Conservative women?

[mollylonglegs2020]

If you have moral beliefs that abortion is wrong, then don't have an abortion. But don't go trying to enforce those beliefs on others. Doing so is not compatible with support of personal freedom.

Likewise, if you don't like gay marriage, then don't get gay married. But trying to pass laws that prevent others from doing so is authoritarian, bigoted, and not supporting personal freedom.

Freedom to force your beliefs on others isn't freedom. It's authoritarianism.

Conservatives like to think they have a monopoly on the word 'freedom'. I think it's time we (folks who don't identify as conservative) took that word back. Authoritarianism and minding other people's business isn't freedom. What conservatives want is to enforce their beliefs on others. That's despotism, not freedom.

Conservatives, I challenge you to adopt transparent, truthful political discourse. Give up saying you support freedom. Be honest. Tell it like it is. Admit you want to control others. Admit you want to force your beliefs on everyone else. Admit that you don't actually care about anyone's freedom but your own.

 

[adrina]

This is a very nice argument for your side--but I did not state they were equivalent. I stated an *analogy. Not the same thing. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to politely spell-out your position.

I would like to comment on your "...harmful to society" idea. It appears to me that this is a short-term/near-term position. What would your side say to the huge number of minorities which make up the vast majority of abortions since Roe v. Wade--and the projected elimination of those segments of our population? Could one argue that something nefarious might be at play; that the Eugenics movement is still alive and well? And that a genocide is happening right under our noses, which is I believe all of us can agree on is "harmful to society".

So black women shouldn't have agency over their own lives to determine when and if they need abortions? You can claim some stupid eugenics argument (like you really care heh) but the root of it comes down to that you believe black women should not be allowed to choose abortions. Would you like to try to justify that in terms of forced breeding?

 

[adrina]

View attachment 2198195

Gotta love these "doms" who can't address a challenge directly. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[lil_jenni]

What would you call it? I'm not being adversarial, but genuinely curious. It is honestly, at this point, every thinking woman's responsibility to take in every possible point of attack. Because they never quit.



Again, not to be adversarial, but what exact interest does society against the killing of a fetus? There's multiple points to this question. Does it mean that we need to protect embryos in clinics? Does it mean we need to do everything to make sure pregnant women have access to the appropriate healthcare to ensure a healthy delivery? Does it mean we need to do everything we can to make sure that every embryo develops into a healthy child and into a responsible adult?

The reason I ask these questions is because society's interest seems to only be relevant in this discussion when it comes to a gestating woman. And I have to ask why. Don't you?

It is not a ruse because there are legitimate legal questions. Personal liberties are always balanced against societal interest. And when personal liberties begin is a legitimate issue, and a difficult one. Viability was the cornerstone for a long time, but it is not the only possibility. These types of legal/philosophical issues must be addressed in order to understand the balancing required.

As for killing a fetus, the issue is societal harm. If someone stabs a pregnant woman and kills the fetus, it is crime against the woman and the fetus in (I think) every state. Why against the fetus? Because allowing someone to do so is harmful to society, the same way that stabbing the woman is. The thing is, you have to understand that crimes exist not to protect individuals but society, and it is a harm to society to allow people to intentionally or recklessly terminate pregnancies against the wishes of the woman. One could argue it's a crime against the.woman, not the fetus, but that's not the way the law has developed.in most (if not all) states..

Abortion is different, because it does not harm society (the woman is not threat to others) in the same way, and thus the individual liberty of the woman outweighs any interest the state may have.

 

[lovecraft68]

I think all remaining women are conservative because the left no longer allows the word woman to be used, unless its to scream fake outrage over women's rights while the camera is on them, then go back to trying to eradicate all feminine identifiers

 

[lil_jenni]

So black women shouldn't have agency over their own lives to determine when and if they need abortions? You can claim some stupid eugenics argument (like you really care heh) but the root of it comes down to that you believe black women should not be allowed to choose abortions. Would you like to try to justify that in terms of forced breeding?

This is a common tactic among pro-lifers, but it is another false equivalency. Eugenics is illegal because we determined it does harm society. But the economics of abortion is not intentional eugenics. Indeed, it is not eugenics at all, but rather a system that allows women a choice. Eugenics would not allow the choice, but would enforce breeding of desired populations and suppress breeding of undesired populations..

 

[adrina]

It is not a ruse because there are legitimate legal questions. Personal liberties are always balanced against societal interest. And when personal liberties begin is a legitimate issue, and a difficult one. Viability was the cornerstone for a long time, but it is not the only possibility. These types of legal/philosophical issues must be addressed in order to understand the balancing required.

As for killing a fetus, the issue is societal harm. If someone stabs a pregnant woman and kills the fetus, it is crime against the woman and the fetus in (I think) every state. Why against the fetus? Because allowing someone to do so is harmful to society, the same way that stabbing the woman is. The thing is, you have to understand that crimes exist not to protect individuals but society, and it is a harm to society to allow people to intentionally or recklessly terminate pregnancies against the wishes of the woman. One could argue it's a crime against the.woman, not the fetus, but that's not the way the law has developed.in most (if not all) states..

Abortion is different, because it does not harm society (the woman is not threat to others) in the same way, and thus the individual liberty of the woman outweighs any interest the state may have.

I would have to actually insist it is a ruse simply because the end goal is not nor has ever been the safeguarding of human life or the fetus. It has simply been about control of women. There has been no law designed - especially recently - that has addressed abortion that has been about health and safety of the fetus.

Again, what interest does the state have in forcing women to bear children - especially in light of women's own rights to control their own destinies.

 

[mollylonglegs2020]

I think all remaining women are conservative because the left no longer allows the word woman to be used, unless its to scream fake outrage over women's rights while the camera is on them, then go back to trying to eradicate all feminine identifiers

An excellent example of my earlier contention that conservatives have no interest in truth. Nobody is prohibiting the word 'woman'. We recognize that boxing people into inappropriate categories is disrespectful and harmful. This comment is an hysterical exaggeration.

Addressing folks in the way they want to be called is nothing more than simple human respect.

 

[lil_jenni]

I would have to actually insist it is a ruse simply because the end goal is not nor has ever been the safeguarding of human life or the fetus. It has simply been about control of women. There has been no law designed - especially recently - that has addressed abortion that has been about health and safety for the fetus's health.

Again, what interest does the state have in forcing women to bear children - especially in light of women's own rights to control their own destinies.

Oh, I agree about current laws. But that does not change the philosophical conundrum required in balancing liberty vs. state interests. It is ever present in all law.

 

[adrina]

Oh, I agree about current laws. But that does not change the philosophical conundrum required in balancing liberty vs. state interests. It is ever present in all law.

Not really. I see zero interest for the state in controlling pregnancy. Sure if they want to regulate the conditions of health for a pregnancy and the standards of care for pre-natal care sure, but actually controlling breeding? None.

In my opinion, it is one of the ruses that there is even such an interest. It's invented.

 

[lil_jenni]

Addressing folks in the way they want to be called is nothing more than simple human respect.

Yep. For example, I am a cis-gendered woman. I have friends who are trans women. We are all women.

Not really. I see zero interest for the state in controlling pregnancy. Sure if they want to regulate the conditions of health for a pregnancy and the standards of care for pre-natal care sure, but actually controlling breeding? None.

In my opinion, it is one of the ruses that there is even such an interest. It's invented.

You are misconstruing the state's interest. The state's potential interest is in the fetus. The ethical/philosophical conundrum is when the rights of the fetus as an individual attach. Live birth was the point at common law. Should it still be the point? Some people.would argue viability is that point. I have sympathy for that perspective, but not enough I would impose it on others. But calling the debate a ruse is extremely dismissive of those of us who do have some ethical and philosophical qualms regarding when the interests of the fetus attach.

 

[lil_jenni]

I think it’s important to remember that the reasons these laws on how a fetus is treated are supported have very little to do with the kind of abstract philosophy of law discussion being had here.
It always has been about controlling women. You can tell that because the actions taken by anti-choice people are only about punishment, never about prevention.
They are threats to keep women in line, never to help women.

Yes and no. These debates happen, but they are subsumed by the moral crap that gets heaped on top of them. So yes, as it stands now, it's about control and punishment, like morality always is. But we can aspire to better.

 

[adrina]

Yep. For example, I am a cis-gendered woman. I have friends who are trans women. We are all women.

You are misconstruing the state's interest. The state's potential interest is in the fetus. The ethical/philosophical conundrum is when the rights of the fetus as an individual attach. Live birth was the point at common law. Should it still be the point? Some people.would argue viability is that point. I have sympathy for that perspective, but not enough I would impose it on others. But calling the debate a ruse is extremely dismissive of those of us who do have some ethical and philosophical qualms regarding when the interests of the fetus attach.

No actually I do not think I am misconstruing the "state's potential interest". This is essentially invented talking points from the anti-abortion folks. I am being quite aggressive in fighting back against their talking points being made into any kind of realistic discussion when it comes to abortion and pregnancy. They have made a medical situation into a moral situation by the imposition of their morality on to everyone else.

Again, I ask, what interest and rights does the state have in controlling human breeding?

 

[lil_jenni]

No actually I do not think I am misconstruing the "state's potential interest". This is essentially invented talking points from the anti-abortion folks. I am being quite aggressive in fighting back against their talking points being made into any kind of realistic discussion when it comes to abortion and pregnancy. They have made a medical situation into a moral situation by the imposition of their morality on to everyone else.

Again, I ask, what interest and rights does the state have in controlling human breeding?

It doesn't. That is reductio ad absurdum, and you know it. It's the same tactic the religious zealots use.

 

[adrina]

It doesn't. That is reductio ad absurdum, and you know it. It's the same tactic the religious zealots use.

Actually it's not. And no I don't know it.

I am looking to the history of the words used by the anti abortion movement. Which you, likely unknowingly, are parroting.

Again, what interest does the state have in controlling human breeding? And further if you take offense to that phraseology, please demonstrate how the anti abortion movement's legislation does not work toward that goal.

 

[lil_jenni]

Actually it's not. And no I don't know it.

I am looking to the history of the words used by the anti abortion movement. Which you, likely unknowingly, are parroting.

Again, what interest does the state have in controlling human breeding? And further if you take offense to that phraseology, please demonstrate how the anti abortion movement's legislation does not work toward that goal.

Oh, it is. And the more.you dig in, the more obvious it is. I've answered, but not in the comfortable, narrow categories you like. So you decide to impune my agency and my intelligence/awareness to continue building a straw argument. Like I said, a favored practice of zealots.

 

[adrina]

Oh, it is. And the more.you dig in, the more obvious it is. I've answered, but not in the comfortable, narrow categories you like. So you decide to impune my agency and my intelligence/awareness to continue building a straw argument. Like I said, a favored practice of zealots.

Okey dokey darlin', I'm not going to get into a pissing match. I asked a question and you can't answer. I understand. It's a freaking complex issue that has been polluted to the high heavens. If you want to call me a zealot, whatevs.

I'm not impugning your intelligence, I am asking straight forward questions based on historical reality.

I have nothing against you.

My problem is with the equivocation of morality based on extremism from those who have zero real interest in protecting human life.

My beef isn't with you.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Wow
She only asked if there were other conservative ladies here.
This thread totally got hijacked

She was answered.

No thread hijacking ensued. The regular flow and entropy of (political) threads happened as usual.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Conservatives don't seem to recognise this. I see many conservatives thinking they can just make up their own reality, and that reality is often binary; black or white. They don't care for truth or nuance or tolerance at all.

In fact, conservatism is nothing more than the belief that society should be dominated by an aristocracy. This is incompatable with democracy and a modern pluralistic society. Conservatives seem willing to say anything at all that will bolster the power of that aristocracy. Even when the conservative in question isn't a member of the aristocracy.

Conservatism was defined like this by a commentator a few years ago

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.'"

It explains so much about the seeming contradictions in what conservatives say they believe. They believe in the rule of law, until it applies to them. They believe in democracy until they lose. They believe in personal autonomy until a woman practices it. They believe in religious freedom, but only for Christians. And so on.

 

[mollylonglegs2020]

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.'"

Exactly. This can also be stated as: conservatives believe in a 'natural' hierarchy of human value; some folks are just worth more than others, and those who are worth the most should be in charge. The Divine Right of Kings is an example of this argument.

But notice that people who advocate for such stratification of society never, ever place themselves at the bottom. This seems just too convenient to me, as a defense of entrenched power. It's defining virtue as whatever attributes the hierarchist possesses.

In fact, all humans are equally human, equally deserving of a dignified life. There is no natural hierarchy and society should not be so stratified. There should be no in-group/out-group distinction.

Conservatism is incompatable with a modern, pluralistic democracy. Conservatism is just feudal.

 

[YDB95]

Conservatism was defined like this by a commentator a few years ago

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.'"

It explains so much about the seeming contradictions in what conservatives say they believe. They believe in the rule of law, until it applies to them. They believe in democracy until they lose. They believe in personal autonomy until a woman practices it. They believe in religious freedom, but only for Christians. And so on.

I agree completely, with one caveat. What is nowadays called "conservative" (in the USA at least) is really right-wing. They used to be two different ideologies, adjacent to one another but distinct from one another nonetheless. But the former has long since become a euphemism for the latter, and it's about time we stopped using such a benign term for such a dangerous ideology.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Actually it's not. And no I don't know it.

I am looking to the history of the words used by the anti abortion movement. Which you, likely unknowingly, are parroting.

Again, what interest does the state have in controlling human breeding? And further if you take offense to that phraseology, please demonstrate how the anti abortion movement's legislation does not work toward that goal.

For me it's very simple. Access to abortion is a matter of religious freedom. The Talmud is very clear. Human life begins when the newborn draws its first breath. Until then, the right of the mother to bodily autonomy is supreme.

 

[adrina]

For me it's very clear. Access to abortion is a matter of religious freedom. The Talmud is very clear. Human life begins when the newborn draws its first breath. Until then, the right of the mother to bodily autonomy is supreme.

I respect your belief system and the traditions you observe.

In honesty and reality I am not religious. I believe that bodily autonomy is a basic tenet of human rights and that bodily autonomy is not applicable to fetuses/embryos as they are not autonomous.

 

[mollylonglegs2020]

I'm loving the discussion in this thread. I only wish some more reasonable conservatives would engage here, and maybe rebut (with thoughtful, considered arguments) some of the points being made here.

The shouty bigoted trolls who represent conservatism so loudly cannot be all that there is. Reasonable conservatives should kick them out of the movement. Decent conservatives should challenge bigotry and hate, and put their arguments respectfully and with intellectual rigor. Then we can really have a great discussion!

 

[mollylonglegs2020]

The problem is that republicans (which is the party conservatives back) are incredibly good at rallying everyone into line. That’s the source of their power. If conservatives want something, they have to welcome the shitbags. That’s how the minority party gets the majority.

Well, the GOP is now the party of the reactionary, extreme right, neo-nazis, conferderates, christian nationalists and other assorted bigots. We're seeing that with all the election denialism and calls for political violence from them. And the conspiracy bullshit and the attacks on science, truth and the institutions of democracy.

I sure hope you Americans can sort this mess out and remove the nazis from your political landscape. What happens in America is important for the rest of the world.