Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Was I being a misogynist?

Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 6:16:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I was on Facebook and a link to an article about a woman using crowd sourcing to fund an abortion was on my feed. I wrote in the comment section "I'm pro-choice but an abortion fund is in bad taste." This set off a feminist rebuttal that labeled my views misogynist. Were my views misogynist?

The said article: http://www.salon.com...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 7:24:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 6:51:30 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
No.
That person was being an idiot.

What has the reason for it? I never saw it.

The reason for the abortion? The woman was having troubles with the pregnancy and couldn't afford the procedure so she used crowd funding.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 7:24:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 7:24:04 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 9/6/2014 6:51:30 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
No.
That person was being an idiot.

What has the reason for it? I never saw it.

The reason for the abortion? The woman was having troubles with the pregnancy and couldn't afford the procedure so she used crowd funding.

I don't see why that is so bad....if true.
My work here is, finally, done.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 7:56:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 7:24:56 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/6/2014 7:24:04 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 9/6/2014 6:51:30 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
No.
That person was being an idiot.

What has the reason for it? I never saw it.

The reason for the abortion? The woman was having troubles with the pregnancy and couldn't afford the procedure so she used crowd funding.

I don't see why that is so bad....if true.

The problem was I said having a crowd source for an abortion was in bad taste. It implied a form of abortion shaming.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 8:19:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 7:56:10 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

The problem was I said having a crowd source for an abortion was in bad taste. It implied a form of abortion shaming.

It is.
But why is that anti-woman?
I can respect a woman's right to have an abortion but shame her for it as well.
My work here is, finally, done.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 8:20:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 6:16:57 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I was on Facebook and a link to an article about a woman using crowd sourcing to fund an abortion was on my feed. I wrote in the comment section "I'm pro-choice but an abortion fund is in bad taste." This set off a feminist rebuttal that labeled my views misogynist. Were my views misogynist?

The said article: http://www.salon.com...

Not at all.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 8:20:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 6:16:57 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I was on Facebook and a link to an article about a woman using crowd sourcing to fund an abortion was on my feed. I wrote in the comment section "I'm pro-choice but an abortion fund is in bad taste." This set off a feminist rebuttal that labeled my views misogynist. Were my views misogynist?

The said article: http://www.salon.com...

I understand where you're coming from (I think), but I also understand how people would label it as abortion shaming.
She has a medical issue, she can't afford to pay for it and neither is it covered by her healthcare, which it should be.
So she has no other option than to ask other people for help.

When the issue is cancer, an injury after an accident or a severe infectious disease, nobody would call it bad taste or make fun of her.
If she had chronic diarrhea, people would make all kinds of jokes about her, but it would nonetheless be a serious problem.
Now it is about abortion, so you, and presumably a lot of other people are calling it bad taste, indecent or whatever.
But it is nonetheless a serious problem.

So I wouldn't call it misogynist per se, but yeah, you're telling people to keep their abortions private, so in a way, you're shaming them. And since only women get abortions, it is indirectly a statement against women.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 8:23:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 8:20:56 AM, Skikx wrote:
At 9/6/2014 6:16:57 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I was on Facebook and a link to an article about a woman using crowd sourcing to fund an abortion was on my feed. I wrote in the comment section "I'm pro-choice but an abortion fund is in bad taste." This set off a feminist rebuttal that labeled my views misogynist. Were my views misogynist?

The said article: http://www.salon.com...


I understand where you're coming from (I think), but I also understand how people would label it as abortion shaming.
She has a medical issue, she can't afford to pay for it and neither is it covered by her healthcare, which it should be.
So she has no other option than to ask other people for help.

When the issue is cancer, an injury after an accident or a severe infectious disease, nobody would call it bad taste or make fun of her.
If she had chronic diarrhea, people would make all kinds of jokes about her, but it would nonetheless be a serious problem.
Now it is about abortion, so you, and presumably a lot of other people are calling it bad taste, indecent or whatever.
But it is nonetheless a serious problem.

So I wouldn't call it misogynist per se, but yeah, you're telling people to keep their abortions private, so in a way, you're shaming them. And since only women get abortions, it is indirectly a statement against women.

"Medical Issue"...I don't think it's quite comparable to cancer or diarrhea.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 8:40:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 8:23:34 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/6/2014 8:20:56 AM, Skikx wrote:
At 9/6/2014 6:16:57 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I was on Facebook and a link to an article about a woman using crowd sourcing to fund an abortion was on my feed. I wrote in the comment section "I'm pro-choice but an abortion fund is in bad taste." This set off a feminist rebuttal that labeled my views misogynist. Were my views misogynist?

The said article: http://www.salon.com...


I understand where you're coming from (I think), but I also understand how people would label it as abortion shaming.
She has a medical issue, she can't afford to pay for it and neither is it covered by her healthcare, which it should be.
So she has no other option than to ask other people for help.

When the issue is cancer, an injury after an accident or a severe infectious disease, nobody would call it bad taste or make fun of her.
If she had chronic diarrhea, people would make all kinds of jokes about her, but it would nonetheless be a serious problem.
Now it is about abortion, so you, and presumably a lot of other people are calling it bad taste, indecent or whatever.
But it is nonetheless a serious problem.

