tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post114603221501664908..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Abortion, Hubris, and Moral TrustRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-73801199527892245572009-04-12T05:19:00.000-04:002009-04-12T05:19:00.000-04:00And let's be honest, since this is a philosophical...And let's be honest, since this is a philosophical blog, it seems as those "real-world" examples aren't really what Richard wishes to talk about, at least here. Those kinds of pro-lifers, while numbering many, are obviously very irrational as you point out. But what about a pro-lifer like me that is also feminist, let alone a moderate pro-choicer? Richard isn't denying that there CAN be people like those you describe, merely that it isn't a logical necessity for a moderate to be one of those people.<BR/><BR/>And it's actually quite important because when the good Dr. goes on rhetorical sprees, it can become all too easy for someone that doesn't want to spend the time, as Richard has, to analyzes an honest moderate argument to make generalizations. Every pro-choicer should read Richard's post and realize that they shouldn't be decrying moderates as being sexists, but sexists as being sexists and denouncing their use of a position to give their disguise their sexism and give it legitimacy (a legitimacy that moderates should enjoy, btw, if they aren't sexist).Roscoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02892276042849049862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1146275997970224582006-04-28T21:59:00.000-04:002006-04-28T21:59:00.000-04:00Hi Kevin, thanks for the comments. You offer a mor...Hi Kevin, thanks for the comments. You offer a more charitable interpretation of Dr. B's post, but it seems a bit of a stretch. I'm certainly not about to deny that many right-wing extremists are sexist. Yet that is quite different from what Dr. B herself explicitly claims. She is explicitly targeting moderates, those who aren't "pro-life absolutists", and indeed her discussion of "discomfort" is explicitly directed at reluctant "<I>pro-choice feminists like Wolf, or liberal men, or a lot of women, even</I>". Anyone who isn't whole-heartedly pro-abortion, in other words. So given what she's actually written, I think my interpretation and subsequent criticisms are entirely fair.<BR/><BR/>Again with the hubris quote, what Dr. B quite plainly <I>says</I> is that it's "sexist" and hubris to think that "<I>Your judgment of some hypothetical scenario is more reliable than some woman's judgment about her own, very real, life situation</I>". Your version is much more reasonable, and if she had written that then I'd have no basis for complaint. But that isn't what she wrote.<BR/><BR/>Dr. B could have written a post arguing that "<I>this systematic oppression [of women] is not accidental</I>" (and probably has done elsewhere), but this post wasn't it. She was quite plainly arguing that "<I>there is <B>no ground whatsoever</B> for [moderates] saying that there should be laws or limitations on abortion other than that you do not trust women.</I>" Her next sentence confirms this: "<I>I am completely serious about this.</I>"<BR/><BR/>So again: the arguments in your comment are (mostly) quite reasonable. But they're not Dr. B's arguments.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1146251451305331292006-04-28T15:10:00.000-04:002006-04-28T15:10:00.000-04:00Very provocative! I'm adding you to my blog roundu...Very provocative! I'm adding you to my blog roundup du jour!Christina Duniganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04785550737493692252noreply@blogger.com