theoretical ethical question

Tue Jul 01, 2003 12:30 am by Cynicism Inc.

http://www.nrlc.org/Missionstatement.htm

"The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to a United States Supreme Court decision released on January 22 of that year, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states... The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life."

http://www.feministsforlife.org/who/

"We oppose all forms of violence including abortion, infanticide, child abuse, domestic violence, assisted suicide, euthanasia and capital punishment, and the exploitation of women and children, as they are inconsistent with the core feminist principles of justice, nonviolence and nondiscrimination."

http://www.all.org/policy.htm

"Emphasize the destructive effects of the contraceptive mentality on the traditional family and on society as a whole. We must make known the statistical evidence that clearly shows the relationship between the practice of contraception and promiscuity, abortion, escalating rates of divorce, increased incidence of venereal diseases, physiological and psychological damage (to both women and men) and the rapid spread of AIDS... The ultimate goal of all of these objectives is the ratification of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protects all innocent human beings from fertilization, without exception." (Edit: Not sure what they mean by "fertilization." )

http://www.ohiolife.org/about.asp

"To promote and defend the rights of all innocent human beings from the time of fertilization until natural death by eliminating practices such as abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia."

I could keep going, but there are hundreds of sites that say essentially the same thing.

As for being fair, I'm not really interested in that, either. I'm pointing out what seems to me to be a logical extention of your argument that leads to an unacceptable conclusion. If you don't like it, find another agrument.

Tue Jul 01, 2003 12:33 am by freighter fighter

wow nice work

, im sure i can find another topic to argue over

Tue Jul 01, 2003 1:17 am by PppyChow

woah cynicism...you went all out with the research! Oh and hows it in WA...im going there on thurs.

Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:34 am by Cynicism Inc.

I did NOT go all out on that research. I spent 10 minutes on google hitting major and minor pro-life/right to life sites. I got a little ticked when Fear Factor got a little ticked, and felt like I needed to support my claim about the pro-life movement. I'm a polisci/classical languages major, and to be told I don't understand a major theme in current American politics got to me. But that pro-life issue was aside to the main discussion here, which I don't think is over. I'd like to hear people who wish to respond do so, or propose another argument for mens obligation. I don't think I've voiced an opinion, I've just critizised others so far. The reason I haven't voiced an opinion is because I don't have a compelling argument for it. And critizing is more fun. I hope the conversation isn't ruined?

Tue Jul 01, 2003 11:09 am by freighter fighter

from all.org, how can contraceptives be a destructive influence on the family?

and from the feminist site, what feminist things in law??

Tue Jul 01, 2003 11:36 am by Fear Factor

My own post:

most pro-lifes are supportive birth control methods other than abortion.

And out of ALL the statements and sources you brought us, there was only ONE that "studies the relationship between the practice of contraception and promiscuity, abortion, escalating rates of divorce, increased incidence of venereal diseases, physiological and psychological damage (to both women and men) and the rapid spread of AIDS..." etc etc. It was American Life League, a staunch Catholic Church site. I never denied that religious organisations do oppose all birth controls. Does not change the fact that MOST pro-life crowds are moderates and supportive of birth controls. So thank you for proving my point

Your statement generalized them and lumped them together with the extremists.

I'm pointing out what seems to me to be a logical extention of your argument that leads to an unacceptable conclusion.

Be more specific. Which logical extension? and "unacceptable conclusion"? Please elaborate. Everybody can scream "unacceptable conclusion!" without really knowing how to counter an argument.

Tue Jul 01, 2003 4:41 pm by Cynicism Inc.

from one of my previous posts:

"FF (Fear Factor), Let's see if I get this argument right.

1) Women have absolute control over reproduction, ie the option to abort.
2) Men are obligated to support women who choose to reproduce
3) Men's only option in the reproduction discussion is to avoid sex. Otherwise
Caveat Emptor. Is that right?

(Edit: The above is my understanding of your argument, Fear Factor)

The Cynical Interpretation (TM) of those statements:

Women can either have sex and have a baby, or have sex and not have a baby.
Or, to say it another way,
Women can have sex to reproduce, or have sex for reasons other than reproduction (ie. pleasure).
Men can choose to have sex, or not have sex. In the first case, they are commited to the outcome. Or to say it another way, they must be prepared to reproduce, they have no other option.

To sum up all of that in one sentence: women can have sex to reproduce, or for pleasure, but men can only have sex to reproduce. That's a drastic statement. The very nature of sex (the act) is limited by sex (the atribute). Anyone like this idea? I certanly don't."

This statement, "The very nature of sex (the act) is limited by sex (the atribute)" is unacceptable. This is an extremely sexist statement that was applied to women in practice if not in theory for most of history; it ought not be ressurected even to protect women today. If the "Men are just obligated, period" argument gets you here, I think its best to find another argument. There may be other arguments by which men support women with an unwanted pregnancy that can't possibly be carried to this sort of extreme.

Tue Jul 01, 2003 5:38 pm by freighter fighter

Women can have sex to reproduce, or have sex for reasons other than reproduction (ie. pleasure).
Men can choose to have sex, or not have sex. In the first case, they are commited to the outcome. Or to say it another way, they must be prepared to reproduce, they have no other option.

so your saying that men cannot have sex for fun at all yet women can ?