So I wouldn't call it misogynist per se, but yeah, you're telling people to keep their abortions private, so in a way, you're shaming them. And since only women get abortions, it is indirectly a statement against women.

"Medical Issue"...I don't think it's quite comparable to cancer or diarrhea.

It not a usual pregnancy. The article doesn't say much about what exactly the problem is but if you follow the link that says it's "absolutely necessary" (http://www.salon.com...) you get this:

"In addition to being high-risk and painful, Bailey"s pregnancy is also late-term, adding one more complication to her efforts to access medical care.
[...]
"These issues of accessibility are problematic not only for women like Bailey, whose physical health is threatened during pregnancy,..."


So it is definitely a severe medical issue.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 8:44:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 8:40:40 AM, Skikx wrote:
At 9/6/2014 8:23:34 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/6/2014 8:20:56 AM, Skikx wrote:
At 9/6/2014 6:16:57 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I was on Facebook and a link to an article about a woman using crowd sourcing to fund an abortion was on my feed. I wrote in the comment section "I'm pro-choice but an abortion fund is in bad taste." This set off a feminist rebuttal that labeled my views misogynist. Were my views misogynist?

The said article: http://www.salon.com...


I understand where you're coming from (I think), but I also understand how people would label it as abortion shaming.
She has a medical issue, she can't afford to pay for it and neither is it covered by her healthcare, which it should be.
So she has no other option than to ask other people for help.

When the issue is cancer, an injury after an accident or a severe infectious disease, nobody would call it bad taste or make fun of her.
If she had chronic diarrhea, people would make all kinds of jokes about her, but it would nonetheless be a serious problem.
Now it is about abortion, so you, and presumably a lot of other people are calling it bad taste, indecent or whatever.
But it is nonetheless a serious problem.

So I wouldn't call it misogynist per se, but yeah, you're telling people to keep their abortions private, so in a way, you're shaming them. And since only women get abortions, it is indirectly a statement against women.

"Medical Issue"...I don't think it's quite comparable to cancer or diarrhea.


It not a usual pregnancy. The article doesn't say much about what exactly the problem is but if you follow the link that says it's "absolutely necessary" (http://www.salon.com...) you get this:

"In addition to being high-risk and painful, Bailey"s pregnancy is also late-term, adding one more complication to her efforts to access medical care.
[...]
"These issues of accessibility are problematic not only for women like Bailey, whose physical health is threatened during pregnancy,..."


So it is definitely a severe medical issue.

I suppose that if her life is in real danger (as in she would probably die without this procedure) then perhaps it should be allowed. However, as it is a later stage of the pregnancy, the fetus is more developed. Even the pro-choice crowd would admit that after a certain point along in a pregnancy the fetus is developed enough to be considered human.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 8:57:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 8:44:39 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/6/2014 8:40:40 AM, Skikx wrote:
At 9/6/2014 8:23:34 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/6/2014 8:20:56 AM, Skikx wrote:
At 9/6/2014 6:16:57 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I was on Facebook and a link to an article about a woman using crowd sourcing to fund an abortion was on my feed. I wrote in the comment section "I'm pro-choice but an abortion fund is in bad taste." This set off a feminist rebuttal that labeled my views misogynist. Were my views misogynist?

The said article: http://www.salon.com...


I understand where you're coming from (I think), but I also understand how people would label it as abortion shaming.
She has a medical issue, she can't afford to pay for it and neither is it covered by her healthcare, which it should be.
So she has no other option than to ask other people for help.

When the issue is cancer, an injury after an accident or a severe infectious disease, nobody would call it bad taste or make fun of her.
If she had chronic diarrhea, people would make all kinds of jokes about her, but it would nonetheless be a serious problem.
Now it is about abortion, so you, and presumably a lot of other people are calling it bad taste, indecent or whatever.
But it is nonetheless a serious problem.

So I wouldn't call it misogynist per se, but yeah, you're telling people to keep their abortions private, so in a way, you're shaming them. And since only women get abortions, it is indirectly a statement against women.

"Medical Issue"...I don't think it's quite comparable to cancer or diarrhea.


It not a usual pregnancy. The article doesn't say much about what exactly the problem is but if you follow the link that says it's "absolutely necessary" (http://www.salon.com...) you get this:

"In addition to being high-risk and painful, Bailey"s pregnancy is also late-term, adding one more complication to her efforts to access medical care.
[...]
"These issues of accessibility are problematic not only for women like Bailey, whose physical health is threatened during pregnancy,..."


So it is definitely a severe medical issue.

I suppose that if her life is in real danger (as in she would probably die without this procedure) then perhaps it should be allowed. However, as it is a later stage of the pregnancy, the fetus is more developed. Even the pro-choice crowd would admit that after a certain point along in a pregnancy the fetus is developed enough to be considered human.

