^I took back the "actively root for" and it was Trump's nominee, so you've screwed up twice in summarizing my views there.
Apparently anything that requires people to think carefully about their positions and why they hold them is "ridiculous semantics". I wouldn't have thought I'd have to go to this extent to explain to people why the underlying principle for this isn't gendered, but it seems like some people are absolutely determined to prove Jonathan Haidt right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cain
Probably a mistake to wade in here but I do see what I think CHL is saying. Abortion rights are essentially just a specific case of bodily autonomy rights. I think most everyone is in agreement that people should be allowed to have control over what happens to their own body and abortion naturally flows from that. It isn't necessarily a unique case or idea.
|
You've got it - except that I'm not suggesting that it's solely a matter of bodily autonomy rights. I've also been arguing that it's a matter of the right to self determination; that is, whether or not you have an abortion leads you down two separate life paths that are massively different, and it should be for the individual to make that decision for herself, rather than having it imposed on her by others.
So there are two principles - bodily autonomy and self-determination - that underlie this political position. But I'm not saying there couldn't be others! You could well say, "alright, but even separately from bodily autonomy and self-determination, women should be permitted to have abortions because X", and I might agree. But X obviously
isn't going to be "because abortions are, in themselves, intrinsically good things that we shouldn't stop people from experiencing". It also isn't, obviously, "Women should be allowed to have abortions because they have vaginas."
The point is, it's extremely unlikely that whatever compelling rationale you might come up with to support abortion rights, it will apply solely to women and not to people generally. And of course, no one has advanced such a rationale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
I'm really curious to know what slippery-slope you think we're going to go down, or what hypothetical scenario negates the idea that this is wrong because it imposes unnecessary social, personal, and economic harm on a certain section of the population.
|
That's a whole can of worms, but it's one that's been repeatedly explored including in this thread as to why identity politics leads people away from reason and evidence in favour of narrative, in the pursuit of protecting those at a perceived disadvantage and disparaging or attacking their alleged oppressors, often leading to grouping innocent people in with them. And in any event, as has been said in the past, there's no logical, reasoned argument that could be offered that would persuade someone who's skeptical of the value of logic and reason, nor any evidence that could be brought to bear to convince someone who doesn't believe in the value of evidence.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and everyone thinks they're doing the right thing intuitively.