Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[ElectricFetus]

So this is what you are arguing? Is a woman's life just not worth that much if she's sick and her foetus is viable?

What life? she terminally ill, she dying, I would think most women in her condition would be saying "please save my baby!"

Sure, this is the kind of talk you hear about breeding livestock. For misogynists, of course it would apply to women as well. I mean you get the level of stupid of such a stance, don't you? Or are you simply blind to it? What am I saying, you're asking 'what if you killed a woman and a baby by stuffing a baby back in her womb after it has been born'..

No I don't get what your saying at all. A viable fetus could have a full life, in this case the mother is dying, she does not have the right to take her child to the grave with her.

I don't know about livestock, but a cow can't say if it wants it cafe with it to the 'slaughter house' or not, but if the cow was dying, I would think saving its cafe and killing it would be more likely it wishes (if it had the brain capacity) then letting them both die.

Just to be clear, the only people making the argument to kill live babies here have been you and EF. No one else has. Doesn't that strike you as strange? At all? And the only people making the argument that killing a woman is acceptable has been you and EF. So yeah, what other twisted and sick ways are you two going to think up ways to murder a woman and her baby?

When have I said it is acceptable? I've said some ethical decision can lead to that being acceptable to some, hence why we need to be careful about the ethical frameworks we construct, that via the 'dry foot' model a women can kill a fetus anytime she want, ANYTIME, and for what ever reason, do you accept that model? And for asking that you lump me in with pro-lifers and claim I hate women and want to kill women and babies, do you have now shame making such slanderous comments?

And the only people making moronic things up and directly misrepresenting what we have been saying and lying and applying a standard that DOES NOT EXIST IN REALITY has been you, EF and the other pro-lifer's in this thread.

What have I misrepresented? You want women to have full rights over their bodies, I think I've made that clear repeatedly, is that a misrepresentation? I don't have a problem with that at all, I'm just trying to make an ethical model that encompasses that as well as declares when personhood begins as well, I even suggested a compromise repeatedly: how about we forbid surgery against ones will but we can still charge a women with murder if she forgoes surgery to save her viable fetus that causes it to die? This would still make first and second term abortions legal, and if we add in eugenic exceptions some third term abortions as well, what so wrong with that?, sound very pragmatics and un-extreme to me. But no I ask at what time we can start charging a women for child endangerment, child abuse and murder of her children, suggest it could be applied to viable fetuses and you start claiming I'm a pro-lifer, troll, etc, and that I'm asking unreal hypothetical questions despite the fact they are based on or exactly what happened in real life cases you presented.

 

[Bells]

JamesR pointed out we require to discuss hypotheticals.
I pointed out that EF is doing precisely that.
You (continue to) respond like a hysterical fool.

I challenge you *not to* continue to respond to EF in your clearly illustrated hysterical ad hom smearing fashion.

I don't know, is this the part where I give you a blowjob or am I permitted to show my disgust at your dishonesty and trolling? Perhaps we should ask EF that? Since he has determined those are kind of the choices I have. You know, reminding the only woman taking part in this discussion where she belongs and all that..

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't know, is this the part where I give you a blowjob or am I permitted to show my disgust at your dishonesty and trolling?

guess you opted for for the blow job ... yet again.
:shrug:

Perhaps we should ask EF that? Since he has determined those are kind of the choices I have. You know, reminding the only woman taking part in this discussion where she belongs and all that..

At no time has he suggested your fourth class behaviour is merely gender specific

 

[ElectricFetus]

You would have to be one of the most dishonest hacks to ever grace this site.

I know they can't get an abortion during the birth or just before the baby is born, do you know why? BECAUSE NO DOCTOR WILL PERFORM SUCH A PROCEDURE. How many god damn times does this need to be repeated? Or are you just going to keep lying to make a point that cannot exist in reality? No, really, how many times?

Again a later term abortion can involve induced labor so you are wrong, doctors will and have performed such a procedure it is what a later term abortion generally is.

And again, saying doctors forbid it means your saying doctors make up ethics for women, that doctors have final say on what is right and wrong. Well then if doctors say she needs a c-section and she rejects it, do the doctors have the right to do the c-section against her will?