Well, I read an article a few years back in the "Spiegel" (German newspaper) where a bunch of doctors and scientist proposed that, if the parents don't want the baby but didn't abort it for whatever reasons, it should be euthanized directly after birth, because at that stage it has not developed personhood.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 9:33:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 8:57:51 AM, Skikx wrote:
At 9/6/2014 8:44:39 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/6/2014 8:40:40 AM, Skikx wrote:
At 9/6/2014 8:23:34 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/6/2014 8:20:56 AM, Skikx wrote:
At 9/6/2014 6:16:57 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I was on Facebook and a link to an article about a woman using crowd sourcing to fund an abortion was on my feed. I wrote in the comment section "I'm pro-choice but an abortion fund is in bad taste." This set off a feminist rebuttal that labeled my views misogynist. Were my views misogynist?

The said article: http://www.salon.com...


I understand where you're coming from (I think), but I also understand how people would label it as abortion shaming.
She has a medical issue, she can't afford to pay for it and neither is it covered by her healthcare, which it should be.
So she has no other option than to ask other people for help.

When the issue is cancer, an injury after an accident or a severe infectious disease, nobody would call it bad taste or make fun of her.
If she had chronic diarrhea, people would make all kinds of jokes about her, but it would nonetheless be a serious problem.
Now it is about abortion, so you, and presumably a lot of other people are calling it bad taste, indecent or whatever.
But it is nonetheless a serious problem.

So I wouldn't call it misogynist per se, but yeah, you're telling people to keep their abortions private, so in a way, you're shaming them. And since only women get abortions, it is indirectly a statement against women.

"Medical Issue"...I don't think it's quite comparable to cancer or diarrhea.


It not a usual pregnancy. The article doesn't say much about what exactly the problem is but if you follow the link that says it's "absolutely necessary" (http://www.salon.com...) you get this:

"In addition to being high-risk and painful, Bailey"s pregnancy is also late-term, adding one more complication to her efforts to access medical care.
[...]
"These issues of accessibility are problematic not only for women like Bailey, whose physical health is threatened during pregnancy,..."


So it is definitely a severe medical issue.

I suppose that if her life is in real danger (as in she would probably die without this procedure) then perhaps it should be allowed. However, as it is a later stage of the pregnancy, the fetus is more developed. Even the pro-choice crowd would admit that after a certain point along in a pregnancy the fetus is developed enough to be considered human.

Well, I read an article a few years back in the "Spiegel" (German newspaper) where a bunch of doctors and scientist proposed that, if the parents don't want the baby but didn't abort it for whatever reasons, it should be euthanized directly after birth, because at that stage it has not developed personhood.

Ugh... It is sickening how children are being viewed as disposable consumer product.

Is there any non-arbitrary way to distinguish between who should be born and who should not? Any decision is made based on what is desirable either by the couple or by society. If babies, then why not newborns too? If newborns, then why not toddlers too?
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 10:06:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 9:33:29 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/6/2014 8:57:51 AM, Skikx wrote:

Well, I read an article a few years back in the "Spiegel" (German newspaper) where a bunch of doctors and scientist proposed that, if the parents don't want the baby but didn't abort it for whatever reasons, it should be euthanized directly after birth, because at that stage it has not developed personhood.

Ugh... It is sickening how children are being viewed as disposable consumer product.

Is there any non-arbitrary way to distinguish between who should be born and who should not?

Non that I know of.

Any decision is made based on what is desirable either by the couple or by society. If babies, then why not newborns too? If newborns, then why not toddlers too?

Well yeah. You ask what the people who actually have the baby want. That is quite obvious to me. It wouldn't make much sense to ask somebody who is totally unrelated to the issue. Although you could technically argue that some people might know better than the parents.
And then you've got the majority (culture, society) forcing their beliefs onto the parents, limiting them in their possible choices.
You could try to get the majority to believe what you believe, but it wouldn't change the system.
You just have to deal with it.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 4:07:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 8:57:51 AM, Skikx wrote:

Well, I read an article a few years back in the "Spiegel" (German newspaper) where a bunch of doctors and scientist proposed that, if the parents don't want the baby but didn't abort it for whatever reasons, it should be euthanized directly after birth, because at that stage it has not developed personhood.

I wouldn't be too keen on taking advice on who should live and die from Germans ... just saying.

And yes the woman is already in the 3rd trimester which ads to the controversy. She can't even see a doctor so we don't know if the pain she's going through is a complication or natural. But I was labeled a misogynist (or my words were labeled as such) because I pointed out that partial birth abortion (a term invented by misogynists) was illegal. This woman probably won't be able to get her abortion due to it being in the late stage and not many doctors are qualified to perform such an operation.

But regardless 2 women were pretty much calling me sexist and saying I was imposing my views on them and as a man I shouldn't feel entitled to an opinion on the issue.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 4:09:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 8:19:56 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I can respect a woman's right to have an abortion but shame her for it as well.

Interesting, how does that work? It doesn't create any cognitive conflicts with you?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 4:18:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 4:09:05 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 9/6/2014 8:19:56 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I can respect a woman's right to have an abortion but shame her for it as well.

Interesting, how does that work? It doesn't create any cognitive conflicts with you?

It's her right to have an abortion. I acknowledge that and allow her to without any fuss (given pre-viability and the fact it is not my kid in question)
As a result, I have less respect for her because I believe she just murdered a child.

Why does my legal stance on an issue require an equal personal view?
I think Westboro Church should be allowed to protest funerals, but I think they are horrible people for doing so.
My work here is, finally, done.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 4:27:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 4:18:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Why does my legal stance on an issue require an equal personal view?
I think Westboro Church should be allowed to protest funerals, but I think they are horrible people for doing so.