Tue Jul 01, 2003 6:00 pm by Tachyon

That's a very interesting theory, considering the massive popularity of condoms and recreational sex men (try to, in some cases) enjoy.

Tue Jul 01, 2003 6:11 pm by Cynicism Inc.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying its implied in the argument, and for that reason I don't like the argument.

Tue Jul 01, 2003 9:22 pm by Fear Factor

In the context of an unwanted pregnancy, yes, only the woman can have sex for pleasure, while this right is denied to the man. But only, ONLY if you consider a trip to the abortion clinic part of the "pleasure". Now I do admit that it is one solution, but please show me one woman who wouldn't undo the sexual intercourse that had to end in an abortion if they could. If it means having unwanted pregnancy and then have a doctor scrape the inside of your womb, no sexual pleasure is THAT good.

Let's break it down: in the case of unwanted pregnancy...

1. woman must/have the sole right to abort or keep baby. Man is spared/denied this decision-making.

2. if she chooses to abort, SHE makes the trip to abortion clinic. Man can sit at home, flee country, or give moral and/or financial support. Gee, a relief.

3. if she chooses to keep and then give up the baby, SHE must bear the child for the next 9 months, attend lamaze classes, and suffer the birth process. Man can sit at home, flee country, or give moral and/or financial support. Relief again.

4. if she chooses to keep and raise the baby, SHE must bear the child for the next 9 months, attend lamaze classes, and suffer the birth process, the breastfeeding, upbringing etc. Man can sit at home, flee country, or give moral and/or financial support. Another relief for men.

You complain that the man lacks comfortable options. But as you can see, the woman has even fewer options. They're stuck with the hardwork, and considering that it takes two to come up with the mess, it's only sensible that the man supports the woman, whatever her decision is. It's as much HIS mess as HERS, but HE has more options as to how to deal with the situation.

Edited by - Fear Factor on 01-07-2003 22:37:19

Tue Jul 01, 2003 9:42 pm by Arcon

this 'decisision thing' being to soul right of the woman is stupid
flip this argument on its head a second:
businesswoman beds joe mechanic, businesswoman gets up the duff. SUPPOSING she wants to abort the child cause it would ruin her career at that point in her life but our man joe wants a kid cause hes 35 and he never knows when the opportunity may arise again for kids and he doesnt wanna be too old when the kid is born.

the decision rights to something that AFFECTS 2 people SHOULD NOT be given to ONE person, this is basic, OBVIOUS logic here people.

i'm with cynic (or whoever said it), a woman has the ultimate say in the whole pregnancy thing, the guy does not, so for her, safe sex or not, she has the call whether shes gonna have a little bastard runnin around. for a guy, safe sex is the only way to be sure.

@FF: i think it was you who said about checking if the bird your bedding is pro-life BEFORE hand... this is one of the most crazy notions i ever heard, despite what parents say when explaining the facts of life to a 5 year old, two people dont have to love each other alot, or even at all to jump into bed together and start making the beast with two backs. Checking their stand on pregnancy and pro-life vs. pro-choice while taking her to the nearest bed is NOT the first thing that will come to mind.

-arcon
------

Tue Jul 01, 2003 10:00 pm by Fear Factor

Didn't say that the man has absolutely no say in the matter. He can talk to her, persuade her, anything. But she has the final word. It might not seem fair, but what are you going to do? it's HER body. Nature puts her in charge of things (if you don't like nature for this arrangement, go club baby seals and cut rainforest). She pays the price though, she has to go through all the nasty stuff, whatever her (or their) decision may be.

two people dont have to love each other alot, or even at all to jump into bed together and start making the beast with two backs.

Do you always have your lawyer stand by you everytime you install a software and the EULA text pops up? I personally never read that stuff. But if I violate something in it, then I should pay the consequences. "I never read that EULA statement, Your Honour, nobody does!" is kind of a lame argument. You want to skip all the knowing-her-better before you jump in the sack, hey be my guest. But ignorance is stupidity, ignorance is a mistake. You chose to waive that right to know.

Tue Jul 01, 2003 10:59 pm by Cynicism Inc.

About all that nasty invasive abortion business FF (Fear Factor) is going on about, I've only one thing to say:

RU-486

About keeping the child: yes, the woman has to put up with pregnancy and labor. When she chooses to keep the child, she chooses not only to influcence her life and her partner's life for 9months, but to influence them for the life of the child. Also, according to FFs argument, the man is OBLIGATED to support the family, so no sitting on his butt or fleeing the country. In any case, the woman has these options as well, as soon as the labor is over. To assume a woman is a good/responsible parent simply because she is a woman is rediculous.

If you, FF, are going to stick with your "Men are Obligated, period" argument, I don't think I can say much more to change your mind. I will try to think of another argument you might also find acceptable, instead of just criticizing yours. Give me some time to think about it.

Tue Jul 01, 2003 11:25 pm by freighter fighter

i have to agree with the other FF as in the 9 months of pregnancy and for a short time after women need a little help. with small things, like picking things off the floor etc

Important Message

You are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login.
The content may be outdated and links may not be functional.

To get the latest in Freelancer news, mods, modding and downloads, go to
The-Starport