Nope. That is at the discretion of the abortionist. Roe vs Wade applies the 24 week scale of viability. Do women abort after this point? Yes. Should she have a right to? Yes. However common sense also prevails here, something you and Capracus are clearly lacking and you have instead attributed arguments that are so extreme to myself and others, because you are too god damn dim to apply real life situations and have instead adopted a 'what if' dumbarse and moronic scenarios that could not exist in reality.

Well again on the real life case you present of women being charged with child abuse and child endangerment for doing things that harm or could have harmed their viable fetus, why not? Why is that unacceptable to you, but a women willing harming her viable fetus is to outlandish for you to believe possible.

I even linked an interview with one of the few doctors who perform late term procedures and she clearly states, she will not abort past 35 weeks because it is too close to term. She even clearly states, she will not do it at 35 weeks because it could be at 37 weeks since calculating the exact age is so difficult.

So then does your ethics consist of doctors telling you what is and is not right, and you don't have any ethics of your own on this? Why is it right for a doctor to say that a 35 week fetus can't be aborted, regardless if the women wants to abort it, but that say a 28 week one can be aborted? Worse when you say doctors can forbid a very late term abortion, your saying there are times when a women losses her rights to her body, that someone else, as long as a it a doctor (perhaps only female doctors) can strip pregnant women of their rights over their body, as long as they deem the fetus is old enough past viability.

The doctor who did do that is up on murder charges and rightly so.

Why? via the 'dry foot' model it would not be murder.

Did you even read why it is so rare? And why it is legal?

yes.

You do realise, the only person who has made the argument for eugenics has been you, right?

Not at all for when ever you say there is a medical exception on the part of the fetus that makes an abortion more acceptable your making allowance for eugenics.

Do you think this is not something that is considered? Again, stop making crap up. If a woman is 24 weeks pregnant (the line of viability) and she cannot survive a c-section because she needs urgent life saving treatment, and for the foetus to survive, it needs to come out by a c-section... Which would you choose?

it could come out via induced labor then, both ways would be pretty risky for her, that would also account for an emergency abortion as well. Do you think forcibly stretching up her cervix, trusting in forceps, chopping up the baby and scraping everything out is that much better then a c-section, or removing the fetus completely intact? Frankly I don't think emergency abortions happen, it might be one of those hypothetical you disdain, but because it comes from you it is somehow acceptable to consider: Well again if having to kill it or her was the only options in this hypothetical you provided, other metrics beside viability would need to be considered, those would generally side with killing it to safe her, these include consciousness, social value, ability to feel pain, etc, etc, now if c-sections or induce labor does not provide any greater risk to her then an 'emergency' abortion then viability would win out and do a c-section or induce labor instead to try to save the fetus as well as her.

Well since you already established that if a woman is sick, then she just isn't worth that much to you, so we already know what you would pick if your "breeder" is ill.

This is your logic applied back to you: "Well you already established that a women can take her child to the grave with her if she wants, see we already know you hate children."

Because a foetus is not a person and viability does not always mean 'will survive'.

When is a fetus a person, if a fetus is not a person then that covers from embryo to moments before birth, not a person, but you say it would be murder if it's killed moments before birth, there for it IS a person, yet is still a fetus? So when is a fetus as person? From what I can surmise your ethics are that its when no doctor would perform an abortion it is a person, is that the arbitrary measure you use?

Your right, I had forgotten the level of perverts I was dealing with. For example, thus far I have been compared to a plethora of things and had the title of supporting murder of babies assigned to my name. Now here you are saying that I might as well give trolls a blow job because "gasp", I actually apply reality to my argument. Because it isn't sexist at all to tell a woman that when she deals with men like you, then I might as well just give trolls like you a blowjob. And you have the nerve to say that I should not show my disgust at the display of misogyny and just downright stupidity I have seen here?

If you think we are trolls, then no you should not, any time you recognize a trolls existence in any way, whether it to eschew there 'misogyny' or 'stupidity', they win. The only way to stop a troll is to ignore a troll, no matter what they say.

Really, you sit there and wonder how to kill a woman and you are surprised that I react with disgust?