Well put.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 7:08:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 6:16:57 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I was on Facebook and a link to an article about a woman using crowd sourcing to fund an abortion was on my feed. I wrote in the comment section "I'm pro-choice but an abortion fund is in bad taste." This set off a feminist rebuttal that labeled my views misogynist. Were my views misogynist?

The said article: http://www.salon.com...

Although I fail to see what's in such dreadfully bad taste about an abortion fund, and although I'm what I suppose some of my superficial critics would characterize as a knee-jerk leftist and pro-feminist, even I wouldn't accuse someone of being a misogynist based merely on the fact that he holds the opinion that an abortion fund is somehow deserving of disapprobation.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 8:20:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Seed
At 9/6/2014 6:16:57 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

Bennett91: I was on Facebook and a link to an article about a woman using crowd sourcing to fund an abortion was on my feed. I wrote in the comment section "I'm pro-choice but an abortion fund is in bad taste." This set off a feminist rebuttal that labeled my views misogynist. Were my views misogynist?

The said article: http://www.salon.com......

Skikx: I understand where you're coming from (I think), but I also understand how people would label it as abortion shaming.

The Fool: Abortion shaming isn"t misogynist or necessarily immoral. I mean, I am pro-abortion under the right circumstances, but not necessarily pro-free-abortion-choice. I believe some discouragement for abortion can be a good thing.

Skikx: She has a medical issue, she can't afford to pay for it and neither is it covered by her healthcare, which it should be. So she has no other option than to ask other people for help.

The Fool: I agree should be covered under special circumstances such as rape. But since pregnancy is something which can generally be avoided why should somebody else have to pay for it?

For example we have free healthcare in Canada. But as a Canadian, I don"t really want to be paying tax dollars for other people"s abortion choices when they could have avoided getting pregnant altogether, no more than I really want to be supporting anybody else"s children, when it"s their choice.

Skikx: When the issue is cancer, an injury after an accident or a severe infectious disease, nobody would call it bad taste or make fun of her.

If she had chronic diarrhea, people would make all kinds of jokes about her, but it would nonetheless be a serious problem.

Now it is about abortion, so you, and presumably a lot of other people are calling it bad taste, indecent or whatever.

The Fool: Perhaps because, 1) getting pregnant is generally avoidable..2) and it may perpetuate a reliance others to bail one out of such a situation. 3) It can damage the websites credibility, to pro-lifers 4) and perhaps general support for others in the future.

Are those not reasons to suggest that it"s in bad taste, without necessarily abortion shaming in any way?

Skikx: But it is nonetheless a serious problem. So I wouldn't call it misogynist per se, but yeah, you're telling people to keep their abortions private, so in a way, you're shaming them.

The Fool: Despite the fact that no one saying to keep their abortions private, telling people to do so is not the same as shaming people for having abortions. Besides, abortion should always be a last resort, and so some discouragement is healthy in keeping it that way.

Skikx: And since only women get abortions, it is indirectly a statement against women.

The Fool: Why would you say that It's particularly against women? For one, Males and female get aborted. Secondly, it's not only her child. Thirdly couples may decide together that it is better to have an abortion because they cannot financially afford another child. You"re acting as if women would be the only victims here, which is not only textbook feminism, but can be justly labeled "Sexist"..

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 10:21:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I was seen as anti-choice. When I asked this woman on facebook if it would be ok to abort an 8 1/2 month old fetus she said in no uncertain terms yes. I mean sweet Jesus, unless there are mitigating circumstances there should be a law to prevent some one from doing that. I was accused of being sexist because I put the unborn's life above the mother's. Is this a fair criticism?
suaveguy
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 11:16:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No you're not being misogynistic. Being misogynistic entails a hatred of women or wanting them to be treated unfairly in comparison to men. You're clearly making an ethical stance, not showing hatred or dislike.

As for the validity of the funding campaign, we first need to figure out what debate we're actually having. There should be a medical professional that can qualify the necessity of this abortion on the basis that not doing so will severely impair the woman post-pregnancy. If such qualification can't be produced, and if this pregnancy is just an inconvenience (the baby's life vs the woman's comfort) rather than a threat to the woman's life (the baby's life vs the woman's life), then the page should be pulled.

For all we know, the abortion might actually be unrelated to the woman's symptoms.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 6:04:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't like your comment about "poor taste". It's so sneering. Either you think abortion is immoral or you don't; either way it doesn't matter how the money is raised, unless you believe that preventing abortion by keeping women impoverished is a valid approach. The woman in question is unemployed. I don't see why her abortion is in worse taste than for someone who can easily afford the procedure.

