If that was the case we wouldn't find significant effects on the sexism scale variable (i.e. Abortion perceptions are simply explained by either the other variables or left undertermined through the error structure). We do. The evidence therefore suggests your opinion is out of kilter with reality. There certainly are numerous factors behind abortion perceptions, with the impact of sexism just being one. Some of those factors could well be complex, with imteractive relationships likely (e.g. Traditional religiosity could well be related to gender role perceptions, as discussed earlier). However, one thing is clear: the scientific evidence shows that these effects are important. My individual perceptions, or yours, aren't relevant to this simple reality. We can't change the objective findings, even if we find those findings unpalatable. I'm asking for an explanation of the gender-based findings. I personally find the anti-choice position morally repugnant, but again: that's irrelevant. We have sexism playinng a significant role in determining abortion attitudes. We merely need to understand the determinants of that role. And it isn't about demonising males. Indeed, the understanding of gender perceptions will be relevant to both males and females. Sexism also cannot necessarily be seen as an 'evil' (although I personally find it a ridiculous attitude). However, by understanding it we can derive a better understanding of how abortion attitudes can evolve. This should be of interest to both sides as it will help us understand how overall opinion can change (then impacting on the probability of support for possibe policy change) The lack of openness is all you I'm afraid! Rather than attempting to explain the evidence you've decided to simply ignore it. I would assume that's on two counts. First, the findings aren't palatable to your personal ideology. Second, you can't offer a coherent explanation for the observed relationships.
Strawman. I never suggested a woman's uterus isn't hers. What I did suggest is that the offspring does not belong to her 100 percent. She AND her PARTNER created the offspring. And the argument that just because nature dictates that she's the one who gets pregnant does not automatically make it right for her to have ALL the decision on whether the offspring should live or die. That much is pure logic, you can argue all you like, but you'd be continuing to invoke fallacy.
Right, that evidence that we can't see, but are just supposed to accept despite that we can't verify it. How droll. We apparently can't even verify or see the so-called "objective findings" either, so your argument is still utilizing an unsupported basis. And you continue to tout your evidence which you refuse to post for all to see. And I already provided closed-source evidence which completely refuted your closed-source evidence. The only slight problem is that you can't see my evidence in its entirety and I can't see yours.
Well, yes it does. Your argument doesn't hold water. The reason the offspring, as you like to call it or them, belong to her is solely because they are attached to her uterus. Not for any other reason. The fact the man concerned helped create the embryo is neither here nor there. Her body doesn't belong to him and he has no say in what she does with it or its contents.
Well yes, you did. And yes, it does. It's her body. Her body ALONE will bear the entire brunt of the pregnancy. ALL of it, including any health effects that linger after the pregnancy. When you come up with a way for the man to share in the actual burden of the pregnancy and it's after-effects, I'll believe your little story. And good lord, stop labeling people's arguments. This isn't an Intro to Philosophy class. This has got to be the most irritating and pointless trend on the internet right now. All of a sudden, everyone's a college philosophy teacher.
What do you make of the woman-centred approach to anti-choice attitudes? (i.e. those who have abortions should be seen as pitiable victims rather than rational decision-makers). To what extent can the fear of pregnancy lead to irrational decision-making which the women subsequently regrets?
Ah, there you have it folks, we makes who are against women either A)hate women and want to turn them into slaves B)want to shove our manliness down women's throats (no pun intended) C)we are sexists D)all the above So tired of hearing these cliched lines.
That sexism provides one explanation is supported by the empirical evidence. The interesting issue is which form is more common
And you continue to invoke fallacy. I'm done indulging you, because that's apparently the best your position has got. Pathetic. I'm going to continue labeling your fallacies as such if you continue to invoke them. Get over it. If you make an argument which is clearly fallacious, then I will point out exactly why it is fallacious and explain which fallacy you're invoking. You don't like it? Oh I'm sorry, but I think perhaps you should take your position's whining to someone who actually cares. This is debate. That's what happens in debate. Again, I repeat--get over it.
More naturalistic fallacy bullcrap. Just because she was given the uterus according to nature does not make the offspring any less of the man's. Especially considering that if she does decide to carry to term, he's legally obligated to pay child support, even though by your argument, the offspring isn't his--as it was attached to the woman's uterus. That's sexism and that's your position's argument. Your position's argument is sexist.
This is a debate? That's funny, because it seems a lot more like people talking to you, and then you saying "Nope, I don't agree with that argument, you're disqualified. Next!" You're not here for a debate, you're here to browbeat people who don't agree with you and tell everyone the arguments they make don't live up to whatever ridiculous standards you have and are therefore invalid. You don't get to decide what arguments are valid and which are not, at least not for anyone but yourself. Also, trying to apply strict logic to a completely emotion based issue is not a logical fallacy, it's just illogical to begin with.
Yes it is. I'm sorry it seems that way to you. I can't help the way you perceive things. Ad hominem attack, you're presuming to know "what I'm here for" and you really have no idea. And your presumption is incorrect. Another ad hominem attack with more false assertions about what I'm here for. I'm here for debate and discussion. But if someone invokes a logical fallacy from across the table, I'm not going to hesitate to point it out to them. Just like in the event that I slip up--and I'm not perfect, obviously so it has happened before--and invoke fallacy, I'm not above conceding that I've done so when called on it. It's happened before and it will happen again. But that's the way I debate, I debate by standards of logical reasoning, I don't let my emotions fuel my arguments. I'm not deciding that they're logically invalid, that much is decided already by standards of logic. I'm simply pointing out the fact that they are indeed logically invalid. Again, so that we're clear, I'm not making up the standards of logic as I go here, we're talking thousands of years of reasoning and standard-creation here. But when an argument clearly violates a principle of logic by invoking a fallacy, I will point it out. One more time, so that we're absolutely crystal clear about it, I'm not the one who decided that their argument was logically invalid. The principles of logic already did that. I'm just the messenger, so to speak. I'm just making an observation that they clearly invoked a fallacy. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, I believe that's not the case, however, I think all debates should be based on logic. Emotion is unreliable. Logic is not.
Your emotions are all you've got here. You're dismissing every other argument being made and you're trying to use logic to deny reality. Good luck trying to use logic to figure out emotion. You might as well use emotion to argue logic, because both will fail. Logic works when there are facts. Making the argument that the solar system is expanding is using logic because the facts support that hypothesis. Saying the universe is expanding immorally is using emotion, and that's completely disconnected from logic. The abortion argument is no different. Everyone knows what a fetus is, it's the emotional connotation attached to it that is up for discussion. And, it's why dismissing every argument people make because you don't like it is not going to work for you if you indeed are interested in having a debate. This is an emotional issue for people, not a factual one. Just like the debate over gay marriage or prayer in schools or mentioning God in the pledge. So as I said, if you're interested in having a debate, trying actually having one instead of copping out of every argument put before you.
More ad hominem nonsense and complete dishonesty. Here's a thought, try discussing the arguments rather than me. This is nothing but opinionated hyperbole. Now would you like to actually get back on topic, perhaps? Subjective things and emotional things are not one and the same. I've been able to successfully debate this issue down to pure subjectivity in a logical fashion with other members of this forum on numerous occasions and we came to a stand still at which point I respectfully acknowledged their debate skills and opted out of the discussion. The difference between their positions and yours is that they knew how to discuss the issue in a logical fashion rather than invoking every fallacy under the sun, attempting to make insulting insinuations about me and my character, and they refrained from presuming to know what my debate motives were. I don't cop out of arguments. Logical arguments will be responded to in a similar fashion to that in which they've been posted, illogical fallacious arguments will be responded to with dismissal because of their invalid nature. That's just the way it works. If you don't like it, feel free to opt out of the discussion. My debate methods are consistent. If you feel like you're not receiving proper respect for your arguments, it's probably because they are undeserving of my respect--ie logically fallacious and/or invalid. I've met worthy opposition before in this very forum and there was mutual understanding and arguments continued in a back and forth manner until we had reached a stalemate of pure subjectivity. But this is not that. Your opposition is neither the same nor even similar quality to those to which I am referring. This is neither my fault nor my problem. Continue to post rants blasting this thread with ad hominem attacks and presumptions about my nature and character if that will perhaps make you feel better, just know that such rants will not receive respect as they are not deserving of respect. If at some point in time, the urge hits you to get back on track and make valid arguments about the actual topic--which has long since been derailed--I will be more than happy to acknowledge your contributions and engage.
I will do so. It's quite apparent that there is no room for argument, at least none that I can see. I am quite convinced your mind is made up on this, and that you've argued it so much by now that you're just tired of hearing the same argument, so you dismiss it. That's my guess, that's not an attack. But you are right, attacking your character is not something I should be doing. I will bow out of this thread
I appreciate and respect this post and because it takes a big person to say what you said, I will acknowledge that it's a definite possibility that your assessment may be correct. I don't know for sure, I was just debating like I normally do, but it certainly is possible that my subconscious is fed up of the same arguments and that could very well result in immediate dismissal of certain arguments. Props to you for this. I'm bowing out of this thread for now as well, mainly because the initial posting question is stacked and the so-called "evidence" to support the basis for the question cannot be verified.
The problem with the topic is the authoritarianism inherent in the anti-choice attitude. That leads to a rejection of empirical evidence, with complete reliance on a contempt for scholarly research. Illogical to me, but a rationalising behaviour when confronted with inconvenient truths
Empirical evidence that we can't see? Of course we're going to reject that, just like you rejected the empirical evidence I posted which disproves the so-called "empirical evidence" you posted. Sorry, skippy, your thread just doesn't really work and it's not going to inspire the very specific kind of discussion you're looking for, as the basis of the discussion you're looking for has yet to actually be verified as fact.
You haven't posted any. I've adopted best practice, ensuring reference to scholarly research. That research shows that you haven't got a leg to stand on and just continue to spam
Yes I did, it was just as valid and "scholarly" as yours was, you've simply refused to acknowledge it because your argument is hypocritical. You can have evidence that is from a private collection of knowledge or closed source, but if someone else posts evidence from a "private collection" or closed source, you dismiss it right off the bat. Spam is against the forum rules. You continue accusing me of breaking the forum rules, but why is it that I have received no infractions from moderation? Maybe it's because all I'm guilty of is calling you out on your terrible tactics of using closed-source evidence to support a theory and then dismissing all replies that don't fit your ridiculous standards of what you want to see in this discussion. How droll. Report my posts if you think they're "spam." By all means. Otherwise, continue to stew and stamp your feet. It'll get you nowhere.
Just because you haven't read my personal collection of closed source academic studies doesn't mean the study I posted isn't valid--that's what your logic would have people believe, anyway.
Again you haven't posted an academic study. I've given two to your zilch. You can't blag otherwise as you can't give the reference in your next post. Your next post will merely continue the fib
2010, The Ambivalent Sexism Counter-Claim: Differentiating between categories of sexism and what is actually behind male opposition to abortion. Journal of Inventive Academic Sociology unabridged version Vol 302, pp. 550-552 In conclusion, understanding male opposition to abortion cannot be achieved via categorizing opposing viewpoints into two different types of "sexism." Tests showed that there were many different contributing variables and they varied far too greatly between groups of test subjects to legitimately be categorized into two "knee-jerk" forms of sexism mentioned in the supposed findings of the long-since outdated 1996 Glick and Fiske's "The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism." The 16 year old study simply failed to factor in the range of variables necessary for a true understanding of male opposition to abortion. There are many explanations for male opposition to abortion, and due to our incredibly varying test results after factoring in the appropriate variables, it can be concluded that male opposition to abortion varies which each individual, and there are far too many individual viewpoints in existence for us to reach for any kind of objective classification or generalization of their views. There you go, another "empirical study" which refutes your initial "empirical study." Sorry, Reiver, I can't actually post all of the study here, that would "break copyright." And your claims that it's not a study are irrelevant and dishonest, because I have the academic journal--with included study--right here sitting in front of me. It's just too bad you may not have access to the same materials I do, but that doesn't mean I should use open-source evidence just because you can't access this closed source study of mine. All of that is valid reasoning according to your own logic throughout this entire thread.
Pathetic! That you have to resort to such immaturity proves you've lost the argument. On the bright side at least you've admitted it.