I was not wondering any such thing.

You fucking sit there and determine that if a woman is terminally ill, then she just isn't worth that much or worth considering and you expect me to just, well, get on my fucking knees and suck you off,

Again if I was a troll, then that is metaphorically what you have already done by replying to me, and are continuing to do by replying to me. If you truly believe I'm a troll you need to stop reply to me and 'pleasing me'.

because if I find people like you offensive and disgusting, well, that's just giving you what you want, so I should just suck your dick right off the bat? I'll put it this way, I'd have rather have eaten the placenta.

Well then I recommend you eat placenta then.

I mean I could come up with all sorts of weird fantasies that cannot ever exist in reality to destroy another person's argument, but hey, reality is sick enough.

Killing a viable fetus in a later term abortion is not a weird fantasies that will never ever exist in reality, it happens in reality, is real, and not fantastical.

Your point?

Why do you say 'men' then?

Well yes dumbass, which is why the midwife asked me if I wanted it. Did you notice I never said that no woman would want to eat her placenta? It was already established that some do. But again, it's much easier for you to lie than deal with reality, yes?

But you have said no women would want to kill her fetus right before it born, yet women do. Women kill it in late term abortions, women even kill it after it is born, but that time slot in between is somehow impossible psychological for ALL women, or somehow impossible to do because it's also psychological impossible for ALL doctors, therefor we don't need to consider the ethics of personhood if it starts in this 'impossible' time slot, is that what your saying?

1) So again the fetus before viable, not a person and can be aborted, not murder.
2) After viable, not a person you say, can be aborted, not murdered.
3) Right before birth, IMPOSSIBLE TO BE ABORTED THEREFOR NOT TO QUESTION HOW IT BECOMES A PERSON HERE, you say if indirectly.
4) Right after its is born a person, murder, you agree.

So for the first and last we agree, I have a few objections about the second but I generally agree, but the third...

Oh wow.. it just gets more stupid and more dishonest with more lying...

Exactly what am I lying about? And why can't I get a simple answer to a simple question: "can a women abort a viable fetus for what ever reason she wants? why or why not?"

 

[Bells]

guess you opted for for the blow job ... yet again.
:shrug:


At no time has he suggested your fourth class behaviour is merely gender specific

Wow..

So if I express disgust at your misogynistic arguments and trolling, then I may as well just give you a blow job, because hey, the more I show how much I can't stand it, the more appealing it is to men like you, right?

Essentially this is what you are arguing.

Meanwhile, in this thread, I have been accused of raping people, murdering people, supporting the murder of babies.. My expressing disgust at such blatant dishonesty and lying? Well, I should just not protest because some trolls get off on people showing disgust of their behaviour, so much so that I might as well have just offered them a blow job..

And your response to this? To essentially tell me that I should just be quiet, like a good little girl, and not respond. You know, close my eyes and think of England, don't fight back and make it worse for myself and if I dare to show my disgust for men like you, then hey, you guys get off on that, so I may as well just give you a blowjob. Because as EF responds just above, my responding to the likes of you and him, well, I'm just asking for it. So why bother with the pleasantries.

I should either just take it quietly and say nothing, not protest, not show how disgusting your attitudes are, not point out the misogyny of your beliefs.. No, to do that is just asking, so much so that yeah, I should just suck your collective dicks and just give you all what you want, according to EF that is.

The irony, of course, is that you complain when we call you a misogynist.

I mean it's one way to win an argument, isn't it? EF is trying to win this at all cost. The kicker, in his opinion is to declare that if I respond to his trolling, then yeah, I may as well just suck his dick. Because it all just pleases him that I respond to him. Nah, not misogynistic at all.

 

[lightgigantic]

Wow..

I'll say.
Its like you are so hysterical you have actually lost the ability to read.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Bells, again not reply to troll would be you winning, that would be metaphorically not sucking a trolls dick, but reply to trolls "turns trolls on" it is exactly why trolls say the stuff they say so people reply to them, for 'hte lulz', so every time you reply to a troll your appealing to them, they win, no matter what you say, you are doing the metaphorical equivalent of sucking them off. So if you believe we are trolls you need to stop replying to us.

