“So by your reasoning, would an infertile woman (including post-menopausal) have any say on abortion?”
😁 This is veering dangerously close to the “but what is a woman reeeally” style of argumentation. So as I know you’re reasonable, I’m happy to defer to whatever definition of “woman” or let’s say “female” you normally use. As long as we…
“So by your reasoning, would an infertile woman (including post-menopausal) have any say on abortion?”
😁 This is veering dangerously close to the “but what is a woman reeeally” style of argumentation. So as I know you’re reasonable, I’m happy to defer to whatever definition of “woman” or let’s say “female” you normally use. As long as we agree that they’re materially different from males, and agree on the reasons why, I don’t mind the existence of exceptions.
Abortion is not the same as industrial safety or athletics or child safety laws. If you can come up with an example thats similar to members of a particular group of people (and only that group) losing control of their bodily autonomy for ~9 months, no matter how traumatising it might be for them, and then having to go through a medical event that, even in the normal course of things, costs some number of them their lives, then we can compare.
But otherwise, I said in the post, my view on the abortion debate is based on the unique way the issue affects women (and only women) and the dangers it presents to them. My feelings on this can’t and shouldn’t be broadened to any other issue that isn’t equally exceptional.
Speaking of which, yes, abortion rights do only apply to women. The claim that the foetus is another individual from the moment of conception is a faith claim. If there is any logical or scientific evidence to support the claim that a zygote is a person, then I’m all ears. But I don’t think laws, particularly laws that affect those who definitely are people, should be based on unprovable, internal convictions.
(Steve, I am honesty not following *any* connection to "what is a woman?". Either you are seeing something which I am not, or you have misunderstood my point to be asserting something which I am not. Elucidate if you wish.).
You have argued that since only biological females can get pregnant and bear the burdens of that, males should not have standing on the issue of abortion. So I asked if those females who cannot get pregnant any more than males can (eg: post-menopausal or otherwise infertile) should have standing on that issue, following your reasoning.
You didn't answer that question yet. Let's clear that up before building further.
"Steve, I am honesty not following *any* connection to "what is a woman?"
When I talk about women's issues in trans debates, and use the word "woman," somebody will almost always ask something along the lines of, "well what *is* a woman? How do you define woman? Is a post-menopausal woman still a woman? Is a woman with Turner syndrome still a woman?" And then we waste hours nitpicking a separate, unrelated tangent instead of the main point.
The overwhelming majority of females have been, will be, or are currently directly affected by any decision made on abortion. Zero males are. Under any circumstances. So I don't think debating the intricacies of female exceptions is valuable.
So is that your way of indirectly saying that infertile women and post-menopausal women, under no more threat from an unwanted pregnancy than a man, should be able to weigh in on abortion, but men should not be?
Post-menopausal women is a HUGE category, not an "exception". This is nt anything close to a rare anamoly like Turner Syndrome, let's not pretend otherwise.
My point is that your rationale for excluding all males and including all females is weak. First you say because they are the ones affected by pregnancy, then you broaden it to their being the same sex as those who may be affected by a pregnancy even if they themselves are not. One could as logically expand the interested parties to include those married to people who can become pregnant rather than or in addition to expanding to include all sharing the same sex.
In any case, you are free to avoid all discussions or donations or voting in regard to abortion if you really believe what you are saying. I by contrast feel the issue is society wide, and so will continue to encourage the men I know to actively support abortion rights - in discussions, in protests, in donations, in voting. I will not ask them to be quiet and leave it entirely to women. (Tho as I said I definitely advocate listening to women about the issue). To each their own.
But it would be nice to at least admit that this very article and comments are in serious conflict with your professed abstinence.
"Post-menopausal women is a HUGE category, not an "exception"."
Post menopausal women are in the group that "have been, will be or are currently" affected by abortion. Specifically the "have been" segment of that group. I wasn't claiming they were an exception. I have to say, it doesn't feel as if you're reading my replies very carefully.
Many post-menopausal women remember what America was like pre-Roe. Some of them had abortions during that time and even bear the scars of back-alley procedures. They have unique insights into the repercussions of this decision that most females, and again, zero males, have. The fact that they can't *currently* get pregnant is beside the point.
But yes, as I said in a different reply, it would be extraordinarily difficult for me to argue that men shouldn't talk about abortion at all, given that I wrote an entire article about it, posted a conversation from it here, and am currently discussing that conversation with numerous people. I'm not quite so dim that I wouldn't realise that.😅
But as I've also said multiple times, including in the main post, I'm talking about the law, not general discussion. Our conversations have zero impact on abortion law. So why would it matter if we talk about it? We're free to be hopelessly wrong or wildly ignorant to the realities of what women go through and nothing happens.
But if I *were* in a position to affect the law, if, hypothetically obviously, I was asked to be part of a group that would decide the status and specifics of abortion law, I'd cede my place to a woman without hesitation. I'd hope that all males would.
>"I have to say, it doesn't feel as if you're reading my replies very carefully."
I think it's a bit challenging to read one's own words and spot what could be ambiguous to others, because one KNOWS what was intended.
So when you mentally include the category of post-menopausal women in "... have been affected by abortion", I was considering the kind of life changing "affected by" criteria which you have describe several times (and which is vastly more impactful than unconsensusal child support). I happen to know a certain post menopausal woman quite well, along with many others. Most of them do not report a high level effect (of the dramatic examples you like). So I honestly did not realize that you meant to include them.
So instead I thought your reference to exceptions must refer to the post-menopausal women I had brought up.
There is miniscule probability that you will be called upon to decide that, so it's rather abstract.
However, in the absurdly unlikely case that I had been chosen for some reason to make a decision about abortion, I would not cede that slot to an anti-abortion woman, especially if I thought that would change the decision towards anti-abortion. Would you, really? That would show true commitment to your ethical withdrawal.
More concretely, do you take abortion law into account in your political donations, or in how you vote? Do you condemn the men I know who do, as butting into something which is not their business?
“So by your reasoning, would an infertile woman (including post-menopausal) have any say on abortion?”
😁 This is veering dangerously close to the “but what is a woman reeeally” style of argumentation. So as I know you’re reasonable, I’m happy to defer to whatever definition of “woman” or let’s say “female” you normally use. As long as we agree that they’re materially different from males, and agree on the reasons why, I don’t mind the existence of exceptions.
Abortion is not the same as industrial safety or athletics or child safety laws. If you can come up with an example thats similar to members of a particular group of people (and only that group) losing control of their bodily autonomy for ~9 months, no matter how traumatising it might be for them, and then having to go through a medical event that, even in the normal course of things, costs some number of them their lives, then we can compare.
But otherwise, I said in the post, my view on the abortion debate is based on the unique way the issue affects women (and only women) and the dangers it presents to them. My feelings on this can’t and shouldn’t be broadened to any other issue that isn’t equally exceptional.
Speaking of which, yes, abortion rights do only apply to women. The claim that the foetus is another individual from the moment of conception is a faith claim. If there is any logical or scientific evidence to support the claim that a zygote is a person, then I’m all ears. But I don’t think laws, particularly laws that affect those who definitely are people, should be based on unprovable, internal convictions.
(Steve, I am honesty not following *any* connection to "what is a woman?". Either you are seeing something which I am not, or you have misunderstood my point to be asserting something which I am not. Elucidate if you wish.).
You have argued that since only biological females can get pregnant and bear the burdens of that, males should not have standing on the issue of abortion. So I asked if those females who cannot get pregnant any more than males can (eg: post-menopausal or otherwise infertile) should have standing on that issue, following your reasoning.
You didn't answer that question yet. Let's clear that up before building further.
"Steve, I am honesty not following *any* connection to "what is a woman?"
When I talk about women's issues in trans debates, and use the word "woman," somebody will almost always ask something along the lines of, "well what *is* a woman? How do you define woman? Is a post-menopausal woman still a woman? Is a woman with Turner syndrome still a woman?" And then we waste hours nitpicking a separate, unrelated tangent instead of the main point.
The overwhelming majority of females have been, will be, or are currently directly affected by any decision made on abortion. Zero males are. Under any circumstances. So I don't think debating the intricacies of female exceptions is valuable.
So is that your way of indirectly saying that infertile women and post-menopausal women, under no more threat from an unwanted pregnancy than a man, should be able to weigh in on abortion, but men should not be?
Post-menopausal women is a HUGE category, not an "exception". This is nt anything close to a rare anamoly like Turner Syndrome, let's not pretend otherwise.
My point is that your rationale for excluding all males and including all females is weak. First you say because they are the ones affected by pregnancy, then you broaden it to their being the same sex as those who may be affected by a pregnancy even if they themselves are not. One could as logically expand the interested parties to include those married to people who can become pregnant rather than or in addition to expanding to include all sharing the same sex.
In any case, you are free to avoid all discussions or donations or voting in regard to abortion if you really believe what you are saying. I by contrast feel the issue is society wide, and so will continue to encourage the men I know to actively support abortion rights - in discussions, in protests, in donations, in voting. I will not ask them to be quiet and leave it entirely to women. (Tho as I said I definitely advocate listening to women about the issue). To each their own.
But it would be nice to at least admit that this very article and comments are in serious conflict with your professed abstinence.
"Post-menopausal women is a HUGE category, not an "exception"."
Post menopausal women are in the group that "have been, will be or are currently" affected by abortion. Specifically the "have been" segment of that group. I wasn't claiming they were an exception. I have to say, it doesn't feel as if you're reading my replies very carefully.
Many post-menopausal women remember what America was like pre-Roe. Some of them had abortions during that time and even bear the scars of back-alley procedures. They have unique insights into the repercussions of this decision that most females, and again, zero males, have. The fact that they can't *currently* get pregnant is beside the point.
But yes, as I said in a different reply, it would be extraordinarily difficult for me to argue that men shouldn't talk about abortion at all, given that I wrote an entire article about it, posted a conversation from it here, and am currently discussing that conversation with numerous people. I'm not quite so dim that I wouldn't realise that.😅
But as I've also said multiple times, including in the main post, I'm talking about the law, not general discussion. Our conversations have zero impact on abortion law. So why would it matter if we talk about it? We're free to be hopelessly wrong or wildly ignorant to the realities of what women go through and nothing happens.
But if I *were* in a position to affect the law, if, hypothetically obviously, I was asked to be part of a group that would decide the status and specifics of abortion law, I'd cede my place to a woman without hesitation. I'd hope that all males would.
>"I have to say, it doesn't feel as if you're reading my replies very carefully."
I think it's a bit challenging to read one's own words and spot what could be ambiguous to others, because one KNOWS what was intended.
So when you mentally include the category of post-menopausal women in "... have been affected by abortion", I was considering the kind of life changing "affected by" criteria which you have describe several times (and which is vastly more impactful than unconsensusal child support). I happen to know a certain post menopausal woman quite well, along with many others. Most of them do not report a high level effect (of the dramatic examples you like). So I honestly did not realize that you meant to include them.
So instead I thought your reference to exceptions must refer to the post-menopausal women I had brought up.
Thank you for clearing it up.
There is miniscule probability that you will be called upon to decide that, so it's rather abstract.
However, in the absurdly unlikely case that I had been chosen for some reason to make a decision about abortion, I would not cede that slot to an anti-abortion woman, especially if I thought that would change the decision towards anti-abortion. Would you, really? That would show true commitment to your ethical withdrawal.
More concretely, do you take abortion law into account in your political donations, or in how you vote? Do you condemn the men I know who do, as butting into something which is not their business?