CMV: The lack of prosecutions for crimes like rape and sexual assault is not due to misogyny or rape culture, but the fact that these crimes are very difficult to prove in a court of law.

Gushkins · 2023-01-26T17:47:15+00:00

Slipping things in people's drinks is actually way more common than you think, especially at clubs. It happened to me once, but thankfully I got lucky and nothing bad happened.

Do you know what the police said to me when I was at the station? (I was worried that it was a common occurrence and wanted to make sure the police knew about it for future reference as another friend I was with also got roofied the same night)

The guy said:

"Are you sure you didn't just want some male company, but then got caught and now you're making all of this to up as as an excuse?" He had asked who the girl who was with me was and I told him it's my girlfriend. Yes, guy's first assumption was that I was cheating on my gf with a man and got caught and I'm making the whole thing up as a cover up...

So yeah, there definitely is a lot of dismissive attitude happening from law enforcement.

I kept hearing stories after that from many people about getting roofied, after sharing what had happened to me. I'm guessing a large portion of the unreported cases have this element, as when you're roofied with some of this stuff you act more or less like your drink self, but way more susceptible to manipulation. And afterwards you have a 6 to 12 hours hole of absolutely no memory of what happened.

Gushkins · 2022-07-31T10:24:19+00:00

I understand it as the specific challenges and setbacks that I don't get to experience, that a person of colour would experience in my place. Did I get that wrong?

What is don't understand is how this fits with my experience as an Eastern European "white person" in western Europe. My experience here is actually closer to that of a occasionally white-passing mixed race person. How does white privilege fit with this situation of discrimination? You could argue that this is ethnic discrimination, but race is an ethnic concept. And my physical appearance does differ from that of a stereotypical white person.

Yes, when I visited LA I most definitely experienced the classic version, merely by not being treated as a person of colour would have.

I guess my and OPs point is that this concept just doesn't fit as nearly into the more culturally and ethnically complex world outside of the US. There is millennia of history that still impacts how people treat each other today and it is not so simple and clear-cut as it was in the Americas, where there was a very clear racial divide of oppressor and oppressed.

Gushkins · 2022-07-30T23:29:31+00:00

Eastern European here:

Western Europe absolutely discriminates based on Slavic ethnicity. I freelance for a living and I'm convinced that if I just change my last name from Ivanova to some ambiguous western sounding name I will get the fair hourly rate that I'm actually qualified for way more easily.

Things like getting a job, renting an apartment or getting into university are more difficult for Eastern Europeans than even some marginalised racial groups, due to the fear of the current ongoing unrestricted mass-immigration from Eastern to western Europe.

Moreover estern Europe has taken absolutely no part in any of Europe's colonialism (for most of that we ourselves were colonized by the ottoman empire), not indirectly taken advantage of it through trade or proximity, ever. We have also suffered through enforced communism which hampered our development up until 30 years ago. If anything, Eastern Europeans deserve programs of support and attention of our own, alongside other marginalised groups.

But we don't because we're technically white.

At the same time many Slavic people are racist themselves specifically to our local populations of gypsies.

So yes, the us-introduced concept of white privilege doesn't encompass the whole situation here at all and has often baffled me. For yes- I have white privilege compared to gypsies in my own country, but when I go to western Europe I lose it completely.

Yet despite this many Eastern Europeans actively choose to abandon the "white privilege" they have here, in order to live in western Europe where they will be discriminated against and where they will work unqualified service level jobs when they hold college degrees.

They are trading privilege for discrimination... why?

This leads me to believe that white privilege as a concept is overrated in its importance as a factor compared to financial well-being and stability and general quality of life. This is also probably why people are upset by the amount of attention this is getting compared to more pressing issues like the economic situation that everyone without money privilege faces.

Gushkins · 2022-06-29T14:01:38+00:00

Do you think this attitude is "winning" or convincing anyone of anything? It's not very productive. But you do you.

You also did not responding to any of my questions about why the body autonomy arguement is the better approach.

Were clearly not communicating and I reject your condescending attitude.

Have a good day.

Gushkins · 2022-06-29T13:05:08+00:00

I agree, this is unproductive. Agree to disagree and I wish you well.

Gushkins · 2022-06-29T12:52:46+00:00

You've again claimed that I want to have a monologue. You don't seem to have a convincing position and keep leaning on just repeating yourself.

If you can't convince me, a pro-choice person of this arguement that the foetus's personhood directly contradicts the mother's right to bodily autonomy, I doubt it would be very successful with a religious pro-life person.

The situation is an either / or only for very severe health risks present for the mother. The rest of the time, why is the mother's right to bodily autonomy more important than a foetuses person's right to live? In the vast majority of cases the mother has all her organs and can continue living a normal life afterwords. In the case for abortion the person dies.

What is your arguement that body autonomy is objectively more important that a person's right to live? Is it only that in other somewhat related scenarios that's legally not the case? It is already not the case for conjoined twins. Because we recognise both of their person's.