But I don't think you believe we are trolls, I think your just saying that without actually knowing what your saying, like viability, and you call us names because you have fallen to the bottom of the argument pyramid. I don't think you honestly believe we have (well at least I have not, I can't say for the others) have been accused you of raping people, murdering people, supporting the murder of babies, etc, for if you did logically assume we are just saying things to get a rise out of you for 'hte lulz', and therefor should be ignored like the silly stupid, moronic trolls you keep saying or implying we are.

Again if you believe we are trolls, then don't reply to us for your giving trolls precisely what trolls want, unless you like giving trolls what they want and... well I already explained what that metaphorical means.

If you think on the other hand that we are not trolls then by all means continue to reply to us.

You know that Lightgigantic, I think Bells is a troll, lets show her how its done, I would like to argue with you, a polite intellectual discussion where trolls are ignored. So let I'll begin:

I believe abortion should be legal, do you disagree, how so?

 

[Randwolf]

What life? she terminally ill, she dying, I would think most women in her condition would be saying "please save my baby!"

What about the (hypothetical) ones that choose differently? What is your ethical position on those mothers with a month or two to live that would prefer to abort and enjoy those months? What do you say to them? Do you change their minds with force, because, well, it's "the right thing to do"?

Here comes the duck, weave, avoid maneuver again...

 

[lightgigantic]

I believe abortion should be legal, do you disagree, how so?

If there is an argument for it "should being legal", I think it arises from society having stabilized on an unsatisfactory level of performance.
IOW I think it is essentially a criminal act when the decision is reduced from the parameters of the rights of two people (ie, the mother and the child) to that of merely the mother, but given the current state of affairs, outright prohibition would in many environments prove impractical (Much like prohibition was in the 1920's).
I think that it should be provisional and, generally speaking, more regulated.

In short, I think the real arena of implementation of a better standard (which would see abortion unpopularized) arises from what society's informally establish as distasteful ... as distinct from legal implementation.

 

[Randwolf]

In short, I think the real arena of implementation of a better standard (which would see abortion unpopularized) arises from what society's informally establish as distasteful ... as distinct from legal implementation.

Mighty white of you there LG to downgrade choice to merely "distasteful" as opposed to "illegal". I would imagine many of those womenfolk... well, dey be thankin you much massuh for your magnanimous approach to this.

 

[Randwolf]

I believe abortion should be legal

In short, I think the real arena of implementation of a better standard (which would see abortion unpopularized) arises from what society's informally establish as distasteful ... as distinct from legal implementation.

Wow, two in a row. I think that only leaves Syne and Capracus still holding out. You're on a roll Bells...

 

[Tiassa]

Scuh-rooooood

Because it all just pleases him that I respond to him. Nah, not misogynistic at all.

At this point, I'm just sitting back and letting the misogynists drive the point.

I mean, look where we're at:

• What happens to a woman's human rights under LACP?

―"I think the real arena of implementation of a better standard (which would see abortion unpopularized) arises from what society's informally establish as distasteful ... as distinct from legal implementation."​

We're now down to reshaping society in order to avoid discussing the implications of the principle within the framework of the law. Of course we need to establish that the law is a separate question from establishing laws. It's self-evident, you know? And if you weren't a woman, you would realize this.

Of course, if they were women, they would be hysterical lunatics. But they're not; they're men, so instead they're just right, and if you weren't a woman you would understand.

Or maybe there's something yet to emerge in the psychoanalysis. To the other, we've got LightGigantic invoking the institutionalized sexual abuse of women because he thinks it's an effective insult.

Yeah. We come back to the question of why proud misogynists are proud to behave misogynistically, but ashamed of their misogyny.

Of course, with over four decades of practice, they've had plenty of time to sharpen their knives.

One of the interesting effects of this attitude is that it turns on itself.

Birth control access, which is currently contested as state-sponsored abortion, reduces the number of abortions.

Sex education, which is wrongly protested as contributing to an increase in unintended pregnancies and, therefore, abortions.

Cultural and societal roles, which see many conservatives prescribing for women a role that fosters their reproductive and domestic-service functions.

