Absolam wrote: » I'd imagine a rapist could only be denied access to their biological offspring on the same basis as any other biological father could be; their fitness to be a father, as determined by our welfare and courts system. Where the fact that he raped the child's mother is not likely to be a sterling reference?
Cabaal wrote: » Plenty of men that are rapists are still allowed access to their children, so you personally be ok with denying the child a father? Your view...not dodging the question by referring to courts again.
Cabaal wrote: » Plenty of men that are rapists are still allowed access to their children, so you personally would be ok with denying the child a father? Your view...not dodging the question by referring to courts again.
volchitsa wrote: » I really don't understand what point you're making here. Because you've reached some sort of agreement to differ with your wife doesn't make either of you right and the fact that a woman (according to you) is against abortion under any circumstances doesn't automatically make such a stance any more - or any less - humane.
As for "under any circumstances", well again we only have your word for it, but let's assume it's true. Take the 9 year old child who was pregnant by her stepfather in South America - how can anyone who dismisses her right not to give birth at 10 years of age to her rapist's baby say they hold that stance to be humane? Clearly it isn't, it's ignoring one child's human rights in favour of granting human rights to something that isnt even sentient. A child who was raped can be the victim of a second crime of forced birth - how is that humane? It isn't.
lazygal wrote: » So your wife opposes abortion in order to save a woman's life?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Similar to what eviltwin covered above, it's why I don't bring my work home with me (well, not most of the time anyway). When someone who is an adult makes a definitive statement like that, any presenting them with "but what if this, but what if that, but what if the other...", isn't going to change their minds, and after nearly 20 years, I think I'd know my wife is just one of those types of people who is pretty adamant once she sets her mind on something. I said it in another thread here recently that I don't think my wife is callous or would intentionally want to hurt anyone or any of the rest of it, but I understand why she feels the way she does, because she doesn't think she will ever be in that position, and realistically, she's probably right.
volchitsa wrote: » That's pretty much the dictionary definition of "callous" though I can quite understand why you would not wish to think that of your wife.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Cheers for pointing that out. The discussion regarding abortion has once again been reduced to dictionary definitions and their interpretation. FWIW though, it's neither the dictionary definition of callous, nor would I have any issue with pointing out someone was being callous if they were. Being related to me in some way would make no difference whatsoever, because I'm actually far more pragmatic than my wife, who often times would see what she thinks is my lack of empathy as callous. She's wrong in her assumption, but I don't spend all day arguing with her with the OED in my arse pocket.
Samaris wrote: » However it's looked at, it's a bit morally cowardly to sit on the position of not in my backyard, and exporting it to the next country over. Not unheard of in other countries too of course, but still. Abortion is always going to happen. And it's far too simplistic to make comments about "just because they feel like it". I would hazard that it's never a light option and it wasn't back in the days of coat-hangers or throwing yourself down the stairs either! Things said approximately never: "To Do Today - get milk, newspaper, abortion..."
volchitsa wrote: » Well I'm only going by what you say, which is all we have here. So how exactly is it not being callous to say that it doesn't matter all that much if something terrible happens to someone else, because it won't happen to me? That is what you said, isn't it?
lazygal wrote: » Your wife thinks a woman like me who could well be pregnant shortly should die rather than have an abortion. Sounds callous to me.
lazygal wrote: » Tl/Dr your wife would vote for a law that would let me die rather than have an abortion. I've never been a suicidal 14 year old pregnant rape victim but that doesn't make me unable to empathize with miss x.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Yes but that's you, speaking from your perspective, and that's grand, I can't contradict you, nor would I try to, as that would just be silly. In the same way, I'm not going to contradict my wife if she says she cannot empathise with a suicidal 14 year old pregnant rape victim. I wouldn't expect her to be able to, as she has never experienced what it is to be a suicidal 14 year old pregnant rape victim.
lazygal wrote: » What a bizarre way to deal with the world. Where unless you've experienced the precise situation someone else has been in you're simply unable to empathise with them. I'd find it very difficult to be around someone who simply couldn't empathise with a suicidal 14 year old rape victim because it had never happened to them.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Right now you're unable to empathise with someone whom you don't share their perspective, because you haven't shared their experiences. It's really not that bizarre at all. I understand why you would find it difficult to be around someone who doesn't think the same way you do, but it's never presented any difficulty for me, probably because I'm not so quick to pass judgement on people for one aspect of which we don't see eye to eye.
lazygal wrote: » I can empathise with her because I used to, to my shame, argue along similar lines. I now know i thought like this because of my religious schooling where the sex ed we got, which was generally good, contained large doses of anti abortion propaganda. I'm really sorry for her that she's seeing the world in such black and white terms and missing out on all the subtle shades of gray. Maybe if you shared her experiences with me of why she arrived at the conclusion that I should die rather than have an abortion my view of her could be more nuanced?
eviltwin wrote: » Neither have I but ffs you don't need to have been in that position to have a shred of empathy and respect for someone else.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Some people don't, some people do. If I ever meet two people who think the same way and share exactly the same perspective, it'll be a first. Some people think in terms of issues, some people think in terms of human life - who they have a shred of empathy and respect for, and the degree of empathy and respect they have for other people, will usually vary depending upon numerous factors. If we're criticising black and white thinking here, would it not be just as hypocritical not to take that into account that every person doesn't think in the same terms we do?
One eyed Jack wrote: » (Reminds me of the Gospel this morning at mass, the story of the woman that had committed adultery, and the crowd wanted her to be stoned to death. I'm sure you're familiar with how it goes - "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone", and there was nobody left to throw stones. Same principle here really)
One eyed Jack wrote: » Yeah that's not what I said though, that's your interpretation of what I said, given either your unwillingness, or your incapacity to empathise with someone who would think that way. They're clearly not the same thing, and while I tend to make allowances for people who are incapable of empathising with someone (given that they may have no experience of what that person has experienced, they lack perspective), I'm not given to making allowances for people who are capable of empathising with another person's experience, but choose not to. That's callous. In your case (and in my wife's case obviously), I make allowances. I wouldn't judge someone for something they are simply incapable of being able to relate to. Well if she were to put herself in your position, she would rather that she would die than have an abortion. She wouldn't, as I've previously said, be so callous as to pass judgement upon a woman who has had an abortion, but she doesn't agree with abortion nor legislating for abortion under any circumstances. She wouldn't tell you personally what you should do, but with regard to the Constitution, she would be entitled to vote whatever way she wants in a referendum, and stories that she cannot relate to in any way, wouldn't change her perspective. That's not callous, as how can anyone be expected to empathise with someone or something which they have no experience of? That's why it's more important (to me personally anyway), to ensure that people are informed with the facts, so that they can make real and informed choices, for themselves, rather than being used as a political football between two sides.
volchitsa wrote: » There's an excess of moral equivalence here that I find hard to comprehend, TBF. It's not about thinking in the same terms, it's about empathy, which is a normal human trait, to the extent that those without it are considered to be psychopathic. Someone who feels more empathy for a non sentient being than for a person with feelings and who may well have small children who are dependent on them, to the extent of letting that person die is seriously warped - but in this case we know that that's almost certainly due to the brainwashing of a religious education rather than to some innate psychopathic tendency.
The result however - a worrying lack of empathy for another group of people - is similar.
lazygal wrote: » Not really, not if you don't think there's any such thing as sin.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Well that's why I said the principle is the same. Like obviously I know you're not religious so the idea of sins would make no odds to informing your morality, but at least you'd be familiar with the principle at least, upon which the ideology is based.