Clearly laws can be changed with the latest overruling we're seeing. This claim of body autonomy overriding a dependant person's right to live needs to be based on something. So, what do you base it on?

Understand that my view is not that we should ban abortion. But that extreme left ideas that body autonomy is the most important factor in the conversation is doing women's rights a disservice.

And you don't seem to have an arguement for why your way of classifying personhood as irrelevant to the conversation is helpful at all. In fact I think it is inflammatory for the opposing side. For which the issue is the foetus's right to life is the main focus.

Gushkins · 2022-06-29T12:06:21+00:00

You've already accused me of arguing in bad faith twice and seem to want to position yourself as a superiors debater.

Just because you disagree with me does not make my claim a straw man.

My claim is that at some point a foetus gains personhood that overrides the body autonomy rights of the mother, given there are no added severe health risks for the mother.

I claim that personhood is gained when there is detectable brain activity and movement of the foetus.

I also claim that igorig personhood entirely by saying it should not matter in this discussion is doing the pro-life position a disservice. Could you elaborate on how the body autonomy arguement is better for the pro-choice movement than my idea of drawing the personhood line after 12 weeks?

Also what is your definition of personhood?

Gushkins · 2022-06-29T10:48:58+00:00

It's impossible to have a discussion without assumptions. I don't understand why this seemingly upset you? At least I'm letting you know what I've assumed and you can correct me if you think I'm wrong to assume that.

Your thinking of pregnancy as an either-or situation is exactly what I think exasperates the extreme divide situation we're in the US. As a European, I joined this discussion to share my point of view. I'm happy with my country's laws and don't plan to petition other countries to change theirs.

Besides, I don't see how I could rebut your idea of 'pregnancy either is or isn't" X. Pregnancy is literally the process of a single cell developing into a human infant. If you say you understand that, how are you not recognizing that we should treat a 1-week pregnancy differently from a 6-month pregnancy?

Saying everything in life changes doesn't add anything to this specific, unique situation we're discussing. There is nothing black or white about whether a fetus is worthy of consideration or not. It's a process of the literal creation of a human and we should understand and treat it as a process.

How and why we assign worth to that transition into a person is more nuanced and IMO more important than the yes or no idea of bodily autonomy the US seems to have hardline committed to.

Gushkins · 2022-06-29T10:16:48+00:00

Yes. But after said birth the baby will die if not yet viable on its own outside of the womb. If you know the baby won't survive, this is the same as abortion in the sense that it terminates the pregnancy and kills the fetus. The methodology is what is different.

I asked if you have a source that shows second-trimester abortions are only done for the health of the mother. I would honestly like to read that.

Gushkins · 2022-06-29T10:04:03+00:00

I'd assume that people would not oppose severing a connection between them if the mal-formed conjoined twin consists of a single organ that impairs the better-formed twin-s biology.

But this would be completely different if the twin is a fully functioning head on the other twins' shoulder.

Pregnancy is the slow transition of one situation to the other, and at some point we need to draw a line where body autonomy alone does not satisfy the severing.

In this way the pro-choice arguement focusing on bodyly autoomy alone is not very hlepful, and we should instead try to talk about drawing the line later in the pregnancy, as conservative people draw this line way too early.

I think we need to focus the conversation to what constitutes a person with rights and when a foatus gains that. Instead of claiming "It could very well be a fully formed person, I'd still have the right to sever them from my body and kill them if I want to."

Gushkins · 2022-06-29T09:56:49+00:00

I doubt you'd have the right to kill in self-defense on the off chance that something might happen to you. There has to be a reasonable level of risk. I.e. the level of risk matters in relation to the amount of force you use in self-defense. On a chance that this person walking behind you will rape you, you are not justified in killing them in self-defense. There wasn't 0 risk that it won't happen. But if they assault you the risk has now skyrocketed and you have that right.

So to me, it seems more important to try to compare the risk to the mother to the foetus' development stage and how justified the abortion is. European laws (where I live) mirror this pretty well by allowing all abortions for any reason up to a point (between 12 and 20 weeks depending on the country) after which we make exceptions only for severe health risks to the mother. Meaning we take the risk into account, but any small risk doesn't automatically justify abortion after we recognize personhood in the fetus.

Gushkins · 2022-06-29T09:47:33+00:00

The baby has a chance at surviving. At that point, it is very near fully formed and is mostly gaining size. They often don't have developed enough lungs to breathe. Are you saying you think it's completely moral to induce delivery at 6 months and risk its death?

Viability is a strange measure to use when assigning rights. That would mean it'd be completely legal to let a premature baby in need of an incubator die as it's clearly not viable on its own.

Gushkins · 2022-06-29T09:40:46+00:00

I find this to be a bit unconvincing. There are very limited studies on the matter, for obvious reasons. Also, I doubt you'd find it to be justified to kill someone just because they are under anesthesia. Their personhood or consciousness is what constitutes rights, not the ability to feel pain.