Lesbians.

The list goes on ....

My point being that it undermines our neighbor's "better standard" if we stop to consider other aspects associated with the abortion question.

It's a dissonance between the idea of "safe, legal, rare" and "baby-murderers". It's why some in the movement insist on the term "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice". The whole thing is one big straw man that needs to be set alight.

"In short, I think the real arena of implementation of a better standard (which would see abortion unpopularized) arises from what society's informally establish as distasteful ... as distinct from legal implementation."​

See abortion unpopularized — Abortion is "popular" the way funerals are "popular". That is to say, they happen. That one does not like the statistics describing how often such things happen does not mean those things are "popular". To wit, 2012 saw over 1.2 million reports of chalmydial infection. If I sold 1.2 million albums in a year, my band would be popular. However, 1.2 million new chlamydia cases does not mean C. trachomatis is "popular". To suggest that chlamydia patients should be treated decently and maintain their human rights is not to suggest that everyone else should go out and contract the disease.

What society has informally established as distasteful — This is one of those vague notions that can break either way. To the one, even pro-choice finds abortion distasteful. To the other, anti-abortion finds women distasteful. So which informal distaste should become tasty?

As distinct from legal implementation — Well, with personhood laws in the legislatures, on the ballot, and even in Congress, it might be time to talk about legal implementation. Too bad nobody started a thread on that subject, eh?

Of course, since our avoidance of any discussion of a woman's human rights has scraped so low that we now have an anti-abortion advocate invoking the institutionalized sexual abuse of women in an effort to insult a woman, well ... right. Okay, can we be done with the misogyny and try to have a useful discussion? Or do women need to hop in the back seat again, so men like LG can argue about the best way to screw them?

 

[ElectricFetus]

What about the (hypothetical) ones that choose differently? What is your ethical position on those mothers with a month or two to live that would prefer to abort and enjoy those months? What do you say to them? Do you change their minds with force, because, well, it's "the right thing to do"?

Here comes the duck, weave, avoid maneuver again...

Those that choose differently would be subject to the viability standard which would put the fetus over them: the fetus needs to be removed regardless if it extends or delays the few weeks she has left to live. So in that scenario of the mother being terminally ill and wanting to take her viable fetus to the grave with her, she should be forbidden. So I think a women can be restricted in this specific case, only by the fact that it not a right for anyone, man or women, to take their child to die with them.

Of course if we also implement the "no forced surgeries" standard as well then she can take it to the grave and technically she would die before any trial for her murder would take place too. I guess I could live with terminally ill mothers that want their viable fetus to die with them, happening. It sounds rare enough that the fact that death will allow them to escape the justice system is an unfortunate oddity, I guess their corpse/ashes can be buried in a nondescript goverment grave reserved to convicts if we want to implement a posthumous punishment.

So I think that was a direct answer to your question, but no please tell me how I duck and weave.

If there is an argument for it "should being legal", I think it arises from society having stabilized on an unsatisfactory level of performance.
IOW I think it is essentially a criminal act when the decision is reduced from the parameters of the rights of two people (ie, the mother and the child) to that of merely the mother, but given the current state of affairs, outright prohibition would in many environments prove impractical (Much like prohibition was in the 1920's).
I think that it should be provisional and, generally speaking, more regulated.

Exactly what regulations do we need? I would think that abortifacient that are safe and effective should be available at doctors prescription for women in early pregnancy, so I don't see much regulation needed, well at least for first trimester pregnancy. It only needs to be regulated as far as to optimize women's health up until viability at which point saving the fetus starts to become a concern and abortions on demand would need to fall to abortions only for specific cases such as that the pregnancy can't be continued (yet removing the fetus alive is somehow not possible) or eugenic reasoning if we a society can stomach allowing that or admitting we still have some of that reasoning.

In short, I think the real arena of implementation of a better standard (which would see abortion unpopularized) arises from what society's informally establish as distasteful ... as distinct from legal implementation.

I can live with that, tolerance does not mean you need to love what other people do, merely stay out of there way and let them do what they do and try not to watch. But you live in a society that does need to make laws, laws for abortion, you say you want it more regulated, how so, and would you be letting out intolerance in doing so?

