Of course, for this fulminating and fanatical objectivist, the transcending font is the Christian God.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:41 pmHow did she do that as "a woman and only a woman"?iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 8:51 pm No, what abortion is always about is this: a woman [and only a woman] gets pregnant and does not want to be pregnant. For any number of personal reasons rooted in the life that she [and only she] lives. Then the part where squabbles erupt over when human life actually begins. And then the part where there are conflicting reactions to how the pregnancy occurred...defective birth control device, rape, incest. Then the part where things change in the woman's life prompting her to change her mind about the pregnancy. Then the part where to abort or not to abort becomes deeply embedded in the woman's mental health. Or in her physical health.
Then the part where in some states [or in some entire nations] none of that complex "existential stuff" matters. If a woman gets pregnant [whatever the circumstances] she must give birth. Or be charged with first degree premeditated murder.
Reproductive control is obviously an important component of the debate. If the state can seize control of it and force woman to give birth, what does that tell you about the gap between men and women in regard to social, political and economic equality?
In my view, only a fool, a misogynist, or an advocate of patriarchy would not acknowledge the "for all practical purposes" consequences of forcing women to give birth.
As for tubal ligation and vasectomy, I made my arguments above. Others can decide for themselves whether henry addressed my points intelligently...or just wiggled out of responding altogether. Content instead [as always] with sticking to his "your option is to think like I do about these things or you are necessarily wrong" mentality of the hardcore moral and political objectivists.
Again, he can't/won't even recognize the extent to which the "psychology of objectivism" propels his authoritarian dogmas here.
Not only that but he requires the existence of a God, the God in order [ultimately] to anchor his convictions. God created him in order that he "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".
Though, again, I suspect that henry will actually dare this God not to follow his own mere mortal dictates!!
His thinking here is so utterly weak, in my view, he requires a "transcending font" in order to anchor his precious Self to something that comforts and consoles him. I knew there was a God in there somewhere! It's just that he's torn between the Deist God and himself as this transcending font.
I've never met a woman "and only a woman" who could "get pregnant" at all.
In fact, it would be rather interesting to explore an exchange between henry and IC in regard to the consequences of women [and only women] getting pregnant and not wanting to be. With respect to God and religion and..Judgment Day?
But, apparently, this is still all completely "private" between them.
Both seem adamant that women have absolutely no excuse for getting pregnant. Not really. So, it is entirely logical and epistemologically sound that should they have one, the state is justified in arresting them, trying them for first degree premeditated murder and, if convicted, sending them to death row?
Though it is true that while a man can't get pregnant, he can, as a doctor or a back-alley practitioner, perform one. So, in that sense, men too can be found guilty of first degree murder here. Let equality revolve around that instead?