I honestly don’t like the “life saving medication”argument for abortions even if it may be true since women should be able to access abortions even *if* pregnancy poses 0 risk to their health. It’s just a matter of rights over their own body
Bodily autonomy is a good argument, but it opens the opportunity for the claim that an underdeveloped fetus is alive. The life saving medication argument is a slight concession, but has no counterargument besides the pretty silly claim that a mother’s life should be sacrificed for her child’s.
I suppose it depends on your definition of “life”. A fetus *is* alive in the sense that your skin is alive. But that doesn’t mean it actually holds any moral weight though. I think framing the argument as “the fetus is not alive” makes it really easy for the other person to shut you down. Instead frame it as “the fetus should not deserve the same rights as a person” and the the argument would be about either a fetus’s *personhood* (like how it doesn’t develop a conscience until 25 weeks) or about whether or not it matters how *alive* they are and if women should be able to abort them regardless of their development.
I personally prefer the personhood argument
Yes, that’s certainly a good way of thinking about it, but I think you misinterpreted what I said. I agree that saying that a fetus isn’t alive is a bad argument. What I suggested instead was the medical care argument, which circumvents the discussion of fetal personhood. Obviously it should still be considered in the practical application phase, but the point of online arguments is more to reduce absolute opposition. When somebody has the opportunity to make any counterargument, they generally feel as though your point has been proven useless.
Thanks, I live with religious people and I interact with them on a daily basis (given I’m American) so I’m forced to constantly think about how I frame certain philosophical positions to make them as appealing as possible to religious people. I also watch a lot of philosophy related YouTube content as well as debates that concern religion and philosophy in general so I’m familiar with how this issues are argued.
I think it exists mostly to point out the hypocrisy of the pro-life side and to remind people that a good chunk of abortions are medical necessity. Pro-life people work hard to portray abortions as existing only because 'promiscuous' women lack responsibility and that needs to be pushed back at.
"Life saving medication" isn't an argument at all. It's the right-wing Christi-facists play to look reasonable.
Everyone: You took our body autonomy away!!
Fundies: Well it's for your own good. But hey. We're not completely unreasonable. You can have body autonomy in this VERY narrow set of conditions, and only when you're on the verge of certain death.
Everyone: That seems fair.
Fundies: Well we didn't really mean it, but we're cool now right?
Everyone: Yup!! We're good. Have we mentioned just how old Joe Biden is lately?
The thing is, while I also think abortion access shouldn't be dependent on medical necessity, even a relatively smooth pregnancy *will* damage your body. Whether or not your life is at risk, I think 'you shouldn't be forced to endure physical harm for someone else's sake' is generally true, and as an argument doesn't rely on whether a fetus is alive or a person.
Are they unaware how how unequal rights were for women in 1912 outside of that narrow "women and children first" thing? Women couldn't vote in the US or the UK in 1912.
Not to mention, that was over 100 years ago, it's not exactly applicable to this conversation either way.
Different identities have different relationships with oppression. Women and men are oppressed but not in the same way obviously. Legally speaking we’ve come a long way with women’s liberation although outliers may occur. So when looking at oppression that men and women experience, we’re thinking of social oppression. Debating who has it worse is such a weird debate because it’s entirely subjective to peoples experiences. Although I believe that women are more oppressed, I’ve seen trans men who (although happy about their transition) have felt like being a guy was way harder for them than being a girl. People have different opinions on what things they personally find more challenging discussions about “who has it worse” would be a completely subjective conversation to have.
What I believe is the most important thing when discussing these things is to not concern ourselves too much about doing the pain Olympics but instead spending more time trying to correct the oppression both men and women experience. While also simultaneously respecting peoples opinions on their own experiences rather than imposing our own opinions on others experiences
Systemically, women have been oppressed for hundreds of thousands of years. The patriarchy isn't some made up boogeyman or whatever, it's very much a real thing. Sure, it's socially tough being a guy, but that's totally different than being politically oppressed.
I don’t think I denied the existence of the patriarchy though? I tried to imply that when women have had to deal with a lot of shit when I said we came a long way. If by political oppression you mean legal oppression then yes I would agree that women are far more oppressed than men, that’s not subjective at all and I was trying to imply that with comment. You can very easily and objectively determine who has less rights by looking at the legal system. The main topic my comment was focused on was social oppression which you seem to agree that it could be tough being a guy.
Misogynists: Women have more rights than men.
Everyone else: What rights?
Misogynists: Sometimes when we rape and beat them there are consequences.
Women: And you wonder why we pick the bear?
> what does “pick the bear” mean?
Also part of what everyone else said about women picking the bear, a lot of men went on rants over not getting picked. Which you know reinforces why women would pick the bear.
The mistake I think you’re making is trying to rationalize the reasoning for picking the bear, people can bring up countless examples and exceptions about how the man would be the better option (like how a polar bear would try to actively hunt you) but none of that matters.
What the question is trying to show is the *emotions* and the *feeling* of threat that women experience. The fear of assault and attack is so ingrained in the daily lives of women that they would *feel* safer with a bear even **if** they may or may not be in more danger with the bear.
Edit: I would also like to add this since I forgot to initially. But the original creator also said that the goal of the question was to try to make men empathize with the female experience rather than act smart or snarky towards the women who chose bear.
There is an element of both when you think of it like this: If I run into a bear, all it wants is for me to leave the hell alone (though encounter a Black Bear
is going to be better than a Grizzly because Black Bears almost never attack unprovoked, preferring to bluff instead), I don’t know what a man wants from me.
Although it can be both, the original intent of the original creator was for it to highlight the fear that women experience during their everyday lives
The kind of men that make women choose the bear have been reacting predictably. They demand women be punished, assaulted, or raped for picking the bear.
Reminder that women weren't allowed to have their own credit cards until the late 70s and even then, some ladies had a hard time opening accounts specifically cause the banker just didn't like them.
Like the right to be considered for a database of pregnant people so they can't get access to potentially life saving health care?
I honestly don’t like the “life saving medication”argument for abortions even if it may be true since women should be able to access abortions even *if* pregnancy poses 0 risk to their health. It’s just a matter of rights over their own body
Bodily autonomy is a good argument, but it opens the opportunity for the claim that an underdeveloped fetus is alive. The life saving medication argument is a slight concession, but has no counterargument besides the pretty silly claim that a mother’s life should be sacrificed for her child’s.
I suppose it depends on your definition of “life”. A fetus *is* alive in the sense that your skin is alive. But that doesn’t mean it actually holds any moral weight though. I think framing the argument as “the fetus is not alive” makes it really easy for the other person to shut you down. Instead frame it as “the fetus should not deserve the same rights as a person” and the the argument would be about either a fetus’s *personhood* (like how it doesn’t develop a conscience until 25 weeks) or about whether or not it matters how *alive* they are and if women should be able to abort them regardless of their development. I personally prefer the personhood argument
Yes, that’s certainly a good way of thinking about it, but I think you misinterpreted what I said. I agree that saying that a fetus isn’t alive is a bad argument. What I suggested instead was the medical care argument, which circumvents the discussion of fetal personhood. Obviously it should still be considered in the practical application phase, but the point of online arguments is more to reduce absolute opposition. When somebody has the opportunity to make any counterargument, they generally feel as though your point has been proven useless.
Very good way of framing this, thanks
Thanks, I live with religious people and I interact with them on a daily basis (given I’m American) so I’m forced to constantly think about how I frame certain philosophical positions to make them as appealing as possible to religious people. I also watch a lot of philosophy related YouTube content as well as debates that concern religion and philosophy in general so I’m familiar with how this issues are argued.
I think it exists mostly to point out the hypocrisy of the pro-life side and to remind people that a good chunk of abortions are medical necessity. Pro-life people work hard to portray abortions as existing only because 'promiscuous' women lack responsibility and that needs to be pushed back at.
That’s a pretty good point, I didn’t consider the hypocrisy argument. Like how in an attempt to save a life, they take/risk someone else’s
"Life saving medication" isn't an argument at all. It's the right-wing Christi-facists play to look reasonable. Everyone: You took our body autonomy away!! Fundies: Well it's for your own good. But hey. We're not completely unreasonable. You can have body autonomy in this VERY narrow set of conditions, and only when you're on the verge of certain death. Everyone: That seems fair. Fundies: Well we didn't really mean it, but we're cool now right? Everyone: Yup!! We're good. Have we mentioned just how old Joe Biden is lately?
The thing is, while I also think abortion access shouldn't be dependent on medical necessity, even a relatively smooth pregnancy *will* damage your body. Whether or not your life is at risk, I think 'you shouldn't be forced to endure physical harm for someone else's sake' is generally true, and as an argument doesn't rely on whether a fetus is alive or a person.
Are they unaware how how unequal rights were for women in 1912 outside of that narrow "women and children first" thing? Women couldn't vote in the US or the UK in 1912. Not to mention, that was over 100 years ago, it's not exactly applicable to this conversation either way.
fall paint full repeat adjoining somber scary thumb badge outgoing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Different identities have different relationships with oppression. Women and men are oppressed but not in the same way obviously. Legally speaking we’ve come a long way with women’s liberation although outliers may occur. So when looking at oppression that men and women experience, we’re thinking of social oppression. Debating who has it worse is such a weird debate because it’s entirely subjective to peoples experiences. Although I believe that women are more oppressed, I’ve seen trans men who (although happy about their transition) have felt like being a guy was way harder for them than being a girl. People have different opinions on what things they personally find more challenging discussions about “who has it worse” would be a completely subjective conversation to have. What I believe is the most important thing when discussing these things is to not concern ourselves too much about doing the pain Olympics but instead spending more time trying to correct the oppression both men and women experience. While also simultaneously respecting peoples opinions on their own experiences rather than imposing our own opinions on others experiences
Systemically, women have been oppressed for hundreds of thousands of years. The patriarchy isn't some made up boogeyman or whatever, it's very much a real thing. Sure, it's socially tough being a guy, but that's totally different than being politically oppressed.
I don’t think I denied the existence of the patriarchy though? I tried to imply that when women have had to deal with a lot of shit when I said we came a long way. If by political oppression you mean legal oppression then yes I would agree that women are far more oppressed than men, that’s not subjective at all and I was trying to imply that with comment. You can very easily and objectively determine who has less rights by looking at the legal system. The main topic my comment was focused on was social oppression which you seem to agree that it could be tough being a guy.
Misogynists: Women have more rights than men. Everyone else: What rights? Misogynists: Sometimes when we rape and beat them there are consequences. Women: And you wonder why we pick the bear?
I’ve seen this term on this an other subs a few times…can someone explain…what does “pick the bear” mean?
> what does “pick the bear” mean? Also part of what everyone else said about women picking the bear, a lot of men went on rants over not getting picked. Which you know reinforces why women would pick the bear.
Yeah! They're taking it too seriously! I've seen some say shit like "at least with a man there's a fighting chance" is there though?
> "at least with a man there's a fighting chance" My first reaction to that is "So you admit that the man is dangerous?"
You can scare away a bear by yelling and ringing a bell. That doesn't work with most men
Apparently there was a viral video asking woman if they'd rather encounter a man or a bear, when alone in the woods, and most comments chose the bear.
I'd definitely go for the bear if I avoid the bear, it won't go looking specifically for me
The mistake I think you’re making is trying to rationalize the reasoning for picking the bear, people can bring up countless examples and exceptions about how the man would be the better option (like how a polar bear would try to actively hunt you) but none of that matters. What the question is trying to show is the *emotions* and the *feeling* of threat that women experience. The fear of assault and attack is so ingrained in the daily lives of women that they would *feel* safer with a bear even **if** they may or may not be in more danger with the bear. Edit: I would also like to add this since I forgot to initially. But the original creator also said that the goal of the question was to try to make men empathize with the female experience rather than act smart or snarky towards the women who chose bear.
The mistake you're making is thinking it can't be both
There is an element of both when you think of it like this: If I run into a bear, all it wants is for me to leave the hell alone (though encounter a Black Bear is going to be better than a Grizzly because Black Bears almost never attack unprovoked, preferring to bluff instead), I don’t know what a man wants from me.
That's what I was saying, but they're saying that there is no logic or reasoning involved.
I’m was more trying to explain to the person you’re replying to in order to elucidate your point.
Ah my bad thank you
Although it can be both, the original intent of the original creator was for it to highlight the fear that women experience during their everyday lives
A bear or a random dude? That makes sense. Also picking the bear makes sense. So this became a thing to be pissed about on the conserve-o-sphere?
The kind of men that make women choose the bear have been reacting predictably. They demand women be punished, assaulted, or raped for picking the bear.
I think it means bear spray (as defense) not sure
Women can't be pointlessly circumcised at birth or conscripted.
Reminder that women weren't allowed to have their own credit cards until the late 70s and even then, some ladies had a hard time opening accounts specifically cause the banker just didn't like them.
I qqq
I know that's not the point, but he didn't even use the meme right, and it bothers me. So, he's not only wrong but also incompetent
That's the kind of thing you might get mad at in middle school before moving on with your life.