Wow, two in a row. I think that only leaves Syne and Capracus still holding out. You're on a roll Bells...

I been proven to be pro-choice since I began posting on this forum. So if Bells won me over it would have to have been a LONG time ago.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

We come back to the question of why proud misogynists are proud to behave misogynistically, but ashamed of their misogyny.

Misogyny is an ancient attitude, and ancient attitudes are the province of the conservatives. As I've noted before, conservatives as a demographic group are driven more by emotion than logic. So the conflict you see in their attitudes is simply invisible to them because it's based on logic.

 

[Randwolf]

Those that choose differently would be subject to the viability standard which would put the fetus over them: the fetus needs to be removed regardless if it extends or delays the few weeks she has left to live. So in that scenario of the mother being terminally ill and wanting to take her viable fetus to the grave with her, she should be forbidden.

...

So I think that was a direct answer to your question, but no please tell me how I duck and weave.

Like this:

Oh no, no way, you're not getting away with that one. You like hypotheticals, this one should be clear. Since you apparently didn't understand it though, I will restate.

The medical situation is such that the prognosis for the mother carrying to term is near certain death, only aborting a "viable" fetus will prevent this. Furthermore, the woman can only expect to live [insert time frame here - 5 weeks, 50 weeks, 500 weeks] even after having the abortion because of her terminal disease. Needless to say (I would think), the expectant mother desires to abort in this case. What is the "ethical" action to take? What say ye now?

What the difference between doing induce labor or c-section verses aborting the viable fetus at this stage? Why would the formers kill her but the later allow her to live apparently a full life span? But what ever ok if it's really is kill one or the other: the viability model would require the state to determine which one to killed, since the viable fetus would have rights now (though not at a many as the women) at which point we would need to ask for other standards to help decide which one need to kill, a full ethical framework. If we add in the standards of consciousness and social member value the answer would clearly be kill the fetus, the women is conscious and has social value, the fetus does not.

So, once again, exactly how many weeks / months / years does a terminally ill woman need to have left before you wouldn't "prohibit" her from a lifesaving procedure, namely abortion? Is this hypothetical just not clear enough for you or something? The mother will surely die if she carries to term or the foetus is "extracted". She will live for months if she is allowed access to abortion. What is the right thing to do? And please don't tell me "We would have to take a look at all the variables involved and apply the viability model and the the State would have to take a broader view of all the larger ethical issues involved and then... well, then ummm... I'm not going to answer." Instead, try to be concise with your answer and not - well, duck and weave.

I been proven to be pro-choice since I began posting on this forum.

Really? How do you reconcile that statement with this?

So in that scenario of the mother being terminally ill and wanting to take her viable fetus to the grave with her, she should be forbidden.

Emphasis mine

 

[ElectricFetus]

So, once again, exactly how many weeks / months / years does a terminally ill woman need to have left before you wouldn't "prohibit" her from a lifesaving procedure, namely abortion?

And as I said before only as long as it would take to bring a pregnancy to term, so 3 months max or the time between viability and birth.

Is this hypothetical just not clear enough for you or something? The mother will surely die if she carries to term or the foetus is "extracted". She will live for months if she is allowed access to abortion. What is the right thing to do?

If she is going to die before the viable fetus can be born naturally, then it should be extracted, if the extraction is going to kill her then and there so be it. Alternatively might as well wait for her to die and then extract the baby from her the moments after she dies.

Really? How do you reconcile that statement with this?Emphasis mine

Let see, I said women should be allowed abortions on demand all the way up to viability, and still be allow abortions for specific medical reasons afterwards as well. A reason I don't count though are cases of terminally ill women wanting to abort a viable fetus because some how aborting it will extend their life an extra few weeks verse having the baby extracted alive, whether such cases are real or hypothetical, besides there should be no medical reason that would make extracting the fetus alive less beneficial to the women's health then extracting it dead, a late trimester abortion as Bell's citations can attest is not a medical procedure without serious risk for the mother, as it involves jacking her crevice open, inducing labor, removing the fetus half way by force or cutting it up insider her, scraping everything out, not exactly a procedure that would provide much benefit for the terminally ill, so I have contention with the idea that an abortion would be "life saving" for her, any more so then a c-section or induce labor would also be "life saving" for her.

