this auld wan that's up the duff (1 Viewer)

[Wilbert]

would we need some women as extras in there? maybe just get some wigs.

or tape a bunch of cats together?
Just want to point out that thats a quote from the Simpsons before I get in trouble!

 

[RSJ]

hypothetically speaking, would any of you men here be willing to carry a baby if it was physically possible?

If it was possible i'd be preggers right now. Kids are awesome.

 

[Wilbert]

If it was possible i'd be preggers right now. Kids are awesome.

Does this mean, that one day, men will be able to get themselves up the duff?
Man, you're going to see some paternity leave then!

 

[RSJ]

Me: "Sorry boss, can't come into work today because my nipples are too tender and i can't get me shirt on"
Boss: "....."

 

[snakybus]

I don't have time to reply to this in full as I have to do some work, but I will say this - Jane said that I said that nobody, science or otherwise, can define when life begins, and that's not what I meant - what I meant was that if your definitions, in legalised abortion, are that life begins at 3 months, 6 months or whatever, it's arbitrary. Science can, absolutely, define when life begins.

 

[jane]

I don't have time to reply to this in full as I have to do some work, but I will say this - Jane said that I said that nobody, science or otherwise, can define when life begins, and that's not what I meant - what I meant was that if your definitions, in legalised abortion, are that life begins at 3 months, 6 months or whatever, it's arbitrary. Science can, absolutely, define when life begins.

Sorry, I meant that no one can translate that into legal terms. You said that in relation to the way society defines human life, which is what I thought you meant.

Science can't give us all the answers we need. The reason there are crazy creationists out there is that scientists don't like to admit to the 'public' that there are a lot of maybes and that science and theology can't be combined to make a law (i.e., a zygote is a life, and all lives have souls, etc etc). It's as dangerous to take biological understandings and make laws out of them as it is to use theological ones. Currently, people seem to be trying to do both, and look how well that's working out.

When it becomes a baby, yes, that's going to have to be arbitrary in legal terms. For some people who are trying very hard to conceive and can't, every period might be grieved like a miscarriage. For someone who definitely doesn't want to be pregnant, it can be just a foetus until it's gone.

But anyway, science can't tell us when human life begins because science can't define humanity for us. The definition of humanity is not fixed, nor is it the same across all cultures. Until the mid-20th century, in some parts of Ireland, unbaptised children, and those who died before the age of 6 or so could not be buried in consecrated ground, and were in special cemeteries that were located in liminal spaces in the community, which symbolised their marginal state in terms of participation in society. Baptism didn't even take place as early as it does now, as it was seen that you didn't really become a fully-realised human until you were actually past some of the critical early risk stages. In some societies, especially with high rates of infant mortality, children aren't even named until they reach a certain age.

In ancient Sparta, as awful as it sounds to us now, children were allegedly placed out in the wild for a few days after they were born. If they survived, they were considered 'tough enough' to be raised. If they didn't, they didn't. Their lives as people didn't begin until after that trial.

So science can say, "It possesses the genetic material of two people," but you and your mate spitting into the same cup does, too. Science can tell us about genetic material, but the definition of humanity is cultural, and we have to be very aware of the limitations of scientific understandings of the world. They do not give us cultural meaning. Rather, the directions of scientific research are driven by cultural concerns and values.

 

[egg_]

Now, what with all the accusations that I'm hysterical and all, it seems that no one wants to look at the real difference between the legal issue and the personal one, and the fact that on this whole thread, I tried to talk about it at least six or seven times. But no one wanted to. People preferred to accuse me of being a man-hater, of calling everyone a misogynist, and all sorts of other caricatures reserved for occasions when people want to shout down a woman who is actually making sense, or is trying to re-frame the argument.

I'm not sure if these comments are directed at me, Jane, but anyway, in case they are ... I don't want to hector you further about your debating style, because you seem to have misinterpreted my posts as personal insults (and, worse, deviations from what it's ok for left-wingers to say!) but I'm afraid, this being the internet, that if I don't reply my silence will be seen as submission

Just a few statements, and that will be all (I hope) from me on this subject:

- Jane, you are obviously not a man-hater, I'm pretty sure nothing I've said could be interpreted as suggesting that you are, but if I'm wrong about that I'm sorry

- I don't think you set out to call anyone a misogynist, but your line of argument strongly suggests 1) that any legal attempts to limit abortion stem from the view (implicit or explicit) that women are basically bad and men are not, and therefore 2) that any individual who thinks abortion should be limited also subscribes to that view (either consciously or subconsciously). FWIW I think 2) is just dead wrong and that while 1) has some relevance when considering the historical origin of anti-abortion legislation (but doesn't provide anything remotely like a complete picture), it has little relevance to the continuing existence of anti-abortion feeling in Ireland today, and to make out (on purpose or otherwise) that it is some sort of driving factor in how people feel is just insulting.

- I haven't accused you of hysteria, but I am the person who said that your tone made him squirm. Note that I didn't say that the subject under discussion made me uncomfortable. For you to come out and say that the reason for my squirming is a reluctance to face up to the hard questions that you are bravely confronting us with is kinda breathtaking. I'm squirming because I mostly agree with you, but for me this thread has been kinda like watching a Michael Moore documentary - I agree with a lot of the conclusions and I sympathise with the feelings, but the delivery is grating

 

[mazzyianne]

I think sometimes people think stick to this rediculous notion that people have to be 'objective' and sceintific to be correct. No one can remove themselves from their situation in society. No one is objective.
I think Jane has every right to feel emotion about this topic. I think it's fairly obvious that the fact that Jane has a womb and Ro has no womb have influenced their views.

I think the reasone you feel uncomfortable is beacuse jane feels so strongly about this, and I also think that emotion is as relevant a form of knowledge as anything else.

Jane wasn't saying women are seen as bad and men are not. We are not opposites!!! She was saying that women are not trusted and seen as whores and liars and that is reflected in laws that assume they are lying when they say they have been raped.
Bringing a comparison with men into it was your doing.
Also she wasn't saying that every man or person that is anti-choice thinks women are whores and liars.
Only that the domiant ideology sees some things as facts, as 'natural' or as 'scientific' and it is not easy even to see those kind of assumptions, never mind question them and look for alternatives.
The people who come up with all this shit, biological determinism for one, are men. Ideas that come from a male perspective are introduced as fact, as neutral.
Laws included.

 

[snakybus]

I wasn't talking about biological determinism, I was simply being clear about the facts. I understand more than anyone that biological or medical definitions are, themselves, culturally influenced and therefore somewhat ill defined - however there far less arbitrary and ill-defined than societal definitions. Basically what I'm saying is that the societal one is the one that's important, but it's handy to have the scientific one too.

As for getting emotional - people wouldn't be arguing if it weren't emotive for them, too. Ro feels emotional too. So does Egg, I'm sure, and whoever else is getting involved. Lots of people get emotional about this kind of thing, on the various sides of the debate, and rightly so. I'm less impressed by people who wash their hands of the issue.

 

[MDR]

I think it's fairly obvious that the fact that Jane has a womb and Ro has no womb have influenced their views.
.

I find that offensive. I come from a family of eight children; I am a devoted uncle to seven nieces and nephews and have spent an awful lot of time with them, not to mention my experience of seeing my sisters pregnant or watching my close family become parents; I am a married man who would like to have a family some day. Who are you to make sexist judgements on my experience with kids or on how well informed my views about children are just because I am a man?

I've said all I'm going to say on this.

 

[mazzyianne]

I find that offensive. I come from a family of eight children; I am a devoted uncle to seven nieces and nephews and have spent an awful lot of time with them, not to mention my experience of seeing my sisters pregnant or watching my close family become parents; I am a married man who would like to have a family some day. Who are you to make sexist judgements on my experience with kids or on how well informed my views about children are just because I am a man?

I've said all I'm going to say on this.

What?
I said your argument is influenced by the fact that you are male!
How could it not be?
How is that offensive?

 

[egg_]

I think the reasone you feel uncomfortable is beacuse jane feels so strongly about this, and I also think that emotion is as relevant a form of knowledge as anything else.

You would be dead wrong, mazzyiane, if you thought that I don't feel very strongly about something because I try and keep my emotions in check when I'm talking about it. My posts are very restrained, and very heavily edited, because, for me, communication is more important than self-expression

Jane wasn't saying women are seen as bad and men are not. We are not opposites!!! She was saying that women are not trusted and seen as whores and liars and that is reflected in laws that assume they are lying when they say they have been raped.

The burden of proof is always on the victim of any crime. Is everyone, therefore, regarded by the law as a liar?

 

[Vinnie]

There's about 6 soliloquys and almost no debate going on here cos gender fundamentals blind one from the other's point. Which I guess reflects how obscenely complicated an issue it is.

 

[mazzyianne]

You would be dead wrong, mazzyiane, if you thought that I don't feel very strongly about something because I try and keep my emotions in check when I'm talking about it. My posts are very restrained, and very heavily edited, because, for me, communication is more important than self-expression

I wasn't suggesting you dont feel strongly. You are keeping it in check as you say, because it's better not to come across as emotional? to be restrained?
I thought Jane sounded very rational and emotional at the same time.
Emotion is an undervalued form of knowledge.
Sometimes forms of knowledge experienced by and associate with women are seen as negative, whereas, we all have emotions, we all feel strongly about the topic.
I think I'll also bow out now, I have essays to write. I feel really uncomfortable with offending people too. i'll have to get over that one...
Great argument though.

ps. I think the law is almost all stupid and fucked and I think it does have a gender and class bias but it's an argument for another day.

 

[snakybus]

that old girl who's up the pole, though





she's kind of hot

 

[Dr Winston Umbogo]

childbirth is going to put years on her.

 

[pete]

Jane wasn't saying women are seen as bad and men are not [...] She was saying that women are not trusted and seen as whores and liars

This bit i just don't understand.

and that is reflected in laws that assume they are lying when they say they have been raped.

So we just ditch that whole presumption of innocence thing?

 

[egg_]

You are keeping it in check as you say, because it's better not to come across as emotional?

I find I can communicate better when I do keep it in check, that's all. Communication is so unbelievably difficult that I need all the help I can get. As I said:

My posts are very restrained, and very heavily edited, because, for me, communication is more important than self-expression

 

[snakybus]

AAAAARGGRHGHGHGGHHHHHHHH

FUCK YOU AAAAAAAARRRRRGH

 

[snakybus]

I meant: well said, Egg.