The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

So we finally have an assertion. Let's examine that profile description, as provided by androbot01.

- Is enthusiastically against women's autonomy
- Incapable of realising that outcomes vary from person to person
- Despite this, feels guilty at having an outcome that is 'better' than another person.
- Is motivated against abortion due to this cognitive dissonance.

So you're claiming that these characteristics are applicable to "the majority of White Middle Class voters"?



Define "great wealth". Trying to justify your claim by adding "Voted for Newt Gingrich" to the profile is actually a weakening of your model which is already based on someone else's logically absurd musings rather than on, for example, demographic data.



In how many instances? What are the stats? What observations do psychologists or sociologists make?



And they may feel nauseous, angry, amused or any one of the entire spectrum of irrational human emotions. What evidence do you have that a: your chosen emotion is common and b: a significant factor in defining one's moral position on the subject of abortion?



When people are pro abortion, they may be feeling gleeful at the thought of another life being snuffed out. They may be motivated by a desire to see harm befall others. They may get a sense of smug superiority at the thought that someone was somehow weaker or less capable than they are, that they're too stupid to make sensible decisions and they gain affirmation through viewing the face of every tortured woman who walks through the surgery door.

Or they may just be among the majority of people who don't fit into convenient narratives which are designed to bypass the requirement that you perceive the people whose views oppose your own as human beings, rather than as avatars upon which you paint your subjective moral negatives.



How? Demonstrate the process of cause and effect.



Again, what do you mean by "high income". What's your threshold? Are you making the mistake of calling the American working class "privileged"?

By way of an FYI. I believe I've been very accommodating here by taking time to respond to your posts. If you continue to ignore the multitude of questions and points I'm raising, and persist in throwing out a stream of unfounded hypothetical "x may y" statements, I'll consider it an imposition.

No its a theory which could be a motivation for why SOME people are against the idea of an abortion.

The idea of guilt makes sense you see.

People may feel guilty for not doing their bit to help unborn children.

The comparison to sociopathy doesn't work is their are very few people like that.

If this is our argument I am going to leave it year.

All you are doing is twisting my words.

How I would feel is not relevant to the value of their lives.

Are you suggesting that abortions should be prohibited because it makes people feel bad?

I'm not sure his motivation is "to get a reaction;" it could be that he needs to put others down in order to secure his idea of himself as superior.

I'm wondering why people want to interfere in a woman's reproductive rights.

Obviously some people feel passionately about this; I don't like not understanding why.

Abortion has been a religious issue since at least the 19th century.

Birth Control was a radical concept when Margaret Sanger advocated it. Many people didn't like her, despite her very sensible ideas.

On the contrary. The value of a human life is whatever value humans place on it.

...Granting fetal rights, whether at the age of viability or otherwise, is not "interfering" with women's rights, it's establishing the boundaries of the rights of both parties.

So you don't think the fetus has intrinsic rights? If that's the case I'm not sure why abortion would be an issue. We know for sure that people have a right to bodily autonomy.

Granting rights to the fetus seems arbitrary.

Sanger did, indeed, have eugenicist notions, most of which I don't agree with.

I do agree with her advocacy of a lower birthrate.

However, I believe most of the opposition to her stemmed from her advocacy of man-made birth control, which many saw as encouraging promiscuity and "immorality" in general.

It's possible, too, that some men saw her as being an "uppity" woman who sought to upset the social order of her time.

Nobody has intrinsic rights. Rights are granted by societal agreement and the laws which enforce those agreements. If humans had intrinsic rights, they'd apply at the point of conception, not birth.

The granting of any rights would seem arbitrary to someone who cannot understand the rationale behind doing so.

Most of the Founding Fathers believed that these rights were "inalienable," and not arbitrary, human creations.

Abortion has been a moral issue prior to the Hippocratic Oath. One of the prevailing arguments against abortion is that it violates the oath's stipulation against intentional harm. The Pythagoreans considered a fetus to be an animate human life, unconditionally worthy of preservation from the point of conception. That could be considered a religious issue, as they would have viewed abortion as interrupting the journey of a soul.



People were opposed to her championing of eugenics.

I'm not a fan of eugenics; I hope you don't think I even have any sort of sympathy for it. LOL

I was speaking of Sanger's advocacy of birth control, not her eugenic notions.