 

[Bells]

Wow, two in a row. I think that only leaves Syne and Capracus still holding out. You're on a roll Bells...

Best be careful. Soon he will tell you that you might as well give him a blowjob instead of responding to him and refusing to take his moronic arguments seriously.. Oh wait, no, only I get the joys of comments like that. You're lucky to be a male.

 

[Bells]

Of course, if they were women, they would be hysterical lunatics. But they're not; they're men, so instead they're just right, and if you weren't a woman you would understand.

Or maybe there's something yet to emerge in the psychoanalysis. To the other, we've got LightGigantic invoking the institutionalized sexual abuse of women because he thinks it's an effective insult.

Yeah. We come back to the question of why proud misogynists are proud to behave misogynistically, but ashamed of their misogyny.

Of course, with over four decades of practice, they've had plenty of time to sharpen their knives.

Isn't it amazing how these men try and shut down the only woman participating in this discussion by telling her that replying to them would be just like giving them a blowjob? Because hey, if I keep responding to their trolling and their advocating of killing women, then I obviously must enjoy giving them pleasure, so I may as well give them a blowjob.

LG's 'you're hysterical' argument reeks of so much sexism, and then joining in on the blowjob comments, because hey, I responded to him, so I went with the blowjob comment, or when he dared me to not respond to EF's comments in a manner that was not prim and proper and ladylike.

I have a few choices left open to me as a moderator on this site, in the face of such sexual harassment.

1) Disregard my ethical standard of not moderating people I am arguing with about something and actually moderate them for this latest troll that is nothing more than sexual harassment and pure misogyny, that it literally made my skin crawl in disgust.

2) Respond to their sexual harassment and sexual taunting and thus, you know, give them more pleasure, so much so that I might as well just be in my place and give them a blowjob.

3) Jut mind my place and be quiet and not say a word, you know, be a woman, lest I be asking for it..


What charming choices.

Perhaps this is where male privilege comes into the fray? Notice none of the men in this thread, even pro-choice ones and those who have been arguing for the same thing I have been, have given the hysterical female and 'might as well give us a blowjob' style of argument?

So which one do I pick? Am I asking for it by even responding about this?

It reminds me of Rush Limbaugh, when he told Fluke that she might as well tape herself having sex and let them all watch, so they can get something out of it. It is a manner in which to shut women out of any discussion about her own sexual and reproductive choices. Pure and simple misogyny. Don't want to have men making such comments? Well just shut up and know your place, otherwise you're just a hysterical female. Because any woman who disagrees with a man is either a) asking for it, b) hysterical, and c) both a) and b).

 

[Tiassa]

Coffeehouse Romanticism

Misogyny is an ancient attitude, and ancient attitudes are the province of the conservatives. As I've noted before, conservatives as a demographic group are driven more by emotion than logic. So the conflict you see in their attitudes is simply invisible to them because it's based on logic.

That certainly works well enough for you and me if we're having that conversation at the pub or coffee house.

In practice, however, as we might apply it here, such a point only reminds the futility of trying to discuss these issues. And that is what it is, but since it's not just pure fantasy, but an issue with living implications ... er ... right.

Give us enough coffee, you and I might be able to solve every problem in the world. Give us enough beer, we might even think we know how to implement the plan. The wrench, of course, comes in communicating that result to those who refuse substantive communication, those who think the problem is the solution.

 

[lightgigantic]

Mighty white of you there LG to downgrade choice to merely "distasteful" as opposed to "illegal". I would imagine many of those womenfolk... well, dey be thankin you much massuh for your magnanimous approach to this.

Do you think it's distasteful for a pregnant woman to chain smoke and binge drink ... even though technically their is no prohibitive measures to prevent her?
Assuming that you do think it's distasteful, and that you would strongly implore any woman you were socially connected to not to behave in such a manner, is this view of yours a consequence of your skin color?
:shrug: