Misogyny may be distinguished from the closely related word sexism, which signifies discrimination based on sex (although it most frequently refers to discrimination against women) and also carries the meaning “behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.”
Misogyny refers specifically to a hatred of women. The word is formed from the Greek roots misein (“to hate”) and gynē (“woman”). Each of these roots can be found in other English words, both common and obscure. Gynē helped to form gynecologist and androgynous, and misein can be found in such words as misoneism (“a hatred, fear, or intolerance of innovation or change”) and misandry (“a hatred of men”).
How though? We already agreed women should have autonomy over their own body, so if a woman doesn’t want to carry a pregnancy to term, you can’t bestow rights upon the foetus, zygote, or blastocyst, without taking away a woman’s bodily autonomy.
How have I been obscure? Which is more capable of experiencing emotional and physical suffering, an insentient clump of cells or a fully sentient woman?
My morality is of course subjective, it cannot be otherwise, but it is grounded in the premise that we try to prevent or avoid all unnecessary suffering, it may not be ideal, and if someone thinks they have a better basis for morality then I am always prepared to listen.
Exactly my line of argument. Which was ignored…I can only assume because of his foresight and unwillingness to pursue. My questioning is still bouncing around in limbo on his side of the court.
So in order to avoid what I describe as 'retreating into Obscurity" (@Sheldon this will also interest you) By that–I mean using the difficultly of sufficiently defining life to where it can be universally accepted, as an objection to an any attempt made to do so.
Sorry for that but it was required to explain my definition and the reason for it.
Since there can be no universally accepted definition of life, considering the broad rage of the term that many of replies have demonstrated. We can only approach this definition in such a way as it relates directly to us as a species. Is a cell life, yes of course…but it is not life in the same way as a human. This could apply to an inseminated egg, but here i see a clear distinction between cell and an inseminated egg. Since the 'egg; will most likely follow its natural course and develop in a fully formed human being.
So to be clear a life is both the process of development and the end result (birth), leading up to death. So for example, clearly a child developing in the womb can be considered a life, in the same sense as the child playing with toys on the floor, considered a life.
Women should be able to choose to have an abortion if they wished because:
women should have body autonomy (for many powerful reasons including sometimes, a woman’s right to live)
losing the ability to have easy access abortion may have major financial implications
(especially at the point of insemination “line”) loss of other powerful and effective birth control methods
inequality means the access to abortion is very uneven. Especially in areas that work hard to restrict abortion. The vulnerable that cannot simply fly to another area where it is readily accessible.
Women should not have an abortion because:
it is destruction of a developing cellular based life
err is there anything else? I will let you fill this part out if you want.
Help me out here, where is “woman should have the right to choose” an appeal to authority? To me it is kind of the opposite of authority? Instead of someone deciding for the woman, the woman who faces 9 months of pregnancy gets to be her own authority if she wants an abortion or not? Seems like the opposite to authority for me.
I have not seen anyone here say anything like “well most people think women should have the right to choose” where is the appeal to consensus?
Err wait, you just agreed that yes, women should have bodily autonomy. And now you are asking why is that true? Why do we accept that? Maybe for the same reasons you agreed that women should have bodily autonomy? Do you think yes women should have bodily autonomy except when they get pregnant? Who gets to decide that exception? You? What do you base it on? Let me guess, something like:
There is another life, that deserves to live. A woman’s right to her own body is subverted by the fetuses right to live. Who gets to decide that? You? Fortunately you admitted that you are not against abortion, you just want to bring up that you do not agree with the statement “her body her choice.” And it seems to me you disagree with that statement, because by your opinion woman’s right to their body is outweighed by what you decided starting at the insemination point that, that clump of unique dna cells has greater rights. Or essentially right to “life” supersedes a woman’s right to her own body.
Let me know if that is correct or incorrect summary of your thinking.
More the fact that this blastocyst/zygote/fetus is entirely dependent on the host body. Without the body it dies. (except maybe in the 3rd trimester and an advanced nicu) A blastocyst/zygote/fetus does not have autonomy simply because it relies wholly on the host body for survival. Just like a woman’s egg relies wholly upon the woman’s body to survive. But suddenly without male dna present, those cells do not matter?
Here is another interesting philosophical question I would not mind asking you: if a pregnant woman commits suicide, did she “murder” her baby(s) ? If a woman is suicidal she is not even allowed to commit suicide without being considered a murder? Does a suicidal woman that survived a suicide attempt be tried for attempted murder?
Great! when life begins does not matter! To the debate of right to choose. Awesome! Glad we are finally on the same page on that. So now stating that when life begins does not matter, then what is the worry about woman choosing to have abortion? Why would it upset you that a woman chooses to have an abortion?
If you could actually do that, I would be on the same page as you. Well actually I would be pushing/supporting for society at large to spend many billions on developing techniques of neonatal care that allows the woman to have a “premature” birth at almost any given time but the fetus would still live to a normal healthy happy life. Just in a gestation chamber instead of a woman’s body. (We are actually closer to this technology then many people realize, there is just currently very little political/financial will to do so, for obvious reasons.)
Then society spending trillions taking care of all these unwanted children, that do have a right at life. It would be a huge burden, but I would put my money where my mouth is. Instead of traumatizing millions of women the world over, I would be looking for real solutions, that take real work.
I follow what you are saying, but unfortunately, back in reality, life does not start at insemination, or any other point. Life is a cycle. Its a shitty situation, so we are forced with non satisfactory answers like: well if we can’t decide on a starting point because its all just opinion, we are forced to go to the next best solution: the mother who would have to decide whether to give up bodily autonomy for her child or not. The one person in all this that is best positioned to decide what is best for her and the growing life within her that is wholly dependent upon her body.
Well, we may just have to define it between us, otherwise we will be debating opinion. I think human life should have all the functionality of an autonomous human.
I disagree. I believe that the cells are living yes, organic in nature, yes, part of a cyclic system yes, however lacking in several requirements for life as one of our species, as you point out. Can a fetus grow? Not without a host. Can a fetus get and use energy? Not without the host. Is the fetus an open system? No. Can a fetus maintain homeostasis? Not without the host. Can the fetus reproduce? No, is a fetus sentient? Yes, but due to underdeveloped somatosensory processing ability, only after 32 weeks or further for even a possibility. Until that point, the fetus is functionally no more sentient than a turnip. (BTW, I love mashed turnip with margerine, its awesome).
Considering you are a yes for woman’s bodily autonomy, have asked for validation of abortion initially (correct me if I am wrong), I believe that our species inherent evolutionary need for survival, is direct validation for abortion…as until that fetus is sentient AND can survive on its own, it is not a life as defined by the parameters that make us our species. Again, that is just my opinion…and the supreme courts as well…although I believe they picked 30 weeks as a buffer.
Have been watching this quite silly thread with only mild interest.
I truly am puzzled about why you have steadily refused to answer a simple yes/no question. IE “Do I think a woman should have autonomy to control her own body?”
Once stated, then you argue your position if it’s actually different from the opinion of others.
My answer is “yes”. Am willing to restate my reasons if necessary.
So far,I’ve seen no real evidence of a debate, but lots of ad hominem attacks and petulance. Claiming “they started it” is Tu quo que
For goodness sake, present your position coherently, quoting your previous posts and the post of others if you refer to them.
Well done FTW for actually getting a straight (ish) answer from him.
After 6 or 7 attempts and just having him imitate a poor version Mr Wrigglesworth I gave up on him. He is only interested in his own fine opinion of himself. Instead of some 300 posts this could have been done,debated and settled in a dozen posts or so if he could lie straight in bed.
