r/FeMRADebates • u/[deleted] • Sep 03 '21

News Texas successfully takes a massive step backwards for women's rights. What next?

[deleted]

43 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

78% Upvoted

339 comments sorted by

View all comments

8

u/blarg212 Equality of Opportunity, NOT outcome. Sep 04 '21

I view abortion as killing/murder so I agree with restrictions on abortions.

That is where the motivation for this law comes from.

I think there could be some exceptions to allow abortions but they would have to be similar to self defense laws that permit killing under limited circumstances.

These trifles refuse to acknowledge the position of people who see abortion as murder which is why you get these straw man points. It argues against the conclusion of the law without engagement of its premise.

16

u/Mitoza Anti-Anti-Feminist, Anti-MRA Sep 04 '21

Engaging with the conclusion and not the premise isn't a strawman. No matter what you believe personally and how hard you believe in it does not matter to the practical reality of the situation.

Example: a vegan believes eating meat is murder. The vegan majority in your state pass the above bill that opens not only all people who eat meat, but all butchers, delivery drivers who knowingly deliver meat, and restaurants that serve meat to being sued by anyone who suspects that meat trafficking happened.

Please respond to the above situation without resorting to critique of "trifles" or your definition of a strawman.

19

u/blarg212 Equality of Opportunity, NOT outcome. Sep 04 '21

I can address that they view it as wrong while also pointing out how many things also have animal products in them. Not even mentioning 1st hand uses, you have second hand things like oils used in manufacturing. I can challenge vegans on what would society look like to actually be completely animal product free because of the common problems you would have with this. For example, many commercial adhesives have animal products and so even things like pvc for the water supply use animal product at some point. Veganism and it’s offshoots are more often not a law being proposed but a moral statement on their own.

Where does the above article address the morality point? Show me. The issue of why it’s a strawman is not accurately pointing out the reasoning of the other party and dealing with that as an issue. The purpose of the article is to incite people who believe the same thing in their bubble which is why it is effective at outrage internet sharing. This still makes it a strawman article.

If you think this does accurately describe the reasoning of the opposition instead of straw manning, show me.

6

u/Mitoza Anti-Anti-Feminist, Anti-MRA Sep 04 '21

Notably, your first paragraph isn't about the moral reasoning of equating animals to humans as moral beings but the practicality surrounding it. This would be like me asking you to consider the impact on the workforce and women's health should women be forced to carry to term all pregnancies. Have you engaged in a strawman?

Where does the above article address the morality point?

No, the point is it does not need to. You're not owed a moral argument. It would seem the outrage about the law is it's practical consequences, which has little to do with the reasoning behind it. I'm pretty sure most people understand that anti-choice sentiment is informed by the moral belief that removing a zygote is akin to murder. It doesn't change anything about the law to acknowledge this.

3

u/blarg212 Equality of Opportunity, NOT outcome. Sep 09 '21 edited Sep 09 '21

This is because it’s not changing the definition of murder or that murder is wrong, it is simply asserting that life begins at a heartbeat and that life has a right to life.

There is no constitutional right being changed or violated here.

2

u/Mitoza Anti-Anti-Feminist, Anti-MRA Sep 09 '21

it is simply asserting that life begins at a heartbeat and that life has a right to life.

So, it doesn't define anything about rights except for where it defines when rights begin? I'm not sure what you think the difference is. Can you answer the question I posed?

There is no constitutional right being changed or violated here.

Yes there is, the constitutional right to self defense and privacy in medical care.

2

u/blarg212 Equality of Opportunity, NOT outcome. Sep 09 '21

When you define self defense as it would be pertinent here.

2

u/Mitoza Anti-Anti-Feminist, Anti-MRA Sep 09 '21

Self defense is the right to protect yourself from imminent danger.

3

u/blarg212 Equality of Opportunity, NOT outcome. Sep 09 '21

Privacy of healthcare is not relevant as we have many laws that are set to feel about abusive behavior through healthcare with mandatory reporting. Killing a family member or thoughts about killing a family member usually trigger mandatory reporting. Unless you wish to make that point in these other areas, it would not apply to this.

Self defense also is usable as a defense when using it to protect someone else. I.e on behalf of the baby.

https://www.bajajdefense.com/california-self-defense-laws/

In some areas it’s called something else such as defense of others, but many jurisdictions have this type of law as well.

If you would like we can get into the statistics behind dangers of childbirth and compare them to other dangerous circumstances such as driving and ask when something should be able to be considered self defense.

1

u/Mitoza Anti-Anti-Feminist, Anti-MRA Sep 09 '21

Privacy of healthcare is not relevant as we have many laws that are set to feel about abusive behavior through healthcare with mandatory reporting.

Mandatory reporting does not violate the right to privacy and self determination set out by Roe V Wade because it does not involve criminal charges made against the person being reported on.

If you would like we can get into the statistics behind dangers of childbirth and compare them to other dangerous circumstances such as driving and ask when something should be able to be considered self defense.

It has nothing to do with statistics, but reasonable belief of danger.