If someone decides to keep her baby, it won't be because of shame. Actually, I think shaming people is only going to make them more quick to end pregnancies secretly. I think pregnant women should be supported emotionally and practically, and anything short of that - such as your response - could be seen as misogyny, yes.
Osiris_Rosenthorne
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 7:12:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You've forgetting that any criticism by a man of what a woman does is misogyny, as it implies a man knowing better than a woman, which is a form of supremacy. After all, how can you not hate someone you think you're better than, etc, etc, etc.
I probably hate everything you stand for - and on.
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 10:49:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 8:20:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Seed
At 9/6/2014 6:16:57 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

Bennett91: I was on Facebook and a link to an article about a woman using crowd sourcing to fund an abortion was on my feed. I wrote in the comment section "I'm pro-choice but an abortion fund is in bad taste." This set off a feminist rebuttal that labeled my views misogynist. Were my views misogynist?

The said article: http://www.salon.com......

Skikx: I understand where you're coming from (I think), but I also understand how people would label it as abortion shaming.

The Fool: Abortion shaming isn"t misogynist or necessarily immoral. I mean, I am pro-abortion under the right circumstances, but not necessarily pro-free-abortion-choice. I believe some discouragement for abortion can be a good thing.

Isn't the increased risk and effort, compared to birth control, enough discouragement? Do you really think society will benefit when people don't have an abortion, because they are ashamed of it?
If a women is pregnant, but doesn't want a child, I think abortion is favorable to carrying the child to term and either keeping it or offering it up for adoption.
1. It's less physical stress for the mother and likely less mental stress for her and the other people involved.
2. Even if the abortion is completely covered by healthcare, it usually costs the public less than supporting the mother during pregnancy and the welfare she receives for raising the child.
3. There are already more children waiting for an adoption that will never get one. Adding one more will not help anybody.
4. Being unwanted and raised in a poor home will most likely be detrimental to the child's well being and decrease the chances of it becoming a productive member of society.

Skikx: She has a medical issue, she can't afford to pay for it and neither is it covered by her healthcare, which it should be. So she has no other option than to ask other people for help.

The Fool: I agree should be covered under special circumstances such as rape. But since pregnancy is something which can generally be avoided why should somebody else have to pay for it?

For example we have free healthcare in Canada. But as a Canadian, I don"t really want to be paying tax dollars for other people"s abortion choices when they could have avoided getting pregnant altogether, no more than I really want to be supporting anybody else"s children, when it"s their choice.

I would prefer if people only got pregnant if they really want to and only if they can afford it. Unfortunately, people don't act like that. So you can
a) either pay for the abortion.
b) pay to support the child, which is, as I said above, usually more expensive.
or c) pay for neither. As a consequence, you would have a lot of children being raised in poverty, probably without access to a (good) education. That in turn will increase the amount of violence and crimes as those people are desperate just to get by and have no perspective. It will also increase the risk of riots, as those people are unhappy and frustrated with their government. Thus, more money needs to be spent on security and medical infrastructure. Which calls into question if you would really save any money.
Lastly, many people would be morally opposed to tolerating or even furthering, such a development just for the sake of saving money, which you might not even do. Though, of course, that depends on what moral guidelines you adhere to.


Skikx: When the issue is cancer, an injury after an accident or a severe infectious disease, nobody would call it bad taste or make fun of her.

If she had chronic diarrhea, people would make all kinds of jokes about her, but it would nonetheless be a serious problem.

Now it is about abortion, so you, and presumably a lot of other people are calling it bad taste, indecent or whatever.

The Fool: Perhaps because, 1) getting pregnant is generally avoidable..2) and it may perpetuate a reliance others to bail one out of such a situation. 3) It can damage the websites credibility, to pro-lifers 4) and perhaps general support for others in the future.

Are those not reasons to suggest that it"s in bad taste, without necessarily abortion shaming in any way?


1) True, but do we know why or how she got pregnant? And do we know if it was to be expected that she would have such problems during her pregnancy?
2) Leaving somebody no other choice than to have a child which they can't afford doesn't seem like a good way of teaching them responsibility. Especially if then then have to rely on the help of other to raise said child. And isn't it more responsible to try any way possible to prevent a bad situation then to say you screwed up and then just accept it?
3+4) Taking the campaign down can damage it's credibility to pro-choicers and make it seem biased. It damages their integrity.

Skikx: But it is nonetheless a serious problem. So I wouldn't call it misogynist per se, but yeah, you're telling people to keep their abortions private, so in a way, you're shaming them.

The Fool: Despite the fact that no one saying to keep their abortions private, telling people to do so is not the same as shaming people for having abortions. Besides, abortion should always be a last resort, and so some discouragement is healthy in keeping it that way.

If one says you shouldn't seek help publicly, than it implies that you should not talk about the problem publicly. If one says that they should not talk about it in public, one says it is shameful or indecent to do so. Maybe he is not shaming them for having an abortion, but at least for publicly stating that they have one.

Skikx: And since only women get abortions, it is indirectly a statement against women.

The Fool: Why would you say that It's particularly against women? For one, Males and female get aborted. Secondly, it's not only her child. Thirdly couples may decide together that it is better to have an abortion because they cannot financially afford another child. You"re acting as if women would be the only victims here, which is not only textbook feminism, but can be justly labeled "Sexist"..

At the end of the day, women are the ones who get pregnant, so they are also the ones who actually undergo the procedure of having an abortion. It is the woman's body and the decision and responsibility ultimately rests with the woman. All the consequences of not having an abortion that affect the father also affect the mother in the same way. But not all the consequences that affect the mother also affect the father.
Women are not the only victims, but they are the most affected.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 6:14:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Seed
Part 2

Bennett91: I was on Facebook and a link to an article about a woman using crowd sourcing to fund an abortion was on my feed. I wrote in the comment section "I'm pro-choice but an abortion fund is in bad taste." This set off a feminist rebuttal that labeled my views misogynist. Were my views misogynist?

The said article: http://www.salon.com.........

Skikx: I understand where you're coming from (I think), but I also understand how people would label it as abortion shaming.

The Fool: Abortion shaming isn"t misogynist or necessarily immoral. I mean, I am pro-abortion under the right circumstances, but not necessarily pro-free-abortion-choice. I believe some discouragement for abortion can be a good thing.

Skikx: Isn't the increased risk and effort, compared to birth control, enough discouragement?

The Fool: I am not as fortunate to have a measuring tool for such things, but obviously not since many people still get pregnant irresponsibly and then rely on abortions.

Skikx: Do you really think society will benefit when people don't have an abortion, because they are ashamed of it?

The Fool: Loaded Question fallacy!!! Rephrase it appropriately, and don"t do it again..

Skikx: If a women is pregnant, but doesn't want a child, I think abortion is favorable to carrying the child to term and either keeping it or offering it up for adoption.

The Fool: I don"t care what you "Think" Ideologist, I care about what you can justify.

1.Skikx: 1. It's less physical stress for the mother and likely less mental stress for her and the other people involved.

The Fool: It's sounds like your trying to give a sense of "more" when you are not entitled to "the more". I am sure many people regret getting pregnant who later in life change their minds. It doesn"t follow that it won"t be worth it later.

2.Skikx: Even if the abortion is completely covered by healthcare, it usually costs the public less than supporting the mother during pregnancy and the welfare she receives for raising the child.
The Fool: You haven"t argued that it "ought" to be supported by anybody else, either way.

3.Skikx: There are already more children waiting for an adoption that will never get one. Adding one more will not help anybody.
The Fool: I"m not against abortion, in all cases.

4. Skikx: Being unwanted and raised in a poor home will most likely be detrimental to the child's well being and decrease the chances of it becoming a productive member of society.

The Fool: It does not follow that they will always be unwanted, and in addition to all your inferences here you have nothing but a slippery slope fallacy. That"s a total of six fallacious attempts in just one quarter of a reply.

Skikx: She has a medical issue, she can't afford to pay for it and neither is it covered by her healthcare, which it should be. So she has no other option than to ask other people for help.

The Fool: I agree should be covered under special circumstances such as rape. But since pregnancy is something which can generally be avoided why should somebody else have to pay for it?

For example we have free healthcare in Canada. But as a Canadian, I don"t really want to be paying tax dollars for other people"s abortion choices when they could have avoided getting pregnant altogether, no more than I really want to be supporting anybody else"s children, when it"s their choice.

Skikx: I would prefer if people only got pregnant if they really want to and only if they can afford it.
The Fool: Perhaps your feminist fury makes you hard of reading.
1."I am pro-abortion under the right circumstances, but not necessarily pro-free-abortion-choice."
2."I believe some discouragement for abortion can be a good thing"
3." I don"t believe that "should somebody else have to pay for it"

Skikx: Unfortunately, people don't act like that.

The Fool: Exactly, so better education and responsibility, and discouraging abortion as an immediate option.

Skikx: a) either pay for the abortion.

The Fool: Or they pay for it themselves.

Skikx::b) pay to support the child, which is, as I said above, usually more expensive.

The Fool: You say many things, but I myself prefer thing true things.

Skikx:or c) pay for neither.

The Fool: What is the "entity " which is "neither" ?

If by "neither" you mean "nothing" then no complement object exists to be paid, in which case paying doesn"t happen. So you must either mean paying for the "sake of paying", or paying for "something else", either way it leads to an absurd antecedent to your acclaimed inference ladder of consequences.

Skikx As a consequence, you would have a lot of children being raised in poverty, probably without access to a (good) education.

The Fool: I"m sorry, as a consequence of "what" existing cause?
<(8O)

And , "who" then would be raising a lot of children in poverty?
<(86)

If I didn"t know any better, it sounds like you"re trying in true feminist fashion to give the impression that "I" myself would be raising a lot of children in poverty, if I didn"t do actually anything.
<(89)

"As a consequence, you would have a lot of children being raised in poverty"????

"probably without access to a (good) education. " (A slippery start)

The Fool: I think you"re probably missing a good responsible causal consequential inference.
<(XD)

Skikx: That in turn will increase the amount of violence and crimes as those people are desperate just to get by and have no perspective.

The Fool: Firstly, as demonstrated, it does not follow. Secondly, it"s still a slippery slope fallacy anyways.

Skikx: It will also increase the risk of riots, as those people are unhappy and frustrated with their government.

The Fool: I forgot to bring my skis. Slippery slope fallacy.

Skikx: Thus, more money needs to be spent on security and medical infrastructure.

The Fool: Nor do I have skates. Slippery slope fallacy.

Skikx: Which calls into question if you would really save any money.

The Fool: Is that statement loaded or are you just happy to see me.
<(89)

Skikx: Lastly, many people would be morally opposed to tolerating or even furthering, such a development just for the sake of saving money, which you might not even do.

