Female politician proposes law to fine men $100 for masturbating

[Beet]

Well no one's going to say "I oppose women's rights" because that's not (yet) popular enough, although we are headed in that direction. I'm not a big fan of the "argumentum ad hominem" on this issue, but the idea that restricting women's rights isn't anti-female just because the people advocating it don't sell themselves that way is rather silly. People who opposed women's suffrage had nominally pro-woman arguments, as well.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I just saw someone on Facebook take this ban seriously. I just don't see the point anymore in anything.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Well no one's going to say "I oppose women's rights" because that's not (yet) popular enough, although we are headed in that direction. I'm not a big fan of the "argumentum ad hominem" on this issue, but the idea that restricting women's rights isn't anti-female just because the people advocating it don't sell themselves that way is rather silly. People who opposed women's suffrage had nominally pro-woman arguments, as well.

     The thing is, pro-life activists would resist conceiving it as a women's rights issue at all. By your logic, a hypothetical proponent of allowing women to commit murder would be pro-woman, and anyone who wanted to punish woman murderers would be anti-woman. This hypothetical sounds preposterous, but this is what it sounds like to people who are pro-life.

[Beet]

Well no one's going to say "I oppose women's rights" because that's not (yet) popular enough, although we are headed in that direction. I'm not a big fan of the "argumentum ad hominem" on this issue, but the idea that restricting women's rights isn't anti-female just because the people advocating it don't sell themselves that way is rather silly. People who opposed women's suffrage had nominally pro-woman arguments, as well.

     The thing is, pro-life activists would resist conceiving it as a women's rights issue at all. By your logic, a hypothetical proponent of allowing women to commit murder would be pro-woman, and anyone who wanted to punish woman murderers would be anti-woman. This hypothetical sounds preposterous, but this is what it sounds like to people who are pro-life.

Of course, acknowledging it as a women's rights issue doesn't mean that pro-lifers have to become pro-choice. As your example shows, there are valid limitations to "rights". Nonetheless, pro-lifers do want to restrict women's rights, so if you don't see abortion as murder, that becomes the deciding factor.

[I Won - Get Over It]

It would drive higher turnout among white angry men

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't doubt that most people who make their electoral choices based on opposition to abortion are probably sincere about their beliefs (although they might hold these beliefs for a variety of reasons and draw somewhat different conclusions from them). However, the politicians who tend to exploit these issues usually have a very different agenda in mind - and when you look at the rest of their voting records and some of their statements, it's hard to escape the conclusion that misogyny is at the heart of it all.

[DC Al Fine]

Well no one's going to say "I oppose women's rights" because that's not (yet) popular enough, although we are headed in that direction. I'm not a big fan of the "argumentum ad hominem" on this issue, but the idea that restricting women's rights isn't anti-female just because the people advocating it don't sell themselves that way is rather silly. People who opposed women's suffrage had nominally pro-woman arguments, as well.

     The thing is, pro-life activists would resist conceiving it as a women's rights issue at all. By your logic, a hypothetical proponent of allowing women to commit murder would be pro-woman, and anyone who wanted to punish woman murderers would be anti-woman. This hypothetical sounds preposterous, but this is what it sounds like to people who are pro-life.

Of course, acknowledging it as a women's rights issue doesn't mean that pro-lifers have to become pro-choice. As your example shows, there are valid limitations to "rights". Nonetheless, pro-lifers do want to restrict women's rights, so if you don't see abortion as murder, that becomes the deciding factor.

You're claim requires a bizarre definition of 'rights'. No one is going around calling the laws against violent crime restrictions on the right to bodily autonomy. The question as always, is whether unborn babies are persons.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Well no one's going to say "I oppose women's rights" because that's not (yet) popular enough, although we are headed in that direction. I'm not a big fan of the "argumentum ad hominem" on this issue, but the idea that restricting women's rights isn't anti-female just because the people advocating it don't sell themselves that way is rather silly. People who opposed women's suffrage had nominally pro-woman arguments, as well.

     The thing is, pro-life activists would resist conceiving it as a women's rights issue at all. By your logic, a hypothetical proponent of allowing women to commit murder would be pro-woman, and anyone who wanted to punish woman murderers would be anti-woman. This hypothetical sounds preposterous, but this is what it sounds like to people who are pro-life.

Of course, acknowledging it as a women's rights issue doesn't mean that pro-lifers have to become pro-choice. As your example shows, there are valid limitations to "rights". Nonetheless, pro-lifers do want to restrict women's rights, so if you don't see abortion as murder, that becomes the deciding factor.

You're claim requires a bizarre definition of 'rights'. No one is going around calling the laws against violent crime restrictions on the right to bodily autonomy. The question as always, is whether unborn babies are persons.

-Exactly. I firmly stand on the non-person side of the fence, of course. Thus, I obviously do not see abortion as murder. However, given that reproductive rights are a matter of the future of a people, and are, therefore, a vital matter of interest to the state, I see total liberty in matters relating to reproduction as risking the degeneration of future people, and I am thus perfectly willing to examine arguments for abortion restriction.

[Beet]

Well no one's going to say "I oppose women's rights" because that's not (yet) popular enough, although we are headed in that direction. I'm not a big fan of the "argumentum ad hominem" on this issue, but the idea that restricting women's rights isn't anti-female just because the people advocating it don't sell themselves that way is rather silly. People who opposed women's suffrage had nominally pro-woman arguments, as well.

     The thing is, pro-life activists would resist conceiving it as a women's rights issue at all. By your logic, a hypothetical proponent of allowing women to commit murder would be pro-woman, and anyone who wanted to punish woman murderers would be anti-woman. This hypothetical sounds preposterous, but this is what it sounds like to people who are pro-life.

Of course, acknowledging it as a women's rights issue doesn't mean that pro-lifers have to become pro-choice. As your example shows, there are valid limitations to "rights". Nonetheless, pro-lifers do want to restrict women's rights, so if you don't see abortion as murder, that becomes the deciding factor.

You're claim requires a bizarre definition of 'rights'. No one is going around calling the laws against violent crime restrictions on the right to bodily autonomy. The question as always, is whether unborn babies are persons.

All laws are restrictions of rights in some way, only sometimes they are justified and sometimes they are not. If you don't like that word you can use some other word, but it doesn't change the substance. Women need reproductive freedom in order to live fully, as having children is a life-changing event that will consume the rest of her life, so she needs to be able to decide when and if she wants to have them. Not to mention the basic notion that if one's own uterus is public property, it is a grave blow to a person's individual existence as an autonomous being, which is the point being made by this legislator.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Beet, land use restrictions do not make private property public. Either that, or we and all our property are all property of the state.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Well no one's going to say "I oppose women's rights" because that's not (yet) popular enough, although we are headed in that direction. I'm not a big fan of the "argumentum ad hominem" on this issue, but the idea that restricting women's rights isn't anti-female just because the people advocating it don't sell themselves that way is rather silly. People who opposed women's suffrage had nominally pro-woman arguments, as well.

     The thing is, pro-life activists would resist conceiving it as a women's rights issue at all. By your logic, a hypothetical proponent of allowing women to commit murder would be pro-woman, and anyone who wanted to punish woman murderers would be anti-woman. This hypothetical sounds preposterous, but this is what it sounds like to people who are pro-life.

Of course, acknowledging it as a women's rights issue doesn't mean that pro-lifers have to become pro-choice. As your example shows, there are valid limitations to "rights". Nonetheless, pro-lifers do want to restrict women's rights, so if you don't see abortion as murder, that becomes the deciding factor.

     I mean, the law does limit our ability to act in certain ways, but banning women from committing murder is a frankly bizarre thing to call "anti-female". The negative connotations of describing a position as "anti-female" compounds this problem.

     I am pro-choice and do not believe that fetuses should be granted rights that interfere with the actions of rational adults, but considering that I see little evidence to suppose that pro-life people are motivated by an opposition to women's rights, I don't find it informative to formulate the issue as such. It is a political expedient, but one I do not care for.

[Beet]

Well no one's going to say "I oppose women's rights" because that's not (yet) popular enough, although we are headed in that direction. I'm not a big fan of the "argumentum ad hominem" on this issue, but the idea that restricting women's rights isn't anti-female just because the people advocating it don't sell themselves that way is rather silly. People who opposed women's suffrage had nominally pro-woman arguments, as well.

     The thing is, pro-life activists would resist conceiving it as a women's rights issue at all. By your logic, a hypothetical proponent of allowing women to commit murder would be pro-woman, and anyone who wanted to punish woman murderers would be anti-woman. This hypothetical sounds preposterous, but this is what it sounds like to people who are pro-life.

Of course, acknowledging it as a women's rights issue doesn't mean that pro-lifers have to become pro-choice. As your example shows, there are valid limitations to "rights". Nonetheless, pro-lifers do want to restrict women's rights, so if you don't see abortion as murder, that becomes the deciding factor.

     I mean, the law does limit our ability to act in certain ways, but banning women from committing murder is a frankly bizarre thing to call "anti-female". The negative connotations of describing a position as "anti-female" compounds this problem.

Pro-choice people don't consider abortion "murder", so we consider restrictions on abortion as anti-female. Since the legislator in question is pro-choice, it makes sense she would use this language.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I said, I don't think it's a good idea to go into trying to guess people's motivations, since this is argumentum ad hominem, speculative by nature, and motivations are diverse. If we want to open up that can of worms, I do think that many pro-lifers are anti-woman, but I think it would be just a giant red herring.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Give no one any choices, we are all equal. End of story.

[afleitch]

I think there's something to the idea that men and women often have at least somewhat different reasons for being pro-life, and that men's reasons are often a lot less noble that women's--which would obviously mean, among other things, that I ought to be extra-careful about my own motivations--but, if true, I don't really know that that could be measured.

Woman's gyneacological matters for me are their preserve. In real life I rarely contribute anything to discussions on abortion (Britain doesn't really have much of a discussion anyway) other than delegate any 'interest' in it to them. I'm signed up to walk women to clinics should US style protests start (a few Catholic groups have tried) but that's as far as my interest goes.

[afleitch]

Also, for those who think the Church has even a modicum of sense, bear in mind that it forbids masturbation even to obtain a sample for fertility or other health related diagnosis, or for reproductive assistance within marriage. It's more about 'don't touch your dick' than apologists will care to admit.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Well no one's going to say "I oppose women's rights" because that's not (yet) popular enough, although we are headed in that direction. I'm not a big fan of the "argumentum ad hominem" on this issue, but the idea that restricting women's rights isn't anti-female just because the people advocating it don't sell themselves that way is rather silly. People who opposed women's suffrage had nominally pro-woman arguments, as well.

     The thing is, pro-life activists would resist conceiving it as a women's rights issue at all. By your logic, a hypothetical proponent of allowing women to commit murder would be pro-woman, and anyone who wanted to punish woman murderers would be anti-woman. This hypothetical sounds preposterous, but this is what it sounds like to people who are pro-life.

Of course, acknowledging it as a women's rights issue doesn't mean that pro-lifers have to become pro-choice. As your example shows, there are valid limitations to "rights". Nonetheless, pro-lifers do want to restrict women's rights, so if you don't see abortion as murder, that becomes the deciding factor.

     I mean, the law does limit our ability to act in certain ways, but banning women from committing murder is a frankly bizarre thing to call "anti-female". The negative connotations of describing a position as "anti-female" compounds this problem.

Pro-choice people don't consider abortion "murder", so we consider restrictions on abortion as anti-female. Since the legislator in question is pro-choice, it makes sense she would use this language.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I said, I don't think it's a good idea to go into trying to guess people's motivations, since this is argumentum ad hominem, speculative by nature, and motivations are diverse. If we want to open up that can of worms, I do think that many pro-lifers are anti-woman, but I think it would be just a giant red herring.

     I do agree that the motivations of pro-lifers are diverse and in principle unknowable (almost nobody will admit to being anti-woman), and this is a discussion that will only keep going around in circles. I don't consider abortion to be murder, and based on what I understand about the motivations of pro-lifers I refrain from calling them "anti-woman" because I do not believe that that adequately explains their motivations.

     In the end though, calling them that is just a piece of political branding not unlike describing yourself as "pro-choice" or "pro-life". The only problem I foresee is when people take it as something more, like when feminists argue that a feminist cannot be pro-life because that is an anti-woman position. Obviously that isn't the motivating factor for the feminist who believes that aborting fetuses is murder.

[Enduro]

Also, for those who think the Church has even a modicum of sense, bear in mind that it forbids masturbation even to obtain a sample for fertility or other health related diagnosis, or for reproductive assistance within marriage. It's more about 'don't touch your dick' than apologists will care to admit.

As someone who is in the Church, this is not true. Unless your talking about specific denominations, then I might believe you if you provide proof.

[Beet]

     I do agree that the motivations of pro-lifers are diverse and in principle unknowable (almost nobody will admit to being anti-woman), and this is a discussion that will only keep going around in circles. I don't consider abortion to be murder, and based on what I understand about the motivations of pro-lifers I refrain from calling them "anti-woman" because I do not believe that that adequately explains their motivations.

I guess we disagree on your last sentence, but otherwise agree on the rest, so put that aside.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Making conclusions based on the "motivating factor" is pointless for all the reasons discussed above, as you agreed. But even if these people were pure in motivations, it wouldn't matter, because women can't eat other people's motivations. What matters to them are their rights. Feminists will of course consider pro-lifers anti-feminist since they're for denying women's rights, and the only counterargument relies on an assumption ("aborting fetuses is murder") that, from the pro-choice feminist's perspective, isn't true.

[Zioneer]

Let's the state decide.

States Rights will make you go blind!

[Tartarus Sauce]

Hilarious legislation. A+

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I do agree that the motivations of pro-lifers are diverse and in principle unknowable (almost nobody will admit to being anti-woman), and this is a discussion that will only keep going around in circles. I don't consider abortion to be murder, and based on what I understand about the motivations of pro-lifers I refrain from calling them "anti-woman" because I do not believe that that adequately explains their motivations.

I guess we disagree on your last sentence, but otherwise agree on the rest, so put that aside.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Making conclusions based on the "motivating factor" is pointless for all the reasons discussed above, as you agreed. But even if these people were pure in motivations, it wouldn't matter, because women can't eat other people's motivations. What matters to them are their rights. Feminists will of course consider pro-lifers anti-feminist since they're for denying women's rights, and the only counterargument relies on an assumption ("aborting fetuses is murder") that, from the pro-choice feminist's perspective, isn't true.

     It is true that you still can't really know, but you can make reasonable inferences about the motivating factor at times. It should not be controversial that a pro-life feminist is not motivated by hating women. Besides that, I can understand that pro-choice feminists don't care for the views of pro-life feminists on the issue, but there are other women's issues and when only 18% of the population identifies with your movement you may not want to drive people off. Of course, they are welcome to do whatever they like.

[afleitch]

Also, for those who think the Church has even a modicum of sense, bear in mind that it forbids masturbation even to obtain a sample for fertility or other health related diagnosis, or for reproductive assistance within marriage. It's more about 'don't touch your dick' than apologists will care to admit.

As someone who is in the Church, this is not true. Unless your talking about specific denominations, then I might believe you if you provide proof.

It's contained within the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.

[emailking]

Yeah. Masturbation is a venial sin in the Catholic Church.

[Beet]

     It is true that you still can't really know, but you can make reasonable inferences about the motivating factor at times. It should not be controversial that a pro-life feminist is not motivated by hating women. Besides that, I can understand that pro-choice feminists don't care for the views of pro-life feminists on the issue, but there are other women's issues and when only 18% of the population identifies with your movement you may not want to drive people off. Of course, they are welcome to do whatever they like.

Considering 52% of the population is pro-choice, I hardly think that's the issue holding feminists back. If anything, there's too much of a tendency within feminism these days to give up principles for the sake of appealing to people, so you have celebrities singing lyrics like "I don't need to shake my ass for you, because I have a brain" while shaking their ass on video. In the long run this leads to people calling themselves feminists for virtue signaling, but doesn't accomplish anything.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It is true that you still can't really know, but you can make reasonable inferences about the motivating factor at times. It should not be controversial that a pro-life feminist is not motivated by hating women. Besides that, I can understand that pro-choice feminists don't care for the views of pro-life feminists on the issue, but there are other women's issues and when only 18% of the population identifies with your movement you may not want to drive people off. Of course, they are welcome to do whatever they like.

Considering 52% of the population is pro-choice, I hardly think that's the issue holding feminists back. If anything, there's too much of a tendency within feminism these days to give up principles for the sake of appealing to people, so you have celebrities singing lyrics like "I don't need to shake my ass for you, because I have a brain" while shaking their ass on video. In the long run this leads to people calling themselves feminists for virtue signaling, but doesn't accomplish anything.

     It may not be holding them back specifically, but determining purity tests is generally not conducive to growing a movement. Just look at the libertarians.

     I suspect part of the problem you describe is actually that the feminist movement is deeply confused about principles; shaking your ass on video can and has at times been defended as a feminist act. This leads to a significant amount of doublethink, as it is possible to defend opposite positions as feminist under some circumstances. I have been thinking recently that this could be related to the concept of consistency as employed in Hilbert's Program, though any relation of a mathematical method to social movements would be at best approximate.