Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Does the abortion debate reveal what some people really think about women?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Earthhorse wrote: »What were the incentives to bring about the changes in contraceptive legislation? Surely the same logic applies, no? Why has that happened and not abortion rights?
As you know, the sexual 'revolution' of the 1960's and beyond in the West was greatly facilitated by the invention of the Pill. Both men and women benefitted.
Abortion rights - not so much. Only woman stands to gain directly from having the choice to abort or keep the pregnancy. Therefore there is an inherent loss of power here for men who 'don't get to have a choice' ("Women aborting men's babies") ; and if both men and women are influenced in their attitude on this issue by a patriarchal religious teaching such as I mentioned, the laws and the society's mores will favour men on that issue, as it were (or more correctly, disadvantage women).0 -
Advertisement
-
-
As you know, the sexual 'revolution' of the 1960's and beyond in the West was greatly facilitated by the invention of the Pill. Both men and women benefitted.
Abortion rights - not so much. Only woman stands to gain directly from having the choice to abort or keep the pregnancy. Therefore there is an inherent loss of power here for men who 'don't get to have a choice' ("Women aborting men's babies") ; and if both men and women are influenced in their attitude on this issue by a patriarchal religious teaching such as I mentioned, the laws and the society's mores will favour men on that issue, as it were (or more correctly, disadvantage women).
Men who don't want to keep the child do stand to gain from women having the option to abort though. Admittedly the gain is smaller than it is for women (as men can "walk away") but if the incentive to legalise contraception was "no baby" then the incentive to legalise abortion is the same.
There is a loss for men who would never wish to abort given that legalised abortion could only ever be the choice of the pregnant woman, however this does not explain why it was legalised in other countries and not Ireland. Leaving us with the Catholic Church's influence argument - this quickly becomes circular however as if they were truly influential then contraception would never have been legalised and they should also have been able to stop it being legalised in other countries where they had an equally powerful base such as Italy and Spain.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Earthhorse wrote: »This is all just a different explanation for the same result - I don't really buy your "loss of power for men" argument - though I don't think it's really any less obvious than the explanation you have provided.
In the words of the immortal Barbara Stanwyck, "I'm not asking you to buy it".
What is fairly obvious to me (in fact practically jumping out at me, while considering the issue with all the logic I can muster) may not seem at all obvious to you.
So it goes.0 -
-
-
Earthhorse wrote: »And, by implication, there is no "most obvious" explanation.
I thought I made it clear that IMV it's a matter of perspective/opinion, therefore, obviously, I disagree...0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Men and women seem to have no problem arguing that if suicide is grounds for legal abortion, women will fake or exaggerate suicidal thoughts to get what they want. There's a inherent distrust of women, particularly pregnant women, that seems to be innate in some circles.
Personally, I don't have kids yet & I'm a man living abroad, so my experience of the Irish maternity wards is non-existent
But as to the general topic, of the idea of fake-suicidal thoughts as a grounds for a abortion being a judgement on women — to be honest, it's not something that I'd pick up on from the coverage of the issue. I think it's just a reflection that people will view others with a huge amount of cynicism (especially the hypothetical, unknown 'other' as opposed to someone they know well). This seems to be true across the board in Irish society, be it man, woman or child — as someone said earlier about sick days — just that in this case, it will always be women making the decision.
In terms of the X-case, surely no matter what you're opinion on abortion, it has to be legislated for — it's not up for debate, it's the law as it currently stands. If this needs or wants to be changed, it should then (after this legislation has been enacted) go to referendum to be repealled. The liberty with which our legislature fail to enact the will of the people is crazy & wouldn't be tolerated in any other democracy.0 -
I thought I made it clear that IMV it's a matter of perspective/opinion, therefore, obviously, I disagree...
I am not too sure what you are confused about. It is obvious (there's that word again!) when discussing matters such as this that what we're posting are our opinions. In the course of the debate I pointed out some flaws in your explanation to which you said.Er... sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct one.
Obviously (:pac:) you are trying to conflate obviousness with correctness and also implying that your opinion is the "most obvious". That isn't really a counterargument and I'm just pointing that out (your points on Italy and Spain, though I don't agree with them, are counterarguments).
I'm not trying to get hung up on this; I'm happy, as you are, to agree to disagree on the matter, I'm not that vested in changing your mind.
It does bring me neatly onto the point I want to make though, which luckily happens to be far more on topic in any event.
Whenever we argue we have a subjective bias toward the point we are making and it often manifests itself in the way we present our argument including, but not limited to, the words we use. We choose the best words to describe our own points of view and the worst to describe our opponent's. Our arguments (and I am not having a go here, seenitall, I readily admit I do this myself and possibly have even already done so on this thread) are "obvious", "natural", "simple" (not simplistic), "coherent" etc. These words have strict literal definitions, of course, but they also come with an emotional weight that implies "good" or "correct".
These are at the lower end of the scale and tend not to steer discussions of course.
However, the more emotionally invested we are in a debate, the more this predisposition escalates. In particular, it escalates with regard to our portrayal of our opponent's points of view, which are "stupid", "crazy", "irrational", "old fashioned" etc. This has rather more consequences; whereas before we were being kind to ourselves now are being mean to someone else. This results in them being wound up and - unless they are able to check themselves - returning the favour. In short, it is the end of the debate and the start of the argument.
So, any discussion cum argument, can show us a lot about the temperance of a person's character and the quality of their thinking.
Why then, is abortion more illustrative of this than other arguments i.e. why are people more emotionally invested in it?
The answer is because no matter where you lie on the issue, it is a moral one.
Morals aren't a uniquely human thing but we do have a strong attachment to them. We can get upset over abstract concepts such as injustice because of our abilities to abstract and empathise (hence, we can feel sad and even outraged when a fictional character dies in an unfair manner).
For extreme Pro Lifers, the abortion debate is a moral issue because they believe life begins at conception, an ultimately arbitrary point, and due to the primacy of the right to life, there can be no quarter given to the woman, regardless of any danger to her health, of whether she was raped or the foetus's chances of survival. They believe that anyone who thinks otherwise is essentially supporting a woman's right to murder and that all women who make the decision to abort do so with ease and without remorse. Please note I am talking about extreme pro lifers here.
For extreme Pro Choicers, the abortion debate is a moral issue because of the woman's right to bodily integrity, and because of the primacy of this right, and their belief that life does not begin until birth (if they didn't believe this they would have to accept a conflict between the rights accompanying this life and the woman's right to bodily integrity), an equally arbitrary point, and therefore no quarter should be given to the foetus because it is "just a clump of cells". They believe that anyone who thinks otherwise is interested solely in controlling women, through this restriction of rights, is a misogynist, and believes what they believe not because they have thought through the issues but because their religion told them to. Please note I am talking about extreme pro choicers here.
Then there is the vast, vast middle ground - though you would never think it were you to follow the debate online or in the media - which is split between more moderate Pro Lifers and Pro Choicers; the abortion debate is a moral issue for them because they believe there are two important rights in conflict - the woman's right to bodily integrity and the right of a life to that life. Due to the vast array of differing viewpoints in this bracket they are a far harder group to pin down.
They believe that life begins at some point during pregnancy, though they accept that any given point they choose is essentially arbitrary. They believe that there are women for whom abortion is a difficult decision they may struggle to come to terms with for the rest of their life and others for whom the decision is clear and correct from day one and any amount of women in between. They have no wish to control women, either through restrictions on their reproductive rights, or by any other means but they accept that there must be a cut off point for abortions i.e. that the foetus's right to life must supersede the woman's right to abort, provided her life is not at risk, at some point during pregnancy. In short, they do not believe the issue is black and white, nor that people who do not agree with them on a particular point are capable of being pigeon holed in that manner, and are more capable, though often incapable, of having complex discussions on the issue without demonising others.
So you can tell a lot about what an extremist thinks about women because to them women are no more than a pawn in a debate and neatly fit into their one-size-fits-all world. For the middle ground you can tell what they think about women because they are capable of thinking of them as just that - women, with multiple and differing, opinions, beliefs and experiences - and not fitting neatly into a label of self-hating or self-serving. Of course, middle grounders may well have dim opinions on women which you'll be able to tell from the language they use in describing them as would be the case in any other discussion.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement