't eat their porridge
Lots of people who adopt kids or foster them have a really strong emotional bond with them despite not being the biological parents.

Sophie Lewis’ “Full Surrogacy Now” is really interesting on artificial wombs and we should give women the choice to use that technology when it exists.

I’m with you on everything else though :)
 

william_kent

Well-known member
Lots of people who adopt kids or foster them have a really strong emotional bond with them despite not being the biological parents.

the key phrase was "without an emotional connection"

I didn't detect any emotion in the OP

"those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - there are lessons to be learned from previous experiments

but, yeah @john eden , I'm not knocking surrogacy or adoption as they exist now, more that I am not a fan of a dystopian vision of the future where children are raised in genetically modified cow wombs ( or vats, whatever ) and raised by the hive mind
 
Last edited:

john eden

male pale and stale
Yeah that’s cool. You’re right about the downsides of many of the utopian communities in the 60s onwards.
 

boxedjoy

Well-known member
"pro choice" is not the same as "I would have an abortion myself" - you can have your own personal reasons for wanting to keep or not keep a baby, and also be able to understand that other people will make decisions that are right for them without judgement.

as a gay man literally anything I can say on abortion is irrelevant as it will never affect me or my body, I am simply relieved that I would never have to consider the choice myself
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
@sufi - any chance of getting the thread title changed to "anti-choice misogyny" ?

apologies to @Clinamenic - I've nothing but love for you, but "pro-life" is such right wing / religious zealot bullshit that I can't let it lie - but I'm convinced in the future there will be a religious war between the "ConStans" and the "Clinemenetics", two competing sects both based on the teachings of the one and only true prophet of Dissensus - I envisage a future where the "ConStans" will revere the postings of @constant escape as the one and only true gospel, but they will need interpretation mediated by biased scholars, each with their own agenda to pursue, due to the impenetrable language employed, leading to schisms and divisions, eventually leading the Clinemetenics to prevail due to the gradual rationalisation of abstraction to polymorphism employed by the Messiah

edit: I wrote this when I was a bit drunk, but @Clinamenic you're a star
Yeah I picked that term rather than "anti-choice" on purpose.

So "pro-life" is a positive term, in its own right, where "vigilantism" is somewhat of a negative term, so I'd argue they cancel each other out as value judgements, while both being accurate factually.

Although when I created the thread, I didn't bear in mind how the term "vigilantism" can be used as a negative. I naively assumed it was more of a neutral term, but I now see that it really isn't, which is fine because "pro-life" certainly isn't a neutral term. So again, they would seem to cancel each other out.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
"pro choice" is not the same as "I would have an abortion myself" - you can have your own personal reasons for wanting to keep or not keep a baby, and also be able to understand that other people will make decisions that are right for them without judgement.

as a gay man literally anything I can say on abortion is irrelevant as it will never affect me or my body, I am simply relieved that I would never have to consider the choice myself
Would you say your opinion here is relevant if only because of how it may influence your voting, and how your voting may influence clinical availability of these operations?
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
I don't buy the "men's opinions don't matter at all here" line of reasoning, but I certainly agree that men's opinions don't matter as much as women's do, seeing as men simply have less at stake.

As I said, women have every concern here that men do regarding their offspring, at least in the sort of culture I'm acclimated to, but they (women) also actually have to do 99% of the production of the offspring.

I mean this is an ancient issue that goes farther than any political addressing of it, further even than culture and society itself. Arguably the primary reason men have been so consistently dominant over women, across cultures, is this asymmetric bodily burden of reproduction. Also arguable is that any sort of culturally systemic injustice follows naturally from this physiological basis.

This biological difference may even be more determinate of male dominance than any trends of selective mating which would gradually result in smaller women being evolutionarily favored, etc - but I don't know the science here, just somewhat-informed conjecture.

But really the focus of this thread is the political addressing of it, specifically the recent developments in Texas.

Some value stati for the record: I largely view the project of liberal democracy as a transcendence of otherwise natural power arrangements, I believe nature itself is radically mutable, and I believe the public sector should be demographically proportional to the population it serves. These beliefs are liable to change, as is the universe itself.
 

thirdform

Well-known member
The ruling position in academic ethics is that abortion is immoral so that's that.

Academic being the key word there.

In reality life rarely conforms to strict determinants of ethical schemas. We are at heart animals with desire for dominance and autonomy (this can manifest in different ways depending on gender, material conditions, etc) but this was Darwin's great insight. Instincts not rationality.

Even the fall from the garden of Eden in the religious mythos admits it to be so. Read satan not as an entity sat to the left of you but as a powerful instinct within the animalistic character of the human.

Pro-life in that context sowes the seeds of its own contradictions.
 
Last edited:

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
Yeah that instinctual basis, including desires of all kinds, does seem to be conveniently ignored by much of progressive culture and discourse. I've done it, and still do it, myself.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
That ties into progress itself being a project of redefining nature, or defying natural precedents, which I won't say is unnatural, because I tend to think only hypothetical things can be unnatural, maybe, as a semantic axiom. There are surely other ways to define these things, though.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
Disgust is an instinct, one of bodily defense, rejecting foreign and therefore potentially toxic substances.

edit: i.e. if a substance has gone unencountered by a body, the body has no precedent for defending against it, recognizing it, accounting for it, etc.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
Whether one is inclined to challenge certain instincts, or honor them, I suppose is a major determinant of their politics.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
I sense that difference in value systems here in the US, and it seems obvious that it generalizes beyond the US, that there are those whose cultures place a high premium on trusting and abiding by instincts.

Stereotyping is a sort of social instinct, rather than challenging the instinctual, default impression you get of a person, or of a kind of person, or of a people. Going with your gut, which is seemingly more susceptible to propaganda than the mind is, e.g. the Nazi depiction of the Jewish people as a contagion, not really a message that is appealing to rationality, but to one's gut and the defense thereof.

edit: changed i.e. to e.g. because these things are important, after all.
 
Last edited:
Top