The Fool: What is this, The Feminist Bobsled? Slippery slope fallacy.

Skikx: Though, of course, that depends on what moral guidelines you adhere to.

The Fool: Not only are you a Bobsled champion, but you base your shaming on an invalid inference., Quite a slithery one you are.

Against The Ideologist
Nice try though, but not "very nice"

Not done.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 12:13:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 6:14:33 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Seed
Part 2

Bennett91: I was on Facebook and a link to an article about a woman using crowd sourcing to fund an abortion was on my feed. I wrote in the comment section "I'm pro-choice but an abortion fund is in bad taste." This set off a feminist rebuttal that labeled my views misogynist. Were my views misogynist?

The said article: http://www.salon.com.........

Skikx: I understand where you're coming from (I think), but I also understand how people would label it as abortion shaming.

The Fool: Abortion shaming isn"t misogynist or necessarily immoral. I mean, I am pro-abortion under the right circumstances, but not necessarily pro-free-abortion-choice. I believe some discouragement for abortion can be a good thing.

Skikx: Isn't the increased risk and effort, compared to birth control, enough discouragement?

The Fool: I am not as fortunate to have a measuring tool for such things, but obviously not since many people still get pregnant irresponsibly and then rely on abortions.

But then the problem is not that abortions aren't discouraged enough, but that people aren't responsible enough or not well enough educated to avoid pregnancy altogether, which is a completely different issue. Unless you're saying that people deliberately don't take birth control, because they are planning on undergoing an abortion, should they get pregnant. Is that what you mean?

Skikx: Do you really think society will benefit when people don't have an abortion, because they are ashamed of it?

The Fool: Loaded Question fallacy!!! Rephrase it appropriately, and don"t do it again..

Okay, false assumption on my part.
Why do you "believe some discouragement for abortion can be a good thing."? And in what form?

Skikx: If a women is pregnant, but doesn't want a child, I think abortion is favorable to carrying the child to term and either keeping it or offering it up for adoption.

The Fool: I don"t care what you "Think" Ideologist, I care about what you can justify.

1.Skikx: 1. It's less physical stress for the mother and likely less mental stress for her and the other people involved.

The Fool: It's sounds like your trying to give a sense of "more" when you are not entitled to "the more". I am sure many people regret getting pregnant who later in life change their minds. It doesn"t follow that it won"t be worth it later.

What "more" are you talking about? I only said that an abortion can decrease the amount of negative things in ones life.
And how do you determine whether or not someone is entitled to something?

2.Skikx: Even if the abortion is completely covered by healthcare, it usually costs the public less than supporting the mother during pregnancy and the welfare she receives for raising the child.
The Fool: You haven"t argued that it "ought" to be supported by anybody else, either way.

Because I didn't claim that it ought to be. I did list the consequences of not supporting it, however. If you are fine with those consequences, good for you. If not, then it might be in your own best interest to support abortions and welfare for the child and it parents.

3.Skikx: There are already more children waiting for an adoption that will never get one. Adding one more will not help anybody.
The Fool: I"m not against abortion, in all cases.

But in some. And some of those babies would be set up for an adoption, reducing the chances of the already existing children to get adopted.

4. Skikx: Being unwanted and raised in a poor home will most likely be detrimental to the child's well being and decrease the chances of it becoming a productive member of society.

The Fool: It does not follow that they will always be unwanted, and in addition to all your inferences here you have nothing but a slippery slope fallacy.

Nor does it follow that they will ever be wanted. But the status qou is that they are unwanted.
If the education of the child has to be paid for by the parents and the parents are poor, they can't afford to pay for it. Thus the kid doesn't get an education, which decreases its chances of getting a well paying job, or any job at all, because a certain degree of education is required for many jobs.
If the education is paid by the state, you are already paying for it and are thus, at least in part, supporting the parents to raise the child., even in cases where the parents wanted the child.

Skikx: She has a medical issue, she can't afford to pay for it and neither is it covered by her healthcare, which it should be. So she has no other option than to ask other people for help.

The Fool: I agree should be covered under special circumstances such as rape.

Why?


Skikx: a) either pay for the abortion.

The Fool: Or they pay for it themselves.

Skikx::b) pay to support the child, which is, as I said above, usually more expensive.

The Fool: You say many things, but I myself prefer thing true things.

Skikx:or c) pay for neither.

The Fool: What is the "entity " which is "neither" ?

If by "neither" you mean "nothing" then no complement object exists to be paid, in which case paying doesn"t happen.

Exactly, that's why the statement makes sense, so I don't understand why you are blathering about it.

Skikx As a consequence, you would have a lot of children being raised in poverty, probably without access to a (good) education.

The Fool: I"m sorry, as a consequence of "what" existing cause?

The families not receiving any support for raising the child.

And , "who" then would be raising a lot of children in poverty?

Poor parents, who couldn't get an abortion, even though they wanted one.

If I didn"t know any better, it sounds like you"re trying in true feminist fashion to give the impression that "I" myself would be raising a lot of children in poverty, if I didn"t do actually anything.
But you would still be affected, as you are a part of society.