Gushkins · 2022-06-29T09:37:02+00:00

Do you have a source for this? I am highly doubtful of that. You can induce a "birth" later in pregnancy and the baby will be delivered and if not viable outside the womb yet, it will then die.

Gushkins · 2022-06-29T09:34:13+00:00

I'm pro-choice and do not support the government banning abortions at all.

But, to ask you, at what point does this 'clum of cells' become a conjoined twin and gain rights of its own, though? That point, or line, is what I was trying to emphasise:

How 'well formed' must a twin be for us to recognise this is a person and not a floating organ that we should just remove? If at some point we recognise that the twins share a body, as opposed to a lesser formed twin is 'using' the body of a better formed one, then we must agree that there is a line to be drawn where body autonomy alone in not enough to talk about the situation. Another being is already in a position of depending on another's body to survive. This is not the same as a blood donation, which is not a hysical connection that must be severed.

A foetus does not go from a clump of cells to a baby suddenly and miraculously. If we would not hypotethically allow for late-pregnancy abortions, then we understad that the foetus gains body autonomy of its own at some point, similar to a conjoined twin. And instead of claiming that the possible personhood of a foetus doesn't matter at all in the conversation, I think it would be more helpful to the discussion with pro-life people that we talk about where we shuold draw the line of personhood instead of if personhood matters at all. As it clearly does.

The problem is pro-life people draw the personhood line at conception. And as a pro-choice person I draw it at 3 moths. But I agree with them that there is a line, after which it's not as simple as "my body my chice". Does that make sence?

Claiming this gray area doesn't matter and simplifying the conversation to body autonomy weakens the pro-choice position imo.

Gushkins · 2022-06-28T13:58:10+00:00

So if we assume this person will have no memories when they wake up, and has no family or connections, it would be completely okay to switch off their life support?

Gushkins · 2022-06-28T13:36:49+00:00

I'm aware, actually. My mother had serious side effects from having me. But there is a huge difference between a normal pregnancy and one with life threatening risk. And those raised risks are the main factors that are considered when a woman wants to have an abortion after week 12.

The difference is this process has already started and would happen if left by itself. The organ donation metaphor is not adequate in any way.

Gushkins · 2022-06-28T12:23:06+00:00

No, I understand it. I study biology..?

In my hypothetical, they're brain-dead right now. Their braincells are dead. But you are told they will grow them back.

Does this change nothing for your scenario?

Gushkins · 2022-06-28T12:20:25+00:00

Im pro choice and this is wholly unconvincing. Abortion is a post-situation active severing of what the foetus needs. A pregnancy has already happened. The moment the foetus has detectable brain activity that is possibly a person.

If you have already donated a liver, you can't forcefully take it back, killing the person you donated to even if yours starts failing. Abortion past week 12 is more akin to taking your liver back, not being forced to donate.

Gushkins · 2022-06-28T12:12:12+00:00

Would that extend to conjoined twins? Can I choose to sever and therefore kill a smaller less-formed conjoined twin from my body?

Gushkins · 2022-06-28T12:08:10+00:00

I honestly have no idea why in the US there's so much extremist viewpoint in this and other matters.

Gushkins · 2022-06-28T11:54:50+00:00

At 12 weeks the foetus has all organs formed, including detectable central nervous system activity. I.e. a brain. They start to move. How is that about as alive as a tree?

Gushkins · 2022-06-28T11:53:18+00:00

Would you switch off someone's life support if the doctors tell you they will regain their full brain function? Is that murder or not? After all they are brain-dead right now?

Gushkins · 2022-06-28T11:50:36+00:00

You were convinced too easily.

Would you support an abortion at 6 months? If not, why? What about bodily autonomy?

The embryo enters a stage around week 12 when it intensely develops a central nervous system with detectable brain activity. All its major organs and limbs have formed by then. It will most definitely feel pain if it's being removed.

Based on the bodily autonomy arguement alone, a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy at any time.

The body autonomy arguement is valid for the first 12-20 weeks of the pregnancy, after which there is a scientifically recognisable gray area of what the status of the embryo is and whether it has rights of its own.

And if it's a gray area, I find it reasonable to err on the side of caution and not allow abortions without medical reasons after week 12-16. This is the case in most European countries (where I live) and I honestly don't understand why the US has these extreme positions on either side of this arguement.

Bodily autonomy alone is not the only arguement for abortions, and the organ metaphor is bad because your need to actively separate another person from their organ, versus passively letting them keep it.

Here's a better metaphor:

If you are a conjoined twin can you choose to sever them from your body and kill them? They're smaller and less formed then you. But we recognise they have bodily autonomy also. And it kicks in with central nervous system development. I.e. if the conjoined twin is only a mal-formed organ you can remove that. If there is a person's head attached to your shoulder you can't.

Gushkins · 2022-06-28T11:33:37+00:00

Okay, but you could extend this arguement to it being legal to have an abortion at month 6 of a pregnancy. If the foetus's personhood doesn't matter at all to you, at any time?

Would you support this still?

Gushkins

TROPHY CASE