"As a consequence, you would have a lot of children being raised in poverty"????

"probably without access to a (good) education. " (A slippery start)

The Fool: I think you"re probably missing a good responsible causal consequential inference.

If kids are being raised by poor parents they are, by definition, raised in poverty. If education requires money, then those kids won't get one, for money is the very thing they lack.
And if poor parents can't have an abortion, because they can't afford it and it isn't covered by healthcare either or otherwise discouraged, they are practically forced to have that baby.

Poverty leads to crime.
http://www.poverties.org...
http://www.dcourier.com...
http://www.jhsossm.ca...

More crime requires more police force to be controlled. This increased police force has to be paid. Thus, either you pay more taxes, or the government spends less on other sectors. Either way, money will be spent on poor people. In the same way, more violent crimes lead to more people being injured. Which increases the need for medical personnel and equipment, which also has to be paid.
Unless you favor that the state simply ignores crimes or the people altogether. Though that would have drastic consequences as well, that would, depending on your situation, probably be very negative for you.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 12:27:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 6:16:57 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I was on Facebook and a link to an article about a woman using crowd sourcing to fund an abortion was on my feed. I wrote in the comment section "I'm pro-choice but an abortion fund is in bad taste." This set off a feminist rebuttal that labeled my views misogynist. Were my views misogynist?

The said article: http://www.salon.com...

You could have just ignored the post. No one wanted or asked for your opinion. You may not be misogynist, but your opinion isn't always needed. That was one case where it would have been best to keep it to yourself.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 12:27:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 7:56:10 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 9/6/2014 7:24:56 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/6/2014 7:24:04 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 9/6/2014 6:51:30 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
No.
That person was being an idiot.

What has the reason for it? I never saw it.

The reason for the abortion? The woman was having troubles with the pregnancy and couldn't afford the procedure so she used crowd funding.

I don't see why that is so bad....if true.

The problem was I said having a crowd source for an abortion was in bad taste. It implied a form of abortion shaming.

I'm glad you realize this.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 3:23:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Seed
Part 2.5
This is continuing from the first post where I said "I am not done" but you still responded beforehand anyways.

The Critical Hit
Skikx: When the issue is cancer, an injury after an accident or a severe infectious disease, nobody would call it bad taste or make fun of her.

If she had chronic diarrhea, people would make all kinds of jokes about her, but it would nonetheless be a serious problem.
Now it is about abortion, so you, and presumably a lot of other people are calling it bad taste, indecent or whatever.

The Fool: Perhaps because, 1) getting pregnant is generally avoidable..2) and it may perpetuate a reliance others to bail one out of such a situation. 3) It can damage the websites credibility, to pro-lifers 4) and perhaps general support for others in the future.

Are those not reasons to suggest that it"s in bad taste, without necessarily abortion shaming in any way?

Skikx: 1) True, but do we know why or how she got pregnant? And do we know if it was to be expected that she would have such problems during her pregnancy?

The Fool: Your questions here are red herrings, I will get back to them, but for now let"s keep the critical points in focus..
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now, your key argument was dependent upon the suggestion "calling it bad taste" necessarily being "abortion shaming". You even tried to manipulate what was said because you thought "abortion shaming" would justify a feminist declaration of "misogyny.":

"Skikx said:"you're telling people to keep their abortions private, so in a way, you're shaming them."

As it was necessary for your conclusion that "since only women get abortions, it is indirectly a statement against women."A.k.a. Its indirectly Misogynist. Even though you previously said:

"So I wouldn't call it misogynist per se, but yeah,"

So you were never sincere from the start, you slithery one. Just like your pretending to concede to sub arguments, but are still really trying to argue your way out again by twisting what was said again.
E.g.
"Skikx: If one says you shouldn't seek help publicly, than it implies that you should not talk about the problem publicly.

The Fool: Who said to "not seek help publicly"other than yourself? Secondly it does not follow, that seeking help publicly, is talking about a problem publicly.

Counterexample:
I may talk about my problems publicly, and seek help privately. Also may seek help publicly, and not be specific about the details; In the same sense that we really don"t know what"s this particular woman"s complications are. Either way your inference is refuted.

Skikx: If one says that they should not talk about it in public, one says it is shameful or indecent to do so.

The Fool: The first inference has demonstrated to be false, therefore this is non-sequitur. But the refutation is even easier for this one. Saying that one should not talk about something in public, is not the same as saying it is shameful or indecent to talk about it.

Counterexample:
One should not talk about how much money they have on them in public, to avoid getting robbed. Not that it would be shameful or indecent talk about publicly.
QED

Now, I temporarily left some parts out which I"m not done with. I just wanted to first make it Absolutely Clear, that your main argument of your first post has been indefinitely refuted. I know you very "subtly" conceded, and I recognize your polite and seemingly agreeable nature, but the fact that you"re still arguing suggest that you have not "really conceded". Just like you said you were "not really" considering the reply "misogynist", but only in attempt to set up at argument which implies that it was actually "misogynistic." I can understand a few mistakes, but you've made constant compulsive attempts to twist the truth now.

If you feel you are being misrepresented, just let me know where.
Fair?

Against The Ideologist

It ain't worth your soul.

To be continued..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL